Umm, not quite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner After completing his studies, Geithner worked for Kissinger and Associates in Washington, D.C., for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. In 1999 he was promoted to Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs and served under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. In 2002 he left the Treasury to join the Council on Foreign Relations as a Senior Fellow in the International Economics department. He then worked for the International Monetary Fund as the director of the Policy Development and Review Department until moving to the Fed in October 2003.[4] In 2006 he became a member of the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty. On November 21, 2008, it was reported that President-elect Barack Obama had decided to nominate Geithner for the position of Treasury Secretary. He's currently the President of the the NY Fed.
If Obama wants to marginalize Hillary while appearing to honor her, then Secretary Of State is the perfect position, "Hillary, I want you to go over there an bring peace to the middleast, and don't come back until it's done." It's just like Bill giving her the point on healthcare with a republican congress.
I'm not sure this is the case - this immediate de-politicizes her as long as she is a SecState. She can't campaign, communicate with her campaign email lists, fundraise, etc. This basically takes her out of the political circles, more or less. Now, she could always resign in 2014 or something and jump back into politics, but it actually makes an attempted run in 2016 much more complicated and awkward than if she had stayed in the Senate or run for NY Governor.
????? 2016 isn't "today's society". a woman has never been elected president (at any age). a 72 year old man got lotsa votes and women live longer. a few weeks ago the same argument could be made if you substitute "72 year old women" with black man.
It's official............ http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081121/us/politics_us_usa_obama_clinton Clinton accepts Obama secretary of state offer: NY Times WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has accepted an offer from President-elect Barack Obama to become U.S. secretary of state, joining her former Democratic rival to help guide U.S. foreign policy, the New York Times said on Friday. The newspaper quoted two Clinton associates who said she came to her decision after additional discussions with Obama about the nature of her role as the top U.S. diplomat and his foreign policy plans. "She's ready," one of the sources told the newspaper, which posted the report on its website. Clinton emerged as a frontrunner for the secretary of state job late last week, transfixing a country which had seen her compete hard against Obama to win the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Obama clinched that nomination in June and then beat Republican John McCain in the November 4 election. Democratic Party sources have recently said Clinton, was on track to be nominated, with an official announcement expected after the November 27 Thanksgiving holiday. NBC news meanwhile also reported two other key Obama appointments: New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as commerce secretary. NBC said official announcements on the appointments were expected on Monday. Officials with the Obama transition team had no immediate comment. Clinton has a global profile both as a political leader in her own right and as the wife of former U.S. President Bill Clinton. Policy analysts say her selection as secretary of state could mean a more hawkish U.S. stance, noting that she has been more reluctant than Obama to commit to a firm timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. (Writing by Andy Quinn, Editing by Frances Kerry)
Just a brilliant choice by Obama. At a stroke, he puts Hillary's supporters in his back pocket and doesn't have to worry about them, and her, if things get rocky during his first term (which it will). Clinton is known by world leaders, is famous with people world over, is very, very smart and tough as nails. She'll want to make a success with this, both for her own legacy, if it all ends with this, or for 2016, if it looks like she could have a successful run. So far, I've liked all the reported cabinet picks. Aces for Obama.
thought it was only me. if he manages to get all these folks on the same page it'll be the greatest political coup in recent times. folks to keep dems focused, folks to appeal across the isle, folks to consolidate his support ... all generally strong and smart.
You don't think an Obama/Clinton State Department is a change from a Cheney/Rice State Department? Not in policy, style, execution, criteria for ambassadors, focus of CIA embassy activities, accountability, transparency, coherence ... humanity? I think you are going to be wrong.
As I said in aother thread, recycling old Clinton administration officials is not consistent with change we can believe in. If I wanted to see a Clinton administration in office, I would've voted for Hillary. In general, I don't expect to see any transformational changes in foreign policy. I hope I am wrong.
Well, you have to actually be sworn in before you can begin your transformational policy. But with Obama's tone and Clinton's tenor expect engagement with the rest of the world and jawbone coalition building.
I'm sorry, but I find it a bit amusing how some of Obama's ardent supporters are reacting to his choices for his cabinet. Where would you get talent with experience with governing? On the Federal level? Who aren't Republicans? Who were good at what they do? Who have been successful? Where would you get them? Would those of you who don't like people from the Clinton Administration prefer to have a cabinet without real experience? Would you prefer that the Obama Administration get off to a fumbling start? And more to the point, don't you trust the judgement of Barack Obama? He's picking the very best that he can find. Many are from the very successful Clinton Presidency. Not all, by any means, but many. Unless you would rather have Bush Redux, get over it. And if you don't like Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, it looks like you'll have to get over that, as well. She didn't get 18,000,000 votes because she's a dumb ass, and Obama wouldn't select her if he didn't think it was a big net plus for his administration. This reminds me of the reaction of many here during the runup to the election. "Hillary and Bill will stab Obama in the back! The Clintons will do everything they can to make sure he's defeated! It's a plot, a plot, I tell you!!!!" Right, and it goes downhill from there, far too much to even think about repeating. And every time I read that stuff, from whoever was spouting it, I said it was absurd. That they had been Democrats all their lives and would never deliberately try to help defeat a Democrat that had won the nomination and was running for President, just because one of them lost. Events proved that to be true, yet we'll be seeing folks claiming some new "plot" of the Clintons to destroy an Obama Administration, regardless of the truth. Why? Some people have an irrational hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton and some of those people say they are Democrats. I think they need to get a grip and get over it. We're going to control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We're going to have a highly intelligent, charismatic Democrat as President, who's smart enough to fill his cabinet with other highly intelligent people. It's going to work and we're going to get a hell of a lot of desperately needed stuff done for this country, left totally ****ed up by the GOP and George W. Bush. The two people happiest to see that happen? Hillary and Bill Clinton. The third? Me.
i thought he did a pretty decent job of articulating the "change" he intended. wake me when actual policy diverts from the planned agenda ... so far, he's not; punishing former adversaries afraid to choose strong capable candidates unwilling to open dialog with folks across the aisle after W, thats refreshing change. i'll decide whether if i "believe" when i see real progress.
I mostly agree, but I like it at least one bit. She's smart, and she could be very good in this position. What I don't like is the lost opportunity of teaming with Hagel. I'm wondering if, like Richard Luger, he said "thanks but no thanks -- it's the Senate for me." As for change overall, I'm very happy with Obama's appointments to date. When you have David Brooks calling your team a "valedictocracy" or some such, you are off to an amazing start. Smart, practical people from A to Z = sounds good to me. Change is about policy. The team is making sure you get things done, and he's giving himself the best odds he can.
And as you imply, it's also about governing. Here's a taste of what Obama's inheriting from W... A Justice Department that can't differentiate between the law and Republican politics. An Intelligence community that was not allowed to differentiate between real intelligence and Republican politics. NASA scientists who weren't allowed to talk about science that was somehow contrary to Republican politics. An EPA who repeatedly placed Republican politics above public health and safety. A Defense Department who conflated Republican politics with national security. An emergency response community that miserably failed because it put Republican politics above public safety. An Interior Department that can't distinguish between Republican interests and the national interest. I could go on, but when you slow down and take a look at our government, it is absolutely astounding that every damn thing is in much worse shape because of this administration. The Bush administration has corrupted our government so badly that their is no faith in its honesty or its abililty to function. And by honesty, I'm not talking about politicians spinning something... I'm talking economic reports, scientific studies, legal actions, etc. W. has allowed the government to turn into a mirror of the Soviet Union in the sense that nobody can be trusted and nothing can be assumed to work. I've said several times that if we can get close to where we were in 2000 by 2016, this will be a successful administration. I may be too optimistic, but Obama putting these kind of people into the leadership positions shows me he understands what's going on. I doubt he is looking at just the next few months. I suspect he's looking ahead to his second term and figuring out what needs to be fixed now so it's easier to make changes then.
Why not? I'm sure there are still some alive from Johnson's administration that don't need a walking cane, and there must be some from Carter's administration that are alive, walking, and won't frighten the American body politic. Seriously, the reaction doesn't surprise me, but it is also, in my opinion, as I made clear in my post, very misplaced. And I'll go back to the main point, which is that Obama's most ardent supporters would have, one would like to believe, some confidence in his judgement. I certainly do.
Hagel is retiring from the Senate though. I think Hagel would have been great, though I still think he makes sense as SecDef. Having a Republican there just helps to de-politicize the war a whole lot, and he seems to be very much on the same page as Obama on that stuff.
