- ‹ previous
- 2002 of 8820
- next ›
Obama's First Drama: Hillary Clinton
I was agnostic on the matter of Hillary Clinton's possible appointment as secretary of state--until last night.
If Barack Obama, the president-elect, wanted to pull a Team of Rivals play, that had seemed fine to me. And placing Clinton in Foggy Bottom would remove her from the dicey business of passing health care reform. Would it unite the party? Well, judging from the election results, the party is pretty darn united already. Despite the griping of a few Hillaryites at the Democratic convention, her voters certainly swung behind Obama in the general election (see Pennsylvania), after HRC and WJC campaigned for BHO in the fall. Unless an explicit deal was made between Obama and Hillary Clinton, it did not seem that Obama, after bypassing her for veep, had to appoint her anything for the party's sake. Still, if Obama and his savvy band of advisers thought that handing her one of the best jobs in the Cabinet would generate political benefits they could use to advance their agenda, I, as a non-fan of Hillary Clinton, was willing to say, okay--for what that was worth.
But then this happened: the presidential transition of no-drama Obama became infected by the never-ending soap opera of the Clintons. And it really is time to turn that program off. There are plenty of policy and political reasons for a progressive not to fancy Hillary. She served on the Wal-Mart board when the mega-firm was fighting unions; she screwed up health care reform for almost a generation; she voted wrong on the Iraq war and then refused to acknowledge she had erred. But, worst of all, as the cliché goes, with the Clintons, it always does seem to be about the Clintons.
So we've had a week of will-she-or-won't-she and what-about-him. Couldn't this have been handled with a little more grace? Maybe not, since it involves the Clintons.
I don't know how the Obama camp approached the issue. But before Obama met last week with Hillary to talk about this, his team should have done a pre-vetting of Bill. And then Obama, at this meeting, ought to have said something like this to her:
If you might be interested in the State position, there are a few issues that would come up concerning Bill. Let me run through a few. Would he be willing to release the names of his foundation's donors, as well as those who contribute to his presidential library? Would he be willing to forego contributions and speaking fees from foreign governments, foreign heads of states, and major foreign companies that would have an interest in US foreign policy decisions? Would he be willing to discuss with my national security adviser his foreign travel plans and his foundation's projects before they are announced and undertaken--and would he be willing to defer to us if we believe they are not appropriate or helpful at the time? I know that these are big things to ask. But given his global activity and standing, there's not much choice. And if it's a deal-breaker, I certainly would understand. But before you and I go down this road, we should make sure there are no major obstacles. Can you talk to him and get back to me in a day or two? And, to be helpful, Rahm has come up with a list....
Hillary's answer would have to have been either (a) of course, or (b) thank you for considering me, but I don't believe this would be a good fit. Two days would pass, and then the drama--or at least this part of it--could be over.
Today the news is that Bill will do what he can. AP is reporting:
Former President Bill Clinton has offered several concessions to help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his wife, become secretary of state, people familiar with President-elect Barack Obama's transition vetting process said Wednesday.
Clinton has agreed to release the names of several major donors to his charitable foundation and will submit future foundation activities and paid speeches to a strict ethics review, said Democrats knowledgeable about the discussions.
They also said that Clinton would step away from day-to-day responsibility for his foundation while his wife serves and would alert the State Department to his speaking schedule and any new sources of income.
Does that take care of it? Note the use of the word "several." It's hard not to see some sticking points arising about what is disclosed and when. The negotiations between the Obama camp and the Clinton team are supposedly proceeding smoothly. But why should there be negotiations? And could it end up with news reports saying Bill Clinton is willing to reveal X, but the Obama side wants him to release X plus Y? That is, more drama. According to AP, "One Clinton adviser noted that former President George H.W. Bush has given paid speeches and participated in international business ventures since his son, George W. Bush, has been president--without stirring public complaints or controversy about a possible conflict of interest." This does raise the suspicion that the Clintonites might not agree to all the necessary limitations. And don't they--or at least, this aide--understand there's something of a difference between their case and that of the Bushes (though it was probably not appropriate for Daddy Bush to engage in that activity).
Bottom-line: if HRC came fuss-free, then maybe there'd be no reason to kick up a fuss about her appointment. Yet that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
But there's another issue to consider, one that has been overshadowed by the drama: if she runs the State Department in a fashion similar to how she managed her campaign, then the country will be in trouble. Her spinners went beyond the boundaries of fair and reasonable spinning. Her team was a snake pit of competitive aides. She did not master the art of refereeing internal disputes. She signed off on strategic blunders. Hers was not a steady hand.
Perhaps that's the better argument against her. Being secretary of state isn't just about giving speeches and touring the world as a celebrity, it's about managing (and now reviving) the creaky and beleaguered foreign policy apparatus of the United States. And Clinton's résumé is not strong on that front.
(Photo of Clinton and Obama by flickr user sskennel used under a Creative Commons license.)
I'm not the first to note that the Clinton "dramas" are almost exclusively media-driven, not Clinton-driven. Should we let the media dictate who Obama chooses for SoS?
Yes, the potentially "unsteady hand" in running State is a much better argument against her--but that ain't saying much, given the absurdity of the other one.
Why not bring back Madeline Albright at this point? I cannot believe that Clinton as Secretary of State is the first major foreign policy move of a "change" administration. Can't wait to see how bad this is going to get in a year.
You know, how the hell I've ended up defending the Clintons is beyond me, but here goes.
As Swift Loris points out this is a media driven scandal. Way to go. The media gets to set our agenda for another four years.
Your other reason is more interesting, but... does anybody realize that you're talking as if OBAMA wasn't there? Hillary will do whatever she wants because, of course, her boss the President will be too wimpy to call her on it. Bah!
What is it about the Clintons that make so many liberals turn republican?
On the other hand, a really good reason for her to stay in the Senate would be to help Senator Kennedy with the health care issues.
Nobody knows what Obama offered Clinton. All we have to go on is the statements of a bunch of anonymous people removed, to varying degrees, from the principals. For all we know Max Baucus was the topic of that conversation in Chicago last week. Having said that, consider Clinton's campaign debt and how she could (or couldn't) go about paying that off as Secretary of State.
..."it's about managing (and now reviving) the creaky and beleaguered foreign policy apparatus of the United States. And Clinton's résumé is not strong on that front."
The last line in the story says it all. Why HRC for this position? It doesn't make sense. Paul's suggestion of Madeline Allbright makes a lot more sense. She has the experience, HRC does not.
Steven, this isn't about "experience" - it is about political clout and favors. The Secretary of State is just a figurehead who carries out a foreign policy that is determined by the men behind the curtain - the financial and industrial elites that set the agenda. Clinton's appointment as SoS is only significant insofar as it reveals that the Obama administration will be puppeteered by the same club of oligarchs that ran the Clinton administration and the Bush administrations.
Allbright might be a better choice from the political scientist's perspective, but from a moral philosopher's perspective it is a terrible idea to have anyone in power who exhibits such careless disregard for human life.
Look who we are talking about! The guy did everything but nail Monica and embarrassed his "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" wife in front of the entire world. These people are perpetual drama. And don't think it will end if she gets a cabinet position. She will exceed her authority and Bill will stick his nose everywhere he can - chubbie chicks included.
Powell, Andy Young or Kerry will be better choices. She is a wreck in waiting.
You had me until the vote on the Iraq War. They both voted to fund it. In fact, despite the rhetoric, none of their foreign policy is that different.
When has lack of experience stopped MRS Clinton. Her experience lies in lying about her experience.
Well said. The promise of Obama is to flush the Clinton toxin out of the body politic, and these recent actions by Bill & Hil show why. An innoculaiton of her at Secretary of State won't do the trick.
Excellent post and discussion.
I think the appoint will be fine on all fronts. Obama's the President-elect and it will be up to the Clinton's (there I go referring to them as a package deal) to align their strategies with Obama's, not the other way around. At the same time, Obama recognizes Hillary's strengths. Less-than-perfect record or reputation aside, she will be an asset while working in the Administration (as opposed to the Senate) where they can work in unity. I'm skeptical of Congressional Democrats who might backlash against Obama out of jealousy or people pleasing with the GOP. That's my opinion.
The people who need to "turn the program off" are the members of the media who still can't get past this unexplainable antipathy for Bill Clinton -- the person, who until Obama, was the Democrats only presidential success in years. I am particularly amazed that it's the so-called liberal media often leading the charge in disrespecting this former president. Bill Clinton is doing no less and often more than other former presidents of the United States. Should he not make the most of his post-presidential years? Give it a rest already.
We're fortunate to have Bill and Hillary Clinton still engaged in any capacity in this country. They are brilliant and served this country well. Apparently, Mr. Obama thinks so. Give the Clinton bashing a rest already. Geez, it's old and tiresome.
Paul/Steven:
Hasn't Madeleine Albright displayed every way in which the State Department can be misused and misled?
She trumped up a brutal war against Serbs because they dared to form a nation in the path of a potential oil pipeline from Russia to the Adriatic Sea. She was practically a lobbyist for Russian oil giant Tyumen.
She dawdled when the threats of terrorist attacks against American embassies in Africa were apparent. After the bombings, she denied any accountability.
She championed internationalist positions which contradicted the best interests of the United States, because at heart she considers herself an internationalist, not first and foremost an American.
She coddled Kim Jong-il while he was developing atomic weapons technology, taking a diplomatic course which encouraged the despot to complete his nuclear ambitions. Albright, almost single-handedly, moved the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight.
She encouraged the use of the U.S. military in actions which were not in any interest of the U.S., but which moved the U.S. closer to being a Second-World power; she discouraged U.S. military action in cases where it should have been used in America's best interest because she feared such actions would meet with U.N. disapproval.
Albright encouraged the U.S. be subservient to Third-World dictatorships who voted in Marxist blocs in the U.N. She listened quietly while they berated the U.S. for make-believe human and civil rights violations while their countries shot, mutilated and imprisoned political dissenters.
Albright was involved in financial scandals as a Director of the NYSE, and is now principal of Albright Group LLC, which recently lobbied to give control of U.S. port security to the Arab country Dubai.
While you're at it, why don't you find a position in the Obama administration for another tainted Clintonista, Janet Reno? Maybe Asst. Sec. of Admin. for Children and Families?
I agree that she mis-managed her campaign, but I have no doubt that she learned from it and will do a better job as SoS.
Because if there's one thing that can be said about Clinton it's that she learns from her mistakes again and again, and becomes stronger as a result.
Yes, she made mistakes on health care in 1993 (although, the blame is not all hers as you claim. There's also something to be said about Republicans who laughed her out of Congress and the insurance industry that spent a fortune fighting her). But, she learned from this mistake that a radical overhaul was not the best way, and she started making small, incremental changes, like SCHIP (which she spear-headed) and health care for families of servicemen and women.
Other candidates for this position have shown no indication that they learn from their mistakes. John Kerry continues to be as inept as he was during his campaign.
How can Clinton accept Obama's offer,and if that offer has truly been made, how can Obama make the offer, if Clinton disagrees materially on 90% of Obama's Foreign Policy Agenda as put forth in each of their campaigns? This I don't understand at all. Would anyone hire someone at their company who 1)disagreed with the ocmpany's mission statement, 2)disagreed with the company's operating principles, 3) and had zero experieince at the position applied for.
Beyond Clintons "claims" to foreign policy experience ( much of it being going on "diplomatic" missions with Chelsea in hand with or without hostile fire) are to this observer more akin to a convenience store clerk applying for an executive post in customer relations, there is her total lack of functional executive experience.
When there are much more acceptable and highly likely more effective candidates such as Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and Wesley Clark who have real expertise in managing large organizations in the case of Richardson and Clark, and in "actual" foreign policy in the case of all three, it seems a mite foolish to endure the soap opera of the Clinton(s).
As for all the scandal involving the Clintons being entirely media driven, this is an absurd statement. The media did not kill Vince Foster, the media did not create all of the Clintons' sleazy connections in Arkansas, the media did not screw up the Demos health care initiative, the media did not go before the American public and say "I did not have sex with that women." No question many of the media's actions were irresponsible and, even, soome might contend, despicable, but they didn't arise from nowhere.
so..am i slow? I didn't see any example of drama? lots of presumption..no reporting. I am personally anti clinton, but in the 1st 2 paragraphs..i see no actual reporting..what are the facts?
I agree with others that there is NO BIG DRAMA on this situation. The Clintons are getting vetted. Obama has been appointing people into his cabinet. The only drama that arises, are the ones' that the media exaggerates. So blame the media, not Obama's team (excellent team, I might add) and certainly not the Clintons.
Thank you. Finally someone who is not just GUSHING all over Hillary. Bosnia is her foreign policy experience in a nutshell. She lied and lied and lied some more about it. It was humiliating to see her twist and turn and then make the sarcastic 'I'm human' comment. Hillary belongs in a law firm in Iowa so she can start campaigning now for 2016.
Swift Loris nailed it -- this hoo-ha is entirely media-driven.
The press's habitual reversion to its flaming "Clinton Derangment Syndrome" is a tedious form of professional laziness and sniffy Village mean-girl dopiness.
In all the recent coverage of vetting Bill Clinton post-presidency activities, what the self-appointed purity squad NEVER mentions is any hint of what he's
accomplished worldwide on AIDS, etc. Stuff that literally saved THOUSANDS of lives. If he's willing to schmooze with Saudi princes and walk away with huge checks, what the hell? Obviously, if his wife becomes SOS, that's a new reality.
When reporters write about Hillary Clinton, I rarely recognize the woman I saw during the caampaign. As an Obama supporter, I watched him watching her in all those 20-something debates, and I think that he was clearly impressed. He's right, she IS thougthful. And she pulled out the stops for him in the general election.
Barak and Hillary do seem to have a bit of a war-buddy vibe going on there.
Obama probably asked her for two reasons :
1- to calm aggressive clintonites that insist Hillary should have a major role in WH
2- to force her to decline for the simple reason that Bill CAN NOT disclose conflicting activities. She would pretend she'd rather stay on a job that she loves and that Bill has no weight on her decision.
Obama would still project the image of someone that wants to reach to rivals. He would win the sympathy of clintonites while having the Secretary of State candidate he really wants.
I think there is another layer to this potemtial pick that some may be overlooking:
If Hillary takes th job and is great at it, Obama gets credit for making a good pick, and she gets validation of her claims at being a "proven leader". If she bungles the job, her aspirations for 2012 or 2016 aspiration are DOA, while Obama can just make another appointment (Richardson, Kerry et al.) and say "well I gave her a shot".
With this pick, Obama gets great upside potential with limited downside risk, while Hillary puts her career in jeopardy if she stumbles.
My thoughts were along similar lines as KD's: I like a lot about Sen. Clinton, but her inability to run an effective national campaign showed us something. It would be a real handicap for a SOS if she or he could not manage a bureaucracy effectively. A precious few are smart enough and tough enough to do it, or know how to find people that can, (See BHO) but many who are otherwise clever and competent simply can't do it well.
she screwed up health care reform for almost a generation;
You are an embarrassment David Corn. She was the ONLY one who ever seriously tried to get Health care for America and the REPIGS screwed it up for the next 20 years.
Drum man get over yourself. Barak and Hillary don't need your advice.
Media boys and girls need to realize The Clintons are not going away. AND WE DON'T WANT THE CLINTONS GONE!
Get used to having Clinton people on Obama-Biden team.
How many democrats do you think are out there that haven't been on the Clintons
team. Its unavoidable. Besides the Clintons had the BEST on there team. If I were Barak I'd want them too.
After all the Dems have been in the White House very few times. And Bill Clinton was there 8 years. I want Hillary as my president one day. So don't think the Clintons are going away.
Think of all the folks that voted for Hillary. More than Barak. You Media need to stop
going against what WE want.
The Clintons have worked there butts off for the democrats. How about some respect. Stop with old dirt you all keep bring up.
Could it be your jealous?
They don't give you the attention? What do you expect when you've treated them like sh-t. Try being nice. It goes a long way.
If foreign policy expertise or experience is a prerequisite for Secretary of State, Mrs Clinton is not qualified. As far as I know, her decisions about foreign affairs are restricted to a "yes" vote for the Iraq war and to lying about her visit to Bosnia. End of discussion.
If she gets the position, I believe the reason is more likely that a deal was shaped by the crafty Clintons after the primary election in exchange for their campaign support, not because she is imminently qualified.
If Obama can get control over the Clintons, if the Clinton's are willing to play ball Obama's way, I think it will be a very powerful team.
I disagree that the media is responsible for the drama. Someone is leaking to the press to give them something to talk about. Most of the information is what the Clintons are trying to do. That will probably be one of Obama's rules for the Clintons, as for everyone else on his team. No more leaks, no more drama.
Joanne,
As far as you know?
Not much!
That yes vote was never for war.
The other story about Bosnia?
So what. A stretched story is common on any campaign trail. And if you want to bring up Bill C's behavior
I can guarantee you that stuff is happening with most of those guys in politics and elsewhere. But OHHHH if its something to do with the Clintons they put them through the wringer.
Its personnel and nobody elses business. The way of the world.
Yes, the Clintons are an awesome team and many are just so darn jealous.
Noone can fill there shoes.
Give them credit where credit is due.
Bill Clinton was the best president we ever had. And Hillary will be even better.
In the mean time I support Barak and look forward to some good work getting done
with the team he picks.
I wish Obama/Biden team ALL
THE BEST!
Cletus Qian, that was my whole point about Albright - she has no respect for human life and promoted a terrible foreign policy. Hillary will be no different. The Obama administration will be just like the Clinton administration, which is another way of saying terrible.
To other posters: What is with all the Clinton loyalty? The guy was a sleazy liar, and you think Democrats should be loyal to the Clintons just because they quarterbacked your "team" for 8 years? Get back to the issues. On foreign policy the Clintons have been terrible, and on domestic policy they've been bad as well (granted, I'm not a progressive who views expanded federal power at the expense of state and local democracy as a good thing). Look at NAFTA. Look at the sanctions on Iraq. If Bush had done those things you'd be howling about it. Matter of fact, just about every terrible thing Bush did was done with a good bit of mainstream Democratic support. But don't let the facts get in the way of your loyalty to a party and its celebrity figureheads.
Bill Clinton acts with impunity. The Clinton campaign acted with entitlement. Sen. Clinton has derived her impunity-drive from her husband. Theirs appears to be a competitive relationship. They are stubborn. Sen. Clinton lacks the rare ability to be diplomatic. This last element should disqualify her from State.
I don't get it, maybe I missed something; but wasn't it the 'Faux-Consevatives' - led by Newt Gingrich, and their "Contract With America" (or, at least with The Top 5% of Amerikkka, Gross Income-wise), who messed up Health Care "for a Generation", you, you , you CLINTON BASHER (I'd bet your a Closet Reaganite too - aren't you!)!!!
Back That Up, Corn! They Were Shot Down In Flames - by Faux-Neo-right-leaning, Whore Mongering, Ultrahypocritical Faux Christians; that's what I remember!
And, at first, I didn't like Clinton; but Sympathy Points for their thwarted Good Intentions, quickly won me over.
Ok, I see there are a few here that subscribe to Chomsky's take on Kosovo.
It wasn't genocide according to Chomsky because Milosevic didn't get a chance to butcher 200,000 plus people like he did in Bosnia. Uh, okay. Sure he's smarter than I am, in many matters if not most. Hell Rumsfeld probably is too but wrong is wrong.
May I ask my fellow Mojo readers should the US have intervened in Rwanda?
Were there or not 40,000 paramilitary veterans of Bosnia poised and ready to repeat the same butchery in Kosovo?
Look, I'm well aware the US - has hardly been blameless with self serving aggression. Witness the Mexican-American or Spanish-American Wars. Iraq is too obvious to elaborate on. And I'm sure there are numerous other examples.
Was Kosovo perfect? Hell no.
With Kosovo, this reader believes we did the right thing, despite it's imperfections.
The oldest ethic known to civilization is the strong will do what they will and the weak must accept what they must. With Kosovo that ethic was not allowed to (to paraphrase Thucydides) prevail. Despite what Tom DeLay, Chomsky, Taibbi or Milosevic said.
Just my two cents.
Why is it Bill Clinton is the one and only unpure politician? What the heck do you think the others are doing? Yes the same thing.
Power challenges every human.
Except President Clinton got us out of a ditch the repubs
dug. As far as I remember we were golden when Bill Clinton was in office.
Bush/Cheney are the ones the media and some posting here should be lambasting! Things have never be so bad on this planet!
Barak, Joe, Hillary and Team Obama are a HOME RUN after these past 8 Years.
In the end this is between Barak and Hillary. They know what is best. I trust Obama is doing what is best for US.
I know Hillary has and will continue to do whats best for ALL of us. Give it a chance.
Clinton is the wrong person for any job in the Obama cabinet. She is old guard and has lots of debts to pay.
Wrong choice.
Another angle that nobody's brought up yet is whether it's a good idea to take experienced people with seniority out of the House/Senate leadership to put them in the Cabinet where they'll have even less ability to influence the passage of the President's/Party's agenda. In Hillary's case I think Secretary of State would actually be a demotion, not to mention the Obama administration's first serious mistake. Richardson has far more diplomatic experience and international credibility; if Hillary were appointed to the Cabinet, Labor or Health & Human Services would be much better fits for her previous experience.
David,
I couldn't agree with you more! You verbalized everything I have been thinking about Hillary and your analysis of her campaign problems are spot on in my opinion. Why no drama Obama wants to enmesh himself into the Hillary and Bill soap opera is beyond me. The only thing I can imagine is because Joe Biden and Hillary seem to be soul mates or at least very good friends. The feeling is that Hillary could work in the capacity as head of State with Biden as VP. It's an interesting selection on Obama's part, but when you look at the other Democratic picks nobody looks too exciting for the job.
Keep up your your great work -- I love reading what you have to say!
How old is Madeleine Albright now? I'm surprised that no one has considered that factor; that time has gone by. People do not retain the same level of competence at this end of the natural spectrum, although they may have the experience and how to apply the lessons learned over time by synthesizing that into new realizations;but the fact of the matter is that the State Department does itself have an age limitation that none of you are discussing. There are those who think,well that's only for the "employees" who may be called upon to either excell physically or endure; and that the Head of the Department would somehow be an exception. I think not. They have to operate with the real world; and, therefore, I would expect that they would have passed the same exams to perform without prerogatives and exceptions.
Actually, the dramas are of the Clintons' making. They or their surrogates talk to the media (as noted in this article, a Clinton advisor talked to the AP to argue about George H.W. Bush's business dealings as a defense for Bill Clinton).
As soon as I heard that Hillary Clinton was in the running for this position, I became aware of my eyes rolling involuntarily. Now, several days later, it's clear that my first impression was accurate. Drama king and queen.
Definitely a bad idea! If Obama thinks the Clintons will be good soldiers i have a bridge to sell him.
The only soap opera I see here is one created by journalists like Corn who is a fully paid up member of the Clinton hate club(agnostic my hat). There's no drama, shes obviously been offered the job subject to vetting, she is conflicted over whether to take it, the vetting process is playing out, and the whole issue will be resolved in a few days. Meanwhile the media whips itself into a lather loading up every cough, sniffle or blink with some significance it doesn't have. Mr Corn and many others gave Obama the job presumably because they thought he had good judgement. Now he wants to start second guessing him. Pipe down Corns, get over your Clinton hate and passion for instant gratification.
My goodness.
Some of these arguments against Clinton as SOS seem to be based on the perception of Obama as
too naive (for not seeing DANGER here),
too weak (to handle any difficulties that might arise) too shallow (to make a choice for SOS based on anything other than political maneuvering) and such an empty suit that he needs the advice of blog commentators and pundits in order to run his administration.
It's almost as though people were still caught up in being more Anti-Clinton than pro-Obama.
The primaries are over.
The election is over.
He is President-elect.
Give him some credit.
I share your concern, however as a Federal employee for over 20 years I can assure you that there is no correlation between how HRC ran her campaign and how she would run the State Department. All Federal departments are managed on a day to day basis at the undersecretary level. A cabinet secretary's job is twofold: first to promote the President's adgenda within their department and second to represent and promote the United States interests as it relates to their area of responsibility throughout the world. As long as HRC hires competent and professional undersecretaries, she should have no problem runing a functional State Department.
I agree with DC on one hand, but also think it's time for the left to stop making decisions based on how to keep the media from attacking. Fear of damaging coverage has caused enough damage.
One plus to having Hillary is that she will probably be well received abroad. Most of the Clinton 'scandals' stateside were seen as laughable non-scandals in other parts of the world [granted, mostly in the European nations]. Our relationship with the rest of the world was much healthier during Bill Clinton's presidency, so Hillary might well signify a direct return to pre-Bush II diplomacy. And need I remind all of you how calmly Hillary reacted to sniper fire in Bosnia many years back? She is a natural.
The comments on here against Hillary are really pathetic. The drama isn't the Clintons, it's the msm overreacting about the Clintons as usual. Didn't anyone notice how the msm has been quiet on Hillary ever since she supported Obama before the election. But now since she might be on his team, here comes the dirty rats again with their comments and the msm writing the overdramatic articles. Sounds exactly what life was like before Hillary lost the nomination. That's why I don't find any credibility behind the articles or comments that people write. If you are looking for change people, stop hating Hillary, that can be a change in your life, realize that she has worked really hard to get Obama elected, waaaay before he was awarded the economic crisis to help him win, and that just like the primaries, Hillary will not make this about her. She has said all of this so many times. But the media puts other ideas out there. It's just funny to see how angry, both in the GOP and Obama supporters, especially Obama supporters are, after there candidate won. And how they fall for these articles when it'sall speculation talk from "sources." And finally to the Obama supporters, you guys aren't going to get change, lol, you are going to get a very organized staff to help us get out of this mess. That's the change. And it includes Hillary!
I've never really understood the level of hatred towards the Clintons. What exactly did they do to deserve it?
Obama's cut from the same cloth as both Bill and Hillary.
How can you be annoyed by a week of Clinton soap if you only heard about her sec-of-state plans last night? I don't like her either, but this is just hot air.
I've been reading Corn's pone
for years and now at long last
is an article I can support.
I am awfully sick of media bashing Hillary Clinton. Liberal media has one overarching theme--no women allowed in WH unless they are there to service the male.
here's a link that shows Slate same dance on Hillay's head over sos position.
www.femisex.com
If David Corn wants to end the "Clinton drama" perhaps he should think about declining to contribute to it.
Yes!
The Hillary clinton and her supporters came together with Barack Obama and his supporters to elect him.
Does David Corn seriously believe that Obama would have gotten elected WITHOUT Hillary Clinton's hard campaign work and the votes from her supporters??????
As far as Obama's aversion to drama -- those of us who aren't part of The Cult find that laughable.
His own Presidential seal?
His speech in Germany?
His speech with the Greek columns?
The week-long ordeal over his VP pick?
Anyone who believes that Barack Obama is adverse to political drama knows every verse to the O-bam-a chant... I guarantee it.
David Corn, why don't you allow your ego to give your President Obama the chance to make his own choices without you and your fellow pundits creating unwanted DRAMA around his decisions?????
It's a trap. Hillary should not take the position. Regardless of her qualifications, it's just not a good fit and she should keep running for elected offices. And I find it really hard to believe that Obama has her best interests at heart at this point.
What is your obsession with Hillary? Leave her alone and let Obama and Hillary decide whether The SOS job is a good fit for her and the country. I can't believe you have nothing more interesting to talk about. Face it, she is smarter, more savvy, has more world knowledge, than Obama, let alone any other SOS choice. The fact you can't wrap your small mind around this is quite telling. Get a life and quit writing such ignorant, radical, left wing crap.