Slog Comments

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
kitschnsync 1
It's easy to paint the GOP as sexist, because they frequently are. I'm not sure that is the case here, though. It seems the motivating factor behind the attacks on Rice is the GOP's desire to vacate John Kerry's Senate seat.

With that said, I hope Obama nominates another minority woman for the spot- and Kerry stays put.
Posted by kitschnsync on December 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
2
Probably for the best.

She has something like $1.5 million tied up in Canadian oil extraction, and as Sec State she would have had an instrumental role in deciding how the proposed Keystone Pipeline plays out.
Posted by dirge on December 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM · Report this
3
Setting aside the Benghazi ridiculousness, there were a lot of good reasons for the left to have issues with Susan Rice as Secretary of State. I see very little in terms of substance that would differentiate her from John Kerry in that role. Maybe Obama will use the opportunity to put forward a better option? http://www.democracynow.org/2012/12/12/b…
Posted by Tent_Liberation_Army on December 13, 2012 at 1:39 PM · Report this
4
This is unfortunate, because of the manner in which it happened and the scum to whom it gave victories.

I have serious concerns about Rice's extremely close ties to the oil industry: apparently her family's nest egg, which is in the millions, is disproportionately invested in the oil industry, including in companies involved in the tar sands pipeline over which the State Department has authority.

That being said, the Benghazi slurs ranged against her were patently dishonest and disingenuous, and the accusations that Rice was too friendly with African leaders - Rice, who under Bill Clinton was the State Department undersecretary in charge of relations with Africa, and as Obama's UN Ambassador is involved with relations with everyone, and who by the way happens to be a Black lady - were just so transparently, ridiculously racist that it was surprising anyone would resort to them. It is presumably these calumnies that have derailed her candidacy, and not the genuine issues of her oil-industry ties, and that is a genuine shame upon our nation.
Posted by Warren Terra on December 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM · Report this
5
Wow another liberal overreaction this isn't a big victory for the GOP but liberals aren't happy unless they complain all the time. Why are you such an ideologue Goldy?
Posted by Seattle14 on December 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM · Report this
Kinison 6
Goldy, a shining example of journalism in Seattle. From pigfuckers to douchebags, how low can the stranger go!
Posted by Kinison http://www.holgatehawks.com on December 13, 2012 at 1:57 PM · Report this
7
Or, for another, more considered perspective, you could read this: "The revealingly substance-free fight over Susan Rice," Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian ("Her record of war advocacy and close ties to tyrants is notably missing from the debate over whether she should be Secretary of State").
Posted by PCM on December 13, 2012 at 2:00 PM · Report this
8
Emphasis on "political". The GOP will gain exactly nothing substantive from this. All they get from this is the ability to tell themselves they accomplished something when they didn't.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on December 13, 2012 at 2:02 PM · Report this
9
Are we sure Rice would have been the right person for the job? Or are we getting swept up in the same old R vs. D political game? In particular, what was her record like prior to this?

She seems to have been on the wrong side of the Iraq War; she doesn't seem to have a problem with the completely unaccountable drone war; she supports the conventional wisdom that Israel can do no wrong; etc. Are these policies Goldy endorses?

I think she lost her spot due to political jockeying, not because of her race or gender or what have you. In particular, you've got Senators on the Republican side who are getting ready to deal with a compromise on the budget. And they're terrified of getting primaried by the tea party. So part of this is shoring up right wing credentials in advance.

You've also got Senators who want a much more interventionist foreign policy (like McCain) and this is their way of sending a message to the President.

So is it really useful to immediately leap to name calling when (a) a lot of this is politics as usual (b) there are other real factors at work here and (c) it's entirely possible she wasn't the right woman for the job? Don't be such a partisan hack.
Posted by Corydon on December 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 10
What @2 and @9 said.

The only people who thought she was right for it think that Hils has a shot in 2016.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 13, 2012 at 2:08 PM · Report this
Daddy Love 11
I personally think the Stranger can go much, much lower.
Posted by Daddy Love on December 13, 2012 at 2:19 PM · Report this
12
Dear Corydon, @ #9

News flash: the Secretary of State for the second Obama administration is not going to be a critic of the Obama administration's record on drone strikes, and is not going to be a critic of, nor will they greatly change, decades of US policy with respect to Israel. It's adorable that you think Rice's failure to denounce drone strikes or to renounce Israel was a barrier to her candidacy, or even a factor, but it isn't realistic.
Posted by Warren Terra on December 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM · Report this
Pick1 13
@10 While I wasn't 100% behind her, the reason for her removing consideration is fucking ridiculous.

I just really hope Obama doesn't give the seat to Kerry, so we don't have to see that teabaggy fuckwad Scott Brown back in the spotlight so soon.
Posted by Pick1 on December 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
14
Senate Republicans take a scalp, but lose stature in the process (unless Benghazi after-action analysis turns up something very unexpected).

They won't lose many votes from women of color, because they don't have many of those votes to lose, but it doesn't help restore any lustre to the tarnished GOP brand.

Action now shifts to the Massachusetts special election. Scott Brown has the advantages of incumbency and a low-turnout event, but the disadvantage of having degraded his favorables in his head-to-head with Elizabeth Warren.
Posted by RonK, Seattle on December 13, 2012 at 2:53 PM · Report this
15
The same Susan Rice who voted against Palestine oat the UN?

Keep polishing that turd Goldensteinemberg.
Posted by Mercer Island Goy on December 13, 2012 at 3:01 PM · Report this
Knat 16
Regardless of whether she was the best choice for the position before, her willingness to back down and remove herself from the running means she doesn't have the fortitude for the job.
Posted by Knat on December 13, 2012 at 3:03 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 17
@13 it has very little to do with public reasons and a lot to do with the high stakes poker game going on in DC right now.

Do you WANT us to have middle class taxes bump up while the ultra-rich continue to avoid paying any taxes, as is happening in Greece right now? The game is all about the fiscal cliff expirations, and if one of Hils best buds needs to be thrown under the bus, then she'll be pushed under the bus.

When you're dealing with people willing to sell out America and ignore 2/3 of the citizens of this country, sometimes sacrifices are made.

Besides, she'll make a great Secretary of the Treasury.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on December 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
18
Here Michael Cohen of the Guardian sets the story straight. This is indeed a fascinating story, but very far from the plain tragedy this post's headline insists. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/…
Posted by gloomy gus on December 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM · Report this
TheRain 19
Yes, now that Susan Rice is out of the picture Obama can appoint Dennis Kucinich, or maybe Ghandi!
Posted by TheRain on December 13, 2012 at 9:43 PM · Report this
Captain Wiggette 20
Jesus Christ, Obama, STOP FUCKING FLINCHING.

You're just enabling these stupid GOPers with their bullshit hysteria. For ONCE, you need to tell them to fuck off, and call their bluff.

The more you do this, the more they are emboldened to KEEP doing it.

I don't give a shit about Susan Rice, but every time you do this, it just proves to the GOP that they can invent completely fictitious bullshit 'controversy' to eliminate anyone they don't like for whatever bullshit reason they want.

I'm sick of this. You cave on everybody the right deems 'controversial' because they aren't to the right of Bob Dole.

STOP CONTINUING TO SET THIS PRECEDENT.
Posted by Captain Wiggette on December 13, 2012 at 9:53 PM · Report this
Theodore Gorath 21
@20: Try reading the story next time.

She sent Obama a message removing herself, Obama did not order her to step down.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on December 14, 2012 at 5:35 AM · Report this
Catherwood 22
I know everyone's suggesting Kerry's a lock, but if he wants the obligatory R in his cabinet, how about Richard Lugar? That way they don't cede Kerry's seat (although Brown's win is no goddam cakewalk against Markey: I think Markey will wipe the floor with him if it comes to that), and Lugar's so centrist he's practically a D anyway.
Posted by Catherwood on December 14, 2012 at 8:10 AM · Report this

Add a comment