Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

reply posted on 14-11-2008 @ 06:49 PM by grover

www.huffingtonpost.com...

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

Well if she takes the post that would rule her out as competition in 2012.

As for Sec. of State she would be formidable which we need after Condi Rice.... the most ineffectual secs. of state we've had in recent years.

At the same time:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

President-elect Barack Obama is considering primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson to be his secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration.

Obama met with Richardson Friday in Chicago, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.

So he could just be interviewing who he thinks is the most knowledgeable candidates.

[edit on 14-11-2008 by grover]

reply posted on 14-11-2008 @ 07:08 PM by antar

reply to post by grover

Right you are, and I was thinking oh boy I am going to have to drag the proof out that I woke to this morning about Obama considering Hillary. I am not saying it is written in stone, who knows what ids going to happen...

This in reference to the comments about my post on previous page.

Anyway Thanks Grover.

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 01:16 AM by prevenge

Originally posted by Retseh
Well IF this happens it would be Obama's first mistake of many I'm sure.

You really want to keep that socialist hag at a distance while fitted with a shock collar and muzzle.

Note to Obama - don't hire people who are going to knife you in the back.

oh thanks for reminding me that Obama makes all these decisions.

-

reply posted on 15-11-2008 @ 07:15 AM by grover

I remember I was dating this woman back in the early 90's and she got herself a kitten and named it Hillary Rotten Kitten.

...

... she also had a phrase for when she was in a hurry that went... "get it up get it in get it off get it out I gotta get my hair done".... but that's another story.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by grover]

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 06:45 AM by antar

Originally posted by antar
With the Presidential line of succession here is how Hillary will fall into the chances of her becoming President...
en.wikipedia.org...

I think that one of the reasons she has been chosen was from when she and Obama both went before the Bilderbergers meeting shortly before she lost to Obama.

Question is, why have they chosen her to represent the country as Secretary of State?

Just as we saw two successions of the Bush administration and their agendas, will we also see an continuation of the work former President Bill Clinton left behind as well? If so take a look at the past administration and the direction Hilary mat focus on as Secretary of State.

en.wikipedia.org...

An important read, very disturbing in that since the past 8 years, the conditions have fallen to pieces in the countries where the Clinton Administration worked to end suffering and bring peaceful military presence to these areas. We are far too spread out now to even consider using the same strategies, so where does this agenda pick up? And is Clinton the right choice to bring peace to the world through her diplomatic presence with her Husband at her side?

Well, just figured I would bring this post up once again for consideration. It does make sense in this nonsensical time we live in. After All if the continuation of agenda is the rule of the day, then this makes not only sense but brings forth a look into reality.

Not only was I correct about Hillary, but also talks about President Clinton also becoming part of the next Administration on a Liason to peace talks with Pakistan and the Middle east...

[edit on 1-12-2008 by antar]

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 07:38 AM by antar

Well President Obama is going to unveil his next choices for his Security team this morning, so it should be a very revealing day.

We need to start a new thread to take a thorough and ATS style look into all of his choices and their past roadmaps.

He has already stated he wants Gates to remain for at least a year for continuity of situation at hand and this pleases the Military Officials and commanders at this time.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 07:45 AM by Stormdancer777

worldnetdaily.com...

Barack Obama, it has been reported, intends to announce Sen. Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state, an appointment America's Founding Fathers forbade in the U.S. Constitution. The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term.

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."

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 08:03 AM by jibeho

I find Hilary's appointment rather amusing, not just because of who she is and how she is connected but, because Obama belittled her in the primaries regarding her lack of foreign policy experience. I guess two wrongs do make a right. Obama's lack of leadership experience plus Hilary's lack of foreign policy experience equals one powerful blob of BS.

The Clinton juggernaut will get Hilary into the Oval office by any means necessary. One step at a time because Hilary wants to have a stab at the White House interns too.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by jibeho]

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 08:15 AM by GoalPoster

Based on all the political ballyhoo that went on leading up to Obama being chosen as the Democratic candidate, I'm surprised Hillary Clinton was being touted for any position beyond the first three words of this thread title.

But, that's the nature of the beast, I guess . . . wheelin' and dealin' in the name of politics.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 08:28 AM by St Udio

reply to post by prevenge

that was meant as sarcasm, right?
your the first to point out that Obama does not make the decisions,
he is merely the mouthpiece of the strategists in the new regime.
(more social/political engineers rather than fundamentalist-neocons we had the last 8 years)

my view is that Hillary as Sec. of State will be pretty dull because the national & global financial systems will be the focus for the first 2+ years
not stuff like shuttle diplomacy in the M.E.... as the Iraq activity in the cities is winding down just as the Afghan-Pakistan impasse grows to include a Pakistan-India crisis.\
All the above are way beyond the Hillary world of competence.

the strategists are playing the Clinton machine for the supporters & the money handle it can deliver...even as it is being disassembled by the democrat-GlobalEngineering regime.

h
Hillary is just a sideshow, along with slickwilly as some call WJC,
and both could be usefull distractions as the nworg is hatched...
a socialized-fascist blend of economic & resource controls over
north america & the western world to begin with...
after which the 2nd term (with or without Obama) will encompass the globe

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 09:51 AM by neformore

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

BBC is running this as a newsflash item now.

Looks like she took the job.

Edit - here ya go - Clinton named as Secretary of State

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

[edit on 1/1208/08 by neformore]

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 10:09 AM by conspiracy nut

i wonder what all the obama freaks who did nothing but bad mouth hilary the entire campaign are thinking now? he said he wanted change and to get away from the last 20 odd years, but yet he picks person after person from the clinton administration.

i like the clintons so why did obama bad mouth them, and then turn around and hire half bill's administration? i'm exaggerating but you get the picture.

i was starting to like obama and even though i like the clinton's i would have had much more respect for obama if he would have stood to his guns and brought in the change he was talking about!

i would love to hear how the die hard obama can do no wrong supporters will spin this.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 10:22 AM by Moonsouljah

reply to post by conspiracy nut

Our infallible leader (elect) CAN do no wrong. This IS change. REAL change.

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 10:32 AM by conspiracy nut

reply to post by Moonsouljah

haha! some people really do sound like that! seriously though, how do obama fans justify all this?

reply posted on 1-12-2008 @ 01:07 PM by Freenrgy2

Wow, this is so funny how two lawyers and Senators don't even understand the piece of paper they swear to uphold.

The second clause of Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution says:

"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."

And since Cabinet positions had their salaries increased during her tenure as Senator, she is thus INELLIGIBLE to be selected as a candidate for SoS.

It makes one iota NOT if Pres-Elect Obama or President Bush returns the SoS salary to what it was prior to the increase to skirt the issue, just as past Presidents have done.

The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose," Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a constitutional law expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, told MSNBC. "And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule."

"A 'fix' can rescind the salary," Paulsen added, "but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls."

She cannot accept simply because the SALARY increase did happen. This is a historical event. Unless she can time travel and have Bush rescind his EO that increased the salaries, then it DID happen.

Two laywers aren't smart enough to figure out the piece of paper that they swear to defend and uphold? Sure doesn't sound like they care what our founding fathers intended to ensure we didn't repeat the mistakes of past CORRUPT governments.

Excerpts provided by WND.com.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^