Skip to main content

The idea of Hillary becoming Secretary of State has sparked little opposition in the 'sphere. You'd think that the possibility of a hawk with limited foreign policy experience taking over the State Department would be cause for concern among progressives, but most bloggers--perhaps because they're loath to reignite the primary wars or because they want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt--seem willing to accept Hillary. Even over at Openleft, normally a hotbed of principled progressivism, Chris Bowers says he's "sure she would do a fine job."

For reasons I articulate here, Hillary is a bad choice for SOS. She's a foreign policy conservative and has little expertise in the area. To be clear, this diary is not a manifestation of Hillary hatred; in fact, I've spent a lot time here trying to be back the anti-Hillary fervor that sometimes corrupts this site. I simply believe that her clearly expressed views and philosophy make her the exactly wrong choice to help take American's foreign policy in a new direction. On the likely chance that you don't believe me, I defer below to someone with a tad more credibility than I: Barack Obama.

Barack Obama in response to Hillary's assertion to he is "irresponsible and naive."

I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out -- and you know I think Senator Clinton hasn’t fully answered that issue.

Obama on Hillary's saying she would "obliterate" Iran.

It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber rattling and tough talk and in the meantime have made a series strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran.

Obama on Clinton's support for the War in Iraq:

I have to say when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation, Sen. Clinton got it wrong.

Obama on Clinton's "experience" and her not readingthe National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

I don't know where all that experience got her, because I have enough experience to know that if you have a national intelligence estimate, the chairman of the senate intelligence committee says, ‘You should read this; that's why I voted against the war,’ then you should probably read it.

The Obama campaign on Clinton's foreign policy experience.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

Granted, a campaign calls for tough rhetoric, but everything Obama says here strikes me an accurate ans temperate. On domestic policy, there were few differences between Obama and Clinton--you could argue that Clinton ran to the left of Obama on economic issues and health care--but on foreign policy Obama, while no raging progressive, ran to the left of Clinton. There were real differences between them--on the war in Iraq, on rhetoric regarding Iran, on meeting with foreign leaders, on torture. I remember those differences--do you? I mean, we weren't just pretending to care, were we?

Some of you will argue that it doesn't matter what Clinton believes; she'll simply be carrying out Obama's vision. But of course a Secretary of State helps to shape the policy, and can determine what issues are given priority. More to the point, Obama will look to her for advice. He's said he wants to be challenged by hs advisors. Wouldn't it be great to have someone who challenges him from the left and not the right?

UPDATE: Some commenters are suggesting I've been selective criticizing Hillary given that most of Obama focus on Hillary's support for the war--which Biden, Kerry, and Richardson also supported. But in my previous diary, I discussed examples of Hillary's hawkishness that have nothing to do with Iraq.

She voted for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, every bit as rightwing and reckless as its name suggests. The AIPAC-written bill designated Iran's revolutionary guard corps a "terrorist organization." If you'll excuse the self-quote, here's what I wrote in the fall of 2007:

Do the math, people: the Revolution Guards are terrorists + Bush launched a global war on terror = _. Jim Webb called the bill "Cheney's fondest pipe dream."* Recall that "real men want to go to Tehran."

Kyl-Lieberman also had potential ramifications for the American force structure in Iraq--the primary reason for Obama's opposition to the bill. When challenged about her support for Kyl-Lieberman, she claimed absurdly that it was a vote for stepped up diplomacy.

For many months, until the thick of the primary, she believed that the president should, in "very very limited circumstances", have the authority to torture. In refusing to take an unconditional stand against torture, she invoked the widely discredited "ticking time bomb" scenario.

In 1997 long before the presidential race there was bill in the Senate that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. David Rees explains:

Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban

.

Originally posted to david mizner on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:01 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for a progressive SOS (180+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    C S McCrum, Chi, XOVER, gogol, DelRPCV, Geenius at Wrok, Guaunyu, nicolemm, Avila, Psyche, Wintermute, cotterperson, rhubarb, RFK Lives, Heart of the Rockies, INMINYMA, RubDMC, understandinglife, peace voter, mkfarkus, roses, GreenCA, wader, Melanchthon, stridergambit, oldjohnbrown, mrkvica, pat bunny, ksquire, brainwave, GN1927, RebeccaG, Sophie Amrain, BWasikIUgrad, ybruti, KayCeSF, egmacrae, greeseyparrot, Big Tex, Bluesee, radarlady, leckavrea, frandor55, DocGonzo, myeye, NeuvoLiberal, sundancekid11, Flippant, ZinZen, evenson, martini, tarheelblue, Bluesman48, BlueInARedState, Im with Rosey, greenearth, Barry Leonardini, Bush Bites, pi1304, imabluemerkin, slandurgurl, joe shikspack, PJHood, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, droogie6655321, Mikesco, bstotts, duha, Nulwee, DBunn, subav8r, fedupinBushcountry, Ken in MN, Citizen Rat, Great Uncle Bulgaria, linkage, drbloodaxe, Outrider, NCDem Amy, ezdidit, deepeco, 99 Percent Pure, vbdietz, Captain Nimrod, Terra Mystica, TomP, cville townie, sand805, MKinTN, tdub, ShadowSD, njdaly, LizzyPop, angel65, kjboy27, MrJayTee, smartdemmg, DailyKingFish, bflaff, mnguy66, mofembot, luckylizard, DixieDishrag, SunWolf78, 1BQ, ceebee7, divineorder, Discipline28, pinhighin2, The Field, An Affirming Flame, Methinks They Lie, SciVo, piperyoung, panamaniaco, Daily Activist, dRefractor, Virginian in Spain, obiterdictum, Riyaz Guerra, drlevant, synductive99, Kiku, CityLightsLover, ck4city, vadasz, eclecticbrotha, 57andFemale, weatherproof, sherijr, spyguy999, etara, Josselyn, beeninthewoods, Amber6541, Just Bob, phoebe1st, ZAP210, parse this, smileycreek, littlezen, Jampacked, p gorden lippy, Obamican08, LaughingPlanet, robertacker13, eXtina, Yumn, blueyescryinintherain, fidellio, TheWesternSun, LiveFreeorDier, sortalikenathan, Big Danny, Crabby Abbey, lugdunum, Dexter, JoanMar, k8dd8d, pixxer, scarlet slipper, Murry, Black Leather Rain, Caerus, abrauer, Floande, CA Berkeley WV, bvig, wabird, HylasBrook, bicycle Hussein paladin, VitaminD, BrowniesAreGood, exostencil, TAH from SLC, Birchwood, Moe Gamble, brad v, soysauce, General Hubbub
  •  There are many candidates... (35+ / 0-)

    ... with resumes more suited to the job than her. I'm not saying she'd be a bad SoS, but there are many better candidates.

    Also, I think the whole thing is an overplayed rumor sparked by the Clinton people (IE: Hillary will be VP)

    "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for." --- FDR, 1936

    by droogie6655321 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:07:17 AM PST

    •  Exasperation (28+ / 0-)

         Team Obama, after all but offering SecState to Senator Clinton, is expressing EXASPERATION with the Clinton camp for the difficulty in getting a clean vet on President Bill Clinton’s many entanglements. "The ball is very much in her court, but the president's finances have been a major point of sensitivity from day one," a Democratic official said. ("Day One!") "Given that everyone's mystified by how deliberately public the Clintons have made this once secret process, the assumption is either that the Clintons are trying to use the public buzz to steamroll their way in, create a sense of inevitability that overcomes those concerns, or that it's just a matter of time before they ... satisfy vetting somehow, some way. Otherwise, after all this speculation, there’ll be a permanent dark cloud hanging over her finances. ... But generally the sense among the no-drama Obama world is: This is well on its way to winning best Oscar for drama."

      From the other side, a Democratic source tells me that Clinton herself is conflicted about taking the job.

      http://www.politico.com/...

      •  Vetting (22+ / 0-)

        ***"Obama’s vetting team expressed similar worries about Bill Clinton’s overseas fundraising when Hillary Clinton was briefly considered for the vice-presidency, former Clinton aides say."

        A neutral Democrat tells Playbook: "I doubt that they are looking for an excuse to pick someone else but rather are genuinely concerned that Bill Clinton’s work, while worthy, would be greatly complicating if she were SecState."

        •  This is awesome (19+ / 0-)

          These guys are clearly doing ALL of their homework.

          Pres. Clinton's foundation and the hundreds of millions that pour into it, are a huge liability because of the lack of transparency.

          It's not just about effectiveness of the SoS position, but were Obama to pick Hillary, and Bill's foundation gets nailed for improper ethics or whatever, Obama's team (and America) will take the heat.  A failed foreign policy could be disastrous.

          Avoiding liability is a key goal of exercising due diligence and O's team is clearly doing their job.

          --
          Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

          by sacrelicious on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:55:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, all that AIDS work in Africa is (6+ / 0-)

            a major scandal.  rolling eyes.

            Bill Clinton's foundation does a lot of good work around the world and as far as I know there is little to no scuttlebutt about corruption or impropriety other than shit spewed by conspiracy theory obsessed wingers.  Sadly, during the primaries people on the left side of the aisle adopted those theories, but they are no more credible as a result than they were before the left picked them up to defeat Sen Clinton's presidential bid.  If you want to look into corrupt foundations and charities, you ought to be looking at most of the Republican and Evangelical operations more closely.  Hell, you should take a very, very close look at the Red Cross - that place is a freakin' mess and has been ever since Liddy Dole took it over years ago.

            •  Speaking fees (9+ / 0-)

              he has also taken millions in speaking fees and contributions from foreign officials and businesses with interests in American governmental policies.

              Obama advisers are discussing what Mr. Clinton would need to do to avoid a conflict of interest with the duties of his wife, who is said to be interested in the post. "That's the first and most important hurdle," said a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "He does good work. No one wants it to stop, but a structure to avoid conflicts must be thought of."

              http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

              •  I work with paid speakers regularly. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dragon695

                I've never worked with Clinton, but I have worked with Giuliani and others at that level.  You hire these guys.  You talk to their speakers' bureau rep most of the time before hand.  The companies fill out a questionnaire for the speaker to review so he or she knows who the hell the client is - generally the questions consist of things like "How many people are in the audience?".  The speaker shows up at an appointed time - they go on stage - they take questions or not - and sometimes they make an appearance at a glad handing event where they make small talk with a bunch of people they don't know - then they go away.  This whole speaking fees issue is overblown imo - a red herring.  I'd be more worried about dinner parties where no money is changing hands - seriously.  But how do we stop anyone in any administration from going to dinner parties?

                •  It appears that everything's a red herring to you (0+ / 0-)

                  Every article I read stated that Obama wants Hillary as SOS,  Why do you suppose that Team Obama is bringing up all of these "red herrings"

                  Many Democrats close to both camps said Sunday that it seemed likely that Mr. Obama would ask her to take the job, assuming they could work something out regarding Mr. Clinton’s role.

                  Obama advisers are discussing what Mr. Clinton would need to do to avoid a conflict of interest with the duties of his wife, who is said to be interested in the post. "That’s the first and most important hurdle," said a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "He does good work. No one wants it to stop, but a structure to avoid conflicts must be thought of."

                  http://www.nytimes.com/...

                  •  Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is an (2+ / 0-)

                    important issue for the Obama adminstration.  They are clearly committed to maintaining their standards of integrity and credibility.  I've got no problem with that.  I was just telling you as a person who works with these paid speakers fairly regularly what the real deal is when they make their appearances.  The real deals get made at places like the Aspen retreat where no one is getting paid.  Now the fact that that is actually how it works doesn't change the problem with the appearance of impropriety question that they face with Bill Clinton.  But in the interest of being a reality-based community, I thought I'd share what those speaking engagements entail.  I have never see a high-level paid speaker spend more than a few minutes with any of my clients in that setting and few if any have ever had much contact with these people afterwards as a result.  I've done this work for 25 years.

                    •  You think Bill gets six figures (0+ / 0-)

                      for a few minutes of mingling? People who run speakers' bureaus aren't necessarily in a position to see the quid pro quo.

                      In any case, if there's nothing to hide, why is Bill hiding?

                      •  Yes I know he does. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dragon695

                        And what exactly is it that you think he is he hiding?

                        •  The list of contributors to his foundation (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          askew

                          and his library, not to mention a plausible account of what went down on the Kazakhstan deal.

                          And no, I don't think that rational businessmen pay buckets of money merely to be in the presence of an ex-president for a brief moment.  They want something in return. If Bill and Hillary fill out the Obama questionnaire fully and accurately, we can test your assumption that all is above-board and that those speaking fees were all spasms of altruism, irrationality, or hero-worship.

                  •  Here is a question for you... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dragon695, Amber6541

                    Why in the hell are the Obama folks even considering Clinton if they are going to complain publicly about Bill and the foundation?  That is not a smart thing to do if you really are worried about his role and will only add to the speculation about and scrutiny of Bill Clinton when and if they name Senator Clinton to the post.  

                    Honestly, if they are that worried about the speaking fees and the foundation, I don't think they should have even engaged in this charade.  They're only going to make an enemy of the two if they do not pick her after all of this publicity; and now they are reinforcing a negative story-line that they will have to live with if they do pick her.

                    •  I think that they were a tad bit miffed (5+ / 0-)

                      at all of the leaks. The drama and talk about the Clintons (will they or won't they accept/ agree to be vetted) is already sickening and she hasn't even accepted the job.

                      I don't know why Obama wants to put up with this circus for four years.  I know that it takes the shine off an Obama administration for me.

                      •  Andrea Mitchell's sources when she (5+ / 0-)

                        broke the story were proported to be in the Obama campaign.

                        Is this some sort of push back on Rahm Emanuel's influence?  Because he is said to be the one pushing for this pick according to other reporting.

                        It is one thing to jump into the snake pit, it is another entirely when you start bitching when you decided to make the leap.  They could have left her in the Senate and if they wanted to do this they should have figured out the answers to these questions before they even met with her.  Shaking head.

              •  Not to mention ties to uranium kingpin (6+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                C S McCrum, Kitty, egmacrae, subav8r, 1BQ, Amber6541

                Frank Giustra, whose coffers were considerably enhanced after Bill had a nice word with Kazakh dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev.

                After which Giustra in turn enhanced the coffers of Clinton's foundation.

                Of course, there was no quid pro quo.  Just progressive businesspeople doing what comes naturally.

                Bill is a headache we don't need.

                We are not exempt from history.

                by MrJayTee on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:05:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Obama Admin "Conspiracy Obsessed"? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kitty, sacrelicious

              The Obama administration was just described in your post's grandparent complaining how difficult it is vetting Bill's foundation. I don't think they're "conspiracy obsessed".

              The Red Cross and other operations aren't having their chief's spouse considered for Secretary of State. Examining their operations for corruption is not as high a priority as examining the Clinton Foundation. Which is a priority that is causing problems for the very people for whom those problems shouldn't have to get in the way.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:22:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am not accusing them of being conspiracy (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dragon695, sawhet

                obsessed.  I am saying that this is a narrative that has taken hold based on very little real evidence.  The reason that Clinton's Foundation - like many, many others - is difficult to vet is because they have anonymous donors - as do most other foundations.  Anonymous donations to a private foundation are NOT unusual nor are they in anyway illegal.  To make the leap as Rush Limbaugh does that because they are anonymous there must be something sinister about them is frankly outrageous.  The issue is what the foundation does with its money not who gives it to them.  The wingers ain't got anything else to show impropriety at the foundation so they've made up a scary story about anonymous donors secretly using Bill Clinton to take over the world - by doing AIDS work in Africa - I mean come on - be smart about this please.

                In any case, the Obama folks are now in the unenviable position of disproving a lie; and both the Obama folks as well as the foundation are in the tricky position of having to try to balance the rights of the individual donors to remain anonymous and to quiet the conspiracy theorists.  So people are not helping Obama if they're advancing the conspiracy theories too - just making it harder for everyone which is a shame imo.

                •  Conspiracies and Straw Men (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kitty, askew, sacrelicious, imabluemerkin

                  No, the Obama admin is in the enviable position of vetting Bill Clinton's activities, and we have some evidence that they're having problems with it. It is their job to disprove reasonable possibilities that Clinton's activities have either corruption or even conflicts of interest that are ethical for an ex-president and foundation chair, but not for someone married to a Secretary of State.

                  You are indeed accusing the Obama admin of being conspiracy obsessed:

                  there is little to no scuttlebutt about corruption or impropriety other than shit spewed by conspiracy theory obsessed wingers

                  That's your reason for insisting that Obama not stand in Hillary's way to being Secretary of State. You are saying that nothing but what interests the conspiracy obsessed are those who stand in her way, and so do the Obama staff vetting Bill. Therefore they are conspiracy obsessed.

                  You are also setting up the straw man that Bill's anonymous Africa/AIDS donors funding a global takeover is what is problematic for Obama's vetters, when there's any number of issues, even just the sheer amount of work to look into every lead stemming from such a dynamic leader as Bill Clinton.

                  No one here is advancing conspiracy theories. You're the only one who's mentioning them. So I will ask you to come around - "be smart about this please".

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No no no no... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dragon695

                    They picked her.  Don't try to pass this pick off on anyone else but the Obama folks and here is my question about that - posted in another comment:

                    Why in the hell are the Obama folks even considering Clinton if they are going to complain publicly about Bill and the foundation?  That is not a smart thing to do if you really are worried about his role and will only add to the speculation about and scrutiny of Bill Clinton when and if they name Senator Clinton to the post.  

                    Honestly, if they are that worried about the speaking fees and the foundation, I don't think they should have even engaged in this charade.  They're only going to make an enemy of the two if they do not pick her after all of this publicity; and now they are reinforcing a negative story-line that they will have to live with if they do pick her.

                    I am actually neutral on the pick.  I don't care one way or another, but at this point if the Obama camp is going to point out how problematic Bill is for the millionth time, I can't figure out for the life of me why they opened this Pandora's Box by signaling that Senator Clinton is being considered for the position.

                    And my defense of the foundation and its work has nothing to do with this situation other than the fact that it came up in this comment thread again as being suspicious and if you know anything about foundations anonymous donations are not at all abnormal - and aren't an indication of corruption in and of themselves. The measure of corruption is where the foundation spends its money.  No one has provided any evidence that the Clinton Foundation has acted improperly with their funds.  When they do, I will listen, but as yet they have not and saying there are anonymous donors is proof of nothing.

                    •  I see it differently (5+ / 0-)

                      How did this become public to begin with?  It seems that this info was rushed out (before the vetting could take place) to put Obama between a rock and a hard place. That reason alone should be a disqualification.

                      •  According to Andrea Michell who broke (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dragon695

                        the story last week, the information came from two Obama camp sources.  They haven't denied it and now their people are telling the Times about the vetting process - so it seems like this stuff is coming from the Obama camp - not the Clinton camp.  I am not sure why that means that she should be disqualified.  But I honestly don't care that much about this pick except for the issues I raised about the consequences of it getting derailed after all this and having that reflect badly on the Obama Administration.  I think we all have a stake in his transition looking really together and deliberate.  I remember the Clinton transition and that was a huge clusterf*ck.

                        •  "Obama camp" is pretty vague (0+ / 0-)

                          and could easily include Clinton alums who have been brought in for the transition.  The Obama campaign was essentially leakproof.  With Clinton allies in the mix, not so much.  Welcome to drama.

                          •  Wow. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dragon695

                            So you really think it is "Clinton allies" in the Obama transition team doing this?  Um, you really ought to take a look at Obama's campaign team.  There were tons of Clinton folks on staff.  And why exactly would Clinton allies new to the Obama camp want to scuttle her nomination anyway?  Assuming they are allies as you say, why would they want to leak all of this stuff including the problems they feel Bill will pose?  That doesn't make any sense at all - none.  The Clinton cheerleaders are in my opinion the last people who are going to be leaking here after they got their asses kicked over the VP controversy.  They have everything to lose and nothing to gain by leaking this stuff.

                          •  You misunderstand. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            askew

                            Andrea Mitchell claimed that the Obama camp leaked the initial alleged "offer" to HRC.  Not plausible.  More likely there was no offer but HRC's people "leaked" the phony offer for tactical reasons. Hillary's allies had every reason to try to box Obama into a position where he would appear to be rebuking HRC if he didn't offer her the job.  Once Hillary's people put this out there, it's not surprising that Obama's would do something to slow down the train that HRC started.
                            /tea leaves

                          •  Mitchell claims that it was Obama people. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dragon695

                            I don't buy into this conspiracy theory that Clinton is forcing her way in.  As I said, they got their asses thoroughly kicked on the VP play and I don't think they would do it again.  All it would take is one Obama person to go on the record saying that she was at it again and the Clinton's would both be toast politically - and they know that.  They may be a lot of things, but they aren't that stupid.

                      •  Exactly. If someone I'd been considering (0+ / 0-)

                        leaked that information as a means of trying to force my hand, I'd sure as hell be bitching to the press about them.  And frankly, I see absolutely nothing wrong with letting people know that Hillary is a problematic candidate for a cabinet post because of Bill's lack of transparency.  It's important to let it be known that it's not some sort of vendetta but that there are legitimate and significant obstacles attached to her.

                        Proud to be an American, once more.

                        by LeanneB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:47:09 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  She's Being Considered (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kitty, askew

                      Clinton is clearly being considered because she's a powerful, popular Democrat. The Obama admin is doing its job considering her - if she meets the criteria better than others, and is also popular, that's a good fit.

                      What you're talking about is that "sense of inevitability". This diary explains that it's most likely Clinton's camp making any of this public. Obama's people remarking on Bill's foundation making it difficult is some transparency in response to a question of public interest.

                      Again, I just pointed out that there are other reasons other than corruption that could make Clinton's foundation disqualify Hillary, such as interest conflicts acceptable even in a senator, but not in the Secretary of State. You are again insisting on a straw man of corruption as the only criterion.

                      I'm not going to waste any more time correcting you a third time. Goodbye.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:33:32 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  the Giustra 31.3 million was not anonymous (0+ / 0-)

                      WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

                      by ruthhmiller on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Well when did they point out how problematic it (0+ / 0-)

                      was? They are just saying they have to investigate where the funds came from. It's the responsible thing to do.

            •  no one is saying (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              taylormattd

              that clinton's foundation is corrupt or otherwise disparaging its work.  they're just saying that they need to know all of its ins and outs because we can't risk the RWNM getting hold of something absurd like a donor from iran or something.  

              it's nothing but pure CYA taken to a sadly necessary extreme.  just like, as black citizens, the obamas had to work twice as hard as white people to get where they are, he's got to CYA twice as hard now that he's prez.  

              "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

              by Cedwyn on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:26:28 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know it is CYA, but I don't think (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dragon695, sawhet

                that justifies anyone making these claims without any real evidence that anything sinister has been going on.

                I don't object to the Obama team's vetting - that's sane and normal - but I do object to people propagating rightwing talking points that have no factual basis.

                •  "I don't object to the Obama team's vetting" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew, LeanneB

                  as long as they don't find anything that would disqualify Hillary

                  •  I could care less what they find, but (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    dragon695

                    I will think they were fools for going there in the first place if they have to come out and tell everyone that there is something that would be so dammaging that they couldn't pick her.  Maybe they're trying to destroy what's left of the Clintons' reputation - that would be quite Machiavellian and interesting - but I don't know that I think it would be very smart in the short or long run.

                    •  Machiavellian and interesting (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      askew, subav8r

                      that describes the Clintons to a tee

                      •  Yeah well that's exactly why I think (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        dragon695

                        it would be a dangerous game for the Obama camp to play because they are quite Machiavellian and much more experienced at being that way - OTOH Chicago politics is no tea party - it's pretty damn rough.

                        •  I see that your heart is not very inclusive (0+ / 0-)

                          when it comes to Obama.  

                          •  WTF are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dragon695

                            They I was refering to were the Clintons - admittedly that was me being unclear using "they" when I should have said "the Clintons" - but I get the sense that you're reading everything I've written in this thread as pro-clinton and anti-obama which is just not at all where I am coming from at all.  Frankly, when I heard Mitchell breaking this news last week my first thought was "Oh no not this again" because I could already hear the conspiracy theories about her "forcing" her way into the administration and whatever about Bill - and I thought - "I hope they know what they are doing over there at camp Obama".

                            Now unless the Clintons have been able to pull off a vast media conspiracy where multiple journalists have lied citing their sources as being Obama camp advisors instead of saying that their reporting is based on Clinton sources, this story clearly originated out of and was confirmed by Obama folks.  I'm just trying to figure out why they'd do that - was it to get approval from the public and the media on the pick or was it to scuttle what's left of the Clinton's power?  The second option seems like wacking the beehive to me.

            •  Read the Times this AM (0+ / 0-)

              Way at the end of a long article there is this quote: "No donor to the Clinton foundation has raised more persistent questions that Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining executive.  [BC and FG] shared a midnight banquet 9/05 with Kazakhhstan's authoritarian president, Nursultan Nazarbayev.  . . . Two days after . . . Mr. Giustra's company signed preliminary agareements fiving it the right to buy into 3 unranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan.  Spokesmen for both men said there was no connection between the trip and the deal.  Months later, a foundatioon controlled by Giustra gave 31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation, its largests known donor."

              WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

              by ruthhmiller on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:25:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So they had a midnight dinner and (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dragon695

                in 48 hours put together and inked a complicated mining deal?  AND that was all because Bill Clinton was there at the dinner not because Giustra and Nazarbayev had been working on the deal for months or years before?  AND Giustra gave the Foundation money months later and put his name on the donation when he could have done it anonymously?  And there's zero possibility in your mind that Giustra was the one who gave Clinton the entree to talk to an authortarian president about humanitarian issues that the foundation is set up to address?  And zero possibility that Giustra's donation was a reflection of Clinton's ability to pursuade him and people like him that they should be helping to do humanitarian work around the world?

      •  Didn't this same thing happen (4+ / 0-)

        during the VP selection process as well: Obama in good faith considering Clinton for a position, leaks overwhelm the process, there is a refusal to submit to vetting within established and known guidelines, and then leaks attempt to muscle the situation?  What is so surprising about any of this which would have anyone exasperated?

        "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

        by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:11:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think that Obama offered to vet her (3+ / 0-)

          It was said that Hillary would only consent to being vetted if she was the one.  Obama couldn't guarantee her the vp slot so there was no vetting.

          •  That's what I'm talking about (7+ / 0-)

            well-established and known guidelines for consideration which are attempted to be bypassed via media leaks, high drama, and insinuations that should Clinton not receive an appointment to which some supporters believe she is entitled, then she is being "disrespected."  We've seen this movie before, and I can't help but feeling disappointed that the Obama team is treating us to an undesired sequel.

            It's unclear to me WHY Clinton even wants this particular position.  IMO this is not her area of expertise and she would be a far better fit in a cabinet position related to domestic initiatives in which I think she would be likely to succeed.  No drama has turned into high drama in the space of days.  That there would be issues regarding vetting a former president who has illustrated a reluctance to humble himself in this fashion should not be any kind of surprise to anyone.  I'm not saying Bill is horrible or even wrong, but his reluctance to submit to Obama's vetting process should have been easily predicted and these problems sidestepped by offering her something else.

            "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

            by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:22:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I hate all of these self-serving leaks (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              C S McCrum, askew, GN1927, subav8r, wabird

              I dread four years of leaking and back-stabbing

              •  The situation just seems unnecessary (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kitty, Amber6541, LeanneB

                There are cabinet positions which would be a much better fit for Clinton.  This is just gratuitous drama.

                "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

                by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:33:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  No kidding. (6+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                C S McCrum, Kitty, askew, GN1927, Amber6541, LeanneB

                It seems like someone's not willing to give up the game, the old way of doing things in DC where you leak info to bolster your position, you create drama where there is none to get your name in the press... I really don't want this crap in the Obama administration, and including a Clinton guarantees that there will be drama.

                Doesn't she get it? If she'd shut her yap and play along by the new rules that Obama's laid out, she'd be the VP, she'd be the SOS or whatever she wanted. Her tactics will either ultimately hurt America or herself, it's a lose-lose situation.

            •  I hope that Ken's wrong (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew, ChurchofBruce, GN1927, subav8r

              Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new "Clinton Doctrine" of foreign policy.

              The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.

              http://harpers.org/...

              •  These are things which (5+ / 0-)

                are known and which should have been considered before Clinton's name was floated:

                1. Clinton's managerial style which may or may not be suited to an organization like the State Department
                1. Clinton's bellicosity
                1. Bill Clinton's likely reluctance to submit to Obama's vetting process

                All of this information was known and there was and is ample opportunity to fit Clinton into the cabinet in a position for which her style and these factors would be a net plus rather than a net negative.  I'd love to hear Clinton talk about "obliterating" insurance companies.  Why try to squeeze a square peg into a round hole?  Unnecessary situation.

                "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

                by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:36:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  I'm confused!!! (0+ / 0-)

        I thought he already offered it to her? I'm hearing a million different things. I'm about to just tune out the media. lol

        Barack is not going to appoint her without a proper vetting though. It won't be his fault if they don't cooperate.

    •  It would put The Clintons in a box for 4 years... (8+ / 0-)

      and allow for fresh blood in the Senate from New York.  Hillary's carpetbagging choked off the potential of a few promising NY progressives.

    •  The Obama campign/transition has been masterful (8+ / 0-)

      at the art of "floating" names.  This is a classic political art that's been little seen for about a decade at least.  We've now seen the Obama campaign float names for political effect several times.  all the potential V.P. picks were floated beautifully and all the potential nominees have received increased national exposure and reputation as a result.  I can point directly to the very worthy Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as an example.  Her floated rumored "short list" V.P. potential nomination finally gave her the national name she'd deserved and rewarded her for her steadfast support, she's now a national player.  

      Certainly Hillary is a possible contender for SoS, and floating her name prominently is a political reward and a peace offering, even if she isn't the final pick.  It should be pointed out that she has decisions to make in the process too.  She might not want the job or have conditions for the job.  Further, the life expectancy of the SoS job is only about four years, whereas she can remain Senator for decades given the realities of New York politics.

      I've been interested in the way the Obama organization floats names, they do it and then let the dust settle before any actual naming is done.

    •  I would like to see Richardson or even (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      99 Percent Pure

      Kerry.

      I'm not for HRC for this job.  sorry!

    •  It's a combination. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      subav8r, Amber6541, damned if you do

      The leak that said she was under consideration for SoS came from the higher levels of the Obama transition team.  However, some of the other leaks that are more of a gossipy nature came from Clinton allies.  Also, there was a leak that Kerry was "heavily lobbying" for the SoS job, which is a lie.  That definitely came from Clinton sources to undermine Kerry.  Plus the ones that bashed both Kerry and Richardson as "lightweights" and some other garbage:  Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.

      I still think there is a good chance this appointment is going to happen.  And it is strange the way the blogosphere has been largely quiet about it.  I think most of us are loathe to re-ignite the primary wars.  I know I am.  But when it comes to the dirty tricks being pulled on John Kerry, then I have to speak up.

    •  Well she isn't the only one he's considering (0+ / 0-)

      She's just the only one the media is obsessing about.

  •  Yet another (7+ / 0-)

    it hasn't even been a month.  Obama's only decisions have been personnel/human resource decisions and you and those like you can't give him room to do that.  Do you trust him on nothing?  

    I am a complete cynic myself, but give the guy, I don't know, maybe six months before you start criticizing any and every decision he might or might not make.

    Give me a f'ing banana - Eddie Izzard

    by linc on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:07:53 AM PST

    •  Did I criticize every decision? (17+ / 0-)

      We're discussing the apparently credible reports that Hillary is on the short list to be SOS.

      •  No you are not (3+ / 0-)

        again, these are the only decisions that Obama has taken on and you think you know better.  Boy, this is going to be a long eight years.  How annoying.

        Give me a f'ing banana - Eddie Izzard

        by linc on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:11:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democracy Is Annoying (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ChurchofBruce, greeseyparrot

          Yes he is - your statement doesn't even deny what that comment says, yet you conclude that it is just wrong.

          If the only decisions that Obama takes on are ones that contradict very strong statements he's made while running for our votes, then of course it is imperative that we discuss that, citing the facts.

          What will be "annoying" is another 4-8 years of people insisting we just have faith in "The Decider" because we voted for him when he was saying something different.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:31:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  There is nothing wrong with critiquing Obama's... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          david mizner

          potential choices or decisions. Obama himself encourages that within his inner circle and has talked about a 'team of rivals.'

          Mizner makes a valid point.  Hillary is the most hawkish of the Dem Pres. candidates. That's a fact.

          BTW, remember Hillary recently voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amdmt.

          I do think Hillary brings some positives to the table as far as SOS. She and Bill do have a a serious cache among world leaders. That's a plus for us as we build up or standing around the globe.

          She's also obviously qualified as far as her intellect and diplomatic skills (if she adheres to Obama's agenda).

          •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NCDem Amy

            If you listen to Obama's campaign staff, he likes to have opposing voices in the room because it challenges him to make sure his thinking is clear and takes into account all aspects of a situation. The last thing we want is a bunch of yes-men like Bush surrounded himself with.  That said, the campaign staffers also said that once Obama made a decision that decision was final and they moved forward and there was no tolerance for continued behind-the-scenes discussions or finger-pointing later if a decision didn't work out.  So I don't have a problem with having a policy hawk as SoS but the bigger question, as some people here have raised, is Clinton ready and willing to follow Obama's decisions even those with which she disagrees? I'm not sure her ego would allow it and I think you could also anticipate Bill publicly airing disagreements on his wife's behalf.  

            •  Just read something to back this up... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NCDem Amy

              There's a HuffPo link to a TNR article by Noam Scheiber about the increase drama on the Obama transition team compared to his campaign team.  Mr Scheiber postulates that it was more perception than reality.

              Obama kept these battles off the public radar, however, by instituting an ethos lifted from the corporate boardroom: Dissent was encouraged, but, once a decision was made, as the campaign veteran put it, "everyone gets on board." "The deal was everyone got to be one-hundred-percent straight," says Wagar. "But, when it's over, it's over."

              I think this same method will work in the Cabinet. Let there be disagreement behind closed doors but be unified in the public presentation and execution.

      •  why not quote Obama from last night's 60 minutes? (17+ / 0-)

        the first reference to Hillary Clinton from Obama was last night. It was also his first reference outside of the campaign, which is significant.
        When pointedly asked about her visit to Chicago, Obama said he needed some advice from her.
        Now without indulging in the all-too-popular tea leaf reading, getting advice from someone seems far removed from offering that person a job.
        Barack repeatedly deflected the insatiable "I wanna scoop!" questions in that interview. We should take a lesson from that. He will choose carefully, and for reasons that only he understands.
        And he will tell us who gets what job when he is ready.
        I like that kind of leadership.

        On Election Day, we danced in the streets all over the world

        by kamarvt on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:33:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I take it further... Obama will tell us (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          understandinglife, kamarvt, Amber6541

          ... why he chose someone.  He may not tell us clearly why he didn't choose someone else (as the answer to that is clearly "I believe the person I chose is more qualified").

          --
          Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting

          by sacrelicious on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:57:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Faithy Decider (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greeseyparrot

          He will choose carefully, and for reasons that only he understands.

          He's no messiah. If the reasons are those only he understands, they're bad reasons. His job as president includes explaining the reasons for major decisions like perhaps installing as Secretary of State someone he very clearly described as unfit for a job like that, as this diary specifically states. If he's going to reverse those criticisms, he'd better explain them for us. We're not going to have a country left if we just run it on faith for another 4-8 years. Faithy government is itself a central problem that has ruined us.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:28:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  wrong read, doc (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Amber6541

            I meant nothing of the sort - sorry you read it that way.
            Obama is the new head of the executive branch of the sprawling US federal govt. As such he has many, many considerations about personnel decisions, most of which political bloggers like us don't care to assess. we focus on the political impact of these decisions, weigh the baggage as we see it regarding possible choices, and basically kill pixels by the brazillion based on pure conjecture. That, btw, goes for the teevee pundits in spades.
            I honestly believe Obama will choose a Sec of State for other reasons, mostly having to do with perceived effectiveness in promoting his foreign policy goals.
            Though he has expressed these goals, he has not (and shouldn't) spell out every detail, in order, with footnotes.

            That's what I meant by reasons only he understands.
            It's his program. He, unlike our faithy lame duck, is very thoughtful about these things. this has been demonstrated repeatedly.

            On Election Day, we danced in the streets all over the world

            by kamarvt on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:51:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only He Understands (0+ / 0-)

              If he can't explain his pick to us without "every detail, in order, with footnotes", he's not explaining it properly. Since Obama has the greatest power for explanation of any president of our lifetimes, probably in well over a century, it won't be because he can't explain it.

              It's his programme. He is, however, our president. And his Secretary of State is our Secretary of State. If he can't explain why we've got what we've got, we've got a serious problem.

              If he were to pick Clinton, despite what he clearly said that should disqualify her, without explaining what has changed, "his reasons" aren't good enough.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  dude, ease up (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Amber6541

                and kindly stop overstating my words.
                "Faithy" - your construct
                "can't explain" - also your construct.
                I get the sense you're looking for a fight here.
                i'm not interested.

                On Election Day, we danced in the streets all over the world

                by kamarvt on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My Words (0+ / 0-)

                  My words are accurate. If you can disagree with them, go ahead. If you can do that only by "fighting", try that. If you can't disagree with them in substance, then don't bother posting at me, especially with condescension.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:29:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  yeah lets not turn him into W (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DocGonzo

            WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

            by ruthhmiller on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kamarvt

          And lest we forget, his inauguration is two months away. I'm sure that he and his team will take all their team to seacrh, meet and vet all potential candidates for the cabinet positions.

    •  the appointments he makes now will (15+ / 0-)

      in most cases last for the full 4 years. Why should not thoughtful and sound feedback as in this diary be given to him before he makes those critical choices?

      SoS is probably the most important personnel decision he will make post-election precisely because Bush, with help from HRC (+Biden) and others, throughly botched up the diplomacy and war/peace fronts thoroughly. It really is preferable to appoint someone that had not supported invading Iraq for us to the best foot forward in trying to rebuild our standing around the world.

      Hillary would be a better fit for healthcare reform or education reform (of even a SCOTUS spot), and not the "top Diplomat" of the country role given her bluster and war supporting record of the last 8 years. Don't you agree?

      Foster-> IL-Sen| Laesch or Duckworth-> IL-14| Dean-> HHS| tinyurl.com/NO2JO

      by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:36:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is a pretty important decision. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Amber6541

      And we're not Republicans.

    •  Trust, But Verify (0+ / 0-)

      What is it with you people who can't handle public discussions of decisions Obama is in the process of making? Without those discussions, there's no source of public input into those decisions. Without people disagreeing (with facts and logic, as here), there's no meaningful discussion.

      You're not "a complete cynic": You're arguing for simple faith in Obama that excludes public participation in the process. And you're arguing that reminding us of Obama's own specific criticisms is equal to trusting him on nothing. That's nonsense, not cynicism.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:25:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, it looks like very few here trust (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      soccergrandmom, Blackmamba1973

      Obama on any personnel decisions.  Weird.

      Proud to be an American, once more.

      by LeanneB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You'll see more of that as the hours dwindle down (0+ / 0-)

        to that precious day.

        Personally, as an avowd Hillary supporter originally, later a confirmed Obama activist, I have avowed that Obama knows what Obama needs and have no opinion one way or another at this point.

        However practising my devious wanderings in the maze of speculation searching for meaning i am wondering if this is not actually a brilliant and Machiavellian move.  The vetting process would almost certainly include opening Bill's foreign money donor lists. If Hillary were denied confirmation because of Bill her career would suffer a serious blow.

        She remains in the Senate in return for the promise of first dibs on the veep job in 2012.  Joe will gracefully resign on the grounds of age. Hillary will step in and automatically assume the mantle of incumbency for 2016, thereby guaranteeing the Dems sixteen years.

        Inmediate transformation of a potential rival to best friend.  Lovely fairytale ending.

  •  She has the support of Henry Kissinger... (29+ / 0-)

    If that doesn't make you the least bit nervous, you're a better man than me...
    Anyone who has the approval of that Republican reptile should be viewed with suspicion.

    Listen to Noam Chomsky...

    by MrBurns17 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:54 AM PST

  •  so you wrote another diary about it eh? (6+ / 0-)

    Honestly. Nothing like shouting into the wind.

    "Biden's tears did more for the equality Of the sexes than Palin's presence" - Leah Renna

    by edgeways on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:55 AM PST

  •  Respectfully disagree, david (21+ / 0-)

    Yeah, campaign rhetoric intends to be tough, including Hillary's:  as a woman she was trying to convey that she was tough enough to be C-i-C.

    Also, if she strays too far off the mark, Obama will reign her in.  I'm just not willing too go all ideologue on this.

    •  You are correct. (8+ / 0-)

      Even so, I want her to stay in the Senate and not take a job in the Executive branch.  

      No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

      by jarhead5536 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:12:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ksquire

      I wish you defended her hawkishness during the primary.

      •  ??? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taylormattd, WisVoter

        I didn't defend her hawkishness then and I'm not defending it now.

        •  You excused it (5+ / 0-)

          by saying as a woman she needed to project toughness.

          I don't mean to pick on you, Pamela, as I find your comments generally incisive and respectful but I have to say, I'm amused--angered by the reluctance of Obama supporters to criticize Hillary now that Obama might bring her in. During the primary she could hardly open her mouth without Obama supporters calling her a neocon-AIPAC-loving-hawk, and now--because to criticize Hillary would be in effect to criticize Obama--virtually all Obama supporters have fallen silent. The conclusion to be drawn is that they care more about Obama than his beliefs.

          •  Well. . . (5+ / 0-)

            I'm amused--angered by the reluctance of Obama supporters to criticize Hillary now that Obama might bring her in. During the primary she could hardly open her mouth without Obama supporters calling her a neocon-AIPAC-loving-hawk, and now--because to criticize Hillary would be in effect to criticize Obama--virtually all Obama supporters have fallen silent.

            You know, that could equally well be because during the primary those people lost any semblance of critical thinking skills, and this place devolved into Little Orange Footballs.

            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

            by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:29:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'll only speak for me, among O supporters, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            david mizner, BDsTrinity

            and I'm not a Hill fan, but Obama has credit with me, and what it means to have credit is that he won't get an 'I automatically reject your earliest decisions' reaction from me, even if they wouldn't be my decisions.  It's a benefit of the doubt on staffing decisions.  I think you see Hill as a policy choice, and I while I agree a cabinet appointment of anyone is not sum-neutral on policy, I don't think she's clearly going to force a conflicting agenda.  I can't see the future that clearly.

            Also, I hear you about wanting a progressive SoS, but I do think that a President Hill and an SoS Hill are entirely different.  She would be required to carry out Obama's policies.  She's not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice, but it's a choice I can live with because I think the captain is Obama, and I do - at this point - trust the captain.  If SoS Hill goes rogue, she gets canned, right?  

          •  I was on your side until that last sentence (5+ / 0-)

            Too bad.

            The fact is you were absolutely right until then; being a woman and overcompensating with irresponsible rhetoric to project toughness is no better than being a man and overcompensating with irresponsible rhetoric to project toughness; it's how wars start and thousands of civilians end up shot, burnt, or blown up.  I have no sympathy for anyone who causes violence and suffering with the excuse that they were just trying to act tough in front of others; if we deem that a reasonable excuse, we excuse all malicious acts of violence and suffering, because that's how they usually start.

            I also strongly agree with your analysis that Hillary Clinton disqualified herself for SOS with her ridiculous comments during the primary; she did, which is unfortunate, because aside from that, she would have been an excellent choice because of all the global good will attached to her as a former first lady and as a Clinton (provided of course that Bill Clinton scraps the CGI and its potential compromises of access).  

            However, this has nothing to do with criticizing or not criticizing Obama; for all we know, the Clinton rumors are just being floated by loyal strategists and other associates of the Clintons, and she's not even on Obama's list.

            The all purpose reference for every Obama surrogate and supporter

            by ShadowSD on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:46:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Last Sentence Is Correct (3+ / 0-)

              The conclusion to be drawn is that they care more about Obama than his beliefs.

              The entire point of this diary is that Obama clearly explained in the primaries reasons that show Clinton is unfit to be Secretary of State. If Obama were to reverse that position, he would be betraying his beliefs as he explained them in the primaries. Yet the people that last sentence is referring to are indeed elevating above those stated beliefs Obama's (hypothetical) reversed decision to accept Clinton. Very clearly they care more about Obama than about his beliefs. Even if (at least) some of them care about Obama now only because they really just care about Clinton, and caring about Obama's new position means getting Clinton, despite Obama's beliefs as quoted here.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:47:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Such melodramatic logic (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                taylormattd, Blackmamba1973

                There doesn't need to be a reversal of a decision if Obama appoints her as SOS.

                If Obama were to pick her, it would be saying that he believes that the good attributes she brings to the table outweigh the bad.  I might disagree with that assessment, and it wouldn't be the first time I have taken a different view than him; I happened to disagree with a few of Obama's decisions at the time he made them (three to be exact: Gibbs, VP, and his dismissing that agnostic kids would care about coerced reference to deity in the pledge).

                But three or four minor areas of disagreement versus literally thousands of areas of agreement is the best ratio I've ever gotten in a major party candidate in my lifetime, or can probably expect get in the future, and that's not something I take for granted.

                The all purpose reference for every Obama surrogate and supporter

                by ShadowSD on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your Melodrama (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  subav8r, bicycle Hussein paladin

                  Invading Iraq, attacking Iran and no substantial foreign policy experience aren't "minor reasons". What Obama said about her on those subjects disqualifies anyone who is that way. If he were to reverse himself on that, he'd look really bad. It would underscore his selection of Biden, who also voted for the Iraq War, as a problem. It would make other reversals once "accountability moments" were passed, like FISA amnesty after the primaries, look even more omnious.

                  That's not "melodrama". That's serious, being treated seriously. If you're going to downplay these important issues, and what they signify about other important issues, by calling it "melodrama", then you're not going to convince me of anything.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:37:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not downplaying all those issues as melodrama (0+ / 0-)

                    I recommended this diary and articulated my criticisms of her above.  What part of "Hillary Clinton disqualified herself for SOS with her ridiculous comments during the primary" is downplaying the importance of the issues?

                    The all purpose reference for every Obama surrogate and supporter

                    by ShadowSD on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:34:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your Melodrama (0+ / 0-)

                      Obama pointed out serious problems with Clinton's foreign policy experience: seriously wrong, plus inexperience (despite her claims to experience).

                      If he were to put someone with those problems in as Secretary of State, he'd be reversing those criticisms.

                      You call "melodrama" my pointing out that such a change would be a reversal. That is downplaying the importance of those issues.

                      Or, I suppose, he'd be saying that someone with those problems is still OK for State, lowering its standards severely right when the standards need to be the highest - to get us out of our crises. Which is even worse.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:40:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  HRC as SOS in not the one in charge of policy! (0+ / 0-)

                I object to the condescending tone you use when referring to Obama supporters. All your comments seem to indicate you think people who are willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt are acting like sheep. There are good reasons for people to be on either side of this issue.

                From what we've read and seen, it seemed almost likely that Colin Powell was not big on the Iraq war yet he was able to do as he was told by Bush. The job of HRC as SOS is to do what the President wants. She's of course going to let her opinion be known to Obama and if she can't in good conscience carry out her duty, then she can quit just like Powell should have quit before the war.

                •  Get Someone Qualified (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  askew, ksquire

                  You want to argue with my "tone", you come out and disagree with something specific. Your style of attacking me on some vague basis is annoying, and gives me little inclination to take your arguments seriously.

                  I do indeed have little use for people who insist on ignoring Obama's clear statements when there's a possibilty he'll reverse those statements in ways those people prefer. I also have little use for people who will describe those people as generically "Obama supporters", when they're a much more specific group, as I described, who might only be "Obama supporters" in that single decision, also as I described.

                  Colin Powell is a good example of how useless a Secretary of State can be when he fundamentally disagrees with a major policy, but executes it for years anyway. One reason the Iraq War has trudged on so badly is because Powell helped prop it up along the way. But Powell is a bad example of a Clinton secretariat, because Powell was right to oppose the war, while Clinton was wrong to promote and approve it, wrong on Iran, wrong in the other ways that contradict how Obama is right.

                  You're talking about a Secretary of State who undermines the president. When the president is wrong, it's still bad government, even if it might have some mitigating value to the specific policy. But Bush isolated Powell for a long time before Powell finally quit, because of that undermining, which disrupted the rest of the State Department's effectiveness, contributing to our many crises around the world. To compound that fundamental mismanagement structure you'd welcome, with a Secretary who's wrong, and undermines the president who is right, is unacceptable. There's no reason except partisan empirebuilding to create that kind of conflicted State Department. Especially when we need one functioning at top form to clean up the mess.

                  Besides, if you think Clinton would necessarily quit or be fired, when Powell has just proven how that doesn't have to happen for years, you really are insisting on ignoring all history in favor of giving Clinton this job she's unfit to hold.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  She's unfit to be SoS? Exaggerate much! (0+ / 0-)
                    •  The Point of This Diary (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ksquire

                      This diary is entirely about how Obama said how she'd be unfit to be Secretary of State, or anything else that would have foreign policy power.

                      But you're not even backing up your obnoxious, childish statements. So no more free attention for you, baby. Goodbye.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Powell didn't oppose the war (0+ / 0-)

                    He supposedly didn't like feeding the world bullshit at the UN; but that wasn't being 'against the war.'

                    And it's funny how you're stating as fact that Clinton will work to undermine Obama's foreign policy. Whole lotta fortune telling going on.

                    •  Argument (0+ / 0-)

                      I accepted for the sake of argument, as posted in the comment to which I replied, that Powell opposed the war, which was the entire argument given for using him as an example.

                      I am indeed predicting that Clinton would undermine Obama's foreign policy. She's not going to just take his orders when they disagree. Of course that's simply a prediction from her record of being the one in charge. But it's immaterial, because of course there shouldn't be any risk of that, even if there's no certainty about the future.

                      I don't find it funny that you are somehow predicting the future yourself by implying that Clinton won't, without even giving any reasons for it. That is the hallmark of Clinton supporters on this issue: everything will be OK despite evidence it won't, just because. That doesn't do anything but make me distrust the object of their affection.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  He was referring to her fitness for POTUS (0+ / 0-)

                not for SoS in his own administration.  I'm very thankful we have a president-elect who is far more capable of subtlety and dimension in his thinking than many posters on this site seem to possess.  He may be able to think in terms that are not utterly absolute in all situation; that is, he may see in Hillary skills that could be very effective under the right conditions - say, her working to execute his policies.

                Proud to be an American, once more.

                by LeanneB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Facts (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes, when he referred to her fitness to be president, he specified some facts that also show she's unfit to be Secretary of State. She'd also be unfit to be the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the UN Ambassador, or Defense Secretary. This is not some impossible standard of "utterly absolute in all situations", neither is it the pure situational question that you're reframing it as. The fact is that Clinton's foreign policy acumen is at best "inexperienced", and at worst dead wrong on the biggest problems the next Secretary of State will have to get right. Someone who is right and experienced is better, and especially someone like that who isn't as inclined as Clinton is to take as much power as she can possibly get away with.

                  Your argument for his giving Clinton that power that he clearly showed he knows she's not fit to have is about equal to "Obama works in mysterious ways". I voted for hope and change, not for faith.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:53:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  ?? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            taylormattd, GN1927, subav8r

            I have to say, I'm amused--angered by the reluctance of Obama supporters to criticize Hillary now that Obama might bring her in. During the primary she could hardly open her mouth without Obama supporters calling her a neocon-AIPAC-loving-hawk, and now--because to criticize Hillary would be in effect to criticize Obama--virtually all Obama supporters have fallen silent.

            I'm not seeing that.  Quite a few Obama supporters have pointed out that foreign policy is one of the reasons they didn't support Clinton.  I know I have.

          •  nah (0+ / 0-)

            really what it proves more than anything (i.e., the actual conclusion to be drawn) is that far too many people refuse to think before they type, are given to hyperbole, etc.

            "Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise." Thomas Paine, Common Sense

            by Cedwyn on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:43:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Dear david, (0+ / 0-)

            Hope you read this 'cuz I'm just now returning to your diary.  I genuinely believe that it's important to separate a political campaign from good governance.

            The truth is that when we discuss ideology I think you're one of the best.  I admire your contributions to this site:  if I see a d.m. diary, I make a point to read it.

            Selecting a cabinet member on purely ideological grounds reduces the complexity of the choice.

            Thank you for responding to my comments.

          •  Um (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Great Uncle Bulgaria

            I'm amused--angered by the reluctance of Obama supporters to criticize Hillary now that Obama might bring her in. During the primary she could hardly open her mouth without Obama supporters calling her a neocon-AIPAC-loving-hawk, and now--because to criticize Hillary would be in effect to criticize Obama--virtually all Obama supporters have fallen silent.

            Actually, the reason we generally don't bother to criticize her is that we usually get jumped on for perpetuating sexism against her, or some such nonsense.  It has nothing to do with idolizing Obama or whatever it is you're suggesting here.  It's simply trying not to step in the hornet's nest that is trying to criticize Hillary on this site.

            Proud to be an American, once more.

            by LeanneB on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:03:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry for the errors: (0+ / 0-)

      "intend" = tend; "too" = to

    •  Why does he need a SoS he needs to reign in? (12+ / 0-)

      How about someone he can trust?

      •  team of rivals (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Frank, tari

        Just throwing that out there. Sometimes internal discord is not a bad thing, if it is properly mediated (which we know Obama can do). We need an administration that is going to be bold, disagree in private, and take both experience and "change" to make a new way forward.

        For Which It Stands

        Publius

        The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. -Teddy

        by AmericanLeader on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:22:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but "rival" inplies more than just differences... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DocGonzo, 99 Percent Pure

          ...of opinion. we're talking about someone with their own very well known political ambitions and agenda. the last thing you want in a cabinet is someone positioning to run in 2016.

          if he feels he must offer her something, put her on SCOTUS. but really i think she would be best in the senate.

          "I don't think they're going to be any more successful in 2010 or 2012."
          -Yes On 8 co-manager

          by jethropalerobber on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:34:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you sure... (0+ / 0-)

            Lincoln's cabinet included all of his Republican rivals for the presidency, including guys will William Seward, Salmon Chase, and Edward Bates. Andrew Jackson was in his cabinet.

            These guys had agendas. People knew what they were.

            But think to yourself for a minute--we now officially hold governance over personal agenda in the Obama administration. If Clinton is outwardly trying to do otherwise, she'll be fired, and she'll be destroyed.

            For Which It Stands

            Publius

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. -Teddy

            by AmericanLeader on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:39:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Get Someone Else (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew, subav8r, david mizner

              Obama explained, as quoted in this diary, that her foreign policy experience wasn't just "different", but unacceptable. She's unqualified to be Secretary of State, as Obama explained. There's absolutely no reason for her to get the job, except that she's a fairly popular politician with some diehards from the primaries, who might want the power of the job. According to Obama, her performance in it wouldn't suit the national interest. Which I put above Clinton's interest, even if she doesn't.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  but lincoln only got 39% of the vote (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bicycle Hussein paladin

              ...and literally close to 0% in the southern states. so he was much more in need of political support and unity.

              (and i assume you mean andrew johnson, the other tennessee democrat - although he wasn't added to the lincoln government until 1865)

              "I don't think they're going to be any more successful in 2010 or 2012."
              -Yes On 8 co-manager

              by jethropalerobber on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:11:53 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Obama can handle strong characters (0+ / 0-)

          he wants to see all options expressed and discussed and then he will decide and not everyone will like it. Obama has the ability to see the big picture and I trust him.

        •  We Voted Against Her (0+ / 0-)

          Obama didn't say those criticisms of Clinton in a vacuum. He said them while convincing us not to let her have the power of a president. They are equally true of someone who shouldn't be Secretary of State, because those are the specific powers in question. Someone with those criticized problems isn't just a "rival", but an opponent. Obama had his admin can't spend their admin chasing down someone that opposed to what Obama has said is important. That kind of person is a "rogue", which we've just spent a decade proving is an unacceptable kind of person to have that kind of power.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Huge differences between President and SOS. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            taylormattd
            •  Bigger Ones Between SoS and Civilian (0+ / 0-)

              The Secretary of State has to be someone who can be relied on to carry out the president's policy. Both because they're loyal, and because they don't have conflicting policy agendas. And because they have proven experience in doing a good job in foreign policy, not standing on the wrong side of failed policies. Since we have many who meet the right criteria, there is no reason to have someone who fails them.

              See how easy it is to back up a statement in a comment? Try it sometime.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:13:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Back up a statement? What you wrote made no sense (0+ / 0-)

                Just because a SoS disagrees with a President does not mean he or she will not carry out their duties to the best of their abilities. Jeez, there have been many secretaries (and not just State) who've disagreed with their Presidents and yet served dutifully and effectively. Arguing that there is possiblity HRC will not do the same is not a sound reason against her.

                More importantly, the job of SoS goes beyond issues of war. There are other matters an SoS in the Obama administration will have to deal with, including but not limited to Peace (mideast and Africa), poverty, global financial meltdown, global warming, etc. To ignore these other issues is stupid IMHO.

                •  Stupid Comment (0+ / 0-)

                  What I said makes perfect sense - and I actually said something, which you didn't.

                  In fact what you are saying makes no sense. You are relying on the same kind of fake "logic" that Republicans use: you take a statement, like "the Secretary of State should have the same agenda as the president", reduce it to nonsensical extremes, like "the Secretary of State must always agree with the president", then argue with that straw man, "sometimes they can disagree".

                  Clinton stood for invading Iraq, attacking Iran, and all these other bad policies. They don't come from nowhere: they come from someone with constituencies and values that will gain even more power in the State Department than they did through her NY senator's office. And since she spent 2 years trying to get the president job, she's going to run that office like she's president. There is absolutely no evidence that she will act as a "wingman" to anyone except Bill, who is in fact the reported main obstacle to vetting her, and who's even less likely to simply serve someone else like Obama, especially after all Bill has said about Obama.

                  I'm not ignoring the other issues: I just don't believe she's going to follow Obama's directions when they disagree. But indeed you are ignoring these essential foreign policy issues, which are "outweighed" by nothing. You are indeed ignoring that we have a whole country of people from whom to pick a qualified Secretary of State. So I guess now you'll admit that doing so was stupid, in your "humble" opinion.

                  You've got nothing in this argument. You throw straw men, you make statements you don't bother to back up, you say my comments are stupid when yours are in exactly the way you whine about. And mainly you are wrong about Clinton in every way, as I have shown every time you say something, but which you refuse to ever acknowledge, while I've debunked your arguments quickly and with respect. No more.

                  I'm not going to dignify your puny position with any more responses. What should I expect from "carlos the jackal" but an unenlightening encounter (especially for "the jackal") after which I'll want to take a shower?

                  Goodbye.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you are full of yourself aren't you? (0+ / 0-)

                    going around throwing insults at people courtesy of the interent. I bet you intelligence and prognostication proved correct when you told us Dodd was going to be Obama's VP choice. Your long rants are asinine, that's why I don't bother to respond to them in like manner. Your whole claim rests on an idiotic belief that HRC won't do what Obama asks her to do when they disagree? How old are you, 12?

                    •  Had My Fill of You (0+ / 0-)

                      You're an asshole, with a typical infantile projection problem.

                      Goodbye again. Though if you're going to reduce this whole "discussion" to nothing but insults, the way you started and insisted on maintaining it, I might just stick around to grind your abject inferiority into your face for as long as you demonstrate it.

                      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:56:15 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  i'm more concerned about loyalty then policy (0+ / 0-)

      even if she publicly adheres to his policies, she can still - if she's inclined - be a rogue player.

      "I don't think they're going to be any more successful in 2010 or 2012."
      -Yes On 8 co-manager

      by jethropalerobber on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:31:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ok.... (3+ / 0-)

      So, be to "tough" she voted for the war?

      To be "tough" she didn't admit it was a mistake?

      To be "tough" she race-baited Obama?

      To be "tough" she wondered if he would be assassinated before the convention?

      To be "tough" she ran the Karl Rove style 3AM ad?

      To be "tough" she implied McCain had better foreign policy credentials than Obama?

      To be "tough" she refused to concede even after it was impossible for her to win?

      To be "tough" she refused to concede even on the night that Obama got the delegates he needed?

      This is absolutely ridiculous. And you know it.

      Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

      by Mikesco on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:27:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Respect for What? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bicycle Hussein paladin

      It's not the toughness of Obama's "rhetoric", it's the specific points he made that this diary is reminding us of. If he'd made those points with a less "tough" style, they'd be the same: Clinton's foreign policy decisions, especially on Iraq, were unacceptable for someone with the power of the president, or even the Secretary of State. Not a question of ideology at all, which isn't even cited in this diary, but of pragmatism.

      Unless you're saying it's OK to lie in the primaries to get votes, then reverse yourself once the "accountability moment" is past. That's hardly "respectful".

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:36:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reject Hillary Clinton for SOS (16+ / 0-)


    Hillary Clinton has proven to be a congential liar on Foreign Policy matters (Iraq, Iran) and just parrots every NeoCon/AIPAC/AEI warmongering talking-point that is put out there in the media. She does not fact check, and always aligns herself with the War Hawks as a first response. For example, she even voted against a ban on the use of civilian-killing (children-killing) cluster bombs.

    Her judgement is:   wrong, wrong again, and stubborn.

    This undermines the whole credibility of the Obama "change" narrative.




  •  And let's not forget Joe Biden (14+ / 0-)

    Saying that Obama was not ready to be president.

    Everyone criticizes their opposition during a campaign.

  •  HRC (19+ / 0-)

    The media and the public have overestimated HRC's experiences and skills.  I do not respect her character, either.  She ran a failed campaign and refused to step down so she could earn political capital.  I am a woman; but I cannot support a woman with no character and courage.

  •  Feh. (15+ / 0-)

    Obama and Clinton have essentially identical foreign policy positions.  They both worked hard to manufacture differences during the primaries for obvious reasons, but if you actually listen to them and apply the tiniest bit of critical thinking, you'll see they have almost no disagreements whatsoever.

    In particular, the "no preconditions" kerfluffle was nothing more than each candidate trying to distinguish themselves for purposes of the primary campaign.  In the general election Obama clarified his position -- it is, in fact, identical to Clinton's.

    And if you really believe that Obama believes that anything Clinton has said or believes is "reflective of George Bush" then you must have a pretty low opinion of Obama's critical thinking skills.

    There are plenty of people qualified to be Secretary of State, and Senator Clinton is unquestionably among them.  If Obama wants her in that position, and she's willing, good on both of them.

    John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:15:42 AM PST

    •  Yes, but how are other countries going to view (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      99 Percent Pure, Crabby Abbey

      this. That's what I'm interested in, especially in regards to Iran. She took a very hawkish position on Iran and I don't want to see Obama's chances of reaching some kind of deal with them squandered because they're turned off by this pick.

      •  But Obama has. . . (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Frank, Lying eyes, Rumarhazzit, h bridges

        the same hawkish position on Iran.

        Did you see his press conference?  Did you hear Iran's reaction?

        Both Clinton and Obama are on the very same page when it comes to Iran.  They both present like hawks, but state that they would negotiate with Iran at the appropriate level.

        You are contrasting Clinton's actual position with an imaginary Obama position.

        John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

        by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:22:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't recall his rhetoric being anywhere near (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, betson08, 99 Percent Pure

          "obliterate Iran". He said Iran having nuclear weapons is unacceptable, a pretty widely held belief.

          Here's a simple thought exercise: Would Iran have sent a congratulations letter if Clinton won?

          •  Both Obama and Clinton. . . (2+ / 0-)

            have made it clear that the US will respond militarily in the event that Iran attacks Israel.  That may not be the policy that you want to see (I don't know), but it is the policy that both of them have.

            You're correct that Obama has not used the word "obliterate" in that context.  If you believe that that means they have a significant difference of policy on the use of military force against Iran, feel free to do so.  Clinton has also not threatened unilateral action on Pakistani soil.

            Iran would not have sent a congratulatory letter if Clinton were elected, but so what?  If ostensibly knowledgeable commenters here at dKos can fool themselves into believing that Obama and Clinton have a different policy on Iran, why can't Ahmedinejad?

            Certainly, after Obama's press conference if Ahmedinejad could retract that letter, he would.  Iran now considers Obama "dangerous".

            John McCain, you are _not_ my friend.

            by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:39:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  He should get somebody who doesn't share his view (0+ / 0-)

          on Iran, then, if it's basically the same as Clinton's. He says he wants to hear conflicting views in his administration? Let's see him do it then. So far it's sounding like all talk.

    •  Iraq (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, GN1927, spyguy999

      Obama and Clinton have essentially identical foreign policy positions.

      On the biggest issue of them all, they were about as different as day and night. Hillary was for attacking Iraq, while Obama was against it. There is little else that needs to be said...

    •  How exactly is Senator Clinton qualified for SoS? (7+ / 0-)

      Let's have the list. Experience?

      Well, let's see: let's recall the mismanaged, publicly infighting, still in debt, purposefully divisive campaign Hillary and her people ran.

      I suspect, and I don't think I'm alone here, that the State Department is not easier to run than a presidential campaign.

      I'm hoping for someone with diplomatic credentials. Real ones. Not a keep-your-enemies-close feel-good moment, not a political stunt with a learning curve - a real honest to God Secretary of State who can bring a diplomatic career and international credibility to the job.

      And an endorsement from Kissinger is so Cheney-endorsing-McCain. By the way - what was that?

      Anyone who has seen the 60 Minutes interview last night has seen evidence that the orchestrated and relentless Hillary hype is NOT coming from the Obama "you're not getting any more on that from me" campaign.

      But to sum it up in one sentence - can you really see the soap opera that is the Clintons in a no-drama-Obama White House?

    •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Plutonium Page, Lying eyes

      Too many people are still stuck in primary rhetoric. If you look beyond that, the differences between them are very small, or even non-existent.

      Plus, they are both pragmatic and smart politicians, who will work well together, with Obama having the last word.

      I really don't understand what people get worked up about. But, the name "Clinton" seems to do that to people in the blogosphere.

      Presidential politics is like jumping into raw sewage with your mouth open -- Batfish

      by Frank on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:36:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree. I am not comfortable with (7+ / 0-)

    Hillary as SoS.  I didn't believe being First Lady was "experience" for the presidency and I don't believe it is for SoS either.  Would anyone consider Laura Bush experienced?  Ok, add a term in the Senate.  Then SoS?

    I am wondering if this isn't a great way for Obama to finally vet Bill Clinton's doings.  The money he's making overseas, and particularly from the middle east, may be of great interest to Obama.  And if he shows all the money trails and they are clean, Hillary gets to be SoS.  But if he won't reveal them . . .  Obama knows more now and will be prepared.

    I personally am very curious as to what Bill Clinton has been up to, if only because he wasn't willing to come clean on that when he was pushing as hard as possible to get Hillary into the Oval Office.  This could be very very interesting . . .

  •  No secret that I am a huge Hillary fan. (5+ / 0-)

    I think she has one of the most brilliant minds around today, and her politics line up almost exactly with mine.  Even so, I want her in the Senate, not the Administration, for lots of reasons...

    No politician ever lost an election by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. PT Barnum, paraphrased...

    by jarhead5536 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:17:41 AM PST

    •  She'd be helpful on health care (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ksquire, TomP

      but reportedly reid-kennedy have shut her out.

      •  Leaving her ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP, pamelabrown

        ... around #33-#34 in seniority in the caucus, and not chairing anything interesting anytime soon.

        •  I really think (0+ / 0-)

          she would be fine on the S. Ct.  I can live with her as SoS, but generally agree with David: there are better choices.  I guess he lack of importance in the Senate could lead her to SoS, if it really is offered. Richardson also was interviewed, and there may be others.

          "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

          by TomP on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:52:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I would welcome her SCOTUS nomination (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Guaunyu, TomP

            She's earned the right to live the rest of her life relatively away from the public eye, and without having to campaign again.  It's about time we had a non-judge on the Court again, and certainly it's time we had someone (like Justice O'Connor) who at least ran for office (and served in a legislature) first.

      •  No, she wouldn't. She blew it for a generation. (4+ / 0-)

        Inviting the insurance and medical industry lobbyists to write her "reform" bill, and stiff-arming the Democratic members of Congress - who shut who out?

        Democrats need to learn from experience who is on whose side. The Clintons are corporatists. Hoping they have changed is an exercise in Einstein's definition of insanity - "- doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

        No do-overs.

  •  What about Bill? (6+ / 0-)

    Having that loose cannon on the international deck is does not sound like an Obama "no-drama" type of decision.

    I think the deal will fall apart during the vetting process.

    Our government is conducting a war on drugs, is it? Let them go after petroleum. Talk about a destructive high!- Kurt Vonnegut

    by crystal eyes on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:19:33 AM PST

  •  Well, here's the question (11+ / 0-)

    Would she be willing as Secretary of State to run foreign policy per the directives of the President?  If so, then I don't know that it would matter what she has said in the past.

  •  Campaign Attacks Have a 2-Month Expiration Date (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jethropalerobber, Larry Bailey

    After that they have little to no bearing on the future.  Sigh.

  •  I am concerned about the conflict of interest (7+ / 0-)

    that would exist between Bill Clinton's Global Initiative, which does good things, but would have inherent conflicts of interest with American foreign policy, and a State Department headed by Hillary Clinton.

    Additionally, Bill Clinton makes millions of dollars a year from speeches overseas.  How might the money he receives from foreign NGOs, heads of state or corporations be perceived by these entities were Hillary to become Chief Diplomat?  

    Strictly speaking, for Hillary Clinton to head the State Department, Bill Clinton would have to completely divest himself from any active role in the Clinton Global Initiative and he would have to stop receiving speaking fees.  

    January 20 2009 cannot come soon enough.

    by Crisis Corps Volunteer on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:30:21 AM PST

  •  Sweet drinking game (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueInRedCincy, browneyes

    Every time another diary comes out about HRC SOS, take a shot. Not counting mine, I think I've downed about 40-50.

    Woo hooo!!!!

    Publius

    The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. -Teddy

    by AmericanLeader on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:30:47 AM PST

  •  Ahem. (7+ / 0-)

    Sorry, but things said during a primary season are not a true indication of how someone would handle foreign affairs.  Do you honestly believe that Hillary was being sincere when she said she would "obliterate" Iran?  Please.

  •  Exactly right (4+ / 0-)

    In fact, HRC at State and letting Gates stay on at DOD would be equally poor choices IMO. The best choice for State would be Richardson, I think. And the DOD must go to a Dem or else you wind up reinforcing the meme that Dems are weak at defense.

    An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz (cskendrick)

    by brainwave on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:36:43 AM PST

  •  Shhhhh, you'll offend Lynn Forester de Rothschild (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    spyguy999, Jampacked

    Oops, I mean Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild-- she might call you an "elitist" for speaking your mind.

  •  Hillary wasn't my choice for the nomination. (4+ / 0-)

    But if Obama chooses her to be a member of the Cabinet, I will be very comfortable with her.  He will choose the right people.

    Tiger the Tabby 1990-2008 RIP

    by browneyes on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:39:39 AM PST

    •  "member of the Cabinet" distinct from SoS call (6+ / 0-)

      I would have no qualms about Senator Clinton in most cabinet positions - and I agree with those that like her for Supreme Court Justice.

      But the position of Secretary of State requires a lack of drama that simply would not be possible with Senator Clinton at the helm.

      It also requires a detailed attention to (and therefore passion for) matters of human rights across the globe. These are things that come up daily - an assassinated union leader in one place, a jailed reporter in another - that for all the good things about Senator Clinton she has never shown across-the-board concern about. If anything, her "concern" has been selective and coincided with media-driven narratives and other agendas (which foreign government to demonize, which to cover up for, based on other policy priorities such as trade agreements).

      In any case, as I diaried the other day, the wheels are coming off this train already. What Mike Allen reports today in Politico, I've had confirmed from various sources of my own in Chicago:

      SIREN: Team Obama, after all but offering SecState to Senator Clinton, is expressing EXASPERATION with the Clinton camp for the difficulty in getting a clean vet on President Bill Clinton’s many entanglements. “The ball is very much in her court, but the president's finances have been a major point of sensitivity from day one,” a Democratic official said. (“Day One!”) “Given that everyone's mystified by how deliberately public the Clintons have made this once secret process, the assumption is either that the Clintons are trying to use the public buzz to steamroll their way in, create a sense of inevitability that overcomes those concerns, or that it's just a matter of time before they … satisfy vetting somehow, some way. Otherwise, after all this speculation, there’ll be a permanent dark cloud hanging over her finances. … But generally the sense among the no-drama Obama world is: This is well on its way to winning best Oscar for drama.”

      He also adds an important mitigating point:

      RELAX: President Clinton was in Rotterdam and Kuwait over the past four days and got back this morning. It seems reasonable for a couple to want to talk about a life decision over the kitchen table rather than over a crackly cell connection 10 time zones away.

      However, with the clock ticking fast on the need to make a decision on who will serve in the post, time is not on Senator Clinton's side. Basically, for her to be SoS, Bill Clinton would have to agree to multiple conditions regarding limits to his own international work that would essentially mean that Bill would have to stop being Bill. He was willing to do that had Senator Clinton been elected president. Nobody is very sure he'd be willing to do that for this proposal. And there are other reasons - laid out by Nate Silver and I in recent days - why Senator Clinton herself, if she truly is thinking about it (we don't know how much Kabuki is really behind these trial balloons yet, and perhaps we never will), may end up determining it's not worth the considerable risks.

      I still think the most likely outcome is an emotional press conference in the Empire State confessing her great love for the people of New York and determination to continue serving them in the Senate. In fact, this has probably been the plan all along, and, if so, that would explain why there is little pushback from Chicago on the media circus.

      •  So is the short list really Kerry & Richardson? (4+ / 0-)

        I was skeptical a few days about your diary, but upon reflection, I think you were onto something.  I do think there was some truth to the "trial balloon" actually coming from the Obama people.  But the rest has been a Clinton manufactured drama, which Bill himself may kill.

        We shall see.

      •  Clinton should not have been concidered for SOS (0+ / 0-)

        I am still disheartened that the Obama camp would even consider her for such a delicate position- loyalty is not a Clinton strong suite and to boot, Mrs. Clinton is not qualified for this position regardless of what some of the media are claiming. The very idea that placing her as SOS so she can be watched and do no harm is absolutely stupid. Does President-elect Obama want to place someone of questionable loyalty and experience, but with "star power" in an important positon during a difficult and dangerous time in our country's history, so that he can keep her busy and at the same time ignore what is going on overseas in order to focus on domestic issues?  There is no logic in this idea and the suggestion of a Team of Rivals in this case is questionable. I am disapointed that Clinton's name was even brought up- at least for Secretary of State. I am really hoping this is all hype and bluster and the real adults will take over soon.

  •  good post, David. (5+ / 0-)

    cleanly and clearly argued.

    Foster-> IL-Sen| Laesch or Duckworth-> IL-14| Dean-> HHS| tinyurl.com/NO2JO

    by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:40:25 AM PST

  •  Conservatives Are for Clinton at State (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, ksquire

    While I'd love to see a bipartisan cabinet with ideological diversity, I think that David's concern that HRC is too hawkish is fair.

    Certainly, the fact that Henry Kissinger and John Kyl have backed the idea of HRC at SOS suggests that she's to the right of center on foreign affairs.

    •  Or... (10+ / 0-)

      conservatives are desperate for any chance that there would be drama and dissent within the Democratic party, as, right now, all of the attention is focused on the complete collapse and soap opera of the Republican party.

      The Republicans only endorse HRC when they think it benefits them -- and not in a policy way, but in a "let's try to cause problems for the Dems" way.

      Remember McCain's ad about Obama "snubbing" Clinton for VP?  Do you really think it was because McCain and the Republicans wanted to see HRC anywhere near the White House?

      Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

      by Kaili Joy Gray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:55:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Guaunyu, BlueGenes

        they're are some nominees that would spark John Kyl's opposition.

      •  Either Way... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueGenes

        If conservatives support her because they believe she would be good for the job, progressives should be concerned.  This seems, by the way, the more likely reason for their endorsement given her rather hawkish voting record.

        However, if conservatives are only endorsing HRC at SOS because they believe that she'd make trouble for an Obama administration, we might consider that they could be right.

        Either way, my point was that David's concerns are fair, and not necessarily fueled by simple dislike of HRC.

        •  I think you're giving the conservatives (5+ / 0-)

          too much credit for being right.

          These are the same people who've been wrong about everything.  Why should we suddenly start thinking they might be right about Hillary, either as a hawk or as a trouble maker?

          Hillary was one of Obama's strongest advocates during the general.  She stayed on mesage, fired up crowds, stumped all over the place, and was very effective at getting her supporters as excited for Obama.  

          Hillary knows how to be a good soldier.  I have no doubts at all that she would work to implement Obama's agenda.  After all, lest we forget, Hillary is quite adept at being the woman behind the man.

          Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

          by Kaili Joy Gray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:11:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So your theory is... (0+ / 0-)

            ...they're endorsing her because they think she'd make a lousy SOS and she'd be bad for the Obama Admin, but they're simply wrong about that.

            I still personally think it's more likely their endorsements are sincere and they think she'll work at SOS like she did in the Senate on foreign affairs - hawkishly.

            However, your interpretation of the situation is certainly a fair one.  I'll readily concede that it's as plausible an explanation as any, given the GOP's recent track record.

            •  I think it's pretty simple. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              taylormattd, coigue, boofdah

              Their sole purpose right now is to try to tear down President Obama and obstruct the Dems in Congress.  So trying to fan any flames of dissent within the party is party of that.  But I also have no doubt that if Hillary is SoS, they'll be as critical of her as they've ever been.

              I think they just want to try to cause problems, however they can.  Support Hillary for SoS is a win-win for them.  If she's chosen, they can bash Obama for choosing someone who doesn't agree with his policies and rehash all the ways they disagreed during the primary.  If he doesn't pick her, then the Republicans can whisper about how Obama has snubbed Hillary again.  Either way, it's drama within the Democratic party.

              Republicans are just desperate to turn the attention away from their own dysfunction right now.

              Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

              by Kaili Joy Gray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:31:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  HRC does not want to return to the senate. (6+ / 0-)

    She is a bench warmer, low on the senority pole, and no legislation with meat to put her teeth into.

    Thus, leave the senate for a high powered position, hopefully a cabinet one.

    I am not sold on HRC.  There are others with far more experience than she, and they deserve the consideration.

    Again, we don't know if this job is state.  Obama has not said so, and if anyone knows his history, he keeps his cards close to the vest.

    Lastly, this state job is grueling.  Most don't stay past a first term, if they can even complete the first term.

    At this point, it is wait and see.

  •  HRC as SOS makes no sense to me (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ksquire, Mikesco, 99 Percent Pure

    I am not anti-HRC, but foreign policy is not her area of expertise. Kerry would be a better choice, but prefer someone who has been anti-war all along.

  •  People say a lot of things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BoiseBlue, AmericanLeader

    while campaigning.  Go back and see what Hillary said about him and then she ended up campaigning for him.  I can understand not wanting her as SOS, but this is kind of pointless.

  •  You have said publicly what many think privately, (5+ / 0-)

    myself included. In the interest of not re-igniting the primary wars I have tried to remain as neutral as possible regarding this leaking of Hillary as a potential SoS.

    My concerns are many but you have laid out the most substantive.

    1. Significant differences between the two on critical issues of foreign policy.
    1. Will she be able to abandon her personal policy stances in favor of promoting the Administration for which she serves. Normally this is not an issue because the SoS and President would be in agreement. Foggy Bottom is not an independent nation from which to operate one's own foreign policy initiatives...just ask Colin Powell.
    1. Bill Clinton. I need much more information regarding his dealings with foreign entities who have contributed to the CGI and possibly the Clinton Library. What did they expect in return for their contributions.
    1. Management skills and team player perspective. To be kind, Hillary's campaign was not exactly a drama free, well run enterprise. Was this an aberration or indicative of her management skills. One of the biggest selling points for a number of Obama supporters was the incredibly well run and drama free nature of his campaign. I'd like 4 to 8 years of minimal drama if possible.

    Those are just the thoughts off the top of my head but I trust the President-elect will make an informed decision one way or the other.

  •  On experience... (3+ / 0-)

    In the beginning of your diary, you mention Hillary's limited foreign policy experience.

    I don't think a discussion of experience is particularly relevant at this point.  Hillary may have limited foreign policy experience, but no less than Obama's.

    There's been a lot of debate about experience lately.  Many seem upset that Obama is hiring people who gained their experience as part of the Clinton administration, as if being one of the thousands of people Clinton hired or appointed is an automatic disqualifier.  That Obama would hire people who have worked in the White House before to help him run the White House is somehow interpreted as a violation of his promise of change.  

    And then there are people who are deemed too inexperienced for a job, conveniently forgetting the lack of experience of our soon-to-be president.

    I understand that Obama's vision, thoughtfulness, and wisdom is a counterbalance to his lack of experience.  But I don't see how we can have one standard for the president, and an entirely contrary standard for everyone else in his administration.

    Finally, I think it's interesting that you find Hillary's positions on Iraq unacceptable, but you consider Kerry a good alternative.  Kerry has had the same positions and the same votes on Iraq as Hillary.  Your willingness to accept (and forgive) Kerry, but not Hillary, indicates to me that, despite your protests to the contrary, this diary is motivated, at least in part, by an anti-Hillary sentiment, rather than a pro-progressive sentiment.

    I don't doubt your desire to see a progressive in the role, but Kerry isn't one either.

    Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. For good. Also.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:53:05 AM PST

  •  agreed, she's a bad fit as State Sec (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mikesco

    Both for Barack himself, and for the nation as a whole.

    This country does not have the luxury to entertain idiocy as if it is reasonable. --Digby

    by Thought Crime on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:54:36 AM PST

  •  HRC as SecState (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, lev36, andrewj54, soms, Chris Coleridge

    Senator Clinton is a fine choice for SecState. Perhaps not as experienced as Governor Richardson or others, but not the disastrous choice you make her out to be. I am not willing to reduce the size of the tent in the Democratic Party.

    Progressives cannot afford to make the same mistake the Republicans made when they made their moderate wing irrelevant by embracing all the philosophy of the right wing ideologues.

    Restricting Obama's Cabinet to Progressives will reduce the quality and variety of advice a President needs to make sound judgements. Barack Obama is a big boy, he can handle hearing a variety of points of view while maintaining his independence of thought.

  •  Hillary for SoS (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, lev36, andrewj54, soms

    ... will be great for a world that remembers a strong and competent America under Bill.

    I think she may help tremendously in the Israeli/Palinstinian negotionations as she and Bill have strong background with regard to underlying issues and major players in the conflict.

  •  Hillary is flawed. So is everyone (5+ / 0-)

    I share concerns about Hillary as manager and don't mean to absolve her for a very messy campaign but it seems to me she relied heavily on Bill's counsel for strategy and who to bring in.  That's understandable since he's a winner and the first Democrat to win the presidency more than once since FDR.  Why not lean on him in that situation?  But in the end, Bill was a trainwreck as were the people he evidently persuaded her to hire.  That's less of an issue running the state department since she won't have a total free hand on who is on the team she's managing if that makes sense.  If you're a baseball fan, I'm suggesting just because she was a bad general manager doesn't mean she won't be a good manager on the field.  Obama will appoint the undersecretaries.

    The Clintons are very popular internationally.  It seems Obama aspires to strengthen our cooperation with our allies in order to present a united front on Iran, Russia, Pakistan/Afghanistan.  So while Hillary may not have the same negotiating experience as a Richardson or Holbrooke, she may be a better prospect for executing Obama's strategy.  Let's not forget Obama cited George Bush Sr. as sage on foreign policy and was maybe referring to his coalition building skills (and lack of adventurism).  To be realistic, I think Obama while not a saber rattler does want to project power and our willingness to use force while pursuing diplomacy.  Hillary or not, I never thought his administration would be hawk free.  Obama is not Kucinich.  Biden, Kerry, Hagel and Lugar all authorized the Iraq War too and I don't think Richardson opposed it either.  On the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire, no US president came closer to a breakthrough than Bill Clinton and no question Obama will seek his counsel there whether Hillary is at State or not.  Obama, consulting with counselors of which she would be only one voice albeit an important one, will be the president crafting our foreign policy.

    I didn't appreciate a lot of her primary tactics but I can't say she didn't show tenacity and when she campaigned for Obama in the general, she was a great team player and as sharp a surrogate as he had.  I think she's potentially a good choice.

  •  I agree with you, but Obama has the last word (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Guaunyu, Bush Bites, soms

    in each decision. Even if Obama would keep the entire Bush staff - just with Bush and Cheney out - he would oversee a complete different course. This why Powell and likely Rice voted for Obama!

    Also, I believe that Obama softpower would work very well with a tough person in the SOS. I give Obama the benefit of the doubt that they are going to be a very successful team. Very successful.

    •  "...likely Rice voted for Obama!" (0+ / 0-)

      Rice?  Really?

      You just might be the most optimistic person in the world.  :)

      •  I think she's been trying to moderate Bush. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tari

        She's been trying to find common ground in the Middle East and I'm sure she had a big influence on Bush changing his tune on North Korea and negotiating with Iran.

        Trouble is, she has to overcome several years of bad will sowed by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld and that's just too much to overcome.

        So, anyway, I really don't believe she'd vote for a guy who plans to continue Bush's policies.

      •  Rice' press conference after Obama's win (0+ / 0-)

        prompted these speculations - Yes - possible.

        Anyway, key is that Obama is a leader. Gates and Patreus would melt under Obama. The end of ideology driven politics restores realism and pragmatism. Rice has slowly moved Bush to embrace pragmatic positions. Look at todays agreement with Iraq!!! It has Obama written allover it. I wonder if his team actually participated in negotiations or if his trip to Iraq plus the winning of election was enough.

  •  Am I the only one who wonders who "leaked" (5+ / 0-)

    the possibility of Clinton as SOS.  Sounds like more of the same old tricks the Clintons were up to when the VP selection process was underway.  Float the name, put Obama on the spot and hold him hostage in a lose/lose situation.  

    As far as I'm concerned, there are many people equally/more qualified who don't come with the kind of baggage and suspect agenda that come with HRC and Bubba. Whenever I get two for the price of one, I wonder what kind of deal I'm really getting.

  •  Hillary as SoS - a slap in the world's face (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton is a joke in the Balkans for her dishonesty over Tuzla.

    She is probably viewed with horror in much of the Middle East for her "obliterate" Iran comments.

    She is reviled in Ireland for her attempt to steal glory for herself from the progress in the peace process.

    She posed with Arafat's wife while first lady, but then leapt to the AIPAC line when running for Senate from New York.

    Does she truly have any standing overseas?

    It seems to be that nominating Clinton for SoS would be more about domestic politics and not at all about turning a new page in our foreign affairs.

  •  Wingnuts are Praying -- Please God, Hillary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    Why? So they can immediately go after Bill Clinton's current business dealings domestically and abroad. As good a Sec. of State as Hillary might be, Obama has to weigh the benefits against the inevitable distractions. Think Whitewater, only in an underdeveloped nation rather than an underdeveloped U.S. state. Sure, you say, Bill can "divest" his interests and become transparent. What are you drinking?

    The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by easong on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:02:35 AM PST

    •  WJC's interests ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... should be enough to end the conversation.  This is what "vetting" is all about, and I would be surprised if the process didn't result in HRC stepping away from the offer.

      I find myself wondering if Obama doesn't already know this and offered up her name in an effort to reach out to HRC and her supporters, particularly the disaffected ones who didn't follow HRC's lead and voted for McCain (or no one) instead.

      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

      by JBL55 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:19:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I took the leaks from (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    their meeting by 'former Clinton White House Aides' that Obama offered Hillary the Secretary of State job for what they are worth; dog shit.

    I doubt Biden was chosen to fill a gap in pragmatism on domestic policy in Obama's sphere. The likelyhood that Hillary as SofState and Biden's relationship would descend into a tabloid spectacle is just to obvious for me to think Obama would set that unlinked chain of command up. I think Barack will choose someone more capable of comfortably doing his bidding with out drama.

    •  Andrea Mitchell's sources have been known (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fisheye

      to be wrong in the past too!

      Obama/Biden '08 "to represent all Americans"

      by mjd in florida on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  As soon as I heard about this ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... and watched the TM talk amongst themselves about how the amazing spectacle of a leak from Obama's staff, all I could think was that the leaks must have come from HRC's end, as that would not be an unusual phenomenon.  

      The sieve-like quality of HRC staffers should all by itself give one pause.

      There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

      by JBL55 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:25:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not re-igniting primary wars? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, coigue, HGM MA, soms

    Could'a fooled me.

    He needs someone strong to hold it down, w Biden, so he can worry about domestic.

    •  If so (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ksquire, 99 Percent Pure

      it's an unfortunate byproduct of a debate that needs to be had.

      Actually, given the selective amnesia about the issues that were at stake, it seems worthwhile to revisit the substance of the debates.

      •  How about trusting Obama's judgment? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HGM MA, Agatha X
        •  at least ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... until we know what it will be, and appreciate why it was decided

          frankly, were it up to me (fat chance), she'd be offered a different post: Labor, or Education, or HHS

          there are serious questions that i'll admit i'm not smart enough to know the answer to. the most primary, for postings other than State, would seem to be whether the relationships she's developed (or not) on Capitol Hill are strong enough to successfully lobby for the administration

          i've no doubt that Senator Clinton is highly capable of directing an exec branch department, and could do a job that'd make us all proud

          Which pundit most resembles Ruby Rhod?

          by wystler on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:58:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  What is "strong"? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      99 Percent Pure

      I don't think the strength which results in bellicose rhetoric is the kind of strength which will avert further foreign policy blunders.

      "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

      by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:31:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Okay, this is a shallow reason, but... (12+ / 0-)

    .. I'd like to see Hillary take Secretary of State because it would cause the dead-enders' heads to explode at places like Alegre's Corner and Larry Johnson's shithole.

    I stopped over at Alegre's Home for the Terminally Bitter yesterday just to read the rantings of the asylum inmates. Funny, funny stuff. The possibility of Hillary taking a job for the Antichrist (see other recommended diary) has them at each others' throats.

    Sweet!

  •  This is why we opposed her... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, 99 Percent Pure, TomP

    Her hawkishness on the war is what cost her my support, and I believe, the nomination.  I think that you are right:  she unfortunately has too much of the taint of Joe Lieberman.

    Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.

    by Guinho on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM PST

  •  SCOTUS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    For all the reasons stated by the diarist, and then some, I believe Clinton would be a less-than-desirable choice to head the State department.  However, I think  Hillary would be an awesome Supreme Court Justice.  

    •  Never. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, flygrrl, condorcet

      The Supreme Court does not be politicized anymore than it already has been, and appointing Hillary would do exactly that.  

      Even if Hillary is not the social animal that her husband is, she has chosen a life that is the exact opposite of the rather private existances that are expected of the Supreme Court justices. It's just a bad fit.

      Finally, Obama taught constitutional law for 10 years and therefore is personally familiar with the writings of some the country's most brilliant jurists.  I suspect he has long had in mind who he would like to elevate to the Supreme Court and even federal appellate courts.

      Obama will not play fast and lose with court appointments.  He will elevate the people whose opinions he knows well and whom he has read and admired for years.  

      "Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion." C.Bronte

      by Agatha X on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:18:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's most brilliant move yet--really. (4+ / 0-)

    Obama's apparent desire to make Hillary SOS is his most brilliant move yet. I wish I had thought of it.  

    First, she has plenty of know-how.  Her years on the sidelines gave her an insider's view.  All the things she has accused Obama of not knowing?  Check. This combined with her love for policy, smarts and work ethic are all tremendous assets. This is not, however, what makes the selection brilliant.

    The selection is brilliant because it will do more than anything else to rein in our globe-trotting ex-president who, to date, has been willing to take money from anyone and everyone--presumably with the idea that he has some pull back home. Bill needs to be reined in, and Hillary gives Obama the leverage to rein him in.

    Further, the selection guarantees that Hillary won't be working against Obama from the Senate. Her role will be to carry out Obama's policy's, not to serve as a check on them.  

    And who better to do the "preparation" for Obama's meetings with our enemies than this person has expressed such skepticism of same.

    Finally, I think Obama could be a tremendous influence on Hillary.  Part of Hillary's problem as a candidate was not lack of knowledge or ability, but lack of courage.  She will be much better off in a position where she is executing policy and influencing policy rather than making policy.  I have tremendous hopes for this relationship.

    "Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion." C.Bronte

    by Agatha X on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM PST

    •  Probably doesn't hurt him domestically... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet

      ...to have a hawk in the State Department either.

      I mean, you can bet the Repubs are going to be talking about "Nuking Foggy Bottom" in the runup to the primaries, this will at least take away any arguments that it's a haven for clueless peaceniks.

      •  I don't even see her as a big hawk. (0+ / 0-)

        I think the AUMF vote was pure politics (hell it was going to pass anyway), and the Iran thing was overboard bluster on an issue that everyone agrees: deterrence. That's the stuff that campaigns are made of.

        I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
        -5.38, -6.41

        by sullivanst on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Perhaps Obama wants to hear from someone like (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, AmericanLeader

    Hillary as part of the discussion.  That would be the point.

    There is in the nature of things an unchangeable relation between rash counsels and feeble execution. -- Daniel Webster 1812

    by SimplyLeft on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:13:46 AM PST

  •  So here's a hypothetical for you... (0+ / 0-)

    Say Hillary is selected as SoS.

    What is your next move as a blogger, or a frequenter of DK?

    What are you going to do then? How about 2-3 months from now, when the new cabinet and president take office and the work begins? How do you think you will talk about this then?

    For Which It Stands

    Publius

    The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. -Teddy

    by AmericanLeader on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:13:53 AM PST

  •  Richardson for SOS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew

    I'd prefer to have someone (unlike Kerry, Daschle, Clinton, ect) who didn't, ya know, vote for the war. Is that too much to ask?

    Real beauty is seldom appreciated by popular culture

    by Mikesco on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM PST

    •  Bill would be better as Sec of Interior (0+ / 0-)

      I don't see him as SOS, just don't see it.

      2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

      by shpilk on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:51:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do (0+ / 0-)

        Richardson has a broad and diverse c.v. which includes the following:

        *M.A. in international affairs from Tufts University's School of Law & Diplomacy
        *U.S. Representative
        *U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
        *U.S. Secretary of Energy
        *Three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee

        Here's a link to a brief bio.

        There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

        by JBL55 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:45:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The SOS doesn't make the policy. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sockpuppet, FischFry, rapcetera, soms

    Sure, they are involved in the debate, but just because they disagree with the president on an issue doesn't mean they have veto power.  

    Just ask Colin Powell.

    "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." - Barack Obama

    by geverend on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:25:21 AM PST

    •  not quite true (5+ / 0-)

      the chief exec ought to be the final arbiter

      nonetheless, the SoS oft makes public appearances, issues statements, handles foreign service postings, serves as emissary ...

      and then there're the Sunday gabfest appearances

      just ask Colin Powell (who is sufficiently aware enough and deferential enough to remain diplomatic while serving on the payroll of his superior)

      Which pundit most resembles Ruby Rhod?

      by wystler on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:02:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm pretty baffled by this news personally (4+ / 0-)

    and the situation seems near soap-operaish (the uniting of the rivals!) rather than a professional, tidy, seamless selection.

    IMO it will be imperative that Obama create a foreign policy in which bellicosity is discarded in favor of the flavor of strength which Obama himself exhibits and which is far superior: bellicose rhetoric and chest-thumping replaced with quiet intelligence, determination and respect.  This country has enormous challenges and drama, and unnecessary threats, and infighting in the WH is precisely what we don't need.

    I'm not POTUS and of course support Obama's decision-making, as he has earned a presumption of competence that I frankly will never have.  However, this particular selection, if true (and it's conceivable to me that these leaks are not originating from the Obama organization), is baffling.

    "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

    by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM PST

    •  I think Obama genuinely respects her (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GN1927, soms

      From what I've heard, he respects her intelligence and work ethic - and the Clintons certainly are highly regarded around the world.

      She's not my first choice, but I'm not worried about it.

      Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

      by dansac on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:33:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure he does (4+ / 0-)

        as does a major portion of the country.  That doesn't mean that she needs to be freaking Secretary of State!  As I wrote above, we know:

        1. Clinton's managerial style, as was on keen display during the management of her campaign, is probably not suited to an organization like the state department
        1. Clinton voted for the AUMF, is unapologetic about it, and was intemperate with phrasing towards Iran
        1. Clinton's husband is probably going to be an ass about the vetting, and he may be right about it, but it's likely that he's not about to open up information about what he considers altruistic and charitable work to someone he (IMO) still doesn't freaking like

        This is known.  What to do with this information?  Try to shoehorn Clinton into a position to which she isn't suited and for which these negatives will be magnified?  Or find a cabinet-level position for which her particular brand of aggressiveness and other factors will make her a huge success?

        This situation just seems like gratuitous drama.

        "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

        by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure those factors are being taken into (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GN1927

          consideration.  Again, I'm not saying she's my first choice, and absolutely everything you listed is completely legitimate, I'm just saying I'm sure he's considered all that and is still in the procses of considering it.

          I don't think he'd go for it if he didn't think the pros outweighed the cons and he could create a government he wanted to.

          Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

          by dansac on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:52:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe it's that I just (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            99 Percent Pure, Freedoms Road

            don't see what offsets these negatives, especially because the stakes are so high with regards to this particular cabinet position.  I think this country is extremely hungry to turn the foreign policy page, and this choice of SoS simply flies in the face of that.  

            "If you don't have a record to run on...You make a big election about small things." - Barack Obama

            by GN1927 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:56:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Strong disagreement (8+ / 0-)

    Not that I am a particular HRC fan, I'm not, but I trust Obama to ultimately come to the right decision and think she'd be a perfectly fine SoS.  Also, I don't think that a liberal intellectual by the name of Barack Obama who won a crushing landslide victory needs a lecture on what constitutes a "progressive."  The likes of Sirota, Chris Bowers, et al, who proclaim to have a monopoly on the definition of this word are increasingly becoming insufferable.

    Obama has his own vision and I trust him to implement it.  Let him surround himself with people of different perspectives - yes, including those more "hawkish" than ourselves - and have him make the decision.  

    We elected Obama, and I for one, trust him to do what's right.  He may make mistakes, but I'm not going to nitpick over his appointments.

    And certainly not with this the presumption that I know what it means to be "progressive."

    Honestly, if Obama can improve our standing in the world (he already has), get us out of Iraq, and begin cooperation on crucial issues.  

    I don't say defer to Obama on everything, there will be battles to fight, but I just don't see any reason for worry with this one.

    •  It's funny (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Captain Marty
      Hidden by:
      coigue

      I seized on an issue that unites the Hillary hardcore and the Obama hardcore.

      Maybe you and Alegre should go out for a beer.

      This is an important decision-nitpicking? Come on.

      This is separating the people who supported Obama because of principle and those who hopped on the personality train.

      We elected Obama, and I for one, trust him to do what's right.

      Puh-leeze.

      And believe or not, political labels--for all the imperfections--have meaning. It's not progressive to support the war in Iraq, to allow clusterbombs in civilian areas, to support torture--all positions take by possible nominee of the man you trust.

      •  David, the lithmus test are really annoying (7+ / 0-)

        No, not talking about the definition of progressive, but this stuff which gins up your old antagonism to the primary process:

        This is separating the people who supported Obama because of principle and those who hopped on the personality train.

        The principle I supported Obama on was (a) his positions, (b) his intellect, (c) his managerial skill.

        Since it's his policies that the SoS will be implementing, his intellect making the decisions once processing all the info, and his managerial skill to keep her and others in line, then that's why I trust him on this issue.

        But according to your test, that means I just hopped on the personality train because I disagree with you on this.  

        Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

        by dansac on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, it means (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Captain Marty

          that you're unbothered by Obama giving the most important post in his cabinet to someone who supported the war and has still refused to apologize for or recant her vote, who till recently supported torture etc etc etc--positions that should offend anyone who subscribes to O's beliefs.

          If those positions don't offend you, I can only conclude that O's beliefs aren't of much importance to you.

          •  Your bad habits remain (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            taylormattd, coigue, crazyshirley2100

            And those habits include allowing your seething disdain and condescension towards Obama supporters from the primaries and those who disagree with you on policy issues and definitions to infect your writing, which leads to childish statements like:

            If those positions don't offend you, I can only conclude that O's beliefs aren't of much importance to you.

            No David, the issues are more complex than that.  I didn't support Hillary in the primaries largely because of those issues.  But, while I disagreed strongly on issues like the AUMF, one could legitimately believe that was the right thing to do.   There are honest people who felt the war was right.  I think they were wrong.

            But I have no problem with someone arguing their position to President Obama, because it's his judgment that I trust.  

            Leadership 101 says that you should seek out people to provide you with perspectives that you disagree with.  No one can know the right thing to do all the time.  But everyone has a bias towards thinking they know what the right thing is all the time.

            Therefore it's essential to seek out what's called "disconfirming information" that goes against your pre-existing bias.  If that information convinces you that you were wrong, then you change.  If it doesn't, than you stick with your original beliefs.

            But the leaders who end up getting it wrong most frequently are those who only assign people to advise them who they know they'll agree with.  

            Strategy '08: Obama vs. the other guy

            by dansac on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:04:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  She's got you david (0+ / 0-)

            you cannot stand to be disagreed with, clearly.

            My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

            by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:14:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Allegra (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        taylormattd, Inland, baudelairien

        See my comment.  That is really a very ugly personal attack that shows where you are coming from very clearly.  This is a tactic that is meant to inflame, not inform.

        We are all Droogie....f*ck the AP

        by crazyshirley2100 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:54:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  HRed (0+ / 0-)

        This is separating the people who supported Obama because of principle and those who hopped on the personality train.

        for personal attack

        My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

        by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:13:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This has been sad for me. (8+ / 0-)

    It has nothing to do with her qualifications and everything to do with a feeling that this pick is already hurting the "No Drama" aspect that so many people responded to.  The Clintons have made this very private procedure extremely public.  They are leveraging something.  It's bringing back bad memories for me.

  •  I was surprised by the Hillary almost-choice too. (0+ / 0-)

    They had serious and fundamental differences on foreign policy--whether we should negotiate with our adversaries, whether there should be a "zone of protection" over the Middle East, what to do about Iraq, etc.

    Frankly, I'm stymied over why Obama would think there's common ground between the two.

    The only thing I can conclude is that he's been assured that Hillary will follow his priorities and not her own.

  •  I think you have the wrong job description for (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MA Liberal, coigue, FischFry, soms, Benintn

    SOS...it is to implement the policies as set by the POTUS not the other way around...

    Obama/Biden'08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:35:39 AM PST

  •  I know I'm not much. Only one voice counts. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cylonbabe

    Since it can be said that there's not much opposition to Hillary for SoS, I know I'm not much, because I oppose her with all my being!
    She could serve in some other positions, but her previous declarations make her unacceptable as our top diplomat!
    It would be great to have a new approach, one like Dean advocated: one based on justice to all. That is the only way to lasting peace, but Hillary -- and too many others -- are already bought and paid for by AIPAC.
    I think we have been Israel's slave too long. It has not helped Israel as much as some Zionists believe. And it has harmed America greatly.
    Clinton's threats against Iran are typical of her knee jerk reactions. And that is some stupid stuff.
    There are sensable people around that can bring about better relations. As proof, consider the Geneva Accord suggested by a group of leading Israelis and Palestinians. It cannot be considered because as long as America continues slavishly to serve expansionist Israeli interests, they have no incentive to deal fairly.
    Consider the farsical announcement by little dumb Dubya that Sharon had to stop his outrage and  pull back his forces from Palestinian Territories. "I'm serious. I mean it," he said. But nothing like that happened and within a week of Israel thumbing her nose at him, he surrendered and called Sharon "a man of peace."
    We need no more of that. But Clinton is worse than Bush in this regard. She won't even pretend to be independent of the ultraright in Israel.
    And that is a road map to more disaster.

    •  I don't think Hillary's impressed by AIPAC's $$$ (0+ / 0-)

      I think Hillary was pandering during the primaries.

      She represents NY, which has a strong group of AIPAC folks.

      But I don't think Hillary is personally beholden to AIPAC.

      But that is an interesting perspective you have...

      Justice, mercy, tolerance, hope, love, grace, and redemption are all Judeo-Christian values.

      by Benintn on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:53:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clintons and Mideast peace (0+ / 0-)

      No president came closer to brokering Mideast peace than Bill Clinton.  His final parameters that he presented as he was leaving office were close to the Geneva Accords you refer to.  I don't see why his wife at State dooms prospects for Mideast peace as you suggest.  The idea Hillary is worse than Bush is ridiculous.

      Obama clearly believes in working aggressively to broker peace and would be consulting Bill Clinton whether or not Hillary is in the State Department.  Whether he'll be able to do anything remains to be seen.

  •  Hillary as SOS means no peace in Middle East (0+ / 0-)
    •  We can have peace in the Middle East (0+ / 0-)

      any time that Israel wants it.

      The more I've thought about it, the more I realize that the ball is in Israel's court and if Israel really, truly wants lasting peace and good relations with its neighbors, it can do it.

      But I've not really seen a real effort by Israel to pursue peace in literally decades.

      Practically the entire world would like peace and stability in the Middle East.  So the question is:  What's holding it up?

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  lol (0+ / 0-)

      when did we last have peace in the middle east? Hmmm?

      Not in my 39 yr lifetime, and I probably won't see it no matter who is SoS

      My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

      by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:11:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  No, I like Hillary, David. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soms

    FWIW, I think her tough negotiating skills, her intimate knowledge of foreign affairs, her popularity abroad, and her amazing recall for names, faces, places, and relationships make her well-suited for the post.

    Remember - Obama would be calling the shots.  He's in charge.  She's an adviser.

    If she wants to.

    Which she probably won't.

    So we'll see what happens....

    Justice, mercy, tolerance, hope, love, grace, and redemption are all Judeo-Christian values.

    by Benintn on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:51:22 AM PST

  •  Hillary will be working for Barack and carrying.. (5+ / 0-)

    out his agenda. It's not like she'll go dark and implement some sort of rogue shadow state department that the President will be unable to control.

    I personally would prefer Kerry as SOS but I'm gonna have to trust Barack on this one.

    •  my favorite moment of the whole campaign (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Freedoms Road, soms

      was when Obama responded to Hillary's derisive laughter about advisers to Obama, and said...

      "I look forward to having you advising me as well, Hillary..."

      http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/...

      Justice, mercy, tolerance, hope, love, grace, and redemption are all Judeo-Christian values.

      by Benintn on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:55:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the key. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      baudelairien, hummingbird4015

      It is a brilliant idea---Clinton gets a high profile position which she wants and Obama removes a potential thorn in the side in the Senate while simultaneously coopting Clinton.  At State, Clinton's success is Obama's success; giving her reason to stay with the program.  She can't go rogue; she'll get canned.  She has the respect of foreign leaders and should be listened to as much as any SOS would.  She's also a policy wonk and while her experience on foreign affairs may be somewhat limited, I have little doubt she can pick it up quickly.  I think she is an excellent choice---if Obama can convince her to accept.

    •  Same stuff said about Biden, really. (0+ / 0-)

      And my response will be the same: this is why Obama is president and those guys ain't.  They are not as good as Barack.  We always knew that.  I think they know it now as well.

  •  I'm kind of happy to see her get it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    soms, DemMajorityJohn

    A) She can be easily edged out if she gets hawkish.

    B) We can replace her in the Senate -- one less neocon.

    OK, 2008 is over. NOW can we please concentrate on the "better" part of "more and better Democrats?"

    by simca on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:53:35 AM PST

    •  This is the ONLY reason I would support her (0+ / 0-)

      once she resigns that seat it's just a death-watch on her SecState position... you know Bill won't be able to resist sticking his hands in the cookie jar.

      It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin

      by Freedoms Road on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:19:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  You act as if Obama has no choice in this matter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, soms, DemMajorityJohn

    It is his choice and he chose to ask and vet her despite your grievances on her choice.

    I personally want her as my Senator since I see no better option to replace her or be nearly as effective and electable.  I also think there would be too much opinion on foreign affairs between her, Obama, Biden, and the SOD who could be anybody.  But I also think it is ridiculous to destroy her on certain stuff that she was not the single guilty party on certain legislation.  

    But once again, this is PE Obama's choice, not yours or the highers-up the whining over this slightly amuses me.

    "An army of principles can penetrate where an army of soldiers cannot." Thomas Paine

    by Cait Strummer on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:54:03 AM PST

  •  Politico's Mike Allen... (6+ / 0-)

    "Team Obama, after all but offering SecState to Senator Clinton, is expressing EXASPERATION with the Clinton camp for the difficulty in getting a clean vet on President Bill Clinton's many entanglements."

    I still don't like this move.

  •  I can live with Hillary. But I prefer Kerry or (0+ / 0-)

    ... or Richardson. There's a certain humility that comes from admitting Iraq was an unequivocal failure.

    Clinton has learned her lesson, even if she has trouble outright saying as such. I think this is less to do with pride and more to do with political positioning. There are probably a dozen advisers saying in her ear that she can't apologize because it would be a sign of weakness, and in our sexist society they're probably right.

    let's get to 60 in the senate!

    by danthrax on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:57:31 AM PST

  •  Maybe you haven't been paying attention to rants (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue

    "The idea of Hillary becoming Secretary of State has sparked little opposition in the 'sphere."

    "Sparked little opposition"? Are you kidding?

    Maybe you haven't been paying attention to the deluge of criticism this speculation has generated. For the last week, it's hard to find any diaries on this site that aren't ripping into either Lieberman or Clinton.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:59:12 AM PST

      •  Type in "search": Clinton secretary state (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coigue

        You will find over a hundred diaries, many critical. You can also add SOS to your search if you just want to pull up a few...

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:54:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  david david david (0+ / 0-)

        just open your eyes to many of the comments. This place is lousy with people infected with CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome)

        My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

        by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:08:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The label "CDS" ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... is the brother of "Bush hater" in its implicit accusation of irrationality.  Neither label is helpful IMHO.

          Just as we know it is possible to have many valid and rational reasons for wanting the shrub impeached without "hating" him, so it is possible to have many valid and rational reasons for not wanting HRC as either president or SOS without being "deranged."

          I'd really appreciate it if we could refrain from using such polarizing language, at least when Democrats are discussing Democrats.

          There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

          by JBL55 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 06:12:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really. (0+ / 0-)

            CDS is brother to ODS (Obama derangement syndrome). And there are valid reasons for supporting or not supporting Obama and Clinton, but those who exhibit these syndromes are not using them or are over-inflating them.

            If you don't recognize these syndromes exist you will waste your blogging time.

            My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

            by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:37:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm glad we agree ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... on this, anyway:

              there are valid reasons for supporting or not supporting Obama and Clinton

              And while:

              those who exhibit these syndromes are not using them or are over-inflating them.

              ... those who do use them are not necessarily deranged.

              Of course there are people whose dislikes are based on such an irrational basis that they can be described as "deranged."  I never said otherwise.

              What I would appreciate, and perhaps I could have put this more directly, is if the term would be more carefully applied.  

              Words matter, and when accusations of "CDS" are lodged whenever an anti-HRC-as-SoS post appears, valid charges do not get the respect they deserve.

              I'm not speaking only of your post, but of the many charges of Hillary-bashing, etc. by others lodged against posters presenting perfectly rational reasons to oppose HRC for SoS.

              There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who know binary and those who don't.

              by JBL55 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:43:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Then you need to be similarly selective of (0+ / 0-)

                saying that someone is mis-using the term.

                I stand by my post, because there are many many people who have repeatedly answered the diarists' concerns...to no avail.

                My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

                by coigue on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:44:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Everything said during the primaries needs to be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, Fabian

    taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

    I don't think Obama was lying with those statements, but they don't reflect the whole truth about his opinion of HRC's foreign policy vision either.

  •  Hey I know, let's here what Biden (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian

    has to say about Obama from 9 months ago!

    Anyone??

  •  Let's be clear here (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, Fabian, DemMajorityJohn

    The position of Secretary of State is not in any way responsible for the formulation of policy of any kind. The job is to act as chief ambassador to and negotiator with foreign powers on behalf of the administration.

    HRC is widely respected and admired throughout the world and has already formed good relationships with many of the world leaders she would have to negotiate with.

    While many (myslef included) would disagree with some of her policy positions during her tenure as a member of the US Senate, she is also a good democratic soldier, and could be counted on to advance the Obama administration's agenda. She is an outstanding choice.

  •  Iran (0+ / 0-)

    Obama wants to stop Iran's drive toward a bomb and seems to want to load up tougher sanctions on Iran which will need the cooperation of European allies and Russia and China to make that happen.  I trust Hillary to represent us in those objectives as well as Richardson, Kerry, Jones or Holbrooke.

    The "obliterate Iran" was the wrong approach but by the same token it was specific to the hypothetical of a response to an Iranian attack on Israel, which was in the discussion in the first place because they have an even more insane president than we do and a nuclear program.  Deterrence is a fact of life.

  •  I think Clinton would better fit Amb. to UN. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    I want to live in a civilization.

    by SciVo on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM PST

  •  Hey, Bill Richardson did NOT vote for the war.... (0+ / 0-)

    like the others. He had the strongest withdrawal policy of all the candidates and he has incredible diplomatic experience. He fits the "Bill" in more ways than one. We should galvanize support around him here.

  •  Hillary at SoS conflicts me, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crazyshirley2100, Loose Fur

    For the reasons set forth in the diary.

    On the one hand, I can justify HC's campaign rhetoric as an attempt to draw "distinctions" between Obama and herself.  That is, HC did not really "mean" some of her incendiary rhetoric ("obliterate Iran") -- she was trying to win an election.

    However, what is disturbing is that once she uttered "obliterate," does it make it that much easier for HC to "obliterate" a country in the future?  I always talk about how important it is to get a person to vote Democratic for that first time, especially a long-time Republican, because that person will find it much easier to do so in the future.

    And do we really understand how lucky we were in avoiding a war with Iran?  Think of the world's circumstances if Iran had been able to destroy the Saudi oilfields, maybe block the Straits of Hormuz, or, heaven forbid!, sink a bunch of US warships.  Yet there was Kyl-Lieberman with HC right on board.

    But then I look at it like this:  If HC is going to run again in 2016 (or whenever), wouldn't it be good for her to get schooled under a methodical and logical thinker like Barack Obama?  Maybe Obama can temper HC's extreme hawkishness?

    Remember:  Between 1932 and 1980, the Democrats lost 2 elections, and in both, the Democrats wandered off into wars of choice.  Nixon in '68 was elected as a direct and proximate result of Vietnam.

    With this realigning election of '08, if Democrats can avoid foolish wars, like Iraq, and Iran, we may be able to govern for many years.  The Republican southern strategy appears to be well-smashed.

    The call is Obama's, obviously, and I hope HC at SoS is a good choice.  We'll see what happens.

    To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."

    by XOVER on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:14:10 AM PST

    •  Obliterating Iran (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian, TooFolkGR

      It was perhaps unwise to say publicly because it feeds militant propaganda but it's distorted on this site.  But she was saying a nuclear attack by Iran will be answered by a nuclear attack on Iran, which is the way deterrence works.  Why was it articulated so explicitly?  Probably for electoral politics but also to some extent enabled by Iran's leadership being exceptionally provocative- a nuclear program  combined with open ambitions for Israel to fall and Jerusalem to be under Muslim rule.  

      In a way, you could argue that Hillary's was less hawkish because she was contemplating a scenario where we presumably had not used force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.  It's not especially clear Obama would be so restrained if diplomatic means failed to stop them.

      •  She Didn't Say Anything Worse... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Partially Impartial

        ...than any politician who has ever said, "All options are still on the table," which EVERY politician (except Dennis Kucinich who barely counts) has said.

      •  HRC for HHS (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Freedoms Road

        Hillary Clinton is great, but I don't think she's a born diplomat. She's someone who's smart enough that she can do anything if she sets her mind to it, but I think her instinct is to deal with people with sledgehammers more than stilettos.

        Suggestion: instead of making her secretary of state, why not name stiletto-wielding kind of person to that position and put Hillary in charge of Health and Human Services, and make HHS exciting and important enough and sexy enough that an HHS post is worth Hillary's while.

        Having a lot of tanks is important to our national security. But so is heavy healthy children who attend good schools. Why is the HHS secretary position considered less appealing than the defense or secretary of state position?

  •  Bored? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, coigue

    Not much going on until Jan 21st.....Setting up a pie fight over Hillary Clinton and her support of the Iraq War initiative is a sure time killer.

    Lots of recs.  Personal attacks disguised by holier than thou language.

    Whatever.

    Just like the days before the national convention chicken little'ing over how the Clintons were going to take over, use up all the oxygen and somehow undermine Obama, set up a 2012 run, kill kittehs onstage.  

    I don't know.  I try to read and find most of the comments are boring, same old same old that I have been hearing from people who seemed to be working for an Obama presidency because they hated the Clintons more than they respected Obama.

    I am sorry there is nothing exciting going on right now.  I am bemused that I see the same mindless blather rehashing that we complain about from the pundits.

    Moving on...

    We are all Droogie....f*ck the AP

    by crazyshirley2100 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:15:22 AM PST

    •  Move on then...it's perfectly legit to discuss (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, ksquire, Freedoms Road, Loose Fur

      potential Cabinet picks here. I favor Richardson, and certainly see many of the problems with Clinton that the diarist has identified. Deal with it.

      •  lol (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larry Bailey

        Of course it is legitimate and your comments were more coherent and thoughtful than most.

        The majority of the commenters are just venting the same old, same old and not even really considering, IMO.

        Diaries that use quote after quote on a single issue when discussing someone's qualifications are not really meant to spark thoughtful discussion.  This diary is meant to enrage.  This diary is designed to create a pie fight.  

        Read it again and tell me the diarist is objectively considering someone's qualifications or if they are just going after someone on a single issue with intent to inflame.

        We are all Droogie....f*ck the AP

        by crazyshirley2100 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:24:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  what i think? (0+ / 0-)

    Let us allow our brilliant President-Elect pick who is best for the country.

  •  At some point... (7+ / 0-)

    Some Obama fans are going to have to accept that Obama does not share their hatred of everything Clinton.

    There's a reason the ads the GOP ran using negative Hillary and Biden quotes about Obama never gained any traction; most people aren't naive enough to think comments from a heated primary campaign are more valid than what the politicians are actually saying now that the primary is over.

    •  I do not think this diary does that. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Freedoms Road

      Painting with too broad of a brush.  It is legitimate to judge Hillary Clinton on her issue positions and to oppose her based on her beliefs and votes.

      "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

      by TomP on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's nothing objective about this diary (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larry Bailey, coigue, TooFolkGR

        First, it's flatly dishonest regarding Iran.  As I posted above:

        First of all, the quote you use from Jim Webb was given before Kyl-Lieberman was stripped of 99% of its offensive language.  It's simply dishonest to use that quote to describe the bill the Senate actually voted on.

        Second, the idea that a Sense of the Senate--which, by definition, has absolutely zero legal force--would determine US policy or allow Bush to attack Iran is just ugly fear mongering.  The Sense of the Senate did nothing.

        Third, Senator Obama co-sponsored another Sense of the Senate which used identical language as Kyl-Lieberman to call for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to be designated as a terrorist organization.  Whatever consequences you think flow from such a label, remember that Obama also supported it.

        Second, the entire diary is based on cherry-picked quotes from a heated primary.  Any honest analysis would find 10 times as many quotes from Obama praising Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience than attacking it.

        •  The Bigger Point on Kyl-Lieberman (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coigue, Partially Impartial

          ...is that we still have people here with less than sixty days left in Bush's administration pretending it was inserted as a pretext for war with Iran.  It wasn't.  It was inserted as diplomatic leverage to USE against Iran, which is all that ever came of it.

          •  And thank God McCain didn't win, right? (0+ / 0-)

            Because then it would've handed him the bass line for his "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" melody.  Yeah, good thing that didn't work out.

            It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin

            by Freedoms Road on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:13:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  What do you mean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew

          by "objective? other than that no criticism on issues regarding Clinton is allowed.  

          The quotes are not so much because Obama said them, but because David agrees with their content.  That Obama may have said nice things about her is not important, because it is about those specific issues.    

          "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

          by TomP on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:00:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What I mean by "objective" (0+ / 0-)

            All I learned from this diary is that David personally dislikes Hillary Clinton.  

            To paraphrase Bill James, David is using facts the way a drunk uses a lamp post--for support rather than illumination.  The dishonest and misleading "analysis" tells me much more about the author than the subject.

            Worse, David isn't just expressing his dislike of Clinton through dishonest analysis--he's projecting his personal opinion and dishonest analysis on Obama, as if Obama shares the hatred David so obviously feels.

            Of course criticism of Clinton is allowed and expected. It's the lying and projection that I object to.

            •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew

              You see it all as personal.  It's political.

              There is no lying and projection.  You now have persoanlized your criticsm of David's points.

              Why can't you discuss substance. If you support Clinton's AUMF vote and positions on Iraq up through the campaign, which evolved after she announced for office, then say so.

              If you think her vote for K-L was right, say so.

              All the criticsms David has could be met by saying Clinton was right on those isuses.  Instead, you have attacked David as "lying" and created strawmen.

              "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

              by TomP on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:27:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're willingly blind to it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Larry Bailey

                There is no lying and projection.

                Except for the title and body of the diary, of course.

                The diary is supposed to be Obama's view of Clinton's vision, but it's just a mishmash of cherry-picked quotes that no honest analyst would describe as Obama's actual views on Clinton.

                And, yes, the diarist is being blatantly dishonest in the discussion of K-L, as I outlined above.  You've made no attempt to refute any of those points.

  •  As a Canadian... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, david mizner, Loose Fur

    I'd be very concerned about Hillary as SOS. Without any evidence, indeed, against all evidence, she long repeated the canard that the 911 terrorists entered the United States from Canada. Her intent, I guess is that US borders need strengthening, but her support for this argument was a flat-out lie.

    Many her not might know it, but Canada is by far the United States' largest trading partner. I highly doubt Hillary Clinton, by her past performance, is aware of that fact. But, as a Canadian, I would fear for the relations between our two nations should Hillary Clinton be named Secretary of State.

    •  link please (0+ / 0-)

      My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

      by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll help. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coigue

        Well, not really.  

        She did not say explicitly that Canada was the source for the September 11th terrorists, but she apparently did say, quote;

        Clinton was reported to have told La Presse that Canada should strengthen its immigration policies to prevent terrorists from slipping in.

        Coming barely a month after the attacks, this comment was interpreted by Canadians as implying that terrorists responsible had come from, or through, our country.

        A couple of years later, in 2003, she made another, 'misinterpreted' comment about our borders and terrorists which caused a stir in the Canadian government and solicited a response from our Ambassador.

        It probably wasn't intentional, but that comment helped reinforce the "conventional wisdom" that Canada was a conduit for the terrorists of September 11th.

        Slower Traffic Keep Right.

        by Wisewood on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:42:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Terrorists were stopped crossing the border (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wisewood

          on the New Year's Eve of Y2K, during Bill's administration. So I don't blame her for taking that very seriously.

          My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

          by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:45:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I know. (0+ / 0-)

            All the same, the timing of the comments to La Presse about our immigration regulations needing improvement to keep out terrorists was awful and many Canadians took it very negatively.  Making further comments years later about our border controls being weak did not help dispel the myth.

            Then again, I could argue that these comments, and the myths they reinforced of Canada being suspect and untrustworthy, helped to sour Canadian attitudes towards helping the Americans while the run-up to the Iraq War was going on.  So maybe I'd owe HRC a debt of thanks, for that.

            Slower Traffic Keep Right.

            by Wisewood on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 05:08:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ya know. The truth hurts. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wisewood

              and that was the truth she was speaking. That was no myth....in fact the myth part is that terrorists try to come over the SOUTHERN border.

              We have to be able and willing, as liberals, to discuss real threats to our security. We need to ignore the fact that the GOP has used security for political gain and try to honestly face them in spite of our disgust of them and how they abused our fear.

              Seeing as terrorists were actually caught trying to cross the Canadian border during her husband's presidency, i'd say she is justified.

              Furthermore, it is a tactic to remove the wind from the "southern border fence" sails...since we really need to watch the northern border more carefully.

              My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

              by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:02:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coigue

                I'm just trying to tell you how her comments were perceived, and their effects.  

                I do think our border controls could and should be improved, in both directions -- but I don't think Canada's border controls to the US leak like a sieve as compared to the other way around, which was the implication.

                Slower Traffic Keep Right.

                by Wisewood on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:53:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

  •  Hil - Voted for Aumf - Vision Needs Lasik (0+ / 0-)
    No PUMA's in the Obama Administration.

    I realize the Lincoln strategy is being implemented.  

    BUT (Prediction): Clinton will be asked to leave before year 2 for using the office for personal gain/conflict of interest with Bill.

    "It stinks." - Jay Sherman

    by angry liberaltarian on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:26:15 AM PST

  •  Anf Joe Biden shares many of those views (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, grimc, crazyshirley2100

    Don't hear anything about that, he will likely have a bigger role. Say what you want, its more dkos Hillary hate

    "Barack Obama is ready to take the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." President Clinton, 8/27/08

    by rigso on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM PST

    •  I disagree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TooFolkGR, Freedoms Road

      There is sometimes dkos hate of Hilalry, but this is not it.  These are legitimate issue criticisms.  That some of the criticism of Hillary Clinton here is unfair does not mean she never can be criticized.  Furthermore, Clinton believed in her positions on these issues.  There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with her substantively on this issues, as David does.

      "What we've seen the last few days is nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed." -- Barack Obama

      by TomP on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:53:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Kyl-Lieberman is NOT A Legitimate Criticism (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coigue, rigso

        Beyond that I don't see how any of the back-and-forth between Obama and Clinton in the primary disqualifies Hillary from being SoS any more than Biden's criticisms of Obama should have disqualified him from being VP.

      •  yes, and david is usually very substantive (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coigue

        but when there are two anti Hillary as SoS diaries in a row, and none on Gates for instance, I'm not sure its only substantive and not an immediate "NO!" just at the mention of her name.

        "Barack Obama is ready to take the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." President Clinton, 8/27/08

        by rigso on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Just follow the smart money? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    Sometimes, the best way to know which way will the cookie crumble is to check who is for and who's against a particular candidate or position. At least, it may help clear up some of the fog of transition.

    So, on Hillary as SoS, here are some of those who are for it (by no means an exhaustive list):

    1. Key Republicans (McCain, many others) and right wing talk show hosts all praised the possibility yesterday.
    1. Aipac and supporters across the board (as expected - same ones supported her candidacy)
    1. Democratic establishment figures, including new CoS Rahm Emanuel, plus, of course, the entire "Chicago machine".
    1. PUMA's, Andrea Mitchell, Lenni Davis, Mark Penn and TROT (The Rest Of The) Gang.
    1. Big money (however we choose to define it)
    1. Bill Clinton

    So what do all these entities and personalities know that we don't?

    And who, OTOH has that now-familiar sinking little feeling in the pit of the stomach?

    That's easy:

    All Progressive Democrats (cf. supporters of [real] change).

    Let's admit that this feels like unwelcome news though not necessarily for all the reasons cited by the diary author and the many good commenters above. Just this funny strange rumble in the guts (also known as "gut feeling"). Could this be the realization that no, the establishment has no intention of going away quietly (just as Obama said many times on the campaign trail. Now we get to see the how of it. The why we always knew).

  •  Obama's level-of-delusion test (0+ / 0-)

    Obviously Obama's floating of Clinton-as-SOS was a test to see how many of his supporters are delusional.  Delusional that he really is the most liberal Senator.  Delusional that he is a proponent of peace.  Delusional that he really wants to shake up the power structure of Washington.

    The responses to this diary - and it's rec status - answers Obama's test.  He has a lot of delusional supporters out there.

  •  Thank you David Mizner... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, david mizner, TomP

    thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you. I have avoided making these points because of potential anti-Hillary backlash but - she called Putin a man with no heart. That's not very diplomatic. Do you think he is just going to forget that? "Amdinjgak? Amdigneigheibhie? ameighieigne? Whatever?" Yeah. that was really classy. I'm not exactly a Hillary Hater, but I'm not a Hillary lover and I think Obama and his transition team are giving her a huge "bye" for all of the crappy things she said during the primary. Most of them recorded for posterity in multiple locations. Hillary at the top of State coupled with Woolf as Head of the USDA makes my head spin....who's next? Eliot Spitzer as AG?

    This space available...

    by phoebe1st on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:43:20 AM PST

  •  I think Kerry would be better as SOS. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nihilvor, KayCeSF, david mizner, Loose Fur

    Hillary would be great as head of DHHS, but it has little visibility, and I doubt she'd take it.

    2008, the Year the Republican Party dissolved into a little pond of goo

    by shpilk on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM PST

  •  BO has been (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, TomP

    very hawkish at various times.  I really saw little difference [the vote on land mines is one], except that he was able to make hay out of his initial opposition to the war.

    HRC was obviously stuck in DLC mode for a while--she and BC know when change has smacked them upside the face [recall BC's re-tooling when he lost the governorship in AK].

    I just don't perceive BO as progressive, and his choices so far confirm my perception.  Time will tell.

    Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:50:31 AM PST

  •  My SoS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF

    (1)I'd like someone who is as clean as Obama himself on the issue of War, one who has never voted for any war.
    (2)Someone who is not AIPAC or any interest group puppet.
    (3)Someone who is ready to talk to enemies and adversaries, and listen to different world views.
    (4)Someone who still thinks the UN has relevance and will strengthen its role.
    (5)Someone who believes in multilateralism.
    (6) Someone who thinks there are different ways of life and different ways of governing a state other than our ways and that we don't need to impose our will on other countries to provide leadership to the world.
    (7) Someone who upholds human rights around the world, not just at home.
    (8) Someone who believes our role in the world is not to spread capitalist liberal democracy but social-economic justice.
    (9) Someone who can enter the negotiating table without pre-judgment and who believes the chief diplomat's job is to find a middle ground and convince both sides.
    I am not sure Hillary exudes any of these.

  •  If you had so little faith in the guy... (5+ / 0-)

    why'd ya vote for him. Really.

    Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing

    by Travis Stark on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM PST

  •  it could be... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loose Fur

    people aren't worried about it because they don't think she will be offered the job... count me among them

  •  Thanks for the reasoned analysis (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    I was initially all for asking her to be SoS, but your diary has added to my doubts.

    "We've done the impossible and that makes us mighty."

    by Dissento on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:07:43 AM PST

  •  In defense of Hillary (5+ / 0-)

    The AUMF was in October '02, when Hillary was less than two years into her first senate term. Daschle and Schumer both also voted "Aye", so the rookie followed her leaders. Obama's admitted that he can't say for sure he'd have voted differently in her position.

    The issue with that vote and her subsequent defense of it is not so much to do with the vote itself as the implication that she's perfectly happy reusing her husband's triangulation tactics.

    The Iran thing was a hypothetical, and in the theoretical future event of a nuclear-armed Iran launching a first strike against Israel, "obliteration" is the kind of response they should be scared of. It may have been incautious language, but it's not a big black mark.

    The minimization of her experience by the Obama campaign is of course to be expected when discussing a close rival on her biggest strength relative to Obama. But notice that much of that quote relates to whether she had any experience relevant to a President, not so much to a Secretary of State. Looked at from the PoV of Sec. State, the fact that she is familiar with the etiquette of meeting foreign heads of state is relevant experience, and she will represent a reassuring familiarity to those heads of state.

    So, those are my responses to the perceived negatives. Here are a couple of big positives I see: First, it gives a degree of control over Bill, who I like but he's something of a loose cannon. Second, I think having a SoS who's made healthcare and education her life's work is a great sign to be giving the rest of the world.

    I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong. - Bertrand Russell
    -5.38, -6.41

    by sullivanst on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:10:01 AM PST

  •  Not because they agree, but because they disagree (5+ / 0-)

    You see, I think Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be good precisely because she has stated views inconsistent with his. The Obama administration will face a wall of Washington orthodoxy in the critical Senate and House committees, in the bureaucracy, in the well-funded think tanks, in the marrow of a capital where the need for consensus has become a congenital disease, and the resulting abetting of neoconservatism garbed in centrist clothing an opportunistic infection resulting from the primary illness.

    The problem isn't that the establishment made wrong choices, it's that the logical assumptions that drove the establishment's decision-making was not exposed to rigorous debate and analysis.

    So I agree with the diarist as to his basic evaluation of Obama and Clinton's foreign policies, and this would have been a great diary--in March 2008. However, one does not appoint a Secretary of State to be a foreign policy visionary. The Secretary of State manages the president's foreign policy. And I have enough faith in Barack Obama's belief in his own ideas (more faith than many around here have, evidently) to understand that he will not let Clinton's priorities overtake his. I cannot but imagine that this has been raised in their meetings.

    So I'll just end with what I have said on this matter: imagine how much criticism of Obama's legitimate progressive foreign policy initiatives will be shortcircuited if Hillary is the one implementing them. Imagine her disembarking the plane in Tehran, beginning the first ministerial-level talks with Iran since the Revolution.

    That's the best reason for her to be Secretary of State.

    "It's like we weren't made for this world, But I wouldn't really want to meet someone who was." --Of Montreal

    by andydoubtless on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM PST

    •  Yes. Consistent with his Cabinet of Rivals (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andydoubtless

      theory borrowed from A. Lincoln.  Not sure I agree with it, but it is consistent.

    •  I don't think the concern is over (0+ / 0-)

      whether Obama will just follow Hillary's views.  I think the issue is more likely to be whether Hillary is willing to follow Obama's instructions.  I just don't see her as wanting to be the number 2 person when it comes to these issues.  And, frankly, I don't think she is the best qualified person.  I have no problem with trying to come to terms with rivals, but that should not be the primary criterion for the job.  

      Plus, the Clintons brought enough drama to the White House when Bill was president.  No need to bring that back.

      •  It's not like we want Obama to succeed more than (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lopez99

        he does, and it's not like we need to tell Obama anything about the dangers of dealing with the Clintons. His allusion to those gray hairs he got from the primary fight from Hillary at the Al Smith dinner was really only half-joking.

        I trust Obama to have the frank up-front discussion with her about will and will not fly. And I trust him, in the event she does not tow the administration line or acts in her own self-interest, to send her packing as expeditiously as Reagan did Al Haig.

        But given Clinton's energy and ambition, it's better to take the chance of putting it to use taking care of vital foreign policy matters and restoring the country's image abroad.

        "It's like we weren't made for this world, But I wouldn't really want to meet someone who was." --Of Montreal

        by andydoubtless on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't put blind trust in anybody, including (0+ / 0-)

          Obama.  

          And, really, I don't think it's a good situation for anybody to have to send the Secretary of State packing.  

          Plus, I don't see why people seem to think that, on the merits, she is the best choice for Secretary of State.  Why?  Because she was first lady and visited Tusla and Ireland?  Because she is one of 100 Senators?  There certainly are people more qualified, and it seems to me that she would not even be considered if it weren't for the primary.  Some people here like to complain that the primary should not be taken into account in order to block her from serving, but I don't think it should be the reason for giving her the job.

          •  Look, I expect to disagree with Obama (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TooFolkGR, Lopez99

            on a host of issues, including his support for faith-based initiatives. I do suppose I am giving him more leeway on appointments, though there I suppose I am more sensitive on positions like Sec Treas (favoring Joe Stiglitz or Paul Krugman rather than Larry Summers or Tim Geithner) and Attorney General (Feingold all the way) than Secretary of State.

            If we were making these decisions based merely on resumes, then Obama would not be president in the first place. Hillary Clinton's eight years in the Senate do qualify her for a high-level cabinet appointment. And while it doesn't count as direct experience in a policymaking capacity, Clinton's years as first lady has given her a breadth of familiarity with the world and its leaders. Finally, there's simply the fact that like it or not Hillary Clinton is the most famous woman in the world, and what she says becomes headlines. Considering one of the greatest failures of the past eight years is public diplomacy, Clinton is uniquely able among potential Secretaries of State to get Obama's message out.

            "It's like we weren't made for this world, But I wouldn't really want to meet someone who was." --Of Montreal

            by andydoubtless on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:25:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I completely agree with you. (0+ / 0-)

    I understand Obama's willingness to form a "team of rivals", but I just think this would be a massive mistake. She has stood for the opposite of what Obama stood for on foreign policy. We saw that time and again in the debates. I voted for him because he is smart and level-headed and willing to give PEACE a chance, not rush to obliterating a whole country without reading the report.

    Aside from the whole fadct that SoS wouldnt really be a stp up for her. She should continue to cultivate and grow and lead in the senate. Obama will need her there. NOT in his cabinet.

  •  Hillary as SOS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    creamer

    has a certain Machiavellian brilliance to it.  I was not a Hillary supporter, but think about it this way:  It effectively boxes her out of being the inside opposition hoping he'll fail so she can challenge (like Kennedy did Carter) in 2012.  As SoS, she has to sell HIS policy, not HERS.  She has severe restrictions on her politically, and in an odd way her hawkish views give Obama some cover.  For example, if Obama makes overtures to Iran, as has been promised, the very fact that Hillary opposed that and has been much more hawkish gives Obama a stronger n egotiating hand with Iran, and also immunizes him from attacks from the right about being too soft.  

    The big problem, of course, is Bill, the "elephant in the room".  But if the Bill conflict of interest issues can be cleared (and I don't know if they can), then Hillary, while not a conventional choice, may actually be an inspired choice.

  •  Need new ideas (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP

    Hillary represents the old way of thinking ("By golly no one pushes the U.S. around!! We'll damn well do anything we want in the world and if anyone protests, to hell with them!! We always represent good, so how dare anyone question that!!).

    New thinking is called for.

    Someone more in the direction of Noam Chomsky (but a little more moderate, lol) would be preferable -- someone who can see other countries' points of view and recognize that we need to respect that. (E.g., understand why Russia is pissed we are trying to get its border countries into NATO -- suppose Russia was acting similarly porovocatively in Can. or Mex.)

    Barack has said that, after the last 8 years of bullying the world around, we need a more humble foreign policy. Hillary's record is completely devoid of that sort of thinking, and she is totally the wrong person for the job.

  •  I don't care what happened in the primary, but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, GN1927

    Hillary just does not seem like a great choice.  For one thing, there really are more qualified people.  For another, I just don't see a great working relationship between the Clintons and "No drama Obama."  It's one thing to have people working for you who speak their minds.  It's another to have people who create conflict and distracting drama.  Let Bill do his thing with the CGI and library.  Let Hillary do her thing in the Senate.  But, just judging from the drama and financial issues going on with "vetting process" going on right now, I'd say she would not be a great choice:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

  •  Common sense should rule the day ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GN1927, TooFolkGR, Freedoms Road, Kula2316

    As an academic, I have wanted for 8 years for a person smarter then myself to be President of the United States.  Why wouldn't you want the smartest guy around governing the free world?  I almost think it really should be a pre-requisite for the job.

    Likewise, I would prefer my Secretary of State, head ambassador for my country abroad, to know more then I do about foreign policy.

    It just stands as something so obvious to me, that it just defies belief.

    If the last eight years have shown us anything, it is that a room full of experts advising a clueless person in charge is a good way to get bad decisions.

    I hope our next president doesn't make the mistake of handing out cabinet positions in the name of 'party unity' or 'bipartisanship' and instead picks the person with the greatest skill set for the post.

  •  She also said Putin has no soul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew

    And in reply, he said she has no brain.

    Putin is a bad guy but Russia is a country we are going to need to learn to get along with. Is Hillary the right person for the job?

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent". - Thomas Jefferson

    by bobscofield on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:22:16 PM PST

  •  Since Kucinich critics ridiculed his (0+ / 0-)

    Department of Peace by responding that it's already in place, and it's called the Department of State, Kucinich for SoS!

    It looks like the military and the intelligence community are already going to be trouble over the torture and false imprisonment questions, so why not give them some heartburn?

    Hee.

    No laws but Liberty. No king but Conscience.

    by oldjohnbrown on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:29:24 PM PST

  •  She's smart (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue, TooFolkGR

    she knows her stuff

    hope hope hope hope hope. feels good

    by jockoftexas on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM PST

  •  Thank you for your diary david mizner. (0+ / 0-)

    Since Barack seems to fancy candidates that don't believe he's qualified to be Commander-In-Chief, I think he should be truly bi-partisian: He should select McCain or Lieberman as SOS. If Barack really chooses HRC as SOS it will a disaster. Ever time she makes a foreign trip, five articles will appear overnight describing  Bill's seedy business dealings with the country Hillary is about to visit. This choice would be a continuing nightmare a thousand times more embarrassing than bringing Larry Summers into the Cabinet.

  •  Guys, O's going to pick who he picks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FeastOr, TooFolkGR

    IF it's Hillary, or anybody else,we have to find ways to inform from our progressive viewpoint on the issues.  That's what David Sirota does.  Our purpose seems to me to be clear.  What are the areas we think are important to emphasize.  I think that foreign policy has been much to pointed in one direction.  Conversation, diplomacy needs to start happening with Lula in Brazil and Chavez in Venezuela.  It seems to me that the Bushies only talked to Mexico.  The south Asian countries, Russia, Indonesia.  I'm sure you all can come up with a comprehensive plan.  And also, the SOS does not vote on Policy in the same way that the Senate does.  Barack pulls her into the cabinet.  He knows she's bright, articulate, that she has particular concerns for women around the world.  And he can listen to her views.  If they veer hawk, he doesn't have to go there.  Anyway.  I never supported her for President.  I think she's a bright woman, capable of thinking things through.
    I think it's an honorable post and she gets to test her mettle. And maybe New York can finally get Nita Loewy for Senator.

    WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

    by ruthhmiller on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM PST

    •  Organize concern around the script, (0+ / 0-)

      rather than the actors?   I tend to agree.  

      Hillary is a capable agent and if the campaign is an example, our President-elect is a capable director.

      We all heard Obama's goal of unification. Why should we be surprised that he's keeping his word?

      Personally, I'm still getting over the thrill of having post-election political news cover something other than clearing brush on an pseudo-ranch.  

      -5.75 -5.85 Belief in absolutes is the laziest of delusions.

      by FeastOr on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:49:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Apparently only six read the NIE (0+ / 0-)

    I was surprised to read this today over at the Daily Howler....

       PRIEST (4/27/04): In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.

       But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

    Apparently Rockefeller and Roberts and Graham were three...any idea on the status of Biden, Kerry, Edwards etc.?  

  •  Hillary Clinton is NOT a hawk (6+ / 0-)

    This diary is absolutely preposterous for alleging that. Yes she is more hawkISH than many of us would like, but to call her a hawk is outrageous. Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and perennial moron Tom Friedman, those are hawks.

    Hillary Clinton? She made a calculated political decision, which we all know was the wrong one, but that certainly does not qualify her as a hawk.

  •  As I understand it, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vicky, TooFolkGR, JaGuAr3529

    the SoS doesn't make policy, the President does. The SoS is the President's spokesperson to the world.

    Hillary's policy views are not particularly relevant. Her ability to work with and negotiate with foreign governments on Obama's behalf is relevant. Obviously, if Obama is considering her, he must feel she has the skill set to do that.

    Having a Senate voting record that is identical to Obama's is not necessary.

    As for statements made during the campaign, I'd take those (from all sides) with a large grain of salt.

    I have no problem with HRC as SoS.

    "It's no wonder more people call themselves Democrats; it's easy to identify with a party that identifies with you." --srmjjg

    by Dragon5616 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM PST

    •  I came in here to say something (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dragon5616

      And it appears you've already said it for me.  (But I'll say something anyways.)

      The Secretary of State does not create foreign policy, so the discrepancies between Hillary and Obama on that issue are irrelevant.

      Hillary's experience in dealing with world leaders is sufficient to be considered for the job.

      Politically, Hillary makes all the sense in the world.  At this point, it would hurt Obama to not pick her, especially if his choice is Bill Richardson.  Lets not forget the drama that went down over Richardson's endorsement of Obama.

      •  Richardson's endorsement of Obama is as (0+ / 0-)

        irrelevant as Hillary's positions during the primary following your logic.  The drama that went down was FROM Hillary.  So, you're basically arguing that the President should base his choice for SecState on NOT pissing off the wife of a former president....

        It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change. - Charles Darwin

        by Freedoms Road on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:39:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lieing has always been my biggest objection. (0+ / 0-)

    I also hated the idea that she thought she could get away with it.

    Lieing without consequences has just got to go.  Lieing as accepted mo has got to go.  Lieing in government is what has got us here and it is what destroys our credibility in the world.

    Second reason, she voted for the bankruptcy bill that she opposed in the white house.  the one good thing of SOS is that her vote in the Senate is no longer for sale and I hope we get someone else who has a better mo.

  •  I Can't Believe People Are Still Spinning this BS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue

    She voted for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment, every bit as rightwing and reckless as its name suggests. The AIPAC-written bill designated Iran's revolutionary guard corps a "terrorist organization." If you'll excuse the self-quote, here's what I wrote in the fall of 2007:

    Do the math, people: the Revolution Guards are terrorists + Bush launched a global war on terror = _. Jim Webb called the bill "Cheney's fondest pipe dream."* Recall that "real men want to go to Tehran."

    Kyl-Lieberman also had potential ramifications for the American force structure in Iraq--the primary reason for Obama's opposition to the bill. When challenged about her support for Kyl-Lieberman, she claimed absurdly that it was a vote for stepped up diplomacy.

    I forgive your self quote.  Where's the new self quote where you admit you were completely wrong, and the only intention of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment was to apply diplomatic pressure?

    Are you seriously suggesting that Bush is going to use Kyl-Lieberman as a pretext for invading Iran between now and January 20th?

  •  hillary has no place as SoS. (0+ / 0-)

    for starters, she cannot be trusted.   and that's all you need to know.  but there is so much more...including lack of wisdom, honesty, integrity, experience, etc.    

  •  I'm fully in support of Hillary for SofS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue

    and feel it would be a brilliant appointment.

    "Statistics are people with the tears washed away." Sociologist Ruth Sidel

    by Vicky on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:15:12 PM PST

  •  Bill took $800K from Colombia (0+ / 0-)

    So if the trade deal cannot be made acceptable to a Pres, Obama and then we need Colombia's cooperation for something, and Hillary is Sec. of State, what can we do if the Colombians want retribution for the $800K they sent down the drain?

    "This election is not about me, it's about you, the American people." Sen.Barack Obama

    by ARCADIA on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:21:07 PM PST

  •  Whats the matter David (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coigue

    One recommended diary wasn't enough you had to go for two?

    Kerry is a joke.  Has he decided where he stands on Iraq yet? He voted for the war you know.

    Brzezinski backed arming the Mujahadeen, is that hawkish enough for you?

    Wes Clark said this about Hillary Clinton:  "I’ve known Hillary Clinton for twenty-four years.  I know she has what it takes to end the war in Iraq, avert war with Iran, and restore our country’s standing in the world," General Clark says in the thirty-second ad.  Does that disqualify him as SOS?

    Obama co-sponsored a bill that callled the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization.

    Following MacCallum's assertion on Live Desk that Obama "seems to be changing his tune," Fox News blogger and correspondent Griff Jenkins noted that Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor pointed out that Obama "co-sponsored a bill that would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization." Indeed, as The New York Times, FactCheck.org, and Obama's website all noted, Obama did co-sponsor a bill that expressed the sense of the Congress that "[t]he Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization."

    Obama on Revolutionary Guard

    Does that make Obama a hawk David?  Obama backs iincreased troops to Afghanistan, and missile strikes into Pakistan does that make him a hawk David?

    You back some pretty hawkish candidates for SOS and President don't you?

    Face it, you oppose Hillary Clinton because her name is Hillary Clinton, that's all.

  •  Good cop, bad cop, Obama, Clinton (0+ / 0-)

    Just sayin'

    Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists. Herein lies the peace of God. A Course in Miracles.

    by Steven wonders on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM PST

  •  Clinton, Richardson, Albright, (0+ / 0-)

    Ross, Dalder... What a tiresome, dreary roll call.  All hawks, all establishment insiders, all neocon fellow travelers when it comes to the Middle East, all with blood on their resumes...

    Why not look outside DC to a distinguished academic, or retired military man - like Bacevich, who happens to be both?

    Clinton is not change. She, particularly when it comes to foreign policy, is the past.

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 02:42:37 PM PST

  •  Billary as SOS? (0+ / 0-)

    I can't help thinking that both Bill and Hillary would make an end run around Obama if Hillary got to be secretary of state.

    Why is she qualified?  As the diarist points out, her positions relating to foreign policy are not Obama's.  They are the opposite.

    As for those Kossacks who support her, they are right in their belief that she is a capable person.  But one must ask oneself, is she TRULY right for SOS?  If so, why?  And I think you must be very honest with yourself.  How well did she run a campaign?  Was it smooth, or was there infighting?  Is she no drama?  Does she make temperate or intemperate statements about countries?  If intemperate, what chance would diplomacy have with that country--say Iran.

    I think those who love her would have to really work hard to support her for this role.

    The only thing I can think of positive is that it might keep Bill from bad-mouthing Barack and trying to undermine the Obama legislative and other critical programs.

  •  Can I have a link to those bills please? (0+ / 0-)

    I'd like to read them for myself. She may have had a good reason for voting for them that isn't in the excerpts you posted. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'd just like to do my own research before making a conclusion.

  •  The Guardian (UK) is now reporting (0+ / 0-)

    that Hillary is going to accept the post.

    Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

    "Lies return." - African proverb

    by Night Train on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:12:54 PM PST

  •  This is the Job that Bill Richardson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    ...was born to do.  The man has negotiated successfully for the release of American captives in North Korea and Iraq -- which included a mano-a-mano sitdown with Saddam himself.  He specializes in dealing with the most unsavory of tyrants abroad.

    Is there anyone even as close to being as qualified and capable as Bill Richardson?  This is a Cabinet appointment that could actually have a real benefit and not just be a political move.  

  •  The Supreme Court is my 1st choice for HRC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    But I really cannot imagine how Hillary and Bill can get past Obama's vetting process.

    And if they don't do the Full-Monty it will make a lie of Obama's entire mantra about doing things differently.

    Am I being too cynical to think that he is offering her the job, knowing full well that the Clinton's won't expose themselves?

    "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

    by annan on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM PST

    •  meaning ... (0+ / 0-)

      That it's unlikely that the Clinton's will do the Full-Monty, so she will have to turn down Obama's offer which will be better than not offering it in the first place.

      "Let us not look back to the past with anger, nor towards the future with fear, but look around with awareness." James Thurber

      by annan on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:34:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Projecting Bill's experience to Hillary. (0+ / 0-)

    OK, I know, Hillary isn't Bill. But the main lessons of Bill's foreign policy were emotional -- about human nature -- so perhaps some of them rubbed off. What I'm talking about:

    1. Failure to use force in Bosnia until after years of war, seige of Sarajevo, Srebrenica massacre. Once force used by NATO, war quickly ended.
    1. Failure to use force in Rwanda. Consensus this was the wrong choice.
    1. Use of force in Haiti mostly successful. Haiti mistake similar to one of many mistakes in Iraq: no followup plan.
    1. Learning from 1, 2, 3 -- easier resort to use of force in Kosovo. Essentially successful.

    I will never forget footage of Sarajevans trying to escape the seige, being rounded up by blue-helmeted UN troops and hauled back into Sarajevo. The same UN that embargoed weapons to keep them out of the Sarajevans' hands, but would not stop the Serb sniping and shelling. What an obscenity. I think Hillary would start off with an awareness of the need to avoid repeating that.

    The lesson to be drawn is NOT that use of force is always the answer. For instance, it wasn't in Iraq, and I am doubtful it will be in Congo (without a MASSIVE multinational commitment), though it might be in Darfur. But at least Hillary would start off having gotten over the idea that use of force is never the answer.

    "The true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals." - Barack Obama

    by HeyMikey on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM PST

  •  My choice for SoS? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JBL55

    An actual career diplomat, not a career politician. But that never happens, so I'm not holding my breath.

  •  I'M ENRAGED BY THE CLINTONSSSSSS (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey

    THEY ENRAGE ME.

    LOL.

    4 of your points are based on the AUMF and Joe Biden voted "for the war" too.

    It's clear to me the primary is over and the fact that Obama picked Biden for VP (heartbeat away!!) and considers Clinton shows me that EVERYTHING he said above was said to win a primary and he does not... NOPE, he does not believe it.

    Yep.  It was good politics to win the primary.  But it's not really what he thinks.

    But Please.  Continue.

    TO BE ENRAGED BY THE CLINTONS.

    THEY ENRAGE ME.

    I'M INSANE WITH RAGE.

    I CAN'T THINK.

    how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

    by Edgar08 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM PST

  •  I support Hil for SoS (0+ / 0-)

    because she will provide a voice of dissent in private for Obama to think about when making his decisions.....but in the end she will be very effective in carrying out his decisions. She is a very good public speaker, the juxtaposition of a powerfyl black man (with an Islamic middle name) in the WH and a powerful woman as the international face of the USA is awesome in it's symbolism. She will be negotiating with people who stone women for showing their ankles.

    My loving marriage of 17 years is now a symbol of inequality and discrimination.

    by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 03:53:53 PM PST

  •  Is the Diarist Lying or Misinformed? (0+ / 0-)

    On the "Obliterate Iran" comment, there's basically two ways to look at this.

    The Diarist does not know the context of that comment so I will provide it here.

    The context of the comment is what we would do if Iran bombed Israel first.

    If the Diarist did know that context and failed to mention it here then that is lying by omission.  And the Diarist is a liar.

    I hope it's just ignorance of the facts of that situation.

    how can it be permissable/ to compromise my principle. -- robert palmer

    by Edgar08 on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:08:32 PM PST

  •  "Obliterate" comment is WRONG (0+ / 0-)

    The claim about "Hillary's saying she would "obliterate" Iran" was wrong when Obama used it as a cudgel against her, and it's wrong the way you phrase it. As noted by me at the time, Clinton did NOT say we "would" obliterate Iran, she said we "would be able to obliterate Iran." And even that is out of context, without noting it was the answer to the absurdly hypothetical question as to what the U.S. would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons (you know, the ones it doesn't have).

    The problem with Clinton and Obama is that both continue to maintain, NIE notwithstanding, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. That is irresponsible.

    And speaking of wrong claims, the claim by Obama that "I think what is irresponsible and naive is to have authorized a war without asking how we were going to get out" is as wrong as can be. What was irresponsible was voting to authorize an unprovoked, illegal war. If we had had a perfect exit strategy, and the war had only lasted six months, six weeks, or even six days, it was still irresponsible and, by international law, a clear war crime. The "ultimate" crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

    Eli Stephens
    Left I on the News

    by elishastephens on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:15:18 PM PST

  •  I have no problem with HRC as SOS (0+ / 0-)

    and I am an Obama supporter...but a lot of what you take from HRC is her positioning herself to be president, a strategy she felt she needed to be taken seriously.  But Obama ultimately sets foreign policy, and she will follow through with Obama's strategic messaging, and she is well-known and a great emissary, but can be tough when she needs to be.

    Finally, yes, I think these are Obama's choices and nobody ever said he would make choices that would make progressives happy all of the time.  He will have to live with them and we will have to live with them, but I do feel in spite of her actions adn statements and in spite of the fact that i vehehmently opposed her in the primary, HRC will be a great SOS.  If she gets it, we will see.

  •  I resent this argument that what was said in a (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    First Amendment

    campaign has any bearing on whether or not HRC is qualified for SoS, I'm tired of this argument because it doesn't float,

    the primary is over, let.it.go!

    McCain does not support the troops

    by erin r on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:33:52 PM PST

  •  While I wasn't the biggest.. (0+ / 0-)

    Hillary fan during the primaries, I do think she would be an excellent SoS. The Clinton name is respected around the world. What we have to remember here is, Obama isn't going to satisfy everyone. It's impressive how he's reaching out to former rivals. Americans accustomed to the Rovian slash and burn politics of the last eight years are most probably pleasantly surprised and pleased.

    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.

    by First Amendment on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 04:35:18 PM PST

  •  Her "tough talk" on Iraq and Iran was so (0+ / 0-)

    distasteful, it was the reason I never considered supporting her over Obama (or first, Edwards).

    I thought the "dream ticket" was a bad idea, but SOS is more important than VP, after the election is over.

Michael D, chase, C S McCrum, Kitty, Dissento, boydog, tgs1952, Chi, rfunk, SMucci, bluecayuga, XOVER, askew, bball, gogol, Adam B, SaveDemocracy, DelRPCV, Jeff Simpson, Geenius at Wrok, Guaunyu, Roger Lamb, ScientistMom in NY, jethropalerobber, JTML, Avila, Shockwave, Psyche, Wintermute, byoungbl, rhubarb, caliberal, theran, RFK Lives, MarkInSanFran, zeitshabba, Nonie3234, Heart of the Rockies, Eternal Hope, INMINYMA, RubDMC, jackspace, understandinglife, peace voter, weirdscenes, Nihilvor, mkfarkus, roses, jbeach, DiMe, frightwig, jted, SensibleShoes, wader, stridergambit, Matthew Detroit, sockpuppet, oldjohnbrown, Subversive, mrkvica, pat bunny, ksquire, brainwave, Boppy, Patricia, GN1927, betson08, beachmom, RebeccaG, Sophie Amrain, walkshills, WisVoter, KayCeSF, Albanius, Schwede, greeseyparrot, Big Tex, chumley, Bluesee, radarlady, Jagger, Bensch, freakofsociety, baccaruda, mjd in florida, DocGonzo, Valtin, NeuvoLiberal, Jules Beaujolais, Frank Palmer, The Grace Kelly, techno, power model, jilikins, jj24, Flippant, ZinZen, Arsenic, Land of Enchantment, evenson, CJnyc, MrBurns17, begone, martini, Do Tell, tarheelblue, Keone Michaels, Bluesman48, BlueInARedState, Magnifico, Im with Rosey, Bob Sackamento, imabluemerkin, slandurgurl, real world chick, joe shikspack, Mikesco, blitz boy, GiveNoQuarter, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, zorthron, revgerry, crystal eyes, bstotts, duha, Nulwee, NonnyO, ammasdarling, subav8r, fedupinBushcountry, Ken in MN, Great Uncle Bulgaria, drbloodaxe, yoduuuh do or do not, Outrider, NCDem Amy, ezdidit, deepeco, 99 Percent Pure, madgranny, Puffin, JML9999, Captain Nimrod, Terra Mystica, TomP, cville townie, tdub, BlueStateLiberal, ShadowSD, LizzyPop, Cordwainer, angel65, Mr Rick, kjboy27, tofumagoo, Ocelopotamus, MrJayTee, smartdemmg, mnguy66, Thought Crime, mofembot, luckylizard, DixieDishrag, RoscoeOfAlabama, Guadalupe59, SunWolf78, 1BQ, George Hier, progressnerd, Discipline28, pinhighin2, The Field, bmozaffari, PapiGonzo, An Affirming Flame, Methinks They Lie, dicentra, Partisan Progressive, yorlik7, eean, SDuvall, IndySlip, panamaniaco, drizek, Night Train, Virginian in Spain, elziax, obiterdictum, Freedoms Road, ZilV, NomDeKos, mhsteacher1, obscuresportsquarterly, kevinpdx, drlevant, Kiku, CityLightsLover, vadasz, eclecticbrotha, 57andFemale, sherijr, spyguy999, etara, Tricky, Josselyn, Abie, ahuramazda, beeninthewoods, Amber6541, Just Bob, phoebe1st, ZAP210, richdoll, Fairy Tale, dalys, parse this, smileycreek, brooklyns finest, littlezen, mudmanor, Jampacked, robertacker13, eXtina, My mom is my hero, blueyescryinintherain, princss6, karend27, fidellio, TheWesternSun, sortalikenathan, Big Danny, Crabby Abbey, msmo1918, Dexter, Klaus, creamer, k8dd8d, OldLady in BC, Kong10, tellinya, Caerus, abrauer, MsGrin, The Holy Smoker, Floande, tx tofu46, CA Berkeley WV, bvig, HylasBrook, bicycle Hussein paladin, VitaminD, ladyducatnip, exostencil, cylonbabe, TAH from SLC, atheistben, snowhusseincat, future nurse, hyperrreal, slamcactus, Haf2Read, soysauce, felldestroyed

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site