Why Obama's Got "Complete Confidence" In Clinton

posted by John Nichols on 12/01/2008 @ 11:44am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (104)

Subscribe Now

So it will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The senator from New York, who lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama because she supported authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq when her rival from Illinois opposed the move, will now be the face of President Obama's foreign policy.

The final detail of the plan to put Clinton in charge of the State Department -- an agreement by former President Bill Clinton to work with the Obama transition team to address potential conflicts of interest arising from his international financial dealings -- has been settled. Obama made the announcement Monday morning in Chicago, at a press conference where he confirmed that he'll retain Defense Secretary Robert Gates and name retired Marine General Jim Jones as his national security adviser, former deputy attorney general Eric Holder as attorney general, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary and Obama campaign foreign-policy aide Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

It was Clinton who stood at Obama's side.

And the President-elect was as enthusiastic about his selection of the woman who tried to block his way to the Oval Office as he has been about any of his selections -- perhaps more so.

Describing Clinton as "an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence," Obama said, "Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton is the right person to lead our State Department and to work with me in tackling this ambitious foreign policy agenda."

Is this "change we can believe in"?

Not by any reasonable measure of the term.

But nor is this the end of the world as we know it -- even if it could be the end of the illusion that some of Obama's more romantic enthusiasts entertained with regard to his global view.

Obama and Clinton have never been radically different players when it comes to foreign affairs. In fact, when they served together in the Senate from January, 2005, until this year, they were precisely parallel players. Even when they were trying to distinguish themselves during the race for their party's presidential nod, they amused serious debate watchers by exchanging "Well, I agree with Hillary" and "I actually agree with Barack" signals. And, of course, they did agree -- to such an extent that, after Clinton poked in one debate at Obama for embracing diplomacy she read the polls, realized that everyone agreed with her rival and came into the next debate as an advocate of, um, diplomacy.

On the morning after their competition completed in June of this year, Obama and Clinton were stumbling over one another to sound alike when they appeared before the annual political vetting session that is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee gathering in Washington. Obama told a somewhat skeptical crowd: "As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security. And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency."

Though comment was an appropriate dig not just at President Bush but at former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton followed the man who had defeated her to the podium, echoed his themes and then offered a blessing that carried a good deal of weight in that particular room: "I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here," she said. "It's an honor to call him my friend, and let me be clear--I know Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel."

That's what makes the whole "Team of Rivals" discussion so comic.

Obama and Clinton were rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination because they both wanted the job. They were never really ideological rivals.

This is why, even as Obama and Clinton battled one another in the early caucuses and primaries, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold -- the Senate's most determined opponent of the war in Iraq, in particular, and the failed Washington consensus with regard to foreign policies, in general -- chose not to make an endorsement.

While the Wisconsin Democrat quietly voted for Obama in his state's February 19 Democratic primary, he did not come forward as an early of enthusiastic supporter of the supposedly anti-war contender. That's because, as Feingold explained in several conversations with this reporter, he saw little real evidence that Obama and Clinton were staking out distinct positions.

Perhaps as significantly, Feingold saw something else.

Though he has long been at odds with Clinton -- especially on campaign finance and ethics issues, but also on foreign policy -- Feingold explains that he came to see the former first lady in a new light when they traveled together (along with Arizona Senator John McCain, Maine Senator Susan Collins and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) on a 2005 Senate fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Tunisia.

"Two things: One, she was incredibly well-prepared and well-informed. She knew the key players and the issues that were heating up in each of the countries we visited," recalled Feingold. "Two, she was very well respected. When we landed in each country, this Senate delegation, she was the one that the generals and the officials were trying to talk to. She was the one they knew and respected."

In a number of conversations we've had about key players in the Democratic party, Feingold, long an essential member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has repeatedly returned to the point that Clinton is a very smart, very skilled player when it comes to foreign affairs. Even when he does not agree with Clinton, the Wisconsinite says, he recognizes her as someone who is more than ready to represent the United States on the global stage.

Bottom line: What Russ Feingold saw in Clinton was what Barack Obama saw in Clinton.

Obama is not assembling a team of rivals -- at least not with the Clinton pick. He is selecting a fellow senator who he came to respect and even to regard somewhat fondly during the course of a difficult but not particularly destructive primary campaign. More importantly, he is selected someone who agrees with him on almost every significant global issues and who he is certain will be able Secretary of State.

No, the man who spent the past several days consulting by phone with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, is not staking out bold new turf with his selection of a replacement for Rice. This is not fundamental change. But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change.

Comments (104)

While I am deluding myself with the basic notion that an 8 year presidency begins with 2 years of solidifying the NEW BASE: the middle spectrum. Even the new neocons are ready for nationalized health care, bail outs, pull outs and regulation! Get these things underway, then weave in the cool Hippie stuff. Hippie's never could delay gratification. But MLK could.

Posted by winyahn at 11/30/2008 @ 11:41am
Well, not while...

Posted by winyahn at 11/30/2008 @ 11:43am
Good work as usual, but John, please proofread this. You have several glaring typos, including subsituting "Obama" for "Feingold".

Posted by thebots at 11/30/2008 @ 12:15pm
NICHOLS: "Is this "change we can believe in"?

Not by any reasonable measure of the term. "

Give us Righties more time, like his Econ team picks this past week and now HRC (= ol' Bill).......slowly, the "change we can believe in" is catching on.....w/a black/white face for an all white face.....and nothing much else changes = stability?

Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/30/2008 @ 1:02pm
Bottom line?

More wars.

Change you have no choice now but to believe in.

Posted by sloper at 11/30/2008 @ 1:16pm
Bottom line?

More wars.

Change you have no choice now but to believe in.

Posted by sloper at 11/30/2008 @ 1:16pm
The change I see is a leader with the confidence to put strong personalities on his core team. Could it be that a key part of the difference Obama is realizing with these picks is in being a president who knows he is the one who sets the agenda? Rather than surround himself with people who think the right things on his behalf (or as with Bush, individuals who absolutely controlled the administration while the president wandered in the fog), Obama seems to have a much more robust sense of the team he wants, how it ought not be a set of ditto heads.

As one who honestly grew to hate Hillary during the ugly days of her campaign, who wished he would choose Bill Richardson for State, who wanted to see Gates shown the door, I am coming to appreciate the strength of Obama's vision. Just as I respected his determination to engage in dialogue with international leaders we have problems with, I something envigorating in his approach to building and presumably leading his team.

Posted by Bill Manley at 11/30/2008 @ 1:18pm
"I am coming to appreciate the strength of Obama's vision."

What an absolutely credulous douche-nozzle you are. What are you going to tell us next, that this eel is the next Abraham Lincoln? He is simply a figurehead for those economic and foreign policy lobbies for whom he put out the "For Sale" earlier in the year. If you're looking for the President, his name is Rahm Emanuel. The appointments are his, the office is his, no more, no less.

Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 2:23pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 2:23pm

How incredibly (un)comfortable you must be inside your skin to lob insults in response to a perspective. A joy to be around. All the best to you.

Posted by Bill Manley at 11/30/2008 @ 3:19pm
Perhaps as significantly, Feingold saw something else.

Though he has long been at odds with Clinton -- especially on campaign finance and ethics issues, but also on foreign policy -- he explained that he had come to see the former first lady in a new light when they traveled together (along with Arizona Senator John McCain, Maine Senator Susan Collins and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham) on a 2005 Senate fact-finding mission to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, and Tunisia.

"Two things: One, she was incredibly well-prepared and well-informed. She knew the key players and the issues that were heating up in each of the countries we visited," recalled Feingold. "Two, she was very well respected. When we landed in each country, this Senate delegation, she was the one that the generals and the officials were trying to talk to. She was the one they knew and respected."

What exactly did this "fact finding" mission accomplish other than photo ops again? Has anything changed since 2005 as a result of this fact finding mission? Were the results of the fact finding mission ever published?

Posted by OneVote at 11/30/2008 @ 3:30pm
THE KING AND HIS HAWK... pt. 1

One morning when the King was home from the wars, he rode out into the woods to have a day's sport. Many of his friends were with him. They rode out gayly, carrying their bows and arrows. Behind them came the servants with the hounds.

It was a merry hunting party. The woods rang with their shouts and laughter. They expected to carry much game home in the evening.

On the king's wrist sat his favorite hawk, for in those days hawks were trained to hunt. At a word from their masters they would fly high up into the air, and look around for prey. If they chanced to see a deer or rabbit, they would swoop down upon it swift as any arrow.

Towards evening they started for home. The king had often ridden through the woods, and he knew all the paths. So while the rest of the party took the nearest way, he went by the longer road through a valley between two mountains.

The day had been warm, and the king was very thirsty. His pet hawk had left his wrist a flown away. It would be sure to find its way home.

The king rode slowly along. He had once seen a spring of clear water near this path. If he could only find it now! But the hot days of summer had dried up all the mountain brooks.

At last, to his joy, he saw some water trickling down over the edge of a rock. He know that there was a spring farther up. In the wet season, a swift stream of water always poured down here; but now it came only one drop at a time.

The king leaped from his horse. He took a little silver cup from his hunting bag. He held it so as to catch the slowly falling drops.

Posted by ttr at 11/30/2008 @ 3:49pm
He held it so as to catch the slowly falling drops.

It took a long time to fill the cup; and the king was so thirsty that he could hardly wait. At last it was nearly full. He put the cup to his lips, and was about to drink.

All at once there was a whirling sound in the air, and the cup was knocked from his hands. The water was all spilled upon the ground.

The king looked up to see who had done this thing. It was his pet hawk.

The hawk flew back and forth a few times, and then alighted among the rocks by the spring. The king picked up the cup, and again he held it to catch the trickling drops.

This time he did not wait so long. When the cup was half full, he lifted it towards his mouth. But before it had touched his lips, the hawk swooped down again, and knocked it from his hands.

And now the king began to grow angry. He tried again, and for the third time the hawk kept him from drinking.

The king was now very angry indeed. "How do you dare to act so?" he cried. "If I had you in my hands, I would wring your neck!" Then he filled the cup again. But before he tried to drink, he drew his sword.

"Now, Sir Hawk," he said, "this is the last time." THE KING AND HIS HAWK... pt. 2

He had hardly spoken before the hawk swooped down and knocked the cup from his hand. But the king was looking for this. With a quick sweep of the sword he struck the bird as it passed.

The next moment the poor hawk lay bleeding and dying at its master's feet.

"That is what you get for your pains," said Genghis Khan.

But when he looked up for his cup, he found that it had fallen between two rocks where he could not reach it.

"At any rate, I will have a drink from that spring," he said to himself.

Posted by ttr at 11/30/2008 @ 3:49pm
With that he began to climb the steep bank to the place from which the water had trickled. It was hard work, and the higher he climbed, the thirstier he became.

THE KING AND HIS HAWK... pt. 3

At last he reached the place. There indeed was a pool of water; but what was that lying in the pool, and almost filling it? It was a huge, dead snake of the most poisonous kind.

The king stopped. He forgot his thirst. He thought only of the poor dead bird lying on the ground below him.

"The hawk saved my life!" he cried, "and how did I repay him? He was my best friend and I have killed him."

He clambered down the bank. He took the bird up gently, and laid it in his hunting bag. Then he mounted his horse and rode swiftly home. He said to himself,

"I have learned a sad lesson today, and that is . . . never do anything in anger."

Posted by ttr at 11/30/2008 @ 3:49pm
A VP from the Nixon era, a Sec of State from the Clinton era and a Defense Sec who served under 7 previous Presidents...........aaahh, now that's change we can believe in.

This is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by Incoming at 11/30/2008 @ 3:49pm
I agree with Bill...

Seems most of us are having a hard time evaluating Bush's presidency as having been unique in some rather unsettling ways... ways with which Obama's character and experience are irreconcilable.

Who is Hillary without Bill's 'leadership'...? Does anyone know? Does Hillary know?

Who is America... when freedom of thought is guaranteed and encouraged... does anybody here remember anymore?

Of course we have 'trust issues' after this administration...!!! But your transferral of fears of this sort may indeed be our most difficult hurdle between "yes we can"... and "we just did".

Posted by ttr at 11/30/2008 @ 4:29pm
So Genghis Kahn is Obama and HC is the hawk?

Posted by marilynm at 11/30/2008 @ 4:46pm
I like your story ttr, and I agree with your thoughts for the most part.

Actually I have always been pretty pro HC, just wish she could give Bill the boot, despite all his great qualities and the good things he did as PoftheUSA.

And I do wish there were some folks with a "different" point of view showing up in the new cabinet, but I am supposing BO knows what he is about, he must have thought it all through before hand. The ideas he talks and writes about are coherent and conscious so unless "they" have snatched the real one and done a stepford wife on him, I am guessing it will all become clear very soon.

...but back to your story though ttr, somehow today everything I read here is a bit leftfield...

Posted by marilynm at 11/30/2008 @ 4:53pm
Never know... till you climb up that bank and look...;^)

More like the 'King' is Bush... and the Hawk is the intellectual left.

The metaphor just seems to relate well right now to the issues around pendulumic political swings, and polar reactiveness... which have become somewhat more common as of late... and way more stultifying developmentally...

Posted by ttr at 11/30/2008 @ 5:01pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 2:23pm

How incredibly (un)comfortable you must be inside your skin to lob insults in response to a perspective. A joy to be around. All the best to you.

Posted by Bill Manley at 11/30/2008 @ 3:19pm

Couldn't agree with you more...such an ignorant person!!!

Posted by Caj at 11/30/2008 @ 6:38pm
"Bottom line: What Russ Feingold saw in Clinton was what Barack Obama saw in Clinton."

There you have it folks...

the only thing a progressive needs-

Russ Feingold's approval!

Posted by Mask at 11/30/2008 @ 7:39pm
Posted by Bill Manley at 11/30/2008 @ 3:19pm

"How incredibly (un)comfortable you must be inside your skin to lob insults in response to a perspective."

A "perspective", was it? And here I saw it as a regugitation of the most egregiously media influenced other-think one could imagine. Trite, crap-analysis from Gwen Ifil doesn't qualify as a perspective, Bill. We call that kind of thing propaganda. It deserves every insult its given around here.

Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 7:39pm
Bush detritus... Loose nukes, reconstituting Taliban, economy cratering, rednecks looking for something, anything to hate, former soviet states unstable, Iran suffering an inferiority complex over it's lack of influence in Iraq... two years, progressives. Obama will use it to build relationships in and out of the country, stabilize the economy, tilt Iraq, Afghanistran - our healthcare system toward sanity, hopefully same for Palestine, hopefully same for the corrupt 4th estate. Progressive, keep your dream alive, and channel these energies into organizing. And to preach a bit, hang on to some of the gratitude, some of the joy. Folks - universal coverage! Did you think you'd ever see the Fed's this close!? And build, organize, use all possible democratic means to apply pressure.

Posted by winyahn at 11/30/2008 @ 7:40pm
Posted by Caj at 11/30/2008 @ 6:38pm

Hi Caj. Cross your legs, your breath smells.

Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 7:42pm
"What an absolutely credulous douche-nozzle you are." Nasty and frankly, unwarranted, as this is, I can't help but think "douche-nozzle" is in the running for best term of the year.

While I am glad these neoconservative, well, douche-nozzles, are out of power (or will be), I do not see Obama doing much different beyond making it look nicer--I think this was called putting the silk glove over the iron fist--than the current administration has been conducting affairs. That a lot of so-called progressives are looking with fondness to the Clinton years is disturbing.

Posted by onthehelm at 11/30/2008 @ 8:24pm
"....the only thing a progressive needs-..."

is Karl Rove's approval next week? Condi Rice? Colin Powell? Maybe even Jim Baker? Henry Kissinger? ....and of course, the Israelis and AIPAC!

Posted by HAPPYLonghorn at 11/30/2008 @ 8:36pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 2:23pm

You're hurting the suckers' feelings when you say things like that!

GEEZ! So mean!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/30/2008 @ 10:14pm
For the record, anybody who considers HRC to be a good pick at Sec. of State, are drinking the exact same brand of flavored sugar water the people who love Condi Rice are drinkin!

WAKE UP!

Posted by TexasFlood at 11/30/2008 @ 10:19pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 11/30/2008 @ 10:19pm

I have to agree, this one is leaving a rather sour taste in my mouth, and it definitely ain't citrus. I was finding myself forced to agree with George Will (he was in his rare moments of reason today) when he said that Clinton has never faced anything like the challenge she would face at Foggy Bottom. The only organization she's run that compares to the size was her own campaign and, well, how did that turn out?

Posted by yutsano at 11/30/2008 @ 10:53pm
Omniscience & psychic powers beat data every time.

Posted by winyahn at 11/30/2008 @ 11:18pm
*Omniscience & psychic powers beat data every time.

Posted by winyahn at 11/30/2008 @ 11:18pm*

I prefer logic and mindmelds myself.

Posted by yutsano at 11/30/2008 @ 11:34pm
Obama's cabinet selections win praise from the right By Tom Eley 1st December 2008

Prominent voices from the political right have endorsed President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet picks, both for his economic and national security "teams."

On November 28, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial entitled "Obama's War Cabinet," which lauded President-elect Barack Obama's widely-anticipated decisions to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense and to select retired general James Jones as National Security Adviser, the top two civilian military positions in the federal government. The selections, the editorial notes, mean that Obama intends to carry on the Bush administration's military policy in Iraq and beyond.

The Journal writes, "These are the Administration posts most critical to the successful conduct of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to possible entanglements with Iran, North Korea and who knows who else. With these personnel picks, Mr. Obama reveals a bias for competence, experience and continuity."

In other words, the selections define an administration that will not only carry on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--i.e., "continuity,"--but that will be prepared to prosecute future wars.

The editorial celebrates the fact that the Gates selection effectively solidarizes Obama with the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, noting that it amounts to an "endorsement of President Bush's ‘surge' in Iraq and its military architect, General David Petraeus," who the current Defense Secretary "championed."

This was a departure from the positions of "candidate Obama," the Journal points out, who "opposed the surge [and] called for a speedy withdrawal from Iraq." In this regard, the selection of James Jones, the former Supreme Allied Command

Posted by Frank_Doric at 12/01/2008 @ 05:21am
Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 7:42pm

Titus 3:2, john.

or don't you read your Bible?

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 07:19am
But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change. -- JN *************************************************************

Wow! Talk about managing expectations down.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 08:31am
I have learned a sad lesson today, and that is . . . never do anything in anger."

Posted by ttr at 11/30/2008 @ 3:49pm

Wise counsel. I shall try to remember this when posting here.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 08:40am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 08:31am

Actually I found a lot of the "Hope" out there was also on the Republican side...

"hope" that McCain didn't "really mean it" on global warming...

"hope" that he wouldn't go back to "Maverick" on immigration or the Bush tax cuts...

"hope" (and this, you are personally familiar with DTT) that McCain would "step down" and Glacier Gidget would take over.

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 09:24am
Hi Caj. Cross your legs, your breath smells.

Posted by john lowell at 11/30/2008 @ 7:42pm

Ah, the intellectual that is johnlowell strikes again!

Posted by k330k at 12/01/2008 @ 10:24am
Posted by k330k at 12/01/2008 @ 10:24am

Again, looneylowell claims to be "Mr Christian"...hit him where it hurts.

Titus 3:2

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 10:36am
The rec[depr]ession is Obama's 9/11. He may and should be forgiven for prizing stablity over a more radical approach to policy decisions. I'd rather see Krugman as Eco-czar and Richardson as Secretary of State and it may be Obama would too. The whales in the room are forcing him to the center. Last time I looked he was still living in Chicago, so give him a break.

Posted by JFHill at 12/01/2008 @ 11:39am
Actually, once again it turns out that the propaganda from the right during the campaign was just so much hooey. I am not suprised AT ALL at this pick, slightly disappointed, but not suprised. Obama has been, and will always be, slightly, and I mean slightly, left-center. He is not a domestic terrosrist, not a Marxist, not a socialist.

I think Hillary is the first pick that is not about competence, but about politics. She has world reknown, but little experience running a large organization. I expect her to last 2 years, much of the last 10 months will be brutal for Obama, and us.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 12:23pm
BILL MANLEY

John Lowell will have problems living in the skin he has grwon for this forum, you see he is actually a con masquerading as a progressive. The Nation website seems to have grown a couple of these the last few months.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 12:28pm
Titus 3:2

Which version is the REAL God's word? I wold not want any confusion, lest the splitters show up.

International Standard Version (©2008)

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

King James Bible

American King James Version

American Standard Version

Bible in Basic English

Douay-Rheims Bible

Darby Bible Translation

English Revised Version

Webster's Bible Translation

Weymouth New Testament

World English Bible

Young's Literal Translation

Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 12:33pm
Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 12:33pm

Doesn't really matter, like most "Bible-believing right-wing Christians"...

looney will have an excuse for why that verse "doesn't apply to you guys!!!!"

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 12:54pm
We've been sold Corporate soap powder. The "new and improved" Brand D over Brand R... Vote for D! Vote for R! Both will make their Corporate masters big profits! Both will pal around with Zionist thugs! Ohhh... you "little people" complain too much... never mind that your views against the Corporate Agenda were right all along, never mind that your views against pre-emptive war were also right all along, we're going to do whatever we damned well please because your votes don't actually count anyway. Proportional Representation, you say? Bah! You must be silenced by being relegated to The Fringe, or painted to look like Conspiracy Theorists. Well, guess what, these aren't theories, they're reality. Jimmy Carter wasn't even allowed to speak at the DNC Convention in Denver... they took the mic away because of his views on the Palestinian situation. Yes, that's right, his own Party silenced him. We should have voted Green... it had the only candidate who wanted to hold the Corporatists accountable.

Posted by CitizenPain at 12/01/2008 @ 1:06pm
Just stopped by to see what's going on...

Not surprised by the HRC pick...saw it coming...

Re: Titus 3:2

I don't condone the ugly comment JohnL made at all, but in a blog such as this where debates are often and numerous, one can't be "meek" and expect to be taken seriously. That said, there is a right way and a wrong way to debate. Hurling insults is the *wrong way*, IMO.

Also remember, no one is perfect, not even the best Christian. (Even Jesus lost his temper with the money changers at the temple.) JohnL may or may not be a Christian, but tossing out a verse that says to not be quarrelsome is asking a bit much of anyone posting on a political site.

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 1:25pm
Instead of getting 8 more years of Bush with McCain, we got a total of 16 more years of the Clinton Administration. More "Free Trade" and the expansion of NATO into Russia's sphere of influence. We will have universal poverty and a return to the "Cold War". However, the Obama Administration will collapse in four years because the ongoing depression. We are looking at Hoover and not Roosevelt!

Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/01/2008 @ 1:42pm
In the election run-up, it was exciting reading the Nation. Now it's depressing. Pity.

Posted by mikecope at 12/01/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 1:25pm

But I'm sure johnlowell would have NO problem "tossing out a verse" that backed him up on his "pro-life" position or any other political position.

Seems sauce for the goose, jayne, to do the same.

BTW, YOU seem to be saying that you can set aside your religious beliefs, if it puts you at an unfair disadvantage!

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:10pm
"... but tossing out a verse that says to not be quarrelsome is asking a bit much of anyone posting on a political site."

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 1:25pm

How about tossing out verse or delving into religion in general, is irrelevant on a political site.

Unless we're discussing war, which is usually religious in origin.

Posted by Malcontent at 12/01/2008 @ 2:28pm
It's good to know that biblical teachings end at the internet(s).

The Bible seems to be like my new health benefit package. Flexible.

Posted by crabwalk at 12/01/2008 @ 2:32pm
^^^

Or discussing politics where the people pushing them are doing so because of their religion?

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:35pm
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:10pm

"But I'm sure johnlowell would have NO problem "tossing out a verse" that backed him up on his "pro-life" position or any other political position.

Seems sauce for the goose, jayne, to do the same."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the goose saying as I've never heard it before, but...as I said, I don't condone what he said in that post. A Christian quoting bible verses to back up his/her point of view is not the same as using someone else's religious book to nullify his/her point of view. Pointing out that Christians are human and make mistakes doesn't make their opinions any less valid than a non-Christian. Once again, I'm not using JL as an example of a Christian here, b/c I don't know him or his personal beliefs. If you don't mind me asking, are you a Christian, Mask?

"BTW, YOU seem to be saying that you can set aside your religious beliefs, if it puts you at an unfair disadvantage!"

Nope. What I'm saying here is that you can't be a doormat and expect to engage in a political debate. When the attack is personal, that's when I try (the keyword is try) to "turn the other cheek", but I don't believe Christians should be "meek" and stand to the side when they see something wrong. There is an appropriate reaction in such an event (once again, JL's reaction was not). Being "quarrelsome" just for the sake of it is different from standing up to injustice or oppression or genocide...etc.

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 2:37pm
How about tossing out verse or delving into religion in general, is irrelevant on a political site.

Posted by Malcontent at 12/01/2008 @ 2:28pm

One's politics and religion (or lack of) are undoubtedly intertwined. I think it may be impossible for most people to untangle the two.

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 2:45pm
I think Christians should leave their beliefs in their church and homes and keep said beliefs out of other people's lives.

Unless, of course, those "other people" want some christianity.

I don't suppose you agree with that, so many christians insist upon shoving their religion in the faces of others.

Sort of like that homosexual agenda LVLIBERTY is always talkin about!

Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:46pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/01/2008 @ 2:46pm

Assuming that post was directed at me:

What you're saying goes against the Christian teachings. If Christians "leave their beliefs in their church and homes and keep said beliefs out of other people's lives" they're not really Christian's at all. I don't propose they go door to door (as some do) or that they hold mandatory bible study for their employees (ridiculous), but being a Christian involves trying to live as a Christian in all aspects of one's life, including work, politics, personal relationships...

I have a couple of friends who are not Christians. They're people of faith, but not Christians. I don't try to "convert" them to my beliefs, but we don't hide those beliefs from one another either. There's a difference in being unashamed of one's beliefs and "shoving [one's] religion in the faces of others".

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 2:57pm
Unless we're discussing war, which is usually religious in origin.

Posted by Malcontent at 12/01/2008 @ 2:28pm

Perhaps you can give us a short overview of the religious origin of WWI, WWII, the Roman wars of Expanision into Europe and the Middle East, Alexander the Great, the Persian Wars of Conquest in the 5th and 6th Centuries BC; Mao and China's conquest of Mongolia and Tibet; Stalin and Eastern Europe; Pol Pot in Cambodia; the Vikings into England, Germany and Denmark; a thousand different wars in Africa; Hitler; Japan into China and the US;

When it comes to wars and genocide, as bad as various religions have been in this regard, they pale against secular efforts.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/01/2008 @ 3:09pm
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 2:10pm

Scene-1. Johnlowell puttering around the house stops dithering momentarily and sits down at his vintage "Tandy 1000" home computer. He softly sings his favorite old song as he waits for the ole' Tandy 1000 to bootup. Mouthing the words "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, guess I'll eat some worms"....

Posted by chaoszen at 12/01/2008 @ 3:24pm
Brilliant article, John.

You're absolutely right --- no one in this bipartisan, multiracial, multi-ideological, co-operative 'team' of supposed rivals is going to be out of step, for the simple reason that they are all (for the first time) working for the same ruling-elite 'corporate financial Empire', and it's crucially important that they not rock the boat if global hegemony is to be established and maintained.

Both the 'new' war-team, and the 'new' financial-team are indivisibly linked in the ruling-elite's plans for more overt Empire.

Per the "war cabinet" as the WSJ and Brit Hume on FOX TV call it --- Gen. James Jones is very instructive.

Jones happens to be the "president and chief executive of the United States Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy".

Jones's message is endorsed by the whole establishment board of COCI, including; Spencer ‘oily' Abraham, George ‘racist' Allen, Frank ‘Carlyle Group' Carlucci, Dr. Henry ‘war criminal' Kissinger, Dr. George ‘I gave you dubya' Shultz, and other assorted corporate/government crooks, in an Open Letter to the ‘changeable' new President Elect --- which advocates, what George Bush infamously termed, "whatever it takes", to keep their ruling-elite energy Empire:

http://www.uschamber.com/xxi/open_letter.html

The reason that the war-cabinet and the finance-cabinet are so key to what this global Empire is doing is that oil, money and war are just different sides of the Empire's pyramid scheme.

Oil and money are today the two-sides of global hegemony and power, while war is the means to monopolize both.

How many times, during this latest financial crisis, have we heard, "we must live within our means economically" and yet the 'corporate financial Empire' insists that certain crucial aspects of their ruli

Posted by amacd at 12/01/2008 @ 3:31pm
Obama is not "center/left" and never has been.

Before the election, I went to the Political Compass website and answered the questions in the questionaire. This assessment tool is based on the premise that there are four political tendencies rather than two (left/right) because there are those on both ends of the spectrum who are also authoritarian or libertarian. (A LEFT AUTHORITARIAN would be a Communist dictator.) It consists of pertinent questions concerning roles of business and government, and I found it to be quite comprehensive compared to surveys.

The only candidates who were outside the RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN quadrant were Ralph Nader (LEFT LIBERTARIAN), Dennis Kucinich (LEFT LIBERTARIAN, but not quite as far left as Nader), and Mike Gravel (RIGHT LIBERTARIAN).

Even Ron Paul was in the RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN quadrant, although he was close to the libertarian boundary. And he was also very, very far right. Mike Gravel was almost as far right.

Although still in the RIGHT AUTHORITARIAN quadrant, all the other Democratic candidates were mostly closer to the left and libertarian boundaries than the Republicans, with Edwards being the very closest to the center. Obama and Clinton were the same on the authoritarian scale (close to the boundary) with Obama to the left of Clinton. I believe the assessments were made not by direct answers the candidates made to the questions, but by how they vote and how they address the issues.

For the record, I fall on the -8.5 scale in both LEFT and LIBERTARIAN quadrants, making me to the left of and more liberal than Nader and Kucinich. So I'm not coming from a rightwing perspective here.

Anyone who truly followed the political news for the past few years had to know that Obama's views were hardly leftwing progressive.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 12/01/2008 @ 3:38pm
He has never claimed to be a "liberal" or "leftist." It's the neocons, warmongers, and wingnuts who have labeled him "the most liberal member of congress." And it's always been a crock.

Unfortunately, no liberal, progressive, leftwing, populist candidate is going to be nominated in this country at this time. It's just simply not going to happen, no matter how many Naders or McKinneys or Kuciniches try to run. I wish this were not true, but we are going to (at least to a degree)have to bite the bullet and accept the lesser of two evils. And perhaps hope that it's not as evil as we imagine.

I disagree with much of Obama's agenda, but anyone who thinks there's no difference between him and the rightwing loonies should imagine the world today if Gore had been in the White House for the past 8 years instead of the current Supreme Court appointed moron.

I can't say I'm disappointed in the trend toward the right as indicated by many of Obama's appointees, because it's pretty much what I expected, so I try to keep in mind the words of that great American philosopher, LBJ, who said, "It's better to have your enemies inside the tent pissing out than to have them outside the tent pissing in." (He also is supposed to have said someone was so stupid he couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the directions were written on the bottom. Another great line.)

Perhaps experience and a degree of competence are not the only or even best criteria for the government, but they surely beat incompetence, ideological loopiness, and a destructive agenda that benefits only the wealthy and powerful (when it benefits anyone).

I'm putting judgement on hold until I see how things go.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 12/01/2008 @ 3:38pm
Sorry about some of the typos - I cut and pasted this comment from one I posted on Alternet and tried to delete some words. I found the Political Compass questionaire much better than most of this type of survey. I hope that makes more sense than the sentence in my first post.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 12/01/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 2:37pm

Again, you seem to be all over the place, jayne. At once trying to defend lowell...and saying you aren't.

Titus 3:2 is quite clear. Now it seems if a Christian REALLY believes what it says (and won't make up rationaliations for it)....then they should act upon it and not use "Well, it's a blog...so I HAVE to be snippy and even insulting or lose my debate"...

is like saying "Well, it's the Napa Valley, and therefore if I get drunk off my ass at a few wine-tastings...I really can't be faulted for ignoring Proverbs 23:20-21 or Ephesians 5:18!"

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 3:48pm
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 3:48pm "Again, you seem to be all over the place, jayne. At once trying to defend lowell...and saying you aren't."

Once again Mask, I believe you're intentionally misreading my posts. I have repeatedly said I DO NOT condone JL's post. It was completely inapproriate and uncalled for. End of story. Period. How is that defending him?!

"Titus 3:2 is quite clear. Now it seems if a Christian REALLY believes what it says (and won't make up rationaliations for it)....then they should act upon it and not use "Well, it's a blog...so I HAVE to be snippy and even insulting or lose my debate"... "

I never said you have to be snippy or insulting. I said that we all do that at times because none of us are perfect...doesn't make it right. But in addition, I don't think we have to refrain from arguing on a blog where we debate issues. Meekness and debate do not mesh together. We can argue without getting nasty can't we? I think maybe you could choose a different bible verse to commentate on JL's nasty post.

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/01/2008 @ 3:58pm

See, jayne you SAY that...first it's

"I don't condone lowell's insulting behavior"...

then it's...

"But you know, Christians are perfect and being meek and debating don't mesh!"

Ergo, lowell just pushed it "a bit too far" for you, but otherwise you CAN ignore Titus 3:2 if it's "really necessary"?

Any other Bible passages we can ignore under the right circumstances?

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:55pm
Anybody think Bill will take Hillary's Senate seat? And if so how y'all feel about that?

Posted by chaoszen at 12/01/2008 @ 4:58pm
I think he might just do that, not too sure if he would be received as well as Hillary but who knows!!!

Posted by Caj at 12/01/2008 @ 5:22pm
"But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change."

Mr. Nichols, I really could kiss you for writing this sentence. Can we put it on a t-shirt, or stream it on the big jumbotron in Times Square? Becuase this truth needs to be spread ASAP.

Posted by gillian at 12/01/2008 @ 5:45pm
Darin still misses the constitutional point of equal protection.

Posted by Malcontent at 11/26/2008 @ 7:16pm

Eric, no I don't. Here's what I posted earlier in the thread: **************************************************************

Further, gays and lesbians are not barred from entering into opposite sex marraige. They are not discriminated against. They "enjoy" the same rights and priviledges as heterosexuals.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/25/2008 @ 5:18pm

A straight man can marry a gay woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman. a striaght man can marry a straigh woman, and a gay man can marry a straight woman.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:28pm **************************************************************

I've posted this dozens of times. Marriage laws don't say gay's can't marry. They DON'T say you can marry the person you love.

They say any umarried man past the age of majority can marry any unmarried woman past the age of majority who is not a blood relative.

You may think it is unfair that a hetero man can marry the person he loves but a gay man can't. I agree, that is unfair. But the law doesn't guarantee you can marry the person you love.

There is a world of difference between unfair and unconsitutional. I think it's unfair that I'm going to pay over $100,000 in taxes this year. I think it's unfair that my brother-in-law can eat anything he wants and never gains a pound. That's not the same as unconstitutional.

Britney Spears is an unmarried woman. Justin Timberlake can marry her and Elton John can marry her. They can both marry Rosie O'Donnell as well. That means that marriage laws do not discriminate against homosexuals.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 5:48pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 5:48pm

Did you find some blue tinged shrooms under that bridge of ignorance you reside in?

That post makes no sense whatever..

Posted by chaoszen at 12/01/2008 @ 7:13pm
Obama's vision of the future may not be the end of the world as evidenced by the people that he is selecting to accompany him on this "historic" journey...but you can see it from where he is standing today. You can't prepare a healthy meal with rotten ingredients. You can't solve problems if you don't know why they exist. You can't effect change if you keep on doing the same old things and expecting different results. And, you can't save your country if you don't recognize that a predatory military and its enormous budget is part of the problem, not a solution.

Posted by afrothetics at 12/01/2008 @ 7:17pm
<i>Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 5:48pm </i>

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges."

Anatole France

Posted by Thrawn at 12/01/2008 @ 7:30pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 5:48pm

Except for saying "it's against the law and that's that"....which was true of slavery and Jim Crow as well...

you have YET to point out why banning gays from marrying is "Constitutional", nor explain why the Repubs are having to push a "Federal Marriage Amendment" to make sure it ISN'T Constitutional???

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 8:07pm
Given the numerous negative responses above to the national security team selections by Obama, I was surprised (or not) to note that not one writer suggested any other individuals as alternatives for those positions.

Posted by RSP at 12/01/2008 @ 8:55pm
I'm giving him the benefit of doubt for now.

The main point, though, is what do WE do? I think we do the same thing we'd do if he was appointing a lot of progressive instead: we organize, we gather pressure, we state our goals, we prepare to MAKE him do what he may or may not want to do anyway. We become players he can't ignore. If he doesn't hear us we MAKE him hear us: we shout and organize and write and vote and demonstrate and lobby and all the time tell him and ourselves "Yes We Can!", and we do all this louder and more intelligently and more effectively and with greater numbers and greater votes than the non-change people he's surrounding himself with. We gave him the money, we gave him the votes, we gave him the organization, and we'll give him hell if he doesn't listen.

We'd have to do that anyway, since even if he was/is for the stuff we're for, he couldn't do it alone.

Posted by Jan Kees at 12/01/2008 @ 9:19pm
Posted by RSP at 12/01/2008 @ 8:55pm

A continuing problem here at "The Nation".

Probably because they know that even THEIR picks would be deemed "too centrist" for many of their readers.

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 9:19pm
Obama is a very slick politician. He got the liberals to think he was one of them. He inspired hope that "change" was more that just a marketing slogan. It wasn't. Now with his appointments, it is plain to see that he was always a Clinton Democrat. A servent of the Empire. And nothing will "change". I am so glad I voted for Nader.

Posted by philbq at 12/02/2008 @ 12:10am
Does anyone think the U.S. military is going to pull out of Iraq? There are four superbases out of town that are built to last. Obama is using weasel words to describe the remaining troops as necessary to protect American staff. It will be more than that. It will continue controlling the oilfields. Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. It was a lie. He surely would have voted for invading Iraq if he had been in the Senate. That's what the Establishment Democrats did, and he is one of them.

Posted by philbq at 12/02/2008 @ 01:37am
Nichols seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth.

What's really bizarre, as well, is that Sean Hannity ( I don't like him, but I listen on occasion) seems discomfited about Obama's latest picks for the odd reason that he ACTUALLY AGREES with some of his choices, as much as it pains him to admit. He was almost whining about it because he had to say something good. But when you read the above article, John seems to be saying that Obama isn't being liberal enough, and bitching a little in that sour grapes fashion usually attributable to conservatives.

Obama is difficult to paint into a corner right now. He's rope-a-doping everyone again, and I think he's making the right choices. Hard, controversial choices that will get him the best people, who, by the sheer audacity of his picks, will realize that maybe they really are the super A team, and maybe it's about time somebody did something to fix this country.

Posted by ficheye at 12/02/2008 @ 03:32am
Speaking of Clinton...

I've written of my regret over engaging in irrational Clinton hatred when he was President. And I mean it. However, it is neither hatred, nor irrational for me to observe that he does deserve a large share of the responsibility for this: **************************************************************

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php ?id=081201214432.rjut4n2u&show;_article=1

American teens lie, steal, cheat at 'alarming' rates: study

American teenagers lie, steal and cheat more at "alarming rates," a study of nearly 30,000 high school students concluded Monday.

The attitudes and conduct of some 29,760 high school students across the United States "doesn't bode well for the future when these youngsters become the next generation's politicians and parents, cops and corporate executives, and journalists and generals," the non-profit Josephson Institute said.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 08:56am
A straight man can marry a gay woman. A gay man can marry a gay woman. a striaght man can marry a straigh woman, and a gay man can marry a straight woman.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/26/2008 @ 1:28pm

you have YET to point out why banning gays from marrying is "Constitutional

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 8:07pm |

Mask read the first post. Why do you ask non-sequiturs? There are no laws banning gays from marrying. None. Zip. Nada. There is no law in America tha prohibits a gay man from marrying a woman.

I've written this dozens of times. There are no laws that prohibat a lesbian from marrying a man.

Please, type this sentence: "A gay man can marry a woman under the marriage laws in the US."

Then stop asking me about laws that don't exist.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 09:08am
Same request for Eric if he hasn't seen the post for him here:

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2008 @ 5:48pm

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 09:11am
Mask, is refusing to acknowledge reality a winning strategy for you?

It is plainly obvious to everyone on this board that a gay man can marry an unmarried woman.

And you think it's a winning argument to ask what is Constitutional about a law that prohibits gays from marrying?

Current laws prohibit a gay man from marrying the person he loves. That is also obvious, but acknowledging that is to acknowledge defeat because you know state marriage laws don't say a word about love. They only say unmarried and unrelated man and woman.

Would it kill you to admit that I am obviously right? Current laws are unfair and should be changed through the legislative process. That doesn't mean they are unconsitutional.

Admit it.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 09:22am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 09:08am

Darin, are you trying to be funny or deliberately obtuse?

Are there laws preventing a gay man from marrying...another man? Or a gay woman from marrying another woman?

If so...what Constitutional basis is there for that?

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 09:24am
We have been delaying gratification for over 40 years. How's that for patience?

Posted by boing007 at 12/02/2008 @ 11:17am
Are there laws preventing a gay man from marrying...another man? Or a gay woman from marrying another woman?

If so...what Constitutional basis is there for that?

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 09:24am

Well, technically no, but in practice yes.

The current marraige laws "authorize" or "permit" a man and woman to be issued a license to wed. They don't "prevent" gays from loving each other, they just can't be issued a marriage license (again, under current law).

The state's interest in "sanctioning" certain male/female relationships is that between 95% -100% of the next generation of taxpayers (children) are created in these unions. The standardized civil contract combined with existing marraige and family court law strenghten these unions, which research shows is beneficial to the children produced in these unions.

The State has thus demonstrated a compelling interest in strenghening the unions that PRODUCE 95%+ of all children. The fact that not all these types of unions produce children does not diminish the State's interest in strenghtening the unions that do PRODUCE children.

Since the state has a compelling interest to strenghten male/female relationships that MIGHT produce children, it is under no obligation to demand that all male/female unions MUST produce children. It is enough to not discriminate among who is eligible and gays and straights are both elegible and there is no discrimination.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:22pm
We have been delaying gratification for over 40 years. How's that for patience?

Posted by boing007 at 12/02/2008 @ 11:17am

The slaves delayed gratification for over 100 years. (Civil war 1865, Civil Right law passed 1964, fully effective sometime in 1980s-1990s.)

And slaves were 13% of the population as compared to 1% - 2%.

The fact that you are looking at cutting that time in half means you should count yourself lucky.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:24pm
We should have voted Green... it had the only candidate who wanted to hold the Corporatists accountable. Posted by CitizenPain at 12/01/2008 @ 1:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

shoulda? then we would be saying pres elect McCain. get a grip, people. whom do you think HE WOULD BE APPOINTING?

Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:27pm
It bears repeating, that the "gratification" boing007 is really referring to is societal acceptance. You might think marriage laws that equate your union with a male/female union is synonomous with societal acceptance, but it is not.

The acceptance you desire requires cultural change and cultures are harder to change than laws.

Changing marriage laws throught the legislative process will accelerate societal acceptance. Changing laws by having judges dictate to society that they have no business runing thier own affairs will retard societal acceptance.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:28pm
He surely would have voted for invading Iraq if he had been in the Senate.

woulda? and Saddam woulda reconstituted the weapons. this is just absurd.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:30pm
He surely would have voted for invading Iraq if he had been in the Senate.

woulda? and Saddam woulda reconstituted the weapons. this is just absurd.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:32pm
Do you think having a judge dictate law will force parents to accept gay children?

Will it force Rev. Fallwell to shut the hell up or will it give him an excuse to fundraise $500 million?

Will it force the neighborhood to invite gay couples to the annual picnic?

Will it force narrow minded Christians to stop telling their kids that the sinners will burn in hell so stay away?

Will it stop jokes about AIDS or anal sex?

No. Fight for acceptance, not empty gestures from judges favoring the underdog.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:33pm
Okay, Mask.

It's my turn to turn the tables on you. What is the State's compelling interest in strengthening loving relationships?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:38pm
Sorry, meant to say monogomous, human to human loving relationships? Why isn't a person and a dog discrimination? Why isn't a man and 26 women discrimination?

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:39pm
let's play a little game. whom would pres eelect MCCain be appointing? c'mon, this could be fun.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:39pm
Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 12:39pm

What blows my mind is the fact that Hillary may be Sec Of State rather than trying to take Harry Reid's job as Majority leader.

It makes absolutely no sense to me. The level and duration of power between the two positions is huge.

I definitely lost that bet.

Posted by Benchrest at 12/02/2008 @ 12:51pm
What blows my mind is the fact that Hillary may be Sec Of State rather than trying to take Harry Reid's job as Majority leader.

sec of state is a sure thing.

Posted by emile duBois at 12/02/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:55pm

-->See, jayne you SAY that...first it's

"I don't condone lowell's insulting behavior"...

then it's...

"But you know, Christians are perfect and being meek and debating don't mesh!"<--

That's incorrect quoting again Mask. Shame on you ;) I distinctly said that Christian's AREN'T perfect. Maybe that was a typo on your part...

I specifically said JL was wrong to have posted that, but I hold to the belief that it's okay to argue in a debate format. Titus 3:2 isn't saying we can't disagree with anyone. It's saying we shouldn't be hostile to others. As the saying goes, "blessed be the peacemaker". There are also peaceful ways to voice ones disagreements and I believe debate can be a healthy way to do that. Your interpretation of that particular verse is very narrow for someone who seems to be so open-minded about many things. Could that be because a narrow interpretation better suits your purpose...something I'm sure you'd say people opposed to gay marriage are doing when they quote from the bible?

-->Ergo, lowell just pushed it "a bit too far" for you, but otherwise you CAN ignore Titus 3:2 if it's "really necessary"?

Any other Bible passages we can ignore under the right circumstances?<--

Once again...I never said any of those things. Are you purposely misquoting me or does what I write somehow translate that way in your mind? I did however suggest that Titus 3:2 is not a good representation of what we find wrong with JL's post. I'm sure you could find a verse that is, but perhaps that's too much trouble? I guess it is easier to throw out a bible verse about meekness when you don't display the quality yourself, regardless of your beliefs.

Posted by jayneslilsis at 12/02/2008 @ 1:01pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 12:38pm

I don't think the state has ANY compelling interesting in marriage.

But as long as marriage licenses are in existance, you CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY deny them on the basis of their gender.

You issue a marriage license to two adults...by the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment, you have to issue it to ANY two adults, or you are discriminating on the basis of their gender.

Again, aside from "It's the law, so that's that", you've made no argument.

Your "children argument" is flawed as well, since it would mean the State should ALSO take PUNITIVE action against those couples which have children without marriage. Otherwise, what "good" is the "Marriage is licensed by the State to support children" argument?

Besides just being dopey, since with 50% divorce rates, nothing about marriage means that "the kids are alright".

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 1:32pm
But you know, Christians are perfect and being meek and debating don't mesh!"

Ergo, lowell just pushed it "a bit too far" for you, but otherwise you CAN ignore Titus 3:2 if it's "really necessary"?

Any other Bible passages we can ignore under the right circumstances?

Posted by Mask at 12/01/2008 @ 4:55pm

I've corrected your misuse of this passage previously.

While indeed we are to be as loving and kind as possible to everyone, including nonbelievers, the passage doesn't say not to speak evil. Actually it says not to slander anyone. This is further borne out not only by the common use of the greek word at the time, but it's usage elsewhere in the NT. The greek word used here is not that which is normally used in the NT (poneros which is evil in action and kakos which is evil in character); here the word blasphemo is used; hence to speak slander or blasphemy against someone.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 2:19pm
"the passage doesn't say not to speak evil."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 2:19pm

Titus 3:2 "To speak evil of no man..." King James Version of the Holy Bible

Okay, LL, I'm stuck. Do I believe you or the "Word of God"?!?!?!??!?

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 2:48pm
Okay, LL, I'm stuck. Do I believe you or the "Word of God"?!?!?!??!?

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 2:48pm

You're not stuck, you are simply ignoring the etymology, the semantics, and the hermeneutics involved. I gave the the various usages and the greek words used in the original text.

I gave you what the Word of G-d says rather than what one set of translators used to convey that meaning. They used a general meaning rather than the specific one that was actually given.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 2:53pm
I gave you what the Word of G-d says rather than what one set of translators used to convey that meaning.---Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 2:53pm

Well, technically, LL, you gave me what YOU SAY "the Word of God says rather than what one set of translators used to convey that meaning".

Now, why is your view right and those translators' view wrong?

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:06pm
Besides just being dopey, since with 50% divorce rates, nothing about marriage means that "the kids are alright".

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 1:32pm

First of all, about 2/3 of all first marriages end in death (in the US). Of the 1/3 that get divorced, most remarry and about 1/2 of those divorce. Of those many remarry and many of those divorce.

So one-third of "married people" create 100% of all divorces.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 4:26pm
Now, why is your view right and those translators' view wrong?

Posted by Mask at 12/02/2008 @ 4:06pm

Because a translator uses what seems the best fit for those he is translating for. the 1611 King James translators felt that evil fit the general meaning well enough for those who would read it.

That is why hermeneutics is so vital to biblical understanding. That is also why for instance the NIV, the New American Standard, and the New Living Translation all correctly show this verse as slander or malign rather than the generic "evil".

Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/02/2008 @ 4:27pm
Second, when marriage laws were written, divorce was almost impossible. That's why stars went to Nevada to get divorced where it was a lot easier.

The state's interest in marriage was that you should go into it with the expectation that it will be life-long. The only reason the state cared was because this is what was best for children. Having a culture that promotes life-long (opposite sex) pair bonding is best for producing healthy, emotionally well adjusted children.

Third, your suggestion that the State would need to punish couples who didn't have children is fucking retarded. Not everyone is capable. And of those not capable, they didn't always know it when they got married.

Here's where you demonstrate your inability to understand English. I didn't say the state's interest was to maximize the number of children born, I said of the children born, a life long pair bonding of biological parents is, statistcally speaking, the environment that maximize the probability of producing healthy, emotionally well adjusted children into adults. Because of death or abusive individuals, that's not always the case, but the state's interest is in promoting healthy children, not the maximum number of children.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/02/2008 @ 4:34pm