Hillary to Join Obama in Chicago For Sec'y State Announcement

Bump and Update: It's Offical. Hillary will fly to Chicago tomorrow to join Obama for his cabinet appointments announcement, including her own as Secretary of State. Congratulations, Hillary!


CNN and other news organizations are reporting that President Elect Barack Obama will name Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State on Monday.

The New York Times reports on the lengthy negotiations between Team Obama and Bill Clinton and the 9 preconditions the former President had to meet. [More...]

Former President Bill Clinton has agreed to publicly disclose the names of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an accord with President-elect Barack Obama clearing the way for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to become secretary of state, Democrats close to both sides said Saturday.

The disclosure of contributors is one of nine conditions Mr. Clinton signed off on during discussions with representatives of Mr. Obama, all of which go beyond the requirements of law.

...Lawyers for Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama spent days crafting the agreement in hopes of addressing any concerns about his activities. Mr. Clinton had previously said he would do whatever the Obama transition team asked in order to make it possible for his wife to serve without questions.

Among the concessions:

[Clinton] also agreed to incorporate his Clinton Global Initiative separately from his foundation so that he has less direct involvement. The initiative, which fights disease, poverty and climate change, would no longer hold annual meetings outside of the United States or accept new contributions from foreign governments.

Mr. Clinton also agreed to submit his personal speeches and business activities for review first to State Department ethics officials and, if necessary, to the White House counsel’s office.

My view: Whatever it takes. Hillary will make an excellent Secretary of State.

< Obama: Delivering What I Expected | Did "The Middle" Decide The Election? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Silver Lining (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:15:32 PM EST
    Feingold becomes the leading Democratic critic in the Senate, when appropriate.

    He's a Kerry away (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:58:11 PM EST
    from being chair of FR.

    If only (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:19:50 AM EST
    Feingold could get the chair of Foreign Relations.

    It would be, for me, the one bright light in an otherwise unexciting and pedestrian assortment of replacements for the Bush machine.


    Foreign Relations is OK for Now, but (none / 0) (#45)
    by Brownell on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    I'm holding out for Senator Feingold as President Obama's first appointment to the Supreme Court.  Senator Feingold is progressive, substantive and confirmable - and he has the moral grit to take a stand as a minority holdout on the Court, at least for his first years.

    Instead of whining about this or that "center-right" executive appointment, I would like to see progressive activists and bloggers get behind judicial appointments early - before those less desirable are actually nominated.  


    We all knew the Bill stuff (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 29, 2008 at 11:17:56 PM EST
    was cr@p. I don't understand why he needs to distance himself from the Clinton Global Initiative. What is the problem the Obama team has with fighting disease, poverty and climate change? I understand releasing the names of the donors and clearing his speeches. I also get the restriction on accepting $$$ from foreign governments. But what is their problem with the CGI?

    Optics. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:06:07 AM EST
    It's the Obama caution at work again.

    I do appreciate Obama not wanting to be distracted by any preventable scandal, real or imagined, I just hope that he's worth it.


    I beg to differ (none / 0) (#23)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:04:44 AM EST
    I think this is more about control. And why should Bill Clinton have to get prior approval from WH Counsel, etc. before giving speeches? Not even Bush Sr was required to do this. Perhaps there's more subtext to the agreement we don't know about.

    Bush Senior's (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:17:55 AM EST
    wife was not up for a top cabinet appointment. And plus, um, his son was, you know, the actual president.

    I wrote the Public Editor (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:05:38 AM EST
    about the Times article. It's been expanded since, but the version I write about and this one had the usually unattributed accusations about Clinton's "activities."

    Why only questions about the Clintons? CDS

    Businessman (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 08:46:20 AM EST
    "Mr. Clinton has built a new life as a businessman and international philanthropist"

    Can anybody explain what is meant by Bill Clinton as a "businessman"?

    What "business" is he in?  Why does this word keep popping up every time he's written about? What "business deals" is he involved in?

    Serious question.  Is it universal CDS in the media or is Bill actually involved in "business" in some way?


    Could be (none / 0) (#29)
    by WS on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:31:23 AM EST
    referring to speeches he makes.  That could qualify him as a consultant.  

    You think he gives speeches (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    advising people on how to conduct their business or their PR?  I don't think so.

    You can't stretch a former POTUS giving a speech into a "business deal."  That's what former POTUSes do, they give speeches.  As far as I know, BC doesn't even serve on any corporate boards or have his own investment company or any of the stuff, say, Bush, sr., does.  Yet only BC's is referred to darkly as having "business deals."


    I think it is Bill Clinton's (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    former connection with Ron Burkle and Yucaipa:



    So long Secretary of State Rice! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:10:49 AM EST
    I groaned when I heard Rice on the news last week.

    I very much look forward to hearing SoS Clinton.  

    Rice (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:24:34 AM EST
    Every time I see or hear Rice, the only thing that comes to mind is her buying expensive shoes in a New York City shopping spree while people were drowning and dying in New Orleans.

    I did not like Albright.
    I did not like Kissinger.
    I did not like Powell.

    I can't think of a S of S that I did like.

    I hope it will be at least a little while before I feel the same quality of contempt for Hillary Clinton. It normally happens when they become salespeople for a bunch of b.s. that the administration is trying to con us with.


    I understand. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 08:26:07 AM EST
    I'm hoping Obama has learned by Bush's multiple bad examples how NOT to conduct international negotiations.

    Until someone is willing to address the (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:05:39 PM EST
    Israeli-Palestinean situation in an honest, realistic, and unbiased way, our foreign policy agenda will not be truly advanced. It is a shadow hanging over many of our relationships with other countries.

    And if our leaders "pretend" it's not there until time for re-election when they must render the appropriate speech to AIPAC et al., to get elected again, I don't see a solution to many of our foreign policy woes.

    Applying balance and honesty will only begin to resolve that issue. I think that Hillary has potential to be a good diplomat. But, she will have to be an honest broker and a forward thinker to have a positive impact on our foreign policy. I hope she's up to the task and that Obama supports fairness and integrity in our dealings with other countries.


    How about Israel/Middle East? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Fabian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:54:42 PM EST
    It's simplistic to think that Israel and Palestine are the only players in that drama.  If it really was that simple, it should have been resolved eons ago.

    We have a LOT of work to do in that region.  If we approach it in a holistic way, not separating out Iran or Iraq or Israel (or Syria or...) then our efforts have a chance of lasting success.  


    Let me be clear. I am not naive enough to think (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:18:23 PM EST
    that that conflict is the only problem we have in the region or that they are the only players in the Middle Eastern drama. But, that conflict has been a source of contention in the region long before Israel became an independent country.

    I do think that the I-P conflict has been a springboard for creating new problems with other countries or exacerbating existing problems. Almost all of the other countries of the region, alas, in the world, have strong opinions with regard to the players involved and some stake in the outcome.

    The conflict itself figures into the fears of other countries and their people and in some way threatens what they consider to be their well-being. This conflict has generated an intricate web of alliances and adversarial relationships depending on each state's position therein.

    The new Secretary of State will have a host of problems to address, but I think this conflict strongly and pervasively affects international affairs throughout the world; accordingly, a reasonable resolution in that area would go a long way in mitigating some of the other difficulties we face. Of course, not all of them.


    Barack's speech should begin thus, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by pcpablo on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:43:01 AM EST
    I am here to confirm the worst kept secret in my administration...

    This is completely stupid (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by pluege on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:40:55 AM EST
    It is useless and foolhardy to try to protect against what will be trumped phony accusations regardless of what Bill Clinton does in an effort to preempt such accusations. Making him do anything above and beyond the law is unnecessarily restrictive. It won't matter how squeaky clean or restrictive the agreement is, the Clinton Derangement media, their republican/conservative whack pack overlord, and the left blogstan wingnuts will just invent pony controversy anyway. Reality has never played a part in CDS or in anyway limited its occurred or malfeasance.

    Notice also how the insanity of the republican/conservative axis has automatically impinged on an organization that helps people and the environment. So mark this unnecessary preemptive capitulation as another victory of the forces of wrong, intolerance, violence, and greed.

    The Field at DK and other (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by kempis on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 08:24:04 AM EST
    Clinton-haters who were just sure that there was no way Obama would really offer State to Hillary will no doubt put an interesting spin on this. I'm curious to see what it will be. Surely, they won't admit that they were wrong and that their theory (in which "Clintonistas" were the conniving villains, leaking the "lie" that Obama wanted Hillary as his Secretary of State) was strained--to put it kindly.

    The really fun place (5.00 / 10) (#24)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:08:18 AM EST
    to go is Huffpo, the blog most infected by CDS anywhere.  Then again, the blog was created by Clinton hating, Reagan loving, Gingrich good friend Arianna H.

    I struggle to understand how former republicans like Arianna, a person who spent much of the 90s trashing the Clintons; who seemingly adored Ronald Reagan (apparently you can have your administration support despots in South American; train the torture thugs of Guatemala and Nicaragua and remain a heroic icon to some but if you are a Clinton who voted, not for war but for a tool to pressure more inspectors, you are a war mongering hawk) get to be an icon of progressive thought.

    I can't wait to see how Sullivan, Hitchens, Matthews and all the other Bush supporters, former lovers of, who are deeply infected by CDS, would act if they would be asked to apologize for every political word of support for Reagan admin, the Bushes, that they ever made. Seriously these former right wingers, Reagan lovers, libertarians are the most sanctimonious bunch of hypocrites around.


    Matthews will have to be careful (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:19:32 AM EST
    if he really does want to run for the senate as a Democrat.

    I'm hoping against hope that he does and gets a well-deserved dose of the medicine he's been dispensing.  He'd probably be taken out in the primary but in fact it might be more useful to bury him in the senate where showboats are sometimes shunned.

    Don't know how he'd survive without the limelight of a weekly television show or two.


    There is no better choice that Hillary for SOS. (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by sas on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    She is known globaly, adored by millions around the world (especially women) and is a policy wonk on issues of foreign affairs.  She has the details .  

    She is sensitive to cultures and has learned to work with them.  She knows many leaders on a first name basis.

    She will provide Obama the background, and more importanty, the wisdom he needs.  Given that he is a foreign policy beginner, I feel much safer with Hillary at the helm of state.

    The downside is-she may end up taking the blame for some of his policies.  

    And of course (none / 0) (#82)
    by Natal on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    the upside is -- she may be given credit for some of his policies that are successful.

    hooray (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    yay yay happy dance! I am ecstatic! This is awesome. Hillary is a wonkish goddess and loves to work and work hard. We needed her and I am so so glad we are getting her. Thank you team Obama.

    Who can look at the world and give (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:31:12 AM EST
    Obama more incisive analysis of the world situation? He picked far and away the best mind for the job.  I'm glad for our country.

    Heads are now (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:26:37 PM EST
    exploding en masse on Huffpo......
    quite entertaining I must say.
    The pseudo progressives, the libertarians, and the neocons of that blog really cannot control their CDS symptoms so well.

    But what does the evil queen of CDS (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    have to say? Surely Aravosis is not silent.

    Um - it's not official (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    because Mike Allen says so.

    It will be official tomorrow at 10:40 am.

    Just sayin'

    In terms of it being a done deal, well it was a done deal, imo, when Hillary decided to accept Obama's offer a week or so ago.

    I wouldn't be surprised if it was a (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:24:53 PM EST
    done deal when she agreed to drop out of the primary race. Or told him she didn't want to be VP (which I think could be the reason she wasn't under serious consideration for the slot.)

    I would be. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:49:11 PM EST
    I don't think Obama had any intention of ever offering her the VP slot.  Let's not go back and pretend things were different then. Obviously Obama sees her worth as SoS after months of her campaigning for him and his realization that first and foremost she is a public servant.  I don't think it was some done deal back when she had just lost. Absolutely not. Wishful thinking on your part, IMO.

    I don't necessarily think it was a done deal that (none / 0) (#57)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:44:29 PM EST
    far back, but Obama is an intelligent, perceptive person, and of course he saw and understood the strength and other positive qualities she possessed when he was campaigning against her.

    People say all kinds of things about people in order to win. That's the bottom line in politics. When campaigning, one doesn't comment negatively about an opponent's trait unless they perceive it as a potential threat to them. So, Obama knew all along she had positive traits that could be utilized for foreign policy negotiations, etc., so when the scrapping was over, he thought about how he could capitalize on her assets.

    One thing I definitely admire about him is his willingness to gather intelligent and effective people around him to assist in advancing his agenda and to counsel him wisely so that he can be an effective president. (He has made some choices that I'm not in agreement with, but I expected that.)

    I don't think Obama neglected to see Clinton's strengths during the primaries; he was probably as aware or more aware of them than almost anyone. That's why he brought her on board.


    Maybe, the vice presidential nod (none / 0) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:41:51 PM EST
    will still come to Mrs. Clinton--in four years.  Biden may retire or  move to a cabinet post.  The assuredly superb record of Mrs. Clinton at the State Department and different berms then existing in the  political landscape may suggest a shift in the ticket. A lot of ifs, I know, sort of like if my uncle were a woman he would be my aunt. However, it also seemed unlikely, at one point,  that Mr. Obama would nominate Mrs. Clinton as Secretary of State.

    Didn't they also have a 1 on 1 meeting (none / 0) (#56)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    around that time?

    Hillary as SOS (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by S on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:12:00 PM EST
    This is the best news I have heard all year...Hillary will be extraordinary as SOS...she is smart, articulate, tough, knows the issues, knows the players and has instant world recognition...Hillary will work her heart out to repair and recreate better diplomatic and foreign policy affairs and conflicts...

    ...contrary to the Clinton haters and nit pickers...Hillary and Bill are admired, beloved and respected in the world and on the international stage...they will both be welcomed and cheered...

    ...thank goodness Barak Obama had the wise and good sense to put Hillary...and Bill...both on the track to restoring our reputation and re-establishing the path back to peace in the world...we are now in fast forward mode to progress and positive results...

    in addition, this is great news for the women in the world...they will have a very strong voice speaking on their behalf as well as all the other foreign policy issues...

    ...the best news I have heard...very inspiring...

    Bill has the upper hand (3.25 / 8) (#18)
    by koshembos on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 07:09:25 AM EST
    Obama's demand from Bill Clinton seem petty and vengeful. it's bad enough the he stole the primaries with rigged caucuses and money to super delegates (no need for the Supreme Court), now he demands full censorship over Bill Clinton speeches (as if Bill is in the government), visibility into the foundation (is he planning to steal money?) and loosen Bill control over the Global Initiative.

    (Censorship shows the weakness of Obama's thinking. Bill tends to improvise and deviates from the written text and many times just talks unprepared. What will Obama do? Fire Hillary? Stupidity is a major presidential disease lately.)

    Bill Clinton is the class act here willing to do anything for his wife, while Obama with Holder and Daschle liabilities looks like a leech.

    cds ods and the mix (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:57:46 AM EST
    some of those who did not want this to happen (as they are DEMS still not supporting Obama), carp that this is merely a way for Obama to get HRC out of the Senate and then dump her. If we ignore that Hill has no power in the Senate to play with them we must say this move to outline Big Dawgs steps should help take the wind out of that chatter..

    Were that the case, this move by Obama and Big Dawg to lay out the MANY hoops and steps jumped thru to get Hillary this appt shuld show that Obama has no intention of simply firing Hill later and, it would create ill will toward him if he did so..

    so please can we just all work for a positive future together now, to the lurkers here who comment elsewhere? I am sick of the griping seriously. This is our President and this is our much needed SoS, and I dont want a repeat of 92-94 when some Dems and the media thought the Clintons werent good enough and kept blocking things we needed to get done!

    sorry but I am sick of people saying this is an evil plot. This is Obama appointing the best person for the job!!


    How anyone who likes Obama (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    could think he would play such ridiculous games with the State Department is way beyond me. Truly deranged.  I think they just like to come up with these theories, like some people like sci-fi.

    He picked who he wanted for the job. Period, full stop.


    best and wisest comment in this thread (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ps911fan on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:35:18 AM EST
    Thank you so very much!

    But (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:30:38 PM EST
    Correct me if I am wrong, the problem outlined above is not with people who like Obama, it is with those who abhor him. Clearly koshembos belongs to that bunch.

    At this point in time, ODS and CDS should be obsolete for all but GOPers on this blog.


    recovering ODSers (none / 0) (#66)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:15:13 PM EST
    exactly, but they spread it eeyore fashion, and the CDS deranged media doesnt need the assist. This is a wonderful thing this appointment, I came over from being incredibly suspicious of the Raygun praising Obama movement to now viewing the incoming Administration as being inclusive of moderate views, I am hoping the ODSers who are Democrats will be more pragmatic and open to success with the Obama Administration as well....

    eeyore fashion? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:23:18 PM EST
    Not familar with your shorthand here. Or is it a typo?

    Brings to mind (none / 0) (#69)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh.  Dunno why it's used here, though.

    I See (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    a pessimistic, gloomy, depressed, old grey stuffed donkey

    ODS fits that bill, at least these days. Kinda like this:

    I keep hearing how much Obama loves his wife and won't that be great to see in the WH {gag!}

    It's really a (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:02:06 PM EST
    delightful cartoon for children. Jeez, this brings back memories. . .

    Sweet (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    Umm . . . (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:06:47 PM EST
    just because I find that gag worthy from the MSM doesn't mean I have ODS. Or that I'm with the GOP.

    And as much as I think Eeyore is cute, our personalities are pretty much stark opposites. You might want to grab a clue. You need one.


    Obama Family at WH (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:26:59 PM EST
    gag worthy? Sorry I do not see it that way. Seems rather mean spirited to me. Quite worthy of advanced ODS or wingnut banter.

    Learn to read (none / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:33:31 PM EST
    It's the MSM's gushing I find gag worthy.

    And implying I'm ODS or a wingnut is beyond the pale.


    You Don't Even Get It (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 05:43:03 PM EST
    Do you. Not surprised. Try this version:

    I keep hearing how much Bill loves his wife and won't that be great to see in the WH {gag!}.  

    Does that help you see how what you wrote appears to be part of a general condition known as derangement syndrome.


    "I keep hearing" (none / 0) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:56:31 PM EST
    are the keywords. The gush factor is what I find gag worthy. Not that the Obamas love each other or the fact they will be in the WH. And yes, the girls are darling also, but when certain talking heads babble on and gush, it gets just a wee bit ridiculous {gag factor alert!} What you don't get is the absence of these comments about others. In particular, the Clintons (quite the opposite in some cases). I happen to believe the Bushs love each other. As did/do the Carters, etc. What the F*** is so damn special about the Obama's that it must be gushed over endlessly? It's falling close to Tweety and his tingling leg with some out there.

    Believe me, I have just as little tolerance for over the top Hillary worshipers, especially when it starts distorting reality and/or carries any gag factor. Of course, that doesn't seem to be much of an issue these days because she is busy plotting a secret government and Bill is off doing evil business deals on one side and on the other, Obama's setting her up to fail and be booted out quickly rendering her useless and safe  ;)


    Anyway (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:07:07 PM EST
    I am loving it to imagine a democratic dark skinned family in the white house. They are young with cute kids the cute hypoallergenic dog. If the MSM is gushing, it means that once in a while they get it right, media darling notwithstanding.

    As cynical aka anti Hallmark, anti nationalist, non sentimental as I am,  my heart is warmed by the change in leadership we are going through.

    Obama family in the WH is really cool. I am not gagging a bit.


    You still don't get it. (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:05:27 AM EST
    Obama family in the WH is really cool. I am not gagging a bit.

    Yet again, that IS NOT what I was gagging about. And if the MSM is too busy gushing, how accurate is their reporting? What are they neglecting to report while wasting our time? Those cute Obama children don't have to worry about tainted food, the rest of America's children . . . not so lucky. And that is just the tip of the iceberg . . .   ;)

    They are young with cute kids the cute hypoallergenic dog.

    Nice image, unrealistic and out of touch though. Sounds almost Donna Reed era. All about appearances  ;)


    Small Problem (none / 0) (#5)
    by jarober on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:57:01 AM EST
    Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution:

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

    That's a rather large legal hurdle for Clinton (or any sitting Senator, for that matter) to overcome - unless we simply want to ignore the Constitution...

    I think the team (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:05:22 AM EST
    can use Lexis and the Congressional Record.

    For the rest of us, there's Wikipedia, which explains the Saxbe Fix.


    There must be a better use for such energy (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Lysis on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:49:56 AM EST
    I am always amazed by the lengths that Hillary's detractors go to in their fruitless efforts to undermine her.  I do think that solutions to cancer, AIDS, global warming, the economic crisis and both current wars could be found in nanoseconds if people just worked as hard to find them as they do to discredit the Clintons.

    Interesting link (none / 0) (#34)
    by magster on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    I also wonder whether it could be argued that since the raises are cost of living adjustments, that it is not really raising the "emoluments", just keeping the emoluments from decreasing.

    Interesting how it's (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by nycstray on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:47:12 AM EST
    Clinton's hurdle, not Obama's who happens to be the one that wants her.

    Constitution - conshmistution (none / 0) (#28)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    Whose ever hurdle this is, what do you think about the article from the Constitution posted by jarober above?

    "Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution:

    No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

    To me it is eye-opening.
    Do you suppose the people who wrote that article were on to something?
    I get the impression that nobody gives a sh-t.


    There's something called the Saxbe Fix (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by steviez314 on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    Interesting (none / 0) (#36)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 10:58:11 AM EST
    In reading the article on this "fix" - it seems like a slippery way of evading the intent of this article of the Constitution.

    I am left to wonder whether the writers of the article in question were on to something when they wrote it - and whether we would be better off honoring their intent rather than finding a means to get around it.

    Of course, reading that Nixon was one of the slippery individuals using this "fix" reinforces any feeling in me that there is something amiss with the fix.


    On the contrary (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by andgarden on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 12:02:25 PM EST
    I think it evades the text to some degree. I think it is in the spirit of the intent, however. Could the framers have intended to prevent the appointment to a high post a sitting member of the Senate? I don't think so.

    The intent was to stop members of Congress from creating offices for themselves.


    So our constitutional scholar president-elect (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 11:26:43 AM EST
    missed this? Soemthing tells me there is more to it than what you are quoting.

    I just hope this is the right thing for Hillary (none / 0) (#7)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:00:15 AM EST
    I hope it works for her, with Obama.  I don't trust that he won't use her, or blame her, if things don't go well somewhere in the world.  

    I had concerns along those lines when I first (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:14:22 AM EST
    heard the rumors about her potential appointment as SoS. But, the more that I thought about it, the more confidence I had that Hillary would make the right decision.

    Hillary is intelligent, but equally important in some cases, she appears to be highly intuitive. And remember, after their first meeting, she started to waver a bit; but, she met with Obama again and was able to negotiate an agreement she felt more comfortable with.

    I think she'll make an excellent Secretary of State. She has many positive characteristics that will support her success in the position. And, Obama appointed her, and conceded some things to attract her. Obama is an achiever and he wants to leave a positive legacy. I don't think that he would undercut anybody that worked to advance his agenda.


    Le problem (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 06:36:46 AM EST
    The problem with the S of S position is that it is their gig to "advance the agenda" of the administration in which they serve.
    Hello Colin Powell.

    We can only hope that Obama's agenda is progressive. I am not at all hopeful about his foreign policy. His thanksgiving speech contained recycled Bushisms about the young people "enlisting" in a "time of war" and their sacrifice being a sign of the "strength of America". He didn't talk about getting these young people out of Iraq.

    Of course Obama, like the rest of them, wants to leave a positive legacy. But they can rationalize anything. Bush thinks that in a scrillion years he will be viewed positively. Their capacity for delusion is breathtaking.

    We'll start to know something in a few months.


    I'm not big on hope (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 07:09:31 AM EST
    If we want a progressive agenda, we have to apply political pressure to get it. I'm not going to wait around and wait to be disappointed, since if we sit around without speaking up, we will surely be disappointed!

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM EST
    One of our problems is the the mislabeled "progressive" movement has been lulled into a coma. They are celebrating what they call "their" victory. It is enough that Obama got elected. "Historic" and all that.

    The soldiers and civilians in Iraq are being forgotten while they bask in this stupor.


    Indeed (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 09:59:55 AM EST
    When all the people who lambasted Clinton for her AUMF vote start camping out on the Mall demanding an end to the war rather that congratulating themselves for being open-minded enough to vote for an African-American, I'll have more respect for them.

    IMO, that was a problem at the outset with the (none / 0) (#49)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    Obama campaign. Too many generalizations and not enough specifics.

    And you're right, how some of the blogger boyz were defining progressive was inconsistent with how I described it. And as far as "the Hope" part goes, it seemed relevant only in the sense that, "I hope the change he wants is remotely close to the change I want."

    With all of the blogger and media discussions of the progressive agenda and "the Left," I was (am) still waiting for it to appear. Very few policies, etc. that they have outlined as being on the Left, were what I would describe as truly Leftist.

    Progressives, leftist-leaning people, etc, need to be very vocal, organized, and active to really have any power to influence a presidential agenda. And, that requires money to get progressives in a position to win. Money is the name of the game right now. AND, we all need to be willing to work for it, and work really hard.

    I do hope Obama can be successful in implementing some positive change in policies, but he has many daunting tasks ahead of him. It's amazing how much destruction can be wrought in only 8 years.


    From AP article: (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:10:40 PM EST
    Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton was an extraordinary gesture of good will after a year in which the two rivals competed for the Democratic nomination in a long, bitter primary battle.
     [Italics added.]

    The AP is ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:00:38 PM EST
    They think he chose her to mend fences? If he were interested in fence mending, he would have picked her for VP.  Now that he is elected, I hope he is picking the people that he thinks are best for each job.  I doubt that Obama would play games -- or play politics -- with the SOS position.  Rewarding flunkies is what the position of Sec'y of Commerce is for.  (And that's not just a knock on Richardson; I think SOC is often given to a top fundraiser or to other politically important allies.)

    I know you aren't endorsing the AP view, but I thought I would explicitly mock it since you were too polite to do so.  :-)


    Fox Style (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    The AP's shift isn't sloppy, it's deliberate

    Steve Benen

    AP has moved to a more right wing model of reporting, in order to "cut through the clutter". They are no longer just reporting facts, and that is their current policy, not my opinion. They mixing up fact and opinion and presenting it as unbiased news in order to counter falling readership.


    Sometimes, I think reporters can't muster a (none / 0) (#61)
    by DeborahNC on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 03:36:55 PM EST
    a creative thought, and feeling compelled to write something, anything, they throw out inane analyses, like the one mentioned above--mending fences.

    Truly tragic, really. Often, however, such useless stories are initiated and propelled by editors, who answer to their bosses. It's the ludicrous chain of command theory. Who better to start one of those chains than their corporate owners.

    Yet, I'm still not letting individual reporters off the hook!


    giggling gaggle (none / 0) (#65)
    by jedimom on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    well this is Fouhy, she and Pickler are the gaggling gals from the youtube of Obama in jeans on the plane, UGH, a disgrace to journalism these two, glad there were facts in the piece at all...

    Looking forward to a slew of (none / 0) (#53)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    "but she won't get confirmed!!!!" posts.

    not here of course n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
    Congrats, (none / 0) (#55)
    by WS on Sun Nov 30, 2008 at 02:27:06 PM EST

    She will do an excellent job as SoS, and Obama is a very smart person for picking her.  

    Los Angeles Times article on (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 01, 2008 at 01:26:34 AM EST
    Clinton as Obama's Secretary of State and Israel/Palestine issues.  LAT