Mr. President-Elect: Judge Abner Mikva Is Right

From the 60 Minutes interview:

Kroft: You met with Senator Clinton this week.

Mr. Obama: I did.

Kroft: Is she on the short list for a cabinet position?

Mr. Obama: You know, she is somebody who I needed advice and counsel from. She is one of the most thoughtful public officials that we have. Beyond that, you're not getting anything out of me Steve.

If someone can show me how that indicates that Obama has offered, or plans to offer, a position to Clinton, please help me out.

Everything else is pure speculation, coming from people with their own agendas.

Here.

One thing we saw again and again during the primaries and the general election campaign is that Obama likes to keep quiet until a consensus has built up in the media that defines his opponent the way he wants, and then he moves.

Today there was a huge flood of stories about the conflicts of interest, a lot of details and examples that can only have come from Chicago and that the Clintons would dearly love to keep attention off of.

The commentators that Al quoted, coming from a wide range of backgrounds and viewpoints, show the consensus that is already developing.

I believe that Mikva's intervention is Obama's next move, raising the stakes again. I don't pay much attention to Pfeiffer's denial, which is just part of how the game is played. Obama will speak when he is ready to speak but first he wants to have everybody think it was their own idea to agree with him. Just as he has already done so many times.

all that goodwill from rest of the world will go poof. Just like with Georgie boy, post 9/11.

amk

Well said, Al. The media shitstorm that has been kicked up just by the mention of her name should be all the vetting Chicago needs to do.

The whole thing is absurd on so many levels. Vetting Bill Clinton? It's not like they actually need to go through his records and stumble upon the CGI: "Oh hey, what's this I see? It appears your husband runs an unprecedented international charity initiative and privately meets and deals with dozens of foreign governments and individuals, operating wholly outside the US government. Is this true?"

Al,

Thanks for taking a position, and clearly articulating it. Believe me when I say that Kerry looks better today than he did a couple weeks ago, at least in comparison to HRC.

Nothing against HRC, but I have seen nothing on her resume that suggests she is an able manager of multiple strong, intelligent, forceful personalities with different interests. I hear that is how Foggy Bottom rolls.  If she couldn't control her campaign staff, when she signed the checks, I don't see how she will be able to herd the cats in the State Department.

However, I can see the validity of the argument that Obama is so focused on his Domestic Agenda, first and foremost, that he wants to get all the major road blocks out of the way before they can screw up his plans.

Still, I hope HRC stays in the Senate, for now.  As for whether she should go on the Supreme Court, I'm not convinced that she would be a good choice, I'd much prefer Janet Napolitano if we're comparing Female Lawyers, she has demonstrated legal chops to a much higher degree.

As for Bill, I could see him being some kind of Special Ambassador to Africa (the continent, not the country), tasked with advancing US strategic interests while advancing Health and Economic Initiatives across the continent.

Ken in California

I would not like to see Clinton given the SOS job. But I don't see it as the impending disaster some do. I think she proved she can be a team player, and would be. Would have to be. Otherwise, Obama would set her up and let her go. He's so smart; he would find a way to make it seem inevitable. Moreover, I don't think it would come to that. I truly believe she would work to advance his agenda.

The bigger concern is Bill. There's a cannon that cannot be bolted to the deck of the ship of state. Obama knows that, so I'm doubtful he'll go with Hillary. Not without Bill making some huge concessions anyway to provide transparency regarding all his dealings.

Africa is the nastiest piece of business on the globe with the genocides in Rwanda, DRC, and elsewhere caused by dozens of freebooters and filibusters, creating and backing various militias, paramilitaries and death squads masquerading as legitimate governments acting as fronts for international thievery and smuggling of unimaginable wealth with the CGI and various associated affiliates, associates, and international business consultants weaving and dodging in and out and who knows where. Depending on what you think about Bill Clinton, maybe nothing is there, but if the bodies are there, somebody knows where they are and they will definately be dug up. There will be no "transparency" up front.  If they are there, you can only hope they are well buried.

Nice job for a first jab.

Why wouldn't Hillary want to be Secretary of Health? Kennedy recently said no to her request to head up his subcommittee to tackle health insurance, shutting her out, and she has a long memory about her aborted health care legacy. Then there's Max-Whomever, the D-Senator, who wants to claim the win for himself.

Further, as Colin Powell showed, you can be out of a job in a couple of years, and I can't remember a SoS who ever lasted eight years. (Can anyone help me with this?)

So why would she want to be SoS, and risk being out of a job in four years max? We all know Robert Kennedy Jr wants her Senate job. That slot will be gone, unless she moves back to Chicago.

I suppose Hillary has enough spanky-spanky in her relationship with Bill to slap him down if he acts like Extra-President-on-a-Plane and undermines her dealings with foreign governments, but why risk it. Bill's mouth is getting more Bideney as the reverse is true.

I can't figure this out. There's something else afoot. I can feel the pea under my mattress.

http://tinyurl.com/6xbq5r

guardian uk:

HC to accept Obama's offer ..

Thinking out loud was me: Alexa

I hope you're right. My impression of HRC, is that she has great energy and good intentions, her sensibility is nerdy and clunky,  her worldview is firmly waspy, her ethics are dispensable, and she wants to make a mark in history. Bill Clinton, though a bit egomaniacal and self-indulgent, still seems to have a better grasp on how the world works than anybody, and he probably knows more world leaders than anybody. If she were SOS, with Bill as unofficial advisor, they could probably accomplish particular things nobody else could. But neither of them has shown Obama any deep respect.

This says more about the intentions of the Obama campaign than anything else. My theme for today is the opposite of your post. Hate the sins, accept and forgive the sinners. That would include everyone. We elected Barack. Suck it up and live with it. And yes we are both on the same side. :)  Cheers, S

http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/11/hillary-detroit-suck-it-up-...

Once again, thanks Al.  I am fascinated by the media firestorm around Hilary for SOS because it has dramatically reduced attention to other aspects of the transition.  It's providing enormous cover for Obama's team and entertainment for everone else.  That can't be a bad thing.

Lincoln mantra and panacea for all evils in the political world -  didn't work out that well for him the end, did it now ?

That should be another caveat for Obama, may be not in literal sense, but in a rhetorical one.

amk

I think that the only explanation is that Obama must have been very impressed with Hillary post-primary.  They did spend some time together and seemed to show a closer relationship.  I was - I think she showed a lot of grit, and she was working quietly behind the scenes doing a lot of rallies and events with no media attention coming up to the GE (also remember her career in the Senate before the Primary - she very much kept her head down and did her job).

I also think that there probably is a lot to the stories by Hillary's close friends that the "real" Hillary Clinton has been very obscured by the media swirl around her. (I know during the primary that I was incensed by her actions as anyone, but I'm trying to put that down to her inability to let go of "politics as usual").

This is not to say that I think she should be SoS - policy-wise and management-wise I think she'd be a bad fit.  We need someone like Obama himself in that position - a "diplomat" - someone who doesn't get too high or too low, who is capable of nuanced thought, who has patience (maybe it's her media image, but those characteristics don't bring Hillary Clinton to mind to me).  I also think the foreign-policy views she articulated during the campaign were pretty hawkish.  I'd like to see her as Attorney General - or maybe even Secretary of Defense.  That would make the right wingers heads explode.  And affirmative actionwise that Secretary of Defense spot needs shaking up - it's been old white male repubs for far too long.  Supposedly she has done good work on the Armed Services Committee. 

KD

I don't have much to add other than this is quite comforting after having spent the last 30 mins reading Kos user comments. If there is any doubt as to why the Fieldhands need to continue, go read those comments and come back. I promsie you will pat yourselves on the back. Whew!

I can't stand the Clintons. Their behavior is always addictive, narcissistic, and co-dependant. They are destructive.

However, I am intrigued by Obama's decsion to circle the wagons. What if he is right? What if because we are at such a unique time in our history--with huge looming problems threatening our way of life--that by bringing all the opposition into the government (incl. the GOP) he will essentially create and facilitate an environment where big big problems can be solved without the partisan shit that always waters down the final product.

Maybe this is a better way to tackle the big issues like energy, health care and the economy....maybe, just maye, he knows what he is doing.

I think I learned to trust Obama from you, Al--maybe its time for a renewed leap of faith?

The guy has gotten it right so far. Maybe he knows what he is doing.

Heather

Stephen Rose - I read your comment, days ago, at 538 hopping on the HRC for SoS bandwagon. I get it. We disagree. No problem here.

Kurt - Yes, and the lesson is the same as always: persuasion canvassing works! Think of DKos as a big neighborhood of doors to be knocked and phones to be banked. 

Heather - I'm doing the exact same thing I did during the elections: countering the mass media spin. When you ask "what if he (Obama) is right?" you seem to be presuming that he wants HRC as Secretary of State, when he's said no such thing (and has even told you and me and everybody else to presume nothing about appointments until we hear it from his lips). The Chicken Littles during the campaign went that way because they believed the media spin. Then, as now, I'm here saying "don't believe it."

A NY Times reporter doesn't find his way to 82 year old Abner Mikva in Chicago without a little help. Hmmmm. Who brought Abner into the Clinton White House? Free candy for whomever gets that answer right!

I am no fan of HRC, but I tend to agree with Roy Martin that Hillary as SecState is not the disaster you think it will be. 

She would have a very difficult time running a Clinton FP in an Obama White House.  She'd be one voice on Obama's promised team of rivals.  This means that in the policy process the create and shapes FP, she'll have to contend first with rivals of hers at NSC, Def, VP, intelligence community, and others and then with the finality of the commander-in-chief's decision. (just ask Colin Powell how difficult this is). 

I admire many things about Obama, but most of all I admire his willingness to include rivals in his administration.  This is not an act of grandstanding. He sees it as the shortest route to wise policy that takes in all points of view.

At the end of the day, I believe he knows far better than any of us who the Clintons are and what they can do for him. He is a very perceptive guy who has seen the Clintons at their best and at their worst.  He would not choose HRC for such a sensitive post if he thought she would neuter his own FP aspirations.   

Rahm? And this is what I find curious: Rahm Emanuel, a Clinton-loyalist who nonetheless seems to live more closely tethered to Chicago than DC is capable of going his own way by tying himself to Obama. Whether or not HRC wants to do what Rahm has done is irrelevant because of the Clinton Industries she can never shake. She can never go her own way not so much because of Bill but because of this hornets' nest of acolytes and media-hangers-on attached to her name if not person. Obama may indeed be drawn to her various qualities as a person, but what Mikva and others know is that this is her sorry state. She has yet to ever be seen as anything other than a subsidiary of Clinton Industries. The ruse is that she could be a Rahm. 

By the way, where is Biden in all this? Or the other inner circle folks from the campaign...Sollis Doyle or Carolyn Kennedy?

Maybe this is all media spin but maybe its a real trial ballon from the Obama camp. I can't decide.

I don't want her as SoS but if he decides to go with her I will assume he knows what he is doing--its too a big a risk to think he doesn't have a plan.

However I also believe that the Clintons are vey good at wanting to be percieved as inevitable to avoid certain hurdles--like proving loyality or releasing donor names-- and that very well might be happening right now in the media.

The reporting is all over the place.

I expected more discussion about her as Secretary of State.  Wasn't she Obama's primary foreign policy advisor during the campaign?  She covered Africa in Clinton's State Department.  She seems insightful whenever she op-eds.  I've seen her name bandied about for National Security Advisor or UN Ambassador but thought she'd be a contender to run State.

Al I do not jump on bandwagons and neither does Barack. If you check my home page today you will see where I am coming from.

If you look at yesterday's page you will see that I did about as thorough a vetting of Bill C. as anyone regarding his Guistra link which is the most damning thing the Times came up with.

Abner M. was a fixture when I was in Chicago in the 60s and I respect him.

My main point in this second note is to drive a wedge between the sins and the sinners. Which is how the world gets along, when it does. I would be perfectly happy to see a different outcome, but I think this is NOT a place to draw a line in the sand. When Barack goes back on his word will be the time and we have not gotten there yet. I hope we never do.

I took a look at one of the web sites left from the Clinton primary die-hards and they don't like it either.

Why?

Clinton would be less independent than she would as a Senator. Her job would be to follow Obama's agenda. If she strayed too much from that, she would be creating tsuris for the Democratic president. If she didn't stray from her role, she'd be undermining her own autonomy.  And how long could she hold that posistion -- maybe 3 or 4 years - and then what? Her safe Senate seat would be gone.

Frankly, I think those are strong considerations for Senator Clinton and she might decide, on her own, that she is better off in the Senate, at least if she wants a lengthy political career. She is never going on the Supreme Court; she hasn't even been a judge and that has been a qualification for about half a century.  Her chances of being president sometime are quite low. The other place she could end up is as Governor of NY (and that would require Patterson to screw up big-time) or in another cabinet or ambassadorial post.

In any case, I'm commited to being cool with it. Yes, there are huge potential problems with a Clinton duo who leak like crazy on national security/foreign affairs issues and possibly go off the reservation. But I think that Obama must have thought this one out quite a lot. And the Clintons are really going to have to think about whether it's the best thing for both of them, particularly if Bill will have to pull back and Hillary will have to be on Obama's team.  After all, the team of rivals does have a leader - and his name, in this case, will be President Obama.

Would be interesting to know how Biden feels about this. It's hard to imagine him being a big supporter of Hillary as SoS. But then, what do I know?

And who knows what Obama's up to. As Al said, let's wait to see what comes down. I do have confidence that whatever it is will be well thought out and very strategic. He's not God. He makes mistakes -- occasionally. FISA proved that. He could have run to the left and right of McCain, appealing to Libertarians and libertarian-leaning Republicans while making his base happy. Instead, he traded it for a chance to keep his head low. But that was the only real strategic error in a nearly two-year long campaign. Maybe there were a few word slips here and there too. (e.g. "You're fine Hillary.") However, we've never seen a candidate so aware of his every movement, every glance, every utterance and every action. He's hard on comedians because he gives so little to parody.

Just what someone like Hillary, so much the opposite, would be doing at State (of all places) I'm not sure. But as I've said, whatever comes down, I'm not going to question a guy whose showed himself to be so much smarter than me. Perhaps Obama feels he can take the best qualities each person has to offer and use them effectively while holding non-useful qualities in check ("the Rule of Rahm").

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/latest-on-secre.html#com...

Gotta wonder if that source isn't Georgey Stephadouche.

So, I'm trying to remember the way things went toward the end of the primaries, particularly after the MI and FL DNC meeting.  Wasn't Harold Ickes all "we'll take this to court!" and whatnot?  The PUMAs were in full throat, they had their own "Fight In Denver" thing going, Clinton was working hard to push the "I won the popular vote" distortion, etc.  Then it all died down.  Was that just a function of time?  Or was this "the plan" all along to get it to all go away?  The selection of Biden would seem a logical compromise choice for vp if Obama were trying to sell HRC on letting go of all that & pivot to SoS instead.  I'm honestly trying to remember, to test-drive this new theory, so feel free to refresh my memory.  Because, on the flip side, anything that does seem honestly from the Obama camp is definitely not as rosie ["exasperated" and Judge Mikva], like they're trying to push back against the meme ABC and others are putting out there.  Just want to explore the possibility of this being an agreed-upon arrangement from early summer [in hopes of someone refuting it :-) ].

One or two posts ago, an Anonymous commenter (and later Melissa) posted an announcement that Mona Sutphen had been named as one of Obama's Deputy Chiefs of Staff. 

They also posted a link (see below) to a YouTube video where Nina Hachigian and Mona Sutphen discuss their book The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive As Other Powers Rise, as part of the Authors@Google series. 

I sat and watched this constructive and refreshing video.  They discussed China, Russia, India.  They talked about energy policy, terrorism, the failures of our recent political past. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO64dp5dORM

I have been thinking about it off and on ever since.  It is a positive, informed approach to thinking about global affairs, with a number of twists.  I was feeling upbeat knowing this is the type of person Obama is hiring.

Why do I bring this up? First of all she worked for Richardson.  Maybe not that important.  But more, if this is the kind of thinking that is important to Obama team, Hillary doesn't jibe with it, in my opinion. 

This video gives me hope that Obama would be looking for someone who is not only extremely bright with demonstrated knowlege of foreign affairs, but also someone who is forward thinking, (i.e. strategically able to think outside the box that we've placed ourselves in these last 8 years).  Someone who is one step ahead.  Someone who is an effective communicator, a master collaborator, and a cool negotiator.   

I simply do not see Hillary as an innovative, mover and shaker. 

While very bright, I see her as a political machine who has come up through an outdated Washington establishment with a sense of entitlement and alot of baggage.  When she had opportunities to stand up to Bush and put a stake in the ground (as Barbara Boxer, Linc Chafee, Jim Jeffords, and others did) she didn't.

In fact, she has unapologetically been on the conservative (wrong) side of any number of huge issues in the last 8 years, underestimating the dissatisfaction of many of her Democratic constituents, as well as her competition during the campaign.  

This would seem to matter for Secy of State vetting? 

This is serious business.  I don't see Obama throwing a bone to anyone.  The Secy of State is going to need to be able to make Obama's vision of our new world image a reality. 

Have said it before, I'm wholly with Al on this one.  I just don't see HRC in this role. 

p.s. Al, this post sounds a little Olbermanesque?  Something new.

This proves that (thankfully) Obama never seriously considered Clinton for VP otherwise they would have gone through all the vetting headaches in July and August.

SoS is one of the most recognizable faces of an administration. Everyone knows who the POTUS, VPOTUS, SoS and Sec. of Defense are, but not many people can name the current Secretaries of Education, Labor, HHS, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me that Obama would pass Clinton up for VP and then pick her for another very high-profile position. The reasons why she would be a poor VP (the vetting problems, foreign policy differences, stealing his spotlight) are still reasons why she shouldn't be SoS.

I may have been in possession of that information at one time...I do have three guesses about who it may have been and all are very close to Obama.  It is also well known that Mikva and Obama are quite close and respect one another from years of teaching together at the Univ of Chicago law school.  Mikva has been a confidante for a long time.

I also have some suspicions about how this story "broke" as it fits the pattern of several well known operators that thankfully Al has already outed.  The story really dribbled out for about 8-10 days before Mitchell got the "scoop" which also fits the profile of an operator who once rented a hotel room to run screenings of video about an opponent while pretending with each press person that they were getting the first crack at the story.

My advice at this point is not to assume anything.  Just because the media are reporting that President Elect Obama has offered a job does NOT make it so.  He and his transition team made it very clear that there were no "hard offers" made last Thursday.  And Friday, Bill Richardson unceremoniously visited Chicago.

Here.

source ? I felt he was pro-HRC through out the primary.

amk

when the Republicans vetted Rice for SoS, Exxon thought it prudent to remove her name from the hull of one of its super tankers. that of course solved any conflict of interests she might have had with BIG OIL.

Oh, great. 2 calculating narcissists for the price of one.  During the primaries she said she waould make him "roving global ambassador." Just what we need.  Haven't we been through enough with the Clinton Circus?

How can she dodge sniper fire with her finger in the wind testing how it will effect her future?  Does anyone think she voted FOR the war in Iraq without considering how it would 'look' when she ran for Prez.  Need to look 'strong'?  Heck!  Ask Dick Morris9 as sick as it might make you) how they POLLED where they should go on vacatiion?  A western horse ranch?  Remember.

She got the NY Senate seat because she still had derivative power, people thought she'd run for Prez. Why defer to her now?  What are is the skill set she brings to SOS? Inability to make a decision (remember her campaign), calculating narcissism, polarizing ( the 5% Greg Craig dislikes too!) and ambition.  None of those are "skills" we need in SOS, they are powerful personality traits that should disqualify her.

until I see it. She supported legislation (AUMF) that helped to put millions of lives at risk, her loose cannon husband did a deal in Kazahkstan that helped to give credibility to a dictator. In every foreign policy deal she has shown herself to be a militarist. She is also the biggest recipient of defense industry contributions.

And if for some reason she is given the post, the Obama admin no longer has my trust and support.

This world badly needs a U.S. SoS that can take into account the welfare of average people in other countries. It cannot continue to listen only to political and corporate interests. By every deed and word, Sen. Clinton has shown she has no concept of this.

drama, McCain meeting, team of rivals crap and Traitor Joe cave-in (supported by no less than kerry & durbin, the obama acolytes), I am beginning to wonder if Obama has bit more than he could chew.

amk

Taking revenge on Job Lieberman doesn't do anything to advance Obama's agenda. It's just drama. I'd love to see his career fall into ruin as much as the next person, and it's in no way just to let him back into the fold, but when it comes to Lieberman, we're talking about senate votes here, not justice.

I just don't see the point beyond base emotion, and that's certainly no way to govern and get things done.

Besides, voters will have the eventual final say with regard to Mr. Lieberman's behavior when he is up for re-election.  Allowing the electorate to have the final say fits perfectly with Obama's political viewpoint.

Interesting opinion piece in the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pinsker18-2008nov18...

Here's a good post on why the Lieberman conciliation makes sense in an Obama style of governance:

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

Also - another leak - Holder for AG?  What's with these leaks?  I thought we weren't going to hear anything until December.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/14245/821/164/662922

KD

And to understand the last Klein post you'll probably also have to read his take on what "change" means in an Obama administration

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

KD

would be better off wooing mod repubs like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins rather than molly cuddling traitor joe.

Unless of course, this was all another famed headfake from Obama but I am about to swoon over so many headfakes.

amk

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/11/18/obama-s-attorney-general.aspx

Obama should be wooing the model Republicans as well. But just because there are other potentials out there doesn't mean Obama is free to throw Lieberman to the curb. It's infuriating, yes, but I haven't heard a reason to get back at Lieberman and make him an enemy to the Democrats that involves pushing forward Obama's agenda. By saying there are others out there to woo, you're defending the punishing of Lieberman based on a grudge. If you can provide a reason to punish him that also positively affects Obama's ability to push his agenda, maybe you can change my mind (because I really really do loathe that his vote has this much power).

I dont get it.  Your recently leaked AG tap makes sense, HRC doesn't.  Do you think she will toe the line with your policy?  Do you trust her?  I would instantly see the logic of her as Sec of Defense, but I think you've created intrigue in the court of Obama before it has begun.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27790061/

And of course someone else from the Clinton years, with a minimal tie to one of Clinton's sordid pardons.

What is UP with all the leaks?  What happened to the "discipline"?

I always knew there was a possibility of becoming bitterly disappointed after an Obama win - I just hadn't expected to start feeling it this soon. 

(And I could swear I heard it said the night of the election results that the Obama campaign was saying the administration would not be full of "retreads"....)  Right!

...in a new thread.

He's very respected back home.

Hillary, even if I did trust her, comes with Bubba.

Bubba is, and always will be -THE PROBLEM.

WHERE ARE THE DONOR LISTS?

Al?