Wouldn't her job as Secretary of State allow her to do that anyway? Isn't that what being Secretary of state means?

z_gringo: Wouldn't her job as Secretary of State allow her to do that anyway? Isn't that what being Secretary of state means?

Unless the boss overrides you.

Y'know what I demand a purge of? Harold Ickes. Delusional little toady...

z_gringo: Wouldn't her job as Secretary of State allow her to do that anyway? Isn't that what being Secretary of state means?

That's what I was wondering.

One of the reasons I really didn't want her as Secretary of State was having to endure the crazed whining that always ensues along with the mere mention of her name.

You know what Obama should have done? His people should have talked to every lifer at State and asked 'em all "who's the best diplomat in the agency that nobody's ever heard of?" He needs somebody who can carry out the will of the administration, not someone who thinks they know better at all turns.

Too late, I guess.

So Condi Rice didn't have control of who was appointed to her department? Who did, Dubya? Cheney?

And how was that better?

Whodat?: He needs somebody who can carry out the will of the administration, not someone who thinks they know better at all turns.

So you're saying he should get rid of his critics because it would hinder his job. And in the same breath imply Hillary wanting to do the same is wrong.

Interesting double standards you Farkers have.

I think her demands are reasonable. Why would you want your work undermined?

I agree with do not want bear.

Hillary, go fark yourself. GO AWAY. NOW.

deltabourne: Whodat?: He needs somebody who can carry out the will of the administration, not someone who thinks they know better at all turns.

So you're saying he should get rid of his critics because it would hinder his job. And in the same breath imply Hillary wanting to do the same is wrong.

Interesting double standards you Farkers have.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. In fact, I eagerly await the day our Dear Leader liquidates Congress in the name of our Socialist Worker's Paradise!

Oh the grapes, they be so sour.

Dear UK journalists,

Please kindly get the fark out of our hair. Let us deal with and break the news for our own problems.

Go report on how many new surveillance cameras were installed in the UK today, or something.

Love,
Americans who don't trust any US politics news coming out of the UK

z_gringo: Wouldn't her job as Secretary of State allow her to do that anyway? Isn't that what being Secretary of state means?

Shes tossing out pro-obama people she doesnt like.

mattbin: So Condi Rice didn't have control of who was appointed to her department? Who did, Dubya? Cheney?

And how was that better?

The President, so Mr. Bush. He has the power to delegate that authority, but the authority is his to give or take as he pleases, it's not actually possible to take it away from him. Essentially, there is no legal way for Mrs. Clinton to make this agreement binding (so far as I know). Thankfully.

Also, the Clintons are both like this. They hold grudges and destroy their political enemies to the best of their ability, 'enemies' being anyone with the temerity to voice a disagreement. Though they used to wait until no one will notice most of the time, I guess Mrs. Clinton lacks some of her husband's subtlety. Anyhow, this is more or less expected.

//Gonna be a long four years assuming this is actually his pick -- he hasn't announced, i don't think, so obviously there's still hope.

Truthiness: Dear UK journalists,

Please kindly get the fark out of our hair. Let us deal with and break the news for our own problems.

Go report on how many new surveillance cameras were installed in the UK today, or something.

Love,
Americans who don't trust any US politics news coming out of the UK

Dear Whining Americans, (the rest of you are ok)

Nobody's forcing you to click the link, nobody's forcing you to read the Independent.

You can stick with your "trustworthy" news sources like Fox, if you like.

Love,
The rest of the world.

(TFA)Before Hillary Clinton has been formally offered the job as Secretary of State, a purge of Barack Obama's top foreign policy team has begun.

important for the various
X: Obama sets the policy.
X: He's the boss in this situation. He makes the policy decisions

Comments I heard

If she decides to make a run in 2012, her tenure under Obama would likely end with a public "This is not the change we were looking for" split.
Leaving him with the blame for whatever has gone wrong and a cabinet full of Clinton picked screwups to deal with.

Bad_Seed:

Look, it's not that I'm angry the links are being approved. The articles frustrate me at a visceral level - it's like the annoying kid in class who pays me a visit after class to give me relationship advice.

Jim_Callahan: //Gonna be a long four years assuming this is actually his pick -- he hasn't announced, i don't think, so obviously there's still hope.

Use this web form or call 202-540-3000 to ssay no Hillary.

deltabourne: Whodat?: He needs somebody who can carry out the will of the administration, not someone who thinks they know better at all turns.

So you're saying he should get rid of his critics because it would hinder his job. And in the same breath imply Hillary wanting to do the same is wrong.

Interesting double standards you Farkers have.

It is my understanding that the number of non-political "lifers" in the State Department is a far greater proportion than most executive departments, and I'm sure that long-term diplomats are kept across administrations because of their experience in various embassies. If I recall, Bush had some run-ins with the State Department at various levels through most of his first term. It wouldn't surprise me if the Clintons made some enemies out of long-term State Department workers, and she's out for political blood.

UNC_Samurai: Bush

are you talking about the elder or younger?

This move could be the stupidest thing evar that Obama AND Clinton have done.


Obama allowing an opponent in his cabinet. Why? He can't get anyone better? Sad...plus historically, Lincoln did the same with terrible results.

This is bad for Obama


Clinton, a very powerful junior Senator, is giving all that up so she can "serve at the pleasure" of President Obama. WTF? Is she that stupid?

Could be really bad for Clinton if he needs her resignation.


/the stupid is so high on this, why is no one talking about it?

Party Boy: Jim_Callahan: //Gonna be a long four years assuming this is actually his pick -- he hasn't announced, i don't think, so obviously there's still hope.

Use this web form or call 202-540-3000 to ssay no Hillary.

HAHAH!!

He's already ELECTED!

You naive fools still believe he's going to REALLY listen to you anymore?

HAHAHA!!!

One born every minute!

/sure his 'Concerned Citizen Feedback' is rushed directly to Obama's circular IN-box.

Whodat?: You know what Obama should have done? His people should have talked to every lifer at State and asked 'em all "who's the best diplomat in the agency that nobody's ever heard of?"

no, he needs someone who heads of state will take seriously. he needs someone with the clout to approach them and be treated as a peer.

clinton wasn't the only person to fit that role, but she does fit it.

Phil Herup: This is bad for Obama

You forgot the ellipsis. You put it between the "bad" and "for". Like this!

This is bad...for Obama

/much better!

Truthiness: Look, it's not that I'm angry the links are being approved. The articles frustrate me at a visceral level - it's like the annoying kid in class who pays me a visit after class to give me relationship advice.

If you don't like it, then don't read it. I fail to find anything annoying in that article.

Bad_Seed: Truthiness: Dear UK journalists,

Please kindly get the fark out of our hair. Let us deal with and break the news for our own problems.

Go report on how many new surveillance cameras were installed in the UK today, or something.

Love,
Americans who don't trust any US politics news coming out of the UK

Dear Whining Americans, (the rest of you are ok)

Nobody's forcing you to click the link, nobody's forcing you to read the Independent.

You can stick with your "trustworthy" news sources like Fox, if you like.

Love,
The rest of the world.



P.S. You're much more likely to get impartial and objective reporting on US events from outside the US than you are from local media. Not only do they have no vested interest in bending the truth, but they also aren't pandering to idiot US audiences who can name more contestants on American Idol than they can their own elected officials.

=Smidge=

Phil Herup: He can't get anyone better?

I havent seen people talking about how it could be bad for Clinton. I'm not really thinking of it either. I'm a little bent out of shape over:

Craig threw his lot in with Mr Obama at an early stage in the presidential election campaign. As if that betrayal to the cause of the Clinton restoration was not enough, Mr Craig did more to undermine Mrs Clinton's claims to be a foreign policy expert than anyone else in the some of the ugliest exchanges of the battle for the Democratic nomination.
----
Mr Craig's crime was not so much that he enthusiastically backed Mr Obama for President and helped run his foreign policy advisory panel, it was his lacerating attacks on the putative Secretary of State's claims that she passed the "Commander-in-Chief test" as a foreign policy expert in the Clinton Administration. In a devastating memo of 11 March last, which he addressed "to interested parties," Mr Craig said: There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff."
----
A question remains about the fate of Susan Rice, the public face of Mr Obama's foreign policy throughout the campaign. She too had been expected to take a prominent position at the State department, but in a conference call with reporters during the campaign she ridiculed Mr Clinton's claims to foreign Policy experience.

I happen to agree that Mrs. Clintons claims to foreign policy experience are dubious. I'm wondering why anyone should be punished for
• Working With Obama
• Speaking truth on this issue, when it wasnt politically expedient to do so.

Truthiness: You forgot the ellipsis.

Thanks.

I actually went the whole campaign without ever using that cliche.

Party Boy: I havent seen people talking about how it could be bad for Clinton.


Well, Secretary of State is an essentially powerless position in regards to Obama. She works FOR him, and can be fired at any time. She will be advancing HIS agenda, not hers.

Also she is no foreign policy whiz as well, although light years better than Obama himself. Shiat I am probably better than Obama on foreign policy.



Party Boy: I happen to agree that Mrs. Clintons claims to foreign policy experience are dubious.

Yep. She can remain calm under sniper fire though....go to give her props.

FTFA (Hillary) received assurances that she alone should appoint staff

So let me get this straight; The incoming head of a department choosing their staff is news? Wow.

burndtdan: Whodat?: You know what Obama should have done? His people should have talked to every lifer at State and asked 'em all "who's the best diplomat in the agency that nobody's ever heard of?"

no, he needs someone who heads of state will take seriously. he needs someone with the clout to approach them and be treated as a peer.

clinton wasn't the only person to fit that role, but she does fit it.

Because god knows that being "Secretary of State of the United States" by itself conveys no more prestige than a Wal-Mart store director.

Whodat?: Because god knows that being "Secretary of State of the United States" by itself conveys no more prestige than a Wal-Mart store director.

I'd rather have her as neither SecState or Wal-Mart store director.

/But that's just my perspective

This article needs more spittle and invective. They forgot to mention that Hillary removes the spines out of her victims while they beg for mercy and then forces the next victim to eat the previous victim's spinal cord before she removes their spine next. Then she bathes in their blood and makes dildoes out of their femurs.

I have a sneaky suspicion, not sure why, that this author is too biased against Hillary to be trusted as a reputable source of information.

/Most Cabinet positions can choose their own staff

Bad_Seed: Truthiness: Dear UK journalists,

Please kindly get the fark out of our hair. Let us deal with and break the news for our own problems.

Go report on how many new surveillance cameras were installed in the UK today, or something.

Love,
Americans who don't trust any US politics news coming out of the UK

Dear Whining Americans, (the rest of you are ok)

Nobody's forcing you to click the link, nobody's forcing you to read the Independent.

You can stick with your "trustworthy" news sources like Fox, if you like.

Love,
The rest of the world.

Always good to hear from the proud terrorist lovers on Fark (from Bad_Seed's profile):

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 94%
You are a terrorist-loving, Bush-bashing, "blame America first"-crowd traitor. You are in league with evil-doers who hate our freedoms.

Notabunny: So let me get this straight; The incoming head of a department choosing their staff is news? Wow.

FUK MAN THAT IS JUST INANSEINITY!!! HOW CAN OBAMA ALLOWDOS TO HAPENB?!?

DOHNT YOU GIS CEE? HILLARITY IS A ZOMBIE! SHUUT HER IN TEH HED!! RISH TOLD ME SO!

Not one person in the Hillary says "yes" thread seems to have mentioned what the Clinton Administration did to Iraq with its sanctions.

Does anyone care about this? Do you know how many people died?

Does anyone think our policies should change with respect to punishing people in bad enough shape and not dealing with the dictator/leader(s) we have problems with in the first place?

I wonder what she would like to do to the people of Iran?

Obama wants to be Lincoln, which would be a mistake. He should be Obama.

"Lincoln ended up ignoring close allies, while promoting enemies, several of whom created practical and political trouble for the president. Most quit during Lincoln's first term.

Over the years, it has become easy to forget that hard edge and the once bad times that nearly destroyed a president. Lincoln's Cabinet was no team. His rivals proved to be uneven as subordinates. Some were capable despite their personal disloyalty, yet others were simply disastrous.

Lincoln was a political genius, but his model for Cabinet-building should stand more as a cautionary tale than as a leadership manual."


Clicky for rest of excellent article (new window)

Imagine that. Obama turned out to be just another slimy politician. Doing things the same old way. Change you can believe in, baby!!!!!

/and all of you who say "He only promised change from Bush" I say a good hearty FARK YOU.

Man, what a bunch of whiners. Why don't you read a history book, if your so interested in politics?

Oh and Phil Herup, in your case don't bother. You wouldn't understand anyway.

Phil Herup: Well, Secretary of State is an essentially powerless position in regards to Obama.

Look, I know that lately, after Colin Powell was booted out over his battle with the neocons^[*], we got this long tenure of a secretary of state without a spine.

All secretary of states arent going to be as huge as Kissinger, but to hear these claims of "essentially powerless" again, in this thread, with the Clinton duo????????

Good lord, its the highest ranked cabinet position - and the position for foreign policy(IMO my least favorite part of the clinton years).

We hold these truths to be self-evident: Not one person in the Hillary says "yes" thread seems to have mentioned what the Clinton Administration did to Iraq with its sanctions.

Does anyone care about this? Do you know how many people died?

Does anyone think our policies should change with respect to punishing people in bad enough shape and not dealing with the dictator/leader(s) we have problems with in the first place?

I wonder what she would like to do to the people of Iran?

Luckily she's not President.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: Not one person in the Hillary says "yes" thread seems to have mentioned what the Clinton Administration did to Iraq with its sanctions.

Does anyone care about this? Do you know how many people died?

Does anyone think our policies should change with respect to punishing people in bad enough shape and not dealing with the dictator/leader(s) we have problems with in the first place?

I wonder what she would like to do to the people of Iran?

So, are you advocating that next time we have a major disagreement with another country that we sit down and play patty-cake with them?

You basically have three choices.

1) Negotiate.
2) Sanctions.
3) War.

That's it. That's all there is. We tried #1 - didn't work. Then Clinton went to #2 - it worked. Then Bush went to #3 for some God awful reason that we'll probably never really find out.

Sure sanctions are harsh, but comparing it unfavorably to farking war! makes you seem like a giant turd who's just trying to score some cheap-ass political points irregardless of things such as reality or common decency. Yeah, that's right, decency. If you think really hard about what you are inferring in your statement you'll realize that you don't have any.

Phil Herup: Obama wants to be Lincoln, which would be a mistake. He should be Obama.

"Lincoln ended up ignoring close allies, while promoting enemies, several of whom created practical and political trouble for the president. Most quit during Lincoln's first term.

Over the years, it has become easy to forget that hard edge and the once bad times that nearly destroyed a president. Lincoln's Cabinet was no team. His rivals proved to be uneven as subordinates. Some were capable despite their personal disloyalty, yet others were simply disastrous.

Lincoln was a political genius, but his model for Cabinet-building should stand more as a cautionary tale than as a leadership manual."


Clicky for rest of excellent article (new window)

While there's certainly something to be said for not repeating past mistakes, Lincoln's presidency was nearly 150 years ago.

Phil Herup: This move could be the stupidest thing evar that Obama AND Clinton have done.


Obama allowing an opponent in his cabinet. Why? He can't get anyone better? Sad...plus historically, Lincoln did the same with terrible results.

This is bad for Obama


Clinton, a very powerful junior Senator, is giving all that up so she can "serve at the pleasure" of President Obama. WTF? Is she that stupid?

Could be really bad for Clinton if he needs her resignation.


/the stupid is so high on this, why is no one talking about it?

Wait, maybe this is the most BRILLIANT political play EVAR! She resigns her Senate seat, and the next morning Barack wakes up and says "Yeah, about that SoS job...we're gonna give that to Jim Bob here. But I still have an opening for a cabinet-level bottle jockey if you're interested."

And Hillary disappears forever from the national scene....

now THAT would be change I could believe in!

*=
^{[58][59][60*][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]}

asterisks mess it up

Party Boy: but to hear these claims of "essentially powerless" again


It absolutely is powerless in regards to Obama, dude. He can fire her at will.

She will have power, and lots of it. But not as much as she would as a big time Senator from NY, as the head of a committee, and in a strong majority.

Senators can't be fired by the POTUS, Secretaries can, and with nothing more than a pen stroke.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: Not one person in the Hillary says "yes" thread seems to have mentioned what the Clinton Administration did to Iraq with its sanctions. Does anyone care about this? Do you know how many people died?

Oh so now Republicans suddenly care about dead Iraqis?

andocommando82: Lincoln's presidency was nearly 150 years ago.


Human nature has not changed as much as you think. 150 years is blink of an eye in the history of humanity.

TwistedFark

Sure sanctions are harsh

Ok, you have no idea what you're saying.

but comparing it unfavorably to farking war!

If you respond to me, cite in my post, where I compared sanctions to war.

Now tell me TwistedFark, how many people died from the sanctions on Iraq and what was the result to their economy?