home

Who Would You Rather Have Sit in on a Cabinet Meeting?

By Jeralyn, Section Hillary Clinton
Posted on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 01:11:00 AM EST
Tags: Rudy Giuliani (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rudy Giuliani says his wife Judith Nathan would be welcome to sit in on cabinet and policy meetings if he were elected President.

How typical of his absolute arrogance.

If Hillary gets elected, we'd have Bill Clinton either sitting in on meetings or being Ambassador to the world.

Hillary Clinton says many people want her to appoint her husband secretary of State if she wins. Such nepotism was outlawed after John Kennedy made his brother Bobby attorney general, she noted at the fundraiser.

Then she added, to huge cheers, "But I sure can make him ambassador to the world!" That is a role the former president already is playing, mostly through the William Jefferson Clinton Foundation.

How is this even a close call?

< Bada Bing | The "Faithful" Monica Goodling >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Who Would You Rather Have Sit in on a Cabinet Meeting? | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    ok, as near as i can tell (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:45:25 AM EST
    judith nathan's qualifications are: being an LPN, a medical supplies salesperson and two divorces. not sure how that helps in policy considerations, though i can see healthcare in her realm.

    fmr pres clinton: georgetown, oxford, yale law. gov and two-term president. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. somehow, i think i'd rather have mr. clinton sitting in on those meetings.

    i'm sure ms. nathan's a fine person, however...................

    Quals??? (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:30:15 AM EST
    Oh, I don't know.

    She probably is qualified as 80% of the people who comment here. And 99% of those who comment on the net....

    And at least she has some real world experience in meeting people, understanding them and communicating with them at a level that everyone can understand, in plain, ordinary everyday English.

    I base that mostly on her being a LPN and salesperson. Two fields that run phony folks off pretty fast.

    Those are qualitities an "advisor" to any President needs.

    Parent

    I agree.... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 09:07:29 AM EST
    every president should have a Joe/Jane Blow in their cabinet....great idea.

    Just not a Jane Blow who is attracted to Rudy Guiliani...automatic disqualification in my book.

    The Clintons taking over (again) doesn't thrill me...looks like I'm gonna end up voting for one of these folks.

    Parent

    The Double Standard (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:02:58 AM EST
    When Bill said you get two for one, the GOP howled. The silence here is deafining.

    As noted above, First Ladies have been involved with administrative policy since at least Edith Wilson. Certainly Eleanor Franklin, Roslyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and HRC were involved in some  policy making in their husband's administrations.  Betty Ford deserves some special mention for public outspokeness of her views, but I don't recall her actually being involved in policy or actually representing her husband either formally or otherwise.  

    Viewed in this perspective Laura Bush appears to be a step backward in the evolution of the role of First Lady. But that is par for the course for an Administration bent on turning the clock back to the original Guilded Age.

    All of that said, Rudy proposes to take it a step further. This would be a first (as far as I know) that a First Lady would be a formal part of cabinet meetings.



    She wouldn't be the first (none / 0) (#6)
    by roy on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:05:44 AM EST
    This would be a first (as far as I know) that a First Lady would be a formal part of cabinet meetings.

    I've found plenty of reliable references that Rosalynn Carter sat in on cabinet meetings, and some dodgy sources claiming that Edith Bolling and Florence Harding did as well.

    Parent

    Molly B - Yes, pot meet kettle (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    Hmmm, did I miss the "formal" bit?

    Hillary ran the health care show?? One of the reasons it failed (damnit) was her desire to keep it secret and not realease information, leaving the Right a wide open field to play in.

    In any event, here is what the Link said:

    There have, of course, been first ladies who influenced their husbands privately on matters of state, from Abigail Adams to Eleanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan. Edith Bolling Galt Wilson secretly wielded enormous power over the government for 18 months after a stroke incapacitated her husband, Woodrow. Rosalynn Carter, who advised her husband on policy, sat in at cabinet meetings -- attendance that some authorities say was a first -- but was largely silent.


    Parent
    Feels right (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 29, 2007 at 11:51:19 PM EST
    Bill would be great.

    He could do no harm.

    And he wouldn't be around to PO Hillary into blowing up the world, or...

    Breaking all the lamps in the WH...

    Why do you care? (none / 0) (#3)
    by jarober on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 07:03:37 AM EST
    Every President has formally or informally taken advice from his spouse.  The fact that Giuliani's statement is something that bothers you is your problem.

    That's exactly why it won't be close... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 08:30:01 AM EST
    Because everyone knows that Bill is coming back is the exact reason Hilliary won't win.

    I think America in general is tired of the Bush's and the Clintons so Hillary is in trouble.

    Just my opinion but nobody cares about a first lady being asked advice.  

    Why wouldn't they be?

    What a genius you are (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Dadler on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 12:34:44 PM EST
    So, if she involves the most popular president in recent memory in her campaign, a man who pulled himself out of poverty to become a Rhodes Scholar, a man who has more in common with your average American than anyone near Bush, then you think she'll lose?

    Ridiculous.  Bush is the single most reviled American president in the U.S. and the world since Nixon, since before Nixon.  Hillary involving Bill is a no-brainer, and a winner.  The more she involves him, the more likely she is to win.  Not that I'm voting for her, but your assertion is just clueless.

    Keep strategizing for the opposition, you're doing good work for them.

    Parent

    Well then... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Slado on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 04:41:23 PM EST
    Put aside your glowing statement about Bill but do you not honestly think that the country isn't tired of a politically devisive president sitting in the White House after 16 years of it?

    You can put your blinders on if you want to but for 16 years half the country has hated one president and the other half has hated the other and now you're asking the American people to keep this partisan love fest going by electing another Clinton and getting the old clinton as part of the package.

    I think Americans are ready for something different, be it Obama or Gulliani.  In 2008 it will be 20years of a Bush or Clinton occupying the Whitehouse and I for one predict Americans will have had enough.

    Also your comment about Bill being helpful seems a bit naive to me because it is inconceivable that all the old Clinton Garbage isn't going to be drudged back up by the Republican candidate if it isn't by Obama...Monica, Clinton's philandering, Whitewater, FBI Files, HilliaryCare etc...  you can spit out talking points to deflect this but there is so much SwiftBoat material at the ready for Hilliary that it will be hard for Republican fat cats to pick which one to focus on.  

    Democrats should be smart enough to see this but I bet they aren't and they'll ride the Hilliary train right out of the '08 election.

    I for one hope they do because it will be fun watching her crash and burn.

    Just like the good 'ol days.


    Parent

    Slado (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:41:15 AM EST
    You know, I think you're right about general tiredness...

    Parent
    Neither (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 09:11:01 AM EST
    And Tommy Frank's wife needed to apply for and get her own damned job too!

    Rudy Giuliani says... (none / 0) (#11)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 10:39:03 AM EST
    his wife Judith Nathan would be welcome to sit in on cabinet and policy meetings if he were elected President.

    Yeah.. haha... if he were elected president. Like that's ever gonna happen.

    Don't laugh too hard - (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by scribe on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    Everyone laughed at the idea of someone as stupid and inarticulate as Bushie getting the job, too.

    Parent
    A nervous... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 30, 2007 at 11:25:39 AM EST
    heh.. heh.. then.

    Parent
    Who Would You Rather Have Sit in on a Cabinet Meeting? | 16 comments (16 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment