There, there. It’s okay. It’s okay.
Glad to hear it. Good thing I’m not a Republican.
Bill Clinton’s reforms were widely perceived within the military as weakening the force and the force structure. In addition, there was the whole “he didn’t serve” hullaballoo. Further, the military is generally more conservative.
The resentment of the Clintons has not gone away.
As far as politicization, realize that in spite of the fact that we are apparently supposed to be unthinking automatons, the military is composed of people, and those people have opinions. In that respect it’s no different than when you have a job and you hate your boss- morale and efficiency decline. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.
Oh, and as for your insulting comments… nah, never mind, It hardly seems worth it. You guys want to believe that no matter who is in charge it will all be sunshine and roses, who am I to tell you otherwise?
Hm, well there’s my ‘something new’ for today(Taft/Bayard), and tomorrow(Adams/Frank)!
I suppose the question not could they be but would they want to be. I see Johnson also went on to the Senate, any other post-Presidency jobs other than Statesman/writer? Obama is so young and driven I could easily see a Chief Justice Obama in the future; AG probably not. Of course, that’s all just so far away from now, I should probably just worry about his current appointments for now.
/hijack, musings
Are you serious?
Do really think “Change we can believe in” meant ‘vote for me because then the Republicans won’t be in charge’?
It should go without saying that any Democrat elected president would mean getting rid of the Republicans. How would that separate him from any of the other Democratic candidates?
I was kind of wondering about that too, Obama never having been a judge, but with all the speculation that Hillary also gets regarding the SC, he, as a Constitutional lawyer/professor, seems equally, if not more, qualified.
He’s never had any power to get rid of the Clintons, seeing as how she is a Senator, so he never promised that. As I said earlier, though, he ran as the candidate of change and used her move to position herself as the old “Washington insider” against her. So it’s fair to note an inconsistency there, in my opinion.
I thought Dick Lugar was talked about as a potential Secretary of State, although I think he’s taken himself out of the running.
As far as the Supreme Court goes, neither of them is qualified. The reason she gets talked about for SCOTUS is because people don’t know who the actual potential nominees are (and neither do I), so they picture every position being filled by a big name. Same goes for a lot of the cabinet talk you’re seeing.
Give an example of how anything in the military was weakened under Clinton. If anyone in the military seriously believed they were weakened under Clinton, that just proves how worthless and ignorant their opinions are.
Yes, it’s a conservative culture. It’s an institution that attracts rednecks and Bible bangers. They come into the military that way, though. Fortunately, we live in a country where the political opinions of the military don’t count for shit. It would be stupid to let the civilian leadership be intimidated by the whining and bigotry of the troops. If we gave the opinions of military personel any weight, they’d still be segregated.
Not that their resentment means anything, but resentment for what? What specifically did Bill Clinton do to hurt the military?
Sure they have opinions. The point is that their opinions don’t matter. Once more, THE MILITARY IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, IT’S A DICTATORSHIP. I had that drilled into my head from the first day of Basic Training. When you signed on the dotted line, you agreed that you would be the President’s bitch. Anyone who doesn’t like that deal shouldn’t have signed.
I’m saying that the military will continue to do its job, regardless of what Rush Limbaugh has brainwashed them to think about the President. Are you suggesting otherwise? Are you saying they’ll revolt? What’s the worst they’re going to do, complain? When have they ever NOT complained?
That’s pretty much all I cared about, yes.
I think Hillary would be a fine Secretary…ow!
Seriously, she has too little charm and too stilted a manner to be SOS (her speaking sounds like a female version of Mayor Quimby, except she’s not doing it for comic effect, unfortunately).
I haven’t heard much else about it, so I reckon it was just a trial balloon (that just went ffffffffffffffft across the room).
The primary change that Obama has promised, and is presumable working toward, as expressed in many of his speeches starting with the 2004 convention speech, as well as in The Audacity of Hope, is a lessening of the animosity and “us” vs. “them” mentality in politics. That includes encouraging Democrats and Republicans, red states and blue states, and even Democratic primary candidates who opposed each other, to work together. In that sense, choosing Hillary to be Secretary of State would be perfectly in keeping with the change that he believes in.
That said, I believe that ultimately she will not end up being Secretary of State.
Front page cnn.com article;
Bill Clinton could pose cabinet problem.
“Former President Bill Clinton’s international business dealings, global foundation and penchant for going off script could present a significant obstacle to Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, observers say.”
and
"Even more problematic could be the former president’s history of going decidedly off message during speeches and his willingness to blatantly speak his mind seemingly without regard for the political fallout.
During her presidential bid last year, Sen. Clinton at times publicly criticized her husband for things he said on the campaign trail, and in one particularly embarrassing moment for the campaign, she told him to “knock it off.”"
Which was why it was in the terrible shape it was in when Bush went to war? Pardon me, but I call bullshit.
And I’m waiting them to be far more pissed at Bush and Cheney for starting a second war before we’d nailed down the win in the first war, leaving the result quite up in the air. Not to mention really trashing the military’s readiness, in that second, totally bullshit, war.
Yeah, like they let Bush’s getting a prime slot in the TANG, then ducking out of most of that obligation in turn, bother them.
Again, I call bullshit.
If they want to make something of it, then they’re in the wrong fucking profession.
They should act like adults and grow up.
Ditto.
No, it’s like when you dislike your boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss’ boss, and for some reason, you can’t get over it, rather than regarding it as some distant business way above your pay and grade.
No, I’m expecting alleged professionals to act like professionals. I haven’t been slacking off because GWB is my ultimate boss, even though his petty efforts to pretend to be fiscally conservative after his mammoth tax cuts and Iraqi expenses actually do create day-to-day problems for me.
I like most of the people I work with, but when I have occasion to work with people I don’t really like, you know what? I do my job. And I’m a lowly GS-13. If generals and admirals can’t figure out to do the same, well, fuck 'em. Or tell 'em to grow up. Tell 'em to act professional. Whichever.
Airman, I’m not saying military personnel don’t feel the way you say, because if you say lots of them do, I can only believe you. Certainly the one I know does. But I have trouble understanding why, other than that Lee Atwater and his successors have whipped them up. I mean, an awful lot of presidents never served in the military, and both W and Cheney sure didn’t cover themselves with glory on that front, and they have treated the military much worse than Clinton ever did. Is there a rational reason why the military would dislike Clinton, or is this just the manipulation of patriotism to garner favor and generate Democrat-hatred that the right wing has done so successfully over the past twenty years? I would like you to think through your knee-jerk and tell me beyond a “I just don’t trust that bastard,” or even that you disagree with his fiscal policy. I’m asking why members of the military in particular would dislike him, and presumably they’re mixed when it comes to fiscal policy.
All
I didn’t realize that Hillary was being considered for SoS. When Clinton met Obama in Chicago, I assumed that he was asking her to quickly move to Illinois, set up residence, and take over the Senate seat that will come available in January.
It’s just the same irrational hostility towards any Democrat that exists among conservative civilians. The military attracts a lot of social conservatives. It all boils down to the same guns, Jesus, flag waving, “mega dittos” stuff you see in the civilian world. The uniform doesn’t make them that way, their “Republicans good – Democrats BAD” software is already programmed into them before they sign up.
One of the reasons they hated Clinton was because he wanted to lift the ban on gays in the military, but many of them are susceptable to the same right wing radio/Fox News propaganda as civilians are. None of them would ever be able to articulate a single way in which they or the military was adversely affected by Clinton, but they’ve been brainwashed to believe that Clinton “weakened” the military, so that’s what they believe. Facts have nothing to do with it.
- Obama doesn’t pick his replacement, the Governor of IL does.
- Hillary is already a US Senator
IIRC, Airman Doors has said here on the SDMB that he voted for Obama. He may be many things, but I wouldn’t feel right calling him a liar. (Of course, I could be misremembering.)
Dio, this is why I asked Airman, rather than you. I already knew your answer, as you’d made it quite clear earlier in the thread. I understand that you were in the military and thus feel qualified to answer, but Airman is in the military now (isn’t he?), and I think to some extent shares some of the viewpoints he has expressed, so I’d like to hear from him.
Hostile, as I recall, you are quite correct: Airman said he planned to vote for Obama.
Airman, I’d still like you to answer, if you would.
The guardian is saying Hillary will accept.
They reported that probably 24 hours ago, since the free paper I read this morning had the same story- attributed to the Guardian. Nobody else seems to be following them on this story, which makes me doubt its reliability. While they may be giving her a serious look, I doubt any decision has been made. You’d think it would take longer than that to sort through the donors to Clinton’s foundation and make a decision on whether any of them represent conflicts of interest.