Writers' Community!
Home Page Two Columnists Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login
Article Submission
We Need YOUR Articles!
We'll Promote Them for FREE!

Author Login

New Authors
Register Here


Now Serving 6,131 Authors
64,249 Quality Articles
& 4,480 Current Users Online!
Featured Authors
Avis Ward (11,752)
Jane Bullard (2,076)
Michael Ramzy (517)
Judge Dred (313)
Michelle Mackin (3,534)
Mark Parsec (33,345)
Mogama (14,610)
Steve Kovacs (570)
Mike Fak (5,988)
Robert Melaccio, Sr. (5,516)
Gary W. Halsey Sr. (7,303)
Terry Mitchell (4,232)
David Pekrul (4,313)
Missing Link (707)

View All Featured Authors
Most Recent
Now Just How Asinine Is All This Talk?

Restoring The Health Care Market System

Communism; Eliakim the Scribe; and Kim II Sung's "brother": Sun Myung Moon

The Mahdi, The Irish Referendum: bumps along the eschatological highway

Am I confused?

Move over D-Day, Flag Day and Fathers Day Obama gives June to LBGT

I Just Don't Care

Why Obama is wrong and Why America Is for Israel's New Settlements

Ready to Launch? Swine Flu phase 2?

Bailout Blues.

Home » Categories » Society » Political Viewpoint » Definition of Change: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State » Printer Friendly

Alf Gordon

A Little Common Sense

Definition of Change: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State

Rated 4 out of 5
No Reader Ratings Available ?
Rate It  /  View Comments  /  View All Articles submitted by Alf Gordon
Submitted Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Alf Gordon (906)
Alf Gordon


Log in to become a member of Alf Gordon's Fan Club!


President-elect Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of change.  If change is defined as "moving back to the Clinton era" then he's definitely keeping his promises.   Rumors are flying that Hillary Clinton is a prime candidate to become Secretary of State.  Senator Clinton, however, appears to have reservations about taking on the position.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, one of Clinton's top advisors says that the senator is "flattered" by Obama's interest, but is "agonizing over the decision."  Why?   One possible reason is because she is an independent person and is having a difficult time knowing that accepting this position means giving up some of that independence.

"If you are secretary of state you work for the president," the adviser said in an e-mail response to questions from The New York Times.  "If you are a senator, you work for yourself and the people that elected you."

Now that statement strikes me as funny.  I was not aware that senators, who are elected by the people of the United States, work for themselves.  I thought they were government employees who were accountable to the people who voted them into office.  I was also not aware that the President of the United States also falls into this category of self-employed.  If Hillary is concerned about having to be accountable to anyone in any job she takes, it would be natural to assume that she believes the position of President also qualifies as an independent position.  Thanks to this new definition, I can understand why there are so many problems in our government.  Our country is not being run by civil servants; it's being manhandled by entrepreneurs who follow their own agenda at the expense of the taxpayers.

Another possible reason that Clinton is unsure about becoming Secretary of State is her outstanding debt.  With over $7.5 million owed because of her Presidential bid (including personal loans), she is anxious to retire that debt.  However, the Hatch Act governs the political activities of federal employees and prohibits the solicitation and receipt of political contributions.  It states in part that a federal employee seeking to retire campaign debt incurred before his or her federal employment would be barred from personally soliciting the donations.  However, the "campaign organization of a candidate who later becomes a federal employee may continue to organize and promote fund-raising events to retire campaign debt."  In other words, as Secretary of State Clinton could not solicit donations to pay off her debt, although her campaign organization could continue to do so.

This reason actually makes sense to me.  Why accept a job that won't let you make the money you need to pay your bills?  That's simple economics.  It's certainly a lot more feasible than the previous reason.

The possibility of Senator Clinton becoming Secretary of State increased greatly today as former President Bill Clinton has agreed to open his financial books to Obama's aides.  This would help eliminate any impropriety in his financial dealings and clear the way for his wife to be offered the position.  Aides to Obama have also met with Senator Clinton and resolved some of her concerns about the position and about former President Clinton's financial interests.

Senator Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State may have some setbacks due to her concerns over independence and finances.  Still, the odds continue to increase in her favor.  Meanwhile, we can sit back and happily enjoy the change that Barack Obama has promised to bring to the United States--right after he contacts Mr. Peabody to borrow the WABAC (pronounced Wayback) Machine and return us to the 1990s.
 

Alf Gordon is a consultant and has been writing on various topics for many years, both in the public and private sectors. He and his wife live in Houston, Texas.






Reprint Rights

Log in to become a member of Alf Gordon's Fan Club!

Comments on this article:


» left by sue thom from nj (224 days 15 hours ago.)
Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
hi alf,
i enjoyed this article, and learned some things along the way.
thanks for sharing your thoughts,
best regards,
sue thom

Respond to this comment
» left by Alf Gordon (910)
Alf Gordon
(220 days 17 hours ago.)

As did I, Sue.  Thank you for your kind words.

Respond to this comment

» left by Robert Melaccio, Sr. (5,460)
Robert Melaccio, Sr.
(224 days 2 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
Yes Alf, change. a very simple word that can be so complex at times. You see the Clintons actually did win. Best Wishes, Robert

Respond to this comment
» left by Alf Gordon (910)
Alf Gordon
(220 days 17 hours ago.)

Robert, sounds like this may be a case of losing the battle but winning the war, eh?  I'm sure we'll find out.

Respond to this comment

» left by Tex Norman (4,623)
Tex Norman
(220 days 22 hours ago.)

Reader Rating: 5 out of 5
One issue that you brought to my mind came from that part where you wrote:
 
was not aware that senators, who are elected by the people of the United States, work for themselves. I thought they were government employees who were accountable to the people who voted them into office. I was also not aware that the President of the United States also falls into this category of self-employed.
 
Of course the elected officials work for the people, but there is an aspect of their job that makes them sort of self-employed. We live in a democracy, but it is a democracy governed by a republic. We elect representatives and they are then our representatives. We elect them based on our understanding of their political philosophy. We can't afford to put ever single decision made to a vote of every single citizen of the United States, because that would be so cumbersome that we would never get anything done.
 
For example, if they are "no regulation" people then we can assume that they will resist regulations.
 
We hire them, and then we expect them to do their job without requiring the supervision of citizen votes until the next election comes along. They are hired to do the job, and until we go back and re-elect or vote them out they are to do the job as they see fit.
 
Am I wrong in thinking this?
 
Is there a risk that these elected folk might vote in ways that a lot, or the majority of the people disapprove? Yeah, it not only might happen, it happens all the time.
 
I realize that the primary aim of your article was a focus on the choice of Sent. Clinton as Secretary of State, but this other part just got my mind to thinking.
 
I like to think, even if many think I do a poor job of it. I thank you for causing me to ponder some stuff I had not been pondering before. It is one of the great things about writing, and reading.
 
Thanks: tex

Respond to this comment
» left by Alf Gordon (910)
Alf Gordon
(220 days 17 hours ago.)

Tex, I see where you might view our elected officials as self-employed.  Maybe the issue is that while we view them as our employees (how many times have you heard somebody say "My taxes pay your salary"?) they view themselves as the bosses.  And you're probably right on with the part about them voting in ways that the majority of their constituents would disapprove of.  That's how the terms RINO and DINO came about, after all.

Respond to this comment

Was this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:

This Article has been viewed 138 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on 11/19/2008 7:43:17 AM.
View other articles written by Alf Gordon (906)
Alf Gordon


If you found this article interesting, you may want to check out:

Disclaimer:  All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional or organization.


Today's Most Popular
10 Patriotic Quotes to Celebrate Flag Day

World War three prophecy

A Blessing in Disguise

Corruption of the federal prison system: The Revolving Door (or: where your tax money is going)

African-Americans Are Tired of Being Treated Like Second-Class Citizens

17 Favorite Thomas Jefferson Quotes to Celebrate His Birthday

10 Patriotic Quotes to Celebrate Cinco De Mayo

The Roots of Honor Killings

Boston Legal Rips Bush Administration

Real Solutions between Israel and Palestine

Viewed from Cache. Load Time: 0.047.

Home  |  Page Two  |  FAQ's  |  Contact  |  Terms of Service  |  Article Submission Guidelines  |  Writers' Contests  |  Privacy  |  Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company