Circus Rules: A Guide to Tell If an Appointment Is a Done Deal or Not

Al you may be right - everywhere she would go, the media circus would capture every "shot and a beer" downed and everything in between.  Nice job - I would think the Obama transition team would have to give you the seal of approval on that one!  I'm unfortunately picturing drunken American State Dept. officials singing Ashcroft's "Let The Eagle Soar"

Don't know if you caught Meet the Press after the Axe was on Stephanapoulos, but Bill Daley had some pretty nice things to say about the Empire Stater:

MR. BROKAW: And Mr. Daley, finally, are they going to work out the Bill Clinton issues to get her appointed?

MR. DALEY: I, I, I'm not confirming anything, but I would hope that things work out because I, I agree with Secretary Baker that she would be a tremendous addition to this administration. Tremendous.

This, mind you coming after he had also refused to make any confirmations on the nomination of Timothy Geithner, which is literally gonna come out of the President-elect's mouth tomorrow:

MR. DALEY: So I, I think he's going, he's, he's got a great team he's putting together: Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, a whole host of other people, that he's charged with putting this plan together. I think he's gone out to get the most competent, qualified, experienced people to put this together. 

Now, Bill Daley is a bit of a hybrid.  A Clintonista from his days at the Commerce Dept., but now a true Obama-insider in Chicago.  So, I think it might be smart to start reconciling ourselves to what is beginning to become a done deal.

Aside from the one positive you cite--that of increased attention to what goes on outside our borders--I'm just completely flummoxed by the possible Clinton choice for SOS. All the reasons people cite in and outside trad media do not add up for me as reason enough.  I'm well aware that there may be reasons I can't know but that doesn't say much for transparency, especially in foreign affairs.  No matter how many great advisors there may be in foreign policy, she'd still be SOS with both the good and the bad that go along with the Clintons, and though some of it may be unfair to Hillary, she still comes with the baggage that others, it seems to me, don't and who have much experience compared to hers. 

Three days ago on CBS, David Axelrod said: "This is a great example of when there's a vacuum, the vacuum gets filled with a lot of speculation and hyperbole. No one is frustrated. No one is anguished. She's obviously a talented public servant and someone who'd enhance any team." This sounds to me like an echo of what Barack said in July on Meet the Press, that Hillary "would be on anybody's short list" for VP.

However, Bill Richardson is expected to be announced tomorrow as Commerce Secretary is he not?

KD

Okay - scratch that.  Richardson for Commerce Secretary will NOT be announced tomorrow with the rest of the economic team - he will be announced later.  Hmmm.  Backup plan anyone?

"New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) is slated to be named secretary of Commerce by President-elect Obama, adding to the new administration's heavy roster of Clinton administration veterans.

A top Democratic official said Richardson has passed final vetting but will be announced later.

Obama is scheduled to appear at noon Eastern Monday at a Chicago hotel with New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner, his choice for Treasury secretary, and Larry Summers, who will be the White House economic adviser."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15892.html

KD

And found an interesting piece at the Independent UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-plays-hardball-1031238.html

"It turns out that Mrs Clinton's delay in accepting the president elect's offer to be his top foreign policy adviser had much to do with her negotiating the terms of the job and insisting on the right to choose her own state department staff and possibly even some of the plumb Ambassador postings. She wanted guarantees of direct access to the president – without having to go through his national security adviser...."

Is this the stuff of the ongoing negotiations or a fait accompli?

Re earlier question about Jim Steinberg, being considered for Deputy SoS, here's his resume from the Brookings Institution:

http://www.brookings.edu/experts/s/steinbergj.aspx

He had a role in the Clinton Administration, but also worked for Senator Ted Kennedy.  Other than that, yo no se.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/22/obama.vetting/index.html

"There is no question about the fact that the burdensome nature and the probing nature and the disclosure required for people coming into the administration is a deal killer for them," said Kenneth Gross, a political law and ethics lawyer in Washington.

The meticulous process has also reportedly caused a degree of consternation between the Obama aides and those to Sen. Hillary Clinton, believed to be the president-elect's top choice for secretary of state.

The New York Times reported Thursday that the relationship between the two camps has grown "increasingly sour" as the process dragged on and information steadily leaked to the media about the degree of which former President Bill Clinton's finances were being investigated. Still, aides close to the Obama transition team say the president-elect is on track to nominate his former rival to the secretary of state post next week.

But even if Obama's vetting process appears overly scrupulous, aides to the future commander-in-chief are likely more wary of an early disastrous appointment that would cause a wave of negative media coverage and raise early questions about Obama's leadership skills.

And from Friday:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/14/transition.wrap/index.html?iref=newssearch

On Friday, Obama spoke with Richardson about the position, a senior Democratic source said. The source said Richardson has always been on Obama's list of possibilities for the key Cabinet position.

Richardson also traveled to Chicago to meet with Obama, according to a source who said the idea of Clinton as secretary of state is "not a done deal."

I find it interesting that this article is out there, saying that Obama wants Jim Steinberg -- described as "not a Clinton loyalist" -- for deputy secretary of state:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/23/obama-eyeing-jim-steinber_n_145815.htm...

If true it seems to counter the idea that Clinton as SoS (if she truly is headed there) would get to select all of her own staff.

Is it usual for SoS' to demand the right to make plumb ambassadorial appointments??

Al, maybe you could move that ribbon a little so Our Eagle could have a cigarette in its beak. Expect everyone has read the Bumiller piece in NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/us/politics/23hillary.html?hp

makes it seem a doner deal than Axelrod... sad about this whole circus, & feel most like Lisa Ballard - maybe living outside the USA for so long gives me a different perspective

On the Good News side of things, for those of us who SO wanted Waxman to be chairman: enjoy reading this from NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/us/politics/23waxman.html

Heh. I read it differently, thinking the alcohol would be for me—so long as incompetent journos continue to peddle this soap opera, and if of course, Clinton actually gets the post. I can't believe it, but there are actually stories (serious ones!) now speculating who is going to replace her.

Oh snap! And now Ms. Clinton has already incurred the vigilance of Narco News and its cadre of reporters. If the media reports really are true about her "accepting" the position, she might want to rethink that.

Close readings are important here.

Regarding Geithner, Axelrod says that he is "uniquely qualified to do this job." 

Regarding Clinton, Axelrod says that people "need to understand one thing": "there's one person who's going to be in charge of American foreign policy," and that person is Obama.

Ahem, where's the "uniquely qualified" regarding HRC?

And, who is he talking to if not Clinton's entourage and media circus? There is only 1 thing anybody needs to know--one thing--Obama makes ALL decisions regarding foreign policy.  That sounds like "clarification" at a minimum, if not push-back. If you don't like the "one thing"--that this is NO co-Presidency--then take a week or so to think about how to walk this whole drama back to New York. It sounds to me that here we have a very measured response--thus a clarification--to the usual Clinton Over-reach. This sounds like an effort to establish ground rules--in public. Remember, Obama keeps saying (regarding Bush's twilight), "we have only one President at a time." Axelrod may be offering a corollary to respond to Clinton Over-reach: this is my (White) House. Period. 

Thank goodness for Axelrod and some of that trademarked Chicagoland politicking. No matter what happens, these kinds of "clarifications" are incredibly encouraging. Having Axelrod in Obama's ear, officially now, is, oddly, great consolation. 

And the final point: the proposed timeline. The first order of business is to rescue an economy on the verge of an abyss. Obama seems to be saying: people, there really are priorities. Despite the Clinton troupe's enthusiasm, foreign policy is not the singularly most critical issue we are facing at this exact instant. In other words: neither the universe nor the transition revolves around you (know who).

Ax's answer made me think it's more likely than not; it seems a response intended to assuage people asking how Obama could choose Hillary given their foreign policy differences.  That said, I have to agree with the assessment that this is not finalized.  In a way it sounds like Obama has always wanted her to say she's interested before making a formal offer and she always wanted the reverse order.  He must have some reservations about her causing problems but I suspect he's made his peace with that risk.

Can we imagine how it would look like if it fell through now?  What a media circus THAT would be?  Would Obama give her the courtesy of claiming that she's decided to stay in the Senate?  Or he'd almost have to debrief the entire process and say none of the leaks were coming from our side and if the media ran with this story on their own or someone else's rumors, that's not my problem.  But it'd be a bit messy.  And it would open up the wounds of some of Camp Clinton.  Which is why I have to think they'd preemptively be throwing more water on this thing if Obama didn't actually know he wanted Hillary for the gig

Birchbeer - Of course the President-elect would let the Senator say it is her decision to stay in the Senate, and save face. I think there would be far less intrigue from that than the daily traumas that would begin if he offered and she took the position.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI5Vl-scc5I

KD

The Field, 538, and the Diatribes of Jay are my top 3 internet choices when I am looking for the voice of reason, which I usually am.  I found this to be a thoughtful piece.

Diatribes of Jay:  Obama's Meritocracy (11/22/08)

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-meritocracy.html

Thank God for you, Al.  As always appreciate your sanity in the midst of chaos and distraction.  This whole ordeal has only reinforced why I supported and worked so hard for Sen. Obama (and not for Sen. Clinton) in the primary.  

Whatever happened to this:

Here.

i've kind of missed the dronings on of the riff raff about how a post like this obviously equates with a deep-seated, irrational hatred for Hillary Clinton. Let's hope this brings them out of the woodwork. I'm looking forward to another round.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Clinton to pick all of the SOS staff.  After reading the latest blog at http://www.undiplomatic.net/ about how Obama foreign policy experts are getting angry that Clinton's appointment to SOS will shut them out of jobs at the State Department, I am getting incredibly irritated that Obama would allow the State Department to be completely turned over to Clinton and her incompetent staffers.

Any idea when this appointment will be officially announced?

May I respectfully suggest the The Field design department that, should this circus indeed be institutionalized, proper attire is designed for when this operetta hits the road? I was thinking about something between this and this, but of course other options could be brought in the mix as well.

What I'm waiting to see is who turns out to be Labor Secretary, a position that really should be considered to be part of the economic team. David Bonior or Richard Trumpka or Dick Gephart, all of whom I've seen mentioned, would be excellent picks. Whoever it is should have big credibility with organized labor and will be a major enough figure to be well heard in the administration.

With all the comparisons to FDR, I have been thinking of Frances Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, who worked with the president in NY and who was extremely consequential for this country and its path toward social justice, including the creation of Social Security and guarantees for organzing unions.

Thank you so much for the jaydiatribe link.  I really like the way he writes, in particular his pro and con views of Senator Clinton, and have bookmarked it for future reference.  Like you, I pretty much have narrowed down my blog sites to a few that offer the news and their views in an interesting, well written format.  I'm still savoring the huge win on November 4th and even though I think about an Obama presidency a hundred plus times a day I fortunately have been able to get my head back into my work full time and having just a few places on the internet to keep me informed is a huge part of that balance. 

I just have to say that with the national economic situation so dreadful, I am so thankful that we will have an adult helping us guide our way out of this darkness.  It's hard to believe that a James Baker today with Bob Scheifer actually seemed to be glad that Obama was going to be taking over soon.

A fresh foreign policy is what most excited me about Barack Obama. I was so ready for the new face we would be presenting, with our president, Barack Obama. Like a lot of people, I am trying to come to terms with the thought of Secretary of State Clinton. My only strategy is to think that, perhaps, Obama is teaching me to dig very deep within myself to accept this and trust him. I see how my husband, originally a Hillary-voter, loves the idea and, with this appointment, felt the primary rancor melt away. It melted away for him but stirred it up for me.

I remember watching Obama answer the SoS question on 60 Minutes and was struck at how I did not see a glint in his eye or any indication that it was true. Still hoping Al is right.

branded as a single-issue supporter), I find Al's words and optimism comforting. I still hope that this whole messy issue will be walked back.

It ain't over until it's over (fingers crossed).

amk

I don't think it's a done deal, in fact I can't see how anyone could.  Every time I click on a "done deal" link, it turns out to be just speculation and "is expected to" with no official statement from Obama or his team.

If you haven't figured out yet how Obama does things then you haven't been paying attention.  Official announcement or direct statement from Axelrod etc = Done Deal.  Anything else = Not.

Also, LOL at the people who leave comments about being mad at Obama for stuff he hasn't even done yet.  Sheesh.

Sometimes I think that people's reactions to Obama are thrown off by the fact that he plays it so straight.  People are so used to lying and game-playing that when Obama does what he says he'd do, they don't know how to take it.

BTW, since this is my first post: thanks Al, for your excellent journalism.  The site works very well too.  Good stuff.

thanks to the Field's contributors I learned about two great blogs today - jaydiatribe and undiplomatic.net.  Both bookmarked.  (Charles J. Brown - undiplomatic.net - has had an interesting and impressive life.  Jay is somewhat of a mystery....)

Not a response to you personally but the blog you cite:

Clinton does not embody the needs and aspirations of women, especially younger women. It is actually quite the opposite. Also, Madeline Albright and Condeleeza Rice (and Rice as the first woman of color) have made history in this regard. (Unfortunately, history is not necessarily about the "right" politics or actions, and the "right" gender is no guarantee.) Third, embodying the needs and aspirations of women would mean a person getting a job based on merit and qualifications for the actual job, and certainly not on the basis of the gendered "fuss" that surrounds one. Senator Clinton has merits and qualifications for a number of things. This is not it. Not once does the author mention one initiative, legislation, or intellectual production that "uniquely qualifies" her for the post. Fourth, the needs and aspirations of women are far more dependent on a foreign policy that is humane and sustainable and that does not leave people across the globe struggling for basic survival, control over local resources, a shred of dignity, fighting against governments and institutions that should be protecting them, as they live in fear of their children being bombed to bits, while we live in a sham American "innocence" consuming our assorted "lifestyles" chalked up by "identity politics." This is why what for some women here are "women's rights" based on getting a piece of the pie are for women in the poorest parts of the globe a violation of their "human rights," as well as of their children and men, because those "women's rights" are created through their exploitation, debt-bondage, and destruction of their bio-diversity and environment. 

We are going to need someone who gets it that fixing the economy here does not mean squeezing out the last bits of life in people elsewhere, taking advantage of their basic goodwill and determination to struggle, and subjecting them and the planet and all its inhabitants to more horrors and devastation through comprador local governments, etc. We need someone who understands how intertwined the economy, the environment, and foreign policy really are and who understands what globalization truly means in its abject exploitation and misery for everyone, not just people here.

Obama is a generational shift. I would like to see him appoint someone in this position who embodies this generational shift (my students, the latest crop of whom were born in 1990, are far more attuned to these issues than I was at their age) and has actual experience in diplomacy and the requisite gravitas. I would like someone in this post who is not a corporate neo-imperialist. 

I always thought that at the end of the day the US only did what was best for the multinational corporations and if people spit blood from working the mines or died in the banana plantations, well, that was part of their destiny. Then came Obama and I became and active participant and did my part to spread his message of hope and that we were en route to 'change the country and the world'. 

I really hope that Obama will care about human rights around the world. Sure it's imperative for us to have a good economy here, for us to have a good education, for us to have good health care services, good environmental policies, etc. But I also think that it's a must for us to change our foreign policy. We have been awful when it comes to foreign policy and I REALLY hope that we are ready to be partners with other countries and not the world police.

I must admit that the prospect of senator Clinton becoming the SOS has put a big dent on my enthusiasm and dedication to the Obama campaign. Like many of you, during the primaries I understood that Obama had to take some stances that went against my own. Now that he's not trying to get elected, I don't think that I can go along...

President elect Barack Obama please remember that many people outside of our boders took to heart your campaign promises of 'Change we can believe in' and please don't trump on the hope that many people around the world are riding on. 

And Mr. President elect, this poem I wrote a while back, in 1993 to be exact. Let's not add or turn a blind eye to the nightmare that is a contant companion to many abroad.

Mi pesadilla

19 de mayo de 1993

Mi pesadilla

es ver a los militares matar

a los niños

en los vientres de sus madres

Mi pesadilla

es ver a una mamá buscar

entre los pedazos de piernas brazos y cabezas

algunos rasgos que se parezcan a los suyos

Mi pesadilla

es ver a los aviones estadounidenses tirar

bombas de 500 libras fósforo blanco y napalm

sobre los pueblos de mi tierra

Mi pesadilla

es saber que hoy

andan libres los asesinos

que torturaron y masacraron a mi pueblo

Mi pesadilla

es la misma de miles de guanacos

que quieren despertar 

y hacer justicia por los ochenta y cinco mil asesinados

por los desaparecidos

por los exiliados

por los niños huérfanos

por nuestra pesadilla.

Again, I keep coming back to these two major figures during the primary and GE. They were strong surrogates for Obama and showed great loyalty. I can only trust that Obama maintains that sense of sense of loyalty. I mean, Power seriously took one for the team by resigning from the campaign after she simply said (yes, inartfully) what many folks inside and countless people outside the campaign were thinking anyway. (No Republican would ever resign for saying what she said.) If she were to be sealed out of the foreign policy apparatus for Clinton, that would obliterate the generational shift that is so crucial to the idea of Obama as a movement, even as a premium is placed on "experience." I am still searching for any statements from her over the last weeks and all I come up with is silence. That too is odd.  If it were a done deal, and she were tossed to the curb, I would certainly hope she would speak publicly. Hearing nothing from her or Rice, this cannot be completed. 

would be part of the Obama administration. It wold be very interesting as you say about senator Clinton getting the post and Ms. Power tossed to the side... That would be very sad because it would be politics as usual...

I forgot about that line. (How could I forget that line? That's the Clinton Spin-Machine for you! The Clintons just drag everything they touch into the mire--Oh yeah, that's the "fun part.") Thanks, Orlando. I always believed the courage it took to conclude every stump speech with that line--in a world defined by a nihilistic cynicism--meant that it was for real and not just a cute rhetorical flourish. A lot of folks in the foreign policy community certainly took those words to heart when coming out to support a candidate Obama--in the full knowledge that Clinton payback would be costly.  

When I read your post at 11:53, I was reminded that I, too, had initially bristled when I read Jay's comment that Hillary embodies the needs and aspirations of women (no!) and especially young women (no!).  I thought I would have to post a response telling him I thought he was dead wrong on this, as I had done last November when he made a similar generalization.

http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2007/11/gleams-boos-and-historical.html

Mine is the third comment on the November 2007 blog, and many of the comments after mine are folks from the Obama blogs who also wrote to disagree with his comments after I brought that piece to their attention.  (I believe in being vigilant even with the people I agree with 98% of the time, although I have yet to challenge Al publicly when I have disagreed with him.)

But my sense of initial annoyance tonight fell away as I read the rest of the piece, which I thought was excellent.  

After reading most of Jay's blogs for over a year, I can safely say that Jay appears to have no illusions about Hillary's track record or experience, and he seemed happy to be disabused of his previous notion of how women were responding to Hillary in November 2007.  

I would encourage you to post your comments about Saturday's piece on Jay's site, too.  If you do, I suspect that an intelligent and enlightening conversation will ensue.

Just a quick word that i appreciate coming here for the comments and consistently learning things.  Nancy, Jay's blog captures my feelings exactly -- with the caveat you raise that he may not grok various female voting blocks. She's sooo 2nd wave...and then gone corporate. I can't tell you how many women I met this primary season even over the age of 55 who had no interest in her politics.

Orlando, most everyone I know feels the same way about multinationals. At least until 2000, which taught us there is evil, eviler and really fucking evil.

I sincerely hope that Al thinks about how to keep this site and group of readers going in a sustainable way. I see some real value to building on the obvious connections with other bloggers like Nate, but at the same time, I really like this group.

You've done a great job of setting the standards and enforcing the rules, and we've done a great job of making the comments worth reading.

All signs are looking as if both Susan Rice and Samantha Power have a role in the Obama Administration. Check out this promising outlook about Rice and her past present and future potentail roles in an article from The Washington Independent last week http://washingtonindependent.com/18516/susan-rice .

Samantha Power has been keeping a much lower profile. She got married on July 4th of this year in Ireland to a fellow Harvard alumus who was also an advisor to President Elect Obama. In fact I recall reading somewhere that they jokingly credit the President Elect for getting them together and the President Elect had written a touching tribute to them which was read aloud during thier wedding ceremony. Presently Ms. Power is promoting her new book “Chasing the Flame: Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World” (2008) and lecturing. This article from the Harvard Law Record, "Obama's Gain is Harvard's Drain," http://media.www.hlrecord.org/media/storage/paper609/news/2008/11/13/Opinion/Obamas.Gain.Is.Harvards.Drain-3540961.shtml published on November 13th makes reference to both Ms. Power and her law professor husband, Cass Sunstein, as expected future Obama Administration recruits.

I suspect that the mere mention of Ms. Power, in particular, at this time will fit into right into the Media's current circus meme and create a more sympatheatic impression for Senator Clinton. If the objective is message control and/or waiting for the circus to oust itself, then this is probably one of those cards that the Obama Administration wants to keep hidden until the right time.

On another note, I find it interesting that the speculation is that President Elect Obama "has to allow" Senator Clinton to pick her own staff as "a condition of her acceptance". He's the one operating from a position of strength here. He got here without her. And while she did assist, her assist was framed more as a necessity for her legacy rather than in keeping with her primary campaign's cries that "he can't win" without her. To believe the latter then you would also have to agree that he was unable to secure any of her "18 million" votes without her. The election demonstrated that he got that and then some. President Elect Obama's performance over the next 4 years will determine the extent to which he is able to solidify his coalition.

Also, that Huffington Post article that Britta refers to up thread which speculates that Jim Steinberg -- described as "not a Clinton loyalist" -- is being considered for Deputy Secretary of State does not lend credibility to the premise that Senator Clinton gets to pick her staff. I also read somewhere, sorry I don't remember where exactly, in which the a writer suggested that Senator Clinton select an Obama loyalist (should she be empowered to do so) to appease his faithful staff from the beginning who may feel shafted and to give the impression that she is a team player who is not out to undermine the presidency. Somehow I don't think that the President Elect will blindly let her select whomever she wants. Why would he just give up power he just won with conviction? Particularly when he has others waiting in the wings who will not make such outrageous demands and be just if not more effective. It just does not make sense and our President Elect is nothing if not logical and pragmatic.

I don't pretend to understand all of President Elect Obama's strategy but because he is operating from a position of strength, whether Sentor Clinton becomes SOS or not, it's a win/win for him. And as unnerving as it may be for some of us, I believe that there is some purpose as to why he has allowed this drama to continue on as it has. It is so uncharacteristic of the man we have come to know over the past two years. And nothing in his past nor present actions lend credibility to it. Who knows, prehaps all of this drama will serve as an object lesson to all of us, including the media, that the Clintons can and need to be contained for the sanity of all of us instead of running wild. There is serious business at hand so shining the sunlight on all of the players helps us to keep perspective and recognize our limitations.

Following the Jim Stienberg mention, I found on the Brookings Institute site:

"On November 24, the Brookings Institution will host the Partnership for the Americas Commission for the release of their report, “Re-thinking U.S.-Latin American Relations: A Hemispheric Partnership for a Turbulent World.” Developed during a series of consultations over the past several months, the report offers a set of policy recommendations to the next U.S. administration to meet the challenges facing the U.S. and Latin America, from economic and poverty policies to security, foreign policy and energy.

"The Commission is composed of 20 eminent figures from across the hemisphere and is chaired by former U.S. Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and former President of Mexico Ernesto Zedillo."

Bill Conroy noted:

"While Zedillo was president, his country’s financial system melted down during the infamous “peso crisis” of 1994 and President Clinton authorized a $50 billion loan to Mexico to help bail out Zedillo, the Mexican business class, and U.S. investors who had a stake in the nation’s high finances. (The bailout did nothing for the poor, or even many middle class folks and small businesses in Mexico, many of whom lost everything overnight as the crisis struck — a massive devaluation of the peso caused, in part, by lax bank lending policies. (Sound familiar?)"

With all the President-elect has on his plate, how can he be quickly enlightened about the consequences of HRC as SoS? Or is he already????

 I am holding out some hope that HRC will not be chosen as SoS, but I am also disappointed in the fact that she is being seriously considered. She is not the right person for the job and I have expressed my views at change.gov. I volunteered and donated for a better foreign policy with Barack,  if Hillary is chosen, for me, our change the world theme is completely undermined especially if she is allowed to pick her staff. Way back when, during the Montana primary, my 86 y/o aunt told me that Obama would be Prez and HRC would be SoS, I did not believe her but was happy she was voting for BO. Now I wonder what she knew that I didn't.

 What else can I do to help stop HRC from being SoS?

Thank you for the link to previous discussions because I was not aware of this blog and so read it without a sense of the continuing conversation. I also admit I didn't read the comments initially because I'm a bit biased and often only read the comments here! :)

Anyway, here is a link (for inspiration) to a story about India's "pink" vigilante women in one of its poorest parts having taken things into their own hands due to corruption, including the international NGO "development" racket. They wear pink ("gulabi" in Hindi) saris:  

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7068875.stm

I hope folks don't mind my sharing these. They help me hang on to hope (if people with so little can do so much and in creative ways what's my excuse?). 

"...captures my feelings exactly -- with the caveat you raise that he may not grok various female voting blocks."

Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land is one of my favorite books and I have been thinking about it alot these last 8 years.  Except for my younger brother, I struggle to find friends around me who have read it.

When I read your comment I had to smile... yet another, albeit subtle, reason to love the forum at this site.

One thing I am going to do is lobby for progressive voices in the administration, such as Samantha Power and Susan Rice.  These are the folks who crafted the progressive foreign policy that we would prefer to see, and "if" Clinton is a done deal, I hope that these voices will also be high up in the administration as a counterpoint.

One interesting piece of gossip I read about Power after the primary is that she married Cass Sunstein in June 2008 (Chicago law professor and friend of Obama).

KD

The jury is still out on Sen. Clinton and thanks Al for this post.  As usual, I'm watching, listening and learning.  I agree that there is a difference, as you've shown in your post, between speculation and an actual nomination.

Sometimes we get so caught in what the media is saying that we don't stop and take a look at what is really going on.

Seeing is believing and when I hear the announcement from the Obama team, I'll react at that time.

Maybe I watched a different primary season play out, but those 18 million people who voted for Hillary weren't all women.  And most of the women who did vote for her found their way clear to enthusiastic support of Obama.  Think about it...there were something like 250 or so write-in votes for Hillary in Florida.  That's not a lot of die-hard support.  Obama doesn't have to save the women's vote by nominating Hillary for anything.  He knows that.  He's got the best numbers guy in the country working for him.  There simply *has* to be some other reason for subjecting the nation to this on-going drama. 

From what I've seen, Obama appears sincerely interested in a diversity of opinions.  And though I doubt he put it to her so starkly, I'm skeptical that, just because Hillary is more famous, has more political power and a more important title, her counsel will carry more weight for Obama than the counsel of Jones, Rice, Power or Biden (who also had differences with Obama on foreign policy).

What's interesting is that Obama was asked in the midst of the primary what qualities he'd look for in a VP and said essentially someone who has a knowledge base in things he himself isn't as much an expert in.  Obama added the CW is that such an area is foreign policy or a running mate to burnish his Commander-in-Chief image but, Obama pointed out, that foreign policy is actually one area that he feels confident in his views.  Then he picked the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  I'm sure that Obama respects Biden's wisdom, but I'm also sure political calculations are part of his decisions.  Even though the election is now over, Obama is keeping the White House political office.  He's keeping Axelrod as close as possible.  He's on the youtube.  Obama is well aware that politics aren't over just because the election is.  And maybe that means Obama is gearing up to pursue some politically risky policies and anticipating the resistance.

Jay's diatribe on women's support for Hillary:

"Their support has virtually nothing to do with substantive issues and little to do with relative personal merit. It has everything to do with a sense of alienation and marginalization and a feeling that 88 years of women’s suffrage has accomplished little in making individual women more powerful."

I've met women like this just as I've met women who can't stand Hillary.  But whether we like it or not, there are many women, the percentage grow with age, who voted for Obama as obligation but were still pissed about Hillary losing to a younger man.  This development warms them up to Obama and he understands that.

Secretary of State differs from other foreign policy advisors in that you're the one negotiating and representing our position.  So it requires a different skill set than just wisdom on foreign policy: being a lawyer for your country and its president.  Does Hillary have that skill set?  More than a Susan Rice?  Though I think political considerations are a big factor, I also don't think Obama would pull a Palin- pick someone even he didn't think was up for the job.  This is a wild guess but maybe Obama observed Hillary in the one-on-ones they had together and how she advocated for him during the campaign and decided he trusted her with the responsibility.  

When Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Jack Reed, Howard Dean, Bob Graham and so many others opposed invading Iraq, understanding with clarity the absurdity of it, I wish those would be the brains Obama consults when he makes big decisions.  Someone whose judgment he didn't have to override but reinforced his own good judgment.  And maybe he will. Even so, I don't think Obama shares the disdain for Hillary's foreign policy ideas that many here do.  Their foreign policy votes were in agreement more often than not.  So she might not be our ideal choice but I wouldn't panic just yet that even if it happens, that Hillary would have the intent or ability to override Obama's foreign policy.  I think that was the reassurance that Axelrod is attempting in his answer.

I just wrote a letter to change.gov on Hillary as SOS, and Rice and Power.  I've posted it as a diary to dKos if you want to read it or comment on it

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/24/103219/22?new=true

KD

The Bush administration spent eight years decimating the federal labor department. Who ever inherits Chao's pathetic legacy will have a lot of work ahead of them.

I mean, in her eight year tenure there, the Office of Labor Management Standards, an office that performs criminal investigations against labor unions for financial disclosure violations, saw its funding increase by 42 percent. Meanwhile, funding for the department’s Wage and Hour Division, which, you know, just enforces minimum wage, overtime and child labor laws, was increased by approximately 5 percent during the same time period.

First things first. Who ever heads the department needs to put the money back into the protection of workers' rights, which is the original mission the department was given during the New Deal era.

Anybody but Edwards!

When I read Al's post, it made sense and I thought I had something to add. As I read down all the comments and links all the words have started wiggling and mutating and fading. This is stuff that may or may not happen through sources that may or may not know and some of whom may not exist. I particular liked the long poem in Spanish. Its good to connect down from the analysis to the heart. I need to go listen to some passionate music about stars and death, and clean up the garden for winter. Its terrible, waiting for Obama to take office and show us where his heart really is.

I have two great hopes for the foreign policy of the next government and it is neither Iraq nor Afghanistan. The further I trust Obama to get out of more or less, and the second one he will be embroiled in for the full four years, I suspect. And Hillary as SoS or not, that will be the same outcome

But there are two areas where outcome will probably differ, depending on whether the SoS is Clinton or not:

One is the Israel/Palestine conflict. It will only come to a solution, if the US exert considerable pressure on Israel. They are still stealing the land in the occupied territories and it is ongoing. Even though Obama groveled before AIPAC I trust him to achieve that because he has sufficient empathy to look for a sustainable solution for the Palestinians. I did not see evidence that Hillary would possess that trait in any serious quantity. I would hope that Richardson has it in higher quantity.

The other is South America. Of course Al has endless more knowledge about the situation there than me. But it seems to me that one could relatively easily improve the situation there by just not supporting the people sending the death squads (which are usually known) and by stopping to insist that Chavez and Castro are mortal enemies of the US. Both are dangerous to certain money-making schemes involving the burgeois elite over there, that is all. None of them will invade neighboring countries or the US. Here Hillary is a bad choice because of her husbands money links (as Al explained).

Let's please not pretend that any only one side is to blame for these conflicts.  Hamas seized Gaza by force and threw political opponents off roofs.  Islamic radicals have also attacked internet cafes there.  I'm not disputing we need to pressure Israel, and I somewhat agree with those who suggest it'd be easier with Hillary at State.  Still, it's foolish to assume that alone guarantees the Palestinian side will live up to their obligations to end the conflict.  

I'm glad Obama has objected to violence that threatens labor leaders in Colombia.  That doesn't mean FARC has clean hands either and many Colombians despise them.

And to combine these issues together in one person, the fact that Chavez has cozied up with a Holocaust denier like Ahmadinejad makes me think he too is sort of a dickwad.

I think we have to insist settlement expansion stop and convey to Israel that the border will basically be the Green Line with a handful of equitable landswaps.  There are some who suggest, it'd be easier for Israel to hear this coming from Hillary who they trust is on their side.  Also, I think it's important we do what we can (which might not be much) to promote Livni in her election in February against Netanyahu.  A warm Hillary-Livni meeting well-publicized in Israel could be a nice, tacit endorsement.

Using the same philosophy, I also wouldn't mind Jimmy Carter to be sent to talk with Palestinians to communicate the limits of a deal and what their responsibilities would be.

I have realized that the only way I can respond to this situation and stay above water is to disengage as much as possible -- to try to stop caring who the heck the president-elect picks and what his reasons are. To shut down as much as I can.

I don't like having my mind played with, and don't have any patience for the dissonance surrounding this SoS cabinet pick and some others.

I don't like "head fakes" when I am (intentionally or not) one of the targets.

I can't stand being mindf***ed. And this process with the cabinet picks has functionally turned into that in my assessment. Having the public (those who are paying attention) disoriented and wondering about head fakes from the leader amidst tremendous media noise and dissonance ... is IMO a structural set-up for the kind of abuse that comes with keeping people disoriented in relation to what those in power decide.

And in situations like this, the script goes: if those in power finally decide something that makes us feel relieved, our response is gratitude rather than questioning why the leader would be engaged in a way that leads us to be -- or at least functionally allows us to remain -- disoriented in the process.

Whether or not the president-elect chooses to use this disorientation to push through outcomes that will hurt the populace is up to him. As people in this position go, I think he is much less abusive at that level than most.

But a potential norm of disorientation related to his decisions is ugly to me. I will not put myself into that insane space. It's on him. Pick who you want. You're in power and you're going to do it anyway. I'm going back to only paying attention when I have to, like I did with presidential/electoral politics before this election got my guard down.

I don't say this lightly because I empathize with how you must be feeling -- I am stressing myself and am rather embarrassed about obsessing over it the way I have the last few days. If it turns out that Sen Clinton is not the choice for SoS, then perhaps much of this stress was induced by an irresponsible press corps and the Clinton spin machine vs. Obama's team - -who may not be countering at this point because it could compromise them on multiple fronts? Who knows. In any case, I too will be disillusioned if her appointment comes to be -- but try to hang in guardedly until we know for sure. He and his team may not let us down in the end, after all?

I can only think two things:

1) I'm not believing anything until I hear it from the right people.

2) Maybe Obama is doing this because he realizes it will be better in the long run  for everyone (but esp. for HRC) if it seems he and HRC could simply not reach an agreement, but that they tried, rather than rejecting her outright and causing really bad blood.

Thanks for the poem, Orlando. I don't know Spanish but it made me cry anyway.

Hi Lisa,

You wrote: He and his team may not let us down in the end, after all?

But, I am living in the present and that is where the action is for me right now, not the future. I am saying that how his team has been responding to this Clinton thing is disorienting to me in the now, and I find the present situation in and of itself to be harmful, no matter what the future outcome may be.

As I wrote above: "the script goes: if those in power finally decide something that makes us feel relieved, our response is gratitude rather than questioning why the leader would be engaged in a way that leads us to be -- or at least functionally allows us to remain -- disoriented in the process."

You wrote: If it turns out that Sen Clinton is not the choice for SoS, then perhaps much of this stress was induced by an irresponsible press corps and the Clinton spin machine vs. Obama's team - -who may not be countering at this point because it could compromise them on multiple fronts?

If finding a way to communicate directly and calmly to the people in this country about the actual basic stripped-down facts of a process that is incurring needless drama is "being compromised on multiple fronts," then that raises critical questions for me.

But then, I see differences between a campaign on one hand, and being president-elect and president on the other.

In a campaign, there is a conflictual relationship between the candidate and the opponent(s) that often requires secrecy and head fakes because it is like a battle and information can get to the "enemy" against which thecandidate is competing for the win.

Being president-elect and then president isn't the same. Instead of a campaign for the win, you have a country you're leading. Instead of a primary orientation toward winning a battle with an opponent -- that is, instead of playing some win-lose game like chess against your opponent -- you are trying to actually act toward the well-being of everyone as best you can.

So. I myself don't support an elected leadership approach that includes or accepts head fakes and secrets that disorient the populace, except under the most extreme of circumstances. It's dangerous IMO.

This kind of process itself could normalize a sense of disorientation, cuold encourage us to trust in "daddy" even when what is happening doesn't feel right, could condition us to assume we should override our gut sense of what is happening. (and I understand that some people don't have good gut senses of what is happening, and love to get into the "OMG!!!!! drama" mode for the sake of drama. But I am speaking of something else here -- that valuable red flag feeling that something isn't right).

If these headfakes are meant for media, screw the news media and their spins and attacks.

It's time Obama started treating the voters and his supporters as adults, as he promised.

amk

I hear you and appreciate what you are saying.