Obama's First Drama: Hillary Clinton

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.

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.

She would be a disaster at SOS. Hillary freezes up when it comes to making a decision. She only decides when she feels it is really safe, and time has run out, and then she usually makes a bad decision based solely on the Clinton's self-interest, and virtually nothing else. That's why her campaign stunk. She surrounded herself with weak people that were afraid of her. Despite looking like a power-house organization, they got out-foxed at every turn. The were always too predictable, and they were not able to keep the enemy guessing- there was no element of surprise with them. She would be a disaster at SOS. The Senate is the perfect place for her--a debating society made up of eculiar "talents." Not a job that requires executive skills because she don't got 'em.

Regarding defending the Clintons, or comments like this:
"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."

Vince foster killed Vince Foster because of exactly the type of old politics that you are here spewing... personal attacks on people that you don't even know.

What you do say about Dan Burton "killing" watermelons in his back yard to prove that Vince Foster was murdered by HIllary Clinton, even though three GOP investigations paid for with your millions of tax dollars had already proven THREE TIMES that that idea of utter BULL. Yet YOU still come here publicly disrespecting the life and death of Vince Foster. GAG.

Democrats and sleazy political connections? Yeah, the Clintons are WAY worse than the other William Jefferson, who has not been asked to resign his seat by the Democrat majority yet. Talk about tolerance for sleazy politics!

The health care initiative was blasted by the electorate because of liberals. Democrats lost the 1994 election because of check-kiting scandals -- not because of health care. Health care lost because the insurance companies mounted an unprecedented campaign to stop it; and Democrats -- AS USUAL -- have no concept of how to work together as a team.

"I did not have sex with that women."
This is our business?
Not mine, but...
FACT: They both decided before they started that sex was intercourse and they didn't have intercourse. Love it or hate it, that is the FACT and why Clinton was NOT indicted for perjury.
John Edwards told the media that he did not have sex with the women he had a baby with, while his wife was dying of cancer!!!!
Yet, somehow the media didn't think THAT affair was fit to print.

The left wing of the Democratic Party has no respect for the only twice-elected President they'd had in modern history. The rest of us just shake our head at the weirdness of it. He presided over the largest economic expansion in US history, and you hold him in contempt?
Whew.
You are in bed with right wing nutcases. Aren't you sort of ashamed????

If Bill Clinton was a Republican, overseeing the largest economic expansion in US history, he would already be carved in Mt. Rushmore.

I think the media and Obama supporters ought to start to realize that most Americans are not liberals.

You hate the Clintons because they are not Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi.
Most of us can't stand Democrats because Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are not Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If the Obamabats don't want Senator and former First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton as SoS, I sincerely hope she stays in the US Senate, where she can make those same Obamabats completely miserable for the next four years.

I couldn't have said it better. Let's move on. We are talking about Hillary not Bill. Bill didn't do anything in the White House, that hadn't been done before by Presidents. He just got caught. Do the words "set-up" come to mind. Dead issue. The big issue is that she stood by him and worked on their relationship. Hillary can do anything she sets her mind to. As a former HRC campaigner, I can tell you that Hillary directed us to immediately back Obama, when she step out of the race. We weren't happy about it, but she was firm in her position. That kind of flexibility is needed in the real world. Let's ignore the media's sway and use our own minds. Hillary would make a great Secretary of State

When will you guys learn! You elected a "first rate" politician to be your next president and you are dissappointed that he is behaving like one. Only wish you had been as concerned with experience prior to the election as you appear to now be.

She couldn't possibly be a bad as what the US has foisted on the world the past 8 years with Bucky Rice and crew! And Hillary is a tough woman which is what is needed, as well as diplomacy..........but

I still don't know why Obama didn't pick Richardson who has a history of diplomacy and is a peacemaker at heart, as shown by his being nominated twice for a Nobel Peace Prize. Seems like the most logical choice!

I am continually amazed at how people on the left continue to demonize the Clintons while making Obama out to be a saint. Hillary shouldn't be SOS because she ran a "bad campaign"? Hm, you know, it's pretty easy to win a campaign when you resort to caucus fraud and then have a gushing media making you out to the the second coming of Christ.

It's amazing that Hillary did as well as she did with the media bashing her in the manner you just did.

And it really makes no sense to me. The Clintons, unlike Obama, actually have real records of doing something for this country, while all Obama has so far is a bunch of media cheerleaders and starry-eyed followers who bought into a high-pressure propaganda campaign.

I remember the Clinton years and I'll take a Clinton with all their "drama" over an Obama any day of the week.

Hillary Clinton will be an incredible Secretary of State. I have no patience for people who bash the Clintons or who minimize Hillary's accomplishments. You either have no knowledge or no memory of history. She would have been a fantastic President, and Obama is proving his good judgment by selecting her for this important role.

Change: does NOT include Bubba and Buttette Clinton- to call them. change is an oxymoron.

Barack, If you haven't the courage to say NO to the unending dramas, lies, and underhanded dealings of the Clintons, how can you be expected to deal with an Achminajad, Putin, a Kim Jung Il?.

Should you empower Hillary as Secretary of State I'll return to my Republican past and relegate you to the wreckage left by Richard Nixon. And, I'll call all 226 potential supporters and apologize for your treachery.

Hillary Clinton's diplomatic skills exceed Sarah Palin's only in that she may be able to point to Russia on the map-- if she doesn't confuse it with the sniper fire from Sarajevo To compare Hillary to Madeline Albright is an insult to the intelligence of my 5-year-old grandson-- even he knows better!

Why would we entrust our nation's security to a woman who insulted "Vladimir Putin" by stating "he had no soul" That is the deepest insult that anyone can make to a Russian. Russia remains a country with 40,000 war heads and arrogant, stupid, Buttette had to do her Rocky act with the world's second nuclear power.

What happened to "No Drama Obama"

America needs this Drama Queen less than it needs the bubonic plague.

A former supporter.

Do have the courage to prove me wrong. I can apologize and will if If you make a wiser choice-- perhaps the new pup? At least it would do no Harm!

Dov

Pat, and who would you have us have? McCain who has no more experience but a few more years in the senate and who has never organized a community for anything but to get elected, or how about Perky Palin? If we needed a cheerleader, like totally!, she would be a perfect choice, but she is a functional illiterate.

Look at the www.change.gov website everybody and see what Obama/Biden have got planned on their agenda. I've never seen any past president so prepared with ideas and plans to implement them on so many fronts. This Obama guy just may be the best president the US has ever had (at least since FDR)if he can stand up to the corporatocracy/military-industrial/warprofiteers who have run the country for so long. I am an ardent Nader backer and I must say I am very impressed and hopeful after reading through much of their website. Give him a chance, the whole country has been gutted and economically ruined by 28 years of conservative de-regulated free market greed, social intolerance and astronomical deficit spending that no one could turn it around quickly - especially McCain/Palin who was one of the most ardent supporters of the neo-con policies that got us in the mess we are in today.

Change: does NOT include Bubba and Buttette Clinton- to call them. change is an oxymoron.

Barack, If you haven't the courage to say NO to the unending dramas, lies, and underhanded dealings of the Clintons, how can you be expected to deal with an Achminajad, Putin, a Kim Jung Il?.

Should you empower Hillary as Secretary of State I'll return to my Republican past and relegate you to the wreckage left by Richard Nixon. And, I'll call all 226 potential supporters and apologize for your treachery.

Hillary Clinton's diplomatic skills exceed Sarah Palin's only in that she may be able to point to Russia on the map-- if she doesn't confuse it with the sniper fire from Sarajevo To compare Hillary to Madeline Albright is an insult to the intelligence of my 5-year-old grandson-- even he knows better!

Why would we entrust our nation's security to a woman who insulted "Vladimir Putin" by stating "he had no soul" That is the deepest insult that anyone can make to a Russian. Russia remains a country with 40,000 war heads and arrogant, stupid, Buttette had to do her Rocky act with the world's second nuclear power.

What happened to "No Drama Obama"

America needs this Drama Queen less than it needs the bubonic plague.

A former supporter.

Do have the courage to prove me wrong. I can apologize and will if If you make a wiser choice-- perhaps the new pup? At least it would do no Harm!

Dov

"The primaries are over.
The election is over.
He is President-elect.
Give him some credit."

Is this an Obama supporter in 2008, a Bush supporter in 2004, or a Bush supporter in 2000?

Blind party loyalty and partisan cheerleading is always the same.

Perhaphs we can boost the economy and spread world culture by building the Woodstock Memorial Museum complete with a legoland for the children and a giant mudslide for all ages. Undoubtedly Hillary Clinton has earned a sinecure as curator and can give speches on her conversion from the YAF and her role as a Goldwater girl

The real issue is that like most of the media...you have made hating HRC a sport. She is far more talented than most in the MSM ever gave her credit for. I suppose that he should over look her for the putz Kerry??

Let's face it...Obama has not had the smoothest transition, first the drama with Rahm...will he or won't he???What will the impact be on his family, he wasn't married the last time he was in the shite house, blah, blah, blah and now the leaks with Hillary.

The truth is that BO never really made any major decisions other than to run for POTUS,(voting absent or just skipping votes all together) and now with each possible choice for his cabinet, a balloon is floated out to see what the impact is publically...first Rahm, then Summers, and now Hillary.

Passing her up again would be a huge insult to her, especially given how qualified she truly is.

AND saying she screwed up healthcare is so unfair.

This is an awful post.

David Corn's title "Obama's First Drama: Hillary Clinton" is hilarious.
As another commentator stated, Obama IS drama.From the "Obama girl" to the Oprah spectacle to the messianic screeching in front of adoring crowds, all Obama, all drama all the time.

Obama is smart but at the same time he is way over his head,you know that little thing called inexperience(he won we can say it now)has overwhelmed him and naturally he is seeking knowledgeable people to help him.Smart liberals like Paul Krugman during the primaries saw the truth much clearer than the troglodytes like Corn and the dailykos crew and called Hillary Clinton what she is: A more liberal oriented candidate than Obama.

But the so called "far left" is a one trick pony and base all their opposition on the Iraq war vote as though they have sure knowledge as how Obama would have voted were he in the Senate at the time. And all this trust in Obama's allegedly "NO" vote on the war, even after his FISA vote,even after his death penalty stance, or his promise to continue the Bush faith initiatives.

It has become clear that the so call "far left" has christened Obama their messiah for reasons unknown to the rest of us and they will be the ones to crucify him.

Suddenly I'm on moderation. Meanwhile dov's got multiple posts up. I wonder if it was because I mentioned R*zko or Ay*rs.

The "she's the old guard" argument is not relevant if one is not also calling for the expulsion of the Vice President elect. If HRC is the old guard, he is indeed the decrepit guard.

The "she's the old guard" argument is not relevant if one is not also calling for the expulsion of the Vice President elect. If HRC is the old guard, he is indeed the decrepit guard.

Yep, since my test post went through, apparently if you mention Obama's associations here, they'll hold your comment. Well, the point of my original comment (still not published) is that it blows my mind that some folks here are screaming about the "unending dramas, lies, and underhanded dealings of the Clintons" when Obama is certainly no saint and has lied and done some dealings of his own.

Obama is just a politician folks, not a messiah, get used to it.

I agree with Swift here - the media are the ones creating the "Drama". What else has Keith Obamaman and his ilk got to twitter about these days. It's sickening.

Yep, obviously media like some people and create drama from others. Obamas are well liked novices so many graybeards might have influence. So media likes them Clintons, however are genuine power couple who gives quarter to no one. As a result they are hated by political midgets. OK, Hillary is now facing big dilemma; stay in Senate where she can serve next 15-20 years or more with great level of autonomy, or take strenuous cabinet post where she will have boss and might be out of job in 4 years. And funny that, she cannot decide in 48 hours...

The author admits to being a non-fan of Hillary Clinton. Enough said.

Richardson is the only hope...Clinton is a disaster and would be the cause of AM phone calls to Obama...if not an international incident!

I don’t understand the logic in this article. The left and the extreme left thinks that they got the mandate this time. CBS News Exit poll shows that Hillary would have won over McCain by 12 points that is 5 points better than Obama. Infact that poll is accurate because I am one of those Bill/Hillary supporters who voted for McCain. I will not vote for Obama in 2012 if he did not run the country like Bill Clinton was in 1993-2000. Obama won the election because of the Lehman collapse/Wall street crisis. McCain was leading in the polls after their convention. He would have won if the 700 billion bailout crisis did not occur. That time, Obama might have needed votes from moderates like me to win the election. That is why Obama is correcting his course after getting elected by choosing several Clinonites (Rahm Emanuel, Podesta, Hillary, Holder etc) for his administration. Obama is aready eyeing for 2012. He may even drop Biden in 2012 and pick Hillary for VP at that time. SOS offering is the first step in this direction. It appears that economy is going to go worst before it recovers. That means 2012 will NOT be a cake-walk for Obama. Unless a perceptible economic recovery is established before 2012, it will be hard to win relelection in 2012 without Hillary as VP.

I'm with you on this one. I'm almost as tired of the Clinton drama as I am of Sarah Palin.

*YAWN* There is no "drama" it's just b.s. propaganda to give the talking heads something to "spin" and frankly I'm sick of it. This has nothing to do with Clinton or her persona or her fake trumped up "baggage" and everything to do with G.E. and it's need to have its anchors act like soap opera stars.

It's tiresome. Obama has a very strict vetting process. Stricter than most before him..if his camp says it's going smoothly then it's going smoothly. It happens or it doesn't. I'd rather see Hillary Clinton as Senate majority leader or heading the health care commission than SoS anyway. Neither of those positions are as subservient as this one.

But I am trusting that Obama and Clinton can work out the SoS issues without us having to listen to or read yet more "spin" where there really isn't a "story"

I've said this a few times of late but, during the primary it became part of my job to read "The People's Daily" every day. I thought it would be an exercise in mind numbing propaganda. My shock came when I discovered it to be a far more fair and honest publication than most of the U.S.A.'s MSM, print media and online democratic blogs.

We've lost the ability to vet candidates up the middle without bias, we've lost entirely investigative journalism principles in the name of serving the public.

Clinton will do what she will do. Frankly, I find it odd that Bill's lectures are that much of an issue. The Clinton Foundation raises money for AIDS help and research around the world..with what he's said "yes" to submitting to so far..there is no drama, nor is there any real issue here.

People need to stop excitement seeking where there really isn't any excitement and find something REAL to focus on..there's enough really going on under our noses to be concerned about without this constant drum beat to tell a non story.

If Clinton takes this position, and I don't really think she should..then congrats to her. If she doesn't congrats for representing the people of the great state of New York...oh and for marching to the D.N.C.'s orders more than any other second candidate in history.

Im not exactly a Hillary fan, would not vote for her from the get go (would have on 2004) but she is well qualified for diplomacy and team-building, she IS an extremely smart person. It would be a disaster for her not do 'do as told' on this position because it would be unacceptable for the country as a whole

if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or career plans, etc.

Can we stop this Clinton hating twaddle please?

The American people and the whole world are sick of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. This is the main reason that they picked Obama over Clinton. Obama campaigned on "change". Clinton is not change, it the same old. Albright said it was okay to kill 500,000 Iraqi babies to make a point. Hillary didn't talk to Bill for 8 months after Monica until she called him one day and told him he could make up for it if he bombed Serbia back to the stone age. She said she would "obliterate" Iran if it was necessary to protect Israel. The cabinent is already full of Clintonites. This is change? The reason Obama is doing this is because his MO has always been shiftless. Just make sure it's not your fault if something goes wrong without ever accomplishing or doing anything except maintaining your popluarity. Very ivy league-corporate-foundation. It's out of pure laziness that he's 100% establishment in appointments. The honeymoon will be brief indeed at the rate.

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.--- Ur kidding me, right? When I read that I thought it was an argument against the GREAT ONE, I did not vote for her, but at least she will keep the GREAT ONE from screwing up too badly, lets all HOPE and PRAY she decides she wants the Sec of State job.

Thank you earthkeeper, for sticking up for what you believe, and for the Clinton's. The ones who b***** about them the most are

A) Republicans
and
B) The whiniest of liberals, the media, and the rest of that sect of the Democratic Party

I personally would take a mutual independent approach and say Hillary Clinton will succeed on M-E-R-I-T. Get over it already people.

David,

Your post sounds like a summary of comments by raging Obama obsessives on the Huffington Post, following an article that mentioned Hillary Clinton's name. Evidently, neither you nor they have gotten the misogyny out of your system yet. (Misogyny means hatred and fear of women.)

And by the way, has no one ever pointed out to you the difference between campaigning and governing? Dubya has yet to figure that one out, and we all know how well he has done at governing.

Maybe after you do a little research you could post on that topic - the difference between campaigning and governing. Your readers would certainly benefit from it, and you might learn something in the process.

Yes, Mr. Corn, as you create drama, you complain about the very drama you create.

As you continue whining about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Corn, for reasons I don't understand, you totally ignore how much more knowledgeable about foreign policy she was vs. Obama in the debates. Thank goodness he's not being spiteful about naming her to a position for which she's magnificently well qualified.

If Obama just has the courage to also name someone of Gore's vision for DOE (instead of do-nothing Richardson, who's already proven how easily manipulated by oil interests he has beeen in that post), we may just have a pretty good executive branch, despite all the crises Bush and his cronies left us.

David Corn writes without missing a beat or seeing the delicious irony in his following statement"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."

Let me paraphrase for you Mr. Corn.

"Being president of the United States isn't just about giving speeches and touring the world as a celebrity, it's about managing (and now reviving) the creaky and beleaguered domestic and foreign policy apparatus of the United States. And Obama's résumé is not strong on that front."

See how easy it is to make up stuff as you go along?

In case the author and the rest of you congenital Hillary-haters hadn't noticed, the Clintons are damn well-repsected, and even loved, around the globe. That is based on the Clinton administration's actual diplomatic performance over eight years - as opposed to the school-girl crush factor which has made Obama so fashionably loved. Right now he's a beautiful mail-order bride to the world's adoring masses. We have yet to see how the marriage will wear with the people who really count: the decidedly unromantic leaders of other nations.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, the Obama people won't need Mother Jones' readers until the next election. Right now, they really don't give a rat's a** what you think about their appointments.

Oh for heaven's sake. Obama promised us CHANGE. All we are getting is a bunch of Clintonite retreads and now this inclues Hillary AND Bill??? If we had wanted the Clinton administration back we would have voted for Hillary. We did NOT. We voted for CHANGE and it is about time Obama started delivering.

The hatred of all things Clinton that bubbled up during the campaign is completely silly. I would love to have a complete re-do of the last 8 years. As far as I am concerned, the Clinton presidency represents a really great time for America. For those who don't give the Clinton Administration any credit for America's success, I say this: You must by that same token not give Bush any credit for America's deterioration.

For those who don't give the Hillary any credit for Bill Clinton's success, I say this: you are flat wrong.

Andy Young? The guy who "supported" Hillary for prez by pointing out that Bill had been with more black women than many black men? Yeah, that would be a good "diplomatic" choice. Sheesh!

The only drama I see here that Obama has created is his deceitfulness to the U.S. Constitution and the American voters by not providing his original birth certificate to prove that he is in fact a "natural born citizen" as required by the constitution in order to be president of this great nation.

I have to second everything David said in this article. I do not feel passionate about Hillary Clinton one way or the other. I thought the selection was interesting and bold and generally supported it. But my goodness do the Clinton's know how to spit a gift horse in the mouth. What is with the need to control the story and the message with the "Will she or won't she" leaks? This is all about making her look like the decision maker..making her look like the one in charge. She is trying to one-up Obama before she even gets the post. This is starting to look like a VERY BAD idea. This is like a guy cheating on you while your dating and then marrying him anyway. Tread carefully Obama...you break it..you buy it.

It's really disappointing to observe the kind of appointments Obama is making. From the perspective of a foreigner who had some hope in this man, all of the relevant posts in his Cabinet are rabid dogs: Rham Emmanuel, Gates in Defense, Clinton in State...Fine, let the US continue in its aggressive and destructive path: sending more troops to the Middle East (Afghanistan), protecting the oligarchs in Georgia and confronting Russia in their near abroad, threatening Iran with nuclear obliteration, launching Predator drones in Pakistan, burning whole villages, rocketing wedding parties... The truth is that America has a one-party system. It is the War party. Whomever becomes a president agrees on the basic premises: America must be a world-controlling empire, must re-make other countries and cultures in its own image, and there are no real limits, political, financial, military or moral, on American power. All I can say is, keep on drinking from the well of hubris around which lie the bones of every previous world power. Keep on spending your resources -both human and material- so that the more you do, the quicker we will get rid of your unbearable rule. Do you think you, the people, can be detached from the ruinous decisions your government have made in other nations? These nations of people who have already suffered terribly were selected to become The Enemy in order to justify the plundering of their resources and the subsidized economies of war. And your elites have done this while you only care about the latest Idol show or you get pissed off by one of your idiotic Hollywood character's antics. Do you think this is not obscene? In the five and one-half years of the US occupation of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by US military personnel at checkpoints, during convoy movements and during operations to find the "enemy." The deaths of most civilians are counted as the "costs of war." This is all we get in the form of sympathy from the aggressor. For how long can the non-American world tolerate this sort of barbaric malevolence? In America it doesn’t matter, because ‘Support Our Troops!’ is the American mantra, and if a US citizen doesn’t wave the flag and say that American troops are wonderful, even when killing kids in Pakistan, then they are regarded as unpatriotic, which is a dreadful crime. Understand if you can: America’s most dangerous enemies are not Islamic radicals, but those who promote the perverted ideology of national security

You connot tell me that you don't get that the "drama" is coming from the media like it almost always is when it comes to the Clintons. You say you don't really like the Clintons - fine. But at least be objective. I was hoping that the hope and change that's supposed to come with the Obama victory would somehow affect the media as well. I was hoping that a newer, smarter and more worthy press would start to emerge. But no such luck. They still behave very much like a clique of 16 year old mean girls.

The media creates the drama. If you guys want, you can turn Obama himself into a drama queen.

The media is truly unhinged when it comes to the Clintons. This week the MSM has treated us stories about "Clinton drama" and dark mutterings about Bill Clinton's "financial dealings".

I don't remember any of these same people ever mentioning Bush 41s extensive business dealings in the Middle East as a conflict for Bush 43.

I don't know what has gone on behind the scenes to drive the antipathy, but the media and other avowed Clinton-haters should remember that President Clinton had and continues to have broad popularity at home and abroad. Most Americans (and foreigners) do not look back on the Clinton years as a "drama"-filled nightmare. From a 2008 vantage point, they look pretty good.

Let it go and focus on reasonable concerns.

If either of the Clintons grew wings and a halo, you guys (the media)would say that Satan has taken over the universe and is using the Clintons to corrupt the world, wouldn't you?

Get over your Clinton phobia, you dolt!

I agree! The media is the one who stirrs things up and blame it on the Clintons! Hillary worked so hard for BHO during the general election, far harder than any other loosing candidate did, and the media don't even give her the credit and respect! I was a Hillary supporter, one of those 18 mil, and was seriously considering not voting, but her effort to get her supportes to back Obama won me and I voted for him. Please, you guys in the media need to stop it already! You are doing BHO more harm than good by bashing the Hillary... again!

I have said it before and i will say it again that Hilliary Clinton is not the person to put in the Sec of State position. You already have a very capable and well knowledged lady in the position swo why don't you just continue to have her as your Sec of State. She has been dealing a lot of countries around the world in her office so i say that you would be foolish to put someone else in the position when you already have a very intelligent lady filling the position right now and she is not bringing in any dirty laundry with her.
I never have liked Bill Clinton and to put his wife it the position would be a big mistake as i said before the to tell the way Bill Clinton is telling the truth and that is if his lips move he is lying but then again what is new for an ex president who has to be told the definition of a sexual affair. You really have a big problem on your hands and it would be one of the worst mistakes that could be made by you for that position. I say use Condalezze Rice for the job because she is very knowledgable of what needs to be done and it mean that you don't have to start whole new Sec of State that doesn't know what is going on and it would take too long to train her and then you also have the problem of Loose Lips Bill so you would have to put someone on him 24/7 and it would have to be a male because if it is not a male you'll have another scandel on your hands. Go with Ms Rice or Sen Nunn or John McCain because he has been through the wars and knows what happens and would need alot of training for the position. So it now RICE OR McCAIN.... don't even think about bringing more trouble back to the White House. Let Hilliary continue to screw up New York as she has done a real good job of that.

I'm sick of the whole "drama" discussion- that's all people ever talk about now- drama, drama, drama. What is the expectation - that Pres. Obama is going to sail through 4 or 8 years in the White House with utter calm and serenity? I don't think so. There will be "drama" whatever that is supposed to mean. So just get over it.

Here, here!! Agreed 100%. The Clinton drama stink immediately arises (and it ain't driven by the media). Team Obama, please pass on HRC for Sec of State. Find someone better qualified without the controversy and uncertainty!!

It's Hear, Hear and it's media driven. There is no one more qualified than Hillary Clinton at this time. Richardson is a buffoon of unequal proportions and Kerry is a complete idiot.

All this drama and leaking does not vote well for an HRC Sec of State. Is this what we can expect if HRC is Sec of State? More leaks? Opposing Obama Policy views leaks from State Dept? Foreign leaders knowing of a divide between HRC and Obama - taking advantage of this divide?

This hasn't happened with other appointees. I say we move on.

The only drama is in the media that so desperately thrives on creating drama. This isn't reporting, this is junk.

NEXT!!

Why is all this dialogue about drama, and not substance? Obama promised CHANGE. What kind of change will it be to have Hillary and Bill in the White House?? Nada...zip. Didn't Bill raid Social Security? Didn't Bill advance NAFTA? Didn't Bill cave on programs for the poor??

Why isn't this conversation about reality? What is coming down the pike is pretty grim.

If you look at the big picture you see that the economic situation is about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. What qualifications does
Hillary bring to this aspect? NONE.

Why all the hype about Hillary, when Bill Richardson would make a far better choice. Look what he's done as governor of New Mexico. And, when he was in government he was an able negotiator.

This is serious business, and we NEED the most able people in government at this critical time.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Vetting HRC? She was VERY close to being the nominee and would not been vetted then. If HRC is SoS she will not run against Obama in 2012. If she is not SoS because of the vetting she will not run against Obama in 2012. He's good. Hid your secrets. Change cometh with mighty vengeance and anger.

It's really amazing that as a country we continuously love to point the finger and cast blame on everyone, but when it comes to personal responsibility no one stands up.

NEWSFLASH: It's more important who is in Congress and what we do about calling, emailing and writing to these folks. Did you all go brain dead during the first hold out of the bailout? In case you don't know, and it was reported on the news, that was because there was a flood of incoming calls to Senators and Reps saying "Don't do it". It doesn't matter what knuckleheads we put in the Oval office (btw, IMO, all politicians are knuckleheads) if we HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!

You don't like something, you call, email, fax, write them. Every time one of these administrations fails miserably, you really can point to apathy by the public. Guess what? You don't need to be voting age or even registered to contact someone and say "Hey, not ok, don't do that" or "Hey, we want you regulate XYZ industry." Stop pointing the finger and bashing the people we elect. Our responsibilities don't end because we elected them.

You didn't like the way the Clintons handled their administration? You should've been on the phone. Don't like the j(*&#ss Bush, get on the phone. Get involved and stop wasting energy AND TIME bashing these knuckleheads and hold their feet to the fire. If you're not contacting your local politicians, Congress or the White House two to three times a month, YOU'RE NOT INVOLVED! And if you've got time to post on this blog, you've got time to contact them. With all the people losing and will lose jobs, it's time for us to bring the real Americans back to the forefront, those who will take back the government thru their action not just words.

STOP BLAMING! START ACTING! CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN! KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT ON IT'S TOES!!!!

It may surprise to know that those of us who voted for Senator Clinton -- and there ar