pageok
pageok
pageok
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state?

In light of the bipartisan enthusiasm that has met this rumor, it might seem churlish to recall that Clinton has little foreign policy experience. You might remember the who-has-less-foreign-policy-experience debate during the primary; if you don't, click here for a sobering reminder.

It's not as though the Democrats lack qualified people. Take the rusty-nail-and-broken-glass-chewing Richard Holbrooke, who would be a good choice notwithstanding the Nobel peace prize nominations he has received. Holbrooke has his detractors, but his performance in the Bosnian crisis was impressive and he has tremendous experience. Unfortunately, he backed the wrong horse; now the horse will get the job that he deserves.

- (mail) (www):
Uh oh, did you just call Hillary a horse?
11.17.2008 12:27pm
Ohio Scrivener (mail):
This is a good-old fashioned win-win scenario. If Hillary becomes SOS, she can't plausibly run against Obama in 2012 or undercut him from the Senate. And it gives Republicans something to look forward to as well. For about half the year, it gets Hillary out of the country.
11.17.2008 12:27pm
R Nebblesworth:
"Notwithstanding" his Nobel nominations?
11.17.2008 12:29pm
The River Temoc (mail):
Clinton has little foreign policy experience

This was a canards during the primaries and it is a canard now.
11.17.2008 12:29pm
JS5 (mail):
Great move, imo. Though I don't like Clinton being around anything associated with foreign policy, Obama would do well to put her under his thumb. She isn't going away unless Obama does this.

And, if we're lucky, he will let her go in 2011.

Maybe Obama has been reading the 48 Laws of Power by Greene.....
11.17.2008 12:31pm
Jakobs ladder (mail):
Can you suggest a qualified democratic woman? Obama will be called upon to appoint women in high profile cabinet positions.
Also, it seems that negotiating acumen and ability to develop relationships with foreign heads-of-state should be high on the list of skills needed to be an effective secretary of state. It seems like generic questions about "foreign policy experience" miss the mark.
11.17.2008 12:40pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):
The reason Holbrooke likely will not get the nod is that he is infamous for leaking like a sieve. More so than the norm in Washington.

Picking Clinton would be the execrcise of the maxim: "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer."
11.17.2008 12:46pm
Nunzio:
Why would she take it? Doesn't she want to run in 8 years for President? This job would be a career killer from that perspective.
11.17.2008 12:50pm
Guest101:
I was struck by the Nobel comment too. Is the pursuit of international peace somehow inconsistent with diplomatic qualification? What a curious-- to use a polite term-- perspective.
11.17.2008 12:55pm
TPJ (mail):

If Hillary becomes SOS, she can't plausibly run against Obama in 2012 or undercut him from the Senate.


What? I don't think any Democrat, and certainly not Hillary, would plan to run against the incumbent Obama in 2012.
11.17.2008 12:59pm
Houston Lawyer:
I'm just going to go way out on a limb here and predict that Hillary doesn't get the job. The first qualification for any cabinet member should be the ability to take a back seat to the president. This would disqualify John Kerry, both Clintons and John Edwards.
11.17.2008 1:00pm
Sammy Finkelman (mail):
The problem is taht the vetting process leaves very few possibilities left for consideration. About the only people who can pass it are people in long term federal government employment who compiled information years ago.

Obama seems to have turned to Hillary after rejecting about 5 or 6 other choices.

Now Hillary of cours cannot really pass a thorough vetting but with the advice of Gregory B. Craig Obama Obama may decide it isn't really needed since everything is known about her, like she says, excet of couyrse that it isn't remembered - and as for former President Clintons post 2001 economic activity - maybe something can be worked out.
11.17.2008 1:01pm
TPJ (mail):

Why would she take it? Doesn't she want to run in 8 years for President?


When she's 69 years old? I think she's done as far a bid for the presidency is concerned.
11.17.2008 1:02pm
Nunzio:
TPJ,

Are you kidding? Reagan was almost 70 on inauguration day in 1981.

I can hear the cries of Sexism already warming up for anyone suggesting she is to old.

Anyway, she herself doesn't believe this. She wants to be POTUS. Good for her.
11.17.2008 1:06pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Bill Clinton (at present, an appendage to HRC) is knee deep in collecting contributions from foreign governments for his library and other agenda items. He draws speakers fees in the hundreds of thousands speaking abroad and telling the world how awful the Bush administration is.

Short of divorcing him, I don't see how HRC can avoid the encumbrance.

Holbrooke is no winner, either. In addition to his leaking problems, he demonstrated an inability to separate his own interests from the Department of State's while serving under Albright.

He was a general pain in the ass for US embassies abroad, short circuiting Ambassadors in their relations with the host government and sucking up embassy resources at a truly marvelous level. Seeing that State is primarily Democratic in its tilt, this has to be considered a non-partisan issue.

Whatever your thoughts about State Dept. and its employees, one should consider that were he to be named SecState he would be truly despised by those he was selected to lead. Nothing like walking up to the plate with two strikes against you, I guess....
11.17.2008 1:08pm
Yvette M. Cloutier (mail):
Tell me! Not a mention of Sara Palin or Joe the Plumber? How refreshing!
11.17.2008 1:08pm
Smallholder (mail) (www):
Give me Richardson - he already has foreign policy experience, is much more disciplined and a better manager than Hillary (She couldn't control her own people during the campaign - how would she fare with the famously factious State Department?), and is the future of the party. Biden and Hillary will be too old in 2016 (call me a sexist if you will, Nunzio). Richardson was also an early supporter of Obama. An effective president has to have discipline within his own party. He should not reward Hillary for prolonging the primary process past the point of any reasonable chance of success.
11.17.2008 1:12pm
TPJ (mail):

Are you kidding? Reagan was almost 70 on inauguration day in 1981.


Duly noted, and sexism aside, I think for the general public, an older woman would have a harder time getting elected than an older male. I would be more than happy to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
11.17.2008 1:13pm
Brian Mac:

This would disqualify John Kerry, both Clintons and John Edwards.

Because John Edwards would have been a front-runner otherwise...
11.17.2008 1:14pm
TPJ (mail):

Give me Richardson


Ditto.
11.17.2008 1:14pm
theobromophile (www):
He should not reward Hillary for prolonging the primary process past the point of any reasonable chance of success.

I seem to recall that she won the popular vote, and Obama lost it. He won on back room deals with super delegates.
11.17.2008 1:16pm
TPJ (mail):
My question would be why would Hillary make a good Sec of State, but not a good VP? Doesn't a Sec. of State have more responsibilities, both public and not, than the VP?
11.17.2008 1:21pm
Zathras (mail):
I'm also worried about Clinton's ability to take a back seat to Obama, even as a SOS. Reagan made this mistake by picking Al Haig, and the situation was a neverending headache for the 18 or so months Haig stayed in power.
11.17.2008 1:24pm
JA:
Clinton makes perfect sense as Obama's Seward.
11.17.2008 1:25pm
Joe Kowalski (mail):

I seem to recall that she won the popular vote,

There are legitimate arguments on both sides of this coin, usually coming down to how to count caucus states that didn't report individual vote totals and how to allocate the votes from the Michigan primary. That said, Obama clearly had won a plurality of the pledged delegates, with the supers needed to take him to over 50% needed for the nomination.
11.17.2008 1:26pm
guest:
Agree with assessments of Ohio Scrivener, JS5, and Nunzio: Advantage to Obama if he names HRC as Sec'y of State is that she DONE as a U.S. Senator, and she's completely under his control. As soon as she resigns that Senate seat from New York, she has run out of bargaining chips. ... Name her SoS; have her give you the requisite undated letter of resignation before you appoint her; in 18 months, tell her that she just decided to resign, and you're pleased with her wonderful service to the country, and sorry to see her go, "but Hillary has decided to spend time working with Bill on whatever." ... The way to cut her off at the hips (not the knees, but the hips) is for Obama to name her as SoS. ... She's unqualified, but it would get her gone, and the Demo NY gov would just appoint another Dem. Now, let's set back and see if Obama has the guts to get rid of a political opponet. If Obama names HRC as SoS, it may be a sign that there's a Machiavelli behind that big grin.
11.17.2008 1:28pm
Hoosier:
Hillary at State would be a bad choice, and a bad sign about the judgment of Obama and the people around him. Does Hillary have much foreign policy experience? No. she has "foreign experience," but this does not extend to taking a role shaping policy on important issues. It would, furthermore, be difficult to call her a leader on foreign relations issues during her time in the Senate.

All this would not be a problem were Obama an experienced foreign relations hand, who had developed a strategic view of American foreign relations over the course of his career. James Baker wasn't a conceptualizer, but he didn't need to be. George H. W. Bush knew where he wanted to go, and needed his Sec of State to be a capable negotiator and a loyal number 2. Same with, say, Dulles under Eisenhower.

Someone who comes to office with little or no experience making foreign policy and thinking about the issues on a regular basis needs someone who can serve to lead American foreign policy from the State Department, and be a significant player in the shaping of that policy. There's no reason to think that HRC could do so. (Think, in this case, of George Shultz's role in the Reagan Administration--which was incredibly lucky to have him.)

John Burgess raises the other Big Issue issue, which is Bill Clinton and potential conflicts of interest. The Clinton's went through this with Sandy Berger and China. I don't know that Obama wants to borrow that sort of trouble.

Richardson? Again, he's a negotiator, not a policy maker. And there's evidence that he really doesn't know as much as he should, given his resume.

Albright? I thought that she'd get more talk than she's getting. Perhaps the perception that she wasn't very good when she had the job is hurting her chances. But that would be reasonable. So it's probably irrelevant.
11.17.2008 1:29pm
jab:
theobromophile:

grow up already. hillary won the "popular vote" in the primaries only if you counted the unsanctioned michigan and florida primaries AND you ignore all the caucus states because they don't officially tally popular vote. sorry, but the fact that hillary's campaign strategy did not take into account of the rules governing the game is proof positive that she shouldn't be president.

as for those of you wondering about the impolitic jab at Nobel Peace Prizes, don't you know that on conservative leaning blogs, the Nobel Peace Prize is tantamount to socialist, communist, anti-christian, anti-white french-loving surrender monkey
11.17.2008 1:43pm
Charlie (Colorado) (mail):
She's got more than Obama. Shows more sign of being a good negotiator, too.
11.17.2008 1:52pm
Donny:
She would be a middling choice. But far better than the incompetent Bill Richardson.
11.17.2008 2:06pm
Sarcastro (www):
All of Obama's possible choices for Sec of state are horrible and that's why he is a failure already. Might as well impeach him now and swear in McCain.
11.17.2008 2:14pm
Mikeyes (mail):
None of the candidates for president (including Sen McCain) had much foreign policy experience, at least not the kind that a SoS needs. In addition, if you consider the way the Sen. Clinton ran her campaign - which ended in choas after being "a lock" because they failed to read the fine print in the various state election policies - I suspect that the same would occur in the State Department if it was run by her. She is not qualified for the position.

President elect Obama has as much foreign policy experience as the current office holder had when he was elected (not a good example) or Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and a host of other presidents. Obama needs to hire a true professional for the job, the way most presidents have in the past 100 years.
11.17.2008 2:14pm
richard cabeza:
sorry, but the fact that hillary's campaign strategy did not take into account of the rules governing the game is proof positive that she shouldn't be president.

Yes, because it's the candidate's fault that those States' legislatures moved their primaries. Terrible strategizing there.
11.17.2008 2:15pm
Midnight Rambler:
Hillary would be a a good choice, a tough talker and negotiator. However, as someone mentioned before, her husband's myriad connections abroad might disqualify her- too many potential conflicts of interest. Even the NYT discussed this angle in a recent article, called "Clinton Vetting Includes Look at Mr. Clinton."
11.17.2008 2:17pm
Joe - Dallas (mail):
Can you suggest a qualified democratic woman? Obama will be called upon to appoint women in high profile cabinet positions.


madamn Albrigt - she proved quite adept at the neville chamberlien two step with arafat
11.17.2008 2:21pm
DiversityHire:
I thought Obama was working to eliminate greedy private contractors from federal government agencies. How's hiring Hillary! and Bill consistent with that?

Is the well really so dry that Hillary!, Richardson, Holbrooke, and Albright seem like good choices?
11.17.2008 2:49pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
On Ann Althouse's blog, this issue was raised and one commenter noted that Hillary is constitutionally inelibible to be secretary of state because of Article 1, section 6, paragraph 2.
11.17.2008 2:52pm
PaddyL (mail):
Maybe nominating Hillary for SOS would be a great public service. She would have to disclose all of the conflicts of interest arising from Bill's numerous representation and consultation with foreign nations. Maybe we would get a glimpse of the facts underlying the scandalous campaign contributions from Chinese surrogates and the transfer of critical weapons system technology to China. Or, is this just wishful thinking?
11.17.2008 2:59pm
Hoosier:
Skyler--Very interesting.

If it came to this, would Holbrooke have standing to sue? Would the State Department OIG? Would anyone?
11.17.2008 3:00pm
A Law Dawg:
On Ann Althouse's blog, this issue was raised and one commenter noted that Hillary is constitutionally inelibible to be secretary of state because of Article 1, section 6, paragraph 2.


Only if SecState has gotten a pay raise since Hillary was elected in 2006, and even then only if the Congress doesn't then lower SecState's pay before she's confirmed.
11.17.2008 3:02pm
Kenvee:
Skyler, doesn't that section only say that she can't be SoS and a Senator at the same time?

Anyway, I agree with the comments that the Democratic well must be pretty dry if HRC is the best they can come up with for SoS. I can understand that the Obama administration probably feels it needs to throw her a pretty big bone to both secure her support and undercut any hopes of her running against him. But this one is a terrible choice. She doesn't have anything approaching the foreign policy experience to do a credible job. When the President has little foreign policy experience (and little experience in general), it's all the more vital to pick someone who does have it for such an important position.
11.17.2008 3:04pm
Allan (mail):
Skyler: did you mean indelible or inedible?
11.17.2008 3:07pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
The ideal SoS would be so rich that he or she couldn't be bribed by the Saudis.
Or so content with whatever lot fate has provided that he or she can't be bribed by the Saudis.
One Saudi prince remarked that it's good to take care of retired State guys so they'll have more friends who are not retired.
Explains a lot.
11.17.2008 3:10pm
Sarcastro (www):
Richard Aubrey


The ideal SoS would be so rich that he or she couldn't be bribed by the Saudis.


Oprah!
11.17.2008 3:18pm
A Law Dawg:

The ideal SoS would be so rich that he or she couldn't be bribed by the Saudis.


Oprah!



Arnold!
11.17.2008 3:22pm
DiversityHire:
The ideal SoS would be so rich that he or she couldn't be bribed by the Saudis.

Bono.
11.17.2008 3:22pm
A Law Dawg:
Bono.


One Messiah is enough at Cabinet meetings, don't you think?
11.17.2008 3:26pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
Kenvee asked, "Skyler, doesn't that section only say that she can't be SoS and a Senator at the same time?"

No, it says that you can't be a senator or representative and then take a position that was created or has had pay and benefit increase while you were a senator or representative. The intent is to prevent senators or representatives from creating jobs for themselves.

It seems such an archaic prohibition since the amount of money and power from lobbying far exceeds any civil post.
11.17.2008 3:27pm
rarango (mail):
George Soros seems to have both the money and political orientation to meet the not taking bribes test.
11.17.2008 3:28pm
DiversityHire:
I'm perfectly comfortable with an all-messiah cabinet line-up. Where's Steve Jobs? His jesus phone is ringing.
11.17.2008 3:36pm
John Burgess (mail) (www):
Richard Aubrey: Repeating canards about the Saudis buying diplomats doesn't actually make those canards suddenly true.
11.17.2008 3:41pm
Mad Max:
it might seem churlish to recall that Clinton has little foreign policy experience

If it's OK for the guy in the oval office to have no experience, don't see why it's not OK for the person in foggy bottom to have no experience.

Didn't this election pretty much decide the question for all time of whether or not experience matters? It clearly doesn't!
11.17.2008 3:50pm
Skyler (mail) (www):
Honestly, I agree that experience is an over-rated quality. But being a communist and a friend of communist terrorists is an entirely different issue.
11.17.2008 3:55pm
rarango (mail):
I don't know why we are worried; Joe Biden is going to take an active role in the administration and has the foreign policy experience to oversee anybody who is SecState..... (doesnt he?)
11.17.2008 4:05pm
Showme:
How does Sen. Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State qualify as change (whether I can believe it or not)?

President-elect Obama: How are the Cabinet appointments going?

Reply: "Same old, same old."
11.17.2008 4:10pm
Bob from Ohio (mail):

Repeating canards about the Saudis buying diplomats doesn't actually make those canards suddenly true.


Saudis fund "think tanks", these tanks hire retired diplomats, only those who have the "proper" views are hired, proper = pro-arab.

Bribe seems pretty accurate even though no money changes hands during actual government service.
11.17.2008 4:18pm
Sammy Finkelman (mail):
(This may be a bit of a digression)

Of course now Bill Ayers is claiming:

"I never hurt or killed anyone. I know I was involved in the anti-war movement. I was a militant — I was part of the militant faction of opposing the war. I have been quoted again and again as saying I don't regret it." (Good Morning America on ABC TV Friday November 14, 2008.

Orwellian really. Ayers is counting on people's ignorance. He already years ago switched the target of the unexploded bomb that killed 3 bombmakers from Columbia University's library - to Ft. Dix New Jersey. Ayers was saying Ft Dix at least as far back as 1993, but the news didn't reach the New York Times till 2003..

In the year 2000, it was still Columbia University:

http://tinyurl.com/6fsetf

The only correction the New York Times made was about what the Low Library was.

In 2002, the idea that the Low Library was the target was repeated:

http://tinyurl.com/5jzvu4

In 2003 we had two targets mentioned, Fort Dix in New Jersey and the *Butler* Library at Columbia University.

http://tinyurl.com/62jr3z

Only now has Columbia University fallen into the memory hole. The whole thing really is very Orwellian. I have not found any explanation for the change except maybe that's what the former Weather Underground members maybe now say.
And of course maybe Columbia University *might* be just a guess based on a few data points.

Wikipedia by the way, mentions both possibilities:

http://tinyurl.com/5w9lu7

In fact it is Wikipedia that led me to the 2003 article since that article does not mention the Low Library at all but only the Butler Library.

It is a good commentary on teh research that went into the coverage of the recent Presidential camopaign that nobody mad ethe connection to the library Barack Obama spent so much time in. Because surely he must have been told by people theer that they had been a target of the Weathermen and that the library had narrowly escaped destruction and massive loss of life because this is what was commonly thought and was not disputed in New York.
11.17.2008 4:20pm
wfjag:

DiversityHire:
I thought Obama was working to eliminate greedy private contractors from federal government agencies. How's hiring Hillary! and Bill consistent with that?

The Saudi government and other governments, and Denise Rich (the former Mrs. Marc Rich) were Clinton Pres. Library and other fund "contributors". This makes them completely different from "greedy private contractors". Understand the difference? If not, ask Sarcastro to explain.
11.17.2008 4:47pm
Hoosier:
Richard Aubrey
The ideal SoS would be so rich that he or she couldn't be bribed by the Saudis.
Or so content with whatever lot fate has provided that he or she can't be bribed by the Saudis.


Hey, that's me!

(Except for those two "conditions".)

And I'm a diplomatic historian. So if Mazarin tries any Franco-Funny-Stuff with Innocent X, I'll be all like "Hey! Cut it out Red!" Or if Wilhelm II goes sailing off to start some shit in Morocco, I'd be on him all like "Hey! Get out of the Mediterranean and go make me some damned tacos."
11.17.2008 4:58pm
first history:
Are you kidding? Reagan was almost 70 on inauguration day in 1981.

And it showed. By the time he left the Presidency he was 78, and his confusion at times reality and movies, as well as forgetfulness of names toward the end of this administration gave the impression that these were pre-symptoms of his Alzheimer's condition. No doubt this was a factor against John McCain, esp. with relative youthfulness of Bill Clinton and GWB.
11.17.2008 5:06pm
LN (mail):

It is a good commentary on teh research that went into the coverage of the recent Presidential camopaign that nobody mad ethe connection to the library Barack Obama spent so much time in. Because surely he must have been told by people theer that they had been a target of the Weathermen and that the library had narrowly escaped destruction and massive loss of life because this is what was commonly thought and was not disputed in New York.


It's nice to see that even the mentally ill have computers and internet access nowadays.
11.17.2008 5:53pm
LN (mail):
Hmm. Let me make some crazy predictions.

If Obama appoints someone to a post who doesn't have a lot of experience, commenters here are going to say: "But where's the experience? I'm scared!"

If Obama appoints someone to a post who does have a lot of experience, commenters here are going to say: "But where's the change? Obama is a big phony!"
11.17.2008 5:56pm
Prof. S. (mail):
It's good to see a marriage of convenience become not so convenient.
11.17.2008 5:58pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
I tend to favor Richardson for the job, but Obama certainly could do worse (John Kerry's name has come up, too.)

One really interesting suggestion is George Mitchell, who, in addition to a long political and business career, was instrumental in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.
11.17.2008 6:51pm
Hoosier:
LN: It's nice to see that even the mentally ill have computers and internet access nowadays.

LN: Let me make some crazy predictions.

I can see why you are invested in the "intertubes-for-loons" issue.
11.17.2008 7:06pm
aces:

Orwellian really. Ayers is counting on people's ignorance. He already years ago switched the target of the unexploded bomb that killed 3 bombmakers from Columbia University's library


I thought it killed 3 people because it exploded...
11.17.2008 8:16pm
Dick King:

Are you kidding? Reagan was almost 70 on inauguration day in 1981.


It is now widely believed that Reagan had the beginnings of Alzheimer's Disease towards the end of his second term. The nation won't elect anyone that old for a long time.

-dk
11.17.2008 9:07pm
Hoosier:
Dick King

It is now widely believed that Reagan had the beginnings of Alzheimer's Disease towards the end of his second term. The nation won't elect anyone that old for a long time.

You mean until we forget about Reagan's Alzheimer's, I assume.
11.17.2008 9:22pm
MarkField (mail):

You mean until we forget about Reagan's Alzheimer's, I assume.


Yes, the time will come when collective Alzheimer's replaces collective amnesia.
11.17.2008 9:39pm
Milhouse (www):
TPJ wrote:

What? I don't think any Democrat, and certainly not Hillary, would plan to run against the incumbent Obama in 2012.

Why would you think that? I have no doubt at all that Clinton is planning a run in 2012. Remember that Kennedy nearly beat Carter in 1980, and Clinton hasn't killed anyone yet. As far as we know, anyway.


But the SoS offer, if it really has been made, would make that difficult. She can't turn it down without openly declaring her intentions, and it's far too early for that. But if she accepts it then for as long as she's part of the administration she shares responsibility for its screwups, and she can't attack it for them. And she can't openly undermine Obama while she's serving him. In order to run against him, she'd have to manufacture some incident over which she could resign with as much fuss as possible, and use it as the keystone of her campaign. But she'd still not be in as good a position as she is now, free to start subtly undermining Obama the moment he takes office.

Which makes Obama's offer to her (if it's been made) a very clever move.
11.18.2008 7:38am
Jmaie (mail):
The ideal SoS would be so rich that he or she couldn't be bribed by the Saudis.

Or so content with whatever lot fate has provided that he or she can't be bribed by the Saudis.


Or honest and ethical, with a reputation to match...anybody come to mind?
11.18.2008 1:17pm
TPJ (mail):

Remember that Kennedy nearly beat Carter in 1980, and Clinton hasn't killed anyone yet.


That was the last time an incumbent was seriously challenged. I think it would be political suicide for a Democrat to seriously challenge Obama in four years unless there are major mistakes made.

Clinton would also have to give up her Senate seat just to run, which is a sacrifice I'm not sure she'd make.
11.18.2008 2:01pm
Bedrock Principles:
. . . . and Clinton hasn't killed anyone yet.

Except Vince Foster.
11.18.2008 3:10pm
Hoosier:
Or honest and ethical, with a reputation to match...anybody come to mind?

George C. Marshall

Where can we get one of those?
11.18.2008 3:33pm
Milhouse (www):
Remember that Kennedy nearly beat Carter in 1980

That was the last time an incumbent was seriously challenged. I think it would be political suicide for a Democrat to seriously challenge Obama in four years unless there are major mistakes made.
I expect Obama to be at least as bad as Carter. More to the point, I think Clinton expects this too.
Clinton would also have to give up her Senate seat just to run, which is a sacrifice I'm not sure she'd make.
Why would she have to do that? The presidential primaries are over by mid-year, and the Senate primary isn't until September. If she loses the primary she has plenty of time to campaign for the Senate instead.
and Clinton hasn't killed anyone yet.
Except Vince Foster.
I was half expecting someone to say that. But no, the simplest explanation of the evidence is that Foster committed suicide, and the note was genuine. One of the pitfalls conspiracy types fall into is seeing something genuinely fishy, but forgetting Occam's razor. Just because there's a coverup, that doesn't mean the thing being covered up is the most spectacular thing one can imagine. Occam's razor says it's more likely to be something small. I do believe Obama is covering up by refusing to release his birth certificate; but I don't believe it's that he was born in Kenya. My guess is that his birth name was Barry Dunham, which would be slightly embarrassing but politically and legally meaningless. And I do believe Foster's body was moved, but I don't believe it's because he was murdered. My guess is that in the same place where he shot himself there happened to be evidence that could incriminate the Clintons in some financial misdeed or other peccadillo, and they were afraid if the place were searched that evidence would come to light, so they moved him to the park.
11.19.2008 2:54am
Milhouse (www):
Oops. "Covering something up".
11.19.2008 2:55am
Hoosier:
I do believe Obama is covering up by refusing to release his birth certificate; but I don't believe it's that he was born in Kenya. My guess is that his birth name was Barry Dunham, which would be slightly embarrassing but politically and legally meaningless.

Unless he was thereby linked to the Dunhams Sporting Goods chain of discount stores, which have the worst service on the whole damned planet. Because then I'd want him impeached or something. It would be like having the last name "Fiat" or something.
11.19.2008 9:36pm
movie fan (www):
if Hillary does 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
11.20.2008 12:32pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.