OK, Hillary Clinton for Sec. of State--on a scale of 1 to 10...

yadda yadda yadda. AND BE NICE!!

She would be good but not sure she would be subordinate.

It elevates Barack even more in my mind....cause this certainly would be an "Out of the Box" selection......

I doubt that there were two others who fought Clinton's campaign harder.

I have to admit that when it was all said and done I admired her absolute tenacity and strength. She had some terrible missteps like the Bosnian kerfuffle but she just came back and would never let go. Kind of like a demon possessed energizer bunny.

She would be equally committed to advancing the interests of the Obama administration.

What strikes me the most about this is that, if true, it shows that Obama intends to think big and act big. I doubt that there is anyone else who would bring as much strength (and yes ambition) as Senator Clinton in achieving big goals in areas like the Middle East. I would imagine that she will see it as the second best opportunity to establish her touch in history, helping the Obama administration bring a successful solution to big problems, like the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for example.

For Obama it is becoming clearer and clearer that he doesn't take anything personally and that its all business. Whatever it takes to advance the interests of the country.

I kinda like the idea and I trust Obama's judgement, but I'm not convinced she's the BEST person for the job--although she'd definitely be up there.

Plus, it'll be sure to drive the Republicans CRAZY. :eyes:

I would have voted for her if she won the nomination, but frankly, I fail to see how Hillary's foreign policy represents much of a change from Bush.

She voted for the war. She doesn't appear to me to favor unconditional talks with our enemies.

Clinton as SOS would essentially represent 'no change' to our foreign policy from what it has been for the last 20 years, IMO.

She's better than Bush/Cheney/Rice, but there are much better candidates.

Frankly, I'd just as soon put Powell back in there.

Didn't most of the dems cave and vote for the war, including Kerry, another short lister? What about BIden, did he vote for the war? Help me wonks!

:eyes:

He knows what he's doing clearly. But some of her positions from the primary debates are definitely not ideal.

It appears.

the polarizing started last year when she entered the race, even before Obama was ahead. Many of us didn't like her Senate voting record and her support of Lieberman against Lamont (would the real Democrat please stand up)in Connecticut.

Problem is - with her in the Cabinet, would she be polarizing there too? I can see disagreements within the Cabinet, but would some of them be caused by folks like us who disagree on her personally?

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

KOS and Huff. Thank goodness none of them represent the average Democrat.

I expect that would be even more negative.

in the primaries? Most Democrats are moderates, not left wingers or conservative.

There's also Dems who are not officially registered, independents who lean one way, total independents, and Republicans. If you asked all these people what they thought of Hillary, it would be polarizing. Democrats would like her, most Indies and Republicans would hate her.

Wasn't that a deal breaker earlier? :shrug: I dunno know, maybe not.

FWIW, Jed did:

http://www.jedreport.com/2008/11/vetting.html

Vetting

On the question of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, one thing that will -- or at least should -- be a big issue is the vetting process. The reality is that Bill and Hillary Clinton -- particularly Bill -- have some potential conflicts of interest that need to be identified and resolved.

Specifically, I'm talking about things like Bill's links to Kazakhstan, Colombia, and Dubai. There's a number of questions relating to his presidential library as well.

My aim here isn't to slam the Clintons. I'm just saying that to be our nation's top diplomat will require a level of vetting similar to that of a vice presidential candidate, and it's something that needs to be done so that we can be sure that there won't be any problems that crop up either in the confirmation process or after taking office.

...it puts her in the line of succession to the Presidency. it would be a remote possibility but.........


:fistbump:

(just tryin' out our new fist-bump smiley! Thanx, Skinner!)

:D

The S.O.S. is basically head diplomat, and is a messenger of the president's will and policy. How would HRC handle it if she were implementing foreign policy she did not agree with? Would she undermine him or go off the reservation?

With that in mind, I still gave her a 6, because my impression is that she has good relationships with foreign leaders already, and could be very influential when negotiating with them. And clearly, she is eminently prepared for the job.

I wonder if the cabinet would be as divided as we are if Clinton were appointed to it...

She would be a good choice, but then there are others equally as good.

I would probably go with Kerry but I like her too.

:puke:

When

Rush Limbaugh and the entire RW chorus spend 15 years telling the public a particular woman is hellbent on usurping mens' place at the top.

and it sickens me that so many DUers fell for it

Many Democrats didn't like her before the primaries and they are under no obligation to like her now.

Clinton can't be brought up without starting a flame war. I would call that divisive.

:rofl: now PLEASE GO AWAY

Regardless of what I think of her, it's not even a comment about Clinton, but of the attitudes of Democrats. When we talk about her we are unable to keep it civil. I think your tone makes this clear.

when it comes to attacking the Clintons. She didn't pass their purity test........

x(

I don't hate her...I just think there are better choices.

I hate the idea.

I don't like the person...but I am far from "hating" her.

Same haters, different day.

Who cares........

:eyes:

thanks

I don't know that she's the best person for the job, but I'm sure she'd be decent at it...so I voted 5.