hillary clinton to be secretary of state

[b i o n i c]

hmm... (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state)

[b i o n i c]

i wouldnt be surpised to see mccain in some role as well... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

[King PSYZ]

according to the article that won't be the case.

[b i o n i c]

you are correct sir, just my hunch

... where's R$ ?!?!

[saz]

chuck hagel could be the next secretary of defense.

[yeahwho]

The Clinton cabinet position is in the speculative mode as of now. The Obama vetting process is the most intense anyone has ever seen, former President Clinton will have to divulge some huge speaking fees he's garnered on the international scene, especially the middle east, they may be in conflict of interest for his wife to be Secretary of State.

I think she would be a wonderful Secretary of State, but there are many hurdles to jump before the idea can be entertained, also a built-in "anti-hillary" network has been propagated by right-wing radio for two decades now, which surely will heat up. She will be controversial.

For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?bl&ex=1226725200&en=8493bad0556dcca4&ei=5087%0A) (NYTimes article about the Obama vetting process)

The Vetting process (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf)

[ericg]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Documad]

The Clinton cabinet position is in the speculative mode as of now. The Obama vetting process is the most intense anyone has ever seen, former President Clinton will have to divulge some huge speaking fees he's garnered on the international scene, especially the middle east, they may be in conflict of interest for his wife to be Secretary of State.

I think she would be a wonderful Secretary of State, but there are many hurdles to jump before the idea can be entertained, also a built-in "anti-hillary" network has been propagated by right-wing radio for two decades now, which surely will heat up. She will be controversial.

For a Washington Job, Be Prepared to Tell All (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?bl&ex=1226725200&en=8493bad0556dcca4&ei=5087%0A) (NYTimes article about the Obama vetting process)

The Vetting process (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13apply_questionnaire.pdf)
It would suck if Bill costs her a job she wants. But Bill has engaged in all kinds of shenanigans so it's possible. Plus her hands were not clean back in the day. I have no doubt that she could do the job. The question is whether she and Obama want to take the risk of her not being confirmed if there is more in the Clintons' closet than we even know.

[RobMoney$]

... where's R$ ?!?!


My fans beckon my presence? LOL

I guess you're interested in my opinion on this huh?

My opinion is that Hillary may be the most qualified politician available to him for any position in a presidential cabinet, but SOS?
International affairs hasn't been her bailiwick, women's rights and health care have been. I thought Biden was supposed to be the foreign affairs specialist?

[Burnout18]

I thought Biden was supposed to be the foreign affairs specialist?

he is... good point.

I guess thats why Clinton would be given SOS.... just a ceremonial position that would quiet her supporters.

[RobMoney$]

he is... good point.

I guess thats why Clinton would be given SOS.... just a ceremonial position that would quiet her supporters.

Her supporters are the reason Obama won the election, so I'm not sure if they need to be quieted at this point.

And that remark is kind of an insult to Hillary.
Face it man, she brings a lot to the table as a politician and she should be given respect. She's certainly no token hire.

It's also debatable that Obama needs the Clintons just as much, if not more than the Clintons need Obama at this point.

[Documad]

It's depressing, but it looks like Bill's financial shenanigans might cripple Hillary from a job she would really enjoy. From the bits and pieces I've heard lately, I'm relieved that she wasn't the democratic candidate. I wasn't up to speed on Bill's business dealings with sleazy bijillionaires. If it's going to keep Hillary from the SOS job, I can only imagine the harm it would have done to her if she had been the democrats' presidential candidate. Bill has always been such a sleazy character. :rolleyes:

[DroppinScience]

It's depressing, but it looks like Bill's financial shenanigans might cripple Hillary from a job she would really enjoy. From the bits and pieces I've heard lately, I'm relieved that she wasn't the democratic candidate. I wasn't up to speed on Bill's business dealings with sleazy bijillionaires. If it's going to keep Hillary from the SOS job, I can only imagine the harm it would have done to her if she had been the democrats' presidential candidate. Bill has always been such a sleazy character. :rolleyes:

What are Bill's dealings with zillionaires, exactly? I thought his global foundation was some initiative to eliminate global poverty? :confused:

[Elusive]

wait, since bush is out of the white house now, are we still getting stimulus checks? man, I like my stimulus checks.

[yeahwho]

I just read this op/ed piece by Thomas Friedman in today's NYTimes, I thought I 'd share it here, because while it makes a convincing case to both support and question Hillary Clinton for the Secretary of State job, it also outs Thomas Friedman in the comments section in what made me remember why I always take Friedman with an elevator grain of salt.... anyways here's some of the op/ed piece,

Madam Secretary? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin) from Nov. 18, 2008

What worries me, though, is that much of the media attention today is focused on the wrong relationship question. Everyone is asking how she would manage the relationship with former President Bill Clinton and his own global speaking, fund-raising and philanthropic agendas. You have to believe that they’ll do everything they can to try to figure that out — but it’s not a done deal yet. Obviously, Mr. Clinton would have to restrict some of his activities.

The important question, the answer of which is not at all clear to me, is about the only relationship that matters for a secretary of state — the kind of relationship he or she would have with the new president. My question: Is Obama considering Mrs. Clinton for this job in order to get her off his back or as a prelude to protecting her back?

I covered a secretary of state, one of the best, James A. Baker III, for four years, and one of the things I learned during those years was that what made Baker an effective diplomat was not only his own skills as a negotiator — a prerequisite for the job — but the fact that his boss, President George H.W. Bush, always had Baker’s back. When foreign leaders spoke with Baker, they knew that they were speaking to President Bush, and they knew that President Bush would defend Baker from domestic rivals and the machinations of foreign governments.


Though the above op/ed piece was actually a brilliant bit of analytical writing, the true genius, as I said before, came in the comments section (http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/11/19/opinion/19friedman.html), #8 from TSK of Long Island.....

<<but if one is just looking at qualifications, Senator Clinton certainly passes the bar.>>

Uh, no, Tom. She supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which should automatically disqualify her for this position. But I wouldn't expect you to agree, since you supported it too.

— TSK, Long Island, NY

[Burnout18]

Her supporters are the reason Obama won the election, so I'm not sure if they need to be quieted at this point.

And that remark is kind of an insult to Hillary.
Face it man, she brings a lot to the table as a politician and she should be given respect. She's certainly no token hire.

It's also debatable that Obama needs the Clintons just as much, if not more than the Clintons need Obama at this point.

Yea i really didn't mean that as a knock to hillary,,,,

I was thinking about how Hillary has been literally around the world as first lady, and as Senator...something like 80 different countries and we know she just wasn't sight seeing..... plus i mean if she needs a little advice, she can talk to her husband....

I know hillary is her own person, her own voice, but if bill can influence the obama administration through her,,, that's not the worst thing, Right?

[Documad]

What are Bill's dealings with zillionaires, exactly? I thought his global foundation was some initiative to eliminate global poverty? :confused:

I have read some in-depth articles in a variety of magazines, but I don't hold onto my old magazines so I can't put my finger on one particular article. There were many articles on his connections to Ron Burkle (who is largely responsible for the Clintons being rich today). Look at how much money the Clintons have made over the last 8 years and ask how they did it. Bill Clinton was broke when he left the white house and he probably owed a shitload to attorneys but he is in a completely different place today.

The press has been wanting Clinton to disclose who gave money to his library and how much they gave. I don't think he has done so. I think it made the news today because he gave up the donor list to Obama's people, but it still isn't public. Apparently Denise Rich gave money, because wasn't that the allegation about how her husband got pardoned? And there was this article that mentions another sketchy rich foreigner who gave a shotload of money to the library (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6771).

All the stories fit so well with the way the Clintons behaved in Arkansas -- with Hillary's conflicts of interest serving clients in her law firm before her husband's agencies, etc. I don't trust either of them and never have. (That doesn't mean that they don't have some good points too. Many leaders in history had major character flaws. It's just that these particular character flaws are the opposite of everything Obama is supposed to stand for.)

Fun facts that have nothing to do with this but that come up in most stories about Clinton's finances: Did Clinton use Burkle's airplanes to fly around with gorgeous women, including Gina Gershon? And it's sort of unfortunate that one of the people Clinton and Burkle partied with was Anne Hathaway's con man ex boyfriend.


EDIT: This article from the WSJ was linked in Huffington Post (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj). It's not particularly good, but it's similar to the articles I read on Burkle last spring.

[RobMoney$]

I've been hearing rumblings about Governor Ed being tapped for Sec. of Transportation or Energy. Gov. Ed's a staunch Clinton guy.
I'll be happy for him if he's offered a position, but I'm really hoping we don't lose him to the White House.

I guess would dislike Obama a little less if he appointed Gov. Ed to his cabinet.

[saz]

i'm glad someone is calling out all of these naive progressives.


Glenn Greenwald

Sunday Nov. 23, 2008 08:04 EST
Progressive complaints about Obama's appointments


I've been genuinely mystified by the disappointment and surprise being expressed by many liberals over the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed of pure Beltway establishment figures drawn from the center-right of the Democratic Party and, probably once he names his Defense Secretary and CIA Director, even from the Bush administration -- but not from the Left.

So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered.

Early on in the primary cycle, Markos Moultisas -- in a post I recall vividly though can't find -- wisely urged that progressives refrain from endorsing or supporting any of the Democratic candidates unless they work for that support, make promises and concessions important to the progressive agenda, etc., lest progressives' support end up being taken for granted. But that advice was largely ignored. For whatever reasons, highly influential progressive factions committed themselves early, loyally and enthusiastically to Obama even though he never even courted that support, let alone made commitments to secure it.

That may have been perfectly justified -- by pragmatic calculations regarding electability, by excitement over his personality and charisma, by the belief that he was comparatively superior to the alternatives. Still, the fact remains that progressives, throughout the year, largely lent Obama their loyal support in exchange for very little. He never pretended that he wanted to implement or advance a progressive agenda. And he certainly never did anything to suggest he would oppose or undermine the Democratic establishment that has exerted power in the party over the last two decades.

It's difficult to understand what basis progressives think they have for demanding greater inclusion in his cabinet and other high-level appointments, and it's even more difficult to understand the basis for the disappointment and surprise being expressed over the fact that center-right Democrats and Republicans are welcomed in his inner circle, but -- as The Nation's Chris Hayes put it (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/jstreet/385427/left_out?rel=hpbox) -- "not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration."

It goes without saying that there will be Obama policies, both in the foreign policy and domestic realms, that are vastly superior to what we've seen the last eight years and to what we would have seen had McCain/Palin won. And as the second-tier positions begin to fill out, there will probably be a handful of appointees who progressives consider to be one of their own. And as Digby points out, the magnitude of the financial crisis may compel him to embrace policies that are deemed to be quite progressive (from massive stimulus packages and government intervention in the economy to a diminution of our foreign adventurism).

But Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he's been in the Senate, and more importantly, it's what he made clear -- both explicitly and through his actions -- that he intended to be as President. Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support. As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing. The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets.

The point isn't that this reality should just be passively accepted and nothing done about it. The point is that for anything to be done about it, the reality needs to be accepted. The campaign we began earlier this year with Accountability Now and are now vigorously developing and pursuing -- to devote all resources and energies to defeating incumbents in primary challenges -- is grounded in the premise that one's political beliefs and principles will be ignored until there is a price to pay for ignoring them. Democrats don't perceive there is a price to pay for ignoring progressives, and so they do. That isn't surprising. What would be surprising is if, under those circumstances, anything else happened.

link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/23/obama/index.html)

[DroppinScience]

John Conyers gave a good remark regarding Obama and his cabinet filled with Clinton operatives and hawks:

"It tells me I'm going to have to be Frederick Douglas to his Abraham Lincoln," said House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), referring to Obama's fascination with all things Lincoln.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/11/22-0

(y)

[DroppinScience]

i'm glad someone is calling out all of these naive progressives.


"The Nation" seems to have a reply to Greenwald on how progressives should respond to Obama.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/385749/let_s_be_clear_about_obama?rel=hpbox

Let's Be Clear About Obama
posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 11/23/2008 @ 9:52pm


There are some interesting conversations and debates underway at thenation.com (see especially Chris Hayes at Capitolism, "Left Out") and in the progressive blogosphere (see Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Digby and David Sirota about why Obama has so few progressives among his cabinet picks. It's worth checking them out.

I think that we progressives need to be as clear-eyed, tough and pragmatic about Obama as he is about us.

President-elect Obama is a centrist at a time when centrism means energy independence and green jobs and universal health care and a massive economic stimulus programs and government intervention in the economy . He is a pragmatist at a moment when pragmatism and the scale of our financial crisis compel him to adopt bold policies. He is a cautious leader at a time when, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, caution is the new risky.The great traumas of our day do not allow for cautious steps or responses.

At 143 years old ( that's the The Nation's age, not mine), we like a little bit of history with our politics. And while Lincoln's way of picking a cabinet frames this transition moment, it's worth remembering another template for governing. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was compelled to become a bolder and, yes, more progressive President (if progressive means ensuring that the actual conditions of peoples' lives improve through government acts) as a result of the strategically placed mobilization and pressure of organized movements.

That history makes me think that this is the moment for progressives to avoid falling into either of two extremes ---reflexively defensive or reflexively critical. We'd be wiser and more effective if we followed the advice of one of The Nation's valued editorial board members who shared thoughts with the Board at our meeting last Friday, November 21st.

1. It will take large scale, organized movements to win transformative change. There is no civil rights legislation with out the movement, no New Deal without the unions and the unemployed councils, no end to slavery without the abolitionists. In our era, this will need to play out at two levels: district-by-district and state-by-state organizing to get us to the 218 and 60 votes necessary to pass any major legislation; and the movement energy that can create public will, a new narrative and move the elites in DC to shift from orthodoxy. The energy in the country needs to be converted into real organization.

2. We need to be able to play inside and outside politics at the same time. I think this will be challenging for those of us schooled in the habits of pure opposition and protest. We need to make an effort to engage the new Administration and Congress constructively, even as we push without apology for solutions at a scale necessary to deliver. This is in the interest of the Democratic Party --which rode the wave of a new coalition of African Americans, Latinos, young people, women, etc-- but they have been beaten down by conservative attacks and the natural impulse will be caution and hiding behind desks.

3. Progressives need to stick up especially forcefully for the most vulnerable parts of the coalition --poor people, immigrants, etc --those who got almost no mention during the election and will be most likely to be left off the bus.

[saz]

the nation is part of the liberal intelligentsia that continues to gush over obama. they champion everything that nadar, mckinney and the greens had in their platforms, but vandan heuval and co. either ignored or ridiculed them. they continually make excuses for or gloss over the dems lameness with wishy-washy rhetoric and other assorted gibberish. they're just too blatantly partisan and are afraid to call them out. greenwald, like other independent bloggers and journalists, such as amy goodman and jeremy scahill etc, aren't obliged to champion the democratic party.

[DroppinScience]

the nation is part of the liberal intelligentsia that continues to gush over obama. they champion everything that nadar, mckinney and the greens had in their platforms, but vandan heuval and co. either ignored or ridiculed them. they continually make excuses for or gloss over the dems lameness with wishy-washy rhetoric and other assorted gibberish. they're just too blatantly partisan and are afraid to call them out. greenwald, like other independent bloggers and journalists, such as amy goodman and jeremy scahill etc, aren't obliged to champion the democratic party.

No, I've been keeping my eye on "The Nation." I've seen them praise Obama where they feel he's done right and call him out when he's done wrong. He hasn't even been President yet, and I can tell you already there's things to praise Obama for and stuff I'm not fond of. You even seemed happy that Obama won and called it a great moment in American history, so I think you realize there is no absolutes here.

They don't seem to be fond of Obama's cabinet picks thus far, so it's not blind "gushing" for Obama.

Now, what is your take on their approach with Obama?

[saz]

yeah, i was happy because of the historical significance, that a minority was elected and the promise it now holds for any young american minority, who now know that they can run for any political office and not be held back by their ethnic identity. but as far as obama the politician and his ideological leanings go, no thank you.

vandan heuval completely ignored nader and mckinney in the campaign. and when the nation has acknowledged them, they haven't been so welcoming, such as with max blumenthal's interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfBjE8udAmA) with nader, in which blumenthal got his ass handed to him after trying to trap him; and that super delusional douche eric alterman, who is flat out abrasive and filled with seething hatred and vitriol towards nader.

but frankly the liberal intelligentsia is mostly pretty much all the same: they constantly say they're for progressive politics, yet continually jump on and are afraid to rock the dem bandwagon.

[b i o n i c]

i TOLD you, sons!

[skra75]

wait, since bush is out of the white house now, are we still getting stimulus checks? man, I like my stimulus checks.

me too! we only got one though. It was kinda lame too. I got fucked because I earn just a tad too much $$. suuuuuucccccked

[skra75]

I'm going out on a limb and saying that I think Hillary is a volatile, goofy person. Not as volatile as Palin, but still shitty. I can't wait to see her try to go toe-to-toe with those retarded russian cheavanists ahahahahahahhahahah actually, it will suck and it won't be funny at all, it will be kinda sad.