More On Clinton In The Cabinet

This information gets firmer and frankly, more fascinating:

A Democratic official confirms to the Huffington Post that Sen. Hillary Clinton met with President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday to discuss her role in the new administration. Clinton's trip to Chicago, described in press reports as "personal business," came following a request from Obama, the official said.

Is it about State? Or perhaps HHS to be Obama's Administration point person on health care reform? Is it a play for Doris Kearns Goodwin?

This seems more serious than mere trial balloons.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only?

< Reasons To Dump Lieberman | Your Favorite Bond Movie >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    IMO, Hillary would be GREAT (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:23:56 AM EST

    at State.  

    Sure, she'd be great! But, the issue remains... (2.00 / 0) (#173)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:49:20 PM EST
    I want what is best for Hillary, and the country, in the long run. I don't know whether that would necessitate Hillary being Obama's Secretary of State.

    I agree with this bit from Masslib at Alegre's Corner:

    Ok, I just was having a bit of a laughing jag recalling Obama and the Obamacans telling us Hillary's only foreign policy experience was sitting in on tea's and touring with Sinbad, now that Obama is seriously considering her for Secretary of State.  Will the Obamacans get it?  That he was just playing up stereotypes to diminish her experience?

    good one (none / 0) (#185)
    by kempis on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:49:32 PM EST

    And true....


    Universal Health Care (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    seems more likely with Clinton involved.  It's obvious it is a priority for her in a way that it isn't for Obama.

    She's quite competent, knowledgeable and experienced and I think she'd be an asset anywhere.

    Id like to see her at State (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM EST
    if only to see the left blogosphere's heads collective explode.

    If not for the head-exploding possibility, I'd rather see her as Senate majority leader, pushing her health care plan. But Reid isn't going to step aside and they seem determined to shut her out of health care.

    Left blogosphere? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    Um, isn't this site considered part of the left blogosphere? Afterall it is primarily on the blogrolls of LEFT BLOGS.

    Also, I have not seen anywhere that the "left blogs" which obviously you are saying this isn't one is against her being Secretary of State.

    I personally don't think she really wants it.


    I should have been more specific (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:33:31 AM EST
    but if you think that there wouldn't be brains all over the wall, you're kidding youself.

    No, i'm not kidding myself (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:37:14 AM EST
    It doesn't seem like anyone is particularly upset by this.  Your statement was telling.

    Hillary is a democrat at the end of the day and nothing that has happened would make me think that the "left blogosphere" would be against her as Secretary of State or in Obama's cabinet at all.


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    they are. See Al Giordano for one.

    Or try to get a youtube (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    video of Rachel Maddow on the topic last night.  Keith Olbermann managed to report the story well, like a journalist; Rachel was dripping with poorly veiled criticism in the form of:  Didn't Hillary on the primary camapaign trail claim Obama was inexperienced?  And?
    IMO, this is a strategic move to help Obama by (i) getting Hillary out of the Senate where she could oppose him on universal healthcare;
    (ii) making the most of her very positive reputation among world leaders and her prior meetings with them (the primary campaign attempts to make these contacts look trivial notwithstanding); and
    (iii) keeping Bill's activities in check - he would have to stay away from work on matters that seem to oppose Admin policy or
    (iv) Give the pundit class lots of Clinton fodder to focus on, so Obama can remain above reproach while the Clintons continue to be raked over the coals about whatever.

    I don't see what good this does Hillary. It will keep her on a short leash, and prevent her from openly advocating opposing views on any topic.  I want my Senator to remain in office.  


    So her opinion of Obama is so low that she (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:06:10 AM EST
    thinks he would play petty games with one of the most important positions in his administration just to keep Hillary and Bill on a leash of some kind? Or to draw attention away from him? Wow, I thought Rachel was smarter than that.

    As for me, stay in the Senate Hillary! I think she'd be great at either position but I'm selfish and I want her involved with issues like health care.


    Gotta agree. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Jake Left on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    Madow is sounding a little Dowdish here.

    Also agree that she should stay in Senate. Without the need to pander for national office, she could take Ted Kennedy's mantle and really show what a liberal lioness could do.


    Hehe (none / 0) (#51)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    me too. I want her for health care.

    Rachel seems to be holding (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    onto a moderate form of CDS.  During the latter part of the primaries, iirc, with Obama in the driver's seat, she thought Hillary would somehow manage to steal it away from her guy.  I do like her show on teevee, but don't take her too seriously on things Clinton.

    As for HRC in the senate and health care, she's very unlikely to position herself in opposition to Obama's plan, especially given the negative experience from 93.  And with Baucus now having shifted position, it looks in fact to be shaping up to be a plan more along the lines Hillary proposed.  Unlike 93, the Dem admin and Congress will be working closely together on this one from the get-go.

    HRC as SoS -- looked at from a different perspective, it might not be that crazy.  She may not want to return to the place where she could be only minimally influential, with no leadership position and no chair of a hugely important committee.  She may also feel uncomfortable working with colleagues where a little more than half of them who offered a public endorsement went with Obama.  

    She would lose her independence in the cabinet since she'd serve at the pleasure of the president, but the tradeoff might be worth it if she could roll up her sleeves and get to work on important FP stuff and have an immediate impact.  Given her status coming in, it would create something of a huge PR headache for the admin if she were treated disrespectfully -- not likely to happen with no drama Obama.



    I just sent off a nasty note to Maddow (5.00 / 16) (#75)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    How come Maddow has no problem being respectful toward Pat Buchannan, a racist, theocratic neocon, but she can drum up nothing but nasty sarcasm for Hillary Clinton?  What the hell is her problem?  Has no one told Maddow had it not been for women like Hillary Clinton and the others of Hillary's age and gender who worked like how to break ceilings, she probably would not even get the chance at her current job.

    How the hell does a woman, a lesbian, a Rhodes scholar sit and allow men to trash and deride another woman, liberal, democratic woman, who worked liked hell for the improving the lives of women, children, the minority community and instead of challenging the likes of Olberman, joins him in the derision?

    Rachel Maddow, for me, has been the greatest disappointment.  She can get past her disagreements with the likes of Mathews, Buchannan et al and cannot get past disagreeing with Hillary Clinton.
    She's become nothing more than a tool.


    I don't think Rachel is THAT bad (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:35:31 AM EST
    but I do think she needs to get off the primary mode. She has stuff to atone for with Clinton, and being decent and respectful is a requirement, imo.

    She seems really good, as well as entertaining, on most other stuff.

    You are right about her accepting Buchanan, but then he has never been in a position to mess with Obama. He is mostly a good-tempered straight man for Maddow and an entertainment.

    Glad to hear Olbermann acted like a journalist about this.

    I'm going to e-mail them both. Sorry I didn't see the shows last night.


    Well, essentially for me, (5.00 / 9) (#145)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:59:01 PM EST
    her sarcastic nastiness toward Clinton, her derisive eye rolling commentary about a woman whom she owes much to, is really disconcerting.  Rachel is a young woman who owes a great deal to the trailblazing women of Hillary's generation and that includes Hillary herself.  You can disagree with someone without being nasty and snarky.

    It disappoints me that a woman like Rachel, bright, well educated, does not get how her derisive treatment of a woman like Hillary hurts all women.


    How do I write to Rachel? (none / 0) (#149)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    I too am very disappointed in her.  I've always heard that women won't stick together, and are willing to stab each other in the back for power.  I didn't believe it because I thought it was a male voice saying that.  But since this election I am beginning to believe that stuff.

    How far the mighty have fallen. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Jake Left on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    Rachel came to power by riding on Keith's Obama love. Both seem to want to make it all personality. I like to watch them because they lean left. But she seems to be picking up Keith's Hillary hate too. Is this an epidemic at MSNBC?

    It's not about primary fights. It's left and right.


    Well, the Clinton Hate started (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    with Jack Welch (former GE CEO and right winger) hirees....Matthews, Carlson et al.  

    Maybe hating all things Clinton is a requirement for employment at NBC.


    I went to the MSNBC webpage (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    then to Rachel Maddow's page and eventually found a "contact Rachel" link.

    This was the addy it gave:


    Thanks. that was easy! (none / 0) (#170)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    And what is (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:12:17 PM EST
    her disagreement with Clinton? That she dared, during the height of a political campaign, to point out obvious weaknesses in her opponent?
    So what.  Obama's campaign said plenty critical of her during the campaign. You don't hear Maddow anyone going on and on about that. And, you don't hear Maddow giving Hillary any credit for all the hard work she did to get Obama elected.  What other Dem what as effective for Obama as HRC? And, given that Obama and Clinton apparently patched up their differences enough to campaign together and for Obama to be considering her for a cabinet post, isn't that enough said? Shouldn't it be the job of a journalist to ask why Obama might have HRC under consideration, and why HRC might consider the post and what she might contribute?

    Rachel (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Radiowalla on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:45:44 PM EST
    is now one of the media Kool Kids and this means kissing the butts of all the other Kool Kids, even if one of them is named Pat Buchanan.  The media narrative adopted by the nattering class requires that the natterer snicker and sneer at Hillary Clinton.  
    Rachel just wants to be in with the In Crowd.



    Go read the comments (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:46:26 AM EST
    at Huffpo and Kevin Drum. Some are nice.  Then there are others like, "I'm sorry, this just makes me want to puke."

    Comments? (none / 0) (#40)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    Comments on a blog post is what makes for the left blogosphere going crazy? Seriously?

    Leading indicator (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM EST
    leading indicator? (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:13:50 AM EST
    of what? people can type and express opinions that are not entirely reflective of the blog itself?

    Yes. (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:18:50 AM EST
    Comments are part of the blogosphere.



    We will know for sure if John Cole (none / 0) (#175)
    by ding7777 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:04:59 PM EST
    rips everyone for commenting on the topic

    people at dKos are (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:17:44 AM EST
    definitely steaming from the ears. Or at least 1/3 of them are.

    You have apparently not read (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    the commenting on huffpo or dkos.  The angst and hate and personal trashing is scary.

    You can already see (5.00 / 12) (#14)
    by liminal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    it starting.  I glanced down briefly at the comments attached to the article at HuffPo, and pretty quickly saw someone lamenting that Clinton isn't the change we need in Washington!  We need, instead, real change like John Kerry!  Or Bill Richardson!  instead.  

    I mean, dudes, Clinton voted yes on AUMF.  And John Kerry and Joe Biden voted ___ on AUMF?

    With the economy tanking, I can't afford to go to Vegas to see Cirque du Soleil.  Thank goodness we have contortionists crawling everywhere across the internet, tying themselves into pretzeled knots of alleged principle to justify their prejudices.


    'someone lamenting' (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM EST
    isn't exactly a groundswell of opposition from the blogs.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    You just made 'two'.

    really? exactly how? (none / 0) (#45)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:07:34 AM EST
    You know how (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    Actually, I have no idea what (none / 0) (#85)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:32:30 AM EST
    you mean. Try being clear and to the point.

    Just for giggles. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by liminal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    I took a tour of the O-sphere.  Obama's fans in the XX factor at Slate are very unhappy, and still wallowing in their CDS.  John Cole's only possible "upsides" to such an appointment are "getting Clinton out of Obama's hair." And so on.  The first "someone lamenting" is the tip of the iceberg.  The very littlest tip.  

    The victims of CDS (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:53:49 AM EST
    are all currently in the recurrence of the disease.  The hysteria on dkos, huffpo etc, of some is beyond hysterical if it weren't so pathetic.  Seriously, how do these closed minded folks get to call themselves liberal or progressive when in reality they are as close minded and judgmental as their neocon predecessors?

    yes, the favored 'polarizing' (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:18:32 AM EST
    adjective is back in the comments too. She is too 'polarizing' to be SOS. LOL. Next they will revive how she is a racist and wants Obama to be assassinated.

    You know... (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:25:38 AM EST
    SOS is fourth in line for the Presidency.  Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Byrd better watch their backs.  ;-)

    LOL! nt (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:37:37 AM EST
    people are having trouble (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    distinguishing campaigning  from governing. Small wonder, considering the past 8 years. Luckily Obama does not seem to have such a dysfunction.

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#34)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:58:37 AM EST
    What is this CDS? I ask the same thing of Obama Derangement Syndrome? What the hell is this nonsense? Are people not allowed to express an opinion without being called deranged? Are we really trying to classify people who post anonymously to blogs who may or may not be stirring up stuff deranged?

    I think it's healthy to have a debate and if possible point out facts but to call people deranged is a bit much.


    If those 'wrongly' labeled as having CDs (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:04:31 AM EST
    would look at the potential appointment analytically, i.e., from the perspective of what the appointment would accomplish for Obama and the new administration, others on the blogs would respect them.  Instead, their focus is on Hillary-bashing.  Those of us who have always regarded Hillary with respect are not responding to the rumor of a potential SoS appointment with criticism of Obama, but rather analysis of why and what it might do for both camps.

    It's a feedback loop! (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by blogtopus on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    CDS requires sufferers to have disdain for anything involving Clinton.

    Most if not all CDS sufferers are also strident Obama supporters (strident as in, Obama could never do anything wrong).

    What happens when Obama thinks aloud about using Hillary in a fashion that respects her abilities and her value as a living, breathing human being?

    Must hate Clinton -- Must love Obama -- but Obama respects Clinton -- but I must hate Clinton -- but but but [head explodes].

    Bluegal is playing games here. 'What games am I playing?' she'll ask, I predict. When you answer her, she'll respond 'I don't know what you're talking about.' and so on and so on. She's an excellent Press Secretary.


    Again, what? (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
    What Hillary bashing are you talking about? I've made very clear that I think that she would be much more powerful and could push for real reform as a Senator, Senate Majority Leader, or as a health care czar or something.

    So if that is what is considered deranged well then maybe that's what I want to be. I've noticed that from other blog posts that people are thinking more along those lines. So I guess we are all deranged. No?


    Personally (2.00 / 1) (#174)
    by sj on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    I'm interested in what many voices have to say.

    Comments are limited to ~200 per topic and as of now you have 21 of them for variations on this theme.  It would be nice if you would just consider your point made.  I've already heard it.

    Thank you for your consideration.


    What is it? (5.00 / 11) (#60)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:17:01 AM EST
    Go read dkos and the three or four diaries filled with hate rhetoric of how this was a set up, how the Clinton surrogates are spinning this; how this is pay back from the evil Clinton machine to destroy Kerry and Richardson; how this is all an attempt to get Bill's power back (because obviously no woman is strong enough or smart enough to be chosen as anything other than a token or a front).  Go read the comments on Huffpo if you have the time...the ones screaming about being sick and tired of females as SoS; or how Clinton is out to destroy Obama.

    Was there some ODS? I am sure there was.  Was it pushed for ten years on the right and then taken by the left blogs like dkos and huffpo as truth?  
    Was Obama ever called derogatory names by so called left pundits the way Hillary was?

    You want to play this game.  Then use some facts. Overwhelmingly MyDD and this blog have supported OBAMA thru the GE.....with a few exceptions.  But none of the criticisms that I read here were personal in nature.  But on those other blogs, STILL the hate rhetoric is loud and clear.

    It is NOT even handed...and if you think it is, then you are not really paying attention. I am not talking about specific Hillary blogs or specific Obama  blogs. I am talking about blogs that call themselves "progressive or liberal" supporting the ideals of the democratic/left party.


    Set up by Hillary and/or Bill? Are they (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    that crazy? I guess they consider her all powerful. She has some kind of spell on Obama that she can force him to appoint her to screw him and Kerry and Richardson over? I guess he should appoint her then. She's so powerful she can bring world peace with a twitch of her nose.

    I can't believe that they don't see that what they are saying is really a diss of Obama if he is so weak that she is controlling him. It's just nuts.


    Hillary's secret power (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by blogtopus on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:53:15 AM EST
    Is that she's very good at what she does. Power through excellence, which I know is an alien concept to many people, especially in D.C. where power through WHO YOU KNOW is more prevalent.

    Ah yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST
    Blame it on anonymous commenters who may or may not have their own personal agenda and then tag everyone else as being one of the same.

    Again, we are talking about people expressing opinions which they are entitled to do so. The problem that I saw during the primaries was the fact that people felt that just because a blog poster expressed his or her opinion about their preferred candidate and not the other they could no longer be "progressive or liberal." They were called deranged or bots. Does that make any sense?

    I may not agree with all of the opinions expressed on certain left blogs but whether or not they supported my preferred candidate does not take away from the fact that they are still progressive blogs with goals of promoting progressive change.


    No it's not about (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    "expressing an opinion".  That's not a problem.  Saying you disagree with Senator Clinton's vote on trusting W to do what he promised if given the authority is opinion; saying you think Senator Clinton's vote to not show you the confidence that she understood the issues or understood the danger W posed is expressing an opinion.

    Saying Hillary Clinton is a war mongering hawk is not an opinion.... it is a personal trashing.  Saying the Clintons are setting this up to destroy the Obama presidency is not opinion.

    And these are not just comments.  These are diaries, some of them from the frontpage writers.
    Seriously if you do not get what I am talking about, let's end the conversation instead of wasting time for both of us.


    But there is (4.14 / 7) (#44)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    no debate with the CDS'ers. They are right, always right, and there is no place for debate in them.

    I think you need to go to Kos and spread your message of healthy debate and then come back and report your findings.


    I've been there (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    and there seems to be quite a healthy debate. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them deranged.

    If we want to talk about this alleged syndrome couldn't those over at DKOs say the same thing about comments like yours? You are basically saying that they you are the one who is right and they are wrong so by your definition wouldn't that make you deranged? No?

    I'm open for healthy debate but I think it is ridiculous to call people that you don't know deranged or passive aggressive because they don't share your outlook.


    I didn't say (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM EST
    I am the one who is right and they are wrong. Reading this thread you seem to have the knack of putting words in peoples mouths. Go fly a kite.

    Most of us like debate. You like to ARGUE.


    Yup (none / 0) (#50)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:12:41 AM EST
    Baucus is a deliberate attempt top preempt Clinton on Healthcare. And it may be coming from Obama via Baucus

    Wrong, wrong, wrong (none / 0) (#196)
    by seeker on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:20:14 PM EST
    Baucus is Chairman of the Finance Committee; Kennedy is the Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.  These are the Senate Committees with jurisdiction over Health Care.

    Hillary is very junior on the HELP Committee.  Thus, she will have little public role in formulating the legislation.  Behind the scenes--who knows?

    That is just how the Senate works.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    this is a way for Obama to get her away from health care and HOLC and out of power in the Senate. Sec of State is a sinecure and most only serve one term there, plus he can get rid of her on any pretext, at any time, and boom, her career is done. I think it'd be a stupid and crazy miscalculation on her part to take it, and I doubt she wants it. My guess is she wants Reid's job but Obama owns Reid so that isn't happening.

    It's a way to neutralize her. She still scares the crap out of him.

    That, or it's yet another move like the VP "trial balloon" whose only purpose is to humiliate her. Do not underestimate Obama's vindictive pettiness. He pulled that crap on Hillary over and over during the primary, why would he change now? Especially when she represents a real challenge to him in the Senate...and we all know the one thing Obama cannot abide is any kind of real challenge.

    You know what (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by ai002h on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:48:36 AM EST
    I really think both Clinton and Obama supporters are holding on to this primary paranoia while the 2 individuals involved have mostly moved on. Honestly, maybe there aren't any conspiracy theories, maybe Obama isnt this vindictive evil person, maybe Hillary has accepted him as the future President and, hell, maybe even kinda likes him now.

    There's a cool video of them backstage in their florida rally where they're talking and Obama puts his head on her shoulder, it looked genuine and they were havin a ball. Seems like, to them, March is ancient history.  


    They like each other!!! (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:53:50 AM EST
    I totally agree with you. I think some supporters are still playing primary wars. It's bizarre and stupid and completely USELESS to the process.

    And I used to think (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:56:38 AM EST
    they did not. But I think they genuinely respect and now like each other. I think they are both very impressed with the other.  She's glad he's president. I think he'd like her involved.  I think he's very smart and politically very very astute. He knows her benefits.

    That doesn't negate the (none / 0) (#152)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    fact that he would like to keep her at arm's length for other reasons.  I think HRC has had plenty of vicious stabs in her career and has learned to roll with them.  Obama not so much.  He could use her and probably knows it, but is being cautioned by the Clinton antagonists in his camp, not to ruffle the base too much.  They still think he is a real lefty or hope so.

    What? (none / 0) (#12)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    Does Barack Obama seem afraid of Hillary Clinton? Seriously?

    Have you ever thought that there may be some folks that are trying to just start crap by floating this? Obama "circle" has expanded rapidly since he won and for those that have their own personal interest it wouldn't be surprising that they would be leaking stuff.

    I do agree that I don't think Hillary really wants the job.


    Wow. You seem quite sure of (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:42:44 AM EST
    Hillary "not wanting the job" Did you talk to her about it?? Has she told you as much?  LOL.

    bet you she'll take it (none / 0) (#194)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:29:34 PM EST
    if offered

    For the record (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:39:47 AM EST
    I seriously doubt most of this but this is a just for fun thread in my view. No need to for people to blow a gasket one way or another.

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    Bring up Clinton in the Obama Administration and not expect there to be heated debate. Are you kidding? Or have you just forgotten reality? I hope you are just kidding.

    I have to agree with you on this one... (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:38:07 AM EST
    this is as much of a fun thread as the How Hillary Would Have Done thread was.  BTD, you so crazy.

    Don't think she would accept (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    Why.  Because you would be just a yes person for Obama. She would be his spokesman on his policy. Would be hard to express her own views.   If she stays in the senate she will be a more independent voice.  

    Also if the Obama administration turns sour then it easier to run against him in 2012.  Kind of hard to run against Obama while you were one of his cabinet members.

    I think Obama should and is showing HRC respect (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by barryluda on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:49:24 AM EST
    He should offer her the SoS, which I assume she'll turn down.  He should then offer to help her with whatever role in the Senate -- including taking over from Reid -- she'd like.

    Hillary did a lot for Obama after a bruising primary.  She's also one of our finest leaders.  It looks like Obama is mindful of that and so is showing her an appropriate level of respect.

    It is not appropriate. . . (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    for the President to become involved in the organization of the Senate, even if it is controlled by his own party.  That wouldn't sit well with anyone in the Senate, nor should it with anyone concerned about an appropriate separation of powers.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by barryluda on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:47:36 AM EST
    No, respect would be (none / 0) (#36)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:59:20 AM EST
    offering her Secretary of Health & Human Services.

    I don't think any sane person... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    ... would resign from a safe Senate seat to take over HHS. I'm not sure if Hillary would want to be Secretary of State, but that is a prestigious position, and if she wants to spend the next few years primarily dealing with foreign policy, it might make sense for her to take that.

    any (none / 0) (#107)
    by mpBBagain on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:03:03 AM EST
    Obama probally said she could have any position she wanted... from SOS down... her choice

    i am sure a website based on a jungle feline will saw Obama is attacking women with this.


    Hope she does not do it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    Foreign policy will fail, will not get out of war as he promised.  He will blame her, then dump her.  She will end up with a Johnson reputation, continued the war.  He will come out without a scratch.  She will not be in Senate and no chance for a later run.  Let him pick that bucket of debonair international charm Kerry or Richardson.  Yum.  

    I agree Stella. (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:36:20 AM EST
    I hope she stays away from ANY post in the Obama's administration, simply because of the enormous expectations the nation now has of the Obama's presidency.  

    With great craftsmanship he built the image of  himself as the solution to the extremely difficult problems the USA and the world face.   I hope with all my hart that he is as masterful in managing these different and compacting expectations has he has been in nourishing them.

    I am deeply afraid that his administration will blamed for everything that cannot be fixed in a blink of an eye.  We need good democrats (not only Hillary, but others as well) outside of the administration and not tinted by a possible avalanche of great dissatisfaction to pick up the pieces, should we need to.  That's why I hope she stays and shines in the Senate.


    Yes, there are risks (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:48:25 AM EST
    but Mrs. Clinton has never shied away from them before, and, I feel, will not now, if she believes she can contribute more at State than in the senate.  Secretary of State is an important position befitting to her stature. Health care is a been there, tried that for her, and, maybe, it is better to be left in the hands of Max Baucus so long as he proceeds on the foundation of her plan rather than that espoused by the Obama campaign.  During the primary, Senators Clinton and Obama seemed to have very similar policy positions (save for the aforementioned health issue) but Mrs. Clinton always seemed to have worked and turned ideas over in her mind so that they were an integral part of her.  Mrs. Clinton would, accordingly, be a great resource for the administration in addition to the reestablishment of diplomacy as a primal strategy for our security.

    Yes, and I totally trust her judgment. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:10:42 AM EST
    She has a better pulse of what would be best for herself, the Obama's administration and for the country than any of us.  I am just saying that, for different reasons than those previously expressed here on this board, she may decline any posts that Obama may have for her.

    I've warmed to the idea of SofS (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by gtesta on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:13:42 AM EST
    after an intial ho-hum reaction.

    Recall that is still a rare event to elect a sitting senator as president, even a "lion of the senate".  Also, New Yorker's do some dumb things sometimes like elect republican governors, so the timing is good now.

    While it's fun to mull the political ramifications of this...at the end it really should come down to what is best for the country.
    I do like the team of rivals idea.  I think Obama really needs some honest brokers around him.

    And Bill as special envoy to the Middle East...I'm liking some of that....

    I think she would be very interested, (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:14:26 AM EST
    because I don't believe she will be a powerful Senator, after this election. After all, Obama's strongest backers, who most wanted her to lose, were some of her colleagues in the Senate.
    She doesn't have anything to trade on to get more power.
    I'd certainly prefer her to Kerry for SoS.

    I think she'll be powerful (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    wherever she is. But I want her for 2016 so SoS is a  more direct path.

    While I'm 99% sure this isn't going to (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    happen, I think I'd love it if it did. Clinton hasn't got much of a future in the Senate and she'd be a better SOS then most of the other people mentioned (please, not Richardson).

    She'd be awesome (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM EST
    I am very enthused by the idea.

    Me too (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    I think it's perfect (if she wants it). We saw how knowledgeable she is about foreign policy during the primary (remember the debates); the international community loves the Clintons; and she could also continue her lifelong work championing international women's and children's rights in a time when women are assaulted in various countries around the world just for dressing the wrong way. Just imagine what she could do. Trying not to get my hopes up, in case this is just another round of 'she is being considered for' for nothing.

    Me three... (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:43:10 AM EST
    Im just totally jazzed about this and that was before I thought of the positive things she'd do.  I dont know why, maybe its just the thrill of seeing HRC doing something great in this administration.  

    And it also gives me hope about some of the issues, like torture.  I dont think Hill or Bill would want to work this close with O if torture is still on the table.


    HRC and Bill disagree on torture (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    Please follow [link]
    Obama and HRC might have closer positions on this issue.

    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    What a great response to a gotcha question.  So ok, Bill might see a need for it sometimes.  Still, Hillary is against it and she'd be the one to be SoS... but thanks for the link.

    Ah man (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:09:31 PM EST
    Russert, hero of journalism....eye roll

    Obviously, it's about energy policy. . . (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:23:59 AM EST
    The man is brilliant.

    He's intending to power the country for the next four years off the energy generated by the meltdown of the blogosphere.

    Think about it.  Clinton in High Office.  Lieberman staying on as Chair.  Pretty soon we're going to have nuclear fusion going on!

    Well however this turns out (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Faust on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    I'm glad to see that they are meeting, and that there are signs to Hillary continuing to have a prominant and important role in things moving forward.

    It is interesting to see how much emotion all this still evokes. But the fact that it does just makes me more convinced Obama is smart to keep Hillary in the big loop.

    Everyone is missing the point of this meeting (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:36:02 AM EST
    They are going to see the the new Bond movie tonight.  Hillary flew to Chicago because she new  that she wouldn't have to wait in line if she went with the President elect.   Though high ranking aides, who can't be named, have said that she has agreed to buy the popcorn and peanut butter cups (and they would sneak in the Sodas in he purse).

    I have always preferred (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by liminal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    popping my own popcorn at home, and bringing it in, hidden in my purse, and buying the sodas at the movies.  Problem is, you then have to plan ahead and have someone else pay for the sodas, or keep your cash in an outter pocket.

    Home-popped popcorn (if popped on a stove, admittedly, in oil) is tastier than movie popcorn.  Healthier too.  And if you are on a real health kick, you can always go for air-popped.  Tastes like cardboard, but with some faux-butter spray or maybe parmesan and rosemary, it represents an acceptable substitute.

    And I really like fountain drinks better than canned/bottled soda.  


    You Got It! (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by gtesta on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:42:24 PM EST
    Nothing like stove-popped popcorn.  To make it more healthy, I cut the oil down by 2/3...just 1 tablespoon for 1/2 cup of Orville R. seeds, then I spray the popped popcorn with cooking spray and put my white cheese salt topping on.  Makes it stick better and more than makes up for the less oil taste.  Argh..now I getting all hungy at work and I have 2 hours left.

    You Sir... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Exeter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:02:01 PM EST
    are a frickin genious!

    Yahoo/Politico (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by WS on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:36:16 AM EST

    But some Obama advisers argue that Hillary Clinton would be an ideal fit if Obama concludes that he will have to focus his early days in office on the domestic economy, and will have to essentially outsource heavy-duty foreign travel to his secretary of state. Her celebrity and credibility would be a huge asset in his goal of reengaging the United States with allies. "You can send out John Kerry or Chuck Hagel," said one adviser, mentioning some other candidates for secretary of state. "Sending Hillary Clinton out is better."


    Almost anyone would be better then Hagel. (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:43:14 AM EST
    I can't fathom choosing that guy for Secretary of State.

    Or, (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    Sam Nunn...

    Yes! Hillary for SOS (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by Aqua Blue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:16:18 PM EST
    Ths energizes me!

    What a team Obama and Clinton...to get back respect of the world...to get the nation back on track.

    Hillary deserves this and is up to the task.

    SoS is a very (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by JThomas on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:47:48 PM EST
    powerful position...controlling thousands of positions and a budget of almost 12 billion dollars.
    I have supported Obama from the beginning but I happen to like Hillary Clinton also...is that allowed?
    If he offers her this post, I hope she takes it because I happen to believe she would be very good at it..just like she would be at most jobs.

    Sure, there are still bruised feelings out there on both sides but I hope folks can bury the ax and start being as adult about it as both Hillary and Obama have shown themselves to be.

    Time to work together toward a better America,gang.
    If this sets up Hillary for a run in 2016, fine by me. Does anyone question that she will be more than capable of being president at age 68? Not me. I suspect Hillary will be sharp as a tack into her 90's.

    I doubt if she has another (none / 0) (#153)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    run in her, not after the nearly two grueling yrs of steady campaigning she experienced running for re-elect then for the nom.  It would really diminish her standing with the public if she tried again in 12 and again came up short.  

    And I'm even doubtful how receptive the public would be to another run -- or one by a woman getting on in yrs as these things are calculated and perceived, often coldly, in the cruel political world.

    She's either going to keep her seat and finish out there, or take the SoS if it is offered and she can tolerate the intrusive vetting procedure.


    Proggy blog hypocrisy: (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:19:23 PM EST
    John Brennan vocal advocate of torture and illegal wiretapping actually working for the transition team?  Not a problem.

    Hillary Clinton one of the most respected politicians in the world being rumored as Secretary of State?  That's a big problem!

    some dispute over brennan's beliefs on torture (none / 0) (#160)
    by Lolis on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:53:21 PM EST

    Obama sets the agenda, not Brennan. So far, Brennan is just on his transition team and I haven't heard credible info that he will be hired for more.


    Heh ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:57:32 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan.

    Not a credible source.


    Too bad (none / 0) (#200)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:14:33 PM EST
    Andrew Sullivan is too lazy to read the whole article.  Or actually, use Windows' "Find" feature.  

    There are actually two parts:

    Without more transparency, the value of the C.I.A.'s interrogation and detention program is impossible to evaluate. Setting aside the moral, ethical, and legal issues, even supporters, such as John Brennan, acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces is unreliable. As he put it, "All these methods produced useful information, but there was also a lot that was bogus." When pressed, one former top agency official estimated that "ninety per cent of the information was unreliable."

    New Yorker

    You've got to be kidding me if you don't think Brennan knew and condoned this procedure.  


    I sure do hate MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by kempis on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    And probably will hate other cable news channels before the day is over if I keep watching.

    Just now, some woman anchor who I do not know was interviewing Ann Kornblutt--who seems awfully not-so-smart to have such a big name in journalism.

    Here's a rough paraphrase of their discussion of Hillary as SOS.

    Anchor: Ann, let's be cynical here a moment.

    Anchor and Ann: giggle

    Anchor: Could part of Senator Obama's intent be to neutralize any opposition from Senator Clinton in the Senate? I mean, they're both in the same party and all, but....

    Ann: Well, sure, there could be an element of "keep you enemies close...."

    The implication is that Hillary will seek to undermine Obama from the Senate.

    Just as it was that Hillary would seek to undermine Obama during the general election and at the convention.

    Their proof, I guess, is that Hillary actually ran against Obama in the primaries rather than simply stepping aside after Iowa and allowing his fans to crown him in January. The nerve of her! Why, she must be really hateful and adversarial by nature!


    I suppose Hillary's (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    part in the Hallmark Moment during the delegate count in the DNC was proof of her undying enmity?

    By golly, they really do love their narratives!  Wonder if they will accuse Joe Lieberman of being an untrustworthy opportunist who is just waiting to stick it to Obama?  (Hillary wasn't at the RNC supporting McCain!)


    There are great singers, (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    then there's Elvis; there are great groups, then there's the Beatles. Barack and Hillary are in a league all their own. Neither has to prove anything. They suck the oxygen out of any stage they're on, and they both know it.

    I'm a greater cynic than most anyone here, but you know what? I believe!

    I believe that Obama understands he has been placed on stage in a point of time in the history of the world that has had few equals. I believe he has gone through an epiphany whereby all the childish crap; motives, jealousies, agendas, plots, etc. are in the garbage can. It's Showtime Baby, and he knows it.

    If I'm right, and in his head, he understands that the world, and its children's future, are in his hands. He's not gonna blow it. If he "feared" Hillary in the primaries, I believe that fear has morphed into respect and admiration, and vice versa. Being a New Yorker, I know Hillary wouldn't take a back seat to anyone, and I believe Obama has grown to the point where he doesn't want her in the "back seat."

    As Secretary of State, she can make the job be anything she wants it to be, and that will be just fine with Obama. What a blessing for a once- in- a- century leader to have a partner as gifted as Sen. Clinton. Can you imagine the reception she'll get when the wife of "the first black President," and the SoS to the soon to be President, touches down in Africa? Her unique experience, and rare combination of skills, will charm, disarm, and engage Putin, Ahmadinejad, Kim, et al as no one else could.  I think it's a match made in heaven, so let's give these guys some credit, o.k.? Sometime people do do things for all the right reasons. Sometimes they do grow out of childish things, and accept the awesome responsibility of true leadership.  

    Until, or unless, I'm proven wrong, I'm going forward feeling blessed that at THIS moment in time, with literally everything at stake, this crazy country, America, finally got it right.

    "Hill-Bama" works for me.    

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    That's how I felt when I thought he would pick her for VP.

    I'm still torn (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:40:33 PM EST
    but believe what ever she choses to move forward on, she will succeed and we will be better for it.

    I think she would be just grand on the world stage (and she would get the respect she deserves). And she would make the SoS position uniquely her own to an extent. It's inevitable because of who she is.

    But on the other hand, I do like her involvement in the senate as she has her eyes on issues I care about beyond the obvious like health care and doesn't hesitate to act, speak out, etc. Recently she's been communicating with the FDA about the latest food safety issues and outreach to our communities (here in NYS and beyond), she's watching and acting on anti-biotics in FF meats, promoting and looking out for our small farmers here in NY, working on creating jobs that are desperately needed upstate (and now downstate!), the WTC project along with the health issues stemming from 911 air. And that's just without me putting any thought into everything she's got her eyes/hands on.

    Can we clone her?!


    Standing up ...applauding (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:24:47 PM EST
    You nailed it.

    I have to remember to come back and read this every time the petty, ridiculous, egotistical pundit class tries to make it all about themselves.


    I think it's funny how people think (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    they "know" what Hillary and Obama's motives and/or intentions are.  The only thing we know for sure is that they seem disinclined to discuss this stuff over the telephone.  Like that discussion they had at the end of the primaries, they fly across the country to meet in person.  Darn that illegal warrantless wiretapping program!

    HuffPost reports (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:33:24 PM EST
    that two senior Dem officials say that SOS has been offered to Hillary Clinton

    oooooooooooo (none / 0) (#188)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:19:16 PM EST
    hee hee. Is it Christmas tomorrow?

    I'm surprised (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by tsackton on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:20:12 PM EST
    there hasn't been more mention of international women's rights issues. What better place to make that a priority than as SoS? After all, women's rights has been a major party of Hillary's career (think back to the "Women's rights are Human rights" speech).

    Obviously I have no idea what she might be thinking, but I certainly think it is very plausible that she could see this as an opportunity to pursue human rights issues in a way that she couldn't really effectively do in the Senate.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:27:13 PM EST
    I said this elsewhere on this thread. I think she could be amazing in this regard.

    It's sad, but a lot of newbies to the political scene don't know much about Hillary's history in this area (or others for that matter). They've just been taught by their, ahem, role models, to hate and ridicule her.


    Does she even want it? (4.80 / 5) (#3)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:23:38 AM EST
    Why would she want SoS when she could lead the charge for Healthcare in the Senate or even become Majority Leader?

    SoS serves basically at the will of the President and is not a long term gig. Yeah it would give her more stature but I feel like she cdould be more effective in the Senate at this point.

    As long as Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    isn't expected to be another Colin Powell or Condi Rice - a loyal lackey with no autonomy.  Clinton is such a wonk that I think she could come up good solutions on her own, but that would be a wasted talent if her job was just following a set script.

    That's one of the reasons (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:31:53 AM EST
    why I don't think she would want it. Why not become a more powerful Senator?

    You seem to (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:39:56 AM EST
    not want Hillary in any position within Obama's administration.  LOL. Why does she scare you so?

    She'd be AMAZING as SOS.  Don't be scared.  The world would put its confidence completely in our Dem leadership if we had Obama at the helm and Hillary as SOS.


    Oh really? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    Where did I say that? I have no problem with her in the administration. My personal preference is for her to do something in regards to health care. I want universal health care I can taste it.

    I wouldn't have a problem with her in the position I just think that based on what she has fought for most in her political life, health care, I think she would prefer another job.

    Did I mention that I really want universal health care?


    You're being passive aggressive (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:58:33 AM EST
    about it that's what.  "She doesn't want it. I mean I'd have nooooo problem with it..." It was used to try and keep her off the VP list as well.  Please.  
    Again you claim you don't think she wants it. How do you know this?!?

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    You don't know me from the words I type on this blog.  What is this 'keeping her off the VP' list nonsense? What does that have to do with anything?

    I don't know Hillary personally I'm just going by what I have seen about her and what she has advocated to form and express an OPINION. If she wants the job, fine but I personally do not think that she does.  Am I not allowed to state an opinion without being labeled deranged or passive aggressive?

    Talk about touchy.


    Why so confused? (3.50 / 2) (#43)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    I said that the SAME tactics were used when people (mainly the good ol 'bots) wanted her nowhere near the VP spot. And you're using the same passive-aggressive tactics now.

    O'bots? (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    Offensive much?  Again, you don't know me.

    I think the name calling is petty and says something about the poster who cannot accept that people have the right to opinions.


    I didn't call you an Obot. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    I said Obots tend to use the same tactics.  And you're using them here.  I can tell who you guys are from far far away. I've been here a long time...and when I see the same bullet points repeated by the same people over and over and over again...from the exact same line of argument...yeah, I can tell who's who.  And all your comments give you away.  Call me paranoid or whatever else. I supporter HRC. I was unhappy with Obama at first. Currently, I'm quite happy with him.  But that doesn't mean that sense has left me. It doesn't mean that I don't know what y'all are trying to do--keep Hillary as far away from Obama as possible. She will taint your Dear Leader.  It's not paranoia.  It's simple deduction skills.

    Ok, youre paranoid. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    bluegal and coigue have been around here for awhile.  So if you didnt know that then youve obviously missed their comments, which means you have absolutely no sense about where theyre coming from and can hardly comment on their true intent.

    I've never seen Coique (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    write like Bluegal at all.

    I have seen their comments (4.20 / 5) (#86)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    for ages now. That is specifically why I KNOW the intent.  You can disagree with me. Obviously you do.  But that is my opinion and it's not paranoia. It's simple deduction FROM those comments I've read over the last year.

    I would call it paranoia (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:29:24 AM EST
    Again, the term Obots? Really? Calling people that you don't know basically robots? That's nice that you have been "here" a long time but that doesn't mean you know me. I'm glad that you supported HRC and ended up going for Obama in the end. I would have done the same if it had been reversed but to call those that you don't like how they express an opinion as 'bots' is a bit much. It's petty.

    I think it's paranoid to think that all Obama supporters hate Hillary.  She's a democrat! She wants universal health care!

    This is just my opinion but when we get into talking about "tainting your dear leader" when he actually isn't leading anything yet, that might be a bit paranoid and not just simple deduction skills.


    Again, I called you nothing. (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    I said that I recognize your talking points. That is always what gives CDS sufferers away.  I am a Clinton partisan. Always have been. Now I'm an Obama partisan along with a Clinton partisan.  They are not mutually exclusive. Except to a certain subset of Obama supporters that cannot support him without hating her.

    Clinton Partisan? (none / 0) (#87)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:34:06 AM EST
    So then by the definition of those that call others bots which is ridiculous, wouldn't you classify?

    Good for you being a Clinton partisan, it's your right. I have no problem supporting Hillary. I personally would like to see her do something big with health care. Does that make me deranged?


    Can I ask? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    Weren't you the one the other day telling us that the Clintons were racists? Don't freak out, maybe I'm wrong about this. Just let me know.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:37:37 AM EST
    I did not like some of the things that Bill did and I have expressed my opinions but I have never called them racists.

    Pat Buchanan is a racist, the Clintons? I don't think so.


    OK (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:52:13 AM EST
    I guess it was just the 'yessa massa' comment with the 'bill has a lot bridges to rebuild in the black community' comment that kind of seemed that way.

    you went (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    off the other day about what racists her and Bill where. LoL. Yes, you love her.

    Prove it (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    I recall referring to those that ignored racism during the campaign dixiecrats. Did I specifically state that the Clintons were racist? No I did not.

    I was responding to a poster who made some rather offensive remarks and I deemed him/her in my opinion a dixiecrat. The individual was upset which is there right but in my opinion they were more than offensive to me as a black person and given that I consider myself a progressive and advocate for progressive causes, this poster who claimed to be such was not. They were acting like a dixiecrat.


    So I suppose you didn't notice (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:00:20 PM EST
    the race baiting that came from the Obama campaign?  Just the "offensive things" Bill said.  That my friend was "race baiting" IMHO.  And your calling out "massa" the other day to another poster  was a big tip off to me.

    Please, please please point out the (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by ding7777 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    offensive remarks I made or have the decency to apologize for being wrong.

    Your dixicrat response


    Ted Kennedy will not allow (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Amiss on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:52:47 PM EST
    HRC anywhere anything to do with Healthcare as long as he has a breath in him. Do I think it is right? Hell No, but its the facts, his ego cant stand it.

    You called her (none / 0) (#111)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:21:34 AM EST
    passive-aggressive. That is name-calling.

    No I didn't. (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    I called her argument a passive-aggressive one. Which it is.

    Point taken. (none / 0) (#121)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:41:56 AM EST
    But kind of a technicality.

    Not a technicality. (none / 0) (#150)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    It's how arguments- REAL arguments work.  

    Heh...you really think you (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:16:39 AM EST
    can read complex and subtle motives of another while blogging?



    Theres no way... (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:18:08 AM EST
    bluegal is scared of HRC in a position of power.  You can tell from the various comments shes made over this whole campaign.

    The thing is about senate is that, despite the primaries and her popularity, she doesnt have seniority in the senate and wouldnt have that for a few more terms.  So no matter if Obama or anyone else does for her she wont get majority leader anytime soon, unfortunately.  

    And as far as universal health care, Kennedy and Baucus are already pushing their own ideas about it, so I dont know if Hillary could get much traction on this on her own.

    So I hope she takes SoS.  She'd be awesome at it, and thats just one (two) more smart, experienced advisors Obama would have close to him.


    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:24:53 AM EST
    that's exactly why I know what she's saying.  She's always used the same bullet-points handed down from on high as to why Hillary wouldn't be good in this or that. The only thing that Obama supporters agree on is that she should just stay where she is. Hopefully forever and behind a curtain.

    Can you link... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:30:05 AM EST
    some of the comments to back up your accusations about people hating HRC?

    Oh? (none / 0) (#84)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:32:08 AM EST
    Did you miss the fact that I really really want universal health care? Maybe I haven't been clear but I am looking at this from what Hillary has dedicated her political life to and what I personally would want.

    Again, I want universal health care and believe that Hillary wants it too and would probably not want SoS.

    Again, what bullet points? Do you know me?


    And Obama wants (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:36:41 AM EST
    universal healthcare as well.  It's one of those ideas that you're allowed to agree with Hillary on. Hee. I am enjoying just how under your skin I've gotten.  Over the last year EVERY single bullet point from the same people came up over and over again :racism, polarization, lack of electability, she doesn't want VP, she doesn't want SOS. Leave the little woman to healthcare. That's been a constant stream. And you've certainly been a part of it.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by bluegal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:43:21 AM EST
    You actually haven't gotten under my skin at all. Those that know me know that it takes quite a bit to get under my skin as I am a rather calm person. I have a right to express my opinion but I think it is petty to project your own sense of paranoia onto others.  

    My argument has always been and I will tell it to anyone that will listen is that I want Hillary in a position so that she can get universal healthcare. I supported Obama but it wasn't because of healthcare. I've always believed that he wasn't as into pushing it as Hillary was. I say get her in a position where it can't be ignored.


    Obama wants (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    universal health care? Now you sound like an Obot. That was the central difference between Clinton and Obama's healthcare plans - she wanted it universal and he didn't put that at the center. He was for baby steps.

    You are being underhanded here, and I think you're just out to create problems. The whole post is now about you, not about Obama or Hillary.



    Stuck in primary mode? (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    Hee. I voted for Obama. Happily and willingly and HOPEFUL.  I am more than impressed with him these days. I think he's intelligent, extremely capable and will turn this country around. But you see my Obama-love is not clouded however by Clinton hate. And the primaries are over. But the way she was trashed should be talked about for decades. So that it never happens again.

    Meh. So wrong. nt (none / 0) (#113)
    by sallywally on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    Probably not afraid of HRC (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    But the people who continually demonized Bill were not in love with HRC either.  It was all those Kossaks that kept the right wing stories alive.

    If you look carefully at how HRC (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    tried to further it (asked Ted Kennedy if she could have a subcommittee to "push" it and was told no: they said she had simply run for president and plenty of other had also done so, like Dodd for instance): then the Dem leadership gave the whole thing to Max Baucus and he is now in the driver seat on this.  So tell me with a party like this, squarely behind you, do you think she will get anywhere in the senate on this?  Oh sure she could be the "handmaiden" and everyone will say "good girl."    

    I don't (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    think it's a matter of fright.

    Obama may want her out of the Senate.  If he has her in the Cabinet then she's under his direct control. Remember that Hillary Clinton is still a force in the Democratic Party.

    Keep your friends close but your enemies closer.


    Of course loyalty. . . (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:35:35 AM EST
    would be part of the deal.  The Secretary of State serves the President, and having someone there acting independently would be a recipe for disaster.

    Of course, one hopes that Obama would appoint someone with whose positions he's generally in sync.


    Part of SoS (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM EST
    is getting the best deal possible during negotiations.  That implies some flexibility.  There's a lot more than being the public face of administration foreign policy.  It's gathering information, creating relationships, finding solutions, seeing possibilities.  It's more like being the foreign relations advance team, setting everything up so that the POTUS can fly in, sit down and finalize the agreements with the heads of state.

    If the SoS is just the official spokesperson, hire Vanna White or some former Miss America.


    . yes (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    and someone that can impart impressions to Obama is good and who can have differing opinions (but Obviously the president has final say)

    It's a very prestigious position.


    Conflicted (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Politalkix on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    I am conflicted about this. On the issue of foreign policy, Obama is more "progressive" than HRC, so I would like Obama to push HRC if she is given SoS. On the issue of health care, HRC is more "progressive" than Obama, so I would like her to push Obama towards UHC. On energy policies, both are progressives and can work beautifully together.
    I would like HRC to get a high profile position in the Obama administration but cannot decide between these 3 possible options. If HRC adopts Obama's more progressive positions on foreign policy (including more diplomacy and normalizing relations with Cuba, Iran, Syria), I will be very happy if she gets SoS (we can then all dream about HRC and Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize with Livni/Barak and Abbas after signing a Middle East Peace Accord? :-)). However if she does not agree with Obama's foreign policy views, I would prefer that she be given HHS or Energy. I think the next Energy Secy will have a much higher profile than any Energy Secy in the history of the country because of the current needs of the country and Obama saying that energy independence (from Middle East Oil) would be his highest priority among some other very important priorities.

    I agree with you about (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    Majority Leader and healthcare...

    but I always like to look at the flip side of the coin and I still see Clinton as a potential President some day and SoS could be a powerful re-launching pad for her without the negatives of a further Senate voting record (not that Majority leader could not help in a perfect world).

    As SoS she is the face of America to the rest of the world. Especially in this world where Obama's plate is going to be so full that he will have little time for the luxury of traveling abroad for photo-ops and knuckle grinding foreign negotiations. At this time Clinton could be one of the most powerful SoS in recent history. He r knowledge of military matters could also serve well in working with and bringing back into balance the DoD with State. She really could overshadow Obama in foreign affairs in this position.

    I'm torn to what position, SoS or Majority Leader, would both benefit the country most and her. The position of Majority Leader is not a given. If she is offered SoS then bird in hand...


    SoS sets her up nicely for 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    Most of the cabinet jobs are really (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:39:23 PM EST
    beneath her.  Would a woman who had more than enough skills to be a more seasoned president than Obama want to be a cabinet member of HHS?  It is a monumental administrative role, more befitting a former governor from all that I have read.

    Agree re HHS... (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:09:20 PM EST
    ...bring back Donna.

    State?  Great.

    Perfect, in fact.


    HHS would be better for her to lead on health care (none / 0) (#47)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:09:35 AM EST
    Due to seniority, she can't take a leadership role in the Senate.  It looks lke Max Baucus will take point on heath care in the Senate.  Hillary would have a lot more influence as a cabinet officer.

    I want universal healthcare. (4.75 / 4) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:14:24 AM EST
    So Hillary for HHS works for me.

    Hillary at HHS and Bill at State (none / 0) (#124)
    by Exeter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    I also like the idea of putting McCain somewhere.

    I want a doctor to be the head of HHS (none / 0) (#133)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM EST
    I want someone like Hillary, to help push it forward.  

    You're going to have to help me understand (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:41:44 PM EST
    why being a doctor makes you qualified for governmental administration.

    Personally (although I don't want Clinton to take a job in Obama's cabinet), I think it makes far more sense for someone like Hillary with strong governmental experience to run the organization while a doctor plays "helper".  And the helper can be female if that makes you feel better about the subordinate role.


    Unfortunately you are right to a certain extent (none / 0) (#140)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:47:58 PM EST
    There are not that many doctors with a lot of experience in running a vast agency like that.  Though there are a lot of doctors that run very large hospitals.  This is not a knock against Hillary, it is just my desire to have a doctor in the post.  

    I don't know if HHS (none / 0) (#159)
    by Exeter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    Really does health care... actually what does HHS do?

    You mean you want Howard Dean (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:44:50 PM EST
    I hadn't even thought of him (none / 0) (#141)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    I am not sure he has an interest in health care policy????

    He passed health care reform in Vermont (none / 0) (#161)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    So he is knowledgeable about the big issue at HHS.  The knock on him is that his last job was very partisan (hindering ability to work accross the aisle) and that he has no legislative experience.  Both of those are Hillary strengths.  I still say HHS woould be the best spot for Hillary's interests and talents in an Obama cabinet.  

    He passed health care reform in Vermont (none / 0) (#162)
    by Manuel on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:56:52 PM EST
    So he is knowledgeable about the big issue at HHS.  The knock on him is that his last job was very partisan (hindering ability to work accross the aisle) and that he has no legislative experience.  Both of those are Hillary strengths.  I still say HHS woould be the best spot for Hillary's interests and talents in an Obama cabinet.  

    Just a helper role for the (none / 0) (#134)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    also ran?  Pretty sexist to me.

    Last time I checked women can be doctors (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:44:39 PM EST
    Sexist?  What was said there that was sexist?  I would like to see a doctor (who has a unique perspective on healthcare- both in terms of patient care and cost) to be ultimately in charge.  

    As a nurse I simply don't agree. (none / 0) (#154)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 01:40:45 PM EST
    As a nurse (none / 0) (#176)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:05:35 PM EST
    you don't believe doctors have a unique perspective or that women are allowed to be doctors?  Just kidding.  The nurse vs. doctor fight rages on (how about a nurse w/ phD or masters in that top position????)

    That would be me! (none / 0) (#178)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:18:45 PM EST
    Actually an MD in that post has historically been a male administrative type, someone who left the medical field years ago.  I know the model. This person is primarily a manager.  It is a step up for some MD's, but really requires a lot of administrative experience.  I said elsewhere I think a governor would be better suited to that position.  I am not sure that a person on a particular mission is the right person there.  What is needed is someone to administer a huge budget efficiently and to oversee thousands of employees. It could also include carrying out the general edicts of an administration by moving the department in a certain way. Sounds uninspiring to me.  I think of Hillary as more talented than in that role.

    I want Hillary to take Reid's Job (4.75 / 4) (#2)
    by liberalone on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:22:02 AM EST
    She would do well in either post, but I like HHS better too.  

    Also it would be Obama's way of shuting up Hilary (none / 0) (#22)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:46:54 AM EST
    if she took the Sec of State job.

    You know what (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ai002h on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:49:27 AM EST
    I really think both Clinton and Obama supporters are holding on to this primary paranoia while the 2 individuals involved have mostly moved on. Honestly, maybe there aren't any conspiracy theories, maybe Obama isnt this vindictive evil person, maybe Hillary has accepted him as the future President and, hell, maybe even kinda likes him now.

    There's a cool video of them backstage in their florida rally where they're talking and Obama puts his head on her shoulder, it looked genuine and they were havin a ball. Seems like, to them, March is ancient history.


    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:58:21 AM EST
    I think SOME of them are holding on to the vendetta and if dkos and huffpo are representative of the Obama camp, it is overwhelmingly the haters of Hillary going crazy over the thought.  Yes there are a small percentage (the PUMA gang) that are seeing conspiracy but the election proved overwhelmingly how small that group is.  But dkos is filled with the same hate rhetoric toward Clinton as before...so is Huffpo.......

    asdf (none / 0) (#108)
    by ai002h on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    Well...your mistake, imo, is assuming that DKos and HuffPo are representative of the Obama camp. The guy got almost 70 mill votes, to paint Obama with the DKos brush is misguided.

    Well that is the take at MSNBC. They, (none / 0) (#179)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:19:43 PM EST
    of course, hate Hillary.

    I think that there is (none / 0) (#193)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    a serious calculation to be made on each side: A personal and career pathway for Mrs Clinton who has four-years remaining in her senate term, for a cabinet position in which she would serve at the president's pleasure. But the opportunity to remodel foreign policy must be quite attractive.  President Obama knows that Mrs. Clinton is an keen thinker and idea person and that she has her own constituency.  Her advice could not go unheeded, or bypassed by a strong Secretary of Defense or National Security officer very easily.  In Mrs. Clinton he would have a strong cabinet officer.  She would not follow the mold of Secretaries of State, like the opportunistic, go along Colin Powell, or Condi Rice who is taken with the glamor, travel and shopping opportunities.  No, Mrs. Clinton would be in the mold of Cyrus Vance, who would resign in the face of ignored or ill-formed policy.  But unlike Mr. Vance, she would not leave unnoticed.

    I'll toss in a strange (none / 0) (#167)
    by brodie on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 02:09:31 PM EST
    woo-woo factor here re Hillary for SoS for those perhaps tracking the Lincoln/FDR/JFK parallels to the Obama admin.

    Hillary as SoS would have some eerie similarities to Bill Seward, Lincoln's State man.  Seward, like Hillary, was a senator from NY.  He was not only the main opponent in the nomination process, but like Hillary, Seward was expected to walk to the nom.  Both however got bum campaign advice -- Seward was told by his chief advisor to stay aloof from the process and not seem too eager, so he went to Europe for months.

    Hillary of course got a steady stream of lousy advice from fuddy duddy corporate centrist Mark Penn, who also seemed to think it was her nomination for the taking.  Meanwhile, Lincoln, with Seward out of the country, quietly went about lining up support nationwide, just as Obama's team quietly went about planning a quiet but effective ground game in the smaller primary states which was the key to his victory.

    Both Seward and Lincoln had similar political positions on most key issues.  Ditto HRC and Obama.  

    Seward's first name was Bill.  Hillary was married to a guy named Bill.

    Seward's "Folly" involved his work to obtain the territory of Alaska.  Hillary was involved in a campaign season which involved a political opponent from the state of Alaska running as VP (two, if we count the minor Dem primary opponent, the former senator -- very odd fellow -- whose name escapes me ...)

    I wouldn't care to push this parallel too far, however (uh, Civil War, assassination, SoS being attacked and nearly killed, etc) ...

    Good Grief!!! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:22:21 PM EST
    We need strong Democratic Senators (none / 0) (#184)
    by ding7777 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 03:42:59 PM EST
    in the Senate.  

    What's best for Hillary? (none / 0) (#186)
    by WS on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:03:17 PM EST
    I really don't know what's best for Hillary.  SoS is a very prestigious position but its relatively short considering that she can be Senator of New York until she wants to retire.  Then again, someone said earlier on this thread that SoS can be a nice jumping off pad for 2016 but she can do that as Senator too.


    Depending on who takes her Senate seat (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    and their goals along with the question of how long Gov Paterson plans to stay in office, NY politics may not be out of the question in the future. And then there's also retiring and going on to continue her work for women and children worldwide. What a nice pairing that would be along side her husbands work. Think of what the 2 of them could accomplish.

    Being in the Senate for a very long (none / 0) (#187)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:18:37 PM EST
    time makes for a presidential candidate with a very attackable record.