Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,791 posts)
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 12:06 AM Feb 2015

Obama's choice as ambassador to Mexico withdraws her name

Source: AP-Excite

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's choice to be U.S. ambassador to Mexico has withdrawn from consideration.

The White House says Maria Echaveste cites a prolonged confirmation process as well as her family's best interests.

Obama nominated Echaveste last September. She had yet to receive a confirmation hearing in the Senate.

A graduate of Stanford University and Berkeley Law School, Echaveste was deputy chief of staff and a presidential assistant during the Clinton administration. When Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state, she appointed Echaveste a special representative to Bolivia.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150201/us--united_states-mexico-785cac3b1f.html

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

MADem

(135,425 posts)
2. Probably "Obama wants her? Let's EFF with him, then!"
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 12:26 AM
Feb 2015

This is like Jesse Helms jerking Bill Weld's chain (and ironically, both were Republican--go figure?).

Say......I think Obama oughta nominate Jeb Bush!!!! *



He speaks Spanish, he has a Mexican wife....that nomination should sail through!! Or, if they really wanna screw with Obama, it would be funny to watch the GOP Senators vote him down...just because he's Obama's choice!

* This is a lighthearted chiste (joke) -- I am not serious. Gotta make these notes for the few irony-impaired ...!

MADem

(135,425 posts)
4. I figured I'd head that issue off at the pass!
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 12:46 AM
Feb 2015

This thread has potential to blossom into a nice little discussion about the whole Senate nomination process, and how crappy/obstructive the GOP has been in this regard. I didn't want someone bigfooting all over it with "What?? How DARE you? You ACTUALLY think the POTUS should NOMINATE Jeb BUUUUSH? Oh, the Huge Manatee!!!" I've seen that kind of thing happen!

24601

(3,963 posts)
8. But until the start of the 114th Congress in January, Republicans had no influence to block any
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 09:39 AM
Feb 2015

appointments except for the Supreme Court. Harry Reid could have gotten her a hearing one week and floor vote the next. I haven't seen any reasons for him to drag his feet so long. With the 114th, Republicans could, if voting as a solid block, deny her a vote or defeat the nomination.

But why did Reid not let her through when he held the power in the Senate?

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
6. I don't understand. Echaveste was nominated LAST September - when Democrats controlled the Senate.
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 04:28 AM
Feb 2015

Why wasn't she confirmed? She should've been put up for a vote, but of course, Harry Reid and Senate Dems decided it would be politically damaging to their "friends across the aisle" should they be forced to filibuster a Mexican-American as Ambassador to Mexico right before the elections. I'm certain Reid was worried that Democrats just might have an advantage in the midterms.

I swear...Reid has been a very WEAK Democratic Majority Leader but a strong Republican ally.

BumRushDaShow

(129,687 posts)
7. Maybe there was something else involved here
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 08:15 AM
Feb 2015
Christopher Edley and Maria Echaveste, a married couple who met while serving in the Clinton administration, have actually started debating each other. Not just at their kitchen table, but in front of audiences across California and on television.

“It’s not easy,” Ms. Echaveste, who is a paid consultant to Mrs. Clinton, said in a joint telephone interview with her husband, who advises Mr. Obama. “You’re having a discussion and your husband is basically saying that your candidate doesn’t have a moral compass.” With that, Mr. Edley broke in. “Or your wife is saying that your candidate isn’t smart enough to figure out where the bathrooms are,” he said. “I never said that,” she replied.

The couple has relived some of the campaign’s most rancorous moments, such as when Ms. Echaveste, echoing Bill Clinton, told her husband that Mr. Obama was “naïve.” The word conjured up racial stereotypes for Mr. Edley, who is black, and has known Mr. Obama since he taught him in law school. “There’s the childlike Negro,” he explained. “There is the superficial but glib minstrel.”

Ms. Echaveste, who is Hispanic, now understands why her husband exploded in response. “Regardless of being dean of a law school” — at the University of California, Berkeley, where both teach — “he’s still in a box called being a black man,” she said. Still, she said, “I ought to be able to make that point and not trigger these reactions.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/us/politics/04family.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


I.e., I expect a redux of the 2008 primary ugliness would certainly have been brought out by the loon GOP during the hearings - despite having had the Democrats still in charge during the fall. It would have certainly devolved into a gleeful Clinton/Obama bash fest by the GOP.

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
13. This could very well be THE reason why she decided to withdraw. The GOP would have loved
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 11:54 AM
Feb 2015

to bring this forward and allow the confirmation hearing to devolve into partisan attacks on this president.

But what about Loretta Lynch? It appears that she's sailing through confirmation because the GOP hate AG Holder and want him out. She should've been a shoe-in last year, but again, Reid decided to postpone her confirmation hearing until Mitch became Senate Majority Leader. The question is why?

It's patently clear that Reid has not been helpful to Democrats and Democratic policy, and he's been exceptionally difficult for President Obama until the American people and progressive and liberal groups starting loudly protesting. Then, and only after the House went firmly into the claws of the GOP, he relented and slowly changed the filibuster rules - on some things - and we began to slowly move forward.

Reid allowing Republicans to block those 440 House bills that then Speaker Pelosi got through, and what, I believe, would have kept the House in Democratic hands had he'd been firmer in his resolve as a Democrat, told me that he was clinging to the old ways of the Senate while Mitch had changed and decided to aggressively oppose everything President Obama and progressive Democrats wanted.

Reid has proven to be the GOP's favorite Democrat.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
11. Just because there were more Democrats in the Senate does not mean they controlled
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 11:01 AM
Feb 2015

the Senate. Blue Dogs joined with Republicans and the Republicans filibustered.

former9thward

(32,099 posts)
12. Not on presidential nominations.
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 11:32 AM
Feb 2015

Th filibuster was eliminated for those. Reid did control the Senate and could have brought it forward for a vote if he wanted.

brooklynite

(94,803 posts)
10. Possibly something in here...
Sun Feb 1, 2015, 10:22 AM
Feb 2015

"She is a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee, a member of the Board of Directors of People for the American Way, the Children's Law Center of Washington, D.C., CARE, a humanitarian organization fighting global poverty and the Level Playing Field Institute, an organization devoted to promoting fairness in education and the workplace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Echaveste

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Obama's choice as ambassa...