change?

[TreeGreen]

Not the point. Obama campaigned on "change" and selects Clnton as SOS. Where is this "change" all the Obamaites were frothing at the mouth about?

Who do you object to and why? If anything you guys complaining should be happy he's not throwing a bunch of extreme leftist "yes-men" into his cabinet positions. He's even mulling over the idea of placing a Republican into a position or two. He made Biden his running mate (who was a rival), and he's considering Clinton for Secretary of State, among other things, (another rival). I'm not sure I see the problem.

 

[TennTradition]

I know a guy who used to work with Condi at Stanford who regards her as a total joke...but, who knows why. I was excited (in principle) about her presence in the administration, but there was some odd stuff going on there that made me begin to wonder...she seemed to be conniving. Her tenure at State hasn't been bad, IMO....though many might disagree with me.

 

[allvol123]

Who do you object to and why? If anything you guys complaining should be happy he's not throwing a bunch of extreme leftist "yes-men" into his cabinet positions. He's even mulling over the idea of placing a Republican into a position or two. He made Biden his running mate (who was a rival), and he's considering Clinton for Secretary of State, among other things, (another rival). I'm not sure I see the problem.

I object to Obama and his BS. He started his campaign running against the Iraq War, the economy was not an issue when he started running. He was the anti-Iraq guy! Now he selects Clinton as his SOS, he is a true outsider to DC politics huh?

 

[MG1968]

here's an interesting take on the Hillary pick, Constitutionally, she is barred from taking a civil position while an elected Senator.

The Volokh Conspiracy - More on Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:

"Is Hillary Clinton Unconstitutional?" In a word, Yes -- or, to be more precise, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be unconstitutional.

The Emoluments Clause of Article I, section 6 provides "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 encreased during such time." As I understand it, President Bush's executive order from earlier this year "encreased" the "Emoluments" (salary) of the office of Secretary of State. Last I checked, Hillary Clinton was an elected Senator from New York at the time. Were she to be appointed to the civil Office of Secretary of State, she would be being appointed to an office for which "the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased" during the time for which she was elected to serve as Senator. The plain language of the Emoluments Clause would thus appear to bar her appointment ... if the Constitution is taken seriously (which it more than occasionally isn't on these matters, of course).

 

[tnvolsfan85]

I wonder if this is the change that people were wanting...