This is not surprising at all...what is surprising is the fact that he accepted the job in the first place, AND
stayed on past the first 2 years, when it was widely expected that he would resign.
What is also not very surprising is the ignorance of our Eurowhiners. "An administration full of extremists"...my ass. You people know virtually NOTHING about ANYONE in Bush's cabinet, except for some little blurbs in your biased news media. You don't know the difference between a Cabinet member and an Executive Branch employee or presidential adviser, either. You think Colin Powell is a sincere and genuine man, always at odds with the "extremists" because that is the scenario your media painted for you...which you accept hook, line and sinker. And you accuse Americans of being held hostage by the news media.
The likelihood of Bill Clinton being appointed to ANYTHING, no matter how great and flattering it would be for his fan club, is next to NIL. Now, had Clinton taken on the role of elder statesman as ex-president, instead of an overt critic of Candidate Bush in 2000 and President Bush, all the way up through today, it might have been possible. However, Clinton broke with long established Presidential tradition and took on the role of political pundit rather than elder statesman. Remember, during the 2000 campaign, it took Bush's father, who held to the tradition of not criticising your successor tediously, to come out and say that if Bill Clinton didn't stop, he was going to "tell all" before Clinton finally shut up. Then, in a snap poll, when people were asked by CBS whom they would trust, the elder Bush or Clinton, in such a tell-all, it went 70-30 Bush.
My choice for Secretary of State, as someone mentioned earlier, is Richard Lugar of Indiana. He is mentioned time and time again as a potential candidate for the job, even under Bill Clinton. In the 2000 Presidential Primary, when Bush was finally nominated by the Republican Party, Richard Lugar was mentioned as the most qualified candidate for president, on either side of the aisle. He, of course, received maybe 10 votes nationwide, but it has more to do with his reserved demeanor, and hard work out of the spotlight than his qualifications. He is someone that both sides should easily agree upon.
I am amazed at the thinking of the Democrats. It seems that you feel that the winner of the election, in the name of reconciliation, should turn over the reigns of the administration! Since when has any Democrat done anything remotely CLOSE to that? The most is maybe a token position here or there. You people expect Bush to hand over what is arguable the most important cabinet position, to an arch-rival, who has done nothing himself to reconcile with Bush in the first place. "You won,so we're angry, so you should let us run your administration, so it is fair." Get real! The best you can and should hope for (which I do as well) are figures acceptable to both sides, who are more consensus than partisan-driven. Anything more than that is asking too much.