« Moderate Senate Dems: rewarding petulance | November 5's Blog | Splitting the Difference is not a Policy »
Hillary Silliness
I'm getting a little tired of all the speculation about why Hillary would be a poor choice for Secretary of State. I have reservations of my own: while I have enormous respect for her on domestic issues, including military and veterans issues, I feel I have little on which to judge her as a diplomat. But rather than discussing her foreign policy bona fides, most pundits seem intent on rehashing the same old question: will she undermine Obama?
It is a testament to the deep-seated and at this point completely knee-jerk hatred of the Clintons in the media that no matter how many times Hillary has proved NOT to undermine Obama since the end of the primaries, they still expect her to do so at the next juncture. To be sure, I was not a Clinton supporter in the primaries, mostly because she had filled her campaign with triangulators from her husband's presidency. But the idea that she puts her presidential ambitions above what she feels is the good of the country I find baseless and offensive. I don't always agree with her policies; and sometimes I feel they are crafted with a bit too much political calculation (whose aren't?); but the caricature of her as a scheming harpy is ludicrous.
The argument that Barack Obama saw the Senate as nothing but a launching pad for the Presidency has merit; if you are an Obama supporter, it's something you have to wrestle with. His initiatives in the Senate showed big thinking and foresight (nuclear nonproliferation) and guts (ethics reform), but he isn't known for loving the nitty-gritty of negotiation and bill-crafting. Clinton, on the other hand, though she too may have seen the Senate as a path to the Presidency, has turned out to be a better Senator than probably anyone could have imagined. Far from being a do-nothing celebrity, she really has spent her time working tirelessly for the people of New York, wading into the murky bowels of legislation where none but the wonkiest of wonks dare to tread.
But beyond all that, I fail to see how or why she would undermine Obama as SoS. Would she negotiate international accords without his approval? Disregard his directives? Punch Ahmedinejad in the face? And where exactly would that get her? My Presidential history isn't fantastic, but I don't recall the American people ever electing a cabinet member who destabilized his administration.
And this whole "Team of Rivals" thing. Pundits have jumped on a re-evaluation of Doris Kearns Goodwin's thesis by historian Matthew Pinsker. First of all, I think the whole thing is overblown: Hillary does not a team make. But beyond that, Pinsker claims that Lincoln's strategy of filling his cabinet with former rivals was a disaster and should serve as a "cautionary tale." But to whom?
It is a testament to the deep-seated and at this point completely knee-jerk hatred of the Clintons in the media that no matter how many times Hillary has proved NOT to undermine Obama since the end of the primaries, they still expect her to do so at the next juncture. To be sure, I was not a Clinton supporter in the primaries, mostly because she had filled her campaign with triangulators from her husband's presidency. But the idea that she puts her presidential ambitions above what she feels is the good of the country I find baseless and offensive. I don't always agree with her policies; and sometimes I feel they are crafted with a bit too much political calculation (whose aren't?); but the caricature of her as a scheming harpy is ludicrous.
The argument that Barack Obama saw the Senate as nothing but a launching pad for the Presidency has merit; if you are an Obama supporter, it's something you have to wrestle with. His initiatives in the Senate showed big thinking and foresight (nuclear nonproliferation) and guts (ethics reform), but he isn't known for loving the nitty-gritty of negotiation and bill-crafting. Clinton, on the other hand, though she too may have seen the Senate as a path to the Presidency, has turned out to be a better Senator than probably anyone could have imagined. Far from being a do-nothing celebrity, she really has spent her time working tirelessly for the people of New York, wading into the murky bowels of legislation where none but the wonkiest of wonks dare to tread.
But beyond all that, I fail to see how or why she would undermine Obama as SoS. Would she negotiate international accords without his approval? Disregard his directives? Punch Ahmedinejad in the face? And where exactly would that get her? My Presidential history isn't fantastic, but I don't recall the American people ever electing a cabinet member who destabilized his administration.
And this whole "Team of Rivals" thing. Pundits have jumped on a re-evaluation of Doris Kearns Goodwin's thesis by historian Matthew Pinsker. First of all, I think the whole thing is overblown: Hillary does not a team make. But beyond that, Pinsker claims that Lincoln's strategy of filling his cabinet with former rivals was a disaster and should serve as a "cautionary tale." But to whom?
Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term -- one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust.
Yes, and how right they were. That's why Simon Cameron, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates all went on to become President, while Lincoln paid for his poor judgment in choosing them by being relegated to historical obscurity.
No, this is a warning to Hillary Clinton - but one she's smart enough not to need. If you take a cabinet post, you sink or swim with the success of the President, not your own agenda. If Clinton genuinely thinks Obama's foreign policy ideas are wrong and can't bring herself to execute them, it would be her mistake to accept the post, not Obama's for asking her.
Advertisement
Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap!!!
November 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. 100 per cent.
November 21, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
Untitled Document
My comment is here. Baldric knows the ends of ambition, but poor Baldric cannot reply.
November 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for jumping on the Dem's tired phrase "team of rivals" alone (it has quickly become the equivalent of the GOP's "maverick"). I made a similar comment this morning. As usual, people tend to get their history from news headlines rather than history textbooks. To their own peril.
November 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cons are taking their "thumpin" as well as "progressives" taking the return of the Clinton team.
Sore losers and sore winners.
Geez.
November 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not the return of the Clinton team. I've had enough of that nonsense.
November 20, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thus speaketh TPM's resident 12 yr old PUMA.
November 20, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to rec. this post. I'm not fan of Hillary Clinton. Not in the least. Her primary campaign made me despise her. But despite all my misgivings with Hillary (and even with Bill), I find it difficult to imagine Hillary would UNDERMINE Obama's Presidency. Barack Obama has shown from day ONE who's in charge. No one has undermined him or outshone him. He stands alone, and I find it difficult to imagine anyone actually believing that she would "undermine" his Administration, or his Presidency.
That is not to say I WANT her as SoS. I'd prefer Kerry, Richardson or Hagel. But I am not of the notion that putting Hillary anywhere near Obama's Administration will spell complete disaster.
Also, thank you for pointing out the obvious concerning "Team of Rivals". The fact that such a notion is still being paraded around is ludicrous, and it's about time someone stepped up and started speaking the truth.
November 20, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm watching Chris Matthews having a titty attack over Hillary Clinton as SoS and I just want to punch him. He said he called up all the smart people that he knows and neither of them can figure out what's going on. Why all this drama? Why are we talking about Clintons and not Obama? Huh!? Why is the vetting so public? Hey Chris, Why is the media acting like they have no choice in what they report or in how they react?
November 20, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's really funny. Does Chris Matthews know only *2* smart people, I wonder?
November 20, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, only 1.
November 21, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
November 21, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"WASHINGTON (AP) - An aide to Barack Obama's transition team says the president-elect is on track to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving."
As tweety would say ,"Ha!"
November 20, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I am sick of...
people telling me that I hate Hillary just because I have an objection to her as SOS. I am sick of hearing from people that I 'hate' period when I express an opinion because I don't 'hate' anyone.
Yes I have an objection to Hillary Clinton as SOS. My reasoning... this is a senator that did not read the intelligence and voted to give the presidend authority to go to war. That is something in my book that does not recommend her for the position. There are many other reasons I won't go into.
Do I think she is capable of being manipulative in the position as well... yes... so 'hate' me if you want to.
November 20, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you think Clinton is capable of being manipulative then you must also think that Obama can be easily lead by the nose. Right? Why else would you be so worried about her in the White House? You don't just she is capable, but you believe that she WILL be successful at manipulating The President of the United States. What does that say about your faith and confidence in Obama? Did you vote for him? Is this one of those moments where the parent says to the child, "It's not that I don't trust you, it's your friends......"
November 21, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
My statement was NOT the words you 'put in my mouth' or what you wish it would turn out to be.
Regarding my perception that a person in SOS position has the ability to be manipulative and whether or not this would happen, I have a concern that it might. Whether or not this is something President Elect Obama would be able to handle well is something I cannot know. I question Hillary's competence and ability to do a great job as SOS>
I think President Elect Obama has the potential to be an excellent president. I think his job could be tougher with Hillary as SOS. Clearly he would not be considering her if he didn't think he could handle it. Yet, I don't think he is perfect and I think this could be more of a challenge than he is bargaining for. I have concerns about the two of them being able to work well together and I might have the same concerns wtih someone else.
Attack away if you like. I am not sharing my perspective as if I am making the rockbed, infallible argument against Hillary as SOS... just my perspective. You know, a person's perspective is their perspective... Can I be wrong? Certainly. Do we disagree? Apparently.
November 21, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're full of shit. Spin, spin, spin, you simply hate the Clintons and are attempting to rationalize it.
November 21, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your words cannot make it so...
November 21, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And your denial doesn't disguise it.
November 22, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am denying nothing... I don't 'hate' anybody... not even people who try to force it on me.
November 22, 2008 4:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
So by you're logic sir...why did you vote for a ticket with Joe Biden...who, as I recall, also voted to give the president permission to go to war? As you can see the inconsistencies in your argument show that this has nothing to do with what you think about Hillary's qualifications...its about what you think about Hillary...period. If giving the President authority to go to Iraq is so unforgivable in your book, why did it not prevent you from shunning Obama for picking Biden a his second in command?? Presumably Biden with his foreign policy bona fides will be advising Obama a lot on foreign policy. This means a guy who voted for the war is closest to Obama's ear. Are you ok with this? Please...be a hypocrite and say yes.
November 21, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
One big difference is that Biden has admitted his vote was a mistake.
As Jon Stewart pointed out, Hillary and Obama had fairly close views on every policy issues... except foreign. In that sense, that is the one cabinet position that shouldn't be open to her.
November 21, 2008 4:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is ridiculous. I expected a more sophisticated analysis from you but as soon as the conversation turns to the Clintons in any way you get stupid. You say its because of your dislike of nepotism but I don't believe you. This dislike only seems to manifest when the recipient of said nepotism is Hillary.
Biden's statement that his war vote was a mistake was as likely politically motivated as his vote for it was, as Hillary's vote for it was and as her refusal to call it a mistake was. He called it a mistake only because Bush mismanaged the war and for no other reason. Even after admitting a mistake he was still opposed to any withdrawal or the setting of any time table.
Hillary's and Obama's foreign policy views are not very different. Their positions were exaggerated during the primary because that was one of the few areas there were even small differences, the other being Obama wanting mandates on health care only for children and Hillary wanting them for everyone. It was also exaggerated because of Obama's rookie mistake in answering the question of whether he would have a presidential meeting with the leaders of Iran and several other nations in his first year.
That was a rather silly mistake that Obama could not for political reasons admit so he spun it away by changing preconditions to "preparation" and by avoiding saying presidential and always talking about diplomatic relations. Hillary of course exaggerated the consequences of this trivial error and focused on it for political reasons.
Obama has successfully moved to Hillary's position on the issue without acknowledging the error or the move. There's absolutely zero chance that Obama will have a presidential meeting with Iran in his first year not just because he realizes that Hillary was right but because the European nations that have been negotiating with Iran have made it clear that they think it will have a negative effect on those negotiations.
I would think that now that Obama has won you would be capable of rational discussion concerning Hillary but I think you have a mild case of Clinton derangement syndrome. What is it, angry that Bill got a blow job?
November 21, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
In all the months that this issue of meeting with enemies has been bandied about, I have never read a clearer or more insightful analysis of how everyone involved was playing politics with it. Thanks.
November 21, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo!
November 21, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat:
You "don't believe me"??? Talk about emotional derangement!
Again, look who is being over the top.
November 21, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You "don't believe me"??? Talk about emotional derangement!
----------------------------------------------------
Yes I don't believe you and I gave you my reasons that I doubt your words.
I've seen you tell several people here you don't believe them. Does that mean you're several times as emotionally deranged? Or do you think you're simply above having your bullshit questioned?
November 21, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
"clearthinker" is one of the least clearthinking bullshitters who posts at TPM. So unclear that he doesn't realize how transparent his bullshit is -- beginning with his cover-effort to being "balanced" in effort to smoke all the rest of it.
November 21, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama should appoint Yes Men instead of people he thinks are competent and qualified?
November 21, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No! He only shouldn't appoint H-I-L-L-A-R-Y, even though she is abundantly qualified!
Because . . . because . . . well, I'll come up with something in effort to pretend it isn't simply that I hate the Clintons for no reason! :(
November 21, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lame.
Obama's history is INCLUSION, PARTICULARLY, of views NOT his.
November 21, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear, Synch!
November 21, 2008 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
My reasoning... this is a senator that did not read the intelligence and voted to give the presidend authority to go to war.
----------------------------------------------------
I don't know if you hate Hillary or not. But I'd be willing to bet you haven't got a clue or you're a hypocrite. Do you disqualify everyone who didn't read the NIE and voted for the AUMF? Biden didn't read it and voted for the AUMF. Are you saying he should have been disqualified for SOS but its ok for him to be vp? Kerry is being considered for SOS, he didn't read it and voted for the AUFM. In fact when Hillary was attacked on this during the primary Obama supporter Kerry defended her saying he didn't read it either and that she was fully briefed by the people who wrote the NIE.
Do you know how many of the 530 members of congress read the full @100 page document? If you can answer that question I'll consider taking your opinion seriously instead of thinking you're just a stooge spouting taking points from some pundit who wrote an article you read.
November 21, 2008 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Only 6 senators read the NIE. At least one (Jay Rockefeller) still voted for the war. I don't think we even have the names of all the others.
November 21, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Idjit:
The Bushit criminal enterprise is truthful when it says Congress had the same intelligence concerning Iraq as the criminal enterprise. HOWEVER, it is NOT true that Congress had ALL the same intelligence.
Did Hillary read the intelligence? Or did one of her staffers, who then communicated the essence of it to her? Or did she not have to read the intelligence because others she knew and trusted did, and filled her in on it?
Your "reason" for HATING Hillary -- the Clintons, period -- is other than you claim. You're simply grasping at straws for an EXCUSE for the hatred.
Kerry ALSO voted for the Iraq resolution -- but DID YOU READ HIS STATEMENT ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE WHICH WAS ATTACHED TO THAT VOTE?
Kerry is apparently not being considered as Sec. of State. Hagel is leaving the Senate, and appears to have no interest in any position of any kind in Washington. And Richardson is qualified for WHAT nationally?
November 21, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not going to respond to all of this one by one as I am reading it all at once.
First of all for me it was the choice of Biden over Hillary that made it better for me. Does that mean he wss someone I was hoping for, no.
As I already said, for me the 'Silliness' is declaring that someone 'hates' a person because they have an opinion or and objection to somthing they have done or somethng about them.
And regardless of how someone voted... don't you think reading the intelligence is an important thing to do before voting to give authroity to go to war. You can call me whatever names you want and it won't change the validity of this point.
The fact that other people didn't read it has nothing to do with this. I expressed that his was a demonstration of one reason that I do not feel she is appropriate for the position.
I would also add that the way she ran her campaign and the circus of her Bosnia recollections are additional issues that don't recommend her for the position.
I would respectfully suggest that rather than me being a Hillary 'hater', that perhaps in contrast some of you are Hillary 'lovers' and are willing to overlook things for her that you might not if a different person did the same things she has done. Isn't that a possibility here...? I think I have more neutrality where Hillary is concerned and the points I make are completely valid.
It doesn't mean she won't be givne the position anyway but I am pretty sure I am allowed to have objections and a difference in perspective and it does not make me a 'hater' or a 'hypocrit'.
Have a nice day.
November 21, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear! Nicely said. I couldn't have said it better myself.
For some reason, if one makes (very valid) criticisms toward Hillary, they're a "Hillary Hater". What's so funny is that the vast majority of those calling others "Hillary Haters" were the ones bitching and moaning about a "lack of criticism toward Obama" during the Primary and/or General Election. Hypocritical, to say the very least.
November 21, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the obviousness, and the hypocrisy, stupid.
15 senataors, including Biden, do the same thing. Biden's okay, no mention of Kerry -- HILLARY is WRONG for doing it!
The Clinton hatred is obvious, and has gone on long enough. And it isn't so assininely juvenile, ass, as "either" one "loves" Hillary, "or" one "hates" Hillary -- though it is, for the simpletons, really weeasy to make up excuses for hating Hillary/the Clintons. It is about QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. How I "feel" about the Clintons, or either of them, is IRRELEVANT; what matters is COMPETENT GOVERNANCE.
See the analysis above about how EVERYONE -- NOT ONLY HILLARY, and -- yes -- INCLUDING OBAMA -- played politics with anything and everything which was an "issue" during the primaries.
Until you can get to that leval of understanding, you will continue to be essentially a Nadertie/Ron Paul/third-party political neophyte who deals solely in pie-in-the-sky, on one hand, and on the other, personalities.
Wake up and grow up: this is about governance and the country, not personalities and media "jockism" bloviating.
November 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no way to maturely or adequately respond to such a juvenile and immature comment. Calling me an ass, and stupid, etc.? Wow. Want someone to take you seriously? Grow up. :D
November 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reread what I wrote, child.
November 22, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended--highly. I don't even LIKE Hillary Clinton, but I am completely comfortable with the idea of her as Secretary of State. And while the possibility must be considered that this appointment (or the possibility of an appointment) is some prearranged quid pro quo for her support during the campaign, I just don't care. Obama will soon be president. And Hillary helped him get there. And, as Secretary of State, I have complete confidence that she will do what is best for the country and for the guy she'll be working for.
November 21, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
November 21, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
November 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, Hillary worked very hard to get Obama elected. I, agree, I think she will do an excellent job as Secretary of State. I am sick of the Hillary bashing.
November 21, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
and i am getting tired of all the postings that detail how and why she would be great! too late either way!...she is going to be SOS unless something drastic happens....one can only hope that this turns out to be a good decision on the part of obama and not a blunder of all blunders...either way, it was his choice to make and he apparently made it! if this happens to be your favorite candidate for the post, then be happy..if it isn't, oh well....
i am not elated but not devastated....this was obviously some sort of placating decision and that makes me a little uncomfortable about obama for the first time ever....either way, (i know i used that a lot), we all have to live with his decisions going forth..some will be right on the money and some will irk us to hell, but in the end, i hope it turns out to be good decision, like all of the others we once doubted....
November 21, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has NOTHING TO DO with "favorite candidate for the post" -- it isn't an ELECTIVE position. It is about C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-C-E. And Hillary is C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-T for the position.
And this is not either sports, or teenybopper celebrity fandom crap. This is ADULT stuff.
_____
"this was obviously some sort of placating decision . . . ."
If it's "OBVIOUSLY" that, then where is the EVIDENCE for that?
Admit it: you can't read minds, including Obama's. And, as he hasn't said yet whether Hiallry is his choice, and hasn't given his reasoning, you DON'T KNOW DIDDLEY about that presumed "obviously".
Wake up, grow up, and get over your groundless hatred for the Clintons, or go back to watching "American Idol".
November 21, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only hatred I've seen on these boards these days is from you -- at anyone who doesn't agree with you.
There is a difference between heated debate and the kind of anger you routinely express, JNagerya.
But at least the "Report Abuse" button has seemed to limit the blue language you used to use.
November 22, 2008 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said JNagarya
November 21, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink