Login/Sign Up




Hillary Clinton will make a good Secretary of State
Politics


Obama Picks Hillary for Secretary of State
...
lithium
Nov 21, 2008
10 votes
6 debaters
8
6
3
1
1


+ Add Argument

6
Agree


teachme
Nov 22, 2008
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Hmm...wondering how you feel about the infamous George Bush? The combination of ALL the traits you listed: ignorant; untrustworthy; greedy; and manipulative seem to fit him to a "T." And what words would you use to describe the suspicious "smile" he cracks on his face?

In my mind, it's all too strange how he has been our president now, for the past...not one...but TWO terms. The legitimacy of his first election will always remain in question. However, I will never understand the ignorance of the Amercian people who voted him in again.

 
teachme
Nov 22, 2008
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Frankie posted..."Maybe if Bush had a half way decent Democratic rival in the 04 election he wouldn't have been voted in twice."

Half way decent democratic rival!? Oh pleeeasee...Gore was an exceptional candidate! Just because you were too blind to see it...and instead, elected to vote for the war mongers who have run this country all to hell, and back again!!! It's a little too late to be complainin' now...don't you think?

Frankie posted..."Truth is, no one knows what kind of Secretary of State she'll be and to say "She'll get the job done with flying colors!" seems a bit too presumptious and idealistic."

As presumptuous as it may seem...my comment is nowhere near as inappropriate and far fetched as, "Hillary Clinton lies with every breath of her body, and with every witch-like smile she cracks." You're sounding very superstitious these days, Frankie. When are you holding your witchcraft trial?

The fact is...I'm very confident that Hillary will be getting the job done with "flying colors"...especially if the record of your buddy, George Bush, was to be used for comparison.

...Can't imagine why she wouldn't. :)

 
jonjax71
Nov 21, 2008
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Do you have problems with women in positions of power and authority? Do you believe in quality for women? I am very matriacal and proud of it.

 
teachme
Nov 22, 2008
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

I don't think it's possible to trust any politician completely...but, I do know that Hillary Clinton is highly intelligent, politically savvy, and more than capable of fulfilling the job responsibilities you have listed.

She is a powerful and dynamic individual, who is well-informed, shrewd, and perceptive. ...She'll get the job done with flying colors! :)

 
frankiej4189
Nov 23, 2008
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vogs Show

The 2008 election was a choice between 2 bowls of sh*t just as they've been in 2000 and 2004. I will admit, Barry Obama did smell a little less worse than McCain but it was still a choice between Crappy candidate A and Crappy candidate B

 
jonjax71
Nov 21, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
She has the r e s p e c t of the entire world, has the experience and know how to get things done diplomatically like few have done before her, she has clout !!!!!

 
rickjcfl
Nov 26, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

frankie I have to say that I agree with you about Sarah Palin. However your hatred for Nancy Pelosi I find puzzling. In your other debate you accused her of being on a witch hunt for bush. Yet when people were demanding that bush be impeached Pelosi was the one who said impeachment was off the table. So much for your witch hunt. What has Pelosi done that has had such a negative impact on you? Why the mysoginistic hatred for women?
As far as Hillary goes I think she has the potential to make a great Secretary of State. She has foreign experience from her travels as first lady. She has experience in Gov't. And she is well liked by many around the world. Compare her to the current Sec of State we now have that abysmal failure they call Condi Rice. Now you want to talk about Liars, you can't get much more of a liar in the Secretary of States Office then Condi. I mean when Jimmy Carter says she is not telling the truth then you know she's lying like a rug. Heck even George Tenent said she was not truthful.
So having Hillary as Sec. of State can only be an improvement over Rice.

 
crazyguy510
Nov 26, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The only reason I think she should be secratary of state is so she can't run for president in 2012

 
+ Add Argument

4
Disagree


frankiej4189
Nov 21, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Conservative ideologies aside, i dont think its a good fit. Here are some of the responsibilities of the SecState:

- Storage and use of the Great Seal of the United States(whatever that means?)
- Performance of protocol functions for the White House
- Drafting of proclamations, and replies to inquiries.
- Negotiating with foreign representatives and instructing U.S. embassies or consulates abroad.
- Principal adviser to the President in the determination of U.S. foreign policy
- Responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities.

*Courtesy of Wikipedia

Seems like an odd choice by Obama to me considering that Obama spent the better part of 6 months trashing Clinton's (isnt it weird that i can say Clinton and you think of Hillary not Bill?) foreign policy experience. He (Obama) wasn't questioning the quantity of experience, but the quality of experience. Frequently saying that she never really did any heavy lifting in places she claimed to have success in. Not to mention the Bosnia mess where she completley lied to everyone and said she was under sniper fire.

Not a good choice.

 
frankiej4189
Nov 21, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: jonjax71 Show

No i don't have problems with women in power. But coincidentally enough i have problems with the major political figure heads that happen to be women. Nancy Pelosi (see my debate), Hillary Clinton, and now Sarah Palin are all women in the political world i don't like. It's not because of their vagina, its because i think that they're all some combination of ignorant, untrustworthy, greedy, and manipulative. Hillary Clinton lies with every breath of her body, and with every witch-like smile she cracks. I don't want a position as important as Secretary of State to be filled by such a liar.

 
frankiej4189
Nov 22, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

I think that our President is not that smart of a person. He's made extremely costly blunders and i don't trust what he says.

Maybe if Bush had a half way decent Democratic rival in the 04 election he wouldn't have been voted in twice.

Hillary Clinton certainly knows what she's doing. She's no idiot. But i question her character more than her wit. Truth is, no one knows what kind of Secretary of State she'll be and to say "She'll get the job done with flying colors!" seems a bit too presumptious and idealistic. Honest to God, i hope that she, along with the rest of TEAM OBAMA does the best job our country has ever seen. But none of us know how they're going to do so we'll just have to wait and see.

 
frankiej4189
Nov 23, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

I'll ignore your Hillary Clinton dribble because it's not worth my time to type up a rebuttal.

To steal a page from Black Kodiak's book:

1. What makes you think i voted in the 2004 election?
2. What makes you think that if i did vote in 04 that i would have voted for George W. Bush?
3. What about my rebuttal says anything to support your notion that i think Bush was an "exceptional candidate"?



 
vogs
Nov 23, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

Uh, just to be sure here, he said 2004 election. That isnt Gore, its Kerry. And while I think Gore is an exceptional candidate, I'm honestly am not sure Kerry would make a great president. Of course, it would have been close to impossible to lower the bar more than Bush.

Everyone kept saying that in this election (2008) we had to pick the lesser of two evils but I respectfully disagree.

In fact I think in this election we had a choice between two competent intelligent LEADERS. To see what I mean compare this election to 04. We had two men who were not forceful leaders, we really had to pick the "least worst."

Unfortunately, and almost indesputably, we picked the wrong one.

But I think now in 2008 the country would have been much better off with either McCain or Obama. Both intelligent inspiring leaders. Neither would stiffle intellegent inquiry and honesty like the current administration.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong