Obama's Cabinet & Cabinet level positions

[The Romulan Republic]

Because as a United States Senator, Hillary Clinton is entitled to stand on the chamber floor and heap criticism upon the Obama administration for all to see. She is also, as a powerful Senator with her hands in any number of committees and subcommittees, in a position to cause untold legislative mischief and headaches for the administration.

Whereas as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is entitled to say "Yes, Mr. President" and carry out Obama's orders with a smile on her face. It's a case of "keep your enemies closer".

But how does it fit with the goal of change, and especially fixing the United State's foreign policy mess, to fill such an critical position with a primarily political appointment?

Of course, Obama's also gracious and wants to reach out. Its entirely in character for him to offer his Democratic competitors positions of power. I'll give him credit for that, in many cases it would be a good thing. But not this. Not her, not for such a critical post. Obama's acceptance was brilliant, his win inspiring and world-shaking. So far he's been handling everything with style and intelligence. So why did he have to screw up on this, of all things?

Oh well, every President makes mistakes.

[SirNitram]

Clinton's not exactly a useless pick here. But that's beside the point. The real problem is one that this thread is already demonstrating. BAM, back to the old recycled 24-hour drama of a Clinton. The GOP, the media, even some Democratics and quite a few independents will promptly lose their fucking minds and scream and wail about this. For the next four years, if it's true.

Hell, let's just quote ABC's The Note. Link

The Hillary rumors are the first potential stumbling block for the smooth machine that is President-elect Barack Obama's transition efforts -- and it revolves around a storyline that seems never to get old.

It was old more than a decade ago! Find some new shiny object to psychopathically obsess over!

[ArcturusMengsk]

Give her a nice padded resume for the 2016 run I suppose.

That woman will never be President, I guarantee it. She'll be sixty-nine in 2016, for one, and she has no real base of support other than older, culturally conservative Democratic females. Republicans loathe her, and progressives despise what her husband did against the movement (that he was the best Republican President the nation ever had is a common joke amongst the left-wing). The nation is moving too far to the left too rapidly for a DLC-style centrist to gain footholds like they did in the 90's.

[The Romulan Republic]

Give her a nice padded resume for the 2016 run I suppose.

That woman will never be President, I guarantee it. She'll be sixty-nine in 2016, for one, and she has no real base of support other than older, culturally conservative Democratic females. Republicans loathe her, and progressives despise what her husband did against the movement (that he was the best Republican President the nation ever had is a common joke amongst the left-wing). The nation is moving too far to the left too rapidly for a DLC-style centrist to gain footholds like they did in the 90's.

What if Obama overplayed his hand, and created the perception that he was moving the country to far and to rapidly to the left? I'm not saying its likely, but...

[ArcturusMengsk]

Give her a nice padded resume for the 2016 run I suppose.

That woman will never be President, I guarantee it. She'll be sixty-nine in 2016, for one, and she has no real base of support other than older, culturally conservative Democratic females. Republicans loathe her, and progressives despise what her husband did against the movement (that he was the best Republican President the nation ever had is a common joke amongst the left-wing). The nation is moving too far to the left too rapidly for a DLC-style centrist to gain footholds like they did in the 90's.

What if Obama overplayed his hand, and created the perception that he was moving the country to far and to rapidly to the left? I'm not saying its likely, but...

The country is moving leftwards with him. If you look at the exit polls on the Prop 8 vote in California, for instance, the only age group that voted against it were the 18-24 year olds. These people will be the predominant generation in eight years, and the nation's politics will make a sharp tack leftward with them as they age. I'm actually more concerned about Obama being too afraid to "pull a Clinton" than I am with him, well, pulling a Clinton. Now is the time for Obama to take dramatic actions to cement a progressive majority the likes of which hasn't been seen since the '64 election. If he's able to do that, then Clinton would be too conservative to win a Democratic primary. Now is the time for a new New Deal.

[The Romulan Republic]

None of which makes me happy about Clinton. I fear this will be remembered as the first mistake of Obama's Presidency. Though RedImperator did give a possible justification, albeit a cynical one.

[ArcturusMengsk]

None of which makes me happy about Clinton. I fear this will be remembered as the first mistake of Obama's Presidency. Though RedImperator did give a possible justification, albeit a cynical one.

It does make sense, in a perverse way: Clinton, through her moderate-Republican-posing-as-a-Democrat husband, has a strong appeal to socially conservative Democrats who see her in an almost populistic light. It would make sense if he were trying to bridge the divide between liberals/New Left and New Deal/Reagan Democrats to put someone like Clinton at a high-level position.

Moreover, and in the abstract, Obama isn't really left-wing, or even a liberal. In many ways his stated policies remind me of those Richard Nixon ran on, albeit in reverse: a relatively strong environmental position, but equally strong support for corporate welfare (which makes sense, given that Michelle Obama was a corporate lawyer), an acceptance of neoliberal welfare reforms, and a promise for tax cuts without a reduction in spending. If you want to know the environment he works in, read the blog of his colleagues Gary Becker (University of Chicago economics theologian) and Richard Posner (most prolific judge on the Seventh U.S. Circuit). These people are neoliberal through and through, though they espouse a sort of "capitalism with a human face" as far as private charity goes. He's certainly to the left of Bill Clinton, but that's not hard to do: there was not one iota of difference between Clinton and Bush in the '92 election, and Clinton openly supported such right-wing planks as NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a horrendous welfare 'reform' policy, etc. Obama is a start, and much better than Clinton, but he is no left-winger.

I do however think that we will have a genuine left-wing President within the next two decades, and when he (or she) comes it will be as seismic a political event as was Reagan's election in 1980. Not every President heralds a change in the dominant social ideology, even when they are elected out of the opposition Party; it seems to only happen two or three times a century. But the present conservative slant has existed for at least twenty-eight (Reagan) and possibly as long as forty (Nixon) years, and we are due for a realignment soon enough. I've said it repeatedly that I believe Obama is to [insert-future-liberal-President-here] as Nixon was to Reagan.

[Guardsman Bass]

So, aside from all the political drama - what would Hillary Clinton bring to the Secretary of State position?

She could probably manage the ceremonial stuff - she did similar stuff as First Lady. She's been on a number of Senate excursions to other countries, and has been on the CSCE (although looking at her Senate committees, it doesn't look like she's been on any Foreign Relations-related ones).

On the other hand, she's made some caustic public comments in the recent past (particularly about Iran and Iranians), she doesn't seem to be a particularly effective manager (although that might have just been her campaign), and aside from some of the stuff above (if anyone else could point out other qualifications, please do), she doesn't have much of an in-depth background in this type of thing (although that hasn't exactly been the case with many other Secretaries of State).

Keep in mind that aside from the Iranian negotiations (if they get underway), she'd also be in charge of the Israel-Palestine negotiations (when they inevitably come up again, and Obama has, IIRC, signaled that he wants to get working on it sooner than the last year of his presidency), and negotiations in other areas.

[irishmick79]

So, aside from all the political drama - what would Hillary Clinton bring to the Secretary of State position?

She could probably manage the ceremonial stuff - she did similar stuff as First Lady. She's been on a number of Senate excursions to other countries, and has been on the CSCE (although looking at her Senate committees, it doesn't look like she's been on any Foreign Relations-related ones).

On the other hand, she's made some caustic public comments in the recent past (particularly about Iran and Iranians), she doesn't seem to be a particularly effective manager (although that might have just been her campaign), and aside from some of the stuff above (if anyone else could point out other qualifications, please do), she doesn't have much of an in-depth background in this type of thing (although that hasn't exactly been the case with many other Secretaries of State).

Keep in mind that aside from the Iranian negotiations (if they get underway), she'd also be in charge of the Israel-Palestine negotiations (when they inevitably come up again, and Obama has, IIRC, signaled that he wants to get working on it sooner than the last year of his presidency), and negotiations in other areas.

I think Hillary would be a tough negotiator, and I think she's pretty good at aiming her foreign policy rhetoric at the middle class. She'd be in a pretty good position to advise Obama on what kind of attacks the GOP will make on his policy points, specifically helping to neutralize the go-to charge for the republicans that Obama intends to meet with foreign terrorists and leaders of rouge nations without regard for US interests. Her lack of foreign policy experience is probably not as big of an issue, since she does have a pretty solid advisor in Bill.

That being said, I'm rather 'meh' on Hillary's potential selection. I would much prefer Richardson, mostly because he has the foreign policy experience. I'm entirely opposed to Kerry - he's a windbag, and would serve as a ready example of the bad liberal stereotype when it comes to foreign policy issues and the republicans would have a field day with him.

[Guardsman Bass]

So, aside from all the political drama - what would Hillary Clinton bring to the Secretary of State position?

She could probably manage the ceremonial stuff - she did similar stuff as First Lady. She's been on a number of Senate excursions to other countries, and has been on the CSCE (although looking at her Senate committees, it doesn't look like she's been on any Foreign Relations-related ones).

On the other hand, she's made some caustic public comments in the recent past (particularly about Iran and Iranians), she doesn't seem to be a particularly effective manager (although that might have just been her campaign), and aside from some of the stuff above (if anyone else could point out other qualifications, please do), she doesn't have much of an in-depth background in this type of thing (although that hasn't exactly been the case with many other Secretaries of State).

Keep in mind that aside from the Iranian negotiations (if they get underway), she'd also be in charge of the Israel-Palestine negotiations (when they inevitably come up again, and Obama has, IIRC, signaled that he wants to get working on it sooner than the last year of his presidency), and negotiations in other areas.

I think Hillary would be a tough negotiator, and I think she's pretty good at aiming her foreign policy rhetoric at the middle class. She'd be in a pretty good position to advise Obama on what kind of attacks the GOP will make on his policy points, specifically helping to neutralize the go-to charge for the republicans that Obama intends to meet with foreign terrorists and leaders of rouge nations without regard for US interests. Her lack of foreign policy experience is probably not as big of an issue, since she does have a pretty solid advisor in Bill.

The "negotiator" part is good (and hopefully true), but as I mentioned, I'm looking for reasons outside of all the political drama. Obama doesn't need another campaign advisor - he needs someone who can run his State Department and do the tough negotiations ahead with skill. Bill Clinton probably would be good there, but he's not the candidate (That would a historical first; I don't think there's ever been a case where a former President served as a Cabinet Secretary to a current President), and there are limitations with what Obama could use him for.

That being said, I'm rather 'meh' on Hillary's potential selection. I would much prefer Richardson, mostly because he has the foreign policy experience. I'm entirely opposed to Kerry - he's a windbag, and would serve as a ready example of the bad liberal stereotype when it comes to foreign policy issues and the republicans would have a field day with him.

How successful was Richardson in his various diplomatic positions? His qualifications would at least seem good for the position - he's been a Governor (executive experience and running departments), a Cabinet Secretary (Energy, but it still means he has an idea of how Executive Branch machinery can work), all over the place on various diplomatic missions for Bill Clinton, then finally the US Ambassador to the UN (although he only did that for a year).

[irishmick79]

So, aside from all the political drama - what would Hillary Clinton bring to the Secretary of State position?

She could probably manage the ceremonial stuff - she did similar stuff as First Lady. She's been on a number of Senate excursions to other countries, and has been on the CSCE (although looking at her Senate committees, it doesn't look like she's been on any Foreign Relations-related ones).

On the other hand, she's made some caustic public comments in the recent past (particularly about Iran and Iranians), she doesn't seem to be a particularly effective manager (although that might have just been her campaign), and aside from some of the stuff above (if anyone else could point out other qualifications, please do), she doesn't have much of an in-depth background in this type of thing (although that hasn't exactly been the case with many other Secretaries of State).

Keep in mind that aside from the Iranian negotiations (if they get underway), she'd also be in charge of the Israel-Palestine negotiations (when they inevitably come up again, and Obama has, IIRC, signaled that he wants to get working on it sooner than the last year of his presidency), and negotiations in other areas.

I think Hillary would be a tough negotiator, and I think she's pretty good at aiming her foreign policy rhetoric at the middle class. She'd be in a pretty good position to advise Obama on what kind of attacks the GOP will make on his policy points, specifically helping to neutralize the go-to charge for the republicans that Obama intends to meet with foreign terrorists and leaders of rouge nations without regard for US interests. Her lack of foreign policy experience is probably not as big of an issue, since she does have a pretty solid advisor in Bill.

The "negotiator" part is good (and hopefully true), but as I mentioned, I'm looking for reasons outside of all the political drama. Obama doesn't need another campaign advisor - he needs someone who can run his State Department and do the tough negotiations ahead with skill. Bill Clinton probably would be good there, but he's not the candidate (That would a historical first; I don't think there's ever been a case where a former President served as a Cabinet Secretary to a current President), and there are limitations with what Obama could use him for.

That being said, I'm rather 'meh' on Hillary's potential selection. I would much prefer Richardson, mostly because he has the foreign policy experience. I'm entirely opposed to Kerry - he's a windbag, and would serve as a ready example of the bad liberal stereotype when it comes to foreign policy issues and the republicans would have a field day with him.

How successful was Richardson in his various diplomatic positions? His qualifications would at least seem good for the position - he's been a Governor (executive experience and running departments), a Cabinet Secretary (Energy, but it still means he has an idea of how Executive Branch machinery can work), all over the place on various diplomatic missions for Bill Clinton, then finally the US Ambassador to the UN (although he only did that for a year).

He worked on the issues with the Congo a lot, and also did a lot of the negotiations with Palestine and Israel. I think he made a lot of progress in those areas, but ultimately came away empty handed on the Israel-Palestine issue as well as on the issues in the DRC. Still, you could argue that he didn't succeed because Israel-Palestine wouldn't pull the trigger on a peace deal and Laurent Kabila was a horrific negotiating partner. He was pretty successful at getting rebel groups to release hostages, though.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think Hillary would be a tough negotiator, and I think she's pretty good at aiming her foreign policy rhetoric at the middle class. She'd be in a pretty good position to advise Obama on what kind of attacks the GOP will make on his policy points, specifically helping to neutralize the go-to charge for the republicans that Obama intends to meet with foreign terrorists and leaders of rouge nations without regard for US interests. Her lack of foreign policy experience is probably not as big of an issue, since she does have a pretty solid advisor in Bill.

The "negotiator" part is good (and hopefully true), but as I mentioned, I'm looking for reasons outside of all the political drama. Obama doesn't need another campaign advisor - he needs someone who can run his State Department and do the tough negotiations ahead with skill. Bill Clinton probably would be good there, but he's not the candidate (That would a historical first; I don't think there's ever been a case where a former President served as a Cabinet Secretary to a current President), and there are limitations with what Obama could use him for.

How successful was Richardson in his various diplomatic positions? His qualifications would at least seem good for the position - he's been a Governor (executive experience and running departments), a Cabinet Secretary (Energy, but it still means he has an idea of how Executive Branch machinery can work), all over the place on various diplomatic missions for Bill Clinton, then finally the US Ambassador to the UN (although he only did that for a year).

He worked on the issues with the Congo a lot, and also did a lot of the negotiations with Palestine and Israel. I think he made a lot of progress in those areas, but ultimately came away empty handed on the Israel-Palestine issue as well as on the issues in the DRC. Still, you could argue that he didn't succeed because Israel-Palestine wouldn't pull the trigger on a peace deal and Laurent Kabila was a horrific negotiating partner. He was pretty successful at getting rebel groups to release hostages, though.

I don't blame him for failure in those areas, to be sure; Israel-Palestine negotiations have bedeviled even the best American negotiators (not to mention other outside negotiators) over the past 20-30 years, and the DRC is fucked up to the point where having someone re-colonize it and crack down on the predation by, well, pretty much everyone else in the region would probably be an improvement.

[Qwerty 42]

None of which makes me happy about Clinton. I fear this will be remembered as the first mistake of Obama's Presidency. Though RedImperator did give a possible justification, albeit a cynical one.

It does make sense, in a perverse way: Clinton, through her moderate-Republican-posing-as-a-Democrat husband, has a strong appeal to socially conservative Democrats who see her in an almost populistic light. It would make sense if he were trying to bridge the divide between liberals/New Left and New Deal/Reagan Democrats to put someone like Clinton at a high-level position.

Moreover, and in the abstract, Obama isn't really left-wing, or even a liberal. In many ways his stated policies remind me of those Richard Nixon ran on, albeit in reverse: a relatively strong environmental position, but equally strong support for corporate welfare (which makes sense, given that Michelle Obama was a corporate lawyer), an acceptance of neoliberal welfare reforms, and a promise for tax cuts without a reduction in spending. If you want to know the environment he works in, read the blog of his colleagues Gary Becker (University of Chicago economics theologian) and Richard Posner (most prolific judge on the Seventh U.S. Circuit). These people are neoliberal through and through, though they espouse a sort of "capitalism with a human face" as far as private charity goes. He's certainly to the left of Bill Clinton, but that's not hard to do: there was not one iota of difference between Clinton and Bush in the '92 election, and Clinton openly supported such right-wing planks as NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a horrendous welfare 'reform' policy, etc. Obama is a start, and much better than Clinton, but he is no left-winger.

I do however think that we will have a genuine left-wing President within the next two decades, and when he (or she) comes it will be as seismic a political event as was Reagan's election in 1980. Not every President heralds a change in the dominant social ideology, even when they are elected out of the opposition Party; it seems to only happen two or three times a century. But the present conservative slant has existed for at least twenty-eight (Reagan) and possibly as long as forty (Nixon) years, and we are due for a realignment soon enough. I've said it repeatedly that I believe Obama is to [insert-future-liberal-President-here] as Nixon was to Reagan.

There are bona-fide liberals in Congress, although they largely didn't seek the presidency. It's possible that in 2016, or forbid 2012, we could have one of them campaign.

[Guardsman Bass]

If he didn't have some probable conflicts of interest, I'd suggest that Obama ask Bill Clinton if he wants to be his Secretary of State. At least Bill Clinton was involved in the various diplomatic efforts during his Presidency (like the Camp David Accords, and the negotiations with the North Koreans), although he might be harder to control.

It'd also send the media into storyline-orgy mode - they'd probably spend an entire week talking to everyone in America and each other about how they were personally affected by the unprecedented step of appointing Clinton into the "Team of Rivals" (I'm really starting to hate that term).

[Coyote]

Last I heard Gates didn't want to stay as SecDef because he was afraid of being used as a "Republican Fig Leaf" in case things went wrong with closing Gitmo and pulling out of Iraq. The GOP is not happy about closing Gitmo, of course. But I like his stance on Iran...

As for VA, the name of Tammy Duckworth has been floated. She's the female vet who lost both legs in Iraq, now she walks on prosthetics and after a failed run for the Illinois Senate, she ended up in charge of that state's VA program.

[Ender]

I really don't want to sound like a poser talking big on the internet, but I want to throw this out there anyway. My family is, honestly, a bunch of nobodies. Just a middle class family in the suburbs. But my parents have somehow managed over the years to accrue a number of friends who are "somebody" in both Chicago and the IL legislature. One of which is a family that is pretty high in the IL Department of Energy. My parents phoned me with some info yesterday. Keep an eye out for some very interesting information coming out in the next few weeks about Obama's energy policy and picks. I don't want to get specific because they were kinda unclear to me on the details (they don't know the questions to ask) and because interest doesn't mean action, but be prepared for the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes from a segment of the Democratic base.

[irishmick79]

I really don't want to sound like a poser talking big on the internet, but I want to throw this out there anyway. My family is, honestly, a bunch of nobodies. Just a middle class family in the suburbs. But my parents have somehow managed over the years to accrue a number of friends who are "somebody" in both Chicago and the IL legislature. One of which is a family that is pretty high in the IL Department of Energy. My parents phoned me with some info yesterday. Keep an eye out for some very interesting information coming out in the next few weeks about Obama's energy policy and picks. I don't want to get specific because they were kinda unclear to me on the details (they don't know the questions to ask) and because interest doesn't mean action, but be prepared for the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothes from a segment of the Democratic base.

I'm going to guess this pertains to some sort of deal on drilling, or a nuclear power initiative. Both of those would make a lot of environmentalists shit a brick. Or, Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to be Energy Secretary.

[Coyote]

He may be going with the T. Boone Pickens Plan-- some drilling for oil & gas now while working on alternatives such as wind & solar... or it may be an expansion of nuclear... or a number of these plans together.

Really, anything that doesn't involve more oil will at least get a tentative look of approval from me...

[irishmick79]

He may be going with the T. Boone Pickens Plan-- some drilling for oil & gas now while working on alternatives such as wind & solar... or it may be an expansion of nuclear... or a number of these plans together.

Really, anything that doesn't involve more oil will at least get a tentative look of approval from me...

Isn't that essentially what Obama is proposing?

Obama has talked a lot about finding a compromise on drilling, so I wouldn't be surprised if that cropped up here. That was one of his major points against "drill, baby drill". He was open, but didn't want to do it with the gleefully reckless abandon that the GOP favored.

[The Romulan Republic]

If he didn't have some probable conflicts of interest, I'd suggest that Obama ask Bill Clinton if he wants to be his Secretary of State. At least Bill Clinton was involved in the various diplomatic efforts during his Presidency (like the Camp David Accords, and the negotiations with the North Koreans), although he might be harder to control.

It'd also send the media into storyline-orgy mode - they'd probably spend an entire week talking to everyone in America and each other about how they were personally affected by the unprecedented step of appointing Clinton into the "Team of Rivals" (I'm really starting to hate that term).

Would that be legal? The President is limited to two terms, and as SoS Clinton would be in line to assume the Presidency. Very far down the line its true, but its a question that makes me wonder. Does the Constitution deal with this possibility, and if so, how?

[irishmick79]

If he didn't have some probable conflicts of interest, I'd suggest that Obama ask Bill Clinton if he wants to be his Secretary of State. At least Bill Clinton was involved in the various diplomatic efforts during his Presidency (like the Camp David Accords, and the negotiations with the North Koreans), although he might be harder to control.

It'd also send the media into storyline-orgy mode - they'd probably spend an entire week talking to everyone in America and each other about how they were personally affected by the unprecedented step of appointing Clinton into the "Team of Rivals" (I'm really starting to hate that term).

Would that be legal? The President is limited to two terms, and as SoS Clinton would be in line to assume the Presidency. Very far down the line its true, but its a question that makes me wonder. Does the Constitution deal with this possibility, and if so, how?

No, it doesn't. Article 22 only states that no person can be elected president more than twice. Doesn't say anything about serving as President more than twice. It would require a true tragedy for the SoS to become Pres, and I presume that Clinton would serve, finish the term and step aside.

[The Romulan Republic]

If he didn't have some probable conflicts of interest, I'd suggest that Obama ask Bill Clinton if he wants to be his Secretary of State. At least Bill Clinton was involved in the various diplomatic efforts during his Presidency (like the Camp David Accords, and the negotiations with the North Koreans), although he might be harder to control.

It'd also send the media into storyline-orgy mode - they'd probably spend an entire week talking to everyone in America and each other about how they were personally affected by the unprecedented step of appointing Clinton into the "Team of Rivals" (I'm really starting to hate that term).

Would that be legal? The President is limited to two terms, and as SoS Clinton would be in line to assume the Presidency. Very far down the line its true, but its a question that makes me wonder. Does the Constitution deal with this possibility, and if so, how?

No, it doesn't. Article 22 only states that no person can be elected president more than twice. Doesn't say anything about serving as President more than twice. It would require a true tragedy for the SoS to become Pres, and I presume that Clinton would serve, finish the term and step aside.

I can't help but think that many of the senarios that would simultaneously remove the President, VP, and Speaker of the House would be ones where their wouldn't be much America left to govern (such as a nuclear war). So no, its not likely. But thanks for explaining how such a situation would work.

[irishmick79]

Last I heard Gates didn't want to stay as SecDef because he was afraid of being used as a "Republican Fig Leaf" in case things went wrong with closing Gitmo and pulling out of Iraq. The GOP is not happy about closing Gitmo, of course. But I like his stance on Iran...

As for VA, the name of Tammy Duckworth has been floated. She's the female vet who lost both legs in Iraq, now she walks on prosthetics and after a failed run for the Illinois Senate, she ended up in charge of that state's VA program.

Well, this would complicate Obama's desire to keep some sort of bi-partisan influence in Defense. Will Reed or Hagel accept the post if Gates decides to resign?

So far, my favorite name being considered for DHS is William Bratton. He's the only man to have been head of police in Boston, New York City, and Los Angeles. He's done a lot of work on intelligence sharing and local counter-terrorism. Since a lot of DHS work is in liason with local cops, having a guy with his background would probably be helpful.

[irishmick79]

Would that be legal? The President is limited to two terms, and as SoS Clinton would be in line to assume the Presidency. Very far down the line its true, but its a question that makes me wonder. Does the Constitution deal with this possibility, and if so, how?

No, it doesn't. Article 22 only states that no person can be elected president more than twice. Doesn't say anything about serving as President more than twice. It would require a true tragedy for the SoS to become Pres, and I presume that Clinton would serve, finish the term and step aside.

I can't help but think that many of the senarios that would simultaneously remove the President, VP, and Speaker of the House would be ones where their wouldn't be much America left to govern (such as a nuclear war). So no, its not likely. But thanks for explaining how such a situation would work.

Yeah no prob. The only situation I can see is if there's some sort of massive plague or nuclear attack. Either way, the country would have to be experiencing a truly epic shit storm.

[Coyote]

There is a very complex system for degenerating power down the line, from President to Vice President to SecState, all the way down to the Governors of the States in order of their admission to the Union. But again, if we got that far down the ladder, then yes, the Cylons have definitely hacked Skynet, crashed the Matrix, and the Earth Stood Still.