TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Hillary as Secretary of State?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hillary as Secretary of State?

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
It's all conjecture, but there's been a lot of that in the last 24 hours or so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us...linton.html?em
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111304112.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,1291464.story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/...ma-white-house
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11...cretary-state/

Somehow I can't see Kerry in that role, but Hillary is another matter.
post #2 of 21
She's a true team player and she could leverage the good will with foreign leaders that comes with the Clinton name.

I voted for Kerry in '04 but that was primarily a vote against GW. I can't see him as S of S either.
post #3 of 21
Not exactly "change" as promised, but a better pick than the buffoon Kerry.
post #4 of 21
My chiropractor and I discussed this during my appointment today. His opinion was that if offered the position that she wouldn't take it. His reasoning being that where would she be better off, from almost any standpoint: basing a run for her next chance at the Presidency, political power, remaining in the hearts and minds (and in the pocketbooks) of her supporters and constituency, a guaranteed job for life (if she decided against running for the Pres.) -- and I guess I have to agree when looked at that way. A Sec. of State is subordinate to the President and executes the President's will, and is usually in the shadow of the President, so I really can't see any advantage to her political career for her to take the job. And believe me, I'm sure she's very interested in what's best for HER political career, not Barack Obama's.
post #5 of 21
I think Hiliary would make a very good Sec of state. She is very level headed and diplomatic, plus foreign leaders already know her. Personally, I feel she would excel in that role. Now, the question is will she accept it. Has there ever been a Sec of State that went on to run for president? Because that is her main goal.
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by calico2222 View Post
Has there ever been a Sec of State that went on to run for president? Because that is her main goal.
Just, one, according to WikiAnswers: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_secr...came_President and that's the point I was making above. Being Sec State won't advance her political career.
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Just, one, according to WikiAnswers: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_secr...came_President and that's the point I was making above. Being Sec State won't advance her political career.
I don't think she's accomplished all she intended, and would be stifled answering to someone else even if she disagreed.
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
My chiropractor and I discussed this during my appointment today. His opinion was that if offered the position that she wouldn't take it. His reasoning being that where would she be better off, from almost any standpoint: basing a run for her next chance at the Presidency, political power, remaining in the hearts and minds (and in the pocketbooks) of her supporters and constituency, a guaranteed job for life (if she decided against running for the Pres.) -- and I guess I have to agree when looked at that way. A Sec. of State is subordinate to the President and executes the President's will, and is usually in the shadow of the President, so I really can't see any advantage to her political career for her to take the job. And believe me, I'm sure she's very interested in what's best for HER political career, not Barack Obama's.
I don't know, Tim. She's extremely ambitious, and as a "junior" senator, she won't be heading any committees in the Senate, where seniority seemingly counts more than interest or knowhow, for quite a while. She wanted to get involved in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee next term, but Ted Kennedy is holding on to health care.

She might be tempted to add "U.S. Secretary of State" to "First Lady" and "U.S. Senator" behind her name in history books. At 61, her age will probably play a factor. I doubt that Obama's successor will be a Baby Boomer; he's really at the tail end of that generation, at 47.

She might also be offered a job as Attorney General or Secretary of Health and Human Services, rather than State.
post #9 of 21
Sec of HHS is a death sentence. AG is a toss-up. Bobby Kennedy made pretty good use of it. State, Defense, and Treasury are the plums. Hillary as Sec of Defense or Treasury would be a joke. State is the only viable appointment. And though it might look good on a resume, and she'd be able to command outrageous speaking fees, write books, and generally live high on the hog for the rest of her life, that's not what she's about. She wants to go down in history as the first female President, and she wants the power, prestige and glory that goes along with that. Sec State as a stepping stone hasn't a good track record. Even though she's a jr. Sen. she has a high profile where she is. Though as Sec State she'd also have a high profile, it would be on the shoulders of Obama, and I don't think that's good enough to boost her into the Pres. I think I'll have to stick with my chiro's opinion.

Besides, she might be 61, but she doesn't look it. I don't know about eight years from now. But how old was Margaret Thatcher? She wasn't any spring chicken, was she? There'll still be plenty of boomers voting eight years from now. And half of those boomers remember their younger years as being on the cusp of the women's lib movement.

Final thought: if the Republicans continue with their heads in the sand, she just might be running against Sarah Palin in 2012 or 2016. Now really, if the choice is to be between Palin and Hillary, who would any sane person choose? Regardless of whether she had served as Sen. or Sec State?
post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Final thought: if the Republicans continue with their heads in the sand, she just might be running against Sarah Palin in 2012 or 2016. Now really, if the choice is to be between Palin and Hillary, who would any sane person choose? Regardless of whether she had served as Sen. or Sec State?
Thatcher was in her fifties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher.

As far as Palin is concerned, I'm still giggling about Dick Cavett's opinion piece in the NYT, which everybody and their brother (i.e., old friends in the U.S.) have been sending me links to. The Wild Wordsmith of Wasilla
post #11 of 21
Funny, I suffered a "time displacement moment" when I read she was 61. It sounds old, but I don't see her as old. I'm in my fifties. I'm having trouble relating to people over 60 in the same way I would have when I was in my thirties. THEN she would have been old at 61. Thatcher was PM when I was in my thirties, so the picture of her in my mind is a whole lot older than my picture of Hillary now. Now, she's, well, "in the same age group" so I guess when you look at her next chances and if she wants to leave something for posterity, maybe you've got some points. I can see Obama being in there two terms.

I don't think I'm making any sense here.
post #12 of 21
Tim, you made sense...in a round about way! I never would have guessed she was 61. I knew she was about 20 years older than me...and I'm 39. So, I do the math and..yeah...slap of reality!

Now, the only problem is, IF Obama stays for 8 years, she will be 69. 3 years younger than McCain. So, if she does run for president will people be more worried about her running mate rather than her?
post #13 of 21
I'm going to say something controversial. I'm not saying it because I'm coming down on one side or the other. I'm just saying it as an observation on society. Pinch your noses: age discrimination is alive and well. Sex discrimination is still alive and maybe not so well as in the olden days, but it's not gone. MIX age discrimination and sex discrimination, and Hillary's going to have a pretty steep hill to climb at age 69. Let me put it another way (this is where you pinch your nose again) a woman at age 69 is going to have a lot harder time getting elected than a man at age 69, all OTHER things being equal.
post #14 of 21
Well, women live longer, and she seems a lot healthier overall then McCain, but I do agree that if she's LOOKING old by then, she won't have a chance. I think people want their President to look fit and healthy.

I think she would make a very good Secretary of State, and nobody knows what her political plan is right now, and what she wants. She may have decided to make just one run for the White House, and if it didn't happen now, to change her goals. I think she is a realist and isn't going to hold back on a position she'd enjoy and would get a lot out of just in case she decides to make another run for the White House in 8 years time - that's a long way away.
post #15 of 21
I think Hillary would be fine as SoS. I think Kerry would be, too. Hillary has a certain tough-mindednes that I think is lacking in many politicians. My only fear would be that she would hinder Obama in the much-needed fence-mending he's planning on doing with Muslim countries.
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I'm going to say something controversial. I'm not saying it because I'm coming down on one side or the other. I'm just saying it as an observation on society. Pinch your noses: age discrimination is alive and well. Sex discrimination is still alive and maybe not so well as in the olden days, but it's not gone. MIX age discrimination and sex discrimination, and Hillary's going to have a pretty steep hill to climb at age 69. Let me put it another way (this is where you pinch your nose again) a woman at age 69 is going to have a lot harder time getting elected than a man at age 69, all OTHER things being equal.
That's simply being honest, Tim. All good points, and I hope she's thinking of that at least.
post #17 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
I think Hillary would be fine as SoS. I think Kerry would be, too. Hillary has a certain tough-mindednes that I think is lacking in many politicians. My only fear would be that she would hinder Obama in the much-needed fence-mending he's planning on doing with Muslim countries.
Do you mean she'd be a hindrance on the basis of her personality, or her sex? She'd be our third female Secretary of State, so perhaps most Muslim countries have gotten used to that constellation.

Ahmadjinedad predicted during the primaries that the U.S. would never elect a female or black President, so I rather like the thought of him having to deal with both Obama and Clinton.
post #18 of 21
Condoleeza Rice hasn't had any notable problems with Muslims heads of state, has she?
post #19 of 21
I think that she would do a good job, I wouldn't have a problem with her in that position at all.
post #20 of 21
I heard a rumor that Obama wants John McCain as Secretary of Defense.
That would be GREAT
post #21 of 21
That would be bizarre.

I hope Colin Powell is on the short list. With the change in his viewpoint, I think he'd be a great team member holding the Sec Def position on Obama's cabinet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Hillary as Secretary of State?