Hillary Clinton For Secretary of State?
Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC is reporting that two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state...
Other Democrats known to want the State Department post are Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Bill Richardson. A possible compromise choice would be former Sen. Tom Daschle.
No way! I don't believe it.
Number one, she fought President Elect Barack Obama's vision of diplomacy and his plans of talking to our enemies during the campaign.
Number two, she is a Senator. The Senate, Harry Reid and President Elect Obama will need every Senator they can get their hands on if they want to get any really tough bills passed - especially health care. Aren't they currently working hard to win in Alaska, Minnesota and Georgia.
The best man for the job would be Sen Tom Daschle because he wouldn't take up any current Democrat's position like Hillary, Kerry or Richardson would. However, the best man because of his experience would be, Governor Bill Richardson.
I pray this offer wasn't part of the deal for
her and Bill's cooperation during his campaign against Senator John
McCain. If it was, it sure proves what I've said about Hillary and
Bill all along. They are out for number one, not the Party or the
American people.
No Hillary Clinton is not going to be Secretary of State nor would she want to be. They're just embarrassed at how they botched the VP announcement and are trying to make up for it.
November 13, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think she wants to be?
November 13, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator from the Great State of NY! It's a pretty cool job, she's got plenty of influence over the issues she cares about like healthcare, economic policy etc. I see her working with the Obama Administration, not in it.
November 13, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
That being the case, then, do you suppose she wanted to be VP? Very little influence over any issues at all, certainly as compared to being Senator Clinton.
November 13, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she wanted to win first and foremost and thought an Obama-Clinton ticket put us in the best position to do that. If Obama wasn't going to trust her as VP with substantive stuff or projects, I'm sure she'd much rather be in the Senate that a figurehead with title alone and very little influence.
November 14, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you that she probably wouldn't want it -- and I also see her working "with," not "in," the Obama administration. SOS would remove her from some of the domestic issues that, I believe, are at the heart of her political identity and purpose. I could more easily see her leaving the Senate for Health Care czar or something like that. --------- But could I make a request for a bit more precision? You keep saying as if it was an established fact that Obama "botched" the VP announcement (I'm assuming you mean not vetting her and/or not choosing her). It would be far more accurate to say that "some believe" that matter was botched or that "in my opinion" it was botched. Some of us simply don't agree. I firmly believe that it would have been awkward and insulting to her if Obama vetted her but didn't choose her and that the presence of Bill (both his vetting problems and his hovering presence over the White House during an Obama administration) meant that she wouldn't have been chosen. Therefore, NOT choosing her was certainly, in the view of some, an intelligent decision --- how should it have been handled differently? Every credible account I've seen suggests that she *asked* not to be vetted unless she was going to be chosen (a sensible request, in my view). In any event, it is simply not an established fact, agreed to by oall, that he 'botched' either the selection of VP or the way he went about making it.
November 14, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I said he botched the VP announcement (not selection) and he did. Obama aide's leaking to the press that not only was she never vetted, but Obama asked someone on his staff to call her staff so someone else could break the news to her... cowardly. He went down 10 points int he polls after the VP announcement and there was all this griping about how it's Hillary's job to bring her folks back into the fold. Which she and Bill did at the convention, helped greatly by a tanking economy which gave Obama a big boost in the post-convention polls.
It was the poorest PR I've seen from a campaign that has been basically flawless with imagery. Badly botched from the faulty text messaging you hear it from us first, down to the media sniping between Obama and Clinton camps two days before the convention that could have been avoided by treating Hillary and Bill with a little bit of respect. A lesser person than Hillary would have said eff the party. (In fact Ted Kennedy did just that in 1980 which much less reason). She did not deserve to be treated that way by the Obama campaign and I hope they are trying to make up for it here. Please let this be a silly PR stunt to save face and not under real consideration.
November 14, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay - understand now, and I agree that the *announcement* itself wasn't as smooth as it could have been ..... although hardly so offensive that anyone should get Sec of State as a consolation prize. Hillary *deserves* pretty much whatever she wants, and I'm sure Obama acknowledges that she does, not because her feelings may have been hurt but for her proven ability and for the out-of-the-ordinary support she gave him after losing the nomination. In fact, I'm sure she'd rather receive the offer of this appointment, or any offer, because she truly deserves it, not as a "make up" gesture for some perceived failing on his part.
(As to Bill's vetting problem, there is a great deal of support that one or more does exist - both financial and, er, behavioral, but I'll do as I asked you to and refer to it/them as my opinion. That Bill's close, practically in-the-White-House presence would have some impact on the Obama administration in public perception is, I think, a simple fact. The only inside information that I've heard of since the end of the campaign - in the Newsweek article, I believe - was that the biggest problem with HRC as VP was, in fact, Bill - although they didn't say if it was vetting problems or simple overshadowing presence.)
In any event, I would prefer to see the first woman in one of the top spots to actually be IN the highest of the offices, as President, earning that nomination the hard way, as Obama did - or as Clinton would have if she'd been successful. Palin has shown us many things (shudder!), one of them being that a member of any minority who is selected as VP can easily be dismissed as - and may be - a token or for image only. Putting Clinton in as VP might have been wise politically, but putting her in - or at least offering her - a more substantively powerful position is more fitting, in my opinion.
All that said, if I was in her shoes, I think I'd remain in the Senate or consider either a Sup Ct position or something domestic, like health care czar perhaps.
November 14, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, I'd say that Ferraro did that as well, although no ways near as resoundingly as Palin.
A lot of people have mentioned the SC position as an option, and although I've gotten some smiles from thinking of certain Republican heads exploding over it, I've never considered it seriously. That you're a lawyer makes me take it a bit more seriously. Do you really think she has the background for it? I realize she passed the bar and all that, but to the best of my knowledge she has no background in being a judge—admittedly not required, but I would imagine desired.
November 14, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And really, can we stop now with the so-called Bill Clinton vetting problems? The same vetting problems that were going to be exposed through her tax returns and ended up being nothing? She said she didn't want to go through the hassle of vetting if she wasn't seriously being considered. She was not seriously considered - end of story. Really, it's innuendo and slander without justification to say Hillary was not vetted because Bill had vetting "problems." Let it go already.
November 14, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Bill Clinton vetting problems are in hiding with Michelle Obama's "whitey" tape. Just thought you'd like to know.
November 14, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would make Obama look REALLY bad if after side stepping Hillary for VP, that he'd leak this then turn around and not give THAT to her either.
November 13, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The leakers (2) were from the transition team according to Mitchell, NOT THE CAMPAIGN. Another report says the leakers are Dem officials close to the T-team.
Two former Clinton folks are named to deal with the DoS. One of them, Wendy R Sherman signed a letter with other ex FP/diplo types endorsing Hillary's FP experience. Sherman also worked for Madeline Albright's consulting firm. I would bet that Albright could be another source for Andrea Mitchell who would, of course, know her well.
The other former Clintonite on the DoS T-team is Tom Donilon who heads up the effort. His wife is rumored to become Jill Biden's CoS.
It wasn't the Obama campaign that leaked the news about Rahm Emmanuel either, it's not their MO.
BTW, the Obama spokeswoman in charge of transition tidbits has already had to beat back a rumor about Warren Christopher being included.
Oddly, TPMCafe contributor Amitai Etzioni suggested Hillary for this very position back in Feb.
November 13, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another report says the leakers are Dem officials close to the T-team
Just for the purpose of figuring out the game going on here, I just heard on NY1 (the NYC cable news channel) that it is CNN that is reporting this. They didn't say anything about Andrea Mitchell or NBC, they said CNN and they said it was from officials close to the transition team.
Earlier tonight, I heard Olberman announce it as an Andrea Mitchell NBC breaking at the start of his show.
So it really does sound to me like it is being pushed so hard and so fast as not to be true but to be for some kind of distraction purposes or something similar.
If true and it happens, which I doubt, personally I would be disappointed, and not because of the idea of some in the blogosphere that she is more hawkish than he is, which I don't think accurate. But it's because in that position she couldn't participate in any health care reform, and I think no one knows more about health care reform possibilities than she does.
November 13, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jake Tapper sez:
"George Stephanopoulos reported Clinton's name being in the mix last week on Good Morning America"
?
She IS more hawkish than Obama despite what you think, aa. Have you forgotten the primary?
Hillary was always the top Dem presidential choice of Haaretz' Shmuel Rosner's panel of Israeli experts as well as the top choice of Israelis polled during the primary. They even picked her over John McCain, fer chrissakes. They weren't favoring Hillary because of her gender....
As soon as she was out of the game...McCain became the Israelis #1 pick, despite what MJ claimed...;>}
November 14, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the other hand........perhaps Obama needn't bother with some foreign leaders if Biden's brief includes translating their concerns as well as doing thankyounote duties.
As that troublemaker Phil Weiss asks:
"Who's Gonna Wag the Obama Dog?
From an email from the Obama transition team (Check out who's getting phone-time):
Vice President-elect Biden spoke via telephone this week with several world leaders and expressed his thanks and appreciation for their congratulations on the election.
On Monday, November 10th, the Vice President-elect spoke with:
· Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
· Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak
· Israeli Likud Leader Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu
· Polish President Lech Kaczynski
· British Prime Minister Gordon Brown
· Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
· Afghan President Hamid Karzai
On Tuesday, November 11th, the Vice President-elect spoke with:
· King Abdullah of Jordan"
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/11/whos-gonna-wag-the-obama-dog.html#more
Where's Joe's friend Misha? One would think that Saakashvili would be on that list.
Things sure are getting interesting in ObamaFPland.
November 14, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd be happy to have her as Secretary of State. I
think she might take it- in which case NY State would send a Democratic replacement to the Senate
November 13, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton as SoS would certainly please the Israelis, Israel Firsters and hardliner hawk types from both parties.
Just what we need, more of the SO stupid S that already has our influence circling around the toilet bowl in the ME and SW Asia.
Yeah, let's go for the full flush.
November 13, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm wondering why Colin Powell isn't in the mix. He could be an excellent SOS in an Obama administration where Powell isn't likely to be screwed over like Bush shafted him. The reason I am saying this is Powell knows a ton of stuff both domestic and international and it seems a waste not to put all of his knowledge and experience to good use. Or is he perhaps under consideration for another post such as SecDef. Or is he simply disqualified by having allowed Bush to so completely screw him in a situation where Powell should have known all the answers to the questions and not been fooled into presenting a bogus argument to the UN.
Or does Obama suspect Powell knew all the answers and went before the UN and flung all the crap anyway. I may have just answered my own question.
November 14, 2008 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
OR Powell does NOT want to go back to the White House?
November 14, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with peoplechoose. I think Colin Powell would be a great SoS with the right administration, but dont count out Senator Clinton. She would be excellent in the position as well. Colin Powell would really send a message to the Bush DeadEnders, especially if he is successful, being unshackled from that bunch of losers.
November 14, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
On your "number one", I think that bad water has definitely gone under the bridge. After she conceded the primary she came out and stumped hard for Obama.
On your "number two", New York has a Democratic governor, and no shortage of good Democrats he could tap to take her place.
I'm not saying Hill will definitely be SoS. But it's not out of the realm of impossibility. I'm still pulling for Kerry, but she would be a credible figure in the post, IMHO.
November 14, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess there is a reason why not everyone makes it in politics.
She's definetly qualified to be SoS. I don't have a problem with her being the SoS though she is not my first preference.
November 14, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink