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.

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.

Btw, she got her senate seat based on name recognition, not unlike Arnold Schwarzenegger.

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.

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.

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.

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?

There’s no way they’re grooming her to run for president. Unfortunately, I think this was Clinton’s last shot.

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?]

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.

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.

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.