<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/15/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/15/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state/</link>
	<description>68.3 Square Miles of D.C. News and Opinion</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:05:00 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carlos Navarro</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/15/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state/comment-page-1/#comment-392581</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlos Navarro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:01:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=10335#comment-392581</guid>
		<description>Barack Obama’s decision to offer Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State post could well turn out to be his first major blunder, for these obvious reasons:   

First, there’s the inseparable bond with her husband Bill. Given the duo’s unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be content to play second fiddle.  From day one they would be scheming to usurp control of the White House. Once they get a foothold, Obama would be hard-pressed to rein them in. 

Then, there’s the Clintons’ long history of corruption, deception and sleaze—Whitewatergate, Pardongate, Cattle-futuresgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fellatiogate, the impeachment and near conviction, the punitive IRS audits, the violent deaths of potentially incriminating witness.  This alone would provide Obama’s enemies with all the grime they needed to smear his presidency.   

Consider further that unlike a Condoleezza Rice or a Madelaine Albright—not to mention bona fide statesmen like Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk and John Foster Dulles--Hillary Clinton lacks the educational and cultural gravitas to represent our nation abroad.  Her lawyering in Arkansas and stint in Congress doesn’t quite cut it. She did get 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, probably more than Obama, but a large proportion of those votes were cast by  diehard feminists and the less educated, hardly the constituency whose support lends credibility to a Secretary of State.  

Barack Obama should recall the reasons why he didn’t choose Hillary as his VP running mate.  For his and the nation’s sake, let us hope that she doesn’t accept his Secretary of State offer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barack Obama’s decision to offer Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State post could well turn out to be his first major blunder, for these obvious reasons:   </p>
<p>First, there’s the inseparable bond with her husband Bill. Given the duo’s unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be content to play second fiddle.  From day one they would be scheming to usurp control of the White House. Once they get a foothold, Obama would be hard-pressed to rein them in. </p>
<p>Then, there’s the Clintons’ long history of corruption, deception and sleaze—Whitewatergate, Pardongate, Cattle-futuresgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fellatiogate, the impeachment and near conviction, the punitive IRS audits, the violent deaths of potentially incriminating witness.  This alone would provide Obama’s enemies with all the grime they needed to smear his presidency.   </p>
<p>Consider further that unlike a Condoleezza Rice or a Madelaine Albright—not to mention bona fide statesmen like Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk and John Foster Dulles--Hillary Clinton lacks the educational and cultural gravitas to represent our nation abroad.  Her lawyering in Arkansas and stint in Congress doesn’t quite cut it. She did get 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, probably more than Obama, but a large proportion of those votes were cast by  diehard feminists and the less educated, hardly the constituency whose support lends credibility to a Secretary of State.  </p>
<p>Barack Obama should recall the reasons why he didn’t choose Hillary as his VP running mate.  For his and the nation’s sake, let us hope that she doesn’t accept his Secretary of State offer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Cherkis</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/15/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state/comment-page-1/#comment-389184</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Cherkis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=10335#comment-389184</guid>
		<description>Washington City Paper, flush with cash?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Washington City Paper, flush with cash?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amanda Hess</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/2008/11/15/hillary-clinton-secretary-of-state/comment-page-1/#comment-389040</link>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Hess</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 00:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/citydesk/?p=10335#comment-389040</guid>
		<description>Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?
Huffington Post, Magic Oracle of the Future?
Washington City Paper, Pulitzer Prize?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State?<br />
Huffington Post, Magic Oracle of the Future?<br />
Washington City Paper, Pulitzer Prize?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

