Report: Obama Offers State To Hillary

This is big news if true:

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

< Feingold And The Constitution | New Evidence of Prosecutorial Misconduct in Siegelman Prosecution >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Go Hil!!!! (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    Sorry to lose her in the Senate, but better for her long-term prospects.

    This should box Biden and... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:56:37 PM EST
    ...his own brand of blustering, blaguing blowhardedness into a corner.  VP is where Biden can do the least damage. If there are big personalities in Obama's cabinet Joe will have to control his thinkig process a little more efficiently.

    Biden and Clinton are pals (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM EST
    and the idea of Obama, Clinton, and Biden talking policy warms me, even if Biden has been ultra blustery when the cameras followed him at all the last couple of months.

      I prefer Obama's thoughtful approach to Georgia/Russia (and I'm glad it was finally shown that Georgia's President was no innocent in that at all) to Biden's immediately taking Georgia's side wholly.  But I've always liked Biden when he was chairing even if given to self-puffing monologues.


    good point (none / 0) (#11)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    We have a good option for the Senate (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:11:27 PM EST

    her name was mentioned on local news along with the Buffalo Mayor and one other (missed it because I was happy to hear Maloney's mentioned)


    I like the idea of Nydia Velazquez myself. (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST
    Nita Lowey (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    Wasn't she going to run in 2000 but bowed out because Hillary decided to run?  Does she still have ambition to be in the Senate?

    I LOVE HER (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    She was my Congresswoman for many years. I would love to see her take Hillary's place. Also RFK JR!!!

    I'd be okay with that. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:42:03 PM EST
    She's my Congresswoman. I'm not sure if she'd actually be the likely choice, though. I could imagine Andrew Cuomo, or possibly Anthony Weiner (who was well-positioned to become Mayor before Bloomberg changed the term-limits rule) as among the more likely choices.

    We really need to keep a woman (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:14:15 PM EST
    in that place if possible. The number of women we have in our policy making bodies is pathetic.  Look at the Scandanavian countries with close to 40% or more in such positions.  

    Get ready to rally Gov Paterson (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:32:32 PM EST
    3 good female options have been mentioned in this thread. We can prob replace them on the Rep end and keep the senate seat. I agree we need to keep that seat female. We need an equally strong voice to move into that position.

    I certainly have no problem... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    ...with a woman getting the job, including Nita Lowey. But I don't think Paterson needs to pick one, assuming the job does become open, anymore the the governor of Illinois ought to be obligated to pick an African-American to replace Obama.  Both should pick the best candidate.

    That's because the Scandinavian (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:56:40 PM EST
    countries pay both men and women their full salaries for something like two years when they have a baby, child care I believe is entirely free, etc., so women don't end up having to sacrifice advancement in their careers anywhere near as much when they have children.

    That plus just generally everyone has a better attitude there about gender roles. :-)


    I like her also, she's my rep! (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:45:39 PM EST
    I just want an equally strong woman's voice and Maloney was one of 3 mentioned and only woman.

    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by MoveThatBus on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    Where do SOS's go after they have served the president?

    She will not have any say in what she does, she is the messenger. In this case, a messenger who can get a coherent sentence out without sounding like a toy machine gun.

    Colin Powell, she should remember Colin Powell, and think about what can happen to her in a position that serves at the pleasure of someone who doesn't like her.  


    You Assume (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by zvs888 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:51:00 PM EST
    That Obama doesn't really like Hillary.

    I haven't really seen much evidence that they don't like each other.

    If anything Obama and Bill have a much more terse relationship.

    Hillary and Obama seem to have much better chemistry.  That's just what I've seen of them though...


    Like Each Other or not (none / 0) (#151)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:45:39 AM EST
    Giving up her senate seat could benefit only Obama.  Hillary will be constrained publicly from stating any point of view other than that of the administration, she will be stung with every setback in foreign policy, and the media will be more than glad to lead the charge.  

    Brilliant move on Obama's part - he gets Hillary's talents and a ready scapegoat.  Bad move for Hillary.


    Witness Henry Kissinger... (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    Former Secretaries of State can have a sustained effect on foreign policy. Kissinger served, officially, from 1973-77 but he has advised every successive GOP administration, including the current one.

    It's tragic that Kissinger has abused his power to advance unimaginably nefarious interests.

    If Hillary became SOS she would, no doubt, be a long-term force of good in the world.


    2016 (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:50:15 PM EST
    No, kills her long-term prospects completely (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    As SOS, she cannot do any campaigning or politicking at all, and the organization and political debts she was buiding up all over the country will completely wither away.

    If she leaves the Senate for this, it means she's given up completely on any prospect of running for pres. in the future, basically gives up her political career entirely for a few years as SoS.

    She might want to do that.  I'd hate to see it.

    I think that's what Obama wants.  He also doesn't want her making life difficult for him by pushing him leftward in the Senate.  I think it also makes Bill, with his foreign entanglements, her problem and not Obama's.  She will have to control him in order to do her job.  Plus she will be 100 percent under Obama's thumb and have to do precisely and carefully as he instructs her.

    Stroke of political genius, really.


    she doesn't have to stay all 8 years. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:17:04 PM EST
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:38:38 AM EST
    These things are incredibly ephemeral.  If the pol who's been building them up is taken out of commission, people look for another one.  This has almost zero to do with personal loyalty.  It's almost entirely a practical political calculation.  If Hillary can't help them anymore, they will attach themselves to someone who can.

    She's spent years and years and years building this up, but it can evaporate in very short order.  Sorry to say, but that's the reality.


    Obama's election (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Spamlet on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:39:09 AM EST
    killed Hillary's prospects of running for president in the future. That's why she fought so hard this time. JIMHO.

    An answer to this problem is simple, (none / 0) (#170)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:47:30 AM EST
    Give her organization to Bill.  He'll be more than happy to run it.  The Clinton Global Initiative might have to be run by someone else since there maybe conflicts of interest.  In the meantime, Bill Clinton can take up this part.  Or Bill can do both, he's smart like that.  

    It's not an organization (none / 0) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:45:48 AM EST
    per se.  It has no formal existence.  It cannot be "run" and it can't be "given" to somebody else.  It's masses of volunteers and professional political operatives and politicians and donors around the country who need to attach themselves to somebody.  If she's not out there giving speeches and helping them fund-raise and networking and generally feeding them herself, they will attach themselves to somebody else.  Bill can certainly be a big help with that, but he can't keep it active by himself because it totally depends on the the person at the heart of it being a potential candidate and a potent political force in the country.  Bill is a great adjunct, but he is no longer that by himself.

    There's (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    HillPAC (or creation of a new one) and the maintenance of the email list and other duties.  Hillary as SoS could add more admirers for her.  Bill can certainly help being her messenger and helping Democrats get elected, fundraise etc.  The Clintons always work as a team.  Buy one get one free, remember.      

    Hillary can be a bigger political force as SoS even if she's not overt about it.  SoS is quite visible.  


    I believe she'd have to (none / 0) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:02:43 AM EST
    dissolve Hilpac if she became SoS.  She cannot, nor would she, pursue being a political force as SoS.  Totally not done.  SoS, probably more than any other Cabinet position, has to be utterly non-political.

    And Bill isn't going to spend the next X years running around the U.S. being a surrogate. He's very seriously committed to his Global Initiative thing.

    Admirers isn't the issue, either.  It's a political network, and it can't be held together without her, nor would she try.


    W/ Hillary as Sec of State we 1) lose strong voice (none / 0) (#192)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:05:34 PM EST
    in the US Senate, lose a senator with national standing and huge following. Progs/libs lose clout in the US Senate.

    1. Hillary is removed from real political discourse, since Secty of State is a creature of the administration and by tradition does not get involved in domestic politics.

    2. The Democratic Party loses a strong, well-known voice. Well, two of them, as Bill would need to stay more in the background and would need to be less vocal.

    3. The Democratic Party loses one -- or two -- of its strongest fundraisers. I vaguely recall Condi (as NSA director?) raised hackels and concern by holding fundraisers. Were Hillary to that, the MCM would flay her.

    4. Downticket Dems would lose two great campaigners and fundraisers. Perhaps this would lead to further weakening of the progressive wing in the Democratic Party. And make Axelrod/Obama  takeover easier?

    5. Hillary loses her senate seat, likely ending her political career. Sectys of State rarely last more than one term, if that. Colin Powell was seen as politically powerful as a victorious military general, not as ex-Secty of State, which only weakened his standing and exposed his yes-man status.

    6. Hillary as Secty of State becomes a lightning rod for the MCM--sparing Obama. And Sectys of State do only what the president and his team want done, unless they can work internally to get their ideas through to the prez and his team. Not impossible, but actions for Secty of St are limited by prez's objectives.

    7. On a personal level, I lose a voice in the Senate for universal healthcare--and Hillary did say she would be there to continue to fight for us. I think we must have UHC as part of the economic security plan Obama plans to do. Health costs are one of the major causes of bankruptcy in the US. So, selfishly, I beg for her to stay and fight for UHC. But, also, on a societal level we need her there to fight for UHC.

    I think we need her in the Senate to push, nudge, force Obama off center/center right. Obama was almost forced to admit healthcare is a right in the last debate with McCain, but I see no sign of his working to make it one. This is just my opinion--as I have no idea how he will actually govern. Who does know? I do know Hillary would be important for progressive/liberal legislation in the Senate.

    But...are there forces telling her she will be marginalized if she stays in the Senate? The treatment of her request for subcommittee chair on healthcare was pretty negative, at least as reporting by the MCM (doing Obama's bidding?).

    Now, why has this leaked? Given the secrecy of the Obama camp, why is this one out there? What does it accomplish for the Obama team? What don't they want the public and more perceptive members of the press paying attention to? Was the Palin coverage losing its power to be the magician's beautiful partner? What is the magician doing he wants to keep hidden?

    Cute MCM footnote: Remember when Hillary's claim to international experience was shot down by the MCM, with the MCMers saying she basically went to teas and such when overseas? Well, now, suddenly, she has the experience and connections to foreign leaders to be Secty of State. Cute, huh?


    But he'll have to trust her enough to (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    talk to foreign leaders on her own when he's not around, and that is tricky business with someone with very much a mind of her own.  And I actually do think he wants input from her.

      She was going nowhere in the Senate, and does being the person who rags at President Obama seem that attractive?

      She's very much into problem-solving and has been shown to be quite diplomatic as needed but, even more, having a real interest in places she visits, studying up in detail on them before going.  Knowing the culture etc., understanding the problems.


    Also, life in the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:14:20 AM EST
    means a couple of years of fundraising and constant campaigning to keep a seat where she is one of a 100 and after 8 years doesn't even have a chairmanship of a subcommittee.
    (Obama was given one, but had to campaign instead.)

      She's 60.  Should make use of her brain power and energy NOW and she would be right in the middle of all the important action at a veyr important time for all of us.  The combo of Clinton and Obama is, I think, a potent one for our image and place in the world.


    schadenfreude at Al Giordano's freakout (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    For that reason alone, I'd like to believe it, but I think she could be a good pick.

    His post (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by WS on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:56:16 PM EST
    was bizarre.

    oh. (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    That was his post I read at dkos?  Wow.  I thought it was written by some conspiracy theory flake.

    Not sure why it made the rec list unless some people wanted something to laugh at today - and they were tired of mocking Palin.


    conspiracy theory (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:23:38 PM EST
    Thats exactly what I thought.  I expected him to end with some garbled rant about Area 51.

    "Bizarre" is a kind word. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Vico on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:55:27 PM EST
    "Stupid" is what occurred to me. Then he added the update to up the ante on his, yes, bizarre, theory that Obama had nothing to do with the talk, that it was all Clintonites trying to box Obama in and Kerry and Richardson out -- all because they endorsed Obama?!

    I don't want Clinton to be Secretary of State, but it would almost be worth it just to demonstrate how out in Cloud Cuckoo Land Giordano is.


    It is very strange. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by daria g on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM EST
    I bet Giordano is backing Kerry for this job.  He was one of the few strong pro-Kerry guys way back in 2003-04 when near everyone else on the blogs was for Dean.  

    But that post.. putting up KO's unhinged Special Comment.. good lord.  Who's vindictive again?


    Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Joe the carpenter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:54:00 PM EST
    I was just watching it too, and then flipped over to msnbc and 2 women on there are suggesting she will try to create chaos for obama...can u believe it.....side note...Go for it Hillary

    Hillary's no dummy (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    If she was going to undermine Obama, she'd do it from the Senate. If she joins his team, she'll be loyal, and if she still aspires to be President, she'll count on that loyalty to pay off for her eventually. I think her window has closed, but that doesn't mean she thinks so.

    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by michitucky on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:03:51 PM EST
    Got even nastier after that...

    yes. because women (none / 0) (#14)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    cannot see past their own petty resentments to what's good for the country...was that it?

    No, because Media loves drama. (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:18:54 PM EST
    Also because that stupid narrative "Obama better watch his back." gained traction during the primaries and was never put to rest.  

    the media and those nitwit negative women (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by S on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:07:35 PM EST
    Joe the carpenter and Fabian...all you have to do is look to who their ringleader is and who offers his show for the continual sliming of Hillary...none other than Chris Matthews...what can you expect from him...his show and most of his guests are always trying to spin the most negative and in their words 'Machivellian' nonsense about Hillary...and Bill...

    the Hillary haters just cannot see what a great choice this is for the Obama admin, Hillary, the country and the world...

    Hillary is beloved on the world stage and comes with instant credibility...

    'win - win' for all of us, except for the Hill haters...they are in their own world


    Sorry to bust your own conspiracy theory (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:01:11 PM EST
    but Matthews was enthusiastic about Hillary as SOS tonight, and chastised Andrea Mitchell a bit when she kept talking about the political advantages to Obama of getting her out of the Senate and under his thumb in the cabinet.

    Matthews is a pain in the butt much of the time, but he's actually a good deal more complicated that you imagine by just seeing "worst of" YouTube clips once in a while.


    I should think (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by MoveThatBus on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:10:50 PM EST
    Matthews is at least smart enough to know what people are good for any administration, and Hillary is good for this administration.  If she is, in fact, chosen for a position of such importance, it would be to the benefit of the country.  She will do what is asked of her, and add that strikingly great ability she has to be a fair and solid communicator.

    Matthews is a manipulator (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by S on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:38:51 PM EST
    I saw the show...I am aware of the positive comments he made about Hillary for her campaigning for Obama...and then he turned to that nonsense about Machivelli...Matthews is a complete manipulator...why do you think he had those two women on?  he is very cunning...he contrived that whole segment...no need for conspiracy theory...I have watched Matthews show for years...i have met the guy...this is the same guy that savaged Al Gore and boosted George Bush during that election period...Matthews hates the Clintons...and he will now only say something good about Hill if he thinks she is close to Obama or on the inside...otherwise he will continue to distort and tell lies about her...

    That's a comforting theory (2.00 / 1) (#148)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:24:08 AM EST
    to explain him, no doubt, and I understand why you cling to it.  But it simply isn't true.  As I say, he's a pain in the butt a lot of the time, but he also has acquired genuine admiration and respect for Hillary in recent years.

    He also finds her frightening and more importantly, a way too delicious subject for both ridicule and Machiavellian theories for her motivation to resist.

    And you apparently totally fail to realize that Matthews loves the politicians he considers to be Machiavellian.  Remember the name of his show?  He loves that stuff, and doesn't much care whether it's a right-winger or a liberal who's got the sharp elbows and the ruthless tendencies. In that respect, actually, he gives Hillary far more "credit" than she's ever deserved.

    Like Limbaugh in some respects, he's also very much an entertainer and a guy who's paid to get ratings.  And until Palin came along, there was no better ratings generator on political shows than Hillary.

    IOW, Matthews, like not a few in the Village, is wildly ambivalent about Hillary.  So sometimes you get the respect and sometimes the ridicule or demonization, and sometimes both at the same time.

    Matthews is a pig, no question.  But he's not a simple pig, he's a complex and conflicted one.  And he's also a guy who's on TV because he's very good at generating conflict and controversy.

    You're also quite wrong factually about Matthews's frequent, if sporadic, praise of Hillary.  It started well before this presidential campaign, in fact, when she first came on his show and he got to interact with her face to face.  He did a big turn-around on her after that.

    If you think he was hard on her this year, you obviously weren't paying attention during the '90s when Bill was president.

    But the precise ins and outs don't really matter.  I'm just telling you that Matthews, for all his obnoxiousness, is by far the most complicated political guy on TV.  And he's on no jihad against Hillary Clinton, although, as I say, one might very well think so by reading/seeing only his worst and ugliest moments. (And God knows there are plenty of them.)


    Thank you for saying that (none / 0) (#131)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:21:28 PM EST
    he is no Olbermann, who looked like he wanted to spit when he read the news about Hil and SoS

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:32:35 AM EST
    Olbermann is nothing more than a sickening and utterly predictable hack.  He wants that Kos audience of young white males, and quickly figured out that worshiping Obama and excoriating Hillary was the way to get them.  He's utterly dishonest and terminally cynical.

    Matthews is in serious need of psychotherapy, IMHO, but he has genuine and passionate beliefs and reactions to people and issues, and they come tumbling out of his big wet mouth without engaging his brain very much beforehand.

    I really dislike the guy, but he's pretty much sui generis on TV, and I have to give him credit for that.  People totally forget, or never noticed, his was one of the earliest and most passionate voices against the Iraq war, for instance.

    I don't honestly know why I defend the guy. I guess it just irritates me to see the simplistic black-and-white thinking about media people in general, and he's a favorite target of that.


    No, but because these two (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:37:24 PM EST
    particular women are all about taking cheap shots at other women.  That is what insecure, incompetents of either gender do.

    Envy. One of the seven. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:52:26 PM EST
    So Lieberman (none / 0) (#49)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:55:33 PM EST
    taking cheap shots at other Democrats...?

    (I agree.)


    Boy, these women (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    you mentioned on MSNBC were frothing at the mouth with the possibility of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State.  The kicker was when one said that President-elect Obama, could have considered some great people like, Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel or Sam Nunn.  Chris Matthews, was astonishingly, the most sane of the lot.

    The one woman (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:28:28 PM EST
    I have seen many times.  Her names is Michelle Bernard and she is the head of something called the "Independent Women's Forum."  She comes off to me on all her appearances on MSNBC shows as a conservative/libertarian type.  She finally came around to speaking somewhat positively about Obama but she was constantly defending Sarah Palin.
    She has been appalled by Hillary Clinton all along.  I suspect she is a neocon at heart but because she is African American she made a lukewarm attempt at being somewhat in awe of Senator Obama's run.

    The other woman, I am not sure who she was, but I have no interest in her view.  She came off as bitter and petty.


    What women? (none / 0) (#152)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:47:29 AM EST
    I'd like to put them on a list of key media misogynists

    MSM thinks (none / 0) (#160)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:12:56 AM EST
    if they have women do the Hillary bashing, it's not misogyny.  How ignorant -- and cowardly.

    She should take it. She'd be good at the (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:55:37 PM EST
    job and it would give her an actual shot at the Presidency in 8 years, something I've argued that she doesn't have.

    They won't be able to (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Salo on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:59:33 PM EST
    say she's lacking in FP experience after that hellish job.

    Being SoS, with the nasty years ahead of us, might cure her of any desire for further public office as well.


    Rather then cure her, I think it would just feed (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:14:40 PM EST
    the desire. Instead of wasting away as a relativley powerless Senator, she gets to be front and center in running the nation. It's like spending 6 months waiting for an undesired early retirement and then finding out that they need and want you after all.

    Yeah, she has a nasty condition (5.00 / 11) (#31)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    called "Give me a challenge!"  ;)

    I can relate (on a smaller scale). Nuttin' like a good juicy challenge to sink your teeth into.


    I agree, she craves power. (1.00 / 7) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    How DARE she be ambitious! (5.00 / 14) (#22)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:21:16 PM EST
    Ambition is only seemly in men, but in women....heh.



    Sort of like crying, right? :) (5.00 / 13) (#32)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:29:55 PM EST
    Remember how Machiavellian she was in New Hampshire when she forced herself to cry for votes? LOL.

    And strawman arguments like yours (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    are unseemly regardless of gender.

    So you intended (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:49:38 PM EST
    your comment about Hillary craving power as a compliment of the highest degree?

    In that case, my sincere apologies for my misinterpretation.


    Hardly. All pols crave power... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:04:50 PM EST
    ...to do good, of course. I don't understand why you felt it necessary to bring her gender into it. She's a pol, like any other.

    We got a Messiah in the WH and a Saint as SoS.

    They ought to be able to get something done.


    Why mention it at all? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    Pols are usually greedy, craven, power hungry egomaniacs.

    We usually notice when a politician isn't those things than when they are.


    Ah now I get it, (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:15:07 PM EST
    you think I was the one who brought it up.

    Read the comment I responded to.

    Instead of wasting away as a relativley powerless Senator

    So, uh, who else craves power? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:05:56 PM EST
    Let's make a list and rank them.

    I'll start:

    Joe Lieberman
    Barack Obama


    You've lost me, why are you making a list? (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:07:44 PM EST
    Foolish. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:43:00 PM EST
     Truly.  How dare you say such stupid stupid things about a woman that is not only beloved by much of the country, but apparently is worth quite a bit to President-Elect Obama.  You're very foolish.

    Take off the rose-colored glasses, (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    she's a politician. And a very skillful one at that.

    Anyone running for President (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    craves power.  The question is what they want to do with power.  In the bios I saw, both Obama and Clinton, early on, wanted power to do good things.  They're both human, of course, so it's not just that but it's better than we've had for the last 8 years.  And then some.

    Wow. One person on this whole sub-thread (none / 0) (#198)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:58:58 PM EST
    re: politicians and power, who can see beyond the end of his/her nose.



    On the whole, Senator Kennedy has (none / 0) (#89)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:05:24 PM EST
    been a powerful agent for the advancement of a  progressive agenda in the Senate. (Caveat: his endorsement of Obama was rather inexplicable, imo.)

    He'll be gone soon and somebody needs to fill his shoes. Hillary could fill, and overflow, those shoes of Senator Kennedy for the next two decades... if she so chose.


    I'm so happy - I was afraid (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by jes on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    to comment or read about the rumors because I didn't want to get my hopes up. Maybe with this, I can finally let go of some of my bitterness.

    I think it is true (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by MKS on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:04:01 PM EST
    I saw a clip of her speaking at a transportation event....She addressed this issue....and you could just tell that she had the offer....

    Smart move by Obama.  Team of Rivals indeed.  And if she turns him down, he still gets points for asking....

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by WS on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:51:27 PM EST
    check out the ABC report on this issue.  Pay close attention to Sen. Clinton when she walks up to speak to the press.  She could barely contain herself from smiling.  

    Either she was happy that she got the offer or she was laughing (inside) at the joke she was about to tell (paraphrase "Glad there's so much press attention on transit").


    For real? Or like the "short list" (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    for VP that turned out to be, well, not to be.  And the source for that was as high-level as can be.

    So I'll have to wait and see whether this is just another deflection -- look, over there, it's bright and shiny! -- or a trial balloon, or for real.

    If for real, I suppose it now is a good thing that Clinton has all that experience in traveling to 82 countries for this country -- if only for all those "tea parties."

    Yeah and say bye bye (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    to talking to Iran or Cuba with no preconditions!

    Oops. Obama already backpedaled on that didn't he. He backpeddles so much it's hard to keep up.

    Anyway I can't think of a better person who would be able to wield both carrot and stick like Hillary would.

    And wow - I guess Obama finally came around to all those years in the WH did mean something after all. LOL.


    It's nice to see people moving on (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:18:10 PM EST
    and looking toward the future in such a mature way instead of rehashing the past in an immature fashion.

    Well Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST
    Your recognition that recent events leading up to where we are today are relevant is admirable. Not everyone would do that. Some would use a double standard and, for instance, bring up everything Bush said and did in the past and then turnaround and say Obama is off limits to anything he ever said or did unless 'They' deemed it otherwise and that it was OK to talk about. Glad you are one not going down that road.

    Of course anything a politician has said or did or promised in the past is discussable just as Jeralyn and BTD and many others on this blog have been doing since the election. Welcome on board. ;)


    strawman anyone? (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by byteb on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:20:54 AM EST
    Heck with (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Faust on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:05:52 PM EST
    an "Empty Suit" Obama at the helm and "Tea Party" Clinton as our Secretary of State we can explode the heads of Obama haters and Clinton haters at the same time!

    Fireworks! Popcorn!


    a little comic relief (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by S on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:43:32 PM EST
    let's just kiss and make up and save the world and get our country back on track...

    oh...us idealists...we can still hope...


    He Actually Offered It (none / 0) (#28)
    by zvs888 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    This Time.

    The impression seems to be that "if she wants it, it's hers".


    I am glad she pays precious, (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    because she is and maybe the chosen one (the people have spoken-no snack here) has finally realized it.  



    I hope it is true (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    I think it would be a great role for her. She will hit opposition in the Senate and has decades before she gets enough seniority.
    As SoS she can continue working w/ other governments for the betterment of women and children - her truest passion and an area where she is very respected worldwide.
    She can sip tea with the best of them. As to following orders - she travelled for Clinton and she certainly showed her abilities to be a team player during the campaign.

    If she wants it, she earned it.
    And I think she will be great.

    I'd personally like to know (none / 0) (#154)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:57:14 AM EST
    who is going to be National Security Advisor, head of intelligence, Sec'y of Defense & AG to get a sense of where Obama is going to take his administration before I would commit to coming on board.

    I heard a discussion (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:43:29 AM EST
    that in their talks she would have asked about the VP's role in foreign policy vs hers, the National Security Advisor's as well, and how much power she would have to choose subordinates  in the Dept.  

      I'd think his desire for real input and her active participation in decision making (being heard) would be important to her.  By just asking her, knowing her as he does, I think at least half of that is answered by his even choosing her as first choice.  I'm impressed.  


    But if.... (none / 0) (#195)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:19:25 PM EST
    He were to pick NSA and Intelligence heads who are heavy weights and hold opposite views from HRC on key issues, I would think twice if I were her.  Having input behind closed doors to register one's different views is nice, but at the end of the day, how much dissonance would a secretary want?

    I have NO doubt about HRC's abilities to handle the job, the noxious media, etc., but I do question whether this is a good move for her.


    If true, and if she accepts (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by aquarian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:24:10 PM EST
    kudos to both of them.  Me on the other hand, not looking forward to the MSM feeding frenzy. I don't trust the press to report on Clinton fairly.  

    Well then do NOT (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    tune into MSNBC.  With the exception of David Gregory's guests (which shocked me), Gene Robinson, Buchanan and Hardwood who all thought it was a brilliant choice, complimenting both Obama and Clinton, the MSNBC egofeed is going hysterical with conspiracy theories and attacks.

    Matthews had on two women who were as anti Hillary as it gets.  Matthews ends up defending Hillary. I think it was planned (yea, yea my own conspiracy theory).....a way for misogynistic Matthews to get his views heard (through others) and then play the other side.  Oivay...


    Heh, MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by aquarian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:51:37 PM EST
    is on my "do not play list."  Sometimes my spouse tunes into Olbermann or Maddow just to have fun watching me go absolutely ape.  

    Maddow is very smart (none / 0) (#189)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    but she spends most of her program laughing AT this or that person or their ideas.  Her need to be ultra cheerful and peppy exhausts me too.  (Olbermann I just can't watch or hear but that started with his 4th Bush rant since he doesn't seem to know about the idea of what you see as important in music or writing - a statement, a development, a shaping or building, etc and all we get is 95% intensity from the 7th word until 10 minutes later when it finally ends.  It has become comical to me.  

      I did read text of a good Comment he made on Prop 8 though.


    And Rep. Steve Cohen is pushing this at DK (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by kempis on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:24:23 PM EST

    Funny. And it seems like only yesterday he was complaining about Hillary's refusal to drop out of the race by saying "Glenn Close should have just stayed in the tub."

    Sorry. I know I sound bitter. I guess I still am.

    Politicians are such weasels.....

    Yup. Weasels. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:53:11 PM EST
    Unapologetic weasels.

    Come to think of it, about the only time I ever hear a politician apologize is when they are resigning due to scandal.  


    You don't sound bitter (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:36:17 PM EST
    You sound like you have a good and accurate memory. That's important. Others will try to disappear the history lesson of this election.

    I will take change (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:33:20 PM EST
    that equals competence.  As it usually leads to good thing.  This is great.  

    I don't understand this notion that we don't want people that were either effective in their own right or connected to the Clintons.  Change can't be achieved by idiots.  

    I really hope that Obama with these types of moves can destroy the  liberal vs. conservative paradigm and repalce it with pragmatism and data driven decisions.  

    She's my rep (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:36:40 PM EST
    I like her  :) Just reelected with 89%.

    Oustanding (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by AGuevara on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:38:43 PM EST
    This is my first post after months and months of visiting the site.  As an Obama/Clinton/Democrat, this is outstanding news and I hope that it is true and that she accepts.    

    Wecome AGuevara (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:42:36 PM EST
    to my favorite blog.

    Thank you! (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by AGuevara on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:44:32 PM EST
    I love this blog too and as a criminal defense attorney, I love coming here first and foremost for not just election coverage but also for great information that I use everyday!  

    Yes, WELCOME (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:50:31 PM EST
    I think this would be an excellent fit, and (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:54:45 PM EST
    Hillary would bring considerable stature to the position.

    And, with our country's diminished standing throughout the world, the Secretary of State will be a significant and central position in the Obama administration.

    Hillary has the strength that's needed for State, yet it's balanced with the necessary diplomatic skills.

    If she wants the position, I am overwhelmingly for it!!

    and dkos (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:57:39 PM EST
    is having a flame out...

    so sad

    so totally predictable! (5.00 / 12) (#54)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:04:35 PM EST
    Maybe after the primaries they'll come to their senses.

    Maybe after the election sanity will return.

    Maybe Santa Claus will bring me a pony this year?


    It is so disgusting. If it is true, why can't they (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    follow Obama's example and want to utilize someone with her knowledge and skills? Some of them are such idiots.

    The more I think about it, this is great. This position is much more powerful than VP and I think she'd do a terrific job.


    It's unfortunate, but people who behave like that (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by DeborahNC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
    usually react to information based primarily on emotion. Critical thinking doesn't seem to be in their repertoire of skills.

    And notice, the people who rant as their primary form of communication don't seem capable of analyzing information to reach a reasoned conclusion.

    If they were thinking individuals and ostensible Obama supporters, they would want him to have a strong cabinet. But, of course, Hillary would only accept the position so she could undermine Obama. /Snark

     Conspiracy theorists? Indeed!


    And do we think (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:03:18 AM EST
    Hillary should accept the SoS post so that the media can continue to use her as its favorite whipping boy?  I don't know....

    Hillary will always be vilified by certain people (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by DeborahNC on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:34:51 AM EST
    within the political sphere, the media, the blogosphere, and the public at large irrespective of any political or other professional position she holds.

    She is a strong and capable person, and I trust that she will make the correct decision for herself. Hillary has withstood more scrutiny and criticsm than most people could tolerate, and she's still going strong. I have the utmost confidence in her.


    Gawd no. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:28:21 PM EST
    Seriously, some are OK and I like some posters very much, but the sexism, the CDS and the GDS (Gavin Newsom Derangement Syndrome) drives me bonkers.

    In fact, the more the MSM bashes the Clinons the more popular support the Clintons get from the PUBLIC.

    It was true for Bill during his Presidency and impeachment; and it held true for Hillary as the primaries progressed.

    So, I say let the MSM bash away. The public will love Hillary all the more for surviving and thriving.


    good point. (none / 0) (#191)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    Heh... (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:29:59 PM EST
    What's sad about it, I hope those idiots cut each others throats until the blood reaches the ceiling.  I hope their irrational hatred eats them alive.  There are still idiots there who are calling her a racist would-be murderer.  Jesus Fricking Christ the inanity of it all!

    Not Sure That I Wouldn't Prefer Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    to remain in the Senate but if it would make heads explode at Dkos, it would be a good thing.

    So good to see you back here! (none / 0) (#175)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:16:53 AM EST
    Now, if only Kathy and Ellie would come back...

    While I prefer she (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by mg7505 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:22:30 PM EST
    stays in the Senate so she's not under Obama's thumb, I would like to see her in State for one reason: hopefully Maureen Dowd will write CDS columns even more offensive than the rants from the primaries and finally get fired from the NYT.

    Don't count on (none / 0) (#156)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:04:35 AM EST
    Maureen's firing or the firing of any other MSM personality who would spend the next 4 years bashing HRC as SoS....

    I just love the commenters here. I went over (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    there and it truly disturbs me. Rep. Cohen's diary is terrific (and makes me sort of forget that nasty comment he made) but the people in the diary are so foolish.

    Some don't think she is qualified. She doesn't have enough experience they say. Irony. If Obama offered her this position, it shows me that he is trying to find the best people he can to help the country and not just himself. I give him credit for it and I wish the people over there knew how disgusted he would be over their behavior.

    They will never give a Clinton credit for anything.

    I know. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:26:45 PM EST
    I feel pretty dirty right now from being over there.

    Well, they believed everything (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:01:45 AM EST
    Obama said, and he said that as First Lady touring the world, she only went to tea parties, and his campaign constantly attacked her trip to a war zone, and . . . what he sowed, he reaps with this.

    It seems darned odd, actually.  From the first, his attack was on her foreign policy judgment -- her vote for the war.  That she allegedly is up for Secretary of State really doesn't make sense in light of his negative campaign, and the DKosers inculcated his every word as gospel.  


    Be careful, it could be a trap. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    One little mistake and with a wave of Obama's wand * poof * she's gone from politics...

    Yes, I would rely much more (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    on the good people of New York.  And I can't believe I'm saying that, as I never would rely on a New York cabdriver to get me to my destination safely.  (I've had some terrifying cab rides there.)

    Cream - sorry to hear (none / 0) (#157)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:06:39 AM EST
    you've not been better treated by our fair city.  Pointer:  Look for a cab with no dents in it -- sign that cabbie(s) who own same take good care of it and drive reasonably.

    Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    is beloved around the world. Hard to believe from the way she was treated here in the primary but millions see her as a real champion for the downtrodden (particularly women - see as an example her famous speech on women's rights in China).  

    She has much more credibility with world leaders than Obama as she is more well known.  And is much less erratic than Biden.  

    Hill on the world stage (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by S on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST
    ColumbiaDuck...you are so right...just this week we have those poor girls having acid thrown in their faces for no reason in Aphghanastan...

    Obama's administration definitely needs at least ONE high profile, strong, savvy, intelligent woman in a leadership role...

    Hillary has the intelligence, the ability to communicate and articulate foreign policy fluidly, instant credibility, familiarity and admiration on the world stage...and just enough personal charm and cache to do an extraordinary job as our country's top diplomat and foreign policy voice at exactly the right time...

    I feel it now...Hillary Clinton wins the Nobel Peace prize...

    I hope this happens...it will show Obama has confidence, is not threatened by an equal...it will set an example to his supporters who still 'hate' the Clintons to get beyond being petty...

    and it really 'sticks' it to all those silly talking heads who spend all their time trying to cause division...let's start turning all these negatives into positives...


    It would send a message to women (5.00 / 8) (#111)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    if he does (and she accepts) offer her the position AND lets her work to her abilities.

    I also think it would be a strong message to the world and women's rights. Those poor girls with the acid in their face also entered my mind (I think their 'crime' was education). Didn't Hillary just recently speak up about treatment of women to the UN or someone?

    If she's going to be stifled in the Senate on her causes, hell, give her the world!


    im very excited! (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:57:23 PM EST
    Maybe the Richardson meeting was to tell him, "Sorry Bill." That would be sweet.

    Even if ignore all the petty reasons that I hope Obama slaps down Kerry and Richardson in favor of Clinton, I'm very excited. She would be fabulous. This would be a much better use of her than VP.

    What do you think (none / 0) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:07:15 AM EST
    Richardson will be offered as a consolation prize?

    Not a big surprise (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by DaveOinSF on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    I've always suspected Obama was a closet PUMA.

    HA! (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST
    Seems like a good fit (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:07:43 PM EST
    She gets a high profile influential position that she can provide substantive help to Obama.  

    I doubt if she will accept it. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Saul on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:53:52 PM 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.

    Um really? (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST
    She would run against a SITTINGpresident in her own party in 2012???

    Would you like to rethink that prediction?


    Maybe Saul is remembering (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by oldpro on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:55:17 PM EST
    Teddy Kennedy's sojourn - his quixotic attempt to unseat sitting Democratic President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

    Amazing how he's lived that down...among other things...


    The fellas, both young and old, (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:46:13 AM EST
    can indulge their gigantic egos to no end without fear of recriminations.

    The gals, not so much - ever.


    Time is of the esscence that why. (none / 0) (#180)
    by Saul on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:47:06 AM EST
    She only has the next go round to run for president.  After 2012 she would probably be to old and she knows that.  It's either at 2012 or never.  I have not seen anything that shows me that she has given up her desire to run for the presidency.

    Of course the other factor that controls has to be how good or bad Obama does in his first term.  If Obama does bad and you know he going to lose in 2012 then why not have Hilary run also then there is the strong possibility to keep a Dem in the White House.

    You never saw Kennedy run again.  Why?  One he lost the nomination against Carter and second he thought he would be to old for that job (too much stress) as opposed to the senate job.  Kennedy probably did not have the best team to run his campaign against Carter but it does not mean he could not have won the nomination.


    It's never then (none / 0) (#190)
    by coigue on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:55:16 AM EST
    Else she'll be a worse pariah than Lieberman.

    And I disagree that she will be too old.


    Secretary of State will be a high profile and (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by BlueDevil on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:52:07 PM EST
    significant position in the Obama administration, and it indicates Obama's willingness to seek a strong candidate for each post, irrespective of past rivalries. Senator Clinton would be in a position to offer her impressions of situations throughout the world, and Obama will need to trust her interpretations.

    The fact that he is considering her for this crucial position elevates my opinion of him and indicates an inner strength that we need in a president. IMO, Senator Clinton would be an asset to him, while putting her in a powerful post with lots of visibility.

    It's a win-win from my perspective.

    I have a feeling that Hillary and (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:42:26 AM EST
    Obama talked about this prior to his VP selection.

    Imo, she most likely told him that she would rather be SOS than VP.


    Good point. Seems resonable to me. (none / 0) (#169)
    by BlueDevil on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:05:26 AM EST
    This is quite interesting, (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by shoulin4 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 10:20:48 PM EST
    but I don't think people should be buying into the hype. Just stay calm and see how this plays out. Because if something happens that some over-excited people don't like, some over-excited people may be extremely and irrationally angry for an unreasonable amount of time, and I don't think any American wants to, nor deserves to, relive the stress of any part of the election that we just finished. These times are too serious and it's time to let go of the foaming-at-the-mouth hate and the openly accepted and encouraged wishes that certain people will explode their heads or that they drown in their own blood (that's pretty morbid). If people want to wallow in their hate, let them do so and move on. If people think that this would be a bad thing, then say to them either "You should trust Obama because he's quite intelligent and tactful," or "Do you really think that Obama has a nefariously sinister plot to set up and humiliate her based on what 'evil' you chose to see in such-and-such time?" and move on.

    I just think that everyone needs to take a deep breath and stop giving the media even more power by soaking up their hype like a sponge.

    A tempting offer ... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:27:10 PM EST
    and very hard to turn down.  But if I were Hillary I'd pass.

    In the senate, she can focus on any issue, and doesn't need to defend the White House if she doesn't want to.  And when she chooses to defend the White House it will carry more weight.

    As head of the State Department, she only gets to focus on foreign policy issues, and she will be forced to defend the White House even if she disagrees with them on policy.

    Also, there's almost no job security in this position.  In recent history, Secretaries of State rarely last for even a full term.  None have lasted for two.

    She can probably hold her Senate seat for life, if she wants to.

    But Hillary loves a challenge, and running the State Department is a huge challenge, so she might find it impossible to turn down.

    I think that she and Obama will be much (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:36:52 AM EST
    more collaborative than simply a top down master and servant relationship.  State has the task of bringing all of the foreign service together to advise the president. After that the president has the final say, but unless he has been around for 25 yers, he NEEDS Hillary and her crew if she takes the job. I don't see a newbie like Obama going over to Foggy bottom and acting like a bigshot.  He is NOT experienced, but he is smart enough to know he needs the best he can get now and I applaud him for that.

    Wonder what Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:10:16 AM EST
    thinks of this.

    Is janitor an official position? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:15:20 AM EST
    Err... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:18:52 AM EST
    somehow clicked on the wrong reply to post.  Disregard the above.

    I'm not saying they won't be ... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:07:04 AM EST
    but a senator has pretty broad autonomy.  He or she can go against the entire Senate if they choose.

    At State she'll have to be an advocate.


    I really think Hillary is pretty constrained (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    in the senate.  First is the fact of seniority and she is below an awful lot of egostistical males who don't like her or Bill.  As long as she didn't threaten them (both D's and R's) it was okay.  Even with her incredible showing on the nomination (I still think she won it) Ted Kennedy and his troops will see to it she stays in her place. No future in the senate as far as I can see.  Majority leader is also out for the same reason.  Obama might like her as the leader, but in this case he doesn't call the shots.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:38:02 PM EST
    If Hillary is asked, she should do what SHE wants, not what others want.  I have no idea what SHE wants.  I am fine with her accepting or declining. She deserves the choice.  She will be extraordinary whether she is a senator or SOS.  

    I read some of those DKos comments (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by ChrisO on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:29:11 AM EST
    It's amazing how many people think that just saying the words "sniper fire" is some kind of clever zinger. Some of these people really never let go, do they?

    The sound bite generation! (none / 0) (#194)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    I think it would be a good fit (4.55 / 9) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:58:56 PM EST
    During the primaries, one of the main arguments against Obama was his lack of experience. He is surrounding himself with tons of experience and I believe with Hillary's (And Bill's) world wide experience, this would be a good fit. I also think that Hillary would not go along blindly but offer the best advice to our new President. I also would prefer her more than Kerry.

    Yes, this takes her out of the Health Care but I suspect she would have a few things to say about this also. Condi has proven to be a passive SofS. I believe Hillary would have respect and admiration throughout the world. I hope she takes it.  

    Interesting point there.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by MoveThatBus on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    "(And Bill's)"

    So, might this offer have been to get him working foreign policy along side her...or so they could get both Clinton's traveling the world and covering more territory?

    She would be fantastic at this job, but I'd prefer she let Kerry have it out of the gate and see how this administration is going to work. She can take over when Kerry is released from duty.

    She NEVER was marked for health care. There is no health care. Obama shelved it. Besides, it is INSURANCE.  Nothing, absolutely nothing, changes in the health care industry...other than the insurance companies would take over the care and health of almost everyone.  Ooooo...good idea. NOT.


    To your first point... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:34:10 PM EST
    thats kind of what I was envisioning.  Having both Clintons going out to the world right off the bat while Obama deals with the economy, kind of multitasking since theres so much crap to do from bush.  

    But maybe thats just day dreaming.


    She can be a big voice on healthcare (4.42 / 7) (#48)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    This is from the State Departments website:

    Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;

    In other words she can tell the nation how well "socialized" health care actually works in other countries to the benefit of the citizens and the economy of those countries.

    I was ambivalent about her taking the position in an earlier thread. But now that I have had a few hours to process it - I say go for it.

    Secretary of State! A much more powerful position than VP.

    And a huge launching pad to the Presidency. You can bet Madeline Albright is telling her "You go girl!".


    She may offer (none / 0) (#153)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:51:37 AM EST
    great advice; no guarantee it would be heeded. And then she's stuck, like Colin Powell.  Remember him?  How's his career going?

    His career would be skyrocketing right now (none / 0) (#178)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:14:57 AM EST
    IF, he hadn't lied about Iraq. He should have been used as Sec of Defense instead of SoS. His military background would have been invaluable and people trusted him. And maybe Obama will use him someplace.

    But who, as SoS (none / 0) (#196)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:21:10 PM EST
    or any Cabinet sec'y, wants to be put between a rock and a hard place -- be a whistleblower or suck it up.  I would want to know where the administration intends to go before putting myself in an uncomfortable position.

    Atalanta-You signed up to give me a 1? (none / 0) (#199)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:59:50 PM EST
    How cool. Heh.

    Very unfortunate and ill-advised (2.00 / 2) (#109)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:08:46 PM EST
    She is a hawk and quite comfortable with US imperialism.  Her foreign policy was my chief disagreement with her candidacy, on domestic issues she is fine.  

    Someone explain to me how her foreign policy views are any different in outlook and preference than George HW Bush's foreign policy team?  In sum, horrible and very destructive to people around the world.  Better than W?  Well sure but that's an awfully low bar.

    We need to dismantle the empire and reallocate our huge "defense" outlays to better provide for people.  We could more than adequately provide for the common defense with 40% of what we currently spend on "defense."

    Kerry would be so much better as his first instinct is to oppose wars and he at least understand what physically occurs when bombs drop.  He also at least had the decency to admit his mistake in initially supporting the Iraq War.  He and Clinton both supported it out of political expediency, Clinton telling Kerry he'd regret it in 2004 if he did not vote for it.  

    I became an Obama supporter when he said in a debate tha he wanted to "change the mindset that got us into this war."  Hard to see how that happens with HRC at State.

    She would make a fine Justice on the Supreme Court, but of all things, State???

    Ridiculous. Your whole weird diatribe. (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:34:06 PM EST
    As should be clear. . . (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:01:20 PM EST
    by the credence being given to this (probably wrong) report, Obama and Clinton have an almost identical foreign policy.  If Obama tapped Clinton for the position, policy differences would likely not be a significant problem.

    Those minor differences that were manufactured by both sides as part of the campaign were largely for the consumption of the ill-informed on both sides without the ability to actually judge the candidates views for themselves.


    Identical? (2.00 / 1) (#181)
    by BobTinKY on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:48:44 AM EST
    HRC supported the AUMF in 2002 , Obama opposed it.  The Clintons, as much as I respect what they did in the 90s under very difficult circumstances, view too many foreign policy issues with the goal of appeasing the worst war mongers in the GOP.  It seems to they believe it so important to advance their issues that supporting bad foreign policy, i.e. wars,  is the cost of doing business and protecting one's elective position.  After all, you can't accomplish anything politically if you do not hold office.  For example, in 1992 when WJC rushed back to Arkansas to see to it a retarded man was executed.

    On the other hand, maybe she believes in missions like the Iraq debacle as she certainly hasn't expressed much in the way of remorse over her 2002 vote.  

    I say all this as someone grateful for all the Clintons accomplished domestically during the 1990s.  But this isn't the 1990s and there is less need than ever before to kowtow to the worst of the GOP on the US's continued imperialism.  

    The GOP is in dissarray, discredited and disgusting.  The time to change course on the US's destructive and self defeating foreign policy is now.  That will not happen with HRC at State.  There's a reason McCain repeatedly pointed to HRC as evidence of his "superior" CinC and foreign policy credentials.  


    Obama opposed the war. . . (none / 0) (#197)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM EST
    HRC supported the AUMF in 2002 , Obama opposed it.

    but not the AUMF, and he's stated that he doesn't know how he would have voted were he in the Senate.  FISA ought to convince you that people (including Obama) often vote differently in reality than in theory.

    The fact that you can't recall any real difference in their foreign policies ought to convince other readers that there aren't any.


    CNN is reporting it too (none / 0) (#1)
    by ajain on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    Well..not so bluntly, but apparently Clinton left the meeting sensing that the Sec. of State job was hers for the taking.

    Careful with the curse words... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 05:58:10 PM EST
    you can get banned here for that.

    It could be that (none / 0) (#68)
    by Natal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:23:51 PM EST
    Hillary has passed the ball back to Obama stating that she'd take SoS on one condition. Specifically, she may have asked him for strong reassurances that he'd make a concerted effort with his donor database list to retire her huge outstanding debts. The way Hillary deflected questions about the offer indicated to me that it was up to the Obama team on the selection. If he agrees to the condition she'll take it. Just MHO because he hasn't done much to help her with it so far. He needs to be pressured a bit. Hillary's acceptance will do much to unify and health.

    I just read (on DK) that CBS reports he met (none / 0) (#72)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:38:16 PM EST
    with Bill Richardson about the position today. Yuck. I hope she isn't being set up to be humiliated by someone in Obama's camp.

    Did anyone here hear that?

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by zvs888 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    Richardson seems like the backup plan if Hillary says no...

    The gist we're getting is that the job is hers to take if she wants it.  She's determining that right now; everything else seems to be more speculative.

    Obama would be stupid not to interview others like Richardson and Kerry if she does say no.  If she says no, he'd better have someone in line to do it or he'll be holding an empty bucket.


    Possibly the float of Richardson's name (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:58:22 PM EST
    is intended to spur Clinton to take the job. That at least makes sense, as opposed to some plan to humiliate her.

    Ah yes... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:58:22 PM EST
    The meeting was for a backup plan if Hillary says no.

    I just read the link.. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:42:03 PM EST
    at DK to the story.  I dont think a set up makes much sense politically since that would kill a lot of good will Obama has right now, but we'll see.

    I didn't mean that Obama would set her (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:48:40 PM EST
    up. I meant a staffer that doesn't like her. I hope not because I think she would be a terrific asset to him.

    I didn't read the link. Is it true about Bill R.?


    Yeah it seems to be true... (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    Well I absolutely hope that a setup isnt the case because youre right, she would be brilliant and that kind of cruelty would be depressing.

    Would Obama actually make sure that (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:54:33 PM EST
    Hillary is humiliated, while simultaneously requesting that Lieberman not be punished?
    I find that hard to believe.

    Been out of the country for some months? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM EST
    I agree... (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Jackson Hunter on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:37:07 PM EST
    Obama may not always be my favorite person but I do not believe that he would do something this elaborate just to screw Hilary over as 1) He gains nothing from doing so, and 2)  It would cause considerable friction.  The Blogoshere may hate Hilary (at least the seeming majority of it does) but she is every bit as liked as Obama by the People.  Only the Media and the Establishment hate her, which means she must be great.  :)



    yes, I agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by Natal on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:44:10 PM EST
    I mean the guy has been totally in front of us for two years and I find it quite inconceivable that he would ever try to humiliate anyone that way let alone Hillary. There's a very high regard for each other. That's very obvious to this humble observer.

    It's Just a Backup Plan (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by zvs888 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:57:08 PM EST

    Hillary should insist (none / 0) (#86)
    by ding7777 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 06:59:03 PM EST
    on SOS only if she also gets National Security Advisor (Hillary knows Foreign policy is directed from the White House!)

    No, NSA needs to be an honest broker (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    It can't be Hillary if she's SOS. It should be someone that she's confortable with, but Obama has to pick a good go-between.

    Additionally (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:15:17 PM EST
    the NSA job is usually given to a professional intelligence person and not a politician.  

    Cabinet members can act a little more autonomously than White House staffers who pretty much are bound to the will of the President.  


    add healthcare to that and we have (none / 0) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    a deal!  = )

    Remember Henry Kissinger? (none / 0) (#125)
    by ding7777 on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:41:45 PM EST
    From Wikipedia (none / 0) (#187)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:40:42 AM EST
    Kissinger served as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon, and continued as Secretary of State under Nixon's successor Gerald Ford.

    The point I was trying to make is that if the President does not want a strong SOS (i.e, a stronger Hillary), he will allow the NSA to determine foreign policy; hence she should ask for both SOS and NSA if she is even considering SOS


    Big mistake (none / 0) (#112)
    by jen on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:44:53 PM EST
    if true and she accepts.

    I'm with Joseph Cannon on this one.

    According to the creator of the site it is. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Thanin on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:28:24 PM EST

    Actually, No (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:08:17 AM EST
    It is the censor software in many law firms that would block this site because of a list of words. A$$hole and a$$ are on that list, I believe.

    It is more a technical issue than a moral one. imo.


    Ah, well, close enough. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:19:21 AM EST
    I think maybe (none / 0) (#142)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 11:59:57 PM EST
    Obama offered the post to her because of her speaking skills.  Hillary can lay out policy like nobody else, Obama included.  Neither Kerry or Richardson have the same ability.  

    Which is why I prefer she work in the Senate, get a HOLC passed, and publicly beat the drum on healthcare.  

    Difficult to see how she would decline now though.

    You said it. (none / 0) (#168)
    by lentinel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:02:30 AM EST
    The way you defined the job, "lay out policy", is exactly why I think that Clinton should run from being saddled with this.

    She would be reduced to being a salesperson.

    And - it is not a stepping stone - except possibly to a book tour.
    Kissinger, Albright, Condi, Powell ---- stars for awhile -- and then what?

    Clinton has too much life and intelligence to be reduced to this.

    In the Senate, to which she was reelected by the citizens of New York, she would be in a position to be a leader.

    I hope that she turns this down. For her sake, and for our sake.
    We could use some brains in the Senate.

    Give it to Kerry - a real stuffed shirt. Perfect.


    In Better Position To Be a Leader (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:10:09 AM EST
    How exactly?

    She doesn't even control the healthcare debate.

    It's entirely in Kennedy's hands and then Dodd's if something happens to Kennedy...

    She's nowhere near the top of any committee, which is where most of the lawmaking power is...  She'll be able to run for President in 2016 before she'll get significant Senate powers.

    There's no reason for her to stay in the Senate.  She's far better served being SoS for 8 years.

    She'll get a seat at the Executive side of the healthcare debate, Obama'll probably have to let her in on that, and she'll get to be the top diplomat and actually accomplish something on foreign policy.

    Neither Hillary nor Obama had any real power in the Senate.  They were way too "junior" to be able to handle the big bills.


    If she accepts (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:44:17 AM EST
    I think she'll probably be SoS for 4-6 years.  She can't run for President and be SoS at the same time with all those travel obligations and other responsibilities.

    I trust Hillary will make the right decision but I think she should accept the offer. On Good Morning America, the reporter said that while Obama met with Richardson, their sources said the SoS is Hillary's if she wants it.