Did you see how red Joe Biden got? Talk about loose lips sink ships.

Jill Biden said on the Oprah show that she wanted her husband to be vice president instead of secretary of state, chiefly because it would involve less travel.

"If you're secretary of state, you'll be away, we'll never see you, you know," she said, describing how she and her husband had talked about it.

"I'll see you at a state dinner once and awhile. But I said, if you are vice president, the entire family, because they worked so hard for the election, they can be involved. They can come to our home. They can go to events, they can be with us all the time. And that's what's important to us," she said.

Biden, seated at his wife's side, looked sheepish and tried to shush his wife after she made the remark.

Via / ABC News and Reuters

February 24: VwV was launched in February of 2008 and one of our first posts was titled, “After Fidel, Cuban bloggers discuss US candidates.” The post compiled Cuban bloggers thoughts on what the new U.S. president would do with the new leader of Cuba and so Obama’s infamous “without pre-conditions” line began, which haunted him throughout the campaign.

March 21: After videos of Obama’s reverend were brought to the public, the now President-elect delivered, arguably, one of the most memorable speeches in history on racism. VwV’s post, “World moved by Obama’s speech on race,” highlights what bloggers throughout the world had to say after hearing Obama’s thoughts on race.

April 17: As the first African-American president of the U.S., it was crucial for VwV to get the thoughts of African bloggers on Obama. In the post titled, “A letter from Africa,” bloggers throughout the large continent shared their opinions on the then, Democratic contender for nomination.

June 9: As America’s summer heated up, so did the presidential campaign but throughout the world. In the post, “Global: The world has a say!” VwV’s editor compiled a list of Web sites that allowed non-Americans to vote who they think is best for the states.

June 19: The rapid growth of technology played a major role in the 21st century presidential campaign. In the post, “Global: I’m voting Republican” covers what world bloggers thought about a controversial film by Charlie Steak.

August 29: This was the day the world was introduced to Sarah Palin – the governor of the U.S. state closest to Russia and John McCain’s Republican running mate. Without much information about the Republican VP pick, bloggers simply commented about McCain’s pick being a woman as compiled in the post, “The world reacts to Sarah Palin’s VP nomination.”

October 10: Race was not only prevalent on the Democratic campaign trail but also on the Republican, as rallies became heated. The post, “Racism on the Republican Trail?” includes just a few of the comments that were fluttering through the blogosphere about remarks made during Republican rallies.

October 24: The rise of technology returns with the post, “Dear American Voter: an international persepective.” The post covers Link TV’s project that allowed non-Americans to send letters to American voters via videos. The post includes just some of the prevalent thoughts of the voices without votes.

November 4: Mainstream media outlets weren't the only ones covering “breaking news.” As soon as word got out that Dixville, New Hampshire, was the first county to close their polls and count their votes, the blogosphere was on it. This post, “Dixville notch makes global blogosphere history” quotes the excitement of some bloggers and skepticism of others.

November 9: And, after it was all said and done…bloggers began to look back and analyze how Obama ran a successful campaign. In the post, “Social media and the making of the president,” analyses were offered by bloggers in three different countries of how social media played such a major factor in the campaign.

On the lighter side of the campaign, our silliest moments include: Tina Fey as Sarah Palin; Sarah Palin’s conversation with “Sarkozy;” And, Joe the unlicensed plumber.

“Madame Clinton is a good friend of Afghanistan, a close friend of ours,” Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta said. “But if somebody believes that our government, the government of President (Hamid) Karzai is involved as a government entity in the production of drugs, this is absolutely wrong.”

Clinton also descibed the Afghan government as highly “corrupt,” which did not charm her Afghan counterpart either.

The real problem, Spanta told the Associated Press, is that the Afghan government is not in control of Helmand province. This province is one of the most violent of the country. The Taliban are still strong in Helmand where they encourage farmers to produce opium. Part of the opium money is used by the Taliban to buy weapons and influence.

“The main production center of drugs is Helmand, and we are not in charge. Helmand (is) not under control of my government,” Spanta said. “If the international community is serious about fighting drug production and drug trafficking, they have to bring Helmand under our control.”

He added that Kabul only controls the province’s capital and some “islands” of territory around the rest of the region.

There are two sides to Clinton’s remarks; firstly, Afghanistan is a narco-state because the far majority of the world’s opium is produced in this war-torn country. Secondly, the other side of the story is that the Afghan government is no promoting opium production. It has in the past been willing to destroy opium farms but it simply lacks the strength and means to a sizeable part of the country’s opium farms.

Clinton and Spanta should both also keep in mind that opium is the only product farmers in Afghanistan can grow and make a profit. The country is nearly unfriendly to human life. Farmers are not growing poppy because they want to but because they have no alternative.

Rather than destroying these farms and taking their livelihood away from Afghan farmers, Kabul and Washington have to use Afghanistan’s opium for medical purposes. World opium and medicine organizations and businesses have long complained that they cannot get their hands on enough opium for medicinal purposes. Using Afghanistan’s opium for these purposes would help the world and Afghanistan itself.

Lastly, although Afghanistan is the world’s number one opium producing country, Clinton should express herself more carefully. She is no longer campaigning; she will be America’s secretary of state, which means that she will have to improve the country’s relationship with enemies and friends. Insulting them is not helpful.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation's top diplomat to keep Clinton's nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.

An obscure section on compensation for public officials, the Emoluments Clause, says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term.

In other words, Clinton, D-N.Y., might have been ineligible to serve in the post because she was serving in Congress when Rice's salary was raised to its current level of $191,300. So late Wednesday, the House and Senate quietly rolled the secretary of state's salary back to $186,600, its level in January 2007 when Clinton began her second Senate term.

A steep descent brings Clinton's plane to Charleston's hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane's wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.

The Senate alone — to say nothing of the House — is literally filled with people whose fathers or other close relatives previously held their seat or similar high office (those links identify at least 15 current U.S. Senators — 15 — with immediate family members who previously occupied high elected office).  And, of course, the current President on his way out was the son of a former President and grandson of a former U.S. Senator.

I think Greenwald brings up a good point, and he’s not the only one.

Greenwald points out other recent examples:

In Illinois, a leading contender to replace Barack Obama in the Senate is Jesse Jackson’s son (Jesse, Jr.).  In Delaware, it was widely speculated that Joe Biden would be replaced by his son, Beau, and after Beau took his name out of the running because he’s now serving in Iraq, the naming of the actual replacement — lone-time (Joe) Biden aide Ted Kaufmann — “upset local Democrats who believe the move was a ham-handed attempt to engineer the election of Biden’s son, Beau, to the Senate in 2010.”

Meanwhile, in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed by her father to take his seat in the U.S. Senate when he became Governor, yesterday warned Sarah Palin not to challenge her in a 2010 primary, a by-product of tension between those two as a result of Palin’s defeat of Lisa’s dad for Governor.  In Florida, Mel Martinez’s announcement that he won’t seek re-election in 2010 immediately led to reports that the current President’s brother, Jeb, might run for that seat.  And all of that’s just from the last couple of weeks.

Like I said, it’s not just Greenwald seeing the problem.  Andrew Sullivan:

From a distance, it’s more obviously corrupt than up close. I mean: what are the odds that of all the people who could edit Commentary, the son of the former editor ends up in charge? It’s not entirely a function of the right, of course. The Kennedys were as bad.

Jane Hamsher @ FireDogLake:

She’s proven she can kill an unflattering story and pull strings to get Rupert Murdoch’s kid into private kindergarten, so she’s no stranger to exercising power.  But I’ll feel a bit better about the idea of another Senator Kennedy when she hits the road in upstate New York, presses the flesh with voters, listens to their concerns, answers their questions and proves she can stand up to the rigors of the campaign trail.

The problem is not so much the children of former politicians following in their parents/uncles/aunts/significant other’s/grandparents (because eventually they’d have to run on their own merits), but getting into a position just because they’re the son/niece/nephew/grandchild/significant other of a former Senator/Representative/Governor.  Which is what would happen if Caroline Kennedy would be appointed to the Senate.  Or if Beau Biden took his father’s seat.  Or if Jesse Jackson, Jr. took Obama’s seat.

There’s of course an argument that being a relation of a former politican makes it easier to get into office due to name recognition.  There is some merit to that point.  It was one that’s been leveled against Clinton at times over the past eight years.  After all, if her husband hadn’t been president, could she have gotten into office so quickly?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

The idea of another Clinton presidency eight years after the last was one of my arguments against her winning the primary.  If it were the case that she’d have won, I’d rather have seen McCain as president, bringing in a fresh face to the office, rather than a potential 28 years of a Bush-Clinton duopoly.  Not the only reason, of course, but it was quite a weighty one for me.

The idea of so many political dynasties being established (apart from the ones already in existance) may underline a problem in American politics.  We may not have a nobility in this country.  No House of Lords here.  But the idea that someone could get into office at least partially based on name recognition is a problem.  The fact we keep seeing many of the same names in politics is another, though it’s the weaker issue of the two.

If they can in on their own merits, then fine.  That is, after all, the American dream.  Working your way up to success.  But if someone is trying to use the position their relative had in order to attain power of their own, do they have any place ascending to an elected position?

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

Clinton's presidential campaign committee sent an e-mail to supporters on Thursday, inviting them to participate in a conversation with the former first lady in New York City on Monday, Dec. 15, which will feature special guest Bill Clinton and will be hosted by America Ferrera, the "Ugly Betty" star who first announced her support for Clinton in January 2008 and campaigned for her in Nevada and Pennsylvania.

Post extendido - Leer más 'Ugly Betty Really Wants Clinton in Obama White House'...

"There are many ways around this problem," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin noted. "One is for Congress to vote a lower salary. Another way is for Hillary Clinton simply to accept a lower salary. Another way is simply to ignore the problem on the idea that no one has the right, has the standing, to sue to stop her from being secretary of state.

An interesting discussion with former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on culture, politics, parties, Clinton, America, and more.

Will Obama resist Zionist pressure and reveal his progressive side on Israel? Writing from the US, Antony Loewenstein isn’t optimistic

I’m currently in the US on a book tour and I’ve been struck by the ubiquitous belief that Obama will soon reveal his progressive side. He’s yet to assume office but that he’ll be a conservative Democrat on foreign policy is denied by realists and dreamers alike.

A few nights ago at the New York Public Library I attended a fascinating discussion between former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Avraham Burg and historian Omer Bartov. Burg says that Israel must get past its Holocaust mentality in order to achieve a lasting peace in the region. He fears that this is unlikely to be achieved on current trends. A longer report on the evening by my friend, blogger and writer Phil Weiss, is here.

Burg’s new book, The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From its Ashes, expands these arguments thoroughly. The debate was both necessary and illuminating, not least because it revealed the paucity of thinking in the Zionist establishment.

Burg, a religious Jew who has spent most of his adult life immersed in the Zionist movement, now wants an honest appraisal of the damage this ideology has wreaked on his country and the Palestinians. “We’re so traumatised by the memories [of the Holocaust]“, he said, “and maybe we’ll never get over it. Maybe a nation can’t get past it.”

“We monopolise suffering,” he continued. “Holocausts only happen to us. We must be more generous to others. The Holocaust must be removed from nearly daily use and manipulation in Israeli society.”

Burg and Bartov talked excessively about “utopian” ideas for Israel and barely mentioned the Palestinians. It was a glaring omission - although when asked, Burg said he believed the window for a two-state solution had virtually shut, leaving a need to seriously discuss alternatives - and reflected the trauma the conflict has inflicted on all players. Burg painted an Israeli society afraid to debate ideas, fearful of taking risks, with the Arabs and the Messianic Jews in the West Bank and Israel proper threatening the very existence (and establishment) of a truly secular nation. “As soon as the Arabs declare peace with us,” lamented Burg, “Israel will have a profound clash internally between the theocrats and democrats.”

Afterwards at dinner, with The Israel Lobby co-author John Mearsheimer, historian Norman Finkelstein, blogger Phil Weiss and others, the argument was put forward that because younger American Jews are increasingly embarrassed by Israel’s occupation policies — studies bear this out, and indicate less ethnic identification (because of intermarriage and other factors) with the concept of a Jewish nation — support for Israel is declining, forcing more moderates to the fore. I’m far from convinced. Older hardliners still hold the balance of power — and were just promoted into Obama’s cabinet. Although the stranglehold of the Zionist old guard is clearly crumbling — witness the growing global public recognition of Palestinian suffering — the situation on the ground remains dire.

The Zionist lobby is still immensely powerful in Washington. Many younger Jews simply refuse to get involved in any organisations, frustrated with the myopic mindset. The West Bank occupation deepens every day. The UN even reported this week that Israel has refused to allow spices, kitchenware, glassware, yarn and paper into the Gaza Strip. None of these facts seem to disturb the Jewish leadership in America; they merely encourage Israel to tighten its noose around the territories.

Obama has major challenges to even address any of these issues yet seems determined, at this early stage, to ignore the more uncomfortable facts in front of him. With the appointment by of a hawkish national security team, including hardline Zionist Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it’s become clear that no strong anti-war voices will have the ear of the new leader. Neo-conservatism is not dead as a movement; it has merely changed its political stripes. A military strike against Iran, as just one example, remains firmly on the table. Wishful thinking will not change this brutal reality.

The Nation’s Jeremy Scahill doused optimistic expectations in The Guardian:

“Obama’s starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, ‘Bush’s Brain’, called Obama’s cabinet selections, ‘reassuring’, which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. ‘I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain,’ Boot wrote.”

Israelis are reportedly pleased that Obama’s choices are unlikely to press the Jewish state for any major concessions while the Palestinians are understandably concerned.

“I was frankly surprised by this choice,” Manar Shorbagy, an expert on American foreign policy who teaches at the American University in Cairo, said. “Obama’s talking about bringing diplomacy back to a US foreign policy that has been militarised under President Bush. Senator Clinton has different ideas. She voted for the Iraq war and has supported many things Bush has done in his two terms.”

Maintenance of the status-quo — Israel’s settlement project expands, apartheid in the West Bank worsens and Gazans are continually strangled under collective punishment — remains the likely future. Without a serious international push towards resolution, Israel will forever increase its colonial project, making a two-state solution an utter impossibility. Ironically, the mainstream Jewish Diaspora leadership remains mute about this possibility. Inherently, they support a one-state answer, where, in a few years time, Arabs will outnumber Jews. What will they say then?

While it’s encouraging that a growing number of leading pundits are speaking publicly against Israel’s race to enforce its territorial gains, Israel suffers no real tangible price for flouting UN resolutions and breaking international law. The Holocaust is the eternal moral shroud with which the Jewish state protects itself.

What is desperately needed, as articulated by conservative International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen this week, is the following:

“Imagine Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, saying this to Barack Obama:

‘The United States has been wrong to write Israel a blank check every year; wrong to turn a blind eye to the settlements in the West Bank; wrong not to be more explicit about the need to divide Jerusalem; wrong to equip us with weaponry so sophisticated we now believe military might is the answer to all our problems; and wrong in not helping us reach out to Syria. Your prospective secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said during the campaign that ‘The United States stands with Israel, now and forever.’ Well, that’s not good enough. You need to stand against us sometimes so we can avoid the curse of eternal militarism.”

If only more politicians across the Western world could see that their “pro-Israel” stance is killing the state they love.

A new national poll suggests that Americans think President-elect Barack Obama’s getting it right when it comes to his Cabinet picks, especially Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. A poll shows 71 percent of Americans approve of Barack Obama picking Hillary Clinton for secretary of state.

Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey approve of Obama’s Cabinet choices, with 22 percent disapproving. That’s 16 points higher than those in favor of then President-elect Bush’s Cabinet picks eight years ago.

The poll indicates that 71 percent approve of Obama picking Sen. Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans evenly split on the pick.

A few points here. I approve of the cabinet too. Hillary is excellent, as are most of the others. Gates is no doubt the most controversial, but I have a theory about this too and I have to admit Obama’s style makes me think twice about my own political ideas.

If you wanted to push wide-ranging and potentially controversial proposals through, then you need your opponents (Republicans) on side. These picks not only means Obama is pulling in more Republican support for when he unveils his agenda, but also that the big hitters who were initially involved with the mess (in Iraq - Gates) are used to sort out the mess. A new person would be tightly linked to Obama and if it messed up then Obama would be blamed. But Gates now has a more non-partisan aura around him - so if Iraq deteriorates then Americans are less likely to blame Obama. It’s bloody good politics, I have to admit, and it demonstrates that being non-partisan and willing to embrace ‘enemies’ also has strategic benefits.

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Brillant for Obama as neutralises them, forces Bill to have his diary vetted, and his administration gets to benefit from the massive set fo contacts the Clintons have internationally.
• Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel is an economic liberal (anti regulation) and a very tough politician. Those who think Obama will pursue a socialist agenda, should look at Emanuel’s record. Of course Obama promised all sorts of socialist stuff, but he deosn’t actually have to deliver on that as people will love him anyway. Emanuel also voted for the Iraq War and doesn’t blame Israel for all the problems in the Middle East. He’s not a Republican, but he’s my sort of Democrat.
• Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Geithner is President of the New York Federal Reserve. He actually arranged the Bear Stearns bailout, and is a very experienced choice for these times.
• Peter Orszag is the Office of Management and Budget DIrector. He currently heads the Congressional Budget Office and even blogs from there!  A bit left for my liking but definitely experienced.
• As previously mentioned Defence Secretary Robert Gates will remain in office - the first ever Defence Secretary to do so across parties. Gates was CIA Director under Bush 41.
• Attorney-General Eric Holder has a very good career in his early days but blotted his copybook with involvment in the disgraceful Clinton pardon of Marc Rich. I suspect he will not last a full term.
• Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is to be Homeland Security Secretary and is well regarded as a competent Governor. Homeland Security is huge though and will be a challenge.
• Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary is anotehr former Governor. Very sensible making use of people with executive experience. Plus it is a reward for him for deserting the Clintons.
• Tom Daschle I do not like. A nasty man.  I think Secretary of Health and Human Services is beyond him and like Mrs Clinton he will fail at healthcare reform.
• Absolute genius to appoint Paul Volcker to head a Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Volcker is a God.
• General James Jones is inspired choice for National Security Advisor. Jones is a four star Marine General and has served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe and as Commandant of the Marine Corps. Condi Rice tried to get him to be Deputy Secretary of State. He declined but has done work in the Middle East for her.

So far, so good for Obama. Of course the real challenges lie ahead.

The selection of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state reveals that President-elect Barack Obama does not limit his lack of appreciation for the Constitution to just the First and Second Amendments...

...The Emoluments Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” On January 4, 2008, President Bush issued Executive Order 13454, which increased the “Emoluments” (salary) of the secretary of state position. Hillary Clinton, as an elected senator from New York at the time and with a current term of office that runs through the end of 2010, would seem to fall clearly within the definition of a “senator” under this clause.

*Update* Here’s the press conference now it’s over:

And here’s the who’s who: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Robert Gates as Secretary of Defence, Eric Holder as Attorney General, Marine Gen. James Jones as White House National Security Advisor, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, and Susan Rice as UN Ambassador.