Monday, May 24, 2010

DC Rumor Mill Alert: Hillary Clinton to Become Sec. of Defense

In his latest Politico blog post, Ben Smith suggests that Hillary Clinton might replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was already ironic enough that Obama picked Clinton as Secretary of State, given his campaign stance on her foreign policy. This rumor, if true, would simply add to the irony.

13 comments:

RealityZone said...

OMG
We are doomed.

Josh Dowlut said...

Not to sound like a total conspiracy theorist, but.......

Do you really think the president is the one calling the shots? One of the great unsolved mysteries is why in Sept/Oct 2008 with the McCain Obama race deadlocked and 65-75% of the country vehemently against the bank bailouts, why did neither candidate take an anti-bailout stance that would have all but guaranteed victory? It's almost as good as why did Ross Perot dropout of a 3 way with a 10 point lead in the middle of July 1992 after spending 60 million dollars of his own money?

Also don't forget how Obama railed her over the individual mandate that became the keystone of his own plan.

RealityZone said...

JD: I never met a conspiracy that I did not like.
I wear my tin foil hat with pride.
If Obama does not pull this out with in the next year. In so much as the economy, and Af/Pak. They might be building Shillary's resume in order to run her for 2012.

Mc Cain was the sacrificial lamb for Obama to become the "chosen" one.

Perot picked the wrong guy for his V.P. plus he self imploded toward the end.
Wall St. runs this country, not the electorate. That bail out was destined by either party.

Obama has a bunch of retreads from the Clinton days. The Obama/Clinton deal was made long before it was announced.

Shillary is even more center/right than Gates is. She will take it to the brink. She is a chicken-war=hawk, that will be the uber Neolib.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Josh: Ross Perot dropped out? I don't remember this. Didn't he stay in? NO candidate received a majority of the popular vote because it was a 3-way contest. Political scientists are still debating whether he threw the election to Clinton. Did he take Bush votes or did he simply bring out more people who otherwise would not have voted (for Bush or Clinton)?
Also, as RZ points out, his VP candidate caused him to plunge in the polls. It was awful.

Anyway, as much as I know that money influences politics, I also think it is possible that the candidates accepted the policy behind the bailout (whether the electorate favored it or not, whether it was sound or not).

RZ: Do you really think Clinton is to the right of Obama? You sound like the people in the Democratic primaries who portrayed him as a Ghandi figure and who described Clinton as a Nazi. A lot of those people have been forced to reconsider their positions.

Josh Dowlut said...

The 92 election is the first one I really followed. I even bought Perot's book "Not for Sale at Any Price."

Perot pulled out of the race mid July purportedly because some Rep black ops type guys were going to somehow ruin his daughter's wedding. But he also said he feared for his family's safety. After sitting out for over 2 months he re-entered the race in October after sufficiently eroding his credibility to make him a non-threat. But I also remember one of his final infomercials he did the night before the election. The man was begging, pleading for America to wakeup and take corrective action. His intensity and desire immediately before, and immediately after his 2 month gap are glaringly incongruent with dropping out because your daughter's wedding might get crashed.

As far as the bailouts are concerned, it doesn't take a PhD in econ or a Harvard MBA to see that taking from those with median incomes of 45k so you can give to those with incomes in the millions, is not the best path to prosperity for those on the giving end. We can debate over whether or not it is right to take from a rich man and give to a poor man after we agree that doing the opposite is criminal.

I concur with RZ, the bankers own this country, or at least control it.

Josh Dowlut said...

Just looked up the 92 exit polling:

Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, 38% from Clinton, and the rest would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/05/us/1992-elections-disappointment-analysis-eccentric-but-no-joke-perot-s-strong.html

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Josh said: "taking from those with median incomes of 45k" -- this describes every spending policy, right?

Josh Dowlut said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josh Dowlut said...

But you left out the other side of the equation: "so you can give to those with incomes in the millions."

That is what makes it criminal. It's the reverse socialism, reverse income distribution or reverse Robin Hooding.

msakel said...

Brooksley Born, who defied and started a war with the Greenspan/Rubin/Summers/Geithner gang in '98 as head of the CFTC (forced to resign) was a close friend of Hillary Clinton. But Bill found her "boring" and did not want to give her a higher profile job.

Hillary is a progressive, but her foreign policy is more hawkish than Obama? Really? neither Hillary nor McCain advocated starting a Vietnam War in AfPak!
Obama's hawkish (unreportedly of course) action has cost 2000 civilian lives including 200 kids and amazingly 3,500 refugees in AFPAK as stated by State Dept. last Summer and Holbrooke's interview with Press.

Obama's the most hawkish prez next to Bush. You just don't report about it. Only a scant story here or there Wall St. Journal of all places and N.Y. times. The media are hiding this incompetent president's extremist hawkish and neo-Bushian stand.

Get the facts on the 3.5 refugees this moron has caused in AfPak in last year! Bush in Iraq caused 6 million but took him 3 years!...

RealityZone said...

msakel:
I agree totally. Obama is center right when it comes to his foreign policy. I have in the past called him the Republicans Manchurian Candidate. He had, and has Albright, and Zbig as his foreign policy advisers. Even Kissinger approves of Obama. He will take us to the brink. Obama is not Bush/Lite, he is Obama heavy.

Hillary is an Israel firster. Obama has failed with his M/E policy as well. Obama lets the tail [Bibi] wag the dog.

I expect for Obama to give Israel the green light for one of their excursions before this winter.

Kandahar will finish Obama's folly in Afghanistan. His next target is Pakistan, Somalia, Or one of the Stans.

RealityZone said...

JD:
Agreed. This was 100% Corporate Socialism.
The banksters were insolvent.
I mean nothing zilch nada.
Bernanke still refuses to disclose where that 2.3 trillion went. LOL
OBama having Summers, Geithner, Bernanke in place should have been enough to let the sheeple know what the deal is.

Bubba Clinton listened to and believed Summers and Rubin. Bubba should have inhaled. LOL

RealityZone said...

DLH:
Oh no Oh no.
Obama was a clever candidate. Wish he would have been a clever president.
He said out of the gate that Af/Pak was the deal. He said he would with draw the troops from Iraq. He lied. His withdrawal date from Afghanistan will also fail. [Conditions on the ground] is a standing loop hole for these Masters of War. This is Obama's war. This is his endless war without borders choice.
His joke about the drones was sickening to me. But it was very telling of his true mind set.

Beware of false flags.

Real Time Analytics