NYTimes: State Is Hillary's, Subject To Bill's Accepting Conditions

While the story takes a different tone, my view is that this Times story confirms the Guardian story. The nuts, imo:

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton’s activities abroad.

(Emphasis supplied.) The key word is "formally." The offer is conditional and conditions on Bill Clinton's activities have been stated. This is shrewd from the Obama team. The story is if Hillary is not offered State, it is going to be Bill who vetoes it. I think it is also clear from the story he will not:

Associates of the Clintons said that Mr. Clinton was likely to have to make significant concessions and that he was inclined to do so. Among other things, they said, he would probably have to agree not to take money for speeches from foreign businesses that have a stake in the actions of the American government. Another obvious issue, Democratic lawyers said, would be whether Mr. Clinton’s foundation should accept money from foreign governments, businesses or individuals for the foundation’s philanthropic activities and if it should disclose those donors publicly.

“The problem is it’s going to require some sacrifice by him,” said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. “If he’s not willing to do that, it could blow up.”

The Guardian story is, in my view, a confirmation that Bill Clinton has in fact agreed to the conditions. The rest of the Times story is standard issue Clinton Derangement stuff. I doubt it is relevant.

The upshot? Hillary Clinton will be the next secretary of State.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< McCain Can Play Maverick Again | FDR On The Comeback Trail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'll say this. (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:55:59 PM EST
    If Senator Clinton wants the job and President Clinton stands in her way I hope she kicks him in the nuts and locks him in the men's room for the next four years.

    He wouldn't dare stand in her way (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by vigkat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:16:02 PM EST
    It would be wrong on so many levels.  Unthinkable, unless it was what she wanted, of course.  And that seems unlikely.

    Oy! (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:35:29 PM EST
    CDS keeps creeping in no matter what.  There is no way on God's green earth that Bill Clinton would even WANT to "stand in her way."  Why are you people even talking about it as a possibility?

    For crying out loud.


    Seems like they forgot to listen (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:39:42 PM EST
    and watch Bill during the primaries and last 8yrs.

    Or even before that.


    Jeepers! (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:42:24 AM EST
    Sometimes I think I must be living on Mars.

    maybe it's a good time to get a divorce... (2.33 / 3) (#19)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:33:35 PM EST
    bad comment I know...
    but I couldn't help myself...

    Unfortunately, this site has no stupidity filter (3.50 / 2) (#38)
    by cymro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:56:09 PM EST
    not that funny? (3.00 / 2) (#41)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:03:40 PM EST
    eh, I was like 50/50...

    not having been through marriage or divorce myself (not so stupid now, eh?) makes it easy to kid...


    OK, so we need an ignorance filter too (none / 0) (#65)
    by cymro on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:37:30 AM EST
    and someone needs a funny bone... (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:42:09 AM EST
    agreed :-) (none / 0) (#70)
    by cymro on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:45:45 AM EST
    I would offer mine but I think that's (none / 0) (#72)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:46:47 AM EST
    illegal in the US...

    unless... (none / 0) (#73)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:48:26 AM EST
    ahhh, I see what you were doing there...

    was that a gotcha?

    maybe I'm putting too much thought in it, though..

    one thing's for sure this is way too many posts for one meaningless comment...


    Yep. More evidence of the need for ... (none / 0) (#123)
    by cymro on Wed Nov 19, 2008 at 03:46:17 AM EST
    ... a stupidity filter. Thanks for playing along.

    Unfortunately nt stupid-When will media Grow up? (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:28:14 AM EST
    as the mainstream media, MSNBC in particular (if you listened to Morning Joe today and follow on "news" program), won't report news, but instead continues to write the same soap opera script.  It might begin to do them justice if the Clinton's divorced and Bill could not be "reigned" in.  My gosh, what on earth else do these 2 have to do to show that they care about the future of our country?  And why the MSM meme that Barack will have to deal with reigning Hillary in because she's not a team playing?  What has she been doing the last several months but effectively supporting and campaigning for HIM?
    I am so sick of our media.  The country is facing an economic crisis of grand proportions; Hillary at State would help Obama send the messages abroad that he stands for a new kind of relationship with the world, that while he may be preoccupied with monumental domestic problems, he has some of our most competent people working on international matters, so don't think we are weak on these issues.  Even Jonathan Alter said last night there was very little about Bill's activities that would have to change.  He is getting money primarily from international players to combat HIV/aids, etc.
    When will our media grow up?

    the MSM, MSNBC and CDS (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by S on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:54:51 AM EST
    back from Ohio...

    I could not agree with you more regarding the MSM, especially MSNBC, and in particular, Chris Matthews...they cannot let go of their Clinton hate/jealousy

    for example:


    ...in a previous thread we had a discussion about Chris Matthews and MSNBC and someone tried to 'explain the complicated nature of Chris Matthews'

    ...the complicated nature of Chris Matthews is that he hates the Clintons and as I said previously he will use his show in every way possible to hurt, ridicule, distort and destroy them...just this week he had those two women we discussed thrashing Hillary while he played 'good cop' to their 'bad cop' all the while letting them attack Hillary...he uses his show as a platform to get all the attacks, distortions and lies in...any way he can...

    ...last night he had Rep Dan Burton on and Matthews brought up the lies that the Clintons were connected/suspects of murder...and kept repeating that lie and even Dan Burton would not go there...

    ...but that was not enough...then he brought on the next Clinton hater he could find, Christopher Hitchens, so that Hitchens could attack Hillary in vile ways...next he will probably try to recruit Dick Morris from Fox...

    ...oh and then of course, on Morining Joe, they replayed the Hitchens tape at least four times to discuss how 'troubling' Bill Clinton and the soap opera would be...I can bet that tape will play many more times today on MSNBC and Matthews will continue on his show tonight...with a little Palin and her book deal thrown in...

    ...this is the pattern they used during the primaries...it goes from morning to night, all day, all night on MSNBC - the theme of the day

    ...it will never stop...it is sick...it is on purpose...it is intentional and it is the agenda of MSNBC, in particular...

    ...the only thing that could possibly put an end to it would be for Obama, himself, to totally embarrass and single them out for childish and unpatriotic reporting and behavior - in that, they are trying to hurt Obama's administration


    BTD - keep up the good work...don't want to embarrass you...but you are a knight in shining armor these days in the blogsphere...


    100 Hail Mary's (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    And your soul will be clean again :)

    Question no one will ask: (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 09:57:43 PM EST
    how many kids in africa won't get their malaria medicine because Bill Clinton had to stop taking money from certain people and companies for his foundation? Appearances trump all. . .

    I imagine that (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:01:36 PM EST
    That part is the CDS irrelevant part.

    Someone else will FORMALLY raise the money.

    But I doubt much will REALLY change.

    I think the conditions are more on the formal speaking fees.


    Sure, but it's all about appearances (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:04:40 PM EST
    If you think Bill Clinton (or Hillary, I guess) can be bought, you probably already hate him.

    The hilarious thing is (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Fabian on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:18:20 AM EST
    that the retired or recovering politicians are unlikely to be the ones who can be bought.

    The active and practicing politicians, however....


    Pretty sure (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Trickster on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:19:23 PM EST
    that they have had long-term plans to cut off (or at least way down) the speak-for-pay stuff anyway, as of about this time.  Now it's for a different reason - not as good a reason, but good enough.  That's why Bill has been working it so hard and piling up such big stacks over the past 8 years.

    Of course, he can still throw out a best-selling book here and there, so the tap isn't going to go completely dry.


    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:33:17 PM EST
    Does anyone not afflicted with CDS honestly think the Clintons haven't thought all this through? I imagine they have been making plans for this kind of thing for, oh say, eight years.

    If anyone thinks scandal is lurking in the Clinton Foundation, just waiting to be exposed, I refer them to the Clinton tax returns.


    How quickly they forget . . . (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:06:18 PM EST
    all that wasted energy on the "Tax Return" issue. Oh, and we mustn't forget the NYT articles that were sure to bring them down before the tax returns were going to bring them down. And the . . . .

    Unless the Clinton's took out a no money (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:05:42 PM EST
    down mortgage on their Chappaqua house, I doubt they need the money.

    They spent a few speaking engagements (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:07:41 PM EST
    on Super Tuesday, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina.

    Still, they aren't hurting (as far as I know). (none / 0) (#8)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    Indeed (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:18:21 PM EST
    Far from hurting.... (none / 0) (#106)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:02:21 AM EST
    Thanks in part to taxpayers.  Link

    Yes. It can all be (none / 0) (#37)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:55:11 PM EST

    That's what I was wondering (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:15:20 PM EST
    sounds kinda off to ask for rollbacks on his Foundation  donations. Or for giving paid speeches even. I'm sure he knows what lines not to cross. Can the average American, or politician for that matter, name a speech/lecture he shouldn't have given in the past 8yrs? Money that his foundation shouldn't have taken? It's not like his wife has been a private citizen lately . . .

    I wonder if he will be able to continue with his yearly conference?


    Better question: (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by jtaylorr on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:42:58 PM EST
    How many children died in Iraq from lack of food and medicine as a direct result of Clinton's embargo?

    Answer: 5000 per month! (according to the UN)

    But don't worry, Albright said the price was worth it!


    How many men, women and children (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:01:59 AM EST
    died because of the USA since the 1950s in Iran, in Central American, in Cambodia, in places all over the world.  From FDR through Truman through Eisenhower, Kennedy and so on and so forth, decisions made by presidents of this country, and other countries have resulted in the death of others.
    How many Jews dies because of our LACK of action in all of Europe for years?  How many Palestinian died from lack of action in the middle east?  How many Iranians died because of the Peacock Throne we helped set up.  How many Chileans died because of the government we supported.

    Clearly you have a short and biased view of history. But then people with CDS tend to only see the world through this narrow lens.....the Clintons...the root of all evil. Sheesh


    Not the root of all evil... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:07:19 AM EST
    but allowed an extension of evil policies that he had the power to curtail.

    I don't know which is worse...the deification or the demonization.  


    I know which is worse (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    the simplistic notion that those of us out here know all the details, answers and reasons.

    I don't think Bill Clinton is/was anything more than a president who often had to choose the lesser of two evils.  I don't deify the man and see him as very flawed.  But I think the demonization on the blogs has gotten ridiculous.


    I only read Talkleft... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:39:31 AM EST
    here it is the deification that is out of hand, at least in the comments.

    I could understand it if this was a centrist themed blog, but it is a criminal justice themed blog...and that was one arena were Clinton was especially lame.  His strength was handling an economic boom quite well and leaving a budget surplus, as hard as that is to imagine right now.  Kudos for that.  Foreign policy, crime, civil liberties...he, in a word, sucked.  


    USED to be (none / 0) (#114)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 11:58:20 AM EST
    a criminal justice themed blog...

    But the rest of your analysis is spot friggin' on.


    Well, gee I read this (none / 0) (#116)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    blog and frankly I have seen no deification of anyone, especially the Clintons. However  I have seen some really stupid "know-it-all" comments.

    This is the internet... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    we are all know-nothing know-it-alls:)

    Though I must say if you hadn't noticed the coronation of the Clinton royal family around here during the primaries, you had the blinders on.


    Well apparently (none / 0) (#119)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:10:25 PM EST
    the glare of Obama adoration at much of the left blogosphere, encourage a few to come here and do their adoration.

    And if you think the adoration glare here was great, then perhaps you see what you want, not reality. I would say this was a fairly quiet place for those not into bitterness and hatred.  Maybe you mistake that for adoration because you were so used to daily trashings at so many so called left blogs.......then it makes sense.  Minimal CDS here must equal adoration.


    BS (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    The vast majority of the commenters here were new and Hillary cultists, now PUMAs.

    Perhaps it was milder than other sites they fled from, but as far as TL goes it was a particularly gooey cultish time here.

    I had to take a break and I voted for Hilary in the primary.


    I'm sure Bill is willing to sacrfice. Again, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:03:56 PM EST
    personal ambition is not the be all and end all of either Clinton. It's unfortunate that he would have to step away from his foundation, but she cold likely do more good at State then he at his foundation.

    I see the 2 of them doing major good after (none / 0) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:22:31 PM EST
    her stint as SoS. I can see that road for them both. Sad thing is, what won't get done that could get done in the time being. If Bill was working for the Red Cross (or similar) would we be having this "issue"?

    I need to find the links of him in Africa shortly after the primary. Such a wonderful site.


    I think BTD is right in his post higher up. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:25:55 PM EST
    Nobody is going to keep Bill from doing some form of charity work. It might be more informal, but he's going to keep it going.

    "some form" (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:31:38 PM EST
    while I agree there, I just hope hands aren't tied too much. I think they (Clintons and Obama) are smart enough to find a work around. It benefits no one to hamper positive actions. It just really gets my back up that CDS gets in the way of good works. Especially from Obama supporters. Isn't this what he's supposed to be about?

    For the first time in a long time I feel (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:39:04 PM EST
    confident in saying that the CDS brigade have lost a major battle.  Hillary is going to be one of the most important and visible public figures in the country. Neither Clinton is going to crawl off and die the way they hoped.

    Oh no! Do you mean that (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:46:15 PM EST
    the Clintons will be more important than JMM or Kos? Terrible!

    I think she'll do a great job if she (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:47:36 PM EST
    takes it. And yes, they (CDS brigade) will have lost  :) I feel good abut her doing this. At first I was torn, but thinking on it, not so much. I'm pretty sure Gov Paterson will replace her with an equally strong voice and we have others in the Senate that won't be hampered as she may be. She can just take the global approach now ;) And because she's "a Clinton", people will be watching. Good for awareness.

    Is Patterson a Republican or (none / 0) (#49)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:14:37 PM EST
    a Democrat?

    Dem :) (none / 0) (#53)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    Thats a relief. We need all the (none / 0) (#58)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:30:58 PM EST
    Dems in the senate we can get.

    Hillary wouldn't take the job (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:34:38 PM EST
    if she weren't going to be replaced by a Democrat.

    Nor would she be offered it. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:35:18 PM EST
    NY is sportin' their blue creds these days (none / 0) (#63)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:44:10 PM EST
    We have some good options. And I'm guessing they'll come from a position that can be filled in Dem.

    So far the Gov has seemed ok to me. Enough so that I think his decision will be good. And there's the Hillary factor. She won't just abandon us. I'm sure she has some input  ;) She's invested in too many things to just walk away. Not her style.

    Of course that won't stop me from emailing my opinion to the Gov, lol!~


    I heard today, (none / 0) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:32:19 AM EST
    on CBS radio, that Paterson was considering appointing himself to the vacant seat.

    And, i agree, he's been surprisingly good for a relatively unknown, up to now. Sometimes people hear the call, and rise to the occasion.

    I certainly hope that's what has happened to Pres.-Elect Obama.


    I heard he wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:45:32 AM EST
    Can't recall if it was yesterday or today. But addressing the speculation I heard it was a no and Gov was on his agenda. Which I would prefer. The fact that Rudy is sniffin' at the Gov seat, creeps me out. I think Paterson would win. Not sure who else would run based on their future goals, etc. It also seems like there is a semblance of harmony right now that would be good going through the next year or so with all the hits NY is going to take.

    There's just something I like with Paterson as Gov right now. I think him and Bloomberg are pretty real and proactive. Lordy, just thinking about Rudy and his ilk makes me want to run screaming. Does Paterson even have designs on Washington right now?


    Like I said (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:38:25 AM EST
    all I know is what I heard. Obviously, there was much more I didn't hear. It did sound a little strange inasmuch as Paterson's ambitions (beyond Governor) haven't been gossiped about yet, as far as I know.

    But you're right as to the chemistry, and the combination of Paterson upstate and Bloomberg in the city that feels just about right. It's been a long, long time since both those positions were filled by people worthy of this great State.

    It's not unlike the U.S. with Obama at the helm. I had preferred Hillary, but among the qualities you'd want in any President, and which has been missing more than present these past few decades, is a brain. So, in my book, so far it's Obama 1-0.
    Maybe it's gallows humor, but as bad things are in this country right now, there's a little calmer feeling in my stomach, with the new leadership coming in.

    Just imagine the dread we'd be feeling if the current occupant was at the beginning of a term, instead of at the end.

    Does this make me an optimist?


    I'm all for the brain! (none / 0) (#85)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:38:33 AM EST
    I prefer my president to be smarter than me ;) And yes, it does make you an optimist since it's 1-0, lol!~ I am feeling a bit better about Obama as he seems to have "settled" into his shoes at the present.

    I may not be here to vote Bloomberg and Paterson back in, but I'll be supporting them from afar. Especially Bloomberg. I'd like to see him continue with his plans. He could lay some good groundwork for others to follow, imo.


    Wouldn't it be suicidal for NY (none / 0) (#98)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:33:36 AM EST
    to appoint a Repub senator when entire Fed government is DEM and NY may need various types of assistance, like everyone else, including a fair shake from D.C. in relation to how much we put in the federal coffers?

    Based on (none / 0) (#26)
    by JThomas on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:41:36 PM EST
    what I saw, all they are asking is that Bill not take money from foreign govts that could complicate our foreign relations with them. And that he not pocket speaking fees from foreign govts...

    You actually think that only the Clintons would be subject to some rules of this sort?

    You think Bill should be able to take money from anyone and not disclose it and sleep with the SoS? If Condee Rice was married to someone like Bill Clinton, the same rules would apply.
    Appearances of conflict of interest are not minor considerations at that level.

    Sometimes the persecution complex that seems to exist around supporters of the Clintons gets to be more like paranoia. I presume Bill Clinton will have no problem with just taking millions from american corporate speaking fees and disclosing his foundation contributions from foreign govts as long as Hillary is SoS. The Clintons were worth 110 million mid last year so I think they will be ok with a slight reduction in his fees which did total over 25 million last year.


    I wouldn't call it "persecution complex" (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:02:46 PM EST
    it's called history.

    I think you have missed the point: (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:40:43 PM EST
    as you realize, every cabinet nominee has to divulge  conflicts of interest. Hell, Paulson is worth much more than the Clintons and he went from GS to the treasury, from whence he gave money to GS.
    No conflict of interest? Or how about Cheney and Halliburton?
    What's bizarre is the notion that Bill Clinton's conflicts of interest are on some new, never before seen scale; also, that he would be unwilling to make changes in his practices to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest if Hillary is SoS.
    Crazy talk.

    they're okay at the presidential (none / 0) (#29)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    and vice-presidential level, though, according to the current administration...

    sorry BTD...


    I don't understand all the so-called 'leaks' (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by byteb on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    about this story. It's clear that Obama knew he wanted Clinton for SOS and that he informally offered her the position last week. I can't imagine him making the offer if he had any real concerns about what a vetting process would uncover about Bill Clinton. He's (Obama) too thorough to allow leaks unless he was sure he wanted Clinton and Clinton was sure she wanted the position. My question is why has there been so much open speculation/hang wringing about what was pretty much a done deal?

    My guess? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:37:59 PM EST
    Keep everybody distracted while he works on other stuff with less attention.

    I think you're right. (none / 0) (#27)
    by byteb on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:43:05 PM EST
    thanks. :)

    Perhaps it also sends an early message (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM EST
    to our allies and others around the world that there will be a change in how we interact with the world once Obama's administration is installed.

    So called journalists (none / 0) (#104)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:48:44 AM EST
    Know they only have another week to make money off of this Obama vs. the Clinton story line.

    Yay! (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by coigue on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:29:48 PM EST

    It suddenly occurred to me this evening (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:40:10 PM EST
    that a main reason Obama may want Hillary is that she's the only person on the planet who could keep Joe Biden from interfering.

    I'm still wondering about that trip to Georgia he took and the weirdly belligerent stuff he said when he came back, and then shut up completely about it.

    Possible Obama realized he was going to be a problem and he'd have to have somebody at state with the stature and the you-know-whats to fight him off.

    Joe Biden is now semi-retired. Whatever (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:43:24 PM EST
    hopes he had of playing Cheney to Obama's Bush (pretty slim chance to begin with) are gone now. He might still have presidential ambitions, but the next years are going to be quiet for him.

    Tiger, I love ya (none / 0) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM EST
    but we're talking about Joe Biden here.  Quiet?  Joe Biden does not do quiet, nor semi-retirement.  He'll be semi-retired when they're carrying his coffin down the steps of the church.

    Meme is that Biden & Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:37:50 AM EST
    play very well together.  Actually, Hillary plays well with everyone; anyone hear anything but praise for her work in the Senate, even from Repubs?  THey may not agree with some of her policies, but there is enormous respect for her abilities and cordiality on both sides of the aisle.

    Don't you think it (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by JThomas on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:46:44 PM EST
    is possible that Obama just wants Hillary because she is a talented,experienced person on the international scene?

    I heard Bill Mahr say tonite that he does not buy all this ''drama''talk about the Clintons..and I agree. The Clintons do not create drama, outside of the campaign, it is other people including the press that try to create the drama....wanting the drama.

    All this discussion about what Obama's true motivations seem to be all about creating what is probably not there...some machivellian move by him...more simple...she is good, he wants her to help him.


    No because it's not (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:46:45 AM EST
    the best place to use her and there are seriously better people out there for the job.  No question, she would do it well, but not enough to explain the choice.  There are other motivations at work here, as well.

    I think there is more then enough (none / 0) (#105)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:49:54 AM EST
    Work to go around.  

    Re Obama admin. and anybody (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08:54 PM EST
    being Sec'y of State:  tonight I heard the Kirov Orchestra and Chorus, conducted by Gergiev.  Program was Prokofiev's film scores for Ivan and Nevsky.  My advice to Obama admin. and his Secretary of State:  Russia remains fiercely territorial and nationalist.  This music was performed in the most heartfelt manner imaginable.  Gergiev was born in Moscow of Ossetian parents.  

    Yes... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Thanin on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:53:49 AM EST
    I think Russia could be a far bigger problem than Iran, should they choose to be.

    Russia, a problem? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:06:55 AM EST
    Only if you look at it as a problem. You know, like one's terrorist is another's freedom-fighter.
    That's why I said up above in another post, that at least we have a President with a brain coming in.

    Also, the term, "nationalist, or nationalistic" is tossed about a little freely sometimes. So who isn't nationalistic? Between our patriotism and our love for the military, nationalism in America is up there akin to religious fervor.

    But, back to Russia, it does tweak your geopolitical outlook to have been attacked, and invaded twice this past century, and losing 50,000,000 people to those invasions might make you a little paranoid.  


    Woah... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Thanin on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:02:43 AM EST
    I wasnt judging per se, I was just saying they could easily cause Obama some consternation, even more so than Iran, if they choose to.

    We don't even manage to sing (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    national anthem, much less with gusto.  No comparison.

    I think you could argue (none / 0) (#121)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    that making a preemptive strike of war on a non-neighboring country is a huge sign of nationalism...

    I really haven't heard anyone here (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    singing about it though, have you?

    OK (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by TN Dem on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:16:34 PM EST
    I have been trying not to get my hopes up, but BTD has managed to have me abandon my Clinton caution for anything having to do with Obama. I am not speaking negatively about our President Elect...the world has been just a bit brighter since election day and I am happy to have him preparing to take the helm!

    I would, however, be incredibly relieved to have Hillary represent our Nation to foreign governments. It would give me yet another reason for HOPE.

    no doubt (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:25:22 PM EST
    I can just imagine the good will that having Obama as the President and Clinton as the SOS will bring to the country in regard to our relationships with other countries...

    I know that's not something half the country cares about (there are other countries that matter, really?) but for us in the half that does care about our relationships with other countries it will be a welcome change...

    I think the rest of the world is just happy it will no longer have to deal with Preemptive-Bush or the current republican party...


    or anyone else (none / 0) (#101)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:39:46 AM EST
    who is not smart/competent enough to understand complexities in international relationships

    foreign money doing good work, hey!! (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Yotin on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:28:22 PM EST
    for a change, it's good to know that foreign money is doing philanthropic work through a US venue, like the Clinton Foundation and an American institution getting the credit for it. What's so wrong about that? Can anybody donate charity money anonymously anymore?

    To say that Clinton who served as US President for 8 years honorably is now engaged in dishonorable work at the US expense is even worse than accusing Obama is not a patriot.

    Why Would Hillary want to be at State? (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:55:57 AM EST
    The Senate is a much better gig.  You know if things blow up Obama will blame her, and Bill.  If things go well, Obama will take all the credit.  And what happens after Obama's 4 years?  Can she boot the new Democratic Senator from NY out of his job, to get her old job back?  If Obama screws things up, Hillary will be tied to that mess forever.  

    Hillary shouldn't take this job, it's a set up.  

    The Gates Foundation, The Bloomberg Foundation, (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by SamJohnson on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:19:48 AM EST
    PEPFAR. Isn't it ironic the 15 billion was forwarded to PEPFAR (AIDS, malaria and TB) just before this took place? Bill has nothing to hide. Nor does his foundation. The only question was whether he would use his foundation as a pulpit for condemning world indifference, which could be a problem for an SOS. But Bill's issues are already Hillary's and Obama is already well versed to take info and direct counsel from Hillary, then engage her in the bidding of the US. Obama knows the turf and Hillary is the perfect spokesperson. And we will finally focus on the crushing inequities of women, the poor, and the root causes of terrorism.  Thousands of young grassroots activists have their sea legs. Bill actually needs Hillary (as do we all) to further the work of all these foundations. Paterson will run for Governor and win. Even New Yorkers can't stand Guiliani. Pretty sure that Patterson will appoint Nydia Velasquez. And, if Bloomberg, who will become a Democrat in 2009 and Paterson can restore NY's economy, we're talking legacies. And either one or both could run for Prez is they wanted in 8 years. Hillary couldn't be a more inspired and brilliant pick for SOS. And Obama gets a lot of the credit. But he also has a whole lot of things on his plate. Speaking for this BTD loving Dem only...

    You think it will be Nydia Velasquez? (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:48:43 AM EST
    I heard the news mention the Buffalo Mayor, Maloney and I missed the third, but it wasn't Nydia. She's my rep, and I would have no prob with her moving to the Senate. Maloney either  :)

    Can we just boot Rudy out of the state?


    nydaily is reporting (none / 0) (#88)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:59:07 AM EST
    that Velazquez could be the frontrunner

    That works for me! Thanks! (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:08:08 AM EST
    She's my Rep ... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 05:09:01 AM EST
    and though I think her voting record is fine.  Not too happy with her in the constituency services department.

    I've never once seen her mention anything about my neighborhood on her website.  And the few times I've called or emailed her office, I've gotten no response.  Not even an autoresponse.

    A minor point perhaps.  But a telling one, imho.


    Is This The Best America Has To Offer? (1.00 / 7) (#80)
    by wavingclouds on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:46:33 AM EST
    "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
    --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

    Common Barek your brighter than this. We voted for change not the past. If all the status quo are saying she is great for this then think twice.

    Also her view on China is way off.

    You may want to learn to spell (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by nycstray on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:22:40 AM EST
    Obama's first name correctly, might help your argument (for starters) ;)

    And if you have a prob with the past . . . Biden? I'm assuming you voted for a ticket with the past on it. And how about some of his advisers and transition team? Ahhh . . . what a tangled web they weave.


    Barrack to you (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by SamJohnson on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:25:28 AM EST
    It's his view on China that counts most. And as a vet who has escorted people all over the world, we probably made extra special care to alert civilians of potential sniper fire. I can't help but think you just really don't like women in general and Hillary in particular.

    Twitchers unite! (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by marian evans on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 03:42:35 AM EST
    The common or lesser barek (not to be confused with the Greater Barek) is to be found mainly in suburban gardens and woodlands around mainland US - though there have been some sightings of this popular denizen of American skies in far flung regions.

    Some twitchers have reported sightings as far afield as Hawaii and even Berlin. Alaska, however, seems out of the question.


    There was actually a video (none / 0) (#102)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:42:50 AM EST
    on the web a couple of months ago that showed that Hillary was under some fire; if I find it I will post link.
    Do you really want to trot out what your man calls "silly stuff" of the campaign, such as the bungle his campaign made of their stance on NAFTA? Time to give all this nonsense up, and focus on what HRC appointment would mean to helping out Obama's admin and the nation.

    The Next Kissinger (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:40:18 PM EST
    Sort of..

    I don't see the problem, save for CDS.

    I really like the idea of Gov David Patterson as NY State Senator too. I believe that NY State will remain in democratic control despite his departure.

    Nita Lowey for Senator (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by byteb on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:44:59 PM EST
    She's good.

    I hope HRC is more like Albright (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by hairspray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    than Kissinger.  He was a real machiavellian bad guy.  His work in Chile should have landed him in prison.

    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:14:55 PM EST
    Albright is a minor figure compared Hillary, imo. And I do not expect Hillary to be anything like Kissinger, who I can't stand.

    It was a joke in a way. More to the point the comparison is about stature and having a long career. Seeing Hillary on Sunday morning talk shows in twenty years, etc...


    I really like Gov Patterson (none / 0) (#31)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:45:08 PM EST
    and trust he will make a great decision in filling the vacant seat...

    Paterson... (none / 0) (#32)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    I always do that...what's up with the one 't'...messes with me...

    There is lots of talent to choose from in NY (none / 0) (#103)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    including Bobby Kennedy, Jr., Nita Lowey, etc.

    Paterson has said no to the seat (none / 0) (#47)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    according to the news I heard. I think he's running for Gov. As is prob Rudy (EEEK!).

    I think he'll use his thoughtfulness, though (none / 0) (#48)
    by of1000Kings on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:12:06 PM EST
    to make sure he places the right person in the seat...NY shouldn't have to worry much...

    One of the names I heard floated was Maloney (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:15:59 PM EST
    no problem there from me  :) Also the Buffalo Mayor. Folks here have mention my rep, no problems there either. I think NY has a lot of decent options. I like Paterson's point of view on issues and the direction NY has been going, so I think we're good to go. And I'm guessing Hillary may have some input  ;)

    Too Bad (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:19:41 PM EST
    I wonder who he will pick.

    At the very least.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:10:12 AM EST
    we'll probably get a real New Yorker.

    Like Kissinger? (none / 0) (#91)
    by cal1942 on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:46:30 AM EST
    We all better hope not.

    Has BTD revealed why he (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:54:47 PM EST
    didn't favor Clinton for Sec'y of State?

    Yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:56:40 PM EST
    She would be better for us as a Senator, or something like that.

    Thanks. That's it in a nutshell, (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM EST
    I gather.  (Even though she doesn't have the pull to get a sub committee chair.)

    But with no elaboration. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldpro on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    Or did I miss it?

    AP says Holbrooke is still (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:27:29 PM EST
    working to be Secretary of State.

    And will probably continue to ... (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 01:23:32 AM EST
    do that long after the sun has died and the earth lays cold in space.

    You know (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 02:12:27 AM EST
    I heard that recently recently too. I heard also that it would take billions of years to get there. I was greatly relieved because, at first, I though he had said, millions.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 04:49:55 AM EST
    I bet SNL people are happy (none / 0) (#95)
    by WS on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 07:39:24 AM EST
    They can have Hillary to spoof as she meets heads of state around the world.  

    Go Hillary!!!

    Thank You President Elect Obama!!

    I imagine (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    It would be no different if Hillary was president and they've already figured some of this stuff out.

    I admire and appreciate both Clintons, but (none / 0) (#111)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 10:20:20 AM EST
    do not want to see Hillary as Sos.  I will spare everyone repetition of the comments I posted yesterday in response to one of BTD's posts on this matter, the article linked below nicely encapsulates my differences as an Obama supporter with HRC on foreign policy.

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/18/obama_may_give_clinton_purview_in_area_ where_they_differed_most/

    I liked HRC's domestic agenda that she presented in the primaries.  My support for Obama turned on foreign policy. To now have the President-elect appoint HRC as the face of his foreign policy, and perhaps as the initiator of it, is a real disappointment.  

    And there is no inconsistency with my valuing HRC in the Senate where she is one of one hundred voices on foreign policy, or on the Supreme Court where matters material to foreign policy are the exception, not the rule, and where she would still be one of nine ruling on any such  matters.  She'd be a great jurist for life.

    Finally, New York, as great and wonderful a state as there is, did elect Alfonse D'amato.  So I hate to see a sure senate seat turned over to an unproven vote getter.

    Kissinger and Kyl in support of this should put  anyone concerned about a foreign policy that puts human rights and peaceful coexistence at its center on notice.  It is not that HRC is not concerned with  these matters, it is rather that support for the de facto empire and the system surrounding  which has been in place since the end of World War II is part and parcel of her idea of America.  

    As a practical matter, we can no longer afford that system.  As a human rights matter, the US empire and the military-industrial - corporate complex that gave birth to it has produced untold suffering in and backlash from Iran, Chile, Viet Name, Iraq . . .

    We need change in our foreign policy more urgently than in any other area of government operation.