Previous post: Jackass of the Day
Next post: Well this is awkward.
Previous post: Jackass of the Day
Next post: Well this is awkward.
In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set.
-
Reproductive Health Matters
More of Feministe On
In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set.
Previous post: Jackass of the Day
Next post: Well this is awkward.
Previous post: Jackass of the Day
Next post: Well this is awkward.
{ 34 comments }
I will miss her terribly as my senator. But I wish her well and think she’ll do a great job.
I think she’d be an exceptionally qualified SOS.
It’s her choice. Personally, I’d like to see her stay in the Senate and become the Dem Senate majority leader. I don’t know how much more of Harry Reid I can handle.
That senate seat is hers for life, if she wants it. SOS would be, what, a 4 year gig? 6 at the most?
I’m excited.
And at the same time, seriously – I’m pretty tired of the news coverage that makes it sound like she’s going to have difficulty turning the Bitch Switch off long enough to work with Obama. The whole “strong woman as bitch / aggressor” is thing really pissing me off.
And anyway, who really believes, after the campaign Obama ran, that he would be dumb enough to put someone in his administration that he had serious tension with?
You know I was not a fan of HRC until her speech at the democratic election. On that night I understood her on so many levels. Personally I am thrilled beyond figs (old Island phrase) that she accepted. What a great combo those two will be.
I’m just impressed that Obama is doing such a good job of picking the best-qualified people to fill these positions — people who not only have expertise in the areas in question, but who understand how the Washington machine works. It looks like he’s made a real commitment to actually get shit done.
It’s sad when one is impressed by the fact that the President of the United States is selecting qualified people instead of his pals for important posts, but that’s the America George Bush left us with.
It plays to her strengths, she always seemed more suited for something in the executive branch rather than the legislative. Hopefully she’s take to diplomacy and go for a major gig at the UN (Secretary General?) after this, to bring some shine back to that institution.
Also, if she servers through all of Obama’s term, that could mean 8 years of female Secretaries of State (and a female Secretary of State for 12 of the last 16 years).
I’m not a huge fan of Clinton, and I’m not convinced that this is the best position for her or she’s the best choice for the position. But it’s still a historic choice and I wish her the best of luck.
i am hopeful that it means they’re grooming her to run for president (if not in 2012, then in 2016). being secretary of state would stop people from arguing that her foreign diplomacy experience wasn’t “real” enough as first lady.
There’s no way they’re grooming her to run for president. Unfortunately, I think this was Clinton’s last shot. She’s not going to run against Obama four years in, and by 2016 she’s going to be in her 70s.
No, she’s only just turned 61.
Personally, I wanted Richardson for SOS and, like Peter, I wanted Clinton to become majority leader. I think she could have become a Kennedy-esque senator and done more good over a longer period in the Senate than she can as SOS.
I’m neither thrilled or upset with the pick. I think she is qualified, competent, intelligent, and respected around the world; so she will do a fine job. I would have preferred her in HHS guiding us towards universal healthcare though. I think she’s learned from her mistakes there and knows healthcare backwards and forwards.
The media and, in particular the rightwing, have spent a decade clinging to their crafted narrative that HRC is a self-serving, calculating shrew. They simply can’t comprehend any other narrative. Plus, the media loves a soap opera, and they tried to construct a soap opera where HRC and Obama were mortal enemies; that she would undermine him at every turn.
Only stupid people believe this narrative. HRC obviously can be, when the situation requires it, a consumate team player.
I think she has enormous respect and goodwill worldwide, and is emminently qualified for the job. The one thing I never liked about her foreign policy was her beligerence to Iran. But, Obama isn’t that much different in that respect.
On balance, its going to be a much better face on american foreign policy than the BushCo years.
Ok, so she’ll be almost 70. And she’ll be going for a second term when she’s 73. I think Clinton is a great senator and I’d like to see her give the presidency another shot as much as anyone; I just think that given the timing and the age issue, it’s not in the cards.
And yes, McCain is 72. But that didn’t exactly work in his favor.
That said, I would be thrilled to be proven wrong.
Speaking as a foreigner, I think Clinton is a solid choice. Her husband was immensely popular, and while the European newspapers seems to have bought into the “cold” narrative, there is not the same animosity towards her outside the US as in some demographics in the US.
Yeah, I agree that given the choice of any and all positions, I would have preferred to see her work on domestic affairs, healthcare in particular.
And Jill, I agree that it would be an obstacle, but I don’t think it’s an insurmountable one. I also think that her femaleness would likely still dominate the campaign coverage, and that for all of the talk about McCain’s age, it was far from being what killed his campaign in the end.
Why do liberals fawn over someone who hasn’t shown the least bit of respect for them? Do you have ANY standards whatsoever, or are you just happy that she has a ‘D’ next to her name? Hillary has been wrong on just about every major foreign policy issue and yet you people think she’s qualified to be the Secretary of State? Not to mention running a totally inept, disgusting campaign. Her reputation for intelligence is a complete creation of the public relations industry. Nothing about her impresses me.
I dunno how I feel about this, to be honest. I didn’t vote in my state primary because at the time I couldn’t decide between Clinton & Obama, but as the campaign went on I wound up leaning towards Obama in very large part because I liked his stance on foreign policy a lot better. Personally, I would have liked to see someone as SoS who also opposed the Iraq War from the get go, or who at least would admit that it was wrong on principle, which Clinton hasn’t done (she thinks, IIRC, that it was a mistake but that it was also the best choice they could make given the facts–or “facts”–they had). I also agree with <a href=http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=clinton_to_stateEzra Klein that this pick is sort of weird considering that a big part of Obama’s campaign against her was that she had been hugely wrong on a major foreign policy decision.
But, she is very competent, and he does I guess ultimately call the shots, and like Jill said, this does show a commitment to people who know how to actually get things done, which I definitely appreciate. So color me cautiously optimistic, if a bit confused.
oops, HTML fail. sorry y’all. link:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=clinton_to_state
She’s very well-qualified and I daresay she will do very well in the position. I’m not particularly disappointed.
But like the Republican criticism has indicated (and it’s shocking, me and agreement here), I am not best pleased with the substantial Clinton-based padding in the Obama cabinet. Yes, we want the best people, and the Clintons did work with some of the best, but I think the transition team should at least make a bleeding effort.
Bene wrote: “She’s very well-qualified.”
Care to back up this absurd claim?
The myth regarding Hillary’s intelligence is akin to the myth of Mccain’s maverickness, or Greenspan’s oracleness, or Colin Powell’s honorableness, or any number of other ridiculous myths repeated by the establishment media.
Lesliek, you can argue about her positions, qualifications, or any number of other things about Hillary, but one simply is not an honor student at Wellesley without being bright. So unless you want to argue for significant brain damage in the intervening years, you’re stuck with her being intelligent. It’s the application I think you want to argue with.
It depends on what you mean by “bright.” By your standard, there are tons of right-wingers who are “bright.” But who cares? No goes around endlessly repeating how intelligent these people are. Hillary has a reputation for being very intelligent, but as far as I can see it’s not reflected in anything she’s done in her public life. If I’m wrong, give me some examples.
Everything is going to be just fine. Remember the good ole days? They call them the good ole days for a reason: http://www.236.com/news/2008/11/21/7_reasons_why_hiring_a_clinton_1_10374.php
Not to mention you don’t graduate from Yale Law as a woman in the early seventies, or manage to pull off two successful Senate campaigns. Yeah, that doesn’t take brains.
I was the first to be critical of HRC during the primaries, and I’m not convinced she had the foreign policy experience she claimed in her campaign, but I refuse to believe that she’s thick. Being politically shrewd and knowing the right people can get you pretty damn far.
So, okay, I get it, only people who agree with Lesliek on every issue are actually intelligent.
Am I thrilled with the nomination? No. But I think she could be successful in the position, and I think she’s a sight better than a lot of potential nominees.
“So, okay, I get it, only people who agree with Lesliek on every issue are actually intelligent.”
That’s not true, but even if it were, I think having some standards and expections is a lot better than fawning over a woman who has shown terrible judgment regarding foreign policy.
Btw, she got her senate seat based on name recognition, not unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger. To the extent that she’s intelligent, it’s a perfectly banal kind of intelligence. In any case, I think it’s a lot more important to look at her actual positions on the issues than what college she went to. Her foreign policy positions aren’t progressive, but for some reason this doesn’t stop certain progressives from celebrating her. Unless you want to be the flipside of republicans who cheer for republicans no matter what they believe, I fail to see how this makes any sense.
Agreed. Also, I think it’s an interesting pick because Clinton was apparently shut out of a lot of senatorial decisions as the junior senator so that the bigwigs could get the spotlight. I heard Kennedy, for example, wouldn’t let her take a real seat in healthcare decisions which we all know is her pet. Don’t know how accurate that is, but if so, it’s a brilliant way for Obama to court her courtesy as well as using her strengths.
[Lesliek, Lesliek, quite contrary, how does your garden grow?]
I like Clinton, but it worries me that she’s so hawkish regarding the Middle East. Seems unlikely that ME policy is going to change substantively under an Obama administration. I didn’t really expect it to, but I’m a little disappointed anyway.
HRC might be Obama’s pick for SoS, but she’s got to get confirmed by Senate first. And from the looks of things, it wont’ be pretty.
Seriously, I would have thought Obama would go with Richardson, because he has actually sat down and talked to world leaders on several policy fronts unlike the former first lady.
I’m just wondering (if she gets the nod) who’s policy will come out on top – Bill Clintons’s or Barak Obama’s?
I wonder if Obama could have picked a more hawkish person to fill that seat. Is it safe to say yet that there isn’t a shred of anti-war sentiment anywhere in the halls of power in this country?
Lesliek, I’m hardly fawning. I just think she’s well-qualified and shrewd, regardless of decisions she’s made in the past–I may disagree with those decisions but I don’t think they were any dumber than anyone else’s actions. I don’t give a shit if her intelligence is ‘banal’ or if she rides rainbow unicorns, I just think she’s a decent choice.
Oh, and name recognition, maybe. But name recognition that had to overcome a whole pile of crap publicity from her First Lady years. That’s hardly having been the damn Terminator.
First off, I’ll believe when Barack Obama stands in front of the cameras standing next to her and announces it.
Second, Hillary Clinton will never ever be the President. Ever. The first woman to serve as President will be way better than Hillary Clinton, and the less time she and Governor Palin spend in in the national media, the sooner that will happen.
Third, I’m against her as Secretary of State, but I trust that the President Obama/Chief of Staff Emanuel White House will get Hillary at her best. If Bill Clinton is never ever issued a White House visitor’s pass.
Who’s fawning? I personally think Clinton is too belligerent towards Iran, and I was pissed off about her Iraq War authorization vote. In my perfect world Samantha Power would be SoS. And yet still, you know what? Joe Biden voted for the war. I never heard Bill Richardson raise objections to the war in 2003. And John Edwards voted for the war. The fact remains, to me anyway, that Clinton is a highly capable person with excellent credentials, and is somebody who is known and respected worldwide. I see no reason to doubt that she is capable of doing an effective job.
Wrong. She may have been in a position to mount a Senate campaign in 2000 in part, based on name recognition. But she WON the seat (twice) by virtue of her ability. You know what? Nancy Reagan and Laura Bush have excellent name recognition. I’ll bet you a months salary neither of them could run, and WIN a senate campaign in any state. They just don’t have what it takes. They don’t have the gravitas, intellect, drive, or capability of winning a senate seat.
As for name recognition, Al Gore’s father was a senator. Mitt Romney’s dad was a famous Governor. Evan Bayh’s father was a Senator and Governor. Lincoln Chaffe’s dad was a senator. Welcome to the american political system. The oligarchy and the trust fund babies are in better postions to seek and maintain positions of power. Obama is, to some extent, the outlier. He came from a modest background and modest roots. There were no high profile names in his family. The point is, you’re holding HRC to a different standard than Gore, Bayh, or Romney.
Comments on this entry are closed.