Hillary to be SoS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008...etary-of-state

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.

Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

Clinton would be well placed to become the country's dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.

Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.

As part of the coalition-building, Obama today also reached out to his defeated Republican rival, John McCain, to discuss how they could work together to roll back some of the most controversial policies of the Bush years. Putting aside the bitter words thrown about with abandon by both sides during the election campaign, McCain flew to meet Obama at his headquarters in the Kluczynski Federal Building, in downtown Chicago.

Obama, speaking before the meeting, said: "We're going to have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country." He said he also wanted to thank McCain for his service to the country.

Asked by a reporter whether he would work with Obama, McCain, who has long favoured a bipartisan approach to politics, replied: "Obviously".

Sources on both sides said Obama did not offer McCain a cabinet job, but focused on how the senator for Arizona could help to guide through Congress legislation that they both strongly favour.

Given Obama's status as president-in-waiting, the two met in a formal setting, a room decked out with a US flag, and were accompanied by senior advisers. Obama appeared the more relaxed of the two, sitting with legs crossed, smiling broadly and waving to reporters, while McCain sat stiffly, with a seemingly fixed grin.

Although the two clashed during the election campaign over tax policy and withdrawal from Iraq, they have more in common than they have differences. They both favour the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, an increase in US troops to Afghanistan, immigration reform, stem cell research and measures to tackle climate change, and oppose torture and the widespread use of wire-tapping.

Although Democrats made gains in the Senate in the November 4 elections, they fell short of the 60 seats that would have allowed them to override Republican blocking tactics and will need Republican allies to get Obama's plans through. This was highlighted today when the Democratic leadership in Congress announced that a broad economic stimulus package Obama sought was not likely to be passed because of Republican opposition.

Obama confirmed at the weekend that he would offer jobs to some Republicans. One of the names that crops up most often is Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator who is a specialist in foreign affairs and a critic of the Iraq war.

Chuck Hagel for SoDefense :tu

Five Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Not Be Secretary of State

By Ken Silverstein
It looks like Barack Obama has offered Hillary Clinton the post of Secretary of State and she’s mulling over whether to take the job or not. Obama’s apparent offer makes him look magnanimous and delights Hillary Clinton’s former backers, so maybe it’s smart politics. But there are a number of good reasons why Clinton should not be secretary of state. Here are five:

1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
4. The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
5. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003860

I think this is a great move. No Jimmy Carter - Ted Kennedy situation. Better to have her inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in. She's urinating either way...

Major :td

Better choice than Kerry, but not by much.

I'm only OK with this if Obama pulls a Bush and completely ignores his SOS just like happened to Powell. If Hillary would have gotten the Dem nomination for president, I might have voted McCain.

Could you imagine President-Elect Hillary Clinton choosing the inexperienced first-term senator from Illinois to be her Secretary of State?

Kerry got cock blocked!

I don't know how I feel about this yet. I understand where he's coming from and I understand the political ramifications of removing her from the Senate and I really did gain a lot of respect for her during the campaign, but....

I just don't know.

I guess the results will tell the story for me. If it works out well, then obviously a great pick. If she and bill bring agendas and affect the administration negatively then obviously horrible pick. If its somewhere in the middle? I don't know.

Really, this is probably a high risk high reward move which is usually contrary to what Obama usually does. He usually is very much a down the middle safe play kind of guy, and this is a way larger roll of the dice than I'm accustomed to seeing from him. The safe pick would have been Kerry or Richardson, but that doesn't mean they would have been the best pick. It also doesn't mean this will blow up in his face.

I think the largest benefit from this will simply be the removal of her agenda from the senate. It paves the way for him to have a much easier time passing legislation through without having it opposed by Hillary setting herself up for another run at the nomination. Biden would probably be too old to run for a presidential run in 16, so Clinton is basically pining her presidential hopes on Obama at this point.

The biggest point of contention I have with this pick are Clinton's Iran comments earlier this year during the primary. I'm hoping this administration can make headway with regards to Iran, so I really don't like this pick on that account. I think purely on a diplomatic standpoint, Richardson is the best pick but the truth is that SoS is a political appointment with ramifications beyond the actual diplomacy so I can understand this selection from that stand point.

I don't know, I see cons and I see pluses to this move but I'm not sure which side outweighs which. It really does play to Obama wanting to be a uniter, however.

PS - I do like this pick a million times more than a possible Kerry pick.

Awesome! :rolleyes

Why is it that other media are not reporting this. All I see is the Guardian article (and I love to see stuff blow up in their face). Maybe I missed something....back to googling.

I would have liked Richardson but i'm ok with Hillary.

I am still pretty sure Richardson will have a spot in the new administration.

I can only see Hillary taking this post if Obama has promised she's a shoe-in for something like an SC seat as soon as one opens up. SoS is not a long-term position. Given the difficulties facing the administration in its first term she won't get to make much of a mark and it cripples her in any attempt to challenge Obama politically (not to mention hampers her ability to raise money and campaign for future efforts at PotUS). In NY she's basically got a senate seat for life where she can safely sit back and manuever. Why give that up for SoS? There's more to this offer than meets the eye.

I would've liked to see Richardson there, but I can see how Hillary would be good as Secretary of State... mainly due to good influence from Bill. I'm not a fan of her by any means, so I'm holding my breath on this decision. I won't rip her until she does something asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

I would have liked Richardson but i'm ok with Hillary.

I am still pretty sure Richardson will have a spot in the new administration.

---

Yeah me too! Richardson I think would have been the safer pick with less BS to worry about, plus with the experience to back it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I can only see Hillary taking this post if Obama has promised she's a shoe-in for something like an SC seat as soon as one opens up. SoS is not a long-term position. Given the difficulties facing the administration in its first term she won't get to make much of a mark and it cripples her in any attempt to challenge Obama politically (not to mention hampers her ability to raise money and campaign for future efforts at PotUS). In NY she's basically got a senate seat for life where she can safely sit back and manuever. Why give that up for SoS? There's more to this offer than meets the eye.

---

Good point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I can only see Hillary taking this post if Obama has promised she's a shoe-in for something like an SC seat as soon as one opens up. SoS is not a long-term position. Given the difficulties facing the administration in its first term she won't get to make much of a mark and it cripples her in any attempt to challenge Obama politically (not to mention hampers her ability to raise money and campaign for future efforts at PotUS). In NY she's basically got a senate seat for life where she can safely sit back and manuever. Why give that up for SoS? There's more to this offer than meets the eye.

---

There's the fact that if the President asks for your service you don't turn it down. Also, its not like she's a shoe in for a nomination if she remains in the senate. Really sitting in the senate for 8 years isn't going to get her in the White House. I strongly doubt that she's being promised a supreme court position and I severely doubt she'd even be considered for a post there.

Obama doesn't owe her anything so I doubt she's negotiating for anything here. She's not exactly wielding a lot of leverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaryAnnKilledGinger

I can only see Hillary taking this post if Obama has promised she's a shoe-in for something like an SC seat as soon as one opens up.

---

I'm pretty sure Stevens retires very soon after Obama takes office. If he was promising her an appointment, she wouldn't have to wait long, so there wouldn't be much point in taking over State for just a few months.

Awesome move :td

Let's see, for the foreseeable future we're going to be dealing with the Middle East. What do Muslims hate? Women and blacks.

Hillary as SoS? Brilliant :rolleyes Almost as bad as Bush selecting Condi and then sending her over there to try and settle the Israel situation.

Stupid pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Awesome move :td

Let's see, for the foreseeable future we're going to be dealing with the Middle East. What do Muslims hate? Women and blacks.

Hillary as SoS? Brilliant :rolleyes Almost as bad as Bush selecting Condi and then sending her over there to try and settle the Israel situation.

Stupid pick.

---

This means it's a brilliant pick. Whatever AHF says, go with the opposite and you'll be fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

This means it's a brilliant pick. Whatever AHF says, go with the opposite and you'll be fine.

---

This means it's still a stupid pick, and that you're ignorant when it comes to the cultures of the Middle East. But hey, I'm not sure what I expected on that for someone who gets their world view from DailyPOS and DemocrapticUnderground.

But go ahead, keep up the libtard way. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Its funny because some conservatives on this board have their mind made up on how they are going to feel about a pick but have to wait to see the pick to find the "reason" why. Hilary is SoS? Oh well then its a horrible pick because countries in the middle east hate blacks and women. :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Its funny because some conservatives on this board have their mind made up on how they are going to feel about a pick but have to wait to see the pick to find the "reason" why. Hilary is SoS? Oh well then its a horrible pick because countries in the middle east hate blacks and women. :lmao

---

Yeah, and I don't believe I've ever disclosed my reading list before. DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground are terrible sites, but I bet AHF loves him some Free Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Awesome move :td

Let's see, for the foreseeable future we're going to be dealing with the Middle East. What do Muslims hate? Women and blacks.

Hillary as SoS? Brilliant :rolleyes Almost as bad as Bush selecting Condi and then sending her over there to try and settle the Israel situation.

Stupid pick.

---

It's funny because by your logic we should make better progress on the illusion of pakistani-israeli peace, because hilary is only one of those things. Not being condescending, I actually totally agree with your second statement.

This is still a much better pick in every category than Kerry, and better in terms of possible rewards then Richardson.

I hope Obama offers her the job and I hope she takes it.

The new presidential line of succession

1. Joe Biden (3 letters in the word "jobs")


2. Nancy Pelosi :monkey


3. Robert Byrd (exalted cyclops)


4. *Hillary Clinton ("so you're sayin' there's a chance")



* A glimmer of hope.

Wait a minute, Obama's building "a broad coalition administration" by choosing Hillary? I seem to remember Hillary being a Democrat and campaigning hard for Obama.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Obama is no dummy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Awesome move :td

Let's see, for the foreseeable future we're going to be dealing with the Middle East. What do Muslims hate? Women and blacks.

Hillary as SoS? Brilliant :rolleyes Almost as bad as Bush selecting Condi and then sending her over there to try and settle the Israel situation.

Stupid pick.

---

By this logic, she will be an improvement on Rice.

Republicans praise idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

Quote:

---

Republicans praised the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Sunday.

Former Nixon and Ford Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said Sunday that Clinton would be an “outstanding” selection.

“She is a lady of great intelligence, demonstrated enormous determination and would be an outstanding appointment," Kissinger told the World Economic Forum's India Economic Summit in New Delhi, according to Bloomberg News.

Clinton is reportedly President-elect Barack Obama’s top pick for the post.

“If it is true, it will show a couple of things," Kissinger said. “It shows great courage on the part of the president-elect to appoint a very strong personality, who has an independent constituency, into a cabinet position. It also shows willingness on the part of Clinton to subordinate herself to someone whom she lost out to."

On CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn said Clinton would be a good fit for the position. “I think that Hillary Clinton will probably accept that, from what I am hearing. I think it would be a nice gesture. I think that she is well qualified,” said the Republican congresswoman.

“She does have a certain standing in the world that is required in order to be able to demand the respect from other countries to deal with issues that are going to be affecting not only us but other of our allies, our trading partners. And I think that she would be a well placed in that position.”

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona also said Clinton would be a good choice for the post. “It seems to me she's got the experience, she's got the temperament for it," he said on Fox News Sunday. “She would be well-received around the world."

Also on Sunday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger praised the potential choice as a "great move."

"I think she is a very very bright woman and very experienced. I think this could be a great move," Schwarzenegger told ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

---

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...tary-of-state/

How about the fact that he needs somebody who is capable of handling the job on her own, giving him more time to concentrate on the domestic issues which he always said were his priority. I can see Hillary as being such a person.

I also remember the first Clinton administration being sidetracked and often frustrated by the amount of time and attention that Russia commended (remember Yeltsin?), time that was supposed to be spent on domestic matters.

Just my 2 cents...

she'll do fine. the resident repubs are used to having a puppet. give them time to absorb the concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Wait a minute, Obama's building "a broad coalition administration" by choosing Hillary? I seem to remember Hillary being a Democrat and campaigning hard for Obama.

---

Seriously? You're better than this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Wait a minute, Obama's building "a broad coalition administration" by choosing Hillary?

---

Well, she is a broad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Awesome move :td

Let's see, for the foreseeable future we're going to be dealing with the Middle East. What do Muslims hate? Women and blacks.

Hillary as SoS? Brilliant :rolleyes Almost as bad as Bush selecting Condi and then sending her over there to try and settle the Israel situation.

Stupid pick.

---

So, using your argument, the United States of America should only have white males as SoS for the foreseeable future in an attempt to appease leaders in the Middle east?

Would you have raised the same objection about Margaret Thatcher?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Findog

Yeah, and I don't believe I've ever disclosed my reading list before. DailyKos and DemocraticUnderground are terrible sites, but I bet AHF loves him some Free Republic.

---

I like DailyKos because there's a myriad of opinions. DKos was as torn on the bailout as anyone else, and Hunter and DarkSyde have great posts. Sure, it's partisan, but it's fun. And I don't seem to read half as much vitriol or racism there. (Healthy levels of paranoia exist, but if you've seen the Democrats operate in the last decade, you'd probably be paranoid too.)

Dkos isn't bad. You just gotta take it with a grain of salt and understand the source of the material. Its the same thing with certain "right wing" sites. I think as long as you are able to understand the entire context of what you are reading then its a good thing to read a lot of different perspectives if for nothing to else to understand how people formed their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Its funny because some conservatives on this board have their mind made up on how they are going to feel about a pick but have to wait to see the pick to find the "reason" why. Hilary is SoS? Oh well then its a horrible pick because countries in the middle east hate blacks and women. :lmao

---

I'm disappointed in you Manny, you used to be capable of independent thought. Now you're just back to attacking the poster instead of the post (because you know I'm right).

She's better than Kerry would have been, but that's a pretty low bar to clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully365

So, using your argument, the United States of America should only have white males as SoS for the foreseeable future in an attempt to appease leaders in the Middle east?

Would you have raised the same objection about Margaret Thatcher?

---

It's not about appeasement. It's about the fact that we're going to be dealing with that part of the world for the foreseeable future, and they already dislike us. But sending a woman or a black over there to tell them to be peaceful, etc. is even worse.

Sending Condi over there was fucking stupid, and this is just as bad (only slightly less so because of skin color). As to Thatcher, she was a great leader in her time, but in today's culture and the reality of our problems with the Middle East then yeah, I'd have a problem with her in that role as well.

I wouldn't mind the pick if it was a domestic position, but choosing Hillary for a position that will be getting a lot of face time with Middle East leaders is just ignorant and stupid.

we should all pitch in and help aggie build a platform.

GGA and peewee must be going around with a boner . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

It's not about appeasement. It's about the fact that we're going to be dealing with that part of the world for the foreseeable future, and they already dislike us. But sending a woman or a black over there to tell them to be peaceful, etc. is even worse.

Sending Condi over there was fucking stupid, and this is just as bad (only slightly less so because of skin color). As to Thatcher, she was a great leader in her time, but in today's culture and the reality of our problems with the Middle East then yeah, I'd have a problem with her in that role as well.

I wouldn't mind the pick if it was a domestic position, but choosing Hillary for a position that will be getting a lot of face time with Middle East leaders is just ignorant and stupid.

---

I don't agree with you, but I do get where you're coming from. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

I'm disappointed in you Manny, you used to be capable of independent thought. Now you're just back to attacking the poster instead of the post (because you know I'm right).

She's better than Kerry would have been, but that's a pretty low bar to clear.

---

I know you're right? No, I actually don't know that you're right. I know that you're going to oppose almost everything Obama does because you don't like him. Your mind is made up on that. The only thing thats going to be decided on is what supposed grounds you're going to oppose what he does.

Take this selection. You're opposing it based on Obama being black (and as far as I know no selection was going to change that) and Clinton being a woman. For some reason, you're advocating appeasement of some shallow dislikes that Middle Eastern heads of state may or may not have. Its a foolish stance to take at any point, but I understand because its just a knee jerk reaction to the selection.

Bill Clinton is in Kuwait this weekend. The Clintons are both actually very well respected overseas so thats a definete plus for this selection. To sit there and make some stupid assesment based upon her being a woman somehow making her unqualified for the job is fucking ridiculous and for you to utter that and then turn around and claim I am somehow the one who isn't thinking is even more ridiculous. Please don't insult my thought process simply because I didn't agree with your sexist view on who should be the Secretary of State. I above said this pick could go either way and only time would tell, but somehow because I actually analyzed the selection and didn't jump on the OMG SHE'S A WOMAN AND THEY LIKE VIELS short bus with you I'm now incapable of independent thought? If I remember correctly, the last time you threw that bullshit at me I kinda blew your ass out of the water regarding congress and their supposed attacks on 401ks, correct?

Appointing positions based on political strategy rather than who is best for job, aka best for THE COUNTRY.

That's change alright.


Post yo Puppet now Chumpsta. :downspin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Bill Clinton is in Kuwait this weekend. The Clintons are both actually very well respected overseas so thats a definete plus for this selection.

---

This is one angle that I think definitely is of extreme importance, and one that was overlooked and even looked down on in the Bush Administration. Hillary doesn't have the high negative ratings outside of the USA that she has inside of it, and just as many countries-- enemies and allies-- cheered when Obama was elected, I think many would do the same regarding a Clinton appointment.
I think most people both here and abroad agree that diplomacy was never one of Bush's strong points...

"Bill Clinton is in Kuwait this weekend"

Probably putting together some kind of corrupt deal, like selling access to his wife in exchange donations to his library, etc, etc.

Repugs are gonna destroy Hillary and Bill all over again. Obama is baiting the Repugs by choosing Hillary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_

"Bill Clinton is in Kuwait this weekend"

Probably putting together some kind of corrupt deal, like selling access to his wife in exchange donations to his library, etc, etc.

Repugs are gonna destroy Hillary and Bill all over again. Obama is baiting the Repugs by choosing Hillary.

---

Does anything good ever happen in your universe?

My universe is fine, thanks for asking.

Political universe sucks, not that you've figured that out from your naive universe.

Obama's making a huge mistake with Hillary.

It's not that I think Hillary isn't qualified for the position because she is, I just don't like the Clintons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_

not that you've figured that out from your naive universe.

---

I guess I'm just not the pragmatist that you are.. You never answered my question from last week-- did you vote for Nader in 2000?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti.Hero

Appointing positions based on political strategy rather than who is best for job, aka best for THE COUNTRY.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anti.Hero's sig

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/...ILbLwn6WgqPA--

---

LOL LOL LOL!!!

Classic!!

Nailed!

LMFAO @ PixelPusher :lol

Actually, LMFAO @ Anti.Hero, who has never made another good post on this entire board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I know you're right? No, I actually don't know that you're right. I know that you're going to oppose almost everything Obama does because you don't like him. Your mind is made up on that. The only thing thats going to be decided on is what supposed grounds you're going to oppose what he does.

Take this selection. You're opposing it based on Obama being black (and as far as I know no selection was going to change that) and Clinton being a woman. For some reason, you're advocating appeasement of some shallow dislikes that Middle Eastern heads of state may or may not have. Its a foolish stance to take at any point, but I understand because its just a knee jerk reaction to the selection.

---

Obama and his skin color have nothing to do with this selection. This was all about Hillary and her interactions with those in the Middle East and how they view women in their culture.

It's not about appeasement, I'm not talking about giving them what they want in some kind of discussion or anything, I'm talking about actually being able to send someone over there that there will be any semblance of respect towards.

It's not foolish if you know anything about Islam or the Muslim culture, but I understand because it's just a knee jerk reaction to me voicing any concern over the selection and not getting down on my knees to worship all things Obama.

:lol

[QUOTE=Aggie Hoopsfan;2911980]Obama and his skin color have nothing to do with this selection. This was all about Hillary and her interactions with those in the Middle East and how they view women in their culture.

It's not about appeasement, I'm not talking about giving them what they want in some kind of discussion or anything, I'm talking about actually being able to send someone over there that there will be any semblance of respect towards.

It's not foolish if you know anything about Islam or the Muslim culture, but I understand because it's just a knee jerk reaction to me voicing any concern over the selection and not getting down on my knees to worship all things Obama.[/QUOTE]


:lol:lol

:lol

Isn't the existing Secretary of State a black woman?

Anyone have a link to Aggie's rants about Rice's appointment as current SoS? Anyone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaNuMaNiAc

Anyone have a link to Aggie's rants about Rice's appointment as current SoS? Anyone?

---

As a matter of fact!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AHF

It's because like a lot of us, she's tired of all the righteous PC bullshit, and thank god she also recognizes the fact that we aren't going to beat Osama by giving him a hug and tell him we want peace.

Anyone who France dislikes (which they already hate Condi) is a winner in my book, and I'd say that about any liberals that they hated too (just haven't seen any they did).

---

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6138

:lmao

And he's accusing ME of knee jerk reactions?? hahahahahahahahhaha

:lol

:lol man

That really is funny.