I have yet to hear a pro-Hillary for SoS person fully explain:

[FLAprogressive]

- Why she is more qualified than John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc. for the job. (and I have yet to hear someone mention any bona fide foreign policy credentials except the fact that Bill was prez/does his foundation)
- Why all of the neocons are so excited over the possibility of her becoming SoS.
- Why she shouldn't be vetted like any other candidate should (a lot of people are complaining about Bill & her being vetted for some reason).

[fascisthunter]

1. I don't Think You Ever Will

Just as long as a DLCer gets into a powerful position.

[FLAprogressive]

2. Bingo. Also these people are completely in love with everything "Clinton". n/t

[fascisthunter]

8. Because they Benefit from the Economic Policies and IDeology

that the Republicans do but will never admit as much. Always, follow the money...

[Rockholm]

112. Is there something wrong with sound economic policy?

You all need to get a grip.

[fascisthunter]

121. What "sound" Economic Policy Might That Be..? NAFTA? CAFTA?

Sounds fascinating....

"Center Right" policies are good for those who already make pretty good money. Not good for average Americans like myself. If you really believe in Trickle-down economics, then I have a bridge to no where to sell to you.

[jefferson_dem]

10. Really?

Please don't make such wild-eyed generalizations without having the facts. Many who are supportive of Hillary as SoS could hardly be characterized as lovers of "all things Clinton." Take me as an example.

[MadBadger]

23. What does Hillary offer that somebody like Bill Richardson doesnt?

[FLAprogressive]

24. Clinton Drama and Distractions baby! n/t

[jefferson_dem]

26. Compared to Richardson? Intellectual stature, charisma, and elegance...

In my view.

I've never been a fan of Richardson, if you can't tell.

[MadBadger]

44. I dont agree with you on intellectual stature, and I dont really care all that much for elegance

Charisma sure, but I think hes 20 times more qualified for this job then she is.

[jefferson_dem]

46. Don't the same things that make RIchardson 20 X more qualified than Hillary to be SoS...

make him at least 40 X more qualified than Obama to be POTUS?

[qwlauren35]

72. Yes. That's Why I Supported Richardson - Experience.

However, the best president is not necessarily the one with the most experience but the one with sufficient leadership skills and confidence to surrounds him or herself with capable people, who may have more experience than s/he does. I think picking Richardson for SoS would be an example of grabbing someone with experience and placing him under your leadership.

Richardson was far more experienced; Obama was far more visionary.

[dkf]

87. Charisma and elegance are not words that I tend to

associate with Hillary.

I'd probably use something more like driven.

[Rockholm]

113. Richardson has none of the grace that a SoS needs.

He may be a good man and all that, but jefferson_dem is right. Hillary is vastly superior in all of the intangibles that are required to be a good SoS. She would be a brilliant representative for the US on the world stage.

[Vattel]

54. exceptional intelligence n/t

[MadBadger]

60. Explain please

[TwilightGardener]

3. All good questions. I keep hearing talking heads insisting she's smart and would do

a great job--based on WHAT? She has a very mixed record in terms of competence. White House Travelgate. Health Care reform. Her own campaign, where she was rolled by idiots like Penn. Gag.

[FLAprogressive]

7. Careful. They'll call you a "sexist" for saying that. n/t

[karynnj]

32. That's where I come out too

You can throw in her Senate career too - Obama had 2 solid pieces of work that he did - the nuclear proliferation one (Obama/Lugar) and many parts of the ethics bill that did not have his name on it. His career was shorter than hers. (Or if you want to compare to John Kerry, by the time he had been in the Senate as long as HRC, he had completed the investigations of both the Contras - without him, they could have swept that whole ugly mess under the rug and BCCI - leading to closing OBL's bank (not to mention one that laundered a lot of international drug money.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I could support her for an Education or HHS role, because it seems that's

where most of her career and legislative strengths lie. But compared to Kerry, Lugar, Richarsdson, Susan Rice, Hagel--the "usual suspects" who were rejected--where is her foreign policy expertise? First Lady stuff? Osmosis through Bill? And what will Biden do now? He'll be overshadowed by "star power" and Clintonian shenanigans. I am just not getting this at all, except in a political context (better your enemies in the tent pissing out, etc.)--and if Obama is making this decision in that context, then I'm disappointed.

[Muttocracy]

47. I'm with you - there are dozens of senators and career diplomats and ambassadors

who would be better for that position.

:shrug:

[bdamomma]

108. I hope Biden gives in his two cents.

[karynnj]

68. Biden can pull rank

The President decides the foreign policy with input from anyone he wants - in addition to the SoS. He can assign Biden the lead role on say - an Iraq summit. I would expect that all the people you name - except Hagel, unless he has a role in the administration (otherwise he has no clearance) will be people whose opinions are asked.

The Sos job can range from being the key foreign policy person to something much less.

[Lord Helmet]

69. I'd say domestic stuff if I had a gun to my head

But I don't think he owes her.

[WolverineDG]

101. You forgot "Savior of Sarajevo"

I'm still :wow: over that incident.

dg

[FLAprogressive]

102. And it would be the mean old media, in the tank for Obama, who would be responsible for bringing....

....THAT up.

[WolverineDG]

109. You mean Obama told her to keep lying about sniper fire

:rofl:

dg

[TwilightGardener]

103. LOL! Yeah, I don't understand why her campaign wasn't dead in the water

after that giant whopper. She should have been a permanent laughing stock, but the media keeps propping her up.

[WolverineDG]

110. I guess they're still operating under the pre-YouTube rules

:shrug:

dg

[w4rma]

4. Don't you want 4 - 8 years of Clinton DRAMA in the Whitehouse? Go Hillary for drama! (nt)

:sarcasm:

[blue_onyx]

75. I'm glad Bill Maher addressed this "drama" stuff

on the Rachel Maddow show. He pointed the "drama" is mostly in people's head. What have they done to earn the distinction of being so dramatic...other than the fact that the media (and clearly everyone on DU) talk about them endlessly.

[Skwmom]

82. Yeah, real genius that one. He said the only drama they have provided is the intern. What a joke.

I guess people only imagined all of the other Clinton drama.

[blue_onyx]

83. Well, name some of the "drama" they caused

specific examples please.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

118. you kidding?

Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Whitewater, Hillary carpetbagging to NY, Bosnia snipergate, Travelgate, etc etc.

That's just off the top of my head...not saying it's all their fault or justified, but it's there.

[blue_onyx]

119. I was simply agreeing....

with Bill Maher that a lot of the "drama" is media created. As Hillary pointed out there was a "Rightwing conspiracy" to take down Bill which is where a lot of the scandals came from. The Bosnia thing was election year BS, but I think some drama is to be expected during a campaign. I don't remember Hillary's tenure in the US Senate being full of drama so I'm not so sure why everyone thinks there would be all kinds of drama if she is selected for SoS.

[anonymous171]

5. Christopher Hitchens isn't thrilled about it.

[moondust]

The old sot is right once in a while.

"Ludicrous."

[Vattel]

55. who gives a fuck? n/t

[NashVegas]

61. Christopher Hitchens Is a Blowhard

[mwei924]

6. She's more famous than the others I guess. But I'm not sure higher profile = better SoS.

Not that she'd be a horrible choice, but its not worth all the potential drama.

[DCBob]

9. I am not totally pro-Hillary for SoS but I can see good reasons:

-- She has "star power" and is well known and well respected around the world.
-- She knows the issues, is a tireless worker and could deliver on some key issues.
-- It solidifies the party and defuses a potential challenge from a strong rival.
-- She is a woman and Barack needs a few good women in his cabinet.

[Fabio]

13. good points. massively undercuts 'change' image though, particularly overseas

[emulatorloo]

19. She's a change from Bush and Condi, for sure. . . EOM

[Fabio]

27. that's true

but to me, this campaign was not just about changing from the past 4-8 years. That's too low a bar. This campaign stretched well beyond and start well before that and is/was about fundamental changes in the way we politic and govern -- in tone, on issues of basic fairness and in terms of the duration of our point of view.

I think the Clintons did some good things in the 1990s, and avoided some real mistakes, but they also really missed some opportunities to lead IMHO.

[Zynx]

62. The Clintons have a fairly positive image overseas.

[blue_onyx]

80. True but so did BIden

I know many on DU disagree that Biden doesn't equal change but I don't think a person who has been a US Senator for almost 36 years is exactly change either. I think the Biden pick for VP worked out great. So I'm not so sure a Hillary pick for SOS would a be problem either.

How does it undercut "change" particularly overseas?

[FLAprogressive]

15. So in that case Britney Spears could be SoS.

She has star power and she's a woman.

I don't think we should have a woman as Secretary of State just for the same of having a woman. If a person is qualified and has bona fide foreign policy cred...then the job should go towards them, regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

Hillary is not qualified for the job, compared to the other candidates. End of story.

[DCBob]

18. It's the whole package not just because she is a famous woman.

Geez.

[jefferson_dem]

20. Ridiculous.

If your "qualifications game" was all that, we wouldn't be saying President-elect Obama today.

Hillary is plenty "qualified" and will make a terrific SoS if she is seated as such.

[Cleita]

22. Britney Spears is a Republican and is probably qualified to run

as Sarah Palin's running mate in 2012. How's that for bimbo power?

[blue_onyx]

74. As a Britney fan, don't compare her to Palin...

That's a comparison nobody deserves. Plus, I don't think she's a Republican...I doubt she even voted.

[Cleita]

86. I think you never saw the interview where she said that

what ever her President said is what we should follow. That President was and still is George Bush.

[blue_onyx]

114. Actually I did see the interview

That was, sadly, the opinion of the majority of Americans at the time (not just Republicans). She was giving the PC answer. There may have been a time when she was younger that she would have said she was Republican. That would have been because her family was Republicans and that's what she were suppose to say. I know WAY too much about her and from following her since I was 14, I think she is a more Democratic person. If she did vote this time, I think she voted for Obama.

[Cleita]

17. What a lot of Americans don't realize because our "liberal" media

never gave him any credit for it, is that Bill Clinton is highly thought of around the world, which I believe will open doors to real diplomacy that have been shut to Condi Rice and Colin Powell. She also has Big Dawg to advise her. Remember the Clinton mantra, two for the price of one?

[City Lights]

96. That was just discussed on WGN News with Rick Pearson.

He literally cited Bill's popularity around the world, and Bill-Hill being a SOS twofer, as long as Bill stays on script.

[politicasista]

11. She won't embarrass Obama unlike

that Judas Richardson or the boring, no personality, loose cannon, gaffe-prone Kerry. Both will embarrass Obama. Hillary will love and support him and his message.


:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Alexander]

12. Excellent thread, but I predict the DLC fans will attack you in about 10 seconds.

[FLAprogressive]

16. I'm used to these folks....same tired old arguments about the "center". n/t

[BeyondGeography]

14. It's a pretty crafty move, actually

Because of the way the primary played out, she can be positioned as bad cop to Barack's good cop. The Ahmedinejad's and Chavez's of the world know she is suspicious of them, and they also know Obama is ready to deal with them. Putting Hillary in the SoS role tells them any rewards will have to be earned, all before a single phone call has been made. Keeps those wily fuckers off balance, if you know what I mean, in a way that Richardson and Kerry would not coming out of the gate.

As for our established allies they'll be fully on board. My only concern is the media (and Bill) turning her confirmation hearings into a sideshow that eats up valuable time early on.

[Fabio]

21. This is thoughtful, but at the end of the day,

I think what most of us feel like re HRC is that we would rather the new President surround himself in key cabinet positions with people who have proven they would fall on the sword for him, as opposed to maybe those who have the knives out for him.

[BeyondGeography]

31. I think the role is big enough for her that she would put country first

if you'll excuse the phrase. It's a gutsy move by Barack, and Hillary has shown herself to be more of a team player than many of us thought. Again, Bill, his loose ways and his loose lips are a much bigger concern for me. She can be loyal to something bigger than herself; not so sure about him.

[karynnj]

35. Nicely put - and SoS is a place he likely needs that type of loyalty

and we know exactly who the Clintons are loyal to.

[Cleita]

25. Also, it may put her

out of running against him in 2012.

[mwei924]

28. She's not dumb enough to challenge him in 2012 only to get trounced again.

[Fabio]

29. if she starts running again in 34 months, she will

be ostracized in the Party. It's too transaparent.

[Dragonfli]

52. There is no way to be ostracized in our party - look at lieberman

[BeyondGeography]

34. That too

It's crafty as hell, really. Our guy is playing chess on this one.

[HughMoran]

88. It also takes a possible adversary out of the Senate

Knowing that she would want to establish herself as a formidable presence in the Senate that Obama would have to "negotiate" with, bringing her beside him not only removes this possibility, it has the effect of "keeping your enemies even closer".

It's a very sophisticated play if you ask me. Oh, and she is one heck of a strong person - you can bet foreign leaders will not "dis" her on a regular basis.

[quickesst]

30. Poor souls....

....so sure that members of DU who support HRC as SOS are wrong because they agree with Obama. Hillary fever will do that.:crazy: Thanks.
quickesst

[Tribetime]

33. I'm not qualified to question Obama's decission

[TwilightGardener]

41. Sure you are. You were qualified to hire HIM, weren't you? Why shouldn't you have

an opinion on his staff, especially if they're well-known?

[Tribetime]

48. I would have liked Kerry, but my opinion is crap ..I'm a plumber

at least I'm licensed, and this is something we don't have a vote on, the only one who counts is Obama.

[ProSense]

36. From what I've read, it's because she comes with Bill,

whatever that's worth.

Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

link

[Cleita]

39. And why is that bad?

We are in such a dire place globally that we need all the brains and experience we can get however we can get them.

[ProSense]

43. I always think declarations that undercut U.S. foreign policy are good,

especially in support despicable foreign leaders.

:sarcasm:

[noiretextatique]

37. maybe you should write obama and ask him why

she a contender for the job, since he (apparently) picked her.

[Motown_Johnny]

64. I have a tin hat theory about that

If she is given the post then it is her job to carry out the will of the President. This effectively silences both her and her husband as voices of dissent to his policies.

If she is not given the post, after it being know she was considered, then her position is diminished. It will be assumed she either made unreasonable demands or something was found in the vetting process that made her unacceptable. Either way both Clintons lose.


This may be why she is being considered for S.O.S.

The Clinton era is dead, this is it's funeral.

[noiretextatique]

116. that's plausible...except

why would she object to obama's policies? there isn't much difference between them, and his transition team is comprised mostly of clinton era people. perhaps obama values and respects her as a person and a colleague: a colleague he doesn't disagree with very much.

[rug]

38. Your post has more assumptions in it than a catechism.

[Metric System]

42. Amen! I mean, agreed.

[tinrobot]

45. She's plenty qualified / who cares / they are vetting her.

Why she is more qualified than John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc. for the job.

She's plenty qualified, so are they. Obama's decision factors in more than just a resume.

Why all of the neocons are so excited over the possibility of her becoming SoS.

Who cares. I suspect they like her because they already know how to hate her. Hate is very important to them.

Why she shouldn't be vetted like any other candidate should

She and Bill are both being vetted.

[JuniperLea]

49. Are all y'all going to stomp your feet if Obama picks her?

I need to know in advance... I have a cake to make and if y'all are going to throw a stinking hissy fit, I'll just wait until after the announcement, thank you very much.

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

50. Yes - I wanted real change not more of the same. n/t

[JuniperLea]

57. How do you know this isn't real change?

Until it's all put in practice, there's really nothing to argue about.

[xchrom]

51. go look at her public record -- and get back to us.

for fucks sake -- ignorant crap.

[Motown_Johnny]

53. It is a reasonable question.. maybe you did not understand the OP

"Why she is more qualified than John Kerry, Bill Richardson, etc. for the job. (and I have yet to hear someone mention any bona fide foreign policy credentials except the fact that Bill was prez/does his foundation)"



During the primaries there were comments made about her "having tea in 50 countries". The implication was that she did not have any actual experience in foreign policy and was merely a figure head.

Her response was to tell stories about her landing in Bosnia that turned into "Sniper-gate". There was never any answer to the accusation that she has no foreign policy experience.


Richardson and Kerry have actual foreign policy experience. Richardson being the ambassador to the U.N. and Kerry next in line to head Foreign Relations in the Senate now that Biden is V.P..



Honestly, I am not against Sen. Clinton as S.O.S. but the OP's questions should not simply be dismissed.

[political_Dem]

58. Thank you. There's a lot that needs to be explained when vetting Hillary Clinton.

Because foreign relations is perilous right now, we need someone who can do the job. These times cannot afford star power.

[xchrom]

67. look at her public record. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

79. That is the point, I have looked at it in detail.

as far as I can tell she has no actual foreign policy experience


Please supply one specific. Right now it appears you can't and are just avoiding the question.

[FLAprogressive]

98. They can't supply specific answers.....so it's "look it up yourself"nt

[blue_onyx]

78. You're right, it's a reasonable question

except this part: "Why all of the neocons are so excited over the possibility of her becoming SoS."

Who cares what the neocons say. The necon shouldn't have any effect on the selections Obama makes and I don't get why anyone would look their opinions to justify a possible appointment. This part of the question was pointless.

I personally like Kerry best. Richardson is qualified too but I have issues with him.

[Motown_Johnny]

81. I was only referring to the first question

[LostinVA]

120. That's why I won't answer -- it's not an honest nor sincere question

It's a set-up, baiting one.

And, I don't even want Hillary as SOS.

[Sensitivity]

77. Go compare her public record with Kerry and Richardson == does not compare in FP credentials

[wyldwolf]

56. kinda reminds me of the daily (sometimes twice daily) posts during the primaries...

"Would a Clinton supporter explain why she's qualified... blah blah blah."

[wisteria]

59. Exactly, all they say is she is so qualified for the positon. They say that about everyting she

wants or they want her to do.

[BlooInBloo]

63. For the 3rd, Clinton supporters are likely to say that she already HAS been vetted...

But ITA on the first two.

[Vattel]

65. She was involved in many

diplomatic efforts and foreign policy decisions in the Clinton White House. So she obviously has foreign policy experience beyond being the wife of a president (something Laura Bush could also claim). Satisfied?

[Motown_Johnny]

66. Nope, I'm not satisfied.. name one specific

It was my understanding that she was not in the room when these decisions were being made.

During the primaries when her foreign policy experience was questioned her response was to tell a story about Bosnia that turned into "Sniper-gate".

We never got any specific example of any actual foreign policy experience, including Ireland.

[cooolandrew]

70. I can only suggest reading her biography to illustrate how she would be good for the postion as it >

explains better than I could.

[Erin Elizabeth]

71. I just found out no one has been on record confirming that

she has even been offered the job, much less that she has it.

This whole thing is just ridiculous.

Personally I think Kerry would make an excellent SoS. Funny how you don't hear all these rumors about anyone else but Clinton. Hmmmm.

[bdamomma]

111. I think the media is fueling the fire again.

Obama on that 60 minutes interview said he called her in for advice, and that was it, Obama has not said anything yet. Hopefully the other candidates will be vetted too.

[Generator]

73. They can't.

It's a cult of personality. It's not based on anything she's actually DONE. It's certainly not based on her lacking diplomatic skills-which I found quite on display all through the election and through years of watching her in the senate. She has a way of pissing people off-which I don't find too handy for a a diplomat. But for those that adore her, you can't have rational discussions with people in love. Which I'm finding out with the Obama as well.

"We MUST trust his judgment" because..... he won an election. I will trust his judgment once he actually does some of the things he promised.

[FLAprogressive]

99. Exactly. Anyone who questions this is now an "Obama hater". Of course some of these folks.....

....were the biggest Obama haters EVER during the primaries.

These Hillary folks can only project....

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

76. I reckon I'll wait for President Obama to tell us why

Odd, I still trust his judgement.

[Mid_FL_voter]

84. There are multiple people who are qualified & HRC is one of them.

IMHO, HRC brings some connections that others just do not yet have. That gives her a head start, which I feel we can use since Bush & Company put us waaaaaaaaay in back of the line.

That doesn't mean that there aren't others that cannot do a good job as SOS.

[apocalypsehow]

85. OTOH, all that combat experience in the Balkans - dodging snipers and such - is a definite plus.

:thumbsup:

[fujiyama]

89. My take (as someone that didn't like her until she conceded the primary):

The idea of Hillary as Secretary of State never actually crossed my mind until it was floated around, but immediately it caught my interest.

Why?

The Clinton name carries a positive reputation around the world. Clinton was president during a time of relatively peace and prosperity in many countries. He engaged not only friendly nations, but other not so friendly nations as well (like North Korea for example). He skillfully used diplomacy in many areas of the world, ending successfully (N. Ireland) and not so successfully in some cases (Middle East). In some conflicts he was able to bring unstable nations away from the brink (read about Clinton's handling of Pakistan during the Kargil war between India and Pakistan). Also, his work in combating AIDS in Africa as well as tsunami relief has been appreciated worldwide.

Now Hillary is not her husband. We all know that. In some cases, her rhetoric has been more hawkish than her husband. However, she is still incredibly sharp and projects not only a sense of power, but respect. While I'm not familiar with situations where she directly negotiated with foreign powers, she has sat on the Armed Services Committee. She seems skilled in the art of diplomacy having worked in the Senate (not the same as dealing with foreign leaders, but hey I'm sure it can get tense). She met many foreign leaders when she was first lady (though obviously leadership has changed in most countries).

Finally, I also think the trust she has among many immigrant communities in the US is a HUGE benefit and cannot be underestimated. She is very popular among Asian, Latino, as well as Eastern European immigrants. This link with the expatriate communities helps greatly since these groups do provide a lot of foreign exchange for families back in their native country and likewise some influence in business and politics in those countries.

The other names are fine. Kerry, Richardson, Holbrooke, etc would likely be good picks, but I think Hillary would be especially well suited for this. And while many prefer a traditional pick with years of experience in the diplomatic community, Hillary may be an interesting change. Yes, this is probably more risky a pick than others but potentially very effective as well.

[OneBlueSky]

90. my prediction is that Obama will end up regretting this appointment . . .

whether they exist or not, the media will soon be talking about the "Obama faction" and the "Clinton faction" of the Democratic Party . . .

how accurate that characterization will be remains to be seen . . . but you can bet that's how it will be "reported" . . .

(gotta gin up conflict wherever possible, don'tcha know) . . .

[CTyankee]

91. Why don't you ask Obama? He's the one who's interested in having her as SOS.

If you really want to know, that is...

[LanternWaste]

92. And I have yet to hear...

And I have yet to hear what the precise and relevant qualification for SoS are. How she doesn't meet them while other candidates for the position do...

I have yet to hear why progressives should give a good damn what the neocons may, or may not think of any Democratic candidate for the position...

I have yet to hear anyone complain about her getting vetted...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, you see.

I imagine we all hear only what we want to, and easily disregard those things that don't better validate our own opinions. :eyes:

[Orsino]

93. If we admit that one of the qualifications...

...is to be loved around the globe, I think we have to admit that Clinton brings this to the table--more so than any of the supposedly more qualified people.

Rebuilding America's image is important, and perception of our SecState may therefore be as important as her resume.

I think that she will do a good job.

[Chichiri]

94. As a pro-Hillary-for-SoS person, here's my response:

* She's probably not. She's probably slightly less qualified, at least in areas of foreign policy.

* Because she's Bill's wife. You know, Bill "Lewinsky" Clinton? That Bill! She's gonna be SO much fun to rag on!

* She SHOULD be vetted like any other candidate, and if she's not, she shouldn't get the job.

[FLAprogressive]

97. Well that's the closest I've seen someone come so far. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

95. why dont you ask obama? he is the one in charge nt

[FLAprogressive]

100. And it seems like the only "answers" so far are non-answers.

"She's qualified! Look it up!"
"Trust Obama's judgement!!"

are the two boilerplate answers. If her FP credentials were so easy to look up why haven't the Hillary lovers managed to explain them......

[BigDDem]

104. Ask Obama, it's his call baby!!

[FLAprogressive]

106. Thank you for proving my point. n/t

[npincus]

105. Feel free to pick either when you are President-Elect.

Obama has earned the right of his own judgement. I suppose all the bitchers and moaners here are getting nostalgiac for the B*sh years when he padded his Caninet with yes-men/women, political cronies and incompetents. If he picks HRC it's because he WANTS her there, and believes she would be an asset to his team and to us.

I don't claim to know more than BO, but he's been brilliant thus far, and I believe that his decisions are driven by what he believes is best for the country.

[FLAprogressive]

107. Why is it so hard to explain her credentials???

A SoS must have diplomatic and serious foreign policy experience.....has she negotiated with other countries?

[TexasObserver]

115. I have yet to hear an anti Hillary for SoS person fully explain:

Why do you think your judgment regarding Hillary's qualifications for Sec of State is better than Barack Obama's judgment that she is qualified?


You're not arguing with me. You're arguing with Obama. He is the person who beckoned her to Chicago last week. He's the person who has his people vetting her now. He's your problem, not assorted DU posters.

So accept the reality: Obama rejects entirely all your arguments against Hillary as SoS.

[always_saturday]

117. Like you are OWED an explanation?? ROFL!!!!! Get over yourself.