Hitchens on Hillary's nomination

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2009-01-14 04:18

Once again, Mr. H. hits the nail on the head. Read it here. If you read this, even if you are a die-hard 100% feminist, and don't find it very disturbing, then you probably are among the Clinton donors he is talking about. Excerpt:

'Here is a thought experiment that does not take very much thought. Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband? (I did tell you that this wouldn't be difficult.) Here's another one: Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so, will she be swayed by President Barack Obama's interests or her own?
...
...The deal struck by the wide-eyed incoming Obama administration is that the list of donors to the Clinton Foundation will be reviewed once every year and that only the new donations from foreign states—which already include an extraordinarily large number from Gulf sheikdoms—will be scrutinized by administration lawyers. How would we react if we read that this was the rule for the Vladimir Putin government, say, or former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's regime in Germany?

...
...No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom. If the Senate waves this through, it will have reinforced its recent image as the rubber-stamp chamber of a bankrupt banana republic. Not an especially good start to the brave new era.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

...has what to do with men's and/or fathers' rights?

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Hunchback on Wed, 2009-01-14 15:10

The problem with Sen. Clinton is that she is an unabashed feminist. When she gets confirmed as Sec'y of State her feminist goals will most certainly find their way into all manner of US foreign policy deals. Even more worrisome though is the apparent level of corruption that she (and the former president) are involved in. The idea that a US Sec'y of State has been the direct or indirect benefactor of monetary contributions made by multiple powerful foreign entities to a "foundation" run by her husband whose interests may easily come into conflict with those of the people is possibly the scariest place I can recall the US has ever been in from a senior leadership perspective.

Most people have no idea just how powerful the Sec'y of State position is. If anyone has plenipotentiary power aside from the president to negotiate terms with a foreign power requiring less than a treaty (which needs the Senate's approval -- though this is almost utterly abrogated at this point in our history), it's the Sec'y of State position. Of all other Cabinet-level offices, this is a position most able to influence international policy regarding all manner of things; a country the size of the US has extraordinary powers to determine the domestic agenda of all manner of foreign countries (at least for the time being) with leverage coming from our position as a powerful trading partner as well as force- and influence-broker. A feminist in this position has the opportunity to spread her particular brand of joy all over the world and in this case, get filthy rich doing it. This is not a good development for fathers/men.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2009-01-14 16:44