The American Spectator

Thomas| 12.1.08 @ 12:00PM

Is Hillary Clinton qualified for the position of SecState? Not according to the U.S. Constitution. The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." Some Presidents have gotten around this pesky clause in the past, by simply ignoring it. Let's see if this time proves any different.

WendyG| 12.1.08 @ 1:05PM

This I just don't get. Doesn't she effectively take herself out of any race for the WH by taking this job? If for some reason Obama is successful, Hillary won't have the organization in place to run. Is Obama just throwing a bone to the Hillary voters? Again - I don't get it.

Well, one good thing - send her in to meet with our enemies. They may capitulate just so the crusty old battle-ax in a pantsuit will stop haranguing them.

Jamie A| 12.1.08 @ 2:16PM

My theory on the politics of Obama's choice of Clinton for SoS is that he asked, and she accepted, precisely because becoming SoS is her best path to the Whitehouse. And not in 2012. Here's my rationale.

First, Barry is aware that by 2012 he'll no longer need a running mate to provide him foreign policy credentials, so Biden will be worthless dead weight (as opposed to being valuable dead weight now). Rather, he'll need a running mate to appease and appeal to a more traditional Democratic electorate since his "change" mantra will no longer be a relevant campaign premise, especially since that he will have alienated the radical left, the youth, and the minority voting blocks to a measurable degree by failing to deliver on their expectations. Additionally, by 2012, one of Barry's long term political concerns will be the Presidential fortunes of the Party in 2016, knowing that Biden is, and would be, utterly unelectable.

So my prediction is that in 2012, Barry will drop Biden and ask Hill-Rod to be his running mate. By doing so, he'll sure up the traditional Democratic electorate all the while giving the Democrat Party an instant front runner for 2016. And as a bonus, he'll be gaining a former SoS as a running mate, thereby providing him even better foreign policy credentials than Joe "gaffe-a-minute" Biden. And to answer those pundits who have speculated that Hill-Rod as SoS might be a thorn in Barry's proverbial side, Clinton will be on her best behavior at Foggy Bottom over the next four years because Barry's fortunes are hers in 2016. Likewise, if she were to be Veep.

But why would Clinton accept a position in 2012 that she wouldn't have accepted in 2008? Well, for the same reason why she's accepting SoS now when she wouldn't have accepted the Veep nod three months ago-- because in typical Clinton form, her pride will have made way for her ambition (which predictably will be followed by her pride).

Dai Alanye| 12.1.08 @ 2:33PM

While I find Jamie A's analysis intriguing, we ought to be asking ourselves not what Obama is planning or thinking but what David Axelrod has up his sleeve. He's the gray eminence in this coming administration.

As for what Hillary/Bill is/are thinking, I leave that to more naturally devious minds.

Dai Alanye
http://alanye.com/

zoe| 12.2.08 @ 12:09PM

...or, obama is really putting together a team of rivals.

conservatives keep saying that he's not putting together a team of rivals, that he's just getting together "yes-men." then when he picks someone whose policies are not identical to his own, it's either because he's conforming to the rival's POV or forcing his will upon his rival. which is it?

biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:32PM

bikini
bikini swimwear