Hillary pick staff and have direct access to Obama

[chasingclouds]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Where has that sense of "unity" and public good been for the last 8 years of Left-wing hatred on Bush?

Republicans really need to stop using that to justify YOUR hatred of Obama and Dems. Because MOST people I talk to supported Bush until he made an utter mess of things even if they did not vote for him. Same thing goes for those that DID vote for him. I know MANY people who voted for him 2 times that dislike him with a passion now. So stop assuming it's only dems that dont support him. Stop using an incompetent President and the peoples dislike of him for a reason to hate a president that hasnt even took office yet. Even if you still feel they didn't give Bush a chance (YOU'RE WRONG)--- 2 wrongs don't make a right anyways. The Republicans hate and divisiveness is what made them lose this election. It's very very childish of you otherwise. You say you dont like people were not behind Bush, but yet you condone doing the same thing you think they did--that you dont like. Sounds like tit for tat of school children to me.

Also Ive heard your rant about it.. well they have not liked him since day one because he stole it from Gore and again Kerry. Does the shoe fit? Why would people have thought that? Maybe because he had to be appointed. Maybe because he won that swing state his brother was ... you know the score. It's been proven the voting machines were messed up in many places and leaned false republican... my golly why would anyone think that?? But again, thats not to say that ALL people who didnt vote for him--or even wondered about the fairness of the elections, didnt give him a chance to prove himself good or bad.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by tigerlily

Two advisers to Mrs. Clinton said she was concerned about establishing her role in the administration before agreeing to the job. She wanted assurances that she would have direct access to Mr. Obama and not need to go through a national security adviser, they said.[/url]

Nothing could be more critical and essential for a Secretary of State. Foreign leaders have to believe that the SoS doesn't speak on for the President but speaks as the President. The fact that Hillary has been assured direct access to the President assures this.

No one makes a better argument for the present situation than Thomas Friedman who wrote:

"The important question, the answer of which is not at all clear to me, is about the only relationship that matters for a secretary of state — the kind of relationship he or she would have with the new president. My question: Is Obama considering Mrs. Clinton for this job in order to get her off his back or as a prelude to protecting her back?

I covered a secretary of state, one of the best, James A. Baker III, for four years, and one of the things I learned during those years was that what made Baker an effective diplomat was not only his own skills as a negotiator — a prerequisite for the job — but the fact that his boss, President George H.W. Bush, always had Baker’s back. When foreign leaders spoke with Baker, they knew that they were speaking to President Bush, and they knew that President Bush would defend Baker from domestic rivals and the machinations of foreign governments.

That backing is the most important requirement for a secretary of state to be effective. Frankly, Obama could appoint his dear mother-in-law as secretary of state, and if he let the world know she was his envoy, she would be more effective than any ex-ambassador who had no relationship with the president."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/op...9friedman.html

[findingmesomeday]

I still think he could have done better here than Hillary. I'm actually on board with a lot of his appointments so far--even the hard core Clintonistas (with the exception of one or two). But I just can't wrap my mind around this one. If he felt the need to have her in his adminstration, then why not HHS?