Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama 'lovefest' on "60 Minutes"; Joe Biden the big loser?
The political blogs and columns have been full of commentary about the Obama/Hillary Rodham Clinton joint interview on CBS's "Sixty Minutes".
Either these two can add acting to their resume, or they've developed a deep personal chemistry.
Of course, I would've wanted to hear more about the challenges confronting the United States across the Middle-East, South Asia, and Africa; whether drone attacks can become ultimately counterproductive; Israel & Iran; the challenge of China, including Chinese infiltration into sub-Saharan Africa & Latin America, etc. Silly me.
How will Hillary Rodham Clinton go down in history as a Secretary of State? Clearly, not in the same league as such secretaries of state as Dean Acheson or Dr. K. But they reigned in different eras. Given current circumstances, I can't imagine ANY U.S. Secretary of State today reaching such majestic heights: The Marshall Plan or the U.S. opening to China.
Meanwhile, some political pundits / analysts suggest the obvious loser from this interview was Joe Biden. Agree?
Here's the U.K. newspaper DAILY MAIL's treatment of that joint interview...
There are a lot of words to describe Hilary, but "diplomatic" was not one of them. She was the kid in the schoolyard with the big baseball bat, ready to threaten or bully all the other kids with her bat. Now, after serving four years as the bully with the bat, Hillary leaves behind a big crowd of angry schoolkids ready to retaliate against anybody with a U.S. passport. Nice job, Hillary, and please stay retired.
Mon, Jan 28, 2013 5:47pm
I second Teatime's emotion on this one.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Jan 29, 2013 10:19am
Sarah Palin has made the news again. She's leaving Fox as a paid contributor. She's always good for a great quote:
"The strangest thing Palin said during that interview [with Greta Van Sustern] was her argument as to why Time’s recognition of Obama was irrelevant. Pointing to herself in seeming disbelief, she said that “yours truly” had made the magazine’s list of the most influential people in the nation and world, and “that ought to tell you something right there about the credence that we should give Time magazine and their list of people.” A bemused Van Susteren replied, “All right. Well. That’s an interesting concept.”
I agree with one of Allan's interviewees. Neither one will run. The entire field will be made of all newbees.
And if the Republicans can excise the crazies (Wayne LaPierre) from their ranks.. four years is a long time. But the crazies have to be long gone by the time the cycle starts; the Ames' straw poll is just 2 and 1/2 years away....
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.