Hillary: Obama’s Secretary of State
The elders of the Democratic Party should get off their duff and urge Barack Obama to offer Hillary the post of the Secretary of State in his administration. She would thus add strength where he is said to be least experienced. It would offer her an important post, indeed one of global significance, especially given what is on the plate for the next president. It would serve to unify the party.
If Hillary does somehow manage to marshal a solid majority, without such a tricky and unsavory maneuver as relying on the disqualified delegates of Florida and Michigan, she can offer Obama the vice presidency. He is young enough (and would benefit from even more seasoning) to be able to plan to run another day on his own. In contrast, given that she is much closer to the end of her political career, and that this job is often largely ceremonial, it is hard to imagine that Hillary would agree to serve as Obama's VP.
True Obama scoffed at this idea, but he was careful not to close the door such an offer. However the odds are increasing that the race will lean the other way, and the day is near—if not passed!—where the Democrats better get their act together by embracing the front runner, and providing a dignified out for the second finisher. Secretary of State is such a position. The question that arises is how to make such a commitment in a way that cannot be revoked. Since Obama would hardly be inclined to start his term by violating a commitment he made on national TV and during the Democratic nominating convention, a public invitation to this effect could be taken as an almost sure thing.
It is all too evident that it is best for the Democrats, and ultimately for the country as a whole, if the intra-Democratic contest does not drag on and become further embittered. The time is now for floating ideas about the best way to end the contest so that when the time is ripe, the candidate with the highest number of delegates can find ways -- which have been previously aired -- to unify the party and to focus for on the real showdown.
Amitai Etzioni is the founder and director of the Communitarian Network and author of The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (Basic Books, 1996)
I'd offer her just about any Cabinet position to get her to withdraw, but what makes you think that (1) she's particularly suited to be Secretary of State, or (2) that she'd take the offer?
March 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's foreign policy is one of the issues that distinguishes him from Hillary, and it is _one_ of the reasons I prefer Obama to Hillary. I would not like to see her in the roll of Secretary of State. In addition, I question whether she would "work well with others" in an Obama presidency.
March 21, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amitai Etzioni doesn't seem to get it. One-size platitudes and dusty Solomon's wisdom isn't cutting it.
Sometimes honest disagreement between two parties who genuinely respect the democratic process and the people's will can be resolved by coming togeather. Sometimes a clean break is necessary.
Hillary and Bill have repeatedly demonstrated such an inflated sense of entitlement and outrage at Obama's challenging their authority, and their fundamental ideology and way of governance, I don't think the Clinotons are capable of fully accepting defeat or changing.
For example, look at the Clinton's vicious proxy attacks through Paul Krugman becasue Obama is against mandates and prefers to phase in reforms and focus on lowering costs. Krugman has elevated that issue to the fever pitch generally reserved for gun control and abortion. That's one example of the deeply entrenched sense of entitlement the Clintons represent and their unwillingness to allow for the possibility of ways beyond their own.
There are deeper issues beneath the divide which won't simply go away.
Krugman and the Clinton's "neo-Keynesian" economics, the product of political triangulation in the post-Reagan laissez faire era, favored policies like NAFTA and deregulation. Rubin was on the News Hour today, and he still can't own up to his part in deregulation and mismanagement of the economy during the 90s and the direct contribution they made to the 90s bubble and the present bubble, and the overall financial meltdown. He nearly choked on the word "regulation" even now with the financial market in full meltdown. For them the word "protectionism" is still the great boogyman, practically synonymous with communism.
Yet, they must realize thier economic dogma of the last few decades is a complete failure and their place in history is looking increasingly bleak. Increasingly the merits of mixed economies are evident. European and Asian economies are finding growth and stability in the gray areas on a case by case basis. Our economists are stuck somewhere in the cold war reducing complex issues to ideological battles between various school allegince.
I simply don't see how the Clintons and their overall establishment, with their enormous egos, having been so incompetent in the past, are capable of going forward into a new paradigm which largely repudiates their mistakes, lessens their reputations, and moves into a period of nuance and balancing rather than polemic and triangulation.
March 21, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the silliest suggestion I have read in a long time.
Voters do not like to be taken for granted. If Senator Obama started offering Hillary a cabinet post now, before he has been elected, that would be a sure fire way to kill his chances of getting elected.
I would take Bill Richardson as Secretary of State ahead of Hillary. He has far more diplomatic experience, and has negotiated successfully with several foreign leaders.
I want an Obama foreign policy, and not a Clinton one.
Leave Hillary in the Senate, and avoid having Bill meddling in foreign affairs.
March 21, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I would take Bill Richardson as Secretary of State ahead of Hillary."
Exactly. Richardson actually has tremendous experience and could lead the State Dept on day one. He's also shown pretty good judgment on certain important issues. He was one of the few Democrats to deal realistically with the contentious issue of immigration. To be blunt, being Hispanic I think he has more leeway to address the issue seriously without garnering so much acrimony. Which is exactly what we need to finally get some control over the border and have rational and _legal_ immigration policies, instead of the backdoor second class citizenship we have now, and the way it's undermining human rights and labor for all parties.
I'm hoping Obama takes Dodd's counsel on certain issues where he's shown excellent judgment and real leadership. Issues like Iraq.
March 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he needs to chart his own course in foreign affairs. Let her become Majority Leader and pass a univeral healthcare package. She wants to lead? Well, lead, Hillary. Get it done.
March 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, first Bill Richardson would make a better secretary of state and Hillary Clinton would make a better Senate majorty leader than the one we have now.
I don't see Obama ever taking a veep spot in an HRC administration. As people have said, why play should he play second fiddle to Bill?
But also, no matter who is nominated I think the best we can say about Hillary and Obama's future relationship is that they're going to be "cordial." Maybe that's okay.
People are acting like we need to pull some trick to pacify people and unify the party. It's okay, we don't. Let the primaries continue. We can unify later.
March 21, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, first Bill Richardson would make a better secretary of state and Hillary Clinton would make a better Senate majorty leader than the one we have now.
Hear, hear! Before Ohio, I was all for HRC going to the SCOTUS after she sent her health care plan to President Obama's desk. Putting aside my anger about her recent tactics, I stil think that's a good plan for the country. I'd love to see "Nino" have to look across the bench at Associate Justice Hillary Clinton.
March 21, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure that winding up this primary season in the next month or two isn't a good idea, but I totally agree with you that Hillary would be better as Senate Majority Leader, and Bill R. would be better Sec. State.
March 21, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And her qualifications (academic and experiential) in foreign affairs are . . .ending the Troubles in Ireland, perhaps? Nah.
March 21, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I certainly like the idea, but then I've always been wishing that Obama would give a better idea of what his cabinet would look like. It's easier to imagine that with Hillary; with Obama, we have so little knowledge with which to guess about how he would operate the executive stuff. (We've known that with Hillary a long time. Example: it was like on the second day of being First Lady, she was saying "we've got to get out people in there" about the White House's travel office. :-) You have the general modus operandi right there, and it never seems to have stopped. Excellent qualificiations for cleaning the Bush civil service out of the State Dept. Especially if you ever watched her grill a Bush civil servant in a Senate hearing.)
March 21, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to an article about Obama's current advisors. I found it instructive and perhaps you will too if you haven't seen it yet. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4d40a39e-8f57-4054-bd99-94bc9d19be1a&k=12040
March 21, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of the first people here to post on campaign advisors to the candidates on foreign policy. If TPM hadn't dumped the pre-software change Reader Blog archives, I could point to it, but I can't, so you're going to have to take my word that I've been following it for a long time. But over the course of the primary campaign, we have seen the candidates throw campaign advisors under the bus, which, among other things, lead me to the following conclusion: campaign advisors tell you very little about possible cabinet picks. Some advisors even seem to have been picked to present an alternate view to the candidate's own....which reminds me, I know from my reading that Hillary admires Doris Kearn Goodwin's depiction of Abraham Lincoln's cabinet, "Team of Rivals."
March 21, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could see him bringing in a Republican like Hagel at State or Defense.
March 21, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah right--a republican would be OK but heaven forbid he picks another Dem.
March 21, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just got back from London, where I was having lunch with ten English and European lawyers, who ranged in politics from moderately conservative to very liberal, all of whom had lived in the US at some point in the past five years. All of them were following the Dem primaries with bated breath, and all of them were really excited at the prospect of a US President Obama. They felt that both his personal biography and his stand on the Iraq war give him the credibility to help restore America's standing in the world. They also thought that having a black President would help restore America's moral legitimacy on human rights issues. They were also mystified as to how any Democrat might imagine that Clinton could win in a general election against McCain. I couldn't agree more.
If the idea would be to pick a Secretary of State to carry out the President's foreign-affairs agenda, which presumably would include defending America's interests by repairing relationships with our allies and with the rest of the world, I'd say Obama should pick anyone *but* Clinton. He needs someone who is seen as his foreign-affairs representative, not his opponent.
March 21, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should offer Hillary a bus ticket home, and a nice farewell. Don't let her near the administration. Let her go back to New York and vote with the Republicans on everything Obama tries to do.
March 21, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure he's kidding.
March 21, 2008 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real dumb idea Amitai. And why repeat the nonsensical Hillary talking point that she has more leadership experience than Obama. It is an idea that her campaign has successfully planted in the minds of millions of Americans but you are supposed to be an independent thinker, arn't you?
March 21, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
In defense of Mr. Etzioni, not that he needs it, I think he is expressing the very common sentiment that Clinton is deserving of what other candidates in her position have earned... some concession from the front runner for her timely acquiesence in the inevitable.
Where I think he erred was in suggesting the Sec. of State position. I would rather see her as Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice or any other high ranking DOMESTIC
March 21, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
i got cut off.
anyway.
any DOMESTIC position she wants she can have.
but it is time to concede.
March 21, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Supreme Court would be more appropriate, as it would be a post where Senator Clinton could shed her need to evaluate everything and every issue politically.
March 21, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Supreme Court might be a good role for Hillary. I would have some reservations about her handling of trade issues-her family NAFTA'd all over my rust belt, after all-but I think we really should make better use of our ex-candidates. The treatment of Kerry, Mondale, and Dukakis always seemed a little harsh and wasteful of talent.
When I made a mess of things as a boy, my Dad & Mom didn't throw me out of the house. They lectured me long and hard about what was expected of me, made it very clear there would be quite significant consequences for further mess-ups, then put me back to the task of doing my best. I'd like to see the grown-ups of the Democratic party take the same approach.
March 22, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone hear Bill today? He sounds like he's campaigning to make Hillary McCain's Secretary of State.
March 21, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama gave his Rev. Wright reaction speech, there were 8 American flags lined up behind him, and they looked like they might be bigger than he was, they were nearly blinding against a plain blue field, nothing else on stage. That was all about the anti-American thingie that the Fox provided Wright videos was dragging up. Karl Rove couldn't have done better with the stage setting.
Bill Clinton has the same access to the poll numbers that Obama and McCain and Hillary have. He knows what the story is here, the crucial weakness against McCain that Obama still has to work on, and he's raising it. If you want to know what's actually going on, you won't see anything wrong with that, raising it. Nobody is saying that you have to change your mind about how patriotic he might be, it's just pointing out a poll problem, it's obvious Obama is worried about the patriotism question against McCain and is working on it. Don't be surprised if you start seeing a flag pin on Obama's lapel while campaigning in Pennsylvania.
March 21, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only President Elects name their cabinet selections. It would be politically stupid to do otherwise. You do not want to narrow the amount of major endorsements and supporters by revealing that they are already out of the running for a cabinet post.
Do you people not understand the most elementary aspects of maintaining the broadest possible field of support from all those who are hoping to be in the running for a major position in your administration.
March 21, 2008 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you do it quietly.
i don't think anyone would begrudge Obama making a quiet assurance that he will consider Hillary for some specific post.
don't tell me McCain's BFF Lieberman isn't expecting a chance to occupy some position of importance.
you cut the deals you have to sometimes, that's politics. what other supporter or donor out there right now can deliver what hillary can... an uncontested nomination. that's worth something and i'm not too naive to believe something shouldn't be worked out.
it's not as if hillary is a bad choice for any of the various positions floated [please not SoS]
March 21, 2008 9:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another poll I saw reported in the NY Times this week showed that Americans are making the association between the bad economy and Iraq. We've had nearly 8 years of false and over the top patriotism. Sure, there is a bar somewhere that Obama has to pass on that issue but I think it's a lot lower than you might think this time around. Besides, if people want a flag waver they're going to vote for McCain anyway. Obama needs to work on his economic message to make it more convincing to working class whites. If he can do that, they're not going to care about the flag pin.
March 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The time is now for floating ideas about the best way to end the contest "
Btw, the best way to end the contest is the same as it usually is: The loser graciously accepts reality and exits.
We can't set a precedent that a bitter loser gets rewarded for a scorched earth policy and for being divisive. The Clintons would be to Obama what LBJ was to the Kennedys. There are way too many parallels that even the Clintons seem to recognize. It wouldn't end well on any level.
March 21, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any assurance that she is part of his administration would have me voting for someone besides Obama.
March 21, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't joke. She is still a warmonger.
March 21, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey--I'm all for getting Senator Clinton out of the race, but what did we at State do to deserve her! New York seems to like her all right as Senator...
March 21, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
SOS? More like Health and Human services or something like that!
http://OsiSpeaks.com
March 21, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Susan Rice is the best person to become Sec of State in the Obama administration.
She is awesome, very knowledgeable and she articulates Obama's position better than anyone when it comes to foreign policy.
Rice was the assistant undersecretary of State for Africa and in charge when all the embassies were bombed. She did an outstanding job.
Recall there is no Under Secretary of State for Africa.
March 21, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's video of Susan discussing Obama's foreign policy views.
She doesn't pull any punches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErOmu7VdVO4
March 21, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are no "Assistant Under Secretaries" of State.
There is one Deputy Secretary of State and a number of Under Secretaries. Susan Rice was Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, reporting to the Under Secretary for Political Affairs. There are six regional assistant secretaries, for African Affairs, Latin American & Canadian, Europe and Eurasia, Near East, South and Central Asia, and East Asia.
March 21, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is actually illegal to offer someone a job in exchange for political support, material or in kind.
That said, it is also important that if Obama is made the uncontested candidate soon, it will be important for him to include in his circle of consultants, some of the people who have been committed to Hillary, but who have skills and expertise that is evident. It isn't about jobs till after someone wins in November, it is about perception that an Obama Administration would consult widely, and respect divergent opinions even from those who supported Hillary. It is an artful ballet -- but I think Obama can pull it off.
Apparently Harry Reid did offer Hillary support back in 2006 if she wanted to run for Majority Leader in 2009, when Reid says he wants to bow out. It could be a very powerful position for her, particularly with a Democratic WH -- but the job is not an "individual starring role" -- it is one where the consensus of the Senate Caucus is always the public face of the Majority Leader. Likewise, Majority Leader has to listen to the constituency groups of the Democratic Party, and weave that together with the member's consensus. I am not sure this is Hillary's strong suit. But in the end, it is up to a vote of the Democratic Senators after the election in November, and that would include the new ones we elect next November.
Prior to the Primary/Caucus season, I thought Hillary would be a good Majority Leader -- but some of the events of the season have changed my mind. Leadership in any of these roles is about being able to forge consensus among and between contesting groups, and I've come to the conclusion, (at least at this juncture) that Hillary doesn't do particularly well with organizations and groups that don't serve her immediate purpose. All this business about states that don't count, voters that don't count, and organizations that can be ignored because they are not currently on her team -- and particularly, her negative and dismissive attitude toward slightly different systems than the ones she favors -- I just wonder if she is a consensus builder. I am particularly offended by her negative and dismissive approach to caucus systems and their particular dynamics. She didn't design her campaign around their reality, and right now she is loosing delegates she could have won because she has no organization to eventually win these in Congressional District and State Conventions. Rather than hire local organizers who understood the process, she was all top down, orders out of her headquarters, with no sense of reality of long established state processes and rules. There are many former supporters who have walked away because they don't like the approach that blames them for the failure of her staff to appreciate local systems. Between Iowa and Minnesota she has lost at least four pledged delegates because of this organizational problem. I simply think all this has to be considered in supporting a future leadership role for Hillary.
March 22, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Art, you must be huffing turpentine again. It always amuses me how seriously you are when posting the goofiest theories.
Here's a little reality check for ya:
Obama spoke at PA's Constitution Center for obvious reasons, like the upcoming primary there, and his strong support in Philly.
The place is hung with flags, practically wallpapered with them, of all shapes and sizes, literally from floor to ceiling. The three story lobby is decorated with many flags of the world, with a giant American flag suspended before the plate glass wall so it's clearly visible from blocks away, across a mall including the Liberty Bell and Independence Center. Their web page is plastered with flags on most every banner and graphic. Their museum exhibition presently is "Baseball, the National Pastime" and unsurprisingly it features a lot of baseball jerseys and .... American flags. They're hosting a series of lectures on environmentalism entitled: Red White Blue and Green. Their letterhead is the flag. The cafe menu is designed around flag motifs.
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/visiting/TheDelegatesCafe/index.shtml
They're hosting the Dem debate on April 16th, and I'll bet you there will be lots of flags on stage.
****
Some gullible folks might be fooled by all that to think the Constitution Center perhaps likes flags, has plenty of them, and displays them abundantly at every possible oppurtunity. Thankfully artappriaser was able to see through the ruse.
A more patriotically confident candidate would have used the Constitution Center's usual backdrop, which is actually hammer and sickle flags before a tie-dyed backdrop.
:rolleyes:
March 22, 2008 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"She would thus add strength where he is said to be least experienced."
She would add weakness. In my opinion, Obama's foreign policy overview and insight are far superior to Hillary's.
March 22, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
is everybody sure she join obama's ticket before mccain's?
March 22, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Detailed analysis of Obama's top VP picks:
http://indepthleft.blogspot.com/2008/05/and-nominees-are.html
May 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink