About six months ago, I was all fired up to vote Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States. I was a firm Clinton follower and had been for many years. That's because, from my perspective, the years that America had spent under President Bill Clinton had been some of the best years I had ever seen; and I both wanted and expected more years like that if Hillary were to win the Presidency.
Hillary had always impressed me. She seemed a true voice of compassionate politicking. She always seemed to be pressing government to be thoughtful, considerate and inclusive. She pushed for health care reform and family and medical leave and equal treatment for everyone regardless of age, race or sexual orientation. She always seemed to speak against divisiveness exclusiveness and speak up for cooperation and inclusiveness.
Hillary seemed to have the vision, rhetoric and attitude of a true American uniter.
But my perceptions of her have changed significantly over the past six months, thanks to her and Bill's televised actions.
Hillary and Bill's presentations during the primaries, during the run up to the general election and now after the general election have left me feeling a little cool towards them; and the idea of having her fill the Secretary of State's shoes in the upcoming Obama administration seems dicey to me. Although I cried out against people who said Hillary was a shark, a manipulator and a bitch, I find that I have had to take second looks at my previous defendings of her, thanks to footage from her and Bill's appearances.
What I saw from The Clintons during the primaries, the general election, and now after the general has struck me as the actions and attitudes of self-important, self-righteous, self-centered, entrenched political players. They come across as totally miffed at not having gained what they thought was rightly their due (Hillary's Presidency), and perceiving this in any politician right now does not fill me with anything close to confidence, hope or faith; thanks to the context of the past eight years.
The perception of self-centered, self-important, self-entitled politicians causes red flags to fly, alarm bells to ring and the repeating voices of "Red Alert" and "Danger" sounding constantly in my head.
This is not a good thing.
I have seen Hillary's hawkish business side more and more; and I am not inspired.
Both Hillary and Bill seemed to give lackluster support to Obama, and they still seem resentful over the fact that Hillary's 2008 shot at the Presidency was upstaged by an upstart who seemingly came from nowhere and gathered massive popular appeal around him. With the way the Clintons have been acting towards President-Elect Obama, I have to wonder what guarantees there can be that Hillary wouldn't lead or leverage the 44th President into a sticky quagmire if she were his Secretary of State. She comes across as being fully convinced that she knows better than Barack how to lead the country; and such an attitude from a sitting Secretary of State could be deadly for Americans and their interests; not to mention her own political career. If she become Sec State and then steered Obama awry, no one would ever trust her again.
Since we (the people) have already experienced rule by sore winners, I shudder to think what it might be like if a sore or bitter loser were thrown into this already controversial and challenging administration.
Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State would not be my first choice, nor even my second, third or fourteenth pick.
My suggestions for President-Elect Obama's Secretary of State would be as follows:
John McCain, first
Bill Richardson, second
and Condoleezza Rice, third.
I firmly think, feel and believe that any one of these would be far better suited for working well in the upcoming Obama administration, rather than Hillary Clinton.
Respectfuly submitted.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 86
I think, Obama has made a very clever choice, which will increase his support base significantly and win him many more friends. In the present economic crisis, this will be good for USA.
Take it easy, Bill! There is no reason to panic!
As far as Hillary Clinton goes I can see her being a bit miffed. She worked hard and for the most had the votes of the popular public but it was her peers who would not support her in the majority. That had to hurt. I still think she is a great choice by Obama. Having her in close contact with him is going to be a good mix and I think she will temper her role with her forthright ideas while at the same time knowing her boundries and being respectful of them.
I was hesitantly for Hillary until the primaries where I felt Obama was a reality. His people were out here during the primaries and didn't stop until he was elected. Hillary was very impressive to me when she made the speech at the convention turning the delegates' votes over to Obama. She didn't have to be there in the spotlight, but she was gracious about it.
I believe she and Bill are well respected and liked by the international community. Hillary is a good bridge between old politics and progressive, new politics. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Bill's business dealings abroad and I don't want to see another b.s. scandal cooked up in the name of Clinton to distract the press and the government from the work that needs to be focused on and carried out.
Cannot at all agree with your choice of John McCain. He's too old, too angry, and just wrong in many ways. Can't stand that ugly Condi Rice either. She may be intelligent, but she always looks pissed off and she was so quick to lie for bush. Bill Richardson, I need to know more about.
I have no such concerns about Bill Richardson.
They (Obama) can start by making Madame Clinton Secretary of State. It is what I would do.
Hi Karen. Thanks for commenting. Contrary to all the evidence that might back up your perception, I respectfully disagree. Although a McCain/Palin presidency may have been quite similar to this soon to be past 43rd administration, there is every reason to believe that McCain would serve Obama with extreme honor, great integrity and total loyalty.
In that station, McCain's allegiance would be directly held to the president he serves, rather than to the leaders of the party he belongs to.
subroto s s -- "As secretary of state, she will be the principal advisor of Obama in all Political and administrative matters."
One of the interesting dynamics I had thought of was that with Hillary as Secretary of State, if Pres. Obama were to receive a 3:00 A.M. phone call because something serious had just happened in the world, it would be Hillary on the other end telling him what was up. I find an entertaining irony in that.
"There is no chance of her playing truant, as you suspect, because it will eventually backfire on her."
Yeah, I'm not so sure of that. Two of Hillary's strengths are intelligence and craftiness, so pinching Pres. Obama would only backfire on her if she got caught.
Choosing her may be a clever choice, but I have misgivings. Please be assured that I am not panicking.
WARNING: This comment is not for those who actually believe the Obama fairy tale.
I will share something I have been keeping secret; it is my belief that McCain deliberately mismanaged his campaign because he knew that if he gained the office he would have to struggle against the pressures of both the Democrats and his own party; which would have made for an even more divisive presidency than if Obama won. Of course I have no proof of this. My belief is based only on the character and demeanor of the John McCain I used to know (via the media) and the fact that there were some lines he refused to cross in the campaign. It was noted that McCain did not buy into the labeling of Obama as a traitor, Muslim or Arab, he stuck only to vaguely uttering the talking points which other Republicans were hammering as fact.
"As far as Hillary Clinton goes ... it was her peers who would not support her in the majority."
Perhaps I am already misremembering the primaries, but I do recall that Barack had won the popular vote. Hillary may be miffed that the super delegates did not turn the nomination to her favor, but I still recall that she did not win the majority of votes of the people during the primary season.
I hope you are exactly right, that Hillary will temper her role and be forthright with her ideas. It certainly is true that being Secretary of State would put a grand notch on her belt.
Kelly K. -- I agree exactly with your points, and I sincerely hope that she is a wise choice; if she is chosen.
You and I also share similar perceptions of the strengths and baggage that Hillary would/could bring to the Sec State position. I guess we would just have to hope for the best if she is selected.
"Condi Rice ... She may be intelligent, but she always looks pissed off.."
Working under Bush (43) I can understand why she might have been looking that way. As regards lying for Bush (43), well, that's what cabinet members are sometimes called to do; and this passing administration seemed to make that call a lot. Consider how many people bailed on them.
Obama is also staying with CEO's to fill his positions which his was his message of change and his promise that he would not deal with lobbyists was just campaign rhetoric.
I can live with Hillary being SOS, but that would not have been my first choice, merely because of the fodder for FoxNews. I do believe she could adjust to the position though.
Kay & Snowy Cat -- "Bill, glad you paid attention to my warning, I wouldn't want to upset your day! :) "
Oh, it's not like that at all Kay. I am not sold on any fairy tale. In fact, I have many grave concerns regarding the Obama presidency.
I didn't respond to your comment immediately because: (a) I was working my way down the list of comments; and (b) I just don't feel like replying to what you had to say.
I don't agree with your assertions; and I know there is no point in arguing about it with you.
Have a Happy Day :-)
You have a nice day as well. :)
I can fully see how having McCain being a maverick Republican in the Senate would serve Obama well and I fully understand the connections that The Clintons wield, but I think it would make an even more powerful statement (both foreign and domestic) if McCain were installed as Sec State.
It would help our nation see that Republicans and Democrats can work directly hand in hand for the good of the country; and it would show the world a more united American front.
Additionally, with the global perception that McCain is a Bush (43) clone, having McCain as Sec state would would send two other messages: (a) it would keep the fear of Bush (43) like action still in the wings, while (b) showing the world that our "cowboy diplomacy" is now leashed by a more humanistic master.
It seems a Win-Win in my book.
The Clintons' influences could still be used to significant advantage, providing they would chose to play wholeheartedly along. Hillary will never lose her momentum for a future presidency, unless she botches it up herself.
No Bill, that wasn't a global perception, it was a delusion of the far left. Obama knows McCain is a maverick, which is why he would not be selected as Secy of State--Obama cannot take the chance that McCain would actually do what is best for the country in foreign affairs.
I think Obama can be firm without McCain as a statement. He's making the right choice to leave a maverick in the Senate. And I believe he will abide in his committment to bring the asses and elephants in the room together. There are other ways he can that.
(The Clintons have) ...."the actions and attitudes of self-important, self-righteous, self-centered, entrenched political players."
That is a pretty broad brush and I would like you to be more specific , as in "specifically" what caused you to reach these conclusions.
You also said you experienced some of the best years you had ever seen under the Clintons. Which is it?...or did they change, and how? It seems a conflict in conclusions to me.
"She (Clinton) comes across as being fully convinced that she knows better than Barack how to lead the country." Wouldn't this be true? You also stated that Barack "came from out of nowhere," which is a true statement, giving him no experience on how to "lead the country, and a lack of national security credentials. He's spouted a lot of "Ideas" throughout the campaign that everyone wanted to hear about, "Change, " etc.... Yet it appears that he is taking on the same "advisors" and government that the Clintons and others who have gone before him had. My question is 'WHERE AND WHAT IS THE CHANGE?" Same advisors? Same advice? No change?
You said the Clintons displayed "actions and attitudes of self-important, self-righteous, self-centered, entrenched political players. " Can you name a politician who doesn't display these characteristics? Isn't that the job description for a politician?
I do agree with your first pick of John McCain...which won't happen ... given that Biden is out of the running... after all his efforts, before becoming VP, for the job.
I'm not trying to be argumentive, just trying to make some sense out of what you wrote.
Barack's ideas will be the change. Getting advice is one thing, having a mind toward the people is another thing. We haven't seen that in a while, but Obama is well aware that there is a movement afoot, and it began before he ran for Prez. We the people encouraged him to run, and he hadn't planned on it until so many of us pleaded for this change. He's always been all about community, and THAT will be the big change.
Maybe I am wrong, but my read of the outside world is that they generally think Republicans are mostly alike and Democrats are mostly alike. Also, McCain publicly claimed to have voted with Bush (43) more than 90% of the time; which provides the perception of similarity to the world. If you have some proof, or documented indications that the global perception is otherwise I would gladly consider it.
Rosa See Ya -- I see McCain as more of a hardcore military man than a "cowboy diplomat" and there is a big difference between the two. I interpreted McCain's "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran" statement as some cagey tough talk, rather than an actual assertion for striking at will. To me, McCain would make an obvious and able enforcer standing behind Obama's smiling diplomatic face. The iron fist behind the velvet glove.
Facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, the actual words delivered and the lack of fully spirited action. Although Bill and Hillary have made some fine public endorsements, they more often have hung back and said nothing, or been reticent in saying supportive things of Obama.
"You also said you experienced some of the best years you had ever seen under the Clintons. Which is it?...or did they change, and how? It seems a conflict in conclusions to me."
I don't know how to answer this. I do not understand what conclusions you find to be in conflict.
"She (Clinton) comes across as being fully convinced that she knows better than Barack how to lead the country." Wouldn't this be true?
No, not necessarily. Long term experience quite often generates entrenched patterns of thinking; and that can lead to stagnation and the inability to change in accordance with new information. Obama is the new and original thinker surrounding himself with experienced people who will pull the ropes as he specifies.
Established advisers + Established advice + New Decider with New Ideas = Change
"actions and attitudes of self-important, self-righteous, self-centered, entrenched political players. .. Isn't that the job description for a politician?"
It may be the description of MOST politicians, but it is not the job description of an American politician. Our politicians are supposed to be good stewards of the people and the nation. That job description means comporting oneself with the actions and attitudes of national-importance, the righteousness of equality and being fully civic-centered.
I hope all that helps.
You experienced your best years under Clinton, (8), then in a few moments of campaigning, time comparative, you've seen all this change by a few of their "body language" movements. I don't get that considering what they have "said" has been 100% supportive of Obama.
Obama is surrounding himself with the same "experienced" people from the Clinton and other's reign. If he truly wanted "change" why would he seek the advice of those who've advised the past eight or so years? I would think "change" would mean new people, new ideas that promote change. Not that I ever believed Obama was about change ... considering all his "change" ideas demand money tht is not in the Federal coffer.
Advisors are selected for their beliefs and their advice is the same regardless of however Obama may "pull the ropes." You make them sound like puppets !!!
Actually, I thought we were referring only to "American" politicians, for purposes of this subject. Whatever ideas we have of what our politicians are "supposed" to be, and what they actually do after attaing the office, is often two different things. If you doubt that, look back over a few of the past presidents terms. Can we keep any pollyana ideas about a "presidential job description," when we recall "Impeachment" proceedings on a couple of them, and those who have left office being "hated?"
The teeth and claws are already beginning to show against Obama by his party and the "other" party and he hasn't even been inaugarated.
Sad reality.
Barack,change? yo-man all I see are Clinton-e-stas surrounding you,Barack,what do they have on you some secret file,something they are blackmailing you with.
Hillary showing real guts by taking sos? she is going to have to dodge more sniper fire each time she lands over-seas.My question to you Barack is what job is Chelsey going to get?? What do they have on you??
I have also followed Hillary through and since the election. I supported her, then Obama after he won the nomination. I have been totally impressed with the Clintons and the way that they have been team player for Obama following her loss to him.
Hillary had it within her power to prevent the election of Obama. She had a tremendous following that would have stayed home from the polls or voted Republican had she encouraged that or simply been luke warm to Obama.
It was not onlly the tremendous speech she gave supporting Obama at the convention but the seventy some appearances she made on his behalf during the general election.
However, that has little to do with her being secretary of state! I do believe she would make a good secretary of state because of her past association with and knowledge of the various leaders of the world, her comprehensive grasp of issues and her ability to thoughtfully and accurately articulate the position she supports.
Her performance in the debates with Obama were impressive. Her ability to have the information she needed ready for instant recall was great. Now, she has demonstrated that she can be a supportive member of the Obama team, something I had wondered about earlier.
If he does not select her, so be it. He knows what and who he wants. And it is not like the secretary of state establishes position and policies. That is still the president's prerogative.
I could accept and be happy with Kerry, Colin Powell, or a number of other eligible candidates and don't feel it is imperative that Hillary hold that position. She can serve admirably in the Senate if she so desires.
Despite the fact that most everything the Clintons have said can be interpreted as being 100% for Obama, the point is they have not said it very often, they have not said it very well and they have not said it with the passion of a true supporter.
"Obama is surrounding himself with the same "experienced" people from the Clinton and other's reign...."
As we have both admitted, Obama came from nowhere and has little practical experience; so he surrounds himself with people who have know the system so that the system can be worked effectively. If he surrounded himself with only NEW people then it would take years for ALL of them to figure out how to work the system effectively.
Perhaps some people select their advisers solely for their beliefs, but most smart people seek advisers for their range of applicable experience and knowledge.
Of course I make them sound like puppets. The members of a President's cabinet are supposed to act in accordance with the President's ideals and agenda, and not as self-directed autonomous individuals. They are a team and the President is their leader; just like all administrative organizations are.
I absolutely am talking about American politicians. Perhaps the ideals I've framed for the politicians' job descriptions (not just the role of president) are to pollyanna for you to care about, but that would be your dim sightedness. One of the strongest roots feeding the problems that America is having in our government is based on the diminished expectations that ALL politicians will only match the lowest denominator.
Decrying that politicians should meet, or at least strive to meet the highest idealistic expectation is not about pie in the sky hope and change. It is about working dillegently towards being the best we can be, and acting as absolutely best we can. Just because some politicians will perform poorly on purpose, does not mean that we should then only expect all of them to perform poorly and be satisfied with it.
We grow healthily by striving towards that which we have not yet achieved.
I also think that many are misunderstanding the amount of change any president can effect. that is severely limited by our constitution and the deliberately clumsy and cumbersome restriction it creates. Obama is well aware and knows that he needs to focus on what can be done rather than what he wishes could be done.
I believe that many thought that Obama would radically change everything they feel is wrong in our government and do it in ten days or less! That is not within the president's power.
We won't know until after the man has been in office for a period of time whether he is truly committed to change or if that was only a lip service. I believe that he does want change as it is possible. The choices he has made and is making in no way counter that belief. He is trying to follow some of the ideas of Lincoln, who filled his cabinet with his enemies, both within the party and the opposition. This insured he would have people in these positions who would not hesitate to tell him if they thought he was making an error and would offer suggestions far different than his own thinking might develop.
And Wila, you'll see, change is coming. If you were involved in the movement you wouldn't have a problem "knowing" but it's apparent you aren't involved. It really isn't so much about Obama as it is about change for the people.
When Reagan took office the economy he inherited from Carter was no better than what Barack will inherit from W.. Inflation-unemployment-intrest rates were all double digit. Time will tell what liberal Barack has?:?
I don't understand the recommendations: John McCain, Bill Richardson, and Condoleeza Rice. Not one of them presents the same qualifications as Hillary Clinton. John McCain is too old, Bill Richardson doesn't have the experience, and Condoleeza Rice is too partisan. But, I have to say that all three are fine politicians.
Hillary would be an OK choice, but I personally think Bill Richardson would do a great job.
Thanks Bill, for such an interesting post!
At least there is one thing we agree on. We both find the other's statements disjointed ~~ perhaps we have a failure to communicate.
The two things you mentioned tie together in my mind, and still do, because we have the same people, only you have changed all the circumstances and rules because of the way you personally percieved the Clinton's body language, and because you didn't perceive their passion or felt they made statements of support often enough. How many times would have been enough for you for them to offer their support....10? 100? Repeating yourself over and over draws attention, too. As for their passion....which you felt absent .... and speaking politically, they convinced me of their sincerity. You accuse them of being lackluster and resentful because Hillary lost, and hint that Hillary would deliberately lead Obama into a quagmire, lead Obama astray, or steer Obama awry in matters of foreign policy. Your words, not mine. I find that disgusting. You are implying Hillary would endanger this country and it's citizens by leading Obama astray in matters of national security? Those kinds of word are where "disjointed" comes in for me.
It was my understanding that members of the cabinet were the president's most trusted advisors, and he selected them for the good advice he felt they would give him on their particular area, based on their own personal and extensive knowledge on the subject matter. I never considered they would say just what the president "wanted" to hear or expound on his ideals, or that Obama selected them to be "puppets." They only suggest and advise, based on their best knowledge and loyalty to the president. It is up to the president how he will act on any of that information.
You said,
"It may be the description of MOST politicians, but it is not the job description of an American politician..." That statement of yours prompted my comment of why I thought you were talking of world politicians here.
I regret that you had to become insulting by calling me "dim-sighted," I could make several personal insulting statements like that ... I choose not to.
You may rest assured that I always look for, hope for and expect the best in our politicians, in each and every new one that comes on the scene. I will continue to do that, and I will also, at the same time, remember the lessons from history on that subject.
I repeat, Barack's own party is already attacking him, and he knows there is no way, on this planet , that he can fulfill very many of his campaign promises. It is these types of things that cause presidents to start speaking with forked tongue, and become very unpopular. Obama is no exception, thus far.
Like most Americans, there are some areas where I would like to see change. I hope you're right that I will.
You said it's apparent that I'm not involved in the "movement."
May I inquire as to which "movement" that might be?
I'm not sure I totally agree with you, but I know where you're coming from. The Clinton's did do a lot of campaigning for Obama, but at times they seemed lackluster in their support. I think it was Bill who stated in an interview, when asked if Obama is qualified for the Presidency(something to the effect of) " Yes, he is qualified, he's 42". That statement took me as a little smarmy and vague from someone on the campaign trail supporting him.
Personally, my choice would have been Richardson. He is intelligent, and has foreign policy experience, and Darn it, I just like him.
\\\\I am not a democrat and will never vote that way.////
That is not something of which I would be proud! I prefer to think that I can go for someone other than who the party has selected for me to vote. My first vote was for Kennedy and the next for Barry Goldwater. If they earn my vote, they get it.
I read an excellent Opinion piece about 2-4 days ago by my favorite columnist Tom Friedman in my favorite [home page] paper...the NYT. It was about this paring but more importantly about the importance of the paring of the President and Secretary of State. Tom said that Henry Kissinger and Jim Baker both had this pairing with their Presidents and were therefore the most successful recent Secretary of States. I think that I agree. Th is relationship must be one of utter trust. The President must have his Secretary of State's back! The president MUST know and anticipate what the Secretary of State is doing.........................but more importantly and because of these things the world including each person or foreign dignitary dealing with the Secretary of State must believe that this envoy is doing the Presidents bidding and must therefore feel as though they are dealing with the President.
Obama is as savvy as they get. He is brilliant. And she ain't no slouch.
Something else Tom said was that this relationship which must be 100% in cinq..............leaves no room for a Secretary of State who is looking at the Presidency 4-8 years out.
GO HILLARY...........................and Barack!
Sorry, but that would be more of a disaster than GW Bush in the sec. of state position!
hillary and bill have not (televised) one comment since Obama's election, and i thought that odd, but perhaps they all sorted this out long ago, after Barack got the nomination.
I believe on the news jsut now they said Hillary has accepted the position so I will trust Obama's discretion as a lot has probably been said out of public view.
The same Condi rice who as National Security Advisor was to find out the REAL FACTS ON WMD's??????
The one who scared us into war with her Mushroom Cloud rhetoric? (LYING Beyotch, How many died over that LIE? )
The one ready to go to war on unsubstantiated evidence?
I trust Bill so there must be two Condi Rice's.
I believe she and Bill will manipulate their position and dare President Obama to fire her. She believes her supporters would rally around her and destroy the Obama Presidency for daring to dismiss her from an appointed position.
Kerry was very good speaking on behave of, the then senator, and now President elect Obama throughout the campaign. Especially when the discussion was on foreign policy -- his arguments were crisp, pragmatic and assertive and he displayed very good grasp of the issues.
And if Obama wants to put a republican in the cabinet, which I think will be a very good thing; he can’t find anyone better than Sen. Chuck Hagel. I would really encourage you to read this article about Sen. Hagel from the New Yorker.
But if he goes with Hillary, I will also be happy with the decision. I have been watching her ever since she dropped out of the primary; and she has been just wonderful. And I think her and Obama have developed a very good relationship. When you see them together, they look like old buddies. And aids have reported even after the cameras stop rolling, they are the same way – they seem to really enjoy each other.
Plus there is a deposit of good-will from the Clinton era amongst world leaders that she can tap into; couple that with Obama’s overseas popularity, it could potentially be a very effective team. .
McCain has some very rigid foreign policy approach which will prove difficult or impossible to reconcile with Obama’s approach, which I see as being by far the more reasonable.
McCain shares with Bush the neo-con Idea of nation building – a counter intuitive notion of spreading democracy by force and prolonged occupation.
Not to mention, as he has demonstrated during the campaign, he is rush in his decision making process. Obama need to fill his cabinet, especially those dealing with foreign policy, with individuals who have a sober approach in dealing with the many issues the administration will encounter over the next 4 years.
I would much prefer her predecessor, Collin Powel. He at least expressed some opposition, within the administration, during the build up to the war in Iraq.
I really like Bill Richardson as a person. He is funny, easy going -- an all around regular-Joe type. But watching him in the debates and interviews, I didn’t find him very impressive intellectually, and his tone conspicuously lacks conviction.
If Richardson wants it, I do hope Obama brings him into the administration; but such an important post as secretary of state would not be what I would have in mind.
Though I don’t agree with your choices for SOS, I enjoyed reading your article, Bill.
Hillary Clinton is an excellent politician, internationally recognized and well liked and therefore a splendid choice for the position. SOS is a position she is well suited for. My opinion is that Hillary is as shrewd as they come and will make a fine "pairing", with an even shrewder President, as someone described it above.
I'm a Hillary supporter, but she just didn't have the movement, Oprah or the money to pull it off. Who knew - I'd have cried too and stomped my feet, if I'd prepared for years and with the goal in sight I'm denied participation in the game.
This is not a situation where Hillary is at a disadvantage, but rather she had a choice. Although it is possible that Obama might have wanted her out of the Senate. Now that the dust has settled, everyone has had a chance to regroup. Hillary and Obama can now entertain the thought of working together as a team, not adversaries.
Condi - oh no. She's made her bed, let her - lie - in it.
Richardson - naw - Hillary outclasses him on all levels.
McCain - please, he has neither the temperament nor the diplomatic finesse or statesmanship.
I will just have to sit back, and wait, and see what happens.
You allude to some things not described so I am puzzled. What is this about "MONEY>" and what are the Clintons going to disclose?
I'm sure part of the reasoning behind Hillary is that she is highly knowledgeable and requires not training time. This seems to be the standard for Obama's choices. It would appear that Obama wants to hit the ground running and doesn't want to have a two year learning curve for his cabinet. At this point in time that is very important.
Also, he could not have won the elections without her support. And she gave it to him totally and enthusiastically! That does not guarantee her a cabinet position but I'm sure it makes him consider her for one.
You needn't worry about the Clintons accumulating money. Do you know what Bill gets for a talk? It is a stupendous amount!
Ironically, if you look back 10 years, it was the democrats that were in support of nation building, while the republicans were decidedly against it (especially Bush). Political parties and voters don't really have very long memories. Just like how people forget 6 out of the 8 Clinton years were under a Republican congress (all the more reason why I support divided government).
Tim:
Although McCain would be an 'interesting' choice, I think he has a more important role to play in the senate. Despite how he positioned himself (and how he was labeled by dems/media), he is for the most part a moderate republican who has a history of breaking partisan deadlock. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT ROLE McCain could play at the moment. Hopefully, Obama keeps his intentions of being bipartisan, but to be sure the democrats in congress certainly aren't (esp. Harry Ried/Nancy Pelosi) and are strong, but their power is tenuous. The Republicans see themselves backed into a corner with the filbuster as the only tool they have. If the republicans refuse to work with the democrats in congress, all we'll see is extreemly left-wing legislation going through congress, more partisan bickering, and legislative deadlock. If McCain can act as a leader for centrist republicans, they could serve to both move the legislation toward the center, allow for compromise and accountability, and actually break partisan deadlock. In this manner, McCain could be Obama's greatest ally in the senate.
It was not my intent to be insulting. Please note that I did not call you dim-sighted. The context I used stated that you "have" dim sight; as you do seem to present a dim view towards these politicians. My referring to "your dim sightedness" should not be taken as meaning that I see you as a dim person; or as some kind of dim bulb. To rectify this misunderstanding please substitute the word "cynicism" where I used the words "dim sightedness."
Although the things we are talking about tie together in your view, they are fully different in mine. Although we are talking about the same people, we are talking about their new actions which occurred and are occurring at a different point of time, and we are talking about completely different circumstances; therefore, these things are quite separate.
Please note that I made no accusations nor hinted at anything nefarious. This post is simply a sharing of my thoughts, feelings and opinions (fears and suspicions included). Please also note that not everything a Secretary of State does affects national security. Any Sec State could quite easily undermine a President's perceived integrity with other global leaders without risking national security.
Regarding members of the cabinet, it is important to note that a President's cabinet are not just advisers. They also carry out missions and perform works in the name of the President and the U.S. office to which they are appointed. The members of a president's cabinet are advisers, administrators and ambassadors. They do need to be able to think for themselves and they do need to adhere to the president's will.
Tim, my evaluation of McCain is not based on his party affiliation, but on his personal philosophy. There are a lot of republicans that don’t share this view. I have already mentioned one -- Chuck Haggle. I love to see him an Obama administration – I thing he will fit well in any foreign policy related position. And there are many other republicans that don’t share the neocon philosophy, like Dick Lugar, Bush Senior and many more.
P.S. I can defiantly see McCain playing the role you envisioned him playing from the senate – he has a history of doing that -- plus, the meeting him and Obama held recently seems a step in that direction.
I normally like divided government but feel at this time that it is imperative we correct much of the damage done by the years of the Bush administration. Note that he had single party rule for six of those years. For this reason, I like to see a combination of president and congress capable of doing what is needed to correct these errors. After eight years of a Democratic congress and president, I'd be perfectly happy with a divided government again.
I think Barack knows that you need to keep some folk close ([;p)]
Hillary's role on the world stage is much greater than US SOS. She is to open doors for women to move into leadership positions world-wide. She's on the forefront of Matriarchal empowerment -
If you understand that in order to have Peace on earth, we've got to have about a 50-50 balance of male & female leadership, then you'll see how tremendously important Hillary's contribution is to be.
How does she move from the old Hillary (as perceived by those against her for whatever reasons) to the new Hillary?
Simple -
Her own spiritual maturity, in concert with growing numbers of spiritually mature USA humans.
She's in the "Queen" stage of womanhood [Maiden, Mother, QUEEN, Crone] and has about 35 years left in which to radiate matriarchal love-law wisdom as she herself grows into it. That kind of energy can affect all of humanity for the better. Certainly, it is to become a light, a lamp, of feminine empowerment for the women stepping through the doorways of their own nations into positions of leadership - social, cultural, religious, political - and more.
Remember, too, if you will, that there is chemistry, there is alchemy involved in the great mixing bowl of this new administration.
Don't try to comprehend the mystery of what is coming, by the light of your old fears and grudges.
Only the open heart can see clearly.
Obama removed a chief rival from the senate when he dispensed with Hillary to the State Department. He also ended any pretense of wanting comprehensive health care reform. Surely, you would not get rid of the chief proponent of such legislation, if you seriously wanted to repair our broken health care industry.
Obama also shows is lack of experience on the world stage by appointing more experienced, right leaning officers to his cabinet. When the going gets serious, there is no room for the leftist, starry eyed neophytes.
So this is the "change we can believe in"? More like what is old is new again, don't you think?
I suppose that you, like many, really did think that Obama would be the most liberal left wing president that this country had ever seen. Please note now that Obama never said he'd be radically left; that is only what his opposition said about him. Obama said he'd try to bring ALL Americans together.
Also, since you seem possibly confused by the right wing rhetoric, Obama is not a Muslim; he is a Christian.
As for Hillary, I wonder which it is; did Obama remove a chief Senate rival or did he remove a big health care helper from the Senate? It seems to me that Obama made a co-worker out of his past rival; and he probably doesn't need Hillary in the Senate in order to reform health care. There are, after all, many Senators and Representatives who are pro health care reform.
What Obama is doing now is new; especially when compared to the context of this soon to be history 43rd administration, which held our reins of power for eight years. And if you look back beyond 43, I wonder if you can tell me when was the last time a presidential cabinet was filled with such politically diverse people?
We will see how serious he is about health care reform. Refresh my memory, name any other congress-person as dedicated to the cause of health care as Hillary was.
And it appears you must be confused about the Muslim/Christian thing--I never brought up religon in the context of discussing Barack Obama.
What's so diverse, mostly right of center people. No surprises here. Unless of course, you ran on the mantra of "hope and change."
Obama hasn't even taken office and you are already saying that he is screwing people over. I fully expect that you will only spout criticisms regarding President-elect Obama, even if you have to stoop to yakking about how he is not meeting left-wing talking points; which I have never known you to care about.
Obama did not win the election thanks to the Left. He won it by campaigning on the centrist message of uniting Americans. He won fully by promoting cooperation and unification over the derisive rhetoric of both the extreme Left and the extreme Right, and the Democrats and Republicans.
What is so diverse about Obama's appointments? How about the fact that he is appointing Republicans as well as Democrats. How about the fact that he is appointing a more racially diverse mix. How about the fact that he is appointing former rivals.
Was 43 so diverse? Was Bush 41? Was Reagan? Was Bill Clinton?
And; No, I am not confused. I brought up the religion thing just in case you were still believing what your Conservative Right-Wing Republican handlers had been preaching to you. I had to do this just yesterday to someone; set them straight on Obama's religion. Karl Rove must be very happy in knowing that the lying message that Obama is a Muslim is still being believed by some. What a Prince of Lies Rove turned out to be.
Obama played the lefty card to get the nomination, remember? He made Hillary Clinton look like George Bush with her unapologetic support for the Iraq war, remember? Oh so now she is the "perfect" Secretary of State, hmmm. Obama wanted to tax the "evil" rich remember? Now, he appoints an economic team largely not in support of tax hikes---guess the left will have to look for revenge elsewhere, huh?
Look, I really do feel sorry for you guys. You were taken by a very smart, slick politician. I have lived a few more years than most of you. I have seen this circus before. You found your "man" in bed with his new conservative team, and so you are now are trying to justify the infidelity. I understand.
Secretary of State: why not John Kerry or that little weasel, Bill Richardson ( a job he clearly coveted.
Secretary of Defense: why not Chuck Hagel or Carl Levin? How about rewarding those folks who supported Barack's initial Iraq war position? But nooo, we will re-appoint Gates. How McSame, McLame is that? [chuckle].
Secretary of the Treasury: Robert Reich, I mean really if one must go for a Clinton re-tread why not a guy who actually does hate the rich?
National Security Advisor: Anyone remember Wesley Clark? He was nosing around for an appointment and was quite loyal until he committed a "Joe Biden." (attacked, war hero, John McCain). But heck, Joe Biden got to be veep, we can forgive old Wes, can't we?
I can go on, Charlie Rangel, Commerce Secretary, Maxine Waters, Housing Secretary---Now there is change!
Okay, please write this down: I am a Centrist Moderate and not a member of the Liberal Left. Until you get that measured into your thinking, any attempts at implying how I think and feel about things political are just going to be wrong. I do not feel betrayed by Barack Obama, nor do I salivate for him. He's just the guy that is going to be the next president; which is kind of important.
As for making myself look silly, well I do that all the time. I've been masterfully good at it since my childhood.
Oh Look, I'm salivating.
It's interesting that you are making light of playing a "score card" game, considering that it was you who implied that the score on Obama's cabinet picks weren't adding up to diversity. And I don't know why all you saw was the minority part. I listed other things that represent diverse choices.
"I have lived a few more years than most of you."
Really? Wow! You must take very good care of yourself. I never would have guessed that you were pushing 60.
Thanks for commenting. Please note that I do not delete comments that challenge my assertions on my article; unlike the way you deleted some on-topic, non-aggressive comments that I had made on one of your articles.
Merry Christma-Hannu-Kwanza-Solstice To All !!!
I and the others had a noticable decline during the Bush Jr. years. Even those that were a big Bush supporters. They didn't seem to know why it was happenning, either, and shot themselves in the foot and voted him in for a 2nd term.
I just wanted to say I am finally going through what is now under 7,400 pieces of gather new mail that is in my inbox on here. So with that in mind I have finally come to a piece of mail that was addressed to me in regards this article submission you have created to share with the gather community. Thank you for taking the time and sharing your piece with us here at gather. :o)
And as well Merry Christmas... and Happy Holidays... :o)