At the risk of riling even more PUMAs than I already have, I question the wisdom of putting Hillary Clinton in the Secretary of State’s office, as many pundits are already theorizing is likely. No doubt her experience entitles her to the office, but isn’t Senator Clinton’s expertise rather in domestic affairs, like health care? Perhaps the idea is that reviving “Hill-care” would send the wrong message… whatever it is, let’s hope that she’s being seriously considered for one of those jobs. A false-start would spin poorly.
Advertisement
I tend to think Hilary would be decent at State…but she has an albatross around her neck that would make for years of media fodder.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 17, 2008, 10:49 ami don’t like her for state. the move doesn’t make sense to me.
Posted by didionsmommy | November 17, 2008, 11:15 amShe has automatic recognition world-wide and she traveled a lot as First Lady. I can’t imagine him putting her in too many other spots.
Posted by Mike (PC) | November 17, 2008, 12:01 pmI was thinking that there must be some kind of ambassador job for her – but even Sec. of State is OK – just keep her the hell off the Supreme Court.
Remember that Obama would never had made it if there not so many people pissed off by her numerous antics. Please, please, don’t screw the future by putting this nasty person in a position of longtime influence.
Posted by sjburnt | November 17, 2008, 4:26 pmwell, hillary at state does put a gag order on bill clinton … all of his philanthropic programs and fundraising has put him face to face with world leaders almost constantly since he left the presidency.
i think she would be a fine secy of state, but it just doesn’t feel right.
Posted by didionsmommy | November 17, 2008, 4:33 pmsjburnt
Please explain to me why you think Obama would consider Hillary for the court? She’s not even a judge, she’s a senator!
Posted by Jello | November 17, 2008, 6:30 pmShe’d be good on the Supreme Court but she wouldn’t have it offered to her, because she wouldn’t take it (she’s said as much). It’s not within her policy interests. She IS a very good lawyer though, and not until recently has the Supreme Court been only for people who’ve spent a lifetime in the federal judiciary. Legal experience is of course a necessity, but we’ve had great Justices who’ve never sat on the federal bench.
Posted by Ames | November 17, 2008, 8:34 pm