Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State - thoughts?

[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 . . .

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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 . . .

Plus the fact that she's pretty darn intelligent (Wellesley undergrad, Yale law). I'm not her biggest fan, by any means, and I think this is a high risk pick for Obama, but saying she's not qualified for "anything" is going a bit too far.

[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?

[KSig RC]

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

BULLSHIT! How?

Umm . . . did you watch any of the debates? Anything at all? This isn't just my opinion, by the way - it was basically the consensus among pundits that HRC was the best-prepared during foreign policy debates (other than McCain), in spite of her somewhat hawkish stance, and she is known for being pedantic and constantly on-point in her briefing, preparation and talking points, which has real value for the Obama campaign. She might exaggerate, but she won't be caught with her pants down because she didn't do her homework (see: which papers does she read?).