Sorry but picking Clinton has disaster written all over it..

[Perky]

She is not the problem..... It's Bill who is going to cause everyone grief. I am not worried about his donors or even his dalliances. AS a former President, he has the absolute right to speak on any issue he wants. But when your spouse is Secretary of State it is very conflicted... This is going to be a four year soap opera of the press dissecting Bill's words at every turn.
...
He is just so incredibly capable of saying things that contradict the administration line simply to defend her, Hillary will dutifully carry Obama's water even when she disagrees. But if she tells Bill she disagrees, He is going to pop off to the press.....and it is going to play as the Clinton's are taking on the president...undermining his authority or gearing up taking him on in 2012.

Welcome to the four year side show. THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK.

[Lyric]

1. Somehow I trust Obama's judgement

more than your supposed ability to predict the future.

[Perky]

2. I think she is a fine pick I just know Cable news will be dissecting every

time Bill speaks and it is going to be a mess.

[Kolesar]

3. President Clinton could dummy up for eight years and everything will be A-Ok

Could happen !!

[Perky]

7. Yeah ........ok.....sure

[elleng]

5. Can't avoid

the Spin Zone. O shouldn't have to make personnel decisions based on that crap!

[SIMPLYB1980]

16. They will do that if she stays in the Senate also.

Bank on it. They need the drama.

[AndrewP]

44. Right on the money

[tonycinla]

57. Yes but

She and Bill have a much bigger stage to do their thing if she is SOS

[niceypoo]

72. You watch too much TV

Pundit based 'reality' is hard for me to swallow.

Major decisions based on pundit obsessions/speculations are disturbing on multiple levels.

[laugle]

111. The best thing to do is just turn it off!! n/t

[Dinger]

14. Exactly What I Was Thinking

Good post:)

[NoSheep]

33. Ditto.

[loudsue]

34. It's not a matter of Obama's judgement...it's a matter of political blackmail

Washington is a sewer, and the powers that be, with all of their money and control over votes on legislation, will have their way. That is the cess pool that Obama would like to clean up, but he, as of yet, does not have the power to do that. The republican infiltrators into the Dem party (DLC'ers, who ARE the Clinton crowd), and the mafia bosses that control Pelosi and Reid, are going to be working against Obama from inside the Dem party.

It really is a mess, and most of the mess on the Dem side can be laid at the feet of the Clintons. I wish we could throw out 99% of all legislators, and start all over with NEW RULES (yea Bill Maher!!! ) to make it a government of the people, by the people and FOR the people. The first thing we need to do is completely do away with computerized voting machines, and re-regulate the media, and prohibit the very dangerously divisive hate radio.

I just don't see how else this country can pull through.

[GarbagemanLB]

48. mafia bosses controlling Pelosi and Reid? All DLCers are GOP infiltrators? Can I have some of what

you're smoking?

[loudsue]

54. If you don't understand those statements, you must be new here.

Either that, or you haven't been paying much attention to politics since the internet provided a means of researching the money trail.

[karynnj]

78. What you said is extreme and it is none of the allegations are sourced

It is quite possible to disagree and to have followed politics every bit as closely as you. I have seen some very stupid uses of the"money trail"on the internet. The dumbest is that every Republican outlet as well as every far left outlet have misused Opensecrets - charging Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kerry with getting huge sums from "company A" or "Industry B", never looking to see that those moneys were almost entirely from individuals working for companies - not company PACs. This was wrong when Republicans said this about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - and it was wrong when Edwards said it about the healthcare industry. the only reason his numbers were substantially lower was that fewer people supported him.

I think there has to be more accountability - but saying 99% should be thrown out is stupid. (There's only one Senator you would keep? - just 5 (I rounded up) in the House?

[LostinVA]

94. "most of the mess on the Dem side can be laid at the feet of the Clintons"

???

[breadandwine]

97. Hey. Hillary's a bargain. 3 foreign policies are better than one.

Besides. Bill wasn't a loose canon in the election. He was a SURROGATE. He gave Hillary deniability for all sorts of things the Hillary campaign wanted to say. Think of the beneficence and magnanimity toward foreign nations that a Clinton appointment will bring. Now with Hillary as Secretary of State, foreign nations get to pick and choose which Clinton they want to take orders from.

WHAT'S NOT TO LIKE?????!!!!!

[political_Dem]

4. The other aspect is whether she will truly follow the President's orders.

It is one thing to be a dynamic person who capitalizes on the notion of independence. It is another when they have to accept a position in which they cannot control every aspect of that office--especially if they have to answer to someone higher up in the food chain they clearly don't respect.

Would you hire a person who has openly spoken out that a rival is more experienced than you are? Wouldn't there be a little problem with loyalty?

How would you be able to have an employee work for you who has openly disregarded your abilities and ideas in public?

This is not a win for the Obama camp. But this is the ends justifying the means of the tactics and leaks used by the Clinton camp.

[brianna69]

23. She will have to follow the orders

from the Whitehouse and I think she will. The President is the boss. If she goes rogue(which I don't think she will ever do) she would be out.

[fujiyama]

125. If she did that

she'd be out of a cabinet position and a senate seat.

And it would make this administration look awful and it would fuck up an already volatile relationship with the rest of the world.

And while Hillary is ambitious, I cannot imagine for one second her putting that ahead of this nation's foreign policy.

[LostinVA]

95. Hillary is a known Party team player

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

127. I concur. Hillary's NOT a diplomat-she stirs shit up 2 much. Perfect 4 Senate leader though.

[zeemike]

6. Disaster maybe, but not for the reason you gave.

Picking her is a concession to the Reppukes because they see her as someone they can work with... and her and Bill have a proven record of cooperation with the powerful elite that gives comfort to them
The only question that remains is whether Obama can be integrated into the system that actually controls this country.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. If

If Senator Obama wasn't acceptable to the elites like the 43 presidents who preceded him he wouldn't have got elected.

[zeemike]

87. And perhaps he knows that.

And he gave them enough to make them think he can be controlled.
Perhaps that is what the meting between him and Rupert Murdock was about.
Now are only hope is that he is in his hart a man that wants to reform this system and is just playing the game...we can only hope.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. ...the Republicans see Clinton as someone they can work with?

The Republicans hate the Clintons more than they hate just about any other Democratic politicians, Obama included.

[zeemike]

88. No thy just used that hate to control him

After all they got most of what they wanted in the 90s.

[moodforaday]

105. I think you're conflating

Republican voters (aka fans of Rush Limbaugh) with Republicans in congress. The former may hate the Clintons; the latter - yes, they can work with them. What about Bush Sr. palling around with Bill like they were the BFF? Didn't he once say he almost thought of Bill as his son?

[AtomicKitten]

63. A series of leaks constitutes a rumor.

But I agree it wasn't the change I voted for.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

For all the buzz and speculation about the possibility that Sen. Clinton may be named Secretary of State, most media coverage has focused on her rivalry with Obama during the primary, along with the prospect of her husband having to face the intense personal, financial and political vetting process required to secure a job in the new administration. But the question of how Clinton would lead the operations at Foggy Bottom calls for scrutiny of her positions vis-a-vis Obama's stated foreign-policy goals.

Clinton was an ardent defender of her husband's economic and military war against Iraq throughout the 1990s, including the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which ultimately laid the path for President George W. Bush's invasion. Later, as a U.S. senator, she not only voted to authorize the war, but aided the Bush administration's propaganda campaign in the lead-up to the invasion. "Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program," Clinton said when rising to support the measure in October 2002. "He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members … I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the president's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction."

"The man who vowed to deliver us from 28 years of Bushes and Clintons has been stocking up on Clintonites," New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd recently wrote. "How, one may ask, can he put Hillary -- who voted to authorize the Iraq war without even reading the intelligence assessment -- in charge of patching up a foreign policy and a world riven by that war?"

Beyond Iraq, Clinton shocked many and sparked official protests by Tehran at the United Nations when asked during the presidential campaign what she would do as president if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," she declared. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Clinton has not shied away from supporting offensive foreign policy tactics in the past. Recalling her husband's weighing the decision of whether to attack Yugoslavia, she said in 1999, "I urged him to bomb. … You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?"

http://www.alternet.org/audits/107666/this_is_change_20_hawks,_clintonites_and_neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama%27s_white_house/?page=entire

[livvy]

9. I have to agree.

I see it as creating problems Pres. Obama doesn't need. It creates a triangle with him in the middle at the top. On the base you have the Clintons on one side and Biden on the other. I think Biden signed on with the understanding he would play an active role with policy making. Of the three he is clearly (IMO) the one with the strongest background in foreign policy, yet he will constantly be coming up against the views of Hillary who will have Bill consistently trying to influence her. It will work fine, as long as Biden and Hillary agree, but how frequently will that actually happen?

It's like when you have three kids in a friendship. It seems that two are always vying for the attentions and approval of the third. It creates discord and disharmony in the friendship, and it doesn't work well.

If she does become the SOS, I hope I am wrong. Our country needs a team that works well together. They don't always have to agree, but they don't need to be fighting among themselves. That was one of the things that made Obama's campaign so successful, and it is necessary to make his terms in office a success as well. I don't view the Clintons as your typical team players. They are very strong-willed, love the limelight, and play for keeps. They just don't fit (again, IMO) with the direction Obama said he would take us on this journey.

I'm sure others will disagree, so if you respond, I'm not ducking, but off to work. Will respond later if needed.

[political_Dem]

11. No, I truly agree. I've been arguing that Obama needs people who have his best interests at heart.

This "team of rivals" business is quite damaging in the long run, especially when it creates unnecessary drama that you cannot contain.

Judging from the "leaks" and the drama surrounding the Clintons alone, this is going to be rather ugly for him.

I would have rather had someone in the position who has actual experience in foreign relations (complete with having worked in previous positions, to boot). Now in the wealth of talent that Mr. Obama can pool, is it that hard to pick someone who has a solid foreign relations resume?

And what about this doesn't reflect a political quid pro quo of some kind?

Just asking.

[IsItJustMe]

27. I think he shot himself in the foot before the race even started. I hope I am wrong, but you can

tell a lot about the future by looking at the past.

[Divernan]

115. Re: quid pro quo, is this how Obama got the Clintons' support in the general election?

A friend of mine suggested that explanation to me tonight. My instinctive response was a flat No, but as I thought about it, it made as much sense, if not more sense as any other explanation.

I personally hope he will rely on Biden and other top White House advisers for delicate international negotiations, and relegate HRC to running the embassies.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Trust Obama's Judgement

~

[quickesst]

12. Gee..

And all those whining now, were so sure. They told us to get behind Obama, that he would be the greatest pres ever, that he would govern with a fair, and even hand, and that he would put in place a cabinet who was up to this task. Just trust him to do what's right. We did, and now his most ardent cheerleaders are turning on him while those of us who needed a little convincing that he was more than capable, are in the position of having to defend his actions from those fair-weather fans. All of this proves one thing without doubt. What it all boils down to is the suspicions many had are confirmed. That for many ego-driven ideologists, the driving force of hating anything Clinton was paramount to getting Obama the nomination. Unfortunately for them, good for many of us, that driving force is coming back to bite the pity-party bunch right square in the ass. Thanks for the amusement, but it's starting to get stale. Face it, without Clinton in the mix, these whine-tones, both simple and eloquent(see greatest page) would be virtually non-existent. As Nelson from the Simpsons would say, "HAA-HAAA!" Thanks.
quickesst

[Olney Blue]

13. Don't agree. The Clintons love this country, and will be excellent for us.

[Skwmom]

42. Well I don't know how much more "loving" this country can take.

NAFTA and free jobs = American unemployment misery
Deregulation - repeal of Glass-Steagall = financial collapse which has only begun
Vote for IWR w/out reading the NIE = thousands dead, trillions spent.

The IWR and their actions during the primary showed the Clintons put desire for power above all else. Of course, I'm sure they've convinced themselves that whatever they do it is for the good of the country b/c only they can save us.

[paulk]

58. you are absurd

[Skwmom]

92. No, the absurdity is the myth that the Clintons were good for this country.

[paulk]

110. that's a popular opinion over in freeperland

:crazy:

Most people who aren't so blinded by hate as the right wingers are...

[AJH032]

116. oh yeah, total myth

the elimination of deficits and declining debt, decreasing poverty rates, declining unemployment rates, positive (and accelerating) job growth, environmental legislation (esp. Kyoto). Horrible, horrible myths!

[blm]

75. Did they love it in 2004? Or 1993 when they sided with protecting secrecy and privilege of GHWBush

and his powerful cronies instead of with the American people who had the right to open and accountable government?

How did that work out for this country in the long run? For our party? For our world?

[Dawgs]

17. Yes, your comments are sorry.

Get a grip people.

[davidpdx]

18. I agree that Hillary Clinton isn't the problem

It is Bill Clinton that is the potential problem. As a former president, he holds a lot of clout still and is well respected. He could say things to contradict Obama and the US response to a crisis. Certainly he had some troubling moments during the primary where he said things that were questionable.

Presidents have usually been older, but with Clinton and Bush 43, both will be "retired" and still be alive for a long time due to the fact that they are both young.

Obama has made one keen observation since getting elected, which should be common sense, "there is only one president at a time."

Bill Clinton needs to realize he's had two terms and as a former president he needs to stand aside.

(and before all the snarky comments are posted that I'm a "Clinton hater" are posted, you can go **** yourself)

[Lyric]

22. Cheney?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skwmom]

19. I can't imagine the right not having a field day with the "vetting" questionnaire after

she is appointed. It really makes the whole vetting questionnaire and the process a joke. They should never have leaked the questions.

I can imagine all kinds of scandals coming out of the woodwork and the American public being subjected to that drama 24/7.

[The Backlash Cometh]

20. Right about now, I think the Clintons are thinking about their legacy.

It shouldn't be about the money for them anymore.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

28. A bit early for that, isn't it?

Legacies are something for people to think about as their careers in politics are coming to an end.

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Maybe that's the mistake George Bush made.

Waiting until the end to question how history would view his actions. Maybe he shouldn't have banked on anyone keeping his secrets. In government, they usually get out. Messes with anyone's legacies.

[fujiyama]

126. Clinton was the opposite from Bush in the whole "legacy" sense

I remember, before he left, it seemed like a major obsession with him in trying to enact what positive policies he could, especially from what I can remember on the environment and on foreign policy. He did extend a lot of time on coming up with a peace plan in the Middle East (and he caught a lot of heat from neocons over that). Obama has already considering him as an envoy to the Middle East and South Asia (Kashmir).

Bill likes to be on the "in". This is the closest he'll get to it. I don't see how being an ass and fucking up Obama's administration would make him or Hillary look good in any way. It would make him look petty and I think he has already started feeling some concern over that legacy issue after the primaries.

[brianna69]

21. Let us give it a chance and see how it

works out.Let us not judge before we see how things go.

[mtnsnake]

24. If anything Bill is an asset, not a liability. Your just crying because you love to piss & moan

about Bill.

THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK

Why the hell didn't you run for President if you know everything, Perky?

[laugle]

112. Amen to that! Hate begets hate!

Where's the hope, change and unity? It's starting to look like the old saying "the more things change the more they stay the same!"

[old mark]

26. She will be the focus for the MSM, take the spotlight off of

Obama.
He hates the attention, she loves it.
He can do his stuff, quietly, she can have the drama queen award for the next 4 years.
She will probably be pretty good at the actual job, too.

Still think he made a mistake?

mark

[mtnsnake]

29. "He hates the attention, she loves it"

I don't think that's the case at all. For as long as I can remember, Hillary has gotten attention NOT because she craved it, but because nobody could ever leave her alone. From the very first minute that the media and the Right Wing realized that this lady was brilliant and ambitious, they never took their eyes off her. That's why she gets so much attention, because some people still think it's a man's world and that brilliant ambitious women are a threat to it.

[old mark]

32. I really disagree with that - She is a tough, ambitious politician,

and she loves the attention.
Neither Clinton is shy about geting in the headlines.

mark

[goclark]

99. yep ~

[Demi_Babe]

30. she's a wonderful pick and I trust Obama

[DCBob]

31. So you are smarter than Obama and his team of advisers?

One of the main reasons I voted for this guy was his good judgment. I trust him on this as well as his other appointments.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

35. I can't believe you haven't figured out that you can not post a dissenting

opinion here without dozens of you-don't-know-what-you-are-talking-abouts responses.

I wish there was a specific forum for people who wanted to discuss pros and cons
openly - taking in all aspects - without rancor - or worthless comments like
"you think you know more than Obama?"

[DCBob]

36. There is difference between discussing "pros & cons" and "THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK".

There are problems with the Clinton SoS appointment but we should be assured the Obama team is well aware of them and has taken them into consideration. Doesn't it makes sense to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Well sure there's hyperbole. Guilty myself. That's just the way

some high-strung, passionate people are. But, what is the point of even having a forum
if all we are going to do is say he's got it covered, trust him, give him the benefit of
the doubt. Might as well close up shop?

[DCBob]

65. It just sounds too negative and fatalistic.

Obama said he will say and do things we won't agree with and he wants to here our side if that happens but don't just say "THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK". That sounds like we need to find a new candidate for 2012.

[tomp]

41. obama has extended an open invitation to powell...

...to take part in his administration, officially or not. THAT is horrendously bad judgment from my perspective, and a dead giveaway that he does not have the integrity that people seem to think. once he made that announcement i lost any trust i had.

still waiting for change.

[TheKentuckian]

46. Are you saying that Obama is the third Bush term?

I'm not seeing a continuation of the Reagan Revolution, if you are then some review of history and policy are probably in order.

[MessiahRp]

52. I think and I believe our founding fathers (esp. Jefferson) would agree that it is our DUTY

to dissent if we disagree... even with those we elected and admire. It's the only way to keep them honest and have a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY.

I'm sure all of the Republicans that voted Bush in thought he was going to clean up Washington and do the right thing and most of them lashed out at anyone who questioned him because they "trusted his judgment". Of course we now are very aware of what a colossal folly that was.

I'm not saying Obama is Bush by any means but realistically it is OUR duty just as much as it is that of the dissenting party's to hold Obama accountable. And yes, making questionable nominations to the cabinet which will influence the direction of his policies is something we should be commenting on.. even if we disagree.

Obama's judgment is not infallible. The guy supported the Telecom Immunity bill during this election cycle. He supported traitor Joe to return to caucus with the Democrats knowing that in doing so he would retain the DHS Committee Chairmanship and probably refuse to investigate anyone.

He's going to nominate Tom Daschle to head HHS even though the guy lobbied for Health Care Corporations recently and there was a million times more qualified candidate in Howard Dean.

And now he's nominating Hillary Clinton whose foreign policy credentials were one of the main attacks the Obama campaign used against her in the primaries and who is far less qualified for the position than John Kerry or even Bill Richardson. Not to mention she'll go into this meeting with countries in the Middle East after making a ridiculously errant "Obliterate" comment about Iran.

There are reasons to question Obama's judgment and quite frankly you're not doing your job as a citizen if you do not.

I personally believe on MOST issues he'll do just fine and the country will be better off having him in charge during the impending economic crisis.... but we should be allowed to dissent about his choices and if we really dislike them state as much without hearing the same ridiculous comments of "I trust his judgment" or "Thanks for your concern" or whatever.

You do realize that such comments were trademarks of the GOP and RW boards the past 8 years any time anyone questioned Bush right?

Rp

[Captain Hilts]

62. People here have let Obama skate on the Powell linkage. nt

[Barack_America]

47. Isn't that what the OP did?

Or must a "pro" be presented with every "con"?

[DCBob]

64. I was okay with it until the "THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK"...

That sounds like giving up before we even got started.

[Cosmic Charlie]

74. when all you have are massive cons, then it is appropriate to say "this is never going to work"

[HughMoran]

91. Attack our new President's judgment and people who support his decision are "rancorous?"

Who's being a stick in the mud now?

[treestar]

120. You can't post anything here without someone to disagree

Why should dissentors be free of dissent from their dissent? :rofl:

[alwysdrunk]

38. I agree. This will hurt Obama's presidency in the end.

Too much "gravitas" concentrated in too small a space.

Even for people who agree with the pick. You know good and well there will be times that Bill thinks he knows better than Obama.

What will he do?

Will he think "well he's the CiC, gotta tow the party line"

Or will he think he as a duty(!) to America to help this young buck see it the right way.

[Maven]

39. AGHGHGH!

*breath*

AGHGHGHGGHGHGGGHGHGHGGHGHGHGHGHGGHGHGHGHGHGH!

[ruggerson]

50. It's useless

they're petulant little children. Worse than PUMA's.

[LostinVA]

61. Worse than?

They ARE. You know what it stands for -- them to a "t."

[No Elephants]

40. So, you don't think they work as a team? Good cop, bad cop? Interesting that

Bill was so circumspect as a POTUS and so prone to diarrhea of the mouth as a hubby, though, isn't it?

[Ganja Ninja]

43. I think you're going to see a never ending press speculation about

the "friction" between the two whether there exists any or not.

[GreenEyedLefty]

45. When have we ever had a situation where the SoS is the spouse of a former president?

That would be never.

Why not let it simply play out.

I don't understand the hand-wringing over Obama's every move.

[nichomachus]

49. I think HIllary is a wonderful, smart person and will be a great SoS

However, I have to agree that Bill is going to be kind of a fly in the ointment.

He has an overactive self-sabotage gene. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with that. He kind of invites disaster.

His announcement that he was going to shove gays in the military down the wingnuts' throats -- and then giving them six months to mount a defense against it. He was humiliated on that.

The whole Monica thing -- he wasn't even discreet with it. It's like he was inviting them to find out, and he made it as tawdry as possible.

His behavior on the campaign trail, when he was a totally loose cannon -- and pushed a lot of people into Obama's camp.

Those are only three of many many examples.

I think Bill is a brilliant guy, but he's got a couple of wires crossed somewhere. Both Obama and Hillary are going to have to spend her entire tenure as SoS wondering where the hell Bill is and what he's up to.

[TriMetFan]

51. Chicken little says:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :eyes:

[OmahaBlueDog]

53. While I think Disaster is an overstatement, I think she'd make a better contribution in the Senate

She is focused, intelligent, an excellent deal maker, and has impeccable Democratic credentials while (quietly) developing a reputation for working and playing well with Republicans. Bill travels in a pretty exclusive circle these days. All of this equals someone who can be a great logroller and fundraiser.

I'd rather see her take Reid's position.

[high density]

56. This is not a lifetime appointment

Clinton can serve for 2, 4, 6, 8 years, and then retire. After that, Bill can say whatever the hell he wants. Throughout 2001-2007 he seemed to be very low key, and I assume he can go back to that role.

[Thrill]

59. I doubt either Hillary or Bill crosses the line. Considering he could fire her at anytime

And she has no Senate seat to go back too.

Having said that, I still don't understand why Obama wants to do this. But hey he must think its going to work out for him.

[WI_DEM]

60. Take a deep breath. It will be fine.

[cwydro]

66. Nah.

Disagree.

[MyNameGoesHere]

67. Yes it would be horroble to have dissenting opinions. I mean we do want

everyone to be in lockstep and no dissension right? You guys did enjoy it when Powell was sent out for that dog and pony show right? No one said a word to the contrary, everyone agreed, the nation was in lockstep. Now wouldn't it have been nice if someone of infamy would just have said "Wait a fucking minute, this is bullshit" ? Well if you want to make President Obama the decider go ahead, I happen to have much more faith in him.

[budkin]

68. I disagree... I think it's a great choice.

[SeaLyons]

69. Couldn't disagree more...

Hillary will be great....

[MasonJar]

70. I'm sorry too that you chose to post this nonsense!!! Bill is bending over

backwards to be sure his future charitiable work is vetted. The former president is a great and beloved citizen of the world. He has raised multitudinous amounts of money to fight Aids and to help Africa and other needy environments in many other ways. He and Gore and Carter are all what we should all be. They could be taking life easy, but they are all out trying to help create a better world, each in his own inimitable manner and each concentrating on his own choice of important causes. Leave Bill Clinton alone until you are coming anywhere close to matching his contribution to the world...and even then...if that ever happens.

[Upton]

71. Couldn't agree more..

this has Clinton soap opera written all over it. Hell, if I didn't want her as president, why would I want her as the face of the new Obama administration?

[okieinpain]

73. actually I think he's going to follow her cue on a lot of things, or

he wouldn't have considered it in the first place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. "THIS IS NEVER GOING TO WORK." Exactly.

Clinton probably won't last four years, let alone eight years.

So she'll be out of the Senate and the White House.

If it's not some Clinton soap opera, it'll be a foriegn policy disaster.

And then we'll be rid of her.

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

80. Which is exactly why Hillary and Bill are going to play nice.

Because if they fuck up, then Hillary is out of public life for good. There is no safety net as SoS. If the President is displeased with you, you return to private life.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

85. Ah, but there's still foriegn policy to deal with.

Afghanistan is going to be Obama's big foriegn policy fuck up, if nothing else. And Clinton will take the burden.

[sarcasmo]

77. It's called Baggage, Kick.

[Occam Bandage]

79. Somehow, I think Obama understands the Clintons better than you do. nt

[grantcart]

81. You do realize that this is really a highly critical attack on President Elect Obama

The President Elect actually had a much better view than you did of Senator Clinton during the debates and their marathon run. He realized that virtually all campaigns employ rehtorical hyperbole (the notable exception: his).

He has seen her up close and in detail. He saw her refusal to give up and her tenacious spirit. He saw her under fire. He knew before that she can absorb more policy detail than anyone else, except him.

He saw her overcome her disappoint of failing to reach a lifetime goal and do everything that was asked to help him get elected. He knows that President Clinton was advocating Senator Clinton's cause with passion and he was able to manipulate him and frustrate him. But apparently you don't think that he will use those same skills to corral the President in supporting his policy and supporting the Secretary of State.


But having seen all of that you question his judgement.


I guess you think your sofa seat gave you a better perspective than his.

[LostinVA]

86. Ironic, isn't it?

I think OPs are written by either:

1. People so pathologically anti-Clinton they will smear anyone to smear her, or

2. People who are secretly gleeful at being able to attack BOTH Hillary and Obama, all while acting concerned.

[JuniperLea]

90. Seriously! I'm surprised people are so low brow they can't get this!

I'm hiding this thread and all others like it today. After I kick myself for even responding and bumping this disgusting thread. Jesus Mary and Joseph! Have we no brains? Are we really morans like we appear? Sickening.

[fujiyama]

128. I was extremely critical of her during the primaries and hated the campaign she ran

but she's proven herself to be incredibly sharp and Obama knows a POSITIVE familiar face on the world stage will help the US abroad immensely.

If there is one US politician almost as popular as Obama abroad, it's Bill. And if Obama is forced to enact whichever policies that may seem unpopular abroad (whether it's world trade/economic or likely Afghanistan or Iraq), he needs someone they LIKE and respect to hear that from. No they won't hear it from Bill directly, but Hillary is also well known and greatly respected.

Bill will gain nothing and destroy his legacy as well as Hillary's if he interferes with Obama's policy in any way. And they'd be pariahs in Democratic politics for the rest of their lives. There's no benefit in being spiteful toward Obama. And I couldn't imagine him tolerating that anyways. Besides, Obama RESPECTS dissenting opinions. He wants a cabinet with diverse views. That's a good thing in my opinion.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I really LIKE Hillary taking this position above all else... Maybe I'm idealistic, but I can also imagine Obama in a cabinet meetings OPENLY debating and discussing these issues and those members won't be yes men/women and won't be afraid to tell him what they think. I'm looking forward to this actually.

[DCBob]

82. So how do you deal with this then? She will be SoS. Are you going to be pissed until he fires her?

Refuse to help him? Just stand on the sidelines and yell criticisms? Are you going to start looking for a new candidate for 2012?

[Better Believe It]

100. Hillary Playing Second Fiddle And Taking Orders?

"So how do you deal with this then? She will be SoS. Are you going to be pissed until he fires her?
Refuse to help him? Just stand on the sidelines and yell criticisms? Are you going to start looking for a new candidate for 2012?"

You and me and just about everybody on DU can be and will be of far more help to Obama than the Clintons. Do you really believe the Clinton's want to help Obama? Now that's really naive. They want to direct foreign policy. Do you really think the Clinton's want to play second fiddle to Obama? Again, that's really naive. Look at their history.

Am I going to start looking for a new candidate for 2012? No. Because it may very well be an old candidate, Hillary Clinton.

She's ambitious.

[rosesaylavee]

83. Has this been announced somewhere and I missed it this morning while at work?

I don't see it yet on http://www.change.gov/newsroom/ .

Thanks to whoever can give me a link. I don't yet see it on DU's homepage either?

:shrug:

[DCBob]

84. Not official... yet

WASHINGTON (AP) - President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

One week after the former primary rivals met secretly to discuss the idea of Clinton becoming the nation's top diplomat, an Obama adviser said Thursday that the two sides were moving quickly toward making it a reality, barring any unforeseen problems.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

Obama is convinced the advantages of Clinton serving far outweighed potential downsides, the adviser said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081121/D94J7UM01.html

[JuniperLea]

89. Hiding all Clinton and Obama hate threads today...

If you hate Clinton in a position appointed by Obama, you are showing him disrespect as well. You should be ashamed of your damn self! This is getting so fucking disgusting I can't stand it anymore. If she gets in there and fucks up, then let her have it. Until then, your crystal ball is as full of shit as you are.

[GalleryGod]

93. Bobby [as in RFK ]would love the pick.

Wait and watch.

[Better Believe It]

96. If Anything Disaster Is An Understatement

[BootinUp]

98. I will pester you to admit how wrong you were

sometime in the not so distant future. :hi:

[Better Believe It]

101. I Hope I'm Dead Wrong And That You're Right On This

But you won't have to pester me for long because chances are I'm right and secondly if I make a mistake I'll understand that and admit it.

Only wish Hillary will at least indicate she just made an honest "mistake" in supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

But, she doesn't make mistakes.

[BootinUp]

102. Its just such a gross mischaracterization

to suggest she supported an invasion, so I really don't expect too many straight answers from you.

[Better Believe It]

107. She Voted For It! 23 Senators Voted Against Giving Bush The Go Ahead

Everyone knows that. And she still supports the invasion and occupation and has voted in favor of EVERY war appropriation for Iraq.

[BootinUp]

109. it was not a declaration of war.

any further statements from the peanut gallery will be ignored.

[Perky]

103. Go ahead and bookmark me.

Again I don't think Hillary is a bad choice at all; in a vacuum she could be ideal. I don't even think Bill is going to be out to ding Obama intentionally. I just think the press is going to be lying in the weeds and making every nuanced difference of opinion into a complete donnybrook. It would be a disaster if Obama had to micromanage the diplomatic front because Billo raised his head and says what he has the right to say,
.

[cynatnite]

104. Bill will burp the alphabet and make farting noises during international negotiations...I agree n/t

[LostinVA]

106. In how many threads do you have to post this inane comment?

[Terran]

108. Yes, we see you thought up something funny.

Do you need to keep repeating it in every thread? It gets annoying.

[ecstatic]

113. Hopefully they will muzzle him better than they did in the primaries

He's a character, in a good way, but I can't see him being controlled by anyone.
That being said, we'll see. :)

[Lumpsum]

114. As Ken Silverstein put it

Bill Clinton is a walking conflict-of-interest.

And you should be worried about the scandals that will come out of Bill Clinton's dealings. The right will DESTROY Obama once these scandals arise.

[Maru Kitteh]

117. Your degree in Clenis Mythology and interpretive Elephantism is nearly complete.

Please see your advisor.

[tandem5]

118. A "sorry but" never looks good on any topic header

or person.

[Undercurrent]

119. .

How can people give their most precious possession as a citizen -- their vote -- to Obama, then turn right around and freak out about what a looser team he is assembling BEFORE he even takes office? Didn't the informed voters read his writings, study his positions, and listen to his speeches before we voted for him? Why the shock, surprise and disappointment?

Folks need to relax. We'll see how his administration works in due time. Instant regret, and panic can be a crippling thing that stops some people from being happy.

Just a thought.

[cooolandrew]

121. Can we talk our side up for a change, Barack hasn't even done anything to say his >

judgment is not reliable so far. Even the things we previously doubted have turned out great give him a chance folks. The most incredible thing about Obama so far has been his foresight, I have every faith this will be a fine appointment.

[cooolandrew]

122. Bill was out campaigning for the Georgia seat. We are all on the same apage now it looks.

[TexasObserver]

123. Sorry, but this thread has Flamebait written all over it.

[fujiyama]

124. In a way this might actually keep Bill kind of quiet

Since his wife's success will be tied to President Obama's success (Goddamn it feels nice to say that - President Obama! Screw the "elect" thing), he will almost be forced to go along. And Obama also knows that this might be one way to get the advice of Bill Clinton without giving him a formal advisory role.

Obama knows the value of the Clinton name abroad. I think that was his main motivation behind this. He also knows he'll be tied up extensively early on regarding the economy and likely healthcare. With a VP also well versed in foreign affairs, he can at least be confident in the advice he gets before making any decisions on foreign affairs while not managing everything directly. Hillary can especially strengthen a Western European alliance quickly, and do the same in Latin America and Asia. I think people underestimate how popular Bill really is abroad. Of course Obama is a phenomenon on a whole new level, but assuming he's going to be spending a lot of political capital early on on health care, Hillary's lack of involvement on that issue also will mean less media harping of "Hillary Care II" or some such nonsense. It's a close issue to her and she'd be a major proponent in the Senate and in some ways it is unfortunate her voice wouldn't be heard as much. But her close involvement on this issue could very well just get distracting allowing people to rehash stuff from earlier years..

But ultimately who knows what the reasoning was. Obama wouldn't do this however if he didn't trust and respect Hillary on foreign affairs. Maybe he's on to something.

I think we should just wait and see. This is a fascinating cabinet. A bit too centrist for my taste, but hey I don't expect to agree with any politician all the time. At least they all sound incredibly capable and accomplished, which is a big departure from Bush's cabinets (with the exception of maybe Powell who turned out to be useless in the end).

Ultimately we should remember - that while there's been a lot of speculation on her post, no formal announcement has been made. I don't the full vetting has concluded so until it's set, it's not.

[RBInMaine]

129. Picking Hillary was BRILLIANT ! Stop the BS concern trolling !

[opihimoimoi]

130. The amount of GOOD coming out is worth the RISK...the ODDs look extremely promising

[mwb970]

131. I'm so tired of this Nervous Nellying from our own side!

Will you let the man govern, for Chrissakes? You sound like a Freeper with your head exploding over things that haven't happened yet, and never will, except in your own imagination.

Let it go. Please.

[cboy4]

132. More manure from the usual suspect Hillary-hating crowd.

Pathetic.

[MrSlayer]

133. Pronouncing the game over before it starts is not very wise.

Can we give it at least one year before we pass judgment on the choice of Senator Clinton, should she be nominated and approved? She may turn out to be the best SoS ever, she may be the disaster you claim. Whatever anyone thinks of her personally, Hillary Clinton is certainly capable of running the State Department, no doubt. And while former President Clinton will always be a wild card he can also be a tremendous asset. We can grouse and prognosticate all we like but until what happens, happens, we really have no idea what it's going to be like.