Obama offers Clinton Sec. of State

CtrlSource

Otacon wrote: »

He might not get the chance to appoint her...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/19/hillary_clintons_fix.html

Quote:
Even if the vetting problems involving former president Bill Clinton's finances can be resolved, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton may face another roadblock on her way to the secretary of state's chair.

It's called the Constitution of the United States, specifically, Article One, Section Six, also known as the emoluments clause. ("Emoluments" means things like salaries.) It says that no member of Congress, during the term for which he was elected, shall be named to any office "the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during his term." This applies, we're advised, whether the member actually voted on the raises or not.

Emoluments..... such a great word. My Leaving Cert Economics teacher used to use it a lot. i'd like to eat that word! mmmmm....

JohnMc1

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Only time will tell?

I'm trying to give him a chance. Otherwise I would be bashed for dooming him to failure before he gets his foot in the door.

I'm not sure Rham Emmanuelle is a good choice. He's been know to say "**** the Republicans" a time or two. Him and Nancy "I make Newt look civil' Pelosi aren't going to Bridge the aisle that he promised.

The Raven.

CtrlSource wrote: »

i don't see Hillary running for President again*. She will be 69 in 2016 and although her life expectancy is in the 80's, i think that her age, coupled with her failure to get the nomination this year will rule her out.

Hillary is 5 years younger than Joe Biden. He will be 69 in November 2011. At the end of a possible 8-year term in office he will be 74. It is interesting how unimportant his age seems to be here, by comparison.

latenia wrote: »

Plus she'll be more grandmotherly which is more palatable to the electorate than an ambitious career woman.

What is wrong with being ‘an ambitious career woman’? All politicians (both male and female), who run for office are ambitious career people, otherwise they wouldn’t be running.

JohnMc1

The Raven. wrote: »

Hillary is 5 years younger than Joe Biden. He will be 69 in November 2011. At the end of a possible 8-year term in office he will be 74. It is interesting how unimportant his age seems to be here, by comparison.

Let's see how him and Obama do this term before we start giving them a second term. That mentality is going to be counter-productive to his administration.

What is wrong with being ‘an ambitious career woman’? All politicians (both male and female), who run for office are ambitious career people, otherwise they wouldn’t be running.

Hillary just comes across an unlikeable person. She's like Gore and Kerry. No personality and repels more voters than they attract.

brianthebard

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Let's see how him and Obama do this term before we start giving them a second term. That mentality is going to be counter-productive to his administration.


Hillary just comes across an unlikeable person. She's like Gore and Kerry. No personality and repels more voters than they attract.

More nonsense. Kerry had a record voter turnout in 2004, it just happened that Bush's was higher. And Gore, as even you cannot pretend any more, won the popular vote in 2000. So really can we please just cut the nonsense? Hillary is one of the most popular Democrats out there, she won the popular vote in the primaries, and provided a much bigger test of Obama than McCain, who ironically, actually did what you claim the aforementioned Democrats did, and repelled voters in droves.

The Raven.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Let's see how him and Obama do this term before we start giving them a second term. That mentality is going to be counter-productive to his administration.

What mentality?

Hillary just comes across an unlikeable person. She's like Gore and Kerry. No personality and repels more voters than they attract.

That's an entirely subjective opinion. You are of course entitled to it.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Hillary just comes across an unlikeable person.

Well, more Democrats liked her in the primary than Obama?

Popular Vote:
Barack Obama 18,011,877 (47.41%)
Hillary Clinton 18,235,120 (48.00%)

JohnMc1 wrote: »

She's like Gore

More American voters liked Gore than GW Bush in the 2000 presidential?

Popular Vote:
BW Bush 50,456,002 (47.87%)
Al Gore 50,999,897 (48.38%)

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Well, more Democrats liked her in the primary than Obama?

Popular Vote:
Barack Obama 18,011,877 (47.41%)
Hillary Clinton 18,235,120 (48.00%)

Well, technically, it could just have been that they found her less dislikeable than Obama.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, technically, it could just have been that they found her less dislikeable than Obama.

LOL! Are you sure you didn't work for the McCain-Palin campaign as a spin master? Or a member of JAG rather than artillery? They have a way with words indeed!;)

Here's an interesting set of percentages from the primaries?*
McCain: Republican Popular vote 9,840,746, Percentage 47.25%
Hilliary: Democratic Popular vote 18,235,120, Percentage 48.00%

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

*FIRE for effect! BOOM! Bad B!ue blows smoke off mussel of howitzer as if a six-shooter. Looks through spotting scope to see impact.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Or a member of JAG rather than artillery?

Jesus, woman. I'm no cannon-cocking redleg son of St Barbara.
Kindof considered JAG (I have a law degree, but decided not to pursue it to the Bar), before deciding that blowing things up was far more fun.

Here's an interesting set of percentages from the primaries?*
McCain: Republican Popular vote 9,840,746, Percentage 47.25%
Hilliary: Democratic Popular vote 18,235,120, Percentage 48.00%

Pretty useless comparison, really. There were more viable candidates for longer in the Republican race. With more people running, the votes were spread out more. They just settled it far quicker. On the other hand, the D competition was a two-horse race for a larger proportion of it.

Now try spinning the howitzer on your finger and slipping it into your holster

NTM

lostexpectation

so we've somebody in favour nuking invading iran as sec state and then people in favour of kidnapping and tortuing going to nsa and intelligence, why theres some change from obama.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Pretty useless comparison, really. There were more viable candidates for longer in the Republican race. With more people running, the votes were spread out more.

"Longer" competition for Republicans? "Running" away in the Republican primaries as in early rout!

3 dropped out in first month:
Thompson: withdrew 19 January
Hunter: withdrew 19 January
Giuliani: withdrew 30 January

1 suspended campaign following them a week later:
Romney: suspended 7 February

Only "viable" left still gave up early:
Huckabee: withdrew 4 March

Leaving a die-hard that didn't have a chance in the first place:
Paul: suspended 12 June

Manic Moran wrote: »

With more people running

Democratic Primary Candidates:
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson = 8

Republican Primary Candidates:
McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Paul, Thompson, Hunter, Giuliani = 7

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008



**B!ue drops flash-bang in open hatch of tank turret while Moran takes a snooze inside.

JohnMc1

The Raven. wrote: »

What mentality?

Automatically assuming he's going to be in for 2 terms when he hasn't even started his first one yet.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Longer" competition for Republicans? "Running" away in the Republican primaries as in early rout!

You've got to look at it in terms of votes cast over the duration. The Republican race was over very early. Though McCain's primary competitors dropped out before the Democrat competition in date terms, the bulk of the Republican votes were cast whilst McCain still had both Huckabee and Romney in the running. All three candidates ended up winning States.

This doesn't apply in the Democrat case, when there was a long, drawn-out compaign between only two viable candidates, and the next best third-party didn't win a single State to help split the vote.

**B!ue drops flash-bang in open hatch of tank turret while Moran takes a snooze inside.

Very uncivilised of you.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

This doesn't apply in the Democrat case, when there was a long, drawn-out compaign between only two viable candidates, and the next best third-party didn't win a single State to help split the vote.

Only two "somewhat" competitive Republicans (out of 7 candidates) caved-in early (Romney 7 February, Hackabee 4 March), so the 20 percent plus popular vote count each got before giving up was misleading, because they had already surrendered before a real fight could begin. You don't give up early in a real contest!

The Raven.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Let's see how him and Obama do this term before we start giving them a second term. That mentality is going to be counter-productive to his administration.

The Raven. wrote: »

What mentality?

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Automatically assuming he's going to be in for 2 terms when he hasn't even started his first one yet.

You have a point, but I for one am not assuming that Obama will be in for two terms. I was merely referring to that possibility, which has been bandied about by many. I doubt if ‘mentality’, with its less than flattering implications, has much to do with it. Apart from wishful thinking on the part of Obamists, there are valid reasons why they might draw this conclusion, based on recent circumstances.

However, although the next few years are uncertain, one cannot deny the right to examine and debate these issues both now and as time passes.

JohnMc1

The Raven. wrote: »

You have a point, but I for one am not assuming that Obama will be in for two terms. I was merely referring to that possibility, which has been bandied about by many. I doubt if ‘mentality’, with its less than flattering implications, has much to do with it. Apart from wishful thinking on the part of Obamists, there are valid reasons why they might draw this conclusion, based on recent circumstances.

However, although the next few years are uncertain, one cannot deny the right to examine and debate these issues both now and as time passes.

Sorry about that. I've seen so many posts and what not acting like a 2nd term for Obama is a forgone conclusion its beyond ridiculous. Let the man get in the door first and let's see how his first year goes before proclaiming him a 2 termer.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

. You don't give up early in a real contest!

Neither does one start late. As long as they were in competition, it was as enthusiastic as any other.

NTM

Manic Moran

Reportedly Bill Richardson has been slotted into Commerce. This doesn't make his supporters happy, they theorise (And I'll agree with them) that if Obama really wanted a politician to take the SecState position as opposed to a professional, at least Richardson would be the better pick from the experience and capability standpoint. I wonder if he'd take it or think he's better off running New Mexico?

On the other hand, at least he would make one pro-gun member of the Obama cabinet. Would take a lot to balance out Holder though.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Reportedly Bill Richardson has been slotted into Commerce.

Just like the Hillary appointment is intended to help unify the Dems, the Richardson appointment is to draw in the Hispanic Americans, both appointments for the wrong reasons? What does Gov Richardson know about commerce to make him expert for this post? Are there better qualified candidates for commerce?

Manic Moran

Quite possibly. Richardson did have a prior stint as Energy Secretary, so he's not going to be totally thrown in at the deep end of running a department. He also is/was on the boards of a couple of corporations, so I presume may have picked up something financial in his time.

The current holder of the post is also a Hispanic, if it matters. Looking at the list, you don't have to go too far back to find a politician who ran the shop, Norm Mineta who was a Congresscritter for a while, but had gone back to private sector for five years before being picked up for the post. However, the others seem to be generally 'buddies of the President' who were picked as a favour and not for competence. I guess Commerce isn't that important a role. You need to go back to Barbara Franklin in GHWB's cabinet before you find someone who was a 'professional' in the field.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

He also is/was on the boards of a couple of corporations, so I presume may have picked up something financial in his time.

Yes, we had some of those AIG executive types at a posh So Cal resort after the bailout enhancing their "qualifications" with over $23,000 in manicures, facials, pedicures and massages. Richardson is not qualified to run Commerce. His appointment if for the Hispanic vote.

Manic Moran

I'm not so sure about the facials, but I wouldn't mind a massage.

I know Google offers them for their employees, and I saw some TSA employees at Oakland receiving them. I must be in the wrong job.

NTM

brianthebard

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Just like the Hillary appointment is intended to help unify the Dems, the Richardson appointment is to draw in the Hispanic Americans, both appointments for the wrong reasons? What does Gov Richardson know about commerce to make him expert for this post? Are there better qualified candidates for commerce?

I think I might have posted this before, but it seems to me that Obama is more concerned about his legacy (perhaps slightly justifiable given who went before him) than he is concerned about how the government will be run day to day. He's setting himself up as a unifier, making a government of "all the talents", trying to heal party wounds, when really he should be concentrating on the economy and the wars. Nothing else should matter but I feel like the choices he has made are diluting the possibility of a strong answer to those issues, Thoughts?

JohnMc1

He should be taking more of a day to day approach for the time being. We're not in the environment for long term "legacy building" He makes enough good choices his legacy will be built in time.

Manic Moran

An interesting glitch in the works, it seems.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/is_clinton_barred_from_state_j.php

Article One, Section Six of the U.S. Constitution says:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

Essentially, you cannot take a job if the salary was increased during your current congressional term. And the salary for cabinet officials has gone up in the past year.

The intent is to prevent the conflict of interest, of senators voting themselves pay raises in the expectation that they'll get an appointed position.

This happened before, in 1973. The 'workaround' was to reduce the salary to the previous level, with the Democrats calling "It's still unConstitutional!" By the word of the law, it is, though the intent can be met by the reduction in pay.

[Edit: I see that Octocon has already brought this up. Apologies]

NTM

Black Swan

brianthebard wrote: »

I think I might have posted this before, but it seems to me that Obama is more concerned about his legacy

I think legacy, per se, is far from his mind at present.

brianthebard wrote: »

He's setting himself up as a unifier, making a government of "all the talents", trying to heal party wounds, when really he should be concentrating on the economy and the wars. Nothing else should matter but I feel like the choices he has made are diluting the possibility of a strong answer to those issues, Thoughts?

He first has to unify the nation and its government before major shifts in policy can be made? He must first grasp the strategic big picture and have overall backing from all the diverse elements of a population of over 300 million people, before delegating the details to (hopefully) competent team members to implement?

It's not like Obama has been put in the seat of a highly tuned, fully fueled, very efficient and effective machine ready to run the Indy 500, with a first class pit crew to support him in the race. The machine is broke, the tires are flat, the engine is out of tune, and having to borrow fuel to run. Furthermore, the previous pit crew is poorly trained, incompetent, and fighting among themselves.

brianthebard

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I think legacy, per se, is far from his mind at present.

The constant references to this moment in history, and other such remarks, his desire to be a uniter (a Lincoln) suggest to me that it is at least some element of his cabinet apointments.

He first has to unify the nation and its government before major shifts in policy can be made? He must first grasp the strategic big picture and have overall backing from all the diverse elements of a population of over 300 million people, before delegating the details to (hopefully) competent team members to implement?

It's not like Obama has been put in the seat of a highly tuned, fully fueled, very efficient and effective machine ready to run the Indy 500, with a first class pit crew to support him in the race. The machine is broke, the tires are flat, the engine is out of tune, and having to borrow fuel to run. Furthermore, the previous pit crew is poorly trained, incompetent, and fighting among themselves.

That machine never works very well. The nature of it is that he will not be able to unite the population. He will not unite the government (dem and rep) if only because they have their own agendas. That's the sort of thing that suggests he is looking at how he will be perceived in the future-wanting to appeal to every element of society, no matter how contradictory that is. Wanting to unify the two parties against an economic downturn, no matter how unlikely that is. Wanting to unify his own party by bringing in all the disgruntled elements, at the possible cost of having the strongest possible cabinet.

Black Swan

Well, Obama cannot simply push the button marked "presidency" and expect things to happen across the pond. He needs to rally as much support as he can before hitting that button, or it just may cough and fail to start. Sure, it will not be perfect, things never are, but to assume that his current actions are primarily focused on how some future historian may write his legacy, I do not think is Obama's major focus at this moment in time. He's way too busy trying to do things that might work to ensure that the dumb thing starts in the first place!

CtrlSource

Only saw a short clip from their joint press conference - it seemed pretty sombre! Good news though that it's confirmed