Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State - thoughts?

[RU OX Alum]

whose Byrd? did the chain of command change again?

[honeychile]

I think the only thing that Byrd has to worry about is Father Time. President> Vice President> Speaker of the House> Secretary of State.

I agree with the other dissenters who have posted, but I also feel that the post should be held by a man. Yeah, I know that's not a popular opinion, but our SoS should be able to speak to and be respected by foreign leaders of all religions.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I think the only thing that Byrd has to worry about is Father Time. President> Vice President> Speaker of the House> President pro tempore> Secretary of State.

I agree with the other dissenters who have posted, but I also feel that the post should be held by a man. Yeah, I know that's not a popular opinion, but our SoS should be able to speak to and be respected by foreign leaders of all religions.

Corrected.

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I also feel that the post should be held by a man. Yeah, I know that's not a popular opinion, but our SoS should be able to speak to and be respected by foreign leaders of all religions.

Your political record should be the thing that earns you respect. Leaders of any worth should recognize the value in others of different populations. If we ask non-Christian religious leaders to respect our mostly Christian leaders, why could we not ask male leaders to respect a female one?

It's something that world leaders will have to deal with, whether they like it or not. Please remember that Clinton is not the first female US Secretary of State and that a variety of countries have had female heads of state.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I think the only thing that Byrd has to worry about is Father Time. President> Vice President> Speaker of the House> Secretary of State.

I agree with the other dissenters who have posted, but I also feel that the post should be held by a man. Yeah, I know that's not a popular opinion, but our SoS should be able to speak to and be respected by foreign leaders of all religions.

I understand what you are saying and in the short term it may seem reasonable, but basically it rewards the sexism of other nations and perpetuates their bias. If we're ever really in a situation where we believe the sex of the SoS will make a difference in achieving OUR aims, since so far we've had male Presidents, we can handle things at a different level.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

whose Byrd? did the chain of command change again?

Nevermind, I figured it out.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Well, this will make her the democratic shoe-in for 2016, of course, she will be 69 by then... I am worried that if that is her aims, that she will do whatever it is in her power to make sure that this administration goes her way, so that the democrats are in favor in that year. This makes me nervous.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Well, this will make her the democratic shoe-in for 2016, of course, she will be 69 by then... I am worried that if that is her aims, that she will do whatever it is in her power to make sure that this administration goes her way, so that the democrats are in favor in that year. This makes me nervous.

yeah...i don't think she'll do a good job

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Well, this will make her the democratic shoe-in for 2016, of course, she will be 69 by then... I am worried that if that is her aims, that she will do whatever it is in her power to make sure that this administration goes her way, so that the democrats are in favor in that year. This makes me nervous.

Wait, what?

First off, she'll have little to no power to shape "this administration" . . . wow. Second, instead of making it go "her way" she should likely ensure that it is popular, to prevent the kind of mid-term meltdown that happened while her husband is in office. That doesn't mean any sort of self-serving motive, but rather a likely willingness to play ball as long as the Obama administration doesn't falter horrifically.

Also, most sources think there is very little chance she'll run in 2016 (or 2012 or 2020 or whatever) after the stress of this campaign.

I mean . . . if you have a substantive policy issue, I can see being nervous, but she's fairly well qualified and gives a completely different angle than most SOS nominees (she's not from a military background; her heavy support of international woman's rights movements).

I'll even give you a hint: her beliefs on Iraq don't exactly mesh well with Obama's stated stance, not to mention Iran. And even in spite of that, I think this is a relatively inspired pick - and I really don't like HRC all that much.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

?

I mean . . . if you have a substantive policy issue, I can see being nervous, but she's fairly well qualified and gives a completely different angle than most SOS nominees (she's not from a military background; her heavy support of international woman's rights movements).

Umm... She is highly qualified for a lot of positions, I agree, but Secretary of State? I thought it was her foreign affairs jabber is what loss me during the primaries... esp. her retelling of true events that are almost as bad as Palin's Russia experience...

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Umm... She is highly qualified for a lot of positions, I agree, but Secretary of State? I thought it was her foreign affairs jabber is what loss me during the primaries... esp. her retelling of true events that are almost as bad as Palin's Russia experience...

What qualifies her for anything, including Secretary of State? Six years in Senate do not a foreign-policy expert make, by a long shot.

Do we remember the "under sniper fire" story?

Remember, it was Tina Fey who made the Russia comment, and the Africa comment has been shown to be a hoax.

AND, she pilloried Bill Richardson because he dared to let his conscience, rather than party loyalty, be his guide. Mind you, Richardson is another kook, but Her Royal Hillary's treatment of him was atrocious.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DGTess

What qualifies her for anything, including Secretary of State? Six years in Senate do not a foreign-policy expert make, by a long shot.

Do we remember the "under sniper fire" story?

Remember, it was Tina Fey who made the Russia comment, and the Africa comment has been shown to be a hoax.

AND, she pilloried Bill Richardson because he dared to let his conscience, rather than party loyalty, be his guide. Mind you, Richardson is another kook, but Her Royal Hillary's treatment of him was atrocious.

Oh - a hawk when convenient, I see?

Life isn't (and shouldn't be) the union hall - seniority is garbage, meritocracy is fundamental. Let's focus less on temporal or ephemeral BS like "experience" and go for some more tangible qualities:

-Her hawkish views on Iraq/Iran (considerably further right than Obama) give a nicely-rounded view on foreign policy to the cabinet, especially when combined with Gates. Since you've shown yourself to be, basically, a far-right Republican, you should appreciate this sort of ideal - it's not stacked with "Obamabots," a decision that can only benefit us all.

-Her name/reputation is gold in many parts of the world, an important consideration when rebuilding from literally the lowest point in the history of America in terms of foreign reputation.

-She does indeed have substantive foreign diplomacy experience, although accrued as First Lady - you can argue that it was done for political gain, and we can point out her exaggerations, but that doesn't change the actual experience. Sure, her baggy ass didn't get shot at in Serbia, but she has visited 80+ nations, set up discussions and negotiations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India (which Bush rejected, btw), etc. It's still there, even if we accept that her job is mostly to fly and wave.

-The angle she brings (more interested in human/woman's rights than any previous SOS) has genuine utility - far more so than, say, John Kerry's corpse (but he has EXPERIENCE!).

-Additionally, of all the major candidates save McCain, HRC showed the best preparation and ability to discuss and adapt to foreign policy concerns during the primary season - she's a wonk.

You can argue for intangibles, or argue that she sucks, or argue that you don't like her, but I doubt you can really rebut that she's uniquely qualified for the position. That doesn't mean she's necessarily best-qualified . . .

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by DGTess

What qualifies her for anything, including Secretary of State? Six years in Senate do not a foreign-policy expert make, by a long shot.

Do we remember the "under sniper fire" story?

Remember, it was Tina Fey who made the Russia comment, and the Africa comment has been shown to be a hoax.

AND, she pilloried Bill Richardson because he dared to let his conscience, rather than party loyalty, be his guide. Mind you, Richardson is another kook, but Her Royal Hillary's treatment of him was atrocious.

Right, Tina Fey said the words, "I can see Russia from my house"... but Palin still said she had FP experience because Russia is Alaska's neighbors///

The under sniper fire was the story I was alluding to about Clinton...

-Additionally, of all the major candidates save McCain, HRC showed the best preparation and ability to discuss and adapt to foreign policy concerns during the primary season - she's a wonk.

BULLSHIT! How?