Hillary Clinton SECSTATE?

[boloboffin]

Just reported on Keith Olberman's show, from two Obama sources: Hillary Clinton is a strong possibility for Obama's Secretary of State.

wJTzkj8ppyE

And here I was, thinking she'd be a great replacement for Stevens on the Supreme Court. Evidently, though, she said she wasn't interested in the SCOTUS. No link, just something somebody heard and repeated to me.

If this is true, I don't understand why she wouldn't have been a good Vice Presidential pick. Maybe Obama's advisers thought the Clintons so close would have been a problem during the election only.

[godofpie]

I don't like or trust her. If she had been on Obama's ticket I am not sure I could have voted for him. Jon Stewart suggested during the campaign that McCain should have picked her for his VP. I think he would have had a shot if he had. She has a lot of Washington insider credibility, I just can't get past the fact that she she stayed with Bill and she Carpetbagged her way into the senate via NY.

[ImaginalDisc]

And here I was, thinking she'd be a great replacement for Stevens on the Supreme Court. Evidently, though, she said she wasn't interested in the SCOTUS. No link, just something somebody heard and repeated to me.

Sweet chocolate Jesus! Don't scare me like that. She's unqualified (Judicial experience?) and for censorship. No thank you.

[Jeff Corey]

And here I was, thinking she'd be a great replacement for Stevens on the Supreme Court. Evidently, though, she said she wasn't interested in the SCOTUS. No link, just something somebody heard and repeated to me...

Don't be silly. No president was ever a Supreme first. Taft was on, but after he was Prez.
The Hill still wants it, and she'll wait.

[Thunder]

id like to see Bill clinton or hillary as sec. of state. i think either of them would do a superb job.

[ZirconBlue]

If this is true, I don't understand why she wouldn't have been a good Vice Presidential pick. Maybe Obama's advisers thought the Clintons so close would have been a problem during the election only.

From the Newsweek article that no one seems interested in (http://www.newsweek.com/id/167582):


Obama was not inclined to choose Hillary, not so much because she had been his sometime bitter rival on the campaign trail, but because of her husband. "You don't just get Hillary, you get Bill," said a top Obama adviser. The Obamaites had benefited from Bill Clinton as a loose cannon in the primary campaign. They did not want to be wounded by him in the general election. Still, from time to time, as Hillary's name came up in veep discussions, and Obama's advisers gave all the reasons she should be kept off the ticket, Obama would stop and ask, "Are we sure?" He needed to be convinced one more time that the Clintons would do more harm than good.

[boloboffin]

Sweet chocolate Jesus! Don't scare me like that. She's unqualified (Judicial experience?) and for censorship. No thank you.

Plenty of Supreme Court justices haven't had judicial experience before getting onto the Court. Hillary's got a law degree, familiarity with the issues, and experience with the other two branches of government.

Googling Hillary and censorship landed me a WND article as the first pick. I hope you have more than that.

[maxpower1227]

God, no. Not Hillary. I knew Obama would never pick her for VP, and I hope she has no role in the administration. She seems to fly in the face of everything Obama claims to stand for as far as bipartisanship and working on both sides of the aisle. Hillary strikes me as a very polarizing, divisive person with genuine contempt for those on the right ("vast right-wing conspiracy"?!?) and who is uncompromising on issues. Maybe I'm off base, but I don't want her to be part of this administration. Her involvement would also make it that much harder for those on the right to buy Obama's promise to work together and move beyond partisanship.

[boloboffin]

Josh Marshall made the point -- why would Hillary give up New York Senator, something she could be for the rest of her life, for four or eight years as SECSTATE? Others respond that it opens her up to run in 2012 or 2016. How many people ever launched into the Oval Office from the State Department, particularly against their own President? And in 2016, she'll be 68. Seems a little iffy to me. That's why I was thinking SCOTUS for her, but then again, it sounds like she doesn't want that.

So who knows?

[The Painter]

Why not Hillary?? Obama has picked nearly everyone else from the Clinton administration. Lets all relive the 90's. Good times.

[SisterSmile]

I believe it would be a wise decision to choose Hillary.

During the primaries she bolstered a lot of support in the EU.
The Europeans would welcome her as SCOTUS and she would be able to improve the US/EU relations greatly.

[ZirconBlue]

Why not Hillary?? Obama has picked nearly everyone else from the Clinton administration. Lets all relive the 90's. Good times.


Indeed they were good times. I'm intrigued by your idea of reliving the 90's, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Cleon]

Lets all relive the 90's. Good times.

Booming economy, great job market, cheap gas, and the main government scandal involved the Prez boinking an intern.

Today, we have Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the mortgage crisis, a falling stock market, and a regular "what moronic thing did the Prez do or say this time" news feature.

Yeah, the 90s were pretty good, weren't they?

[pgwenthold]

Why not Hillary?? Obama has picked nearly everyone else from the Clinton administration. Lets all relive the 90's. Good times.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The stupid thing is, I know you are trying to be sarcastic.

[Kaylee]

I hope that isn’t true. Hilary Clinton lost all her credibility when she grossly exaggerated her credentials with her ridiculous stories about Bosnia and Northern Ireland.

WRT Bosnia she said she was greeted with sniper fire instead of the scheduled greeting ceremony but news tapes of the time in question show that she was only in danger in getting a card from a little girl at a ceremony at the airport.
Article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/25/politics/main3967223.shtml?source=mostpop_story)
Video clips (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/tim-russert-nails-hillary_n_96419.html)

WRT Northern Ireland she said she played an instrumental role in the negotiations. However, George Mitchell, a former American senator who was the lead negotiator said she was not directly involved. (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_and_northern_ireland.html)

I think we need a Secretary of State with credibility and she’s not it. Also, although I think Clinton is intelligent, she has a tin ear and that is probably one of the main reasons why many people dislike her so much. IMHO, that’s a fatal flaw for one of our country’s most important diplomatic positions.

[ImaginalDisc]

Plenty of Supreme Court justices haven't had judicial experience before getting onto the Court. Hillary's got a law degree, familiarity with the issues, and experience with the other two branches of government.

Googling Hillary and censorship landed me a WND article as the first pick. I hope you have more than that.

She has no judicial experience and little to no trial experience of which I am aware. She's also an idealogue willing to bend or break facts to fit with her preconceptions, which is a disqualifying trait for the highest court in the land as far as my opinion matters.

[Bikewer]

They were just discussing this on the Diane Rehm "reporters roundup" weekly show.
One point would be Bill... Lots of foreign experience and many worldwide contacts, but also a lot of possible conflict-of-interest problems with his foundation and other baggage.

The reporters agreed she'd likely make a fine candidate.

[SisterSmile]

John Kerry seems to be a real contender too.

How does he match up against Hillary regarding foreign policy knowledge ?

[tomwaits]

Secretary of State? ok.

SCOTUS? absolutely not and I think you are a little nutty for even suggesting it.

[Darth Rotor]

Wrong Clinton for SEC STATE.

If you want a Clinton for Sec State, you pick Bill Clinton. He has the wit, charm, and smarts to do it. No, I don't trust him, but let's look at the skills someone has to have to get the darned job done.

1. He found a way to work deals with the GOP congress for six years.
2. The Dayton accords was not a bad bit of dimplomacy.

He talks a good line of BS.

Come on, folks, if you are going to pick a Clinton, pick the right one for the job.

Hillary, carpet bagging or no, is a competent Senator and can do her party plenty of good in the Senate. As I see the politics of it all, it's her party's best bang per buck benefit from her will, talents, and energy.

DR

[dudalb]

Lead story on CNN last night. The media is in a feeding frenzy over this.
One of the downsides is this is a package deal, you Get Hillary, you also get Bill. And there is always the chance that Bill won't be able to keep his pants zipped again, producing embarassment. Look, I like the guy,,thought he was overall a good President, but that is a risk.
Hey, I could see him, while Hilary is chatting with the President of France, trying to hit on the French First Lady...(not that I blame him very much but it would be unseemly).

[Undesired Walrus]

Does Chuck Hagel stand a chance of getting this position?

[Darth Rotor]

Does Chuck Hagel stand a chance of getting this position?
I don't think so, though I think he'd do a decent job. Check out his experience here. There is some international stuff, but (http://hagel.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Biography.Home)I don't see him as the chief diplomat. Maybe his time on FR committee is enough prep.

The Senator's Committees

Foreign Relations
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Intelligence

[dudalb]

Does Chuck Hagel stand a chance of getting this position?


He is on the short list. I got a feeling it will be either Hagel, Hilllary, or Richardson.

[The Painter]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The stupid thing is, I know you are trying to be sarcastic.

You see that's where you are mistaken. No sarcasm at all. I didn't agree with all of Clinton's policies, but he got through the Congress more of the Republican agenda than GW Bush has. ( yes I know it was a Republican Congress ). He may have even balanced the budget at one point in time, oh wait maybe that was Newt Gingrich and company. Well at least Clinton was there and that counts for something. I made the bulk of my money in the 90's, and lost a good chunk of it in just the last 3 months. Bring back the 90's, Good times

[boloboffin]

She has no judicial experience and little to no trial experience of which I am aware. She's also an idealogue willing to bend or break facts to fit with her preconceptions, which is a disqualifying trait for the highest court in the land as far as my opinion matters.

Secretary of State? ok.

SCOTUS? absolutely not and I think you are a little nutty for even suggesting it.

There is no requirement for judicial experience in the Constitution for a Supreme Court justice. There have been plenty of them who had no such experience before being appointed. Perhaps you both should get a wee bit more informed about the Supreme Court before you toss about monikers like "nutty" and "ideologue."

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and has been intimately involved in governmental affairs now for 16 years. If Obama nominated her, I've no doubt the Senate would approve her and she'd be on the Court. Those are the rules. You don't like it? Get elected President and nominate your own people. I think she'd be a fantastic justice.

ETA: The word on the street is that Obama has offered her SECSTATE. So it's a moot point. But I'm putting crocodiles into my moot, so back off. :p

[ImaginalDisc]

There is no requirement for judicial experience in the Constitution for a Supreme Court justice. There have been plenty of them who had no such experience before being appointed. Perhaps you both should get a wee bit more informed about the Supreme Court before you toss about monikers like "nutty" and "ideologue."

Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and has been intimately involved in governmental affairs now for 16 years. If Obama nominated her, I've no doubt the Senate would approve her and she'd be on the Court. Those are the rules. You don't like it? Get elected President and nominate your own people. I think she'd be a fantastic justice.

ETA: The word on the street is that Obama has offered her SECSTATE. So it's a moot point. But I'm putting crocodiles into my moot, so back off. :p

Yeah, thanks. I thought I made it clear I was offering my opinion. I'm away it's entirely legal, just %$&#ing idiotic.

[tomwaits]

There is no requirement for judicial experience in the Constitution for a Supreme Court justice. There have been plenty of them who had no such experience before being appointed. Perhaps you both should get a wee bit more informed about the Supreme Court before you toss about monikers like "nutty" and "ideologue."

I never doubted that she could be nominated and appointed. I just thought it was crazy.


Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and has been intimately involved in governmental affairs now for 16 years. If Obama nominated her, I've no doubt the Senate would approve her and she'd be on the Court. Those are the rules. You don't like it? Get elected President and nominate your own people. I think she'd be a fantastic justice.

I have to be elected president before I can have an opinion on judicial nominations? Dude, what?

[boloboffin]

Yeah, thanks. I thought I made it clear I was offering my opinion. I'm away it's entirely legal, just %$&#ing idiotic.

I never doubted that she could be nominated and appointed. I just thought it was crazy.

Hillary Derangement Syndrome is a sad thing to behold.

I have to be elected president before I can have an opinion on judicial nominations? Dude, what?

Example no. 1 -- it apparently forces you to misrepresent the positions of those you speak with.

[Tricky]

Maybe Obama is trying to be like Lincoln, who made his political rival, William Seward, his secretary of state. That worked out okay, given the circumstances.

[geni]

Hey, I could see him, while Hilary is chatting with the President of France, trying to hit on the French First Lady...(not that I blame him very much but it would be unseemly).

Eh Sarkozy has to meet Berlusconi from time to time.

[Praktik]

Wrong Clinton for SEC STATE.

If you want a Clinton for Sec State, you pick Bill Clinton. He has the wit, charm, and smarts to do it. No, I don't trust him, but let's look at the skills someone has to have to get the darned job done.

1. He found a way to work deals with the GOP congress for six years.
2. The Dayton accords was not a bad bit of dimplomacy.

He talks a good line of BS.

Come on, folks, if you are going to pick a Clinton, pick the right one for the job.

Hillary, carpet bagging or no, is a competent Senator and can do her party plenty of good in the Senate. As I see the politics of it all, it's her party's best bang per buck benefit from her will, talents, and energy.

DR

X2. Great post.

[tomwaits]

Hillary Derangement Syndrome is a sad thing to behold.

???

I said she's be an ok Sec of State. I even voted for her in the primary. That doesn't make her qualified to be on the supreme court. Far from it.



Example no. 1 -- it apparently forces you to misrepresent the positions of those you speak with.

Here is your quote:

Those are the rules. You don't like it? Get elected President and nominate your own people. I think she'd be a fantastic justice.


I am aware of the rules. In fact, I'm sure that if she were nominated by Obama the senate would approve. You are trying to say that we shouldn't criticize the president's nominations to the supreme court. Hell, you were the one to suggest her in the first place. I just think that is bizarre. And no, the fact that "Hillary Clinton is a lawyer and has been intimately involved in governmental affairs now for 16 years" does not qualify her to be a supreme court justice in my opinion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

id like to see Bill clinton or hillary as sec. of state. i think either of them would do a superb job.

I agree.

Also, I think Hillary has too much of a political career ahead of her to sit on the Supreme Court.

[ImaginalDisc]

Hillary Derangement Syndrome is a sad thing to behold.

Yes, having raised no objection to her as Secretary of State, only objecting to the suggestion that she be a Supreme Court Justice based on the criticism I raised makes me deranged.

In other news, everyone who disagrees with me about politics is deranged because that lets me dismiss them.

:boggled:

[boloboffin]

An article from someone advocating Bill (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucgg/20081111/cm_ucgg/realhopeemergesformideastpeace) as Middle East Envoy, but they are a one-two combo. I saw it at Firedoglake, and it talks about the possibilities of Israeli/Palestinian peace with the assistance of a Clinton in charge:

But missed in the avalanche is the fact that we face a moment of unique hope. Where? Strangely enough, in that ever "hopeless" morass of the Middle East. In fact, when you put all the dominant factors in the region together and look carefully at the intersections of interests, we might be on the brink of the best chance for a real Israeli-Palestinian peace since the Jimmy Carter administration.

...as scholar Zbigniew Brzezinski advised the new American president in The Washington Post, "Obama must rely more on what I call comprehensive regional diplomacy." In terms of the central Israeli-Palestinian problem, that means "an explicit U.S. diplomatic initiative defining the parameters of a fair Israeli-Palestinian peace, particularly: no 'right of return,' a genuinely shared Jerusalem, an Israeli return to the 1967 lines with equitable territorial exchanges, and a demilitarized Palestinian state, perhaps with U.S. peacekeepers."

And there it is -- essentially the workable compromise that was hammered out in the Taba agreements of 2001.

But then you need an American president who is intent upon actually using American power to push through such a peace treaty. What's more, action will have to be taken fast, if possible before the February Israeli elections. That is why the idea of naming Bill Clinton as the American Middle East envoy is a good one -- he's the only American of his stature who has the intelligence, the chutzpah and the sheer gall to deal with both sides over there.

Pretty decent article, and if it were Secretary Hillary Clinton instead of Envoy Bill Clinton, the appointment could be seen as Obama doubling down for peace in Israel.

(sidebar: the only objection you've given is that Hillary Clinton is the left's version of Antonin Scalia? Ooooookay...)

[tomwaits]

"Left" and "right" have very little meaning within law. The goal of the judge is not to create the law the way you want it, it's to interpret the law correctly. Scalia is a constitutional originalist, an attitude he got from studying law and being a U.S. Court of Appeals justice in the DC circuit. Has Clinton ever had any judicial experience? Your reasoning for it seems to be she's "a lawyer" (well yes...that's a pretty basic requirement) and that she "has been intimately involved in governmental affairs now for 16 years". I'm sorry, but to me, that means very little. Creating law through legislation is very different from the practice of interpreting law. You seem to think she would be a good justice because of her politics. That's a poor criteria for inclusion, IMO.

[hgc]

Maybe Obama is trying to be like Lincoln, who made his political rival, William Seward, his secretary of state. That worked out okay, given the circumstances.


I just gotta point out that William Seward is famously remembered for "Seward's folly," the purchase of Alaska from Russia. This has brought forth Sarah Palin into the national body politic. I would say, in the final analysis, that Lincoln-choosing-Seward thing has NOT WORKED OUT.

[DanishDynamite]

Hope she takes the position. Would be nice having an intelligent person, backed up by an intelligent person, to talk to for once.

[boloboffin]

And the London Times has a big story about Obama reportedly pushing a plan that would include Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece

They quote "sources close" to Obama.

This is big enough for a thread of its own, but it's connected to the editorial I posted earlier.

Another thing: if Hillary's at the State Department, how does she help with healthcare?

[DanishDynamite]

And the London Times has a big story about Obama reportedly pushing a plan that would include Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece

They quote "sources close" to Obama.

This is big enough for a thread of its own, but it's connected to the editorial I posted earlier.

Another thing: if Hillary's at the State Department, how does she help with healthcare?Hope she takes the position. Would be nice having an intelligent person, backed up by an intelligent person, to talk to for once.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another thing: if Hillary's at the State Department, how does she help with healthcare?

Ha! I'm sure the health insurance industry will do fine without her continued help!

[Kaylee]

OK, the buzz on the intertubes and even among many JREF posters are favorable towards Hillary Clinton getting the appointment – but I just don’t get it. :confused:


During the campaign she has grossly exaggerated her foreign policy experience including landing in Bosnia under sniper fire and being instrumental in the Northern Ireland negotiations.

How can she possibly be taken seriously by anyone, including foreign diplomats?


She has strongly criticized Obama about his willingness to meet with leaders of countries such as Iran and North Korea without preconditions.

Don’t they need to see eye to eye on key things in order to be able to work together?


She will probably encounter conflicts with her husband’s international business dealings.

It seems Bill has not been too careful or choosy about where he invests or where he gets grants for his foundation once he left public office. And can anyone see the Clintons surviving the Obama administration vetting procedures which includes 63 tough questions for both potential appointees AND their spouses? (more info below).


Hillary Clinton didn’t run the best campaign.

Her top people’s constant internal bickerings were leaked to the press. Her campaign burned through funds like a California brush fire. How can she be expected to manage a large bureaucracy in a competent fashion? How will her management style fit in a tightly run no drama with Obama administration?



Please explain!

Articles:

But her (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3464473/Hillary-Clinton-would-face-tough-questions-about-Bills-finances-if-chosen-for-Secretary-of-State.html) claims of foreign policy experience were undermined when her account of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia turned out to be false and her claim to have helped the Northern Ireland peace deal was dismissed as a huge exaggeration.

---

Her appointment would also cast fresh doubt over the direction of Mr. Obama's foreign policy after he said during the primary campaign that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of countries such as Iran and North Korea without preconditions.

Mrs Clinton heavily criticised that view as proof that he did not have the experience or knowledge to run oversee American foreign policy. So, if nominated, she would have to implement a policy that she ridiculed just earlier this year.

---

But the ex-First Lady would first have to go through a gruelling confirmation process on Capitol Hill at which, The Sunday Telegraph has learned, Republican senators will raise her husband's secrecy-shrouded business deals and fund-raising for his glitzy presidential library and foundation.

Former President Bill Clinton has consistently refused to provide the names of the donors, but newspaper investigations have identified a slew of foreign contributors, many from oil-rich Gulf states. His lucrative consultancy work for a friend's investment group has also involved dealings with Arab partners.

Republican strategists are dusting off plans to expose Mr Clinton's financial ties, which they will argue represent a serious conflict of interest for his wife as the country's top diplomat.

"Bill's multi-million dollar deals to fund his foundation and make the family rich were always going to be a profitable source of attack for us if Hillary was the candidate," said a Republican strategist. "Now it looks like we're going to get the chance to have a go at her over this, thanks to President-Elect Obama. How can Hillary represent our interests when Bill is said to have close financial ties with some oil sheikhs?"

And

Former President Bill Clinton's globe-trotting business deals and fundraising for his foundation sometimes put his activities abroad at odds with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_el_pr/clintons_overseas_ventures) and it could cause complications for her if President-elect Barack Obama considers her to be secretary of state.

During her own presidential campaign earlier this year, the New York senator criticized China for its crackdown on protesters in Tibet and urged President George W. Bush to skip the Olympics in Beijing. Her campaign was embarrassed by reports that her husband's foundation had raised money from a Chinese Internet company that posted an online government "Most Wanted" notice seeking information on Tibetan human-rights activists that may have been involved in the demonstrations.

Sen. Clinton has campaigned as a champion of workers' rights. Earlier this year, Brazilian labor inspectors found what they called "degrading" living conditions for sugar cane workers employed by an ethanol company in which Bill Clinton invested.

In the Senate, Mrs. Clinton was an outspoken critic of a proposed deal under which a Dubai company planned to buy a British business that helped run six major U.S. ports. Meanwhile, the company, named DP World, privately sought Bill Clinton's advice about how to respond to the controversy in Washington over the port plan, which the company later abandoned.

More conflicts are listed in the above article.

And

If Hillary (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16dowd.html?ref=opinion)wants to be Madame Secretary, Bill will have to <snip> pick up the 63 questions in the Obama vetting questionnaire, an unprecedented deep probe of potential cabinet members and their spouses.

Even if Bill scurries past the questions on sexual harassment claims, conflicts of interest, civil suits, real estate holdings, federal investigations, diaries, gifts worth more than $50 and Internet aliases, the Clintons will still have to grapple with No. 8: “Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.” (It would take books, and it has.)

…

On the down side, Hillary would be taking over a big and demoralized government bureaucracy, after proving with her campaign that she does not know how to run a big and demoralized group of people.

[godofpie]

I'm with you, Kaylee. In the primaries, part of me voted for Obama, and part of me voted for "Not Hillary." With all the potential choices available, can't we do better?

[Polaris]

Ugh, back to appointing gimmicks again.

It's bad enough she's a Senator. There's just something about her that puts me off, call it a gut feeling. She strikes me as too eager to do whatever it takes to get into high office to be allowed anywhere near it.

There have to be other intelligent people out there who could do the job.