December 04, 2008, 0:00 a.m.

Back to the Old 9/11 World
Now Obama gets to deal with Islamic terror, and has no Bush to blame.

By Victor Davis Hanson

For three days, Islamist gunmen nearly shut down Mumbai, the financial center of India. The terrorists — Pakistani militants, according to Indian authorities — murdered almost 200 innocents and left hundreds of others wounded, giving reprieve only to hostages they thought were Muslims.

The timing of their assault seemed aimed for maximum shock value here in the U.S. — during the transference of American presidential power and amid a long U.S. holiday in which millions of Americans were glued to televised news.

The macabre killing spree was apparently part of a larger, though failed, effort to shoot or blow up a planned 5,000 civilians — especially Americans, Brits, and Jews. The jihadists may have hoped that India would heed Islamist warnings to loosen its connections to Western finance and commerce, and pay better attention to Muslim grievances.

There are a number of things to take away from the Mumbai atrocities.

First was the welcome re-emergence of concerned discussion of the dangers of global Islamist violence. George W. Bush, apparently was not fabricating a global-terrorist bogeyman — as was sometimes alleged over the last years of calm — when he sought support for his war in Iraq and domestic security measures.

In fact, caricatured efforts like the Patriot Act, the FISA accords, the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, the fostering of Middle East constitutional government, and the killing of violent insurgents abroad in Afghanistan and Iraq might seem once again understandable in the context of preventing another major violent terrorist attack of the sort we just saw at Mumbai.

Second, in the fashion of the old post-9/11 apologists, we were lectured once again that global terrorism is not necessarily an Islamic phenomenon. Supposedly the poverty and mistreatment of India’s Muslim minority, not jihadist ideology and hatred, better explain India’s incessant sectarian violence. That theory of victimhood is no more convincing now than it was in 2001.

Transnational terrorism still remains mostly Islamist in nature. Very few impoverished Hindu, Christian, or Sikh terrorists go abroad to murder civilians. Nor are the wretched poor of Brazil or Haiti organizing mass-murdering assaults against foreigners and Western iconic targets in their cities.

Third, the serial excuses of Pakistan are also beginning to wear thin. Hundreds of Indians have been killed by Pakistani terrorists, who have routinely attacked both foreigners and Christians in their own country. It is now over seven years since more than 3,000 innocent Americans were murdered on orders from terrorists now all but certainly in sanctuary in Pakistan — and whom we are still told cannot be extradited.

So despite billions of dollars in American military and financial assistance given to Pakistan, nothing really changes. When pressed to explain the apparent role of the Pakistani military or intelligence services in turning a blind eye to jihadists, the government — whether a Pervez Musharraf in uniform or now civilian President Asif Ali Zardari (formerly known as “Mr. Ten Percent” for allegations of graft) — still politely offers a variety of clichés.

The Pakistani borderlands are beyond the government’s control. Pressuring the existing government for either more order or more democracy will lead only to worse alternatives — such as a takeover by fundamentalist clerics, authoritarian generals, or weak democrats whose plebiscites will ensure rule by popular fanatics. No Pakistani leader of any stripe ever quite takes responsibility of the government for the mayhem committed by its own citizens or foreigners on its soil.

Instead, there always seems an implied threat that it would be unwise to push too far a volatile Pakistan that possesses nuclear weapons, or whose fanaticism makes it immune from classical laws of nuclear deterrence, or whose poverty and mismanagement ensure that it simply cannot be expected to meet international norms of behavior.

Fourth, the problem of Pakistan and the Islamist terrorism that so frequently emanates from its soil will now be President-Elect Obama’s to deal with. He will have to decide whether George W. Bush’s anti-terrorism architecture shredded the Constitution and should be repealed, or helped to keep us safe from attack for seven years, and thus should be maintained, if not strengthened.

Obama once advocated open intrusions into Pakistan in hot pursuit of terrorists, and will have to adjudicate whether such actions will more likely enrage nuclear Pakistan or finally eliminate the followers of Osama bin Laden. At the same time, Obama also must ponder whether he should continue our subsidized “alliance” with Pakistan.

Just as I didn’t envy George W. Bush’s lose/lose dilemma in dealing with Pakistan and global Islamic terrorism, so too I can only sympathize with President-Elect Obama, who faces the same dismal choices.

 Associated Press/Mohammad Ajmal Kasab, a surviving siege gunman, at Mumbai’s main train station on Nov. 26

Never forget

 

 

 

   Obama's new National Security team share strong backgrounds, but some have major differences, mainly , Clinton and Gates ,who have taken positions publically  that are at odds with the presidents position c/o Iraq for instance , Obama wants troops out in 16 months, and Gates opposes any time frames or deadlines, These are strong people with strong views, in the same cabinet but not the first, remember Rumsfeld and Powell, a dream team on paper, but rivals in practice, but for every person accepting the positions offered they were made aware that Obama, plans to change the way the gov. operates, from top to bottom .  renewing the phrase Land of Opportunity , which is reconized  from all of the world leaders ,  " No doubt that obama will be better for the Americans and the whole world, and being elected after the horrible policy of george bush is enough itself, whatever changes he brings after this catastropic policies would be great" Hisham abu amer- Ramallah,  

"Americans have struck a deadly blow to racism all over the world, americans have regained themselves and have regained the american dream. The picture of the U.S that was disfigured by the repubs. in the last 8 years has fell from the wall", " The picture of the america we had in our minds has taken its place. Saudi columist Dawood al-shairian

"At a time when we have to confront immense challenges together, Obama victory raises great hope in France, Europe, and in the rest of the world".  French  president Nicolas Sarkozy

 

DPRIN, THIS IS FOR YOU! This article was written a year ago based on the ecomony at that time.  Ohio has lost a lot of jobs during that time and still losing jobs.  This foreclosure crisis/job losses did not just happen.

 

Midwest states lead nation in foreclosures, delinquencies

By: JEFF KAROUB and MARK WILLIAMS - Associated Press | Monday, December 17, 2007 10:54 PM PST 8

DETROIT -- Michigan and Ohio share something with Florida and California -- some of the nation's highest rates of foreclosed homes and delinquent mortgages. But the reasons for their woes are as different as their climates.

Battered by a declining manufacturing base, stagnant population growth and low demand for housing, Michigan and Ohio rank No. 1 and 2 on mortgage finance company Fannie Mae's list of states with the largest credit losses through Sept. 30.

Fannie Mae, which finances or guarantees one of every five home loans in the United States, listed losses ---- loans written off as having no chance of being recovered ---- of $185 million for Michigan and $101 million for Ohio ---- two similar states in many respects with strong ties to the auto industry. By contrast, California saw $30 million; Florida, $21 million.

"The underlying economies of Michigan and Ohio are that bad relative to California and Florida," said Doug Duncan, chief economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association. Michigan had the nation's highest unemployment rate in October at 7.7 percent; Ohio's rate was 5.9 percent. Both are above the national rate of 4.7 percent.

And jobs and income are all-important in keeping the housing market alive. Nationwide data from Countrywide Financial Corp., the nation's largest mortgage lender, found the No. 1 reason its customers have been defaulting on mortgage loans is because their income was cut. That accounted for almost 60 percent of its loan defaults in the first 10 months of this year. Once illness and divorce are factored in, cash-flow problems caused 80 percent of mortgage defaults nationwide, according to Countrywide's data; payment adjustments alone accounted for only 2 percent.

Phillip Hubbard of Flint, a town hard hit for decades by plant closings and immortalized by native Michael Moore in his 1989 film, "Roger & Me," knows first-hand how bad the housing market has become.

Hubbard, 39, said he left his job of 19 years in 2005 at a "mom-and-pop" auto parts store as he dealt with a form of muscular dystrophy and found physical aspects of the job difficult. He managed for nearly two years to pay his 30-year fixed mortgage on a small ranch home he bought six years ago through his disability checks and savings, but fell behind as gas prices, property taxes, utility bills and insurance premiums escalated.

He said he tried unsuccessfully to work out a new payment plan with his mortgage company. So he put the house up for sale in the spring and then let it go into foreclosure in October when he couldn't find a buyer.

Fannie Mae's report shows the Midwest in general is suffering the largest loan losses. Of the top seven states, five are in the Midwest, with Minnesota ranked third, Indiana fourth and Illinois seventh. California and Florida are ranked fifth and sixth, respectively.

Teresa Gordon, a Michigan-based owner of a real estate firm that specializes in foreclosure, said the economy is a factor in her region's mortgage mess, but the blame goes around, including lenders that got too lenient and buyers who made poor decisions.

"I'm one of the few people that's going to capitalize on this. ... but it's only (for) so long," Gordon said.

Housing is a lagging indicator of an economic decline, said Duncan, pointing to the 340,000 jobs lost in Michigan and 200,000 in Ohio since 2001.

"People aren't moving out because of the weather, but because of the lack of opportunity," he said.

Meanwhile, the mortgage problems in Florida and California were caused by a speculative bubble built on excess supply, he said.

"It's a different story."

Home foreclosures reached an all-time high nationwide in the third quarter, with Ohio the top state in percentage of loans in foreclosure, and ninth in delinquencies not yet in foreclosure, according to the latest report by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Michigan ranked second in delinquencies and third in foreclosure inventory.

Ohio, Michigan and Indiana were near the top in three important categories: foreclosure inventory and foreclosure starts and serious delinquencies, the share of loans at least 90 days past due or in the process of foreclosure.

"If you're losing population and jobs, that's not going to be good for housing. ... They both come out of demand side of equation, and loan quality is going to decline," Duncan said.

There are other differences in the regions.

Florida and California are markets dominated by adjustable-rate mortgages while Midwest homeowners usually have fixed rates where Fannie Mae has a much stronger presence. Also, Fannie Mae has a $417,000 loan limit, keeping it out of many markets in both states.

Hubbard, who last month moved into a mobile home he bought from a friend, plans to get his associate's degree from a community college this spring, and then transfer to University of Michigan-Flint to earn his bachelor's degree in education and become a high school history teacher.

He hopes his financial turnaround coincides with the state's, but he's ready for whatever comes.

"My house now has wheels under it and I've joked a few times about renting a U-Haul truck and dragging it to where I can find work," he said.

What is REALLY bankrupting this nation?




You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?   Read this:

Boy, am I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us. I now
find that to be RIDICULOUS.

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until
they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.  
I have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.



1.      $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal
aliens each year by state governments.

Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77



2.      $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance
programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal
aliens.

Verify at: http ://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html




3.      $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal
aliens.                              Verify at:
http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.htmla>



4.     $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a
word of English!                              Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.
0.html

5..      $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.       
                       ; Verify at
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.
01.html



6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.    
                          Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.
01.html



7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.       
                       Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.
01.html



8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.ht
ml



9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
by the illegal aliens.

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.
01.html



10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular,  
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in
the US Verify at:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.
01.html



11.  During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,
heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.

                             Verify at: Homeland Security Report:
http://tinyurl.com/t9sht



12.  The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of
mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'  
                      &nb sp;      Verify at:
http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportat
ion.pdf



13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back
to their countries of origin.                              Verify at:
http://www.rense. com/general75/niht.htm
www.drdsk.com/articleshtml;



14.  'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex
Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .'           
                   Verify at: http: //
;



The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

More simply put, in just over 2 years without the illegal alien
stanglehold on our economy, the current Wall Street crisis and the
proposed $700 billion bailout would be paid for, without a cent of tax
of US citizens

Looks like the media is back to being civil when it comes to Republican Congress people. I heard yesterday that Senator George Voinovich made a comment about the new Capitol Visitors Center helping to keep the smell of the visitors at bay. I would have thought the media (AKA: Obama campaign team) would be all over Voinovich for those comments. In the past, the media scrutiny would be such that the Senator would be resigning by weeks end. Nice to see the media almost ignore this story. (Great job)

Oh, and yesterday I gathered my mail and found 50 ballots for Al Franken hidden between bills and credit card offers. Should I just UPS those up to Minnesota or do you think he will need them?

The Progressive movement What’s wrong with winning? I keep hearing from everywhere how young kids should learn to play games, but avoid keeping score. To me the whole idea of learning to play a game is to learn to win and also to learn to accept losing now and then, it’s just part of growing up. How do you prepare someone for the real world if they have never won at anything? I really don’t know who they’re trying to fool with this, because ask my grandson who won the soccer game and he’ll tell to the point what the score was. To me this is about as stupid as it can get. What are we raising, a generation of losers instead of champions. I have never seen a loser on a box of wheaties? Am I wrong or hasn’t always been the goal of parents to prepare their children for life, liberty and happiness?

I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but we have let a few self-promoting, so-called child psychologists possibly ruin a whole generation of great kids. It started with Dr. Benjamin Spock in the 60’s, and has spread throughout the education system. I do not advocate child beating or any type of child abuse, but a child who throws a tantrum, needs to be punished and a quick smack on the hynie never hurt any ones psyche. It may have caused some embarrassment, but I bet they thought twice about doing it again. Parents have become afraid of their children; you seldom see them chastise them when they are misbehaving in a public place. I have seen little girls go completely out of control in a mall, while their mothers just sit and wait for their tantrum to end. My folks would have boxed my ears in if I ever showed that type of disrespect.

When I pick up a magazine and read how a child psychiatrist or psychologist is advocating not keeping score in a game or not giving anyone a failing grade because it will effect their self confidence, it makes me want to shout. What gave these people the right to destroy the very fiber of American life? We are winners, we always have been and hopefully always will be. Teaching kids that it’s okay to lose offers no incentive for them to succeed in what ever they choose to do. Is that what has happened to our glorious Legislators? Were they taught that there should be no reward for winning? I can hear it now, don’t worry son, if you get into trouble someone will be there to bail you out. It is so sad to think that some of my greatest memories, football or baseball games that were won with an outstanding play, will possibly never be in my great grandsons future. Will he be taught that no matter what, someone will be there to take care of him, instead of conditioning him to be self-sufficient.

What will be next, will they decide for him that fishing or hunting is cruel, and not to be practiced? Will he even have the right to own a gun for his own protection, as he grows older? How will he even know right from wrong, if he is never allowed to fail or win? Now I’m not really worried about my great grandson, actually he’ll do just fine, his parents are well centered, and will give him the proper direction in his life to succeed. It’s the other kids I really worry about, the ones that will have to look life eyeball to eyeball someday, and really will have no idea what’s in store for them.

And that’s my opinion,
Don

                         When are, we, as a people, going to start working with our youth to eliminate the lies that are fed to them by the media that prevent them from achieving to their fullest potential?  When are we, going to stand up and fight the idea, pervasive in our youth, that if you are excelling in school, in advanced classes and dominating (academically) you classmates, you are “acting white”.  This idea is absurd!  Throughout history, we have pushed education when it was forbidden upon pain of death!  Even during Jim Crow, we created over 150 colleges to serves our children when the mainstream ones refused to let us in.  When mainstream businesses refused our money, we became entrepreneurs and set up thriving districts such as Little Hayti in Durham, North Carolina and Black Wall Street in Tulsa, Oklahoma.  This all happened, because we educated ourselves, either formally or informally!!

                            Now, after our people fought to open doors to the mainstream of American intellectual life, a thief come in the night to steal the victory and perseverance from our kids; the idea that academic excellence is “acting white”, our ridicule of our brothers and sisters who strive for educational and professional excellence.  As they go forward in their academic accomplishments, we have Black idiots taunting them with the label “acting white.”  Do not confuse professionalism or academic excellence with “acting white.”  One has nothing in the world to do with the other.  In fact, those Black folks who do not encourage nor support their fellow Black students or Black businesses are actually the ones “acting white.”  They also act white when they do not sound their objections or defend against other races that denigrate their Black brothers and sisters, or when they mistreat their own Black people with the same lies, injustice and incorrectness as white supremacist do.  Those who are accusing other of “Acting white,” are simply being BLEEPish, or, put a better way “stupid”, themselves!

                             I issue a challenge to everyone!  Check you state’s, your individual district’s, your child’s school’s status on proficiency tests.  You will see a great gap in the performance of black and white students.  Check the ACT, SAT, AP, and other tests.  With affirmative action about to go off into history and the standards rising, we must reaffirm our intellectual tradition.  Start reading (newspaper, books, magazines, etc., use the public library, etc.).  As a special treat, give your kids gifts certificates for bookstores.  Take your children to museums, galleries, parks, etc.  We must challenge the idea promulgated through BET and throughout history that all we do is play sports and rap!!

                              View my sites at: http://www.geocities.com/jvbzook,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Afro-American_Intellectu
al_Association/, http://groups.msn.com/BlackIntelligence, http://jvbafro.tripod.com.

                              Or, you can email me at
Jeffrey_V_Brown@hotmail.com

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski has some Republican-to-Republican advice for Gov. Sarah Palin: If you want to make a run at the White House, keep your hands off my Senate seat.

Murkowski, up for reelection in 2010, is nervously awaiting word on whether John McCain’s former running mate will run against her in the GOP primary. But she says Palin is the one who should be nervous.

"I can guarantee it would be a very tough election," Murkowski said in an interview.

Palin is also up for reelection in 2010. She could run for a second term as governor, but the Senate holds some obvious attractions: a national platform, and with it the chance to beef up a thin résumé and rebuild damaged credibility on foreign policy and other issues.

But Murkowski says a run against her would be fraught with risk. If Palin lost, her stock would drop just ahead of a potential 2012 presidential run. And if she won, she’d be a backbencher in a chamber that is dominated by seniority  and would have to begin her presidential campaign as soon as she took office.

'If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.

Asked Monday to respond to Murkowski’s comments, Palin’s communications coordinator, Kate Morgan, said only, “The governor has never stated her intention or desire to run for that office.”

As Murkowski’s tense talk suggests, the politics between the two women is personal. Palin won the governor’s race in 2006 by defeating Frank Murkowski, the senator’s father. On the presidential campaign trail this year, Palin crowed about upending the “old boys network” in Alaska.

When asked this summer about Palin’s suggestion that her father was one of those “old boys,” Murkowski bristled and cut an interview short.

Democratic pollster Ivan Moore and other Alaska analysts say Murkowski is poised to skate to a second full term unless she loses in the Republican primary. The most credible Democratic challenger, Ethan Berkowitz, will likely mount a rematch against Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) for the state’s lone House seat in 2010, Moore and other analysts said.

But everything changes if Palin gets in.

Even though Palin’s popularity dipped after she took on a partisan role as the GOP’s vice presidential candidate and stumbled in televised interviews, she maintains high approval ratings back home, including about 80 percent support among Republican voters. Murkowski enjoys similarly high numbers.

A head-to-head fight between the two Republicans “would be a titanic struggle,” Moore said.

David Dittman, a Republican pollster in Alaska, said some right-wing talk show hosts have given Murkowski the nickname “Liberal Lisa,” a label that could stick in a Republican primary fight.

But like Murkowski, Dittman said Palin would be better served by staying in Juneau, where she still would have a huge profile and could maintain political star power in GOP circles — a celebrity status she showed off in Georgia this week as she campaigned for Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

With Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest-serving Republican in Senate history, having just lost his seat, Dittman said GOP primary voters in Alaska would be wary of losing more Senate seniority by replacing Murkowski with Palin.

“My feeling is that Alaskans wouldn’t respond to that very well, especially Republicans, if she takes on Lisa and she starts seniority all over again,” Dittman said. “I think it would be tough for Sarah to do that and justify it.”

That argument is not lost on Murkowski, who points to her rising seniority in the Senate and her ascension to the top Republican spot on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, replacing retiring Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.).

“One thing that Alaskans clearly appreciate is seniority,” said Murkowski, who was appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father, who had just won the governor’s race. “If she were to kind of move me over, if you will, to run for national office again at the expense at this seniority that’s been built, I don’t know if Alaskans would look too favorably on that.

“I think they view the job that we have here in the Senate as a very, very critical one in a state like Alaska, where we always are battling the feds,” Murkowski said. “You need to have this position being filled full time. And I think that’s what Alaskans will be looking to.”

Murkowski said she had not spoken with Palin about whether she will run and said the talk of her running may be “more media-generated than what actually might be the thought process in Juneau right now.”

But Moore, the Democratic pollster, said Palin will do whatever she believes will position herself best.

“Sarah is interested in what is best for Sarah, and she is not necessarily going to get sidetracked by party loyalties,” Moore said.

'If she wants to be president, I don’t think the way to the presidency is a short stop in the United States Senate,” Murkowski said.

You hear that, Republicans?   The very same thing you accused President Obama of doing.   Now your so-called "Golden Girl" wants to pull the same stunt.   Except, Palin would be a TWO YEAR Senator of the middle of nowhere.    Maybe she can try to brag about her "experience" as a "small town mayor" and "one term governor"(of the middle of nowhere).    

So, Senator Lisa Murkowski, I salute you.   And I would vote for you in 2010 if I lived in Alaska.   Of course that would be before I cover my body with honey and go lay down in the woods and wait for the bears!!!

By DICK MORRIS 

Published on TheHill.com on December 2, 2008

To understand the central dynamic behind Obama's unorthodox selection of Hillary Clinton as his secretary of State, one must look abroad to parliamentary political systems where the most powerful opposition figure routinely becomes prime minister when his party wins a majority, while the second most potent politician is usually named the foreign minister.

That's the model. Obama's selection of Hillary is by no means the act of a president tapping his favorite to hold the top portfolio in his administration. Instead, it is the appointment by the leader of the majority party -- trying to hold it together behind his leadership -- offering due deference to the woman he narrowly defeated.

Barack Obama realizes that it is Hillary's and Bill's Democratic Party he now leads. He is the new guy in town. So he has paid obeisance to the Clintons' power by naming their loyalists to his Cabinet and their pretender to the presidency to head the State Department.

The problem is that he cannot expect Hillary to offer the proper quotient of gratitude for an appointment that she likely feels she has at least earned and perhaps compelled by her success in winning votes in her party's primaries. She serves, not as an adviser, but as a principal, taking office as of right rather than through the sufferance of her nominal boss.

  By way of his appointment of Hillary, President-elect Obama has set the stage for a civil war within his administration. The rivalry between the State Department and the National Security Council (NSC) has always been sharp. NSC Adviser Henry Kissinger dueled with Secretary of State Bill Rogers. NSC Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski battle Secretary of State Cyrus Vance. The Bush administration's first term was animated by the rivalry between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. The conflicts between these two powerful poles in the foreign policy universe have been epic. But now the push-pull between the White House and the State Department is likely to become particularly inflamed.

As long as Obama is riding high, everything will be fine. But should his ratings falter, can anyone doubt that it will be Hillary Clinton to whom worried Democrats will turn to offer an alternative in 2012?

Lyndon Johnson inherited a Cabinet with his rival, Bobby Kennedy, and got rid of him as soon as he decently could. Obama has imported his rival.

But the designation of Hillary is only one part of a Cabinet Obama has assembled without any reference to the loyalty of its members to his presidency. I doubt that he carried his own Cabinet in the primaries against Hillary. He has appointed the identical government that one would have expected under a President Hillary Clinton. The only difference is that he is president.

What does this administration say about Obama? Does it, at last, offer a real clue as to who he truly is?

I believe that it reveals that he is a man who never really expected to be president and now is rather awed by what he has achieved. Here's a guy who was on a very successful book tour in late 2006 before his success at signings went to his head. As long as he seemed able to draw and dazzle crowds, he figured, Why not run for president? Knowing he'd probably lose, he saw no harm in trying. Then, as his candidacy developed more momentum with each speech, he moved closer and closer to the White House. But, on arrival, he doesn't know quite what to do with the power. So he is assembling around him the permanent government of the Democratic Party in the hopes that they will know what to do.

Hillary might do well as secretary of State. She has the toughness and energy that the job requires and the single-minded dedication to achieving a goal that it demands. At last, she need not adopt a phony pose. She has a real job that she has earned on her own. She can show her real strengths of prioritization, skilled advocacy and determination.

But her appointment, and that of her cronies to most of the other top positions in the Obama government, makes it very likely that Obama will be unable to impress his own mark on his presidency. It is not just that he has appointed a "team of rivals." It is that he has hired the coach, quarterback and stars of the rival team and now hopes that they will listen to him rather than to one another

Hilary was an excellent choice for the country & a HUGE mistake for Obama. Between Hilary & Pelosi, he will just get to sit at a desk & WATCH it all happen. And, of course, appear in front of the cameras & say what those two TELL him to say.

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 1:03 PM

By: David A. Patten