The Candidates
Featured Archives
Because it deserves a front page post:
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.
Discuss repercussions: a) How does this affect U.S. foreign policy; b) how does having someone who disagrees with Obama in the SecState role help or hurt the administration; c) what happens to Hillary’s Senate seat in New York; d) does this cement the unification of the Democrats; e) how many stories in the news will be written comparing Hillary to the Velvet Hammer; and f) will policy toward North Korea and other states be any different than it was under the Clinton administration?
November 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oddly enough, I’d prefer her to Chuck Hagel.
November 17th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I’m pretty happy about this. I still have a bit of a soft-spot for Hil, and it’s hard to imagine Obama selecting anyone more hawkish. Maybe I’m crazy, but I’m a little comforted knowing that (assuming Gates stays temporarily), Obama will be surrounded by three people a good deal more hawkish then he is (Gates, Biden, and Hil).
November 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
As I said in the other thread:
I’m rather pleased that Ms. Oliberate-Iran-If-It-Tries-Any-Funny-Stuff-and-Don’t-Grant-Legitimacy-to-Crackpot-Dictators is to be our next Secretary of State. Not a bad first pick, Obama. Given the alternatives of Kerry and Richardson, this is wonderful news. Also shows — so far — that Obama’s not considering endorsements when handing out cabinet posts.
It’s also a freaking brilliant move by Obama, because it keeps that thorn out of his side. Once she accepts, their fates are inexorably linked. His foreign policy failures are hers, too. Love it!
November 17th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“Obama will be surrounded by three people a good deal more hawkish then he is (Gates, Biden, and Hil).”
Maybe an attack on Iran could be coordinated between the outgoing and incoming administrations.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Maybe an attack on Iran could be coordinated between the outgoing and incoming administrations.
Yeah, Obama’s really gonna break a campaign promise and go all neo-con on us.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
This will henceforth be known as Mistake #1.
First he fills his administration with Clinton folks, then he puts a Clinton in charge of his foreign policy. He thinks he’s emulating Lincoln, when he’s really emulating Adams.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Obama sets the policy, irrespective of who is SoS.
Having her there helps a great deal because she seems capable of being an effective diplomat, having lots of contacts and lots of credibility around the world.
I dont think that policy would be any closer to the Clinton Administrations record than it would be with some other SoS. There will be similarities because the Dems do agree on certain approaches. But there will be differences because the boss is different, and lots of water has gone under lots of bridges.
It will be fun to see how Gov. Patterson sorts out the replacement question – my guess is that he goes with a relatively unknown upstater, perhaps Brian Higgins – to help his own political standing and to give representation to that region.
November 17th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I doubt it will happen but the Governor of NY should tap Rudy to fill her seat.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
She’s a nationally divisive figure. How is it smart to put her in State of all places?
Obama seems to believe McCain’s press that conservatives suddenly love Hilary.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:35 am
#9
IF someone is nationally divisive, and is not loved by the opposition, then isn’t State a great place for her? She will be dealing with foreign ministers, and foreign heads of state. She will be removed from the domestic political fights, the ones she would be neck deep into if she remained in the Senate.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:40 am
At least the Clintonites are centrist Democrats. Better someone that doesn’t have any qualms using the big stick every once in a while than a pushover like Kerry or Richardson. It’s really not a bad move on his part, from a purely non-partisan standpoint, revealing a loyalty to good governance over liberal ideology. Who dominates the agenda – Obama or the Democrat Party and its interest groups – is going to determine our fate these next four years. Let’s just pray that the Obama we know remains in charge.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:55 am
The State Sec’y office is one that normally raises the stature of the person who holds that office to a greater or lesser extent. The office rarely facilitates hard-nosed or aggressive politics — quite the contrary — so the office holder is generally regarded in a positive light.
Hillary will do well in this post thanks in part to the nature of the job. Any actions perceived as negative or aggressive that have to be taken will be attributed to the Commander in Chief. From her perspective, it’s a low-risk, high-reward, high-profile post.
Whether or not it helps the country remains to be seen. Foggy Bottom is famously overrun by liberal internationalists, so policy coming from there tends to be of the feel-good variety. The Clinton administration after its ‘94 reboot became a good bit tougher on the international stage — but still light-years from Bush 43 after 9/11.
How Hillary does at the job will depend on the international perception of the Obama administration: Friend and foe alike will take advantage of any perceived weaknesses, and the Sec’y of State’s office is not one that favors expressions of toughness.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am
a) How does this affect U.S. foreign policy;
big different between Madam Clinton and President Obama,
lookslike President-elect prepare to the situation
b) how does having someone who disagrees with Obama in the SecState role help or hurt the administration;
certainly, it is painful for both of them,
c) what happens to Hillary’s Senate seat in New York;
replace by someone else
d) does this cement the unification of the Democrats;
nope, i don’t think so
Persons can / be able to unify only JFK and Ronnie Reagan
e) how many stories in the news will be written comparing Hillary to the Velvet Hammer;
no ideas
f) will policy toward North Korea and other states be any different than it was under the Clinton administration?
yes, some part, Obama has an intention that he is the man to liberate “dictatorship / military American’s face to the world, by dismissed Guantanamo, pull US soldiers from Iraq within 1 year ahead,
Clinton will do other choice than Obama.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I read from news,
Obama also offer Maverick a position in his cabinet this monday afternoon at Chicago , but Maverick John Mc Cain refuse it.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Hillary will be great in the job. I have a couple of thoughts on this. I think it’s possible that in 2012 Biden will step down and she will become the VP OR she will bide her time and become the (almost) automatic candidate during 2016. Her international experience will be unquestioned.
Hillary is one woman that knows how to play by the rules. When Bill was caught with his pants down she played nice and got the Dem support for her Senate run. Now she’s playing nice again with the understanding that when Obama is done she gets to try and fill that slot with no serious Dem. contenders to block her path.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:20 am
15,
wrote : I think it’s possible that in 2012 Biden will step down and she will become the VP OR she will bide her time and become the (almost) automatic candidate during 2016.
Excuse me,
Are you a futuristic book writer?
November 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
No more than any other person that likes to speculate. If Obama hadn’t been such a juggernaut she would have been the shoe-in this time. Unless she screws up badly between now and then I’m guessing she’s in for the Dems. Biden is too much of a gaff-master to be get the job.
November 18th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Prediction: The Obama’s attack on Iran will be his Bay of Pigs.