Definition of Change: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State
Posted: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
by Alf Gordon
President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of change. If change is defined as "moving back to the Clinton era" then he's definitely keeping his promises. Rumors are flying that Hillary Clinton is a prime candidate to become Secretary of State. Senator Clinton, however, appears to have reservations about taking on the position.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one of Clinton's top advisors says that the senator is "flattered" by Obama's interest, but is "agonizing over the decision." Why? One possible reason is because she is an independent person and is having a difficult time knowing that accepting this position means giving up some of that independence.
"If you are secretary of state you work for the president," the adviser said in an e-mail response to questions from The New York Times. "If you are a senator, you work for yourself and the people that elected you."
Now that statement strikes me as funny. I was not aware that senators, who are elected by the people of the United States, work for themselves. I thought they were government employees who were accountable to the people who voted them into office. I was also not aware that the President of the United States also falls into this category of self-employed. If Hillary is concerned about having to be accountable to anyone in any job she takes, it would be natural to assume that she believes the position of President also qualifies as an independent position. Thanks to this new definition, I can understand why there are so many problems in our government. Our country is not being run by civil servants; it's being manhandled by entrepreneurs who follow their own agenda at the expense of the taxpayers.
Another possible reason that Clinton is unsure about becoming Secretary of State is her outstanding debt. With over $7.5 million owed because of her Presidential bid (including personal loans), she is anxious to retire that debt. However, the Hatch Act governs the political activities of federal employees and prohibits the solicitation and receipt of political contributions. It states in part that a federal employee seeking to retire campaign debt incurred before his or her federal employment would be barred from personally soliciting the donations. However, the "campaign organization of a candidate who later becomes a federal employee may continue to organize and promote fund-raising events to retire campaign debt." In other words, as Secretary of State Clinton could not solicit donations to pay off her debt, although her campaign organization could continue to do so.
This reason actually makes sense to me. Why accept a job that won't let you make the money you need to pay your bills? That's simple economics. It's certainly a lot more feasible than the previous reason.
The possibility of Senator Clinton becoming Secretary of State increased greatly today as former President Bill Clinton has agreed to open his financial books to Obama's aides. This would help eliminate any impropriety in his financial dealings and clear the way for his wife to be offered the position. Aides to Obama have also met with Senator Clinton and resolved some of her concerns about the position and about former President Clinton's financial interests.
Senator Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State may have some setbacks due to her concerns over independence and finances. Still, the odds continue to increase in her favor. Meanwhile, we can sit back and happily enjoy the change that Barack Obama has promised to bring to the United States--right after he contacts Mr. Peabody to borrow the WABAC (pronounced Wayback) Machine and return us to the 1990s.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one of Clinton's top advisors says that the senator is "flattered" by Obama's interest, but is "agonizing over the decision." Why? One possible reason is because she is an independent person and is having a difficult time knowing that accepting this position means giving up some of that independence.
Now that statement strikes me as funny. I was not aware that senators, who are elected by the people of the United States, work for themselves. I thought they were government employees who were accountable to the people who voted them into office. I was also not aware that the President of the United States also falls into this category of self-employed. If Hillary is concerned about having to be accountable to anyone in any job she takes, it would be natural to assume that she believes the position of President also qualifies as an independent position. Thanks to this new definition, I can understand why there are so many problems in our government. Our country is not being run by civil servants; it's being manhandled by entrepreneurs who follow their own agenda at the expense of the taxpayers.
Another possible reason that Clinton is unsure about becoming Secretary of State is her outstanding debt. With over $7.5 million owed because of her Presidential bid (including personal loans), she is anxious to retire that debt. However, the Hatch Act governs the political activities of federal employees and prohibits the solicitation and receipt of political contributions. It states in part that a federal employee seeking to retire campaign debt incurred before his or her federal employment would be barred from personally soliciting the donations. However, the "campaign organization of a candidate who later becomes a federal employee may continue to organize and promote fund-raising events to retire campaign debt." In other words, as Secretary of State Clinton could not solicit donations to pay off her debt, although her campaign organization could continue to do so.
This reason actually makes sense to me. Why accept a job that won't let you make the money you need to pay your bills? That's simple economics. It's certainly a lot more feasible than the previous reason.
The possibility of Senator Clinton becoming Secretary of State increased greatly today as former President Bill Clinton has agreed to open his financial books to Obama's aides. This would help eliminate any impropriety in his financial dealings and clear the way for his wife to be offered the position. Aides to Obama have also met with Senator Clinton and resolved some of her concerns about the position and about former President Clinton's financial interests.
Senator Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State may have some setbacks due to her concerns over independence and finances. Still, the odds continue to increase in her favor. Meanwhile, we can sit back and happily enjoy the change that Barack Obama has promised to bring to the United States--right after he contacts Mr. Peabody to borrow the WABAC (pronounced Wayback) Machine and return us to the 1990s.
This Article has been viewed 322 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (3 total)hi alf,i enjoyed this article, and learned some things along the way.thanks for sharing your thoughts,best regards,sue thomAs did I, Sue. Thank you for your kind words.
Yes Alf, change. a very simple word that can be so complex at times. You see the Clintons actually did win. Best Wishes, RobertRobert, sounds like this may be a case of losing the battle but winning the war, eh? I'm sure we'll find out.
One issue that you brought to my mind came from that part where you wrote:was not aware that senators, who are elected by the people of the United States, work for themselves. I thought they were government employees who were accountable to the people who voted them into office. I was also not aware that the President of the United States also falls into this category of self-employed.Of course the elected officials work for the people, but there is an aspect of their job that makes them sort of self-employed. We live in a democracy, but it is a democracy governed by a republic. We elect representatives and they are then our representatives. We elect them based on our understanding of their political philosophy. We can't afford to put ever single decision made to a vote of every single citizen of the United States, because that would be so cumbersome that we would never get anything done.For example, if they are "no regulation" people then we can assume that they will resist regulations.We hire them, and then we expect them to do their job without requiring the supervision of citizen votes until the next election comes along. They are hired to do the job, and until we go back and re-elect or vote them out they are to do the job as they see fit.Am I wrong in thinking this?Is there a risk that these elected folk might vote in ways that a lot, or the majority of the people disapprove? Yeah, it not only might happen, it happens all the time.I realize that the primary aim of your article was a focus on the choice of Sent. Clinton as Secretary of State, but this other part just got my mind to thinking.I like to think, even if many think I do a poor job of it. I thank you for causing me to ponder some stuff I had not been pondering before. It is one of the great things about writing, and reading.Thanks: texTex, I see where you might view our elected officials as self-employed. Maybe the issue is that while we view them as our employees (how many times have you heard somebody say "My taxes pay your salary"?) they view themselves as the bosses. And you're probably right on with the part about them voting in ways that the majority of their constituents would disapprove of. That's how the terms RINO and DINO came about, after all.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.