Hillary Will Be President Obama's Secretary Of State
Ben Smith points out that the statement from Hillary's spokesperson, which says today's reports are "premature," is nonetheless basically confirmation that she and Obama will reach a deal and she'll be his Secretary of State.
In truth, it's hard to read it any other way. Here's the statement from Hillary spokesperson Philippe Reines again:
"We're still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature."
To my knowledge this is the first public statement from Reines or Hillary that directly addresses the actual possibility that she'd take the gig. That makes it significant. And that statement confirms that the talks are "very much on track."
Sure, maybe it's premature to say that they've reached a final deal. But still, consider how far out there the Clintons are on this. Bill's post-presidency has been thoroughly and publicly vetted. Hillary's camp has leaked info about her private deliberations. Her confidants are leaking that she's made a final decision. And now, Hillary's spokesperson has confirmed the advanced nature of the discussions.
It's impossible to imagine that this isn't basically a done deal for both sides and that they're just hashing out the particulars. The reality is that barring something truly seismic, she'll be President Obama's Secretary of State.
Chris Matthews just suggested that Bill should take her place as NY Senator.
NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh man.
November 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's never been much of a filter between Tweety's brain and his mouth.
November 21, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tweety is in tweetyland again.
November 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tweety was right about the Iraq War which is more than you can say for Hillary.
November 21, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Hillary was a big disappointment there. If there's any reason to cut her some slack, though, it's because she's a senator from NYC. It's a huge and understandably fearful constituency.
November 21, 2008 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
um, no. new york was more against the war than the country as a whole.
November 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he di-in't! Yes, he did!
November 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, that's exceedingly funny.
November 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does Chris continually asks his guests, who will be in charge?, who will set foreign policy? I'm shouting Obama, his reasonable guests are telling him Obama and he just keeps asking the same question everyday. For someone who gets a thrill up his leg about Obama, he sure doesn't have any confidence in him.
November 21, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM are obsessed with the Clinton's, its almost sexual in some sick sense.
November 21, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well according to Yahoo they're still in talks which have been going on for several days. I'd say it's time for Bilary to move on, especially after his heart attacks.
November 21, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think Hillary would be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. Why not save her for the next appointment?
November 21, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd love to see her show up for work wearing an I Believe Anita Hill T-shirt!
November 21, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that image!
November 22, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The longer this has gone on, the greater my doubts have become about the wisdom of Clinton as Secretary of State, mainly because of my continued strong distaste for her past foreign polcy positions. The only serious benefit I see is that it neutralizes Clinton's ability to start running for president again - hardly an inspiring basis for a foreign policy choice. The only other benefit is the political one of party unity. But frankly, I'm not sure how big a deal that should be, given that the election seems to have unified the party fairly well.
And I sure hope this doesn't turn into a big, ugly confirmation battle, with all of Bill's dirty laundry dragged out in another Clinton soap opera.
November 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senators have a history of going easy on each other. And Big Dawg isn't gonne be in the witness chair.
November 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Big O has that all worked out.
November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, maybe. But once the media starts going to work on Bill's connections, it might not be such an easy matter for Obama to control that national discussion, and the senatorial response to it.
November 21, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has been my concern from the first mention of Hillary. The potential for a media frenzy over some stupidly salacious morsel from Bill's career. A frenzy that prevents any serious discussion of Hillary Clinton's plans for the position.
November 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the media besides Fox News, will care. I filpped by Fox the otehr day and saw Elian Gonzalez. They were rehashing Eric Holder's invovlment in that case. Fox will dredge up every news clip from the Clinton years. Nobody else in the media and the rest of us will look forward and worry about what is happening in this century.
November 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the Republicans are gearing up to challenge Holder. It's tougher to challenge elected politicians for posts.
November 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, with Bill Richardson now confirmed for Commerce, who'd be their second choice if Hillary craps out?
November 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who would want the second choice?
November 21, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean, you should want to be the second choice?
November 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eff it. I'm tired, it's friday and I cannot get a sentence right.
November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like Olympia Snowe, and I'd like her to accept, and I'd like the Dem. gov. of Maine to appoint a Democrat in her place and give us another seat. In a perfect world.
November 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Richardson would also get SOS in my perfect for me, me, me! cabinet fantasy-land.
November 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your mouth to Obama's ears.
And I meant it a good way lest Andrew finds it offensive.
November 21, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would :-)
November 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Susan Rice.
November 21, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not Susan Rice. Obama is not going to have 2 of 3 highest cabinet positions filled by African Americans.
November 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why isn't he?
November 21, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politically it is not going to sell well that 3 of the 4 top positions in the country are held by African Americans.
November 21, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is so disheartening I don't even know how to respond.
November 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is what it is. I am not disheartened in the least. BTW I'm from CT, I assume you are to.
November 21, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. What are people from CT called? Nutmeggers?
{Not from here originally, obviously}
November 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nutmeggers, yes. I'm originally from New York.
November 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why disheartened?
November 21, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That the state of our nation is such that the numbers of types of people in authority still need to be considered. (My, that is a tortuous sentence).
I know that's the case. But it's still tiresome and depressing.
Could he appoint all women to the important positions, though?
November 21, 2008 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do stay depressed too long. Changes like these take time.
The pundits are tripping over themselves to offer sincere praise for the team that Obama is assembling. Check out David Brook's column if you haven't yet.
I don't think three women would work especially because of defense. New things on this level work better one at a time.
November 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't. I meant don't.
November 21, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I won't.
November 21, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tonnyb,
I disagree with your statement regarding blacks in Obama's cabinet. There have been over 39 Presidents with nothing but whites in the cabinet and Bush had 2 blacks in his cabinet. If the GOP can have 2 then certainly Barack can have 4 or 5.
The larger issue however, is that there should not be any quotas based on color. Obama is certain to select the most qualified people independent of gender or race.
Which is to say, that Susan Rice is emminently qualified to be SOS and no shallow consideration such as race should disqualify her.
November 22, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a prefect world you are correct.
Bush was white. I understand you disagree. I disagree with slavery but that didn't keep it from happening.
November 22, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously your reasoning is too shallow to grasp 'disagree'. I presented an opposing argument. Your basis of limiting qualified people from Cabinet positions is not just superficial &shallow and but illegal, as well.
It's clear that your reasoning is clouded by race and belongs in the dark ages with slavery.
Thanks for exposing to everyone why it is senseless to engage you.
November 23, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Thanks for exposing to everyone why it is senseless to engage you."
Sorry I offended you. It was not my intention. I think you response reveal naivety. I understand more about race then you ever will.
November 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's clear that your reasoning is clouded by race and belongs in the dark ages with slavery."
"If the GOP can have 2 (AA) then certainly Barack can have 4 or 5."
Why stop at four or five? Why not fill the whole cabinet with AAs? BTW, I didn't say he should have more AA. I said he wouldn't put another AA in the position of SoS. Why? Because that would put 3 AA in the top 4 executive positions in the US, that is, President, SoS, SoD and AG. Because I believe Obama understands the politics of race.
November 25, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, just think how much local coverage you'll get of Hillary the Hawk and Traitor Joe doing shuttle diplomacy in the middle east. Why they might be able to stir up enough wars to create one big enough to mobilize us right out of Great Depression II.
November 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're on report.
November 21, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Big Brother.
November 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love that you think I'm serious.
November 21, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I love you acting as the faux hall monitor chasing us non-pc posters :). How did you land this gig ? By buttering up our great Andy ?
November 22, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Armageddon? No, I think they will behave.
November 21, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just heard that Traitor Joe has the Meet the Press gig. Isn't that sweet.
November 21, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, after being held darn near exclusively by by white folks for what... forever! aw, whigga pleeeeze!!!
Seriously, Obama will put the people he best believes can do the job in the position.
November 22, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, from NYT, we are now down to quoting Ben Smith ? Whatever happened to your own caveat of "perhaps a bit of caution is in order" just in the last thread ?
How about waiting for official confirmation from PE before putting 24 point headline like this ?
"Hillary Will Be President Obama's Secretary Of State"
November 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
fair question. basically what happened is I changed my mind. On reflection I just don't see how this could have gotten this far without it being a done deal. Of course, maybe I'm wrong.
November 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was mainly objecting to the conclusive nature of the headline when everything is in a such state of flux.
Thanks for coming down from your perch anyway. Appreciate it.
November 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
well, it was meant as an opinion, but yeah...
November 21, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I meant metaphorically.
BTW, CNN reports that Bill Richardson is not a done deal yet as a Com-Sec because ... wait for it ... he "is also considered to be a possibility for the secretary of state post."
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/21/transition.wrap/index.html
November 21, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'oh!
November 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It looks MSNBC has a direct line to the Obama campaign. Anrea Mitchell first reported Clinton was under consideration last week and this morning she reported it was a done deal. She actually said the decision was made between the two principles, but they kept it from their staff until today. THe official announcement would be made after Thanksgiving.
November 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrea Mitchell has a direct line to the Clinton camp, not the Obama camp.
November 22, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct.
November 22, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me among the confused.
Are you reporting meaning that you have source (a damn sight better than Ben Smith) which mean you can confirm independent of circle-@#%^ that has dominated this election cycle?
Or are you sharing your opinion, which you are entitled to do PROVIDED said writing is clearly indicated as such?
I say "clearly indicated," because your work is promoted as being reportage (ergo, "objective" and "fact-based") and not opinion. In other words, Maureen Dowd or Bill Kristol, you are not.
Finally, Philippe Reines' statement said this:
That strikes me as pretty definitive from someone who is -- unlike you or Ben Smith or Andrea Mitchell -- actually speaking directly to the principal, one Hillary Rodham Clinton. He is actually identified as a HRC's spokesperson.
"Any" does not mean "some" or "none." meaning "reports which suggest anything other than the talks are "on track," are "premature" (not fully formed, locked down, guaranteed and ready for release) and by extension are "exaggerated."
So your claim that "Hillary Will Be SoS" is not factual. That would seem to overstep your role as "reporter," and as opinion, is not labeled. That you "changed your mind," is irrelevant.
You're entitled, Greg, to say, "In my humble opinion, the hottest chick in the Universe is Hillary Rodham Clinton." But facts do not necessarily support that conclusion.
November 22, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That sound you hear is the popping of champagne corks in Greg's office.
The whole circus around this appointment has been ridiculous - let's get it over with already.
November 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good. Hillary is good.
I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad. I am bad.
November 21, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, could you elaborate?
November 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand issues of pride, stature, etc. but, really! What ever happened to a devotion to service, being part of something truly historic and placing country before self-interest as motivating factors? What's next -- negotiating the shape and size of conference table? Let's see: Secretary of State?; or, standing behind Ted Kennedy at press conferences talking about health care? Hmmm ... that's a tough one.
November 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just accept it and move on, would you Hillary? Please? And both sides? Stop talking to the media.
November 21, 2008 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or turn it down.
November 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're falling into the Clinton inevitability trap. Just 'cuz Greg says it's a done deal, doesn't make it so.
November 21, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. Greg's breathless reporting on anything on Clintons to be taken with a pinch of smelling salts.
November 22, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing to see here. Move along.
November 21, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of the drama over this appointment is concentrated in the posters here and like minded on other blogs. The only way the party can be torn apart is if YOU, you Obama freaks who freak out when he makes choices you don't like, go back to your caves and wait for your NEXT messiah.
This blog has distinguished itself as so pure, so single-minded, that you apparently actually believe you're in the majority. Disagreeing here is not pleasant. Troll is the first word out of your mouths. Tena is really dreadful, and I'm not at all surprised she's sittin' in the corner.
We'll make it without ya, though. I'm not too worried. I get to feel good about how professional this team is looking, and how wise and grown-up Obama has been so far. I wonder what you guys are gonna talk about as Hillary goes out and works her tail off for the country and for her boss. Grumbling, foul-mouthed puking for the next eight years? What a blast. But eight years will pass, and maybe you will have learned something. One can hope, can't one?
November 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, yeah, and you threatened Michelle and the kids lives during the primaries and I hope TPM reported you to the Secret Service. You are disgusting little pariah.
November 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, great way to start a discussion. It's always an excellent idea to insult people right off the bat.
And who'e the we in "we'll make it without ya" anyway?
And it's nice to know you feel good about something you've had nothing whatsoever to do with. Enjoy it. I expect you'll be feeling good for many reasons because of the Obama campaign.
November 21, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
casey451. I went against my own word, reported you by using the "abuse me" button below your post. Couldn't resist it.
Now, we await honorable Andrew's reaction to this.
November 21, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome!
You're quite the broad brush artiste!
November 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, Tena hasn't even posted on this thread and yet you choose to attack her. Classy.
November 21, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Metamucil finally started to kick in.
November 21, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly matters. Nobody comes here but you guys anymore. It's sort of an honor to get trashed.
November 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
An honor you can share with your many friends at all the other cool places you hang. I, for one, am really really jealous.
November 21, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what would be the grounds for this action, amk?
November 21, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you read your posts before hitting "submit" ?
November 21, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when a trolls job was to get the thread off topic, and insert a talking point. Those were the days.
November 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, no, I can't punctuate for sheeit. It's Friday, and I'm drinking already.
November 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoy reviewing trolls on occasion, and I always saw their job as doing one or more of the following:
1) Hijack a thread (as you mention) to throw it into chaos
2) Sow doubt and distrust about a supported person or idea
3) Piss people off for their own enjoyment
I have to say, the quality of work in the last couple of years has really dropped off.
November 21, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waiting........
November 21, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what ?
November 21, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Greg will be willing to tell me what I've done wrong.
November 21, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about being alive?
November 21, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Mommy called y'all for dinner?
November 21, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a dead thread, you're waiting on a corpse.
November 21, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Learn how to use threaded comments.
November 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
My toilette just told me Hillary is still considering the position so back to square 1...developing.
November 21, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one am still praying for something "seismic"; however, odds are the clintons will be the next secretaries of state. Total bummer.
November 21, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Deader 'n a doornail. What? Dorn, ya there?
November 21, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No speeka da engeesh.
November 21, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL.
November 22, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeebus. I really respect Al Giordiano. I may have to reevaluate my thoughts on Clinton after reading this.
I'd be interested in some of your takes on this:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2008/11/us-secretary-state-cautionary-tale
November 21, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't Al awesome? Such a breath of fresh air. I have to go there for a daily inoculation.
November 21, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I am listening to talking heads on msnbc. Why can't people be honest? It is sooooo annoying. Couple facts:
1. She and mr. bill did not campaign their hearts out for obama. Her stump speach for allegedly promoting obama was promoting clinton. Total lie. It is soooo gd annoying. The tried to undercut obama as much as possible, even when they were allegedly supporting him.
2. The clintons are totally out for themselves. They are not team players and will not promote obama's agenda. He is dealing with vipers. Big time bad move on the one hand. However, on the other hand, maybe he wants them out of the country so that they don't cause trouble. Kinda makes sense and so I am getting on board with the clintons as secretary of state. Eventhough I hate the idea.
3. I freaks me out that the republicans are more behind the clintons as secretaries of state than the dems. There are more republicans in support of them as secretaries of state than dems.
4. The clintons first run at the whitehouse was basically a republican lite administration. I am not interested in that and that is what we are appearing to get. Very frustrating.
I will do more, but I am wallowing in the glow of the clintons as secretaries of state like gregg. How many clinton posts did you rack up today? Good job.
November 21, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was pretty neutral about this whole thing until now, I read this:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2008/11/us-secretary-state-cautionary-tale
Bill Richardson could do so much for Mexico. We don't need the Clinton's baggage. We really don't.
November 21, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
One more, it is kind of ironic that obama's whole campaign and the reason for people wanting him as president in the primary was foreign policy and to get us out of iraq. Now we are on the way out of iraq, like a frieght train, and he is handed this huge bomb on the economy, which was clinton's big card. The irony is "seismic" to quote gregg. It is truly remarkable.
November 21, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing I look at is Hillary does have experience representing the USA from being the First Lady in the White House so she knows many of the players.
I agree with you. The Clintons weren't really out there supporting Obama as much as they were supporting themselves, so I don't know how well Hillary will represent Obama as Sec of State.
Only time will tell, I guess.
November 21, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has to represent the views of the POTUS. If not she will be gone. This isnt the Hillary show, this is the BO show. If Gen Jones is senior foreign policy adviser (as is being reported) he, Rham, and Biden will check Hillary. BO will solicit her advice, but she has to carry out his orders.
Hillary will not be foolish enough to try to undermine BO. She will get trounced out of office, the media and the public will scorn her even more and her political career will be over.
November 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? THIS MAKES NO SENSE ARRGGHH!!!:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/2008/11/no-no-no-this-isnt-happening.html
November 21, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton will not be SoS. This is way too much publicity, it is just intended to give her a stature boost.
November 21, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me further extrapolate that Clinton will be the one declining: she will explain that she prefers to e.g. be Obama's point woman in the Senate for the universal health insurance legislation.
Also, the Obama camp will specifically indicate that they found Clinton to be suitable for the SoS gig, which implicitly indicates that they found nothing wrong with his post-Presidential activities.
November 22, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, IMO that's exactly how it will happen, should we be so lucky.
November 22, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary spent the last several months of her campaign blasting Obama for not being ready to be commander-in-chief. One of her biggest attacks was against his foreign policy which she said was naive and foolish ("we don't talk to our enemies").
Our memories aren't that short -- how can she possibly demonstrate that she miraculously agrees with Obama's foreign policy mandates now without turning herself into a pretzel?
Bring on Kerry or Richardson, either of whom actually have far more foreign policy experience than Clinton.
November 22, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Things just keep going down hill here. Y'all must really think Obama is some stupid mo'fo' for selecting that traitor Hillary for his SoS. And why were YOU so stupid for supporting that stupid dirtbag in the FIRST place. All in all, it's the stupid electing the stupid, I guess. What a bunch of losers.
November 21, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Andrew, the PG-13 rule enforcer guy:
Does overuse of 'stupid' call for blackballing someone ? Over to you.
November 22, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. Get rid of me. Censor, blackball, hang, screw, whatever it takes to stop the truth. Babies. It's like hangin around in a sandbox with 2-year-olds. Obama used ya good though. Money, work, propaganda. Smart dude.
November 22, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, finally something both of us can agree - He's a smart dude indeed.
BTW, you would have seen my last post not directed at you if you were not so blinded by your peevish hatred.
November 22, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilary talks are premature, she may accept, she did accept, Obama offered, and then talks are "on track" and she will accept!
I doubt she would work out even if there was an offer made but there is an offer made!
November 22, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
4 years as SOS....then when Biden gets sick (somehow) VP for 4 years then POTUS....sounds like a plan.
November 22, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Kefa,
Long time. Still dreaming in clintonland I see. Well congrats on your buds getting to be secretaries of state. No way vp or pres. Sorry. Been there and done that with the clintons. Time to move on.
By the way, bad karma on wishing that someone gets sick. Very bad karma.
November 22, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess, we must be happy that he doesn't wish anything bad for Obama (somehow). Then, she could just walk into the WH.
November 22, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think all the fervor over this is warranted. I think she will do a fantastic job and am looking forward to moving ahead to correct the horrible messes of the last eight years. Actually, I am a hell of a lot more worried about my declining income due to everyone else's declining income.
November 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
HRC received almost as many votes as Obama in the primaries. People tend to focus on her campaign tactics, esp. toward the end. Well, political campaigns aren't for the meek. Professionals get this, pick themselves up, and move on. I believe Joe Biden has reflected on this spirit.
It's not a religion. It's politics. Let it go. Too much else on the front burner. As soon as Obama's sworn in, it will all be forgotten anyway.
If P.E. Obama is willing to accept HRC back into the fold, so be it. What I see is an imposing Dem phalanx slowly closing its ranks, studded on the Front Lines with pragmatic luminaries, a bastion that will be needed to bring on Republicans, accomplish Obama's agenda.
Yes, bring Republicans. The problems are too big for just one party to solve.
I contend HRC has earned the chance to excel. it will be up to her. The counterweights Obama has selected (Biden, Jones, Emmanuel) balance it out. I have no doubt she'll be shown the door otherwise.
Pax,
M.
November 22, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cosign both comments. I've decided to trust Barack and his team - unless and until proven otherwise.
If Obama is ok with Hillary, then I am. I think she'll do a fabulous job. She's got so many skills and can balance the domestic and international issues simultaneously, given all her policy background and travel experience.
All the back and forth here is a waste of air, but some will choose to do it. Fine with me!
It's Obama's pick. Let's see how it plays out.
In all honesty, as I posted a previous thread, these two might merit a Nobel Peace Prize when all is said and done. I'm that hopeful about this administration.
November 22, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primaries are long over. Are you going to keep banging that "she almost had as many votes as him" card - almost doesn't cut it. There is a report out today that Obama only beat McCain by 400,000 votes if you only counted the closest areas and gave McCain enough to flip them. So if you strategically used those 400,000 votes McCain would have secured 273 EV's.
So I guess John McCain and Sarah Palin deserve high ranking cabinet positions. McCain for Secretary of Defense and Palin for Secretary of Energy?
November 22, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, neither of them are qualified.
HRC, on the other hand, will likely be well-received in the world.
And I agree: her appointment as SoS brings to a close the primary debate. It will be on her shoulders to succeed.
And that is what I'd like to see more than anything.
November 22, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or... if you only count the votes that McCain received, McCain won by a landslide!
November 22, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, income. And 401K. I just can't even check and see my 401K account anymore because that'd be too scary and depressing. How much more scary for those right before retirement. I'd lose sleep.
And like Amelie, I'm not worried about this Hillary thing either. I mean as the choice. I just f***kin hate the way the MSM is dancing like crazy over this matter, I f***kin hate all those leaks, but I'm not worried about Hill as SOS per se, if that's Obama's choice.
November 22, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to understand the mentality that is put off by leaks. I see nothing wrong with information being given to the press. We need much more of this, not less.
It's the childish reaction to this information that is tiresome, most prominently on display (as you say) in the MSM.
Pax,
jK
November 22, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love Gail Collins! Yep, let's make it Jan 20 already...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/22collins.html?_r=1
November 22, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I particularly like the idea of Pelosi, not Hillary, as 1st female Pres.
November 22, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought her idea was absolutely fabulous. :)
November 22, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Greg, you can stop being so careful and hedging everything on this topic.
Unless you think the New York Times wants a "Dewey defeats Truman" headline on its record in the nation's libraries--
they have a rare 6-columns: Clinton Set for State Dept., Fed Official for Treasury
(There are still some benefits to looking at the dead tree edition.)
November 22, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and if you've not had your fill on conspiracy theories on why they have dragged this out so long in dribs and drabs leaks, I've got one:
They didn't want to use "shock and awe" on that portion of their base that still suffers mightily from Clinton derangement syndrome. Using shock and awe would mean responses of "outrage! outrage! outrage!" screaming across the blogosphere and then the media would report on it and others would get outraged at the outragers. Yes, it still gets a lot of ink and talk spilled, but dragged out, it's not so filled with "outrage," the topic becomes tiresome, the naysayers are marginalized. To me, there's lots of evidence that Obama and his camp like to operate that way, they don't like stirring up specific passions, only innocuous general ones.
November 22, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hurray for Obama having the self confidence to pick Senator Clinton, despite all the howls from the media, all the trumped up claims of "drama," all the handwringing about leaks [as if stagecraft in managing the news was the most important thing, rather than policy], despite all the bile spilled here. Despite all these things Obama proved himself to be his own man by going with the person he wanted.
According to Gallup, 79% of Democrats are rejoicing this day, along with 57% of independents. In contrast, 61% of Republicans are against this appointment.
They are joined by only 12% of Democrats.
12%.
12%
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/truthseeker77/2008/11/most-americans-back-idea-of-cl.php
November 22, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that. 12%!!! With all the belly-aching, you'd think it was 80%!
November 22, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to get a sense of how the general public feels, the blogosphere is not the best place for it--the loudest and angriest make for a lot of lurkers who'd just rather not jump into the fray.
November 22, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
A crying shame, that. We would all benefit to hear their voices, too.
November 22, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
that makes no sense.
November 22, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't buy it. That poll has to be an outlier. Most of obama's primary support was totally against the clintons, while being for obama. Those numbers don't add up. I can see 50/50, or even 60/40, not 80%. That's absurd. Who paid for the poll? The clintons?
November 22, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
low info. most think Clinton is great or the very least qualified. Neither one is true. I guess name recongniton trumps everything.
November 22, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say 'YES' to baggage!
--Eleven years ago, on December 22, 1997, paramilitary troops in earshot of a federal military base massacred 45 unarmed civilians - mostly women and children - as they prayed in a Church in the Mexican town of Acteal. The gunmen - every major human rights and media organization now agrees - sliced open the bellies of the pregnant women and shot the 45 Tzotzil-speaking farmers and their children at point blank range. The victims were members of a pacifist Catholic organization known as Las Abejas ("The Bees").
Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, Madeleine Albright his Secretary of State, and the Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere was Jeffrey Davidow, a State Department lifer with the dubious record of having been political officer at the US Embassy in Chile during the September 1973 US-backed coup d'etat there.
For more than a week prior to the massacre, non-governmental organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, had warned the US State Department of the impending atrocity. But the deal had already been struck with the Mexican regime that in exchange for its acquiescence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US would turn a blind eye to all matters of human rights in Mexican territory...--
The above is by Al Giordiano from this article, a great, sad read: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2008/11/us-secretary-state-cautionary-tale
November 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm trying to find a point here. Atrocities went on in Mexico and everywhere else in the world before, during, and after Bill Clinton's tenure in office.
What evidence do you have that this would not have happened absent NAFTA? What about atrocities in Mexico not related to NAFTA, the drug-related ones that are far worse in scope? Shall we blame this on P.E. Obama as well?
A predident cannot prevent every evil crime against humanity, particularly those carried out on the soil of soverign nations. Even the best foreign policy cannot do this.
Could they have "done more?" A point worthy of debate, though the NAFTA connection is dicey at best. People look for any excuses to justify poor behavior. NAFTA did not put a gun to anyone's head, fer pete's sake.
But that was 1997 and this is soon to be 2009. You seem to make the point that P.E. Obama is somehow "doomed" before he is even sworn in. However, the article you submitted does nothing to enroll me in this notion.
Pax,
M.
November 22, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
--You seem to make the point that P.E. Obama is somehow "doomed" before he is even sworn in.--
No, but try again. The point here is that parts of Mexico HATE the Clintons. She has baggage and we don't need it.
November 22, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other major point is that despite the fact that everyone thinks Hill is so great with human rights- she has in fact turned a blind eye to groups in the past that have asked her and the US' aid. Can we expect the same when she is SOS? If the past is prologue- yes. And before you say she's under Obama's review- well, yes, she is but as SOS is she going to be expected to take actions of her own before they get to the Presidential level. Hillary will be making quite a few decisions before they even reach Obama's ear. I hope she makes better decisions with the rest of the world- than she has with Mexico.
November 22, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the Clintons would be flattered by the practically deific power you grant them, particularly HRC.
On the one hand, she didn't "do" anything foreign-policy related while First Lady, so what does she know from Mexico?
On t'other hand, she has this mystical omniscient power to reach into a sovereign nation and restore order simply because she was the First Lady.
This does not add up, and is typical of the hysterics surrounding the reaction to this nomination.
The more I mull it over, the more I see potential for greatness, and my vote was in part an expression of a willingness to let that future yet be written.
Because what the Clintons have never had, talented as they are, is able steerage. That is about to change.
Pax,
M.
November 22, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Second that.
November 22, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell ya, Amelie, when I first heard it, I was stunned, and not at all receptive. The "baggage" issue had a bad habit of muscling its way to the front of the Line of Concern.
But then I recalled the baggage Obama has faced getting this far, and how, at every turn, he looked it in the face, made a deliberate decision to set it down, and let it go with that class and decency that won him this election. Not forget. Embrace as Is.
The nomination of HRC, who has more stature by half than Kerry, and by 3/4's than Richardson, Vishnu love them both, is true to that spirit.
He says to us, "I see your baggage, and raise you a stake in the future of our country."
Christians ought be elated to see forgiveness-in-action. It's a big change from which we've become accustomed. No wonder, the frothing...
Pax,
M.
November 22, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the Giordiano article:
But multiple and sustained efforts by Friends of Brad Will in New York to convince Senator Clinton to use her international bully-pulpit to help bring justice and closure to the case have gone unanswered.
--A month ago, on October 22, some of them sat in front of Senator Clinton's New York office, at 780 Third Avenue in midtown Manhattan, and fasted to appeal for her assistance to her late constituent, his family and friends.
According to one report, Senator Clinton was physically present in the office on at least one of those days, but avoided responding to or speaking with those fasting out in front, much less writing the letters and making the public statements to bring justice to the case that any authentic advocate of human rights would do, especially if it involved a constituent.--
This goes all the way up to Senator Clinton. Not just First Lady Clinton. It's an ongoing case of Hill putting the blinders on. Will she continue to do the same as SOS?
November 22, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd recommend reading the article with an open-mind.
November 22, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point, Marioth, is that many of the atrocities that Al discusses on his blog were allowed to occur on Bill's watch. He turned a blind eye. Why? Because there were incentives to do so. Is that what we can expect from our foreign policy under Obama? Well...w/Hillary as the SOS, it's looking that way.
A lot of this is about perception, what Obama is projecting to the world about what they can expect from the U.S. in how they relate to their neighbors, the values that they will uphold. Hillary Clinton does not send a message that the U.S. cares about Human Rights, she simply does not have that track record.
We can go around and around debating about what Bill and what Hillary stand for in terms of foreign policy. But, ultimately this is about what Obama appears to stand for - and if it turns out that the is intent on appointing Hillary to represent the U.S., he is simply sending the wrong message.
Today, I went shopping and saw an Obama-Biden bumper sticker that said, "Want Hope?" That stings now.
November 22, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice blog by the way CarolBG. Thanks for posting it. I gave it a recommend!
Keep your hope, there is still plenty to get excited about. However, keep you questioning mind and dissent. We did not vote Obama in to give him a blank check. He has encouraged dissent. Never be afraid or intimidated into not letting your voice be heard, now and certainly not after January 20.
In the 30's people continued to push FDR and let their voices be heard. They contributed greatly to his many dynamic approaches and greatness. We must take the same appeal here and for the next 4 years. When people speak out in this nation, greatness occurs. I will give credit to FDR and Obama. However, they are only the beginning of what makes a great a Presidency. The rest comes from people's voices being heard.
November 22, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, JoeC. Al's article caught both of our eyes and I appreciated your bringing it to the attention of the TPM audience here.
The excitement of electing Obama was fabulous, truly historic. But, it is now time to think about government and he does need to be held accountable for the choices that he makes. We put the guy there. I feel strongly that we are obligated to do everything possible to ensure that our voices are heard as his administration takes shape, policies get set, and events start to unfold.
November 22, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, it sure caught my eye. I was pretty neutral,