The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

In the Loop

Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) looks up during a Veterans Day event at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum in New York City. (Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

By Al Kamen and Philip Rucker
There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women's issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama's efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide.

And Obama could put her in his speed-dial for a 3 a.m. phone call every morning.

Posted at 2:46 PM ET on Nov 13, 2008  | Category:  In the Loop
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Lobbyists Predict Obama Short Lists | Next: Obama Will Resign from Senate Sunday


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I truly believe that if Hillary Clinton were smart, she would steer clear away from Barack Obama, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, a/k/a Barry Dunham, etc. He was born in Kenya, Africa (has a Kenyan birth certificate). His father left when he was 2 months old. His mother Ann Durham married a Mr. Soetoro in Indonesia, who adopted Barack (Barry). There are Indonesian Adoption papers on record over there and also copies are on www.obamacrimes.com and many other sites. There are currently 5 lawsuits pending against Barack Hussein Obama a/k/a/Barry Soetoro for failure to produce a vault copy of any birth certificate, let alone a U.S. birth certificate required by the Constitution stating that:
Requirements for President are (1)must be 35 years old or older (2)must be NATURAL BORN citizen. Also, CANNOT have Duo-Citizenship to prevent "divided loyalties". Barack Hussein Obama should have never run for President and pending lawsuits against him provide for him to produce a natural born citizen birth certificate (not the template COLB on file in Hawaii) by DECEMBER 1st, or be deported with his aunt in Boston (illegal alien). Hillary Clinton SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE DEMOCRATIC nominee [and President Elect of the United States]. Barack is not the President yet and if deported, a Special Election for Hillary R Clinton can transpire after he is impeached (and charged with voter fraud with illegal contributions). If Hillary takes Secretary of State for Obama, she throws away her chance at perhaps becoming president.

Posted by: sarahabraham7 | November 17, 2008 2:12 AM

He will never choose her , he knows she is not qualified. Bill Richardson can handle the calls at 3:00 AM . Hil would put the snooze on and try to think of what she should say or do(oh not you again bill) . Bill Richardson already has the words and the experience it takes to be Sec. of State. besides she has a husband prone to be up late I think. that would keep hil to preoccupied keeping tabs on the old tomcat. his kibles n bits are a neccesary occupation for him. or is it p$$s and boots .

Posted by: Biasply | November 16, 2008 11:43 PM

look the clintons are yesterdays news and yesterdays news don't stay around long its here and its gone ,like yesterdays blues they keep movin on . but the good thing that never changes is sayin good by to the clintooons .

Posted by: Biasply | November 16, 2008 11:35 PM

she will never be the sec. of state to any thing. especially the usa. he don't want her. the people don't like her and she is out of the question. she is bomb happy anyway. gaud aaarruuuggghhh.

Posted by: Biasply | November 16, 2008 11:28 PM

Hillary would do a great job, she always does. But I hope she turns it down if it's offered to her. I'd rather see her as an independent voice in the Senate, especially as Senate Majority Leader.

And for those who want John "I Hate the Clintons" Kerry to do it, I say, have at it. He can't possibly screw that up any more than he's screwed up most everything else he touched. (How'd that endorsement of his go for you in Massachussetts, Barack?) So, maybe Pony Face will score a hit, get the job and advance diplomancy by BORING our enemies out of a attacking us!

Posted by: MadeUBlink | November 15, 2008 11:13 AM

Hillary would do a great job, she always does. But I hope she turns it down if it's offered to her. I'd rather see her as an independent voice in the Senate, especially as Senate Majority Leader.

And for those who want John "I Hate the Clintons" Kerry to do it, I say, have at it. He can't possibly screw that up any more than he's screwed up most everything else he touched. (How'd that endorsement of his go for you in Massachussetts, Barack?) So, maybe Pony Face will score a hit, get the job and advance diplomancy by BORING our enemies out of a attacking us!

Posted by: MadeUBlink | November 15, 2008 10:29 AM

THIS IS JUST SPIN.

broadwayjoe SAYS IT WELL:

"This "news" sounds more like some MSM journalists who are friends of Bill/Hill pushing a bogus HRC campaign for SoS than actual fact-based reporting. Below is an excerpt from what we understand, on good authority, is 44's closely-held official "long list" for Secretary of State:
1. Bill Richardson
2. Susan Rice
3. John Kerry
4. Chuck Hagel"


Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 8:56 PM

Posted by: ESR1 | November 14, 2008 6:53 PM

You Hillary haters are ridiculous! Especially you women. Do you have no respect for yourselves. Hillary was the best qualified for the PResidency...you voted against her? Why?? Because women are shallow and competitive and caddy with one another. GROW UP. She would have been the best Prez, she is a great Senator, and she'll be a fantastic Sec. of State. Little boy Barack wants the best of the best in his adminstration b/c he is totally unqualifed to do the job well on his own. Hillary is the very best!

There's a special place in h*ll for women who don't support other women. Remember that!

Posted by: ladyesq1 | November 14, 2008 2:33 PM

I hope so. I admire Hilary. She would do an exemplary job. Millions of Americans wanted her as president. If Obama wants her, I'm all for it. There's no doubt she could do the job.

Posted by: paheubel | November 14, 2008 2:06 PM

Obama you promised us HOPE Please don't put Hilliary in as Secretary of State. It would be a betrayel against all who voted for you thinking you were going to sweep out the White House and bring new blood to leadership in this country. We have had enough of the Clinton reign! Certainly you can find someone who has a new outlook for this country and steer it in the right direction for change that will benifit this country. Hillary only seeks her own glory. We need someone who seeks the good of this country not someone who has their own ambitions as number one priority!

Posted by: msrose7 | November 14, 2008 1:07 PM

You’ve got to be kidding! Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? The very person who called senator Obama naïve for suggesting we seek diplomatic solutions to our international problems, even if that means talking to our enemies?
Everyone on this planet wants the same things; safety, peace of mind, the ability to nurture and provide for their families. Threaten those simple human rights and they will rise up against the source of that threat. That includes overthrowing their own government if they realize it’s not operating in their best interests. Perhaps the Republicans learned that lesson a few weeks ago. Isn’t it common sense to not be the aggressor when dealing with these petty third world dictators, showing their citizens where the threat to those rights really exists, or should we continue acting like the schoolyard bully, giving them a place to point their fingers?
I thought we elected a president who’s less worried about his place in history than he is about whether or not his daughters will have one? Now I hear talk about putting someone in charge who represents everything he said he was against. Someone who laughed at his sophomoric ideas of how the world works. Someone who extended her campaign for the Presidential nomination past the point of having a mathematical chance to win, doing significant damage to her opponent and political party in the process.
Hillary Clinton continued her campaign in order to increase the odds he’d be forced to select her as his Vice President, and Senator Obama solidified my support by passing her up. He’ll most certainly lose it if he demonstrates that the ideals he talked about during his campaign were as phony as those of his predecessor by placing her in such a critical position, undermining the confidence the international community has already shown in his abilities.

Posted by: clinchknot | November 14, 2008 11:30 AM

The FACE of a new administration is judged by America's choice of the ticket: President and Vice-President and the face of Obama's administration will be judged by his most senior picks ... at quick glance when this process is all over one will go away feeling: IS THIS NEW? OR SAME OLD - SAME OLD? Different policies will of course help.

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 14, 2008 9:42 AM

I am a independent repub who voted for Barack ... not a Hill hater ... but, I think for a new administration that is promising "not the same old politics" ... the position of sec of state is the face of the administration in the rest of the world. The Clintons had their go at it and did very well - Bill (that is) ... Now we need a bosom buddy some one that close to Barack and his views for the new US Foreign Policy to carry that message. He already has his own Joe Biden ... but, other voices even Republican voices will help. Chuck Haegel for one.

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 14, 2008 9:38 AM

Senior Senator from New York
Governor of New York?
Health Care Csar?

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 14, 2008 9:33 AM

genletrader: Why all the vitriol against Hillary did she do somethin personal against you and your family?

The fact that Hillary has put up with all of the hatefilled messages by Obama supporters like some of the outrageous comments here bout her, and still not only strogly endorsed bu did substantial fundraising and campaigning for Pres Obama, is representative of her stength and intellect.

Yesterdy I was skeptical about this trial balloon, but I have to agree with Andrea Mitchell. If 2 Obama transition team leaders deliberately leaked this story to her, without their having any real serious intention of selecting her for Sec of State, it would be a serious mark aganst the incoming administraion. Not something a new administration would want.

Posted by: leichtman | November 14, 2008 9:31 AM

Gates is the best bet for now ... later Richardson or Kerry. Kerry really was one of the first with Dick Durbin leading the way that came out of Barack Obama

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 14, 2008 9:30 AM

Send Hillary to Alaska to pal around with Sarah ... to help her get ready for 2012

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 14, 2008 9:28 AM

A Secretary of State is expected to lie and conceal the truth. Hillary proved her talent at these skills already -- during the Whitewater scandal.

So she looks like a natural fit for the job.

Posted by: gentletrader | November 14, 2008 9:09 AM

Why would Hillary Clinton give up her seat in the Senate for a job that she could be fired from? This is just team Obama throwing her name out there so the Clinton's don't have anything to whine about. Speaking of whining, some of you still need to get over the 2000 election. Al Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. If Gore wins Tennessee it is game over. No need for Florida at all. Some of the biggest losers of all time were still able to carry their home states: Barry Goldwater in 64, Jimmy Carter in 80, and Walter Mondale in 84.

Posted by: brian18 | November 14, 2008 8:30 AM

Mrs. Clinton would make a very fine Secretary of State. She would be a blessing and surprise addition to the Obama Administration. She has shown she can learn on the job, think on her feet, and would be great for the nation. She is really amazing, and her input on HeathCare is essential, so a cabinet position would be very good for the American people. She would have her own plane, etc., and would do new things with this rather stale Secretary-ship, so I vote, Yes, Yes and Yes, Mrs. Clinton would be perhaps the most dynamic Secretary of State we have ever had, and a longtime change from business as usual. She makes many alliances and has the dynamic personality needed for this job in the 21st century. American people wake up and use the little talent we have!!!!

Posted by: DrRenShenji | November 14, 2008 7:33 AM

saraz says " I will regret my donations if Obama appoints Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State."

and we care because?

Posted by: leichtman | November 14, 2008 7:16 AM

In my opinion, the Secretary of State should be someone who hates war and would only use war as a last resort, and who can firmly see Peace in their mind's eye; someone who recognizes that all men are brothers/sisters and that we all come from the same Source or Creator. That said, Hillary Clinton has earned her right to some cabinet post within an Obama administration. I am just not sure if being Secretary of State is the right one for her.

Posted by: dsoulplane | November 14, 2008 6:41 AM

What a truly terrible idea. I can only guess that this ridiculous idea has been promoted and posted by mad Clintonistas trying to find another wedge where they can prove that Obama has once again dissed the Hill-meister. The same tactic they used with promoting the VP nomination, as if she had ever been in consideration, so the PUMAs could get resentful all over again. After the quality of the Clinton primary campaign, I can only laugh at the prospect of Bill, Penn, and Wolfson tripping over each other in Foggy Bottom while Hill dodges bullets on random runways.

Posted by: jecadebu | November 14, 2008 6:35 AM

I donated quite a bit to the Obama campaign because I didn't like Clinton's foreign policy approach. I will regret my donations if Obama appoints Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

I am one of the many who supported Obama because I want change, and particularly foreign policy change. We are Obama's base , and this is a slap in the face.

Posted by: saraz1 | November 14, 2008 6:17 AM

On the one hand the Hillary haters paint her as an arch-villian who would do anything to service her grandiose ambitions for career advancement, damn the consequences for the nation, the world and the party.

On the other hand they claim that all this cynical, scheming ambition is being directed towards getting a job that would be at best a lateral move from her current position. And also a move that would possibly start the clock running on the last eight years of her political career.

Obviously I don't know what HRC wants, but it doesn't seem logical to me that she would want to give up an office where she can maintain some independence and influence to take a job where she becomes a water carrier for someone elses foreign policy (albeit I'm guessing that most moderate to progressive Democrats are more or less on the same page on foreign policy).

If as her critics suggest every waking moment of her life is spent plotting her ascension to the White House (we know Barack would never do that!) why would she take a job which hasn't netted a president since James Buchanan (as best I can tell) in 1857?

Obama's choice should be clear. Go with the guy who burned some bridges to become a charter member of the "Toadies of Barack" club, Bill "Brutus" Richardson. After all commitments were made, weren't they?

Posted by: lithium451 | November 14, 2008 6:10 AM

Hillary is a very good choice. I think she is a far more dynamic personality than Kerry. I absolutely would not choose Bill Richardson. Hillary is insightful, has great historical perspective, gets things done and is a team player.

I like it and think most foreign nations will respond positively.

Posted by: JacklynD | November 14, 2008 4:36 AM

NoOneYouKnow,

It's clear that you don't like Senator Clinton, but apparently the voters of New York didn't get the memo.

Posted by: cali_nb | November 14, 2008 1:50 AM

Call nb, I'm a New York Dem and voter, and I can tell you the reason Hillary's been sent to the Senate twice is because the Dem machine in this state would never let anyone with a chance of defeating her run in the primaries. Until she and Bill moved to Chappaqua, Hillary had no connection to NYS politics. None. Nada. Yet somehow she walked into the seat vacated by Daniel Moynihan, who moved to NYC at age six and grew up in hardscrabble neighborhoods here. As far as I can tell, Hillary never lived in New York before she came here to be elected senator. She came here because the Dems have a strong hold on state politics. She got herself elected senator to make a run for the presidency. As a senator for the state, she's been good enough. But like our other senator, Chuck Schumer, she doesn't really serve the people of NYS. She serves the plutocracy, the corporations, and the people who have enough power to scratch her back. And if you think being married to Bill had nothing to do with her election, you're -- wrong.

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | November 14, 2008 1:06 AM

Uh, Noneoftheabove, just because certain blighted parts of the world don't have a 21st century view of the world is no reason the U.S. should not. In simpler terms: Just because they're cavemen doesn't mean we have to be cavemen. I know that's hard for a caveman to hear, but it's true.
I'm a little worried. Obama's giving a lot of face to the DLC (the Republican) wing of the Dems. I think the DLC's ideas were pretty well rejected by U.S. liberals when Hillary lost the nomination to Obama. But for sure, let her sink her teeth into healthcare. Just keep her away from anything that would allow her to get her war on again.

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | November 14, 2008 12:54 AM

48 percent of voters did not vote for Obama.
That is significant and should not be ignored.

Posted by: NoneoftheAbove08
___
The results of the 2008 election were 52.6% for Obama, and 47.4% other (46% for McCain(58,236,089 votes)).

In 2004, Bush only got 50.3% of the vote while all other candidates got 49.7% (48.3% for John Kerry (59,028,444 votes). This is notably more than McCain this year).

In 2000, as you might well know, Gore got 48.4% of the popular vote and Bush only got 47.9%. Funny thing though, Gore lost.

Going back, no election was closer than Kennedy getting 49.7% to Nixon's 49.5%. That didn't turn out too bad?

Another close one was Reagan in 1980, only getting 50.3% of the popular vote and others getting 49.7%.

Point being, the fact that Obama did not get 47.4% of the popular vote is not at all significant and should most definitely be ignored.

The fact that Bush only won by 5 electoral votes in 2000 yet lost the popular vote by .5% is the only election that history will be sure to believe is still significant and should never be ignored.

Posted by: Grant_x | November 14, 2008 12:06 AM

That would be a disaster. Hillary's foreign policy is closer to McCain's than to Obama's. Recall that the biggest issue that distinguished the two candidates was their support -- or not -- for the Iraq war. Clinton is far too hawkish and doesn't have Obama's 21st century vision of the world. She would be last on my list for this job -- though she'd be fine in just about any domestic post. How about Attorney General?

Posted by: francissheed | November 13, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse
***************************************
21st century vision? Does that vision include sitting around a campfire singing kum ba ya with the entire world?

Newsflash: Obama may have a 21st century vision, but what about the rest of the world (checked out what's happening in the Congo lately? How about North Korea? China? Russia? Yeah, real 21st century), especially our "enemies"?

At least Hillary and McCain are realists.

Posted by: NoneoftheAbove08 | November 13, 2008 11:46 PM

"The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries."

What are you talking about? Nobody had heard a peep about any such "divisions" until YOU brought it up! This is media invented junk pushed by HRC friendlies in the media, just like HRC for veep mantra before the convention, which was bogus from the start (since she was never on any O list).

On Nov. 4, there was dancing in the streets from DC, to NYC, to Kenya, to Paris, to Indonesia! Nobody was giving a thought to HRC or pants suits. It was inconceivable then that anything could step on that outpouring of joy, but this HRC-for-Secretary-of-State nonsense is doing a good job. Oy.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 11:45 PM

Oh dear God, NO. Not Hillary! Clinton's have a tendency to permeate every crevice in order to serve themselves. And it would be hard to trust her with Secretary of State, in leu of the fact she still has her eyes set on making history in 2012.

CHUCK HAGEL, right on! COLIN POWELL - Yes! WESTLEY CLARK - Great!! Offer Hillary the Supreme Court where they can hold her accountable for integrity.

Posted by: primarywatcher1 | November 13, 2008 11:40 PM

hello ... obama won a commanding GENERAL election.
**********************************
48 percent of voters did not vote for Obama.
That is significant and should not be ignored.

Posted by: NoneoftheAbove08 | November 13, 2008 11:39 PM

Instead of picking a politician for Secretary of State,how about author and NY Times columnist Thomas D. Friedman?

Posted by: bobbg101 | November 13, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse
********************************************
I think Friedman might be better suited to the Treasury Department. At least he has a clue about economics and markets.

Posted by: NoneoftheAbove08 | November 13, 2008 11:38 PM

KobayashiMaru,

You seriously think the 2000 election was about Bill Clinton? Even after the impeachment, he had an approval rating of 65% when he left office. I like Al Gore, but he didn't come into his own until his defeat and his embrace of global warming issues. What about 2004? Are you blaming that on Clinton too? The war had started and we could have stopped it with a new president, but we didn't because too many Democrats were screaming that John Kerry wasn't enough of a visionary--that title went to Howard Dean. That's not Bill Clinton's fault either. The Clintons are not the source of all that is wrong.

Posted by: cali_nb | November 13, 2008 11:29 PM

You Clinton haters are seriously deranged. Senator Clinton has been elected twice--why do you think her state has sent her back? Could it possibly be because she's a good Senator? I keep hearing noxious crap like she's only a senator because of her husband. Got news for you, she's worked her entire life for the issues and causes she's believed in, and she's been effective. And if you're not a closed minded Clinton-hating zealot, you might look into her long and accomplished life. President-elect Obama seemed to be happy to get the Clintons' help, and certainly didn't seem to be holding a grudge. He was also closer to this than any of you, so perhaps you all might take a page out of his book.

Posted by: cali_nb | November 13, 2008 11:09 PM

Send a copy of the quoted post (below) to Maureen Dowd, and other legitimate journalists who covered the campaign, so they can have a good laugh. They all will tell you Bill and Hill were rooting AGAINST 44.

Bill's TV appearances on Letterman, et al. were to promote Mac/Pfalin, not 44. Did she help 44 by telling the media, "He can't win" or "Working people, you know, white people," won't vote for him"? Do you remember than HRC gem? Give me a break.
_______________

Someone posted
"Hillary is on Barack's team.

She helped him get elected."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 10:54 PM

An inspirational choice! If you want a dedicated, tenatious, smart, savvy negotiator - you've got it in Hillary. Besides knowing most of the world leaders, she can be charming and strong at the same time.

This is not a matter of "building bridges" and relationships here at home. Barack Obama wants the best people he can find for the most important positions in his admin. And he's right - there is nothing wrong with the Richardsons and the Kerrys - but he can surely do better. They are already too much of the same old same old. If he chooses to appoint Hillary Clinton, it will be a master stroke. She is miles ahead of Condi Rice, and even of her predecessor Madeline Albright. The only question is if she will accept the job. She has been mentioned as a Supreme Court justice , Govenor of NY, Senate majority leader - but I'll bet anything, she can bring peace to the Middle East. I think he should offer it, and I think she should accept.

Posted by: jbleenyc | November 13, 2008 10:49 PM

For those willing to seriously consider the question.....

It doesn't have anything to do with hard feelings or party unity. If the President-elect used the Secretary-of-State to mend political fences, we'd be in for a shallow 4 years.

Two questions: (1) Will she toe the administration line when she disagrees? (2) Does the President-elect value her judgment and believe he needs her? If the answer to both questions is "yes", who could be better?

Kerry & Hagel & Richardson would certainly seem capable, but can they equal Clinton's toughness, her clarity, her patience under pressure? No.

My main question about her is the same one I have about Rham Emanuel: Can either of them be tough on Israel or earn the Palestenians' trust. To appoint policy leaders who cannot do both is to doom our chances for Middle East progress.

FYI, I was an Obama supporter when I didn't think he had a prayer of being nominated.

Posted by: fred4945 | November 13, 2008 10:48 PM

you CAN'T be serious !!! Listen, the Hedge Fund industry is getting ready to blow like a hydrogen bomb and Rodham Clinton is in there like she was with the Wall Street meltdown. To export that as a diplomat would be the biggest mistake of Obama's change we can believe in. There are just not enough hard working white people to support her against the sniper fire. TOO TOXIC. Plus she already promised to OBLITERATE Iran !!!!

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 13, 2008 10:43 PM

Are you guys Democrats or Guppies?

Hillary is on Barack's team.

She helped him get elected.

She's brilliant.

I can't believe any Democrat would post hate to our former "First Lady" and the current Democratic Senator from New York.

She's great.

We need the best people we can get.

Nobody's got a better grasp of all the issues in Heallth Care than she does.

We need her to spearhead Universal Health Care.

If we don't pull together and work hard, its not going to happen.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 10:37 PM

So I guess Obama does need Hillary to take that 3am phone call.

Posted by: tlintx | November 13, 2008 10:32 PM

The best choice would be Sen. Lugar, but we need him in the Senate as part of the new centrist Junta that will be ruling together with Obama. Webb, Specter, Snowe, Collins, Lieberman and Lugar, and a few others.

Posted by: scottstone | November 13, 2008 10:31 PM

44 is far too smart for any HRC as SoS nonsense.

Could 44 think of having HRC at his cabinet meeting with Patti Solis Doyle, Caroline Kennedy, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill, all four iconic heroes in O-Nation, but who are at the very top of the official Bill/Hill (phone-book-sized) enemies list? That would be WAY too much drama for no-drama Obama.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 10:29 PM

Bogus. Heinous. Most non-triumphant. Ah, Change, don't be dead, dude.

Posted by: jrak1 | November 13, 2008 10:18 PM

Given the opportunity, Hillary would be an outstanding secretary of state.

However, Hillary has earned an enormous amount of domestic political capital herself apart from President Clinton.

Hmmm... Yeah, Hillary should accept.

You Go Hill!

Posted by: randymk1 | November 13, 2008 10:14 PM

44 needs HRC like an industrial strength Drano milkshake. One possible appointment idea: Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton for Special Administrative Assistant to the Deputy Undersecretary of State for West Zambian Affairs. Look, the media needs to start reporting news rather than making things up, especially idiotic, frightening things.
_______________

"I think Hillary would be perfect for Secretary of State.
But ask her what role she would like in government first
and take it from there.

Posted by: blakesouthwood | November 13, 2008 9:45 PM"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 9:54 PM

Oh no!!!!!!!
what a nauseating prospect.
what stature we have regained after 11/4 will be pissed away.....
that woman will kill our chances in the Middle East.

Change no one will every believe in!!!!

Posted by: skycontrol | November 13, 2008 9:46 PM

I think Hillary would be perfect for Secretary of State.
But ask her what role she would like in government first
and take it from there.

Posted by: blakesouthwood | November 13, 2008 9:45 PM

I was an Obama supporter who thinks the choice of Hillary would be brilliant.

Actually, there is another position that would also be suited to her, the Supreme Court, as a replacement for a retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which I suspect will happen relatively soon.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com

Posted by: scootmandubious | November 13, 2008 9:42 PM

Hillary? Seriously? No offense, dude, but give me a f'in break...

Posted by: jjtwo | November 13, 2008 9:40 PM

hisroc writes: "bourassa1 in London, when we want your opinion on internal US politics, we'll bomb it out of you. Until then, kindly keep quiet and mind your own business."

Mind my own business? That's an ironic demand coming from a fan of regime change and invasion of other people's countries. Your entire self-respect is based on your govt interfering in other people's politics.

You want to bomb London? I don't think even Americans would feel that qualifies you to contribute to a discussion on Sec of State candidates.

PS I may be a foreigner (from an allied country), but I get the feeling that most Americans are more interested in the opinions of foreigners like me right now, than they are in the opinions of brainless Bush-base fanatics like yourself.

Posted by: bourassa1 | November 13, 2008 9:39 PM

Hillary will not go to State. Why would she?

She is committed to passing healthcare legislation and achieving other significant domestic issues she promised to her 18,000,000 primary supporters.

Further, the "primary wounds" are a myth - kept alive by folks who want to sell more newspapers.

Any American still nursing a Democratic primary "wound" needs to visit a mental health professional.

The world is in dire straits and that global crisis just overwhelms the foolish and petulant concerns of a hypothetical handful of cynical self-absorbed Hilfanatics.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | November 13, 2008 9:37 PM

As McEnroe would say, you can't be serious!!!!!!

HRC's whole primary campaign was focused on 44's personal destruction. A bitter brew of race-baiting and personal attacks (He's not a Muslim "as far as I know.").

And have we forgotten Mr. HRC's recently completed two-week-long Say-no-to-O TV tour in which Bill appeared on show after show like "the View" and Letterman to sing the praises of Mac/Pfalin -- and to pointedly NOT mention 44 once (something various comedians made fun of) and refuse to admit 44 was spectacularly qualified.

44 finally has what Jeff Toobin called that "deranged narcissism" in his rear view mirror once and for all. Why stop the car and let it back in? Wasn't that C. Thomas Howell's mistake in "the Hitcher"? We hope this media-manufactured "news" about 44 considering HRC (followed by her legions of harpies) for ANYTHING is just a bad Ashley Todd-type hoax.
__________
Someone posted:
"I thought she and Bill looked extremely happy for President Elect Obama, and thought no one's that good of an actor; they look genuinely thrilled and not at all wistful or disappointed, so maybe there's been some kind of arrangement discussed."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 9:26 PM

Excellent idea. Just what we need to heal the wounds of the primary. Hillary could hit the ground running and Barack and Joe would be there to make sure Bill stays away from the female help when he picks her up for dinner LOL :).

Posted by: owldog | November 13, 2008 9:15 PM

Anyone but Hillary!

Posted by: RealChoices | November 13, 2008 9:02 PM

A SecState who secures a meaningful Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be in great position to become POTUS in 2016.

It's a good move for HRC. And Bill could be special envoy to the middle east.

And Caroline Kennedy could take the NY senate seat.

Posted by: jrob822 | November 13, 2008 8:57 PM

This "news" sounds more like some MSM journalists who are friends of Bill/Hill pushing a bogus HRC campaign for SoS than actual fact-based reporting. It makes as much sense as 44 gargling with battery acid.

As one poster pointed out, these are the same newshounds who said Warren Christopher was leading 44's State transition team. Below is an excerpt from what we understand, on good authority, is 44's closely-held official "long list" for Secretary of State:
1. Bill Richardson
2. Susan Rice
3. John Kerry
4. Chuck Hagel
* * * * * * * * *
299,811,001. Paul Reubens
299,811,002. Rae Carruth
299,811,003. Jean Harris
299,811,004. Richard Speck
299,811,005. "Rev." Jesse Jackson
299,811,006. Mark Foley
299,811,007. "Mrs." Billie Jean King
299,811,008. "Mr." Billie Jean King
299,811,009. Juan Williams
299,811,010. John W. Gacy
299,811,011. Ernest Borgnine
299,811,012. Mrs. Wm. J. Clinton

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 13, 2008 8:56 PM

BILL RICHARDSON for Secretary of State.

Posted by: chevychasedesigns | November 13, 2008 8:55 PM

I hope it's the same chatter that thinks RFK Jr. should be at EPA. Pleasssse.....

She'd be a fool to leave the Senate. If she joins the Cabinet in any position she'll have to muzzle herself and go with the Obama team.

Better to stay in the Senate and let her voice be heard. He just wants to neutralize her. Don't let him!

Posted by: RedBird27 | November 13, 2008 8:53 PM

Aside from wanting a career diplomat as Secretary of State, I don't understand why Clinton would want to give up her Senate seat to take a cabinet position. A cabinet member is likely to last maybe four years before it's over and then what? She could keep her Senate seat for as long as she wants it. If she wants to run for Governor of New York, she would only have to quit the Senate if she wins. If she quits the Senate for the cabinet, that's it. Another Dem will step up and take it and that's pretty much it. She could remain in the Senate for another 20 years. Being a Senator is a pretty damn good job.

Posted by: cjenns | November 13, 2008 8:46 PM

Why Hillary would want to do this?

Is the Senate getting boring? Running for governor of NY a snooze? She certainly has the foreign policy credentials and would undoubtedly be good at it.

But why?

Posted by: Brittman1 | November 13, 2008 8:42 PM

Ammended:

Okay, lets settle this.

Most of you would know jackus of diddly about the international stage, a big proportion of you wouldn't know where Uzbekistan was let alone what significance it has in the grand scheme of things, a greater proportion wouldn't know what countries signed up to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) like Sarah (excuse me while I vomit) Palin.
If you want a decent opinion from someone who actually lives "in the rest of the world", you know, those places beyond the beyond, let me set you straight.

These are the real pluses for Hillary Clinton on the world stage:

1. Her husband is very well regarded in the real world, even if you don't think much of him - in fact he could even be a successful president like Jimmy Carter (the most successful U.S. president ever - in the real world) in he pulled his finger out and had a go.
2. She has a reputation for being a hardliner - whether real or not, the perception is good enough to give pause to others who might not think America's best interests are theirs also.
3. She is not an air-head. As much as a lot of Americans prefer folksy, uneducated but well-meaning leaders, on the world stage they are figures of ridicule and scorn.
4. And lastly, she is a woman, and even a room full of self-important men (in the rest of the world) will defer to a woman, even more so when she has the backing of the U.S. military monster and the still-alive U.S. economic titan.
5. That she vigorously contested the candidacy up to risking a damaged reputation - a consideration she absolutely would've made - means she is not one to quit, a fine attitude in someone who is batting for your side (in the rest of the real world).

End of further comment from here (in the rest of the real world).

Posted by: icurhuman2 | November 13, 2008 8:36 PM

I agree with other posters here, I think HRC will be better suited to work on healthcare she would a great asset to that department.

And I think Fareed Zakaria would make a very good SOS based on the fact that he is educated, articulate and has a solid understanding of what is happening in the world.

Although another excellent choice would be Chuck Hagel, he is smart and looks like a real gentleman and the fact that he is a Republican will also help prove that Obama is going to reach across and work with others.

Posted by: Moosem750 | November 13, 2008 8:32 PM

Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter
Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter. Chatter

Posted by: pbarnett52 | November 13, 2008 8:31 PM

Okay, lets settle this.

Most of you would know jackus of diddly about the international stage, a big proportion of you wouldn't know where Uzbekistan was let alone what significance it has in the grand scheme of things, a greater proportion wouldn't know what countries signed up to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) like Sarah (excuse me while I vomit) Palin.
If you want a decent opinion from someone who actually lives "in the rest of the world", you know, those places beyond the beyond, let me set you straight.

These are the real pluses for Hillary Clinton on the world stage:

1. Her husband is very well regarded in the real world, even if you don't think much of him - in fact he could even be a successful president like Jimmy Carter (the most successful U.S. president ever - in the real world) in he pulled his finger out and had a go.
2. She has a reputation for being a hardliner - whether real or not, the perception is good enough to give pause to others who might not think America's best interests are there's also.
3. She is not an air-head. As much as a lot of Americans prefer folksy uneducated but well-meaning leaders, on the world stage they are figures of ridicule and scorn.
4. And lastly, she is a woman, and even a room full of self-important men will defer to a woman, even more so when she has the backing of the U.S. military monster and the still-alive U.S. economic titan.
5. That she vigorously contested the candidacy up to risking a damaged reputation - a consideration she absolutely would've made - means she is not one to quit, a fine attitude in someone who is batting for your side.

End of further comment from here.

Posted by: icurhuman2 | November 13, 2008 8:29 PM

I was pleasantly surprised to hear Hillary Clinton was being considered.

I thought she and Bill looked extremely happy for President Elect Obama, and thought no one's that good of an actor; they look genuinely thrilled and not at all wistful or disappointed, so maybe there's been some kind of arrangement discussed.

Hillary is extremely savvy and would be an ingenious pick for Secretary of State.

Posted by: lyndalee8888 | November 13, 2008 8:27 PM

Divisions within the party? Didn't Obama just win by 8 million votes? He better get a lid of the leakers. Not good to have her name mentioned if she doesn't actually get chosen and she wants it.

Posted by: Cowabunga1 | November 13, 2008 8:24 PM

Lady Macbeth? God, no! How about as ambassadrix to Rwanda and Burundi for, oh wow, women's & alternative lifestyle issues? The husband could chase Thompson's gazelles around, stumbling & hollering "Inny action here?", as he did as a libidinous youth among the frightened sheep on someone else's property near Hope, Arkansas. (The sheep learned to stampede when "Billy Goat" got loose.)

Posted by: sawargos | November 13, 2008 8:21 PM

The Clintonistas are desperate to keep the Clintons center stage. Hillary and Bill will never be the face of diplomacy for the Obama administration. Get over it. The Clinton era is over.

Posted by: sbundley | November 13, 2008 8:17 PM

Wake up!

Dems need all the Senators they can get. Both Obama and Biden are leaving (and will be replaced by Dems, probably), but the 60-vote margin to prevent the Republicans from filibustering is very slim.

Note: The filibuster has been used by Republicans THREE TIMES AS OFTEN in the last two years as in ANY year previously. CLEARLY Republicans are scumbags and cheats.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2007/07/20/16/654-20070720-FILIBUSTERS.large.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Posted by: RepublicanBase | November 13, 2008 8:04 PM

...but those divisions are there BECAUSE of Hillary Clinton.

Oh please.

The most divisive and bitter people I see here are the members of the Obama Cult.

What a disgrace. Such sore winners.

HRC is a moderate, she cannot be SOS of Obama, she is not going to seat in the same room with Chavez, Castro and all those freaks from the far left.

Although she is perfectly capable for doing the job and she has "star power".

No, get you own people, Obama. After all, Kerry may bore to death the enemies.

Posted by: Catalina1 | November 13, 2008 8:04 PM

Fareed Zakaria for Secretary of State. He would be brilliant.

Posted by: joels2 | November 13, 2008 8:01 PM

as impt as it is in your mind that YOU trust the Clintons, guess what no one cares.

Once again the ELECTION IS OVER, its now time to put your petty hatred of the Clintons in the closet for 8 years and get on with governing and fixing our broken nation and that will involve the Clintons in charge of health care in the US Senate and some role in foreign affairs for Bill.

Get Over It, you won.

Posted by: leichtman | November 13, 2008 8:00 PM

Don't do it Hill, Obama is a charlatan !Look, he still has his robots out here saying disparaging things about you on the web and the election ended a week ago. You are better off a senator. To those who said Hillary should be disqualified from getting the nomination because of her war vote didnt say a peep when Biden(one of the Democratic cheerleaders for the war) became vp. Keep waiting, cause the war isnt gonna end anytime soon. Obama fed you BS just to get your vote.

Posted by: Ikid | November 13, 2008 7:58 PM

Has anyone considered Bill Clinton for Sec of State?

If Obama truly wants the best and brightest he should consider his vast experience with world leaders. Next to Richardson he shoud be at the top of the list and selecting him would show that Pres Obama is truly putting country over politics, something most here refuse to consider.

Now the rest of you Clinton haters can continue your yelling and screaming.

Posted by: leichtman | November 13, 2008 7:54 PM

Please say you're joking. This would make her more powerful than the VP. Those of us who felt she alienated us during the primaries have just started liking her again--but that doesn't mean we trust her (or Bill) again.

Posted by: atwl | November 13, 2008 7:51 PM

Wait, what? What in the world are you talking about?

What divisions in the Democratic party? Note to news media: THERE ARE NONE! Did you miss the events of 4 November 2008?

You guys are just 1) buying in to profoundly shallow and equally inane right-wing narratives or 2) literally making this up. Unreal.

Posted by: WilliamJ1 | November 13, 2008 7:47 PM

"She OWED him" said buffalo

Exacly what does she owe him? That is one of the wierdest comments that I have read here by a Hillary hater.

As I recall she sincerely campaigned and fundraised for Obama exactly as she promised when she ended her campaign and endorsed him at the national convention.

I would truly like this question answered. I voted for Obama, as difficult as that was for me. Hillary worked tirelesslly for Obama especially in Florida and Ohio. What else do you Hillary haters want, blood?

She OWES him???? Had the roles been reversed and Hillary was just elected I am certain you be telling us that he owed her.

Again get over, it your side won.

Posted by: leichtman | November 13, 2008 7:46 PM

Svreader, universal health care in this country is in extremely bad shape. And it is just because it has been considered Mrs. Clinton's job for so many years. Person, like her, with no respect to laws, court rules, and constitution, won't be a good supreme court judge and even a medium one. Her career in Rose firm and my personal experience with her intepretations of laws tell me beyond any doubt that she should not be and, therefore, never would be another supreme court judge. You should believe me, as you, better than many others, know that I am always right in my pertinent predictions, am I ever not? Anyhow, why can't she quietly sit on her senate seat. Nobody is going to impeach her for now, isn't anybody?

Posted by: aepelbaum | November 13, 2008 7:45 PM

From reading the criteria for being in the new administration, I don't know if Hillary could qualify in time. It took her 2 years to find the Rose Law Firm records on the diningroom table. But she would be the most ethical one on the team. Scary!!!

Posted by: Von123 | November 13, 2008 7:40 PM

labman57-Good suggestions!

That, coming from ME!

Seriously, with his background, Bill Richardson, is IMO, the best Choice the Dims have.

Kiss-up Clinton, (or is that Suck-up?)is an Excellent choice for UN Ambassador. Which, BTW, bass him out of NYC! Next to Mama Clinton-The Senator!-And Barely Competent at that!

Posted by: SAINT---The | November 13, 2008 7:37 PM

Instead of picking a politician for Secretary of State,how about author and NY Times columnist Thomas D. Friedman?

Posted by: bobbg101 | November 13, 2008 7:29 PM

Al and Philip did you get the memo? Hillary will not be Secretary of Secretary of State. I worked on Hillary's campaign and it wont happen. I know you guys want to get the breaking news but making up stories is just sad. Sorry to say your in the wrong ball park yet again.

Posted by: qqbDEyZW | November 13, 2008 7:21 PM

I will admit, I'm not crazy about her, but I think she would be a good fit for this job. She has the profile and the smarts for it. I would also like to see a woman in the job (I'm a man, BTW.)

Posted by: tmaffolter | November 13, 2008 7:20 PM

Hillary Clinton should do a great job on health care and the be appointed to the supreme court.

If she is appointed to the court, my bet is that she will be incredibly good at it.

Being a supreme court justice fits every aspect of her intelect and personality.

Even a lot of her critics would agree with that.

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 7:19 PM

Oh c'mon. Enough with all speculation.

Those who talk don't know and those who know don't talk!

Posted by: jayaramkr | November 13, 2008 7:18 PM

Leave Hillary in the Senate where she can do the most good, make Bill Richardson Secretary of State, and appoint Bill Clinton as UN Ambassador.

Posted by: labman57 | November 13, 2008 7:17 PM

Bill would sell us out for a pair of really nice iranians or russians legs oh..billy
Hilary is angry, selfish tiranical..
kerry is a laughing matter...I dont like that much Bill Richardson, but he is much better than the other 2 , the appeasement team, during Obama, Venezuela invade Colombia, Iran finishes the bomb, Russia invades and occupies Ucrania and Georgia,and China invades Taiwan...what are you going to do about it???

so many pacifist libs suicidals..Russia/China/Iran would not care less about UN, let alone when the occupy others nations

Posted by: malanga | November 13, 2008 7:12 PM

Clinton? Scary. She was Co-President when they sent the Delta guys into Mogadishu and so many were killed because the Clinton's diplomatic sensitivity forced the Army to go in there with their hands tied (no armor, no AC-130).

We will soon be tested and will soon have another Black Hawk Down.

Posted by: reston75 | November 13, 2008 7:12 PM

I'm a big fan of Hillary, but we need her to do health care.

There are lots of good candidates for secretary of state.

Hillary's the only person in the Senate that's made Universal Health Care her life's goal.

There's no shortage of work to do.

There is a shortage of qualified people to do it.

Let's put her to work!

Posted by: svreader | November 13, 2008 7:10 PM

I think he's just floating it so she can reject it so he looks like a statesman:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-will-be-next-secretary-of-state.html

Posted by: MatthewAvitabile | November 13, 2008 7:10 PM

I KWEW SHE HAD A REASON TO GIVE IT ALL UP. KKNOW I KNOW I WHAT SHE WAS PROMISED FOR HER SACFRIFICE. HUH KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: heatherlmunro | November 13, 2008 7:04 PM

I think Bill might be a better choice if he is more likely to negotiate until satisfactory ooutcomes can be achieved.

I am not sure that I am right about Bill or Hillary. I do not want a Secretary of State who believes that America has to tell the rest of the world what it should do and think. Historically non-compliance with America's self-interests has led to hostilities.

There has to be a new way.

America cannot continue spending 40% of the world's defence budget, insulting other nations, acting as a bully boy, building bigger and better nukes and expect that other nations will not challenge its attitude of 'do as I say and you may not do as I do'.

The US has been imperialistic because it has power and because it is disrespectful of other nations. Now is the time to act cooperatively.

Demonising Iran, backing Israel, allowing the Palestian people to live in ghetto conditions is an outrage.

Once you demonised Iran you forgot to examine the validity of your attacks. You have acted like Bush. He has refused to engage in introspection and consequently has lurched from one failure to another.

If you respect your neighbours you will act as a team player and stop calling yourself the greatest nation ever. It is boorish and disrespectful behaviour that negates the validity of other nations.

It is time for the US to grow up.

Posted by: robertjames1 | November 13, 2008 7:03 PM

HELL NO!

If we wanted to have neocon foreign policy, we would have nominated her!

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | November 13, 2008 6:59 PM

There are no fences to mend or divisions to heal. The democrats won by a landslide because they have already come together, and because they came together under Obama, and not Clinton Redux. He doesn't owe her anything and he doesn't have to "find something" for her to do -- she has one of the very best jobs in the country: United States Senator. She should just go ahead and be a great one, as she can be.

Posted by: fmjk | November 13, 2008 6:58 PM

First, I think Hillary would be good as Sec of State. I can live well with that decision.
Next: Hillary did Obama and us a favor by vetting him as she did. It didn't seem so at the time, but Rove's best couldn't find another negative issue about him as hard as they tried.
buffalohead wrote:
She ran a hateful campaign, run by hateful people, and she did everything she could to drag Obama's name through the mud. ... - Hillary was the divider, and you don't appoint a divisive person like that to the most important diplomatic post in government.

Posted by: lynettema | November 13, 2008 6:57 PM

Mr. President Elect Obama. I am so very disappointed. I voted for you because you didn't choose Hillary as your VP. Back when she was running against you, she would have stabbed you in the back so quickly. Unbelieveable. How could you not realize that? It is like people have a memory of a goldfish.

This just goes to show that there are so many hidden agendas with politicians, it is scary.

Posted by: SayItAintSo3 | November 13, 2008 6:56 PM

Hilary is angry, selfish tiranical..
kerry is a laughing matter...I dont like that much Bill Richardson, but he is much better than the other 2 , the appeasement team, during Obama, Venezuela invade Colombia, Iran finishes the bomb, Russia invades and occupies Ucrania and Georgia,and China invades Taiwan...what are you going to do about it???

Posted by: malanga | November 13, 2008 6:39 PM

ya'd do just as well to appoint bill, and keep a senate seat.

Posted by: e9999999 | November 13, 2008 6:38 PM

OH GOD!! Barak, say it aint so! Dont include Hilary as aprt of your cabinet, PLEASE! Inviting her to be part of you cabinet will only send mixed messages. Where is the bipartisan cabinet? Are there no Republican candidates that will do as good of a job? I dont want to read news articles where the Secretary of State refuses to visit the troops in Iraq, much the same way Mrs. Clinton refused to meet with the Mothers of fallen soliders. The Clintons need to take a back seat, the tourch has been passed, they had their time. It is now time for some new blood in Washington. Or is Barak already going to turn his bakc on campaign promises...:-D

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | November 13, 2008 6:31 PM

Boy, this article has really brought the Clinton haters out of the woodwork.

I think she would do very well as the Secretary of State. I don't think her politics would impede her performance, and she is well respected by many of the world's leaders. Most of her opposition comes from the Clinton haters from both parties. Her husband has proved very effective in working on the world stage - indeed in concert with George HW Bush. I believe that Hillary could help the US as well in this role.

Posted by: expat2MEX | November 13, 2008 6:30 PM

Hey, leichtman:

"did she not do enough campaigning for President Obama for your liking?"

She OWED him. She ran a hateful campaign, run by hateful people, and she did everything she could to drag Obama's name through the mud. Her campaigning was penitence for the rueful, pitiless hatred and sarcasm she displayed. You Hillary supporters are somehow blinded by your devotion to a woman who is anything but ready to spread Obama's message of earnest diplomacy and cooperation throughout the world. Obama caused no divisions in the party - Hillary was the divider, and you don't appoint a divisive person like that to the most important diplomatic post in government.

Posted by: buffalohead | November 13, 2008 6:29 PM

Curious gbhook if you got the word, the electon is over, your guy won,stop all the crp attacking HC. ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!!!

Your idiotic post:
"Let's see: she failed her DC Bar and has no judicial experience. So sure, let's put her on the Court".

Posted by: leichtman | November 13, 2008 6:26 PM

dubya19391 said:

"I absolutely LOVE that Obama could and has won the presidency, but, it was painful not seeing Hillary get there as well - the glass ceiling would've been shattered had she done so. And, lets face it folks, women are the best communicators, and, make the better emotional judgments of the genders to boot, therefore they make the better leader - except when they get there by imitating the worst "male traits"."

Minor sexism noted and indeed personally illustrating the reason why so many people don't want to see Hillary Clinton in any way, shape or form. It's not about her, or about women, or about "shattering glass ceilings". It's about finding someone who would project a good image of the US. Besides we've already had a female SoS. Did a good job, too. Maybe Clinton remembers her since her husband appointed her.

***********************************

NOT "sexism", gender recognition and appreciation!

As the alpha male in a room full of alpha males, an eldest son and a born leader, I recognise strengths and weaknesses in team members and opponents automatically. I also recognise true power when it comes to influence and manipulation. And women are the power behind the throne, and, the hand that rocks the cradle, their complimentary abilities are misunderstood, ignored and underutilised - ignore them at your own peril! They are a tragic waste of a finite resource!

Get a room full of women with disputes and see how long it takes them to sort out the mess when compared with a room full of men with opposing egos.

Men are better at making physical judgments but women are better at nearly everything else that really matters!

"Minor sexism noted and indeed personally illustrating the reason why so many people don't want to see Hillary Clinton in any way, shape or form."

"... so many people" translates as "... so many men" which is REAL SEXISM!!!

"It's about finding someone who would project a good image of the US."

WHAT, LIKE G.W.BUSH DID?

"Besides we've already had a female SoS."

So what your saying is: A woman has had that job before so we don't have to have a token female any time soon. That's about as sexist and thoughtless a statement as I could ever hope for as an example of a sexist and thoughtless statement!!!

You have now been consigned to irrelevancy and any further posts will be ignored.




Posted by: icurhuman2 | November 13, 2008 6:24 PM

Is the world ready for Pantsuit Diplomacy?

P. S. bourassa1 in London, when we want your opinion on internal US politics, we'll bomb it out of you. Until then, kindly keep quiet and mind your own business.

Posted by: hisroc | November 13, 2008 6:23 PM

He won in spite of her. There's nothing to "heal" and the Clintonistas are going to do nothing but undermine Obama. Why? Because it's always really about THEM.

Posted by: kinoworks | November 13, 2008 6:23 PM

"Enough of this business that Hillary is OWED something. Move on ---Please.

Posted by: jmsbh"

As a HC supporter I am realy curious where that comment is coming from. Certainly not from HC and most of her supporters who strongly believe that she is better suited as a long awaited replacement for the weak Harry Reid leadership as Majority leader.

If anything those HC suporters like me who reluctantly did the right thing and sucked it up and voted for HC are more than sick of reading needless idiotic slaps at her like your comment. Curious jmsbh, did she not do enough campaigning for President Obama for your liking? Using words like entitled, is the worst kind of sexism, but we are use to those kinds of remarks when it comes to HC, nothing she ever does is enough for her critics like you.

Posted by: leichtman | November 13, 2008 6:22 PM

To get us out of this devastating down turn in the economy, the best economic advise for this President is to SPEND, SPEND SPEND ... he criticized GW's hand outs and the President GW asking people to "buy someting" ... but, in actual fact it is now the Government that needs to buy something ... and much more than AIG or even helping out the Auto Industry. We need to do things in a BIG WAY ... Infrastructure projects that will be grand and useful into the next 2 or 3 decades. China is doing this ... leading the way in a Global Economy and so is India. All the countries of the world have to go on a SPENDING SPREE and spend wisely with the view of creating good and lasting (maybe greener) jobs for years to come.

The mortgage crisis is another problem ... we don't want to see money thrown at the problem. That problem is so bad the real estate markets in each district, county need the attention of an "on the ground/grass root" political campaign. Makes little sense bailing out my irresponsible neighbour if others on my block have foreclosed and the value of my home has dropped because there are so many unoccupied/forclosed houses on my block. The Real Estate market is broken in many areas. So bankers/lenders/real estate agents all have to work tigther to address the problem almost block by block ... in some States. What a mess.

If I were President Elect Obama ... I would not hurry at fufilling my campaign promise to tax the rich or repeal tax breaks to the rich ... Let us see how the economy hums along for a couple of years or 3 ... you have time to fulfill that promise.

In the meantime, do all the other things you promised AND QUICKLY ... the honeymoon will be short ... but, the people will come to love you more for living up to your campain commitments.

We are with you all for the ride.

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 6:22 PM

Let's see: she failed her DC Bar and has no judicial experience. So sure, let's put her on the Court.

Or: she's one of the least diplomatic figures in public life. She spurned offers of compromise on health care reform and put it out as "my way or the highway". The highway won, and took the Dem majority with it. And did I mention she's flat out dishonest (see: subpoenaed records "found" under the bed, dodging sniper fire, etc.)? Yeah, THAT'S a natural Secy. of State.

Is the change we voted for: a black figurehead fronting for the Clinton Admin's second string? There's plenty of talent -- new, fresh talent -- in the Dem ranks. Go out and find the NEXT Barack Obama.

Posted by: gbooksdc | November 13, 2008 6:21 PM

Are you out of your mind? They have fundamentally different views on foreign policy, and Clinton, of all people, is not one to entertain negotiation and an open-mindedness. She is a stubborn, selfish, egotistical, and acrimonious woman. You don't staff such an important position to "heal the party". You choose someone competent, who will aptly represent your views as president and who will do the work you want done. GAH! She LOST! Let her go back to being Senator. She was a bitter and belligerent and shameless opponent. She deserves nothing but what she got. GAH!

Posted by: buffalohead | November 13, 2008 6:20 PM


Just as we're about to enter a new clean period (how ever difficult and frightening)

wouldn't it be nice not to drag in the fetid old trash of the Clinton admninistration? The pardons, the constant scandal, the Israel centric foreign policy.

Good God, let us use a hard broom and see if we can survive. It isn't as thorugh we need more of the same. Hillary can smile all she likes, she's still the one who
dodged bullets, ran an ugly vicious campaign adn was repudicated thoroughly in the primaries. Don't drag it back.

Posted by: whistling | November 13, 2008 6:11 PM

Not since Wilson picked William Jennings Bryan (for political reasons) would there have been such a stupid choice. Hint, hint. She doesn't have a diplomatic bone in her body.

I'll take Carlos Santana if he doesn't go to Interior.

Posted by: rusty3 | November 13, 2008 6:11 PM

I would guess that Hillary is more interestd in finalizing National Healthcare that she worked so valiantly for rather than traveling the world as Sec of State and I just see her having a strong leadershiprole in the next Senate. Hagel has got to have a place in Obama's Administration the question is where, and while I don't care for Richardson he has the breath of experience of negotiating with tyrants and has the toughness for Sec of State. Don't see the logic of depleting the Senate of its leaders like Kerry and Hillary for cabiet posts, although I have heard suggestions that Senators don't necessarily have to relinquish their Senate seat for a cabinet position, just don't understand how that would be possible. Hillary loves campaigning and just don't see how a cabinet position does anything but get her out of Obama's way for her 2012 or 2016 run for President.

Posted by: leichtman | November 13, 2008 5:59 PM

I doubt that Hillary will take either the Secretary of State position, or, as rumored, take an offer of a position on the Supreme Court.

Hillary doesn't want anything where the attachment "first woman to ever be..." can't be applied, so those positions won't be for her. And I don't think any other cabinet position would be powerful enough for her. My gut feeling is she will pass on federal posts and go for the Gov. of NY spot, where she can be another "first woman to ever," unless she gets the Senate majority leader position, which I doubt Reid will pass willingly.

Posted by: jgower1 | November 13, 2008 5:56 PM

As Sarah Palin said of Hillary "You go girl ... breaking that glass ceiling for me LEFT and RIGHT". Every time I hear Sarah speak ... I love Hillary more ... in her liitle glass ceiling. A shout out to you Sarah IT'S A CEILING ... not left or right.

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 5:56 PM

Well, she's already landed under sniper fire in a war zone to visit with foreign... oh wait, never mind.

Posted by: B2O2 | November 13, 2008 5:55 PM

Sofla, if people of New York are behind Mrs. Clinton after they experienced the obvious demolition of 9/11, then they deserved her, she deserved them, and should be left alone all-together to enjoy each other company.
Obama, I am very sure of it, would nor directly jeopardize his presidency inviting her to his cabinet.

Posted by: aepelbaum | November 13, 2008 5:54 PM

Beware of LEAKS, LEAKS LEAKS

Too many old Clinton appointees is not good for a new administration and fresh prospective on politics that is "not as usual"

Certainly, there has to be more talent in the DNC?!! I see some slam dunks at department of Veteran Affairs - Max Cleland and Tammy Duckworth ... LISTEN UP GEORGIA ... You can't disrespect your veterans and count yourselves as true patriots.

If "country first" and not red state/blue state politics ... you should have chosen Max Cleland in 2004

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 5:50 PM

see, this is the whole problem.Yes there are divisions within the party, just like there are good and bad in any organization.

HRC exploited those divisions in order to wrench the Democratic nomination away from Obama long long long after it was clear that she couldn't win, in part arguing that he could not win the Presidency because of those same divisions which made her #2 (note, not #1) in the Democratic primary.

This is all "forgetfulness" taken to the extreme.

Obama may nominate her to some nominal position but she's better off retaining her seat in the Senate and learning how to run a positive platform instead of being a Republican in a Democrats' costume. #1: that blackmail card has to go, #2 the "I'm owed it" also has to go.

Posted by: dubya19391 | November 13, 2008 5:49 PM

Sofla, C. Rice is simply the puppet of Bush family and our current Bush does not have any respect worldwide. It is well known. Besides, Mrs. Clinton, I think, much worse that these two. At least, everybody knows what to expect from Bush. But Mrs. Clinton perfected herself only in one thing; and this is the art of betrayal. And she is simply dumb. She was saying and doing such things during her primaries, which only very dumb person could have done; and such person should not be an official US face abroad. If Obama has no other choice than to promote her, he would have the very bad presidency, and he knows it well.

Posted by: aepelbaum | November 13, 2008 5:48 PM

Hillary would be good as she could "flush out" the neocons from the State Dept. Like crap left in a toilet bowl, they have to be flushed down the drain quickly to prevent even further damage. America's image is in shatters after 8 years of the Bush nightmare. Hillary would help restore integrity and a sense of intellectual depth to American foreign policy. However, I don't know that she would really want it. She is a United States Senator and the people of New York are solidly behind her. For her, why move?

Posted by: sofla | November 13, 2008 5:46 PM

OMG! The same lack of character, ill temper, and general imprudence that made her such a weak candidate for President, renders Senator Clinton unfit for Secretary of State. Good gads, who came up with this bizarre suggestion in the first place?

Had Hillary Rodham not married Bill Clinton she would not be a U.S. Senator, much less have run for President. She can make her greatest contributions to this nation as a U.S. Senator, must like Ted Kennedy has done. She has no place in the Executive Branch.

Posted by: dl49 | November 13, 2008 5:46 PM

"I absolutely LOVE that Obama could and has won the presidency, but, it was painful not seeing Hillary get there as well - the glass ceiling would've been shattered had she done so. And, lets face it folks, women are the best communicators, and, make the better emotional judgments of the genders to boot, therefore they make the better leader - except when they get there by imitating the worst "male traits"."

Minor sexism noted and indeed personally illustrating the reason why so many people don't want to see Hillary Clinton in any way, shape or form. It's not about her, or about women, or about "shattering glass ceilings". It's about finding someone who would project a good image of the US. Besides we've already had a female SoS. Did a good job, too. Maybe Clinton remembers her since her husband appointed her.

Posted by: dubya19391 | November 13, 2008 5:45 PM

Better idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

Time wounds all heels.

Posted by: bdunn1 | November 13, 2008 5:44 PM

Please --- Can't we leave just Hillary in the Senate where she can be an effective advocate for the issues that matter most to her ? she would be a horrible choice for Sec of State. Who would she be listening to and whose policies would she carry out the president's or the former president's? Sec of State would be almost as bad as a Supreme Court nomination. She is LESS qulified than Harriet Myers. Enough of thsi business taht Hillary is OWED something. Move on ---Please.

Posted by: jmsbh | November 13, 2008 5:42 PM

"After tough primaries, picking former presidential contender would go long way toward healing any remaining divisions within party."

...but those divisions are there BECAUSE of Hillary Clinton.

So let's make her Secretary of State!

Posted by: dubya19391 | November 13, 2008 5:41 PM

No. No. In fact, is this a joke?

Posted by: KathyWi | November 13, 2008 5:41 PM

vicbennettnet, why for the world Obama has ANY obligation to find place for Hillary Clinton? If she were able to handle any kind of pfficial top job reasonably, she would not have lost primaries in her situation of being the wife of one former president and the behind the scene main promoter of the other. Hillary Clinton ruined the presidency of her husband, she organized his half-impeachment. A lot of supporters of Obama were especially active because they wanted ANYBODY, but her. If he takes her in any position of his cabinet, he would jeopardize his presidency. He did not pick her as VP, when it was threatening his election, because he did not want to lose support of these people and because he cared of his own safety (in different order). Why for God's sake, would he damage his life and his presidency now?

Posted by: aepelbaum | November 13, 2008 5:40 PM

LarryG62 wrote:

Yeah, right, and the other nations of the world will bow down to a foul mouthed shrill who has no ethics, no morals and no integrity. Those people aren't too smart, but they're not that dumb either. You nitwit democrats ought to find some other way to mythically unite your party. After all, the messiah was supposed to be the great uniter wasn't he? Oh,that's right. That's just the media's take on the rookie. Silly me.
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Larry, they "bowed down" to GW Bush and Condi Rice didn't they? And, they were a lot worse then a Clinton ever was. So, what's the problem?

Posted by: sofla | November 13, 2008 5:40 PM

Forget "pulling the party together", imagine an intellectual liberal female instead of a conservative one with ties to Halliburton and big-oil in this posting, though this might make a nice side benefit. Also, it wouldn't hurt the image - Hillary is the thinking man's MEGA HOT-BABE! If you've never seen her college acceptance speech, hunt it down, she rips The-Powers-That-Be a new one!

I absolutely LOVE that Obama could and has won the presidency, but, it was painful not seeing Hillary get there as well - the glass ceiling would've been shattered had she done so. And, lets face it folks, women are the best communicators, and, make the better emotional judgments of the genders to boot, therefore they make the better leader - except when they get there by imitating the worst "male traits". Of course, that doesn't mean exceptional men couldn't occasionally reach lofty leadership positions - there'd always be a place for the exception. It'd be nice if we could all just throw away our socially-built prejudices and simply vote for the best candidate instead of counting their race, gender, family background or photogenic presence.(sigh)

Personally, I prefer motherland over fatherland - cause we live on Mother Earth after all is said and done!

Posted by: icurhuman2 | November 13, 2008 5:39 PM


Who has asked Obama? Who has asked Hillary? Who really knows what they are talking about?

Who is just BSing to manufacture "news"?

Too many media talking heads who usually let their lower oriface do most of their thinking and talking?

Posted by: wj_phillips | November 13, 2008 5:38 PM

Hillary would never pass the Messiah's questionnaire. Or is that just for the peons?

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | November 13, 2008 5:38 PM

Sen. Clinton is temperamentally unsuited for the position; she is too combative. More appropriate choices would be Bill Richardson, George Mitchell, Chuck Hagel or Madeleine Albright. Clinton is better suited to Health and Human Services given her interest and passion for the issue. If she won't take it, bring back Donna Shalala. Robert Reich would also provide a healthy dose of reality in these surreal times.

Posted by: mary-jocooney | November 13, 2008 5:36 PM

SarahBB wrote:

"You friggin' people are delusional. Blame all of Bush's follies on Clinton. Yeh, that's the ticket. Al Gore was weak. He didn't even carry Tennessee. Revisionist history is pathetic."


Uh, Sarah, I hate to break this to you, but even with Gore's less than stunning showing, he still won the pop. vote and would have probably won Florida, as well.
But really, that's the past. Let's deal with the here and now, shall we?

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | November 13, 2008 5:34 PM

Hillary Clinton would be a diaster as Secy. of State. In the White House, she was known as extremely difficult to work for, and very demanding when traveling abroad. As head of EEO policy in the Clinton Administration, she froze all assignments to so-called "threshhold" positions (assignments that could lead to promotion into the Senior Foreign Service) and reserved them exclusively for women and minorities. God help the white male Foreign Service Officers if she should become Secy. of State. As far as policy is concerned, she would substitute feel-good, "good relations" with countries for pursuit of U.S. national interests.

Posted by: diplomat | November 13, 2008 5:32 PM

Yeah, right, and the other nations of the world will bow down to a foul mouthed shrill who has no ethics, no morals and no integrity. Those people aren't too smart, but they're not that dumb either. You nitwit democrats ought to find some other way to mythically unite your party. After all, the messiah was supposed to be the great uniter wasn't he? Oh,that's right. That's just the media's take on the rookie. Silly me.

Posted by: LarryG62 | November 13, 2008 5:30 PM

Forgot to add... Obama has read "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Godwin and has been reported to have admired how Lincoln picked his cabinet. So picking Hillary for Secretary of State would make sense. Lincoln picked Seward for Secretary of State who had been favored to recieve the Republican nomination for President.

Posted by: KJS1956 | November 13, 2008 5:30 PM

I chose Senator Clinton to be my Secretary of State long before that jerk McCain took out all the competition within his own party. What a loser. Oh yea, did I tell you I changed parties ? I am one John Q. Public voting for Senator Clinton as Secretary of State. She is already connected.

Posted by: truthhurts | November 13, 2008 5:28 PM

But, if Hillary is out traveling all over the world what would Bill do with all that free time?

...oh, never mind!

Posted by: Phil6 | November 13, 2008 5:28 PM

She could do the job, but I just think she should wait and be the first Obama appointment to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: KJS1956 | November 13, 2008 5:27 PM

SarahBB wrote:

"You friggin' people are delusional. Blame all of Bush's follies on Clinton. Yeh, that's the ticket. Al Gore was weak. He didn't even carry Tennessee. Revisionist history is pathetic."

So SarahBB: You DON'T think Bush's election in 2000 was a reaction to Clinton's lack of morals? You don't think "Compassionate Conservatism" and "restoring values/dignity to the White House" were carefully chosen themes of Bush the Second's election? That he could have run on those same themes in 2004 or 2008 and still would have won, no matter what the global or domestic circumstances were?

Also, thanks for your thoughtful response. Well spoken.

Gore was not weak. Just like John McCain--who barely won his home state--Gore was forced to run away from the president rather than run with him. Bush the First ran and won almost entirely because he portrayed his election as a continuation of the Reagan years. Neither Gore nor McCain had that luxury due to the popular ill-will towards the presidents under which they served. Gore was the only incumbent VP to lose during a booming economy, ever.

Whether you choose to blame Gore the candidate or credit Bush the candidate is irrelevant. They both ran the campaigns that they did in direct response to Clinton's behavior.

Revise that!

Posted by: KobayashiMaru | November 13, 2008 5:22 PM

I am not for Hillary Clinton being Secretary of State. I can understand Obama being under some pressure to find something for Hillary to do, but in my opinion, I would only appoint a person because I know they would be perfect and be reliable. I would not appoint anyone because other folks think she is good enough.
I hope Obama uses his own judgment!

Posted by: vicbennettnet | November 13, 2008 5:22 PM

I take it Al, you had nothing better to do today, and even less to write about, so you chose to engage in pure made-up gossip, much like any other "celebrity" reporter.

Posted by: infuse | November 13, 2008 5:21 PM

Given her interest in health care, HRC would be more appropriate for Sec'y of Health & Human Services than Sec'y of State.

I voted for Kerry in '04 but I would NOT want him to be Sec'y of State. In my opinion, he doesn't have the temperament for that position.

Posted by: ntuma1 | November 13, 2008 5:21 PM

hey ChangeWhat
Nice to see you have such kind words for "our" new president-elect and his wife. Can't get over always being wrong, huh? Guess you'll miss ole' W and Cheney?

Posted by: RodneyK | November 13, 2008 5:21 PM

Hillary for Governor of New York

Universal Health Care Czar

Not in Cabinet ... Joe the Biden will be upstaged.

It will be very very hard for Obama to get her out of Cabinet once she is in.

The country is in too much of a mess for a one term President ... and Hillary and Bill will such up all the available oxygen for the rest of Obama's appointees.

If she gets it though ... she is on fertile ground for campaigning for 2012!!

Don't do it Barack!! You have alot to prove to even those in your party who said that the country will be in better hands if McCain had won because he and Hillary worked well across the legislative aisle.

I like Hillary more than Sarah Palin ... and she deserves any good position she gets ... but, we don't want to give "talk radio" and "Fox" too much red meat going forward.

Distracting!!

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 5:18 PM

Now THERE'S a fine reason for selecting a Secretary of State!

because it "would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries."

Posted by: DonR | November 13, 2008 5:16 PM

Yonkers, New York
14 November 2008

It is obvious that as far as qualified candidates for a Barack Obama cabinet are concerned, he is confronted by "an embarrassment of riches."

Those mentioned in this post are all qualified to be Secretary of State, including Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

My first choice, however, would be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: MPatalinjug | November 13, 2008 5:14 PM

I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, but I respect her substantial abilities. There's no doubt she could handle the job. She is intelligent, knowledgeable about world affairs and hard as nails when she has to be - all the requirements to be Secretary of State.

Posted by: Diogenes | November 13, 2008 5:13 PM

Nope. She'll be Obama's running mate in 2012

Posted by: BigB1 | November 13, 2008 5:12 PM

Mrs. Clinton is the very bad choice for any position, where it is necessary to present USA image. She is extremely aggressive, and she is not smart, just vice versa. That is why she lost primaries, and Obama did not pick her up for VP. He would not pick her up for any position with any weight. If he did, he would lose his own rating and popularity in no time. He knows it very wellby now. Give it rest, numerous supporters of Mrs. Clinton on this board. If she fits one of essential government's position, she would not have lost the primaries and furthermore. The greatest damage, which her behind the scenes power brought to the country and the world, we are experiencing right now and would for a serious while of time in the future. SHE DOES NOT FIT any important position, any position with power at all. Let her continue her senatorship, while it lasts, if she is lucky not meet with impeachment. I am sure that she does not fit these senatorial shoes also, but it is up to New Yorkers.

Posted by: aepelbaum | November 13, 2008 5:12 PM

I don't much care for Hillary Clinton, but I respect her substantial abilities. There's no doubt she could handle the job. She is intelligent, knowledgeable about world affairs and hard as nails when she has to be - all the requirements to be Secretary of State.

Posted by: Diogenes | November 13, 2008 5:11 PM

i think the campaign itself healed any remaining "rifts" between team clinton and team obama...there are no further obligations in my mind...if you want to ask "who would be the ideal candidate to lead foggy bottom"? i would respond: al gore...

Posted by: coastaldude | November 13, 2008 5:11 PM

And timothyjones, how much longer do we have to listen to misognynistic Hillary haters a-holes like yourself, huh? SHEESH-YOU GET OVER IT!

HILLARY CAN RUN RINGS AROUND OBAMA, IN LAW AND POLITICS AND WORLD AFFAIRS-IT'S FOR SURE SHE DIDN'T THINK, LIKE OBAMA, THAT THERE WERE "57 STATES" GOOD GOD!

AND SHE WOULD HAVE WON, IF SHE HADN'T HAD A CAMPAIGN STAFF THAT SABOTAGED HER OPERATIONS-BUT WHEN SHE DID LOSE, SHE WENT OUT WITH BILL AND CAMPAIGNED LIKE HELL FOR THAT UNGRATE OBAMA.

SHE DESERVES TO BE SEC. OF STATE, AND SHE IS BEING SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED FOR THAT ROLE, SHE IS IMMINENTLY QUALIFIED.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | November 13, 2008 5:05 PM

What has Hillary done that qualifies her to be a Supreme Court justice? I mean she has never been any type of judge and it has been a very long time since she was a practicing attorney
----------

Perhaps she is a "unique talent."

Paul Bremner, on paper, looks to be a genius; the next sec of state will have to clean his up failure, the worst in American history.

Clinton is highly intelligent, understands American political theory, and is capable of producing workable policy in the Middle East. She would also be able to bring on the right staff.

And god knows she can handle incoming, watching YOUR back, as well as Obama's.

I dont think this stands a chance, but if it did, he could have done worse.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | November 13, 2008 5:04 PM

In Cabinet
HILLARY WILL BE A DISTRACTION
Please President Elect Obama - Don't do it!! The media will have a field day or field term comparing you with the Clintons ...and the whole gender thing will raise its ugly head again.

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 5:00 PM

For pity's sake, people, get over it already:

She wasn't the nominee, she wasn't the VP pick, she isn't likely a serious contender for Secretary of State, or Defense, or Treasury...are we going to trot out this woman's name every time there's a vacancy in the Obama Administration???

There is no lingering cathartic moment here --the man had a landslide victory.

How much longer are we expected to drag out more of the same old drudge --this is the White House, not the Lord of the Rings.

Sheesh.

Posted by: htimothyjones | November 13, 2008 4:59 PM

No. Hillary would not accept the AG position-she's totally wrong for that. They need a real ballbreaker over there, the corruption is SO endemic at DOJ, it's going to take YEARS to overcome what is happened to that Dept.-I think someone like Deval Patrick, formerly the head of DOJ Civil Rights, who is thoroughly familiar with the corruptness of the DOJ ethic, and who left because of it, would be an excellent choice to come back and kick the hell out of the remaining unethical a-holes at Justice who refuse to see the handwriting on the wall.

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | November 13, 2008 4:58 PM

What has Hillary done that qualifies her to be a Supreme Court justice? I mean she has never been any type of judge and it has been a very long time since she was a practicing attorney. There are much more qualified progressives out there for any positions that open up.

Posted by: bs3330a | November 13, 2008 4:55 PM

The WHOLE world respects Hillary-the new prime minister of Nepal actually said that he wished HRC would be president, because he thought the US needed a female president-who would have thought that? Hillary is familiar with EVERYONE in the Middle East-she is friends with Suha Arafat, Yasser Arafat's wife, she knows the ins and outs of the Palestinian West Bank issue LIKE NOBODY, and of course she is highly respected in Israel as well-NO ONE, NO ONE IS BETTER QUALIFIED FOR THIS POSITION-WRITE TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN AND URGE THEM TO CHOOSE HILLARY FOR SEC. OF STATE-A BRILLIANT CHOICE!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | November 13, 2008 4:54 PM

HRC would make a great Attorney General. It will take someone with a spine of steel to clean up the snakepit of corruption and incompetence at the Justice Department. HRC fits that bill perfectly. She is too abbrasive to be a good Secretary of State. Being abbrasive is not a problem for an Attorney General. Plus, she has been a working lawyer, but never a working diplomat. After her "sniper fire" incident, she would be ridiculed wherever she traveled abroad. At home, she could be a pit bull in litigating on behalf of average Americans and she would have the stones to clean house at Justice.

Posted by: dolph924 | November 13, 2008 4:54 PM

If Secretary of State Hillary WILL BE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

Now back to the ECONOMY ... Now that the election is out of the way ... I think the FBI should vigorously pursue puuting some of these Wall Street thieves behind bars.

What they did ... is not right ... some peole should go to jail for this!!

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 4:50 PM

"May 2003: "A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.""

Of course you ignore the fact that the American people supported the war after being force fed a massive dose of propaganda from the Bush administration that included false intelligence and fed on the justifiable rage over 9/11. But you had to make your point look good right?

Posted by: hdimig | November 13, 2008 4:48 PM

YES! YES! YES! EXCELLENT CHOICE! On the NY Times website, pick your Cabinet, HRC is who I chose for State. And it's funny, today, talking to my Jordanian born and raised hairdresser he and all his cronies really love Hillary-I've said it many many times on this site, I have traveled all over the world, and when I go to Chiang Mai Thailand, I see HRC's pictures on the wall of a restaurant, in a jewelry shop in India, in Morrocco when she was there, in Nepal when she was on an elephant with Chelsea in the incomparable Chitwan National Park, a UNESCO world heritage site, EVERYWHERE I GO, THEY TELL ME, WE LOVE HILLARY-THERE IS NO BETTER CANDIDATE FOR SEC. OF STATE THAN HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON-SHE KNOWS THE WORLD, AND THE WORLD LOVES HER!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | November 13, 2008 4:47 PM

Republicans caused the economic crisis and I use FOX news web site to validate the claim...I will repost this and spam it on this board untill every lying neocon leaves....

AP IMPACT: Mortgage firm arranged stealth campaign
Monday, October 20, 2008

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON — Freddie Mac secretly paid a Republican consulting firm $2 million to kill legislation that would have regulated and trimmed the mortgage finance giant and its sister company, Fannie Mae, three years before the government took control to prevent their collapse.

In the cross hairs of the campaign carried out by DCI of Washington were Republican senators and a regulatory overhaul bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. DCI's chief executive is Doug Goodyear, whom John McCain's campaign later hired to manage the GOP convention in September.

Freddie Mac's payments to DCI began shortly after the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee sent Hagel's bill to the then GOP-run Senate on July 28, 2005. All GOP members of the committee supported it; all Democrats opposed it.

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, or his lobbying firm has taken more than $2 million from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating to 2000. In December, Freddie Mac contributed $250,000 to last month's GOP convention.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Oct20/0,4670,TheInfluenceGameHousing,00.html

Posted by: garygelormino1 | November 13, 2008 4:44 PM

Yeah, the most divisive politician we've seen in years would really be appropriate for bringing people together ... not!

Posted by: amhmd | November 13, 2008 4:43 PM

after the primaries??? hello ... obama won a commanding GENERAL election. while he should help hilary retire some of her campaign debt, appointing her secretary of state would be incredibly polarizing.

Posted by: judgesmails | November 13, 2008 4:43 PM

me: "But please please please, no foreign policy posts for people who supported invading Iraq. That rules out Biden too."

hdimig: 'Kerry too. We should get over that Iraq vote.'

Sure. Kerry too. I have no problem with that. Kerry's support for the invasion makes him a bad candidate for Sec of State, absolutely. Why should we forget the Iraq vote? Should we let all the criminals out of prison too?

'Bush is the one to blame for Iraq. No one else.'

Rubbish. Total garbage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_of_invasion_of_Iraq

May 2003: "A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war."

Most Americans didn't really mind being lied to about WMD, so long as they thought Iraq was being subdued.
The vast majority of Americans did not turn against the war in 2003-4, when it became obvious there was no WMD. They continued to support it.
They turned against the war in 2005-6, when it became obvious their conquest was an expensive, embarrassing failure and a quagmire.

Facts are facts, and the American public can't rewrite history to hide their own role.

Posted by: bourassa1 | November 13, 2008 4:43 PM

Gore Bore!! Gore Bore!! - I don't think so for Secretary of State ... The environment is ticking along even if Gore puts me to sleep. We all hope for a Democratic Alaskan Senator ... If not lets get Alaska to make and store more ice North as a way to prevent global warming. Don't laugh "it's a job ..." and we are all about creating more and greener jobs.

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 4:42 PM

Warren Christopher is out of the picture. He is really old enough to make McCain seem young. If I was Hillary I would just stay in the Senate and get my years in. If I were her it would be the Supreme Court or the Senate.

Posted by: bradcpa | November 13, 2008 4:42 PM

I think that Hillary Clinton is a poor choice for Secretary of State.

I actually support Hegel. He's the right man, he has the experience and the knowledge, and Joe Biden can't be in two places at once. Ergo, Choose Hegel.

Posted by: Balabanto | November 13, 2008 4:41 PM

Once again the best man for the job is a Woman!

Posted by: rjclay | November 13, 2008 4:35 PM

I have to agree with the person/people who question the notion that there is division within the Democratic Party. Hello, Al and Phil-you guys were awake last Tuesday, right? Division my butt.

I like Richardson for State. Always have, always will.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | November 13, 2008 4:32 PM

The past is past. There is absolutely no need to pander to the Clintons any longer. Secretary of State? Upon what basis?

Posted by: rwb1122 | November 13, 2008 4:31 PM

NOT TOO MANY Clintonians - reinforcing that no one else have the experience.

So Caroline Kennedy has the UN locked up ... I suggest that you either make Hillary the HEALTH CARE CZAR - this will ceratininly change the issue/subject if Hillary gets a chance in 2016. Or as I said before the SUPREME COURT.

Do we send diplomats to Alaska ... Is that another country?

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 4:31 PM

Keep all our Senators where we need them. Gore would be great. I like the Idea of Hillary on the Supreme Court too, eventually.

Posted by: jallem | November 13, 2008 4:28 PM

Now I know that Bill could not be President again-And as such neither should Hillary!

But, is there anything that States a Former President;

Can't be a Secretary of State?

C'mon Dimocrats, stop falling for your own tripe! It was never about Hilldebeast! It was about Slick!

Well, now you can start using his REAL Name again!

Let's face it. If the Dimocratsv want to capitulate, Concede, and Beg;

NOBODY has Perfected Apologies BETTER, than Slick Willie! ;~)

Posted by: SAINT---The | November 13, 2008 4:23 PM

Love the Hill . Al Gore would be great . Richardson is not bad either .

Posted by: jerseydevil | November 13, 2008 4:22 PM

Actually, after the inaugeration, Obama could name Biden as Secretary of State. Biden would resign as Vice President, and Obama would name Hillary Clinton to become Vice President.

Posted by: maggots | November 13, 2008 4:21 PM

THIS WILL BE A HUGE MISTAKE The position of Secretary of State is an image that belongs to a NEW ADMINISTRATION not the Clinton Administration.

Put her away in the Supreme Court ... we need more good women in the Court ... and maybe in a close election we can give it to Sarah Palin.

My last statement is a joke!!

Posted by: amitchell13 | November 13, 2008 4:21 PM

My husband and I have been having this debate since June. I believe there are more opportunities for Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State than in the senate: help negotiate the end of the Iraq war; promote peace in the Middle East; rebuild our reputation among our allies and foes; defuse hostilities with Iran, Syria, and Venezuela; and restore confidence in the US among the members of the UN.

Posted by: jandcgall1 | November 13, 2008 4:19 PM

How about BILL CLINTON for Attorney General. Or better yet: SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

Posted by: TOMHERE | November 13, 2008 4:18 PM

Though it seems to me that Hillary's best skills are as a senator, appointing her Secretary of State would fit The Team of Rivals profile. If Obama is really comfortable with her there, fine, but he shouldn't get hung up with Goodwin's idealized conception. Another poster's comment about HHS seemed closer to the mark, in any event, for me.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | November 13, 2008 4:16 PM

I would select Sarah Palin.

Look at all that cramming of foreign policy information that she did for the campaign. She can probably name all the continents from memory! Top that, Al Gore!

Posted by: maggots | November 13, 2008 4:16 PM

Hillary's first act as Sec State will be to stop the deportation of BO's illegal aunt who is now living in Chicago under federal protection. Of course BO will also bring all of his relatives from Kenya.

Posted by: KBlit | November 13, 2008 4:14 PM

Oh, no. Richardson for Secretary of State. Hillary for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted by: SarahBB | November 13, 2008 4:12 PM

"Without Bill's stain on the nation, we would have enjoyed at least 4 Gore years. 9/11 still would have happened, but we wouldn't have invaded Iraq to get revenge."

You friggin' people are delusional. Blame all of Bush's follies on Clinton. Yeh, that's the ticket. Al Gore was weak. He didn't even carry Tennessee. Revisionist history is pathetic.

Posted by: hdimig | November 13, 2008 4:09 PM

KobayashiMaru said:
"Without Bill's stain on the nation, we would have enjoyed at least 4 Gore years. 9/11 still would have happened, but we wouldn't have invaded Iraq to get revenge."
----
That's just the thing, 9-11 would NOT have happened on Gore's watch. His Admionistration would have reacted properly to the perfectly clear intelligence about what was about to happen. Bush, or rather his neo-con puppet masters LET IT HAPPEN in order to grab more power and achieve their plan for the American Rapture.

Posted by: VMR1 | November 13, 2008 4:06 PM

Sorry, Hillary would be a mistake. Obama got elected as a loopy left wing socialist. He needs a loopy left wing socialist to project his image abroad and to cozy up to people like Chavez and communist China for more financial bailouts his deficit spending progrms will incur.

So on the list of loopy left wing socialists we have: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Brown, Dennis Kusinich. Any of those guys would be much more likely to be able to pass the hope bong to the drum circle of the world than moderate Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Wiggan | November 13, 2008 4:06 PM

"As far a I know he's not a muslim" Remember that one Obama? Please say "no" to this ghastly, bitter woman. She has zero diplomatic skills and a massive axe to grind. Remember you were elected for CHANGE --

Posted by: dbunkr | November 13, 2008 4:06 PM

Remember with Hillary you get Bill. And BO will have trouble keeping either one in check. Since Hillary is waiting to run in 2012.......................!

Posted by: KBlit | November 13, 2008 4:05 PM

You are insane.

Posted by: jcarte5 | November 13, 2008 4:03 PM

Actually, my right wing friends should know that Obama is going to nominate Bill Ayers for Secretary of State! They were right all along about Ayers - he was alwasy Obama's close confident and advisor. And now Ayers is going to fill the State Department with all of his fellow terrorists, socialists, and leftists!! Why oh why didn't we listen to you guys before the election!!

Ha ha, just a little joke.

Posted by: maggots | November 13, 2008 4:03 PM

"But please please please, no foreign policy posts for people who supported invading Iraq. That rules out Biden too."

Kerry too. We should get over that Iraq vote. Who knows how Obama would have voted if he were in the Senate. Bush is the one to blame for Iraq. No one else.

Posted by: hdimig | November 13, 2008 4:02 PM

I'd rather see her appointed to the Supreme Court. That mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted by: mitchellowens | November 13, 2008 4:00 PM

ECHOING HERZLIEBSTER: CHANGEWHAT - YOU LOST!!!!!! GO BACK TO LOOKING FOR COMMIES AND PINKOS UNDER YOUR BED.

LEAVE HILLARY IN THE SENATE.

A NAME I HAVEN'T HEARD MUCH IS WESLEY CLARK.
SUPREME COMMANDER OF NATO, 1ST IN HIS CLASS AT WEST POINT, COULDN'T WE USE MORE COMPETENCE AND INTELLIGENCE IN THE CABINET AFTER THE LAST 8 YEARS OF IDIOTS?

Posted by: mikedooley | November 13, 2008 4:00 PM

Either Bill Clinton or Bill Richardson would be a better choice for Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton has a much more important role to play as part of the Senate leadership. I hope she either wrests the majority leader position from Harry Reid or supersedes Biden/Byrd as chairman of the Foreign relations/appropriations committees.

Posted by: siris | November 13, 2008 3:58 PM

I like Hillary but I have six words: Al Gore, Al Gore, Al Gore.

The whole world likes him. How could we NOT ask him to be Secretary of State?

Hillary was divisive before the campaign, and it was primarily the right-wing commentators who were egging her and her campaign on. They wanted her to be the nominee, so they could run against a Clinton one last time.

Hillary was divisive at the end of the campaign, and she seemed bitter and a bit mean.

Hillary is not a diplomat, and Bill will always be better received than she is, no matter where they go.

Sorry, Hill. It's so unfair. It really is. You deserve much more and much better than Bill, who I also like, but his Slick Willie cost us ten precious years of political, economic, international capital.

Without Bill's stain on the nation, we would have enjoyed at least 4 Gore years. 9/11 still would have happened, but we wouldn't have invaded Iraq to get revenge.

Posted by: KobayashiMaru | November 13, 2008 3:57 PM

Bill Clinton or Bill Richardson would be a better choices for Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton has a much more important role to play as part of the Senate leadership. I hope she either wrests the majority leader position from Harry Reid or supersedes Biden/Byrd as chairman of the Foreign relations/appropriations committees.

Posted by: siris | November 13, 2008 3:56 PM

That would be a disaster. Hillary's foreign policy is closer to McCain's than to Obama's. Recall that the biggest issue that distinguished the two candidates was their support -- or not -- for the Iraq war. Clinton is far too hawkish and doesn't have Obama's 21st century vision of the world. She would be last on my list for this job -- though she'd be fine in just about any domestic post. How about Attorney General?

Posted by: francissheed | November 13, 2008 3:54 PM

Another slow day in the newsroom. Anything for a little excitement even if it has no basis in reality. You over paid WP employees need to get a real job!

Posted by: NewEra | November 13, 2008 3:51 PM

Don't really know for certain whether Hillary Clinton would prove a net asset in getting a major progressive health care measure through the Senate, but I suspect she would play it right this time and reap the acclaim of herself and her party for generations to come.

Secretary of State? Too much history already, as other contributors have asserted. Of course her service in this post would prove popular for women at home and abroad, and women need a Hillary sort of model. But the universalizing of health care seems like a better fit.

What's more, Barack Obama may want to make sure that his Secretary of State supports him fully and steps back out of the spotlight if he should decide or be pressed to undertake an important initiative in the course of his tenure.

Posted by: FirstMouse1 | November 13, 2008 3:51 PM

Yes, Yes and YEEEES !!

She will be great !!!

Posted by: mewindows | November 13, 2008 3:46 PM

Hillary is best suited right where she is, representing the people of New York that elected her. The Hillary-Bill diplomatic tag team at State Dept is just too much drama for me to think about. One president at a time, advocating one foreign policy at at time is essential and Bill and Hillary running around the world could be a disaster. Hillary: do everyone a favor and stay right where you are. You're a great senator.

Posted by: gjhinnova | November 13, 2008 3:44 PM

So far I haven't heard any name that gives me the warm and fuzzies. Hillary Clinton? BAD IDEA! At the very least you need an individual of some stature who will implement your policies and not freelance. HRC would be a very risky choice. Better that Obama picks some eminence grise such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or even Kenneth Adelman. I would even prefer Chuck Hagel, another bipartisan choice.

HRC by all accounts is an effective force in the Senate. Obama is probably better off keeping her there to help push through major programs such as health care reform.

Posted by: TBadonsky | November 13, 2008 3:43 PM

Unite the party? You've got to be kidding. If he didn't need to make her VP to unite the party, why on earth would he have to make her Secretary of State to unite the party? This is dumb on too many levels to count.

If he really wanted to bring a Clinton back into his cabinet, he ought to appoint Bill as Secretary of State, not Hillary. If were willing to stick with adminstration policy and resist the tempation to grandstand, Bill might actually be pretty good at this. He'd also be very tempted to accept such a position as he's jonesing heavily to be Secretary General of the U.N. and Secretary of State would be a great springboard.

And while we're apointing cabinet positions, Gore ought to be at least offered the head of the EPA. While not strictly a cabinet position, it's usually treated like one. He might refuse but offering seems only fair!

Posted by: anon99 | November 13, 2008 3:42 PM

Egos??? WoW folks need to really sit back and examine who is really on the EGO Trip! Clinton probably could care less of being in Obama's cabinet! Matter of fact she should stay way out of it so he may sink or swim on his own! We all need to be very careful of passing worship around on Obama's behalf! We have four years to sit back and watch what he does, my thoughts he won't do half as many things as he has promised!

Posted by: CashNDC | November 13, 2008 3:42 PM

So, to be a member of the Marxist's Washington cult you will be required to complete a questionnaire including past associations, radical acquaintances, etc.

You have to know that the more Racist, South Chicago Political Thug Felons, Radical, Communists, ACORN buds, etc. the better the odds you will gain a high level position.

The Marxist will promote those most like him. Cold, Arrogant, Manipulative, Creepy, Thug Like, Deceitful, Anti Capitalist, etc and if you have a very angry racist wife you are in....

Posted by: ChangeWhat
________________________________________________________________

ChangeWhat, I agree with you post except for one thing, Bush et al is not from South Chicago. He hails from New England but claims TX. But everything else you said about him is 100% accurate.

Posted by: jabreal00 | November 13, 2008 3:40 PM

"Clinton has long been known for her work on women's rights". Indeed!

Have you Clintonistas got any idea of the job description for a Secretary of State? We all know that poor Hillary's "international experience" is limited to imaginary sniper fire.

Posted by: dunnhaupt | November 13, 2008 3:40 PM

As much as I supported Hillary at the beginning of her campaign, and as much as I am a feminist, I would hate to see Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. She was bitter and mean towards the end of her campaign to gain the democratic nomination that she almost split the party in half! and let's not forget, she voted for the Iraq war!!!! I'm afraid she will start another war - rush into it more likely - if she's at the head of the State Department, with Iran or Syria or whoever is on the radar nowadays because of the hate mongering and the politics of fear that has ruled this country for the last 8 years. I would support Kerry, or, if Obama wants to be bipartisan as he says he will, why not appoint Collin Powell! Powell will be perfect for the job...even though he made that big blunder we all know...but I truly believe he learned from his mistakes, he supports talks with hostile nations without pre-conditions (a must in the world of diplomacy), and he supported Obama's candidacy in spite of his party affiliation. He has integrity, though lapsed at one point - but we need to forgive and move on - he has experience and expertise, and he is capable. His appointment would show the Americans and the World, that the Obama administration is about real change and would put talent, qualifications, and the best interests of the country before party affiliation. It would prove how great a visionary is President Obama and his willingness to look beyond past mistakes. (Though I hope he would not be as forgiving towards Joe Lieberman the traitor!).

Posted by: genevieve2000 | November 13, 2008 3:39 PM

It's a no-brainer: Hillary as SecState and Bill as special envoy to the middle east.

They'd be very good at that.

While it'd be nice to reward Richardson or Kerry for their loyalty, you can't beat the Clintons for brainpower, tenacity, and experience.

Just do it.

Posted by: jrob822 | November 13, 2008 3:38 PM

Put Hillary in Healthcare, but keep her out of Sec of State position. In what seemed like her attempt to prove that her femininity was not an obstacle to being Commander in Chief, she seems to have left thoughtfulness aside to be more hawkish than the hawks. Same with people like Holbrooke who are just Democratic Party Neocons, preparing the field for more war, this time against Iran. I think in Foreign Policy, if not new blood, we need people with fresh ideas and a bold and enlightened approach to the rest of the world. Why do I only hear about Dennis Ross as Mideast advisor? Wasn't he the guy that was rambling off on NPR about how Arabs are whiners, exaggerating their victimization? Don't we need people with empathy for all to establish some credibility in that important part of the world? And who advised Obama on telling AIPAC he supports a united Israeli capital in Jerusalem? Last I heard this was a dealbreaker for the side the Israelis are supposed to be trying to reach an agreement with. New thinking please. We don't need more of the same.

Posted by: petunia39 | November 13, 2008 3:37 PM

Speak for yourself, Bourassa of London (really???).

Posted by: ninahagen | November 13, 2008 3:35 PM

You don't want to take any senators out of the senate if you can help it. Leave Hillary there for Health Care - pick someone else.

Posted by: agapn9 | November 13, 2008 3:34 PM

If you want a Clinton as SecState, there's already one unemployed and available -- Bill!

Posted by: ponpal | November 13, 2008 3:33 PM

Clinton for Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by: JPRS | November 13, 2008 3:33 PM

Hilary Clinton's ego makes me uneasy...I don't think feeding it with this assignment would be benefit mankind. And then there's Bill right behind her schmoozing his way around the world doing deals. I think it best if we try to keep these two closer to home where they can do less damage.

Posted by: mrvance | November 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Surely, you gest. Need we go into supoenas, Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc? We want an easy confirmation and and a closet Arabist, for a change.

Posted by: lockmallup | November 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Just a reminder to all - Barack Obama is technically a baby boomer, being born in 1961. He's a young baby boomer, but he's still a baby boomer - born between 1946-1964. And with that criteria, Sarah Palin is also a baby boomer - a young one, even younger than Obama.

If you're looking to get away from the boomers, take a look at Bobby Jindal. He's a member of "Generation X."

Posted by: StageMom | November 13, 2008 3:28 PM

Bad move to toss all cabinet (and even transition) positions to senators. The mantra is change and you go in for current senators and Clinton-era officials? And why the obsession with the Clintons, anyway? Let us finally move on.

Posted by: anon26 | November 13, 2008 3:27 PM

I could see Hilary as secretary of state. First she'll have to promise no more episodes of ducking sniper fire unless she has the bullets to prove it.

Posted by: tydicea | November 13, 2008 3:26 PM


Cohen's suggestion of Al Gore was as good as any I've heard.

Posted by: tperry1 | November 13, 2008 3:24 PM

ChangeWhat, you lost. Because the majority of voters didn't believe the bilge you are slinging. Thank God, because that's what it is, bilge.

Posted by: herzliebster | November 13, 2008 3:23 PM

This piece by Kamen and Rucker makes no sense. At least not for Obama. Get over Hillary, the party is united.

Posted by: davidbindavid | November 13, 2008 3:23 PM

But some of us actually want her in the Senate. She is the type of policy wonk who belongs there, thinking through thorny issues and crafting legislative solutions. I can't imagine why Obama would go to all of the trouble of beating her and then ask her to be in his Cabinet.

Posted by: fmjk | November 13, 2008 3:22 PM

People might WANT to see her as Senate Majority Leader, but that post is based on seniority, and in spite of her high name-recognition etc. etc. she has very little seniority in the Senate.

That doesn't mean she couldn't make a splendid career there, and possibly step into Ted Kennedy's shoes as the Liberal Lion. If I were Hillary Clinton, I think that's the basket I'd put my eggs in. I think she's too much interested in hands-on politics to be attracted to a Supreme Court position. And I don't see her as a Cabinet secretary, even of such an eminent department as State. She's not a bureaucrat or a diplomat; she's fundamentally a policy wonk and a fighter, and highly ambitious and accustomed to leading and getting her own way. She doesn't want to be anybody's appointee or team member, however lofty. I don't see her anywhere but the legislature or the chief executive.

Posted by: herzliebster | November 13, 2008 3:20 PM

HillZILLA lost so she gets nothing. There are no divisions - only the wishful thinking of Clintonites.

Posted by: knowbody0 | November 13, 2008 3:19 PM

Surely, surely, there are other people to consider, for example--people who are under the age of 35. We need new blood and new ideas....get new people, please...and get rid of the boomers! all of them....well ok, at least a lot of them.

Posted by: natirvin | November 13, 2008 3:17 PM

"Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women's issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama's efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide."

Rubbish. Outside the US, Hillary is known for exactly four things.

1. Pushing a doomed attempt to reform US healthcare.

2. Getting cheated on by her husband.

3. Running an aggressive, slightly dodgy primary campaign against Obama.

4. Rattling the sabre like a Republican, and supporting the Iraq war ... without having bothered to read the intelligence.

Al Kamen and Philip Rucker are in Washington, and like everyone there, they have a confused idea of what raises and lowers US standing around the world.
I'm in London, England, and I'm telling you, putting Iraq perpetrators in foreign policy posts is not the path to rebuilding international respect.

Obama became popular in America partly because he was black. He became popular early outside America ENTIRELY because he was the only leading US politician who'd opposed invading Iraq.

Posted by: bourassa1 | November 13, 2008 3:16 PM

So, to be a member of the Marxist's Washington cult you will be required to complete a questionnaire including past associations, radical acquaintances, etc.

You have to know that the more Racist, South Chicago Political Thug Felons, Radical, Communists, ACORN buds, etc. the better the odds you will gain a high level position.

The Marxist will promote those most like him. Cold, Arrogant, Manipulative, Creepy, Thug Like, Deceitful, Anti Capitalist, etc and if you have a very angry racist wife you are in....

Posted by: ChangeWhat | November 13, 2008 3:14 PM

No frills- it's just a bad idea. She doesn't really have Secretary of State Experience- except if you remember the sniper fire in Bosnia. Let Obama pick people who will be able to to the job and aren't into self-promotion. And if you think Hillary is "over" all of that you probably believed the sniper story.

Posted by: poppysue85 | November 13, 2008 3:13 PM

If Hillary shot down talk of a Supreme Court appointment, why on earth would she take the State job, or any cabinet post for that matter? At least on the court, she would be able to render decisions that really make a difference in people's lives.

Posted by: pgiaquinto | November 13, 2008 3:11 PM

"Um, Uh, Hill-a-ry? What DOO we DOO?"


By mentioning the 3 a.m. phone call -- conjuring up images of Fred Armisen and Amy Poehler's Saturday Night Live's scathingly hilarious set-up -- the Al and Phil Show may have just put the kibosh on Hill as SecState.

She could have a greater impact in the Senate anyway. Many Dems would like to see her as majority leader -- sooner rather than later.

She probably wouldn't budge for anything less than the next seat on the Supreme Court, the only position short of POTUS where she could make her mark on history.


BUT WILL THE ELECTION EVEN MATTER?

Not as long as government-supported "extrajudicial targeting" vigilante squads are "community stalking" American citizens, making a mockery of the rule of law:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/american-gestapo-state-supported-terrorism-targets-u-s-citizens

OR members.nowpublic.com/scrivener


Posted by: scrivener50 | November 13, 2008 3:09 PM

I'm all in favor of tossing goodies to Hillary, who campaigned like a trooper.

But please please please, no foreign policy posts for people who supported invading Iraq. That rules out Biden too.

It would be a horrible signal to send to the world.

People who facilitated that invasion, like Colin Powell, rightfully belong in prison. People who voted for it perhaps can't be charged, but they should at least be kept away from foreign policy.

If Obama has the balls, let him offer her healthcare. If she has balls, she'll accept it. Healthcare costs have more than doubled since she last tried. Why should she slink away and admit that Gingrich beat her? She was right on this issue in '93, let her fight it to the finish now. THAT would show some real backbone and character.

No Iraq criminals in foreign policy posts, I beg you, Obama.

Posted by: bourassa1 | November 13, 2008 3:09 PM

I would make Biden Secretary of State. I know, he's Veep, but it doesn't say you can't do both.

Veep is a waste of his talent. Palin is qualified to be Veep. Biden is over-qualified to be Veep.

Posted by: blasmaic | November 13, 2008 3:01 PM

I wonder if that's the same "chatter" that said Warren Christopher would be heading the State transition team?

Posted by: djbeec | November 13, 2008 2:57 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company