Obama set to tap Clinton for State

In a move that has political insiders shaking their heads and many supporters of the first African-American President elect fuming, Barack Obama is set to tap Democratic primary rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his Secretary of State.

Senior aides confirm that Obama will name Clinton after Thanksgiving after former President Bill Clinton agreed to curtail his often-controversial activities with his foundation and cut back on his foreign travel and speeches.

The decision infuriates many Obama supporters who feel the nation needs a clean break from the politics of a past that includes both Clintons. Others are worried that the Clintons will use the powerful cabinet post to pursue their own agenda even when it conflicts with the policies of the new President.

Despite the worries, Obama appears to have made his decision.

Reports The Associated Press:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

One week after the former primary rivals met secretly to discuss the idea of Clinton becoming the nation’s top diplomat, an Obama adviser said Thursday that the two sides were moving quickly toward making it a reality, barring any unforeseen problems.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

Obama is convinced the advantages of Clinton serving far outweighed potential downsides, the adviser said.

Transition aides said the two camps have worked out financial disclosure issues involving Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, and the complicated international funding of his foundation that operates in more than 40 countries. The aides said Obama and Hillary Clinton have had substantive conversations about the secretary of state job.

The Washington Post concurs:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is on track to be nominated for secretary of state in the Obama administration, transition aides said on Thursday night.

Days of back and forth followed the meeting between President-elect Barack Obama and Clinton last week in Chicago, when the two principals first discussed the post, with advisers to Clinton suggesting she might not want the job and questions persisting about the business work and international ties of her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

But the former president agreed to a thorough vetting, and Obama advisers did not back away from reports that the New York senator was the president-elect’s top pick. On Thursday night, aides said that the vetting issues have been resolved, and the selection could occur soon, perhaps immediately after Thanksgiving.

But The New York Times says Clinton is wavering:

Democratic leaders in the Senate are prepared to give Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton a still-undefined leadership role there if she does not become Barack Obama’s secretary of state, Democratic officials close to the situation said Thursday.

The discussions about an enhanced position for Mrs. Clinton are factoring into her deliberations over joining the cabinet, the officials said. Mrs. Clinton, the junior senator from New York, is wrestling with whether to abandon her independence to become the nation’s top diplomat or remain in a chamber where lack of seniority limits her influence.

Mrs. Clinton asked to join the Senate Democratic leadership after the Nov. 4 election, and party leaders began trying to figure out a way to accommodate her without dislodging any of the current leaders, Democratic officials said. The conversations, they added, preceded Mr. Obama’s approach to her about becoming secretary of state and are on the table if she turns the job down.

Although advisers to Mr. Obama have said he has not made a formal offer, most Democrats believe the decision is hers to make, and friends said Thursday that she was wavering.

One friend said Mrs. Clinton decided late Wednesday to say no, reasoning that she would have more freedom in the Senate. By midday Thursday, the friend said, she was “back in the indecisive column again.” By the end of the day, another associate said she could accept by Friday.


  1. GovtFlu

    “I believe you owe it to all people to respect the Office of the Presidency”

    Respect the lead gangster in the GOP/DNC DC Mafia?, sorry blind loyalty to a phony title isn’t in my DNA. He can earn it like everyone else.

    “We have come a long way from the Biblical requirement that the sins of the fathers be visited upon their offspring.”

    When you fail peer into ones family history & what shaped their alleged ‘values’, you get gangster tyrants like GW Bush and the Bush clan. W’s grandpappy Prescott Bush laundered Nazi $$,actively assisted the Nazi party until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the “Trading with the Enemy Act”, and was part of the plot (with McCains Heintz family) to overthrow the US govt (see: Smedley Butler)

    The fascist Apple does fall far from the Bush family tree, just maybe that would have been good to know? it would have been nice to have avoided 8 years of the Bush legacy of flagrant fascism, huh?

    Rahm Imanuel has shown himself to be cut from he same Israeli whack-job radical cloth as his insane terrorist father and has no business being near our nations so called ‘leader’.

    Dual citizens have no place in out govt anyway.

  2. gazelle1929


    The name of our President-Elect is Barack Obama. Over 76 million people in the US voted for him. Whether you agree with his policies or not I believe you owe it to all people to respect the Office of the Presidency. And I believe you show ultimate disrespect by making juvenile derogatory puns on the name of the next President. He is your president also.

    I think you should read the policy on posting that is presented prominently on this site, and which you appear to honor only in the breach. You should focus specifically on the following excerpts:

    “Please remember, however, that we believe in civility on this web site . . ..”

    “Our goal is reasoned discussion on issues facing this nation . . ..”

    One thing you said particularly disturbed me: the reference to the alleged involvement in terrorist organization of a parent of one of Mr. Obama’s appointments. We have come a long way from the Biblical requirement that the sins of the fathers be visited upon their offspring. In the Constitution there is an explicit bar from bills of attainder. In case you do not know what that means, it means that no conviction of a person may result in imposition of punishment or penalty on that person’s relatives. I believe the same applies or should apply here. You tar with a broad brush when you insinuate that Rahm Imanuel is somehow responsible for the alleged actions of his father.

    Certainly the actions or inactions of individuals nominated for appointment are fair game for discussion, but not the actions relatives of the appointees.

  3. John1172002

    Pablo said:

    “And tens of millions of Americans voting for hillary does not imply integrity to me—this is a sampling from a nation that voted for bush twice, supported the illegal invasion of Iraq even after the supposed lessons they learned from Vietnam, and have repeatedly voted for politicians that support Israeli cruelty toward the Palestinian people.”


    Pablo, I hope you remember that Israel was established by the United Nations? And that the very next day, EVERY Arab nation immediately attacked Israel, even Egypt? And that, to this very day, the Israeli town of Sderot is the target of 17 or more missiles from the Gaza Strip?? And somehow you think the Israelis should put up with this? Would you put up with this, if it were your backyard and children that was the target of those missiles??

    Unreal. We aren’t in Kansas any more, Toto. I have to shake my head at such “logic.”


    Some Texas village is missing its’ idiot. However, they just called and offered us money to keep him.

  4. Carl Nemo

    “Spit shining old turds plucked from the overflowing festering DC toilet bowl is change only a crackhead can believe in.”

    Great, spot-on imagery GovtFlu…! 😀

    Carl Nemo **==

  5. Malibu

    Judy, it all depends on your definition of a good president. I tend to lean into the limited government befor my even trying to label anyone. I realize the American voter is not adequately educated in basic American Liberties. Asking the Federal Government to involve themselves in our social, financial and academic welfare is just plain wrong and asking for more of the kind of dumbing down that we have found ourselves.

    “Trustworthy and honest” are not words we use for searching for leaders. I’m not certain these words ever applied in my lifetime.

    We often get candidates who do stay with the illusion of liberty but the American voters have no concept of their agendas. Many of us went along with Perot as he understood the mess that many leaders in our government made with the approval of the voters. Our trade agreements worked against our Constitution and words of President Washington. These trade agreements came with Bush/Clinton/Bush and the deficit and debts brought us down in September and a loss of our corporations to move elsewhere.

    Perot used a simple calculator and charts to warn us that our dollar was in grave danger. Of course he was not elected and neither was Congressman Ron Paul. So in my lifetime there is no President on my list of a good President.

    Until the parents of American students demand strong academics, we will never find anyone of any faith or color who can understand what is involved in the White House.

    Voters are too concerned with social issues to even discuss Federal positions. Again I repeat myself in observing that Ameicans want a Big Daddy in the sky and in the White House. I think most Americans are too lazy to understand right from wrong. It is the great short- cut to sinning and asking for forgiveness thereby losing self determination. This desire for the GOP to legislate a ban on sins will destroy American values. There is nothing more to it.

    I’m more than ready to step out of any further discussions on the subject. Just because the “majority” of Americans tell us they are Christians, is not good enough to ignore the Constitution.


  6. GovtFlu

    Oblahblah is showing himself to be a typical (hack) politician, rewarding the appropriate party lackeys.

    Spit shining old turds plucked from the overflowing festering DC toilet bowl is change only a crackhead can believe in.

    Clinton voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq, branding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and she promised to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel.. huge change from Bush

    How about talk of keeping Gates? a long time military-industrial complex insider who was indicted for covering up the Iran Contra scandal.

    Eric Holder as Attorney General? they guy who ensured billionaire Marc Rich received a pardon at the end of Bill Clinton’s term, played a key role in the 2005 re-authorization of the Patriot Act, and set up the legal and lobbying firm of Covington & Burling who defended Chiquita executives that were facing charges of aiding terrorists for bankrolling and arming right-wing death squads in Colombia.

    There was overwhelming evidence Chiquita paid millions to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia to massacre, kidnap and torture thousands of Colombian workers, peasants, trade union officials and left-wing political activists.

    Robert Mueller aide to former CIA director George Tenet who helped set up torture policies, extraordinary renditions and secret prisons.

    Emanuel, his well connected father belonged to the Zionist terrorist group Irgun, best known for the Deir Yassin massacre where dozens of Palestinians were summarily slaughtered. Great family.

    Recycled DC insider trash, all of them… this is change alright, “!!for me to poop on!!”

  7. JudyB

    Forever is a long time Malcolm, but I understand the feeling, since I feel exactly the same way about GWB/Cheney. I am curious though who you think was the most trustworthy & honest president in your lifetime and do feel these qualities made him a good president? For instance, I think that Carter was honest and could be trusted yet he wasn’t a good president.

  8. Carl Nemo

    But,but,butttt…I thought it was safe lemonade from Obama’s “certified organic” stand griff…?! :-&

    Carl Nemo **==

  9. Carl Nemo

    A spot-on summation concerning Hillary’s sins against “we the people” and humanity in general Pablo… : )

    After so many Obama supporters worked hard to launch him into office now only to witness an initial abdication back to the Clintons who are linked to a laundry list of shenanigans while in office is stunning to say the least. : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  10. emurph

    It seems people voted for Obama with very little trust in his ability. I think Hillary is a great choice for many reasons, and I believe she is a team player. If she’s not, I have every confidence in Obama to take care of it. But most of all, I trust his judgement. Otherwise I wouldn’t have voted for him. It’s that simple. And, regardless, I would certainly have more confidence in his judgement than in that of these nay sayers, and all the pundits itching to stir up trouble. It really isn’t our, or their, business at this point.


  11. Hoosier_CowBoy

    This move shows that Obama is the political heavyweight no one has acknowledged.

    First think about this–2012 and if things have continued to go south for the USA. Obama has sidelined the most credible future political opposition he could have in the next election.

    When Senator Clinton leaves her Senate seat, it will be filled by another Democrat, preserving the balance in the Senate.

    Lets remember how well off we were under her husband, well off enough to think we could vote Republican. Senator Clintons’ presence will also calm some fears in Israel, who regard Obama as suspect.

  12. Malibu

    Pablo does speak for himself just as I do and we all do at CHB. I don’t agree 100% of Pablo’s argument with Hillary as I have a long list myself. I remember how she treated the White House help and how she hid much information from the government in her own concerns. She was never open about anything as first lady and even when their term came to an end, they had to return much of the furniture. This is not an honest woman no matter who loves her.

    I celebrated the Bush/McCain defeat as I’ve had enough corruption in our government. I neither trust nor respect either Clinton. I have no feelings about this just simple distrust. ralph, I have a ton of books written about the Clinton White House and it has nothing to do with his bopping an intern. It has everything to do with neither one of them being completely honest about the questions they raised while in power.

    President elect Obama’s choice of Secretary of State was a bad one in my opinion and will forever remove any trust I had in his judgment.


  13. ralphcat

    Pablo, I have to ask

    When you report what “people” think and feel, are you using some version of the “royal we”? Speak for yourself.

    Like a bolt out of the blue, fate steps in and sees you through — Jiminy Cricket

  14. Pablo

    People’s dislike for hillary
    has nothing to do with her forgiving her husband; that would be an utterly ludicrous reason for dislike. Their dislike and distrust comes mainly from her stances on international issues. The main issue that comes to mind is her all-out support of the Iraq slaughter. She was no poor innocent who was duped by bush, as many in denial claim. She spent 8 years as wife of the president who had access to the best intelligence available, so she knew damned well there was no Al Qaeda connection, no WMDs, and no attempt to purchase Nigerian nuclear material. Despite knowing exactly what was going on she not only voted for the war resolution, but spread the lies and pushed us into this war. She is as guilty as bush for the Iraq war and has blood all over her hands. She was never against this war until she thought it could get her the nomination.

    People also don’t like her violent threats towards Iran, nor her spreading of misconceptions. Do the research and you will find Ahmadinejad never called for the physical destruction of Iran as hillary and the right-wing press claim. Ahmadinejad called for the political downfall of Israel, NOT the physical destruction of Israel. Also, a little research indicates that Iran, although not innocent little angels (look at what goes on in their own country), has reason to be angry with Israel. Israel is literally torturing the Palestinian people. Also, hillary deceives the people by misleading them into believing Iran does not have a right to develop nuclear energy. They are breaking no international laws by using nuclear energy and if she succeeds in attacking them as she wants, then she will be a war criminal. Actually she already is a war criminal by lying to our country and marching us into an unprovoked war with Iraq. Half a million dead, mostly innocents, does not seem to bother her, just as half a million dead Iraqi children didn’t seem to bother her husband.

    Another reason people dislike hillary is her full support of Zionist Israel, and she will not doubt hound Obama to continue supporting the vetoes of UN resolutions condemning their theft of land and denial of freedom to the people they enslave. And we wonder why so many Arabs hate us?!?

    And tens of millions of Americans voting for hillary does not imply integrity to me—this is a sampling from a nation that voted for bush twice, supported the illegal invasion of Iraq even after the supposed lessons they learned from Vietnam, and have repeatedly voted for politicians that support Israeli cruelty toward the Palestinian people.

    Let’s just hope Obama keeps this violent and cruel person in line and that his promises of change weren’t just a bunch of lies so he could get in and push the corporate, military-industrial complex $ agenda. But if hillary is chosen to have great influence in international affairs, we have reason to be outraged and fearful indeed.