It's 3 a.m., Hillary's on the Phone

O.K., so if the phone call comes at 3 a.m., Barack Obama will be able to transfer it to Hillary Clinton.

At the ugliest stage of the race between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, the Clinton's campaign aired a commercial featuring images of children sleeping peacefully as a soothing male voice said, "It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military -- someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

An image of Clinton holding a phone appeared on the screen.

That commercial, produced in late February with the purpose of scaring Democratic primary voters into rejecting Obama's candidacy and giving their party's nomination to Clinton, caused a stir. But, when all was said and done, Democrats chose Obama's more cautious and responsible approach to foreign relations over the fearmongering of Clinton and her aides.

Eight months later, the broader American electorate made a similar rejection of John McCain's reprise of the Clinton be-afraid, be-very-afraid politics. Indeed, after weeks of being told that Obama could not be trusted to represent the United States on the global stage, Americans elected the Democrat with a wider popular vote margin than they gave Ronald Reagan in the 1980 election that ushered in the long dark night of conservative hegemony.

So what has Obama done with his mandate for change?

All indications on Friday afternoon were that he has settled on Clinton as his choice to serve as Secretary of State; and that Clinton was, after some rather intense negotiations between her aides and those of the president-elect, prepared to accept the assignment.

Is this one of those "never mind" moments that make the American political experience so frustrating for those who get excited about "change we can believe in"?

That depends on where Obama and Clinton take their relationship.

The two senators were never so dramatically distinguished when it came to foreign policy as their primary campaigns sought to make them seem. While Obama had opposed authorizing George W. Bush to attack Iraq and Clinton had supported the move, they both campaigned in 2008 as vague critics of the war – condemning Bush's approaches but eschewing clear timelines for withdrawal of U.S. troops from the quagmire.

Similarly, when Obama and Clinton grumbled at one another about the rough outlines of diplomatic strategy – with Obama suggesting it was good to talk without preconditions and Clinton suggesting that she liked preconditions – they both softened their stances to such an extent that it was hard to know where the conditions would end and the talk would begin. Certainly, by the time the two reconciled contenders showed up in June for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee meeting in Washington, they seemed to be reading off the same page.

But Americans ought not forget in this great convergence that there were points at which Obama and Clinton seemed to be coming from very different places, and that the voters chose Obama.

Clinton has many strengths -- she really does know the world, she really is respected by key players in international hotspots, she really does care about poverty issues that have been too long neglected. Obama recognizes these strengths, and he has made the team-of-rivals calculation that they will benefit his presidency. He may be right. But neither he, nor his nominee for Secretary of State, should ever forget that Obama prevailed over Clinton and McCain because he was seen as someone who would be more rational, more responsible and, yes, more conciliatory in his relations with the rest of the world.

Comments (59)

1. Obama prevailed over Clinton and McCain because he was seen as someone who would be more rational, more responsible and, yes, more conciliatory in his relations with the rest of the world.

   that goes for his inter USA relations as well. it speaks well of Obama that he doesn't hold a grudge. he's a class act. he never pushed home his advantage over Hillary, turning the other cheek so to speak.

   Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 4:30pm

2. I think Hillary will do a good job as SOS...she has had experience overseas and is well liked, just like Bill was, and still is. Obama will not let her forget who is the President I'm sure...and they seem to have a good relationship as we saw during the election when she was campaigning, so I think they will work well together. I'm sure Hillary will have her own ideas on things and Obama wants people who don't always agree with him, so I think it could be a good team for the country. Whatever else Bill Clinton was...he was a good President and this country flourished under his care....I think Obama will be yet another great President and we can expect this country to thrive again. None of this can happen overnight...so much to do and correct, but we will get there and so patience is going to be required by us all.

   Posted by Caj at 11/21/2008 @ 4:37pm

3. Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 4:30pm

   I just find it hilarious that now that Obama is enacting the policies he said he would by extending the olive branch to everyone including across the aisle, progressives are getting their panties in a bunch.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:43pm

4. I just find it hillaryous....

   Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 4:46pm

5. Posted by Caj at 11/21/2008 @ 4:37pm

   Caj, since when does traveling with your husband overseas count as experience? If she gets the nod, she'll be dictating Bill's foreign policy, not Obama's.

   It's going to be interesting to see whom the world leaders will listen to - Clinton or Obama.

   Posted by ACook at 11/21/2008 @ 4:58pm

6. I just find it hilarious that now that Obama is enacting the policies he said he would by extending the olive branch to everyone including across the aisle, progressives are getting their panties in a bunch.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 11/21/2008 @ 4:43pm

   C3, there are no "olive branches" in Washington. Obama has to pony up for all the favors he's asked and received. Just like his predecessors before him. Nothing's changed.

   Posted by ACook at 11/21/2008 @ 5:03pm

7. Evidently, Senator Obama doesn't think that voting to authorize our little war in Iraq is really that big of a foreign policy deal. Is there even one goddamn issue over which the Democrats won't happily split the difference and slide right?

   Posted by jlister at 11/21/2008 @ 5:04pm

8. i sure hope she doesn't have to go to bosnia....

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2008 @ 5:15pm

9. I got one word for all you armchair politicians, jumping all over the pres elect.

   McCain

   Posted by emile duBois at 11/21/2008 @ 5:28pm

10. The SoS selection is a sideshow, a distraction from the main event ... Defense is the real action, the true center of power at home & abroad ...

    ... about which there has been barely a trickle of comment ...

    ... and where we're told there will be no change at all.

    As for the rest, a govt of mainly Clintonites & an actual Clinton, all DLC & AIPAC approved, including a SoT fonce with Kissinger Associates.

    Change???

    That's what we voted for.

    But that ain't what we're getting, apart from style & appearance.

    Well, here were go again, getting schnookered, suckers all.

    Watch out, Afghanis, you are about to get "obliterated" in the name of freedom.

    Enjoy.

    Paradise may be yours, since you got in the way, as we Americans go bombs away, yet again.

    Posted by sloper at 11/21/2008 @ 6:05pm

11. i have a hard time swallowing this as it stands, at face value...

    does HILLARY really want this? is obama tapping into her experience or is he keeping her close? hmmm...

    are we overthinking this?

    in terms of obama's overall picks...he seems to be tapping into the best talent he has available. i'm picturing his administration as being more pyramidal in nature than consensual regardless of what he says about wanting lots of input.

    not that he won't take advice nor welcome input...just that when all is said and done his admonistration will be run a lot more like reagan's (sans creeping senility) than bill clinton's.

    so regardless of the records, the bona fides, the stated opinions and voting records of whoever he picks...his picks will nonetheless be folks who exist to carry out his will once he decides upon a course of action...

    and he is even now as i tap this out figuring what exactly he is going to do...

    but like all else in the undiscovered country...we shall see.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/21/2008 @ 6:18pm

12. hee hee...

    the title of this blog entry kinda reminds me of the primary vintage SNL skit where obama keeps pestering hillary asking her her advice about what to do on everything...lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/21/2008 @ 6:20pm

13. Posted by ACook at 11/21/2008 @ 4:58pm.

    What gave Sarah Palin the experience to become VP....she has never had anywhere near the same visibility, knowledge and travel experience as Hillary, yet all the Republicans were gung ho for her!!! Everybody seems to think that Obama is going to be a push over, well I think you are all going to be proved wrong. Still, if you are a die hard Republican you only see one point of view and that's yours, so answering you is really a waste of time.

    Posted by Caj at 11/21/2008 @ 6:42pm

14. I swear, Rush Limbaugh is cutting Obama more slack than the Nation and its bloggers... and do you think he's thrilled with HRC as SoS?

    You know the old expression, "Be careful what you wish for"?

    Or maybe you actually believed the words of a candidate and thought there was going to be radical change?! Didn't you knuckleheads watch Obama vote FOR the $850B "bailout"? Didn't you hear him when he said he'd allow US military action inside Pakistan? That was all before the election, if you'll recall.

    Or weren't you paying attention?

    Radical change? You should have pulled the lever for Kucinich or Ron Paul long ago. Maybe SF could have put Nancy Pelisi out of business and installed Cindy Sheehan...

    Oh and now Obama is said to be appointing NY Fed President Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary?!!!!

    Well, see, there you go! That IS a change. I don't believe Geithner ever served as CEO of Goldman Sachs...

    I wonder how much longer we can go knowing we don't really have a voice.

    Good to see the Nation at least realizes it. Pretty crummy being a useful idiot, isn't it?..

    Posted by freiheit1 at 11/21/2008 @ 6:43pm

15. As with all of these appointments, the key is whether Obama can assert his will over them or will these appointees being doing their own thing using back channels?

    Hillary - and Bill - have to be watched closely if Hillary becomes Sec of State, and if it looks like Obama's foreign policy is being undermined by Bill's side-dealing or Hillary's unilateral moves, then Obama can not feel that Hillary is too big to be fired just like any other appointee.

    Posted by Metteyya at 11/21/2008 @ 7:25pm

16. Posted by Metteyya at 11/21/2008 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i kinda wonder if he picked her hoping all the disclosure crap would lead her to refuse - so he could look friendly and conciliatory.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/21/2008 @ 7:57pm

17. Could we be more disappointed than we, who have watched the appointments so far, are? They have all been Clinton 2nd stringers. Why not the better-half?

    I have expected nothing good from Obama since he reneged on FISA.

    His support for the rush to bailout, with no real controls on "Hank", was more evidence of let-downs to come.

    Did we have another choice but to vote for the lesser of two poor offerings from the majors? Yes, we did, but the journalists on the left discouraged us.

    We are now facing a State appointment to a person with no adminstrative and no foreign affairs experience, who voted wrong in October 2002 and on every military appropriation since.

    One must take comfort in one's private life, because there is nothing encouraging on the public horizon.

    Posted by goedel at 11/21/2008 @ 8:12pm

18. Posted by Caj at 11/21/2008 @ 6:42pm

    I was never "gung ho" for Sarah Palin. I knew she didn't have any foreign policy experience. That's one of the reasons why I didn't vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. IMO, if HRC gets the nod to become SoS and sets another "Clinton" foreign policy agenda, expect her to challange Obama in 2012 and win.

    Since he's picking mostly Clintonistas to run his administration, it seems a shame that he overlooked the many talents of Bill Richardson, whom I think would have been a much better fit for the SoS job. He has executive experience, not to mention he has foreign policy credentials that can rival the best of them in the democratic party, and he's well liked in his home state of New Mexico.

    And I'm still wondering why he and Michelle chose to enroll their daughters in Sidwell Friends School. That's the same school the Clintons sent Chelsea to?! So much for change you can believe in.

    Posted by ACook at 11/21/2008 @ 9:02pm

19. Cook, 8 YEARS: your beloveds Cheney, Condi, Rumsfeld running foreign policy.

    Change has come to America.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/21/2008 @ 9:35pm

20. Hillary isn't even honest enough to call herself a Republican. Pro-war, anti-labor, a zionist racist and "markets fix themselves" fruitloop. Obama shouldn't trust her to ethically run a bake sale. I'm already sorry I trusted him a few Tuesdays ago.

    Posted by DejaVu at 11/21/2008 @ 9:36pm

21. Deja, are you working for Bob Barr?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/21/2008 @ 10:31pm

22. Yuck...Clinton would have been better assigned to do something else, she is too much a hawk on foreign affairs and she lacks the temperment. I was hoping for Richardson.

    Posted by truthandjustice at 11/21/2008 @ 11:26pm

23. Posted by freiheit1 at 11/21/2008 @ 6:43pm

    And now the fools want to pass off the inevitable and unalterable end of the Bush administration as the "change" (what a meaningless and empty goddam catch phrase THAT is, it's bothered me for months) that everybody was expecting/looking for.

    These little facts about Obama's ACTUAL policies seem to have simply skimmed the tops of the collective heads of the so-called left.

    Ridiculous, on both sides.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/22/2008 @ 12:15am

24. And there you went and thought that you were voting for Barak Obama for president earlier in the month. And you wake up and find out that you really voted for Rahm Emanuel. With the Clinton appointment as Secretary of State only days away, what becomes painfully clear is that our dear savior has no identity of his own, he is simply a cypher functioning as a figure head giving unimpeded expression to the convictions of others and hoping that they and their reputations eventually will define him. And already they have. Does anyone really believe that the Clinton appointment is the pick of a strong political figure? Hardly, it manifests Obama's squishy weakness. Get ready for four years of someone doing an imitation of a Human Resources Director, one that reports to Rahm Emanuel.

    Posted by john lowell at 11/22/2008 @ 12:23am

25. Take care not to relocate your misery to a new tsc - time space continuum, ideal island. According to polls, African Americans, who have more vulnerability, remain buoyed. Longer memory, more reality about the downside. But, uh, up to you.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 01:05am

26. Obama did the 'rope-a-dope' to perfection during his campaign. They barely laid a glove on him. I respect his ability to handle himself in close quarters.

    From what I've seen so far, I would think that if Obama didn't like the dynamics of his cabinet, he's be pretty quick to ask for resignations and just get on with it. Using that premise, I think that Hillary and the other cabinet members will actually try to get something done. They have nothing to gain by fomenting internecine discord.

    After the miserable failures of the last administration, and the disastrous economic collapse brought on by the de-regulators, I am ready to at least give him, and Hillary, a chance.

    We ALL need to try to create whatever kind of unity we can stomach, and help our country. That needs to be our goal RIGHT NOW and it supersedes all the vicious carping and whining that we sometimes like to engage in about politics.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/22/2008 @ 02:21am

27. Months ago I said something about the usurping apprentice murdering his teacher...I railed and railed against Obama.

    I work for a living. I'm highly paid and in a union. I remain in both because my union doesn't give healthcare to it's members until they are full time, and to reach full time takes seniority that takes...up to a decade now.

    I'm halfway there.

    You contemptuous elitists...and insufferable ignorant jagoffs...

    Obama was...Obama is...worse than Clinton. Clinton answered to the people and popular sentiment. If they twisted popular sentiment with propaganda and sentiment they did it did nothing like Bush would do, and concerning major issues, especially healthcare, they did not lie to you, as Obama has already done.

    As he lied about change. As he lied about NAFTA. As he lied about Rezko. As he lied about "the war."

    Clinton...was not my favored candidate. Not even close. Not even near.

    But corporate intention and fascist commitment?

    I worked for the campaigns. Clinton shook hands and signed everything, kissed every baby flung at her, signed everything shoved in her face and waved around, shook hands, said hello, took pictures.

    I saw her once.

    Obama...off the stage...and where ever big donors were. Only accessible, if accessible, to donors.

    Answering...only to cash.

    There was something to be said for that.

    There is much to be said of that.

    I disliked him then. For a colored man to be so reluctant and apologetic, so centrist...so silent...was unspeakable to me. Some million black fathers are in jail every year on petty charges.

    He is shallow. He is fallible. He is ... not what he sold. He stands for nothing.

    I lost healthcare. And got "Change."

    Posted by exitandpanic at 11/22/2008 @ 03:34am

28. "One must take comfort in one's private life, because there is nothing encouraging on the public horizon." Posted by goedel at 11/21/2008 @ 8:12pm

    Excellent advice.

    I'm hunkering down in Provence. I'm fortunate.

    Most in the US are not.

    My thoughts will always be with them, as well as with those abroad whom the US is punishing & will continue to kill .

    The Obama govt change in style & appearance won't be nearly enough to spare any of them their sufferings.

    Posted by sloper at 11/22/2008 @ 04:37am

29. I think that Hillary will do just fine. She's only 60 and this looks good on her resume. This will give her an opportunity to truly separate herself from Billy and make her mark. Also, this will set her up well in the eyes of the world when it comes time for her to run for President again in 2016. She will be forced by circumstance to be one of the best Secretarys of State in recent history. Every time that one thinks Obama's judgement could be impaired, he proves to be way ahead of the curve. "Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer".

    Posted by jjpound at 11/22/2008 @ 07:26am

30. I would like to believe that our lives will become better with Obama. I voted for him because the alternative is much worse. My heart breaks for all those crowds cheering on his empty words and slogans. As some one remarked, he went back on FISA, on NAFTA and even supported Scalia on death penalty. On the one hand it is too early to lose all hope but on the other hand it is too hurtful to be let down day after day. Life would be better if we don't expect anything good to come from this guy. No expectations, no let downs. It is hard to believe but this guy could be the actual Manchurian candidate. Please disabuse me of this hopelessness. Where are they "CHANGE", "HOPE"?

    Posted by rnagisetty at 11/22/2008 @ 08:18am

31. John old beans. Barck will triangulate the hell after you. Ha ha!!!!

    Posted by dasgupta at 11/22/2008 @ 09:03am

32. Yes, we did, but the journalists on the left discouraged us.

    you know who blames the press? losers do, see McCain and the repugs, a group of which I presume you are a member.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 09:52am

33. Phew! All this legislation the Obama administration has signed into law in its first three weeks in office, and everybody's already all pissed off about it.

    Posted by onthehelm at 11/22/2008 @ 10:33am

34. Phew! All this legislation the Obama administration has signed into law in its first three weeks in office, and everybody's already all pissed off about it. Posted by onthehelm at 11/22/2008 @ 10:33am | ignore this person | warn this person

    say whaaat?

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 10:44am

35. Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 10:44am | ignore this person | warn this person

    sarcasm

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/22/2008 @ 11:35am

36. no, irony

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 11:53am

37. I keep telling myself: "Give the guy a chance - he isn't even in office yet..." Nonetheless, I am disheartened by his lineup of Clintonistas. Some people look back wistfully on the Clinton years. I suppose that compared to the legacy of the current "president," the man who has used the Oval Office as his personal pit toilet, the Clinton years were good. We should, however, aspire to a higher standard. The Clinton legacy is one of painfully unrealized potential and the sellout of the common person to corporate interests. Now that Obama has anchored himself to the cadre responsible for this sad legacy, I am close to abandoning hope for something different.

    Posted by mark_proulx at 11/22/2008 @ 12:00pm

38. the sellout of the common person to corporate interests.

    Clinton was hardly the first pres to be associated with that. I would submit this was the case from the first days of the republic.

    as with everything it is a matter of degree. Clinton stacks up very well in comparison to outright criminals in the white house, like Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Reagan, Nixon.

    Safire coined the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativity"

    I think it applies more so today, in these pages.

    and it's a crashing bore.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 12:25pm

39. Yo emile!

    You should aspire to a higher standard of comparison than Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Reagan, and Nixon. No wonder you're so easily bored.

    Posted by mark_proulx at 11/22/2008 @ 1:39pm

40. NY Fed President Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary.

    He's competent and we will see if he follows President-Elect Obama's desire for regulation in treasury policy.

    Posted by boing007 at 11/22/2008 @ 1:39pm

41. and change came splashing down

    Posted by pachonegro at 11/22/2008 @ 2:09pm

42. You should aspire to a higher standard of comparison than Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Reagan, and Nixon. No wonder you're so easily bored. Posted by mark_proulx at 11/22/2008 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    what's your standard of comparison?

    He's competent and we will see if he follows President-Elect Obama's desire for regulation in treasury policy. Posted by boing007 at 11/22/2008 @ 1:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    he will do what his boss tells him too, like all employees.

    Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 2:27pm

43. Wow, nostalgia for the Clinton years. What a laugh. The man never made a move without convening a "focus group" or conducting a survey. The presidency is a leadership position. Obama will be judged by how he leads.

    Posted by twillie at 11/22/2008 @ 2:58pm

44. ...he will do what his boss tells him too, like all employees. Posted by emile duBois at 11/22/2008 @ 2:27pm

    Exactly. All these posters are acting like he's already in office and screwing up. He has to be sworn in first. And the guy who is in charge, and has been in charge for the last 8 long and disastrous years, is named George Bush.

    There seems to be some kind of disconnect here. Conservatives seems to be pretending that this guy isn't, and never was , president. Rarely is 'his' name mentioned anymore. And he is going to be president long enough to really screw things up if he so chooses.

    Check out the post by EXITANDPANIC. Bush is responsible for almost all of his woes, yet he desperately tries to blame someone else for it. It's a sad day for conservatives. That said, I think Obama will fire people if they don't get in line. I have some confidence in his managerial abilities.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/22/2008 @ 3:04pm

45. Perpetual hymn of an open book.

    Like an iced dream my mind disappears in the heart of an innocent nurse, when a clamour appears and a delicate blackbird discovers a glimmer.

    Francesco Sinibaldi

    Posted by Sinibaldi at 11/22/2008 @ 4:37pm

46. Conservatives seems to be pretending that this guy isn't, and never was , president. Rarely is 'his' name mentioned anymore.

    Posted by ficheye at 11/22/2008 @ 3:04pm

    What kind of commie, liberal redistributionist palling around with terrorists garbage is this, you Joe the Plumber hating pinko?

    Wait, let me check something...

    At this point on this page, the name Bush was used 13 times and Obama was used about 58.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 6:58pm

47. Really? On a thread primarily about Obama's prospective Secretary of State, Obama's name was used more than Bush's? Somehow this doesn't seem at all problematic...

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/22/2008 @ 7:15pm

48. LOl... you people have to have some patience.... Are you the types of people that scream at your waiter/waitress when your food isn't at your table "when you want it"..??

    The country is in disaster mode and everyone here with a few exceptions is pissed at a guy who isn't even President yet..?? huh..??

    The usual right wing bat-shite crazys are here parroting Rush and his Ilk, and the "true progressives" are here blasting him for nominating everyone else.... Is there ANYBODY that he could nominate For ANY position that would not ruffle the feathers of either the IGNORANT right wingers or the "True Progressives".. Probably NOT !

    As long as the current administration dosent end with a "MUSHROOM CLOUD" (if i may borrow that from one distinguished SOS), Things ARE LOOKING UP.

    Posted by Vvf1969 at 11/22/2008 @ 7:18pm

49. A LETTER I SENT TO OBAMA:

    Hello Mr. Obama: What USA needs is a gradual change toward a participative-democratic socialist system of the XXI Century, thru a Constitutional Reform by a Constitutional Assembly like many modern nations today are reforming their own political and economic systems. A Political Reform would not be complete without a democratic economic reform, so that USA could move from a corporate-capitalist country toward a real democratic workers socialist economy by the workers in favor of workers who are the creators of wealth like Karl Marx said.

    The wealth of this great land belongs to all US citizens and specially *workers* who are the creators of wealth, but they won't be able to claim that wealth without a nationalization program under state and workers-control of the key elements of US industries like oil, water, communication, electricity, gold, mines, etc. Americans also need access to subsidized or free Universities and Colleges, this country needs more public socialist education instead of private education. It would also be a great idea for US government to regulate right-wing stations like CNN and FOX and also to create a state-owned progressive TV station with progressive media people like Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, in order to spread the ideology of the US founding fathers, to teach americans democratic egalitarian values, so that thru a good education programs americans truely be free individuals and architects of of our own destiny and wealth. On the international level it is worth studying the closing of most US military bases, the incorporation of USA in the ALBA (Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas), and it would be a great idea to consider Jimmy Carter as peace missioner on the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/22/2008 @ 8:21pm

50. What kind of commie, liberal redistributionist palling around with terrorists garbage is this, you Joe the Plumber hating pinko?

    Posted by winyahn at 11/22/2008 @ 6:58pm

    Man,oh, man! That was some sw-e-e-e-t, hate filled, pastry of the conservative kind!

    I was sort of referring, generally, to the lack of blame being assigned to GW by conservatives. But taking the time to count the times each name was used on this page? Grasping at straws.

    And I don't hate Joe the (I'm not a) plumber. I don't like what he's become, but I don't hate him. He's busy getting set up to write a book and be in a movie, just like I thought he'd do! He'll NEVER be a plumber, is my prediction.

    ficheye the pinko

    Posted by ficheye at 11/22/2008 @ 8:47pm

51. Posted by Caj at 11/21/2008 @ 4:37pm

    FRANK, is that you????

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2008 @ 8:51pm

52. Here's a song for the pure progressives for Obama Inaugural Ball---

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU7nG3KvZDA&feature=related

    Posted by Mask at 11/22/2008 @ 9:00pm

53. John F. Kennedy Speech on the US government:

    http://heyokamagazine.com/heyoka.20.kennedyspeech.htm

    .

    Posted by marxist-socialist at 11/22/2008 @ 9:29pm

54. thanks francesco, once again. beautiful.

    no mask, caj can't be frank. frank would never say anything even remotely kind about obama. frank is the epitome of racism.

    johannesrolf, right on all counts, as usual.

    i still have complete faith in obama. he'll listen to people and then make his own decisions. he's not going to let anyone run him. isn't that obvious?

    exitandpanic, you are wrong. obama has not been silent. he is not a push over. and he's very accessible. he actually talked to the indians in montana, a lot. as a result, they voted in such great numbers that they almost turned montana blue. the indians aren't big donors, exitandpanic. obama also spent lots of time in butte. he watched the 4th of july parade here. and guess what? no big donors here.

    i see there are still lots of right wingers here posing as other things. can't you guys give it up, already? go somewhere else. you are bores.

    Posted by loveloki at 11/23/2008 @ 12:52am

55. *i see there are still lots of right wingers here posing as other things. can't you guys give it up, already? go somewhere else. you are bores.

    Posted by loveloki at 11/23/2008 @ 12:52am*

    "Anger, fear, hatred, the dark side are they."

    Posted by yutsano at 11/23/2008 @ 02:11am

56. Posted by ficheye at 11/22/2008 @ 8:47pm

    Guess my effort at humor failed! I was supporting your good point with empirical data.

    Posted by winyahn at 11/23/2008 @ 02:35am

57. I've commended Obama on virtually everyone he's named so far, for being more centrist than expected.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/23/2008 @ 11:45am

    LOL

    Sentence of the year!!!

    So are you willing to admit you bought into the mindless rhetoric of the republican party when they were busy trying to tell everyone that Obama was a socialist and/or terrorist???? Or when YOU yourself was running around calling him a marxist!? Hilarious!

    What a goddam joke. It's almost like he's going to run his administration EXACTLY like he was talking about while campaigning.

    You're as big a fool as any of the alleged leftists who thought Obama was going to usher in a regime of Dem. movers and shakers.

    And for the record, fuck Hillary Clinton. She's as despicable and crooked as ANY republican, and I certainly did NOT vote for an extension of the Clinton administration.

    BOOOOOO!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 11/23/2008 @ 12:57pm

58. Winyahn,

    Sorry, buddy. There's been so many flame wars here recently I'm definitely having a hard time telling the difference. (That'll leave me open to SOME sort of abuse).

    Posted by ficheye at 11/23/2008 @ 2:21pm

59. Posted by yutsano at 11/23/2008 @ 02:11am

    sad, isn't it?

    Posted by loveloki at 11/24/2008 @ 02:38am