The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Obama's transition choices
Joe Chemo
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, Obama might have offered Clinton the Sec State position today.
Good idea, bad idea?
Clinton by herself as Sec State doesn't bother me, but I think Bill Clinton would complicate things.
Good idea, bad idea?
Clinton by herself as Sec State doesn't bother me, but I think Bill Clinton would complicate things.
Joe Chemo on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
EDIT: Here we go.
She met with heads of state in the 90's as first lady.
She also ducked sniper fire in Bosnia. Don't forget that!
I would say the key postings are going to be (other than State) SecDef and AG. SecDef mainly because of the need to have a strong leader to get the things Obama wants through the military, and AG because - let's face it - the DOJ is an absolute wreck.
Cons: Clinton as SecState.
I'm not a fan of the choice, but I don't see an alternative that I'm a huge fan of, either. As long as Bill stays away and she doesn't go behind Obama's back, she wouldn't be a terrible choice.
I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me some of the worst screw-ups in the U.S.'s recent dealings with the rest of the world have stemmed from putting too much weight on personal relationships with foreign leaders. For example, the United States under the last administration didn't so much have an alliance with Pakistan as it had an alliance with Pervez Musharraf, and I'm convinced that Bill Clinton's public chumminess with Yeltsin right up until the end did lasting damage to U.S.-Russian relations.
Senate Armed Services Committee, plus whatever she did as First Lady to get connections with the right people.
It would be pretty shrewd since she can't complain about anything the administration does if she's part of the administration. I wonder what Biden has to say about it. ...when they can say anything about it other than 'no comment.'
What do you mean by that?
I mean, that would help her with the whole Healthcare thing that she seems to be so big on.
I dont know about this. I honestly am pining for Bill Richardson for SecState.
And if he doesnt get it, that would make it the first thing I've gotten wrong during this election cycle.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
One of the big issues throughout the primaries and the general was the whole "meet without preconditions" thing. Now obviously Obama's position was distorted by his opposition, but the fact remains that he and Clinton have different foreign policy outlooks.
Actually her out of domestic policy is not really a pro and she wouldn't be a terrible Sec State, but I don't get why she'd want this. Her issue of passion is health care. This takes her away from that when there's the best chance to get some reform passed and she'd like to have input on it. I'm very confused.
Olbermann mentioned that if she remained in the senate she might not have much say in health care legislation due to seniority issues. Perhaps this plays a role.
I think it was more that she was afraid of being boxed into a corner as 'weak on defense' since she obviously wants to have tea and crumpets with Ahmadinejead while discussing our surrender of Israel. Besides which, that's not really a major foreign policy outlook it's just different tactics to achieve the same strategic ends. She strikes me as a realist rather than hewing dearly to various theories.
It's all media buzz, at the moment and we won't know for sure before Thanksgiving. He might have offered her ambassador to Bosnia for all we really know.
I think she'd make a better Secretary of Defense than State actually. Everything I've read about her record on Armed Services is complimentary.
Doesn't Dean want HHS?
I suppose you're right, but I do think Clinton is more hawkish than the situation warrents.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
He hates the Clintons though and is irrational with them so his main reason is that he think she'll have less influence this way.
I don't see the point of having Hillary as Sec-State. Obama is the one the world wants to deal with, he's the one who can actually get certain things done unlike anyone else in the world, what's the point of Clinton? I mean, really? Bosnia-gate again?
Unless she didn't want us to think it was premeditated. Wheels within wheels, man.
Obama is liked for being the most emphatically un-Bush like guy you could ever have as President. The Clinton's are loved because of 8 years of Bill Clinton. Even over here either Clinton is a major draw card, and we have nowhere near the kind of boner that Europe has for them.
This decision kind of seems like a winner for everyone as long as they can keep Bill on a lead. Hillary knows the territory, and I don't know how all this stuff works but wouldn't SecState be a reasonably decent position to take another crack at the Whitehouse from in 2012?
Hillary's shot at the White House has narrowed considerably. She'll be nearly McCain age by the time she gets a chance to run again.
Richardson governs like George W. Bush (complete with rampant cronyism and brazen attempts to co-opt all serious media scrutiny of him and his administration), and his "record" on diplomacy is overblown. Any serious investigation into him would produce a lot of unwanted skeletons for Obama, and frankly he would ruin the State Department and be run over by any competent head of state or foreign minister. I hope to God this does not happen. There are plenty of people here who ostensibly support any move of him to Washington, but I am certain that it is solely to further their own political ambitions. To quote his old buddy Don Imus, he can't suck enough.
Or has any hard and fast beliefs.
And we have a generous incentive package for the movie and film industry that is actually taking jobs from Hollywood, but so do a lot of other states and other countries. Meanwhile, a company the state gave $20 million to as some sort of great white hope just announced yesterday that they couldn't pay payroll for their employees for the last two weeks of work they did (and they "found" money today, but still) and the company will not last past New Year's.
Meanwhile, he made an investigative reporter his first Secretary of Labor and the guy was abysmal. It was a joke and a disgrace. And he's hired numerous other reporters simply to get them off his ass.
Let me be clear, I don't like the man. Not as a politician or a person. And as much as I'd love to see him go, it's not like this.
Who should he staff his White House with? There's been one Democratic Administration in 28 years, two in 40. Should he staff his government with neophytes who have no idea how to do anything? That's what killed Clinton's first few years. It looks like he's being pragmatic.