According to Salon, "multiple outlets" say it's all but certain that HRC will be nominated for State after all. Of course, that same post also links to the NY Times article from this morning that talks about how the Senate Dems are dangling leadership posts to HRC to get her to stay. We'll see.
Two other interesting angles on this come from my economic go-to, Paul Krugman, and Salon editor, Joan Walsh. Krugman reminds us that nobody remembers the concern about W.'s shady business connections when he took office. Granted, W. shouldn't be our moral guide on this stuff, but it is a good point. Walsh writes that after all the great stuff that we've seen from Barack, if he thinks HRC would be the best Secretary of State for his administration, then we should trust him. Makes sense to me.
UPDATE from Ilsa: i just got a next from the NYT that Clinton is going to accept the Secretary of State post. Haven't found it anywhere else online.
3 comments:
Interesting. I guess the Senate Dems just couldn't lure her.
I think this is a good development. HRC must be convinced that Barack's going to succeed, and thus won't be vulnerable in 2012. Of course, I read in a non-Wonkette source somewhere that she may be trying to flee some campaign debt.
Anyhow, I think she'll be a great Secretary of State. As Joan Walsh mentioned in her column, she and Barack do agree for the most part on foreign policy. Thus, I think she'll be effective at advancing his agenda.
Awww, didn't see this when I posted my "Breaking, Breaking, read all about it" headline.
Anyhow, what I like is that she will be taken seriously everywhere. What I don't like is that increasingly her husband won't be, and that could be problematic.
Don't feel bad, John. You did show impressive use of all initials and acronyms in your headline.
Post a Comment