Skip

Hillary Clinton to accept Obama's offer of secretary of state job
November 17, 2008 6:50 PM   Subscribe

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
posted by defenestration (195 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Some feminist. How dare she accept a traditionally pink-collar job.
posted by rokusan at 6:51 PM on November 17, 2008


Abomination of Obamanation.
posted by gman at 6:55 PM on November 17, 2008


Is this confirmed by anyone else?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:57 PM on November 17, 2008


The Guardian is the only paper stating this so far. I wouldn't count on it just yet.
posted by mrbill at 6:58 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Lame. I'd rather seem him reach across the aisle to someone like Hagel or Lugar who'd be, you know, actually good at the job. Oh well. She's smart so hopefully she won't do any damage.
posted by spaltavian at 6:59 PM on November 17, 2008


Oh, and thirded on the call for confirmation. I don't see anyone else with it.
posted by spaltavian at 7:01 PM on November 17, 2008


The British papers are generally useless on American politics.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:02 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


I think she'd, you know, actually be good at the job.
posted by found missing at 7:02 PM on November 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


It says he is offering Hagel some job. I suspect this shows that he won't make the same mistakes Carter made.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:05 PM on November 17, 2008


Yeah, I read the Drudge Report too. Confirmation please.
posted by Brodiggitty at 7:05 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Why does she want this job? Is she getting ready to retire from public life in a few years? Last hurrah?
posted by mr_roboto at 7:06 PM on November 17, 2008


Didn't we also hear that he was using mostly young people partially because they'd have the most long term influence?
posted by jeffburdges at 7:06 PM on November 17, 2008


Josh Marshall raises an eyebrow.
posted by Thin Lizzy at 7:06 PM on November 17, 2008


Brodiggitty - That's quite the admission, dude.
posted by gman at 7:06 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I didn't see it on the Drudge Report, sir, but it's OK that you did.

I may have jumped the gun a bit, but I figured the Guardian was a fairly reliable source. We'll see!
posted by defenestration at 7:08 PM on November 17, 2008


It's kind of unlike Clinton not to draw something like this out for weeks and milk it for all it's worth.
posted by Artw at 7:09 PM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


And I didn't see this job listed in the Plum Book.
posted by gman at 7:09 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


I read Drudge too, I read it like the Weekly World News.
posted by Mach5 at 7:09 PM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


Well, we already know she can run serpentine across an airstrip while dodging sniper fire. I'm sure she'll be great at the job.

(I'm sorry, but the thought of Hillary running from an old Mercedes while shouting "serpentine!" just makes me smile)
posted by The World Famous at 7:10 PM on November 17, 2008 [7 favorites]


Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

So Obama is planning on hiring women for his coalition administration?
posted by orange swan at 7:11 PM on November 17, 2008


Please stop making this kind of breathless newsfilter post just to be first with the news. Thankee.

And Hillary would make as good an SoS as anyone else in the Democratic Party - i.e., as good as any lefty can expect from the Obama crew.
posted by mediareport at 7:13 PM on November 17, 2008


She was against accepting it before she was for it.
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:15 PM on November 17, 2008


Pff. She's practically on the Lieberman party.
posted by Artw at 7:16 PM on November 17, 2008


This is a good move. Bravo Obama. YouTube vid discussing her possible role.

I'm worried about the McCain job offer.
posted by nickyskye at 7:17 PM on November 17, 2008


Why aren't there sirens at the top of this post?
posted by gman at 7:17 PM on November 17, 2008 [6 favorites]


Step 1: Contact Bill Clinton

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!

Step 4: Donate to Clinton Foundation.
posted by Frank Grimes at 7:19 PM on November 17, 2008


I don't ONLY read Drudge. I read all of them.
posted by Brodiggitty at 7:20 PM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'd heard he selected Michael Ian Black.
posted by drezdn at 7:22 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


And Hillary would make as good an SoS as anyone else in the Democratic Party

I respectfully disagree. Her campaign, and the reporting revealed since the election, demonstrated an inability to manage. State is a big department. Her statements on Iran were saber-rattling bits of reckless chest-thumping. She may tend to follow her own agenda rather than the president's. Given her celebrity and her husband's, the media may focus on the Clintons rather than Obama's policy.

Hillary Clinton is a great domestic policy wonk but there's never been any thing to suggest the same is true on foreign policy.
posted by spaltavian at 7:22 PM on November 17, 2008 [9 favorites]


I don't ONLY read Drudge. I read all of them.

Sarah, is that you?
posted by cashman at 7:22 PM on November 17, 2008 [6 favorites]


Lame. I'd rather seem him reach across the aisle to someone like Hagel or Lugar who'd be, you know, actually good at the job

I wouldn't. Fuck republicans. Why the hell should they be rewarded fucking everything up? Yes, I realize Hagel is Practically a reverse-Lieberman, but still.

I don't think this is really a problem, it's just annoying because, frankly, I just don't really like Hillary Clinton and would rather see someone new and interesting take the post. But I don't really think it will be a problem, since Hillary will just be implementing whatever policy Obama sets down.
posted by delmoi at 7:23 PM on November 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


I don't ONLY read Drudge. I read all of them.

Malkin? And Coulter too?
posted by gman at 7:23 PM on November 17, 2008


cashman:
;-)
posted by Brodiggitty at 7:26 PM on November 17, 2008


I respectfully disagree. Her campaign, and the reporting revealed since the election, demonstrated an inability to manage. State is a big department. Her statements on Iran were saber-rattling bits of reckless chest-thumping.

All of that had to do with her losing campaign. Hillary isn't going to Mark Penn in charge of negotiating with Iran, for example.

Hillary Clinton is a great domestic policy wonk but there's never been any thing to suggest the same is true on foreign policy.

And putting her at state keeps her out of the domestic policy debate, so she can't cause problems with Obama's domestic agenda.
posted by delmoi at 7:27 PM on November 17, 2008


I wanted to see Colin Powell get it. Lugar said he wasn't interested.
posted by cjorgensen at 7:28 PM on November 17, 2008


Clinton's foreign policy was one of the key reasons that she did not get the presidential nomination. Well I guess I can't really claim that, but it was at one of the main reasons she lost me to Obama. If true, and I'm really really really hoping it's not, maybe Obama has a good-cop bad-cop routine planned.

Clinton: We'll never talk to country X! That would be reckless and naive!

Obama: Now now, maybe we can just have a little chat over tea.
posted by Llama-Lime at 7:29 PM on November 17, 2008


If Hilary is offered and accepts the job, does Gov Patterson appoint Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to fill the post once held by his Dad? Is it Nita Lowey? Andrew Cuomo?
posted by JohnnyGunn at 7:30 PM on November 17, 2008


I wouldn't. Fuck republicans. Why the hell should they be rewarded fucking everything up?

As tempting as this sentiment is, that is exactly the attitude that Bush and the Republicans have had for the last 8 years, and it is a big, big part of the problem.
posted by The World Famous at 7:33 PM on November 17, 2008 [13 favorites]


I was kind of hoping Andrew Cuomo was gunning for Paterson's job.
posted by munchingzombie at 7:33 PM on November 17, 2008


Sweet! Obama gets a detailed dossier on every embarrassing secret the Clintons are keeping, gets Hillary out of the Senate where she could be a thorn in his side, and can let Hillary work for Joe Biden (who is really all the Secretary of State he needs) until she rebels, then fire her and end her career.
posted by nicwolff at 7:36 PM on November 17, 2008 [24 favorites]


I hereby cast my vote for McCain getting a job overseeing an investigation into the use of torture being sanctioned by the outgoing administration, and overseeing the incoming administration to make sure they don't continue the practice.
posted by davejay at 7:46 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


the success of my voting strategy is running 50/50 this year, so maybe this'll be the tiebreaker.
posted by davejay at 7:46 PM on November 17, 2008


She'll be good at it. She's clearly competent and is no pushover when it comes to negotiations. She has to act in accordance to Obama's policies and positions. None of what was said on the campaign trail really matters. She pissed me off, but that's just politics.

Keep Bill away from the candy bowl. I mean it.
posted by krinklyfig at 7:47 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


She could be a pretty good bad cop to Obama's good cop. Time will tell. It's a bold move, in any case.
posted by echo target at 7:48 PM on November 17, 2008


Hillary has kept Bill away from the candy bowl for years, if my guess is right.
posted by found missing at 7:49 PM on November 17, 2008 [13 favorites]


She may tend to follow her own agenda rather than the president's.

Perhaps in an administration with a less politically skilled head than the one we're talking about. Obama is no starry-eyed idealist who can be played like a fiddle. This is a man who has put together an organization with discipline rarely seen outside of military circles. Clinton though she may be, I don't think she'll find herself anywhere but out on her ass if she gives the HMFIC too much cheek.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:50 PM on November 17, 2008


And none of that was to say that I think she'll be anything other than good at the job. Her strengths as a senator can be put to excellent use here.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 7:51 PM on November 17, 2008


The BBC says: She get instant international stature and recognition as secretary of State...

Is everybody firing their proofreaders now?

(Incidentally, in summary, the BBC merely states that there is "increasing speculation" she may be appointed to the post and notes that the Obama organization's silence on the matter seems to indicate there's something to the rumors. They don't go so far as to claim that an offer has been made or accepted.)
posted by musicinmybrain at 7:52 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Keeping his friends close, but his enemies closer, I would imagine...
posted by jokeefe at 7:52 PM on November 17, 2008


I don't know about lack of management skills, but I feel like this year both she and McCain have been forced to reveal their inner selves, and both are dangerously desperate people, grasping for power. Which makes them exactly the wrong kind of people for it.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 8:09 PM on November 17, 2008 [3 favorites]


Bill for U. N. Ambassador.
posted by netbros at 8:13 PM on November 17, 2008


Hey, if this goes, guess who's a legal resident of New York and could be appointed to her seat? Methinks it would be *fun* to see Bill in the Senate, in the faces of the dickheads who wanted his head ten years ago....
posted by notsnot at 8:15 PM on November 17, 2008 [7 favorites]


Ugh. No. Please, no.
posted by waraw at 8:19 PM on November 17, 2008


This has to be an extremely well thought out decision, there must be good reasons for it. I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt.

To some degree I think Hilary war mongered to placate the Republicans in the post 9/11 Feel Terror About the Terrorists Everywhere nightmare. As increasingly more surfaces about how profoundly rotten the BushCo administration is/was I think foreign policy will also shift.

This just out, 11/15/08 Scott McClellan 2008 Miami Book Fair
It was George W Bush who outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame.
posted by nickyskye at 8:37 PM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


Am I the only one who was hoping she'd be Attorney General instead?
posted by naoko at 8:44 PM on November 17, 2008


Am I the only one who was hoping she'd be Attorney General instead?

You're certainly not the only one. But I would submit that she really doesn't have great qualifications for that position.
posted by The World Famous at 8:48 PM on November 17, 2008


T'was hoping for more change, actually...
posted by cenoxo at 8:50 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


She'll be good at it. She's clearly competent and is no pushover when it comes to negotiations.

You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Her management of her campaign show clearly how ineffective a manager she really is. Her attempts at foreign policy show how poorly she understands diplomacy.

It's true that I can think of worse candidates for State -- George W. Bush leaps to mind. But I can't think of many.

I'm trying to think of which would be stupider - Hilary as State or keeping Paulson as Treasury.

You want a department for Hilary Clinton? HHS. Fuck, I'd rather have Joe Liberman running state than Clinton. But there's still that management problem, and in State, a loose cannon means you're suddenly in a war with someone.

No, no, a billion times no. Lord knows I have my problems with Obama, but stupidity isn't one of them. He has to be more clueful than this.
posted by eriko at 8:53 PM on November 17, 2008 [5 favorites]


You want a department for Hilary Clinton? HHS. Fuck, I'd rather have Joe Liberman running state than Clinton. But there's still that management problem, and in State, a loose cannon means you're suddenly in a war with someone.

I'm no great fan of Hillary, but she's hardly a loose cannon. She's in charge of the cabinet, not the policy, and it's not up to her what positions she advocates. She has been more than competent in her committee seats and her duties as Senator. Plus, if she blows it, she's out on her ass. I'm not worried about it. I think it's not nearly as political as some people are making it out to be.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:58 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


I would submit that she really doesn't have great qualifications for that position.

She was an attorney, at least... I dunno, you're probably right, but it seems better than her Secretary of State qualifications, which are...not actually getting shot at in Bosnia? Supporting the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment? Not sure what they are, actually.
posted by naoko at 9:00 PM on November 17, 2008



She is a poor manager, at least of a campaign, and I have a distaste for her politics.

But the Secretary of State defers to the president.

She's smart, she's capable. She's been an effective senator; when she went into the Senate, everyone was afraid she'd overstep her bounds, that she wouldn't take it seriously, but according to a New Yorker profile of her I read, she was actually very deferential, trying to do small, practical things, and I don't think it's in her personality to not respect chain of command.

Obama is taking a page from Lincoln, as has been said in many places; he's creating a coalition cabinet so that he can hear all points of view, and so that he can bring into the discussion potential opposition. Lincoln was decried for doing it and called a fool, but it worked. Clinton may or may not be an effective manager, but Obama certainly is.

I'm more concerned about Obama's candidate for the CIA.
posted by bukharin at 9:01 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


I find public opinion about Senator Clinton very hard to understand. I think Senator Clinton would make a great secretary of state. She has an excellent record as a lawyer, a senator, a presidential adviser, and a longtime highly lauded advocate for health care and human rights in the US and around the world, which are areas in which the US is in dire need of experienced direction.

So...I don't really want to start a fight, but I'd encourage Clinton naysayers to think about when they started hating Hillary Clinton, and why exactly. Because...she used to be cool, remember? When she broke from her far right racist family and became a democrat and an activist for civil rights and against the Vietnam? When she became a prominent legal scholar in the field of children's rights? When she founded a statewide non-profit child advocacy organization? When she became the first first lady to get past college in education? When she attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to introduce universal health care to America? Etc etc?

Sure she is guilty of trying to become president and not always being completely graceful in the process. But it just amazes me that in a few years she has fallen in public eyes from the stature of distinguished public servant, legal scholar, and inspiring feminist success story to just a bitch, right? So much for that. Maybe she'll have another chance to redeem her image as Secretary of State - I hope so.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:10 PM on November 17, 2008 [51 favorites]


So what about Bill Richardson now? I was hoping he would get Sec of State.
posted by sugarfish at 9:11 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


Thank you, Salvor Hardin.
posted by jokeefe at 9:19 PM on November 17, 2008


I wonder if he's really offered or if the Clintons have leaked this in an attempt to force his hand. The phrasing of the article is odd: not "Obama offers State to Hillary", but rather "Hillary will accept Obama's offer of State". We're hearing about the acceptance of an offer which has not been made, at least publicly.

Hillary's done some odd things along these lines before, such as ex post facto claiming co-sponsorship of a bill after it passed, when she had not been an acknowledged sponsor (or indeed even been invited to sponsor it) before the vote; in effect daring her fellow Senators to call her a liar, a game of chicken which she won on that occasion. I wonder if this isn't a similar game.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:20 PM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


Hillary's done some odd things along these lines before, such as ex post facto claiming co-sponsorship of a bill after it passed, when she had not been an acknowledged sponsor (or indeed even been invited to sponsor it) before the vote; in effect daring her fellow Senators to call her a liar, a game of chicken which she won on that occasion. I wonder if this isn't a similar game.

Sure, but she's already played the game with Obama and lost, so I doubt it.
posted by sherman at 9:24 PM on November 17, 2008


and y'all know what I meant by "the Vietnam". Damn the typos, full speed ahead.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 9:24 PM on November 17, 2008


I wonder if he's really offered or if the Clintons have leaked this in an attempt to force his hand.

Hilary wasn't the one who invited Obama to a meeting to discuss the position.
posted by smackfu at 9:24 PM on November 17, 2008


Smackfu, he's had the same meeting with Richardson. That's not the same as an offer.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:28 PM on November 17, 2008


I voted for Hillary in the primaries because I think she'd make a great president, but I don't think she'd make a great Secretary of State. I've never thought she was an ace when it comes to foreign policy (I don't think Obama is either), and I just assumed she would pick someone who was to be her SoS. I find this to be an odd decision, if true. I can see her doing some other cabinet position, just not this one.

I'm also a little weirded out by all the former Clinton officials populating this administration -- there's Biden's chief of staff and the White House counsel that are both from the Clinton era. I'm not upset about it; like I said I voted for Hillary, and I pretty much expected it from her. But I didn't expect it from Obama. Is there such a vacuum of talent among the Democratic Party, that we have to keep going back to the same people?
posted by bluefly at 9:40 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have never been a fan of Hillary Clinton, mainly because of her political style, but I agree she could be competent and useful in many roles within the Obama administration.

All told, however, I think I'd most like her hanging around until the next Supreme Court vacancy. She'd be a smart, reliable voice and vote on almost all issues there, and she'd be out of politics.
posted by rokusan at 9:41 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


She's a tough cookie, that's for sure, but If I was interested in grandstanding, hawkish foreign policy, I would have just voted for McCain.

DO NOT WANT.
posted by Amanojaku at 9:41 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Obama will need 'friends' in Washington, connections. People who know the ropes. Hillary has been there a long time. Being President isn't stepping into a clean role, it's packed with complexities to navigate. This is a long haul ahead of him with a gigantic mess to clean up.

Some Hillary positives:
She has international respect. The world outside America has excellent memories of the Clinton years. She's hardworking, interested in social issues, capable of being diplomatic, proven her mettle as a person, doesn't have nightmare skeletons in her closet, has extensive knowledge of the players in congress/business and how to work with them. She's pro-middle class, a skilled debater. She fought for civil rights, was one of the staff attorneys that helped investigate the Watergate scandal. She's done "more public service than many people perform in a lifetime". She's not rabidly partisan. "Hillary has worked with Republicans since joining the Senate, though some of those people had treated her badly just a few years earlier." This government will need to be maximum efficient and having non-partison members of the team will likely make substantive, reality based change more likely.

"Hillary has actively served on the Senate Armed Services committee and managed to impress enough flag-rank military officers that 27 of them endorsed her candidacy".

Looking up what Hillary accomplished recently: "Since being a Senator her main focus for New York has been jobs and 9/11 related matters. She's been less successful on the job front, though not completely without success. But she has been instrumental in getting funding and general help in the health crisis aftermath for the 9/11 workers. She's authored a great deal of legislation during her years on the Armed Services Committee that has passed regarding increased and improved benefits for our returning Iraq veterans. She continues to work for their benefit. She was one of the key Senators who fought to give our military badly needed raises and increase in benefits. For being such flag wavers, it was the Republicans and Bush who resisted these attempts to show our military how much we value and appreciate them."

A list of Hillary positives.
posted by nickyskye at 9:43 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


Guys, chill.

He's got this.
posted by billypilgrim at 9:46 PM on November 17, 2008 [20 favorites]


Condi Clinton. She's a total hack -- she proved it in her bowing to the war crime crowd and proved it in her negative campaigning, she's become what she went to DC to work against, or through; she wasn't strong enough to turn them, they turned her. She doesn't deserve anything, let her go drinking with McCain, losers both, they can get drunk and rant about bombing whatever country for the good of GE, the sick fucks.
posted by dancestoblue at 9:47 PM on November 17, 2008 [4 favorites]


That's how to be a classy winner!
posted by smackfu at 9:50 PM on November 17, 2008


I'm no great fan of Hillary, but she's hardly a loose cannon. She's in charge of the cabinet, not the policy, and it's not up to her what positions she advocates.

This deserves emphasis. The SoS is a foreign arm of the executive branch. They are the voice of the Oval Office abroad, and act in accordance to the policies and plans of the president, just like everybody else in the State Department. To this end, Hilary Clinton would serve just fine. She has more than enough experience in the legal department, and she even has (some) foreign policy experience as the former First Lady.

She could easily accept the position, but I tend to think she might not. Clinton likes being in charge of her own agenda; as SoS, she would be subordinate to Obama's. It would also make a run in 2012 problematic, as I'm sure Obama would run again - is his SoS going to run against him in the primaries? Not likely. Clinton has more power in the Senate than she would as SoS, and a more likely shot at the Oval Office in 2012 without the position. This is assuming, of course, that the fight is still in her, and she still wants the presidency.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing Powell take the SoS position. He's served Democrat and Republican presidents, has actually been SoS, it would be a bi-partisan move, and it would be both exciting and beneficial to see this intelligent man under the helm of a reasonable president, for a change.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 9:58 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wanted to see Colin Powell get it. Lugar said he wasn't interested.

Anthrax vials for everyone!
posted by delmoi at 10:16 PM on November 17, 2008


I read Drudge too, I read it like the Weekly World News.

OBATMA: CABINET MEMBER?
posted by pracowity at 10:19 PM on November 17, 2008


Dear God why? Her foreign policy "cred" got gunned down by those non-existent Bosnian snipers in the primary. She voted for the Iraq War. And world traveling is hard when you you have all that baggage (Bill) and all his baggage/"donors". And what President wants to play second fiddle to his SoS and her husband?

Hillary knows domestic policy, sure. She's a US Senator, for god's sake. Why would she give that up for a job that only rarely lasts as long as two term presidency (the last SoS to do the full eight years was George Schultz, under Reagan). For that you give up a lifetime in the Senate?

Appointing Richardson makes more sense politically, is more in line with Obama, and better for the country.
posted by orthogonality at 10:21 PM on November 17, 2008


we just don't know what she wants now that the White House is an almost nonexisting chance (challenge president Obama in 2012 for the nomination and end up like Teddy Kennedy in 1980? wait until 2016 when you're old news and you look like McCain 08, a bitter also-ran senior citizen who won't accept she had blown it 8 years before and just won't go away?). her best hope for the Presidency is, as she herself crassly put it during the Primaries when she just wouldn't quit, that Obama gets murdered. Biden would ascend to the Presidency and then would have to run in 2012, she can probably challenge him successfully then. or maybe she'll just look like a hyena trying to feast on the slain hero's corpse. so, really, the White House thing seems like a mirage now.

if she wants lots of media exposure & even more contacts than she has in her network, and to eventually make a lot of money, live a very cushy old age of massive wealth, Secretary of State is perfect. loads of publicity, another monster book contract when she leaves State, bigger than the one she got in 20001, then cashing in big time on her fame and obvious charisma with high priced speeches. I'm sure she'll be able to charge more than Bill does and certainly more than Bush and Cheney

she can stay in the Senate for life more or less if she wants, who can challenge her in NY? then become an elder stateswoman in a couple more full terms, as of now she lacks the seniority to do anything really big, she already got shot down for the Health Care thing by Kennedy due to lack of seniority. in the Senate, as long as Obama is President these next 4 years, due to her lack of seniority she's second banana to a lot of lamers, including the happily disloyal Joe Lieberman who seems ready to keep his Homeland Security gavel.

if instead she chooses the history books, if that's what she wants, I think she should make a deal to get a seat on the Supreme Court. O'Connor got there first but she was lame, and she blew herself up with Bush v Gore. Ruth Bader Ginsburg got there second, but she's so low profile, has no big decision under her name, she's on her way out. Hillary can make history there, keep Roe in the books, fight off Scalia and Roberts, wipe her ass with the rest of the Republicans. she's older than Roberts, but even if she never gets to Chief Justice she can become THE female jurist of America's history, a feminist Thurgood Marshall so to speak.

if I were her I'd do anything to get the Supreme Court, who cares about flying some sheik's private plane over to the Caribbean after giving a lecture to a bunch of assholes?
posted by matteo at 10:23 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


The more I read that article the more it irritates me. The Guardian, which I usually like, "has learned" that Hillary will accept the offer. An offer that no-one has reported, and which they themselves report only by implication.

Cart, meet horse. Right, now one of you do a one-eighty and get it the right way around, mmmkay? A deeply weird bit of journalism, to put it very generously.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:26 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


I wouldn't. Fuck republicans. Why the hell should they be rewarded fucking everything up?As tempting as this sentiment is, that is exactly the attitude that Bush and the Republicans have had for the last 8 years, and it is a big, big part of the problem.
The problems of the republicans stemmed from specific policy failures, mostly having to do with them being idiots and denying reality. Bipartisanship is still partisanship; it's still governing on the basis of ideology, and if you try to compromise with lunatics your policies will be half-mad.
Obama will need 'friends' in Washington, connections. People who know the ropes. Hillary has been there a long time. Being President isn't stepping into a clean role, it's packed with complexities to navigate. This is a long haul ahead of him with a gigantic mess to clean up.
I think there is a lot of this going on. Washington is full of opportunists who want to be on the right side of history, and Obama is offering them a bridge. They'll be implementing his polices, so who cares who actually does it?

The problem, of course, is that these guys are all idiots, and giving them influential positions means the rot will stay in place. Ugh. (Not Hillary so much as all the republicans)
posted by delmoi at 10:28 PM on November 17, 2008


I came to like Clinton better over the course of her campaign, although she had some lousy advisors and surrogates. I think she'd make a decent-to-good Secretary. Even though foreign policy isn't her strongest suit, there are some good reasons outlined above why Obama might like to bring her into the cabinet and into this sphere specifically.

Obama may believe that with Biden and others in his core staff he won't need to pull a Clinton and find a William Christopher old and steady hand. He's probably a cool enough customer as it is to deal with anyone, and will lean more in the direction of having policy domain experts forging approaches for various parties and situations.

My one major question is why Hillary thinks this is her next step. As TPM and others have noted, she could probably get re-elected for life to her Senate seat. And people have discussed her becoming Majority Leader. (Although Reid seems to have full confidence right now, despite the Dems developing a strong majority, and with expectations of an even stronger filibuster-proof majority come 2010.) Anyway, maybe she, like Bill, loves the world stage and sees her career taking her through Foggy Bottom to some kind of Davos-esque global advocacy seat.
posted by dhartung at 10:30 PM on November 17, 2008


Why are people talking about Colin Powell still? It wasn't as if he did a particularly good job as SoS, and he's very closely tied to some of George Bush's biggest mistakes - things Obama definitely wants to distance himself from. That move would only benefit Powell, and I'm not even sure it would even do that.

As far as Hilary goes...

Well, one thing that a lot of people tend to forget is that on a local level, a political party can function as more or less a unified beast that caters to one specific niche, but on a national level, it has to be a broad coalition. To be crass and simplistic about it, the Republicans have to balance out the social conservatives, the religious right and financial conservatives, and the Democrats have to strike a balance between unions, minorities, and liberals. (Also, if the Daily Show's 2004 DNC convention coverage is to be believed: Godless Sodomites.) If a candidate is incapable of bridging those tenuous gaps, they won't win. (John McCain, for example, didn't bring the financial conservatives into the tent this time, but had he done that, he could have won.)

Now, as much as I like Barack Obama, I think the main priority is for him to not to become the next Jimmy Carter. Given that he was elected as a vote against the outgoing president, and given that he wants to pursue a lot of Carter's goals like an overhaul of America's energy infostructure, that's a real possibility. Carter wasn't a bad president because he had bad ideas, or because he was a bad person; hell, now that he's not President, Carter has the highest personal approval ratings of any living President and a lot of his ideas are (IMHO) fairly common sense. No, Carter was a bad president because he did a very bad job of building coalitions. He was continually blocked in Congress - by a Democratic Congress no less - because he never really got the support of the Union people, for example.

So, as neutral as I am about Hilary, I think that an offer would be a smart move on Obama's part, both symbolically and practically. For one, Hilary still does have a lot of the old gaurd infrastructure in her pocket, and as much as I would like to say "well, nuts to them - they can join the bandwagon or go fuck themselves"... Well, I just can't. Why? Because the thing that killed the Democrats for the last forty years was the 1968 Democratic National Convention, where the old guard shut out the young anti-war vote, destroying their coalition and weakening them as a national party for decades. There was a reason why people tuned in and then dropped out - and there's a reason why Richard Nixon was elected.

Look, let's not reduce this to the politics of the personal. It's not about how we feel about Hilary as a person, and it isn't about her particulars. It's about what she represents. And what she represents is a wing of the Democratic party that Barack Obama needs if he's going to govern. This really is Obama's chance to rebuild the Democratic party, and to set into motion a small dynasty that could last as long as the post-Nixon Republican dynasty did, but to do that, he's got to avoid making the same mistakes the democrats made in the 60s, and the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s. In other words: he has to pick - well, if not Hilary specifically, a Hilary-like person. Someone that tells the people who still have doubts that he's going to listen to them and give them a piece of the pie, too. Politics at that level is a lot like a potlatch: if you want to stay chief, you have to give away a lot of shit to a lot of people.
posted by Kiablokirk at 10:32 PM on November 17, 2008 [5 favorites]


Wouldn't her tens of millions in campaign debts be a massive liability?

Would Obama have to use his leftovers to pay for them in order to nominate her?
posted by blasdelf at 10:33 PM on November 17, 2008


He's putting together the Dream Team.
posted by Flex1970 at 10:36 PM on November 17, 2008


On the one hand, as nickyskye points out, she's popular and respected overseas-- and certainly, she's smart and tough.

On the other hand, I get the sense that her instincts about foreign policy seem to be of the defensive and overcompensatory variety, i.e., Democrats CAN TOO be rigid and unimaginative and belligerent!

And the thing is, 1995 All Over Again-- But Even Better! doesn't really match what the US (never mind the world) really needs right now. Though I doubt Obama will wind up pushing things that far, the US would benefit most from a massive reframing of National Security as not being military power, but instead being energy supply, education, and technological lead.

(For the record, I can't help but think that public opinion on defense spending could change significantly, if Barack just showed the country some tidy little charts and graphs indicating just *how much more* bizarrely, radically militarily powerful the US is, compared to the rest of the world... and maybe threw a map into the bargain, to remind us that, apart from the salmon to our west, and cod to our east, the US has no possible invaders.)

Back in 2007 or so (I think), Brad De Long, who'd been one of the economists working for the Clinton White House, argued that, despite her intelligence and dedication to high ideals, she'd be a bloody awful president-- secretive, paranoid, and ruthless to a fault.

Obviously, the 2008 campaign hasn't done much to burnish her management credentials.

Were she to become SoS, it's all too easy to imagine Bill feeling starved of attention, insisting on making himself a story, and dragging her into it. (Actually, the only sure way of keeping him flashbulb-fed would be to pack him off to the middle east so he could try closing the Jerusalem deal again... which actually wouldn't be a bad idea.)

At any rate, I think she'd actually be an excellent Senate Majority Leader, and Reid hasn't been very impressive.

Fundamentally, I think she's been just too crimped by the battles of the 90s to attempt anything truly daring-- and even if she's the Good Soldier, and it's Barack who's setting direction, I wonder how well she'll able to keep it, given all the baggage shared by her, her spouse, and their entourage.
posted by darth_tedious at 10:49 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


Letting Bill anywhere near the whitehouse after his years on the sleazebag express kind of creeps me out.
posted by mecran01 at 10:51 PM on November 17, 2008 [2 favorites]


>I think the main priority is for him to not to become the next Jimmy Carter... And what she represents is a wing of the Democratic party that Barack Obama needs if he's going to govern.

Hmm... actually, the political, coalition building argument is a pretty good one... although SoS still seems like entirely the wrong slot for her, to the degree that it seems like an acknowledgment of her political strength, rather than a reliance on her policy expertise.
posted by darth_tedious at 10:59 PM on November 17, 2008


Like Alexander Haig, I misunderstood the correct ordering, and thought that would make her the President if the President and Vice President died. But the Speaker of the House is third in line, which means that Nancy Pelosi would be President if something happened to Bush and Cheney.

Maybe the 'woman President at any cost' crowd could have Bush and Cheney declared insane or something.
posted by eye of newt at 11:02 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


I know it sounds like I'm harping on this, but...

we could try to figure out what Clinton thinks is in it for Clinton, or what her ulterior motives are, or how this is a calculated move to advance herself.

or maybe we could look at this as Sen. Clinton considering giving up her prestigious and indefinite seat in the Senate in return for a short term opportunity to rise to answer a call to look to the future of our country and the world? Maybe this is actually a humble act of sacrifice on her part. After a long, difficult competition for the nomination with Obama, she will now be the mouthpiece of Obama to the leaders of the world. OH LIBERALS, ARE YOU NOT SATISFIED WITH WHAT SHE HAS GIVEN OF HERSELF?

Ahem, a little overemotional there. But srsly it's easy to fall into the "fuck that cold bitch" attitude when there's nothing actually cold or bitchy about what she's doing. I know this is passe now, but I think it's sexist.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 11:04 PM on November 17, 2008 [1 favorite]


To clarify, I don't wish to shut down criticism of Hillary Clinton, just widen the perspective of the discussion a bit.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 11:06 PM on November 17, 2008


I know this is passe now, but I think it's sexist.

I cannot speak for others, but my dislike of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with her sex. If she were a calculating, triangulating, say-anything male politician who (for example) pulled the crap she pulled on Obama in the primaries, I would dislike her just the same.
posted by rokusan at 12:10 AM on November 18, 2008


sugarfish & orthogonality: As an Asian-American, I (along with many in the Asian community) am peeved that Richardson still refuses to apologize in any way for the whole Wen Ho Lee fuckup.
posted by amuseDetachment at 12:11 AM on November 18, 2008


heh, I read it as "Paris Hilton" at first...
posted by borq at 1:07 AM on November 18, 2008


But srsly it's easy to fall into the "fuck that cold bitch" attitude when there's nothing actually cold or bitchy about what she's doing. I know this is passe now, but I think it's sexist.

It's not a "FTCB" attitude, it's "can she do the job, 'cause based on past experience, it doesn't seem like it" attitude. As for the term "bitch" you're the only one that's used it in the thread. and the charge of sexism is so off the wall, it's hard to take you seriously.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:39 AM on November 18, 2008 [4 favorites]


The last thing Obama should do is pull a Clinton into his administration. You know..."Change" and all that. All this would do is give pundits a big noisy talking-point with which to flog his administration from before day-one. And they will. At great length.

Richardson would be so much more effective.

NPR speculated that, whomever Obama picks as SoS, they would have to work well with Biden, as he is expected to be very active in foreign affairs. Anyone know how well Hillary gets along with Joe?
posted by Thorzdad at 4:06 AM on November 18, 2008


Politics at that level is a lot like a potlatch: if you want to stay chief, you have to give away a lot of shit to a lot of people. - posted by Kiablokirk

And a potlatch is a fine thing - when it is your stuff you are giving away.

The idea was supposed to be that the citizens are the masters and the people in State capitols/Washington were to be the servants to the masters. Do US citizens feel they are masters of their domain these days?
posted by rough ashlar at 4:17 AM on November 18, 2008


I'm more concerned about Obama's candidate for the CIA.

I think any "news" source that spells its subject's name two different ways in a single article can be dismissed out of hand. I don't know, maybe I have high standards.
posted by The Michael The at 4:17 AM on November 18, 2008


Who?
posted by DU at 4:45 AM on November 18, 2008


To clarify, I don't wish to shut down criticism of Hillary Clinton, just widen the perspective of the discussion a bit.

Yes, the other bit of perspective is that the support that Clinton gave to Obama after conceding the primary was historically unprecedented in Democratic party politics.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:55 AM on November 18, 2008


So what about Bill Richardson now?

Bill's got the same problem as the other Bill.

He's putting together the Dream Team.

Not if he's got Hillary as Secretary of State.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:12 AM on November 18, 2008


Sweet! Obama gets a detailed dossier on every embarrassing secret the Clintons are keeping, gets Hillary out of the Senate where she could be a thorn in his side, and can let Hillary work for Joe Biden (who is really all the Secretary of State he needs) until she rebels, then fire her and end her career.

Yep. Isn't that basically how Cheney got rid of all the possible "rivals" for his job? He vetted them, then knew precisely how to get them out of the way. I'd really be surprised if Hillary falls for this, or if Bill does. Interesting little chess game Obama's playing here...
posted by fuse theorem at 5:17 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Fuck republicans.

As a dyed-in-the-wool republican, I can't agree with that more.
posted by sexymofo at 5:18 AM on November 18, 2008


People like Hillary don't gett "vetted" for jobs like this anymore.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:20 AM on November 18, 2008


I should say, they get vetted, but not in the sense that their background gets a thorough combing, they get vetted against polling and trends analysis. People like you and me, the folks that haven't been "vetted" by the muckrakers of the political arena 6 times over, we are the ones that get our shortcomings put in the little black book for future discrediting a la Scientology. Clinton has already had her entrails laid out for all to see.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:23 AM on November 18, 2008


sheesh, could this get ANY MORE like west wing season seven???
so now he offers SoS to his defeated rival? what;s obama going to do after inauguration when it all (shh) ends...?
posted by trulyscrumptious at 5:49 AM on November 18, 2008


Hello, I'm a typical MeFite and I support the centrist machine democrat who won the primary and not the centrist machine democrat who lost! Remember how the losing candidate aggressively exhausted every winning avenue available to her during the primary, because she really wanted to be President? What a power hungry bitchthing that makes me express hatred for her on Metafilter in a way that has nothing at all to do with her gender! I relish those times when she eloquently supports the winning centrist machine democrat throughout his campaign, or considers giving up her cushy independent position of power for a thankless, difficult role directly underneath the winning centrist machine democrat, because that gives me another opportunity to express my hatred!
posted by Kwine at 5:58 AM on November 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


Please stop making this kind of breathless newsfilter post just to be first with the news.

Seconded with emphasis. And why is this bullshit post still here? So everyone can have an outlet for the gossip/thumbsucking/navelgazing they've had to suppress since the election? Are we going to have another such thread if and when she's actually offered the job and accepts it?
posted by languagehat at 6:03 AM on November 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Hello, I'm a typical MeFite and I support the centrist machine democrat who won the primary and not the centrist machine democrat who lost! Remember how the losing candidate aggressively exhausted every winning avenue available to her during the primary, because she really wanted to be President?

Funny, but not exactly true. Clinton aggressively exhausted every winning avenue and then kept going when it was clear she had to lose. And didn't "keep going" in the sense of keeping her hat in the ring but not doing much about it. She actively tried to smear the guy who was clearly going to be the Democratic nominee.

Also, except for his coming from Chicago, it's hard to paint Obama as a machine party member. Centrist, possibly.
posted by DU at 6:07 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


To a lot of progressives Clinton (and to a lesser extent, Rahm Emanuel) represents the insider old-guard of the Democratic party, who acquiesced to this criminal administration on issue after issue after issue.
posted by waraw at 6:08 AM on November 18, 2008


She actively tried to smear the guy who was clearly going to be the Democratic nominee.

How dare she!
posted by smackfu at 6:19 AM on November 18, 2008


Re: What a power hungry bitchthing that makes me express hatred for her on Metafilter in a way that has nothing at all to do with her gender!

Interesting, the term "bitch" has only been used in this thread by those who seem to support Hillary, yet they imply that people are calling her bitch, when none have. Funny old world.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:22 AM on November 18, 2008


DU: Funny, but not exactly true. Clinton aggressively exhausted every winning avenue and then kept going when it was clear she had to lose. And didn't "keep going" in the sense of keeping her hat in the ring but not doing much about it. She actively tried to smear the guy who was clearly going to be the Democratic nominee.

Oh my stars and garters!
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:46 AM on November 18, 2008


I have a hard time believing anything the Guardian writes, particularly anything with a gossipy edge. They frequently print stories about celebrities featuring things the celebrities never did or would say. I have a feeling this story is based of an educated guess more than any solid source; like a pregnancy story in a US tabloid, just print it and hope everyone proves you right in 3 months or so.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:53 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Also, except for his coming from Chicago, it's hard to paint Obama as a machine party member

You seem like a bright, engaged guy DU, but I suppose that there's a slim chance that you don't know that the primary reason that anyone outside of the Illinois State Senate has ever heard of Barack Obama is Emil Jones. Also I don't really want to get into this because I really like Obama also and I was proud to vote for him and I was just trying to do my civic duty for someone who we hopefully can all agree, smarmy semantic bon mots about derogatory terms for females aside, has been beaten up around these parts for the last year or so and hey, change! Change is a comin'.

I'd say more, but Brandon Blatcher has exposed the crypto self-loathing of seeming Hillary Clinton aficionados everywhere, so my cover is blown. Retreat! Retreat! The eagle flies at dawn!

Also DU I have long thought that your website is awesome.
posted by Kwine at 6:55 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


If Obama owes Hillary a position in his cabinet, the likely fit would he HEW, being she is all concerned about health care.
posted by Bitter soylent at 7:05 AM on November 18, 2008


Hillary Clinton is accepting the job so that she can be closer to Obama (cue dramatic music), because she's carrying his love child.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:10 AM on November 18, 2008




the likely fit would he HEW

Woah now, we don't need any more comparisons to the Carter Administration around here.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:14 AM on November 18, 2008


If Obama owes Hillary a position in his cabinet, the likely fit would he HEW,

HEW was Health, Education and Welfare, which was a unification of Education, and Health and Human Services from 1959-1979. They are separate departments now, which is why I suggest HHS.
posted by eriko at 7:19 AM on November 18, 2008


because she's carrying his love child.

Snuke in the Snizz?
posted by mannequito at 7:26 AM on November 18, 2008


Is there such a vacuum of talent among the Democratic Party, that we have to keep going back to the same people?

Jimmy Carter left office in 1981. The Clinton administration's the only Democratic administration in the last 27 years, so if you want someone with experience, yes.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:39 AM on November 18, 2008


Where are the mods??
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:46 AM on November 18, 2008


Well, it appears I have thoroughly sabotaged my own point with overzealous rhetoric. I will now go watch funny bunnies.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:46 AM on November 18, 2008


Concur with everyone who said British press is crap on American politics. I'm still skeptical that Obama was behind ballistic glass on Election Night and not some fake decoy glass because I only seemed to be able to find the claim in British media.

That said, this choice for Secretary of State still perplexes me. I mean, "it's 3 am and your children are safe and asleep . . . "
posted by IvoShandor at 7:48 AM on November 18, 2008


Extending the primary was a good thing that helped Obama win late primary states like Indiana and North Carolina in the general election.

Don't want Lugar in the position. Voted libertarian against him in 2006 due to his party-line support of Bush.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:55 AM on November 18, 2008


There's an extremely good reason that a lot of people are against Mrs. Clinton for any post related to foreign relations and that's that she voted for the war, and she has essentially never recanted.

It astonishes me that political dialogs so rarely mention the elephant in the room: that over half the effective budget of the US federal government gets spent on the military - that's well over a million dollars a minute, day and night.

If your friend were having serious financial difficulties and yet were spending over half his income on guns, wouldn't you sit down and talk to him? If he refused to ever discuss it, wouldn't you think he was "in denial"? (*)

Yet the concept of spending less on the military - even not increasing the military budget - is never discussed at a national level (with a few inconsequential exceptions like Sen. Gravel and Ron Paul).

The appointment of all these hawks (and don't get me started on my disappointment that Joe Lieberman wasn't buried with a stake through his heart) sends a clear message: "This policy will not change. We will continue to wage endless war, wherever we feel like, no matter what the cost to people in foreign lands or to Americans."

--

(* - Generally I don't use the male pronoun but in this case...

Imagine further that when a burglar finally breaks in, your friend isn't able to get the safety catch off his weapon; and that when he goes out shooting, he causes huge damage but is consistently unable to hit his target. Your friend needs an intervention.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:12 AM on November 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


HEW no longer exists? Next you will be telling me they renamed the War Department.
posted by Bitter soylent at 8:25 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Oooh, we're inching closer, everybody. I can feel a thrill running up my leg. Maybe instead of the usual way of announcing it, someone will just get up and yell "Yahtzeeeee".
posted by cashman at 8:29 AM on November 18, 2008


So much for Change. Lets bring back people from the Republican Lite administration of 1993-2001 and a supporter of Mr. Bush's wars too.
posted by Rarebit Fiend at 8:31 AM on November 18, 2008


Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Clinton still hasn't rescinded her erroneous claim that the 9/11 hijackers came into the U.S. via Canada.

So, Secretary of State? I would certainly hope she'd be rescinding that BS ASAP.
posted by stinkycheese at 8:34 AM on November 18, 2008 [3 favorites]


Harpers missed reason number 6: "A bunch of guys on the intarwebs don't like Clinton".

For what it's worth, I can't really complain about Clinton's campaign, since I think it's one of the things that enabled Obama to win the election. She got the likely talking points out of the way early on, leaving the Republicans scrambling for issues to use.

All that aside, I can think of two positive reasons to have Clinton as SoS:

1. Foreign nations tend to have nostalgic feelngs for the Clinton era, and by extension Hillary. We're going to need all the foreign goodwill we can get.

2. The Republicans utterly HATE her. Just think of all the amusing annti-Hillary rants we can see over the next four years!
posted by happyroach at 10:25 AM on November 18, 2008


Because...she used to be cool, remember?

It's an old story, really. Person pushes through adversity and makes a stand with integrity... and is overcome with the politics of pettiness. Sells her soul to play that game, then watches as someone else is held aloft -- as someone who never sold out even when the game seemed rigged.

It's not that she didn't come from an admirable past; that's hardly the point. The mock "how dare she!" gasps seem to be insinuating that anyone and everyone stoops to that level to acquire power. Did Obama? Wasn't he faced with that choice repeatedly?

And guess what. That's why he's now in charge and she's not.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:33 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


but I think it's sexist.

Noting Clinton ran a crap campaign and is a terrible person manager is not sexist.

Noting she supported and still supports the war in Iraq is not sexist.

Noting she has taken positions suggesting war with Iran qould be fabulous is not sexist.

They all related to her ability to do the damn job. But no, here are the Hilary supporters who want to derail any scrutiny of her terrible record with cries of 'sexism'.
posted by rodgerd at 10:39 AM on November 18, 2008 [4 favorites]


but Brandon Blatcher has exposed the crypto self-loathing of seeming Hillary Clinton aficionados everywhere, so my cover is blown. Retreat! Retreat! The eagle flies at dawn!

I would draw my sword and slay you now, fiend, but you amuse Lord Obama and he has decreed that you still draw breath.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:26 AM on November 18, 2008


How do her qualifications for Secretary of State measure up to those of successful past Secretaries of State?

In the recent past, we've had people who were leading scholars on international relations. She does not have their qualifications. We've had former secretaries of Defense and people with extensive military backgrounds (Vance, Haig, etc.). She does not have their qualifications. We've had a former deputy attorney general/deputy Secretary of State (Warren Christopher, who also clerked for a Supreme Court justice). She does not have his qualifications.

Just browsing the bios of recent former Secretaries of State, I do not see someone with as thin a resume as hers where the Secretary of State role is concerned. Is there an analogous prior Secretary of State?
posted by The World Famous at 11:45 AM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clinton's weak resume for the SoS position is particularly underscored if compared to that of Madeleine Albright. Surely there is someone far more qualified for the job than the esteemed Senator from New York.
posted by The World Famous at 11:47 AM on November 18, 2008


Clinton's weak resume for the SoS position is particularly underscored if compared to that of Madeleine Albright.

Resume is certainly not the only qualification. If you compare Albright vs. Powell on paper, for example, Albright had the foreign affairs credentials, but Powell was in the end a far better administrator.
posted by Pollomacho at 12:13 PM on November 18, 2008


If you'll pardon the Iditarod analogy, I think Obama sees some rough times ahead and wants to harness a team of Big Dogs to pull the country through it. And better that the dogs be in harness and pulling for the team than running loose biting at his ankles.
posted by SPrintF at 12:53 PM on November 18, 2008


If you compare Albright vs. Powell on paper, for example, Albright had the foreign affairs credentials, but Powell was in the end a far better administrator.

Yeah, Powell was much better because he presented lies at the UN to bring the United States into a war that has crippled its international reputation.

Wait, what?
posted by rodgerd at 12:56 PM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


That's why he's now in charge and she's not.

No, I don't think that is usually the case for politicians. I think the stooping and selling their souls is all too often part of the job, or has been for a long time. It's often camouflaged as "compromise". At some point making fair, reality based compromises may become become corrupted and turn into an integrity that is compromised. The BushCo regime had been a frightening, totalitarian one. Globally. It would be hard for any one person to stand up against what has been going down in this country for the last 8 years. There is very good reason the entire planet practically yipped for joy when the Bushco dynasty was dethroned and Obama was elected.

Who else in Washington these last 8 years has stood their ground and made dents in this dictatorship? And I say dictatorship seriously because I didn't think Bushco would give up the election fairly but would, as they did in the past, steal it, like any rotten, 2-bit nightmare dictatorship around the globe that the Republicans have sneered at as backwards.

In a Washington riddled with bathroom stall type scandals of every variety, Hilary has stood the test of time as a sober citizen, serious politician, who has and intends to make constructive changes. Whether she has the backbone to be SoS, I don't know. She's capable enough and has incredible stamina, staying power. Maybe she just needs some decent supportive team-work to be part of major change?

Observing her grace in defeat, how she turned around immediately and was truly supportive of Obama, sincerely encouraging the vote in his direction every way she could from then on, I think she'd be a good person on the Obama team.
posted by nickyskye at 1:00 PM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


If you'll pardon the Iditarod analogy, I think Obama sees some rough times ahead and wants to harness a team of Big Dogs to pull the country through it.

That's logical, except that Clinton is not a foreign policy "big dog."
posted by The World Famous at 1:14 PM on November 18, 2008


Hilary has stood the test of time as a sober citizen, serious politician, who has and intends to make constructive changes.

I liked in particular her war on video games. Very serious and sober, that.

She's a panderer. Don't get me wrong; so was McCain. I'm not expecting politicians to be inhumanly virtuous (!). I'm just saying that part of Obama's appeal is how untarnished he is. Maybe that's because he wasn't in the system fighting -- and failing -- to keep it real all this time. But as I said, he had plenty of chances to get down in the mud, and it's easy in retrospect to think his win was a done deal. It was not.

Perhaps you're arguing that these things were done simply to gain power. You need to talk about bombing Iran if you want to get in. Then you can do the "right thing". But this utterly fails to anticipate how, once in power, the person will deal with immense pressures to do all kinds of unsavory things. At that point it comes down to character and principle. Clinton and McCain have demonstrated that these things are not more important to them than the power. As a result, they should not have it.

But we can't pretend that the results of the primary were also wholly unrelated to this. People balked at Hilary's tactics. So yes, you got the candidate, and now president, that you deserved. And hey, you did good this time.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 2:00 PM on November 18, 2008


Durn: It's not that she didn't come from an admirable past; that's hardly the point. The mock "how dare she!" gasps seem to be insinuating that anyone and everyone stoops to that level to acquire power. Did Obama? Wasn't he faced with that choice repeatedly?

Well, Obama did pop a few dogwistles into his statements. But I don't think that he gets a free pass either. One dynamic of the Obama campaign is that he can put up the father/sage front while supporters do the attacks. Obama was much more apt to criticize attacks made against his wife by Republicans, than significantly sexist attacks on Clinton from his own camp. And that strikes me as a serious problem.

Of course, Clinton's problem was that she kept sticking her own foot in her mouth regarding race. I remember one statement where my jaw hit the floor and I realized that she was blowing it badly.

Durn: She's a panderer.

Well, I think Obama is a panderer as well. Early in the primary campaign, he was touring with outspoken anti-gay ministers, then it was "marriage is between a man and a woman but..." talk. Then it was an 11th hour call to vote down Prop. 8 using the same language. I held my nose and voted because I had rather low expectations (and I'm depressed to see him hammered on environmental and energy policy statements that could have come from Nixon or Ford.)

While he certainly talks a good game, his promises of leadership via bipartisanship compromise, don't give me much hope for much of a stand on principle.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:11 PM on November 18, 2008


Well if we're talking about peoples supporters didn't Clintons supporters all vote for John McCain?
posted by Artw at 2:24 PM on November 18, 2008


Artw: no
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:29 PM on November 18, 2008


I'm sorry, we're playing by your rules, so we have to take democrats for mccain as representative of any and all supporters of Clinton, including yourself and Clinton herself.
posted by Artw at 2:36 PM on November 18, 2008


Artw: I'm sorry, we're playing by your rules, so we have to take democrats for mccain as representative of any and all supporters of Clinton, including yourself and Clinton herself.

Which rules?

And, I'm not a Clinton supporter. Please try again.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 2:42 PM on November 18, 2008


You've certainly mastered the form.
posted by Artw at 2:45 PM on November 18, 2008


Well, let's put this in context. Last month McCain and Palin were soundly criticized for their tardiness in speaking up to denounce some of the sexist and xenophobic language that came out of their rallies. This prompted McCain to reluctantly make a statement that Obama was not a terrorist, he was a patriotic American, etc., etc.. Pretty much the consensus here was that McCain and Palin failed in their obligation to discourage that kind of rhetoric.

Similarly, as the Democratic primary heated up, supporters of Obama, verbal, internet and press, started using a lot of really sexist langauge in talking about Clinton. This sort of thing is where the rubber hits the road in regards to progressivism. So a lot of people were rather disappointed that Obama was slow to tell his supporters to knock it off and stick to policy. He did so quite quicly when Michelle was attacked. Clinton certainly wasn't clean either in this regard.

PUMAs were largely a Republican ratfucking operation. After conceeding the primary in June, the Clinton campaign provided historically unprecedented support to the Obama campaign: lists of funraisers and funraising sources, repeated stump speeches and endorsements, the release of delegates before procedural obligation, and Clinton campaign staffers were instructed to squelch any debate on the convention floor. None of which Clinton was obligated to provide. Brown and Jackson had gone into the convention spoiling for a floor fight with far less delegate power.

But, that story was less sexy than the story of a power-hungry virago spoiling for a fight at every opportunity, so the Republican-funded PUMAs got considerably more column inches than Clinton's endorsements.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:13 PM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


I liked in particular her war on video games. Very serious and sober, that.

Ah, this. Perspective and reality based proportion?

"Some of Sen. Clinton's Votes (from Project Vote Smart)

Jobs & Benefits:

- Voted to increase minimum wage (Jun '06)

- Voted to stop tax breaks for companies that move jobs overseas (Mar '05)

- Voted to extend unemployment benefits for 13 weeks (May '04)

- Voted to protect workers' pensions (Apr '04)

Homeland Security:

- Voted to implement 9/11 Commission recommendations (Jul '07)

- Voted to restore Homeland Security grants that Bush cut (Mar '05)

National Debt:

- Voted against increasing limit of national debt (Mar '06)

Health Care:

-Voted to expand SCHIP (Sep '07)

-Voted to fund stem-cell research (Jul '06)

-Voted against Medicare prescription drug act (Senate Roll call) (Nov '03)

Investor Protection & Corporate Fraud:

- Voted to increase SEC funding (Jul '02)

Elections & Campaign Finance

- Voted to require uniform voting procedures (Apr '02)

- Voted for campaign-finance reforms (Apr '01)

Education:

-Voted to stop lenders from scamming taxpayers (Jul '07)

-Voted to increase grants for needy college students (Oct '05)

Energy & Climate:

- Voted for alternative-energy funding (Jun '07)

- Voted against EPA's loose standards on mercury emissions (Sep '05)

- Voted to decrease dependence on foreign oil (Jun '05)

- Voted for research on hydrogen cars (Jun '03)

- Voted to prevent oil drilling at ANWR (Mar '03)

Taxes:

- Voted to increase child tax credit (Sep '04)

- Voted against taxing the Internet (Apr '04)

Military, Wars & Contractor Fraud

- Voted for rest periods for troops in Iraq & Afghanistan (Sep '07)

- Voted to set up time lines for troop withdrawal from Iraq (Mar '07)

- Voted to investigate contractor fraud in Iraq & Afghanistan (Nov '05)

- Voted to increase veterans' health care funding (Nov '05)

- Voted for habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees (Nov '05)

Executive Branch Appointees

- Voted for "No Confidence" re: Attorney General Gonzales (Jun '07)

- Voted against confirming Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (Jan '06)

- Voted against confirming Supreme Court Justice John Roberts (Sep '05)

- Voted against confirming Gonzales as Attorney General (Feb '05)

- Voted against confirming Ashcroft as Attorney General (Feb '01)

- Voted against confirming Gale Norton as Energy Sec. (Jan '01)"
posted by nickyskye at 3:17 PM on November 18, 2008 [2 favorites]


It looks like Eric Holder, Janet Reno's deputy attorney general, has been tapped to be AG. He's a really solid choice; he's been very vocal about protesting the Bush Administration's use of torture and abuse of executive power. Check out this speech he gave four years ago. He's a good signal that Obama's serious about putting the Constitution back together.
posted by EarBucket at 3:44 PM on November 18, 2008


Why are people talking about Colin Powell still? It wasn't as if he did a particularly good job as SoS, and he's very closely tied to some of George Bush's biggest mistakes - things Obama definitely wants to distance himself from. That move would only benefit Powell, and I'm not even sure it would even do that.

Uh, actually, the man is still seen as a hero of sorts in the State Department. Everyone from ambassadors on down would welcome this man back, especially after the changes he made to the State Department during his tenure as SoS.

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about what the SoS is and does here. Powell, like any other SoS, is merely the foreign arm of the executive branch. That's it. The policies of the president are the policies of the SoS. I see a lot of people talk about Clinton's policies and voting record, completely ignoring the fact that none of this would matter. She would be obliged to be Obama's doppelganger abroad. The only questions we need to ask are, is she smart, capable, and have foreign policy experience? How she voted and how she campaigned are pretty much irrelevant.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:48 PM on November 18, 2008


Ooh, and Peter Orszag as budget director. That's fantastic. Orszag is smart as hell, and if anyone can help Obama get the budget under control, he's the guy.
posted by EarBucket at 3:51 PM on November 18, 2008


Marisa: The only questions we need to ask are, is she smart, capable, and have foreign policy experience? How she voted and how she campaigned are pretty much irrelevant.

I don't like her for the position, because she badly stuck her foot in her mouth on camera multiple times alienating large numbers of voters. If Obama's foreign policy agenda is going to take off, we need someone who can charm the socks off of governments with a fairly high degree of skepticism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:57 PM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Early in the primary campaign, he was touring with outspoken anti-gay ministers, then it was "marriage is between a man and a woman but..." talk.

This is true. I have the impression that O carries a fairly uncompromising moral structure where Clinton and McCain do not, but that is only an impression. I do think there are appropriate roles for her in the coming government. HHS is the obvious pick.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 4:04 PM on November 18, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clinton as SoS would be an Obama thing to do.

See, Obama fancies himself as Michael from Godfather. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." And in the first phase of his administration his enemies are not going to be the crazy, discredited whack jobs of the right ring extremists. No, his real enemies are going to be the conservative, old guard members of the Democratic Party. Clinton personifies this crowd. With her in the Cabinet it not only draws in some support for his policies as long as she draws breath, but it even muffles some discontent because people will be afraid of making Clinton look bad.

As far as competency is concerned Clinton is perfect for the 21st century SoS. Back in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century ambassadors had to actually make decisions and do things independent of the administration because we didnt have cool devices like email, cell phones, blackberrys and such. Now, ambassadors and even the SoS is just a high level gofor who meet and greets on behalf of the President. Clinton would be awesome at this because she knows all of the key players everywhere in the world thanks to Bill's Global Initiative and, of course, his Presidency.

Finally, the crazy and discredited whack jobs over on the right wing need to be addressed. If there is one thing they hate more than President Obama its anything with a Clinton at the end of it. With Clinton as SoS all of the hate and anger might be directed at her instead of Obama and she could be a kind of lightning rod for the O'Reillys, Limbaughs, and Hannitys of the world. All the while real work - universal health care, green energy, education - can get a definitive Obama stamp on it while they crow about Clintons latest new thing.
posted by Glibpaxman at 4:40 PM on November 18, 2008




She's so torn! Also, if you wouldn’t mind parking a news van outside her house while she’s deliberating that would be great.
posted by Artw at 4:54 PM on November 18, 2008


As far as competency is concerned Clinton is perfect for the 21st century SoS. Back in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th century ambassadors had to actually make decisions and do things independent of the administration because we didnt have cool devices like email, cell phones, blackberrys and such. Now, ambassadors and even the SoS is just a high level gofor who meet and greets on behalf of the President. Clinton would be awesome at this because she knows all of the key players everywhere in the world thanks to Bill's Global Initiative and, of course, his Presidency.

This is simply not true. The SoS does not simply need to "know all of the key players." Moreover, even if that were the case (which it is not), the key players in the world have changed in the last eight years. The SoS needs to have an extensive background in international relations, both on an intellectual and a practical level. She needs to be able to advise the President on diplomatic issues and international issues in a way that a former First Lady is simply not qualified to do, even if she does have a J.D. and a background as a partner in an Arkansas law firm. While Senator Clinton's qualifications for the SoS job are better than, say, Obama himself, and while she may be a good pick if all he is worried about is keeping internal Washington politics in check, she is nowhere near the best person for the actual job of SoS.

Part of the appeal of an Obama administration was his promise to appoint as his advisers the "best and brightest," particularly where international affairs are concerned. Secretary of State is #4 in line for the presidency. It is the highest cabinet position in the U.S. government, and the most important adviser to the president on foreign policy and diplomacy. If Obama appoints anyone other than the absolute most qualified foreign policy and diplomacy expert in the country to that position, he has broken his promise and instead chosen to play the standard Washington political game of filling cabinet posts not with the best qualified individuals, but with those whose appointment represents a political advantage. I voted for Change. What I did not count on was that Change could take the form of having a Secretary of State whose foreign policy resume pales in comparison to those of the last 20 or so Secretaries of State.
posted by The World Famous at 5:09 PM on November 18, 2008


There seems to be a basic misunderstanding about what the SoS is and does here.
Powell, like any other SoS, is merely the foreign arm of the executive branch. That's it. The policies of the president are the policies of the SoS. I see a lot of people talk about Clinton's policies and voting record, completely ignoring the fact that none of this would matter. She would be obliged to be Obama's doppelganger abroad.


Secretaries of State have all been people of exceptional political prowess, intelligence and stature. Not mere doppelgangers.

The only questions we need to ask are, is she smart, capable, and have foreign policy experience? How she voted and how she campaigned are pretty much irrelevant.

And that is why her history and achievements as a politician have been discussed. Where did she put her energy? How else to base an opinion of her except by her history?

On preview, what The World Famous said. But who would you pick?
posted by nickyskye at 5:19 PM on November 18, 2008


If Obama appoints anyone other than the absolute most qualified foreign policy and diplomacy expert in the country to that position, he has broken his promise...

The trouble with appointing the best and the brightest to high level cabinet positions in todays world is that they also have to be the media face of the administration's policies. Sometimes its best to find a good face and have the best and brightest behind the scene, especially when its obvious that your proposals are going to face stiff resistance from both the right and the center-left. Obama has Hagel, Holbrooke, Lugar, Powell and plenty of other all-star help advising him. Clinton is a good face, no?

sorry to turn this hope train Machiavellian, but Democrats need to learn the rules of the road.
posted by Glibpaxman at 5:34 PM on November 18, 2008


The trouble with appointing the best and the brightest to high level cabinet positions in todays world is that they also have to be the media face of the administration's policies.

Even assuming the truth of that assertion with regard to the Secretary of State, was that not the case when Bill Clinton appointed four highly-qualified individuals to the position? The public face of U.S. Foreign Relations should be the most brilliant foreign policy and international relations mind of our time. I'm not sure why you think that Sen. Clinton is uniquely qualified to be the "media face of the administration's policies," whatever that means. I would like the "media face" to be the genius who is thinking of the policies, and not just some political figurehead.

Furthermore, we were promised the best and the brightest, and I would like to see that particular campaign promise not be the first one broken.

sorry to turn this hope train Machiavellian, but Democrats need to learn the rules of the road.

Again, I think Bill Clinton knew the rules of the road fairly well, and he appointed Secretaries of State who actually had extensive foreign policy backgrounds, such as Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright. Even Bush appointed Secretaries of State with extensive experience and advanced degrees in the subject. I would like the successor to George W. Bush not start off by appointing a Secretary of State who is dramatically less qualified than Bush's Secretary of State. That sort of thing does not go very far toward establishing that the Obama administration is, say, smarter than the Bush administration.
posted by The World Famous at 5:51 PM on November 18, 2008


People keep saying foreign nations have good feelings toward Clinton - I don't see it. Just like I didn't see it when people though that people of color would support Hillary over other democrats.

I cannot see the issues with Bill's financial entanglements being "not a problem" and don't know why people are so quick to write that off. (Does anyone recall that they redid their taxes for several years and then released a single year late in the game?) Mark Penn's adventures in South America did horrible things for her credibility with a number of countries we don't talk about very often. The sniper fire lie, which was repeated even after corrections were attempted, her making political hay by portraying struggling Balkan people as bloodthirsty idiots, did not go over well with people in countries with an image problem.

My theory is this is Obama's way of either gathering a dossier, or putting her in a position to turn the job down and he comes out smelling like a rose.

Or maybe she's been looking for an excuse to divorce Bill - their child is out of the nest, after all.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 9:03 PM on November 18, 2008


If you compare Albright vs. Powell on paper, for example, Albright had the foreign affairs credentials, but Powell was in the end a far better administrator.

Yeah, Powell was much better because he presented lies at the UN to bring the United States into a war that has crippled its international reputation.

Wait, what?
posted by rodgerd


Yeah, I get that Powell was a Bush stooge, rodgerd, but I think you should read what you are snarking before you try and make a witty remark about it. I said Powell was a far better administrator. All anthrax vials aside, Powell ran the Department of State far better than Albright could.

Now, you also cut off part of what I said:

Resume is certainly not the only qualification.

The UN speech was Powell's undoing and was him doing the duty of a good soldier at the command of his Commander in Chief. I don't think it was a good or wise decision and showed a great weakness. It was certainly a black mark on his resume. But his adminstration of the Department was the best there has been and Albright's was a stark contrast.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:13 AM on November 19, 2008


... Therefore Clinton is going to need to demonstrate not only foreign affairs credentials but an ability to run the Department well. Personally I think she's fallen short on both counts.
posted by Pollomacho at 5:15 AM on November 19, 2008


I'm concerned by the people here suggesting HRC for prominent legal positions. Attorney General? SCOTUS?? Really?

She may have gone to Yale Law School, but beyond her school name, her legal credentials fall far below the standards for those positions. Look at the careers of most SCOTUS justices. Many did prominent judicial clerkships after graduating from law school. Judicial clerkships are extremely competitive (about 2% of law school graduates get them) apprenticeships with federal judges. While in law school and afterwards, most of HRC's work focused on child abuse. A worthy subject to be sure, but not in any way the training she'd need to prepare her for a leading role in the shaping of federal law.

Her work as an impeachment advisor to Congress is helpful, but her scholarship reverts to issues of child custody and and children's rights policies over and over. There's nothing wrong with that, but SCOTUS has to grapple with issues that are infinitely more complex and hotly-contested than domestic relations, which is usually a state law issue anyway.

At the Rose law firm, she worked on IP law, which also is hard to dismiss out of hand. But that just doesn't stack up when compared to having a leading role in the DOJ, prosecutorial training, or a diversified legal scholarship that often comes with holding professorships at leading law schools. And that's to say nothing of the fact that HRC has had exactly zero experience with actually being a judge. People grumbled when CJ Roberts was appointed with only 2 years or so on the DC Circuit, and that was with stellar legal credentials backing him up. The idea of taking someone who has been for all intents and purposes a career politician for well over a decade, and starting their judicial career on SCOTUS, is unthinkable to me.

As for Attorney General, look at the apparent pick for AG, Eric Holder. He had extensive law enforcement experience, judicial experience, and a leading role in the Department of Justice. At one time, he was Acting Attorney General. HRC has none of those credentials. She hasn't done anything of note with her law degree in the past 16 years, and the practice of law is not like riding a bike; that's why attorneys are required to take continuing legal education.

I'm not saying what HRC has done is insignificant, even from a strictly legal perspective. But nominating her to SCOTUS or the AG post is like naming Dave Grohl drummer of the year in 2008. He's accomplished some great things, but he hasn't been devoted to that instrument in quite some time and there just better qualified candidates out there.
posted by Law Talkin' Guy at 7:00 AM on November 19, 2008 [3 favorites]


The idea of taking someone who has been for all intents and purposes a career politician for well over a decade, and starting their judicial career on SCOTUS, is unthinkable to me.

So I guess you're not fond of Earl Warren or John Marshall.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:40 AM on November 19, 2008


I'm concerned by the people here suggesting HRC for prominent legal positions. Attorney General? SCOTUS?? Really?

These are clearly people who hate rap music and videogames.
posted by Artw at 9:39 AM on November 19, 2008


John Marshall was seen as a leading figure in American law for many years before being nominated to the Court. HRC has never been seen as on the cutting edge of any federal law issue. Even at the pinnacle of activity in her legal career, she handled a lighter caseload than other partners at the Rose law firm. And even at that, the Rose law firm is not seen as a leading voice in American law.

Earl Warren was Attorney General of California before being named to the Court. I'll grant that a state AG tenure isn't the best preparation for being an arbiter of federal law, but HRC has never been in a remotely comparable position, even to that much.

Even aside from the above, just because inexperienced candidates sometimes work out is not a reason to abandon expectations related to experience.
posted by Law Talkin' Guy at 10:15 AM on November 19, 2008




Secretaries of State have all been people of exceptional political prowess, intelligence and stature. Not mere doppelgangers.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I feel an SoS is an automaton of the president; I only wanted to emphasise that her agenda would be subordinate to the President's. Which is why I don't understand why her campaign history is even being brought up in this. Her education, experience, and ability - sure.

But who would you pick?

Honestly, I would go with Powell. Yeah, there was the anthrax vial. But if you pull the zoom back, you'll see a man with extensive SoS and Chief of Staff experience, one who is still well-regarded and would most certainly be welcomed back by the State Department, and who has demonstrated the ability to be in touch with changing political climates. I'd also add that his foreign affairs philosophy is admirable. As I quoted in the linked comment, he had this to say about America's role in the world:
"The summons to leadership that we face at present is our fourth rendezvous with destiny. Answering this summons does not mean peace, prosperity, justice for all and no more wars in the world—any more than the American Revolution meant all people were free, the Civil War meant an end to racial inequality, or World War II and our great victory in the Cold War meant the triumph of democracy and free markets. What our leadership in the world does mean is that these things have a chance. We can have peace. We can continue moving toward greater prosperity for all. We can strive for justice in the world. We can seek to limit the destruction and the casualties of war. We can help enslaved people find their freedom."
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:33 PM on November 19, 2008




I'd like to see Powell as SecDef, but I think Obama could put Powell at State because Obama's opposed-Iraq-war credentials are solid.

I also think Powell deserves a chance to redeem himself, but probably many here do not agree.
posted by spaltavian at 5:21 PM on November 19, 2008


I agree, spaltavian. I also think that, if Obama wishes to make good on his promise to reach across the aisle, it would be a good start to reach across to someone who has already crossed the aisle to endorse him.
posted by The World Famous at 6:31 PM on November 19, 2008


Well, he's already reached across the aisle to grab Lieberman back.
posted by Artw at 7:40 PM on November 19, 2008


Well, he's already reached across the aisle to grab Lieberman back.

If the farthest across the aisle he's going to reach is the DMZ/Cesspool that Lieberman lives in, I'll be more than a little annoyed.
posted by The World Famous at 7:47 PM on November 19, 2008




Democrats of note who did not vote for the war: Barack Obama and...?
posted by Artw at 2:29 PM on November 20, 2008


Democrats of note who did not vote for the war: Barack Obama and...?

Russ Feingold springs to mind, who voted both against the war and was also the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:28 PM on November 20, 2008


And here are the other legislators, both House and Senate, who voted against the war. In both the House and the Senate, most Democrats voted against the resolution than for it.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:31 PM on November 20, 2008


Whoops, got my signals mixed: most Democrat Reps voted against it, but most Democratic Senators voted for it (albeit 29 to 21).
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:32 PM on November 20, 2008


Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say

I expect we’ll get regular updates on the degree to which she has accepted. Watching the announcements about Clinton doing anything is like watching one of those “% Loaded” screens.
posted by Artw at 1:15 PM on November 21, 2008 [1 favorite]


Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say

Funny you mention the "process" - this story was a NEWS ALERT!!! on Yahoo just a few minutes ago, and has since been downgraded to a one-sentence mention in this article that "discussions were 'very much on track' for that appointment but no final arrangement had been made", according to a Clinton spokesman.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:23 PM on November 21, 2008


Hillary Clinton pays down her debts, but millions remain

If Barack Obama were to select Clinton as his secretary of State, her ability to raise money could be seriously curtailed.
posted by Artw at 1:46 PM on November 21, 2008




Democrats of note who did not vote for the war: Barack Obama and...?

Obama was not a "Democrat of note" when that vote was held, though. It's a lot easier to make what at the time was a politically unpopular move in the mainstream (75% of the population at the time supported the war) when you are not in the mainstream...
Politics is a messy balancing act, and no doubt we will see Obama doing a lot more of it now that he has to represent the mainstream. That's just what it means to represent the majority. He can try to convince and lead the majority in whatever direction, but he has to listen to them, too, and if he pushes them too hard toward a fringe he'll get pushed out himself.

I just heard on the radio she has accepted.
posted by mdn at 3:33 PM on November 21, 2008


What percentage accepted?
posted by Artw at 3:34 PM on November 21, 2008


The Long History of Janet Napolitano
posted by homunculus at 10:43 PM on November 21, 2008


I'm guessing she's going to have to push any announcements back a bit, due to stuff going on in the world a secretary of state should be involved with, ironicaly enough.
posted by Artw at 7:32 PM on November 26, 2008








« Older This is why we have the Large Hadron Collider!   |   "Man is Only 90% Water, but On... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post