I am seriously more concerned about the new wave of ideological foreign interventionists than the old crust.

But he would be on speed-dial and regularly consulted.

Seriously.

But of course I would have asked the question in the OP if there was no chance of Hillary winning.
Do you have any thoughts or are you just here to whatabout?

For the first time ever. Think I'll send another $27 right now.

And truthfully, I think it is a bit early to worry about it.

Seriously, I would love to see some evidence that there is nothing to be concerned about here. Something she has publically stated would be good. All I have so far is her past choice.

Sanders record has me convinced he would bring in progressive and definitely not traditional elitists voices.

will your comfort level adjust?

Press Secretary?

Though I would be comfortable with someone like Krugman (Not my best choice as he is politically oriented but he would be a moderate force), but can she resist the inevitable power play of the corrupt financers? Not so sure?

I just had lunch.

Has Hillary indicated anyone not part of the banking cabal?

He's got strong stances on "labor" programs as noted here, which are similar views to what Ms. Clinton has.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3026241/it-outsourcing/bloomberg-champions-limitless-h-1b-visas.html

I'm sure if she appoints Debbie Wasserman Schultz as her chief of staff, that she would help shape a cabinet with such selections.

Maybe she'll also appoint Ron Wyden as her Department of Commerce to help her with pushing more "free trade" deals like TPP if we can nominate Kevin Stine for his senate seat instead in May.

I don't agree with him on everything but he is a voice of moderation in general terms.

Some of the new neoliberals are as crazy as the Republicans in their ideas. Wyden is in general more a realist.

... which could have him serve in a capacity where he's had a good record on protecting people's right to privacy, etc. while Senator, as opposed to the trade deals where he hasn't. If Bernie were to put him on his staff, I think he'd put him in at Homeland Security instead.

But never let the facts get in the way of a good calumny.

Why do you think she is so comfortable with Nuland? Have any moderates (who are alive) you think would be a likelier candidate?

I appreciate your take, really I do.

I wish I did not see these (Wikipedia)

I don't hold myself out as a foreign policy expert but I am aware Myanmar is an example of successful American diplomacy...


There are a host of reasons, many of which are exogenous to American diplomacy, why Libya and Syria are a mess...

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney into some foreign policy roles.

After all, theirs is about the same as hers.

and the MIC. Probably bring in a few of Whistle Ass's foreign policy advisers just for good measure and keep War Criminal Kissinger on the speed-dial.

concerns about the dollar and a (vain in my opinion) to keep the dollar propped up.

This is one trouble with getting so enamored with being incredibly wealthy. A world of economic fairness and sound financial policy for everyone would threaten the dollar's current power. Our fundamentals are currently unsustainable without domination. So wealthy democrats find themselves more and more forced to compromise and threaten world war (financial and military) as the world changes.

So crazy it just might work.

Has to be something nice for her.

She's so "worried" about all those potheads being released.

...would ask Kerry to stay on and/or also help with a transition. I don't believe she would follow a Cheney-like path.

Kerry has seemed to me torn between his past and what is in the present. That seems to make him moderate at times against the interests of his own class. He is not an ideologue and that would be welcome. But he would need to change out the ideologues that also have power just below him.

If it happens (Clinton wins) I hope your analysis would be the right one.

Not much has changed since Bush was voted out in terms of real war and DOS FP, it just went out of view. When it comes to the war state there is a huge battle going on and the stakes are so heavy and so far we have proceeded on the same trajectory as Cheney Wolfowitz. That seems to be leading the world to disaster.

...it's going to be a tough road. The Republicans' approach is to show more force... more bombs... more troops... more veterans... more death. At least, the Democrats show more measured use of force. They are capable of thinking about consequences. Clinton, Kerry, Hillary and Obama are fully capable and not afraid of warlike decisions. From Clinton's Kosovo War (now forgotten, but a success) to Obama's drone war, they do it with careful thought. The Republicans think guns and bombs wantonly solve problems - but they create new ones.

Now, on the domestic side, Hillary and the others have always been more "progressive" than they let on... all the Democrats I mentioned. They got ahead of the so-called "Reagan Revolution" by taking control of the Party and steering the country out of the Reagan misdirection. To do that, they put on some wolf clothing. All of them. They're politicians. They were for more "socialism" and gay marriage long before they said so... if Clinton (Bill) had run on that, he would have lost... we moved ahead with Obama. Hillary and Bernie both want to make the next moves.

This is a big election. We've got to stay with the Democrats... Hillary and Bernie will get together by the convention - and lead, hopefully, to victory!

who would ditch his "conscience of a liberal" in an New York Minute to become Treasurer.

...she's not going to be elected, because the infinitely wise folks who nominate her forgot about the Republicans and Independents who hate her and would never vote for her.

On the other hand, what would you expect other than bankers and war criminals, just like the rest of them have done?

He's an appropriately sneaky little shit.