Comments on: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?!

By: Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:50:40 +0000

[...] previously expressed reservations about the pick remain. If nothing else, though, it’ll be [...]

By: movie fan

movie fan — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:44:21 +0000

if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will be able to concentrate on country-centric issues without being distracted by other drama or her career plans

By: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Take Two

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Take Two — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:35:02 +0000

[...] rumors surfaced Friday that Hillary Clinton was being seriously considered for Secretary of State, I was more than a little skeptical, stating “he’s simply not qualified. Aside from some [...]

By: patrick

patrick — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:38:41 +0000

Sam Nunn would be my choice. Hillary Clinton requires a spot light and a microphone. Time for a statesman - not a wannabe...

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:52:37 +0000

Why in the GREAT GREEN/BLUE/PURPLE HELL would Obama need a Secretary of State?

By: Deanna

Deanna — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:22:19 +0000

ROTFLMAO Wait while I wipe the tears of giggling off my cheeks..LOL...Really? LOL YOU think YOU know more than the team Obama has put together as to who is qualified to be SOS? LOLOLOL Really? Think much of yourself? LOL You sit at a computer and blog...LOL Give us all a break and buy a clue! Oh wait No ...keep at it! Your the best laugh of the day!

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:16:35 +0000

I'm not sure that judging experience is necessary, since it's an appellate court, although I'd prefer someone with an intellectual paper trail.

I think it's more necessary now than ever. The overwhelming preponderance of the law is the common law and that's a river you can't step in twice. Or, to use a different literary analogy, you have to run twice as fast just to stay in the same place.

By: Dantheman

Dantheman — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:29:51 +0000

"I'm not sure that judging experience is necessary" Historically, it hasn't been viewed as necessary, as relatively few justices in the 18th or 19th century came from the lower courts. Even in the 20th, it was not really necessary, as Justices from William Rehnquist to Hugo Black to Earl Warren were active politically and not judicially before being appointed to the Supreme Court. It's only in the last few decades (and especially among Republicans) that this has changed (IIRC, Clinton wanted to appoint Bruce Babbitt to the Supremes, but Orrin Hatch persuaded him that it would be difficult to get him through the Senate, so he appointed Breyer instead).

By: Wizbang

Wizbang — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:27:15 +0000

Just stand by as the entire internet crashes...

Hillary Clinton's name has come up as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama administration. Slate's Emily Yoffe muses- I wonder if the Obama administration would waive the 63-item......

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:18:34 +0000

James, what are Hillary Clinton's qualification for being nominated to the Supreme Court, other than an eminently predictable vote?

She wouldn't be a stellar choice in my view but she's a graduate of a top law school, seems to be highly intelligent, and has a command of the public policy debate. I'm not sure that judging experience is necessary, since it's an appellate court, although I'd prefer someone with an intellectual paper trail.

By: charles austin

charles austin — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:40:56 +0000

James, what are Hillary Clinton's qualification for being nominated to the Supreme Court, other than an eminently predictable vote? She has never been a judge, and I'm not aware of any sterling legal work that anyone can point to. This just seems to be a very wierd suggestion.

But kudos for the laughs in bringing out the folks who think that someone qualified to be president should be able to do any job, especially since there are only three actual qualifications for president, 1) that you are 35 years old, 2) that you are a natural born citizen, and 3) that you get a sufficient number of electoral votes in the election (or in the House if it gets thrown there).

By: Jamie

Jamie — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:47:50 +0000

It begs the question--why is the Secretary of State not chosen from among longtime career Foreign Service officers?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:45:22 +0000

Whatever else might be said about this, what we have here is yet another Clinton misadministration retread.

This constitutes 'change'?

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:54:33 +0000

Wasn't Eric Holder one of the names floating around for an AG contender?

Thanx DC. According to Wiki, he is "favored".... for whatever that is worth. Their bio of him is a little thin.

By: Floyd

Floyd — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:48:08 +0000

As I watch our government (D?)evolve, I pity the likes of the creators of "Monty Pythons Flying Circus" and the frustration they must feel when trying to lampoon government through ridiculous exaggeration.
Difficult at best,likely impossible!
Would anyone even doubt the existence of a "Bureau of Silly Walks" today, let alone find it humorous??