Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52

Thread: Report: Hillary Clinton to accept Sec. of State position....(merged)

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redding, CT
    Posts
    375
    Post Thanks / Like

    Report: Hillary Clinton to accept Sec. of State position....(merged)

    [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/17/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state[/url]

    [QUOTE]Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

    Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

    Clinton would be well placed to become the country's dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.

    Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.

    As part of the coalition-building, Obama today also reached out to his defeated Republican rival, John McCain, to discuss how they could work together to roll back some of the most controversial policies of the Bush years. Putting aside the bitter words thrown about with abandon by both sides during the election campaign, McCain flew to meet Obama at his headquarters in the Kluczynski Federal Building, in downtown Chicago.[/QUOTE]

    thoughts.....

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Change.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Redding, CT
    Posts
    375
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2868096]Change.[/QUOTE]

    ....for the worse

  4. #4
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    I actually approve of this move. Well, not approve, but I'm sorta ambivalent. Whatever. :dunno: Most of the foreign leaders already know who she is, and it will placate her massive ego.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    This may well be true, but British tabs are the worst imaginable sources.

    If it is true, I give Obama credit for reaching out to a rival (Lincoln style) and selecting someone competent and qualified. But I also cross my fingers that his people did a thorough vetting of Bill's myriad business and foundation dealings and potential conflicts of interest with those.

    It's a ballsy choice. An Obama/Biden cabinet with Clinton at State and Bob Gates staying on at Defense (as rumored) would have formidable foreign policy chops and ideological diversity.

    It will be interesting to see who else is named.

  6. #6
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868147]This may well be true, but British tabs are the worst imaginable sources.

    If it is true, I give Obama credit for reaching out to a rival (Lincoln style) and selecting someone competent and qualified. But I also cross my fingers that his people did a thorough vetting of Bill's myriad business and foundation dealings and potential conflicts of interest with those.

    It's a ballsy choice. An Obama/Biden cabinet with Clinton at State and Bob Gates staying on at Defense (as rumored) would have formidable foreign policy chops and ideological diversity.

    It will be interesting to see who else is named.[/QUOTE]


    Please, Obama's policies were almost identical to Hillary's. If it was a real "team of rivals", he would have tapped McCain for SecState. They were rivals in name only.

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2868151]Please, Obama's policies were almost identical to Hillary's. If it was a real "team of rivals", he would have tapped McCain for SecState. They were rivals in name only.[/QUOTE]

    Not really true in this arena. (Definitely true on domestic issues.) Hillary in general is more of a hard-liner than Obama on defense issues. She's voted more hawkishly than him on Iran. And there was of course that one [I]other [/I]force-authorization vote where they differed.

    Obama and McCain signaled pretty clearly today that they intend to work together on legislation, likely on climate change, ethics reform or energy, btw.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,876
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bill Clinton could raise some problems for his wife. He took millions of dollars from the Saudis for his library and other things and there is more!

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2868472]Bill Clinton could raise some problems for his wife. He took millions of dollars from the Saudis for his library and other things and there is more![/QUOTE]

    That's why this hasn't been announced yet.

    You can bet the Obama team is trying to vet Bubba for potential conflicts for Hillary. They also need to figure out how to handle him going forward, because his foundation basically hits up foreign governments for money for stuff like stopping AIDS in Africa and other humanitarian causes. Good causes, all, but it gets complicated because the State department does a lot of the same stuff.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=MnJetFan;2868472]Bill Clinton could raise some problems for his wife. He took millions of dollars from the Saudis for his library and other things and there is more![/QUOTE]

    Yeah and Bush's family never got money from the Saudis. LOL!

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    Yea for bipartisanship!

    So far Obama has appointed two of the nastiest, ugliest democratic pitt bulls to his cabinet..
    Last edited by CTM; 11-18-2008 at 09:55 AM.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2868490]Yea for bipartisanship!

    So far Obama has appointed two of the nastiest, ugliest democratic pitt bulls to his cabinet..[/QUOTE]

    If only Obama could be as bipartisan as the George W. Bust administration was.

    After the last 8 years the less republicans involved the better. They've tanked everything.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CTM;2868490]Yea for bipartisanship!

    So far Obama has appointed two of the nastiest, ugliest democratic pitt bulls to his cabinet..[/QUOTE]

    First of all, this is not confirmed. Second, chief fof staff (which I assume you are also referring to) is not a cabinet position.

    Third, the Secretary of State negotiates with other governments on the orders of the president, not with the other party, so whether or not she is bipartisan is sort of irrelevant in that position.



    There are also unconfirmed reports that Obama is going to offer defense to Robert Gates, education to Colin Powell, etc... So why don't we wait to see who actually in the cabinet before we brand it one way or the other?

    By all indications, Obama is going to make these appointments very early by historic standards, so there will likely be two full months to attack his cabinet before they are even sworn in, if one is so inclined.
    Last edited by nuu faaola; 11-18-2008 at 10:20 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    9,157
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868524]First of all, this is not confirmed. Second, chief fof staff (which I assume you are also referring to) is not a cabinet position.

    Third, the Secretary of State negotiates with other governments on the orders of the president, not with the other party, so whether or not she is bipartisan is sort of irrelevant in that position.



    There are also unconfirmed reports that Obama is going to offer defense to Robert Gates, education to Colin Powell, etc... So why don't we wait to see who actually in the cabinet before we brand it one way or the other?

    By all indications, Obama is going to make these appointments very early by historic standards, so there will likely be two full months to attack his cabinet before they are even sworn in, if one is so inclined.[/QUOTE]

    Besides, why do we all of a sudden need bipartisanship? The republicans did absolutely ZERO to be bipartisan when they had the White House and Congress from 2000-2006. They caused the recession and the Iraq war. We don't need these sh*tbags to clean up this mess, they're just going to stand in the way.

  15. #15
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868155]Not really true in this arena. (Definitely true on domestic issues.) Hillary in general is more of a hard-liner than Obama on defense issues. She's voted more hawkishly than him on Iran. And there was of course that one [I]other [/I]force-authorization vote where they differed.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not fair to compare Hillary and Obama on foreign issues, because Obama is way too inexperienced in that area. I'm sure if he was in the Senate for as long as she was he would have fallen in line with the Dem status quo.

    That's what Biden is for, that's why he picked him (who's voting record is even more hawkish than Hillary's). Again, Clinton is not what I would call "a rival".

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2868548]It's not fair to compare Hillary and Obama on foreign issues, because Obama is way too inexperienced in that area. I'm sure if he was in the Senate for as long as she was he would have fallen in line with the Dem status quo.

    That's what Biden is for, that's why he picked him (who's voting record is even more hawkish than Hillary's). Again, Clinton is not what I would call "a rival".[/QUOTE]

    I think we just have different definitions of "rival."

    Clinton and Obama fought each other tooth and nail for 18 months and, going forward, she was the largest threat to his power base within the party (and probably the one person who could conceivably run against him in the 2012 primary).

    Most of the substantive arguments in the primary involved stuff that would, theortetically, fall under the SecState purview. For instance, Hillary voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and Obama didn't. Hillary supported the Iraq invasion, and Obama didn't. Hillary tends to take a somewhat harder line on Israel than Obama does.

    There are differences there.

    That said, I think we have to look at the entire cabinet before we dub it anything (team of rivals, partisan hacks, whatever).

    If he picks Clinton for state and leaves Bob Gates at defense, that's obviously different than picking Clinton for state and then putting some other partisan democrat at defense.

    We need more information to characterize this cabinet.

  17. #17
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868573]I think we just have different definitions of "rival."

    Clinton and Obama fought each other tooth and nail for 18 months and, going forward, she was the largest threat to his power base within the party (and probably the one person who could conceivably run against him in the 2012 primary).

    Most of the substantive arguments in the primary involved stuff that would, theortetically, fall under the SecState purview. For instance, Hillary voted to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, and Obama didn't. Hillary supported the Iraq invasion, and Obama didn't. Hillary tends to take a somewhat harder line on Israel than Obama does.

    There are differences there.

    That said, I think we have to look at the entire cabinet before we dub it anything (team of rivals, partisan hacks, whatever).

    If he picks Clinton for state and leaves Bob Gates at defense, that's obviously different than picking Clinton for state and then putting some other partisan democrat at defense.

    We need more information to characterize this cabinet.[/QUOTE]

    Leaving Gates in at SecDef isn't just a nice thing to do as far as bipartisanship goes, it's absolutely the right thing to do, the correct thing to do. The guy has done a phenomenal job so far and disrupt any progress and direct communication with the generals in the ME would be foolish at this point.

    Leaving Gates in there would be more of a testament to Obama's common sense than his desire to have a bipartisan cabinet.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=VincenzoTestaverde;2868547]Besides, why do we all of a sudden need bipartisanship? The republicans did absolutely ZERO to be bipartisan when they had the White House and Congress from 2000-2006. They caused the recession and the Iraq war. We don't need these sh*tbags to clean up this mess, they're just going to stand in the way.[/QUOTE]

    I would argue that we need to do it because the Republicans didn't do it and failed.

    The idea is not to remake their mistakes. The idea is to do it better.

    The fact is, Bush had an opportunity --an obligation, I thought-- to be bipartisan when he lost the popular vote and won the electoral college. He was the most partisan president ever, pretty much from the getgo.

    Then he had another opportunity after 9/11, when the country was united behind him, and he used terrorism as a partisan bludgeon.

    Obama doesn't have to be bipartisan because he won in a rout and has an electoral mandate. But if he reaches out anyhow, it shows he's serious about doing that.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2868579]Leaving Gates in at SecDef isn't just a nice thing to do as far as bipartisanship goes, it's absolutely the right thing to do, the correct thing to do. The guy has done a phenomenal job so far and disrupt any progress and direct communication with the generals in the ME would be foolish at this point.

    Leaving Gates in there would be more of a testament to Obama's common sense than his desire to have a bipartisan cabinet.[/QUOTE]

    I agree re: Gates. He's incredibly competent and, compared the stooge he replaced, a revelation in that job.

    But, if he keeps him there, does it really matter whether its out of a desire for bipartisanship or because he has common sense? It's the right move. As much as I want Obama to be bipartisan, bipartisanship for the sake of bipartisanship is dumb. You want the best people for the job. The key is recognizing when the best person or idea is in the other party, and then not letting that fact get in the way of picking them.

  20. #20
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,962
    Post Thanks / Like
    But but but but Obama is a socialist Muslim intent on destroying the very foundations of our democracy, isn't that motivating all of his choices? His absolute desire to take all of [B]your[/B] money is paramount.

    How can he possible be bipartisan. After all, Republicans are, if nothing else, against big government and spending.:rolleyes:

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us