Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! UPDATE: OFFER MADE!

by maconblue, Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:02:09 PM EST

I'll put the update first: according to the Huffington Post, two "senior Democratic officials" report that "President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago." If that's true, then the ball is in her court now. But at least we can say that Obama did the right thing. Here's the story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/clinton-met-with-obama-ab_n_143810.html

First off--not to rub salt in wounds--but I hated, hated, hated Hillary's campaign.  I've said some pretty hateful things about the campaign she ran, about Mark Penn in particular, and about Bill Clinton.  

But I've never doubted that Hillary's brilliant, and she's the best I've seen this election cycle at thinking on her feet.  She's just untouchable in the semi-improvisational talking-point milieu.  

Here are my reasons why I think he should strongly consider Hillary:

1. He needs a strong woman in a strong place in his administration.  

The beef on Obama from some in the Hillary camp was that he couldn't handle women in authority.  After Bush's showcasing of Condi Rice in some of the most powerful places in his White House, Obama can't have a national security team dominated by white dudes.

2. Hillary's the hardest working pol I've ever seen.  Richardson didn't strike me that way during the election at least.  Nor Kerry.  Both seem tired, shop-worn.

3. Hillary has the gravitas, smarts and power to move the Arab-Israeli conflict past this current paralysis.  Israel trusts her, but she also cares enough to apply pressure for diplomacy.

4. Hillary is a person most Democrats think of as safe, sound, solid and, above all, COMPETENT.  And giving the impression of security, stability, and competence will be important for the new administration.  Again, I don't get that from Richardson or from Kerry.

Hillary has at least as many flaws, of course, and "no drama Obama" might flinch at the idea of the Clintons (plural) uncorked in the world.  But I think it'd be worth it for what he'd get in return.

The Palin wing of the Republican party would be driven into a frenzy about it.  And that alone might make it worth it.  Anything that makes them into more of a caricature of themselves--anything that turns them yet more hateful, will ostracize them all the more from the rest of the country.

MSNBC reports that Hillary's off to Chicago, but only on "personal business."  As Chris Matthews says, "HA!"

So.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?  Sounds great to me.  




Tags: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, Barack Obama (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 286 Comments :: Post a Comment


I concur 101% (2.00 / 8)

as she knows the world leaders on a first hand basis, as yes her time in the White House counts, seeing she was no ordinary First Lady. She has the qualities above as you said, and it would be a clear message to Hillary's voters that they have been thought of and not forgotten. unlike Kerry, she knows how to speak in public, as Kerry's potential gaffes on the international stage would be a disaster, and Richardson is a political nothing compared to Clinton. He couldn't even pick up any traction with Hispanics, his own group during the primary. Political skill, which Clinton has in spades, is very useful internationally. Plus, if she does well, its a good springboard back to the White House


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:05:48 PM EST

Re: I concur 101% (1.50 / 4)

First off their are very few world leaders still in office when she was the first lady and second one poll does not equal the truth.  


by venician on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:03:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I concur 101% (none / 0)

true, about the world leaders no longer being in office. But it's a feature, not a bug. The new leaders are the people that looked up to the people that looked up to her.

Being around long enough on the international level to have seen most other international leaders/politicians get replaced is considered a sign of extra gravitas.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

are you suggesting HRC run in 2012? (none / 0)

b/c most people would see it as bad form to be Sec of State while plotting to overthrow the POTUS.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 9)

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I diaried this somewhere else.

SAY YES HILLS!


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:12:24 PM EST

Not just no, but Hell No! (none / 0)

Hillary has no foreign policy experience.  None.  Being Bill's wife does not qualify as foreign policy experience, even if she accompanied him on some trips.

Why Obama would want the Clintons anywhere his White House?  It makes no sense to me.


Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven? Not yet. We're still in Purgatory.
by NM Ward Chair on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:29:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not just no, but Hell No! (none / 0)

Well, Obama's supposedly the smart and savvy "new" brand of politics politician, so he must have offered her the position for some reason that you are incapable of seeing just now.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not just no, but Hell No! (none / 0)

You may have a very good point there.  Assuming that the rumour of the offer is further confirmed I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.  Now it's up to her, I suppose.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not just no, but Hell No! (2.00 / 2)

In fact, Ambinder makes an interesting observation:


The [conventional wisdom] in Washington is that Obama wants Clinton in his cabinet more than Clinton wants to be in the cabinet, the theory being that the moment she steps into the administration, she loses her power base, she loses her Senate seat forever, and she loses her voice on domestic policy. She concedes her political identity.  Actually, on policy: uncuriously silent in all this is Sen. Joe Biden, who has strong foreign policy ideas of his own and a bigger platform to share them with Obama.  Would Clinton become a glorified PR tool for Obama if she accepted the job? A Powell, rather than a Rice?

Mark Ambinder - What Hillary Clinton Gets Out Of A Cabinet Spot, And Other Thoughts The Atlantic 14 Nov 08

It's starting to look to me like more of a game of political 'chicken' than a matter of foreign policy.  Her move, I guess.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:44:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not just no, but Hell No! (none / 0)

I think Ambinder  had a deadline to meet and decided to let whiskey and/or medical marijuana do the writing.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If that's what this is, a Machiavellian game (none / 0)

of chicken, then it is too clever by half.  Rather than allowing the tensions with the Washington Clinton faction to die down and resolve itself, this has the effect of heightening tensions.

And when I say heightening tensions, I mean, just look at the coverage today.  It's like Obama is negotiating with a foreign power, like Putin, or like Nixon going to China.  Rather than hiring an effective person for a powerful cabinet position, the whole thing comes off as a diplomatic tussle.

This isn't good, in my opinion.  

I'm bracing myself to be disappointed by Obama, something we all should do if for no other reason than just about all Democratic leaders have proven to be disappointing specimens over the past eight years.  This "Team of Rivals" concept sounds like the kind of airy and impractical thing one would expect from an inexperienced president, and it will not leave Obama looking good if it blows up in his face in the near future, which it well may.  


by Dumbo on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that's what this is, a Machiavellian game (none / 0)

Worth noting, perhaps, that the one perspective on this whole episode we don't have is Obama's, at this point.  It's hard to say what the implications of this controversy really are until we get a bit more tangible information from the inside players.  A lot of this is highly speculative and downright incendiary.

But one thing is clear, hang around power long enough and a Clinton is bound to show up.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No. (1.50 / 12)

Here we go again.  Way too controversial.  Neither Clinton has ever been fully vetted.  Bill Clinton has many a shady deal yet to be fully revealed and is a loose cannon of major proportions.  Why give the repugs anything they can chew on?


by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:16:05 PM EST

can you stop with your (2.00 / 12)

conservative Clinton hit jobs already? They've been vetted enough that an exit poll showed Clinton would have beat McCain by more than Obama, even tho everyone in the country has heard of all the Clinton "scandals." and for 16 years I might add. The GOP is gonna try to knock anyone he appoints. I doubt they'll be able to call Clinton "unqualified," which kill their case. Whitewater/Monica are gonna be even less relevant to this than would have been to her Prez bid


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he's the one who (2.00 / 9)

went on with his "Clintons aren't vetted," "baggage," horseshit from Obama's side in the primary. He brought it up, I rebutted. Obama even may end it by appointing her to SOS, but Clinton haters can't shut up already, and show honor.


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:26:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop with your (1.16 / 6)

Ballony, exit polls are unreliable anyway. we would be having president kerry right now based on those exit polls. even then her top number is even lower than obama (52% to 53%) so she still doesn't catch up to him after so much praise from BOTH heads of the ticket which would never happen in a regular campaign. grow up puma troll.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop with your (1.85 / 7)

winning 52-41 with 5% of the people saying they wouldn't have voted actually increases her percentage, as the nominator does down. 52+41=93+2(who would vote someone else)95, so 52/95%54.8 percent of the vote, so Clinton wins by a bigger margin. Also, exit polls predicted Obama would win, Clinton would win twice, and Reagan would win twice. I'll trust them over your lack of respect for the Clintons. Dont' fucking tell me to grow up. You're the one still bashing leaders of the party who altered the political map in 1992 and 1996 to make Obama possible. Before the Clintons, Dems used to always lose NJ, PA, MI, CA, IL(O's home state,) MD, DE, ME, NH, VT, and CT. Now those states are part of the Dem electoral base, without which Obama would have lost in a landslide.


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:54:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hah (1.33 / 3)

Oh and now not only you attribute the unreliable exit polls but ADD to it based on YOUR opinions!! again grow up and wake up from your clinton/palin fantasy.she lost the primary and ran a terrible campaign which is the only reliable bench on how she would be running the election campaign. that is the only reliable historical event on which we can judge how this might have turned out because it actually happened (unlike the what ifs!)


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

opinions? (1.87 / 8)

I actually just stated the mathematical facts from the exit poll. They were reliable to predict this election accurately, along with Clinton and Reagan's, so YES I'll use them. I also merely stated states which used to be republican until Bill Clitnon came along, which are now part of our electoral college base.


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: opinions? (1.50 / 2)

Exit polls were accurate in predicting the winner maybe (except kerry, which shows they are not always accurate) but almost never do they get the correct margins. so again look at the facts, she lost to an unknown African American with middle name of Hussein and a pastor that was an idiot. That shows how she would have done against the media darling (at the time) mavericky McCain who would have probably ran his 2000 campaign to capitalize on the fact that the media, half of the country hated the clintons (including half of the dem party if she stole the Super delegates over the elected delegate majority obama had). saying that she probably would have won a squeaker since the market collapsed. the only reason she is doing fine right now is because she has been unprecedentedly PRAISED from both REPUBLICANS and dems for her voters and her image is less damaged than the primaries. those are the facts.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: opinions? (2.00 / 3)

stop troll rating my comments. I only did it to your because you said Clinton would have lost. That is flame baiting at its worst. I dont' flame bait, you do.


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:30:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: opinions? (2.00 / 1)

I don't think Clinton would have defiantly lost and didn't say so. your TRing is based on a false premise.Take the TR's off and I will do the same.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: opinions? (2.00 / 1)

or it shows that that election wasn't honest.  I believed the exit polls and saw them as evidence that some machines were programmed to change votes.  Two years later it still seemed that way except the margins weren't predicted. This time there was more oversight and more machines with paper trails, and voila, the exit polls matched the votes.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maryland voted for Reagan and Bush (1.83 / 6)

in 1988, and Nixon in 1972. Carter squeaked it out in 1980. California went for Nixon in landslides, even went Ford, Reagan in landslides, and went Bush in 1988. Connecticut went Republican in 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1988, as did Illinois in each of those years. Ford even carried Illinois. Pennsylvania also went for Nixon in 1972, Reagan twice and Bush I in 1988. The suburbs of these states were once Republican in a time before Bill Clinton. I do not give a FUCK who "you know" that said Clinton would have lost Jersey in 1992, the fact is he won it, and the pattern has been permanent. Anyone can say he knows someone, thus negating the need for data, as you do. He was also leading in the state returned. Not to mention the math for Bush was daunting in NJ in the end, as Clinton won 43-40-16.5, so Clinton only would have needed 43% of Perot's vote to get to 50%, Bush would have needed 58%, assuming they all would have voted in his absence.

I think its time someone brushed up on their [http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/11/6/1 74110/154/25#25 electoral history. the states changed because Bill Clinton made us no longer the party of welfare and being soft on crime. He showed we weren't all Jimmy Carter with economics.


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:18:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who the HELL cares??? (2.00 / 11)

I'm sure Hillary would have beat McCain, so do we relegate ourselves to arguing over who would have won MORE popular votes or electoral votes?

Absurdity.

Who.  Gives.  A.  Damn.  

Americans are soooo tired of divisiveness.  They'd love to see Hillary and Obama united.

And so would I.

Regarding Hillary's "baggage": we're no longer in a campaign.  If there are some questions about Bill's business dealings or alleged conflicts of interest, I'm sure we'd have some questions about Kerry/Heinz and Richardson too.  The press will question any powerful candidate.  That's their job.  [My bad: their job is to report on Angelina and Brad.  Their other, smaller job is to occasionally ask tough questions of cabinet picks, etc.]


by maconblue on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Its sad...... (2.00 / 6)

here you wrote a nice substantive diary on why Hillary Clinton would make a good Secretary of State and the "Clinton haters" and Freepers had to come over and spam it. I realize that was not the intent of your diary. And I am glad that YOU, unlike some, have gotten over your anger towards Hillary in the primaries. We are one united party, both Hillary and Obama are on the SAME side. Get it Hillary-haters? Hillary supporters and Obama primary supporters got together and won the general election. There is no point in bringing up the primary issues all over again. That ended in June. Move on!
Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:14:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree, but the Clinton haters (2.00 / 3)

can't stop rubbing our nose in how they think we're somehow not happy with the election results. Also, I'd appreciate some mojo ratings, as I'll give you some, and I was battling a bunch of haters. thanks


by Lakrosse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:35:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree, but the Clinton haters (2.00 / 6)

You kind of spur it on too.  On the one hand, we have Clinton haters, on the other hand we have people who can't stop refighting the primaries or trying to prove that Hillary would have won bigger, faster, stronger.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:54:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exit polls? (none / 0)

Say hello to president kerry! if she was good enough she would have won the primary against an unknown African American with the middle name of hussain and a pastor than says the thing he said.I am fine with her as SoS but cut the crap about what ifs. even the unreliable exit polls you cite has her top number at 52 while obama got 53%.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop with your (2.00 / 1)

Clinton also didn't have to endure the negative campaign Obama did. While that's a nice exit poll, it's likely that any candidate would have a closer time of it after that.


by reenactor on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: can you stop with your (2.00 / 1)

as shown by the fact that directly after a campaign ends or a candidate drops out, favorably ratings go up.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (2.00 / 9)

So here is way i very strongly disagree with your post and this is something i say all the time.  Who cares what the repugs think one way or the other.  This is the kind of nonsense that FOX news pushes. We won and they lost, PERIOD.  As a party we should do what is in the best interests of governing.

Seriously, in a couple of years the right is going to be calling BO the devil just like they did to Bill Clinton.  Are you going to say at that point BO is to controversial because repugs dont like him?  I would think not.

IMHO that is bullshit.  Fuck what Rush, and Hannity, and Coulter say and think.  As dems we shouldn't give a shit what they think because dont kid yourself the right is not going to stop smearing us and they will going after BO now all day and night.  Instead of saying "'why give the repugs anything they can chew on? lets say screw you we are doing what is best for us and the country.

Just my two sense.

david


by giusd on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let the Repugs explode with hate!! (2.00 / 4)

They'll be like Andy in "The Office."

The angrier they get, they more laughable they become.

I say piss off the extreme right.

Centrists like Hillary just fine.


by maconblue on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:08:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Two sense? (1.25 / 4)

Some of you obviously can't spell, but you may even be able to remember back to the atrocious "kitchen sink" strategy wherein your favorite senator claimed that John MCain was emminently qualified to be commander in chief, unlike her opponent.  
Obama might choose her, but it would be a mistake.  And I really don't give a damn how many Hillary fans are on this board, I really don't.  
by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And some of us (1.60 / 5)

don't give a damn about sore, adolescent "winners" who probably were former republicans and Reagan lovers..  Sheesh...I am so damn sick if the UNprogressive left....closed minded judgemental jerks.


by Jjc2008 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:16:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reagan lovers? (1.50 / 4)

Is this another example of your penetrating analysis?
One wonders how much further wrong some of you people could be.  I simply can't stand either Clinton for many good reasons which you wouldn't listen to because your critical faculties have been switched off.  Carry on.  
Over and out.
by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh please (2.00 / 2)

most of us can see quite clearly and recognize CDS.  So many of those afflicted with CDS come from the Reagan loving mentality....hero worshippers who cannot get beyond their own judgmental hate to even think in realistic terms.  Personal hate is easy to recognized.  It is NOT a quality associated with true liberal/progressive thinking. You show your colors the minute you make it about the Clintons and not about issues.


by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:18:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And some of us (2.00 / 1)

Your scare quotes around "winners" disqualify you
of debating anything about governance ever again.

If you can't accept the will of the people, then get lost. America isn't a dynastical monarchy to be passed between the Bushes and the Clintons.

But Obama's unelectable, as Clinton said.
But ofcourse North Carolina won't ever go Democratic, as Clinton said.
But ofcourse she was running for her life from the bullets in Bosnia.
But ofcourse she's backing Obama all the way, as Clinton said.

Yeah, I didn't believe any of these. Liar to the core.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (2.00 / 3)

I uprated you, not because I necessarily agree with your comment, but because I didn't think it was troll-worthy. It's an understandable position, and Obama himself may well be concerned about Bill's overseas business dealings:

Even officials who like the idea held up strong "caution" flags. Fresh off his electoral triumph, Obama does not feel he needs the Clintons. The president-elect has never liked the idea of former President Bill Clinton as a back-seat driver. And the former president has had many tangled foreign business dealings that could complicate his wife's entry into an administration that is promising transparency.

But having said that, if Obama can make it work, he probably should. There's no doubt that she's got sufficient foreign-policy chops. We've been waiting 8 horrible years to be back in charge, so fuck what the repugs think. Fuck 'em dirty. If Obama thinks she's the best person to advance his policies abroad, then that's all that matters, period.

Personally, I'd prefer Kerry, partially out of sentimentality--I'll always have undying admiration for how we went right back to work after losing the '04 election, and I'd like him to finally get a promotion. Richardson's a close second. I wouldn't be unhappy if Hillary got it, though.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:09:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uprated: this is opinion n/t (2.00 / 1)


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed. Likewise. (2.00 / 1)


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On the one hand (2.00 / 1)

I agree that she might not be the best choice for this position, though I'd fully support her appointment.

On the other hand, we really shouldn't be worrying about right-wing theatrics when it comes to these appointments. It's not like they ever gave a damn for our sensibilities, given the swamp of incompetent neocon cronies we've been subjected to for the past 8 years. Screw 'em!


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (2.00 / 1)

Sec. of State isn't vetted to the degree that a President or Veep is.

I don't see a problem.


by Bush Bites on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No. (2.00 / 1)

Not fully vetted?? They were the target of smear campaigns unlike anyone else has EVER faced for ove 3 DECADES.  And then we paid $40M to dig up any dirt we could find.

Not fully vetted- I'd like to see you go through the unprecedented level of 3 decades of scrutiny, examination & smear like they have & then say you haven't been fully vetted. Once again, the Clintons have had & continue to have every fabric of their lives taken apart, examined, misconstrued & maligned unlike anyone else I have EVER seen in public office, but that's not good enough in terms of vetting. Please. I can't stand how many in our own party have been susceptible to all these years of GOP brainwashing.


by jrsygrl on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if I were Hillary (2.00 / 6)

I'd rather keep a Senate seat for life than be Sec of State for a few years.

However, it benefits everyone for news to be leaked that Obama is considering her for this position.

And you are right, she is more than capable of doing that job well.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST

Yes, she'd be a force in the Senate, (2.00 / 3)

especially on health care she'd be missed.

But Secretary of State is vital right now for repairing our frayed ties with the world.  She's perfect for that job.


by maconblue on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think NY may need her in the Senate (none / 0)

tough times ahead for that state, mark my words.


yo mir kennen
by RisingTide on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thankfully (2.00 / 0)

we don't have Senators-for-life in this country.  Although Robert Byrd of course is pretty close.

I think she'd be a great SoS.  And it would send a great signal to the world.  Will she take it?  Maybe. Not to resurrect the Clinton-as-cold-eyed-opportunist meme from the primary, but I'm pretty sure she'll make that decision looking forward to her own political future.

All things being equal, I'd rather see her in the senate.  It needs good Dem leadership.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thankfully (none / 0)

"I'm pretty sure she'll make that decision looking forward to her own political future."

As opposed to pols for the last 2000 years.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well yeah (none / 0)

But you wouldn't know it from some people.


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if I were Hillary (none / 0)

She's qualified for both but there are plenty of senators for life. There are only a few former SOS and there will be only one former first lady, 8 year senator, sos with a historic primary campaign under her belt which will cement her place in the party as elder statesman and the history books.

In the senate she doesn't have that much options, she not in line for any chairmanships anytime soon, and the post of majority leader has formidable competitors who are better positioned when and if Harry Reid will give up his gavel.

Not to mention that the average run of a majority leader is not much longer then that of a SOS.

I'd say I would chose the SOS if I where Hillary. It's a better future for her.

Besides she gets to be the sec of state in the mean time.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 2)

I am open to this...I do think of that quote about "keep your friends close keep your enemies closer.."

I have a lot of respect for Hillary . This could however be something being leaked by Hillary supporters..


by obama4presidente on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST

It's now been traced (1.42 / 7)

to George Stephanopoulos, a man who owes his current exalted circumstances to Bill Clinton. As a very cogent DailyKos diary realizes, unlike the deep strategists at MyDD, that Bill's "..Clinton Global Initiative - a "charity" with a $208 million dollar surplus, undisclosed donors, many of them foreign..." is a total disqualification.  Feel free to ignore the ramifications there, MyDDers, I know you will.  

Hillary Clinton is apparently whom the voters of New York want as their senator.  Fine and dandy, let her be senator there 'til kingdom come, but here's the deal: if you trash a potential employer for months on end, great, but you don't get to work for that person, ever.  When this rumor, whose purpose is as yet a mystery blows over, we shall see who gets the nod for this important post, and I absolutely guarantee it will not be Hillary.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:33:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (2.00 / 3)

charities usually have surpluses and undisclosed donors, many of them foreign.

208 million is peanuts. on the international level you've got plenty of charities with billions of dollars of surpluses.

Please go away with your trolling.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (2.00 / 1)

Either way, opposition to your opinion does not warrant a TR.  Uprated.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (2.00 / 1)

I'm sorry... but could you please explain how putting charity parenthesis is not trolling?

That way he is claiming that president Clinton is not running a charity and is raising money on false premises for whatever reasons thus defrauding people.

Seems like pretty cut and dried trolling to me and has little to do with opposition to my opinion as my "opinion" was nothing but a debunking of his rather strange reasoning for claiming it isn't one. Namely a minor general reserve and foreign contributors.

So how did I go wrong?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (2.00 / 2)

Regardless of the assertion, or use of punctuation, the comment isn't TR worthy.  Per the MyDD site protocol:

* Do not troll rate (rating as 1) another user's comment unless it is a comment that is an attack on another user. Do not hide (rating as 0) a comment unless it is an abuse of the guidelines.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (1.00 / 2)

The "charity" in quotes is a citation from the DailyKos diary mentioned, Einstein.  The Clinton library received a bonus of 131 million from Bill's buddy Frank Giustra for facilitating an exclusive uranium deal in Kazakhstan.  That's one hell of a library, I must say.  Here is the link to the NY Times story if you even care, which I doubt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/pol itics/31donor.html?ref=politics

Would the repugs make a big deal out of any such dealings if they occur while Hillary is Sec of State?  Can anyone control Bill Clinton?  Would the great unwashed view such payments as proof positive that Obama and his administration are not different enough, and that Democrats are as much on the take as the Repubs?  Lest we forget, we were are happy, nay, euphoric in '92 when Clinton was elected, only to see Newt Gingrich and company came to power a mere two years later because of perceived Democratic corruption, though it was of course flimsy stuff compared to the repugs.  No, no, good people, we need no hint of drama.  We need a dull, boring career diplomat with much experience.  A team player.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (2.00 / 0)

If there's one thing I've learnt - starting with the Swiftboating in '04 through the Ayers/Wright crap today - it wouldn't matter if Mother Teresa herself were on his cabinet.

Limpballs et al. would almost certainly find something to get his minions worked up over, even if it's almost entirely lies and distortions. I had to deal with this idiocy throughout this campaign from a few otherwise normal dittoheads, and I seriously doubt any of his choices would bring harmony and light out of this faction.

The days of walking on eggshells are over. We have a mandate - it's now time to govern.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's now been traced (2.00 / 1)

Al Giordano goes a bit further with some speculative analysis:


The whole thing is a media freak show being served up by members of the Clinton factions in the Democratic party and obliged by a national media (some of them also Clinton noisemakers) in search of a story. The speculation is not because Senator Clinton wants the job, but because her people so desperately want to muddy the waters and throw up a roadblock to either New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Massachusetts Senator John Kerry - two of the leading contenders - serving in the post, whom they consider turncoats for having endorsed Obama vs. Clinton earlier this year.

[...]

It's an effort by the vindictive Clinton organization to stop Richardson or Kerry from serving in that post.

And it has the effect of underscoring why either of them would be so far superior to Senator Clinton to effectively turn the page on US foreign policy.

Al Giordano - Freak Show: Behind the Clinton for Secretary of State Rumors The Field 14 Nov 08

Perhaps a bit more declamatory than I would have put it but I thinks he gets the basics right.  Given the origin of this story with Stephanopoulos and the vaguest confirmation from within unspecified sources in the Obama transition team there seems to be a fair circumstantial case for this 'leak' having Clinton fingerprints on it.  It's really a matter of motive and opportunity, isn't it?  And I fail to see what this does to help the Obama transition effort, quite the contrary.  Consider (emphasis added):


Analyst Paul Light of New York University's John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress said picking Clinton would mean Obama was serious about reaching across the party divide.

On the other hand, he said: "To put her in the competition with several others and pick somebody other than Hillary Clinton after you've floated her name is to have a repeat of the spring and summer division and raise questions about Obama's seriousness about healing the division within the party."

Steve Holland - Hillary Clinton emerges as State Dept candidate Reuters 14 Nov 08

Hmmm...  Whom do we know who typically likes to play that kind of hard-ball?  'No drama' Obama?  Not likely.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:20:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

I doubt it, but I am ambivalent.

I think it would piss off a lot of moderates, and alienate tons of republicans and independents.  It does not fit with Obama's gestalt of unification.


Howard Dean is my go-to guy
by lojasmo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:27:21 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 4)

Really? how so?

Clinton is a moderate and a former primary opponent.

How on earth would that go against his "gestalt of unification."?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Rumor, rumors rumors

This one will be denied with 24 hrs.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:36:38 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.00 / 2)

I think she still wants to run for President.  IMHO she is better staying as Senator of NY and perhaps vie for Majority Leader.

If she accepts a Secetary of State position....by default she is submitting to the President-Elect.   Historical trends have shown not too many Cabinet members have successfully ran for a National office.

As a Senator she can take appropriate credit for passage of crucial legislation(particularly the new Healthcare proposal).   These accomplishments could therefore propel her to potential nominations in either 2012 or 2016.


by newmexicodem on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:38:19 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 4)

 Historical trends have shown not too many Cabinet members have successfully ran for a National office.

Historical trends had NEVER shown to many black politicans successfully running for POTUS either.

As a Senator she can take appropriate credit for passage of crucial legislation(particularly the new Healthcare proposal).

Good luck with that one.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/ 2008/11/hillary_denied_bid_to_take_cha.h tml


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cabinet Members Who Became President (2.00 / 3)

Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan, William Howard Taft and Herbert Hoover. The first six were all Secretary of States, William Howard Taft was Secretary of War, and Herbert Hoover was Secretary of Commerce.

Although not official cabinet members, FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and George Bush was the Director of the CIA.

In the early days of the country, moving from cabinet to the presidency was quite common, especially from the Secretary of State position. In recent history, it's much tougher to accomplish without holding elective office later.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:27:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 2)

I am for this, she will be setting the policy that Obama sets so it is all good. she doesn't have that much of a future in senate (as the health care reports show) so this would give her a high position job as well as heal  some rifts in the part by bringing whatever is left of clinton's influence into the obama fold. she was a sport after the primary ended so I personally doesn't have a problem with it (and it would excite the political junkies and the punditry which is good PR)


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:52:40 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? (none / 0)

She would be an excellent choice, but her own power will be diminished as a subordinate to the president. I am not sure she'll want it.


by RandyMI on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:04:45 PM EST

Not gonna happen. (1.00 / 4)

Do u really believe that President-elect will give the job that Kerry so strongly wants to Clinton? Afterall Kerry endorsed Obama at a very crucial time. And if Obama gives the job to Clinton whom Kerry so strongly detests, Kerry will be really-2 unhappy and hinder Obama's agenda in the senate. No Kerry it will be.

All these rumors are in my opinion another power-play by people close to President-elect to humiliate Clinton once again. They did the same song-and-dance when it was time for VP selection. And they are already doing it in the senate by trying to pass the Edwards-CLinton healthcare plan as Baucus-Kennedy plan. By now, one would have thought that Clinton supporters would have learnt.    


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST

Re: Not gonna happen. (2.00 / 2)

Maybe that's the problem. Kerry and Richardson wants the job... badly.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then Obama will give to Susan Rice (none / 0)

Definitely not Clinton!


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:34:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not gonna happen. (2.00 / 4)

And what good was Kerry's endorsement?  He is a loser, and I doubt it got Obama one single vote.  Hillary brought him thousands if not a million or more.  End of discussion.


by Scotch on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not gonna happen. (2.00 / 1)

it did help get some of the superdelegates and Washington creatures on Obama's side, plus the radical netroots on Dkos, DU, and some here. Kerry also got Obama needed media attention. He did make an impact, which is part why I don't like him, along with allowing Bush to have 4 more years.


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "radical netroots" (none / 0)

on DKos and elsewhere held their nose and voted for Kerry, at best. They were Deaniacs first, remember.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He brought a donor list (none / 0)

No doubt that Clintons brought many more votes; but wonder if people close to Obama realize that. I think not, otherwise they would have not denied her the sub-committee on health care reform.


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He brought a donor list (2.00 / 2)

Not their call.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:41:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well I dont know if Kerry's endorsement was (2.00 / 5)

worthless, but I do know that during the general election, Hillary Clinton was Obama's most effective surrogate. Hillary did 75 campaign stops for Obama. It was Hillary who Obama asked to help him win the voters in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, not Kerry. And for what its worth (probably not much) an AOL poll (AOL is conservative remember-and its membership actually favored McCain to win the Presidency over Obama), 59 percent of respondents said that Hillary would do an "excellent" job of Secretary of State. Thats not a bad place to start from.
Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:20:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 0)

Hillary was indeed a good sport and surrogate. I see no reason why she should't be a member of Obama's cabinet.

I must however strongly protest the idea that the SoS choice should be influenced by an AOL poll, of all things. One might as well as Joe the plumber for his opinion.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not gonna happen. (2.00 / 1)

I have to seriously wonder about your world view where you think the most likely explanation is that people close to Obama want to humiliate Hillary Clinton "once again".  

When it was time for VP selection, the inside word was that "it's pretty much not going to be Hillary".  The finalist lists didn't have her on it.  Matter of fact, what pissed people off was just the opposite - that it appeared that they hadn't considered her at all.

And who is this "they" that you're talking about?  You're crazy.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:41:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not gonna happen. (1.60 / 5)

I agree.  It's like the obama people are deliberately trying to torture Clinton and her supporters.  I guess to get us back for the primary.  I think it's very petty and cold to do something like this.  If Obama rejects Hillary again after doing a stunt like this it will reflect even more poorly on him.  Why put out Hillary's name if you have no intention of picking her for SOS?  It's only done to mock, put down, and torture Hillary and her supporters.  Make her be rejected as often as possible.  It's very cruel.


by karajan72 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:53:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Uprated (2.00 / 3)

Not sure what the HR offense is in this comment.

That said, karajan, can you see a difference between this line

It's like the obama people are deliberately trying to torture Clinton and her supporters.

And this?

It's only done to mock, put down, and torture Hillary and her supporters.

One's your opinion about what one of the unknowable reasons behind the Clinton-as-SoS rumors might be.  One I happen to think is bullshit, but hey, that one's my opinion.

The second line is asserting it as fact.  How do you get from a to b?


What is The October Protocol?
by Koan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Uprated (2.00 / 2)

How do you get from a to b?

PUMA logic.  It's all the rage.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not gonna happen. (none / 0)

Talk about having a victimhood complex.


by venician on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:45:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.50 / 4)

What is her foreign policy experience?


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:21:05 PM EST

Ah the experience argument (1.66 / 3)

I assume you voted for McCain.


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah the experience argument (1.33 / 3)

Hah! You can assume whatever you want. Once again, what foreign policy experience does she have?


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah the experience argument (none / 0)

Very little.  This scenario is on the order of appointing Hillary to the Supreme Court while passing over maybe ten thousand emminently qualified jurists, another terrible idea we have seen floated on this blog many a time.  There has to be a consolation prize for "us" after all, no?    


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 5)

Lets see, New York Senator on the Armed Services Committee, visited 83 countries and spoke with world leaders. Fought for woman and human rights around the world. She has the gravitas for the job.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Her travel as first lady was ceremonial. Kerry or Dodd have serious foreign policy creds. She just doesn't.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 3)

You nee to take another look at her record and what she actually did. Don't ask other people to do the research for you when you have concerns about someone's experience.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Or, better yet, you could just lay out why HRC has the foreign policy experience requisite for the position.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:47:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 5)

I did. Senator. Armed Services Committee. Standing relationship with some world leaders. Respected around the world. Understands and has demonstrated knowledge of world affairs. It is not like we are pulling Joe the Plumber out of Ohio to be Secretary of State her. This is someone with a record and reputation around the world. If you cannot understand that, then something is wrong there.

I really don't like going into the whole primary experience feud, but look at the post below me.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:51:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

I've addressed the post below. Obama needs to surround himslef with people who are experienced in their positions. HRC is smart, but she simply doesn't have the foreign policy experience of a Dodd or a Kerry.  


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 4)

Clinton as the respect and gravitas.

Listen, we don't even know if this rumor is true. If it turns out Obama does offer the job to Clinton, it would mean he deems her qualified and ready to be Secretary of State.

Kerry and Dodd has years of service in the Senate and that's great, but to argue Clinton does not have the experience to be Secretary of State is laughable and frankly, I feel stupid addressing it.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just wondering (2.00 / 2)

If you think that Obama has enough experience to be POTUS. You know POTUS has to deal with foreign policy (I even heard a rumor that it is the POTUS who is supposed to set foreign policy) in addition to runnning the economy. And wait, did I tell you POTUS is also in charge of national security.


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:42:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just wondering (none / 0)

Apparently majority of the American people (Read: not the fringe pumas) think he does have the experience to lead the nation, so do we. do you?


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just wondering (none / 0)

read the comment being responded to before attempting to rehash primaries.


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

of course, but it is amusing to see (none / 0)

Obama supporters think that numbers of years on earth is the most important aspect of doing a job.  


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just wondering (2.00 / 1)

That's a fair question. I see the president's job as being similar to that of a CEO. He has to be able to see the big picture, surround himself with smart, qualified people who will give him good advice, and be able to delegate to them with confidence that they can do the job. He then must make the tough choices based on the information from his staff. He doesn't need to be an expert in every area. And that's why it's important to choose a cabinet of qualified, smart and experienced people.    


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If that is the criteria (none / 0)

then I would prefer Obama pick somebody like Susan Rice or Samantha Power rather than Kerry or Richardson. The former always says the wrong things at the wrong time while the latter I am not sure he always knows what he is talking about.


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that is the criteria (2.00 / 1)

I have to agree that Kerry and Richardson have their own weaknesses.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just wondering (2.00 / 1)

And the job of the sec of state is twofold, namely 1. to advice the president about foreign policy.

Clinton has her strengths and her her weaknesses. Without a doubt she has considerable knowledge about foreign policy as evidenced by her campaign for the nomination. However there are people who are even better in that regard. Luckily one of them is the vice president. So that although Clinton merely one of the best but not the very best is forgivable.

2. a representative role: to be an effective stand-in of the president and to increase the international standing of the USA by help forging alliances and understanding

There is no better candidate to adequately represent the USA. Clinton is currently still better known then the president and is almost universally respected all over the world. She is known to be an effective diplomat and negotiator when the situation demands it.

So we have somebody with a very good understanding of the international stage for her advisory role and the single most qualified person for the representative role. I'd say she fits the role for Sec of state as needed in the cabinet by Obama perfectly.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Just curious (none / 0)

What foreign travel has Obama done which isn't "ceremonial"?

What are Obama's specific "foreign policy creds"?


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:51:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just curious (2.00 / 1)

Well, Obama opposed the war in Iraq for starters.

When one of the main reasons Hillary lost was her boneheadedness in issues of foreign policy, I don't see why the hell she should take that position.

Give her any other position. But Obama and Hillary DISAGREED on foreign policy, and the American people picked Obama, not Hillary.

Despite the wishes of the trolls who still haven't gotten over Hillary's defeat.

The Clintonistas obviously see this as a continuation of the primary wars -- when you disagree with Clinton in that position, they keep respond with a counterattack on  Obama, instead of a counterattack on the other possible options for that position (like Kerry or Richardson)

That fact alone shows she oughtn't be in that position. Her fans keep seeing her as Obama's equal. She's not. He'll be the president. And she will not.

And I've not yet gotten proof her groupies realize that.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:13:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

I don't see why that isn't a fair question.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:45:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary Clinton (2.00 / 5)

I love Clinton as my Senator and would like to see her stay as my Senator, but she knows her stuff. She has dealt with a lot of the world's leaders before and if the position is offered to her and she decides to take the job, I would be thrilled.

Another thing came to mind. Who will be the standard bearer in 2016? Biden will be older than McCain is today.

I always wanted her to be Senate Majority Leader with Feindgold as her Whip.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:22:06 PM EST

This would be good for all... (none / 0)

...the President elect gets to clear the deck of potential 2012 primary opponents.  Sen. Clinton gets to move on to the actual business of governing and making positive change as opposed to being the #2 topic of discussion (with Palin as #1).


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:27:18 PM EST

Nobody is going to challenge Obama in 2012 (2.00 / 1)

unless he really does a horrible job as POTUS; of which probability is  really really miniscule.


by ann0nymous on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nobody is going to challenge Obama in 2012 (none / 0)

I'm basing this on the fact we haven't hit the trough yet on the recession.  So I'd prefer he just clear the deck of the most powerful Dems either with cabinet posts or Supreme Court appointments to give him until '10 or '11 to govern.

If he had to worry about it, he'd have 18 months to govern and would get some sniffing around IA and NH as far as primary challenges if we hadn't hit the trough yet.  So this will buy him an extra 6-12 months of governing.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:44:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She's not the first person that comes to mind (2.00 / 4)

For the job, but she could certainly do it well.  I'm just not sure if it "fits."  There's any number of roles she could excel in, and yes this is one of them, but I'm just not sure if it's the best place for her.

Obviously my opinion means precisely jack.  She should do what she thinks is the most useful and meaningful, providing the can get it.  President-Elect Obama should ask her to do what he thinks she could do best for us all.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:33:36 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.57 / 7)

I just don't see how her somewhat hawkish DLC/centrist foreign policy perspective would mesh smoothly with the 'soft power'/realist school some of us have come to expect from Obama's current foreign policy team, but what do I know?  The AUMF vote, Kyl/Lieberman and the 'obliterate them' comment regarding Iran were clearly positions which differentiated her from Obama on the hustings.  I'm not sure that matters any more, but still.

And isn't the unequivocal and universal nature of this 'leak' odd among the otherwise very sober and guarded public murmurings of Obama's transition team?  I wonder where it originates from and why.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:35:15 PM EST

This "DLC centrist" stuff's a little... (2.00 / 7)

...ridiculous, in terms of it being considered a negative attribute in the eyes of President-elect Obama, IMHO.

The more names I hear bandied about that are under consideration for this or that post, the more I realize that when it comes to Democrats with Executive Branch and State Department experience, if Obama were to look anywhere else other than towards Clinton Administration alum's, I believe that would narrow his choices down to.....almost zero!

Hence, in Obama's State Department review team, Barack has Madeline Albright and Tommy Donilon running the show. While most are familiar Albright, Donilon is one of the original players from Bill's "War Room" days.

Then there's Rahm running the staff at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and on and one and one.

So, when I read:


...her somewhat hawkish DLC/centrist foreign policy perspective...

...I have to snicker.

Almost ALL of the Democratic folks Obama has to choose from as far as Executive Branch and State Department experience are Clinton folks, or Biden Foreign Relations Committee staffers, not including Republicans in this mix, of course (and folks like Sen. Lugar are also being mentioned for State, too).

So, please, tell me exactly which Democrats that aren't in some way tied to the Clintons (and people that aren't Republicans) is Obama looking at?

With Emanuel as his COS, DLC experience is not exactly considered a bad thing--when push comes to shove--as Obama's already demonstrated in the few days since he won the election.


by bobswern on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:57:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (2.00 / 2)

That's quite true but it's a matter of degree.  And as far as foreign policy experience that never really struck me as Hillary's strong suit, frankly.  Domestic policy, sure, and I can think of several areas where she could contribute a lot but her foreign policy never impressed me as anything more than status quo with one eye on the domestic political calculus of what seemed a fairly conservative post-9/11 environment.  But it didn't turn out that way, did it?

Consider, for example, her careful hewing to the AIPAC world-view on Middle East policy during the election and the support for the AIPAC promoted Kyl/Lieberman amendment.  Personally, I think we need a little less AIPAC and a little more J Street if we are going to craft an Israel/Palestine settlement, the holy grail of international politics.  On this issue I reckon AIPAC has disproportionate influence in both countries and has come to represent a hard-line perspective which is unrepresentative of the Israeli body politic and has perhaps lost sight of their best long term interests.  But that's just me.

Of all the cabinet positions Hillary might be offered where she could contribute significantly I would not have expected State to be near the top of the list.  I never got the impression that foreign policy was her strength and wonder where that idea originates, if not from campaign rhetoric on 'experience' which lacks something of substance.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:38:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (none / 0)

It may be the only one she is willing to take...State does carry some prestige....

Also, this may all have been negotiated many months ago....


by obama4presidente on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:52:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (2.00 / 4)

Maybe so but it certainly would dash my expectations for an Obama administration's foreign policy agenda and I've been following that aspect of his policy proposals pretty closely.  This is a woman who made the global and unequivocal statement that Putin had no soul, for example.  Hardly the entrée for a meaningful dialogue and possible rapprochement, don't you think?


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:17:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (2.00 / 2)

I thought it was a well-known fact Putin doesn't have a soul.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:23:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (2.00 / 3)


In response to a question pertaining to Senator Hillary Clinton's remark that former KGB officers had no soul, Russian President Vladimir Putin replied: "At a minimum, a head of state should have a head."

I tend to agree.  Please explain what possible benefit such a remark could provide other than throwing red meat to a domestic political audience?  It gains nothing and forfeits much given that Russia is going to be a significant diplomatic challenge, and opportunity, in the very near future.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (none / 0)

It does not forfeit anything. In foreign policy you have to know your adversaries. Putin is well known for his crude remarks an there is no harm in showing Putin that two can play at that game.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:07:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (2.00 / 1)

That kind of adversarial bluffing seems more suited to the Cold War or World Championship Wrestling than international diplomacy.  And it clearly indicates that the remark was intended for domestic political consumption at the expense of sober international policy which is my chief problem with Hillary's positions in these matters.

You may note the opposite tendency, within the constraints of what is considered 'electable,' from the Obama camp throughout the recent campaign.  And several of the positions for which his foreign policy chops were derided have become more or less conventional wisdom since.  However Hillary's positions, on engagement with Iran, for example, seem already a bit out of date.

And the Putin remark is just one egregious example of a tendency to play international issues for a domestic audience that tends to let politics trump policy.  Clever politics but crappy diplomacy in my opinion.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:55:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (none / 0)

Domestic consumption. If you had not noticed, Clinton was running for President of the United States. Of course it was for domestic consumption. That's a given.

Do you really think Clinton will meet face to face with Putin and say you don't have a soul. Come one Appleby, your criticisms are laughable. Every world leader plays to their citizens first.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:11:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (2.00 / 1)

As I mentioned Obama threaded this particular needle far more deftly during the campaign and weathered the inevitable derision which ensued, shifting the conventional wisdom in a number of foreign policy areas in the process.  Domestic politics trumping foreign policy has been the single greatest fallacy in our international relations for the past eight years, why would we stubbornly persist in it?  Especially when an alternative seems attainable and globally welcomed?

If we were a little less insular, especially in our foreign policy, we would bolster our alliances and not forfeit so much to our enemies.  And while your argument about the toxic state of our electoral politics has some merit it is worth pointing out that secretary of state is not an elected position.

Your position seems to rely on the realities of a situation which arguably hampers our international relations and is long overdue for a change.  That's precisely my point.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (none / 0)

Also, this may all have been negotiated many months ago....

That was my thought also.


by markjay on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This "DLC centrist" stuff's ... (none / 0)

I don't think so. I think Barack made no promises and Hillary asked for none. I think she campaigned for him with no 'deal' at all. i think she spoke with him about some of her wishes, universal health care with mandates so's it'll work, universal pre-school, probably ones that dealt with moms and kids.  

I've said for a while that we can trust her and so far she's not proven me wrong. I'm now saying we should trust him, he'll try to put the best administration together than he can, he won't pay back campaign debts from anyone.  He's taken on her primary positions, he's going to govern expecting professionals and experts, he won't take any hack whoever it may be, brownie's need not apply. and he'll respect all the voters, pugs and us, for me he's shown it, by sending Madeline Albright to represent him tomorrow. That felt good, this feels even better.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Once again, Shaun (2.00 / 0)

you've said it better than anyone.


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Once again, Shaun (none / 0)

He's quite good at that, yes?


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:00:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

As much as I hated her Iraq war vote, other than Wes Clark types, I dont know how many people would be suitable in this role? I would guess Bill Richardson would be an asset especially with Latin America.

Plus as Secretary of Stae, Hillary wont have the burden of pleasing voters. So she might end up being a pretty good Sec of State.


by Pravin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Wes Clark would actually be my first choice, frankly.  His recent military service only proscribes the Defense cabinet position for the statutory ten years, doesn't it?  Or is it any of them?


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

I doubt she'd want it, when asked if she'd accept a cabinet possition instead of answering she said obama would be too smart to take a democrt senator out of the congress as they need all the votes they can get as often as possible.  I think she'd be good for the position but i doubt it would be a good position for her.  New York Senator for a few more years could lead to majority leader, something i'm sure she'd prefer over a cabinet position.  Cabinet position holders tend to have a difficult time getting elected to national office because they are seen as bureaucrats.  I'd support he appointment but i doubt she'd take it.


by goodleh on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:35:39 PM EST

but its ny (2.00 / 1)

and it wont be hard to replace a dem in NY


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:34:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but its ny (2.00 / 1)

I thought about the senate number for a second out loud and someone said "umm it's new york".  Good point and I'd really flippin doubt a pub could win it in NY in this environment (unless spitzer ran of course)


by KLRinLA on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:21:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It Should Happen (2.00 / 4)

First, I don'tbelieve for a ny minute that there is a lot of animosity towards Hillary. Actually I think both Barack and Michael quite admire her.

2nd--The ONLY admin job HRC might want would be State--and she would be a natural for it. Condi 2

3rd--Compared to HRC, Richardson and Kerry are lightweights-and I doubt Hagel will get it

4th--I still think that HRC and Obama discussed State that evening when HRC and Barack met in Feinstein's home. Strongly suspicious anyway. Jives with her going out of her way to help in the General--"the fix is in?"

5th-Appointing a strong rival who happens to be a woman would make Obama look VERY strong, confident and presidential--because he didn't vanquish her because he feared she would overshadow him in the limelight

Thsi may well be a long shot to some but if I was counselling Barack, I'd tell him to give State to Hillary in a heartbeat!


by ionsys on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:38:58 PM EST

Mikey likes it (none / 0)

I do like her, but I think you meant "Michelle"


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 2)

One thing about this rumor is there is instant POSITIVE reactions among Democrats and the media. We don't even know if Clinton is really on the list. The more I hear about it, the more I like the idea of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:06:41 PM EST

Re: Hillary would be nuts (none / 0)

Hillary would be nuts to to take SecState.  The odds of her serving eight years are vanishingly small.  Meanwhile, she can be racking up seniority in the Senate and be a major force on legislation, even without a committee chair.


by InigoMontoya on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:07:27 PM EST

Re: Hillary would be nuts (2.00 / 2)

Personally, I suspect that she is now bored with the Senate

and Health Care change prob won't happen until 2nd term in view of economy.

Frankly, I suspect Hillary would accept Condi's role in a heartbeat!


by ionsys on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

and it will show even more incompetence from the bushies


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary would be nuts (2.00 / 0)

Healthcare will be passed in 2009 or 2010.  Its one of the things being talked about to help SHORE UP THE ECONOMY!  Its a priority of the Administration.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's always vp in 4 years? (2.00 / 1)

Biden'll be in his seventies, no?


by maconblue on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There's always vp in 4 years? (none / 0)

I expect Obama will replace Biden as VP in 2012, assuming Obama is the nominee.

Biden may get Sec of State for 18-24 months to say he had it.

The VP prospects for 2012:

* Brian Schweitzer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schwe itzer
* Janet Napolitano, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Napol itano
* Kathleen Sebelius,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Se belius
* Tim Ryan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ryan


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama Has Read About Lincoln (none / 0)

Obama is very interested on how Lincoln put his rivals in his cabinet. Lincoln believed that putting rivals in his cabinet had two big benefits. First, they brought you diverse views and vigorous debate on policy matters, and second, it allowed him to watch his rivals. I think he is seriously thinking about asking Clinton to serve as Secretary of State.

However, giving up her senate seat is a very high price for Clinton to pay. Most Secretary of States don't last the full two presidential terms. On the other hand, Clinton has a good chance to move into leadership positions in the senate. Six secretary of states early in the Republic have moved on to become president. But in the end, after much thought, I think she'll turn down the position.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:39:49 PM EST

depends on how big international issues are (2.00 / 1)

because if she is part of an administration which repairs our reputation and presides over a transforming mideast and Korea, she can take credit. International issues are likely to be big, because the economy may not recover so quickly. and if it does by 2016, she will still have the know how and voice on health care and jobs, which won't be perfect even by then


by Lakrosse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Has Read About Lincoln (none / 0)

It's hard for me to imagine it leaking only for her to turn it down.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Has Read About Lincoln (2.00 / 2)

Well, that depends on who leaked it, doesn't it?  If this morning's Washington Post was the first Obama's transition team heard about it that would be pretty embarrassing.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:41:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Has Read About Lincoln (2.00 / 1)

Prob Obama people leaked it to put pressure on her to accept it. just like they did this to rham who was a close obama confidant but wanted to be the house speaker.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:28:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Has Read About Lincoln (2.00 / 0)

I understood the consensus of opinion on the Emmanuel leak was that it originated with Rahm.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:57:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

This won't go over well, but I think the new Secretary of State will have to be very focused on the Middle East.  I think a person who never supported the Iraq war would be a better fit and would be more effective (diplomacy requires trust from all parties).  I'm all for her getting other cabinet positions, however.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST

I originally was hoping for attorney general.... (2.00 / 2)

Hillary understands the partisan nature of many trumped up "investigations" and I believe that Hillary would protect Obama from all the bs that the right wing is going to inevitably try to do. She, like no other, understands the importance of a loyal (yet fair) attorney general and would do an excellent job. Heck, I'm glad she's being considered for something. It would make me and her supporters very happy.
Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:02:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

here here (none / 0)

Yeah... Attorney general would be great!


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Beat me to it (none / 0)

I don't see her experience fitting SOS as well as some others mentioned, but Attorney General seems to be a better fit for her experience, political style and personality.  I'd be all for that.  SOS?  I think she'd do a good job, but there are likely better candidates.


by ThinkerT on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:53:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.60 / 5)

The Clinton haters are back, blame the DLC/centrist Dems for all of America's problems. Genius!


by bsavage on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:52:50 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.40 / 5)

I'm so suck of that crowd. I really hope they don't take over the party. The only downside of Obama winning is they think they are embolded. Too bad Obama's appointments are already getting them down, like Rahm Emanuel.


by Lakrosse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:06:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 3)

Um, actually it's the Obama haters who are back. One only has to look at their comment history to see that most of them left after Hillarys loss and have only recently returned.


by venician on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:22:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.66 / 3)

I'm sorry for giving this a 1 but I really felt that this is not productive.  Not necessarily something that should be hidden but definitely not the kind of party I would want to live in.

Liking Pres. and Senator Clinton should not be the sine qua non of being in the Democratic party.  There are people who agree with everything else but have axes to grind against the Clintons for whatever reason.  There have always been rifts and rivalries in political parties.  Please don't forget that the Nelson/Ford/DLC bad blood is pretty mutual.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:30:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.25 / 4)

"Back" from what? I have always been here. You have not been. If I remember correctly you never said one good word about Obama.

People like you who still haven't gotten over Hillary's defeat are now "returning".

Is it Hillary 2012, bsavage, or Hillary 2016? At what point in time are you aiming at?

Obama is the President-Elect. She's not. She's not even Obama's equal, let alone his superior. Get it into your thick skull already.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:25:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Other benefits..... (2.00 / 3)

1. It will heal any leftover or lingering rift between the Clinton wing and the Obama wing of the Democratic Party (I realize that we are mostly a united party now- but this would remove the last shred of animosity between the two camps. 2. Hillary has proven that she is a loyal and effective surrogate (campaigning for Obama in over 75 stops) showing nothing but support. She may have had drama in her own campaign, but as a surrogate for Obama, there has been no drama. 3. Appointing Hillary, as you said, is a nod to women. I actually think its a much more powerful nod than just "any woman" because remember, many feminists DEEPLY wanted Hillary to be President. 95 percent of us then backed Obama in the general election. 4. Hillaryis44.com may finally shut down. lol 5. Obama wants to improve our standing in the world. Hillary Clinton is committed to doing the same. I pray that Obama picks her. I realize that "its not a done deal" and he may have other reasons for not picking her (such as needing a strong Senator in NY). But lets keep our fingers crossed. This would be a dream come true. Rec'd
Another proud Hillary Clinton supporter for Obama
by Sandy1938 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:58:44 PM EST

Re: Other benefits..... (2.00 / 1)

No it won't. I voted for Obama, but I'm not at all optimistic about the next four years. The economy is just starting its downturn, and there are lots of foreign policy problems. Don't get me wrong: I don't blame Obama for our current economic situation or foreign policy problems, but I have little faith in his ability to fix our current mess. At the very least there will be some decent Supreme Court justices.


by bsavage on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (2.00 / 0)

bsavage is a case in point - he's so bitter that upthread he's saying she shouldn't take the job, along the lines of "he made his bed, now lie in it"... I think?


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (1.66 / 3)

Like I said, I voted for him. That's more than enough. I'm just expecting a Jimmy Carter presidency instead of a FDR.


by bsavage on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:11:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (2.00 / 0)

Well, thanks for your vote.  I'm guessing you will be pleasantly surprised.


by Shaun Appleby on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

Likewise.  I'm hoping for FDR.  Expecting Carter.  Will be happy with Clinton.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:05:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

I think the merits should be discussed on whether or not she's capable of doing a good job (I think she is), and whether or not there's a better candidate (none comes to mind, but I haven't given it too much thought).

I think the party infighting is pretty much over with - if there's one thing the last year has shown, it's that you can't tell what the average person thinks by looking at political messageboards.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:59:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

1. I don't want the sort of "harmony" between a Clinton wing and an Obama wing that's dependent on Obama handing favors to Clinton. Obama was elected president: He oughtn't need anything other than the mandate the people gave him.

If the Clinton camp don't get that, if they scorn the vote of the people, if they want personal favours, that's all the more reason they oughtn't get them.

2. See the map here: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archiv es/2008/11/the_mccain_belt.php

Clinton seems to have done a lousy job campaigning for Obama in Arkansas, since Arkansas seems to have the most concentrate decrease in votes for Obama, compared to 2004. Arkansas moved more towards the Republicans than Arizona or Alaska did.

3. No, it'll be a nod to Hillary Clinton. Unlike the Palin tokenism, Hillary was never a token, was never a mere representative of her gender, she's one specific person with a very specific political history.

4&5. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have displayed very bad foreign policy judgment. I don't want them doing anything related to foreign policy. Have them in any domestic position they want, but not in foreign policy.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:25:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

How do you feel about Hagel, Lugar or Powell playing foreign policy roles for Obama?


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:20:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

Since Republicans don't suffer the delusion that they were entitled to the Democratic nomination and that it was stolen from them, I have no problem with a Republican for a foreign policy role.

The problem isn't with difference of opinion. The problem is with the Clintonian entitlement syndrome that will be undermining Obama's policies.

But I guess Clinton may very well undermine Obama from the Senate floor as well, if she so chooses. So I guess he's fucked either way.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

But your argumen above seemes to be premised not a sense of entitlement, but due to "bad foreign policy judgment" If that's the case, Hagel, Lugar and Powell have at least at bad judgment, if not worse.


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Other benefits..... (none / 0)

There is nothing that the Clintons could have done to deliver Arkansas for Obama.  Whereas they worked their butts off in Florida, North Caroline, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

And, man, thinking that all Obama needs is the "mandate of the people" is Palinesque in its naivete.

All that said, I hope Hillary isn't SecState.  I think she could grow into the lioness of the Senate.


by InigoMontoya on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:32:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well.... (2.00 / 1)

OK!


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST

The Full-On Government of Rivals (none / 0)

POTUS: Obama
VP: Biden
State: Clinton
Treasury: Dodd
Defense: Kerry
Attorney General: Edwards
Homeland Security:Richardson
Interior: Gravell
HUD: Kuchinich
Energy: Vilsack
Climate Czar: Gore

Not gonna happen, but an en masse announcment would make quite a visual--no, it's not the 99th Democratic Primary Debate, it's Obama's Cabinet!.


by slvn on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:59:07 PM EST

Re: The Full-On Government of Rivals (2.00 / 1)

I like and approve of all the names you mention for whichever post Obama wants to put them - with one major exception - Edwards. I don't judge him for his personal failures, but will never be able to trust him after he ran for the nomination while conspiring to deceive the party about those failures. Had he won, the party would have lost. I consider him as sanctimoniously phony as Lieberman, and every bit as self-absorbed. Edwards is now out to pasture politically speaking, and best left there permanently, imho.


by phoenixdreamz on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:58:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

dodd isnt (2.00 / 1)

leaving the senate.
Kerry i hope doesnt get anything. keep him in the senate.

Edwards? Are u fucking kidding me? That alone would make Obama's presidency a joke.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:43:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards would taint team Obama? (none / 0)

Dude cheated on his wife and lied about it.

What percentage of pols cheat on their spouses? Edwards wasn't exactly a trailblazer.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards would taint team Obama? (none / 0)

Well the Husband of the possible SOS candidate... The jackass who just ran against Obama... The jackass who ran the house in the 90's and wants to run for President in 2012... There's 3.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:50:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can we stop the primary war? (2.00 / 1)

It's over.  Clinton campaigned dutifully for Obama.  Obama won.

They are over it.  

You should be too.

PS  She'd be great in this position; would prefer SCOTUS though.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:21:29 AM EST

Re: Can we stop the primary war? (2.00 / 2)

I think (could be wrong) that she's ruled out SCOTUS.  Like she's really, REALLY not interested.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:03:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

unfortuneately (none / 0)

too old for scotus.

we need someone with hillary's liberalism in a woman maybe 15 years younger than her


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

I think it'd be a mistake for her career wise, but I would have no problem with her as SOS.


by Drummond on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:57:43 AM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 2)

Agree that it could possibly be limiting for her. She said as much herself recently when asked if she would be in the administration. She said that she wanted to stay in the Senate and that Obama would need as many strong Senators as he could get.

Still, I think that if he asked her, she would do it. And she would be a great choice.


by carrieboberry on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:17:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Raiding the Senate (none / 0)

I don't understand why all the speculation has been centered around sitting senators. Is it that the media doesn't know anyone else's name? Surely Obama will avoid raiding the Senate of all our effective Democratic senators. Right? Or is he moving our entire caucus over to the executive branch?


by s5 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:04:01 AM EST

Re: Raiding the Senate (none / 0)

That's why Hillary is more plausible then most. New York is as blue as can be and has a deep bench.

She's one of the dems more powerful politicians with a positive and well known international profile... and she's sidelined in the senate due too the seniority rules.

With Kerry the Foreign Relations Committee would lose both their chair and the ranking democrat. Richardson would lose us a governor and a future senate seat.

After that you are left with Holbrooke, republicans or people without any significant profile.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Ernst on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

promoting Senators (none / 0)

creates upward mobility. This is popular with people who stand to move up.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. n/t (2.00 / 3)


by Bob Sackamento on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:12:47 AM EST

The primary is long over (2.00 / 3)

I'm sure Hillary would do a great job in any cabinet position if asked. And if in the end she is not asked I'm sure President Obama will be successful without a Clinton in the cabinet but with Hillary doing good work in the senate.

To bad any mention of her name next to Obama's brings on a rehash of the primary campaign ad nauseum.


by hankg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:00:49 AM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? (1.66 / 3)

Clinton for Secretary of State

Upside for Clinton:
1) If for any reason a President Obama cannot or chooses not to run for a second term, she is well placed to jump into 2012.

2) The economy is uncertain may not revive sufficiently for voters in 2012. Taking SoS dealing with foreign issues keeps Clinton away from indirect blame. It can serve as a relatively safe port in an economic storm.

3) As a junior senator she is currently being shut out from any key roles, Chairmanships or otherwise that would allow her to be effective in the domestic arena. So she might as well go global. In addition, if it all goes wrong from an economic point of view, she is shielded from being a member of a do nothing Democratic Congress.

Downside for Clinton:
1) Obama is manipulative and prone to use strong human shields like Rahm Emanuel to deflect from the fallout of unpopular choices. Hillary Clinton would be the ultimate human shield for Barack Obama taking flack for foreign policy missteps even when not of her own making.

2) Obama could downgrade the role of Secretary of State using it as a public relations front rather like Cheyney did with Condoleeza Rice for a while.

3) Although Hillary Clinton could always resign, she would be locked in an Obama Cabinet. She should look at what happened in Britain to Gordon Brown's chief rival, David Miliband whom Brown gave the role of the British version of Secretary of State. Miliband has been effectively sidelined, as Brown tends to do his own diplomacy anyway. Hillary Clinton would have to watch being subtly sidelined by Obama, Biden, NSC and a handful of Special Envoys that Obama could appoint.

I hope she does not accept it and sits quietly in the Senate working on behalf of New York.  If she does accept she takes a gamble, but hopefully it will be a well calculated risk that the Secretary of State role will keep her out of the way of an economic storm. I suspect it will still be the economy stupid, even in 2012.


by superetendar on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:04:10 AM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? (none / 0)

Hillary supporter: "Obama is manipulative.. Obama downgrades Sec. of State."

Sheesh.


by Trey Rentz on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

More rumors, with Clinton hacks Andrea Mitchell and George Steph as the sources?

Remember, the State Department has and $11.9 billion budget, and Clinton could not even manage her campaign funds without going very deeply into debt.

Team O knows this.  Clinton will not be SOS.


by baghdadjoe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:59:59 AM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

She's not the only democratic candidate with debt after campaigning and furthermore the DNC as of today is millions of dollars in debt from the election so I am not sure what relevance your dig at Senator Clinton has. This pick is obviously the right one because it's causing so many to have conniption fits. Pres. Obama obviously wants to work and the nation to function in areas and places where it hasn't for the last eight years. There is no policy difference between the two when it comes to foreign affairs both are hawks.  


by Iceblinkjm on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:17:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Um..The whole nation is in debt and getting more so every day. Obama himself is proposing (correctly) stimulus plans which will add to this. I doubt campaign debt is a factor in the decision making process.


by Mayor McCheese on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:22:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Move on. (2.00 / 1)

He'll pick whoever he'll pick. Let's at least wait till the choices are confirmed, instead of these ridiculous foodfights based on rumors.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:09:01 PM EST

She would be a fool (none / 0)

To take this job.  She can do and say what she pleases as Senator.  The job will most likely be hers for life.  The Secretary of State Job is only for 4 years and she has to carry out the mission of someone else.  This is not a place for her to make her mark.

Additionally, as SOS she would have little say and no time to deal with health Care.  If this really is her main concern, State is the wrong place.

If I were her, I would stay happily in the Senate and maybe shoot for Majority leader in 2012.  Let Richardson have State.


by gavoter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST

Re: She would be a fool (none / 0)

HRC wants to be Sec of State.

What's this say about her commitment to health care reform?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She would be a fool (none / 0)

Probably that she is pretty certain its going to pass in the new congress.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:48:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

was she confident it would pass in the 90s? (none / 0)

There's more to overhauling the medical-industrial complex that a DC consensus that change would be good.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She would be a fool (none / 0)

Probably that she is pretty certain its going to pass in the new congress.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This isn't the first diary (2.00 / 0)

.. that we've turned on ourselves with these feuds. Soldiers with no war left to fight, we're picking each other to death out of boredom.

We won't be bored for long. Palin is but a sideshow: the right-wing histrionics should be starting up soon enough.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST

Re: This isn't the first diary (none / 0)

True dat.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:06:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She has my vote. (2.00 / 1)

She'd be an excellent choice.

She'd be an excellent choice for any position.


by RichardFlatts on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST

On second thought (none / 0)

Maybe Hillary should stick it out in the Senate and shoot for Majority Leader.   She could be the first female in that position and be a real power broker in the shaping the agenda.  

As Sec St. she'd probably serve 4 to 6 yrs and then what?  She could serve longer in the Senate, and do more good there.


by RichardFlatts on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM EST

Re: On second thought (none / 0)

Governor?  

Or maybe after 6 years, she starts campaigning for 2016.

As for Majority leader... I'm not quite sure she can win at this point.   Schumer and Durbin would be ahead of her by estimation....     Just because many of us like her for the role, doesn't mean the Senate will.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:47:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

Hillary taking Sec of State would be a demotion.

Thats why the destroy Hillary at any cost team is so excited by it.

Hillary is the #1 threat to Obama in 2012 if he runs into trouble and his team knows it.

SCOTUS and cabinet positions are ways to try and destroy her career without being openly hostile to the casual observer...


by dtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

I don't think it will be a demotion. As Chuck Todd said, if Obama does pick Clinton, then the press is going to cover the office like the world is coming to an end. The office will be elevated is some sense. She will be followed everywhere. The next SoS has A LOT to do, so it is not like she will be sitting in her office all day long.

The only problem for her, if it is offered, it is a temporary job. She could be out of a job in four years if Obama does not get reelected. She could be pushed out. Then again, there is always the possibility for Defense or VPOTUS.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

What, is it tin foil hat day here, or what. You bitter deadenders have gone off the deep end in this thread. Trying to rehash fingergate? Oh brother!


by venician on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:01:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

I love Hillary, but there's no 2012 run out there DTaylor, unless something awful happens to Obama, and it's NOT going to.

SoS is not a demotion.  It's arguably the most visible position in the world outside of US President.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:09:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (1.00 / 1)

Obama has a bad set of cards in that the economy is bad, he has no past record of success and he is a black man with a liberal base.

The economy is bad and likely to continue to be bad so 6-9 months in things are likely to be worse than they are now.  Its very possible we are in for great depression 2.0

When the honeymoon is over in 6-9 months Obama likely will not have a shining record that America lines up behind and says good job.  All his positive things involve more tax income or greater spending both of which are easy targets for criticism during a recession.

Obama does not have a record of doing anything successful other than write books and run campaigns.  He will not have the resilience that established political brands have.  Carter was a successful governor and look what happened to him in similar circumstance.

Lastly Obama is black with a liberal base.  He already has the drudges of the world looking for every misstep he makes.  
This built in group of people who want to see him fail will be a constant struggle especially since his campaign was based on hope, staying positive and being the nice guy.  His ability to respond with harsh language to critics will be restricted once there is not a single identity to those who oppose him such as Clinton or McCain supporters.

Obama will either be FDR or Carter.

If he is Carter Hillary will have a cakewalk in 2012.

If he is FDR Hillary won't run in 2012.


by dtaylor2 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:39:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes! (2.00 / 1)

HIllary Clinton as Secretary of State, the most visible of all Cabinet Presidential Cabinet picks, would be a grand-slam home-run.

She would be pure diamond dazzle.  Whereas Kerry or Richardson, both disasters as Presidential candidates, would both be snoozes.  In fact, anybody else--even Colin Powell (now, there is a genuine bona fide disaster in foreign policy--the man who gave us the Iraq War--whereas no other couple is more recognized or revered in the world today than Bill and Hillary Clinton, the "peace and prosperity couple")--would be lackluster in comparison.

Yes, we eighteen million strong--the most officially for any Presidential primary candidate, even by President-elect Obama's OFFICIAL numbers--who voted for Hillary, some 99% of us who followed the Clinton command to endorse Obama--may be insignificant to some bizarre still Clinton-hating bloggers, but we are not insignificant to anyone else.

And, if President-elect Obama has indeed asked Senator Clinton to be his Secretary of State, those eighteen million are not insignificant to him either.

Choose a Clinton and go for platinum.  The Press will be everywhere following Hillary or Bill, or Bill with Hillary, Hillary without Bill, Bill without Hillary--whatever.  Pure platinum.

Go for Kerry, Richardson, or any number of similarly boring also-rans, and witness how nobody else but the die-hards give a Fig Newton.

President-elect Obama.  Hit a grand-slam home run with this first major cabinet pick--Hillary as Secretary of State.

You will razzle-dazzle them--and never stop dazzling.

Choose from among the boring also-rans, who kissed up to you early on, and have a boring, however tidy, foreign policy for all your years as President.


by lambros on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST

Re: Yes! (2.00 / 1)

HIllary Clinton as Secretary of State, the most visible of all Cabinet Presidential Cabinet picks, would be a grand-slam home-run.

She would be pure diamond dazzle.  Whereas Kerry or Richardson, both disasters as Presidential candidates, would both be snoozes.  In fact, anybody else--even Colin Powell (now, there is a genuine bona fide disaster in foreign policy--the man who gave us the Iraq War--whereas no other couple is more recognized or revered in the world today than Bill and Hillary Clinton, the "peace and prosperity couple")--would be lackluster in comparison.

Yes, we eighteen million strong--the most officially for any Presidential primary candidate, even by President-elect Obama's OFFICIAL numbers--who voted for Hillary, some 99% of us who followed the Clinton command to endorse Obama--may be insignificant to some bizarre still Clinton-hating bloggers, but we are not insignificant to anyone else.

And, if President-elect Obama has indeed asked Senator Clinton to be his Secretary of State, those eighteen million are not insignificant to him either.

Choose a Clinton and go for platinum.  The Press will be everywhere following Hillary or Bill, or Bill with Hillary, Hillary without Bill, Bill without Hillary--whatever.  Pure platinum.

Go for Kerry, Richardson, or any number of similarly boring also-rans, and witness how nobody else but the die-hards give a Fig Newton.

President-elect Obama.  Hit a grand-slam home run with this first major cabinet pick--Hillary as Secretary of State.

You will razzle-dazzle them--and never stop dazzling.

Choose from among the boring also-rans, who kissed up to you early on, and have a boring, however tidy, foreign policy for all your years as President.


by lambros on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:33:31 PM EST

Re: Yes! (none / 0)

Obama ought serve the needs of all hundreds of millions of American citizens. Not the whims of 18 millions, or whatever subportion of that number are still devoted to Hillary.

The very fact that you argue it will prove these tiny minority's significance, is a prime reason for Obama to choose otherwise. No delusions of grandeur from cabinet members, please. No cabinet member who doesn't understand they serve at the request of the President, and that it's the President and Vice president alone who have the democratic mandate.

Clinton isn't the president. She wasn't elected President. She wasn't elected vice-president. Her groupies need to stop trying to subvert democracy.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes! (none / 0)

I supported Obama 100% from start to finish and I think this would be fantastic.  IF she takes it, which is the key.  But at this point, you can't blame Obama if she doesn't.


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton is supporting Al Franken fundraising effort to keep his campaign viable for the coming recount.


by Check077 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:00:40 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 2)

Also, as for the people having gripes about all things concerning Hillary in regards to Obama, they should just "GET OVER IT." The DEMOCRATS have won now--this is bigger than the gripes of fringes over just one democrat, Hillary Clinton. Hillary has served her party well and with great honor. Obama knows that and Hillary knew that a President Obama was the only option that a true democrat would. I voted for Obama largely because of Obama embracing Hillary stances on important issues. I based it on "not who I was for, but who was for ME". Not to fill yet another privelaged person pocket linings, but to embrace that person's philosophy to bring about real change. The kind of change that means "Steering clear and FAR...Away...from George W. Bush's policies."


by Check077 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:09:14 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Uhh, what?

Seriously, I read it three times.  


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

I think Hillary would do a good job as Secretary of State.


Andrew Callahan http://www.signingforsomething.org/blog
by Andrew Callahan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:33:24 PM EST

why would she want it? (none / 0)

Josh Marshall expressed wondered at why HRC would want to be Sec of State. Here's what I sent him.

My take: Hillary Rodham Clinton sees herself as a executive branch person. From 1977 until 1992 Bill Clinton was in executive positions in Arkansas (minus four years). And from 1993 to 2001 Bill Clinton was POTUS.

Making things happen in an executive branch capacity is different than as a legislator. You can give government employees orders; legislators only get to order their staffs around.

At one point when the Dems were opposing Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton made a statement about needing to see things from the perspective of the person in the White House. I thought this was telling. HRC thinks having a strong executive branch and a weak legislative branch helps the cause of progress.

There's also the matter of relative power.

Secretary of State is arguably the premier cabinet post. It's certainly near the top of the list. As Secretary of State HRC can hobnob with heads of state and maybe achieve something great (peace agreement Israel/Palestine?). She could get a Nobel Peace Prize. She could set herself up to be head of the World Bank or something (again an executive position).

HRC is currently the 68th most senior senator. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_sena tor. Although seven on the list ahead of her will leave in the next Senate.

I'm not that big a fan of the Clintons and never liked the idea of HRC in the Senate, so feel free to factor in my bias, but... it seems likely that if HRC wants to be Secretary of State that she doesn't like the day-to-day aspects of being a U.S. Senator. Does she not likely fundraising? Seems unlikely this is the problem. Does she not like travel? She's going for the most travel intensive job in the cabinet and DC to NY isn't that long a trip. Does she not like dealing with mundane bread-and-butter issues and constituent service? This explanation seems the most likely.

I'm OK with HRC as Secretary of State. I think Richardson and Holbrooke are better negotiators and have more management experience. But HRC brings a certain cache being who she is.

I would have more respect for her if she was seeking HHS as a platform for pushing universal health care. That was one area where I thought she'd be more of an asset to Obama.

Another point about appointing HRC. If the NY vacancy in the U.S. Senate was filled by an African-American it would reduce the pressure on Gov. Blagojevich to appoint an African-American.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:45:37 PM EST

Reading the comments on BlowPost... (2.00 / 2)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14 /clinton-met-with-obama-ab_n_143810.html

I'm more for it than ever.  The anti-Clinton vibe over there is like you'd expect to find at redstate.  The primaries are over.  Clinton did a helluva job campaigning her strongest for Obama.  He won.  The primary war is still being fought on the BlowPost.

Figures that a site run by a former arch-Repuke, would have fans who act like them.


Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike - Plato
by IssaquahIndie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (2.00 / 1)

The biggest thing for me on this is her experiences actually are tailor made for this role.  I never bought the first lady=experience for President argument.  However, she was a top diplomat AS first lady....  THis is something she has experience for.  Yes, she bumble fucked on the war vote... but then she will take foreign policy cues from Obama.

1 other thing to the Hillary people who think this will hurt her chances of running in 2016.... Remember, the Sec of State historically was considered the primer for President... NOT VP.   This a great credential and shows her executive experience as well.   Unless she could assume a Senate leadership role, this may be a better move.  


by yitbos96bb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:42:05 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

Rather than allowing the tensions with the Washington Clinton faction to die down and resolve itself, this has the effect of heightening tensions.

And when I say heightening tensions, I mean, just look at the coverage today.  It's like Obama is negotiating with a foreign power, like Putin, or like Nixon going to China.  Rather than this being about hiring an effective person for a powerful cabinet position, the whole thing comes off as a diplomatic tussle between hostile powers.

This isn't good, in my opinion.  

I'm bracing myself to be disappointed by Obama, something we all should do if for no other reason than just about all Democratic leaders have proven to be disappointing specimens over the past eight years.  This "Team of Rivals" concept sounds like the kind of airy and impractical thing one would expect from an inexperienced president, and it will not leave Obama looking good if it blows up in his face in the near future.  


by Dumbo on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:49:06 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Hell Yes! (none / 0)

I'm just as cautious with my expectations, but I'm way with him on this one. Having the Clintons' enthusiastic participation can only help him as he navigates the treacherous waters ahead.

Despite my earlier ambivalence, given the alternatives - I now agree that the SOS role is tailor-made for Hillary. Richardson might be impressive on paper, but in terms of name recognition he's not as well known in diplomatic circles - nor does he bring the kind of gravitas that the Clinton name does. Further, the past 8 ghastly years have the world downright sentimental for the '90s, and her presence would be a positive reminder of a reformed and renewed United States.

Sure the tensions with the Clinton factions might have resolved themselves eventually, but this is no time for political laissez-faire. Kudos to Barack for being proactive in this regard.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hell Yes! UPDATE: OFFER MADE! (2.00 / 1)

I just have to say, without reservation, that this is (through no fault of the diarist), the WORST thread that MyDD has ever seen since the Texas Darlin' was run out of town.

Did Bellevue get internet access or something?


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:04:17 PM EST

Re: Hell Yes! UPDATE: OFFER MADE! (2.00 / 1)

No kidding, I think some here are actually in their pajamas in their parent's basement.  Geesh, I just h/t'd palin, I am going to go get a stiff drink(s) and piss this thread out


by KLRinLA on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:32:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

dumb reporters (none / 0)

On the politics round up last night on Hardball Chirs had two female reporters on who are still waaaay  to starry eyed and prone to projecting their own hopes and dreams on Obama.

Nooo they whined, almost cried.  Hillary can't be sec state, noooo she was wrong on the war, she'd be better at education (yeah, she'd take that backwater), nooo Obama won't do it, he can't do it.

I hope he does just so people like them have to cry themselves to sleep at night.  What a bunch of starry eyed overly dramatic losers.


by RichardFlatts on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:15 AM EST

How many times must this nonsense arise? (none / 0)

First, Sen. Clinton wouldn't drop out of the primary race, even though everyone with an IQ above that of a catcher's mitt knew she had no chance of winning.

Then, after needlessly dragging out the primaries so that all 50 states, Guam, Puerto Rico, and two-thirds of the Jovian moons had their say, she finally realized she wasn't going to be the party's nominee and dropped out.

Then, her amen corner in the media and her cultish followers kept on assuming she was going to be Obama's running mate, which, again, anyone with an IQ above that of a toaster knew was never going to happen.

So now this. Once again, the media is touting things that almost certainly aren't true, and all her loony followers are again lapping it up. I swear, her most loyal admirers won't rest until Hillary Clinton is declared SuperQueen of the Entire Universe.

Hey, did you guys hear this?

BREAKING:

Sources close to the Obama transition team have indicated that a new Cabinet-level position -- they're calling it SuperQueen of the Entire Universe -- will be established.

This new position, of course, will likely be filled by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was seen late last evening at Bergdorf Goodman being fitted for a tiara and wizard robes.


by BenderRodriguez on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:51:05 PM EST

Re: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? (none / 0)

I don't think Obama offered Clinton the position otherwise he would not have spoken to Richardson, unless it was just a backup. Or maybe she did turn it down.

My choices today for State:

1. Clinton

  1. Richardson
  2. Holbrooke
  3. Kerry
  4. Hagel


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: