AMERICAblog: Chuck Todd on the possibility of Hillary at State
eagleye
· 1 year ago
I just don't see why Hillary Clinton should have that position at DOS. Give her Health and Human Servcices and let her push for healthcare. John Kerry would command a lot more respect in the international community.
TomsOld
· 1 year ago
That's the opposite of what I was thinking. That's why I'm not a politician
munjoyfan
· 1 year ago
How is she going to keep Bill out of it? She can't. I see real control issues here for Obama. He, and she. are much better off with Hillary at HHS. Among the many things to be concerned about: her strong ties to the pro Israel lobby. Can she be effective in the Middle East? I think not.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
Hillary's comments on Iran and her overall hawkishness should immediately disqualify her. In fact, she shouldn't even be considered BECAUSE of that.
Obama won fair and square. He beat the Clinton machine and owes them nothing.
The clintons are self serving, egotistical, power hungry narcissists, not to mention drama queens. (I know - redundant.) I hope this is much ado about nothing because it certainly does not represent change.
This is NOT about Hillary anymore. I'm sick of hearing: 'what does Hillary want?'
Enough!
Indigo
· 1 year ago
I continue to think that Hillary would be good at State. I think it's good to pull her off the political go-around and it never crossed my mind that she has big fund-raising chits to draw in. In fact, didn't she mess up her own fund-raising with the Deep Pocket DINOs while Obama was pulling in modest amounts of cash from the Unwashed Millions? I don't think her "chits" are all that powerful. She'd be good at State, she'd have Bill along, obviously, and that's fine, and she has solid international connections. She'll be fine.
As for Bill, why fear him or cuss him out as a "narcissist"? ( my dear, arent we all?) He's possibly the shrewdest lawyer in the nation. Put him on the Supreme Court.
Lolis
· 1 year ago
uh, he was disbarred for lying under oath
sorry to put a kink in your plan.
mirth
· 1 year ago
What Todd says makes sense and he answers my question of why Obama would want to remove a Dem from the Senate. .
I'm with those who say NO to Hillary in a cabinet position, including HHS. Her only experience with heathcare action was a miserable failure. As we have learned, she lacks the leadership abilities necessary to work cohesively with anyone.
Regards her at State, I agree with ezpz's comment. She's a hawk (if that is the way the political wind is blowing) and her statements about Iran will only inflame Mideast turmoil where what we hope for with Obama is a lessening of tension.
Let her stay in the Senate for now and then let's get her out of government asap.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
If Obama appoints her, she will do it his way or not at all.
ObamaLover
· 1 year ago
If Obama gives it to Hillary then he is basically snubbing John Kerry who is not only more qualified but Obama owes him big time.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
If Obama acts as his own SOS and appoints Kerry to National Security, he might get the best of both worlds.
mirth
· 1 year ago
Of all the names mentioned, Kerry is clearly the best choice for SoS.
To know why I hope Richardson, my fatcat Dem gov, is not the choice, google "Richardson, Los Alamos, Wen He Lee" when he was Clinton's Sec of Energy. Richardson is a self aggrandizing liar, regardless who he destroys to cover his own ineptness.
hawkseye
· 1 year ago
I blather on a lot in these threads about pragmatism, but this teaches me how little I know. Having read this, I think it's a brilliant plan if that is what Barry and Rahm have in mind. Lots of Presidents are their own S O States, and if this is how it turns out---that Hillary is left to carry water---she'll be silenced.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
I'm starting to realize that as a progressive such as myself, the next battle is going to be against the Obama administration. I knew he was a centrist (read: barely a liberal), and obviously worlds better than a neo-con and almost all reich-wingers, yet his moves since the election outline the problems: rahm, traitor joe, possibly summers for t-sect'y, leaving in gates, shillary, and albright/leach making the rounds at the G20 and int'l circles (the same republican leach of the famous Gramm-Leach-Biley Act, partial destroyer of the Glass-Steagall Act, leading us into our horrible (worse is yet to come) current economic catastrophe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley...
ObamaLover
· 1 year ago
Obama is liberal. No matter who he appoints, Obama is the one who is going to be making the final decisions.
And another thing that annoys me is liberals who call themselves progressives. Progressive is a euphemism. Just call yourself a liberal dang it. Don't be ashamed. I'm not.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
imo, the reason progressives call themselves that is part of the history of the progressive eras and movements in the us. to me, it's a separation from 'centrists' or 'blue dogs' or neo-liberals. progressives are liberals, and identify as such, it's just a more narrower definition. To ignore his appointments as meaningless is simply naive.
60thStreet
· 1 year ago
I'd also argue that to scrutinize not only Obama's appointments, but rumors about his appointments and his transition team, is pathologically alarmist. At least wait until the guy is in office and after his first few policy decisions are in place before you start the "battle against Obama". Also, speaking as an uber-Progressive, myself, I challenge you to keep an opened mind to the more probable road to an actual left-wing mainstream America, which is through the center. We would all love to wake up tomorrow and have lotus for breakfast in our Liberal Utopia, but we still have to work with reality, just ask Bernie Sanders.
If you think progress can be achieved by making a giant leap from the polar right to the polar left without crossing the equator, you are going to die disappointed. The Clintons have done a lot for America, considering the political environment and the Congresses they've had to work with and the insane smearing of everything they've ever done. If you can't stand them, then you've let the Right wing spin you in circles.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
somewhat agree, but disagree on the clintons. i'm not sure we're better off for them. perhaps it would be better to let bush1 get re-elected and bring us quicker to where we are now. I'm allowed to despise the neo-liberal clintons w/o being a tool of the right, and I don't agree with having to 'play along' with people that will never respect us and have declared war on us. this is the mistake bill made. big time.
mirth
· 1 year ago
I'm with you. "Progressive" was a name to replace the conservative-demonized "Liberal." I think we should reclaim our rightful and appropriate title.
Liberals can be progressive. I am a progressive Liberal. But I am first and foremost a Liberal. And proud of it.
lucky hussein
· 1 year ago
Will the truth come out about the war and other crimes of bushco? Will Obama call Bugliosi? Will all the 'loyal bushies' get flushed out? It would be the best thing for our country, but I'm doubting it. I don't like all this spirit of 'bi-partisanship' same mistake as clinton, imo http://consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html
ChrisM70
· 1 year ago
Maybe I'm näive, but is it possible that Obama would like Clinton to be Secretary of State because he thinks she is really, really qualified for the job?
I hate all these political theories about trying to "neutralize" her power or keep her from stabbing Obama in the back, etc, etc.
Does anyone ever think that some of the people in our government actually do things because they CARE ABOUT OUR COUNTRY? I can't see Clinton trying to score political points against Obama if it is going to hurt the policies or goals of the party and doing what is right for America.
Likewise, would either throwing Lieberman out or caving into his desires actually change his positions or what he believes in? If so, he has NO BUSINESS representing the American people if he can't do what he believes to be right without getting special favors done for him first.
ObamaLover
· 1 year ago
I think Clinton has ulterior political motives and if she were to become SOS then Obama would have to keep one eye on her at all times. It is not worth it.
Sage24
· 1 year ago
I do not think Hillary went looking for this post. From what has been reported, it was the Obama camp that approached her. I do agree that John Kerry has more experience, but Hillary (with Bill's support) will do just fine, even better than our present failure, Condi. I think Kerry should be given an equally good portfolio, but no doubt Hillary will be great, and welcomed in many countries. I am impressed that Obama has shown great maturity, and confidence, in choosing former rivals. The country is in dire straits right now, and he needs the BEST help possible to get it on the right track. Thankfully, Obama has no arrogance, like the Bush administration, and it looks like he is willing to cross lines, just to meet his goals.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
I'm hoping the SoS will be Dr. Susan Rice. She's extremely intelligent, well versed in foreign affairs, and very well spoken. She's a fresh face and represents 'change' even though she did work in the 2nd Clinton administration on the National Security Council and Sec'y of State of African Affairs.
It would be kind of neat to a BETTER "Rice" as SoS, who's also African American.
This rumor was likely started by Clinton insiders, Stephonopoulos probably being the first.
"...The whole thing is a media freak show being served up by members of the Clinton factions in the Democratic party and obliged by a national media (some of them also Clinton noisemakers) in search of a story. The speculation is not because Senator Clinton wants the job, but because her people so desperately want to muddy the waters and throw up a roadblock to either New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Massachusetts Senator John Kerry - two of the leading contenders - serving in the post, whom they consider turncoats for having endorsed Obama vs. Clinton earlier this year...."
Yup, this just might be some vindictiveness aimed at Richardson and Kerry for their support of Obama rather than Hillary during the primaries
dad
· 1 year ago
so, explain leaving joe lieberman then.
Indigo
· 1 year ago
I love the disinformation-spin concept. Fifth columnists vindicate Hillary after the fact by tossing dirt. Stephanopoulos implicated! Great story! I doubt it but I admit it's juicy.
Meanwhile . . . Bill for SCOTUS!
60thStreet
· 1 year ago
This is easily the most ridiculous assertion I have read yet about the "Clinton-offered-Secy-of-State" buzz.
Obama beat her handily! What exactly is she going to be a "one-person Roman tribunal" about if she stays in the Senate? Health care? Iraq? That Obama would take her out to avoid her making him look bad or campaigning against him in the future, is a retarded assumption.
Considering the magnitude of Obama's win and the obvious mandate he has, who will look worse if Hillary publically opposes his administration's proposals, him, or her? Also, how is she any more or less influential than any other member of the Senate? She is still the junior Senator from NY. if anything she's going to have more light on her in the Cabinet than she will in the Senate.
Maybe being the "First Read" isn't always the best thing Chuck. Sometimes it pays to think before you speak and it's often best to just avoid speaking altogether if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
ezpz
· 1 year ago
Steph even gets Schwarzenegger's endorsement for Hillary as SoS.
"Schwarzenegger: Clinton 'Could Be Great Move' for Obama Cabinet"
This is definitely being pushed by Clinton insiders. Last night, I caught a glimpse of Lanny Davis on LKL. He was gushing and singing Hillary's praises about her being SoS just like he did when he wanted (practically demanded) her to be Obama's vp pick.
Gag me with a spoon - couldn't watch, couldn't listen.
Way past time to turn the page on the Clintons. Yes, I know they supported and campaigned for Obama, and that was great, but that's what they were supposed to do. Anything else would have made THEM look bad.
mmedefarge
· 1 year ago
Arkansas was one of the states we lost by a lot. Billy boy could have at least made that close, even if he couldn't deliver the whole state. But he couldn't, wouldn't bother. Not that Arkansas mattered at all in the end, but it was symbolic.
There are two points everyone should remember about this SoS kerfluffle: first, the Obama team has been very good at not participating in the usual "leaks" and "unnamed sources" for getting the word out. Second, Sen. Clinton is as qualified as several others also mentioned as possibilities. Anyone regarding Sen. Clinton as a continuing threat to Mr. Obama's presidency should remember that all that voter support that Sen. Clinton had has already been channeled to Sen. Obama during the election. Those supporters, of which I am one, are not just biding our time awaiting a secret signal from our great Mistress to rise up and wrest the ill-begotten gains (the Presidency) from Sen. Obama. We live in a real world and right now, and for the next several years, we recognize that the political fortunes of Senators Obama and Clinton are linked. If the Obama presidency goes well, Sen. Clinton will benefit. If it doesn't she will suffer; perhaps not as much as Mr. Obama, but she will be seen as someone who helped make his presidency possible. And if that presidency should crash and burn (very doubtful, but one never know) both will suffer for it. And both know it. I would like to add that, as a result of what I have seen of Sen. Obama's methods, a very interesting (and probably completely ridiculous) thought has crossed my mind several times since first reading this article about Sen. Clinton and the filling of the position of SoS: what if the actual subject of the meeting was the possiblity of a certain WJC becoming SoS? It would be a very unusual, possibly even contentious appointment (not in the Senate, but certainly in pundit world), but certainly not without its merits. It reverses the path begun at the beginning of the Republic (SoS then President) and flies in the face of more recent activities by former Presidents, but it could certainly be argued that the present world situation requires expert handling, former presidents have been asked to contribute their expertise before, and WJC would be more than capable of assuming the duties of SoS. Just a random thought...
tommytoonz
· 1 year ago
The advantage for Hillary in the SoS position is if things appear to be going bad, she can bail at any moment. It's a good for her imo for a possible 2012 run if she's still thinking Presidency. By not being in the Senate for the next 4-8 years she won't have Senate votes to be held over her head, she'll have REAL foreign policy experience, will have plenty of experience both in the Legislative and Executive branches and as a non-elected position can call it quits when it's not working to her benefit (or can obviously stay if things go swimmingly). Personally I don't like her in the SoS position but she would be effective if not very so in most any cabinet position and the SoS is certainly a positive move for her.
tacoeatingzebra
· 1 year ago
i'd rather see clinton as AG now that edwards is unfortunately toast. kerry as state, yes. howard dean as health & human services... obama owes him and dean has real experience moving closer to universal coverage and he's an MD.
mirth
· 1 year ago
I agree on Dean at HHS - a great choice! - and he has conveniently resigned as head of the DNC, so he's available.
green_libertarian
· 1 year ago
This is nutz. Hillary is not qualified to be SOS. And Bill is up to his eyeballs in arguably shady deals with various foreign entities, more conflict of interest stuff.
The best choice would be Wes Clark, who's actually GOT THE EXPERIENCE and would be more effective there than at DoD.
hallam
· 1 year ago
It is actually a pretty smart move for Obama to offer her this as reported.
Secretary of State is the second best job in the administration, it is better than Veep for both of them. It is better for Hillary as it actually has decision making power. It is better for Obama because the cabinet serve at his pleasure, it does not mean a co-Presidency which was the problem having her as veep.
The other advantage is that Clinton has far more relevant experience here than Kerry or any of the other contenders. Kerry has not met half the world leaders Clinton has. Presidents and Prime Ministers do not negotiate with Senators, Kerry is not even chair of Foreign relations.
Obama wants a SoS who can minimize the risk of a foreign policy disaster. He is not looking to copy the Bush folk and tell the world what to do. Clinton is a good choice.
WenG
· 1 year ago
Why is having Bill along, to "help" her, supposed to be a good thing? Sorry, anyone offered a job is there on their own cred or not at all. Stay in the Senate and try doing more than working with Lieberman on the video game threat. I dar them to work on crap while the rest of us go without electricity. Bill and Hill are like McCain and Palin: old news, and old baggage.
atariageguy
· 1 year ago
Jesus Cripes, John! Frakking ENOUGH of this crap. How much do you hate everything named Clinton. Why is it always something nefarious and evil with them? Is it possible she may have some qualifications for the job? Could she just be competent? Everything is a goddam conspiracy with you.
Some things aren't.
Some people are both politically savvy and pragmatic at the same damn time. Clinton was a former - FORMER - rival (for like 5 months) and there's some olive branching going on for sure. But she's also competent, has the right views on many MANY policies, she's smart, and she's forceful.
What exactly makes her, as a possible choice, so frakking vile in your mind that it could only be due to some mustache-twisting plot of some sort?
(Yes, I know Todd wrote it, but you're posting it implying agreement)
RitornaVincitor
· 1 year ago
So Hillary is still the enemy on this blog? Even after she campaigned hard for Obama? I'm getting really tired of this. Very unseemly. The time for the Democrats to unite is WAY past.
All Comments
Obama won fair and square. He beat the Clinton machine and owes them nothing.
The clintons are self serving, egotistical, power hungry narcissists, not to mention drama queens. (I know - redundant.)
I hope this is much ado about nothing because it certainly does not represent change.
This is NOT about Hillary anymore.
I'm sick of hearing: 'what does Hillary want?'
Enough!
As for Bill, why fear him or cuss him out as a "narcissist"? ( my dear, arent we all?) He's possibly the shrewdest lawyer in the nation. Put him on the Supreme Court.
sorry to put a kink in your plan.
I'm with those who say NO to Hillary in a cabinet position, including HHS. Her only experience with heathcare action was a miserable failure. As we have learned, she lacks the leadership abilities necessary to work cohesively with anyone.
Regards her at State, I agree with ezpz's comment. She's a hawk (if that is the way the political wind is blowing) and her statements about Iran will only inflame Mideast turmoil where what we hope for with Obama is a lessening of tension.
Let her stay in the Senate for now and then let's get her out of government asap.
To know why I hope Richardson, my fatcat Dem gov, is not the choice, google "Richardson, Los Alamos, Wen He Lee" when he was Clinton's Sec of Energy. Richardson is a self aggrandizing liar, regardless who he destroys to cover his own ineptness.
Having read this, I think it's a brilliant plan if that is what Barry and Rahm have in mind. Lots of Presidents are their own S O States, and if this is how it turns out---that Hillary is left to carry water---she'll be silenced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley...
And another thing that annoys me is liberals who call themselves progressives. Progressive is a euphemism. Just call yourself a liberal dang it. Don't be ashamed. I'm not.
If you think progress can be achieved by making a giant leap from the polar right to the polar left without crossing the equator, you are going to die disappointed. The Clintons have done a lot for America, considering the political environment and the Congresses they've had to work with and the insane smearing of everything they've ever done. If you can't stand them, then you've let the Right wing spin you in circles.
Liberals can be progressive. I am a progressive Liberal. But I am first and foremost a Liberal. And proud of it.
http://consortiumnews.com/2008/111108.html
I hate all these political theories about trying to "neutralize" her power or keep her from stabbing Obama in the back, etc, etc.
Does anyone ever think that some of the people in our government actually do things because they CARE ABOUT OUR COUNTRY? I can't see Clinton trying to score political points against Obama if it is going to hurt the policies or goals of the party and doing what is right for America.
Likewise, would either throwing Lieberman out or caving into his desires actually change his positions or what he believes in? If so, he has NO BUSINESS representing the American people if he can't do what he believes to be right without getting special favors done for him first.
She's extremely intelligent, well versed in foreign affairs, and very well spoken. She's a fresh face and represents 'change' even though she did work in the 2nd Clinton administration on the National Security Council and Sec'y of State of African Affairs.
It would be kind of neat to a BETTER "Rice" as SoS, who's also African American.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oyhoAM5snY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_E._Rice
This rumor was likely started by Clinton insiders, Stephonopoulos probably being the first.
"...The whole thing is a media freak show being served up by members of the Clinton factions in the Democratic party and obliged by a national media (some of them also Clinton noisemakers) in search of a story. The speculation is not because Senator Clinton wants the job, but because her people so desperately want to muddy the waters and throw up a roadblock to either New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson or Massachusetts Senator John Kerry - two of the leading contenders - serving in the post, whom they consider turncoats for having endorsed Obama vs. Clinton earlier this year...."
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/freak...
Yup, this just might be some vindictiveness aimed at Richardson and Kerry for their support of Obama rather than Hillary during the primaries
Meanwhile . . . Bill for SCOTUS!
Obama beat her handily! What exactly is she going to be a "one-person Roman tribunal" about if she stays in the Senate? Health care? Iraq? That Obama would take her out to avoid her making him look bad or campaigning against him in the future, is a retarded assumption.
Considering the magnitude of Obama's win and the obvious mandate he has, who will look worse if Hillary publically opposes his administration's proposals, him, or her? Also, how is she any more or less influential than any other member of the Senate? She is still the junior Senator from NY. if anything she's going to have more light on her in the Cabinet than she will in the Senate.
Maybe being the "First Read" isn't always the best thing Chuck. Sometimes it pays to think before you speak and it's often best to just avoid speaking altogether if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
"Schwarzenegger: Clinton 'Could Be Great Move' for Obama Cabinet"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2008/11/sen-cli...
This is definitely being pushed by Clinton insiders. Last night, I caught a glimpse of Lanny Davis on LKL. He was gushing and singing Hillary's praises about her being SoS just like he did when he wanted (practically demanded) her to be Obama's vp pick.
Gag me with a spoon - couldn't watch, couldn't listen.
Way past time to turn the page on the Clintons.
Yes, I know they supported and campaigned for Obama, and that was great, but that's what they were supposed to do.
Anything else would have made THEM look bad.
http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2008/03/pa...
Second, Sen. Clinton is as qualified as several others also mentioned as possibilities. Anyone regarding Sen. Clinton as a continuing threat to Mr. Obama's presidency should remember that all that voter support that Sen. Clinton had has already been channeled to Sen. Obama during the election. Those supporters, of which I am one, are not just biding our time awaiting a secret signal from our great Mistress to rise up and wrest the ill-begotten gains (the Presidency) from Sen. Obama. We live in a real world and right now, and for the next several years, we recognize that the political fortunes of Senators Obama and Clinton are linked.
If the Obama presidency goes well, Sen. Clinton will benefit. If it doesn't she will suffer; perhaps not as much as Mr. Obama, but she will be seen as someone who helped make his presidency possible. And if that presidency should crash and burn (very doubtful, but one never know) both will suffer for it. And both know it.
I would like to add that, as a result of what I have seen of Sen. Obama's methods, a very interesting (and probably completely ridiculous) thought has crossed my mind several times since first reading this article about Sen. Clinton and the filling of the position of SoS: what if the actual subject of the meeting was the possiblity of a certain WJC becoming SoS?
It would be a very unusual, possibly even contentious appointment (not in the Senate, but certainly in pundit world), but certainly not without its merits. It reverses the path begun at the beginning of the Republic (SoS then President) and flies in the face of more recent activities by former Presidents, but it could certainly be argued that the present world situation requires expert handling, former presidents have been asked to contribute their expertise before, and WJC would be more than capable of assuming the duties of SoS.
Just a random thought...
The best choice would be Wes Clark, who's actually GOT THE EXPERIENCE and would be more effective there than at DoD.
Secretary of State is the second best job in the administration, it is better than Veep for both of them. It is better for Hillary as it actually has decision making power. It is better for Obama because the cabinet serve at his pleasure, it does not mean a co-Presidency which was the problem having her as veep.
The other advantage is that Clinton has far more relevant experience here than Kerry or any of the other contenders. Kerry has not met half the world leaders Clinton has. Presidents and Prime Ministers do not negotiate with Senators, Kerry is not even chair of Foreign relations.
Obama wants a SoS who can minimize the risk of a foreign policy disaster. He is not looking to copy the Bush folk and tell the world what to do. Clinton is a good choice.
Some things aren't.
Some people are both politically savvy and pragmatic at the same damn time. Clinton was a former - FORMER - rival (for like 5 months) and there's some olive branching going on for sure. But she's also competent, has the right views on many MANY policies, she's smart, and she's forceful.
What exactly makes her, as a possible choice, so frakking vile in your mind that it could only be due to some mustache-twisting plot of some sort?
(Yes, I know Todd wrote it, but you're posting it implying agreement)