Five Reasons Why Secretary Clinton Is Change We Can Believe In
Politico, Jake Tapper at ABC, and CNN are now all reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be offered the Secretary of State position by President-elect Barack Obama sometime after Thanksgiving.
I wanted to hold off on commenting about this appointment until it appeared definite. According to members of the transition team, Clinton's financial disclosures have satisfied all remaining significant questions, clearing the way for her to replace outgoing Secretary Condoleezza Rice.
I've done a lot of thinking about Hillary Clinton since she met with Obama in Chicago. I know the arguments against her being in that particular position. She doesn't agree with Obama on foreign military policy. She likes to be in charge. She's got too much drama. Her husband will meddle. She'll try to upstage the President.
Even with those arguments, I've come to this conclusion. Obama's taking a risk with Clinton. However, to use a poker analogy, Obama's getting ridiculously good implied odds on this bet, making it worth the risk. Allow me to explain what I mean.
First, there's a concern, based on her primary campaign and some of her prior experience in the White House, that she won't play ball by Obama's rules. However, Hillary Clinton has shown that she's a team player. She's received accolades from both sides of the aisle since speculation about her joining Obama's Cabinet became public. No surrogate campaigned harder for Obama during the general election, and she took major steps to get her supporters behind Obama.
Then, I remembered a story I read about Clinton, dating back to her high school days. The story roughly goes as follows. She'd lost a close, tough race for class president. Some time later, the president came to her and asked her to organize a major school event. She could have told the president what to do with his offer. However, she knew she was much better at organizing than he was, and she could perform a service for her school. So, she swallowed any residual disappointment - and worked her heart out for a successful event.
I've often argued here that past is prologue. Remembering that story made me realize that Clinton has always been perfectly capable of doing the job she has to do, regardless of the circumstances.
Second, there will need to be some very tough diplomatic messages sent by the Obama Administration. Is there any question that she's qualified to deliver those messages? Moreover, Clinton has relationships with many foreign leaders, and a good deal of respect around the world. This will give her instant cachet in foreign affairs, and her voice will not be ignored when she represents us in the international halls of power.
Third, with Clinton watching his back at State, Obama will be somewhat freer to focus on domestic issues (specifically, economic recovery and health care reform). These are clearly major initiatives that will demand a lot of Obama's first term. Also, I do not believe experience is the controlling factor here. The ability to communicate smoothly, to engage in hardball when necessary, and to break down complex situations is going to be crucial, and Clinton certainly is quite able in all those areas.
Fourth, I don't think Bill Clinton will be nearly as much a problem as others do. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama frequently taps him for informal advice, especially on economic issues. Besides, POTUS 42 would have had to curtail many of his post-White House activities if his wife had been elected President anyway.
Fifth, I think Clinton does more to advance Obama's promises of diversity and independent thought in his Cabinet than any other pick possibly could. She'll toe the line publicly, but she is neither in fear nor awe of Obama. As a result, she will tell him (behind closed doors, natch) when she thinks he's off course. Every leader needs someone who is unafraid to tell him the truth. Obama certainly respects Clinton enough to listen to what she says, and that will make her a very influential Cabinet member.
Whatever else one can say about Obama's picks, there's no question that we will find out what he's made of a manager of people right away. It takes an extraordinary temperament to even attempt Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" concept in modern government, and it takes a remarkable person to serve under someone you spent $250 million and over 12 months battling in a primary that almost rendered the general election an afterthought..
Hillary Clinton will play a pivotal role in the actual and perceived success of the Obama Administration. And, for all the speculation about her intractability and dislike for Obama, she's been telling us all along that she intends to bloom where she's planted. Her record shows this to be true. I believe she will be ready to help steer our international efforts, and I look forward to this next chapter in her remarkable life.
That is of course if she accepts, which I am still hoping she does not.
November 21, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you had sadistic reasons for wanting her as SoS? :-)
My gut feeling is that she'll take the job. One reason I believe that: I do not believe HRC 2016 is off the table at all, and a successful Secretary Clinton would have a rather pimp resume, buckets o' foreign goodwill and a President who'll campaign for her. And, given her current Senate seniority, it's unlikely she'll be able to make the kind of impact there that she can at State in the same time period.
(I really don't see her age in 2016 - 68 - as an impediment. After all, Pelosi is 68, Biden is 66, and they'll be #2 and #1 in the succession chain in a few months.)
Also, I don't think WJC would open up his books if HRC wasn't seriously interested in the offer. (It goes without saying that I could be completely wrong.)
November 21, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also hope she stays in the Senate. But she's abundantly qualified for Sec. of State. And from the clips of her an Obama together, they like each other -- heck, they are so immersed in discussing issues that there's nothing personal involved or in the way. Both are professionals able to focus on the GOALS.
November 21, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
She will accept it; why else would she leave it out there as a story for over a week?
November 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it hasn't in fact been offered yet, or she has been asked not to announce it.
The "drama" is being drummed up by the media and other speculators and blamed on Hillary.
Why not blame it on Obama, in view of the fact that he is the more likely to want to play to drama?
November 21, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, eastside 93 -- for what it's worth, I think you are quite likely to be accurate.
There was no reason for Obama to even bring up the possibility of Clinton being SOS unless he believed she would be the best in the job. For all the expectation that she would be, or be seriously considered for, VP, no one was expecting this and it would cause no trouble if he had not raised the possibility. So he, at least, thinks she will do a good job - and who knows you better than someone who has been locked in fierce battle with you for a long, long time?
Everything indicates that Hillary is much more of a team player (as well as more authentic) when out from under the shadow of Bill and the dominion (which it was) of the team that "the Clintons" assembled around her. And this selection is more her very own than something she got because she was Bill's wife -- more so even than winning the presidency would have been, in fact. Actually, it's pretty clear that she got the job *despite* the complications that Bill brought (status as a past president, strong personality, and financial dealings). She may - as Chris Matthews said to everyone's horror - have gotten to be Senator because she was Bill's long-suffering wife ....... she's getting this position because she's Hillary Clinton.
And, something related to that that you didn't mention, I have long had the feeling that the interaction between Obama and Hillary Clinton is very comfortable and marked by mutual respect. He opposed her fiercely (and successfully) but he was not disrespectful and never belittled or demonized her. I suspect that counts for a lot - quite a lot - with her. And we know she knows about loyalty.
I'm an Obama supporter through and through and opposed Clinton, fiercely!!!, in the primaries. And I still have a built-in distrust of "the Clintons" But right toward the end of the primaries and very much since then (the convention, the GE) I've begun to think I never fully appreciated the unique person that is Hillary. For me the "wake up" moment was when she went to the floor of the convention and moved for the unanimous nomination of Obama - that was not required, was very classy, and was done well. ..... And it was something that Bill or Hillary-as-supporter-of-Bill would never have done, even if they were "gracious" about a loss. It's possible that she may fight as hard for our country as she did to win the nomination .... and apparently Obama thinks that is the case.
November 21, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is one thing we all know about Hillary and all can agree, she is a scrapper. That Obama could hold his own in these confrontations and not get pulled into the mud was an impressive feat, which to me shows he is Presidential, or at least the kind of President I prefer.
November 21, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably some sort of political calculations on Obama's part to have Hillary as SOS.... other than that, Obama surely has more than three rationals for NOT wanting the power hungry senator from the carpet-bagged state of New York.
November 21, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually listed five reasons why Obama would NOT want Clinton as SoS. After mulling it over for about a week or so, I think those don't carry the same weight as the five reasons I think Obama DOES want Clinton as SoS. If you see it differently, please feel free to state why.
Keep in mind that I'm not exactly in the running for the title of "HRC #1 Fan". But I know a good hire when I see it.
November 21, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee. might it be that Obama isn't a hate-the-Clintons-at-all-cost bigot, so can see that Hillary is certainly qualified for the job?
Um . . . "political calculations": I'm SHOCKED that a politician would "politically calculate" -- even more so than you Clinton haters.
November 21, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to simply say that I trust PE Obama's judgment. All eyes will be on Hillary to be certain, which will allow our next President a touch of latitude to deal with domestic issues that threaten to drown us all. It's a shrewd, shrewd choice and I have nothing but respect for his making it.
November 21, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The work in front of Obama when he takes office is prodigious. He inherits the smoldering ruins of a disastrous foreign policy and the wreckage of a domestic policy the likes of which have never been seen. He needs exceptional talent and extraordinary commitment from his lieutenants. With Hillary he also gets an unparalleled breadth of knowledge, the advantages of a familiar face (worldwide), someone with the fierce personal desire to make a difference, and someone who will argue their own opinion.
It's a no-brainer hire; her talents would be wasted in the Senate at this moment in history.
November 21, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely and well put. IF Hillary is actually offered the position, and she accepts, great all around. If instead she chooses to stay in the Senate (which at the moment I think less likely), that is also a win-win all around.
November 21, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Generally good comments. It does strike to me, however, that you give Hillary more credit of character for accepting the SoS position than you do to Obama for offering it. He's making a far greater gamble than is she.
November 21, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that there's no "gamble" in it. Obama's history is that of being certain he has the full range of views -- especially those opposed to his. That's actually irrelevant as concerns Hillary, because they share common goals.
Hillary isn't a backstabber or untrustworthy. Only Clinton haters insist on smearing them against all the facts.
November 21, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Daschle was able to get a cabinet position without any drama.
Janet Napoliano was able to get a cabinet position without any drama.
Hillary's vetting process has already been leaked all over.
I know, it's the media's fault and I'm a Hillary hater for bringing up observable facts, but this is the type of thing that makes Hillary untrustworthy.
A previous SoS who used to use leaks to corner and maneuver around his President was Henry Kissenger. And Kissenger was considered "untrustworthy" because of it.
Ipso facto...
November 21, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's vetting process "leaked" because she is Hillary not because she is untrustworthy. This is the same theme kind of panic that occurred right before the primaries. What does Hillary want? Will she or won't she? Everyone waited on the edge of their seats waiting to see what will happen or what she will say during her speech. And what happened? She did what she was supposed to do.....a big let down for drama seekers. Then when she was asked to go campaign for him, a lot of people were nervous that she would undermine him on the trail. Guess what? She was one of his best surrogates! Now here we go again. It just gets a little exasperating!
November 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You state:
What does this even mean? Someone from Hillary's side leaked the initial stuff -- just like Emmanual (another person from the Clinton years). Other newly appointed ranking officials didn't have this type of leaks around them. Administrations have styles, and at present the two Clinton administration people have a whirlwind around them -- just like 8 years ago. This is somewhat damning evidence that the style hasn't changed.
The New Republic -- and later Newsweek -- talked of the major chaos in the Hillary campaign and advisers and underlings going off half-cocked.
Regardless of whether Hillary herself is untrustworthy as a result, she surrounds herself with people that (apparently) try to manipulate the press for whatever reason. Using "she is Hillary" as an excuse for behavior is pretty hollow: After all, we should just accept the last 8 years because "he was just being George Bush", right?
November 21, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't it matter who is doing the leaking?
Obama certainly had his part in getting the speculation rolling (the Chicago visit was certainly thinly disguised, and he knows how to do things secretly when he wants), so you could say he triggered the media attention. After that, I don't think there's been anything other than that from either Obama OR HRC herself.
Which leaves Bill, the press, and the whole group of people who consider themselves "in" with the Clintons to talk -- and that makes for a lot of chatter.
A lot will depend on, as Joe Klein said this morning, whether she can leave the "Clinton circus" off to the side as she does this job. (He suggested never letting Lanny Davis near a microphone or allowing him to write anything! I concur.) She was able to do this in the Senate.
I think a lot is going to be determined by who she "brings with her" (or, more importantly, doesn't bring) I agree that 'the Clintons' (Hillary plus Bill plus all the FOBs) are untrustworthy and come with inescapable drama. Could Hillary herself (and just herself) be different? I think so (despite probably qualifying as a Hillary-hater during the primaries), and more important Obama apparently thinks so.
I keep coming back to the fact that Obama didn't have to seek her out for this - no one expected it, it would have been no insult if he didn't even suggest her name. Dealing with her as a powerful, important Senator would have been respect enough to satisfy her supporters, esp with the new role on health care assigned by Kennedy. So you have to conclude that Obama actively wanted her for SOS, and I just can't buy that he would (intentionally or negligently) bring in an untrustworthy drama-queen at that level.
November 21, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
And as I point out, it makes little difference whether the leak is coming from Hillary or the people that surround her (including Bill).
November 21, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the point, really. If "the people she surrounds herself with" are the same as the people who have surrounded "Bill & Hillary" all these years, then I agree with you. -- I'm just not convinced that she's going make a similar selection in her position as SOS. Except for her sojourn in the Senate (which was a lot less "dramatic" than people expected), this is going to be only the 2nd time in her entire adult life that she's doing something as 'just Hillary' I'm willing to give her -- and Obama's judgment -- the benefit of the doubt and accept the possibility that "just Hillary" may be quite different than what we've come to expect from "the Clintons"
November 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what if it turns out that the "leaks" aren't leaks at all but speculations?
Or that the "leaks" are from Obama's people?
Please, "clearthinker": stop the horseshit -- beginning with your lie that you're about being "balanced," when instead and in fact you have nothing whatever good to say about the Clintons, and bash them at every manufactured opportunity.
November 21, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither Tom Daschle nor Janet Napolitano are married to Bill Clinton. It's worth noting that the vast majority of the press about this pick has been related to vetting WJC.
And your snark aside, no, it's not all the media's fault for the various leaks in the transition. I would suggest a few things.
First, with John Podesta running the transition and Rahm Emanuel right there with him, you have two people who have a much softer eye on the media than David Plouffe - who was the REAL leak-killer during the election for Obama. Those two - especially Emanuel - are VERY cozy with the press.
Second, I'm sure anytime anyone from the transition offices in DC goes to Capitol Hill or K Street or wherever, BlackBerries all over start buzzing about the who, what, when, where and why.
Third, I don't doubt the Obama team is purposefully letting some information out. After all, if you can't stop the leaks, try to use them strategically, right?
November 21, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seemed to me that Obama managed the press and media very effectively. His timing was impeccable, in hindsight. He never gave too much all at once, but he kept moving forward. Letting people know he wanted Hillary created some buzz. He will feed the press one key appointment at a time to ensure he stays on the font page as someone who will change things. Very deliberately he will change things. The emotions related to the new Administration, it seems to me, are being channeled to mesh with Obama himself, not too hot, not too cold, always moving, always impressive. He even has the respect of most Republicans. Even the Zom-Bushes admit he appears to have good character and fortitude. This could be very exciting, but it's being downplayed to prevent emotions overcoming reason.
November 21, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, we do agree on something!
November 21, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let you know when I'm being sarcastic. I was very serious in the differences between people who had known histories of drama and those who didn't. Everyone's new cabinet behavior thus far has been perfectly predictable in that regard.
November 22, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the leaks. Its the only way we get information about what's going on.
All through this election cycle Obama supporters made the case that the way a campaign is run is indicative of how the WH will be run. I don't think there's that much correlation but let's assume its true. Obama ran the tightest ship I've ever seen, tighter than Bush, no leaks.
Than I was told that Obama will run the most transparent government we've ever seen. Well if the campaign is indicative of how the government will be run it seems to me to indicate the Obama presidency will be as close mouthed and hidden as the Bush administration.
I think we have a right to know and I don't just mean the carefully crafted press releases. I hope the Obama government and all subsequent governments leak like a sieve. I want to know everything.
November 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall there being any drawn out "vetting" process with Daschle and Napolitano either.
Nor do I recall obsessives such as "clearthinker" making a big deal over Daschle and Napolitano.
Your problem is Hillary. You are not a problem for Hillary. The drama-queening is yours, not hers.
Obama knows what he's about, and Hillary is qualified for Sec. of State. Meanwhile, we don't know for a fact yet that she, and not someone else, will be nominated as Sec. of State.
November 21, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'd have his back? I'd sure hope so, if/when AIPAC starts tossing daggers.
On election day of 2016, Biden will be a few weeks short of turning 74 years old, too old to run for POTUS. If fate turns out that he became POTUS during Obama's second term, he might then be campainging for four additional years in office.
November 21, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If AIPAC becomes Obama's biggest concern in his first term, he can look forward to re-election in 2012. Which is to say, AIPAC is not going to be Obama's #1 problem by far.
My suspicion is that Biden wouldn't run if he was in his second term as VP. (And, even if he wanted to, I'm sure various party leaders would "discuss" the matter with him.)
November 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post.
November 21, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fifth, I think Clinton does more to advance Obama's promises of diversity and independent thought in his Cabinet than any other pick possibly could. She'll toe the line publicly, but she is neither in fear nor awe of Obama. As a result, she will tell him (behind closed doors, natch) when she thinks he's off course. Every leader needs someone who is unafraid to tell him the truth. Obama certainly respects Clinton enough to listen to what she says, and that will make her a very influential Cabinet member.
_____
And Obama's history is that of SEEKING the different and opposing view. As one person put it, "Obama isn't afraid of smart people."
November 21, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am amazed by the reaction of many of the people who supported Hillary in the primaries. During the primaries it was "healthcare, healthcare, healthcare" for them. Now that Hillary has enough political capital to begin pushing forward on this very issue in the Senate, these very same people are for her leaving Congress to join Obama's cabinet in a position where there is zero intersection with the healthcare issue.
dijamo is one of the few I've seen who shows a consistency here -- and that should be applauded.
November 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be clear, I certainly wasn't an HRC backer by the end of the primaries.
That said, however, there were some assumptions made about Clinton's ability to be influential in the Senate in general - and on health care in particular. Those assumptions were based on Clinton's massive popularity and in the context of her being either 1A or 1B in terms of importance in the party (depending on who you asked).
The facts, however, have changed since them. The senior Dems in the Senate have made it clear that they're going to take charge on shepherding most of Obama's major planks. Health care, for example, will be in the hands of Ted Kennedy and (to a lesser extent) Max Baucus. Foreign affairs will be John Kerry's deal, as he's expected to take over Joe Biden's committee gavel. And so on, and so forth. The senior Dems are willing to make room for her - but she won't do more than chair a subcommittee.
Political capital is MUCH more useful when trying to ascend in the House (see: Waxman, Henry). In the Senate, seniority is everything. And the fact is that Sen. Clinton won't have that big a platform, now that some of the senior Senators are staking out their turf with respect to the Obama agenda. It would take her at least another full term to begin to approach ranking-member status on any important committees.
Finally, as gasket points out above, her talents with respect to foreign affairs are very much applicable to the #4* spot in the government right now.
* - based on order of succession
November 21, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, this sounds like an apology written in advance. Either she is focused on healthcare (as she claimed she wanted to be) or not. Seniority (as you correctly point out) is everything in the Senate, but that didn't mean LBJ had to be all that Senior to become Minority, then Majority leader. (I'm not proposing Hillary as Majority leader, I'm just pointing out that leadership is not linked to seniority.)
Hillary is the Senator (save Kennedy who is on death's door) most closely identified with healthcare nationally. It would be quite clever politically to have Hillary spearhead the healthcare issue and let her take any heat it imposes on route to passage (including dilution of the bill or whatever). There are plenty of ways of feathering your own political nest as a co-sponsor, etc. and still come out on the winning side -- and coming out on the winning side is what Senators usually try to do (see Patriot Act).
November 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at it in terms of expected gain. Expected gain is the product of the probability of an evnt and the benefit (or cost) of that event. Now, she might still feel that the biggest benefits are to be seen in providing national health care, but also feel that she is much more likely to have an impact in foreign affairs. So, which path should she take?
Heck, it's even possible that she's concerned that being too involved in the health care issues of the Senate could decrease their probability of getting passed, considering the way many Republicans (and even some Democrats) feel about her. I'm not saying that she is concerned about that, but I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
November 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assigning weights and probabilities to those outcomes is a nice exercise but hardly convincing.
If politics and sociology could be rooted in mathematics, then the world would be run by geeks.
November 21, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean, it's not? :O
November 21, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all seriousness, I'm just using the language that comes most naturally to me, as well as a language that I think you'll understand. (I'm not sure exactly where you like on the liberal arts-engineering continuum, but I gather that you're at least comfortable in the engineering world.) The concept itself, however, is independent of the language I used to describe it. She might be choosing SoS because she thinks she can do more good there, even though she feels that health care is a more important issue. These two beliefs are not at odds with each other.
November 21, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
An apology in advance? You're off base. It's an acknowledgement that the facts of Clinton's situation have changed since the primary ended.
There were plenty of people (here and in the media) suggesting back in May or June that she would return to be Majority Leader or take over a major committee.
That's not quite what happened. She was #68 in seniority when she returned - and that, plus 18 million votes, will get you *maybe* a subcommittee chair and no more.
Lyndon Johnson was perhaps the greatest Congressional politician of the 20th century - certainly of the last half of the 20th century. (His only competition, IMHO, is "Speaker Sam" Rayburn.) His rise in the Senate is the exception that proves the rule on seniority. And while HRC is definitely gifted, it would be a loooooong stretch to equate her to the "Master of the Senate".
The Senate simply does not care about national popularity. Any legislative body that would break its own rules to give a convicted felon a standing ovation as he finished his last speech on its floor is clearly not too concerned about its approval ratings or someone's Q rating. Whether that's good or bad is another discussion entirely. But it is what it is.
I disagree with your characterization of Kennedy, and will say no more on the subject - except that he does not appear to be going anywhere anytime soon, and even if he does, HRC won't be next in line.
November 21, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You better believe that they want to be popular. It's called re-election. As far as the ovation: most of the electorate didn't see it, and the ones that care about such things know about the rules of the Senate and the fact that it's the most exclusive club and expect that sort of thing.
Let's remember, they regularly fete Ted Kennedy who was involved with negligent homicide.
It's called politics.
November 22, 2008 4:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm slowly coming around to the view that Hillary will be better at SOS than she will be as a Senator.
I fought Hillary's nomination tooth and nail because I completely disliked her Iraq war vote--but more than that I didn't think she fulfilled her constitutional duty in a legislative branch. I interpret that to be that Congress does not take this country to war unless every possible way to avoid war has been tried. Note, I said Congress. Hillary, along with others, says that the President is responsible for this. I disagree completely and viserally with this interpretation.
I am not out of step with my fellow democrats who voted "no" on this resolution. And I think we've all seen how a unitarian president concept actually works out. It's not theoretical now.
As a member of the executive branch, she won't be tromping all over my beliefs. I am reluctantly "okay" with her as SOS. She has a chance to polish her foreign policy creds and perhaps convince folks like me that she would be a credible nominee in 2016--if she's even interested.
If this makes me a Hillary-hater then so be it.
November 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.236.com/news/2008/11/21/7_reasons_why_hiring_a_clinton_1_10374.php
November 21, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I believe Richardson was more qualified for the role.
November 21, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your analysis, and I think she'll do an excellent job. On thing I can't help wondering is whether this deal was struck following the primaries and before she agreed to campaign for him. It doesn't matter either way. And I agree that she'll set her own agenda aside and work for the team. I like the pick, and I can't imagine anyone else who's more qualified to fill the position at this point in history.
November 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but we get Bill too. The only reason I supported Obama was because Hillary supported the war in Iraq and the enabling of war with Iran. I don't trust her on foreign policy. Foreign leaders will never know who she is speaking for -Obama, Bill or herself or whatever neocons pay off her campaign debt.
The number one problem with the Clintons first and last is that the number one priority of the Clintons is always the Clintons.
November 21, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. Hillary is a pro. She'll be carrying Obama's foreign policy agenda, not her's, not Bill's, not yours.
November 21, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You kinda jumped over that "Hillary Clinton has shown that she's a team player" without any substantiation.
Because there isn't any. Here's one reason why she absolutely should not get job and disputes your team player claim with a literal bang. Late summer of '06, Senator Feinstein offered legislation to place a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs only in civilian areas. Almost all of of the Democrats -including Obama -sided with Feinstein. Not Hillary, She joined with Lieberman and a few other Democratic hard liners and crossed the aisle to join with all of the Republicans to defeat the bill. And they did.
Our would be President, with two small children of his own, just chose another Rumsfeld -in drag - to lead our state department.
November 21, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to re-read the blog. I specifically discussed reasons why Clinton can be considered a team player, with both present and past examples.
That lie alone more or less discredits the rest of your post. However, your cherry-picked vote - with no context given - hardly discredits the idea that Clinton will be a loyal SoS.
I am not a big HRC fan. (Several people who've responded to this blog can attest to that, as can my blog history.) But the more I look at this pick, the more I like it.
November 21, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. For the Obama hating Clinton supporters -no one I know who didn't vote for her ever said she wasn't qualified for something.
UN Ambassador would have been ideal -she was a first lady after all and it would have been a nice combo with bill.
She's too much a player to play nice in as political a job as State is.
November 21, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo, simpleton: it isn't either/or. I like BOTH Hillary and Obama. I was for Hillary for president before I was for Obama. That wasn't because I liked Hillary but didn't like Obama; it was about qualifications -- I saw both as being qualified -- and experience -- I saw him as insufficiently experienced.
But in interview on the point, Bill Clinton made clear as one whose been there: it's about judgment, not experience, because one is confronted with the unexpected.
I didn't like Bill until after the impeachment lynch mob dust settled he was still standing. That impressed. He is brilliant.
And the idea that the Clintons are only about the Clintons is a dirty REPUBLICAN lie. And it is a STUPID lie.
November 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you love how all the negatives about Hillary as SoS assume Obama will be a weak sister as a President?
As if Barack hasn't ever made a few good decisions or surprised people with his intelligence and political dexterity before.
The best part about all of this is the low expectations. Man, you guys are easy marks.
November 21, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her reputation is certainly stained in parts of Mexico.... yeeeeeeesh.
Please read Al Giordiano's take....
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2008/11/us-secretary-state-cautionary-tale
November 21, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and call the transition office. Input is never a bad thing in a democracy.
November 21, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're absolutely on target. Hillary Clinton is not my #1 choice for SoS. But Biden wasn't my #1 choice for VP, and I, after a short time, grew to realize how wonderful a choice he was. Why should this be any different?
Honestly, time and time again, Obama makes decisions and choices, or says or does something that gets everyone up in arms; bitching, moaning, saying things are over, saying Obama's completely screwed up... But every single time, he has it under control. He knows what he's doing.
Why should I doubt his choice for SoS? He has a specific reason for why he wants Hillary. There's a reason and logic behind everything Barack does. Until I see some true proof that the choice of Hillary is a mistake, I'm going to trust that Barack knows what he's doing here, as he has with practically everything he did in his campaign.
November 21, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had serious reservations about Biden as president/ial candidate. But when Obama chose his as VP, I immediately saw it as an excellent decision/choice.
If only the Clinotn haters could drop the personal issues which are irrelevant to the entire parade.
November 21, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your problem is that any time someone brings up negatives or legitimate concerns you are quick to label them as a "hater".
I've said far worse things about McCain and Bush on this board and no one has yet called me a "McCain-hater" or "Bush-hater".
The fact is that the "hater" label is from the tiresome Democrats who are from the typically destructive wing of the party. And so absolutely rigid in their thinking and name calling you'd swear they were Republicans!
By the way, the new AG didn't think Hillary was qualified for SoS in terms of foreign policy. Does that make him a hater? And you better call our new Sec of Commerce a Clinton hater, too.
November 22, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes I want to hug you for your rationality, CT.
November 22, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's cool, Nathan! Others want to throw stones. I like your approach better!
November 22, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Then, I remembered a story I read about Clinton, dating back to her high school days. The story roughly goes as follows. She'd lost a close, tough race for class president. Some time later, the president came to her and asked her to organize a major school event. She could have told the president what to do with his offer. However, she knew she was much better at organizing than he was, and she could perform a service for her school. So, she swallowed any residual disappointment - and worked her heart out for a successful event."
Here's the real story: She wrote in her autobiography that when she ran for president of her high-school class against several boys, one of them told her she was “really stupid” if she thought a girl could be elected president. She lost, and later, the winner asked her to head a committee “which as far as I could tell was expected to do most of the work.” She swallowed hard, accepted and, she admitted, really liked organizing all the school parades and dances and pep rallies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07collins.html
Seeing her become Obama's Secretary of State after he dismissed her foreign policy qualifications as going to tea parties and said she lashes out to make herself feel better when she's periodically down is bittersweet, but it's great to see an African-American and a woman be the most powerful people in foreign policy.
November 21, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink