Sen. Hillary Clinton has decided to accept the nomination for secretary of state, according to the New York Times. Here's the breaking news story.
This is from the Times story:
Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation. Mr. Obama's office told reporters Thursday that the nomination is "on track" but Clinton associates only confirmed Friday afternoon that she has decided."She's ready," said the confidant. Mrs. Clinton was reassured after talking again with Mr. Obama because their first meeting in Chicago last week "was so general," the confidant said. The purpose of the follow-up talk, he added, was not to extract particular concessions but "just getting comfortable" with the idea of working together.
A second Clinton associate confirmed that her camp believes they have a done deal. Senior Obama advisers said Friday morning that the offer had not been formally accepted and no announcement will be made until after Thanksgiving. But they said they were convinced that the nascent alliance was now ready to be sealed.
The Associated Press is much more cautious about whether Clinton will take the job. Here is the latest AP story:
A spokesman for Hillary Rodham Clinton says the New York senator is still in discussion over whether to accept the secretary of state's job, though the talks are "very much on track."Spokesman Philippe Reines and other Clinton officials flatly
denied reports Friday that she had accepted the job offer. But
officials in both camps said they have every reason to believe that
President-elect Barack Obama will announce her as his choice
shortly after Thanksgiving.Said an official in the Clinton camp: "They're just talking
about the state of the world and what's next." The official spoke
on condition of anonymity because neither Obama or Clinton are
prepared to go public.
This is good news!
there's going to be a lot of angry people today.
With her keen legal mind, I hoped that she would wind up on the Supreme Court as a counter-balance to the current hotbed of reactionary justices. We don't need change as much as we need to get back to our golden period from the end of World War II to Ronald Reagan. The name Earl Warren is inseperable from the best America has to offer. I wonder if today's Republicans realize how great a Republican he really was.
She's an asset, happy to hear it.
Clever move.........put Senator Clinton inside the tent peeing out, instead of peeing in.....Clever.
I can understand the giddiness of the left but I do not understand what is in it for Sen.Clinton.Everything her and her husband do is so calculated that on the surface her decision makes no sense for her aspirations.I am curious to hear from the socialists on this one...any takers?
I can't speak for the socialists but I can say I think she'll probably do alright. If she doesn't then I'm sure she'll be asked to step down....like so many before her. I'm not necessarily "giddy," but she's capable and shares the same foreign policies as Obama, so as long as she stays seamless with him it should go well. If she doesn't, her political career will be over. Most of the world likes the Clintons so I don't see a problem yet.
James Baker liked her as a pick and pretty much said the same thing. He quoted a guy (I forget who) who said "A foreign leader can spot daylight between the President and the Secretary of State a thousand miles away." I agree with that. We'll see how it goes.
I know its common sense but should I assume to avoid the obvious? I concur with Scot Hillary would be asked to step down (political code for fired) if She does not follow the OBama Administrations public policies.
Some how thinking that She is goin to take over and take advantage of something is going into conspiracy theory. When have we seen any example of a cabinet Member in todays time go off and contradict an Administration's public policy?
It's like having a boss and making your own rules, how long do you expect to last?
What's in it for Clinton ability to shape public policy (before it is implemented). eing a Senator does have it's perks. Clinton just wants to move on and gain stature beyond a Senator, more power is a good thing as well, why not.
Scot and Rich...Good points but if she still wants to be president in 2012 won't this disable her for a run at it or do you think she's given that up or is maybe eyeing 2016? To be honest...I thought this was all for show on both sides but it appears to be actually happening.
Brian,
It is doubtful that She will run in 4-8 years unless she is asked to leave (resigns). She may come back and run if She leaves her post prematurly.
I say doubtful because nothing is 100% in politics, nobody can predict what the future holds.
Being a the Secretary of State is not a bad gig the President gets most the heat if any, Hillary gets to go on the plane fly aroung the world shaking Presidents' hands, talking policy. The job description is a little more involved then that, but you get the picture.
Well no one in their right mind challenges a sitting president from their own party, so if she were to run again she would be looking at 2016. Having now served as Secretary of State her credentials would be huge. Of course so would her age. A lot of people would like Condi to run. Imagine a Condi vs. Hillary. Who would their VP picks be?
I wonder if we'll (in our lifetime) ever see a woman/woman on a major party ticket. Palin/Rice or Rice/Palin? Clinton/Feinstein?
We will see a woman win at some point just like the first black president. I wouldn't rule out a two woman ticket in the future.
Scot wrote:
Well no one in their right mind challenges a sitting president from their own party...
Have you forgotten that Reagan challenged Ford in '76? Of course, you did qualify that by "no one in their right mind..." (rimshot)
I would agree that itis a bit more complicated to mount a challenge if you're part of the administration in power, though.
Don't forget Ted Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter for the presidential nomination in 1980.
Does anyone remember the story of Julius Ceasar? Why appoint someone who doesn't have your best interest in mind!
Ask "W" what happens when you're surrounded by individuals who manipulate everything around them.
Her eyes are "Green" with greed and that doesn't serve well for Obama.
(I)
Ok ok...Mike and Jim.....granted. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of challenging and beating the incumbent president. Yes I did forget those two actually launched serious attempts to win. I guess also it would depend on the popularity of the sitting president. Ford didn't really get elected to begin with, and Carter wasn't popular.
Which brings me to my question then, and you can see it coming. When was the last time a sitting president lost a re-election bid to a challenger from his own party? I don't have the answer, I'm still looking for it. I think I'll ask Ken Rudin. He'll know. And perhaps someone here will know. Anyone?
Scot, I've been going back through all the presidents I can think of, but I can't think of any instance where that has happened.
I only know of the challenge without the challenger winning. Eugene McCarthy and Lynden Johnson. scot: I don't think your scenario ever happened, like Mike D. already posted. Adams and Jefferson were very close, but not of the same party.
Hillary and now Bill Richardson...would Vince Foster or Ron Brown be part of the Obama cabinet... if they were alive? How do Obama supporters feel about Clinton Inc. co-opting the Obama presidency.About as good as I do about John McCain so willing to reach across the aisle to his good buddies and sell us down the river? Maybe Obama voters have something in common with conservatives...betrayed by your party.Maybe WE can get together and accomplish "Change".
I know you will be surprised to hear this Brian but I disagree (HA, HA). I have always believed if you don’t like something you should work to change it. I have more often than not been working with or for the opposition because one can foster change more easily from within that from the outside. Even in my present job, I get fed up with the politics but don’t give up because I am in the best place I can be to make things better. How is it any different for McCain and the Clintons? Being a part of or associated with the Obama administration is not a sell out. Obama will be President, they can’t change that. In my mind, their actions only reinforce their commitment to their country. They are doing what they can with what they have to promote what they think is right for the country. Neither McCain nor Clinton can promote their ideas standing on the sidelines complaining.
Kim...I understand your point but is it spin to say that all these Clinton people in the Obama administration is now OK with Obama supporters after all of the talk about "Change".Is it OK as long as it's not a Republican administration.Is that all the "Change" you were looking for.I don't know if McCain will be promoting conservative ideas(other than supporting the troops)based on his past.I do agree that you have to be in the battle to effect change...complaining accomplishes little if anything.
I think he is only selecting her because it was a promise he had to make for her to come out and endorse him and campaign for him.
I think we'll see change from the last 8 years, which is the object. And I also think we'll see a few things change that needed changing all along. The rules for lobbying will be one.
This article talks about the cabinet selections and the pick of James Jones.
James L. Jones Jr., touted as national security adviser, is the retired Marine Corps commandant, former supreme allied commander of NATO and, most recently, President Bush's envoy for Middle East security.
Time will tell whether or not Bill has any influence over anything. And I look at the experienced Clinton people as just that...experienced. It's nothing new, Bush Jr. picked most of Bush Sr.'s people.
As for John McCain, good for him for putting country first and going along with the good ideas and fighting the bad ones, no matter which side of the aisle they come from. God grant them all the ability to know the difference.
I see your point; however, even change needs structure. Change doesn't mean you sweep everything away. You take the strengths of people and use those strengths to make change happen. He can't remove everybody from Congress and replace them. He's got to work with them. How better to do that then putting key people in key places armed with a new direction?
""I have more often than not been working with or for the opposition because one can foster change more easily from within that from the outside." (Kim Tanksley)
Maybe we can hear some elaboration on that one. It may sound different than it was meant. Shall I file it under the heading "loyal opposition?" Or "snake in the grass?" hahaha!
Brian maybe you need to tell us what you believe change is? Then we can settle this for you.
HA, HA!! I suppose the answer to that question depends on the perspective of who is thinking it!! HA, HA! However, I offer this… my opinionated, confident and sometimes imprudent, nature does not lend itself to secretive opposition.
Change would be people who were not failures from the Clinton administration.Change would be something other than what we are seeing.What Obama is validating is the fact he has no experience and is surrounding himself with people from the Clinton years or fresh faces like Paul Volker?(He was Jimmy carter's guy and gave Kofi and his son a pass in the U.N. "Food for Oil"scandal).Change would be people who are not directly responsible for part of the economic crisis.Then to give that lame excuse "That's all that's out there"...disappointing.It certainly is no cross section as we are led to believe by the media...you have liberals and extreme liberals with no moderates or anything resembling the right(except Gates for continuity).Maybe everything will turn out OK.Their past experiences make me believe otherwise.
Your starting from the premise that Clinton's Administration was a failure, how so? The surplus in our national budget before Bush took office now what has he left us? Clinton Administration is to blame for our current recession?
Digging up skeletons from the past does not qualify your perceptions of what Obama's "change" in public policy will be.
Clinton was widly excepted as a centrist moderate. So I don't know where your going with saying "...you have liberals and extreme liberals with no moderates..."
I hope our economy moves in the direction close to resembling Clinton's era national budget.
Change would be those on the right to stop whining about his cabinet picks. I've never seen anything like it. Talk about scratching for something to complain about.
Spin,myths and lies(Clinton economy,Obama's character,The New Deal,etc..)...the mothers milk of the Democratic party. We put up with eight years plus of distortion from the left but when someone raises pertinent questions about their "Messiah" and his cabinet you throw a tantrum .Grow up.
Brian "eight years of distortion from the left..."?
Be specific, give examples, back it up with facts. Maybe this will lead us to conclude your arguement.
I don't blame Scott for his last post if your willing to snipe and run without getting into specifics.
The subjects before you;
Clinton is known as politically centrist moderate not a far left liberal as you claim.
Balanced budget under Clinton Administration.
Brian, you have nothing but speculation (not "pertinent questions") based on a right wing view. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but you're only trying to predict the future. I've been there too.
I'll get back to you when any of your speculation has earned merit by coming to pass, or when I grow up...whichever comes first. For now, find something substantial to complain about.
Rich...give me a break.If your too stupid or ignorant to admit it, an encyclopedia of examples won't change your mind and I've really grown tired of you and your ilks spin, myths,and lies and realize that this blog is and has been a colossal waste of my time.I'm to blame for that...not you.So take comfort in knowing you can sit around and agree with the other socialists in the blog and say "See,we are right because he didn't respond to our question" but what's the point... you won't challenge yourselves and are not interested in truth so I'm going to take the extra time and help others more...Maybe our paths will cross.
Brian,
Name calling does nothing to help you. Challenge yourself, challenge me. Other then complain and call people "socialists," what have you contributed other than to show bitterness?
Tell us what your "truth" is and amaze us with something called FACTS.
Earn some respect.