http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Obama_Islamic_Speech/2008/12/04/158308.html?utm_medium=RSS

Something like this wouldn’t have happened under Bush or Hilary.

It is a wise move. Reach out from the start.

With another enlightened article calling on Obama not to do a Bush:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1043345.html

Again Hilary wouldn’t have endeared such a call and neither would have McCain. Lets see if he is up to this.

I didn’t/don’t get the choice and I’m rather pessimistic when it comes to Clinton in the MidEast & South Asia, yes.

But hey, we’ve all seen pigs fly (or, for those among us who are Muslims, seen sheep fly) … so we’ll see.

Btw, my comment was sarcastic. I know how positions in a U.S. gov’t are filled. But if you look at the past choices … then you see that SecState is not a position where you put someone ’cause you want them in your gov’t. SecState is one of the few positions where, usually, you put someone who will be good in the job, in this case on the international terrain.

And if Obama and his team think that, out of the many people that were available, Hillary Clinton is the best, then I hope they have some secret plan that nobody knows about just yet.

‘Cause from where I’m standing (MidEast & Europe), she’s got a very bad rep. And that matters.

–MSK*

Not just now! That post is regarded as one of the most important that a President Elect can make and such appointments are profound political statements. Whether they should be or not is another question – Obama has to take it as he finds it.

In a presidential system, having any cabinet secretary become a source of criticism for the president is seen as a bad thing. This is even more so with a very high profile cabinet post. There is nothing at all wrong per se with making an appointment with one eye on the politics.

Whether Clinton is a success or otherwise, time will tell – though I get a faint sense you may have made your mind up already?

wow – who ever said Al Qaeda were not liberals and broadminded.

justforfun

The choice of SecState is now to be based on whether or not that person is liked among Americans?

That’s an odd logic …

I always thought SecState needs to be effective in foreign affairs.

Just my two pennies.

–MSK*

I wasn’t against this, I was just waiting to see whether she would embrace him after defeat and she did.

Rumbold – heh. Change? Obama is change. I don’t expect the administration to be highly different – after all you want to surround yourself with competent people who have experience of Washington. As long as Plouffe and Jarrett are around, I’m happy.

Obama: “Guys, how are we going to deal with Clinton”

Obama: “WTF? Get her a plane ticket now, she’s my new Sec of State!!”

Clinton less obviously applaudable, but it ties together an awkward appointment with an awkward opponent who’ll now spend much of her time abroad, so it’s an understandable bit of pragmatism. She’s not evil, just a particular type of US elite liberal.

Clinton always struck me a clearly quite evil.

Don’t you get it? Because the man’s shit don’t stink. He can do NO wrong!

Why do I get the feeling that if Obama had failed to appoint Clinton and Republicans to the cabinet you would have lauded this as a clear example of the President-elect’s willingness to sweep away the old order and enact his mandate of change in a masterful way?

Apart from Clinton, these do seem like good appointments.

it demonstrates that being non-partisan and willing to embrace ‘enemies’ also has strategic benefits.

Lol yeah but kinda obvious though aint it?!

I’m still not clear on Hillary Clinton as SecState. Why do you think that she is an “excellent” choice?

Thanks.

–MSK*