Oh, that Obama. What a naif. Doesn't realize that Hillary and Bill are secretly and not-so-secretly plotting to overthrow Obama and institute a shadow Clinton presidency. You watch. There won't be any more stories about Obama after today. It will be all about Hillary Clinton.

I am incredibly sick of all criticism of Hillary as SOS or the Clintons as a distraction and a challenge as being outrageous and all about conspiracy etc.

It is possible to have valid reasons to oppose the decision without being a wingnut.

I understand that PE Obama believes he is doing what is best.

I just hope that if anyone is not following his direction or implementing his vision that he will not hesitate to replace them.

"Conservative commentators and Republicans are also applauding Obama’s likely new team of foreign policy and defense hands"
-from Harpers.org

Isn't that nice? Let's just forget about all the overt lawlessness and brazen greed and corruption the former administration engaged in. We're a happy family now.

(Until the next Republican administration, that is.)

Well Synchronicity a lot of us are just sick to death of hysterical "the sky is falling" criticism at every turn. We heard it all through the campaign and we are hearing it again now.

Personally I think that the sins of Hillary Clinton have always been overstated by ideologues left and right and reinforced by a gossipy knitting circle of beltway reporters. I didn't care much for the campaign she ran but fortunately I think that the worst of it, Mark Penn et al, are not going to go to Foggy Bottom. Hillary herself has demonstrated that she is capable of being disciplined and message. There is no logical reason to think that any of this shit about her setting up a rival government is at all realistic. My biggest worry is that she couldn't even set up a coherent campaign so I wonder how she'll do managing the State Department. But I have no doubt of her skills and dedication otherwise.

Moreover, I am absolutely certain of Obamas strength or I never would have voted for him.

OT, Hey Greg, I just gave you a well deserved pop over at the Cafe for raising the "soft power" issue this morning. This would seem to fit right in to the discussion they are having over there about Lind's book and the need to revive "Liberal Internationalism" in our foreign policy.

Some pundits are debating if Obama's national security team of rivals could work or whether a team of more like-minded people would be more effective. I am actually rather pleased with his choices. First of all, I think people have exaggerated their differences. To my mind the one common thing that they have is realism --- regardless of their ideological positions, all those picks are known to be realists, pragmatic politicians who care most about results, not ideologies. Besides, I think at least Gates and VP Biden have demonstrated themselves to be mature people and team players, which is very important. Clinton is my biggest worry, but by choosing her as a top foreign diplomat rather than a position for which she has known expertise such as health care, I think she will at least initially be a bit deferent and respectful toward her colleagues, as she was in the Senate. I don't know much about Jim Jones. But looks like Obama chose him not as his personal national security adviser (unlike Rice to W. Bush in his first term) but as a coordinator among the various security and foreign policy depts, and given his gravitas, he should be able to do the job. And in any case, Nice Guy Biden who is friends with everyone on the team should be able to serve as an arbitrator. I think this team will work well. At least it will work much better than W Bush's first team in which you have immature ideologues like Cheney and Rumsfeld and a lightweight Rice who can't stand up to them