(CNN) — After eight years as senator from New York, Hillary Clinton is trading places, moving from Congress to the incoming administration.
Former President Bill Clinton has been mentioned as a possible replacement for his wife in the Senate.
On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama announced that he asked his former rival to be his secretary of state.
That means the scramble begins to replace Clinton on Capitol Hill. Among those mentioned to take her seat as New York’s junior senator is her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Found by Jay.
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Hillary would have royally f’d up healthcare had she become president. She couldn’t even run a competent campaign so we’ll see how this plays out.
Bill Clinton in Senate keeps him busy and gives him something to do.
Some of this is a win-win for Obama.
If Hillary screws up as Secretary of State, her career is done and Obama won’t need to worry about 2012 at all.
Personally, I don’t see any harm with Bill Clinton in the senate. For Obama, it just means Bill has less time to cause problems 😉
#35 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Doesn’t anyone care that Hillary is
>>Constitutionally not eligible to be Secretary
>>of State?
Nope.
Even if she WERE NOT constitutionally eligible to be Secretary of State, we’ve been indoctrinated for the past 8 years that the Constitution is nothing more than “a goddamned piece of paper”. It would be time to put that principle to work for the forces of GOOD now, rather than the forces of evil.
Unfortunately (for you), she IS constitutionally eligible to be Secretary of State. All they have to do is reduce the emoluments to the level they were at when she became senator, and voilà, she’s eligible.
#34 – Schizo Mike
>>I don’t know why people are so upset that
>>Obama’s administration is filled with
>>Clintons.
Gee Mikey, make up your mind. Are you a liar, or are you a schizo? Or are you both, you Renaissance man?!!??
If Hillary is approved for Secretary of State, that will make a total of exactly 1.0000000 Clintons in Obama’s administration. Any fewer, and there would be 0.0000000. You consider that “filled with” Clintons?
Man, O Manischewitz.
Another non-story. Man, the editors are really sucking with no election stories to post.
If Clinton is a Senator he can’t do fund raising for himself (and the charities he draws an income from). For Slick, there’s too much money to lose being a Senator, and not enough power to be gained as to make up the difference.
Personally, I put a 40% chance on this seat going GOP.
[For a “non-story” it sure got you commenters going. – ed.]
The Repugligcan talking point of “This is not change” is complete BS posturing showing a lack of substantive criticism. The change promised was simply no more incompetency and transfers of wealth to the already too rich.
Getting rid of graft, corruption, and old boy back rubbing would also be change but would require appointing no body currently in government==an impossible task. In my view, liberal/dem leaning that I am, the Clintons (ie Both of them) are walking, talking icons of this old boy corrupt system. What is a “political base” except corruption? What is a “Presidential Library” except the public edifice of private corruption?
I don’t see Hilary as a great leader–she is a follower. She has followed Bill her whole life and still does. No independent accomplishments. She could serve, I say SERVE, Obama in the same way. I doubt she has anything but political fidelity to Bill. Politics change as the wind blows.
If Obama provide a Trillion Dollar stimulous, I guess that can be tolerated and a give to his liberal leanings. If Obama fails to bring most combat troops out in 18 months, AND especially if he emphasizes a military ongoing occupation of Afghanistan, then he will be a failure.
Other than that, I see Obama as basically a failure. The economic depression handed Obama by Bush and Clinton make this almost unavoidable. Success defined by minimizing this crises will still be seen as failure.
Obama could have been great, but history conspires against him.
Based on what? 4 years in the Senate? What has this politician done that shows he would have been a “great man” He just looks like your typical “full of shit” politician to me.
#37 40% chance for the GOP?
Your pessimism on the GOP making any progress is noted. I agree with you it is a failed party without a rudder.
With Hillary as SecState, can Bill continue his current profession of speechmaking and fundraising? How much will he have to put on hold to avoid conflict of interest?
Just a thought that makes me think he’d be bored not taking an offer for the Senate seat. That would certainly be another interesting twist!
As far as being a freshman Senator, Hillary had no problems walking in to great committee seats on day one.
#39–gquaglia==fair concern.
Obama has the potential to be great because of his unique background, curiosity, steadiness, ability to learn==ie, all indicators of potential.
Having potential is not a guarantee, its just potential.
Not like Bush==showing nothing but failure from the get go. Coke Abusing, AWOL, Born Again, Silver Spooned, Never Left the Country, MBA Business Failure, Reformed Alcoholic Frat Boy Texan Want to Be. Failure written all over him–elected twice.
An abject failure on the part of the American electorate.
Just about anyone has the potential to be great in comparison.
#38 – Bobbo
>>Other than that, I see Obama as basically
>>a failure.
Nothing like giving the guy a chance, is there Mista Bobbolina? Forty-eight days until his first day on the job, and you’ve already declared him a failure.
Are you seeking a job with the Republican National Committee? You seem to be mouthing RNC talking points with great fidelity.
Quit yer whining, will you? Go say the Serenity Prayer or something. Unending, pointless bitching about the way things are is not productive.
Oh – I also wanted to point out the hypocrites making excuses such as this…
“The change promised was simply no more incompetency and transfers of wealth to the already too rich.
Getting rid of graft, corruption, and old boy back rubbing would also be change but would require appointing no body currently in government==an impossible task.”
Leave your PC for a bit and ask neighbors and coworkers if this is what they expected of “Hope” and “Change”. I bet most think change means new blood, people not with years of being on the inside that have gotten dirty.
Not saying the Repubs in the same situation would do any different. Each party is hypocritical. But please stop serving the Kool Aid.
#44–Mustard==step your game up just a bit and recognize my point is cautionary in favor of Obama.
#45–Evil==not an excuse. Change is change. Your change, my change, whatever change each and every voter thought of as change.
Change==not McBush.
UNDENIABLY–any democrat elected other than McCain brought Change.
Revealing stupid to post otherwise.
#45 – Evil
>>I bet most think change means new blood
I bet not. I bet most think change means an improvement in their quality of life, a newfound respect for America at home and abroad, an administration that values the same things they do and works toward those goals, and a president who doesn’t talk like a drunkard with a mouth full of peanut butter.
I see the possibility of all those things in Obama. He’s already show that he doesn’t talk like a drunkard with a mouth full of peanut butter.
¡¡ Si, se puede !!
Mustard, again you show your lack of understanding of the Constitution. Let’s say your defense is valid, that lowering her salary is enough. Then if her salary isn’t lowered(which it won’t be), then you concede her position is unconstitutional?
Forgiverme for using the word Clintons instead of Clintonites,like Larry Summers, Rahm Emanuel, etc.
#49 – Lyin’ Mike
>>Then if her salary isn’t lowered(which it
>>won’t be), then you concede her position is
>>unconstitutional?
Sure. It may be the most outdated, useless, pointless Constitutional mandates, but it’s there.
However, dropping her salary from the currently approved $191,300 back to where it was 8 years ago (which would STILL be an increase over her senator’s salary) would solve that problem, jiggety jig. See Constitutional Law Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 Appointment of Member of Congress to a Civil Office, 3 Op. O.L.C. 286, 289-90 (1979) for verification of this fact.
And do you really think a reduction of a few thou in salary would matter a rat’s ass to Hillary? Pffft.
You better adopt a new “stance” here, son. This Constitutional argument is getting no traction.
Ah, it’s fun to see how unhinged the wackos become when Bill Clinton is mentioned.
LOOK OUT! BILL CLINTON IS HIDING IN YOUR CLOSET! RUN!!!!!
LOL
Yes, Republican wack jobs are the gift that keeps on giving — to the Democratic party.
Go wackos, go!
#49,
Once again you show your lack of understanding of politics. Here let me spell it out for you…
NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK. YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS IS ENTIRELY MASTIBATORY, FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE. PURE UNADULTERATED DELUSION.
Hillary Clinton absolutely WILL BE the Secretary of State. Nothing you say or imagine will change that.
#38,
A failure? ROFL. Lets let the guy take office before you declare him a failure. I mean, I waited until Bush bungled the spy plane accident with China before I declared him a failure(remember that??? He had to apologise to the chinese twice). You on the other hand have apparently become psychic and and see the future. I am sure Obama will look at your cautionary vision and place it in the woo woo file;)
#47 – Sad but true about the majority Americans.
And for the record, I make my observations as someone who didn’t support either McCain or Obama. But I do see he is making very calculated choices and I am impressed by that by itself.
And I do believe given his track record of careful planning and execution, this team of Clintons (really Bill will always be around as a good will ambassador) and the Clintonistas will follow his orders.
They may be swarmy politicians, but they know people are on his side. And do you think for a minute Obama will tolerate someone not following orders?
#52 – GregA
You mock Bush for apologizing to the Chinese??? This is a man who has invaded 2.5 countries and is called a warmonger and war criminal!
I don’t see Obama doing anything different in the same situation. China owns us now more than ever. No president would dare not kow tow to our economic masters.
#52–Greg==apparently you think the current financial difficulties are “just a recession” that we will weather thru?
No. It marks the revealing of the USA as the King without clothes. The Country without a manufacturing base. A country with no true wealth.
The current credit/bank/housing failures is the first few dominos of a more systemic reordering of world power based on economic strength which is based on exports. USA influence will plunge dramatically.
Turn around possible if we develop foreign oil alternatives. So far, only lip service given to what is required to save USA.
So, yes, my criticism is cautionary.
Here’s a MUCH better story:
Ohio State University academic adviser and a real estate agent held a $10-a-ticket raffle that offered an evening with a prostitute who is also a child sex-abuse caseworker, police said.”
#54,
Not for the apology. For failing to apologize correctly the first time, then having to do it a second.
I remember thinking at the time… Bush’s presidency would be defined by his response. And it was. For the entire rest of the presidency, every crisis was first ignored by Bush, then over reacted to.
#55,
Behold the power of politics on our personal life. Once some distance is put between this president and Obama, it will clarify your thinking. Right now you have been corrupted by the last 8 year, and it has diminished what you think is possible.
I have believed since 1999, the Bush and the Republican parties ultimate goal was to destroy the USA. They are vanquished and they have failed.
It will only take a few months for the depth of their treason to become evident, once we have leadership that is no longer attempting to destroy our country.
The reprisals will be fantastic and cleansing;)
Woes to be for the people who still have Bush or McCain bumper stickers on their car when that day comes;)
Dem ticket for 2012: Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.
If anyone thinks Obama supporters weren’t expecting total change, read this:
http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx111908.html
“Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.”
ha! yeah, everyone was expecting him to pick a bunch of insiders. Whatever.
#58 brm said, ““Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO, would be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.”
ha! yeah, everyone was expecting him to pick a bunch of insiders. Whatever.”
You don’t think that the Exec VP of the AFL-CIO isn’t a Dem DC insider? ROFL
#57 – GregA
“The reprisals will be fantastic and cleansing;)”
Stop drinking the Kool Aid. As it is, you are bound for a disappointment. Hopefully not too big as this country and world really does need work, but geez.
You really think the Dems will pursue the Repubs? I don’t. They will make some superficial changes and some that have to be such as Gitmo. But it is more likely they will fill the vacuum of power and corruption wherever possible.
Remember – Politicians are Evil. The Dems are not angels just because Obama is sworn in. And Pelosi/Reid certainly did squat the past two years with a lame duck president.
But I’m too pessimistic about our fine elected officials. Pass me the Kool Aid.
#40 – Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However, next time, when worshiping Your Savior, I expect there to be more content in your reply. The last thing the party has done is failed, and %40 should be considered quite high considering the state the Senate seat in question is from.
Worship, noted.
Another thread won by The Great One.
Mustard, the link you refer to doesn’t apply here. They said it was OK for a Congressman to be in the position specified, because that office didn’t have a specific salary(emoluments) that had been increased. I imagine the Secretary of State is an office with it’s own salary.
Lowering the salary to the previous amount has happened in the past, but a plain reading of the text shows this to be unconstitutional. ‘Shall have been increased’
#60 Paddy:
Read the article! That was a pick the mag *wished* Obama had picked, but didn’t.
#64 – Lyin’ Mike
Well, I guess you’re just going to have to suck it in and deal with it. It’s been done before; it will be done again. The only people who would object are die-hard Hillary bashers, and anyone in the Senate who defies Obama on this does so at his or her own peril.
The most common interpretation of that Constitutional text by Constitutional scholars is that the spirit is to dissuade candidates for the office from pimping themselves up for a position with more money, and that Hillary’s appointment would not violate the spirit of the law as long as a Saxbe fix is applied (i.e., reducing her salary as SoS to what it would have been when she became a senator).
As you well know, Hillary doesn’t give a fuck about the emoluments; she’s RICH. $191K/yr is chump change to her. That’s like reducing Paddy-RAMBO’s salary at Radio Shack from $14,000/yr to $13,999.00, but letting him wear a big, trick-out name tag. The glory of the SoS office is worth more to Hillary than the chicken-feed she’d be losing with a roll-back.
#24: “#23, Oven,
I thought we’d finally put Bill Clinton behind us.
That was your first mistake, thinking. If you had just kept your brain shut you wouldn’t be looking like the foolish, jealous, right wing nut you usually are.”
If you’d paid the least amount of attention at all to any of my posts, you’d have noticed that I gladly ripped a deserving George Bush a new one whenever I was given the opportunity. I am far from a right-wing nut. I have never, ever been identified with the political right.
Please, before you start shooting your mouth off, pay attention and remember what others actually post. Then YOU won’t look like an idiot who speaks first before thinking.
#67, Oven,
If you’d paid the least amount of attention at all to any of my posts, you’d have noticed that I gladly ripped a deserving George Bush a new one whenever I was given the opportunity.
Bill Clinton has not left the scene. All through Bush’s Administration he has continually been blamed for what was going wrong with the country. His popularity remains very high eight years later. His disdain from the right wing nuts knows no bounds, because he put Newt Gingrich in his rightful place.
As you claim you are not a right wing nut and your previous posts bear you out I apologize. Without going back through past posts I do seem to recall you have generally been more liberal than not.
My apologies sir and I can fully understand your well deserved umbrage at being called a “right wing nut”. If the tables were reversed I would be just as upset.