Of Clinton and Clintonites
Madame Secretary: The rumors keep mounting. Hillary in Chicago. A three-car motorcade leaving Obama's transition headquarters. A secret meeting. And the juiciest of all - Clinton as Secretary of State.
I think the advantages for Obama are fairly self-evident. At one stroke, he would co-opt his greatest rival within the party, gain a secretary of international stature and celebrity, and appoint a woman to a position of power. Those who criticize the prospective pick as more status quo than change still haven't caught on to the Obama style - using existing structures of power to leverage incremental change that proves transformative.
But what, asks Josh, is in it for Hillary?
Hillary Clinton is now 61 years old, having come to the senate late in life. She's tenth in seniority on Armed Services, seventh on Aging, fifth on Environment, and on HELP - the committee she really cares about - she's ranks a dismal eighth. Just this past week, word surfaced that she'd proposed a new subcommittee on healthcare, which she could chair. The idea was quickly quashed by Kennedy. The Senate accords power to seniority, not talent. At the moment, Clinton chairs a single subcommittee: Superfund and Environmental Health.
But I suspect that's not enough. She's sipped from the cup of executive power, and won't settle for legislative dregs. She'd rather rank first in the cabinet, fourth-in-line for the Presidency, than return to a body in which she ranks 62nd. She knows that such an appointment won't last forever, but then, neither does the Presidency. Hillary has always wanted to be in charge, to be a power in her own right. If this is as close as she can come, it's what she'll take.
Too Many Clintonites: It's not just Hillary that has official Washington abuzz. In story after story, the media has chosen to focus on the between that Obama transition appointees and the Clinton Administration. Politico recently ran a tally, and announced that 31 of 47 staffers named thus far have Clinton ties.
Well, of course they do. During the eight years that Clinton served, his administration was a magnet for bright, talented, public-spirited Democrats. But that's not the same as saying that most of the folks serving in the administration were Clinton loyalists, and that's a crucial distinction. These appointees served in reasonably senior posts - many of them confirmable - but were hardly part of Clinton's inner circle. Obama can now take advantage of their experience in government, a crucial advantage, unthreatened by their association with an administration that has only grown more popular in retrospect.
Two prominent exceptions are themselves instructive. The first is Rahm Emanuel, perhaps best thought of as a Bill Clinton loyalist. It was Hillary, after all, who engineered his ouster from the White House political office early in the first term. And Rahm refused to get behind her White House bid, eventually announcing his support for her rival. His relationship with Obama isn't new; they've served together in the Illinois delegation. And he was a Chicago guy before he was a Clintonite. The lesson of Emanuel's appointment is that some Clinton officials are now better classed as Obama loyalists.
The second exception is John Podesta, the transition chief and former White House Chief of Staff. The key thing to remember is that the transition is not the administration. Vernon Jordan never ended up with a formal role; I'd be surprised if Podesta did. The transition is when prior administration experience is most valuable, and so it's unsurprising that two-thirds of these folks have recent executive-branch experience. Whether a similar proportion of Obama's senior appointments will be drawn from the Clinton ranks is somewhat more doubtful.
But there's a broader point to be made. For the past several decades, executive power has been migrating from the Cabinet to the White House Staff. If you want to take the measure of the emerging administration, that's where you ought to focus. So far, by my count, we've learned of just six appointments: Emanuel, Klain, and Gibbs have been confirmed, with Jarrett, Axelrod, and Russell strongly rumored. Three of those are Obama's core supporters. Klain and Russell have ties to the Bidens that antedate their Clinton connections. And the sixth is Emanuel. These staffers share two crucial traits: they're loyal to Obama and Biden, and they're experienced. It's particularly fascinating that all three chiefs of staff are Washington insiders, and not Chicago retainers. (Remember Mack McLarty?) I suspect the next appointment to surface will be the fourth chief of staff, working for the First Lady. Then they'll start to fill in the Deputy CoS positions, and those with Assistant to the President rank. When it comes to the Cabinet, we may well see Gates at Defense, Hillary at State, and other picks that make Obama's core supporters question his commitment to change. But if his White House staff is any indication, we're just seeing the classic Obama approach to change in action.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking 'Follow Me' on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
She can go to Kosovo again!
November 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, or Afghanistan. Maybe if she's subjected to REAL sniper fire, she'll quit.
November 14, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me just say that I don't find jokes that include the threat of physical harm appropriate here, or in any other venue.
And, for what it's worth, I'll add that I think Hillary Clinton could render this country a very real service at Foggy Bottom. Think of her (if you're willing) as a force-multiplier. She's still greeted by crowds wherever she travels abroad. She would dominate any gathering of foreign ministers. She'd bring outsized heft to any negotiation, could use her high profile to spotlight vital issues and concerns, and would help restore the State Department to its proper prominence in managing foreign policy. That's not to say I've agreed with her on every foreign policy issue. But that's not the point. If she serves in the Obama administration, she'd be signing on for his vision of the world, not her own.
I'm not saying she's the best choice. But I don't think whatever personal animosity Obama backers (and other Americans) may bear her is terribly relevant.
November 14, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honesty and integrity have to be minimal requirements for Obama when picking his cabinet. Hillary has disqualified herself with her public lies. This is one of the highest posts in the nation. Shouldn't our standards for that position include (at a bare minimum) a person of impeccable honesty, integrity, and character? Clinton is none of these things. The fact that we keep ignoring glaring moral lapses leads to the historically low approval ratings of our government. Why can't you see the correlation?
November 14, 2008 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama lied on Rezko, Wright, Ayers, reversed himself on FISA, exaggerated/mangled his life story in his books (having to relabel his work as "composites" rather than literal people and being publically corrected by former co-workers).
This is Washington and politics, and the people would rather be lied to than hear literal truths. Stop acting like Hillary's the only one ever caught in this game of bigger and better lies. Giuliani's career is a maze of myth he's concocted. John McCain's "maverick" concotion isn't even a slick presentation, while Edwards just created a whole new patois of helping the poor to rise from the ashes, and then abandoned his "important" foundation as soon as he was out again.
November 15, 2008 5:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not even if they're about Joe Lieberman getting a really major wedgie?
November 14, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Informative post. Thanks.
November 15, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Mike Allen (from Politico) had an interesting take on the whys and hows of Clinton as SoS:
November 14, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
How often is he going to want to be filmed with screaming Palestinians?
Image-wise he can't be seen with Muslims, and while I'd hope this time around we'd focus more on EU/China/India/Russia with a look to coming up with a more realistic and effective strategy towards Africa, I've no doubt getting us out of the Mideast or however we play our next cards will take most of our diplomatic energy.
November 15, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Outside!
November 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are Dems going to stab the Obamas in the back like the Clintons?
President Obama is surrounding himself with the best and most competent people in politics.
Let us support the Obamas and do not stab them in the back like the Clintons.
Loyalty and honor for your leaders please.
November 14, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear! Hear!
November 14, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. The Clinton hating around here always shocks me, no matter how often I see it, as well as the eagerness of Dems to turn on their own. The prospect of Hillary at State thrills me. She'll be in a position where she can call attention to the rights and needs of women and children around the world, which has been one of her core issues throughout her adult life.
November 14, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as she's not calling attention to our deeply held desire to commit genocide in Iran.
November 14, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whose deeply held desire is that? Cheney's?
November 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know who's now on The Committee To Liberate(sic) Iran, but the warmongers are certain to include more than just Dark Lord Cheney.
The Committee for the Liberation(sic) of Iraq included: Randy Scheunemann, Sen. John McCain, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Sen. Evan Bayh, Newt Gingrich, Jeane Kirkpatrick, William Kristol, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and a bunch of scholars (sic) from the American Enterprise Institute.
Doubtless the crowd of Iraq warmongers is still ready and willing to kill some more brown-skinned people. Changing their arguments is easy: do a global replace of "Q" with "N" and change "Saddam" to "Ahmadinejad" and you pretty much have your "case for war" right there.
November 16, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jake Tapper had an interesting comment on his blog Political Punch at ABC News:
With this in mind, it's not surprising to see Obama meeting with Hillary today, or John McCain on Monday. I don't think that any of the alleged "leaks" are an accident, Team Obama has its finger on the pulse of the nation, and no doubt is observing all of the reactions to Obama's every movement.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/
November 14, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus -- just thought of this one -- HRC works very well and very collegially with Joe Biden, another possibly stumbling point depending on the nominee. You want someone at least as strong as Biden, which she would be, who would be able to benefit from his experience in the area, not feel they have to challenge.
November 14, 2008 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if we're going to do this team of rivals thing, better give Bernie Sanders, Ralph Nader, Dennis Kuncinich,etc. a call too. Otherwise, all we're getting is more of the same old free market bubble and war makers recreating the same old policies that have us in such a mess already.
November 14, 2008 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary as Secretary of State makes alot of sense-it would be a smart move, unifying, and uplifting to many women. The GOP's VP choice had left such a bad taste-I think it is a win-win. Still thinking on the McCain thing-he is someone who better be watched-that guy is anything but non-partisan. "I'll embarass a Democrat anytime I can" he said after the Rose Mofford debacle.
November 15, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sort of neutral on the HRC for SOS issue. But it doesn't strike me as all tha revolutionary for women, since 2 of the last 4 SOS's have been women. How about a woman as secretary of defense or secretary of the treasury. Those would be ground-breaking appointments.
November 15, 2008 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, however, I don't see either of those as good fits for Hillary, most likely would be treasury at this point, not sure how the female talent is high up on defense issues.
November 15, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
As always thoughtful analysis and as always you offer new information and broader context.
But it is clear Obama brought Hillary back in the fray. There seemed no public pressure for him to open the White House door, everyone seems settled to see her champion in the senate.
It was Obama's call so I find it fascinating to find idiots piling up on Hillary and digging old graves. Don't blame Hillary if you don't like to see her as SoS. By the way, I'm a huge Obama supporter and battled hard to see her defeated in the primaries.
November 15, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I remember those days. You had some of the greatest Hillary avatars that I've ever seen. :)
November 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a big fan of Hillary but it would be a mistake to put her at Sec of State. Unless you plan on completely turning over the reigns to foreign policy ala Bush to Rice, even Nixon to Kissinger, she is not someone to blindly follow orders. Then there's Bill who continues to have relations with world leaders through his Global Initiative work. He would certainly contribute to Hillary's views, possibly at the expense of Obamas goals.
November 15, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised BO interviewed her, but i would be surprised if she accepts. Hillary as SS puts an end to her run at the WH.
Richardson is being interviewed as well and I dont think he would do the interview if he wasnt assured that Clinton wasnt offered the job.
I think Hillary wont take it and BO knows it. In the end BO will look like he seriously reached out to her, Richardson is SS and Hillary goes back to NY where her and Lanny Davies will continue in their Pinky and the Brain mode, plotting her run in 2012/16 to take over the world.
November 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
1) It gets her out of the Senate. It's not an accident that the two most recent Senators that were elected President were both "inexperienced". There's so many ways to parse votes on the Senate floor to make you look bad, it's insane. So seeing as she has no major committee chairs, and isn't in line to get any anytime soon, and her state is about to have some of it's congressional power chopped in 2010, leaving now it's a bad thing for her legacy at all.
2) Her time in the Senate has given her everything she really needed after Bill's Presidency. Namely, a political identity of her own, and a concentrated powerbase within the party to pull support from. She'll have a hammerlock on domestic issues moving forward because of who she is and Bill's legacy, so this will be a chance to unequivocally advance her foreign policy credentials. Incidentally, Richardson knows this, and knows this, and Hillary's jockeying is probably is bigger threat to him than any other Democrat out there.
November 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I first heard the rumors, my thoughts were that I liked the pick if for no other reason than it's audacity and it's political implications, but so far, all the major players we're hearing about fall to varying degrees to Obama's right on foreign policy. Some very much so. My thought was it's about time to hear some names attached to Obama's inner circle who'll have a less hyper aggressive stance on something like, say, obliterating Iran.
But thinking about it, knowing who Hillary Clinton is, and how she operates, I wouldn't put her anywhere else than at the head of the State Department.
We know that Obama wants a new focus on diplomacy. And we know that the State Department has been marginalized and dispirited during the Bush administration. So why not put someone there who'll absolutely, positively refuse to be marginalized. That'll fight to be at the forefront of every decision and a part of every solution, and give no ground to even the strongest of Defense Secretary.
She might not be the least hawkish Democrat around, but make her our top diplomat, and I guarantee that we won't have another situation the State Department gets pushed aside in another rush to war.
Team of rivals indeed.
November 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would say you captured the maneuver quite well. Lieberman as his b!tch and Hillary as his lead charm(kill)er and he is looking pretty strong.
Interesting side note is that Bill may have played a role in creating this dynamic with his advocating for Lieberman to stay. Does this qualify as change? In some people's eyes I assume it is the "same old same old" but if Obama's Presidency is at all like his campaign, I expect to see lots of people going his way with little evidential pressure. True power is never visible.
November 19, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOTW: Would be interested in your view through your Washington lens of Michelle Obama following the path blazed by HRC?
How is MO's trajectory affected by this chess move by BO?
November 21, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
texasn:
I haven't seen any indication that Michelle intends to follow the path Hillary took in her first years in the White House. Far from it - that campaign went to considerable pains, midway through the primary, to reshape her image. The strong, independent, successful professional woman all but vanished, and in her place emerged a daughter, sister, mother and wife, standing at her husband's side and raising two beautiful children. There's never been a hint that Michelle would seek or be granted an independent portfolio.
But I also want to stress that I hardly think that moving Hillary into the cabinet adversely impacts Michelle's standing. It's not as if there's room for only one woman in Washington. We've already had two named cabinet secretaries - Clinton and Napolitano - and I expect there will be more before we're through.
The nice thing about the Obamas is that they're not refighting the battles of the 1960s. Michelle, after working for years as the family's primary breadwinner, made the decision to shelve her private aspirations. She knew what running would mean. In fact, she reportedly refused to allow her husband to run until his advisers could convince her that he would prevail. For Hillary, being consigned to a largely ceremonial role as First Lady felt like the repudiation of the feminist struggle to which she'd dedicated so much of her life. She insisted upon the two-for-one pitch. Michelle appears to carry with her no similar baggage.
November 23, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink