Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton To State?

The New York Times is reporting that Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to accept the offer from President-elect Barack Obama to serve as secretary of State.

The Obama transition team is offering no public statement and Clinton Senate spokesman Philippe Reines told the Post's Anne Kornblut: "We're still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature."

One Clinton loyalist reached Friday wouldn't confirm that Clinton had decided to accept but did say: "It seems more likely today, versus a few days ago, that she will accept."

As we wrote late last week, there are strong arguments for and against Clinton as Secretary of State. And, whether or not Clinton has decided to accept the position as of today, there is NO dispute from either side that the process is moving in the right direction and she is almost certain to be announced post-Thanksgiving. (Yes, if you are wondering, that makes all of this back and forth today the definition of much ado about nothing.)

We want to hear from you on the prospect of Clinton as secretary of State. A good choice? A bad development? Or wait and see?

The comments section awaits.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 21, 2008; 4:28 PM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gaspard to be White House Political Director
Next: Fix Pick: Brooks on the Transition

Comments

This is the first big mistake that Obama has made. This one will haunt him in the coming year.

Hillary has one big problem, Bill and the money that he has received for the building of his Presidential Library, most from other governments, some who are out for there own intrust. The other problem that Hillary has is that she has been a Washington inside for to long, and I feel that she has way to many favors to repay to big business. although Hillary knows how to stand her ground, wether it is for the good or the bad of this country.

Hillary taking as much time as she, is taking to let Obama know wether she will take the Sectary of Sate tells me she is already making deals. I just hope Obama realizes that Hillary comes with a lot of baggage.

The Sectary of State should be someone that will carry out your agenda, and Hillary will have an agenda of her own. The Clintons where sore losers when push came to shove at the end of the campaign.

I hope that Obama does not make anymore foolish choices or he will be a one term President. I can see him having to fire Hillary with in the first two years.

Posted by: cripple91 | November 24, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

I FOR ONE CONSIDER OBAMA A ONE TERM PRESIDENT IF HE SELECTS HILLARY FOR SOS.IT WILL BE A DISASTER FOR HIS PRESIDENCY IF FHE DOES TAKE HER IN.HE WILL HAVE BILL"PANTS DOWN" WITH HILLARY IN OFFICE.IT IS TOO BAD THAT OBAMA CANNOT SEE WHAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS DOING TO HIM WITH ALL THE PEOPLE FROM CLINTON'S REIGN AS PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS OR IS SELECTING.THAT WAS A BAD DISASTER AND NOW WE ARE HEADED FOR ANOTHER WITH ALL THE PEOPLE FROM HIS TIME IN OFFICE.I GUESS THE OLD SAYING HOLDS TRUE OBAMA CAN'T SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES.I THOUGHT HE WOULD MAKE A DIFFERECE BUT IT LOOK LIKE BUSINESS AS USUAL WITH HIM.I AM SORRY I VOTED FOR HIM NOW BUT I GUESS HE WILL BE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS BEFORE HIM.

Posted by: Rmarks003 | November 24, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

HRC is just a bad choice for SoS or any other position in Obama's cabinet. She said too many things and acted like a spoiled brat. No, no and no!!
LIEberman is a traitor and I, for one, would rather be at 59 and not sixty if the 60 is LIEberman. He encouraged Obama to run for POTUS and then signed on with mccain.

Posted by: katerinaDeligiannis | November 24, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

I am very opposed to Pres. Elect Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. I agree that assigning her a post in the Cabinet is politically expected, but not SOS! Condi Rice was very ineffective in this position.

The new SOS will be dealing with leaders of countries in the Middle East--countires whose leaders have no respect for women and will, therefore, pay little attention to what H. Clinton has to say. (Just as they ignored Condi Rice.) Plus, her quick temper and short fuse are NOT assets when negotiating foreign affairs.

I also think Vice SOS, Bill Clinton, (and yes, he will be a part of her appointed position) is no asset to her role--whatever it is.

I trust Obama's reasoning and intelligence, but I think he is dead wrong on this choice.

Posted by: Vampirella | November 24, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

"I volunteered and worked for the Obama campaign from July through November 4- as did millions of people who believed in her. Just because he played the game better does not make her any less of a wonderful candidate and a respectable woman. I think that the 18 million of us who voted for her deserve respect enough from the 18 million of you who voted for him to just respect a smart, able woman who will be running the state department.

Leon"

Great post Leon. Any other election and Hillary would have taken it easily. It is a shame the Obama folks don't come around on some of the campaign stuff. There was plenty of negative stuff put out by the Obama campaign against Hillary. The negative campaigning was not a one way street. Obama just let surrogates do the dirty work so he can look like he is above the fray. Where did all the nasty stuff come from then (including negative spin on quotes, etc.)? If you try hard enough yo can trace it to the Obama campaign. Us Hillary supporters had to swallow hard and support Obama, it is about time the Obama supporters swallowed hard and gave Hillary her due.

Posted by: hdimig | November 24, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I believe Obama made a good choice in selecting Hillary for Secretary of State.
Hillary has always put our country and the American people first. She is hard working, loved all over the world, and she will work for whatever Obama wants her to do.
What's the big deal Obama hires her, and if she doesn't do what he needs, he can fire her.
But, she will end up being the best Secretary of State this nation has ever know.
If you don't believe me, just ask me!!!!

Posted by: Toots1941 | November 24, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"The Clinton people got us into this mess by allowing the internet bubble to emerge - which led to the mortgage bubble - no one has stopped the SNOWBALL OF THE CLINTON ECONOMIC DISASTER."

"Bill Clinton is the one who is one tape saying that "Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.""

So ... Bill Clinton was responsible for Iraq and the current financial melt down. Hmm. I don't think either argument would pass muster in a formal logic class. Sure there was a dot com bubble under Clinton. But it was Bush who milked the Real Estate bubble for all it was worth to keep the economy out of recession post 9/11 and allow people to feel good about his deficit spending fueled by his military adventure in Iraq ("Go to Disney Land"). Sure Bill Clinton said "Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.". But he never advocated uni-lateral action against Iraq. Bush is the one who cooked the intelligence and had a mad obsession with going after Saddam. Sure the American people fell for it, including many Democrats, but it is Bush's responsibility and his alone. Bush was the decider. He decided to deceive the country about Iraq to make his case look good, and he decided to look the other way when troubling signs started to crop up in the financial sector.

Posted by: hdimig | November 24, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse


.


.


.


To the poster at 7:38 and 7:39


You fail to take into account how many democrats voted FOR the Iraq war.

AND this "lie" that you keep on harping on.


Bill Clinton is the one who is one tape saying that "Saddam had weapons of mass destruction."


Bush never said that.

All the western intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.


Somehow, you TWIST that into a personal lie on the part of President Bush.

AND you go around for years saying Bush lied, Bush lied.


Well did Bill Clinton also lie? Why don't you focus in on Bill Clinton?


Why don't you focus in on all the democrats in Congress who voted for the war???

YOU make it appear as though the democrats in Congress have no personal responsiblity - that they were innocent victims of the Bush administration.


Well the democrats in Congress ARE ADULTS - THE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN VOTES FOR THE IRAQI WAR.

Stop blaming Bush WHEN BOTH PARTIES RUSHED INTO THE IRAQI WAR.

NOW I return to my original point: those who are asking for partisan unity now are the same people who REFUSED to give us partisan unity during the darkest days when we were at war.

What a sick bunch of people.

.


.


.

.

Posted by: 37thandOStreetRules | November 24, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Obama is a do-nothing - everyone in the country is telling him to get up and act now - we do not need another press conference from him in which all his people look scared. (see picture in the Fix posting entitled "Fix Pick: Brooks on the Transition")


There is no change.


There is no change. What is different? The voters voted for something DIFFERENT FROM BUSH, DIFFERENT FROM CLINTON.


HOW HARD IS THAT?


The Clinton people got us into this mess by allowing the internet bubble to emerge - which led to the mortgage bubble - no one has stopped the SNOWBALL OF THE CLINTON ECONOMIC DISASTER.

Clinton is the one who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act - Clinton and the DNC took vast amounts of money from Wall Street to make this happen


Clinton is the one who DEREGULATED WALL STREET.


CLINTON IS THE ONE WHO TOOK VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM CHINA AND INDONESIA -


Foreign Money?? Sound familar? Foreign money went into Obama's campaign.


We have serious serious problems in this country - the democratic party has shown that it can be bought and paid for with foreign money


WAKE UP AMERICA


WAKE UP AMERICA


WAKE UP AMERICA


WAKE UP AMERICA


WAKE UP AMERICA.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreetRules | November 24, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

"37thandOStreetRules
THE COMPLETE LACK OF LEADERSHIP IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS IS ASTONISHING. IT REALLY IS."

OMG, I finally read something by 37th&O that mirros my own commentary. Of course, I wasn't talking about the President Elect I was talking about the current President.

When we talk about absentee leadership one need look no further than the 43'rd President of the USA. I wasn't just talking about a few weeks, it was more like 8 years of talking and walking in circles...

Posted by: Thatsnuts | November 24, 2008 7:46 AM | Report abuse


Another fine posting by 37th&O

"Why is it that those who refused to unite behind Bush while we were at war are the same people DEMANDING PARTISAN UNITY NOW???"


You asked friend, so here it is....Bush's war in Iraq was a lie perpetrated by people who don't care about that little thing called the Constitution...the way it has been prosecuted makes it look like Bozo the Clown (sorry Bozo) was in charge.

the unity being asked for now is to solve a problem right here at home, caused by the same bunch of clown shoed fools. Americans will unite because we know this issue has our very future in peril.

So, please, the election is over and we have a President Elect. If you have a valid question post it. If all you can do is ask foolish questions you will forfit relevance.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | November 24, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse


Another find posting by 37th&O

Why is it that those who refused to unite behind Bush while we were at war are the same people DEMANDING PARTISAN UNITY NOW???


You asked friend, so here it is....Bush's war in Iraq was a lie perpetrated by people who don't care about that little thing called the Constitution...the way it has been prosecuted makes it look like Bozo the Clown (sorry Bozo) was in charge.

the unity being asked for now is to solve a problem right here at home, caused by the same bunch of clown shoed fools. Americans will unite because we know this issue has our very future in peril.

So, please, the election is over and we have a President Elect. If you have a valid question post it. If all you can do is ask foolish questions you will forfit relevance.

Posted by: Thatsnuts | November 24, 2008 7:38 AM | Report abuse

Let's hope for Obama that Bill "pants down" Clinton kan keep his pant up and not embaress the president elect. Hillary cannot be embaressed, she's beyond that.

Posted by: pegasus2 | November 24, 2008 2:56 AM | Report abuse

The Hillary-Obama Drama: An Offer He'll Never Make, and She Would Never Accept?

• Prediction: she will stay in the Senate as a Dem top dog

• An Obama push for Hillary as Majority Leader?

The economy's going deeper into the tank. Thousands of Americans face the possibility of losing their jobs just as the holiday season begins. President-elect Obama becomes the target of hate speech and worse in incidents across the Old South.

And what's the headline story in Washington? Why, it's Hillary, of course, as the pundits once again ponder that old familiar question: "Will she or won't she?"


Read more here:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/hillary-obama-drama-offer-hell-never-make-and-she-would-never-accept

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 24, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

I have every expectation that Hillary will work hard to make a fine Secretary of State. She's an extremely capable woman who has demonstrated her ability to be a team player. And I'm sure that the parties have worked out a modus vivendi with Bill, which may take some follow-up, but should be operable. And if it's not, it will be the end of the arrangement.

What concerns me is if Hillary feels constrained to bring her fractious, egotistical, and fundamentally wrong coterie to State. That Department is in truly dire condition,and it does not need to be played for personal political agendas by a group of Hawkier-than-thou prima donnas. Please, bring in the same caliber of folks that are going to the other departments, and leave the leaky headline-grabbers at home.

Posted by: thaimex | November 24, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

.


.


.

.


Why is it that those who refused to unite behind Bush while we were at war are the same people DEMANDING PARTISAN UNITY NOW???


Appears a little hypocritcal to me.

They want something that they refused to give before, all they did was snipe at the President for years and years.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreetRules | November 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Report abuse

Hillary to Bill C. -
'...the problem my dear husband, lies not in the distant stars..it is - that we are mere underlings'

Bill to H-Rod:
'..grab the brass ring..'

Some political rivalries run so deep that no amount of official closeness can offset them..and I won't give examples..but use your imagination and study a few of the Presidents who have tried it...

Posted by: newbeeboy | November 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

People do get that Barack Obama isn't president, right? President-Elect is up there with First Lady as both are not meaningful titles.

We still have a president. You remember, the one who bought and used coccaine more oughten and for many more years then Barack Obama. Guess he is more experienced.

The one who took with his trust fund and bought a oil company and got investors like Salim bin Ladin (Osama's half-brother and patriarch of the bin Laden family) and than ran that oil company into the ground. The one who only got off of insider trader allegations when he was a part owner of the Texas Rangers because the SEC concluded in he was too uninvolved with his businesses to actual know what was going on in the companies he owned and/or invested in...


Posted by: Corey_NY | November 23, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Clark Kent=Superman
Bruce Wayne=Batman
Peter Parker=SpiderMan
John Reid=The Lone Ranger

I get that, but --

37thandOstreet=DorchesterandCongress=37and0=37thandOStreetRules=What's next???

Question of the day: why does "37" keep changing troll handles?

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 23, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

The reality is that economy is the number one issue - AND what do we have here? An affirmative action guy with NO ECONOMIC OR BUSINESS EXPERIENCE EXCEPT FOR BUYING COCAINE.


So what does he do?


He takes ONE BOOK by Doris Kearns Goodwin and that is guiding this whole process. A little silly, however apparently true.

Obama offered little in terms of an economic program during the campaign - mainly because the campaign believed that the poll numbers were going his way and Obama did not have to offer up specifics.


HOWEVER NOW IS DIFFERENT. The country is in serious shape and there IS NO ECONOMIC DIRECTION COMING FROM OBAMA IN THE WEEKS SINCE THE ELECTION.


THERE IS A COMPLETE LACK OF LEADERSHIP.

WALL STREET IS TELLING US SOMETHING - WALL STREET TANKED IN PART BECAUSE THEY PROJECTED OBAMA WINNING AND THEY PROJECTED A HORRIBLE ECONOMIC POLICY FROM HIM.

THE COMPLETE LACK OF LEADERSHIP IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS IS ASTONISHING. IT REALLY IS.


WHAT IS OBAMA GOING TO DO NEXT? READ ANOTHER BOOK ABOUT THE CIVIL WAR???


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thandOStreetRules | November 23, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

"The sniper comments were AN EMBELISHMENT- she did land in a warzone and was warned of potential fire- with the plane coming in oddly as a preventitive measure.

I think that the 18 million of us who voted for her deserve respect enough from the 18 million of you who voted for him to just respect a smart, able woman who will be running the state department.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | November 23, 2008 12:59 AM"
_____

Sadly, this seems to have been posted by one of the 18 remaining Hillarians (yes, 18, not 18 million). [BHO, this HRC junk was finally in your rear view mirror once and for all. Why stop the car and back up????]

Reality check, Leon: There was no Bosnia sniper fire. It never happened at ANY point in HRC's lifetime, either in Bosnia, Kenya, East St. Louis, or Central Park. HRC was never in danger and in fact staged a lengthy ceremony on the tarmac with a little girl during the time she said she was dodging enemy gunfire. This dishonesty disrespected all who actually do put themselves in harms way for our country. That the many journalists accompanying her then who knew it was a falsehood kept quiet about it, and let the hoax continue, is a blot on journalism.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 23, 2008 10:17 AM | Report abuse

"To: President-Elect Obama

Subject: HILLARY AS SECRETARY OF STATE?

If Hillary is your nominee and accepts the Secretary of State position, you, President-Elect Obama, will live to regret that decision for the rest of your life! And, it will be a huge disappointment and breach of your steadfast commitment to "Change" in the minds of your campaign supporters.

[A lot of good stuff in the middle omitted.]

You, Mr. President-Elect, will be "the new puppy in the White House!"

Mahalo from Kauai,

George.

Posted by: gmc545 | November 21, 2008 11:35 PM"
____________________
gmc, many of us in O-Nation would like to co-sign your memo, a principled call for sanity, and add this --

The logic of appointing HRC, the most divisive political figure in our Nation's history, to the job of top US diplomat escapes us. The idea of bringing into your confidence, into your Administration, someone whose campaign against you sought your personal destruction seems bizarre. The thought of allowing HRC to establish, in effect, an alternative, unaccountable parallel government at the State Department peopled with her army of losers, mentals, and Harpies we call "Hillarians," with a multi-billion dollar budget, upsets the national stomach.

44, we are told the idea of staffing your Administration with enemies rather than friends comes from some Abe Lincoln bio typed, er, "written" by Doris Goodwin, called "Team of Rivals." [I know Goodwin PLAYS an historian on her friends' cable bloviator shows, but come on, you can't be serious!] If that's so, will someone emergency-Fedex BHO the volume of Encyclopedia Britannica that provides a REAL bio of Lincoln rather than the revisionist Mad magazine junk offered by Goodwin (Lincoln was FORCED to place rivals in his cabinet b/c the country was split in two; he certainly would have preferred allies rather than enemies surrounding him). Or have Scarlett Johnasen email BHO the Wikipedia cite for Honest Abe.

There is STILL hope that someone will do an intervention with 44: Mrs. O, O's mother in law, Oprah, Arianna Huffington, Bob Woodward (Bob, keep calling him), Bill Richardson, Patti Solis Doyle, Eugene Robinson, Chris Matthews, Rev. Pfleger...ANYONE!!!!!!

Our allies around the World are wondering what the ____ is going on here: a lifetime amount of goodwill for BHO has been squandered in a matter of days due to the speculation of HRC as SoS.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 23, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Another worry: When Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia, she left an earlier written record telling the truth about what happened. One hopes that when she lies at State, she won't leave a messy paper trail. It could embarrass or even compromise the nation.

Posted by: Niverville | November 23, 2008 9:13 AM | Report abuse

HRC as Sec. State instantly provides a certain gravitas to the position. Who else has such international recognition?

The Clinton name is known globally and generally respected. Not to mention that Hilary's reputation in the Senate as a hard-headed pragmatist will serve her well in the position.

Sure, in an ideal world, there may be others who might be better qualified, but her combination of qualifications and the mutually beneficial political ramifications makes this an excellent choice. Obama's most public rival now has a vested interest in seeing his administration succeed.

Posted by: glowing_plasma | November 23, 2008 1:29 AM | Report abuse

Hillary will do just fine at State, especially since she has Bill to act as her unofficial adviser. Only a real Clinton hater would disagree that the President had zipper problems but other than that he did OK. Especially as compared to the last eight years. So now the wife is going to be Secretary of State where she has this successful man to help her if she needs it. Things could not be better for our country. I think this will work out splendidly.

Posted by: Opa2 | November 23, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

People did not support Barak over Hillary for policy reasons- unless they don't read policy papers- generally all of her domestic policies were more ambitiously progressive than his and her foreign policy positions were only slightly more conservative than his- people supported him for the energy, for the "change", etc. but if they were actually following policy- they did not pick the person with the more progressive policy proposals and certainly not any type of progressive legislation resume.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | November 23, 2008 1:07 AM | Report abuse

The sniper comments were AN EMBELISHMENT- she did land in a warzone and was warned of potential fire- with the plane coming in oddly as a preventitive measure.

For all the people who are obsessed with this- you all really know nothing about politics or are just hypocrits. An embellishement is a vast exaggeration, what do you call it when you send your envoy to Canada to tell the government that you are not telling the truth in Ohio during a campaign- that is an outright lie. Of course, it gets no play because the press is obsessed with taking down the "evil" woman. Stop hating. Congratulations for being involved in your first Democratic Election for those of you new to the game- this was my 7th presidentil campaign as well as 24 years of activism and volunteering for local liberal causes. Hating individuals rather than understanding and driving policy is not how the game should be played.

I volunteered and worked for the Obama campaign from July through November 4- as did millions of people who believed in her. Just because he played the game better does not make her any less of a wonderful candidate and a respectable woman. I think that the 18 million of us who voted for her deserve respect enough from the 18 million of you who voted for him to just respect a smart, able woman who will be running the state department.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | November 23, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

I recommend that everyone dismiss almost anything that anybody said about anybody else during any campaign. The nature of our system is that anyone anywhere who has to run for (almost) any office has to say anything to get elected. They have to say good things about themselves and bad things about the person who's standing in their way of achieving their goal.

Forget about what Obama said about Clinton. Forget about what Clinton said about Obama. Forget about what McCain said about both Clinton and Obama.

That was campaigning. This is governing. The governing phase means that the campaigning phase becomes water under the bridge.

Having said that, Hillary Clinton is a good choice because she is well-respected around the world. The U.S. Secretary of State must be effective around the world. It's hard to be effective when you're not well-respected.

And anyone who fears that Hillary Clinton will use this lofty cabinet post to "grab power" is not thinking this through. The worst way to grab power as Secretary of State is to "go rogue" on your president, especially if your president is popular.

Posted by: dognabbit | November 22, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/08/03/303197.aspx

In August 2007, when Hillary Rodham Clinton was being critical in public about Barack Obama's foreign policy position, Obama For President released a memo written by his advisor and personal friend, Samantha Power, highlighting the what's wrong with HRC's style of foreign policy and why BHO is better.

Posted by: Corey_NY | November 22, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Wonder what's the take of Samantha Power, who resigned from the Obama For President campaign as a foreign policy advisor after the whole "monster" nonsense.

Considering she academically and professionaly worships Sérgio Vieira de Mello a hero of international diplomacy, Hillary Rodham Clinton would not be Sérgio school of thought.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/samantha-power

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnYLdH-YEdM

Posted by: Corey_NY | November 22, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Can anybody seriously ignore her Sniper comments. That lady is either demented or subject to an embellishing events. Either of those characteristics should disqualify a candidate.

Parroting her accomplishments. Look at hundreds of thousands of dead Rwandans while the Clinton administration mostly ignored the situation. The UN commander in Rwanda asked early on for some mechanized armor support which the US nixed.

Then we mishandled the aid after the slaughter was apparent.

Then the Clinton administration made a big show of apparent diplomatic progress but just handed the Serbians a document which the Serbs were told to sign as is. That wasn't diplomacy.

Of course when the two embassies in Africa what did the Clinton administrations do for the State Department embassy staff. Nothing seems like the answer. Did they realize that Al Queda was dangerous, no, 3000 American dead. It took 3 years of Iraq war to kill that many American's.

Posted by: geno688 | November 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Excerpt from Chapter 7 (Sad Day in O-Nation) of "The Lost Tribe of the Hillarians."

...Their Leader, an older blond woman in an orange iridescent pants suit, stood in the huge lobby of the State Department and declared victory before the cameras of Fox News, the only network allowed to film the event.

It seems her band of 18 losers, mental, and harpies, who named themselves Hillarians (after their narcissistic leader), had completely taken over the State building. Asked what was the most important thing about the State takeover, their Leader simply answered, "Me." She then referred all further questions to her spokespeople, Andrea Mitchell and a lawyer named Lan E. Davis.

The leader named a "Harriet Christian" as her chief of staff. Reports were that Patti Solis Doyle, a hero in O-Nation, tried to confront the Hillarians when they first breached the North Wall of O-Nation but was overwhelmed by all 18 (yes, 18, not 18 million) Hillarians, who battered PSD over the head with old rolled-up copies of Ms. Magazine.

In a final act of defiance against the patriots of O-Nation, the leader replaced a picture of 44 with one of "Mrs." Billie Jean King, an unpleasant looking former tennis player the Hillarians admire. Then suddenly a tall AA woman with a stately regal bearing appeared out of nowhere. Her hands were clinched in a fist as if preparing for a fist bump of some sort. And then...

Next: Chapter 8, "Mrs. O Runs the Show and Says, 'HRC, Just Go.'"

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 22, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

I have some connections in the State Department. It seems the diplomatic corps' take on this is that professional diplomats would rather see one of their own, someone who actually knows how to run the department as Secretary of State as opposed to a political choice.
That said they know that competent State Departemnt Professionals rarely have the political prominence that seems to be a primary criteria for the office.

Hillary is of course someone with the political prominence but, as with most Secretary of States, (regardless of party) has no actually credentials that qualify them to be the chief administrator of the State Department.

So from the professionals' point of view, it will be a wait and see on how effective Hillary is. Perhaps she will select competent administrators to serve under her.

The inside word is that they liked Colin Powell's leadership of the department. (remember this leadership has little to do with the policies he articulated for the Bush administration). I guess a proven administrater in the Army can also effectively run another government bureauacracy. They saw Condi Rice as merely the political figurehead of the neocons, who had little leadership to contribute.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | November 21, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse
-----------------------
My friends at State agree with Alan's.
They say that State has been living on the organizational changes Powell made b/c Rice was "disinterested" in management.

Wait and see.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 22, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I have watched in disbelief as this politician who botched health care so terribly for all Americans in the Nineties insisted on a "leadership role" in health care now. I have watched her lie about being under fire in Bosnia. I have watched her assist in pulling us into an unprincipled war that cost thousands of young American lives (God knows how many Iraqi lives) and soon, a trillion of our tax dollars. I have watched her inflate her foreign affairs credentials; traveling to 82 countries is interesting, but has little to do with actual practice of the art of diplomacy. I have watched her, in fact, as the antithesis of diplomacy in a crude, take-no-prisoners campaign. I worked phone banks for Obama, sent contributions to him, got my friends, relatives, and neighbors to do the same, and wept with joy the night he was elected...not because of his ethnicity, but because we finally elected a smart and reflective president, and a president who in his personal deportment will not make us ashamed and reviled. I am stunned and sickened by this bizarre appointment. With it, he has lost me.

Posted by: Niverville | November 22, 2008 4:32 AM | Report abuse

Post election we look for actions that might provide a glimpse into the potential of “change” arriving with an Obama Presidency.

The first “Tell” - - -

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-first-tell.html

Posted by: JamesRaider | November 22, 2008 1:21 AM | Report abuse

Since Hillary Rodham Clinton will resign her senate seat, I've crossed my fingers that Gov. Paterson picks Mayor Byron Byron of Buffalo, New York as her replacement. Mayor Brown is the type of person who wouldn't get get the money, endorsements and support needed for a election campaign, but at the end of the day, his biography, his character, his high level education and proven public service record, etc... would make him the best actual senator for all New Yorkers from Park Avenue to Plattsburgh.

So Mayor Byron Brown of Buffalo, New York to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton and US Representative Janice Schakowsky of Illinois's Sixth District to replace Barack Obama. Look good?

Some Chicago area black church leaders are calling on Gov. Blagojevich to pick somebody black as a replacement for Barack Obama and the National Organization of Women has also demanded (a bit strong?) that a woman replace HRC. But hoping it's a trade and it's Rep. Schakowsky for Illinois and Mayor Brown for New York State, since they'd both be best.

And if Joe Biden ever resigns his senate seat, who knows what we'll get out of Delaware...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/11/biden-keeping-s.html

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/17/1677585.aspx

Posted by: Corey_NY | November 22, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

A very good choice in terms of both politics and policy.

Clinton's stature, gravitas, and knowledge will be an asset in shaping policy and in dealing with foreign leaders. Clinton's skills as a manager are the only real x-factor -- although, I suspect the overwhelming majority of career staff will be happy with the selection, and she can mitigate some of the management issues with the selection of high quality deputies.

In terms of the politics, its a win for both Obama and Clinton. For Obama it reduces the likelihood of a serious intraparty challenge in 2012, and will allow him to focus on governing without two years of campaigning. The move also consolidates support within the party, which could make it easier to advance policy priorities.

On Clinton's side, it gives her the chance to bolster an already impressive resume. With the multiple challenges confronting the administration, she'll have the chance to leave a positive imprint on events in a way that she wouldn't as a relative junior Senator.

Of course, time will tell. But on balance this seems like a very good wager for both political figures -- and for the country as a whole.

As an ancillary benefit, the move is likely to bring out Bill Clinton's better side, so, if he's needed as an advocate, or broker, he has an incentive to play a positive role if called upon.

Posted by: JPRS | November 22, 2008 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Good choice. Politics aside, Clinton at state gives Obama a strong voice there vs Defense, a constant and classic rivalry. She, and Bill, are well known and liked in the world, giving a familiar friendly face. She will be a big asset in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian horror and will give the president cover for the jawboning that will have to take place.

In addition, she has something to run: A vast bureaucracy, worldwide missions, with many, many issues that are congruent with her interest, not lesat the status of women, the UN portfolio, etc. State is surely demoralized after being headed by weak secretaries and humiliated in the Iraq War.

I really have no fears about her dominance or resistance or whatever. I just don't see that happening. Why will she accept? Because she has been asked to serve by the President-Elect and she is needed.

Posted by: jmundstuk | November 21, 2008 11:36 PM | Report abuse

To: President-Elect Obama

Subject: HILLARY AS SECRETARY OF STATE?

If Hillary is your nominee and accepts the Secretary of State position, you, President-Elect Obama, will live to regret that decision for the rest of your life! And, it will be a huge disappointment and breach of your steadfast commitment to "Change" in the minds of your campaign supporters.

The Clintons will apply whatever force they deem necessary, either indirectly or face-to-face with you, to have you "select" Clintonites for all the other Secretary, Under Secretary and related positions. Your advisors/supporters, much less you, should NEVER subscribe to that scenario because you must know that the Clintons would then hold you "hostage" and haunt you throughout your term of office, literally forcing you to be their "puppet" in order to run the country according to their agendas and to reward their "buddies" and supporters.

Do you think for a moment that you should ever agree to a set of circumstances that, right from the get-go, would severely dilute, perhaps virtually curtail, your ability to deliver on your election promises and carry out your duties as President to your satisfaction?

If Hillary is your nominee and accepts the Secretary of State position, the "Billary" duo will certainly use every opportunity to brush you aside in order to promote, prolong and enhance the Clinton legacy, as well as enable them to reward those who have championed and "punish" those who have deserted the Clinton camp.

You, Mr. President-Elect, will be "the new puppy in the White House!"

Mahalo from Kauai,

George.

Posted by: gmc545 | November 21, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Had Obama announced pre-election that he would pick Clinton for the State Department, I wonder what effect if would have had. On one hand, he would have appeared to be pandering to those who voted for Clinton in the primaries but who were not still sold on Obama. Along with this, the pick would have provided a sense of background and experience, even if that image is something of a faux one. (Clinton was never shot at in Bosnia, and she has no substantial experience in diplomatic negotiations. The most powerful asset she claim in terms of foreign relations experience is the advice of her husband.) Still, the pick would have reassured some.

On the other hand, Obama choosing Clinton would have alienated much of the grassroots support that propelled Obama over Clinton in the first place. For someone who preached to be something different from "old Washington," Obama has filled his staff with former Clinton insiders, and Hillary Clinton for State caps a swing from the Washington outsider image of the campaign to the Washington insider White House that Obama is creating.

To those grassroots folks who vaulted Obama to the nomination and ultimately to the presidency, I guess the message is this: "Thanks for electing me. You were valuable in propelling me as a first-time candidate. However, you offer me little in terms of actually governing the nation, and I won't need you to secure the nomination in 2012, so this is where we part." Idealism comes crashing back to earth. Yes, Obama needs people who can get things done in Washington, and so it is back to business as usual.

Posted by: blert | November 21, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

At first I thought HC should stay in the Senate and take Reid's place but, this is brilliant. In the Senate, Hillary can grandstand and work to sabotage the Obama agenda. Once she gives up her Senate seat, she works for Obama, he can keep her (and Bill) out of the country and out of his hair, if she crosses him, he fires her and she's out of a job, out of the Senate and without a platform. Smart guy.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse
=============

You are the only one who gets it. This is a win, win, win, for Obama. Plus, she may do a good job. Hillary is out of politics for good. Obama will have her under his thumb.

Posted by: popasmoke | November 21, 2008 11:15 PM | Report abuse

I am disappointed with this list. Gov. Palin may not appeal to the elitist class, but since when did they determine the next president?

Rank and file republicans will nominate and elect the next president, that would be President Palin in 2012.

Chris, you must be talking to Brooks, Parker, and Noonan too much.

Posted by: Captain_Universe | November 21, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

Another point to DRC and the Great War of Africa (August 1998 – July 2003 and 3,900,000 killed in total). It didn't get much press, but if one has ever been to Goma, it's never forgotten.

On 22 December 2006, President Bush signed into law the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Barack Obama as its primary sponsor.
(http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2125)

Posted by: Corey_NY | November 21, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

What a great difference a year makes. In November 2007, the key difference between Obama and Clinton was Obama's early denunciation of the Iraq War, in stark comparison to Clinton's early support. I suspect that Obama's earliest and most ardent supporters would have choked at the news that Obama would consider making Hillary Clinton Secretary of State.

My own preference would be for Bill Richardson to be appointed Secretary of State. Richardson offers considerable experience as a Cabinet officer, served ably as UN Ambassador, and endorsed Obama at a crucial time in the primaries. Richardson deserves the post on merit and loyalty.

That said, Bill Clinton would make an excellent Special Envoy for President Obama, and will no doubt serve enthusiastically in this capacity if Senator Clinton becomes Secretary of State.
That is a not inconsiderable advantage, and both Clintons have the capacity to contribute positively to America's standing across the globe, if they so choose.

If Senator Clinton chooses to become Secretary of State, I'll choose to view the glass as half full.

Posted by: ANetliner | November 21, 2008 10:40 PM | Report abuse

Seems like an odd time for it. One of biggest failure of foreign policy during the 8 years of the Clinton administration was not getting involved during the 1994 Rwandan Genocide (death toll between 800,000 and 1,000,000). Of course that should never be forgotten, but what the Hutu rebels that are some the vicious killers, where are they today?

Many fled in 1994 to city of Goma in DRC and in fact, UN refugee worker mistoke them for victims and provide them settler. The Hutu rebels escape punishment and regrouped in the DRC around Goma. In case you haven't notice, these same rebels, that Madeleine Albright and crew failed to deal with back in 1994, are the same people causing all the recent and ongoing violence in Goma today. So it's just odd that one of biggest failures of the Clinton foreign policy is back in the headlines even the actual problem has been very much a reality for the past decade for the people in Goma. Wonder if HRC feels any need to correct this situation her husband's administration failed to secure back in 1994 and she doesn't, she ought to...

Posted by: Corey_NY | November 21, 2008 10:34 PM | Report abuse

Change for Obama will start at the top. The attitude and the goals are different.The way that opponents are treated will be different. It is not necessary for every one in the government to be neophytes, especially not with the country in such a state of crisis. Hillary Clinton is qualified for the job and no one had problems when she was making 50 campaign appearances, trying to help Obama get elected. Plus, I don't believe that the leaks are coming from people in the know and all of the press is discussing it like Hillary and Bill are the worst people in the world.

Posted by: csnala | November 21, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

ignorant haters-
18 million of us voted for her- same as the 18 million who voted for him in the primaries. We then went on and helped Barak win election, putting aside differences. Y'all can stop your hating now...she is a brilliant woman and a force to be reckoned with and belongs in the cabinet if Barak is choosing her.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | November 21, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse


if you're having girl problems I feel sorry for you son, I got 99 problems but this ain't one....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CaiO_H6oeU

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | November 21, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

HAHAHAHAHAAA... The Clintonistas are going to lead Barry around by the nose. So much more change you can believe in!

Posted by: rg019571 | November 21, 2008 9:19 PM | Report abuse

O-Nation now can only sit and nervously wait -- to find out whether the most polarizing figure in American political history will undo O-Nation before it even starts.

Will the Hillarians win by getting to the State Department and setting up an alternative government inside of O Nation, complete with their own media outlets (CNN + Andrea Mitchell + George Stephanopoulos)?

Or will someone -- anyone -- save the day at the last moment and bring 44 to his senses? Maybe Patti Solis Doyle will. Maybe Mrs. O. Or O's mother in law? Oprah? Stedman? Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Rev. Jerry, if you can change his mind, it will might things all "wright"). Scarlett Johansen (email O, now!). Bill Richardson (que pasa, mano).

Somebody step up, before it's too late...

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 21, 2008 9:01 PM | Report abuse

Everything is going to be just fine. Remember the good ole days? They call them the good ole days for a reason: http://www.236.com/news/2008/11/21/7_reasons_why_hiring_a_clinton_1_10374.php

Posted by: alyssa-cruz | November 21, 2008 9:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is doing what he does best, actually, the only thing he knows how to do. Run for office. He has no clue how to govern. This pick ensures that Clinton will not run against him in 2012. It is a brilliant political move. If foreign policy goes awry, he can blame her. And her career will be over. Removing her from the Senate means that she has to become a team player. And what foreign policy credentials does she have anyway? I guess she will be taking that call at 3:00 am.

Posted by: Verrazzano | November 21, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Of course the bigoted woman bashing Post wrote an article opposing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. ANd Obama, thus far, has broken his promise to have women well represented on his cabinet as all the choices have been men.

That said - I support the nomination if it is what Hillary Clinton wants but not if Obama is looking for a "token".

I do not support Richardson - he needs to be kept in New Mexico and out of Washington. He has little qualification for any post excpet he was one of Obama's suck ups.

Posted by: mgd1 | November 21, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD:

Please name names of all of the "better choices". We are waiting to hear your wisdom.

Posted by: myshiba | November 21, 2008 5:34 PM"
______
DDawd, rest up, I got this one, bro'.

Among the 299,301,345 better choices are:

Richard Speck
J. Wayne Gacy
Phil Spector
C. Van Bulow
Soupy Sales
Theodore Kascinski
Michelle Bachman
E.D. Hill
David Carradine
Martina Navratilova
Marc Rich
Mark Foley
Whitey Bulger



Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 21, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Excerpt from Chapter 5 (Hillarians Breach the Wall) of "The Lost Tribe of the Hillarians."

"...and so, one by one, each of that ragtag band of losers, mentals, and harpies known as the Hillarians finally scaled the North wall of O-Nation -- the side unguarded by any legendary O heroes like Patti Solis Doyle, Bill Richardson, or Claire McCaskill -- and did so in the dead of night.

The only light for the intruders came from their blond leader's iridescent stretched-out (in the back) pants suit.

The wall was finally breached. First, the Leader, the blond one in the pants suit, went over the wall. Then it was Harriet Christian, the most unhinged and intense of the Hillarians. Next, Carmella Lewis, no less unbent than Christian. Some say the fourth to mount the rampants of O-Nation was a lawyer named Lan E. Davis, who kept running his big mouth the whole time and almost gave the surprise assault away. The fifth seemed to be some older unpleasant looking woman named Ferraro, who quickly scurried over claiming black people were after her. The 14 other Hillarians soon followed.

Their mission was to get to something called "the State Department" and take it over so that all 18 (yes, 18, not 18 million) Hillarians could inhabit the building for eight years and get on the federal payroll. Then panic. One of them had let drop their autographed picture of "Mrs." Billie Jean King, an iconic figure for all Hillarians. A security guard found the BJK picture and then....

Next: Chapter 6 (Patti Solis Doyle Strikes Back)

Posted by: broadwayjoe | November 21, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

At first I thought HC should stay in the Senate and take Reid's place but, this is brilliant. In the Senate, Hillary can grandstand and work to sabotage the Obama agenda. Once she gives up her Senate seat, she works for Obama, he can keep her (and Bill) out of the country and out of his hair, if she crosses him, he fires her and she's out of a job, out of the Senate and without a platform. Smart guy.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 21, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

She has decided to accept? Hmmmm... Will she also decide whether or not to follow his lead on foreign policy? Who's in charge here?

Posted by: kmcnyasha | November 21, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant.

Barack is continuing to build a formidable and highly competent administration.

What a long December it will be.

Posted by: wpost4112 | November 21, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Once officially announced as President Elect Obama’s choice for Secretary of State and before her Senate confirmation Hillary Clinton will begin to publically reinvent herself. She will clearly demonstrate her readiness and willingness to serve her country as Secretary of State under President Obama and will present her vision and indicate what her approach and her goals will be as head of the State Department. I can only wonder if the new Hillary will sport a new hairdo and wardrobe as well.

Posted by: bobwestafer | November 21, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I'll tell ya I thought she would have been better overseeing the health care program for Pres Obama she would be able to get that off his desk,she would work hand and glove with Sen Ted K and the rest of the senate to get all those folks help.

However she will do just fine at State and long as pres Bill cools his jets.

Posted by: karldavid | November 21, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton for Sec. of State is a huge mistake, Bill Richardson is the only choice and President-elect Obama is guaranteed to win the Presidency in 2012.
Florida, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina are locks and even Texas comes into play. Pres-elect Obama is very close to losing three votes from VA. In 2000 I had a difficult choice voting for Al Gore because of Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: mcrea19 | November 21, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I have some connections in the State Department. It seems the diplomatic corps' take on this is that professional diplomats would rather see one of their own, someone who actually knows how to run the department as Secretary of State as opposed to a political choice.
That said they know that competent State Departemnt Professionals rarely have the political prominence that seems to be a primary criteria for the office.

Hillary is of course someone with the political prominence but, as with most Secretary of States, (regardless of party) has no actually credentials that qualify them to be the chief administrator of the State Department.

So from the professionals' point of view, it will be a wait and see on how effective Hillary is. Perhaps she will select competent administrators to serve under her.

The inside word is that they liked Colin Powell's leadership of the department. (remember this leadership has little to do with the policies he articulated for the Bush administration). I guess a proven administrater in the Army can also effectively run another government bureauacracy. They saw Condi Rice as merely the political figurehead of the neocons, who had little leadership to contribute.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | November 21, 2008 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Let's put it this way. Who would you rather send to Moscow to talk with Medvyedev and to Tehran to talk with Ahmed in a crisis? A clueless HRC or a person that is a proven hostage release negotiator, multiple Nobel Peace Prize Nominee, and has a gift for two foreign languages -- at least -- and has actually already served as our nation's Ambassador to the world at the UN? No contest.
Governor Richardson for State and Change. O's no dummy.

Posted by: lockmallup | November 21, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

OMG - What a farce - How does hiring all the old inside the beltway cronies represent change. When are the people who elected Obama going to realize they were lied to and start to demand what Obama promised - Change - not more of the same old lies, leaks and losing policies. The only thing worse than the Republican policies were the Democrat policies that preceeded them.

Posted by: AG1231 | November 21, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama has selected the BEST person for the job (State) and for the good of the nation. Forget all of the political hijinks and drama that the Clinton-bashers want to drag out. Obama is making his cabinet picks with the same thoughtful genius that he used to get elected. He has pledged to make decisions that are in the best interest of the USA, not what is politically expedient or what is what a Dem or Republican would want.

If Obama were going to use a purely political lens through which to make these decisions, he would have asked the Dems in the Senate to punish Joe L. Instead, he turned the other cheek and made the best decision for the country! He's a man of honor; something seen so seldom these days that most do not yet realize what they are seeing in this new President.

At 51, this is the first time in my adult life (and I LOVED Bill) that I can say without a doubt that I am excited about the man I voted for, and that I look forward to the future of our country under his leadership. And that saying something given the utter mess that "W" is leaving in his wake.

Go Hillary...Go Bill Richardson...Go Rahm...GO OBAMA!!!

Woodie731 from Baltimore

Posted by: Woodie731 | November 21, 2008 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Most likely, the best pick would be one of the higher ups from one of the recent State Departments. Someone who we probably never heard of. Even someone from the Rice or Powell Departments. Those departments don't seem to have the cronyism that may have infiltrated places like the DoJ.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD:

Please name names of all of the "better choices". We are waiting to hear your wisdom.

Posted by: myshiba | November 21, 2008 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I like Richardson. He's done this before and has been face to face with world leaders, isn't a big celebrity, and has a good understanding of world events.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 21, 2008 5:28 PM | Report abuse

It's brilliant. Obama absolutely knows what he's doing. Spectacular move on his part.

Posted by: ezr1 | November 21, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

To DDAWD:

Please name all of the "better choices". I can't think of even one (except Bill Clinton, of course).

Posted by: myshiba | November 21, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"DDAWD

nobody brings what Hillary brings walking into the negotiating tables around the world.

you can't just learn that...

Hillary Clinton walking in on behalf of Obama and the US...carries more weight than anyone who could have been up for the job comes close to.

period."

Look, anyone who walks into a room on behalf of the US and its president carries a great deal of weight. Hillary is no exception, but there are plenty of others as well. I'm not worried about her gravitas, but rather the nuances involved in delicate negotiations. I see no reason to believe that she understands that kind of nuance. This is not a knock on her, its just that she has never done that sort of thing. I think she can learn, but she will have to actually learn as opposed to someone who already knows.

That's why Clinton is a good pick, but not a great one.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 21, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

worst appointment to State since William Jennings Bryan

Posted by: freedom41 | November 21, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

wapo9,

What middle east war did the Dems start in the 90's? I guess i must have slept through it...

Posted by: rharring | November 21, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

As I stated previously:

Bad move.

Posted by: johnnyneuron | November 21, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener50 | November 21, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

the issue is...you all need to think about Hillary Clinton walking into a room on behalf of Barack Obama and the US.

Think about where the other side starts in the negotiation...

she has Bill's name...Bill's ear...but she is not Bill and that is a good thing. Bill's good at telling people what to do...but negotiating with people...that's different

think again how much positive heft and force that SOS will be.

very smart pick. no matter what the jr high politics are

theyall live in this country and on this planet ...they know they have to succeed for more than just their careers.

Posted by: klondike2 | November 21, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"And it is also obvious that Republican Administrations have led to middle east wars whereas Democratic Administrations have led to peace agreements."

You weren't paying attention to the 1990s, were you?

Posted by: wapo9 | November 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Good pick: it keeps Hillary out of the country for the next four years. She won't be able to hog the limelight in Washington if she's dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

Bad pick: Obama can't fire her without opening a huge rift in the Democratic party. He's stuck with Hillary until she wants to leave.

Good pick: When it came to foreign affairs, Bill Clinton was schmoozer arm-twister-in-chief. He'll help Hillary get her bearings.

Bad pick: For all Bill Clinton's considerable talents at schmoozing and arm-twisting, can anybody name a foreign policy success? North Korea? Israel/Palestine? Rwanda? Please.

Posted by: wapo9 | November 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

nobody brings what Hillary brings walking into the negotiating tables around the world.

you can't just learn that...

Hillary Clinton walking in on behalf of Obama and the US...carries more weight than anyone who could have been up for the job comes close to.

period.

Posted by: klondike2 | November 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

If Sen and President Clinton use their considerable intelligence, power, tenacity, charm and guile to secure an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, then they deserve to win the Nobel and re-occupy the White House again, from 2017-2025.

It is obvious that HRC can have much more impact running State than she could as 1 of 100 senators.

And it is also obvious that Republican Administrations have led to middle east wars whereas Democratic Administrations have led to peace agreements.

Al Qaeda's recruiting suffers - and our national security is greatly enhaned - when there is peace in the middle east.

Hillary and Bill can make a difference there.

Posted by: jrob822 | November 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris

does that Clinton supporter mean a few days ago...like the day that Bill was offering up his whole portfolio to get his wife the job?

These "clinton sources" really need to be ignored at this point...just a bunch of people she is not bringing with her...who need to look more important and "in the know" than they are...because after 2 years that is all they have this made up relationship and knowledge of a woman whose husband and best friend clearly showed "a Few days" ago that she wanted the job and they would do or say anything because they thought she shouldf have the job as well.

You reporters talking to these "clinto people" really should start asking youselves why her behavior (she's been on the phone with Obama probably every day because they DO have a good working respect...no matter what there lemmings want to create) ...

so please ask your sources why her husband is ready to open his portfolio to the world in the face of her "not really wanting it and wanting the senate thing"

crazy talk ...from people who need to find a job because their old boss is going to State.

Posted by: klondike2 | November 21, 2008 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, Clinton's strengths are domestic. This means that her talents aren't being utilized optimally.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 21, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Good, but not great. There are better choices out there. People who have actually been involved in diplomacy.

Posted by: DDAWD | November 21, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company