Go back
HRC-Secratary of State !!

HRC-Secratary of State !!

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dystoniac
Ask Vince Foster...that is, if you can get him to talk after exhuming him....
I'll waterboard his dead ass.

GRANNY.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kmax87
You can't keep a good girl down. Go Hilary!

Is it possible that Obama will be swallowed up by his cabinet, or does he have the mettle to rise above his disparate choices?
I think it was a pretty smart move on Obama's part. Hillary has not always lined up with his opinions on foreign policy. Now she will be forced to represent his views, not her own. He will have defused a potential enemy in his decision-making in world affairs.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Of Ants and Imps
Isn't her appointment forbidden by the "emoluments" clause? I guess an Obama pick is above the Constitution.
The really ought to put through an amendment to change the wording on that goofy rule. Since they're ignoring it anyway, at least change the rule to reflect how it's actually being applied.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Not exactly sure what her qualifications are either........
Hey! She can see Mexico from her house (well, sort of!). Isn't that as qualifying as being able to see Russia? Oh, wait. I didn't think that was very good either. Never mind.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by SMSBear716
My only question is that .... her qualifications are what exactly?

But as I half jokingly tell people... well the President elect gets a bargin by picking Hillary. He gets Wiiliam Jefferson Blythe Clinton as well. So he has Hillary to deal with foreign affairs and Bill to handle 'affairs' with foreigners
Isn't the Secretary of State a diplomatic post? Is there anyone who can tell me how Hillary Clinton has ever displayed any diplomatic skills?

My cynical side says that she is appointed to make it more difficult for her to run a Presidential campaign in 2012.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
The really ought to put through an amendment to change the wording on that goofy rule. Since they're ignoring it anyway, at least change the rule to reflect how it's actually being applied.
The amendment process is part of the Constitution, and difficult to do for a reason. However, if the Constitution is to have any value at all, it ought to be changed only via amendment and not by frivolously ignoring it, or by the actions of nine justices.