Speculation intensifies for Clinton at State
Speculation intensified today that Barack Obama would tap Hillary Clinton to lead his State Department -- despite a string of past disagreements the two have had over foreign policy.
The British newspaper the Guardian reported that Clinton will accept the position. The Guardian, however, relied on anonymous sources in its report, and so far is the only publication making such a bold declaration.
ABC News noted that the two sides were "inching closer" to an agreement:
"Serious progress has been made in the talks between the two, leaving both Obama and Clinton increasingly optimistic that the assignment will happen, sources say."
Ironically, Hillary's husband Bill, who some viewed as a detriment to her presidential campaign, may be holding up her State Department appointment as well. The former president's frequent travels, speeches, and meetings with international leaders have become part of the vetting process for the Obama team, The New York Times reports:
"The vetting of Mr. Clinton's myriad philanthropic and business dealings is 'complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides,' said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama's closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. 'There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they’d have to be made public.'
While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton's activities abroad."
If Clinton becomes secretary of state, she and Obama have a history of disagreements on foreign affairs to overcome. The Globe's Scott Helman today chronicled how the two sparred over international issues throughout the primary campaign, despite largely agreeing on many domestic policies.
"From their first clashes in the summer of 2007 through spring this year, Obama and Clinton fought bitterly over who had a deeper understanding of the world, exchanging sharp words over their international experience and their views on diplomacy, military strikes against terrorists, the right approach toward Iran, and the genesis of the Iraq war.
It is the one arena in which Obama and Clinton articulated significantly different visions. On a host of other issues - taxes, healthcare, jobs, free trade, investments in renewable energy - their positions were often indistinguishable."
Read more about the past disagreements here, and click here for a timeline of foreign policy disputes between Clinton and Obama.
Comment
Permalink
EmailThis blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
About Political Intelligence
News from the Washington Bureau
Senators voice optimism on public option
Health overhaul narrowly advances
Latinos, blacks take harder hit amid recession
Some lawmakers push back Catholic church on health care bill
Support wanes for curbs on credit-card interest rates
Obama domestic agenda largely a one-party effort
Beirut attack victims’ families face new hurdle
Powerful health care groups offer optimism on overhaul
FHA runs low on cash, fueling bailout concerns
Afghanistan wary of US plan to send more advisers
- Home
- |
- Today's Globe
- |
- News
- |
- Business
- |
- Sports
- |
- Lifestyle
- |
- A&E
- |
- Things to Do
- |
- Travel
- |
- Cars
- |
- Jobs
- |
- Homes
- |
- Local Search
'There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they’d have to be made public.'
~~~~~~~~~~
How VERY interesting. Obama requires everyone who might be appointed to have full disclosure as to where contributions came from.....and yet he himself did not do so with his online donations - even allowing people from foreign countries to make donations (didn't turn on the Address Verification System) as well allowing people to make donations under fake names or fake addresses (yet again, didn't turn on the Address Verification System to prove that donations under $200 were being made by the SAME CREDIT CARDS but with different addresses and fake names!)
So it sure sounds like a "Do as I say, not as I do" situation he's pulling here, doesn't it? Ought to be interesting to see how often that is pulled out over the next 4 years.
Madam Secretary Clinton, nice........ a good change after Condi, who was such a disappointment
This is change?
If the Guardian said it,...
Before Hillary Clinton can become Secretary of State:
1) Bill Clinton must provide a complete listing of all donors to his foundation and presidential library.
2) Both Bill and Hillary Clinton need to clearly indicate that any and all private financial dealings and other interactions with foreign leaders is now over, unless specifically authorized by the US government.
3) Hillary Clinton needs to publically discuss exactly what her approach to the job of Secretary of State would be and clearly indicate how she would be able to perform that job without any conflict of interest whatsoever.
If the Clintons are unwilling or unable to comply with the above requirements Hillary Clinton should not become Secretary of State.
So much criticism of Obama and he is not president and has made few decisions. What happens when one complains too much they get ignored. This is not the Clinton administration but you could not tell it from all the complaints.
The thing that distinguishes an Obama decision that surprises me from a surprise Obama decision is that I do not have the thought that the decision is one that is principally one of political expedience.
Please HRC take the Job, you won't last a year before Bill screws it up for you and then you will be out of the Senate and the Administration
The NY Gov can appoint RFK jr to the Senate and that will prevent you from being able to get it back and we can say Bye for good.
This is the 2nd best news for Senator Clinton (1st would have been President). I give Obama credity. When he became the democratic nominee - who did he call on to help stump for him to help get him elected - Hillary. Now when he needs a great Secretary of State, who does he call on - Hillary. And true to herself, she is always there to help and assist Obama. He owed her big time. Now it is payback Obama. She will go down as a great Secretary of State which of course will benefit Obama's administration and his legacy. Call on Hillary - always. She is the fixer for Obama - much the way you would call on a an older sister to help you in your time of need. To all the critics on this blog - we all know that your sore loser republicans. Tough year for the Senate, House & Presidencey. for republicans ("hit on the head") - your could have a Hillary. We did and do - Thank God!
Anyone wondering why Hillary through her support to Obama during the primaries? Clearly there was a back-room deal.
"Change" is what 52% of Americans (consisting of approximately 48% whotes, 96% blacks and 68% Hispanics) bought, and I wonder if so far they feel the are getting what they expected? Obama is smart and cunning...don't you think.
Does anyone remember the YouTube Debate? At that debate Obama clearly stated that he would be willing to meet in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of countries antagonistic to the United States. Clinton called Obama’s comments “irresponsible” and “naive.” Obama countered by accusing the Clinton campaign of hatching a “fabricated controversy” and suggested that her position put her on the same track as the Bush administration.
If he thinks she is on the same track as the Bush administration, is her appointment to Sec of State a representation of the change he is looking to make in his administration? Or is he really going to stay the course and in his usual ivy league elegance telling all those Americans who voted for him to f%&k off.
Don5000,
Yes there should be disclosure, and the vetting process by the Obama administration for all potential workers in its administration is more thorough (some say intrusive) than any prior administration.
As for 3) Hillary Clinton needs to publically discuss exactly what her approach to the job of Secretary of State would be and clearly indicate how she would be able to perform that job without any conflict of interest whatsoever.
You do know what a Senate confirmation hearing is, right?
Consider that the Guardian is the local equivalent of the Boston Herald. It's certainly not The Times. I'd take note of the fact that thus far, they're the only media organization going out on this limb.
Ugh! Obama should have absolutely nothing to do with the Clintons. If he truly wants to be seen as an advocate of change, he should stock his cabinet with people who are not tainted by scandal, greed, corruption or incompetence. Every day that passes, Obama's presidency looks more and more like all of the other presidential disasters that have crippled the nation.
WOW!! JUST WOW.. IT WOULD BE THE MOST COOLEST THING EVER. I AM GLAD TO KNOW THAT OBAMA'S NEW ADMINISTRATION IS IN THE PROCESS OF CREATING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL & THE MOST STAND OUT ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. I THINK IT WAS A GREAT CHOSE, I THINK SHE HAS, HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DO GRATER THINGS IF SHE'S GIVEN THE POSITION OF SEC OF STATE.
I CANT WAIT TO SEE THIS COUNTRY TURNING AROUND. AND AS "MR NEW PRESIDENT" MAKES HIS CHOSE CAREFULLY ... WE ARE ALREADY SEEING THE " CHANGE" IN DEMOCRACY..
HE ALREADY GOT SUM PPLS BLOOD BOIL ...
AND I AM GLAD TO BE ALIVE IN A TIME LIKE THIS AND BE A PART OF THE GREATEST HISTORY IN THE PROCESS OF WRITING..
>>>>>>
How about offering the Secretary Of State job to Colin Powell? He has a lot more experience than Clinton. Bill and Hill have too many questionable ethics issues.
Get back to us when you have news instead of speculation.
What happened to all this "change" Obama was talking about? He's appointing a bunch of dinosaurs from the Clinton era, including the head T-Rex herself. There's nothing inherently wrong with appointing cabinet members who were part of your party's previous administration...but it's hard to sell yourself as an agent of "change" when you're rehashing old retreads and rejects.
tahsan - Looks like you drank the kool-aid. I also love watching history and think it is truly great that the people of this country can move beyond the stigma that has plagued us since the end of the Civil War. But, come on. "CREATING THE MOST INFLUENTIAL & THE MOST STAND OUT ADMINISTRATION IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY." I guess the Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincloln, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan administrations are instantly push backed becuase Americans voted on 11/4th to elect a black president. I don't think Obama believes that she is A GREAT CHOSE or that SHE HAS, HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO DO GRATER THINGS IF SHE'S GIVEN THE POSITION OF SEC OF STATE. Did you hear his comments about her during the election? Plus, hasn't she been in Washington since 1992? Is that really change? And please tell me what " CHANGE" IN DEMOCRACY you are seeing? I am missing it, I guess. Bush is still our President. All Obama has done so far is appointing old Washington types to his trasition team and will most likely surrond himself with Washington folks....that was the deal he made with Hillary and the leaders of the Dems. He sold you "change" but is delivering "same old." To bad, cause you are right about the history. But, history is passing him by like a communter train...and he has no clue how to slow it down to get on!
Hillary can out think and tap dance around most any that were within W's cabinet. All but the 18% Bush approvalists know that. Neocon sceptics certainly must hold some reservations regarding an Obama presidency. Eight years free wheeling downhill is a hard act to follow. Perhaps some reruns of real revolution like the Newt Gingrich days will make you'all happy....The world is tired of old school / fear / doom and gloom / domination / macho politics from the USA. Go USA