The Alan Grayson Page

The Anthony Weiner Page

Guest Contributors


  • BN-Politics' administrators respect, but do not necessarily endorse, views expressed by our contributors. Our goal is to get the ideas out there. After that, they're on their own.
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 05/2007

Blog Catalog

  • Liberalism Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory



« More Sleight of Hand re: Bailout Funds? | Main | A Roman Catholic Priest to Obama Supporters: No Eucharist for You! »

November 14, 2008


The Heretik

Need I state the obvious? I hope the rumors I will be Secretary of State are true too.


I'm kind of with Josh Marshall on this one. I think she'd do a good job, but I'm surprised she wants the job. She's trading senator-as-long-as-she-wants-it, with rapidly escalating influence, for 4, maybe 8 years running State for Obama.

I think it's a great move for Obama, for a variety of reasons, but it seems like a lateral move at best for HRC. Maybe she figures she can be SecState for one term, then return to the Senate in 2012 when her seat is up again?


Hold on a second here. My personal opinions of Hillary aside (though I have warmed up to her slightly the last few months), I can completely understand having her in the Cabinet or in the Administration in some sort of a prominent role for a variety of reasons. I can also understand being unenthused about Kerry as Sec of State. What I don't understand is why an anti-war liberal of any stripe would specifically view her as the best choice for Secretary of State given her legislative record on foreign affairs (specifically her support for the Iraq War, amongst other things). I frankly don't see how Hillary as Sec. of State would represent the slightest change at the top of the State Department over the last 25-30 years. Maybe there are simply no confirmable candidates who actually would represent a meaningful change, in which case I can understand this response....but surely there's someone who is a qualified dove.

As for political considerations - shouldn't liberals want to see Russ Feingold move into a position of influence on foreign affairs? I, for one, would.


Mark, the president makes policy. I do see your point in some narrow cases - for instance, her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment could be problematic in negotiations with Iran. But overall, the point is that she could handle the job competently and that she has an international profile.

As an aside, I've been meaning to blog about the recent grumblings from Iran. It now seems that Obama's stance on Iran amounts to calling Iran's bluff.

The comments to this entry are closed.