Yes, that’s pretty much exactly what I mean.
The pissing off the pubbies bit makes her qualified in my book.
It is a tad bizarre no? I went into an Urban Outfitters the other day and they had about 8 different types of Obama shirts. It’s pretty crazy how damn prevalent his image is these days.
As far as Hillary being terrible for the SC? I’m sure there have been bigger hacks in the history of the court. She could possibly make it through though despite her lack of qualifications. As long as she votes the right way that’s all I care about. And the having the two of them on the SC would simply be too sweet to pass up to piss off the Republicans.
I want to see Hillary as Attorney General. I think she’d be wonderful in that job. She’s got the aggression and the tenacity to do a wonderful job at it, and a strong sense of justice.
levdrakon, seriously, what bothers you about us Obama supporters? Most of us would have supported Clinton (some of us reluctantly, the rest willingly) had she won the primary. We’re not glazed-eyed fanatics, even if the Republicans do try to paint us that way.
Speak for yourself. I consider myself to be both glazed eyed, AND a fanatic.
Well, enjoy.
And since it was going to go to Edwards, it is wide open now!
Honestly, I think that she has what it takes to become a very powerful force in the Senate. What holds her back at this point is that not too many other senators like her very much (so I hear), but if she (and Bill even) becomes instrumental in campaigning for Obama and in a Democratic win both at the top of the ticket and down-ticket as well (something they really can be powerful forces to help accomplish) then she will be able to leverage that into lots of Senatorial power.
From that vantage she can accomplish much of what is on her list: true universal health care among them. If she can get it through Congress Obama will sign it. And I think that she could.
Her talents would be wasted as AG.
Rampaging Clintonistas? Nah. A few disgruntled ones. But Biden they can live with.
Wasted? Wouldn’t you love to see Hillary Clinton go after some of the corruption in government that has happened over the past eight years? She would be magnificent! She can go back to being a Senator afterwards.
Well if Clinton got the nomination now there would be all sorts of ruckus, sure (short of Obama getting hit by a meteor on his way to the convention or getting caught with the proverbial dead girl/live boy). If Obama had just lost the election fair and square, I don’t think any National Guard action would have been called for.
Nope. Wouldn’t want to see it at all. Very much do not want to see it. It would be the shortest path to gridlock and shutting down any chance of moving forward.
I do not object to a clearly objective investigation of what has been done and pursuing what makes itself apparent, but a clear mission to find the dirt with all appearances of revenge now that “we” have the power, of using the AG office as a means to accomplish a political vendetta, would be horrific. Anyone in that position needs to be either a clearly nonpartisan neutral party or even out of the GOP ranks if any real investigation of past abuse is to occur.
On a couple different right-wing talk shows in the last few days, I’ve been hearing the “Hillary’s gonna get the nomination with just a 4% shift in delegate support!” meme (it seems to be running just ahead of “Obama really isn’t an American Citizen” and other such tripe.
Sorry kiddies, after the big Nomination Upset fizzles, you’ll have to invent new dramatic scenarios and pseudo-issues to keep your phone lines buzzing.
And I know you will.
And nine years ago, I might have mistakenly said that John McCain was a good person to lead it. sigh. Now that he’s given up all claim to legitimacy, who’s left who’s an honest critic of corruption? (Answer Ted Stevens and I’ll try come through the Intertubes and bite you! Probably mangle myself horribly! :D)
ETA: I think HRC would handle it responsibly. But I think she would be perceived as pursuing a vendetta, which would be the worst of both worlds. (If you’re going to be blamed for a vendetta, you might as well have one)
Arlen Specter, Special Prosecutor!
Wow. You have no sense of political realities.
Mrs. Clinton as Attorney General would mean there was near-zero chance of getting any convictions on any “corruption” in the past eight years, since any steps her Justice Department took would be painted as vengeful payback for her husband’s trevails.
And you honestly think judges or juries would rule on the basis of that rather than the evidence put before them in individual cases? That’s a very sad thought.
As much as I would love to rattle the cages of the right wing media machine, neither of the Clintons belongs on the Supreme Court. – not because they aren’t qualified, but because Obama needs to pick younger jurists, who can serve for a long, long time.
I thought Bill had been disbarred from the Supreme Court. Was that only temporary, or would it be kosher to have someone serve on the USSC that was not allowed to testify before it?
Boy, would it be fun if he were nominated, though. The heated denials that Paula Jones (and Juanita Broaderick) and Anita Hill had anything in common by itself would be worth the price of admission.
Regards,
Shodan
And who do you expet would be making those denials? To the contrary, the liberal argument would go “Hell, no, they had everything in common–so Clinton should be placed on the Supreme Court right alongside Clarence Thomas.”
Well, my husband works with one of Hillary’s delegates, and this delegate left to go to the convention saying that there will be ‘blood on the floor’.
Don’t know how many like-minded friends this person has.
He resigned from the Supreme Court Bar rather than be disbarred. Same as Nixon did. In both cases disbarment would have been a pretty automatic consequence of losing their law license.
There are no constitutional qualifications for the Supreme Court. The President could appoint you or me if he wanted to. Or both of us - and wouldn’t that be fun?