Obama Senate Resignation Is Also About Seniority for Illinois

who ever gets to the Senate should be qualified, well suited for the job, and electable in 2 years.

Al..I just don't see our constitutional law president picking Hillary for the supremem court.

Rep. Jackson is a smart politician and they need more African-Americans in the Senate, they already have 10 women or more. 

New Wapo reporting:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/13/hillary_clinton_se...

Fascinating really - I know it wouldn't be popular in this particular precinct, but think it through, especially in light of the post-convention work - and the world symbolism.

Money quote: "There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days..."

Isn't Emil Jones the best pick to fill the seat?

Jones was Obama's mentor in the State Senate and apparently has beaucoup gravitas.

He's an African American, which would satisfy the need to maintain basic diversity in the Senate.

But the biggest draw, in my opinion, is that he's up there in age and indications are that he would not run for reelection.

So you could replace Obama with a competent politician without bleaching the Senate, without the Jackson family PR campaign, AND without picking a horse for the 2010 Democratic primary.

That was always my concern - that by picking a young-up-and-comer, the Blagster would short-circuit the democratic primary process.

Tom W - I read that same Washington Post story - no source, not even a described unnamed source - from two reporters without any real track record in making accurate predictions.

I'll pass on the drama. However if you'd like to wager $100 on HRC becoming the next secretary of state, I'd be happy to relieve you of your funds!

This is the sort of crap that bad reporters speculate about when they've got an (incoming) administration that is leak-proof.

I do think HRC might have a shot later on at a Supreme Court Justice post. That would solve a lot of problems all with one stone, and it's the sort of work she's frankly better at than that of diplomacy.

Eli - While Emil Jones certainly has the legislative skills to be a good senator, at age 73 it's not clear how long he'd stick around or if he'd run for re-election in 2010.

Appointing a caretaker that doesn't seek reelection would push Illinois next senator even farther down the seniority ladder, which goes counter to the extra seniority that Obama has just created for his successor by resigning ahead of time.

I also don't think that's how politics is generally practiced in Chicago or Springfield, where maximizing advantage has long been the goal.

She's oceans above Kerry - blech! I cannot imagine a new American era with John Kerry as SofS. Sure he was a good soldier for Obama and came close against Bush, but he just doesn't have it at that level and man does he send a message of "paint drying slowly" on foreign policy. (Kerry was an awful surrogate, he really was).

Sure it's speculation, but I also think Obama's up for at least one three-point shot in the cabinet.

I don't think she'd take the court. She's gonna run in 2016, and can't do that from the bench.

should be filled by an African-American.  There is some concern among AAs in some of the circles I frequent, a demo that heavily supported Obama, whether AAs will get to serve in his administration in other than just token roles.  To fill his Senate seat with other than an AA would not sit too well, I don't think. 

There is a lot of concern in a lot of circles, most of which seems to be based on little more than speculation and rumor. People might want to wait and see what Obama will actually do before wringing their hands too much over it!

Tom W - Your critique of Kerry is on style. 

But on the merits, a Secretary of State Clinton would probably cause me to get off the bus and become oppositional to the next administration's foreign policy, because what it would mean for my beat in Latin America is a continuation of the very policies (Plan Colombia, ugly trade deals, a blind-eye to human rights abuses and election fraud) that are the Clinton administration's legacy South of the Border.

My reporters lives would be in greater danger under such a foreign policy regime than they have been under Bush. That's how bad the Clinton Doctrine is in this hemisphere. Bush at least largely ignored the hemisphere. The Clinton machine did terrible harm and damage.

And you know what? I don't think I'd be at all alone in that being the deal breaker. I would have to devote every waking moment to blocking the initiatives in his hemisphere should such a freak-show come to pass.

Not that I think there's a snowball's chance in hell. I just think you need a wake-up call as to how strongly millions of us feel about it, and why we got into this in the first place more than a year ago.

Nice, in depth, reporting on the musical chairs and the strategic moves on the part of Obama.  His first ten days has been very good--no substaintially clumsy moves.  No drama.  Reaching out to his enemies (Lieberman).  Friendly meeting with Bush--no bad blood with the worst president the United States has ever had.

Indeed, I am paying attention with the goal of learning from Obama how to keep cool and advance a healthy agenda.

I'd like to second Al's concerns about Latin America, a region that is close to the hearts of many progressive people in the US.

Continuing the same, decades-old, policy framework for the Americas would go far toward weakening Obama politically.

My CLism a few days back came from envisioning the same old crap--only modified with a faux-progressive face.   The change in foriegn policiy has to be bold and definative.   Not radical, or 'leftist', mind you--but it has to be a break.

I want to be proud of my country for once when it comes to our foriegn policy.

Clinton would be great on the high court--just keep her away from Latin America.  Sorry, Tom, but I simply don't trust Clinton's instincts when it comes to struggles of the indigenous and the popular classes in the Americas.

This is an issue that I am quite passionate about because in my travels I have cultivated deep friendships with people in the region.  If Obama screws up Latin America then his legacy will be forever tarnished.  He needs to trust his core instincts with respect to human rights and justice; he needs to be strategiic and thoughtful; and he needs to, again, make clear break.

Stoking these decades long antagonisms in a ham-fisted manner (as Bush has done for eight years) would be making a significant error.

Lastly, I would love to be able to someday visit Cuba.  The Cuban people have made tremendous advances in producing sustainable, organic agriculture on a shoe-string budget.   Adroit, progressive foriegn policy can go far toward healing some very old wounds.

Yeah you're right Al. I lost sight of the obvious original motive for the early resignation - Chicago's juice in the Senate.

I think Blag should select Obama's replacement via brainbowl. They could put it on TV - it would be a big hit.

Duckworth! Jackson Jr.! It's the Illinois Senate on CNN!

Who do you like for Biden's seat?

I've heard rumblings for Beau Biden and for David Plouffe.

I know some liberal folks in Skokie, which is in Schakowsky's district. They can't stand Jackson. His popularity beyond the south and west sides of Chicago and some of the south suburbs isn't all that great. Jackson would face a tough Senate primary battle in 2010.

Melissa Bean, who represents the 8th district in Congress, is worth consideration. Her district is part suburban, part rural and is closer to the political center than Schakowsky's district.

Al,

I sent an email a little bit ago about this, which I wasn't 100% sure you got, but even if Blagojavich and Minner (or her successor, Markell) were to select Obama and Biden's replacements at the same time before all the freshmen senators get sworn in, they will have the same seniority as the incoming freshmen class (this is true for appointments made between the time of the election and when the senators-elect are formally sworn in, which is something I forgot to mention in the e-mail). This was, apparantly, done as part of a Rules change in 1980 to stop gaming of the system that way (and in fact, Phil Gramm tried to do this for John Cornyn in Texas, but because of that rule, it didn't work).

Elliot - I don't doubt you, but that couldn't have been done as a rules change in 1980 because I was inside the war room in 1984 when Paul Tsongas stepped down a bit early and Michael Dukakis appointed John Kerry one day early to the Senate (sworn in Jan. 2, 1985, after he had won election) and it did definitively move Kerry ahead in line before Tom Harkin, Paul Simon, Al Gore and Republicans Mitch McConnel and Phil Gramm!

Here's a link that backs up what I'm sayin'.

Seems HC is not interested in the HC. Good call on the seniority issue. Looks like 60 seats is in the offing. I doubt Jackson will be appointed. Schakowsky sounds like an excellent choice. Hillary as Secretary of State might give Barack some needed cover if he presses the 16 month mantra.

to Hillary as SoS, but I can't see her on the Supreme Court.  I don't doubt her abilities, but the Court keeps a lower and more academic profile than Hillary is capable of at this point. And I can't imagine a single move Obama could make that would drive the right wing battier - or more motivated for 2012 - than appointing her.  It's not the No Drama way.

I remember you calling Emmanuel a loose cannon, and Hillary would seem to fit that description even better.  An administration post seems like a great way to get her from grandstanding in the Senate, and from mucking around with a health care initiative she's not in charge of.  Any appointment would have to be high-level, and I'd have more objections on ethical grounds to AG than SoS.  I trust Obama to run South American foreign policy according to his vision, not hers.

Reading tea leaves is fun.  :-)

in the top levels of his Cabinet, and Hillary as SoS satisfies that criterion in spades.  I've been concerned to see so few women on the "short lists" for top Cabinet posts being circulated.

Oh, and I just saw this on Politico regarding HRC as SoS:  "An Obama adviser threw out one final rationale: It’s better to have the Clintons inside the tent than outside, causing trouble"

Al, this is what I've gotten from the Senate Seniority List:

"Phil Gramm resigned early, effective Nov. 30, 2002, so that Cornyn could move into his office suite and begin organizing his staff. Cornyn did not, however, gain seniority, owing to a 1980 Rules Committee policy established under Senator Pell that no longer gave seniority to senators who entered Congress early for the purpose of gaining advantageous office space."

Of course, the same list does, in fact, verify that Kerry does have one day of seniority over all the names you mentioned, so it's possible that the rule went into effect after Kerry took office.

Did Obama have a more disciplined, committed, high profile surrogate post-convention than Hillary Clinton - including his own running mate? I don't think so.

Besides, Clinton as SoS would be Obama's instrument in foreign policy - if Latin American policy wasn't to your liking, you'd have the President to blame, not the SoS. And in my view she'd be extremely effective.

I've never seen anyone - ever - muscle up like Hillary Clinton after a brutal loss and do what she did. It's unprecedented. And clearly, Obama saw it. He's pretty tough himself, and obviously admires it extremely.

And c'mon - the Clinton Doctrine? So barely a "doctrine" at all when compared to the disastrous policies in Latin American of, say, JFK and Reagan, the dual role models for President Obama. I heartily concede that unleashing a new technological arms race in Colombia and elsewhere in pursuit of the misguided war on drugs was a mistake - but I'd never put Clinton in the league of Kennedy and Reagan where Latin American disasters are concerned (that said, I yield to your superior firt-hand knowledge on this - always willing to learn more - but that's my impression as an observer at some remove.)

Further, Obama has rattled some faux ideological Cuban chains himself in pursuit of Floridian votes - which I didn't admire - I'm sure you didn't either.

Finally, Hillary Clinton was hardly the architect of Bill Clinton's hemispheric doctrine in the 90s.

And you know, Democratic presidents always disappoint on American militarism - Dennis Perrin's brilliant Savage Mules is well worth a read on this.

It is interesting conjecture to try to guess who the next Senator from Illinois should be, and all the political ramifications.  Bean would be an interesting choice, but remember she represents what was a strongly Republican district before her.  Quite honestly, the only reason she did run is that her predecessor had hit the wall and was seen as out of touch with the district.  If she goes into the senate, the district might very well turn back to the repubklican side of the aisle.

But more than that, in terms of speculation (and Schakowsky wuld be my pick) we have to remember who is doing th picking.

Blago is definitely embattled and has only of the lowest approval ratings in the country.  If the Republicans had put up a halfway decent candidate last time I probably would have voted for the Republican.

There is one person that Blago might like to see out of Illinois.  Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of the state, is a thorn in his side.  At the same time, it might actually help him with the Speaker of the House, Madigan's father, who is generally at odds with Blago.

Plus, she has already proven she can win state wide, so she should have no difficulty winning in 2010.  Even though I even beat Nate on the election predictions, I won't make a prediction here.  Blago is really too hard to predict.

TomW - I know Chicago reads these comments so I'll just send it up straight:

Every one of the skills and talents I have used full time over the past 14 months toward making one reality possible, I will use to undo it - and find a few more up my sleeve, too - if they're that stupid and willing to tattoo "Betrayer" on his forehead.

I don't see it. I think they're either pandering to folks like you or it's just a media fart by Andrea Mitchell.

But if it's not, all the mischief I caused for the Clintons over the past year: Just imagine me applying it to a new target.

That would be "game over" for me. Can I say this any clearer?

Appoint her to Sec. of Defense, or Health and Human Services, elevate her to Senate Majority Leader, or to the Supreme Court, I don't care: she'd be fine. But there are two posts that require a micromanager - State and Justice - and if it's the junior Senator from New York, I'm going to war to neutralize everything she attempts or looks the other way from in this hemisphere.

Still, I think this is a media fart (if you don't give them news, they make it up) or at worst about fooling the crowd.

But should anybody think that I, Al, would continue to calm the Chicken Little nerves instead of inflame them and mobilize them with torches and pitchforks in hand if such a betrayal ever takes place, they ought to ask around about me.

That said, this smells more like a head fake.

But hey, Chicago: it's really not nice to play mind games with your base. If that's what you're doing, think again.

'Nuff said.

Well, you clearly have some pretty serious feelings about Hillary by way of her husband's 90s policies, Al - no one's gonna change them.

Maybe it's a possibility and maybe it's a head fake - I hope it's the former, because it'd be further evidence (to me) of Obama's killer attitude toward his administration - and in terms of foreign policy, a real emphasis on women's rights.

I just don't think naming one of the most prominent liberal Democrats in the land - a woman who worked tirelessly for his election after he beat her - as Secretary of State is in any way a "betrayal." Most Obama backers voted for Obama, not against Clinton.

And I'm believer in the movement too...I think it's a great thing, indeed.

TomW - You're lobbying against your own best situation.

Wouldn't somebody have to shut down a certain Global Initiative due to the conflicts of interest presented by this?

Checkmate!

Al?  I respect your knowledge and the strength of your conviction regarding HRC as SoS.

But please don't say to put her at HHS.  There are many of us that gave all we could this year to keep her AWAY from health care.  I would have the same reaction to that you are having to the idea of HRC at State.  An unacceptable betrayal of all I worked for.

ILLINOIS

I suspect Obama is indifferent about Illinois's seniority and is resigning to punt on Lieberman.  I feel like he'd be content to have Lieberman lose his committees but doesn't want to appear vindictive now.  I also think he begged off touching the issue of his replacement unless Jarrett who he's so close with wanted the seat.  She's said no which is probably better since it might have looked like patronage.  I can only imagine Blag's consideration is which appointment best positions him vis-a-vis his own problems and re-election in 2010.  I don't know enough about the inner workings of Illinois politics but I presume Emil Jones controls enough levers to be Blag's choice.  Duckworth is 3 political minorities rolled into 1- Asian, woman, disabled.  The loss of the one black senator would be greater were it not for the fact that that senator was becoming president.

MASSACHUSETTS

Obama wants to hit the ground running.  I don't think Georgia is necessarily promising with lower black turnout without Obama coattails.  I think the Democrats will be at 58 or 59 seats depending on the Minnesota recount.  Because of Mass's special election laws, Kerry as Secretary of State would leave an empty seat from MA for at least 90 days, depending on when he resigned.  Not sure Obama would be comfortable giving up that Senate vote for the first 90 days of his administration.  Even if Martin, Blegich and Franken all win to get 60, Kerry out takes you temp down to 59.  Obama would either have to be very confident he didn't need it or feel conviction in Kerry as his choice.  Deval Patrick has said he's running for re-election and doesn't want a Senate seat.  Among other things, I doubt he'd want to risk losing the primary.

DELAWARE

Beau Biden if he's not or can't be appointed due to his Iraq appointment is likely to run in the 2010 primary for his dad's seat and would be a formidable opponent.  Rumor is pressure on Minner to appoint Carney but I also wonder about a self-appointment for two years before retiring.

NEW YORK

Where I've been in Latin America, the Clintons are not unpopular by any stretch.  In any case, Hillary would never be offered the job unless, obviously, she committed to executing Obama's foreign policy.

She flew to Chicago today and I can't say I see her willing to consider leaving her Senate seat for anything besides State or Defense.  Not sure the problems of her as VP (supposedly, Bill's presence) doesn't remain an issue with her as Sec. of State.  She, Kerry, Lugar (who disavowed interest) or Holbrooke seem like they'd all have a good rapport with Biden who will be a major advisor on foreign policy.  Not sure one way or the other about Richardson.

Hillary expressed non-interest in a Supreme Court appointment in a pretty sincere, definitive way and I also don't see any evidence she wants Majority Leader. Paterson is running for re-election and if the seat opened, like Blago, I suspect he'd appoint whoever paid him the most dividends for his guber campaign in two years.

as I am trying to ignore the daily baseless rumor and speculation. But could it be this is coming from the Clinton camp rather than Obama's people? That would seem more likely to me for a number of reasons.

I feel pretty strongly about this - for me her remarks against Iran during the primaries sum it up - but I'm not going to start blaming Obama over something he probably didn't even do. IMHO there is way too much of this "concern" and blaming based on the most tenuous claims. Valerie Jarrett basically said, if you do not hear it from Obama, Emanuel, or her and the other transition chairs, you do not know anything. Until then, I'm just going to sit tight.

Al's community organizing project is about a million times more useful than almost anything I've read in the blogs recently and if people were actually bothering to mobilize for change, they wouldn't be so quick to freak out about every little thing.

</rant>

CGI is indeed a wrinkle - what Bill Clinton does is essentially act as an (old school) investment banker for big philanthropic deals - bringing governments, foundations, nonprofits, volunteers, companies etc. to the table to create deals for change in certain areas throughout the world, including domestic U.S. by the way. Some pan, some don't. But the work is pretty impressive - especially the commitments from the private sector.

So yes, the former President works international channels very heavily, including with heads of state.

But, it's also a very effective back channel - indeed, President Bush has used CGI back channels to increase development aid to Africa - the one shining light of his failed administration. And this will continue under Obama, whether Hillary is SoS or not, I believe. I saw Obama's remarks at CGI this year, and they came across as serious and authentic.

So there's an upside to CGI for Obama, I think - but yes, some degree of "rules of engagement" would need to be laid down, and Senator Clinton would be (quite fairly) questioned about it during her confirmation hearings.

1. He's more than qualified.

2. He'll work his heart out.

3. Give him the two years to win over downstate. IF he doesn't win in the Primary, then so be it. I think it should be him.

TomW - ...but not as a front door and grist for the media freak-show.

As Trotsky said as he realized that the revolution was not all it appeared to be, "mistakes were made."

The Clinton Global Initiative has had some great successes (AIDS, in particular) but also has made many mistakes including a couple of boners with legs: Oil-uranium meddling in Kazakhstan and embracing the war criminal Uribe in Colombia (which continues into the present). It's not Senate confirmation that  anybody would have to worry about, but, rather, the ongoing media narrative after that.

Do you think they'd be willing to shut it down, close up shop, end the CGI permanently for a serve-at-will appointment? (Remember: this is Chicago you're dealing with. What a wonderfully perverse maneuver it would be to appoint then enmesh in scandal - that can be done - then fire!)

Do you think she even gets to decide what happens with CGI?

If this freak-show lasts beyond the weekend media cycle, I get to work on Monday making a counter freak-show (from below and to the left). In the meantime, my team and I are doing what we do best: investigating and turning up stones so that sunlight can be shone upon the cockroaches. (Field Hands Assemble!)

Oh, yeah: they want that battle? They can have it.

Three words for next week's media cycles, with staying power for years to come if need be:

Conflict. Of. Interest.

There's the theme and message starting Monday if the noise machine doesn't self correct.

Care to wager that $100? (I never got an answer out of you on that.)

The footnote quoted about Phil Gramm and John Cornyn specifically stated the issue was about Gramm trying to give Cornyn his office, and the 1980 Rules Committee ruling only mentioned "for the purpose of gaining advantageous office space." Nothing about commitee seniority, only office seniority.

I've been so fired up and ready to go about the challenges surrounding the freak show, that I almost forgot to respond to some very good comments closer to the topic of this post:

David - Nice work solving that mystery.

Rachel Q - Ok. You're right. Health care is a third rail for that one. I'll adjust my argument.

Rikyrah - I have no more against Jesse Jr. than I have against Bill Richardson, which is nothing against either. That said, we all have our opinions over who could kick the most butt in certain posts. But if it's Jesse, I'll cheer, too.

The Clintons can't survive the vetting.

I'm with you, Al.

And TomW, there are many Democrats, like me, who were against Hillary before we were for Obama.  I was bound and determined that she not become our nominee, and when I saw Obama emerge from the pack in Iowa, I climbed on board.

Of course, I grew to love him, what he stood for, and how he operated.  But before all that, I was grateful that there was an alternative to the dreaded DLC Queen Hillary.

Ironically, I want her in the Cabinet because she would then, as Al notes, serve at Obama's pleasure, and he could boot her to the curb at her first inevitable act of disloyalty.  Which is why she probably won't accept a Cabinet position, so this conversation is moot.

She was being rumored as the possible VP right up until Biden was announced.  With all the media's fascination with Sarah Palin, Hillary still turns heads.  With little else to attract ratings with the election over, I look for this buzz to continue until she or another appointment is announced.

I'd be interested in a post here outlining some foreign policy goals for Latin America for the next 4 years.

I get the feeling Dean will be HHS.

By HC, I assume you mean healthcare. If Max Baucus has his way, he is going to own healthcare reform since he got there first with a plan that seems to pretty well represent the Democratic consensus. And Ted Kennedy is next in line after him. If the two of them work quickly and Congress is of a similar mind, Obama could be signing a healthcare bill while his HHS secretary is still in confirmation hearings in the Senate.

It hardly seems like a coincidence to me that right after Baucus did this, Clinton is making a power play.

I know this is only a rumor or speculation, but why should Hillary have more clout than Kerry? She didn't even win the primaries.

Just because she is a former First Lady doesn't make her entitled to any cabinet position. Things are earned period. It's not suprising that Obama has to go out of his way to please the Clintons. It's always been that way. The Democratic party revolves around them and that "only" they can save the party or that Obama needs them. He won on his own merits.

And anyone that says that Kerry was an awful Obama surrogate never paid attention period. He endosed Obama when it wasn't the most popular thing to do (while other Democrats remained neutral, or endorsed after Obama had the nomination in the bag). Without Kerry, we would not have President Obama. He was Obama's best (one of) surrogate from the primaries and in the GE. Obama wanted him to go on MTP to give the closing argument for him whether people liked that or not. Sorry he can't go away and let people who feel like they are entitled to something take over.

I think this cronysism argument is absurd. And I hope Obama doesn't cave into the DC establishment pressure and chooses who he feels is best for his administration and country. If he doesn't choose Kerry, or anyone. I hope he picks Susan Rice. She is very loyal to Obama and won't undermine him.

Clinton will be SecState, Al. It appeared to me in three words: William Henry Seward. Think about it, the unlikely candidate from Illinois picks the favorite for the nomination to be his Secretary of State. It makes perfect sense.

We should of course expect the Mideast to be of primary importance in Obama's foreign policy.  He's likely of a mind to tweak our current policy vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine to buy us some good will in the Muslim world for our larger strategy of targeting Al Qaeda and undermining extremists.  Despite widespread Jewish support for Obama in the election, it won't necessarily be politically easy for him to pressure Israel where he needs to or move methodically on Iran without triggering major existential anxiety in Israel and and their coreligionists.  Jeffrey Goldberg blogged how Rahm Emanuel buys Obama trust should he rein Israel in on say settlement construction.  If Goldberg is on to something, Hillary buys Obama more trust still.  If Obama intends to push sooner than later for an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough and truly exhaust other options besides force against Iran, Hillary running the State Department might give him more leeway back home to do so.

Records matter

Submitted November 13, 2008 - 6:33 pm by Al Giordano

In all the time I've been on this board, I somehow missed that you felt this way this deeply. I thought I was the only one. And Emanuel's part in it is not to be forgiven either.

Excellent point about the vetting, and this was the same issue that came up about Hillary being considered for VP.

Just a couple days ago, Podesta said the process of Cabinet appointments would be deliberate and involve a thorough vetting and that no announcements would be made before December.

If there's one thing I know from watching Obama all these months it is that he would not turn around and make a liar of himself (especially only a few days later) by then giving Hillary preferential treatment for such a highly sensitive position as Secretary of State.

However, it is very much Hillary's M.O. to try to force his hand like this. You would think she learned from the primaries and from the VP process that Obama is not easily rolled, but apparently not.

He may very well be willing to consider her for State, just as he was willing to consider her for VP, but she will have to go through the vetting process and there is no way Bill's many conflicts of interest survive that intact. That prospect is what killed her VP prospects and I feel pretty sure it will kill her prospects of being Secretary of State as well. By trying to force his hand, she may well have killed her prospects of any Cabinet position at all, when he would have been willing to give her one.

So I would definitely advise people to stay calm and trust in Obama to run his own transition the way he said he would.

That said, there is no reason, other than speculation, to believe that Obama has suddenly warmed to the idea of putting a harsh rival into his cabinet; it's not known whether Obama trusts Clinton; whether he trusts her managerial ability; whether they've reconciled personally; it is certainly true that many former Clinton aides are now working for Obama, including several of Hillary Clinton's top policy advisers.

As the husband to the future Secretary of State, former President Clinton would be forced to disclose details about his private business dealings with other countries, and Obama's vetters would probably ask to see donor records for the Clinton Library Foundation.

blogosphere on the new appointees. However well-intentioned they may be, I don't see Obama being shackled by them by at all. He will do what he wants & intends to do.

Allan, that NYT piece on vetting says it all. Question no. 63 should be a bummer for many "prominent wannabe's".

OT, this excellent article (via a kos diary) shows how the wall-street is bamboozling the entire US on the bail out process, bordering on total fraud about those "nasty" bad mortgages.

http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom#page1

amk

Why are so many people wasting their valuable brain power talking about a Clinton?  Done. Over. So Yesterday.  Haven't we worked hard enough to create the future we've been dreaming and working and living for, for most of us about 50 years?  They can't seem to bear not having their names in what we used to call 'the news' - now I only use that word when referring to Authentic Journalism.

So for the definitive words on them, I yield to David Geffen.

Tea Leaves.  Amory Lovins at Energy.

Al, I can't afford to wager a hundred bucks on the SoS choice. Times are tough, including in these parts.

It did occur to me overnight that this could be the Obama way of DQ'ing Kerry and Richardson, the old hands, in favor of somebody who is not as well known or has no political baggage (and all three 60ish Dems have tons of baggage). Just a thought.

Some of the pure anti-HRC stuff seems a bit spiteful, considering Obama's promise to unite us, I have to say. This "boot her to the curb" business. Well, I don't know how to answer that.

BTW, the other area CGI has had significant impact is climate change - in bringing developing countries and business to the table. Some think it's a government in exile, but it really hasn't been at all. And you're right, it's not Hillary's ballgame, it's Bill's.

And he's had many heads of state at CGI who are controversial - heck, he welcomed Evo Morales at CGI when the U.S. government shunned him. Surely, there's no more visible symbol of an indigenous anti-drug wars head of state in the hemisphere?

TomW - Evo Morales was a professor in the journalism school I direct. Having him speak - whether on the Daily Show or at CGI - is not an act of charity. He's a global superstar in his own right. If anything, he was the charitable one to appear at such a forum!

But this is how the Clintons seem to view their role. Bill Richardson is seen as a traitor with Bill screeching to him on the telephone "aren't two cabinet posts enough for you?" John Kerry "is dead to us" their noise machine said after he endorsed Obama. (And yes, I agree that the Clintonistas are floating these rumors in an effort to kill both statesmen from the post, but like other such pettiness all year long, it's all going to backfire and implode upon them within days.) The attitude is that none of these people - particularly the brown-skinned ones - were talented or meritorious enough on their own to succeed without Clinton permission. It's nauseating.

But, okay. They want to play that way. Fasten your seatbelts, put your tray tables up and place your seats in an upright position... All that is needed are some pointed reminders of the things some seem to want to forget. I'm happy to oblige.

I will not actually be that upset if she is really the CoS, but I do think with the mountain of trouble on the foreign policy front ahead of the US, that there are more suitable people( not more qualified) for this post.

...That this is coming from the Obama camp - the only quotes are from Obama advisors - now three of them, one saying it's "serious." Clinton's people are silent, thus far.

I'm not saying Evo at CGI was charity, far from it! I'm saying it's the recognition by a far more competent former president that the leader shunned by the current president deserves a bigger platform among the cuff-linked set - a recognition that Morales is among equals at CGI.

I trust Obama to fill the cabinet positions competantly. I wouldn't have voted for him, much less worked (and let my soon-to-be laid off husband do a ridiculous amount of volunteer work) as a volunteer all those months if I didn't trust him to lead this nation. It's his Cabinet and I'm sure he's going to pick people he can work with. There will have to be mutual respect and a level of trust. Our country has too many problems to worry about and I think he is more than aware of that.

I've read through all the comments here and appreciate what everyone has said. I know this isn't a factor in making these sorts of decisions but I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm tired of hearing all about the Clintons. I want to move on. I want to move past the Bush, Clinton, Bush years. I want to know that our elected leaders are doing all they can to move us forward. Quite frankly I think Senator Clinton is best suited to doing that as a NYS Senator right now and at least for the next year or two. Former President Clinton is best suited to doing that as a roving unofficial Ambassador who gets official assignments from time to time.

It's time to let others step in. It's time to let President Obama do what we elected him to do with as little drama as possible.

Thank you. I just needed to say it.

TomW - I've worked most of my life in and around the media and when the national networks quote "sources close to" the Obama organization - those are Andrea Mitchell's words - that is very different from saying "sources inside."

If, as a reporter, you have anonymous sources inside an organization, you damn well say it, because it strengthens the story.

Obama has more than 700 foreign policy advisors with titles. Some of them are no doubt not thrilled at the prospect of a Richardson or a Kerry as secretary of state because of their own histories with them. And a good number of them are simultaneously "Clinton people." Just two of those, for example, would be enough for Andrea Mitchell to float her story.

But as I'll shortly reveal, NBC's Mitchell was not the first to float this balloon.

Do you know who it was?

Last week, on Good Morning America, the person that got this freak show rolling was...

George Stephanopoulos.

What's "pretty clear" to you is utter fiction, speculation and BS.

Your people are the ones stoking this (you admitted as much when you wrote that this is really about shitcanning Richardson ("Judas") or Kerry ("dead to us").

Jess: thank you for speaking for me, and I expect many,most of us.

Pigpen was one of my favorite Peanuts characters.   He never hurts anybody.  PLEASE can we let go of these people who always swirl dirt around themselves, distracting from what we need to be doing, always putting their personal ambitions, NEEDS, above everyone else.  I don't care how smart, strong, whatever people think they are, they are destructive.  Does CGI redeem anything?  Where was the leadership on AIDS when he had power.  Rwanda?  I'll leave all this hemisphere to Al.

Please, can we return to 'No Drama.'  Please.