Best Reasons Why Hillary For Sec. of State

I think she would make an excellent Secretary of State. Here are the advantages.

1. We'll get a more liberal Senator to replace her.
2. She is well respected around the world and brings instant credibility.
3. She is a very bright woman, very hard working.
4. Obama is still the one in charge.
5. She is well qualified for the position.

Just my two cents.


Fair disclosure - I voted for Obama in the primaries and was appalled by some of the people Hillary surrounded herself and how she ran her campaign at times.

a) he wouldn't do that and
b) she actually would do a great job. It's a perfect position for her.

on the Obama Admin for appointing her in the first place.

Once hired, they can't fire and that gives the Clintons an enormous amount of power.

Secondly, the Clintons seem to have a problem with honesty.

After the Bush Admin, don't you think that should be one of the top criteria?

But I still think it would be hilarious if he got her to give up her senate seat and then fired her out of spite.

It gives her a clean break from Bill and she'd be her own person here.

BTW I like your picture.

well suited for the job.

Being bright and hardworking doesn't mean you can solve international crises. Nor does being respected.

How are her negotiating skills? Have we seen her exhibit them? Does anyone in her staff laud her for being able to solve disputes? How skillful is she with people?

These are some of the things I would be interested in hearing about when people are advocating for her.

we know bill richardson is a good negotiator.

But he ended up not being all that great a candidate, though I think he, like Biden, Clinton, Dodd and...Obama! would have been a terrific president.

I'm saying I think she would be a good choice. There are plenty others. Bill Richardson comes to mind and he has great negotiating skills having done it before.

There is a leap of faith involved. However she did have the same secretary for almost 20 years.

... demolishing her own credibility in the process.

Self-inflicted.

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

He won his campaign regardless of your lack of regard for him, and he gets to choose his cabinet all by himself notwithstanding the parlor game guessing here at DU.

ie, not very relevant at all.

and when that made press, then all of a sudden she got all quiet on that cred.

Turns out her curriculum vitae consisted mostly of international speeches and was held together by amphibian DNA and fluff. Her false claims on a number of issues were a real eye-opener (although flew right over the heads of some here).

to have foreign policy experience because he lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10.

Whatever.........

:eyes:

she paid a price for that in the primaries.

Obama can nominate anyone he wants. I'll trust him on that count. And Clinton has some assets to bring to the table. I don't think they are as impressive as other possible candidates (namely Kerry and Richardson). A better position would be Defense, where she would still deal with Foreign Policy issues, but in a different context. Moreover, her service on the Armed Forces Committee would make her a better match.

All of the people mentioned are well qualified.

Imagine if just having run for president qualified someone to be SoS, Edwards, Graham and Gephardt would qualify. Would anyone serious consider giving them the job?

Imagine if Obama had lost the primary, would anyone be clamoring for him to be giving the SoS position? Unlike Hillary, he has served on the SFRC for nearly four years.

How about serving as First Lady? Is Laura Bush qualified? Will Michelle Obama be qualified in eight years?

The claim that Hillary has foreign policy experience because she travelled the world as First Lady is nonsense. Being interested in foreign policy is not expertise. Participating in international ceremonies is not the same as participating in diplomatic negotiations. Hillary's experience is exaggerated.

Your unwarranted hatred for her doesn't change that.

better candidates, which I think there are.

She was in the White House for 8 years, she attended meetings, she's met with world leaders many times, she's traveled the world, she understands the issues, she's been a Senator for 8 years.

She's qualified. Would she do a good job? I believe so. Could I turn out wrong? Of course.

I'm the latest in a very long line of thousands of liberals and progressives who have said goodbye to the Orange Satan.

I'm hopeful DU surpassed the Orange Satan very soon in the rankings and I'll gladly be part of a very large team to help do that.

We can just agree to disagree.

I personally want her to stay on the Senate and be appointed to SCOTUS if she wants that. I think she would be a decent SOS, although I don't think any Senators should be given the position.

"I think she would be a decent SOS"

That's all she would be, at least for the first year, a DECENT SoS.

She would probably rise to the occasion, but things are so fucked right now we need someone who can hit the ground running.

Let's be honest.

But then it would result in 4 more years of "Primary 2008" on a pretty damn continual basis.

That's not good.

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

:crazy:

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

But, you knew that already.

Go play your Wii.

But it would be fun for a few days -- admit it!

I'm looking for rock solid liberals in their 40s and 50s in the mold of Justice Brennan or Justice Goldberg for the Supreme Court who are strong advocates for our liberal Constitution and will fight the RATS head on. These certainly should be the first two appointments if, as projected, Stevens and Ginsburg retire in 2009. Since they wouldn't change the ideological makeup of the court other than replacing moderates with centerleft liberals, Obama should go for this kind of choice first.

If Justice Kennedy retires, then you will really see a big change on the Supreme Court. I wouldn't want Hillary though.

you mirror the Hillary divisive principle

:eyes:

I ahte divisiveness -- in politics, my life, and on DU. Unlike many -- including you -- who THRIVE on it. It's always interesting to me when people can't leave the middle school mentality behind. I mean, you use "Hilltrolls," a banned term in GDP. You're calling me and JC trolls, when neither of us are. You call me an asshole further down in the thread, just because I make a joke, and then call some other poster a member of the Klan. If you are older than 16-years-old, you really need to leave the playground behind. Seriesly.

and probably knows a lot of heads of state already -

...at least you didn't say 'left winger'. :)