Time to get a real job
Posted by aogMonday, 21 September 2009 at 19:19 TrackBack Ping URL

What do you all think — Hillary Clinton resigns as Secretary of State and jumps in to the New York Gubernatorial race?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Monday, 21 September 2009 at 20:53

I think that’s the plan, but Paterson doesn’t look like he’ll voluntary throw himself under the bus. Be good for our side if there’s a nasty and divisive primary in New York.

cjm Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 06:22

seems like she is a spent force. recent pics look like she is hitting the bottle pretty heavily too. call it a day hillary.

Barry Meislin Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 07:14

A dubious proposition.

She’s about as qualified to be governor of NY as she is to be Secretary of State.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 08:34

Mr. Meislin;

In a world in which one can write “President Barak Obama”, I find your comment meaningless.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 09:33

She’s about as qualified to be governor of NY as she is to be Secretary of State.

Which is to say, VERY.

If she’s eyeing the ‘12 or ‘16 races, then being NY Governor will do more for her than having been Sec. of State.

Going back twenty years, the Secretaries of State have been:

  • James Addison Baker (1989-1992)
  • Lawrence Sidney Eagleburger (1992-1993)
  • Warren Minor Christopher (1993-1997)
  • Madeleine Korbel Albright (1997-2001)
  • Colin Luther Powell (2001-2005)
  • Condoleezza “Sweetness” Rice (2005-2009)
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton (2009-Present)

While Hillary is not foremost among these, she is not out of place on this list.

Consider this generic resumé:

  • Law school graduate.
  • Law school professor.
  • In private practice for fifteen years, was twice named as “one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America” by the National Law Journal, and served as a Director on the Boards of several non-profit organizations and several corporations, including that of America’s largest employer, Wal~Mart.
  • Served for twelve years as the chief advisor and confidant for a State Governor.
  • Served for eight years as the chief advisor and confidant for a President of the United States.
  • Was elected and re-elected to the U.S. Senate, serving for eight years.
  • On the first try at winning the Presidency, came thisclose to being the Nominee of the Party that ultimately won.
  • Was selected and confirmed as U.S. Secretary of State. (Four heartbeats away from being President.)

For what elective office in the land would this NOT be an overachieving backround, including the Oval Office? It’s only because we know to whom this resumé belongs that scorn is attached. She’s more qualified to be POTUS than were Biden, Brownback, Edwards, Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Obama, Palin or Thompson - arguably less qualified than were Paul or Romney.

Paterson has about as much chance as does a tissue-paper storm shelter.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 13:24

Let me say, nothing has done more to improve my opinion of Hillary Clinton than Barak Obama. However, given recent experience, I think weighting some executive experience heavily is a good idea. A stint as Governor of New York State would really round out the resume, not to mention letting us have a look at HRC’s actual capabilities as a chief executive.

Barry Meislin Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 15:13

I guess I wasn’t as clear as I had thought. (Sigh.…)

Hilary Clinton’s qualifications for Secretary of State are zilch, nil, zero squared, the big “O”.

In other words, none.

Unless you count kissing Suha Arafat, on both cheeks, mind you; an act that took an extraordinary amount of raw (there’s no other word for it) courage, courage I didn’t think Hilary possessed. (Though in this as in other cases, my feeling is that discretion is the better part of valor.…)

So, yeah, I guess Averyroughrowtohoe does have a point: not a lot of Secretaries of State have that qualification. Or presidents or governors, for that matter.

Or garbagemen. (I mean sanitation technicians, of course.)

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 15:53

I guess I wasn’t as clear as I had thought. (Sigh.…)

Hilary Clinton’s qualifications for Secretary of State are zilch, nil, zero squared, the big “O”.

No, you were quite clear.

Just wrong.

That you don’t like her isn’t disqualifying. Re-read the post outlining her experience, and feel free to explain why that doesn’t add up to a highly qualified individual.

Barry Meislin Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 16:22

I think you have formulated the question really, really well.

Is Hillary a highly talented individual, in the right place at the right time?

Or is she (like the President and the Vice-President) just a somewhat talented goof-ball who’s way in over her head and doesn’t know it (though that last feature may be helpful)?

(Gosh, I guess that makes me racist and sexist and bidenist!).

I hope this administration gets lucky, I really do (for the sake of the US of A, and the rest of those SOBs around the world who have a soft spot for the ideas of, oh heck, call it freedom and liberty).

But get back to me in say, six months? A year? Two months? OK?

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 17:37

Sure, the proof is in the pudding.

But we can’t know how well an individual is going to perform BEFORE they get the job - witness all of the #1 draft picks over the decades who’ve flamed out. It’s just to say, we guess at how well people are going to do based on their vicarious experience (formal education and autodidactism), and actual experience.

For Hillary, that’s not zero.

cjm Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 17:58

let’s look at it another way:

1) has she ever solved a significant problem?

2) has she ever screwed up massively?

i would say:

1) no 2) yes

draw your own conclusions. unfortunately (for the USA) we do know a lot about hillary’s abilities already — she has none that are useful.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 22 September 2009 at 18:36

1) has she ever solved a significant problem?

2) has she ever screwed up massively?

i would say:

1) no 2) yes

The same could be said of McCain, with multiple 2s. Maybe that’s why he’s not President.

cjm Wednesday, 23 September 2009 at 00:54

well, if mccain is the test then my dog could be president :)

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 23 September 2009 at 01:49

Oh, the humanity.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 10:47

Just a nice place to toss in this cite on Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State. I have to admit, if that’s the bar, HRC is well over it.

But I would look back at AVRRA’s comment that being governor of NY would be good for HRC’s political career. Yes, it would, precisely because (to cite AVRRA again) we can’t know how people will do until the try. Governor is much closer to President than anything else HRC has done, which is why some of us would like to see her do it before deciding on whether to vote for her as President.

erp Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 12:22

Hillary’s politics are similar if not identical to Obama’s. So if it turned out she was a competent executive, she’d be better at implementing them and we’d be worse off.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 13:26

Maybe. Or she could be more realistic about what is tolerable. I think HRC has far more real world experience than Obama (not that that’s a high bar).

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 15:27

I have to admit, if [Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State, is] the bar, HRC is well over it.

What did you find objectionable in the reported excerpts from the speech?:

The former US Secretary of State surprised the audience with her speech. She particularly said that democracy was not the perfect system. “It can be contradictory, corrupt and may have security problems,” Albright said.

Ya don’t say. All so very true.

America has been having hard times recently, Albright said.

Duh.

“My generation has made many mistakes. We give the future into the hands of the young. Your prime goal is to overcome the gap between the poor and the rich,’ the former head of the US foreign political department said.

Platitudes and truisms. All unobjectionable.

“We have been talking about our exceptionalism during the recent eight years. Now, an average American wants to stay at home - they do not need any overseas adventures. We do not need new enemies,” Albright said adding that Beijing, London and Delhi became a serious competition for Washington and New York.

If we view “we do not need new enemies” and “an average American wants to stay at home - they do not need any overseas adventures” literally, then she hits the nail on the head. Who needs or wants new or more enemies, and further, we can’t afford new enemies, even if we did want ‘em. As for “want to stay at home” - we’ve been at war for eight years now. Of course people are tired of it. Not to mention, the American zeitgeist is normally isolationist most of the time anyway.

Beijing is head of one of the world’s most powerful, and certainly most populous nations, riding a rapidly expanding economy and SERVING AS THE BANKER OF LAST RESORT FOR THE WORLD’S MOST POWERFUL NATION. Of course they’re flexing their global muscle. That’s what rising powers do. U.S. Marines in Tripoli and the Monroe Doctrine, right?

And London has always been a rival to New York as a centre1 of global finance; especially after SarbOx, they gained the upper hand. No surprises there.

Perhaps this is the crux:

Madeleine Albright said during the meeting that America no longer had the intention of being the first nation of the world.

We may well have the intention of remaining the world’s preeminent nation, but like New Year’s resolutions and addicts in rehab, our actions often don’t match the intent.

Fortunately, there isn’t any credible challenger on the horizon - Russian culture and demographics are terminal; Western Europe appears to need to implode over the Boomer retirement crisis before they can get their minds right to move to a positive track; Brazil will get very rich over the next hundred years, but they don’t have a culture of striving or expansionism, and so unless that changes they’re very unlikely to seek to be a world power; Japan is toast demographically, and good riddance2; China is likely to have too many internal problems over the next forty years to replace the U.S. as the world’s primary power before mid-century, if ever.

India might take the mantle, but not unless the U.S. self-immolates (which unfortunately is not only more likely than ever before, but can happen more quickly than most people realize: See Napoleon, and Germany before WW I).

1 ;^)

2 Japan committed more and harsher atrocities in WW II than either Germany or even the late and unlamented USSR, and is still less repentant about them than either of the former; Japanese culture appears to foment sadism.

Bret Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 16:42

Your prime goal is to overcome the gap between the poor and the rich…

Is that the prime goal?

That’s easy - destroy everything.

Then we can all be perfectly equal as we starve to death while trying to scratch a living in the dirt.

Personally, I’ve always felt a better goal would be to increase the wealth of the poor as much as possible.

It’s easy to destroy wealth, much harder to create it.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 29 September 2009 at 21:10

Bret’s point is, in my view, sufficient to make any amount of mock of Albright. That alone would completely justify my contempt. But let’s pour salt in the mortal wound because that’s just who I am.

Madeleine Albright said during the meeting that America no longer had the intention of being the first nation of the world.

Really, now? She can speak for the entire nation on that, and assert such a massive change in our national character? It’s Carter Malaise in a new jar. You respond with

We may well have the intention of remaining the world’s preeminent nation

which strongly mischaracterizes Albright’s actual statement.

The whole speech sounds like a dragging down of her country in front of a foreign audience. Alright is free to do so, and I am free to despise her for it. Couldn’t she, as a former Secretary of State, at least say something nice about the nation that has done so much for the her personally? Rather than watered down Bush bashing (e.g., “the recent eight years…”).

You quote Albright as saying

an average American wants to stay at home - they do not need any overseas adventures

but that’s an inaccurate quote, leaving out as it does the key qualifier “now” which greatly changes the meaning and makes your explanation of it irrelevant. She’s not describing it, as you do, the default state of the American Street but as a recently developed impulse.

Barry Meislin Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 09:25

Gosh, that didn’t take long now, did it?

(Yep, I think we got ‘em right where we want ‘em.…)

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 16:38

I don’t blame Obama for not wanting to do what’s necessary to dissuade Iran - he’s got enough on his plate already.

Bush the Younger didn’t want to do it either, for much the same reasons.

(Not that Obama’s doing a particularly good job of prioritizing where his attention should be paid.)

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 20:30

But that’s not the case. Obama is making the effort, he’s simply doing it in a maximally incompetent way. At least Bush didn’t make it worse.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Thursday, 15 October 2009 at 21:48

LOL. Maybe so. I thought that the supposed point of choosing the clownish Biden to be VP was to bring some foreign policy “expertise” to the team. Guess that ain’t workin’ out so well.

Barry Meislin Monday, 19 October 2009 at 05:28

And so we have a government of the person, by the person, and for the person.…

But fortunately, we have.… Hillary!!.…??

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 04 November 2009 at 11:13

Oh, yes, we have Hillary. Her brilliance just goes on and on.

erp Wednesday, 04 November 2009 at 12:25

Remember when we were told Hillary was the smartest woman to have ever trod the earth? Almost word for word what we were told about Obama.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 04 November 2009 at 12:50

Oh, yes, we have Hillary. Her brilliance just goes on and on.

Well, via Tom Maguire at JOM, Ben Smith of Politico writes that “Clinton leaned harder on Israel than the administration intended, infuriating the Israelis while putting the Palestinians far out on a limb. Then she sawed off the limb.”

Tossing the dysfunctional and doomed Palestinians overboard seems brilliant to me. Maybe Hillary really is the smartest woman to have ever trod the Earth!!

Post a comment