secretary of state love

secretary of state


from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

  • noun the person who holds the secretaryship of the Department of State
  • noun the position of the head of the State Department
  • noun a government minister for foreign relations


Sorry, no etymologies found.


  • Each member of Congress needs to think this through, as the president, as the secretary of state is thinking it through.

    CNN Transcript Oct 3, 2002


Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • The historical ‘natural stepping-stone to the Presidency’. (*hint hint* Hillary…)

    November 16, 2008

  • The whole Secretary of State to POTUS career path has long since been closed. Personally, I think Hilary sees this office as being as high as she can go, her best chance to solidify her legacy, and that is why she'll take it.

    Obama is a lock for the Democratic nomination in 2012, and by 2016 she will be nearly the age of McCain in 2008. Add to that the fact that the American public seems hesitant to give any one party the presidency for more than eight years in recent history, and it doesn't look very good for her.

    November 16, 2008

  • Yes, I'm just being irrational. Although, in the case of Obama, Biden as VP doesn't seem to be his apparent successor, and the electability of any GOP candidate in the near to medium future is looking rocky due to ideological and generational reasons.

    Secretary of State would be good for her. It's prestigious and feeds her ego, and the number of truly global problems (climate change, financial crisis, interminable Middle-east crises) means she'll have the opportunity to distinguish herself (again, ego).

    November 16, 2008

  • Women live longer than men. It's really Joe the Biden (five years older than Hillary) who will be too old in '16. It wasn't too long ago we had 8 years of Reagan followed by 4 of Bush père. Hillary '16 for sure.

    kewpid: nice.

    November 16, 2008

  • True, women do out live men, but I doubt seriously that the American electorate is going to choose its first female president when she will be nearly 70 by the time she's takes the oath.

    As far as Bush succeeding Reagan, I think there were a lot of peculiarities to that. Reagan was, and remains to be, hugely popular with the right. I'd venture to say he was the most ensconced president since FDR in that regard. That helped Bush. Plus, Bush 41 was a different animal all together than Reagan, and that helped him garner more votes than someone who was a carbon copy of Reagan. Prior to that you'd have to go back to the FDR/Truman era to find one party in office for so long.

    I also feel that if the Republicans can come back from Watergate, and in less that eight years hold the presidency again, then things don't look so bleak. It sucks to be a Republican now, but there is an ebb and flow to politics. Two years ago Republicans controlled Congress and the White House.

    And I don't mean to sound so cynical about Hilary. While I don't doubt ego and legacy have something to do with her taking the office - assuming it is offered - I also think she has selfless motivations for the job. I just don't see a person being as dedicated to the political game as she has been for as long as she has been unless that person has real convictions about matters of politics and policy.

    November 16, 2008

  • I like to read predictions as much as the next bear, but I'm reminded, thinking back to, say, August '08, just how fast circumstances can change and affect politics pretty wildly. Four years is a long, long time away to be making predictions about who is electable and who isn't, let alone eight or twelve years from now.

    November 16, 2008

  • I think the Republicans are going to be in the wilderness for longer than you think, TYP. There is an ebb and a flow to politics, as to most things, but the GOP right now isn't ebbing or flowing; it appears frozen. They tacked too hard to the right for too long, but a large majority of the party seems to think that the answer to the drubbing they just got is to plow ahead on the same rightward course, rather than tack back to the center. You'd think party moderates would be getting their say about now, but it's not happening, and until it does, I think they'll suffer the same fate as the conservatives in Britain, who lost repeated election when they kept letting their hardline double down. They've been out of power 11 years and counting.

    And this doesn't even take into account tectonic demographic shifts, almost all of which are in the Democrat's favor. You can't be a national majority party when you cater primarily to rural white Southerners.

    November 16, 2008

  • You hit upon part of the problem John, the Republican base has been disillusioned for sometime. The wheels nearly fell off when McCain won the nomination and I think he would have faired worse without Palin.

    There will be a civil war in the Republican party between the centrist and right-wing, and who will win I can't say.

    But I do take solace (shocking admission coming), that the Senate race in Georgia, if memory serves, would be done and over with if the Libertarian candidate hadn't done so well. The Libertarian platform may be just the right mix of solid conservative economics and liberal social policy to revive the Republicans.

    Also, I'd argue that America is probably the most conservative developed nation in the world, so I really don't see a long exodus for Republicans. Brits are just more liberal than Yanks.

    For instance, look at the hubbub about Prop. 8 in California. Obama trounced McCain in California, but they gay marriage ban passed, due in no small part to the votes of Obama supporters. It seems even many hard core Democrats are not as socially liberal as they Henry Cabot Lodge, "cross of gold" type progressives.

    November 16, 2008