The (Clinton) Fix Is On!
Despite the Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 6, clause 2 of the Constitution), Barack Obama is forging ahead with the nomination of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State.
Via My Way News:
Obama plans to appear at a morning news conference Monday in Chicago to announce Democratic primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state.
To review, the Emoluments Clause states that, while a person is serving a term of office to which they were elected, he or she may not be appointed to any civil office which was newly created, or for which the compensation was increased in that same term.
The salary of the Secretary of State was increased in January 2008 by an executive order, promulgated pursuant to a 1990s cost of living adjustment statute. Because the increase occurred during the time Hillary was a Senator she can not be the Secretary of state.
Richard Nixon had the same problem when he nominated Senator William Saxbe to be his AG. The AG’s salary was subsequently lowered and it was known as the “Saxbe Fix”. I questioned last week whether a similar move could be underway for Hillary. I guess we know that “the Clinton Fix” is on.
Really this doesn’t bother me very much at all. Why? Because it royally ticks off the peacenick moveon.org types who thought the election of Obama was the end of war as we know it in the world. That he would bring peace and harmony and tweeting birds, flowing glassy rivers and rainbows back to the American landscape (it’s like they live in their own Thomas Kinkade painting…minus the religion of course). Hillary is a hawk compared to Obama and far leftists are shocked…Shocked! I tell you, at the thought that Obama is becoming less dovish.
Via Politico:
It’s a disorienting moment for the peace wing of the Democratic Party, at once elated America selected a new president opposed to the Iraq war and momentarily disoriented by the imminent removal of a commander-in-chief whose every action they’ve opposed for the past eight years.
“Shock has paralyzed them for the moment,” said Steven Clemons, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation who writes The Washington Note, a popular foreign policy blog. “We are in an Obama bubble now. And it’s tough to step out and be first to deflate the bubble.”
Now before I continue relishing in the far left’s complete ineptitude to understand how our world works, I’m going to don my political strategist hat and and actually give Barack Obama high marks for his choices in dealing with war time matters.
(Read more after the leap)
Let’s harken back to when “W” put together his cabinet. It was peace time and he filled it with people like Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condi Rice. Obvious hawks or “neo-cons”. His moves were questioned considering our current “peace” like state. But they were the right people to have around after 9/11. A president with little to no foreign policy experience other than dealing with Mexico as Governor of Texas was smart to surround himself with people who were knowledgable of wordly matters. I know what you’re thinking, “Isn’t that what Joe Biden was for?” Good question and Politico wonders the same thing. But the fact is, a president needs more than one advisor to handle international situations.
Plus, let’s not underestimate the choice of Clinton in removing her from the Senate as an obsticle to issues that she and Obama sparred over.
All in all, this is a cabinet that bares watching. I think it’s clear they won’t be as hawkish as President Bush and his cabinet, but Barack Obama understands (or is beginning to understand) that the rhetoric of hope and change is great on the campaign trail, but means little when our current situation in the world is presented to him with all the facts.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Rush had this called months ago. In spite of all of the “pull out” talk going on, no Democrat President would pull out of Iraq, etc. in a way that would look like a loss. There was also the Biden warning before the election that within “6 months” Obama would be tested, and his support levels would go down because Obama’s response would not be what his supporters wanted.
I think they were expecting to move to a more militaristic position than their campaign rhetoric would have indicated well before the election.
But I disagree that the Clinton move was for substantive foreign policy reasons. This is a political move in one way or another. There may be some payback for not torpedoing the Presidential campaign. There may be some keeping of your enemies close. There may be some trying to ensure that Clinton cannot effectively run against him in 2012.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Got no problem with Hillary as SoS.
Would have preferred her as president over Obama, to be honest.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
This is a bad move for Hillary. She’d be better off remaining in the Senate.
Part of it is that her skills seem better suited for the Senate. Ed Rendell pointed out that he’d be a poor vice-president, because he’s used to running his own show. Hillary is, too - and in the Senate, she calls her own shots. As SOS, Hillary has to do what Obama wants.
What’s more, she will be unemployed in a few years. The last SOS to become President, I believe, was James Buchanan, more than 150 years ago. Has there been anyone else since then who has gone from SOS to the Senate? I don’t think so, although I might be wrong.
Ted Kennedy has been an outstanding Senator. Perhaps you don’t like his politics, but he has been very respected, and probably had more influence on American government over the years than either Bobby or Jack had. He’s obviously retiring - and there’s ample opportunity for Hillary to become the new “old bull of the herd.”
Obama offering her SOS is like Tom Sawyer offering his friends the opportunity to whitewash the fence. It’s not a very good deal for Hillary - and she doesn’t seem capable of resisting the sales pitch.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The only reason that it could work for Hillary is if she gets the opportunity to resign in disgust for the Obama administration at some point, say in about 2 years. Saving that, I don’t see Hillary recovering from this career move.
December 1st, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I would agree that this is a terrible move for Hillary, but a brilliant move on Obama’s part. I think that choosing her for this fits right in with the Clinton’s overarching ego. But that it also plays into the mindset of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”.
I would also argue that this was also a tactical move towards getting things passed in the Senate easier. Hillary could have always stood out as loyal opposition to Obama had she stayed in the Senate. Now, it will be tougher, though there is the possibility that the arguments get more heated.