2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat is Hillary saying when she announces that she is putting the white house
on notice? Who is she to do that? What does she mean? It comes off as not only arrogant but as some sort of weird threat. Is she hinting that she's going to do an about face and after vociferously supporting it, she's going to oppose it?
daleanime
(17,796 posts)to provide some cover for herself.
global1
(25,168 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)HassleCat
(6,409 posts)1. (my interpretation) Come on, already. I have a campaign to run here, and this pipeline crap is getting in the way of my ascendency to the throne.
2. (a kinder interpretation) This is an issue in which I invested a lot of time and energy. It would be in the best interests of the nation to have a decision sooner rather than later.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Thats what she means
triangulation ring a bell?
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)She has said that she would withhold judgement until they made a decision.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)do candidates for the WH have to wait for a current administration to make decisions before THEY tell the voters what their positions are?
I don't remember ever hearing this before.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)I don't know if you work, but if you do, do you publicly proclaim that your boss is right or wrong about something? It's an unusual situation, but it looks like it will be cleared up soon.
cali
(114,904 posts)to spin it. He is not her boss.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)She is letting the WH know that she will announce a position soon. This gives them the opportunity to go first. It's basic courtesy.
Your OP is another example of the anti-Hillary brigade looking for anything to attack her on. If she drank a Pepsi some people here would be worked up that it wasn't a Coke.
cali
(114,904 posts)trusted advisor? Why not just say that out of respect for Obama she's waiting until he makes a decision instead of employing the tough talk and tough attitude toward the President?
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)It is a non-issue.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Thanks for that contribution.
Unknown Beatle
(2,672 posts)all the baggage, her friendship with wall st. and big banks, her flip flopping on issues, her lies, after all that and you still believe anything she has to say?
Before you say what lies? She said she and Bill were flat broke when they left the white house. Wow! What a whopper.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Time to pile on and look tough. Good politics.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)in being elected? Just my guess.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yet Clinton happily said what she'd do about these ongoing situations.
If it is terrible to undermine her former boss via giving a Keystone XL answer, why is it not terrible to undermine her boss on other foreign policy issues?
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)That's her point.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And there's several other "not settled" situations where Clinton has not backed the Obama administration.
So if she can answer those not-settled questions, why can't she answer this not-settled question?
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)She was going to let Obama go first.
Policy wise, the other matters are settled. There is a strategy right or wrong.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)requiring a constantly changing strategy. Russia just sent troops to Syria, for example. That makes it a drastically different situation. Yet Clinton is not letting Obama "go first" on anything other than Keystone XL.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Things constantly change. That doesn't relate to her previous job.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Really. Did you think she worked at a Starbucks or something?
Again, there's only one issue where she lets Obama go first: Keystone XL. She is not doing that on any other subject.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)"The Secretary of State is a senior official of the federal government of the United States of America heading the U.S. Department of State, principally concerned with foreign affairs and is considered to be the U.S. government's equivalent of a Minister for Foreign Affairs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_State
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Also, obvious sarcasm is obvious. To anyone who isn't desperately spinning.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)how she still was happy to comment.
You responded:
So....how exactly does foreign policy and its changing nature not relate to her previous job?
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)Things change and the current state of things doesn't relate directly to her previous job. They relate to the job she wants.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We were talking about foreign policy, and how she happily comments on the current state of things in foreign policy.
And then you claimed that didn't relate to her previous job.
Which makes absolutely zero sense. Especially since the entire point of commenting or not commenting is her previous job.
frylock
(34,825 posts)hunh....
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)But I guess it puts the WH the chance to go first. Avoids the breathless headlines about "what is Obama going to do now that Hillary made a statement".
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)instead of making a point of doing it publicly.
I think came across to me as a lame attempt to look 'presidential', by calling-out
Obama on it; implying they are 'equals' i.e. that she'll BE the next POTUS.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)issue and she's turning to Obama to be the bad guy. She's dumping it on him without having a public position that will displease her masters.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)The popular opinion is to oppose it. She could easily do that herself. This makes more sense if she's going to take a different stance. There is really no bad guy here unless one of them comes out for it.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)But then there would be the dramatic questions about whether she consulted Obama. At least now everyone knows what's going on. There is no implication of being equals or presumption of victory. But the great thing about Hillary is that her opponents will always find something to criticize her about.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)But maybe it's just me.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't think she is going to use e-mail to do anything like that for a long, long time, if ever again.
840high
(17,196 posts)where a candidate stands.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)I applaud your naivete.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)What is it with her?
But you raise a good point with the threat aimed at the WH. It's almost as if she was saying, "Barack, if you don't step up, I am going to start running this party and this country. There will be no lame duck between now when I officially move into the White House."
The arrogance paired with the refusal to take positions is a horrible combination for a candidate or a president.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I was thinking she might fake it and be "above the fray" Hillary but I think we may get angry Hillary at the first debate-
Should be GREATNESS!
If you thought you had the nomination in the bag 10 years ago would you be a little miffed
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)She's been running for president since Bubba's first term. Not even Richard Nixon ran for POTUS that long.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)ANYONE who stands between a Clinton, ANY Clinton, and what they think is theirs.
unblock
(51,974 posts)in an alpha sort of way.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)means, you'll have to check the weather vane below every 10 minutes or so to determine that at any given time.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)And justifiably so.
Though I kinda like this one too:
Mass
(27,315 posts)tough.
global1
(25,168 posts)azmom
(5,208 posts)TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)I read that her attorney, Kendall, was ordered by the State Dept. to delete emails that held classified info, which may have been an illegal order, especially since Kendall had been told by investigators NOT to delete or destroy anything on the thumb drive he held.
Darb
(2,807 posts)her getting in the middle of it. But she would appreciate it if they would make an announcement because she keeps getting badgered by both the teabag types and the Bernie people.
Duh.
cali
(114,904 posts)her dodging this issue. And as for your transparent and clumsy attempts to link tea partiers to Sanders supporters?
pfft.
Renew Deal
(81,802 posts)And as we've seen from Liberty, there is common ground to be found.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)Note that - as Obama works to defeat ISIS - HRC did not hesitate in teh J.J. Goldberg Atlantic interview, argue that Obama was wrong not to have taken the more aggressive plane of arming rebels that she and Petraeus argued for -- even arguing that doing that would have meant that ISIS would not have been created. (Ignoring that a large proportion of them were Iraqi Sunnis (or Syrian Sunnis) who were part of Saddam Hussein's forces. )
Note when the Obama administration makes at statement, she will still either agree or disagree. (This question of approving or not approving really has no split the difference answer.) This is just pushing that point off. Oddly, a weird but interesting strategy is to take the OPPOSITE side. You never know what would have happened had the other choice been made -- thus you can argue that it clearly would not have had any down sides of the side taken.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)And here we have it. Another smear from a Hillary surrogate helping her in her dirty tricks campaign. Dick Nixon had nothing on Hillary Rodham. She must have learned it while she was twirling her tassles as a Goldwater Girl.
840high
(17,196 posts)what she thinks or says.
karynnj
(59,475 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 18, 2015, 03:00 PM - Edit history (1)
wanted them to. She created a process and assigned an industry leaning group to evaluate the environmental impact. Their task was DEFINED as assuming that pipeline or no pipeline, the same amount of dirty oil comes out of the earth -- thus that contribution to global warming "doesn't count". Right before she left office, that report came out -- and it -- no surprise - couldn't find an environmental impact! Kerry set up a process to get public opinion - and when a lot came in - extended the process -- again and again. (There was also a Nebraska case that both extended the time and changed the route.)
Clearly, what HRC likely intended to happen was that her successor would, given the SD environmental study, sign off on it - and that Obama (who had approved the construction of the lower piece) would use that as cover. This would have been nearly 3 years before a HRC run - and depending where the public was -- it would then either have been her good work lining up a comprehensive study that enabled this Job (yeah - all 5 of them) program to go forward --- or John Kerry's fault for enabling an environmental nightmare. (After all, unlike the Clintons since Arkansas days, he never thought of the environment.) (If needed - Kerry is a life long environmentalist. )
cali
(114,904 posts)for political purposes a reversal of her support for it would be.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Plus IMHO uttering a PUBLIC statement adds an extra- bizarre (or tacky) twist.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She's all over the planet, with stuff she says...that Weathervane is spinning like it's in a storm.
All this crap (what she says, all of her Attack Dogs spewing bullshit, all the private/invitation only money grubbing, lack of virtually any public appearances, etc.) has turned me off once and for all...period.
She would be a mess in the White House.
GitRDun
(1,846 posts)It was a nice break while it lasted.
Maybe it would be best to just assume she supports Keystone unless she says so otherwise.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's kabuki theater.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=604544
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
This graphic says that there is a "crime unit" investigating Hillary and Obama over Keystone. That is a right wing smear.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Sep 18, 2015, 03:06 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This alert makes no sense. Are we supposed to believe a RW source is smearing Hillary for pushing something the RW wants and that Friends of the Earth is a RW source?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post is a collage of pictures and text. There is no assertion of criminality, or possible criminality.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Thanks for the heads-up and for your vote.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Pretty much what I said in my comments.
You're an AtomicKitten. I'm a Nuclear Unicorn. We're practically blood relations.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)the less success they have with them.
Someone's getting a 24 hour alert timeout.
TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)Truth hurts
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The alert button is FAR too easy to push, in my opinion
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)In fact, I even learned something new when I looked at it this time.
DLA Piper (about two thirds of the way down the graphic on the left side) just happens to be Hillary's No. 3 contributor. Only people from Citigroup (No. 1) and Goldman-Sachs (No. 2) have given her more money during her career.
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)the fucking arrogance of this candidate is breath taking.
Gman
(24,780 posts)She's a former cabinet member. In the world of decent people you give your former boss some kind of notice so you don't end up making him look bad. It's called professional courtesy. You should look it up. For that matter, "courtesy" is there to be looked up too.
cali
(114,904 posts)That's nothing but an excuse, and there was nothing in her comment that reflected courtesy toward the President. Publicly announcing that you're putting the President on notice is far from courtesy.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Actually, Bernie made his position clear without Obama being made the heavy or the bad guy. She won't because she's for it. Before she was against it. Depending of course on what the meaning of 'is' is. ibid. op sit. infinitum.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)she has a line to the president any time she wants to talk to him. The fact that she's doing this on purpose publicly is because she's posturing, and she's posturing because she's probably for Keystone but doesn't want to say so and is putting it off as long as possible, because she knows as soon as we all know she is for a major environmental polluting project that won't even bring jobs to this country her numbers will tank even more.
frylock
(34,825 posts)She may as well have come right out and called Obama and Kerry wimps.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)what she and her husband did.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)people
(612 posts)VP Biden came out against the Keystone pipeline in 2013! I have no idea why Hillary is doing this, but it comes across really badly -- like posturing and almost coy. Very odd. I am sure she is very smart and is a good mom and grandma, but . . . . . She almost always sounds wooden and scripted. Her real opinions are just too close to Wall Street and too in favor of wars for me. Sanders is SUCH a breath of fresh air.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)agreed. comes across as arrogant and...wierd. Like she's tired of waiting on slowpoke Obama or something.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And removes it from the policy discussion Asa done deal. She could either agree or disagree, depending on which choice works best politically.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)She's telling them they better make a decision on Keystone or she will have no choice but to give a direct answer.
The very idea that her position on ANYTHING will no long be unknown and be part of the record has the folks in the White House waking in a cold sweat in the wee hours of the night.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)and we all know the whole fucking world revolves around HER!
I'm guessing the reaction in the WH is something like
Well, Im hoping that's the reaction anyway.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)She is scared of upsetting Obama's base by publicly disagreeing with, or contradicting him.
How long has Keystone been an issue? And she still has 'no position' on it? I used to think she was tough, but lately she seems scared of her own shadow.
Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)She doesn't have to. The American Public has demonstrated so far that they prefer Hillary by making her first in the polling. Even without her ever uttering hardly a single word about policy or issue.
Of course, that polling discounts the fact that half the country still has not had the opportunity to hear of Senator Sanders or his positions on the issues.
But Hillary is the big winner in the horse race so far . . . so why put the good of the country before her own self-interests?
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)allows a white candidature to inform a black president he is "ON Notice."
840high
(17,196 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)What else?
Samantha
(9,314 posts)In reality it means nothing.
Sam
delrem
(9,688 posts)but she's a hotshot who can put the white house and the current President of the US on notice, that they'd better get their act together because she's coming, and she's IMPORTANT. More important than they are.
And her focus groups have come up with a sound byte for her - that she can of course immediately ignore once she's rightfully elected President.
Because if anyone doesn't already know what Hillary Clinton represents - in terms of fracking, war, banking and economic and war pillaging, then they're brain dead.