‘Secretary for Women’s Issues 'n Stuff’.
To encourage young women to reach the limit of their potential.
If he’s a crappy Land Commissioner then he won’t get any further. George P is earning his political career. People who get elected to high office or worse, appointed, because of the family name just doesn’t have a place in American society, and it certainly shouldn’t have a place in the Democratic Party. Chelsea in a Sanders administration would be against everything the man stands for.
Says a devoted follower of the party whose most recent nominees have been the sons of Gov. George Romney, Admiral John McCain, and President GHW Bush.
So you don’t think her resume was a little thin for that job? Kerry was Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Powell was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before that he was National Security Advisor, as was C. Rice. Meanwhile, Clinton was a junior Senator from New York.
Look, I am not a Hillary-hater but you can’t tell me Obama couldn’t have found someone more qualified.
Powell and Rice were, and are, Republicans, sharing a great deal of responsibility for Bush’s Iraq fiasco. It’s amazing that you would think Obama should have considered them. Kerry didn’t want to leave the Senate, and it’s also amazing that you claim not to know that. Your implication that HRC’s *only *qualification was to be a junior Senator is so amazing that it also is in opposition to your claim not to be a hater.
Bill Clinton.
Oh fer fucks sake, I wasn’t suggesting Obama pick former Republican Secretaries of State. I was pointing out that generally Secretary of State isn’t usually someone’s first government job.
You derided the idea of HRC being a good choice for the job, you were asked who he should have picked instead, and that’s who you came up with. Don’t blame anybody else for that.
adaher? 'Zat you?
You could, you know, make the case why she was obviously the lady for the job. I see nothing in her experience that would indicate that. It’s frankly pathetic how much of zealot you are that my questioning her resume leads you to compare me to a Republican partisan Hillary hater.
When you can figure out a way to demonstrate the difference, please do so. :rolleyes:
You have not “questioned” her resume, you have merely derided it, while demonstrating an astoundingly profound unawareness that anything in it came before her election to the Senate. What’s next, gonna tell us about Obama being a community organizer?
So you can’t point to anything in her career that made her the obvious choice for Sec State? She was a partner in a law firm. She was on some boards advocating children’s health issues. Is that what you’re thinking of? Come on give me a hint.
Or you could just keep spouting the standard “you’re just a hater” crap?
You’re forgetting her 8 years as Senator?
Your derision is your own to support. Nobody here has any obligation to spoonfeed you.
If you have something else to show, it’s about time you showed it.
No. Looking over the committees she worked on, Security and Cooperation in Europe is relatable experience though not particularly high profile. Armed services is a feather in her cap. But she wasn’t really in any leadership role on those.
You suggested she was the best for the job first. You haven’t backed that up at all, except with pom pom waving.
A woman’s place is in the Kitchen Cabinet.
The claim made by Elvis was not that she was best for the job, but that maybe Obama thought she was.
Certainly she had the Senate experience and he had experience with her chops there and on the debate circuit by which to judge her. His explicit goal was to model his team after Lincoln’s “Team of Rivals” approach. Hillary, as a rival, brought in experience that he recognized and respected and valued even more because it was different perspective than he might have on his own. She would also as a member of his team be an effective advocate to those who had shared her perspectives more than they did his within the Senate. Those qualifications were, to him, somethings that made her a best possible choice.
Of course I suspect the value of it politically was also important … as it had been to Lincoln.
She was a departure from recent Secretaries of State…she was not a technocrat.
I think it’s more that Clinton claimed tons of experience over Obama, so Obama gave her an opportunity to prove it. And while I still don’t buy her experience claims, foreign policy in the 1st Obama term was definitely better than it has been in the 2nd term. I guess we know definitively now that Clinton would have made a better President(and still might) than John Kerry.
I would disagree that Foreign Policy in hr first term was a success, if anything, Kerry with the Iran and Cuba deals can claim more sucesses. Not to mention the TPP.
Mrs Clinton’s main foreign policy issues, Russian reset, Libya, Syria, Arab Spring have been pretty mich unmitigated disasters. Its not her fault, and the successes are not totally due to Kerry either. But, I suspect that Mrs Clinton’s time as SoS will be seen as a failure by most future historians