S.O.S. SoS

Looks like the fix is in. I am bitterly disappointed.

Al Giordano spells out another reason why we don't want a Clinton in charge of foreign policy:

For more than a week prior to the massacre, non-governmental organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, had warned the US State Department of the impending atrocity. But the deal had already been struck with the Mexican regime that in exchange for its acquiescence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US would turn a blind eye to all matters of human rights in Mexican territory...

Secretary of State? No!

Obama's been busy disappointing everyone who has an eye on Bolivia with his appointment of Craig Greg as his White House counsel (Greg reps Goni, the ex-pres of Bolivia whom Evo is trying to extradite for his role in the government's killing of 60-plus Bolivians in 2003). (H/T to El Duderino.)

Scary stuff--it doesn't bode to0 well for the Obama administration's relationship with South America (the lefty countries, anyway, which is most of them). Also scary is the talk of Hillary Clinton getting the secretary of state position (which I blogged about last week). Ken Silverstein, over at Harper's, lists five reasons why she'd be a bad choice. Reason No. 2--that Obama would find it politically impossible to fire her--is something I didn't realize, and it should immediately disqualify her. (I'm betting it does.) But just take a look at reason No. 5!

1. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.

Click on the link, reel back in horror.

Obama's Cabinet

The Mex Files reports on Obama's possible cabinet choices, including the rumor of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State:

The Huffington Post today reports that one of the most flaming neo-liberals is under consideration for Secretary of State … Hillary Clinton. During Ms. Clinton’s recent primary Presidential campaign, several Latin Americanists worried about her stance towards the region. Stephen Zunes, in Foreign Policy in Focus, dismissed her world-view as no different from her husbands, or either of his two predecessors.

But over at Narco News' The Field, Al Giordano shoots that down, saying that the rumors originated in the Clinton camp, mostly to interfere in potential SoS Kerry's and Richardson's selection processes (Mex Files endorses Richardson, BTW). Giordano's got a great point, too: Obama's recent demand for disclosure from any potential appointee would throw a cog in the Clintan machine's gears:

The conflicts of interest of former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Global Initiative - a "charity" with a $208 million dollar surplus, undisclosed donors, many of them foreign - signify that before Senator Clinton could hold the post of Secretary of State, Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe would have to disband their own "shadow state department" that is the Clinton Global Initiative....

The real issue here is that the conflict of interest created by the Clinton Global Initiative rules out Senator Clinton for Secretary of State. The Obama job application form is very specific about unearthing potential conflicts by spouses and "family members."

Does anybody really believe that Obama will say to all his job applicants that there's a double standard, one set of requirements for them and another for the Clintons?

Let's pray that Giordano's correct.