Hillary for Secretary of State?
I'm still trying to figure this one out. I'm in the "one the one hand, on the other hand" mode.
But, like Josh, I'm surprised he'd ask her and surprised she wants it.
What's the deal?
Advertisement
Nov. 16-20: Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare
Jeanne Desko: Palin's Blame Game
Chris Hayes: What's Sarah Palin's Future In American Politics?
Richard Kim: Sympathy For The Devil?: Oprah and the Palin Media Blitz
I'm still trying to figure this one out. I'm in the "one the one hand, on the other hand" mode.
But, like Josh, I'm surprised he'd ask her and surprised she wants it.
What's the deal?
The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars
House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor
Special Guests
Big names and big brains
Special Features
Pressing topics and trends
Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.
All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.







It's all the good food and the flattery plus she's under the delusion that she can somehow deliver a settlement to the Israel-Palestine mess and be an international hero. Remember that Bill gave it a shot and came up short. Her turn.
November 17, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Hillary has about $9 million in outstanding campaign debt, which Obama was apparently supposed to help recover for her by holding fundraisers. Perhaps this will suffice for her, or perhaps Bill will help her raise the money by pulling out his little black book. Or perhaps he already has.
More optimistically, perhaps Obama wants to embarrass Bill (and Hillary) by putting Bill in the position of refusing to reveal his ... clients, ala Kissinger before the 9/11 commission.
To me, Rahm + Joe Lieberman + Hillary = unseen hand, likely AIPAC.
November 17, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
What better way to undercut your enemy while appearing to support them? Obama won't know what she's telling the allies -- he has to assume she's passing along HIS words.
As I stated in my blog, she's decided 2016 will make her TOO old to run for Pres again....so if she wants to be able to run in 2012, she has to somehow make Obama LOOK bad by then.
This is perfect for her and Bill.
And Obama's first WRONG decision.
November 17, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer might explain Obama's thinking. Hillary (and Bill) have been putting together her 2012 presidential campaign since the day she lost the nomination to Obama. But she can hardly dis his administration if she's part of it, now can she.
They know that Obama knows it and Obama knows that they know that he knows it (they're a very knowledgable bunch) and once again he'll be one step ahead of them if he jails her in the State Department, his State Department.
I bet there's a lot of gnashing of teeth and renting of garments in the Clinton household these days as they wrestle with how to out-smart a guy who's a helluva lot smarter than they are.
November 18, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The number 1 reason I voted for Obama in the primary was to keep Hillary's foreign policy out of the Oval Office.
November 17, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
SoS does not make foreign policy, just executes it.
She is an honorable person and would not do any thing to embarrass the POTUS.
November 17, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her conjoined twin, Bill, will.
November 17, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
She approved the undermining of Howard Dean in Iowa so that Kerry could lose to Bush and she could make a run in '08. She's capable of much, and black ops could help her out.
November 17, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand where you're coming from bluebell but truth to tell, Obama and Hillary never really differed on any substantive issues when it comes to foreign policy. She is a corporate centrist and so is he.
November 18, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The deal is that Hill knows or cares as much about diplomacy (she's a hawk) as your Aunt Hattie, but making her SecState would be a 'twofer' for Obama. It would (1) remove a political rival from the political scene because a SecState had better be non-political and (2) remove a rival from the Senate, a benefit that Jimmy Carter for example didn't enjoy.
In any case it doesn't matter much because in the present national security state that we have the Security Council and the Pentagon determine foreign affairs. Were Powell and Rice determinant in anything, except to go with the flow? Obama could appoint Mickey Mouse to the post, it wouldn't matter, except for the aforesaid benefits of opting for HRC.
November 17, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Powell nor Rice had the global scale ego of Billary. They won't be shut up. So sooner or later he'll have to fire them. Won't be pretty.
November 17, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget, Obama will (1) have a pre-nup with HRC and (2) when Hill's in office, know everything (thanks to the FBI) about Billary's ongoing sex life, among other things that the Clintons would rather be kept quiet. Bush canned the iconic Powell; Obama could certainly give HRC a pink slip.
The larger goal is to neutralize HRC soon.
November 17, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It is not hard to push Sec of State out of the picture. Nixon and Kissinger did it. Cheney did it twice with both Powell and Rice.Think of what the Pres. can do.
November 17, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
So then, foreigners are/were/will be attended to by persons of color and/or femininity because after all, foreigners are not really so very important.
Do I have this point right substantially, even if my wording displeases?
Happy days.
November 18, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have identified the strategic seduction of this move--the benefits in terms of realpolitic must be perceived by them as greater than the risks involved, which they clearly believe is manageable.
November 18, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sec of State is not political?????
What the hell was Rice and Powell doing on tv every weekend during the 'go to Iraq' decision?
Hillary will play nice in public but behind closed doors ----who knows what she or Bill will be doing. If she's thinking about her own future presidency chances which HAS to be 2012 -- then she will NOT want Obama to LOOK good by FIXING any problems.
And as someone already stated....Hillary's foreign policy views are one reason I did not vote for her.
November 17, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not political when you read from a script. Politics involves competition. As SecState, HRC would also be reading from a script, or she's gone, which wouldn't look good. She'd then be out of a job and powerless, and have to suck up to somebody, as Powell has done with Obama.
November 17, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to believe it's a red herring. That would show some real political smarts on Obama's part. I fear it's just politics as usual in DC. :(
We all know Obama is not a peacenik, so having a hawkish SoS would not be a surprise in these times.
November 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to believe it's a red herring. That would show some real political smarts on Obama's part. I fear it's just politics as usual in DC. :(
We all know Obama is not a peacenik, so having a hawkish SoS would not be a surprise in these times.
November 17, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, what's not to get about wanting the job of Secretary of State? It's a challenging job; it's an interesting job. It's possibly the most prestigious job in the federal government outside the presidency. It's a responsible job: one oversees 30,000 employees instead of a small Senate staff. One gets to travel the whole world, meeting incredibly interesting people. One is feted wherever one goes with fantastic food and wine. No more chicken Parmesan at the KofC in Schenectady or brisket in Brooklyn. And it sure packs more excitement and glamor than holding dreary late night hearings on mind-numbing military acquisitions regulations, or horse-trading to get the latest Kevlar vest contract for one's constituents.
And to that that the position promises to be an exciting field of bureaucratic infighting during the next administration, as the Department of State works to wrest back power it lost during the Bush administration.
And Clinton traveled around the world quite a bit as First Lady. She has old global glitterati friends everywhere. She might miss them. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have graduated from their former roles as American politicians to the more transcendent level global statesmen. Why not Hillary? She's been trapped in New York and Washington while Bill has been off in exotic locales.
For a hungry middle class girl from the Midwest, what's not the like about fixing global-scale problems during a soiree in the City of Lights with Sarko and Paula, or kicking Putin's diplomatic balls over shots of cold vodka?
November 18, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. Instant Global superstar. She transcends domestic politics in one fell swoop.
November 18, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let us not forget all the sleaze associated with Bill. There are still many questions around the Khazakstan-Uranium deal Bill brokered for one of his financier buddies. Let's not forget this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
If Obama is serious about making her the SOS, I sure hope that Bill's wheeling and dealing are fully vetted. And they should insist that his answers pass the smell test, not just narrow legalisms about prosecutable crimes.
November 18, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thats not the only shading deal Bill pulled off.
Nato kicked the Serbs out of Kosovo and put a criminal syndicate in power. A policy continued by the Neocons under Boosh. Why?
It appears no one has clean hands in this day and age. Oh well at least I can pretend the progressives won. If anyone thinks Bill and Hill are fuzzy headed liberals, you need to do some more homework.
On July 8, 1998, New York Times reporter Chrisopher Hedges wrote, "The sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex is the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans." Hedges described glittering veins of lead, cadmium, zinc, gold and silver.
The Stari Trg mine is ringed with smelting plants, 17 metal treatment sites, warehouses, freight yards, railroad lines, a power plant and the country's largest battery plant. It is the richest lead and zinc mine in Europe. There are also 17 billion tons of coal.
http://www.iacenter.org/folder04/kos_mines.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081600.html
November 18, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, but Clinton made that act legal by getting Nato to sanction it. The Khazakstan deal he did on his own; if any quid pro quo can be established here Bill will not have legal cover.
November 18, 2008 4:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision
November 18, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
O/T:
MJ, what do you make this?
Dershowitz: I helped keep Carter silent
Why didn't Jimmy Carter speak from the podium at the Democratic National Convention? Alan Dershowitz said he had something to do with it.
In an interview with Shalom TV, the Harvard Law School professor says he "pushed" Barack Obama "very hard to make that decision," Dershowitz said in an interview with Shalom TV. "Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect."
"It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision," Dershowitz added...
Personally, I think Mr. Dershowitz is kind of a jerk; but that's just me.
November 18, 2008 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love it when loose-lipped assholes like Dershowitz let it all hang out, because then people like me don't have to indulge in speculative conspiracy theories.
I hope Obama reads these humiliating remarks from Dershowitz, and now feels deep, deep shame about throwing a good man like Carter overboard for the sake of the votes of a few Zionist pricks.
November 18, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once he had to throw his own Minister over, I think Obama was bound and determined to win, and deal with the humiliation later. He knew Wright 20 years and Dershowitz is a dyck who he could not afford to rile up more anti-semitism...given there was the constant muslim smear against him in the jewish community. Not to mention good ol Joe telling folks to vote for the country not the party...imagine that line following Carter at the DNC.
November 18, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, who says Dersh is telling the truth, or even knows the truth? Lots of people like him brag about their exploits.
Second, if the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party were a bit more numerous...and weren't willing to bail on their candidate at the slightest sign of unorthodoxy...maybe folks like Obama could be a little more assured of victory and willing to take more chances.
But our team is ready to vote for Nader or Mckinney, or stay home, at the slightest hint that our guy is veering off course.
It's really pathetic: Obama hasn't even been P-elect for more than two weeks, and folks are already bailing on him.
November 18, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your analysis is crude. Critical comments are not "bailing". Nor have I ever voted for Nader or McKinney. Obama "bailed" on a thoughtful, Democratic ex-president with a phenomenally long resume of global service, who is still regarded with great respect and fondness among many Democrats from many wings of the party - and Obama deserves to be criticized for it.
Dershowitz is going to be fighting his ass off to steer the Obama administration in his own preferred direction, and those of us who want a different direction need to fight our own asses off to see our hopes realized.
November 18, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming Dersh's version of the story is true.
November 18, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons I solicited a response from MJ is because I'm only familiar enough with Dershowitz's reputation to say authoritatively that he is a jerk (pro-torture and crap like this stand as two examples). As you say, this may be baseless false bragging on the Jerk's part, and I was hoping MJ might be sufficiently familiar with this fool's defective character to make that kind of call.
This could be just another violation of the "correlation-is-not-causation" rule, wherein the Jerk did in fact have a word with Obama, then Carter didn't speak at Denver - for whatever reason - and the Jerk just took credit for it. I don't know, but at this point I've read enough accounts about him to believe the worst.
Did I mention that he's a jerk?
November 18, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
But let's look at it from another angle.
Yes, it would have been right for Carter to have spoken. I found his walk-on cameo more disturbing than if he hadn't appeared at all. But consider this...
What would Obama have GAINED from having Carter speak?
The ire of nutty right wing Jews and Christians? Did he really need that extra headache, what with The Obsession already being slipped into everyone's Sunday paper? Him being accused of being a Muslim and a pal of terrorists?
Carter is justly admired, but I doubt he has much of a constituency. What would or could he have said that would have HELPED Obama politically in that moment?
Peace, Not Apartheid?
World peace?
Build more homes for the poor?
I'm SURE Obama stands for all of these things, and they are good things to stand for. But I don't think Carter helps him get those things to happen by speaking at the Convention.
So it's possible that Dersh was making that sort of calculation clear to Obama.
November 19, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's entirely possible that Dersh was convincing, but NOT for the reasons he thinks. IOW, Obama got to see, first-hand, the drawback to letting Carter speak and he decided to act on it.
Not because he believed in the "wisdom" of that decision from a moral sense--as Dersh flatters himself--but because he saw the enemy up close and chose to side step him.
Put it another way: the GOAL is NOT to have Carter speak at the convention. The goal is to achieve Middle East peace. So Obama decided not to fight a meaningless battle, but rather, keep his powder dry for the real battle.
Again and again in the campaign, Obama's supporters wanted him to strike back in a way that would have been emotionally satisfying for THEM, but wouldn't have achieved much else except moved him away from his strategy and what he knew he had to do to win.
November 19, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's a logical scenario you've layed* out (*or laid? I never get those right). No way of knowing without being able to read BHO's mind, but your scenario is compatible with the approach he seems to have taken in running his campaign.
November 19, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S/ government has apparently now committed to the sovereign government of Iraq that American military forces will be removed no later than 25 months from now. With that departure, one of the best reasons for inaction by Iraqi political and tribal leaders will vanish. If the past track record of that country is anything to go by, the "action" in Iraq following U.S. military withdrawal will not be pretty. America will then sorely need an experienced, tested and ready representative in Baghdad that is fully responsible for the situation which has developed there since Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were given unrestrained authority in 2002 regarding when and how to decide to invade the country.
Hillary Rodham Clinton for Ambassador to Iraq!
November 18, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
37 months.
The SOFA has provisions that allow it to be re-upped, and there is plenty of time between now and the end of 2011 to sweeten the pot for an extended stay.
I'm not convinced that we are ever leaving Iraq.
November 18, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
End of 2011 is 37 months - thanks for the math correction, Dan. Hope you're wrong about the US in fact never leaving, but those responsible for the reckless folly that has led to that prospect as a serious possibility, such as Hillary, belong in Iraq until the last US soldier departs.
November 18, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe:
o he offered it to her because he think she'd be good at it, and
o she would be
She's a talented woman for whom more experienced subordinates will be willing to work. Granted both Hillary-health and her campaign demonstrated that she's a poor administrator. No surprise,most lawyers are.
But she's smart enough to have realized that and she can get someone to be her Jamie Gorelick.
November 18, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes indeed Hillary is a TALENTED woman or she wouldn't have gotten nearly as far as she did in her campaign, she would have just been another EX - First lady.
Hillary and Bill are MEANT for one another that's for sure -- they both have one thing in common --- ambition and they are willing to do anything to get what they want - anything!
November 18, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A thought just occurred to me. We'll we be hearing more stories like, "I was under sniper fire in Bosnia..." if Hillary becomes SOS?
Condi Rice at times gets more attention then George W Bush himself -- this is why Hillary would want the job.
November 18, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Condi was also neutered early on by Cheney and Rumsfeld and Baker.
November 18, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This intense "Clinton-hatred" is really BORING!!! Remember, as someone once wrote: A fanatic is a true believer who has tasted doubt. You, my dear, are really a fanatic. Give it a rest.
November 18, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing, absolutely nothing, brings brings the loonies .out of the woodwork moer than anything Clinton. Republican, Democrat, it makes no difference, mention the name "Clinton" and the asylum doors get unlocked.
November 18, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You said it.
November 18, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at my post above I guess I'm still king of the tpoys.
November 18, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The suggestion was from Obama campaign that if Hillary and Billary made a honest effort to campaign for him, then there would be a stronger than likely possibility of a high cabinet post as a "thank you" gift.
My thoughts, No Spine Obama.....
Obama SHOULD THEN OFFER Sen McCain the Secretary of Defense position.... 'cause it was ALL B.S. anyways........
November 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying that Hillary is a disastrous choice is not to say that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a competent Secretary of State. Simply that she voted for the war in Iraq, carries too much baggage (Bill) and doesn't seem to be the ideal person to carry out the policies that those who voted for Obama thought he personified when they voted for him.
A job without any of these conflicts that Obama could offer Hillary and which would not offend his hardcore base might be to put her in charge of making health care happen, which is something she could do without leaving the Senate.
What all this probably means is that Obama simply hasn't been around long enough to have any real team of his own, he has not had the time to acquire as collaborators people of stature that he has worked with over years, people who owe their careers only to him: his people that he can trust to put his interests first.
Not having those people, it looks like he is already being managed by the fixers and the arrangers: he is not managing them. This will surely get worse as the game gathers speed.
November 18, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the problem is that neither Clinton nor her supporters, who are still an immensely powerful group within the Democratic Party, and remain a bit wounded and disgruntled, are likely to be satisfied with anything but a very high prestige appointment for her.
I don't think being some kind of health care legislative czar, which is an important but limited time job, and is more befitting a bureaucratic policy wonk than someone of Clinton's status, is going to cut it. Also since, fairly or unfairly, Clinton is often blamed for her failure in leading the health care reform effort during the Clinton administration, giving her essentially the same job will probably not inspire much confidence.
November 18, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly why I am of two minds on this. Hillary does have her own base that deserves respect in the Obama administration. But then there is reckless Bill. He made over 100 million dollars since leaving office -- that is not something that just comes naturally to an ex-president, he wheeled and dealed to get it. There could be some serious skeletons in his closet. I am tired of seeing Democrats tied up in scandal because of him. Yes, the Khazakstan-uranium deal smells badly.
November 18, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment, D. Seaton, points to the very real possibility of Obama repeating the practice of (equally inexperienced) GW Bush in installing a cabinet of recycled loose cannons from most recent prior administration of his party. But this does not mean Hillary is actually any more qualified to be Sec of St than Colin Powell was. If this government of re-treads is really all Obama can manage, than he might as well cut the crap and simply appoint BILL CLINTON as Sec. of St. rather than stealth Sec. of St.
The real difficulty here could well be that Obama already cut a deal of some kind with Hillary right after his nomination. Nonetheless, if he was as creatively change-oriented as his campaign promised, he would try to pull something original now, like recasting that deal so as to put Hill and Bill -AND maybe Jimmy Carter to boot- in charge of ramming through an Israeli-Palestinian treaty. Whatever one might say about the Palestinians, they are not fundamentally in league with either the Iranian mullahs or Al Qaeda, and whatever one might say about Israel, it is not (yet) controlled by its lunatic settler fringe. Pursuing a peace deal between them would be a daunting but not impossible task that could fully occupy the restless ambitions of one Nobel laureate ex-president and two would-be Nobel ex-co-presidents.
November 18, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the Clintons/Carter line-up. I understand Carter doesn't like Clinton, but I'm sure he could swallow his issues in order to achieve peace. Carter has some real cred with the Palestinians, including Hamas, I believe.
November 19, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Makes you wonder, though, about where Clinton got HIS people when he started out. Were they all re-treads from the Carter Administrations or stillborn Dukakis and Mondale Administrations?
Does feel as though Obama could be venturing out a bit further.
I think his political strategy must be to pacify all the potential trouble-makers from the Clinton camp and from the right wingers. Yes, the country rejected the last 8 years, but McCain didn't do that badly, even with SP on the ticket. And Obama was subjected to vicious attacks, and these same forces could derail whatever it is he wants to do.
So I think his initial goal here is to pacify those who might otherwise undermine his presidency...and remain in charge himself.
November 19, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW -- I used to be like you - in a dream world about the Clintons -- until this year that is. I attacked anybody that questioned what the Clinton's did - for years and years.
No more.
November 18, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
coonsey,
I'm not a Clinton sycophant, as a liberal I have my problems with Bill, and Hillary too. My point was the constant babble on TV and on the internet.
King Elvis mentions all the oxygen consumed during the Monica period; well, look around, it never stopped, the oxygen is still be consumed by the super oil tanker load.
November 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Coonsey is making sense - lots of sense.
Think of all the 'oxygen' consumed by Clinton in the monica period. There were essentially two precious years of a Dem president where all the resources were wasted just defending him.
November 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink