Freak Show: Behind the Clinton for Secretary of State Rumors

It's disappointing that Andrea Mitchell and KO did not state that this report has a big ole caveat: it's a freakin' rumor. Keith did talk about how the Obama campaign was leak-free and it's so strange that there are now leaks from the Transition Team.

This latest move makes it so very clear that this is exactly why that the Clintons and their allies cannot be trusted to collaborate, partner, and just plain ole work together with folks. They are in it to win it: for themselves. It's absolute arrogance and a begrudging mindset that is trumping the better interests of the country, the party, and the President-Elect.

Go figure.

...to Daily Kos.

I think you hit it. Forgive me for reposting part of the last comment from the previous thread - it belongs more to this topic:

I also can't see HC as SoS. Her positions on key issues have been 180 degrees from Obama too often - starting with the AUMF. Also, as mentioned Bill Clinton has already been interfering with our foreign policy thanks to adventures like his deals in Kazakhstan. His dealing there has helped to strengthen Nazarbayev and the oppression of Kazakh people.

If it were not for the adage, "hold your friends close but your enemies closer", I would say confidently that HC will have no position in the Obama cabinet. She should enjoy a terrific career path to more seniority in the Senate where she could have a lot of good legislation named after her. (I'm not sure if HC and BC are friends or enemies at this point but I'm suspicious.)

But wait--wouldn't Obama want a Secretary of State who's good at dodging sniper fire on Bosnian landing strips?

...of the Democratic Party looks pretty much like the new Obama Administration, I'd have to note. As we know, 31 of 47 people appointed thus far are Clintonites.

If this wasn't possible, the Obama camp would be stepping on it hard - and Clinton's people would be as well, to protect her from embarassment.

And Andrea Mitchell, I'd point out, hates the Clintons along with most of the Georgetown permanent national media crowd.

Who knows if this is the decision the President-elect will make, but it's pretty clear he's seriously considering it. After all, the centerpiece story of the Team of Rivals passion play was Lincoln and Seward, a pretty parallel indeed.

TomW - That a policy person for the next Democratic White House served in the last Democratic White House does not at all make him and her a "Clinton person."

Obama's foreign policy team when he was challenging the frontrunner Clinton included a wide roster of former Clinton officials from Tony Lake on down. Does that make them "Clinton people" now? Quite to the contrary, they are folks that rebelled and supported Clinton's rival in the primaries!

And since only three of those "41 appointed so far" that you cite were appointed to serve in the administration (Axelrod, Gibbs and Emanuel), the number is actually "one of three" not "37 of 41."

(Actually, considering that Rahm remained neutral in the primaries, it's "zero of three" that are Clinton partisans.)

The rest are mainly on the transition team (many of whom are there precisely because A. they've - like John Podesta - ruled themselves out for an administration position (thus eliminating any conflict of interest as they vet others) and B. because they have previous administration experience.)

"Clinton people" are exclusively those that backed Clinton in the primaries. How many of those 41 people fit that description. Do any of them? Even one of them? Oh, right: Patty Solis Doyle, who was fired by Clinton, perhaps!

Great post. You've cleared the fog from my head. I've been trying to rap my mind around the rumor, wondering where the logic is, trusting that whatever the case, Obama has shown he almost always knows best, but WTF? Your analysis rings so true that I'm clear-headed and comfortable now, and can go on and have a productive day instead of sitting here in a confused funk.

fixed so deleted :-)

Once again, folks have to be reminded that SOS is a position that has to be confirmed. Can anyone imagine the amount of vetting and sheer drama those confirmation hearings would be, especially when it comes to Clinton's foreign dealings?  It would probably take an entire month just to do the hearings and take up the oxygen better devoted to other things.

Emissaries for special projects don't have to be confirmed, and I guess that Obama would rather have her do that and keep her seat in the Senate at the same time.

Kerry would sail through confirmation hearings-he's already been vetted through his Presidential run, and a Al points out, has long-term experience in internatiol matters. Kerry also has the assets of a person who could combine experience and freshness-he's already known but hasn't served in a previous administration. He isn't tainted with previous foreign policy fiascos-he doesn't have to defend or explain. Kerry also has the asset of stature to help with getting respect from foreign leaders due to his long career in the Senate.

 

 

 

deleted

I'm not rooting for more Clinton, or less Clinton people, or any particular flavor. Sure, it's accurate to say Obama is going for previous administration experience in his own and they happen to be from the best administration of our lifetimes - that's a good thing. I'm not saying they're loyalists or that Hillary is somehow co-opting Barack's administration - that's silly.

I point it out to show that campaign rhetoric is one thing, putting together a government is another. Obama did what he had to do to win; Clinton did what she had to do to try and win. He won. Now it's pretty clear they're working together - it's confirmed they met secretly in Chicago yesterday - this is a good thing, not a negative.

Obama's goal was never to "drive out the Clintons." Not for a millisecond. It was never even a single molecule of his personal motivation. For some supporters? Sure, and I can understand it.

Beyond that, I'm not obsessed with Clinton at State - I think she's clearly a huge step up from Richardson-Kerry-Hagel (God forbid). But if it was someone new, that would cool too.

I'm actually in favor of as much new blood as possible, truth be told. And I'm very hopeful for a muscular Obama apparatus toward the Democratic majority in Congress - that's the clear and present danger to Obama's policy goals.

I honestly think this is more an example of the media's Pavlovian reaction to any rumors involving the Clintons than it is a sign of Clinton perfidity. The media loves stories about the Clintons. They are their crack cocaine. So a rumor that Clinton might be part of the administration is almost guaranteed to get prominent coverage, regardless of its basis in reality.

WRT "Clinton people", I would also say there is a difference between people who have been at one point part of the policy side and folks who have been or are now part of the "Clinton machine". For lack of a better phrase, what I mean is the PR, money raising, favor dispensing power brokers.

Obama will not have her as SoS. And the main reason would be concern for her hawkishness. Obama wants militarism out of the State Dept. So in addition to her tragic AUMF vote and Bill's Kazakhstan mess above I would point to:

Her close ties to defense lobbyists. Follow the money from a year ago:

So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.

And more recently, check this out. I apologize for not have more recent figures.

Or how about how she among all candidates is the largest benefactor this campaign cycle from foreign lobbyists:

The review found that six Clinton "Hillraisers," designated donors who have raised at least $100,000 for the senator's presidential campaign, are registered with the Justice Department to lobby for foreign governments.

To be a little more precise, I think that it is the Clinton camp's maneuvering both the truth and the false narrative because they are aware of the Pavlovian press.

 

Quite frankly, it's more mayhem and it's so very very counter-productive.

 

Al,

That you have to point out to Tom W. that people WHO NEVER JOINED the Clinton campaign during the primaries are NOT Clinton people is a sad statement.  Hilarious and sad. 

I remember in 2006 the first time I saw the media blathering on about the inevitability of Queen Hillary and it made me so frustrated with the realization that I hated politics because we would of course "end up" with someone chosen by the Insiders.  

My preference would be that Hillary stays in the Senate and then we find a strong Democratic challenger for her seat in New York and she loses.  Tom W. talking on about how Hillary was a great surrogate. Please.  She did that for her own political survival and nothing else.  

Hillary Hillary had a great fall

All the King's Horses and all the King's Men

Couldn't put Hillary and power together again!

 

 

tell us why McCain is meeting up Obama now during the transition phase? Is he angling for the SOS post ? (or he still wants to do those damn town-halls ?)

amk

In a sense I think both TomW and Al are speaking the truth about the "Clinton faction"....they just mean different things by the term.

Al means the Clintons themselves and their ever-shrinking inner circle.  And I think he's absolutely right about why this Clinton faction, writ small, will ultimately be excluded from the Obama White House, as it should be.

TomW, on the other hand, is absolutely correct that the Obama White House is featuring an awful lot of Clinton retreads. It looks as if the Obama White House will be ideologically dominated by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party (though of course we won't know for sure until we see who the cabinet-level appointees are and how Obama actually governs).  Though the Clintons have likely gotten themselves voted off the island for the moment, their ideological legacy will just as likely live on in a White House that, at least for the moment, looks awfully "New Democratic" and "Third Way" (i.e. Republican Lite), even if those terms get banished with the Clintons themselves.  And, unlike TomW, I would not be happy with this outcome.

As I've already said, at this point these are just preliminary signals; Obama deserves a lot more time before anyone passes judgment on the direction of his administration.  And I won't exactly be disappointed if the Obama administration ends up being Clinton Redux.  I voted for--and donated to and worked for--an Obama presidency because I knew that it would be, at the very least, a dramatically lesser evil than a McCain presidency. And though I'll be unhappy if that's all it is, I won't exactly be surprised.

I get my news and information from the internet and not TV. this is why I read Al. and as we all know the internet is the future.

as always Al, thanks.

as for Andrea I just can'tr get past her being Married to Greenspan. talk about sleeping with the enemy.

It is no secret that George put out the speculation. Mitchell's report was independent and has some corroboration in the context of a team of rivals and HC's travels. Likewise McCain's visit. Barack is saddled with the weight of things we barely comprehend and we do better to sit back a bit and eschew the same guessing games we deplore in others.

Cheers, S

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons to argue against it, but how about HRC for SCOTUS instead? It would be worth the price of admission just hear the wingnuts screeching into the night.

lol re: McCain still pestering for town halls!

 

And let me just say, I'm so glad the crazies from the thread over at DKos don't come over here!  Yeesh!  [And I know that's thanks to you guys "guarding the gates" here.  Thank you!]

Unlike Barack and Hillary, I'm not a third way Democrat - that's not my bag. I'm well to the left of both of 'em. But I'm realistic about what's possible in terms of Washington as well.

To repeat - this does NOT appear to be coming from the Clinton inner circle, folks. Andrea Mitchell is not the reporter of choice for that...

No way.

Let me clear that up.

No way.

Finally.

No way.

And for anyone who doesn't understand the word no.

We have an opportunity to repair the way the rest of the world engages with the USA for the first time in a very long time and Hillary as Secretary of State would be a giant leap into the past, right into the blind eye on Rawanda, the Stratospheric policy and the corporate raiding and pollution of the rest of America.

Perhaps you can explain where Obama would get people who have Administration experience who did not serve under Clinton. Should he go back to the Carter Administration? Obama is a pragmatist who wants people who know the system and how to work it. Otherwise, he will not be able to achieve the change he wants.

I just found this blurb, dated October 24, 2008, from US News & World Reports:

Are Hillary Clinton's days in the Senate over? Some Democrats are pushing for her to take a top cabinet post in an Obama administration. Former Bill Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg even has a couple of ideas. "I think she'd be great in the cabinet," he says. Greenberg's choices: "secretary of defense, secretary of state."

It's no joke. Many Democrats want her to play a prominent role in an Obama administration and skip out on the Senate, where she won't have a major leadership role. And neither cabinet post is too high for Clinton. We hear that many generals and admirals in the Pentagon admire Clinton, especially for her pro-military actions after 9/11. And she's traveled the world, first as Bill Clinton's ambassador and then as a concerned senator.

Rereading Gary Wills' old "Nixon Agonistes" last week, I was again struck by the similarities in personality and temperament (and tactics) between The Late Demagogue and our Mrs. Clinton.

As usual...I've been telling everyone all day that the Clintonistas put that out re: HRC as S of S...not gonna happen...

no wonder O has gray hair before he even starts!

I have turned off the TV...Morning Shmoe sounds just like he did during the primaries...and why Hillary HAD to be Veep...

Remember when Hil and O dodged the press corps and had their own meeting...she would not be VEEP...same thing with her now being SofS...they met 'cuz she will not be SofS!

I actually turned off Keith O and didn't watch Rachel past a couple of minutes...

watched Grey's Anatomy for the first time ever!

My remote almost didn't know how to choose another channel besides MSNBC or Law&Order...guess I'll have to re-train the remote...

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

Interesting thought. My epiphany came this summer when I attended a summer stock production of "Evita." I leaned over to my husband and whispered "It's the Hillary Clinton story!"

It seems that the Hillaryites have returned to Daily Kos and are shouting anyone down who tries to reason out the reasons that she will not be SoS.  Never mind that she isn't credentialed and, just as with the VP slot, she could never be vetted. Of all the cabinet seats in the WH, why is it the very one in which she has the least experience?  Logically speaking, this wouldn't be the best place for her in an Obama Administration.

No one has been chosen for any cabinet position and Obama's trusted advisers - Jarrett, Plouffe, and Axelrod - have repeatedly announced that there will be no cabinet announcements until December.

After all this time, people still don't trust Obama's word and are still waiting for the other shoe to drop, for him to become a part of the 'politics of the past.' I still trust him, trust his judgment and, while HRC might do well in another cabinet post, SoS ain't it.

I like the Obama move this morning - having his people announce that he would be meeting with McCain on Monday.  Not that this will quash the rumors - not facts, rumors - of HRC in State.

BTW, last night I received and completed a full employment application for a non-career position in the Obama Administration; it wasn't nearly as in-depth as the senior level administration posts.

Suddenly it all makes sense.

Sadly, I mean.

Ugh.

Thanks, Field.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/hillary-for...

Not my fave pundit (because he's a conservative and obsessive on some stuff) but Andrew Sullivan is totally into the HRC SoS move:

"So here's hoping he offers and she accepts. It's an elegant and shrewd move; both public spirited and yet coldly calculating at the same time. Pure Obama."

I can't disagree....

People, such as our President Elect, for example, can get experience in all kinds of places other than the White House. Obviously you need some White House experience on the team.  Much as I dislike Rahm Emanuel, he makes sense as a Chief of Staff for just this reason.

If the "change Barack Obama wants" is something other than returning to the status quo ante Bush, he will look for people who were not major players in the Clinton administration and who don't have their fingerprints all over that administration's various mistakes. There are plenty of such people in labor unions, business, think tanks, non-profit organizations, academia, and so forth. This country is full of talented people, most of whom never work in any White House.

But if Obama does just want to return us to the Clinton years, then appointing a bunch of Clinton retreads would be a fine idea.

I suspect something else is going on in this conversation. I most certainly don't want another "New Democrat" administration, nor do I think that there's any material reason that we need to settle for one. Tom W., on the other hand, doesn't like the "New Democrats" either, but thinks that's the best we can do. There are probably others among us who actually like the idea of a return to 1990s-style "Third Way"-ism.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that the question of what Obama is up to is separate from the question of whether whatever he is to is a good thing or not.

I wish her supporters (online and in the media) would acknowledge that she doesn't have the right experience or skill set to be SOS, Senate Majority Leader or lead Obama's health care fight in the Senate.  She is a horrible manager based on how her campaign was run and she has not managed to get one major piece of legislation passed in the Senate.  Most of her bills don't even have co-sponsors or are stuck in committee.

There are so many more qualified candiates for all of the positions that Clinton is being considered for that it is just absurd.

 

Ah, Chris Lehane! Architect of the term "conspiracy theorist" and author with Mark Fabiani of the 332-page "Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce." A screed that detailed the 24-hour news cycle, sneered at how the internet was used -- which Cokie Roberts in all her arch silliness ran with thinking she was the prescient one -- and explained to the Clintonistas how to milk the media to stay in office, or stay on top of issues. Of course, it was written in 1995. Larry King read it and put the term "conspiracy theorist" into massive use starting in 1997. The new smear.

You are acting like she will set the agenda some how if she is indeed the SoS. The agenda will be Obama's ..Hillary or not.Andrew Sullivan has a good point about taking Hillary out of the Senate and putting her in the cabinate, and it makes since.

 

I don't know...I just don't feel the outrage.

TomW - Not to burst your bubble but in the run-up to the vice presidential decision, Sullivan urged Obama to pick Senator Clinton... only to backpedal and withdraw his proposal a week or two later!

(And the "team of rivals" argument he used is the same today as it was then for VP.)

(Andrew was also for the war in Iraq before he was against it.)

So, the next time somebody doesn't like Andrew's opinion on something, wait a little bit. It might still change.

Palgirl2000 - As an American abroad, the choice for Secretary of State is the one that will most effect my life, safety and well-being, as well as that of the reporters I'm responsible to defend and protect.

It's not "outrage" (because as I say I don't think this is a reality-based speculation of HRC as SoS), but, rather, I'm pointing out that the same drama-filled manner in which the Clinton camp is using the media to try and bully Obama into appointing her, they will use again and again, if it should happen to succeed, to try to wag the dog of administration policy. It needs a periodic smackdown, like over the next three weeks! Otherwise, it only encourages them.

Heh-heh - yeah, I can't disagree with you on Sullivan, Al. I just know he's popular among some of the Field Hands....

If this isn't real, it's a hell of a head fake - and to what purpose?

You make a good case, Al, particularly concerning potential conflicts of interest. If she's not picked for a cabinet position, I'll give you a lot of credit for calling it right. If she's not picked for SoS, I'll confirm my belief in your good insticts.

On the other hand, I also understand some of those who make a good case for it happening (e.g., Sullivan), and I won't be surprised if it happens.

Personally, I give it 50-50 odds, maximum uncertainty. I'll wait and see who called it right.

 

If Obama names Hillary to the Sec'y of State job, she becomes his employee. She leaves the Senate, where she's in a position to make a lot of trouble for him on health care and other issues. And she loses a long-term platform for political influence. I'd be surprised if she accepts the offer, if there in indeed an offer. She'd be foolish to do so.

This wasn't sitting right with my husband and I.  Thanks for this perspective.  It seems to go along with how the Clintons operate.  I have no lingering beef with them but they do play hardball.  Obama plays harder ball though.  He won't be strong armed.  We've seen that already.

You said,

 

The freak show is not about putting a Clinton into the State Department.

It's an effort by the vindictive Clinton organization to stop Richardson or Kerry from serving in that post.

But if Hillary doesn't want the job, she won't accept the job, and therefor the job is open to either Richardson or Kerry.

 

 

I don't buy the argument that having staff in the White House who worked in the Clinton administration is the same thing as having another Clinton administration at all.  I don't think the WH is particularly grass-rootsy - it's a very top down organization.  I think it all comes down to who has the key positions, none of which have been chosen, other than VP and CoS.

I also find it so, so funny that people are biting on the HRC for SoS meme. It's like catnip!  People really can't get enough about speculating on how she might still ruin this administration.  I think someone actually threw in the idea here that she is somehow qualified for SoS because she has been outside of the country a few times! Too funny.

Also...HRC is not a diplomat by any stretch, and has never pursued that job.  SoS is the nation's top diplomat.  Saying that HRC should be SoS is like saying she's really important so she should have an important sounding job. SoS is an important job and she can't be Sec Def, so she should get SoS.  That is the most ridiculous argument imaginable.  I think people are also arguing that Kerry is too "boring", like it's a bad thing.  That is crazy talk.  Your top diplomat should be your most boring personality ever!  A diplomat is someone who convinces another party that their interests are the same, even if they aren't.  Bullying and showboating and other big personality strategies do not accomplish that, except by fluke.  Kerry would be excellent.

For a very disciplined campaign, there have been a lot of leaks from Obama this week.

"according to two senior Democratic officials."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/14/clinton-met-with-obama-ab_n_143810.html

I really hope this is wrong.  My delicious feelings about Obama's win would pretty much crash and burn.

Hillary as Secretary of State endangers reporters in Latin America?  I'm not trying to be dismissive of something that  is surely important to you but I'm skeptical of such an effect.  Do you mean that she'd help pass a Colombian free trade deal without better guarantees of human and workers rights?  Penn lobbied for this and Bill supports it but this is a case where Hillary's 2016 ambitions would temper her enthusiasm for such a pact.  I assume she's eyeing '16 one way or another and keeping an eye on Schweitzer who would club her with any such pact if she's linked to it.

Let's be honest.  If it's not driving his selections, Obama is at least mindful of diversity.  I'm sure he'd love to have a Latino and a woman in high profile jobs to cement their loyalty to him for 2012.  He'd probably also like a Republican to underscore his connection to bipartisan government to continue attracting independents.  Napolitano as Atty General could relieve some gender pressure but it's unclear because her LtGov is Republican.  Treasury is looking like Summers, Geithner or Corzine and Summers has some issues with women.   Penises at State, Defense, AG, and Treasury may be a tough sell for Obama.  If Treasury's a boy and Gates stays on for a year and he goes Holder instead of Napolitano... see what I mean?  Unless he goes with the talented Susan Rice.

I will say that Sullivan's celebration of Hillary as a mutually beneficial selection mentioning that she might even be positioned to take Obama down for 2012 did her no favors.

 

 

 

 

 

My God this has gotten crazy. What I want to understand is what is fueling this outrage that somehow Hillary "should" be SoS or whatever. It's simply bizarre to me, as I'm not 100% sure she would even want it.

Did no quarter and / or Hillaryis44 crash or something? Where did the HRC trolls come from?

Could there possibly be that many people angling for ambassadorships coming out of Kos? This is just strange.

I don't know how much validity to this but.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/14/16949/046/995/661066

 

I just hope that this meeting was for a postion other than SoS

The best thing about the last month or so of the general election was that the second guessing of Obama's behavior and choices almost dried up.  He'd proved naysayers wrong time and again, and most of them seemed to have sat down and shut up.  It was wonderful to have backseat driving at a minimum.

But now, it seems to be open season for half-baked chatter again, and I'm realizing how much I was enjoying the quiet...

I saw Sullivan's oddly pro-Hillary-as-SoS post this morning, and quickly sent him the link to Al's post.  You have to take Andrew with a grain of salt anytime he mentions a Clinton, he goes all balmy...

The best thing about the last month or so of the general election was that the second guessing of Obama's behavior and choices almost dried up.

Sorry, JH, while not second guessing a candidate's moves makes sense because sticking with the program is how you get somebody elected, never second guessing an elected official is simply crazy.

We need to hold our elected officials' feet to the fire to make sure they do the right thing....even, perhaps especially, if we supported them as candidates.

The campaign is over. The governing begins. And we in the grassroots have to keep Obama and everyone else in DC accountable.

Oh so now Clinton did what she had to do to win? Is that your line? Are you serious? 

 

Is that what you call her racist, sexist, classist, and xenophobic campaign at a time when the African-American community had their first candidate who had a chance to win after everything they have gone through in this country? The same African-American community that put her husband in power (and not fellow whites) and made her first lady? 

Do you honestly think you could get away with such false equivalence? No, this is not just politics. Tell that to the people facing the racist backlash after Obama's win.

I dare you to look one black person in the eye and tell them that this was just politics. I dare you to look one black woman in the eye and tell her that what Clinton was doing was actually helping and furthering women's rights/causes. I dare you to look in the eyes of a muslim woman in America and say that Clinton is helping women with her candidacy after her "as far as I know" comment. 

 

Clinton knew she would face sexism in this campaign. How could she not given what she experienced in 1990's and the fact that this is a country that has yet to give equal pay to women for equal work? Just like Obama knew that he would face racism. The question is how one handled it. Obama actually took his position and his responsibility seriously. He ran a campaign and dealt with the attacks which set an example and which cleared a space for others to follow because he knew that he was in a position to make a difference, that he had the privilege of doing so. He gave a speech that is one for the ages. He acted like a teacher and a leader.

What did Clinton do? What responsibility did she have, especially given her privileges and her position knowing she could make a difference as the first viable female candidate, and how did she use it? No, she didn't have to do anything. She chose to do so. And she did it by cynically using her race and her gender as her alibi. 

To say that she did what she had to do and to establish a false equivalence with Obama, who did not run a sexist campaign, or a racist and classist one, when she had every advantage in the world and even had the rules changed for her (yeah, a great feminist victory) is the worst kind of cynicism. It is also a willful failure to comprehend and a demonstration of your white privilege. 

 

 

I don't want to turn this thread into a crossfire, Tom W., but what gives? I've read your blog, and you're normally a very insightful and intelligent analyst of politics. But whenever it comes to Hillary Clinton, you seem to lose all your bearings. In the past, you've said that Obama's best choice for Vice President would have been Hillary and that Obama would have a lot of trouble winning without her. I think events have proven otherwise. And now here you are saying that Hillary Clinton would be a much better SOS than Kerry or Richardson.

Can you really be serious? Bill Richardson is a past nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, a former ambassador to the U.N., and has been a diplomatic envoy to Iraq, Cuba and North Korea. Kerry is no slouch either, as Al has pointed out in a previous post. By what reckoning would Hillary by a "huge step up" from either of them? What does she have to offer on her resume that makes her such a better candidate than Richardson or Kerry?

Seriously. What gives?

I totally agree with your assessment of the need for the SoS to be a "diplomat" first.  That's why I thought Madeline Albright was a bad SoS.  To the rest of the world she just didn't come off as very "diplomatic." However, I think it is good politics to give Hillary a high-profile job somewhere.  I just don't know where.

KD

Personally, I just don't think Hillary is the best person for the job.  John Kerry or Richard Lugar would be better.  Hillary isn't much of a broker/negotiator (see, First Lady's attempt in 1993 to construct a health care plan, but dismissing any input from two Congressional democrats).

 

She was wrong about negotiations with Iran.  She was wrong about Musharef and Pakistan.  She is wrong about Cuba.  I don't like this...

Attorney general? seat on the SCOTUS?

but Obama is not someone who appears to believe in grudge holding, either personally or as a society (see the race speech in Philadelphia).

Obama is thinking about dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Sudan beginning January 2009.  Whatever his considerations over who should be running the state department, I doubt Hillary's campaign rhetoric, over the line though it may have been, is a big part of his thinking.

 

Ya, I agree that HRC needs something important to do. I just wish she thought being a Senator was important enough.  It's important, right? I'm Canadian, and our Senators are definitely not important, but I thought Senator was a pretty important spot - especially New York.  She wanted the number one spot pretty badly, and campaigned like she wanted it badly.  I still don't think she had the skill set, and I don't quite see where in the administration she fits.  I know when I applied for med school I had to be pretty convincing that everything I had done so far pointed towards me being good at that particular job and wanting it.  What portfolio does HRC match up well for in the WH?  I don't think being a competent person and a leader type is enough.  Obama fits president, to me, because he is the consumate manager and organizer, and has shown excellent judgement.  Senator works for me, for HRC, because it is about politics, pure and simple - that is what she does well, I think.  Senators don't have to be experts on a particular thing, though it's a great way to get experience on various committees.

Oh, and if there is one thing Obama has really shined in so far (I know, I know, there are many) it is in putting the right people in the right spots around him.  If he puts HRC in this spot (as per Birchbeer above) just to add gender parity, I will be very surprised.  I think when all is decided we will see a very fairly represented gender spread in the overall Cabinet.  Looking at the top 4 spots is a statistically terrible way of creating parity.  You want to be so sure that you are putting someone behind the wheel that knows how to drive with these ones - there just aren't as many padded side rails on this track as there are with some of the other jobs.  That being said, I have been amazed at how those jobs were allocated in the past, except to say that that is politics.  Debts have to be paid.  What debt does Obama owe HRC?

What Josselyn Borowiec said in previous thread. This was 'offer' (if there was an offer) given to her to try to redeem her (and his) tattered reputation after their primary antics, in exchange for their 'support' during campaign.  Probably a deal made more with him than her.

No idea who the players are in this game, but think President-elect Obama is in control.  There was a 'back up' plan to storm Denver if necessary, remember Field Hands. I don't think the next Administration wants to look out at The Mall covered with We Want Samantha Powers signs.

If I'm wrong, than I think I'm also very wrong about what I thought of Obama.  This is not a Doris Kearns Goodwin book.

Pablum at this point? Although who gets what post is a fun Parlor Game, haven't we learned anything about Pres Elect Obama in the past year and a half? There are no leaks, and if there are "leaks", they really aren't leaks they are previews of coming attractions that our Pres Elect has tossed out there for strategic reasons. Clinton will not be SOS she'll have a role but it will not be SOS. As Al pointed out it would be a major snafu because of her husbands Global Intiative. I voted for a man I trust, I trust him to do what is best for our country, until he proves that he isn't doing what IMO is best for our country, I'll take a wait and see.

Once again, Al, you've caused the Great Orange Satan to spew pea soup and twist its head around 360 degrees!  People are going completely nuts over your post!  Now CNN and NYT are saying that Obama met to discuss "a role in the Administration", but certainly not a job offer... yet. It'll be great to see how this plays out but I have to admit, passing over both Kerry and Richardson, who are both IMO better choices for SoS, just doesn't sound like Obama to me, and neither does this massive "leak" situation.  Very unObamalike.

Unlike Tom W I am not a super big Clinton supporter, although I woudl have voted for her in the general if she had gotten the nomination. Unlike Al, neither am I a major Clinton negater. Although I think there are many better options for SoS, I would not be dismayed if she was picked for a couple reasons. 1. As pointed out above, she would not be dictating policy, Obama would. She would be tasked with putting it out to the world, and if she tried to deviate from Obama's policy, major problems would result. 2. The position where she can do the most harm to the Obama administration is exactly where she currently is, and it would be a lot more subtle and not as transparent to the public if she was into sabotaging Obama (which I am not sure she would be). 3. If as SoS she went off plan, Obama would probably not hesitate to ask her to step down. Obama does not suffer fools lightly, nor disloyalty. Clinton may be tough, but I doubt she would win if she and Rahm were placed in a room alone. 4. That type of disloyalty would really hurt her in terms of future plans, particulalrly if Obama is as successful as I think he will be in engaging the other countries in the world in a positive direction. However, if the reports are true I can see two reasons Obama has let the news leak, and make no mistake, it would only leak with his permission. The first is that it gives Clinton a certain cachet and air of respectability. And she can tun it down without hurting her own reputation. Clinton has a lot she can do for this administration and I do think a role will be found, even if it is with her remaining in the Senate. Although she may not be Majority Leader or whip, she can definitely do a lot to push a lot of the more conservative Dems in the right direction.

This freak show gets more interesting and I can't wait to see how it plays out.   I know HuffPo has taken on the look of a tabloid quite often but they have some good posters sometimes (like Al).  So how much of this story about an actual offer is traceable to Nico Pitney and the famous "two senior Democratic officials".  And how much journalistic credibility does Nico Pitney have?

 

 

Valerie Jarrett will be Obama's WH Senior Advisor and Counselor - per MSNBC

If he picks her for SoS (which might or might not happen), then I'd say the leak (which became a "dam break" according to Olbermann), had the purpose of making clear that Obama had offered, and that it was her decision not to take the job. He tried.

I suspect Obama might be thinking "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". I don't think she'd be a bad choice (maybe not the best, I don't know, but no necessarily bad).

We'll know in a few weeks.

 

We have a larger problem with the lack of authenticity of the media here. So called journalists who are so partisan and biased in their reporting of "facts" that should be op-ed pieces. I remember that April primary debate and still bristle. The Clinton water carriers are just as bad as the so-called conservative pundits.

Apparently Obama met with Richardson on Friday.  So much for Nico's report that he offered Clinton the job.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081115/ap_on_el_pr/obama_rivals

Right on.

Just heard Maddow's show with Andrea Greenspan's "scoop" re-run on the radio.  It's so obvious that Al's analysis is correct.  Seems like a lame attempt at staying relevant.  The Clintons can't stand being left behind, and hopefully this is a last gasp, although I'm guessing they'll be around for years still, or at least their DLC clones.  

Once a Clinton becomes the story, look how crazy things get and how the mood changes.  Big difference from the No Drama Obama future, huh?  The Clinton name is toxic and gets in the way of meaningful progress.  Always has. 

Namely that the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the President. He or she can only navigate within the course that the President has set out for him/her. Of course Obama and the SoS will have heated arguments now and then, but in the end, the President decides. In that sense, it's a very humble job.

Of course Hillary as SoS would not be a clean break with respect to foreign policy, but she doesn't need to be, since Obama already is. For instance, we know she doesn't agree with meeting unconditionally with Ahmadinejad/Chávez etc., but as a SoS she'll have to because Obama sets out the course. It's the same reason Biden was offered VP even though he was spectacularly wrong on Iraq, arguably the most important foreign policy issue of the last decade.

It's a perfect way for Obama to, indeed, create a team of rivals and heated debate, but at the same time cage a potential threat to his Administration. Which is why I think he will offer her the job, but she probably will not accept. Being a Senator which almost 18 million primary votes under your belt is a more powerful and independent position (particularly on domestic policy issues like health care) than a Secretary of State that is ultimately muzzled and has to report to the President.

To me, what was particularly telling in her "report" was her comment to the effect of, "First Obama turns down Clinton for VP, and then if he doesn't pick her for SoS, well, let's just say that would be awkward."

WTF!?!  Is Hillary entitled to a place in an Obama Admin?!?  What would be awkward about that since there's really no reason to believe Hillary is being considered for SoS (see Al's many reasons above, among others), except for these mysterious "sources?"  What would be awkward is having someone who was as condescending and insulting as Clinton was to Obama then working under him.

That comment was "the tell" that Al's analysis was correct.  This is simply an attempt to strong arm Barack into stocking his Admin with some Clintonistas.  Mitchell is great at the kabuki dance that BigMedia mavens play.  Mrs. Greenspan has definitely played foil for the Clintons many times over the years, in addition to playing "tough" on them as well.  That's how they keep their jobs.

By the way, is Maddow that gullible that she'd keep repeating Mitchell's report as fact over and over, or is she just being a good team player?  Rachel's fantastic 98% of the time, so we'll see how she does over the next few years.

I'm actually of the opinion that it's time for Obama to return the favor to the Clintons. And I don't say that as a Clinton supporter. A search through these very archives will reveal the opposite. But Hillary stepped up quickly - and frequently - to stump for Obama and, in the process, killed the PUMA movement (if ever it was real) in its tracks and gave her own supporters a green light to follow her lead. And, in the end, even the weirdly-behaving Bill came around, in his way, to stump for Obama, passionately, and in a way he never did for Kerry.

That doesn't necessarily mean that Hillary should be SOS, but some payment is due.

I also believe that this campaign has created a lasting firewall between Obama and the Clintons. He has his own presidential victory now and his own mobilized base. He doesn't really need them, but his base is solidified and made stronger by annexing the Clinton phalanx. Interestingly, Obama holds the keys to the kingdom in Democratic politics. The Obama results point to a generational and racial shift away from the Clintons - two key constituencies they would need to reclaim the White House and currently out of their reach. The power base has shifted. This is why I don't take stories of Clinton maneuvering too seriously. Their time has past. The youth vote is gone. The African-American vote is gone. And the independent vote was lost when Hillary went white and populist.

But a unified Democratic front is good for Obama, and if that means putting Hillary in the cabinet somewhere, I say, do it.

 

"Provocative Related Thought: A lot of people whom I trust on this say that Hillary Clinton would make a genuinely good Secretary of Defense. Her performance on the Armed Services Committee has, by all accounts, been extremely impressive, and her understanding of military affairs is surprisingly deep. That's not to say she'd want the gig."

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=11&year=2008&...

KD

for the Celebration!

 

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

If Al is right then I think Obama is making one of his aikido moves.

I have no idea what's going on, but I do love watching Obama when he does aikido.  It's an art form.

What could be a better way to tap into Bill's brain, using his feedback judiciously and taking it with a grain of salt, but tapping into it regularly nonetheless, either directly or via Hillary?

Believe me, I'm no fan of Hillary's, especially after the primary.  If she had won the nomination, there's a decent chance I would have not voted at all. But I just don't see much of a downside with making her report to Obama as SoS instead of subtly undermining him as a high profile Senator.

TomW, on the other hand, is absolutely correct that the Obama White House is featuring an awful lot of Clinton retreads.

Ben, as Al has already stated in a prior post, there have only been 4 appointees to the Obama White House: Axelrod, Gibbs, Solis-Doyle and Emanuel. I think Valerie Jarrett agreed to be the the 5th appointee today. Those 41 "appointees" you and Tom keep alluding to are members of his transition team, not permanent White House staff. Let's not peddle the media distortion as fact, cool?

On a personal level this stunt and media blitz for the purpose of making Hillary more important and possibly getting her a position in the cabinet is disheartening. And, it appauls me to think this is also being done to stab Senator Kerry and Gov. Richardson in the back. Both men have qualifacations far superior to Clinton's. I would prefer to see Kerry in this position because his ideas mesh with Obama's and they have a very friendly relationship. Kerry could take over where Obama lets off and the two could be of one voice on many foreign policy issues. We need boldness and a fresh direction in the world. Would Clinton bring any of this to the job? Why choose her just so you can keep an eye on her, when it is crucial that we have strong, knowledgable and progressive  leadership and representation around the world.

Suppose that when Obama went to see Clinton in Georgetown right after her deluded concession in the primary, he offered her secretary of state if she'd campaign for him? That would explain her all-out efforts for him, and we wouldn't have to give her points for selflessness.  Maybe Bill Clinton doesn't want his high-rolling global donors vetted, which would explain the veiled hostility. Maybe Bill Richardson is being offered a different position. Maybe Obama wants his real friend, Kerry, to stay in the senate.

I'm pretty safe with this theory as if it happened, we'll never ever know.

Barack will come out of this as the poker player he is.  He wins either way. She is considering now. That will take the news off his continuing  efforts. December is the announcement time. The premise of the original post is, I think, wrong. She may refuse but the offer was serious. If she accepts there are substantial victories, at least for Barack and possibly for her as well. I see Richardson as Ambassador to China to raise the profile of our relationship to the other great power.

 

 

My Fellow Fieldhands,

Could you please jump over to the Fieldhands site, and read a discussion I just posted? http://fieldhands.ning.com/forum/topics/hotels-losing-reservations-for

I'm raging, and I need your input/help. 

I hope this doesn't happen to any of you.

Sorry to hijack, but today is the day that millions of Americans in over 300 cities across the US are turning out in peaceful protest against the passage of Prop 8 and three other anti-gay ballot initiatives.

Read my story on the emergence of this exciting new grassroots movement in my reporter's notebook:

The Groundswell

Why secretary of state for Hillary? What does she do after that? Seems to lead to a deadend, especially if she loses favor like Powell did with the Bush administration and is essentially pushed out of the circle of power.

Seems to me a much more likely postion for her, one that she might buck for, if she was going to step out of a safe Senate seat and take a chance in a cabinet post is Attorney General.

It would put the fear of god into her long-time enemies, gives her the spotlight in cleaning up a huge mess along with immense power and would far-better position her for a Supreme Court nod later via the Obama administration.

I'm not saying that would be the right move for Obama, or the country, or that it is even a good pick given other alternatives, but if she is destined for a cabinet position, I personally see that as a much more attractive choice for her and one more suited to her personality and background.

But I guess this kind of speculation just proves the point. Because I can already hear the gnashing of teeth -- Whitewater, Filegate, campaign finance scandals. How could she ever have legitimacy in the minds of a good share of the people as an AG? 

Well, the same holds true for any cabinet post she might be considered for in the new administration. She has a lot of baggage, that she carries with Bill as well, and if Obama goes that route, it would always be perceived as a quid pro quo pick by a good share of the electorate -- and a knife in the back by another slice. It's a bed Hillary has made; she's a divisive political figure, even if she is talented and competent. And as any good basketball coach knows, you don't win championships with players who are off-court distractions and on-court ball hogs who put themselves above the team -- regardless of their talent.

So, if I'm Obama, I think real hard before I open that can of worms. But that doesn't mean I don't put the can up on the shelf, where I can keep an eye on it, just to make sure no one else puts a can opener to it before I can properly dispose of it.

But then I realize I'm just sitting in the peanut gallery throwing out the shells.

This might be naive on my part (nothing new there), but I contacted my Senators: http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ to ask them to support keeping Joe Lieberman from a committee chairmanship so that he doesn't have subpeona power. Others might want to do the same.

Hi Emma,

I am afraid it is somewhat naive to assume you can order people around to do a good job. There is a huge difference between willingly obeying and barely doing the necessary. It makes zero sense for Obama to pick somebody with a different philosophy on diplomacy. How efficient can she be with Chavez if he knows she called for ignoring him? Besides Iraq it is probably Latin America where the US has a real lousy record, and it goes back much longer. You need a clean break to achieve something new there, I believe.

Check out her last venture into Department of State just 9 years ago after 7 years as First Lady.  She wasn't ready then and isn't ready now.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9911/11/israel.hillary.02/

 

 

@ Allan Brauer

Excellent posts at Narcosphere. There's something about the ongoing extraordinary joy at Election 2008 that just makes the 3 state initiatives stand out as so very, very awful. In a sea change election of so much bubbling good will this one area of hate stands out starkly. It spoils a little of the joy for all of us and I sense there's power in that jarring disconnect. In my opinion that explains part of Keith Olbermann's emotional, near tears why-do-you-care-if someone-else-loves response and the Groundswell fieldhand Allan writes about.

Anna Quindlen's current Newsweek column:

The Loving Decision

Same-sex marriage was beaten back at the ballot box. Now here's a history lesson on why victory is inevitable in the long run.

One of my favorite Supreme Court cases is Loving v. Virginia, and not just because it has a name that would delight any novelist. It's because it reminds me, when I'm downhearted, of the truth of the sentiment at the end of "Angels in America," Tony Kushner's brilliant play: "The world only spins forward." http://www.newsweek.com/id/169157

The very fact that drama and leaks and posturing surrounds Clinton disqualifies her from SoS. Delicate negotiations would smother from having all the air sucked out of the room by celebrity-fed ego. I can't imagine any back and forth negotiations would survive the media circus.

I don't buy the argument that having staff in the White House who worked in the Clinton administration is the same thing as having another Clinton administration at all.  I don't think the WH is particularly grass-rootsy - it's a very top down organization.  I think it all comes down to who has the key positions, none of which have been chosen, other than VP and CoS.