Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary will be a competent SoS and loyal team player

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:46 AM
Original message
Hillary will be a competent SoS and loyal team player
that's my best guess. And the constant fretting and near hysteria about her by some here will continue unabated no matter what.

She's smart, organized and most decidedly a team player.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yes she will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. I hope you're right...
:nuke:

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. I'm not sold and I don't approve of the appointment, but
I will wait to see how it plays out. Unless she goes on a campaign of stabbing Obama in the back, she can't be worse than what we've currently got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. no sane person doubts she'll be competent and loyal..
... it's the prospect of a Clinton gaining power that induces the hysteria about her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Why is she so hungry for POWER? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. why is Obama so hungry for power?
He started running for prez after less than 2 years in the Senate?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
68. Yeah, she is just evil. Don't you know it?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 12:31 PM by Beacool
I guess Obama with a resume as thin as a wafer was not ambitious when he thought that he was ready to be president. Oh, the delusions of his supporters...........

:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
musicblind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #68
112. The people who are bashing Hillary as SOS are NOT Obama supporters and never were
they fooled themselves with their phone banking and donations to Obama... when really they were never supporters at all. They only support their obsessions against the Clintons and not Obama's platform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Evil ambitious woman syndrome. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
78. Oh, do tell us about this "Evil ambitious woman syndrome"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #78
80. It's when one attributes "ambition" in a woman
as being evil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. Ah, sad how often that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #81
91. Yep, it sure is. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
109. Kinda like the Salem witch trials...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starry Messenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #6
56. What? That doesn't even make sense.
She is not my favorite Dem, but I'm sure she is serious about wanting to serve her country. I doubt it has anything to do with her personal aggrandizement. Don't be silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
88. A politician with ambition!??!
I'm shocked! :o
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Power?
Serving as she will "at the pleasure of the President", she will be in a subservient role. She will have the opportunity to advise, but, it is up to the President as to whether or not her advice is heeded.

If anything, while not synonymous with power, she would have more autonomy remaining in the Senate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. um... yeah... power
In the United States federal government, "Secretary of State" uniquely refers to the official responsible for foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. She is first and foremost
responsible to the President. She will be the spokesperson for HIS foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. which is still more powerful than, oh.. say... one vote out of 100 in the Senate...
:)

Sorry. You may not like it, but she will be powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. I have not indicated how I feel about it in this thread
Her power as SoS has nothing to do with it. As a NY'er, I would much prefer to see her remain in the Senate. We need her there fighting for our state. Decisions that may not seem powerful to you might indeed seem very powerful to the citizens of the State of NY.

That said, I, of course, would honor any decision our PE makes in regard to the SoS position.

However, I don't see that position as being as powerful as some would like to think -- at least in this new administration. In listening to Obama, what I hear from him is that he is striving to staff his administration with knowledge and expertise. In addition, I also hear from him that, while his cabinet will be a very strong and powerful one, in the end, he will be the true decision maker. In other words, just how influential any one cabinet member will be will depend on Obama.

Since Obama seems to be selecting a very diverse group of people, each important decision will, in all likelihood, be made as a result of listening to input from a variety of viewpoints, and, I doubt that any one individual will be granted the authority to shape policy without this input and consideration.

This will be a refreshing change from the last eight years, where Bush appeared to only superficially involve himself with day-to-day decisions, preferring instead to leave the real decision making to his subordinates (Cheney, anyone?).

In contrast, Obama will, I believe, "micro manage", and, considering the shape our country is in, this, IMO, is a very, very good thing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. "I don't see that position as being as powerful as some would like to think "
The power the office has isn't subjective and it isn't open to interpretation. It's the most powerful cabinet-level position, the one person in the world representing the most powerful country in the world on a global stage. 4th in line to the Presidency.

The attempt by some here, at Kos, and other places to somehow downplay the power and importance of the position is funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #26
31. All this talk of power
It appears that some are attempting to inflate what the SoS position will mean for her.

In the end, she is serving at the "Pleasure of the President". Remember this.

Funny, but, when I think back on the last eight years, Condi Rice does not stand out to me as one of the most powerful and influential in that administration, despite her latest tenure as SoS.

Conversely, Cheney has served in what has traditionally been largely a figure-head position as perhaps the most powerful person in that administration.

What this says is that it is the president who sets the tone for the relative importance of the postions of his or her subordinates.

And, I maintain that Obama will not permit any one person to have an inordinate amount of power in his administration regardless of the wishes of those who wanted Hillary as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. For weeks,those of us who have defended Clinton from
attacks that she would "go rogue" in the White House and work to undermine Obama have argued that that theory was pure bunk.That came from her detractors,not her supporters.Most of us argued that she would obviously carry out the policies of the president.Now the argument is that we "wished" for more? When?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. I have never been a "detractor"
and I never gotten involved in any of the "wars" here or elsewhere in regard to Hillary.

I am simply stating what I believe I am seeing and responding to it.

I do see that for whatever reason, response to Hillary tends to be polarized. I don't know why this is so. And, unfortunately, the feelings here tend to be either extremely negative or extremely postive -- with no middle ground. I get the impression that both sides tend to project what they believe about her onto the person named "Hillary Clinton".

What I see is that she is a highly competent woman, who has done an excellent job in the Senate and who has raised a wonderful daughter, and, I am sure she will (if chosen) make an excellent SoS. As I mentioned, however, I would like to see her remain in the Senate for selfish reasons.

Now the argument is that we "wished" for more? When?
.

It is the emphasis on "power" that I see in many of the reactions to the potential of Hillary as SoS that suggests to me that perhaps some would like her to have a great deal of power in Obama's administration -- possibly commensurate with his own. In fact, this is why I initially responded to your post. I think emphasis should be placed on her competency and ability to be a team player -- and not on how much power she will have.

Perhaps the emphasis should also be placed on the potential power of the administration as a whole with not only the addition of Hillary, but also with the addition of the other highly competent people Obama is selecting.

Unfortunately, what I see is the tendency to emphasize the perceived power of one individual within what I think will be an awesome administration.

I think this tendency does nothing but invite negativity given the polarized reactions to Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. The Secretary of State can be..
completely shut out of the loop... have a title with no significance...like George Schultz. The power of the position comes from the President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #33
41. it can be... but so can ANY cabinet level office... there's really no relevance in your point unless
...you think Obama will do that, which there is no indication he will.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
47. I think to presume..
that any cabinet member will have extraordinary power has no relevance either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. the office of SOS DOES have extraordinary power
NO ONE here is claiming Clinton will have more than normal, but plenty here are trying to diminish the office simply because Clinton will hold it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
119. I think the problem is..
that many have posted that Hillary Clinton, as the Secretary of State, will somehow have extraordinary power and overshadow, or influence the Presidency. There is lots of animosity following this election, and rather than see the position for what it is, no more/no less.. people on both sides of the Clinton/Obama fence are exasperating the appointment. No other cabinet position has created so much nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Scary!
She supported the bombing and occupation of innocent Iraqis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. So did John Edwards and John Kerry
It was not a good vote whoever cast it, but important as it was, it's not the only thing that defines her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
20. It's important to know when thinking about her being....
SoS.

That's why I didn't vote for Edwards... and I've lost much respect for Kerry after his uber early concession speech in '04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. It was the second slowest in history
The Democratic team that told Gore to take back his concession told Kerry there was NO case to be made - and there is still not a case that could have been used now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. Diebold?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #35
42. There were no Diebold machines in Ohio
There may some day be genuine evidence that there was machine fraud - even before 2004, there was proof that you could steal an election with the machines - but, it is still not proven it happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
86. Well, I guess you just can't have everything your little heart desires.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #86
110. Someone needs to start a Utopian Party. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. so did Vice President Biden ... oooh, scary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
21. Actually...
it IS scary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. ...and, wouldn't ya know it...
... by voting exactly like Hillary on the war after he got to the senate, so did Obama! Ooooh, scary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #23
34. All this seems to make you happy...
:puke:

BTW... Obama had the courage to speak out against the war, very early on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #34
40. no, what makes me happy...
... is watching people talk themselves into corners.

BTW... Obama spoke out against the war from a state senate seat in a safe blue district and then only to impress a powerful donor. That explains why he later said he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate, and his line of thinking on the war was close to Bush's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #40
43. What a shame!
I wouldn't go bragging about that too much on here.

Is that why you voted for Obama?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. It is quite humorous
and I voted for Obama because he is a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #34
111. But he never had to actually vote on it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
70. Yeah, they have amnesia when it comes to that.
Obama voted parallel to Hillary dozens of times. Their voting record is very similar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
39. She also supports obliterating Iran
Kyl Lieberman. Her foreign policy is hawkish and scary. That is why I think she is a piss poor choice for SOS. Not because she is a Clinton or she is a power mad woman etc. Notice that every prominent Republican interviewed thinks she is a great choice. That doesn't worry the shit out of you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #39
71. If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons,
then they can expect to be attacked in return. It's very simple.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spiritual_gunfighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #71
107. That wasn't the premise of the question Olbermann asked
He asked if Iran attacks Israel what should be the US response. Nothing was asked about nuclear weapons. Clinton took it upon herself to say they should be obliterated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
122. So no outrage about Biden? Here just a reminder for you. Or the rest of the "SCARY" people
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
watrwefitinfor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #9
19. And third in the line of succession. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Fifth, actually
1. President
2. Vice-President
3. Speaker of the House
4. President pro tempore of the Senate
5. Secretary of State

.... and so forth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. FOURTH actually
The president is not in line to become president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #27
32. That's right, my mistake
I always make the error of counting the president first for some reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #32
60. bit of historical trivia
cabinet posts were added to the presidential succession list in 1886. The order, which put the Secretary of State ahead of all other cabinet posts, was based simply on the order in which the cabinet positions had been created. THere is one exception to that in the current law -- the Secretary of Defense is after the Secretary of the Treasury even though the Defense Department wasn't created until 1947. However, the principle remains the same since the Secy of Defense occupies the spot in the succession line previously occupied by the Secy of War (a position abolished with the creation of the Defense Department).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
53. the Secretary of State has limited actual "power"
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 12:15 PM by onenote
Under the Constitution, Executive Power is vested in the President. The President can delegate tasks to other officials, such as the Secy of State, but the ultimate "responsibility" rests with the President. It is the President, not the Secretary of State, that constitutionally is authorized to make treaties (with the advice and consent of the Senate) and to appoint ambassadors.

That being said, I have no doubt that Obama will look to Clinton to be an active Secretary of State in the model of Madeline Albright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. ok, then, only the president has power, everyone else is just a figure head
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Not what I said.
Maybe you posted before you saw my edited post. My point is merely that the SofS has only such "power" as the president allows,and even then, the president is constitutionally limited in delegating some power to the SofS. That being said, however, I have every reason to expect (and no reason to fear) that Obama will allow Clinton to function as an active SofS, in the model of Albright.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
76. Hillary will be giving up POWER to become a subordinate in the Obama administration.
I'm surprised that she is giving up the independence and power of her Senate seat to become a messenger for Obama. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #76
90. It makes no sense. She'll end up on talk shows and writing books
Just like Albright.

I don't get it.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
120. I am sane
and I don't know that she will be competent. She isn't the best choice in my opinion as far as experience in foreign affairs. There are people that are much much more qualified than she is.I hope she will do a good job. Nothing I can do about her pick. I wish she was working on health care where I think she does have some experience. When it has to do with negotiations that can end up making the difference between war and peace I would like the very very best qualified person for the job. But that is in my world not the real political world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 09:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Of course she will.She'll be a great SOS. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
InAbLuEsTaTe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
15. First bad move by Obama-Gates was 2nd-but now let's give her a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ginnyinWI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
17. grumble grumble grumble....oh I guess so----
Hopefully her public personna is far worse than the reality of who she really is. But the campaign she waged last Spring really made her look bad, and she didn't need the media to do that for her. The words that came out of her mouth still ring loudly in my mind. Why did she have to be so divisive and say those destructive things? Old Politics at its worst.

Apparently Obama is willing to forgive and forget for the sake of the vision he has for the new administration. I'll try to give her a fair chance. Some sort of apology would be nice, but I'm not expecting any.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #17
38. I think she will be good - as long as the Clinton interest is the same as the country's or Obama's
The bad side of Hillary showed only when the good of the country and the good of the Clintons went in the opposite decision.

Bill Clinton, in particular, seemed motivated by improving his legacy - the best way they do that now is to work in conjunction with Obama.

There is a difference between the Clintons being both competent and able to do good things and the Clintons being good people. The former is more important here - and they may be competent and able. As people, they have some major character flaws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
18. Her background on foreign policy is still lacking.
I will be disappointed if Obama picks her. It will be my first indication that he is more interested in the political than in picking excellence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
22. No.
She will be outstanding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
28. Yes, she will. No problems here. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
29. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atimetocome Donating Member (236 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
36. Of course she will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveOurDemocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
45. Exactly right. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
48. Interesting:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Misleading:
At your link provided the tag doesn't say: "Bill Clinton's role", it says: Lugar praises Obamas national security team
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. BS, no one said it was the title of the article. From the article:
Democratic Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), who also appeared on the program, said Obama is about to name a superb group of people.

Lugar said he would vote to confirm Clinton, even though he acknowledged that questions could be raised about the dealings of her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

I think that the wide-ranging activities of President Clinton are very substantial on this earth. They will continue to be, Lugar stated, adding, I dont know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who has such cosmic ties. But I think the Obama campaign people have done a good job in trying to pin down the most important elements, and at this point hopefully this team of rivals will work.

Reed said that he expects both Clintons will be very judicious in what they take on.

Both senators agreed that Bill Clinton could still serve as a mediator or U.S. emissary in the international arena.

Reed said that it is entirely likely that the former president could be dispatched to India and Pakistan to smooth over tensions there following the terrorist attack in Mumbai. Clinton has garnered a lot of good will in the area after leaving office because of his work there following the devastating tsunami.

Lugar added that Bill Clinton could do a great job there, adding, And for that matter, in lots of places.



From the transcript of Reed's appearance:

REED: Well, I think this arrangement sets up a framework of transparency and disclosure. And I think thats a significant and important aspect of the confirmation process for Mrs. Clinton, Senator Clinton.

As it goes forward, I think, though, I think the presumption will be that both the Secretary of State Clinton and president, former President Clinton will be very judicious in what they take on, because theres a new dimension here. The secretary of state and the former president are married, and I think thats going to set the standard.

But I think theyve put up a good framework. This disclosure, this transparency is the right way to go.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about in the question of the mediation? Does -- if, for example, and President-elect Obama did talk about this in the campaign -- having perhaps President Clinton serve as a mediator between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. There would not necessarily be a conflict there if he chose to have President Clinton do that. But youre smiling. You dont thing it is likely anymore?

REED: No, I think its entirely likely. And I dont think there will be a conflict. And I think also, in terms of specific assignment, that, to your question, George, what more can be done? Well, in that context, there might be some arrangements that should be disclosed, some additional self-imposed restrictions that the president would take. But in the context of a specific mission from President Obama, I think thats where these judgments could be made.

I think he would be a superb addition to our international diplomacy.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you agree with that on India and Pakistan, as a mediator, President Clinton?

LUGAR: Yes, I think he could do a great job there. And for that matter, in lots of places.

But, as I say, this is an unprecedented situation historically.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. No, not BS, obfuscation; to read a couple hundred words and only pull from them...
the name and possible-be activities of Bill Clinton is a form of myopia
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. It was an observation. The link to the article is there so your obfuscation charge is BS.
The information upon which the observation was made comes directly from the article, and the context is specific.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
74. Um hm, I do think it's time to move on. Obama is being said to be edgy and unable...
to deal with the protracted questioning the post primary & election cycle is offering him (you may-should have been switching back & forth between Reliable Sources cause that's where that was). The world is coming undone, the world needs answers. Regardless of who's on his state-team he needs to roll them out and pronto. This world is bleeding out. And the consistent, non-stop wrangling over what the Clinton's do, did, will do, might do, context or no; is healing no wounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metric System Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
52. Thank you for the kind words, Cali. I kind of wish she'd stay in the Senate but at the same time I
think it's cool to see her working for Obama's administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #52
73. Me too, I wanted her to stay in the senate.
I didn't want her to be in his cabinet. In the senate she's her own person and has her own power base. But, the decision is hers to make. I just hope that she made the right decision.

;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
55. I'll bet you a cyber beer that she won't last 6 months without a tiff with Obama
and no leaks from her office taking pot shots at Obama's policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Do you think she will get herself fired?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #55
59. OH.... there will be pleanty of leaks
and I give it less than 6 months. I say 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. She'll carry out the president's foreign policy professionally
and without rancor.Much to the annoyance of many here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #63
64. Do we have a bet?
:beer:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #64
67. Sure. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #55
66. She'll be Melodrama Central
Without a doubt. The media houseflies will be thick around her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grateful for Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #66
69. What I think
Is that she will have had to agree to be a team player before Obama made his final decision. So, I don't think she would last very long in the administration if she behaved otherwise.

Hopefully, the good of the administration and our country will be what is most important to her. I think this will be the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #69
114. The Clintons are notorious for breaking promises
as LGBT community learned the hard way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
65. The woman would have been a good president,
of course she can handle the SOS job. Those on the left who are not happy about it will just have to live with it.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kdillard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
72. I agree with your assessment and I wish people would actually let
her be confirmed and in the job before all the attacks start in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hanse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
75. I'm sure she'll be SoS as competently as she ran her campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. Oh man! I knew we should have kept a bag of super delegates around somewhere...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #77
98. LOL!
Nominated for a DUzy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
79. No worries. If she acts up, she's gone. Obama is in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #79
84. If she acts up? How is she going to act up and why would she?
Just wondering what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #84
89. she is a conduit for Obama's policy and will follow his directives
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 01:53 PM by AtomicKitten
If for some reason there is a problem carrying out his directives, she is eminently fire-able.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #84
92. She's a lady. With ambition and opinions. We have a tendency to "act up", ya know?
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #92
93. Obama doesn't want her going all mavericky on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. He told you that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. straightforward answer = accuse and deflect, rinse and repeat
you go, girl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #95
97. I am curious where you got your information. Is this a concern that he voiced to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Is common sense too complex to wrap your mind around?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #100
103. OOo.... snotty, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #93
96. Obama wants her as SOS,that's a fact.
Your comment is merely fiction from the inside of your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #96
99. I'm certain Obama doesn't want any cabinet appointee to go mavericky.
common sense straightforward answer ---> deflect and accuse, rinse a repeat

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. How in the world can you possibly know for "certain" what the President-Elect wants or doesn't want?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 02:01 PM by terrya
A REAL close adviser to the next President, are you? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. you keyboard warriors have a great day - I'm taking the dog to the beach
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 02:14 PM by AtomicKitten
edited to avoid another trip down the rabbit hole ... next you'll be requiring a link to prove it's common sense for Obama to want order in his administration which you will then summarily shoot down .... rinse and repeat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PeaceNikki Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #104
105. And another snotty reply. Are you trying to win some "snot off" contest?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 02:06 PM by PeaceNikki
I think you're winning...

Nice edit. Terry, here was the unedited reply:

" another person that finds common sense too difficult to wrap their head around"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #105
106. Oh, darn!
I missed a chance to be instructed about "common sense" again by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about! That's always a real treat. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
82. Thank you cali.
It's so nice to see a reasonable and rational post about Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
83. You do realize you are damning her with faint praise right?
Your summary sounds as enthusiastic as Hillary's encomiums for Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terrya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
85. I absolutely agree. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
87. Your closing sentence summed it up perfectly
Hillary is competent, and not only is she competent, but she's loyal. If she gets the job, I think she'll be fantastic at it, and I think she's going to do her part in making the world a better place. She'll be working for Obama, for us, and in everyone's best interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlCzervik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
101. i think it's a good for her, i have no doubt she will be well received.
She also has a legacy to think about and being a successful sos would a great thing for her. As for people that are worried about Bill, i'm not, she's her own person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mountainvue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:44 PM
Response to Original message
108. Agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
113. I have to agree. I think it's a smart choice, I think he's assembling a solid cabinet
and I'm really confused by some of the hand-wringing I see here about, for instance, Hillary as SoS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
115. Who's team was she playing on when she voted for IWR, Kyl-Lieberman, and said OBLITERATE IRAN?
Edited on Sun Nov-30-08 05:43 PM by JTFrog
Just curious.

:shrug:

SHE VOTED NO ON BANNING CLUSTER BOMBS FFS!

So much fucking diplomacy I can hardly stand it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Military Industrial Congressional Complex
nuff said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Radical Activist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
117. I'll believe the "loyal team player" part when I see it.
But I'm sure she'll be reasonably competent in the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CakeGrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-30-08 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
118. "Most decidedly a team player"? Not that I've seen, but only time will tell
I hope for Obama's sake that his cabinet decisions pay the dividends this country needs to get back on track.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #118
121. You've been living in a cave, then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #121
123. Did you just call him/her a terrorist???
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 07:36 AM by Zombie2
Why go out of your way to be rude to her/him? He/She was just giving her/his opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 07:45 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. ha ha.. Not even a nice try
Don't be silly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zombie2 Donating Member (678 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-01-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. haha... I'm sure it made you smile though.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Nov 24th 2017, 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC