Obama offers Clinton Sec. of State

banquo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/clinton-met-with-obama-ab_n_143810.html

kerry4sam

When i saw the heading i had to find another source to believe it and i found http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/14/transition.wrap/index.html

where is states that "Over the course of the past 24 hours, sources close to Clinton have softened their one-time solid public position that she would not be interested in a Cabinet post. Those sources now say Clinton is clearly contemplating various ways in which she can serve the Obama administration.

Clinton, however, remained mum Friday about the speculation over the meeting".

Don't think it has been confirmed yet though. "There was a serious discussion to determine whether, if offered secretary of state, she would accept it,"

Manic Moran

I wonder how much of that is because he thinks she would be the best person to handle foreign affairs (i.e. national interest), and how much is to try to heal the rift in the Democratic Party (i.e. party interest)?

Rice, Albright, Christopher and arguably Powell were all somewhat well versed with foreign diplomacy before taking the SecState position. I'm not convinced that Hillary can make the same claim, though granted you don't hold the position of 'Wife of The Man' and not make social contacts. You have to go back to Muskie (Carter era) before you find a politician who served as SecState, in this case a former Governor and US Senator. James Baker did make a career out of politics, but he never ran for office.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

how much is to try to heal the rift in the Democratic Party (i.e. party interest)?

I would venture to guess that this is the main reason why she would be considered, and not essentially based upon her qualifications as a potential Sec of State, ergo, an appointment for the wrong reasons?

Biggins

Strange. According to Sky news, another woman has just been named for the post.
Guess Clinton has missed the boat on that position.

Manic Moran

Sky news website still saying Clinton offered the post.

You sure you didn't mis-read the headline of the promotion today of Gen Dunwoody to be the US Army's first female 4-star General?

NTM

bnt

The latest I'm reading is that: not only are the Republicans in favour of Hillary as SecState, as well as former SecState Henry Kissenger, the Clintons currently are having their finances examined for potential conflicts. I can imagine that Obama doesn't want to offer Hillary a job, just to have it blow up in his face... :pac:

brianthebard

What do you mean bnt? Afaik if you are to take a position in the cabinet you need to declare your financial links so that there is no conflict of interests. That goes for everyone though, not just Clinton.

Biggins

Manic Moran wrote: »

Sky news website still saying Clinton offered the post.

You sure you didn't mis-read the headline of the promotion today of Gen Dunwoody to be the US Army's first female 4-star General?
NTM

Your right. I'm a blind plonker.

Ponster

I think that Bill would be a much better choice as Sec. of State than his wife.

Manic Moran

I think that Bill would be a much better choice as Sec. of State than his wife.

You want to be extremely careful about having a former President working for you. Oftentimes they don't know their place. I've seen similar situations in the military where people who used to outrank one person now are outranked by that person. It's rarely pretty.

NTM

Running Bing

brianthebard wrote: »

What do you mean bnt? Afaik if you are to take a position in the cabinet you need to declare your financial links so that there is no conflict of interests. That goes for everyone though, not just Clinton.

Billy boy has earned significant sums from public speaking post presidency.....apparently some of that money is from dodgy sources.


The last thing Obama wants is a scandal about the Clintons finances a few weeks into his presidency.

brianthebard

Dodgy sources? links please?
Plus that doesn't exactly negate what I said about all candidates being vetted financially, can anyone confirm or deny?

Manic Moran

Dodgy sources? links please?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/clinton.cabinet/index.html

The former president has also reportedly solicited funds from international business figures connected to human rights abuses that his wife has outwardly criticized, including the governments of Kazakhstan and China.

First thing I found after a brief search.

NTM

Overheal

Well, Stephen T Colbert just argued the case that HE should be the SecState. Id rather it him than the hillster.

Manic Moran

Analyst type on the radio this evening made the rather non-subtle point that if there were any differences between Obama and Clinton in the Primaries, it was the issue of foreign affairs. Yet suddenly Clinton is supposedly the best person to conduct Obama's foreign affairs policies?

The more you look at this, the more it seems to be a domestic party political move, as opposed to an international policy move.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

The more you look at this, the more it seems to be a domestic party political move, as opposed to an international policy move.

Indeed! She gave Obama more competition in the primaries than McCain gave in the general election. Methinks Obama wants to unify the larger Democratic Party by bringing her in to his government?

Running Bing

Manic Moran wrote: »

Analyst type on the radio this evening made the rather non-subtle point that if there were any differences between Obama and Clinton in the Primaries, it was the issue of foreign affairs. Yet suddenly Clinton is supposedly the best person to conduct Obama's foreign affairs policies?

The more you look at this, the more it seems to be a domestic party political move, as opposed to an international policy move.

NTM

Definitely. I was just reading in the paper some of the quotes from Obama and his people during the campaign about HC's experience with foreign affairs.


Needless to say they were not glowing comments;)

latenia

So much for change then... There are Americans in their 50s who haven't yet had the chance to partake in a presidential election not involving a Clinton or a Bush. Hilldog probably sees this as a chance to build for 2016 when she'll have more international experience in her right, not hanging on Bill's coattails. Plus she'll be more grandmotherly which is more palatable to the electorate than an ambitious career woman. Who knows, maybe one of the other Bush boys will throw their hat in as well...

JohnMc1

latenia wrote: »

So much for change then... There are Americans in their 50s who haven't yet had the chance to partake in a presidential election not involving a Clinton or a Bush. Hilldog probably sees this as a chance to build for 2016 when she'll have more international experience in her right, not hanging on Bill's coattails. Plus she'll be more grandmotherly which is more palatable to the electorate than an ambitious career woman. Who knows, maybe one of the other Bush boys will throw their hat in as well...

I think the American population is done with the Clintons and the Bushes now. Hillary comes off as a mean, cold and very unlikeable woman. Same as John Kerry 4 years ago. If people were still open to another Clinton in the White House she would have won the primaries.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

If people were still open to another Clinton in the White House she would have won the primaries.

Is this misleading? It would appear that Hillary Clinton was greatly closer to beating Barack Obama in the Democratic Party primary race, than John McCain was in the general election? More of the "people" actually voted for Hillary Clinton than Obama in the primary, but other factors affected the nomination (e.g., delegates and super delegates)?

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

States carried:
Barack Obama 29+DC
Hillary Clinton 21

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

Presidential Election Results
Popular Vote:
Barack Obama 66,882,230 (53%)
John McCain 58,343,671 (46%)

Electoral College:
Barack Obama 365
John McCain 162

Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Mr.Micro

I think that Obama is wrong to possibly offer Clinton the job. He won the election hands down with massive support, this despite the bitter campaign that Clinton fought in the selection process prior to the Presidential election.

The only reason I can see that he may be offering her the job, is that he is looking beyond 2012, to be in office for 2 terms and knowing that she has a lot of support in the Democratic party it is best to keep her on board? Reminds me of what Churchill once said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

JohnMc1

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Is this misleading? It would appear that Hillary Clinton was greatly closer to beating Barack Obama in the Democratic Party primary race, than John McCain was in the general election? More of the "people" actually voted for Hillary Clinton than Obama in the primary, but other factors affected the nomination (e.g., delegates and super delegates)?

*snipped for size*

Didn't mean to mislead. It seems their revisionist history going on becasue they make it seem like he steamrolled through everyone including Hillary. I guess they couldn't label him the Hope and Change Express [among others] if he almost lost to Hillary.

The irony is we might be getting another Clinton administration if Hilary accepts the Sec of State position and Bill's former Attorney General accepts his position of Attorney General again [Obama has also been eyeing some other former Clinton administration people] This time next year we all might be calling him Barrack Obama Clinton.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The irony is we might be getting another Clinton administration if Hilary accepts the Sec of State position and Bill's former Attorney General accepts his position of Attorney General again

Only time will tell? He is picking some rather heavy hitters for his team, these not on the former Clinton cabinet:

• Joe Biden for Vice President (known international relations background)
• "Rambo" Emanuel for Chief of Staff (self-made millionaire in financial markets and known as a tuff negotiator while in elected office)
• Tom Daschle for Sec of Health and Human Services (former majority and minority whip of the US Senate)

The post I am really curious to see is who is picked for Sec of Defense, with two wars raging and Obama having no defense experience.

• Gates to stay (temporarily) I think sends the wrong message, being that he is on the Bush cabinet, and lacks senior military command experience, being primarily from the intelligence community (CIA), and Texas A&M (president & dean of George Bush School)... Gates is a Bush man through and through.
• A serving or former General/Admiral with combat experience, ideally on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if not Chair or former Chair of JCS, and more than likely a Republican (to reach across to them)? This would be my choice, not only to help prosecute and withdraw from the wars, but to also rebuild a military that's been burned out by these seemingly endless wars.

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The only reason I can see that he may be offering her the job, is that he is looking beyond 2012, to be in office for 2 terms and knowing that she has a lot of support in the Democratic party it is best to keep her on board? Reminds me of what Churchill once said "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

Indeed! To unify the larger Democratic Party. Hillary actually beat Obama in popular primary votes, but insufficient delegates.

Manic Moran

Only time will tell? He is picking some rather heavy hitters for his team, these not on the former Clinton cabinet:

You didn't need to go any further than the main headline on the CNN web page this morning to see an article about how someone so heavy into 'change' is picking a lot of Clintonistas.

The headline has changed since, and moved to the sideline, but it's now http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/transition.wrap/index.html

Meanwhile, critics questioned whether Obama's top staff picks so far represent the "change" that he promised during the campaign. iReport.com: Who would you choose for Obama's cabinet?

More than half of the people named so far to Obama's transition or staff posts have ties to former President Bill Clinton's administration.

The Clinton-heavy team has caused some Republicans to question Obama's call for change.

"I think several individuals are very frustrated to think that President-elect Obama may just cut and paste from some of the Democratic operatives from the Clinton administration and put them into his White House," said Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor.

Republicans aren't the only ones who want Obama to branch out. Robert Kuttner, a liberal and author of "Obama's Challenge," says the president-elect should broaden his recruiting efforts.

"It's not as if the only competent people who ever served in government or who are capable are serving in government are veterans of the Clinton administration, so he's got to be careful how many Clintonistas he appoints to top level government posts," Kuttner said.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

You didn't need to go any further than the main headline on the CNN web page this morning to see an article about how someone so heavy into 'change' is picking a lot of Clintonistas.

I believe that Daschle is an excellent choice to foster health reform legislation through Congress. He certainly knows the Congressional mechanics after being both minority and majority whip in the US Senate. So I don't care if he is a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Man from Mars, so long as he can get the job done. Thus far Clinton promised health care reform, and Bush promised reform, and both failed in their terms of office during the past 16 years. The US now has millions of aged and Baby Boomers retiring that can hardly afford annual double digit health care cost increases, and 47 million Americans without any insurance coverage. The system in the US is broke, and needs fixing.

Who are the uninsured?

• Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005, the latest government data available.
• The number of uninsured rose 2.2 million between 2005 and 2006 and has increased by almost 9 million people since 2000.
• The large majority of the uninsured (80 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.
• The increase in the number of uninsured in 2006 was focused among working age adults. The percentage of working adults (18 to 64) who had no health coverage climbed from 19.7 percent in 2005 to 20.2 percent in 2006. Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006.
• Nearly 90 million people - about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.
• Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families - almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.
• The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.
• In 2005, nearly 15 percent of employees had no employer-sponsored health coverage available to them, either through their own job or through a family member.
• In 2006, 37.7 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.
• The number of uninsured children in 2006 was 8.7 million - or 11.7 percent of all children in the U.S. The number of children who are uninsured increased by nearly 610,000 in 2006, the second year that the number of uninsured children increased.

Source: http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

brianthebard

Manic Moran wrote: »

You didn't need to go any further than the main headline on the CNN web page this morning to see an article about how someone so heavy into 'change' is picking a lot of Clintonistas.

Clintonistas- :rolleyes: Given the nature of the two party system and the long time the Dems have had in opposition, it makes sense to pick people who have experience (please hold your Obama has no experience lines everyone).

My concern would be if Obama has started to buy into his own hype-which he undoubtedly has, the question is to what degree-then he may start to see himself as the appeaser, JFK, Lincoln and an undefined number of Roosevelt's rolled into one. That will be a very dangerous game for him to play, since having one eye on his image and his legacy leaves him cross eyed when it comes to the hear and now.

Manic Moran

I believe that Daschle is an excellent choice to foster health reform legislation through Congress.

He may well be. And he's not actually a Clinton administration veteran. And indeed, as Brian points out, if you want anyone with Presidential Administration experience you pretty much have to take either a Clinton or Bush veteran.

But there is a huge pool of people out there who are not former Administration insiders but have perfectly good minds, either in the private sector, State levels, or just Feds who didn't work for Clinton, like Tom.

NTM

RichTea

I really don't believe that Hilary as Secretary of State would be a good idea for the Obama administration. Certainly more trouble that its worth.

Otacon

RichTea wrote: »

I really don't believe that Hilary as Secretary of State would be a good idea for the Obama administration. Certainly more trouble that its worth.

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

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

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.

In Clinton's case, during her current term in the Senate, which began in January 2007, cabinet salaries were increased from $186,600 to $191,300. This situation has arisen before, most famously in the case called "The Saxbe Fix," but it involves a controversial, somewhat tortured reading of the Sacred Document.

CtrlSource

latenia wrote: »

So much for change then... There are Americans in their 50s who haven't yet had the chance to partake in a presidential election not involving a Clinton or a Bush. Hilldog probably sees this as a chance to build for 2016 when she'll have more international experience in her right, not hanging on Bill's coattails. Plus she'll be more grandmotherly which is more palatable to the electorate than an ambitious career woman. Who knows, maybe one of the other Bush boys will throw their hat in as well...

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. By then there may well be a new up & coming generation of Democrats in contention.

* Of course i could be proven wrong. Nixon and Reagan come to mind. McCain's run this year also demonstrates that age is not a disqualifying factor. But for many Americans, McCain's age and health coupled with his pick of an inexperienced running mate were unpalatable

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?