wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Obama: Don't Hire Hillary! http://tinyurl.com/5kt4hx

Yes. I didn't want her as president because of the poor management, the ego, and the ugliness of her campaign. But she knows her foreign policy, understands the complicated histories of other countries, and she's tough as nails. I think she'll do a tremendous job, and I hope she turns out to be a team player.

Absolutely. She is extremely knowledgeable about the world and other cultures. She is well respected around the world and could begin the monumental task of gaining respect and cooperation around the world. She is fair minded regarding complex issues. She and Oboma, in spite of the rough debates, are of like mind on most issues. They are both leaders who are in depth thinkers. I hope that Obama will come from "strength" and select her as Secretary of State.

A big no ! I just want the Clintons to go away.

Yes. I believe Hillary will be a great diplomat and help heal the wounds inflicted by the present administration, mostly on our reputation and esteem worldwide. I will miss her as Senator, but she is a junior senator with not the kind of seniority to get as much done as she can as Sec. of State.

No! Too hawkish.

No! Senator Clinton is a poor administrator.
We probably would have a health insurance pro-gram if she had messed that up in 1993.
Her campaign was disorganized. In addtion, she really has no experience in foreign affairs. Of course, her beloved husband is another drawback.

No. I voted for "change." I voted against Hillary Clinton, and her policies, against her point of view, against her aggression.

I feel blindsided by the possibility that HC could, with the former President, influence politics in the middle east, which must be re-thought. I am concerned that we will always be in harsh opposition to that part of our world. My "hope" was that Mr. Obama would relieve us of these old divisions, but her presence promises reassertion of these tensions. How disappointing. So maybe it wasn't Obama who was naive; it was us, again.

If Henry Kissinger has endorsed Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, it's because he likes what he sees in her which is a reflection of his own disreputable self.

Look very carefully at anything that Nixon's former errand boy is selling because you wouldn't want to be left empty handed.

Casey #142,
I like your idea vis-a-vis the senate and health care, however, Kennedy has made it abundantly clear that he plans to take the lead on health care. Even if her ideas are better (an unknown at this point because we don't know his) he has all the seniority so it doesn't matter what hers are. I'm intrigued by Max Baucus' idea. I have downloaded the 98 page "white paper" but have not read it yet. He is also in a prominant chairmanship which makes it easier to push ideas forward.

I like her as a NY Senator. I think she could do amazing work in the Senate - help with the Health Care. I am not exactly comfortable with the thought of Clinton-based ideas of Foreign Policy coming into play - the Clintons were great with comestic policy but even as an ardent Clinton supporter I can admit that other than Ireland the Clinton years of the presidency were not exactly great foreign policy years. I think the senate is great for Hillary since she could use her clout in Healthcare and then set her own legacy up as a new kind of Kennedy of the Senate. Her own legacy that she built herself.

Continued @ 130 Josh,
She is a two time senator, not one time. Re-elected in '06 in a landslide.

Divisive: What makes someone divisive? Again, perception. If people decide you are divisive then you are divisive, polarizing etc., etc. I have always wondered at the passion that this woman inspires from both her supporters and her detractors. It seems out of proportion. It is waht I call a "mega-narrative," it gets into the media and goes viral and then everyone picks it up without really thinking about it. Maybe divisive is good for SOS. After all, she is not crafting legislation from State, just implementing the priorities of the Obama administration.

Again, I don't think she's more qualified than Richardson, but it's his call, of course.

Oh Yes! I voted for Obama because I came to believe in his great ability to bring highly affective people to his campaign and trust his judgment in putting his cabinet together. The change people holler about is in the man and his policies. Obama has to hit the ground in full gear and needs people with him who are up to speed from wherever they come from. Though a lose for us in NY as a senator, Hillary will be a gain for the world and our country and New York will get the rewards of choosing such a intelligent and knowledgeable choice.

Josh #130,
I am not necessarily advocating Hillary for SOS; if you the #1 post (mine), I have decidedly mixed feelings about it. However, I would like to address some of what you brought up.

Not qualified: This is a matter of perception. I don't think C. Rice was all that qualified either -- she was an academic. Colin Powell was a military man. I don't know how you get qualified. I don't think she is more qualified than Richardson, but she is arguably better known abroad, and BHO may see that as an advantage.

Rigid and confrontational: Again, perception. Of course, during a campaign anyone is confrontational. She has a good record -- a longer and more varied record of working across the aisle than Obama. Upstate Republicans did not have the stomach to find a credible candidate to run against her in '06.

Continued...

No, I do not like the idea of Hillary in Obama's cabinet. We voted for him because he promised us CHANGE. Listening to the people that are being considered so far it doesn't look like we will have that. Let her stay in the Senate where she is needed.

I get the "what's the change?" comments in bringing Hillary in and I don't agree. I voted for Obama because I believed he had the smarts to make smart choices that were needed for the days ahead. He has to hit the ground in high gear and needs the people who are up to speed to get this country back together. Senator Clinton is an extraordinarily intelligent, knowledgable and experienced choice. My only regret is losing a great senator from our state but as they say "fix the world and the individual benefits."

I am thrilled with the likely choice of Hillary Clinton. She brings all the necessary skills to the position. She is very smart, has knowledge and experience with the workings of governments and diplomacy and international respect. In addition, if her perspective is different from Obama's it just supports his willingness to listen to divergent views in making major decisions.

Hillary has too many connections with her husbands foreign governements from which he receives hefty fees and gifts. She will focus on policies that may be unpopular that Bill began and would want Hillary to complete. She is also vindictive which manifested itself in the firing of the travel staff during Bill's adminestration. There are many other highly qualifies individuals who can carry out the duties of Sec of State. Does Obama really owe her so much that he must have her in that position????

NO Hillary would not be the best person for this job. She and Obama would not be on the same wave length in policy matters, and besides that and high level negotiations there is also managing the State Department with all the attendant administrative problems of the Bush years. I don't think that Hillary will be a good administrator.

I think its a bad idea. Although she is highly capable of doing a great job, she comes with too much baggage. And there will always be an underlying question of whether Hillary has ulterior motives and if she is trying to undermine Obama.

I hope she gets it. Since it's not usual for a Cabinet Secretary to reeneter the political arena it would remove her and, more importantly, Bill from the scene. The Clintons have been around too long to too little good effect. It's time for them to write books that only wonks read, pimp their Rolodexes and give speeches to corporations with more money than sense.
By the way are WNYC, NPR or the press in general going to keep track of Obama's steady retreat from "Change"? He's changed his positions since he won the primary and it seems to be accelerating since he won the election.

To all you Hillary proponents on this issue. I have been asking this for two days now. I would appreciate a serious answer please. If we are posting here to foster a meaningful dialogue, we need serious arguments. Nobody has come forward to explain to me why Hillary is qualified for this position. She has never met with any heads of state, has no plan for the middle east, has been a very divisive figure. Everybody says she has so much experience. Where? What has she done? Has she negotiated with a country over nuclear or security issues? No. Has she had real policy discussions or even serious meeting with other heads of state? No. Do our allies take her seriously and feel she will compromise and be diplomatic? No. She has proven time and time again, to be rigid and confrontational. I could go on...

Bill Richardson has been an ambassador to the UN, a middle east envoy, cabinet secretary and four time Nobel Peace prize nominee, how in the world does Hillary have more experience than him? Hillary is a one time Senator and has not held ANY previous political position, not elected, not appointed. She has never been even an advisor to any office holder. She might have recognition and contacts (ie Bill's rolodex).

I think this would be a curious choice. First,Obama wouldn't be president if he hadn't highlighted his opposition to the War in Iraq, which Hillary supported and refused to apologize for. Second, her mocking Obama's policy of speaking to our "enemies." Perhaps more importantly, is the fact that the main responsibility of the Sec. of State is diplomacy, which often involves secret, behind the scenes meetings, etc. It would be very difficult for such matters to be carried out by Hillary, with her high profile and Bill's even higher profile.Finally, if Hillary has any exerience at all, it is primarily on the domestic side. In foreigh affairs, perhaps her most famous experience was her trip to the Balkans when she came "under fire."

I think we have to keep in mind that Obama is walking into the worst economic, world affairs, abuse of the constitution Presidency ever. He does not have time for his people to get up to speed on how agencies run. Rahm Emanuel, and Eric Holder are excellent choices because they already get it. As for Hillary as Sec of State--Remember Obama will be President--people will serve at his pleasure and carry out his mandate. Let's not second guess who will be in charge.

There's an NY Times article, released today, claiming Hillary is "unsure about cabinet job:" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19clinton.html

Hillary in the cabinet would block the possibility of her running in a primary 2012

Bill Clinton will divulge all future donors, and SOME previous donors. "Some" doesn't cut it.

The callers are missing the point, Obama is not betraying "change" by considering experienced people for these cabinet post. He is still in command and will dictate policy. It most prudent to have the most capable people in place to accomplish his goals quickly.

Is Obama's consideration of Hillary for SOS classic political manuvering to get her out of the way so the Ted Kennedy can earn the full spotlight and credit for health care initiatives before he RIPs? Tough to be involved in the health care agenda shaping whilst you're on a plane feigning to effect foriegn policy in the Mid-East. An incredible theory, but believable given the history of what we've seen in politics.

Cheers

Sen. Clinton would be a courageous and brilliant Secretary of State. She and Baraq would form a 'star' power team, command respect from the rest of the world and balance each other's positions. Baraq: cooly intellectual, Hil: passionate and determined.

Absolutely yes on Hillary Clinton but also on Bill Richardson. Just not Kerry, please. A totally ineffective person. We do need her in the Senate, and what's wrong with "Clinton 3." Most of us would have been delighted with a third Clinton term. Look at what we got instead!! Is the word "tainted" really applicable? Aren't we getting a little off the rails?

NO! NO! NO!
The only upside would be that we might get a real liberal to represent the people of NY in the Senate.

Creating a good cabinet with "change we can believe in" does NOT mean being naive or arrogant and insisting on all "brand new" people. I think it's very smart of Obama to depend, in part, on highly experienced people - truly experienced - especially those who created a VERY SUCCESSFUL country during Bill Clinton's time in the White House. Thank God Obama is so smart and wise as to draw upon their expertise!

brian, you definitely need a day off to rest--your campaign-era anti-hillary zealotry is rearing its ugly head again.

hillary would make a wonderful sos. she is well-respected the world over (read past international journals), and she is smarter than the average bear, and would serve at the pleasure of the president, following his directives--as most anyone he appoints would.

you and others are so paranoid of some sort of clinton power grab. you forget who the president-elect is. if you elected him unconditionally, you should respect his choices.

i would be reluctant to lose her as senator, but if hillary wanted the position, i say take it with my blessing.

No. We need the toughest international savvy negotiator without the Clinton baggage, past associations and probably scandal--someone who is unknown to world leaders that can genuinely bring a new way.

Not against Hillary as Secretary of State ... but I would prefer for NY to have a powerful senator.

Change? Why then Hillary Clinton? I don't think having a Clinton in charge of State will be good for our image abroad. She voted for the Iraq war and her spouse was president! This doesn't say much about democracy and change. More like more of the same.

Yeh, I like Eric Holder.

Hmmm.

Haven't "kitchen table issues" been Senator Clintons' strong suit? Would HEW make more sense?

Absolutely not. She doesn't have the world creds. Better Bill. We need her in the Senate.

No, No, No! Please don't drag us through the Clinton mud again.

Not for State, for all the good reasons listed so far.

Why is Barack H. Obama trying to be a crowd pleaser? The Clintons have had their moment in the White House. That's ENOUGH! The New Administration needs to be more diversified. It must represent the USA as the multicultural nation for which it stands. What about a Latino/an Asian/a Native American Indian,and/or another Woman candidate for the job?

Blair,
point taken, I don't live in Minnesota, so I don't know the race as well as you do.
Honestly? "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" by Al Franken was disappointing. I thought we liberals had more to offer. Takes all kinds, though. I just don't think it was very effective, and it added to a lot of partisan sniping, which is, IMO, v. Clintonian. (The fact that I think of it as Clintonian is not entirely the fault of the Clintons.)
When you refer to "lies" are you referring to a book?

I feel that there's an awful lot of Clinton people already. I thought Rahm was a difficult, but good choice. I would be happier with HRC on the Supreme Court. She is far too hawkish in her approach and her delivery. Sometimes a gentler touch is required. Richardson could deliver it, and if it's owed to anyone, it's owed to the man Carville, embarrassingly enough, called Satan.

I would support having Hillary Clinton as our Secretary of State. I think it would be a loss in the Senate but a win for foreign policy.

Oh, and 58 -
I agree with your basic point, how Obama's moving forward from partisanship...yadda, but Franken's campaign against a professional politician (who started out Democrat) was straight fighting-for-the-middle-class clean. His opponent played the divisive game - until he got caught red-handed misusing a video clip. Then he claimed to be halting all negative ads, and sure enough his direct ads turned to straight maple syrup. But the bitter attacks continued, from the GOP commitees.
The fact that the Franken race was so close in this particular election tells you more about Minnesota.
And what part of 'Lies' do you disagree with, anyway?

Sure, I think it would reflect well on Obama's confidence.
Richardson, maybe, but I would really hate to see Kerry elevated above her.

Sorry Doug If Hil's in Bill's in ! Get over it!

My mission, this past primary
and election season, was to keep
Bill away from the White House.
Sorry, Hill, but
"Mission Accomplished".
let's keep it that way!

Hilary has paid her dues and she will make a great Secretary of State. Greatpick by President Elect Obama. Hilary can walk the walk and talk the talk, she'll make this country proud and help to restore the HONOR lost by the Republican Inquisition

Very definitely YES!

The people of the Middle East can not be served by someone like Hillary Clinton who stated during the election (watched closely around the world) that she would obliterate the Iranian people.... The US needs someone who will be fair to the Moslems and especially to the Palestinians.

Absolutely not.Enough of the Clintons and she is too self-serving to be in such a powerful position.She pales in contrast to our present Secretary of State. What experience does she have in foreign affairs? There are much more qualified people for this office.

Better Supr. Court.

Agreed, hjs #196. I actually think some of these moves are gutsy on his part. It shows self-confidence, I think (hope).

let obama pick his own cabinet

Eric #101,
I think that Barack being less hawkish is perception only. He actually, if you read him closely is more hard line on Iran than McCain is.

I love how all these people are screaming about how awful she'd be because of the the Iraq vote and then saying that Richardson, Kerry or Hagel would be better. All three of them supported the war too.

"Change" was a brand name seller. Grow up and get over it.

YES, YES, AND YES, SHE HAS WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE. SHE IS EXTREMELY BRIGHT, A REFORMER POLITICIAN, APPRECIATED AND LOVED BY MOST AMERICANS.

SHE IS A LEGACY!!!

No way!

No way! She will use the office for her own ambition, just as she used New York as a springboard for her presidential aspirations.

No way! She will use the office as a vehicle for herself, just as she used New York to get national attention before running for President. Please Barack, don't offer her a job. Let her strut with the rest of the useless, spineless, self-aggrandizing chameleons in the Senate.

Yes! I feel that she has the stamina to vie with diplomats, the world over-some of whom can be quite difficult to deal with. She has met many of the people that she would have to confer with and I feel that she would be loyal to the USA by supporting our new president while putting aside any differences that she may have with him.

I, also, feel that if she is not selected to the post of Secretary of State, she would be great as either Secretary of Health or as a justice on the Supreme Court.

Governor Bill Richardson would be best. Bill Clinton runs a close second. Both men have a huge international presence and the appointment of either would go a long way to restore the country's badly damaged reputation abroad. The appointment of Hillary Clinton would not be a disaster, I just don't see her as being as effective as the two Bills. Obama owes big time to all three - so perhaps he should draw lots from a hat......

YES! Supreme court would be even better - but place her in a position of power. Great for woman and great for our reputation as americans!

Yes. I think she is a great choice. Her experience of traveling the world and being in the White House for 8 years meeting and knowing many of the heads of state whom she is familiar with and can talk intelligently too,is a great asset. She demonstrates hard work, caring, and certainly persistence to get the job accomplished. They should also back off on Bill. He is doing a fantastic job and accomplishing so many things for the poor of the world. Do not put him down, lift him up and he too will be a good ambassador while she accomplishes her Job.

If we wanted Clinton's in the White House again (and all of their advisers and staff) we would have worked and voted for her and not for Barack. He is burying himself in tired old policy makers instead of new, progressive ones. I vote NO on Hillary not only as State but any other high governmental office and she is my senator.

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Hillary Clinton, Rahm Emanuel and Joe Lieberman--three people who are devoted to turning the Democratic party into a front for the GOP. I could cry.

Hilary Clinton would be a bad, no - terrible, choice for the following reasons, in spite of her brillance and star quality...
1. She does not appear to be a team player unless she is the team captain, which she cannot be in someone else's administration. I do not believe that she can be trusted to fairly negotiate in the best interests of this country and in keeping with the goals that Obama has expressed of forging a different relationship with the rest of the world.
2. She was wrong on the war in Iraq and has shown evidence of being a hawk on defense issues.
3. She and the former president carry a lot of baggage - how can they answer the questions posed by the application process and pass vetting?
4. Bill Clinton would represent a basic conflict of interest on two counts - he takes huge fees for speaking and has accepted large gifts for his library and foundation from foreign sources that might put Hilary in a compromising position.
5. Hilary conducted an unfair primary campaign and Bill never did support Obama.
6. We need her skills in the Senate.

NO WAY.

1) The whole reason we elected Obama was change!

2) Hillary's foreign policy ideas lack the subtlety and nuance of Obama's ('obliterate Iran'? Vote for the Iraq war? No thanks).

3) She's too big of a personality to reflect his policy and implement them throughout the world and

3) Nevermind having to vet Bill Clinton's business and financial dealings, who has he been DATING in the last 8 years? You know when he got out of the Whitehouse he thought he was finally in the clear and has been out on the town (NY papers sometimes allude to who he has been 'seen out with'). Whoever he has UNDOUBTEDLY been having relationships with would come to light and, like the Monica Lewinsky mess, would take over the front pages and we'd all be taken hostage to their marital drama once again, we would once again have tabloid issues connected to the White House. Barack's polcies would be pushed to the back page. The Obama Administration can do better than this. PLEASE NO.

Nope! Clinton Fatigue. Didn't Rumsfeld once talk about "Old Europe"? Ditto Hill.
I want the Clintons and all their glory to please disappear for ever. I still do not understand the whole Hillary and Bill worship thing.

Yes, absolutely.

Yes.
1) Star power helps getting things done in diplomacy. Hillary is an international star (relative to Hagel or Kerry or Richardson or any other probable candidates).
2) If Clinton has different ideas about foreign policy than Obama, so much the better. The main benefit in a "team of rivals" is to have smart, capable people who are not afraid to challenge in posts with access to the president. Of course, ultimately the president dictates final policy direction.

I am fine with Hillary as Secretary of State, but I would prefer her as a Supreme Court justice.

Hillary as secretary of state would be a disaster for the country and could ultimately backfire against President Obama. She voted for the biggest foreign policy disaster of modern times, the Iraq war, and has never repudiated that vote. The Clintons think first and foremost about themselves, and her husband's foreign entanglements would present potentially crippling conflicts of interest to her foreign-policy role. Her views on Israel/Palestine align with those of the extreme-right settler movement in Israel and would be deadly to American influence in resolving that conflict. During the campaign, she mooted the idea of pre-emptively attacking Iran. Sec'ys of state seldom remain in office more than 4 years: what would she do after that? A return to the Senate would be difficult, so she would presumably set her sights higher than that. She is a smart, hard-working senator and she is good for NY: She should stay in the Senate and work on the domestic issues that she is so good on.

No.

She really has no particular qualification in foreign policy, nor experience, and she has taken some very misguided positions, including for the first time in US history invading a nation which had not attacked us.

And, she may undermine Obama from within.
She will not be loyal to him--or to anyone except herself and her husband. Check their record.

And, speaking of her husband, he has been all about himself--before, during, and after. Deep psychological problems--unable to stop. Now it is his self-interested business decisions, which often involve trading on the power, prestige of the US, and his presumed influence. How will we separate them--or the impression that the US is primarily interested in gaining business advantage, in whatever diplomacy she tries to engage. That's the rap we got for invading Iraq--to get oil for US--and for our oil companies.

NOT A GOOD IDEA!!

I think that she could do a good job, building on Obama's obvious ability to change the way the world views the U.S..

I am concerned, however, at how Bill Clinton might undermine Obama's foreign policy efforts. Where he differs with Obama, Mr. Clinton would have to shut up. Of course, that's Hillary's problem regard of whether she is Sec of State or not.

I don't think that 'Billary' is a good fit for State. It's always a twofer with the Clintons. Bill has his own agenda supporting the work of his foundation and I don't think he will want to give that up--not to mention his speaking and consultation fees. In this case his unavoidable involvement is not advisable.

I would like to see Hillary become Secretary of Defense. She is reportedly very knowledgeable about our military and has a good working relationship with the top brass. She would bring great analytic ability and her Iraq vote not withstanding a general impulse away from making war yet firm commitment to the nation's defense. (I don't think it's compelling to Bill.)

Josh - #104

You can - you don't even have to be a lawyer. Having laywers on the Court is a modern phenomona.

agains naming hillary to secretary of state

no hillary for state. hawk, and was against sitting down with "terrorist regimes" without pre-conditions.

No. First, I think she could do more good for more people in the Senate, on health care policy and other matters. Second, I don't think we can properly clear the conflict-of-interest issues with Bill's charitable foundation.

I strongly disagree with Hillary's choice to be Secretary of State. It was some of our understanding that she would fill a Supreme Court justice seat. Notwithstanding that, it takes steam out of Joe Biden's role and leadership. He actually has foreign policy experience. And it sort of blunts the newness of what this administration will bring to foreign policy. Remember as well that she voted for the Iraq war.

She's not my choice. I think she'll enjoy the Senate over a long period more.

126:

Wow, Jimmy Carter huh. He could be Secretary of anti-Semitism. That would be a good tag team. Obama could oppose gays and Carter could oppose Jews.

Clinton should take the position. When Obama messes up like attending a racist church for 20 years, the Dems will need a leader to step in. Oh wait, Obama already spent 20 years praying with racists. I guess he doesn't need Clinton after all if he can get away with that.

I think that Hillary would make an excellent Secy. of State and I am all for it. There is only one thing that dims my enthusiasm: Is this position the new FEMALE accepting one? After all, first there was Madeline Albright, then, after a brief Colin Powell, we had Condi Rice and now Hillary. It almost reminds me of the days when women could only be teachers, nurses and secretaries.

Rosemarie Merino

Is there anyone in former Bill Clinton's
adminstration that Obama is leaving out
of his adminstration?

I thought Barack Hussein Obama was for
change, this seems like a lot more of the
same to me.

Hillary voted for the misguided attack on Iraq
and could not bring herself to state the obvious,
that it was a mistake to attack Iraq.

Perhaps Chuck Hagel or John Kerry
would be a better choice.

Definitely NOT. How can Barack Obama, who campaigned on a platform of change and transparency, appoint a Secretary of State so enmeshed and entangled with sleazy dictators? It is not good enough to say that Hillary should not be tainted by her husband's dealings. How can she not, when she has benefitted so much from all of Bill's power and associations. She has never disassociated herself from him and there is no reason to believe she ever will. He has consistently refused to reveal the names of his contributors; we have no way of knowing the extent of his involvement with all sorts governments and individuals. We have no way of knowing what promises or commitments he has made. We have no way of evaluating how his actions would influence her actions or decisions. I think this would be disastrous mistake with serious ramifications.

I was hoping to see Bill Richardson tapped to be Secretary of State. I think he has the experience necessary and Hillary doesn't. I don't think Obama needs to have her in the cabinet.

One of the most important qualifications for a Sec.of State is trust. Hillary cannot be trusted and has been called a 'congenital liar' by a NYTimes wordsmith.
When results of the caucuses and primaries indicated that mathematically, she had no chance of winning, she stubbernly persisted even going so far as to try change the rules of engagement. She declared that caucuses didn't really count; that having won the popular vote, she should be declared 'winner' ignoring the fact that Obama had built up a majority of votes in caucuses and primaries. Changing the rules in the middle of a game is like playing tennis without a net.... not an admirable quality for a Sec.of State

Please, Please no. To me she has too much compromises in her past work and politics. Her lack of vision in regards to the middle eastern issue will disapoint a lot of people right from the start. Too much of negative in her resume. Leave her in the senate.

No. Hillary Clinton at best should be allowed a limited advisory role. Colin Powell is an excellent choice, with every qualification and diplomatic skill imaginable. Mrs. Clinton was a desperate, self-seeking, and embarrassing candidate, both for President and as Senator, an office she barely won in New York over Rick Fazio. She has little control of her emotions and regards people and world affairs as a platform for her own aggrandizement.

mc from brooklyn #101

True, Obama did not actually vote on the Kly-Lieberman amendment – he was campaigning at the time. But he publicly came out against it unlike 76 other senators. He called it excessively provocative. Some Democrats, such as Jim Webb of Virginia, argued that the amendment "could be read as a back-door method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate."

In other words, Barack isn't into saber-rattling, Hillary is.

I would love the vetting process involved, if for nothing more but shedding light on the self-dealing of her spouse. BUT This is not a political plum-SOS is a linkage to the"change" we want to see in our leadership. WE do not want a warmongering political opportunist who puts herself and (family) ahead of everything. We do want someone who is courageous, principled, TRUSTWORTHY, and a symbol of the new face we want to show to the world. Richardson yes, Kerry, maybe, is there no one else? We have very talented people...

Clinton's support for the Iraq war and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment must disqualify her from making foreign policy. This partnership can only end in tears and fury for both Obama and Clinton. It isn't the change I voted for, it isn't change I can believe in--it's not change at all.

NO...i don't think this is a good idea..will she stop the rediculous embargo on cuba ..probably not ..will she stop the horrible israel state sponsored terror against the palestinian's probably not will she antagonize russia ...she will carry all kinds of old baggage to the white house in this area ...i think she would be much better utilized in the health care situation that was her strong point working for the people here...obama needs to have his own ideas about asserting peace around the world ..that's a large part of why he was elected (sorry about any misspelling). mary adams

PLEASE, will someone tell me why and how Hillary is more qualified then Bill Richardson? How can A president's wife having having tea with other presidents' wives and a polarizing nature be more qualified then an former UN Ambassador, Cabinet member, 4 time Nobel peace prize nominee and envoy to the middle east peace process? I don't understand the simple logic here. I'm sure I'm not the only one confused. Hillary has never even had a dinner meeting with ANY head of state. It's been Bill Richardson's career. I have yet to get an answer at all from pro-Hillary people.

No! Pro-Iraq war, pro-corporate (and multi-national corporations), "obliterate" Iran Hillary Clinton who comes with the "Bill problem" to boot. Please! Is this the "change" and "change of mindset" and end of "politics as usual" we voted for? Is this reflective of the part of the Democratic Party and anti-war movement and anti-corporate lobbyist movement, etc. that launched and sustained Obama's candidacy that appeared to offer us new hope and an opening for new possibilities. Help.

YES! She would be a perfect pick. She knows the meaning and importance of TACT, and she has had meetings with heads of state from all over the world.

An original and possibly brilliant idea: she's an expert diplomat, knows and is respected by world leaders, understands all the issues and is the among the smartest people around. Will be strong enough to accomplish something. Finally!

clinton haters
GET OVER IT!
BHO is not a god, he will need help to govern and many of those who will help him worked with the clintions. just like bush the lesser's team came from nixon reagan and bush the elder administrations.
if you don't like that you should not have voted for the dem.
her husband cheated on her, so what! grow up

I don't think he should appoint her. Though Obama is normally a cucumber, I think he has a visceral dislike for Clinton. Which is understandable considering how condescending and rude she was towards him during the earliest debates. But more importantly, Clinton has no backbone, and no vision. She did vote to go into Iraq, after all. Not everyone did. Furthermore, and no small thing, Clinton doesn't get the internet. That means in some very big way, she's out of today's most meaningful discussions, their form as well as their substance. I wish I felt otherwise; I'm a feminist just a bit older than she is.

NO! You Get both namely Bill also. They did a lot to hurt America, free trade NAFTA & they are still part of the old paradigm of TRICKLE DOWN & we need to build from the bottom up.

Senator Clinton is very smart/experienced and she'd probably do a great job BUT---there are too many tabloid headlines with the Clintons. President-elect Obama and the country doesn't need the drama of this duo. Let's allow her to finish her term as Senator.

I would much prefer Bill Richardson as Hillary has outworn her welcome and is now senator from NY, somehow, although she is from Illinois, obviously.

Absolutely! She'd make a terrific Secretary of State!

YES! She would be the perfect pick. She knows many heads of state around the world, and understands the meaning and importance of TACT.

Since she is relating to the world outside and the world outside respects her highly - and she is competent and smart (and hopefully better organized than her campaign staff) she'd probably be great. SUpreme court sounds good too but maybe not doable as she has no experience as a judge. She's a good senator!!!

NO, NO, NO! She and Bill will come with too much garbage. We voted for Obama to CHANGE things.

NO. Perhaps an ambassador to some country like France where she can be officious, disingenuous, and show off her husband. She just does not have years of international diplomacy (not the same as intimidating other senators) and/or academic perspective in international affairs. There are so many more qualified men and women, who would be more effective. Now more than ever Obama can not be cynical, and make peace offerings.

susan from manhattan

She would make a great Secy of State. It would also give her opportunity to get a bit of distance between her and Bill, which might be advantageous to both.

I bet Saturday Night Live would also be able to put together a skit at least as good as "Janet Reno's Dance Party" featuring Hillary (Amy Poehler?). That'd be great.

Jokes aside, she is a stateswoman, a smart woman, incredibly capable and deserves the nod as Secy of State.

YES!
Its time for people to get over her personality and realize that she is by far the most qualified person for the job.

No way - she was duped by George W. Bush!

Seriously, if she couldn't see that the pre-war intel was suspect on Iraq when many did, what does that say? I also think she's the old guard - the corporate-friendly, pay-for-play politician whose baggage will continue to polarize us.

Even worse then the Clinton's Pan-Asian donor scandals were the midnight pardons - completely unforgivable.

I would prefer Bill Clinton. Hillary has outworn her welcome and she's from Illinois in the first place but is the senator from NY/

I prefer Bill Richardson as Hillary Clinton has outworn her welcome. She's from Illinois in the first place and how did she get to be senator from NY?

Yes
absolutely yes
she is the most qualified and equipped

No......I'm suffering from Hilary/Bill overdose.

I prefer Bill Richardson as Hillary has worn out her welcome and why did she run in NY in the first place? She's from Illinois.

I prefer Bill Richardson as Hillary has worn out her welcome and why did she run in NY in the first place? She's from Illinois.

I agree with Obama. She could manage the foerign policy better than obama. He could concentrateon th domestic economic crisis for which he is more suitable and she could concentrate on US policies in the rest of the world and can help Obama. I agree with him in that diplomocy in the first and formost in the foreign policy. At the same time her tough personality is an assett accros the negotiation table. Obama can learn a lot if he has the oppurtunity to read Bhishma;s teachings to Yudhishtera (on the topic of conduct of the leader) in the hindu epic story of Mahabharata. Bhishma on his deth bed elloquently teaches the new king Yudhishtera how to rule the country in diffficult times and how he shoud negotiate with the enemy.

Yes!

Obama said that he would be post-partisan, so the best person for that job would be... Chuck Hagel. I bet if the Hillary naysayers knew he was the other option, they'd be a lot more in favor of Hillary. there.

I think she would make an excellent secretary of state. The problem for me is letting go of having her as NY Senator. But if she is ready to move to a new post I imagine it would be the best use of her abilities.

Sen. Clinton should not be nominated to sec. of State.

She will be in better position to help the american people by serving as the senator of NY. or as the secretary of the HHS. She has great ideas re health insurance and should use them to help the new administration implement them.

No, just no.

Yep, she would be great.

My choice for Secretary of State is Nobel Peace Prize recipient Jimmy Carter. Since leaving Office, he's devoted his life to finding peaceful solutions to international conflicts, advancing democracy and human rights, and promoting economic and social development around the world.

Yes. She is well liked around the world ,but she can also be very tough. She would be perfect for the job.

Yes, I favor Hillary as sec. of state

NOT Hillary!!!!

John Kerry would be the best choice for Sec. of State.

No.

I don't want her to represent our country abroad, especially not with her husband following her around. She supported the war in Iraq, he was instrumental in the bombing of Serbia. We need a representative dedicated to non-violence solutions.

I would not mind Hillary as Secretary of State and think she would be a great choice (saying this as someone who opposed her campaign initially). However, the difficulty with vetting Bill Clinton and his associations, to me, is not worth the risk. They are the epitomy of the Washington politics that Obama pledged to change and this difficult vetting process is a clear sign that America's left needs to get over the Clintons and realize it is time for a new era of politics.

No. I don't want to see her as the face representing our country abroad, and taking her husband with her. She supported the war in Iraq and he bombed Serbia. A secretary of state needs to be dedicated to non-violent solutions.

How about Bill Richardson?

yes

No!.I do not approve of Hillary for any major role in the
new government. Change does not include filling the new administration with tried and true failures.
Is this a 'quid pro quo"? It certainly suggests that to me.

Thanks, but no thanks. Leave Hillary in the Senate. Obama can make a better pick.

Yes! She is perfect for the job, and it will be a great move for Obama to bring together the democratic party!

No. My vote for Barack Obama was based in part on the need for a change in foreign policy. Hilary Clinton's record on many foreigb policy issues -- the Irag war resolution and subsequent war-related bills, Iranian guard as terrorists vote, etc -- has been appalling. We don't need another Clinton administration -- think of events in the Sudan and Rwanda. And we don't really need someone who has demonstrated that ambition is why she gets up in the morning.

No.

No. I honestly don't think she has the management skills, the specific expertise in foreign affairs or the essential interpersonal skills --- and there is no way that Bill's conflicts of interest can truly be eliminated, not just covered up.

I assume that there are other factors I'm not aware of if Obama is going to do this. I just hope he hasn't been boxed into a political corner by the powers that be, who are the Clinton loyalists at this point.

NO!!!

Not Hillary.

She said during the primaries that she doesn't believe in negotiation with foreign governments.

No, no. She originally supported the war in Iraq, so I question her policies. She is unbalanced in her position on the Middle East in general, never showing an understanding of the issues surrounding the Palestinian People, refugees and the complexity of the peace process, but has shown an blind loyalty to Israel.

Thanks, but no thanks. Obama can do better. Leave Hillary in the Senate.

NO Thank you! Let's please stay away from the 're-treads'! Not do as Bill Clinton did.

Please, not Hillary.

Her experience as first lady is not a qualification for being appointed Secretary of State.

Richardson has a resume packed tight with high-level diplomatic activities.

Let's have the best available for the job, and not an appointment that is political, or one that appears as political.

a perfect choice

perfect choice

NO! Hillary has no diplomatic experience or skills nor does she have the temperament for the job. She's a war hawk, and she said that she voted for the Iraq War without even reading the document. Paying "attention to detail" must be a strong suit for a Secretary of State. Anyone who could come up with the "the dodging bullets" lie hasn't a clue about examining possible consequences before speaking. I'm with the person who suggested giving her a job in HUD, something domestic. I want Bill Richardson who not only has has successful negotiations with North Korea, and the UN.

I didn't know you could be nominated to the Supreme court if you're not a judge.

#71

I see Gen. Powel as an honorable man used and lied to by the Bush administration. He resigned, imo, when he discovered they had lied to him.

MDJ

No. During the campaign she vigorously opposed Obama's approach to international relations, and I don't believe she would totally accept his point of view if she were Secretary of State. Obama's international understanding has been an important part of my enthusiasm for him, and I would hate to see it filtered through the mind of someone who disagrees with it.

Eric #67,
Barack skipped that vote on the terrorist org.

No. The primary reason I did not vote for HRC, my Senator in NY, is that I believe her vote for use of force in Iraq was a political calculation that she thought would win her the white house. She never said she was wrong. BO won because he represents a change in direction in foreign policy. HRC is more of the same.

NO. SHE IS NOT A FRIEND OF HIS. SHE DID EVERYTHING BUT PULL A SHIV ON HIM. SHE WAS ALSO HOLDING OUT FOR A LAST MINUTE MIRACLE,LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR J.F.K. SHE IS ALSO AN ADMITTED LIAR. IS THIS WHO WE WANT AT THE HEAD OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORE? MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHE VOTED FOR IRAQ, WILLING TO BOMB IRAN [SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER MENTALITY], WAS AGAINST A CEASE FIRE IN LEBANON, WILL BE ANOTHER DISHONEST BROKER IN THE M.E. JUST WHAT NONE OF THE PARTIES OR THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS . A BETTER CHOICE, IN MY OPINION WOULD LEON PANETTA. 18 YEARS IN CONGRESS, CHIEF OF STAFF UNDER PRES. CLINTON, A MEMBER OF THE ''IRAQ STUDY GROUP, CURRENTLY A PROFFESOR IN SEASIDE,CA. A MAN OF GREAT WISDOM, INTEGRITY AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, A MAN OF PEACE. GEORGE MITCHELL HAS THE SAME QUALITIES.

I, for one, suffer from "Clinton fatigue." Maybe we can find someone else for State.

No. During the campaign she vigorously fought Obama's approach to international relations and I don't think she would really change her thinking if she were Secretary of State. She has a whole different view of the rest of the world, and Obama's international understanding is a good part of the reason I have been so enthusiastic about him.

She could be Secretary of State, no doubt. But Hillary could best serve this country by taking a seat on the Supreme Court. In my ideal scenario she will stay in the Senate for now, and be appointed to the Court at some point during Obama's first term.
Hope I'm not dreaming too big, here!!!

AWFUL. Hilary has no official international experience(outside of first lady teas), a socialist wonk mentality and carries Bill's huge ego and $ millions in foreign pay-offs to their family.
Can't the genius Obama find and hire good talent, not 1990s retreads?

NO!!!

Bill Richardson is far more qualified to be Secy of State than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has rock star status, but Bill Richardson has far more relevant work experience for this job.

I think Hilary would be GREAT as Secretary of State! But what's the big deal as far as Bill's connections with world leaders (b/c of his foundations...) If there was a conflict of interest, wouldn't it be even more of a conflict if she were the President-elect? I don't get it!

Glenn
(ex-pat living in S. America)

NO way, she's just another war monger!

No! Absolutely not. Her so-called qualifications do not impress me. I cannot believe there are no other qualified people available that can offer a new vision and a different way of thinking. I am very upset that she never apologized or questioned her vote on Iraq. How can someone who is so inflexible offer a new outlook on foreign affairs. My vote for Obama was a leap of faith in the belief that he had the courage to initiate real change. I am beginning to regret my vote for Obama with his appointments of Rahm Emanuel and others from the Clinton Klan.

... sour and self-serving???

we need someone with integrity - not another manufactured crying jag.

Or, an alternative view ...

"keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer"

Perhaps it's a strategic move, to keep her in O's camp, rather than in what could become an oppositional role in the Senate (especially if she continues to hold 2012 ambitions).

If that's the case, he should choose a less dangerous place to offer her.

I agree with the comments above that Obama should hang on to one of his strongest assets, which is "not doing business as usual" - he should be looking for fresh, innovative faces and people that can think in new ways.

And, lest I be taken for a Hilary hater, I think that she's done a fine job as a NY Senator.

#69--I was angry at Clinton for not voting against the AUMF. I didn't want her to run for president. However, she did give a very complete explanation of why she voted as she did. She stated she was not voting for war, but felt Bush needed the support of the Senate to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. To the embarrassment of BushCo, the inspectors were allowed to do their work--until Bush ordered them out in order to invade.

And, had Bush based his decisions on facts -- instead of whatever was motivating his desire to get his war on -- the inspectors would have found absolutely no evidence of WMD and we would not have invaded. Her mistake, which I believe she did "cop to," was that she trusted Bush to be rational. He was not, is not--and he has done great and lasting damage to our nation.

But Biden supported the AUMF even more vociferously than Clinton. And now he's Obama's VP. Square that circle if you can.

I don't undertand why people say Hillary has experience. Please, explain it to me. What has she done? One term as a minor member of a Senate committee? She went to China with other government wives to "view conditions"?

#75, I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about Hillary. I have my own problems with barak as well, but that has no bearing on Hillary's qualifications.

I still have not heard anyone tell me WHY Hillary is better qualified then Richardson, and how we are talking about her over one of the most respected world dignitaries. Name one European ally who gives Hillary more respect over Richardson and does not see her as the low blow campaigner she was during the primary.

Yes! I think Hillary is a strong person with experience. I was Obama all the way for pres, and that being said I think Hillary has a lot to offer as Sec of State. I feel she will help women across the world and she understands international politics.

Yes, when Obama was picking a VP candidate a lot people thought that Hillary made the most sense but I thought she'd make a better Secretary of State. This way she knows who she answers to and she doesn't think she is Oabama's partner. She'll do a great job b/c she can work within the confines of her job in his administration. I think any lingering bad feelings would also fade, as well. Moreover, she doesn't want to be on the supreme court - she wants to be in politics.

No. Never. Gov Bill Richard should get this job hands down. He has proven himself over and over again. He has real relationships with world leaders and understands the issues.

Yes. Her and Bill did a LOT for Obama on the trail. Part of good Government is diversity, and experience, Hillary may not please all the Obama hard core fans but she has been around and Bill did have the respect of the world. I think this gives Obama a jump start on the international scene.

#58--Al Franken a Rush wannebee? Uh, Rush eschews facts--Franken relished in using facts to undermine Rush's catapulting of the propaganda. Very firmly reality-based, which I find a good thing. Sheesh.

#69--BIDEN has taken back his hawkish stance? He was pushing going after Saddam even before 9/11. And now he wants to get all militant against Iran. Sorry, you can't claim ideological purity for Obama; he's just as much as pol as any other, which is fairly normal given he is one.

Now, he argued during the primary that Hillary only did teas and things like that. Now? Apparently her take on her having foreign policy experience has merit.

So, no, Obama is not consistent. Just like most pols, he uses arguments which he feels will help him win.

Now he is going to be the president and we will finally begin to see what he will actually take action on, work to implement.

Ought to be very interesting--I've never felt so completely that I had so little idea of how a candidate of my party would actually govern.

Obama is a fool is he is going to select her. She undercuts Obama's message, just as Rahm does.

Note to Brian: Can you change your intro guitar riff? It is old material and it is tiresome to hear in my office - almost to the point of embarrassing. I have started to listen to NPR Boston at your 2 hour slot.

I thought during her primary campaign that her argument about her "experience" in foreign policy was bogus, and nothing is changed now.

I grant that she's had "face time" with international heads of state, but, I think we'd want someone in this job who has not only had dinner with people, but had a commanding, detailed, deep understanding of the issues of international diplomacy and security. Someone who has worked day-to-day in this area for a number of years at an advanced level.

Who that might be, I leave to more knowledgeable people to decide. Personally, I like Richardson.

Nick

Yes! I think Hillary is a strong person with experience. I was Obama all the way for pres, and that being said I think Hillary has a lot to offer as Sec of State. I feel she will help women across the world and she understands international politics.

Yes, I think Hillary would be an extremely effective Secretary of State. She is brilliant, has excellent people skills, understands foreign policy, whether or not she has had direct experience. She had established very positive relationships with the heads of state with whom she met as first lady.
The two main ingredients for this job, it seems to me, are foreign policy knowledge and diplomatic skills, in which she excells. And we should trust that Obama wouldn't select her if she were not fully capable. I disagree with those people who don't believe she can maintain boundaries. She will give her full respect to President Obama while asserting her own point of view.

Absolutely. Hilary Clinton is a huge asset not only to the Democratic party but to the country. The fear that her husband is some sort of albatross around her neck seems odd to me; isn't it clear by now that she is her own woman? For disgruntled Democrats and churlish Republicans to hang on to the notion that wives should reflect the image of their spouses or be held accountable for their shortcomings is at once patronizing and insulting. This country is a dire need of a major readjustment if it wishes to re-establish its credibility overseas; to accomplish this it needs the 'best man for the job' it just so happens that in this case that man is a woman.

The choice, if it is hers, must be a very hard one to make, as she would give up her senate seat. Her permanent presence on the Supreme Court would also be most welcome.

Nonetheless this is a good, fence-mending choice. I worry about her reluctance to negotiate with such powers as Iran and about her hawkishness, but believe Obama is strong enough to remain in charge.

She is well-known and well-liked abroad. Her intelligence, training, and experience make highly qualified. If she can distance herself from some of
her husband's foreign policies which have brought financial disaster to our workers, she could be as great as Madeline Allbright.

NO.

she is a great senator and should stay in the Senate.

45:

You want change? Like a president who opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs? Is that change? No, that is Obama. Just like Bush, Obama is bigoted and homophobic and makes human rights decisions based on the bible. Obama = gender apartheid, just like Bush.

Obama has disrespected gays and lesbians and now he risks disrespecting women with his treatment of H. Clinton. Will Obama have any base left?

Clinton is a good choice for Secretary of State. She has more backbone then Obama, more experience and won’t say things like she will negotiate with Iran anywhere, any time.

Hillary's ability to pursue a newly formulated foreign policy vision may be incumbered by Pres. WJC's endeavors since leaving office. The Obama transition team's openness to make the offer public, and vetting process transparency is so encouraging. I do believe that the transition team's process will ultimately yeld the best result for our nation. I would welcome Hillary as our SoS. Pres. WJC has so admirably turned his political capital to solve key worldwide issues. It is the 2-for-1 that may be the gotcha.

No way!! I think many people who voted for Obama in the primary thought they were making a choice between a proponent of giving the President the leeway he needed to invade Iraq - (who didn't even read the full briefing before casting such an important vote!)- and who is viewed by many as a hawk ...........or someone who did not favor invading Iraq - who might favor negotiating with "enemies" in place of always using threat - and who might have a different approach.
The selection of Hilary Clinton for this key position (while providing a chance for Obama to show he can be "inclusive") - would be felt as a slap in the face to some of us who opted for him - (not her) - from the outset!
I would most like him to choose Richardson.

#52--OMG! Powell of the lies to the UN?

Powell may have redeemed himself among Obama followers by coming out in support of Obama, but have you so soon forgotten his pernicious presence in the Bush Maladministration?

If Powell had spoken out, perhaps we would not have invaded Iraq. But he was a good Republican and fully supported his Republican president. And that has worked out sooooo well, right?

I, for one, would find a Powell nomination to any cabinet position and loathsome and just plain wrong. Powell worked to undermine Bill Clinton when he had the power to do so early in the Clinton administration. He might do better by Obama, but Powell has completely lose my trust.

As a Senator, Clinton can do a lot of good for the State of New York, and the USA. As Secretary of State, she will be little more than a mouthpiece for Obama. Not that the position is unimportant; it requires skill and diplomacy, but it's not a creative, proactive job. Give the job to somebody who wants to clearly and politely articulate Obama's message, and keep Clinton at home where she can grow her leadership in the Democratic Party.

jawbone,
As Brian Lehrer said, "it's not the vote for the Iraq War, it's the refusal to acknowledge that it was problematic."
I'm paraphrasing.
People had a lot of questions about a "W"-like refusal to cop to mistakes. As you can see (to a degree) in the primary and election results... The inability to handle criticism is something many of us can relate to, but it's dangerous in a leader.
Every other Dem who was running for Pres who had voted for the Iraq War copped to the mistake. And made some sort of apology.
You know, like the Fonz: I'm sorry, I was Wr-w-wr-wr-wr
(He could never quite say the word wrong in connection with himself.)

Yes for Secretary of State. She would be a good embassador and her experienced in politics would be highly utilized.
She is qualified. If she's not picked it will appear that a game was played.

Not for supreme court. Why is that even an idea? Has she ever been a judge? There are so many judges out there with a lot of experience. Having, said that, she would probably vote in ways I would like.

No. I did not volunteer for Obama during the primaries to see Hillary become Sec. of State. One of my early reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton was because of his views on foreign policy. She ridiculed Barack's stance that we should talk to our enemies. She ridiculed the fact that he had lived abroad (for someone who has spent many years living abroad, believe me, it makes a difference). Lots of luck sending Hillary to Iran where she voted for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist" organization. Barack voted against that. Kerry, Richardson, even Holbrooke would be better choices. The Clinton years were better by far than the Bush years but many of the problems we are dealing with now began or were ignored when Clinton was president. We want Change!

The country would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. President Obama would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. Only Hillary would be better served with Hillary as Secretary of State. Do we really need the drama, the conflict of interest, and all that follows Hillary? Isn't her resume impressive enough? She would not have the honor of being the first or second, for that matter. I like Hillary as the doyen of the Senate. I am a staunch Democrat suffering from Clinton fatigue.

The country would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. President Obama would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. Only Hillary would be better served with Hillary as Secretary of State. Do we really need the drama, the conflict of interest, and all that follows Hillary? Isn't her resume impressive enough? She would not have the honor of being the first or second, for that matter. I like Hillary as the doyen of the Senate. I am a staunch Democrat suffering from Clinton fatigue.

The country would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. President Obama would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. Only Hillary would be better served with Hillary as Secretary of State. Do we really need the drama, the conflict of interest, and all that follows Hillary? Isn't her resume impressive enough? She would not have the honor of being the first or second, for that matter. I like Hillary as the doyen of the Senate. I am a staunch Democrat suffering from Clinton fatigue.

I think it bears remembering that when she made the "obliterate" comment about Iran it was a response to a question about what the US would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Whether or not I agree with the stance, I think it's fair to say it would be the policy of any US administration to attack Iran under those circumstances. The "obliterate" comment was "We could obliterate them" not "we would." That is, of course a statement of the obvious.

No! She has shown through the chaos of her campaign that she cannot manage a big group with different interests/approaches; she would not be able to bring State Dept. back to health after being demoralized by Bush/Cheney; she mocked Obama for wanting to talk with Iran; she never read the report on Iraq before voting to go to war; you can't trust that she and Bill will not try to sabotage Obama so she can run in 2012.

#42, Peri--Biden was even more hawkish on the Iraq Invasion, and he's Obama's chosen VP. Go figure.

Politics.

If Hillary is offered the job it will be as a compromise olive branch because Obama beat her in the primaries, and not for her qualifications as it should be. She has much good experience in other areas but not in foreign policy, diplomacy, or persuasion, or even managerial skills. The two of them (Bill and Hillary) will always be media magnets to the detriment of an Obama administration. Bill definitely has business conflicts of interest and the only way they can select her is if they look the other way. It will be quite a grilling on Capitol Hill during her confirmation hearings, after what Obama said about Hillary's lack of foreign policy experience during the campaign.

She would be a dynamic diplomat mending some fences in a hurry with countries that are unhappy with us (thanks to Bush). I think she could do incredible things...she is sooo smart and knowledgeable re foreign policy. And the best part would be her coming home to discuss problems with Bill!!!

47,
I can see the point of not supporting Al Franken. AF has made a career of being divisive in a very personal way, not attempting to find common ground with the other side.
Trying to be the Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh doesn't help the Dems, and that's what Franken was doing.
Franken's heart is in the right place, but I think a lot of Dems wanted to distance themselves from that brand of partisanship.
We have an opportunity to move forward, bringing many different kinds of people along. Even Republicans, who are now completely in the wilderness. The fact that the Franken race was so close in this particular election... tells you something about Franken.

[[[10] Peg Roberts from Mt. Tabor, NJ November 18, 2008 - 10:13AM Ever since the early 90's, when I began to realize what a brilliant and inciteful politician Hillary Clinton was...]]

"inciteful" is just about the right word for her. i'm done with the clintons. she couldn't possibly put away her own agenda and fully support the president. i don't trust her. i admire obama's desire to build a cabinet of rivals. it's almost certainly better than what bush constructed. but isn't there anyone else who can do this job?

My desire to have Hillary in the US Senate has nothing to do with her not being highly capable of being Secty of State, altho' it is not her area of greatest expertise.

No, I want her as a counterweight to Obama's tendency to laud Reagan and adopt Republican talking points. I want her representing Democratic ideals and principles in the Senate. I want her working to avoid a Cass Sunstein Supreme Court nomination by Obama, among other things.

And, if she is Secty of State, the MCM* will be going crazy with their Clinton Derangement Syndrome. CDS was in full evidence on Hardball last night, with Tweety inviting Christopher Hitchens, Clinton hater extraordinaire, on air. She will get the blame and the flames from the MCM.

Just Say NO, Hillary!

*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media

Absolutely not. Barack needs to recognize this is a change election that he ran on.
He is absolutely boring us with his selections. The Republicans were right when they said change is a vague word.

Since foreign policy weighs so heavily on our future, Hillary is not the right person at all.

Barack is in danger of looking like he lacks leadership by selecting her and all the other Clinton White House appointees.

NO! He does not need the Clinton and their political and personal baggage weighing down his administration.

Although as LBJ said: "Better to have them in the tent pissing out, than out of the tent pissing in."

If he does it, it would be to follow the Lincoln method of appointing your political enemies to your cabinet. Disallows them from blaming you from afar.

Woops, I screwed up my last part at #45. Anybody who doesn't think Bill Richardson should get it over Hillary has not thought this through. How could anyone think world leaders would take Hillary seriously? What qulaifications does she have, besides ambition for 2016?

If she belongs in the cabinet -- and I do not agree that she does, but I understand why Pres. elect Obama might want her there -- I think she could do more good in a domestic position, such as HUD or HHS.

I do not want her on the Supreme Court.

I would actually prefer Sec. Powell to return as SoC.

45
Couldn't have said it better.

whomever obama picks will do a GREAT job!

Hillary mocked Obama when he said he'd meet with unpopular leaders. How could Hillary represent Obama's new diplomacy with her attitude? She represents the old way that doesn't work. Let's have someone for State who shares Obama's vision.

Hell no.

Part 2--

I fear the loss of both Hillary's and Bill's voices for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Since Obama is loathe to identify himself as a Democrat, I fear the loss of party building his administration may bring about. Recall this is the Democratic candidate who did not mention the words "Democrat" or "Democratic Party" during his national debates! And seldom otherwise.

Oh, yes--he did use the words at a private fundraiser in PA toward the end of October, to tell the attendees that he would have to fight against Democrats in his own party, as he would have to put off big expensive programs like healthcare and education programs.

We need Hillary in the Senate. I see this as a move to marginalize her and her followers, many of whom are the base of the Democratic Party. The ones Donna Brazille said the Party no longer needed....

Both Bill and Hillary are extraordinary fundraisers for downticket Democratic candidates. Hillary campaigned actively for Al Franken--Obama? Did he get to MN and work at all for Franken? Or is Al to far to the left for Obama's image (and what does Obama really believe, btw???)?

Hillary is even now fundraising for Franken and for the Dem senate candidate in AL. Where is Obama?

With the restrictions on a Secty of State re: campaigning, we lose Hillary. We may also lose Bill. Whassup with that??

Hillary Clinton would make a great Secretary of State!

You have to be kidding me. I thought the whole point of Obama was change, not more Clinton myth. What happened to paving a new path? Bill Richardson by far is the best choice. He's already been an Ambassador (to the UN, no less), a Cabinet Secretary (energy, eventhough it was under Clinton), a Governor, Congressman, and he used to teach at Kennedy School of Gov't. He was an emmissary to the Israel/Palestine peace process. And to top it off, he's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize FOUR times. He has world respect, solid diplomatic and negotiating skills. What does Hillary have? Polarization, has never written any legislation in her life an absolutely no executive experience. Her claim to fame was being hand picked by Sam Walton himself to serve on the board of Wal-Mart and defend oil companies and bank fraud. Anybody who doesn't think Richardson should be passed over for Hillary

I remember the days when a president sought the best and the brightest for his cabinet and advisors (unlike recent years, when we've had the biggest contributors and the best brown-nosers). Clinton is clearly one of the best and the brightest we have to lead us. While she is a force in the Senate, she is just one of 100 there. As Secretary of State, I think she would focus her undeniable talents in a way that could really make a difference in the world.

NO !

No! She was for the Iraq war for a long time, and backed down only when it became very obviously unpopular! She is very close to the Israelis yet tight with the Saudis, just a recipe for things to go on in their disfunctional way as before!

I so much want Hillary in the Senate, as the most liberal senator a senator from NYState can be. I want her to honor her promise to all her presidential nomination supporters, to Americnas, to stay and FIGHT for us.

I want her as the Lioness of the Senate, working as hard as she can (which is very hard indeed) to accomplish national healthcare (not some sops to the parasitic private for-profit insurers). I want her fighting for privacy rights, our rights under the Bill of Rights. I want her nudging Obama out of his (possible) centrist crouch.

I do not want her at State, a creature of the administration, unable to give voice to the needs and hopes of her followers.

I will be deeply disappointed to see her hemmed in domestically as Secty of State. Yes, she may do some good, but she can only do what Obama will permit her to do.

To be cont'd.

I am enormously uneasy at the prospect of Clinton as Secretary of State. At this moment in history, we need skilled diplomats representing the US in the world and refashioning this country's image as a respected member of a community of nations, not an exceptionalist, crusading, terrifying hyperpower. We need people with much more subtlety than ruthlessness, much more tact than nastiness, a rather neutral persona rather than a partisan persona. If Hillary cares as much as she says she does about health care and about the day-to-day well-being of "middle-class families," then perhaps she should be the Secretary of Health and Human Services -- a post at which she could be brilliant.

No, no, no!

Do folks have amnesia or what?

Obama's new approach to foreign policy was precisely what drew many of his early supporters to him -- and away from Clinton. I'm talking more broadly than Iraq policy. I mean actually using diplomacy, soft power, etc. How did Clinton respond? She called Obama's interest in meeting with US foes like Cuba and Iran "irresponsible and frankly naive."

Aside from the distinct divergence in positions, there is also Clinton's lack of foreign policy experience. Or are we counting riding elephants with Chelsea in Africa?

Why not? Both she and Bill Richardson are good choices but Hillary brings a little more star power to the position. Appointing Hillary allows Obama to leverage the Clinton's popularity abroad, and it gives Obama cover to use Bill Clinton on occassional foreign policy missions.

I think she would be more effective in reforming health care.

I really don't get why she's even being considered. It seems so messy just to get her vetted w/o conflict of interest with Bill Clinton's initiatives and money flows from abroad. It brings so much drama to Obama and US foreign policy. She's a hawk hiding as a 'moderate'. Finally, how could any foreign leader dealing with her not have the expectation that they are dealing with Bill Clinton?
Why would he or she even want to go there?
Maybe she would be an asset as a distraction from Obama doing real work and reform with the Treasury and with the Pentagon, but that's about it.

YES-YES-YES-YES!!!!!

No. Too much power for her in an Obama administration. Too much Bill.

Yes

What part of "obliterate Iran" or voting for the Iraq War (and unlike most or all other Dems, refusing ever to admit it was a mistake) seems to have eluded enlightened feminists who support the senator from NY for any position? What part of "incompetently managed campaign" suggests she is capable of doing much more than communicating that she is number one... and the people with whom she is working are not?
Is personality everything and substance is irrelevant? What does this say about the thought processes of the large number of women supporting her?

I was never much of a Hillary fan, but came to admire her during her bid for the Democratic nomination -- how can you not admire such tenaciousness and ambition? That said, having Hillary as Secretary of State in the Obama administration would be like the War of the Roses. These two people -- HRC and BHO -- don't like each other. I fear there would always be an undercurrent of sabotage coming from both directions. Now maybe they're both bigger than that, but I don't believe it. They're human. And then there's Bill...

Very much agreed with Barney, although she may have picked up some foreign policy bona fides during her tenure as a US senator. But both her inept, mean-spirited primary campaign and her disastrous attempt at reforming the health care system prove Clinton is a poor executive with an abysmal sense of diplomacy. And then there's her husband, who is a) severely compromised by his business dealings and b) a compulsive meddler. The Clintons are just bad news, absolutely toxic individuals, and I hope they stay as far from this admininstration as possible. They would be an albatross on Obama's already overburdened neck.

Depending on how the Obama administration orchestrates the roles of Biden and the DOD leadership, it would be a great move. Providing that the mix of autonomy between the State Department, DOD and other pertinent offices are balanced this would be a strong appointment decision for Obama - both politically and strategically an intelligent decision.

Yes, of course, she should have been president.

I would love her as Secretary of State although I am not sure if she is the most qualified. But definitely better than John Kerry and Bill Richardson.

No. But not because she wouldn't be effective in that post; she would be awesome.

Obama needs her voice in the Senate. Her dogged determination to get things done will be essential to combat a bitter Republican minority that still has the ability to filibuster.

NO!!!
Claiming foreign policy expertise, and having it are two very different things. During the election campaign she clearly overstated and lied about her experience!

I prefer Bill Richardson. Hillary will only push her own agenda.

Absolutely not. We need someone in this position who has substantial and relevant foreign policy experience, and certainly not someone who couldn't envision an alternative to the Iraq war or who's FP experience involves being around when we failed Rwanda.

No. I honestly don't think she has the management skills, the specific expertise in foreign affairs or the essential interpersonal skills --- and there is no way that Bill's conflicts of interest can truly be eliminated, not just covered up.

I assume that there are other factors I'm not aware of if Obama is going to do this. I just hope he hasn't been boxed into a political corner by the powers that be, who are the Clinton loyalists at this point.

Might not be so bad. We would have Hillary and Bill out doing diplomatic work. It could work to our favor, they know alot of the leaders of foreign countries. You just have to find a way to make sure the Clintons know Obama is the boss.

No, I don't feel Hillary is the right choice. 1) A large part of the Obama platform was the idea of ushering a new era, and the Clinton's represent the past. 2) She spent 18 months trying to tear Obama down; it was an ugly fight and there are still some remnants of that, plus their converging philosophies esp. on foreign policy. 3) Bill Clinton will be part of the equation and will be nothing but a burden to Obama because of his personality and conflict of interest.

Let's choose Bill Richardson instead.

Yes! A resounding yes!
Hillary Clinton is smart, determined and compassionate. She is also human and espouses a world view. What better person for the job?

Stop beating her over the head with Bill, who was a great president in so many respects. He was just "way too human".

I love Hillary, and I really appreciate Obama's gesture (assuming he makes it), but what exactly are her credentials for the position? And moreover, I heard that Kerry is another possibility. Is Secretary of State now a fallback position for Democratic presidential wannabes? I thought it was too important for that.

NO! Trust her and her husband after that disgraceful primary campaign? And what happens if she has to duck gunfire on the tarmac again?

Any job function that gets Hillary Clinton closer to the White House is a good thing in my book. Kudos to Obama for (potentially) including this brilliant woman in his sure-to-be powerhouse cabinet.

This is a terrible idea, and most likely will not happen. Let the tabloid portion of the political press obsess about her in the Senate and keep them as far away as possible from the White House; not the mention the fact that she's manifestly unqualified to serve.

Yes, she would be one of the gems in the new administration

Yes. She would be one of the gems of the new administration.

Yes. If she accepts, and can pass a vetting process, she would be a very strong and resourceful Secretary of State.

Ridiculous idea. Bubba has taken too much money from the Saudis, from Qatar, from Morocco, etc (just like the Bush family) so that the whiff of influence peddling will always be there. It also dimishes Obama....what you'll have is another Clinton administration with Obama as the silver-tongued front man...some change!

Ever since the early 90's, when I began to realize what a brilliant and inciteful politician Hillary Clinton was, I have thought that the most perfect fit for her would be Secretary of State! I see her as a protoge of Madeline Albright.

All I can say is no!

NO! We elected Obama because we want CHANGE. I understand the importance of experience, but HRC's foreign "policy" experience consists of posing for photo ops & drinking tea. New blood is needed, not Clinton II.

I'd be happy with Hilary as Secretary of State, but the BEST scenario would be to have Hilary in the Supreme Court. She would be there longer than 4-8 years as Secretary of State and we need her in the Supreme Court!

Yes Please!

Absolutely not!! What are her foreign policy qualifications? Her campaign was disorganized and badly managed. Does that have to continue at State? And finally, Bill should be held very far from the white House. Keep Hillary in the Senate or put her on the Supreme Court.

I don't like her one bit. She's the one that said she would "obliterate Iran" if Iran dared to retaliate against an Israeli attack on Iran. Rahm Emanuel is enough; do we really need a sixth column?

She's too big a personality. Obama needs to assert his own foreign policy, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will obscure that.

She's an asset either way, so my question is which position would benefit more from her presence, at home or abroad?

Mixed feelings. She would probably do a great job, but I selfishly want to keep her as a senator from NY. I hope Obama is serious about this. An awful lot of people are going to feel jerked around if it doesn't work out in a good way, whatever that way is.