[Eug]

NYTimes | Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

I actually think this could be a good thing. Joe Biden must be annoyed though. This basically solidifies his political obsolescence, unless Obama actually dies in office.

So... Obama and Hillary spent how many hundreds of million dollars on their campaign against each other?

[Chongo]

It's more like

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Eug 

[This basically solidifies his political obsolescence, unless Obama actually dies in office.

I think that's a bit overstated, don't you think?

How do you know how the State Department and the Vice President will mesh? In the last administration, VP Cheney clearly had more influence than either Powell or Rice at State. Yet, you're already making predictions that Biden, the next VP, is politically obsolete. There's absolutely nothing to base that judgment on at this point.

[Big Mac]

At least this is better than Secretary of State Jimmy Carter, although I'm not sure how much better. . .

[tie]

As they say, don't hire someone whom you can't fire. We'll see.

[ThinkInsane]

The only advantage to this is I will no longer have her for my Senator. I still for the life of me can't figure out how she is qualified for such a position, and the fact that the President-elect would even consider he for such an important post after the way she ran her primary campaign disgusts me. I was interested to see how Obama would change things, and I guess the answer is not at all.

[besson3c]

ThinkInsane: well, working closely with people whom you disagree with is a big change. Some might say that Bush did this from time to time, but this ensures that this happens on a potentially constant basis.

[Dakar V]

Ugh.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ThinkInsane: well, working closely with people whom you disagree with is a big change. Some might say that Bush did this from time to time, but this ensures that this happens on a potentially constant basis.

I don't find that reason very compelling. I think she ran her campaign in a reprehensible manner. She was shown to have lied or exaggerated just about every claim she made that would "qualify" her during her primary campaign, while in reality her only qualification was she was married to the guy that used to have the job. She was willing to tear her own party apart, not for the good of the party or the electorate, but because she thought being President was her due. To the best of my knowledge she never fulfilled a single campaign promise she made when running for Senator (still looking to see those 250,000 jobs you were going to bring to upstate lady), and now she's going to be Secretary of State? Please.

Like most every one else that promises change, Obama is showing me he's just another sketchy politician, and right now I'm thinking this administration is just going to be more of the same old ****.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

I don't find that reason very compelling. I think she ran her campaign in a reprehensible manner. She was shown to have lied or exaggerated just about every claim she made that would "qualify" her during her primary campaign, while in reality her only qualification was she was married to the guy that used to have the job. She was willing to tear her own party apart, not for the good of the party or the electorate, but because she thought being President was her due. To the best of my knowledge she never fulfilled a single campaign promise she made when running for Senator (still looking to see those 250,000 jobs you were going to bring to upstate lady), and now she's going to be Secretary of State? Please.

Like most every one else that promises change, Obama is showing me he's just another sketchy politician, and right now I'm thinking this administration is just going to be more of the same old ****.

You may be right, and I agree that she and her husband crossed the line several times and in more than one way, but let's face it, when you are running for president you cannot hold back, and sometimes the competitiveness of the pursuit clouds judgement.

I don't excuse or rationalize the way she ran her campaign based on this, but it would seem to me that the way Obama ran his campaign was quite new and required great discipline and vision to see through, while Hillary was just running her campaign the way campaigns have been run in the past: fight like hell, take no prisoners. That's the Karl Rove playbook, and the way Kerry ran his campaign if I recall too...

So, I see it a little different: Hillary was just deeply committed and invested into an older style of running campaigns. However, it was just a campaign, and qualified individuals that are fully onboard with Obama's political approach don't just fall from the sky in great abundance.

Her qualifications and political agility and capability are a whole other argument...

[besson3c]

There are those that are criticizing Obama's selections in being formerly associated with the Clinton administration. It seems that there are new appointments announced every day, so I've lost track of the tally of how many Clinton appointees there are vs. non-Clinton appointees, but I think it is smart to have a diverse cabinet. Without the so-called Washington insiders, you'd have people criticizing Obama for assembling an inexperienced cabinet. With too many of them he'd be criticized for not changing anything. I think there is value to both experience and fresh blood, and agree that a balance of the two is the best fit.

I believe that if you only surround yourself by those that are "loyal" to your ideology like Bush has done, you are probably pretty insecure about your own ideology to not want to be exposed to "threats". If your ideology is really sound, it is not threatened by counter-debate or differing opinions, and is in fact strengthened by it. Isn't this why many of us participate in the PL in the first place?

[Monique]

This absolutly great news; I just love it.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

...while in reality her only qualification was she was married to the guy that used to have the job.

Her only qualification is her marriage? You guys need to come back to earth.

Hillary Clinton is a Yale Law School graduate, worked as legal counsel for the Children's Defense Fund and other organizations, was a law professor, made partner in a law firm, and tons of other activities. Listen, I didn't like what she did in the primary either, but let's be realistic. She has a ton of qualifications to run for public office.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Monique 

This absolutly great news; I just love it.

And hence, why Obama decided to do this.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Hillary Clinton is a Yale Law School graduate, worked as legal counsel for the Children's Defense Fund and other organizations, was a law professor, made partner in a law firm, and tons of other activities. Listen, I didn't like what she did in the primary either, but let's be realistic. She has a ton of qualifications to run for public office.

If I was emperor of the world, I'd make damn sure that being a lawyer was an immediate disqualification for running for public office.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

and qualified individuals that are fully onboard with Obama's political approach don't just fall from the sky in great abundance.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I believe that if you only surround yourself by those that are "loyal" to your ideology like Bush has done, you are probably pretty insecure about your own ideology to not want to be exposed to "threats".

Disconnect?

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And hence, why Obama decided to do this.

To please Canadians?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

Like most every one else that promises change, Obama is showing me he's just another sketchy politician, and right now I'm thinking this administration is just going to be more of the same old ****.

...is the correct answer.

He's a very naughty boy.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If I was emperor of the world, I'd make damn sure that being a lawyer was an immediate disqualification for running for public office.

This isn't a serious response.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

This isn't a serious response.

Yes it is. Lawyers spend so much time twisting cases to win them that they become detached from the reality which most of their prospective constituents inhabit. Lawyers should be banned from taking public office, period.

[besson3c]

I just hope those lawyers don't get in the way of Doofy's knee!

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes it is. Lawyers spend so much time twisting cases to win them that they become detached from the reality which most of their prospective constituents inhabit.

Legal analysis and arguments in the courtroom make them "detached from the reality which of their prospective constituents inhabit?"



How does that bit of magic happen?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Legal analysis and arguments in the courtroom make them "detached from the reality which of their prospective constituents inhabit?"



How does that bit of magic happen?

You just elected a lawyer, so you'll see.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yes it is. Lawyers spend so much time twisting cases to win them that they become detached from the reality which most of their prospective constituents inhabit. Lawyers should be banned from taking public office, period.

And who doesn't become "detached from the reality" of their constituents, pray tell? The posh rich upper class? Economists? Filthy rich businessmen?



greg

[The Crook]

Like I said, it wasn't a serious response.

[ironknee]

i say cool

best of the best

my god, bush is about to bankrupt america...like he did with his previous jobs

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Her only qualification is her marriage? You guys need to come back to earth.

Hillary Clinton is a Yale Law School graduate, worked as legal counsel for the Children's Defense Fund and other organizations, was a law professor, made partner in a law firm, and tons of other activities. Listen, I didn't like what she did in the primary either, but let's be realistic. She has a ton of qualifications to run for public office.

And do you really, honestly think she'd even be in consideration for Sec. of State if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton? Or that she would have had a shot at a Presidential nomination? Or Senator from New York for that matter? Or that you would honestly even know who this woman was if she wasn't the former first lady?

And who are "you people"? Although I was registered Republican through the Clinton administration, I thought Bill Clinton was a decent enough President even though I didn't particularly agree with some of his policies. And the fact he was on the slimy side, even for a politician. But still a good president over all. Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, will continue to receive my vote for the foreseeable future.

So if by you people you mean people that have watched this person closely since she weaseled her way into the Senate, where she has done exactly jack nothing and didn't even make a token attempt to fulfill the campaign promises she used to con her way into office, or people that take exception with the fact that she so grossly exaggerated examples of her foreign policy experience (North of Ireland for example) as to be nothing more than blatant lies, then I think we are rather down to earth already. For me this is not an issue of party (I've changed my registration to independent), but the fact that realistically she's no more qualified to be Secretary of State than I am. And for the record, I think I'd be a pretty bad one at that, but probably still better than that harpy.

Mr. Obama, I am very, very disappointed.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

And do you really, honestly think she'd even be in consideration for Sec. of State if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton? Or that she would have had a shot at a Presidential nomination? Or Senator from New York for that matter? Or that you would honestly even know who this woman was if she wasn't the former first lady?

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you think John Kerry would have been Senator if he didn't speak before Congress? Do you think John McCain would have been Senator if he wasn't a war hero? People get where they are for a large part because of happenstance; luck.

Apart from that, I do think Clinton is qualified for both the Senate seat she occupies, the Presidency she sought, and the Secretaryship she's about to accept. If you want to address that, be my guest. But if you're of the opinion that any law-related experience actually disqualifies her, then I'll put your opinion in with the other less-than-serious responses I've encountered in this thread.

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane 

So if by you people you mean people that have watched this person closely since she weaseled her way into the Senate, where she has done exactly jack nothing and didn't even make a token attempt to fulfill the campaign promises she used to con her way into office, or people that take exception with the fact that she so grossly exaggerated examples of her foreign policy experience (North of Ireland for example) as to be nothing more than blatant lies, then I think we are rather down to earth already. For me this is not an issue of party (I've changed my registration to independent), but the fact that realistically she's no more qualified to be Secretary of State than I am. And for the record, I think I'd be a pretty bad one at that, but probably still better than that harpy.

Clinton has done nothing in the Senate?

Again, I think you people need to come back down to earth. An evaluation of her Senate record, even a less than charitable evaluation, would yield more accomplishments than "nothing." Why would anyone exaggerate so much? It's astounding. "Nothing." She's done "nothing." "Nothing." I'm going to keep pounding this point again and again and again...

As far as your qualifications for elected office, we won't go there, since my responses will probably violate the posting guidelines.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you think John Kerry would have been Senator if he didn't speak before Congress? Do you think John McCain would have been Senator if he wasn't a war hero? People get where they are for a large part because of happenstance; luck.

Apart from that, I do think Clinton is qualified for both the Senate seat she occupies, the Presidency she sought, and the Secretaryship she's about to accept. If you want to address that, be my guest. But if you're of the opinion that any law-related experience actually disqualifies her, then I'll put your opinion in with the other less-than-serious responses I've encountered in this thread.



Clinton has done nothing in the Senate?

Again, I think you people need to come back down to earth. An evaluation of her Senate record, even a less than charitable evaluation, would yield more accomplishments than "nothing." Why would anyone exaggerate so much? It's astounding. "Nothing." She's done "nothing." "Nothing." I'm going to keep pounding this point again and again and again...

As far as your qualifications for elected office, we won't go there, since my responses will probably violate the posting guidelines.

Common... She tried to ban GTA.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Common... She tried to ban GTA.

If you mean Grand Theft Auto......then I would've liked it if she succeeded. Or at least relegated it to xxx-porno-shop-style status so parents would pay some attention to what their 13-year-olds are playing.

greg