?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Hillary gets close after all

  • Nov. 14th, 2008 at 6:15 PM
independent_uk
So after all that bitterness and divisiveness, Hillary Clinton is up for a top job after all.

Question: Would you welcome such an important role for Hillary?

Comments

( Comment )
sampaguita_blue wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:35 pm (UTC)
No.

I'd prefer Feinstein.
julione wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:41 pm (UTC)
I'd love to see Senator Clinton as Secretary of State. I think that'd be a wise decision of Obama to have someone as well experienced as she is in his cabinet.
gregorykennedy wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:43 pm (UTC)
I think this is great. I am very happy that Obama is building a super team of experienced and intelligent people in his cabinet.
grace_om wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:49 pm (UTC)
She wouldn't be my top pick, due to aspects of her record and views. But heh, it's not up to me. She is a highly intelligent and capable person, and I'm sure she would make an excellent Secretary of State (or any other key position she might be offered and choose to accept).
vernon_j wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:50 pm (UTC)
Sure
The more time she gets out of the country, J/K.

I would like to see Bill Richardson become SoS, so in 2012 when he runs. He'll have more experience.
bluedetective wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:53 pm (UTC)
Eh... she'd be good for SoS, but even better being the head of something to do with finances. She knows economics.
crystalstarr wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 06:54 pm (UTC)
I like this choice, I also read Obama is meeting with McCain on Monday to "talk about options" hmmmm

Clinton and McCain getting new offices? will this silence the pumas and repubs?
fmsilk wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 08:06 pm (UTC)
Eh, I don't care really... so long as she isn't running the country... Too much baggage. Oy.
fzun wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 08:08 pm (UTC)
I'd love to see Hillary in the cabinet, although I'm not sure as SoS.
mmpoetatheart wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 08:34 pm (UTC)
I think whatever role they want to give her and she's willing to take would be a good thing. She's got a lot of fight and experience.
mechers wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 08:35 pm (UTC)
I would prefer another position, like head of HHS or Secretary of Health. But SoS is the big cookie, and she stumped hard for him, so I'm guessing she'll get whatever she wants.
patchwork_prose wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 08:53 pm (UTC)
I think she'd be good at it.
polarisdib wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 08:55 pm (UTC)
I would prefer Hillary Clinton in that role over the other two mentioned in the article, John Kerry and Bill Richardson. I think she could do a good job, plus remove a bit of that feminist bitterness from the election, plus increase Obama's promise to work between groups.

John Kerry to this day still leaves me cold, and whereas I have some respect for Bill Richardson, I have enough experience with him to know that he doesn't really seem set for operating in the broader spectrum of the federal government.

--PolarisDiB
victoriousval wrote:
Nov. 15th, 2008 09:15 am (UTC)
Do we really know anyone (ourselves included)? Never mind believe or trust a politician who is controlled by an entity with only one thing in mind MONEY. They all END UP tarred by the same brush,by the powers that be (the Banks)who have no interest in us the little people other than making MORE money from us & bleeding us dry.
tisoi wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 10:25 pm (UTC)
Richardson was my 1st choice and Clinton was my 2nd (and Obama, #3). I think Richardson should be SoS, but Clinton? Supreme court justice! ;-)
yardlong wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 10:29 pm (UTC)
Yes, I think that is a great role for Hillary. She is an intelligent woman.
brennakimi wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 10:44 pm (UTC)
hillary as top diplomat?

DIPLOMAT?

no. no.
absurdhero wrote:
Nov. 14th, 2008 11:25 pm (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily his strongest choice for SoS. Hillary didn't exactly agree with him on actually deigning to talk to enemies, so unless that matter is resolved, it will be a conflict of interests.
fauxklore wrote:
Nov. 15th, 2008 12:26 am (UTC)
I can see giving her a cabinet (or other key appointee) role, but I don't think Secretary of State is the right one. I'd really like to see Bill Richardson in that job.
bastblack wrote:
Nov. 15th, 2008 02:14 am (UTC)
Question: Would you welcome such an important role for Hillary?

Sure. ^^
victoriousval wrote:
Nov. 15th, 2008 09:02 am (UTC)
US Election
Just another puppet on a string for the Banks to control & I mean the lot of them. Not just the US it's everywhere.
euchreman wrote:
Nov. 15th, 2008 04:38 pm (UTC)
Hillary
Absolutely yes. I believe that she would be an asset to his team. I think it would be in his best interest to get the best of the party out there working together.
guy_jin wrote:
Nov. 15th, 2008 09:24 pm (UTC)
Yes. however, it might make things complicated for both Obama and Hillary; IIRC, you can't be in the cabinet and be a senator at the same time, so the Democrats could lose a senate seat.

Also, when 2016 rolls around, you'd likely have both Biden and hillary running as his successor...
ab2ac3cc4 wrote:
Nov. 17th, 2008 11:20 am (UTC)
I am not an American citizen, BUT by trailing Hilary last campaign I think she would be GREAT for the job!
ladymuttly1 wrote:
Nov. 18th, 2008 07:49 pm (UTC)
No. Hillary doesn't strike me as a great diplomat and it sure seems to me that Bill brings along a bunch of international baggage. I think Hillary would be a much better Secretary of the Treasury and it's a very important position in this administration.
( Comment )