Obama To Nominate Clinton on Monday

Serious question here… can Obama “nominate” anyone before he is actually the president?

President-elect Barack Obama planned to nominate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state on Monday, transforming a once-bitter political rivalry into a high-level strategic and diplomatic partnership.

1. Serious answer:

   Absolutely.

   Technically speaking you and I can actually nominate people to fill our hypothetical cabinets right now if we wanted to—it’s only the formal confirmation process—with the hearings and the meet and greets with the Senators, etc.—that begins after one is sworn in as President.

   Posted by JB on November 30, 2008 at 0007 hrs




2. I’m interested to see how well they play together.  Hillary was so driven toward the Presidency that I’m surprised she’ll accept anything less.  I suppose she could be setting herself up to run in 2012 if Obama is a complete failure, but I’m thinking she’s too old by 2016?

   Posted by Steve on November 30, 2008 at 0516 hrs




3. Technically, that’s why these people get the phrase “Designate” after the name of the office they could enter until the swearing in of Obama.  Then all names will be delivered to the Senate Clerk and the proper nomination process will begin.  They’re “designated” to be “nominated” at a later date.

   Also, technically-speaking, Obama isn’t even “President-Elect” yet.  The Electoral College hasn’t met yet.  That will happen in December.

   Posted by Kevin Binversie on November 30, 2008 at 0721 hrs




4. He is the Messiah, he can do anything he wishes.

   Posted by on November 30, 2008 at 0827 hrs




5. I don’t have an answer to your question.

   But my question is: What about the Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution?  Does this not bar Clinton from being Secretary of State on its face?

   Here’s my thought: the news today about Bill Clinton’s “deal” to reveal donors as somehow paving the way for the nomination will confuse enough people into thinking “oh, there was some snafu with Hillary’s nomination, but I saw something in the news about them taking care of it” - and conflating/staving off the Emoluments issue.

   There are potential fixes to it, but we should have a frank and clear-eyed discussion about whether the fixes used in the past a) apply here, and b) if they do, are they appropriate and actually in accord with the Constitution?

   Posted by Brad V on November 30, 2008 at 1200 hrs




6. The Constitution is becoming a pesky little nuisance to a growing number of our political class.

   This nomination does put Hillary in the line of succession but it would take a conspiracy to pull that off.

   Posted by on November 30, 2008 at 1310 hrs




7. #6.....Let us be honest, the U.S. Constitution has been used as toilet paper for the past eight years.

   Posted by Gregory on November 30, 2008 at 2315 hrs




8. I just don’t understand this from Obama’s viewpoint. She brings a lot of baggage that’s just going to bring more negative publicity to his administration, plus the whole ‘Bubba’ factor.

   That said - she’s tough as nails and isn’t going to take much crap from other countries. So - perhaps she will do ok. I don’t like her at all - but I think you need a pitbull in that office right now.

   Posted by on December 01, 2008 at 0007 hrs




9. Um, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s Cheney/Rove/Norquist that sell our country to the highest bidder; that is, if they even allow bidding.  So don’t worry about big bad Bill Clinton.

   Hillary wears the pants in that family.

   Besides, Bill was the best Republican president we’ve ever had since Eisenhower, so why the worry, rightwingers?

   Hillary will make a great Secretary of State and an even greater US Supreme Court justice. Instead of spinning conspiracy theories, chew on that!

   Posted by on December 01, 2008 at 1126 hrs




10. So, when Obama was pontificating about how America needs to change its image in the international community following eight disastrous years of Bush foreign policies, this is what he had in mind??

    Didn’t HRC support most of the positions of the Bush Administration on foreign policy?

    As I said in a previous post, Obama will prove to the third term of President Bush.  Oh, and by the way, I believe she prefers “Executive Assistant of State”, as opposed to ‘Secretary’.

    Posted by on December 01, 2008 at 1732 hrs




11. I just don’t understand this from Obama’s viewpoint. She brings a lot of baggage that’s just going to bring more negative publicity to his administration, plus the whole ‘Bubba’ factor.

    This is negative only to the American right wing. Both Clintons are widely admired and respected throughout most of the world, and Hillary Clinton will bring a toughmindedness to the position that it’s been lacking in recent years.

    Didn’t HRC support most of the positions of the Bush Administration on foreign policy?

    Doesn’t matter. As Secretary of State, she won’t be formulating policy, she’ll be carrying it out. Of course, she’ll have major input into policy, but ultimately, she’ll be carrying out Obama’s policies.

    Posted by on December 01, 2008 at 1746 hrs




12. Don’t know about how this is viewed by the “right wing”, but I think it’s an indication that, despite the rhetoric that got him elected, Obama will govern from the center.  To me, that’s better news than I expected.

    Posted by on December 02, 2008 at 0933 hrs




13. He will rule the world so is there a difference in appointing someone he wants? not really.

    Posted by Hayabusa Fairings on December 11, 2008 at 1211 hrs