On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

by Todd Beeton, Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST

I flew to Chicago today (all the cool kids are doing it) for a wedding and on the flight as I was watching CNN it was announced that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did indeed meet yesterday where, as Gloria Borger put it, President-elect Obama gauged whether Senator Clinton would be interested in the job of Secretary of State and while an explicit offer was not made, that Clinton left with the impression that it was hers if she wanted it. This is pretty much exactly the story that is on CNN.com right now.

Interestingly, HuffPo reports that a more overt offer was made:

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

Keith Olbermann's updates to his DailyKos diary would appear to confirm that CNN's take is more accurate:

Jake Tapper's reporting: "no firm offer" was made, but "the job is hers if she wants it," per one unidentified source.
Chip Reid's reporting: that Obama also met to discuss the State post with Governor Richardson.

There's been a lot of speculation about whether she would take it if actually offered and what such an offer says about Barack. The consensus seems to be that Clinton would probably take it as otherwise she'd just be 1 of 100 Senators, and the junior Senator from her state at that; and with other Democrats making plays on healthcare, it's not clear that she would have the leadership role she might want on that issue. As for what it says about Barack, refreshingly, a lot of the analysis has agreed that it demonstrates a lot of confidence that he would surround himself with a former rival, one who might, as some speculate, still have designs on his job some day, leading to the inevitable comparison to Lincoln's "Team of Rivals" strategy of building a cabinet. There was also some more cynical analysis that posited that this is Barack "keeping his friends close and his enemies closer" although I will agree with one thing that Republican strategist Alex Castellenos said (alone among a litany of stupid shit that came out of his mouth.) By bringing Clinton into his inner circle, Barack is establishing the Democratic Party as Barack Obama's party and eliminating any claim the Clintons may have to a "Clinton wing of the Democratic Party."

I am really intrigued by Clinton ascending to Secretary of State. I think on many levels it's a perfect role for her, as she ran partly on rebuilding our image abroad and she and Bill are beloved around the world. It also just sort of feels right in a certain way. I do understand people's reservations about her more hawkish tendencies and the attacks she levied against him in the primary over diplomacy, but I think their differences are actually much less stark than they seemed during a contest that was about making distinctions with your opponent. And I think at the very least, Clinton has proven to be a team player and I have no doubt that as Secretary of State she would advance the policies of Barack Obama's around the world, not her own.

Consider this a thread to discuss the possibility of Clinton as Secretary of State.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

98 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I don't really see it, personally. What are her credentials for it, other than having been first lady. I looked at her committee assignments, and didn't see Foreign Relations (although Armed Services, which she serves on, may have some jurisdiction in foreign affairs, too). I think Richardson would be better as he has more experience in foreign policy matters.

Health and Human Services sounds more up Hillary's alley both in terms of credentials and interests, although I personally like Dean better because I like Dean better.

I really do think Hillary is probably better in the Senate being an ally on health care, just like Dick Lugar, who's been mentioned for a few positions, is better as an occasional Senate ally, considering his likely Republican replacement will be a right-wing Republican.

by TheUnknown285 2008-11-14 05:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Senate doesn't want her on healthcare

It's being reported that Kennedy doesn't want her even working directly on health care at the subcommittee level. She doesn't have seniority and they resent her saying she wanted to get involved with it.

The difference between how that's being handled in the Senate vs how Lieberman looks like he'll get off scot-free. It's like the election didn't happen as far as the Senate is concerned, except that the president-elect left.

by Natasha Chart 2008-11-14 11:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Senate doesn't want her on healthcare

Talk about audacity. She brought healthcare to the forefront as a champion cause, but God forbid she dare try to continue working on it. Talk about bullshit.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 04:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

There is more to this than meets the eye and it seems there has been a very uncharacteristic porosity of conflicting and unsubstantiated stories for the 'no drama' Obama transition team. We still don't have a substantial source reporting a firm offer to Hillary and the Richardson interview seems to mitigate against that suggestion on first principles.

Why is it always so Machiavellian and complicated whenever the Clintons are involved?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 05:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I think the leaks were deliberate. Obama knows that there is a world of difference between a presidential campaign and the office of the President. There's no way he can have the same sort of discipline that he's had over the past couple of years. And the Press needs stories and there are just too many people in and around the WHite House. So rather than have the press dig, dig, dig, Obama "allowed" it to be leaked because that way he gets to control the facts and the particular narrative and make sure the press has something to yammer on about this weekend. I bet a lot of other important stuff now flies under the radar as we spend the weekend discussing how good of a SofS HRC would make. And I suggest that this will be a pattern we'll see a lot of in the coming 8 years - always make sure the press has something to chew on.

by j royale 2008-11-14 06:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

That sounds about right.

Rahm is notorious for his strategic leaking, and with this to chew on over the weekend, at least the transition team is controlling the idle speculation.

by sgary 2008-11-14 06:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: That sounds about right.

Controlling the idle speculation? Seems like controlling a fuel spillage with a Zippo. Where does the Richardson interview fit into your analysis of this 'offer?' It would be pretty unprofessional to leak the appointment before the other candidates interview, don't you think? But for the other candidate to do so, well...

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 06:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

With all due respect you're making all this up, as are the majority of sources for the media outlets. The Emmanuel leaks, as far as I am aware, originated with Rahm, and it is perfectly in character for him to do so, I agree. But not if it brings chaos and limits his boss's freedom of action or proves an embarrassment. I'm simply saying it's a bit early to say what the facts of the case are but as far as where this story originated and how it's been promoted I'm going out on a limb to suggest it conforms to what we've seen of the tactics and ethos of Hillary's campaign far more than Obama's.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 06:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Why is that anytime the Clintons are involved Shaun Appleby conjures up some kind of imaginary dynamic? Nobody in the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign, or the media is describing this process as Machiavellian.

As for the supposedly "uncharacteristic porosity of conflicting and unsubstantiated stories," this seems to be unfolding very similarly to the Rahm Emanuel appointment with various rumors, contraditions, uncertainty, confirmations, and then final announcement. What's happening with the SOS appointment thus doesn't seem uncharacteristic at all.

by markjay 2008-11-14 06:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Imaginary dynamic? How much of the drama of the past twenty-two months have I concocted? Have you read the fascinating 'not for attribution at the time' Newsweek 'election project' revelations of the primary campaign? Very gratifying stuff for some of us so long as you aren't an 'I told you so' holdout. But some of us remember, too.

And the leaks did commence with the Emmanuel appointment, curiously, but this latest round seems to have a slightly different flavour, as noted above.

What do you make of the 'offer' to Hillary before the Richardson interview? Curious?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

it doesn't sound like...

you're warming up to the idea. There is a line of thinking that they've intentionally leaked the story to put the pressure on HRC to take it. Then, if she turns him down, she looks like the non team player by snubbing the President.

I agree that HRC's foreign policy views sound pretty conventional - not a lot of new thinking. She'll obviously be a key adviser but Obama will still be the decider. Policy will be set in the West Wing, not at State. If Nixon can handle Kissinger (more or less), then Obama can handle Clinton.

Look at the positives. She'll be tireless, she's seen as a tough cookie, you need the hawk point of view somewhere on the foreign policy team, it keeps her out of domestic affairs and way down the list, reduces her as a future political threat to Obama. A very positive aspect is that she would be a strong and forceful advocate for the treatment and role of women around the world. That speech in China during the 90's was a high point for her and the country.

It also takes the pressure off him for choosing lesser talents, like Richardson, Lake or Kerry. Maybe no one else is as interesting to Obama as HRC.

Who else did you have in mind?

The downside for Obama is that it may dilute the singular excitement for him around the world. But maybe it's a good thing that some pressure on his own personal role is diluted and that others see a rebooted America as a whole. In other words, we would want the world to see a new American foreign policy and not only Obama as a symbol.

Tough call for HRC. She has to sublimate her views to the decisions of the President, give up her voice in domestic affairs and put her political operation and followers on ice. But it allows her to continue her march into history as an independent woman, with achievements separate from Bill (which I believe is what motivates her). It also leaves open her future option to run again with a very nice addition to her resume.

You have to admit that we'll be paying attention.

by mboehm 2008-11-14 06:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

I think most people around the world will be relatively excited. They like Hillary and like Bill. Obama will be judged by his actions, but there are few people who would take the job that have the same level of international celebrity as Hillary, no?

People like Obama as a symbol, but that doesn't mean they didn't like Hillary first, especially in Europe.

by vcalzone 2008-11-14 07:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Dream on

by NM Ward Chair 2008-11-14 11:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

Warming up to it? I'm as hot as a freshly baked biscuit. It's not like I can't see the tectonics of this, and there is much merit in seeing a rebooted America as a whole but the Kissinger analogy in perhaps an unfortunate reminder of the consequences of having the hawk point of view somewhere on the foreign policy team.

And whenever someone mentions the poxy 'Team of Rivals' I am inevitably remind of General McClellan who squandered the Army of the Potomac's fortunes to his own caution and circumscribing ambition. Give me Brigadier Grant any day.

But as you say, the 'whole world is watching' and while I seem to be the minority of one who is not swooning at the perfection of this development it certainly is engaging. Frankly I am beginning to see this as the ultimate game of political 'chicken' and my instinct is to trust Obama, whatever my apprehensions about the plot and concerns regarding the outcome. Still, this isn't the 'brave new world' I signed up for twenty-two months ago and foreign policy is the crucial issue facing us, as I have opined before.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

while I seem to be the minority of one who is not swooning at the perfection of this development . . .

I'm with you, Shaun. Not at all swooning on this one, and really hoping it proves not to be true. So far, everything you've had to say about the fishiness of this leak rings true with me, and I hope you keep finding the holes. At this point, though, I don't have the energy to engage with the 'you must be a Clinton-hater' crew.

But I hope you keep up the good work.

by vadasz 2008-11-14 10:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Me, three -n/t

by NM Ward Chair 2008-11-14 11:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

Still, this isn't the 'brave new world' I signed up for twenty-two months ago and foreign policy is the crucial issue facing us, as I have opined before.

Obama is like a Rorschach test. People read into him what they want to. That's why both leftists and moderate Republicans have found him an attractive candidate.

You have somehow conjured up Obama as a perfect representation of your own foreign policy worldview--and you have somehow conjured up Clinton as a representation of a very opposite foreign policy worldview. The fact is though, when you factor out the electioneering elements (in which Clinton was taking a more hawkish stance to position herself for the general election, and in which Obama was taking a more dovish stance to try to get the Democratic nomination) that their foreign policy positions are not that far apart. Witness, for example, Obama's speech to AIPAC after he secured the Democratic nomination, or witness the early support for Obama of Clinton representatives such as Dennis Ross. (Or, similarly, witness Clinton moving to a stance of withdrawal of troops from Iraq.)

And, as others have pointed out, a Secretary of State serves to implement a President's policy rather than to have her own.

So, I suggest you calm down a bit, Shaun. Obama is still president and, whoever is SoS, his policies will still be served. You can continue to bask in his victory.

by markjay 2008-11-15 05:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

I agree with the basic thesis of your comment but would point out I have been diarising the subtle distinctions of their foreign policy positions throughout the campaign, which are, if you will recall, quite substantial in several important respects. And this was intentional in both cases, history would seem to concur that Obama got 'to the left' of Hillary on foreign policy late in 2007 and that this was a factor in his early primary appeal. I maintain that this was not an accident or mere electoral ploy.

And the 'electioneering elements' you seem to dismiss out of hand actually were reflected in formal legislative action from time-to-time, as in the AUMF and Kyl/Lieberman votes, for example, which had far more significance than a mere stump speech.

I have long been apprehensive of Obama's positions in some respects, specifically regarding AIPAC promoted issues, but that's why things like the Kyl/Lieberman vote were so important to parse carefully.

To suggest that their foreign policy positions are 'not so far apart' is a simplification of important issues which doesn't seem to serve anyone's best interests. And while you are correct that a secretary of state serves to implement a President's policy it is a uniquely sensitive role which requires nuance and subtle messaging in formal and closed discussions with foreign leadership who will be parsing every single word. The level of trust and alignment with presidential policy required is difficult to overestimate and the personal prejudices of the messenger are hard to exclude.

Take the example of Putin, Hillary would likely have to recant her intensely personal criticism of him as 'soulless' before she would be able to negotiate on our behalf on a level playing field of mutual respect and collegiality.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-15 11:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

Let's assume that you are correct, and that their positions are different in ways that are nuanced but very important. Perhaps it's the case that Obama prefers somebody slightly more hawkish than he is in the SoS position. After all, you don't want somebody who's going to give away the store in negotiations and make the President look bad. This way Obama gets to play good cop to Hillary's bad cop (if indeed, it works out that way, which I doubt.)

by markjay 2008-11-15 07:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: it doesn't sound like...

That's certainly possible.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-15 08:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Why is it always so Machiavellian and complicated whenever the Clintons are involved?

great question! maybe you should ask both the press and yourself why? sheesh.

by canadian gal 2008-11-14 08:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Ya' think? It's a 'vast left-wing conspiracy?' Or the media, which unanimously anointed Hillary the 'inevitable' candidate for something like three-fifths of the primary campaign, has suddenly turned on her? I wonder.

The media, collectively, are about as discriminating and thoughtful as my chooks when the kitchen scraps go out. And as for me, I've been here the whole time, and I've been wrong before, but I've been paying pretty close attention.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

i have no idea what a chook is.

but i do know that this continual crap being thrown out by the clinton-haters (is that you?) is growing tiresome.

you know what - you're right - she pretended to be summoned to chicago and is leaking this story whilst her and bill are poking an obama voodoo doll.

oh and i havent stopped laughing at your suggestion that the press is kind to clinton.

by canadian gal 2008-11-14 08:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i have no idea what a chook is.

I reckon if I remain respectful and keep my arguments reasonable and consistent I am within the guidelines. And are you disputing the statement about the media narrative of Hillary's 'inevitability' from February 2007 until Iowa? I'm surprised.

And the voodoo doll image isn't awakening my higher angels, let me tell you. Could we stick to the evidence?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i have no idea what a chook is.

i am not disputing the inevitability meme was pushed in the press, but you are saying this as if it was a positive thing.

i have no interest in rehashing primary issues. as to your request of evidence - you're funny! what in anything that you have said in this and the many other threads in which you have posted on this topic have you provided any evidence?

its all hearsay - until it isnt. and quoting giordano is not really evidence - is it? anyway - the tone here is getting increasingly negative - so im going to politely wait and see just like you.

by canadian gal 2008-11-14 08:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i have no idea what a chook is.

It was a 'positive thing' at the time, in fact it was the campaign's strategy for longer than it should have been. But I don't want to revisit the primary either. And you're right, it is all hearsay, which aside from the speculative citations I have provided is all there is at the moment. We'll see, I agree.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 09:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i have no idea what a chook is.

its all hearsay

You're right, it is ALL hearsay. I think the point Shaun's been trying to make (at least the way I read it), is that for the Obama team to leak this information - especially while others like Richardson are still in the running - would not only be bad form, but would completely contradict everything we've come to know about the kind of ship Obama runs. I don't think such a reading needs to be sourced with 'evidence' as it's been team Obama's MO since he got into the race.

If Obama didn't leak it (and I'm not saying he or his team didn't, I'm just saying it seems very unlikely, then somebody else did.

Wondering why without evidence is speculation, but it's the kind of speculation that people round these parts seem to enjoy. It doesn't make one a 'Clinton-hater' to speculate IF the leak might have come from her camp, and if so, why.

by vadasz 2008-11-14 10:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

But it borders on the paranoid

to lay this at the feet of the mythical "Team Clinton" when reputable journalists have sourced it to officials within the transition.

It's been pointed out ad nauseum tonight by pundits, anchors and various campaign press corp members that if the Transition Team wanted this tamped down, it would have happened much earlier in the story arc.
It is equally reasonable to speculate that President-Elect Obama might have been keeping Bill Richardson apprised of his process, or scoping him out about what other cabinet level positions he might be interested in.

by sgary 2008-11-14 11:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: But it borders on the paranoid

Maybe. But when pundits, anchors and various campaign press corp members point out something ad nauseum in the absence of any actual evidence I tend to get a bit queasy too.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 11:22PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: i have no idea what a chook is.

Sorry. Chook = chicken. I have a rooster and seven hens.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

It isn't machiavellian in the least; maybe our own party can stop participating the maligning of major members who helped to bring alot of good to our table.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 04:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

The better question might be:

"Why do you perceive it always to be so Machiavellian and complicated whenever the Clintons are involved?"

These leaks started with Pres.-Elect Obama's transition team, according to Andrea Mitchell and Keith Olbermann.

by sgary 2008-11-14 05:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The better question might be:

I'm not so sure and we are getting a bit of conflicting evidence, aren't we? What do you make of the Richardson meeting, for example? And let's not forget where the initial hint about all of this originated:

No, it was not Mitchell that first floated this Hindenburg balloon. It was former Clinton White House aide (and reliable media spinner for all agendas Clinton) George Stephanopoulos on who first dropped HRC's name for Foggy Bottom last week.

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

Furthermore we are now hearing that a firm offer was not necessarily made:

The meeting with Clinton, revealed to The Associated Press Friday, excited a burst of speculation that Obama would transform the former first lady and his fierce campaign foe into one of his top Cabinet officials and the nation's chief diplomatic voice. But where she stands in contention for the post came into question as other Democrats, also speaking on condition of anonymity about the private discussions, said Richardson was brought in as well.

Nedra Pickler - Obama Meets With Bill Richardson About Secretary Of State AP 14 Nov 08

And now even Clinton 'insiders' are hedging their bets on the 'offer:'

While neither side is offering any official comment, one source close to Hillary Clinton told The Fix today that it is a "very good possibility" that the New York senator would end up as the Secretary of State.

Chris Cillizza - HRC for Secretary of State: Crazy or Crazy Like a Fox? Washington Post 14 Nov 08

Not to mention:

Has Sen. Barack Obama ask Hillary Clinton to serve as his Secretary of State?

The Huffington Post, citing two sources, says yes, as does CNN's Gloria Borger.

I confess I cannot get sources to tell me this, which means that (a) they've got better sources than I do, which is quite possible, (b) or it isn't true, which is also possible. I know, very helpful. Sorry.

Mark Ambinder - Has Hillary Been Offered The Job? The Atlantic 14 Nov 08

I reckon we need to wait and see before making any assumptions about the Obama transition team's position in this. In any case the sheer volume of unsubstantiated comment on this 'appointment,' when considered in the light of the Richardson interview seems, as I said, very unlike the Obama transition team's record on leaks and supposition, so far. 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 2008-11-14 06:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

had completely subsided. I can't imagine HRC summoned herself to Chicago, or that she convinced Transition Team officials to leak the details, given the Obama Campaign's history of dicipline you cite.

by sgary 2008-11-14 06:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

I agree. But the confirmation of the 'offer' seems dubious. Consider the internal contradiction in the following statements cited above:

Jake Tapper's reporting: "no firm offer" was made, but "the job is hers if she wants it," per one unidentified source.

WTF? When have you ever had that take-away from a job interview? And what about the subsequent Richardson interview? I'm no clearer on this than anyone but it does seem confusing, no?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 06:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

I don't find that contradictory at all. It doesn't help anybody to make a firm official offer and then have it turned down. Therefore the unofficial offer is floated, the unofficial offer is eventually accepted, and then the official offer is made and accepted. Things like this happen all the time.

by markjay 2008-11-14 06:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

And Richardson is invited the next day? Just a pro forma? Look, I'm not sure what exactly going on but I'm understandably alert for trouble, having seen some of the Byzantine machinations of recent months. Something seems a bit off as they say here in Oz. Your guess is as good as mine.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:30PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

Actually, just because you are putting out feelers to one candidate doesn't mean you don't continue putting out feelers to other candidates. Perhaps the interview with Richardson was clear on, "Look, Hillary gets this if she wants it, she put in a huge effort for the campaign, and that wasn't easy or automatic, but we're very interested in you for the position if she doesn't claim it. What is your thinking on x,y and z?"

by letterc 2008-11-15 12:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

Have you ever done a job interview on that basis? I don't know about Stateside but I've never worked with an entity which didn't have formal procedures proscribing such activity. Not to say Obama is operating under those kind of constraints, but still... Why woudja'? And my point was simply in support of the supposition that no formal offer had likely been made which is increasingly borne out by more recent reporting. But who knows?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-15 12:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

Why woudja'?

Because you want to move fast and have a smooth transition. Because you don't want to put all your eggs in the Hillary basket if she says no and then you have to start from scratch. Because you are also considering Richardson for other cabinet posts as well, so you want to start having a discussion with him about all those possibilities.

by markjay 2008-11-15 05:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Maybe, as opposed to "No-Drama"

This is "Tightly Scripted Drama."

Now that there's not an election at stake, better strategic thinkers than us might find it useful at/on this stage.

by sgary 2008-11-14 06:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Maybe, as opposed to "No-Drama"

Every time I have succumbed to the 'better minds than ours' line I have ended up feeling a bit conned. As far as Obama concerned I trust his judgement in this matter, I'm just not sure I'm getting the straight poop on this story. Yet.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Talk of last weeks leak by Stephanopoulos

Actually I have. I was told by a company that the job was mine and if I indicated I wanted they would extend me a formal offer. No firm offer was ever extended as I indicated I wasn't interested & they sent me a form rejection letter.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 04:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I can live with a "Team of Rivals" as long as rivals means fair minded rivals like Hillary and not the Lieberman type enemies.

Hillary will make a fine Secretary of State. I think her problem in the past was she was little too politically cautious. Now that she has no chance of running in 2012, I think she can operate without any pressure.

Considering the senate has this whole stupid seniority shit which is one of the dumbest things I ever heard of, she might as well jump in. She can run for Governor of NY state if she chooses later on in life.

by Pravin 2008-11-14 05:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Lieberman would just be a moronic nomination. Clinton has championed the party & been a major figure for the past 30+ years. Lieberman has been a turncoat.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 04:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Will anyone let go of the Primary Wars?

...Or, is it just impossible on some level?

Every op-ed on this subject has reeked of the Primary Wars (including yours, Mr. Beeton) - except for Chris Bowers who keeps his eye on the ball:

I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton.

Can we focus on what is best to move forward a progressive agenda (rather than a centrist or right-wing agenda) rather than continuing the analysis of how Obama is different from Clinton (and vice versa)?

Zoot Alors!

Here's a question:

In general, would the progressive agenda move forward better with a pro-Iraq-War SOS or an anti-Iraq-War SOS?

by Sully Fick 2008-11-14 05:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Will anyone let go of the Primary Wars?

What Pro-Iraq War SoS is Pres-Elect Obama considering?
Please tell me that's not why he's meeting with McCain on Monday.

by sgary 2008-11-14 06:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Are you just not recognizing the obvious?

Kerry: not particularly anti-Iraq-War during the last election - voted for the AUMF. Count him as more pro-war than anti-war.

Richardson: not particularly anti-Iraq-War during the recent primary - initially supported the war and opposed the phased withdrawl. Count him as more pro-war than anti-war.

Clinton: not particularly anti-Iraq-War....um.....ever. Voted for AUMF, still hasn't admitted that it was a mistake, very hawkish for a Democrat. Count her as firmly more pro-war than anti-war.

And on the anti-Iraq-War side we have.....Obama. VERY anti-Iraq-War. But, not dovish candidates for SOS.

This will not move the progressive agenda forward. It will move the BAU and Republican agenda forward.

(Or, did you not really want to discuss reality?)

by Sully Fick 2008-11-14 06:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are you just not recognizing the obvious?

It would seem to me fair to also ask that we move beyond distant initial positions on the Iraq war if we are being, perhaps wrongly, chastised for not moving beyond the more recent primary wars.

That would require believing understandings and positions can evolve.

In fact, mine are doing it at this very moment.

by sgary 2008-11-14 06:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

It is a view to their...

..."grotesque self-deception"

It is not their old positions that are important. It is what their old positions can tell us that is important.

Understandings and positions (for politicians) most certainly evolve. But, the core of the person remains the same. One can only deduce the core of a person by what they choose to stand for, and stand against.

Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

- Mark Twain, "Chronicle of Young Satan"

by Sully Fick 2008-11-14 06:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are you just not recognizing the obvious?

Who would you suggest?

by Jess81 2008-11-14 06:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are you just not recognizing the obvious?

If you're going to choose a hawk, there are much better hawks - Clark, for example.

If your going to choose a dove, there are many to choose from - Gore, for example.

by Sully Fick 2008-11-14 06:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Will anyone let go of the Primary Wars?

Even Bush has now accepted that we have to out by 2011... so I'm not sure Iraq really matters all that much anymore. Yeah, there will be flare ups and stuff and lots of blogger teeth nashing in the next couple of years but there are a lot of bigger issues to deal with at this point. And yes, I hope Obama and his SofS can accelerate our departure, but spoken as someone that has ALWAYS been against our little Iraqi adventure, it's really time to focus on how best to leave, not how fast.

by j royale 2008-11-14 06:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

I must be alone in a parallel universe...

...where the rules of logic still apply. <sigh>

Being "pro-Iraq-War" means being in support of dubious conflicts that will play well on the evening news if one is in support of them - a 'litmus test', if you will. It also usually means that really important conflicts are ignored (see here).

It is a small example of how the person thinks - what they stand for - where they 'draw the line'.

And, if you think the U.S. exit from Iraq will end the difficulties and bloodshed and U.S. involvement in the Middle East, then I'll have to say that I really don't have the time to try to help educate you on what the Middle East represents and why the U.S. is in Iraq.

by Sully Fick 2008-11-14 06:28PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I must be alone in a parallel universe...

Well put. The past 'positions' may not necessarily matter in the present or future, but those positions and how an individual has lived with them tell us a lot about the person's thinking.

by vadasz 2008-11-14 11:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Will anyone let go of the Primary Wars?

Hillary Clinton isn't pro-Iraq war. Like many in Congress who voted to empower the President, they have since come to regret that. I understand the spirit of their original vote, but I heartily disagreed with it at the time, given who we were dealing with.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 04:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Will anyone let go of the Primary Wars?

Hillary Clinton is much more hawkish than the standard liberal/progressive position.

Of this, there is little disagreement. But, I encourage you to disagree and show me how she is more dovish.

And, I have only heard tepid regret from her about the AUMF vote. This leads me to see her as being much more pro-war than anti-war.

To be a patriot, one had to say, and keep on saying, " Our country, right or wrong," and urge on the little war. Have you not perceived that that phrase is an insult to the nation.

- Mark Twain, Glances at History

by Sully Fick 2008-11-15 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Will anyone let go of the Primary Wars?

You are an idiot. She is a centrist, not a pacifist which does not automatically = warhawk. Her vote like many in the Democratic congress was WRONG in authorizing to empower the President with, as he said, the ability to go to war should he need to (surprise, surprise he went to war@@).

But then again I disagree with the way the Democrats in Congress cave alot in the face of politics, such as this vote, the FISA vote, the $700B bailout vote (which surprise, surprise Paulson is now changing where the money goes - yeah it took a real rocket scientist to see this series of events unfolding @@. They need to get stronger with our message instead of trying to seem so conciliatory. It was a mistake then & it is a mistake now.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 01:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

No response to your reply is necessary.

Once I talked to the inmates of an insane asylum in Hartford. I have talked to idiots a thousand times, but only once to the insane...

- Mark Twain, Letters

by Sully Fick 2008-11-15 02:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: No response to your reply is necessary.

Well I guess your Mark Twain quote makes you smarter then me@@.

Let me go read about ANOTHER government official lauding what a wonderful selection SOS Clinton would be.

Oh no it must be a conspiracy. All your GOP talking points that you keep using to say why Clinton is awful MUST be true, after all.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-16 05:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: No response to your reply is necessary.

Appeals to authority ("Let me go read about ANOTHER government official lauding what a wonderful selection SOS Clinton would be.") is a hollow argument. I would prefer if you voiced your own opinions on why Clinton's selection is wonderful.

And, I stated no GOP talking points. I stated that Clinton "is much more hawkish than the standard liberal/progressive position." This is not a GOP talking point. It is liberal/progressive talking point. The GOP lauds the pro-war position and has talking points against the anti-war position ("weak on terror").

Further, I never stated that "Clinton is awful". Not sure where you're getting that from.

However, I have clearly stated that a pro-Iraq-war (or pro-war) SOS is not in the best interests of moving forward the progressive agenda.

Finally, you began your post with an attack:

You are an idiot.

The Twain quote was only in reference to your ad hominem attack.

I'm not interested in wasting time on substance-free posts or ad hominem attacks. I am interested in a discussion of what is best to move the progressive agenda forward.

Which are you interested in?

by Sully Fick 2008-11-16 06:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: No response to your reply is necessary.

You started with the premise that Clinton is hawkish because of the Iraq war vote, which then makes most Congressional Dems war hawks as well. That POV is ridiculous. Her 30+ years of experience, which includes solid foreign relations credentials are why people in the US & abroad find her to be an excellent choice for SoS. Anyone who doesn't get that obviously has a personal issue with her.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-17 04:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

The idea of Hilary as SoS is registering as spot on as choosing Rahm for CoS, and is it just me, or does the manner in which this is unfolding seem uncannily similiar to the way it happened for Rahm too.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-11-14 06:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Perhaps the only thing to be learned from this is that when Obama takes a vacation, someone must remember to feed the press. And by most accounts, he's taking a vacation right now. His TEAM is working around the clock, and certainly he's had stuff he's had to do. But for the most part, he's taking a break, the last one he'll have for awhile. But if they slowly leak out information about cabinet picks, the press has something to talk about.

Something else I noticed about Obama's campaign (and this might be the brainchild of Gibbs) is that they didn't always follow the tradition of using Fridays/weekends to dump bad news. Frequently, they used weekends to stir up speculation and provide a topic for the Sunday shows, keenly aware that whatever is on those shows can drive the week.

by vcalzone 2008-11-14 07:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I have to say that the Machiavellian angle here doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, simply because Barack Obama is going to be the undisputed head of the party so long as he's President and reasonably popular. Hillary Clinton has a following, but it's not based on a broad ideological difference that anyone can detect: it's not like she's Ted Kennedy to his Jimmy Carter, or Zell Miller to his John Kerry. They're fairly ideologically close.

If the Obama people were really worried about that, then they wouldn't give her the single most prestigious job in the Cabinet. State enhances your prestige, and puts her in a better position to run in 2012 if she wants. As things stand, she's not a terribly powerful Senator - we were just treated to a long list of people who would take charge of health care should Kennedy give it up for one reason or another, and she wasn't anywhere on the list.

With that out of the way, I have mixed feelings about it - I find it personally exciting, and at the same time I can't escape the fact that that might be the point. On paper, Kerry is probably more qualified - foreign policy is his major interest, it's pretty much all he's ever worked on, he's been taking good positions on a ton of issues for decades, and the guy speaks like nine languages. Oh, and whatever differences Clinton and Obama have in their approach, Kerry is much closer to Obama. The things people are shooting Kerry down for don't mean anything - that he was a bad presidential candidate, and a "loser". Okay, but foreign policy is his passion, and he's not a hawk, and that matters to me.

Can anyone give me a reason why it should be her, other than "it would be cool"? Because I liked the idea at first and then I realized that I could actually justify it.

by Jess81 2008-11-14 06:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Oh, and while I'm on the subject, let me give you the Machiavellian reason that I think might be at work - it makes him look really, really good. The two of them had a very public, at times rather nasty national campaign against each other, and here he's going to put her in a position of power, and nominal independence? The press are beside themselves: "omg, team of rivals! team of rivals!".

by Jess81 2008-11-14 06:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

i will preface this by saying that i have mixed feelings if this story is true. but are you kidding me?

the number 1 job of the SOS - especially now - is diplomatic. with the US reputation in the shitter can you think of another person that is up to the task? i mean, name recognition, close alignment to a beloved (internationally) US president and bringing smarts to the job.

while you mention that you would find it personally exciting, do you not think that there are millions upon millions of people world wide that might share your enthusiasm for this? yup - you're right Machiavellian it is.

by canadian gal 2008-11-14 08:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Actually, I think the number one job of the SoS is to run the State Department. In order to do that, they need to be some one who knows foreign policy cold. They need to have their eye on every potential ethnic conflict in the world and not let a future Rwanda burn. They need to be someone who can manage a dozen different foreign policy crises simultaneously, because they know each of them like the back of their own hands.

Foreign affairs isn't Clinton's primary interest, either pre-White House, as first lady, as a member of the Senate, or as a presidential candidate.

SoS doesn't take a high name recognition person. It takes someone who knows their shit.

This strikes me as cabinet position as political pay-pack, as a trophy, which doesn't strike me as a good idea. If Clinton had one, I wouldn't have wanted to see Clinton choose Obama for SoS on an "Ambassador to the World," and he has shown much more interest in the Senate on foreign affairs than she has.

Clinton on the Supreme Court would make me pretty happy, although I suspect she would lean more to the executive power side of the spectrum than I'd like.

by letterc 2008-11-15 12:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I didn't say it was Machiavellian. Why pick a fight with me?

by Jess81 2008-11-15 05:37AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

my mistake - apologies.

i saw that you did mention it in both your comments and it was clearly suggested upthread.

by canadian gal 2008-11-15 05:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Answers...

the number 1 job of the SOS - especially now - is diplomatic. with the US reputation in the shitter can you think of another person that is up to the task? i mean, name recognition, close alignment to a beloved (internationally) US president and bringing smarts to the job.

Um...

Al Gore.

Wes Clark.

Or, by "close alignment" do you really mean "married to"?

In some ways, they would be even better than Hillary, based on your definition above.

But, then, your question was really rhetorical, right? You couldn't imagine anyone more qualified (or even AS qualified) as Hillary. I imagine that it is rude of me to answer your question in such a way to prove that you are wrong (that there ARE others up to the task).

by Sully Fick 2008-11-15 11:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: supreme court justice

If she stays in the Senate - she could be considered for Supreme Court Justices (which is her childhood dream.)

I would think that is the choice she is weighing.

by latina 2008-11-14 06:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

My sense is that it is a done deal--Hillary WILL become SOS---In fact, I have long suspected that HRC and Barack disussed this very position months ago in Diane Feinstein's home in Washington (Barack:"Hill I can't offer you VP"..HRC"not interested too stifling...I want SOS"....Barack:"I could do that"

Let's face political facts here--no way on earth that Barack allows this to be made public and then rejects Hill----no way, no how---It's a done deal--the main reason for the Chicago mtg was likely to flesh out the parameters of her power ("don't have Biden jumping in so that this just becomes a pr job a la Cheney v Rice etc etc)

As for Richardson--he has nowhere near the stature that Hillary has-not even on the same diamond. Wouldn't surprise me if Barack was discussing another slot for him that he would be better suited for.

by ionsys 2008-11-14 07:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

But that does beg the question, what will Richardson, long proven adept at negotiations with dictators, be brought on to do? What position can he be offered that would still be worthwhile and would bring him greater respect?

by vcalzone 2008-11-14 07:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

deputy sec of State?

Department of Defense?

Homeland Security?

energy?

Interior?

Labor?

HUD?

US Trade Rep - Actually that's cabinet level and would be a great pick for him if not SOS.

by yitbos96bb 2008-11-14 08:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Secretary of Snacks.

by IssaquahIndie 2008-11-14 10:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Ricahrdson has way more of the right background for SoS than Clinton does. Foreign affairs and diplomacy has clearly been a major interest for him for a long time.

He isn't as famous or as exciting, but he has way more of a history.

by letterc 2008-11-15 12:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Richardson has a resume. Clinton has star power coupled with a tough personalilty and a wonkish mind.
While I'm not wild about Clinton leaving the Senate, if the SecState is between Richardson and Clinton, my take would be Clinton in a flash.

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-15 10:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Richardson has actual extensive experience negotiating with dictators. I'll take that over star power, any day of the week.

by letterc 2008-11-15 01:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Dynamic Tension

She'd do well as SOS.
But I don't think it would be good in the long term. Not for any of the reasons above but because we have invested to much power in the executive branch of the government.
Hillary is perhaps the only person who has the possibility of establishing a cooperative legislative counterweight to the Obama administration.

by Judeling 2008-11-14 07:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

another comment---I think healthcare is a 2nd term thing due to economy and I think HRC is now bored with the Senate anyway

maybe Robert Kennedy will run to replace her instead of taking/being offered a cabinet post

by ionsys 2008-11-14 07:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

With word reaching Clinton that Obama talked to Richardson about State, she may want it even more.

by RJEvans 2008-11-14 08:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Now that's an interesting, if uncomplimentary, explanation.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 08:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Independent of who is being asked to do what, when a President-Elect asks you to serve the United States, who says "no?" I kind of figured that, barring serious family problems that prevent a long-term presence in Washington (clearly not Clinton's problem given her current position), there was only one right answer to that question, in other words, "When can I start?"

(Note: This isn't about Clinton at all, I just can't imagine anyone turning down any Cabinet position, let alone State, which is where so many of our greatest public servants have been at one point or another - Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, JQA, Cordell Hull, John Dulles, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright - if I were given the opportunity to even dream of being able to follow in their enormous wake, I would be honored to an extent I can't even conceptualize).

by auronrenouille 2008-11-14 08:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

It would not have been unreasonable

For The President-Elect to have asked her to secure an agreement from her Spouse to stand down in areas where conflicts might potentially arise if she took the SoS post.
Assuming he places some value on his automomy and the size of his portfolio, they might have needed more than a single news cycle to weigh the consequences.

by sgary 2008-11-14 09:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It would not have been unreasonable

Also for her to really sit back and think about whether she wants Bill's portfolio dragged through the mud in the press in the way that it will if she is nominated for SoS.

by letterc 2008-11-15 12:50AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Unless anyone knows of any plans for a Supreme to die or resign - Scalia or Scalito or Thomas - would be appropriate, to resign, that is - even putting Hillary in at SOS for a year or two is inspired at the very least. I also believe that this was discussed several months ago, and that Obama will talk to Richardson and McCain and whoever he wants to talk to about whatever he wants to regardless of who's chattering about what - because he is the guy in charge.

she would advance the policies of Barack Obama's around the world, not her own.

I have to say that this comment is patently absurd. What does it even mean? Obama will get us out of Iraq. I also seem to remember him saying he might nuke someplace if necessary. Let's get real here. Obama is not a dove, but a peace loving man. He would never rule out military force if he thought it necessary to protect the interests of this country. How many times does he have to say that? He will be the President of this country. I trust him to not only pick his cabinet but keep the country safe - which is going to mean a lot of domestic focus this time around as well. Unlike the Bush administration that created war and terrorist diversions to allow the pilfering of this country and suppression of constitutional rights and all transparency in government, Obama's got all the angles down, including ongoing terrorist threats from outside thecountry, and from within. That includes a lot of domestic terrorists who believe themselves directed by God or The Klan, okay?

by Jeter 2008-11-14 09:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

This isn't meant to be an insult, but your comment totally misses the actual intricacies of the situation.

What it means is that State is not a position where there is a margin of error. Obama needs to trust that whoever he appoints will convey his messages to foreign powers without sending wrong signals, even inadvertently. For a blatant example of what happens when you don't appoint people who can handle this, look at April Glaspie when she may or may not have invited Iraq to invade Kuwait.

If your Labor or Education Secretary says something in error or out-of-step with Administration policy, it can be corrected, with some embarrassment, the following news cycle. It goes away with little or no harm done unless it's truly egregious. If your Secretary of State says something in error, you can start a war with long-term repercussions, especially in parts of the world considered a tinderbox like the Middle East, North Africa, and now the Caucasus.

There are going to be times when an Administration needs a complex message to be delivered, in translation, word-for-word, especially in the Middle East, where these things can be magnified to an enormous degree, and so there is no room for error or for her to speak "for [my]self only."

I personally think she's up to the job, but Obama has to think so too - Secretary of State is someone you need to have absolute trust in, which is why a President's secretary of state is often someone with whom the President is close. I don't doubt her competence for the position, but Obama needs to be comfortable that there won't be messaging problems, even unintentional problems.

by auronrenouille 2008-11-14 11:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I don't believe I miss the intricacies. Those are things I just didn't focus on discussing. The post posits Clinton as having some difference in agenda's with Obama. It's really just some exoressed or unexpressed mistrust of Clinton's ability to not pursue whatever that is, and be at odds with her CIC's agenda. It's part of the high political drama being created by many regarding Obama and Hillary, with Bill Clinton and others playing a Greek chorus.

by Jeter 2008-11-15 09:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

Well now that convinces me more than ever that she would be right for the job. I trust Clinton.

by jrsygrl 2008-11-15 01:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Hmmm...

The prospect of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, perhaps the most prestigious cabinet position in any administration, sent people buzzing. But associates to both Democrats cautioned that their conversation included other cabinet possibilities and that no job was offered.

Jackie Calmes and Helene Cooper - Obama's Talk With Clinton Starts Buzz NYT 14 Nov 08

When is an offer not an offer? So much for Huffington Post and CNN, eh? Or do they know something we, and Bill Richardson, don't?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-14 10:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Shaun and the Seven Hens

If you had to choose between Bill Richardson and Clinton, you would take Richardson?

PS - Let me get this straight. You're the rooster and you have seven hens? What the hell kind of laws do they got down there?

by mboehm 2008-11-15 12:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Shaun and the Seven Hens

I clearly said I have a rooster and seven hens. What he does is his business, he doesn't lay but he's worth having around.

And if I had my druthers it would be Wes Clark but I'm not sure if the ten-year exclusion applies to State. But it's not my choice, it's Obama's and I'll be content with his decision once I'm confident he's making it and not being 'bamboozled' into it. Personally, I suspect Richardson is having a mid-life crisis but maybe I'm projecting.

The de facto laws here are fairly permissive, incidentally, but not that permissive though most rural Aussies really couldn't care less.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-15 12:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

My comments here:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/bl ogs/desidero/2008/11/quick-thoughts-why- hillary-at.php

by Desidero 2008-11-15 03:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

good entry, agree with many of your points.

by CalDem 2008-11-15 04:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton

I agree completely with "ionsys" above: it is inconceivable that the greatest of all Cabinet positions, Secretary of State, was not already offered to Hillary Clinton.

Bill Richardson was naturally interviewed, as the consolation in the event that Hillary refused the SOS, or so that he would be available for another position.

Truth be told, to all but the most rabidly anti-Clintonites, if given a choice between the world star power of the Clintons at SOS and the highly competent but rather lackluster Richardson (I winced when, during the primaries, there were several minutes in which he remained oblivious to a fly on his nose; indeed, as presidential candidates go, he was clearly one of the worst ever), the Clintons are the platinum prize.

I am not subtracting from Richardson's accomplishments. After all, he served at the request of Bill Clinton, that diamond in the rough who is still, to many of us, and including President Elect Obama, the greatest politician of our time.

But when the rest of the world first heard the news that Hillaty Clinton might serve as President Obama's Secretary of State, it was if foreign emissaries and diplomats lit up like the brightest of Christmas trees. Whereas, when they also learned that Richardson was considered, all those bright bulbs were shorted out--"Oh, well, at least he's very competent," was about the best those thought processes ran.

The only sticking point is indeed the measure of Hillary's latitude as Secretary of State. Therein lies the negotiating which will probably run through the weekend at least.

If indeed Hillary Clinton becomes our Secretary of State, and President Elect Obama stocks the remaining Cabinet positions with those of equal stature, get ready for President Obama to hit the ground running as a model Chief Executive for generations to come.

by lambros 2008-11-15 05:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

I'm of a mixed mind about Hillary's appointment as Sec. of State. This has nothing to do with her experience or qualifications for the position (which are self evident), but more about the fact that I would be losing my home state Senator. Whatever one may think about Sen. Clinton, she has been an incredibly effective advocate for New York and I have no doubt that she would bring the same tireless work ethic and skills to the position of Secretary of State.

by wjpugliese 2008-11-15 05:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: On Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or personal career plans, etc.

by kogmedia 2008-11-20 08:19AM | 0 recs