Clinton as Secretary of State, seriously, WTF?

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:36 pm

Now I recognize that Obama is probably well advised to try to mend the fence between himself and Clintons circles, but serious giving her the one post where they seriously disagreed on? I mean she was the country's most prominent advocate for healthcare reform of the 90s why not secretary of health?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 7:29 pm

ckafrica wrote:Now I recognize that Obama is probably well advised to try to mend the fence between himself and Clintons circles, but serious giving her the one post where they seriously disagreed on? I mean she was the country's most prominent advocate for healthcare reform of the 90s why not secretary of health?

Two reasons:

It's the biggest post in the cabinet. Anything less would have been seen by some as an insult.
It gives an excuse to send Hilary and Bill off to other countries to talk directly to foreign leaders.

Having Bill reasoning directly with Putin is probably the best possible diplomatic position you could get. Remember that if she was Health Secretary, Bill would have "no reason" to go in and lobby with her. But if she takes the family off to France for a conference, then Bill can talk off the record all he wants. And the French love Bill.

So even though Obama and Clinton have stark disagreements about many foreign policy decisions, the fact is that Bill and Hilary are the best diplomatic team this country has.

So yeah, I'd like nothing more than to have the country start taking Health and Human Services as seriously as it should be and put Hilary Rodham Clinton at the top of it - that's frankly the kind of change that would be difficult to sell to a lot of the Democratic fan base in the House. They might become intransigent over such a move. And Secretary of State is probably the second best anyway.

The one I don't understand is Gates. He's a tool. While not as disastrous as Snarly McWhinesalot as Secretary of Defense, that's faint praise. Rumsfeld was the worst Defense Secretary a least since Teapot Dome, and maybe ever. Robert Gates has presided over a gradual collapse of the nation's military under a continuation of failed policies from the Bush Administration. Why you didn't pull his ass out and get someone as malleable as Gumby or Pokey to fill the role for a bit I do not understand.

-Username17

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:00 pm

To be honest, there aren't that many qualified people ready for the Secretary of State position currently. I can count them on my hand probably.

Richardson, The Clintons, and possibly a few others.

Aside from the rather idiotic sentiment that goes around that an ex-president cannot possibly stoop down to accept a lower position, Bill would have been excellent for this position. So we put him in there in a nominal nature instead alongside Hillary.

Richardson would have been perfect for it in my opinion but putting Hillary against someone who doesn't have as much public exposure and let's face it star power is a stupid move when it comes to the glitzy world of media. We also have to talk about Constituency.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:39 pm

Richardson instead got a position he's much better suited for, trade.

Anyhow, by putting names like these in these positions you get two things: One, Obama can ask anyone, and he gets them to show up for work; Two, star power of names known around the world.

Basically, aside from Gates, we've got 'who would be the most qualified and most well-known person for the job?

Usually they'd be pulling out people with much less star-power or established positions to fill these. No one in the major news thought a Clinton would be in his cabinet, let alone accept it.

It's a strong move, whether or not you like her politics.

-Crissa

PS: Remember, Clinton was the liberal when compared with Obama.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:11 am

I'm actually pretty psyched about Richardson for Commerce Secretary. Finally we have a Commerce Secretary that doesn't just sit around and fap himself saying "Free Marketz Hurrr!" and talks about long term costs.

-Username17

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:44 am

It's modern tokenism: the 21st century will not a see a white male Secretary of State.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:39 pm

I assume keeping Gates is designed to reassure Republicans that (1) he'll try to be bipartisan, and (2) that he isn't 'putting the Antichrist in control of our nation's defense'. In other words, politics.

As a side note, apparently comedy shows have been fostering a 'culture of fear' among politicians: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200812 ... kvZtLCw5R4

Lago PARANOIA · Post by **Lago PARANOIA** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:28 am

I'm just glad that Rahm Emnauel got kicked upstairs.

This man was the one who suggested that Democrats should take a harder stance on immigration policy and should support the Iraq War more vigorously before the 2005 election. Not to mention his infamous support for Israel and a hardline stance towards Iran.

I am so glad that he's losing his DNC chairmanship. Almost anyone would be better.

As for the Robert Gates thing, the political reason is not changing horses midstream/bipartisanship. I bet he won't be around this time next year.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Sun Dec 07, 2008 6:00 pm

Well Gates had indicated he did not really want the position to begin with (as in when Bush offered it) if I remember correctly.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:48 am

Gates is a bit of a question mark. He might just be a place holder until Wes Clark is eligible for the job (which is two years away, if you were wondering. There's a minimum of 10 year between military service and being Secretary of Defense).

The appointment of Eric Shinseki to Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, I think, Obama's best move yet. Shinseki is the guy who went before Congress before the Iraq invasion and told them that to do what the Administration wanted, the Army would need several hundred thousand troops. He was more or less fired for this (It's a lot more complicated than that, he was more "forced out" than "fired, I guess), and the civilian wing of the defense establishment (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz) immediately claimed he was wrong and his concerns were silly. Obama has said he doesn't want yes-men. Shinseki shows he's serious.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:33 pm

ckafrica wrote:Well Gates had indicated he did not really want the position to begin with (as in when Bush offered it) if I remember correctly.

He was also supposedly counting down the days until the end of the Bush administration so he could go back to teaching college. Word is that he only wants to stick around for one more year.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:39 pm

Here is a interesting bit of news I got from my email the other day. (Newsmax.com for what it's worth and that's probably not much.)

Hillary Needs ‘Fix’ to Serve on Cabinet

Sen. Hillary Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, according to the public interest group Judicial Watch.

The Ineligibility Clause of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefited from a salary increase during that Senator or Representative’s current term of office.

A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President George W. Bush during Hillary Clinton’s current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State from $186,600 to $191,300.

Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution states: “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 (salary and benefits) whereof shall have been increased during such time.”

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention there was fear that of members of Congress might create new jobs or give raises to existing jobs, and then take those jobs for themselves.

President Richard Nixon circumvented this provision after appointing Ohio Sen. William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Attorney General’s salary had been increased during Saxbe’s term, but the Nixon administration managed to push legislation through Congress to reduce the salary to its previous level.

This scheme, known thereafter as “The Saxbe Fix,” was also used to allow Sen. Lloyd Bensen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.

So Hillary will require a “Saxbe Fix” to serve as Secretary of State, according to Judicial Watch. But the group asserts that the tactic “may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition.”

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:44 am

That would kinda mean that none of Obama's appointments could serve.

...Or they could just take the lower pay.

Don't care.

-Crissa

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:05 am

Actually who beyond Clinton and Emnual who would it affect?

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:51 am

ckafrica wrote:Actually who beyond Clinton and Emnual who would it affect?

As far as I can tell, it only affects Clinton and not Emanuel.

The Executive Order (pdf) only lists an increase for Executive Staff. Emanuel will be serving as Chief of Staff and aide to the president which technically should fall under the heading of Administrative Staff rather than Executive Staff.

He'll still make crazy amounts of money as far as I can tell but only Clinton needs the Saxbe fix so far.

Also on the Gates matter, an interesting thing to note is that since he was already confirmed in 2006, he doesn't need to go through the confirmation process again. Keeping in mind that Obama might have wanted Clark or someone else to fill in this position, having one less person needed to be confirmed could be seen as an easy blessing.

Another position worth looking into is Obama's choice for his press secretary. He's chosen Robert Gibbs who served as his communications director during the campaign. I just don't know enough about him.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:31 pm

I'm guessing that means he was a good communications director.

Obama went through his entire campaign with no scandal. I'd hire his communications director for press secretary.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:22 pm

Or the Senate could just lower the pay.

Of course, wingnuts have decided to sue.

-Crissa

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:38 am

Crissa wrote:Or the Senate could just lower the pay.

Of course, wingnuts have decided to sue.

-Crissa

Wingnut: she can't do this because it runs contrary to the constitution.
sane person: but by reducing the pay to 2007 levels, wouldn't it be conforming with what the constitution has to say?
Wingnut: UMM... CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION DURRRRRRRRRR!
--

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:19 am

It'll get dismissed for lack of standing.

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:45 am

CK: I don't mind.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:06 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:I'm actually pretty psyched about Richardson for Commerce Secretary. Finally we have a Commerce Secretary that doesn't just sit around and fap himself saying "Free Marketz Hurrr!" and talks about long term costs.

-Username17

And now this dream goes away...

Yesterday, Richardson announced that he was withdrawing his name from the commerce secretary position because of a potential scandal involving one of the companies who paid for his campaign.

As a Richardson fan, I feel sad that the fool didn't watch that angle. If anything, Richardson is guilty of at least an ethics violation.

I wonder who we are going to get for Commerce Secretary now.

The Gaming Den

Clinton as Secretary of State, seriously, WTF?

Clinton as Secretary of State, seriously, WTF?

Re: Clinton as Secretary of State, seriously, WTF?