It Could Still Be Fun
December 1, 2008
Sure, the prospect of Hillary Clinton as the head ambassador of the United States to all other countries is one of the most frightening things you could think of aside from the Pentagon unleashing US Military forces on American citizens (didn’t Star Trek First Contact start out like that?), and/or the words President and Barack Obama in the same sentence, but bear in mind, there are a few bright, shiny dots on this otherwise dark and dingy pantsuit. Lets go over them, shall we?
1. All the right people are a bit antsy about her appointment.
Nearly a month after Barack Obama’s election, his decision to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of State is causing Arabs and Israelis to readjust expectations of his administration’s policies toward the Middle East.
During the campaign, Obama carried the hopes of many Arabs for a new brand of diplomacy more open to their views, one that would revive America’s power and prestige in the region and end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Clearly, they’ve forgotten about the initial Clinton “peace plan” which involved forcing Israel to turn over half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and the Clinton-era heyday. You know, the one Yassir Arafat was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for. I guess, in comparison to what they could have had had Obama decided to go it alone or name George Soros Secretary of State, they’ve gotten what they deem to be the short end of the stick, and from now on, they’re going to have to deal one on one with a woman who isn’t going to lovingly refer to their treatment of women as “progressive,” (though I’m sure Madeline Albreight can still be reached for comment on occasion), and she’s going to wear pants, which means they’ll have to work a bit harder to restrain themselves from stoning her. Hilarity will, no doubt, ensue.
2. Hillary is at least sympathetic to the plight of womens rights overseas. Sure, she many not be as tough on “reproductive freedom” as we’d like her to be, but at least she doesn’t appear to be as overtly complicit in the One Child Policy as UNIFEM, and its about time that we had someone who is able to make womens rights abroad a priority.
3. One sentence: four years of awkward photo ops in the native garb of third world countries. Add to that the always-fantastic gift-giving ceremony (”Why, thank you, Your Highness. The citizens of the United States and I do appreciate your thoughtful gift of a bull scrotum!”), and you’ve got yourself four years of irresistible material.
Of course, we’ll still get Bill Clinton along for the deal.
UPDATE: So, um, Samantha Powers is totally on this team, too. We are so screwed.
Posted in Uncategorized
December 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
You’re trained in the law, right? So maybe you can tell me how this appointment is even constitutional. Article I, Section 6 of our constitution makes it pretty clear that Hillary can’t serve as secretary of state because the pay for that office was increased while she was a senator. So why haven’t the “genius”, Aubamaton lawyers noticed this? Or is it that only us religion-clinging, gun-toting nuts still read the constitution?
December 1st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Constitution? What’s that, compared to the pampering and pandering of the ME generation?… Hillary will do a wonderful job, specially if her new boss (and ain’t that just a wonderful image to contemplate) is going to follow along in the time honored Democrat policy of finding us a shooting war to be in. Since Iraq is winding down to a reasonable level, and nobody really cares about Afganistan
But I’m shocked that E.M. hasn’t yet talked about the news of the day. Kwame has actually resigned and admitted that “I Lied.”
come visit and don’t forget to lol ur pols pho paws!
December 1st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Well, to be honest, P., that clause only applies if someone brings it up. I know it sounds weird, but when dealing with Presidential appointments that are confirmed by the Congress, someone would have to challenge the appointment with the clause. Now, I realize there are a lot of Republicans who might, but remember, the Senate confirms the appointments, and will a sitting Senator really ruin his or her chances of an eventual Cabinet position by trying to bar Senator Clinton under this clause? They’d get it thrown right back at them unless a few key circumstances, and it would look like petty politics to boot. And once she’s in, a citizen who was directly affected by her (and I mean DIRECTLY) would be about the only person who could bring cause to have her removed. It seems pretty unlikely that it would happen, but I suppose anything is possible.
Most Constitutional scholars would probably argue that this is a semantic problem and that Clinton’s appointment, while probably in violation of the direct reading of the Constitution, is probably NOT in violation of the spirit of the law. One would have to go back into the annals of history to determined whether the Founders intended to make this a direct bar to assuming a Cabinet position or this was done in response to a very specific situation. The letter of the law is what is being defied here. The long term effects of it are pretty dour, but as I said before, the political machinery probably won’t mind riding roughshod over the letter of the law without a lot of investigation so long as they understand the long-term political consequences of challenging the appointment.
It won’t be the first time THAT’S happened.
December 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Constitution? Bah - it’s a Living Document, remember, and bends like a willow in the wind. She has as much chance of being disqualified as we have of ever seeing Obama’s real, original birth certificate.
Besides that, one can hardly wait till the Iron Lady meets Putin, or Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. They’ll be driven home, licking their wounds, and peace and harmony will cover the land.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:27 pm
beyond that, it depends on the type of raise the office was given. there’s some case law out there (I’m blanking on it) that basically said judges are entitled to cost of living adjustments because otherwise their compensation diminishes over the course of their careers. The same principle would likely be applied in this case. Plus, as EM said, spirit of the law vs letter of the law - I’d have to dig through my copy of the Federalist Papers, but I suspect this was to prevent a revolving door between the executive and legislature; and, since very few go from one to the other and back again, I doubt the Courts would find this to be a violation.
besides, it’s not like Congress hasn’t been playing fast and loose with the rules for a while (for example the arbitrary limit of 435 members of the House).