“A suffocating political and intellectual provincialism has captured the new administration in embryo. Instead of embracing a sense of adventurousness, a readiness to break with the past so enthusiastically promoted during the campaign, Obama seems overcome with inhibitions and fears” (Steve Fraser, The Nation). I wish it were otherwise. I was pretty excited about Obama, about getting a more progressive, more thoughtful President in office. Still, I would people: He’s not as progressive as you seem to think he is. (Which made McCain’s campaign claim: “Obama is the biggest … Read Moreliberal in the senate” so laughable).Obama is no Paul Wellstone, nor Bernie Sanders, not even a Ted Kennedy. I understand that you have to balance your cabinet selections along the lines of experience vs. progressiveness, but he’s simply chosen a reprise of Bill Clinton’s cabinet(s). I was always going to criticize Obama, not just because I lean further left than he does, but because I think patriotism has more do to with casting an analytical, critical eye at our government (our society, our culture, etc.) than it does with blindly championing “your guy.” Obama may be better than Bush, but we can always do better than settling for just that.

The quiet, calm, considered, analysis of Katrina vanden Heuvel, delivered with a clear intent to give context to our assertions, (if the standards we have set for ourselves are really our dynamic guides)is constantly giving this conversation the True North it needs.

It is appreciated.

Thank you

Tom,

Katrina vanden Heuvel’s analysis of the security choices leaves a lot to be desired. Her approval of Hillary Clinton as the secretatry of state is based “speeches Hillary Clinton gave in her trips abroad as First Lady, and I believe she will carve out an important role as Secretary of State through elevating women’s (and girl’s) rights”

Really? That’s the reason to recommend her for the job? What about Laura Bush’s work fighting for the rights of girls and women-especially in Afghanistan. Shouldn’t Laura also have been considered for Sec. of State?

Ms. vanden Heuvel goes on to further add that ” as State [Hillary] is in a position to put diplomacy back at the center of US foreign policy role”. Really? Ms. vanden Heuvel seems to have been in a coma the last 2 years where Ms. Clinton’s hate-filled speeches made even the Pentagon uncomfortable:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Yes, why don’t we kill a bunch of innocent American-loving Iranian citizen’s whose sole crime is to be ruled by a crazy semi-dictator.

I suggest that Ms. vanden Heuvel learn more about Obama’s selections beyond her own “narrow bandwidth” of biased and uneducated opinions.

I found the comment about Hillary being “too friendly with Jews” by a called sickeningly antisemitic.

I am again surprised at how these anti Jewish comments are made on this show without anyone taking the bigoted caller to task.

Would allow a caller to say that a someone is too friendly with any other ethnic group.

I hope this show will not go the way of “the Connection.”

Gates is good at his job and listens to his commander in chief. Period. THAT’S what Obama needs to get our troops out of Iraq. The left-wing bashing of Gates is really unfair.

In Afghanistan, troops are being slaughtered due to low numbers. You either increase the amount of troops or withdraw ALL of them. Obama has spoken time and time again about not just increase in troops but working hand in hand with the local society. His goal is simply to get Osama bin Laden, NOT nation building. Your panel forgets that this was originally our ONLY goal and still is.

At the end of the show David Ignatius (I think), cited the offer of Pakistani help in mumbai investigation as some sort of breakthrough.

Safe to say he displays lack of depth in this issue. In Indo-Pak equation very little is as it seems to the western mind ( oh I would dare not say that about Tom Ashbrook though ).

Robbins…..

NPR has never been “too friendly with Jews” by their own account…

To Robbins and others:

Let’s clarify exactly what the caller in question (Diane from Cambridge, Mass.) said about Hillary Clinton in today’s show. I’ve listened back to it, and she did not say that Clinton is or has been “too friendly with Jews.” Instead, she said that she recalls Clinton “describing herself as having close emotional and personal ties to Israel, stemming from her college days.” And she questioned whether Clinton will be “an impartial broker” on the Middle East, and whether the U.S. will continue to be “perceived as being totally pro-Israel.”

The caller did not use the words “Jews” or “Jewish” at all. I encourage everyone to listen to her call (it occurs at 39:08 in the streaming audio available on this page), and the way it was handled on the air.

Wen Stephenson
Senior Producer

I don’t understand why everyone feels that increasing troop size in Afghanistan necessarily means that those troops are needed for combat; a large portion of our troops do not participate in combat and rather they are there to provide help for citizens, build roads, hand out food, restore infrastructure, and provide safety for those who are there to do those things. This is a large reason why the troop surge in Iraq has succeeded and why Obama and his team are in support of these principles to help the people of Afghanistan.

Wen Stephenson:

She didn’t have to use the word Jews.

It is implied in the comment: “she recalls Clinton “describing herself as having close emotional and personal ties to Israel, stemming from her college days.”

In any case, no one asked her to clarify. How did she “recall” Clinton describing herself thus? Did she here her do so? Did someone tell her?

What does “having a close emotional tie” mean?

Did Rice have close emotional ties to Africa? Why does it matter? I recall that Zbigniew Brzezinski had a very close and very emotional relationship with his native country Poland. Why does it become an issue when someone has a close emotional tie to the Jewish State?

Also does this mean that no Jewish American could ever become Secretary of State?

When we begin to “racialize” our politics then we go down a slippery slope to racism and antisemitism.

I was right there in agreement with the guests for the most part, but was infuriated when the guest, in suggesting Obama learn more about Lincoln’s approach to relying on information from generals, flippantly commented about Lincoln going through numerous generals before he finally found the right one, albeit an “inebriated” one. I suggest he go back and learn his own history to find that Grant not only was not “inebriated,” but had the military genius and the political wherewithal to do his patriotic duty and his job. For Lincoln to write Grant after his victory at Vicksburg “You were right and I was wrong,” says much more about Grant’s abilities than perpetuating stereotypical misperceptions about him.