Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
Posted by Ashish on 11.13.2008
It's apparently a possibility...
Hillary Clinton went to Chicago today and NBC reports that the reason is because Obama is considering her for Secretary of State. Neither camp has confirmed the story though. Obviously a cabinet appointment like that would generate a lot of attention. It would also be a major attempt to make nice with the Clinton wing of the party. Of course, it would also be viewed as a partisan pick by Obama, but so would just about every other person being considered (based on the names we keep hearing).
Obama and Clinton aren't exactly friends. Infact, they're far from it. Both sides still have a lot of tension between them. Picking her (which, I would think, remains a longshot) would send a statement that Obama is very willing to put people who he doesn't necessarily get along with in his cabinet. Keeping Robert Gates as Defense Secretary would send the same message as well.
The other high profile names being considered for the post are Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Sam Nunn, and Chuck Hagel.
Obama has spoken a lot about wanting to build a Lincoln-style "Team of Rivals" in his cabinet, a reference to how Abraham Lincoln filled his cabinet with many of his political opponents.
Ugh. My respect for Obama will go way down if he picks Hillary for SecState. Richardson would be good. That's who I'd pick out of the ones mentioned.
If he didn't like/trust Hillary enough for VP, why should she be the top diplomat who he needs to rely on and trust for advice and sensitive discussions?
Makes no sense.
Posted By: Obama's crazy (Guest) on November 13, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Never has it been stated that Obama did not trust Hillary. As has been mentioned, I think a cabinet full of rivals is an excellent idea, it gives one perspective on issues that simple "yes men" could never provide. Its also a complete 180 from what Bush has done. Sure, he had minorities, but ones that outside possibly Powell, agreed with everything he said.
Posted By: Joe (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 01:02 AM
Picking Lugar and Hagel for cabinet positions and trying to act like that is bipartisanship is pathetic. Those two left leaning. Pick someone who is a true conservative and I'll respect Obama.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 01:03 AM
Michael, your comment got me thinking. From the top of my head and a few minutes of google searching, the only registered democrat serving in a republican administration for the past 20+ years that I could come up with has been Norm Mineta, the transportation secretary under Bush Jr. I couldn't find any for Reagan, but I'm sure he must have. Can anyone think of any others, for the sake of argument here?
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 01:54 AM
My preference for Sec of State is John Kerry... You know, Lincoln's only real political opponent in a prominant position was Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War, who was so antagonistic towards Lincoln that the others often suspected treachery.
Posted By: Lawrence (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 02:12 AM
Michael,
Wow. Really? Hagel and Lugar are "left leaning?" You might want to look up their positions and their voting records before you say something like that.
Let's not react just because they supported Obama. I suppose next, you'll say Colin Powell is a secret socialist who wishes the destruction of the American military.
Posted By: Brandon Crow (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 02:54 AM
Perhaps this is an attempt to keep Hilary from running as an independent in '12. Never too early to think ahead, and even if Hilary didn't beat Obama, she would eat away enough of his base to help him lose, even to a weak Republican. The women that Obama did so well with would be gone.
I'm not sure if Hilary is so intent on being president that should torpedo a democratic presidency, but who knows with the political twists that have been coming lately and the world climate at the moment.
Posted By: Mike (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 04:28 AM
I would LOVE to see Gore get this position.
Posted By: M:-X (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 07:01 AM
Very interesting...I guess CHANGE and "moving away from the usual Washington politics" somehow means bringing in everyone from the Clinton administration. First Emanuel, now Hillary...yep, time for fresh new faces in the CHANGE ADMINISTRATION!
(meet the new boss, same as the old boss)
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 07:23 AM
You know what really get me about you people? This is President-Elect Obama's decision who he want within his administration. Now you Republicans... damn most of you all... if it wasn't you not wanting Obama as your next President, now ya'll crying that if he chose to have at least two "left leaning" Republicans in his Administration, you'll lose all respect for him? GET A FUCKIN' LIFE! Do what Bisch has done; do some damn research and find out how many Republican Presidents brought on Democrats (and find how many) into their Administration.
Thank you for reading. God Bless you, and God Bless America.
Posted By: Independent for Obama (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 09:46 AM
Seriously?
This is insane. What happened to checks and balances? Theres gonna be nobody standing in the way of an entirely liberal agenda....
Posted By: What.... (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Who would you suggest, Eric?
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 11:00 AM
"Seriously? This is insane. What happened to checks and balances? Theres gonna be nobody standing in the way of an entirely liberal agenda...." - Posted By: What.... (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM
....uhhm, WOW!! are you serious, REALLY?.. So.... what about the "entire conservative agenda" we had from 2000 - 2004? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't we have a REPUBLICAN FUCK-UP PRESIDENT, REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE of SENATE, REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVE???? Stop crying and deal with whatever and whomever President-Elect Barack Obama decide to have within his Cabinet, along with the Democratic controlled Congress.
Posted By: Independent for Obama (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 11:19 AM
The President appoints over 2,000 people to executive branch positions. I hardly think the announcement of 4 or 5 positions being occupied by former Clinton administration officials qualifies as defaulting on a promise to do business differently. Also, let's be honest, exactly how many people in America do you think are actually qualified to hold these postiions? For any president, conservative or progressive, the talent pool is pretty limited.
Secondly, people continue to complain about Obama's alleged reliance on former Clinton people in his economic team. Can somebody explain the logic of distancing yourself from the men and women who were partly responsible for the last American economic boom? I certainly can't figure it out on my own. Those of you who harbor an irrational hatred of all things Clinton, need to at least acknowledge that the economy under his leadership was indeed successful. Resume your crying if Obama fills the ranks of every department with former Clinton officials.
Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM
"...people continue to complain about Obama's alleged reliance on former Clinton people in his economic team. Can somebody explain the logic of distancing yourself from the men and women who were partly responsible for the last American economic boom? I certainly can't figure it out on my own. Those of you who harbor an irrational hatred of all things Clinton, need to at least acknowledge that the economy under his leadership was indeed successful. Resume your crying if Obama fills the ranks of every department with former Clinton officials." - Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM
...Riverbottom, I could have not typed that better myself. THANK YOU!
Posted By: Independent for Obama (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM
My thought was originally that if Mrs. Clinton would win, she would deal with the younger challenger Mr. Obama by nominating him for the Supreme Court thereby essentially removing him from electoral politics.
I believe the converse logic works as well. I would deal with Mrs. Clinton by offering her the first available nomination to the court in return for her legislative support and complicity.
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 12:34 PM
The only reason why he is doing this is so she can't try to run in 2012. It's not unheard of to try to win the nomination against a sitting president.
Posted By: blah (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 12:39 PM
I see this as a nice way to fill a news cycle or two. No news is bad news for any President, or in the case of Obama, President-elect (since the current President is pretty impotent in his making news powers, unless he does something crazy.)
I would bet good money that not only will Hillary not be Secretary of State, she isn't seriously being considered. Consider this an allegiance of those in the Obama camp wanting to keep reporters busy and those in the Hillary camp that enjoy supporting her narcissism....
Posted By: Guest#8803 (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 01:16 PM
For the first and last time, this is not an attempt by Obama to remove her as a possilbe challenger in 2012. While it is not unheard of for a challenge to arise from the incumbent's party, it is not likely to happen in this situation. Anybody who follows politics knows that both Clintons are obsessed with their legacies. Hillary would have no chance at defeating even a weakened Obama in 4 years. The simple fact is no Democratic/Liberal/Progressive candidate can win the White House in today's era without overwheming support from minority voters. Obama will still have this in 2012. All Hilary can do is splitter the party again. Do you think that she wants the final chapter in the book of clinton to be her playing Ross Perot for Obama as Perot did for Bush Sr.? Hillary Clinton has no interest in handing the White House back to the Republicans which is exactly what her independent candidacy would amount to. And does anybody think that Bill will be comfortable sitting beside and abandoning the party he helped revive? The Clintons identities are solidly intertwined with that of the modern Democratic Party. To give that up would be a price that even they would find too steep.
Posted By: Riverbottom Nightmare (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 01:51 PM
Hillary makes no sense as a Cabinet member for the same reason she made no sense as Veep, change does not mean appointing the old guard.
As for conservatives, Obama will hear his opponents, but they won't change his agenda. If I go on a road trip I can ask someone for driving directions without them telling me what my destination should be. Obama promised to be open to advice on how to get there, not where to go.
Posted By: Shockmaster (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 02:06 PM
I would have chosen Bill Richardson..
Posted By: Memin (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 02:08 PM
Michael-
Unlike your boy Bush, Hagel IS a true conservative.
Posted By: Dr. J (Guest) on November 14, 2008 at 03:18 PM
STAY CURRENT