This strikes me as an odd choice:
Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of state, a move that would create the ultimate “Team of Rivals” Cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions.
President-elect Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of state, and Clinton is among those being strongly considered, the officials said. Some even call her the favorite.
Certainly, there is upside- having Clinton out of the country would most certainly make life easier (I kid- well, sorta) for Obama, as well as this choice would finally shut up some of the Clinton dead-enders. Additionally, not having Hillary involved in the upcoming health care reform would most certainly make life easier for the Dems, as the Republicans will not be able to go to the well and shout “Hillarycare” over and over. On the other hand, this just does not seem to me to be the kind of job Hillary would want, and I never really felt that negotiation was her strong point, nor foreign affairs. Also, she is just way to bellicose for my tastes.
Shygetz
2016, bitches!
I really am not sure about this, either. I mean, John’s right…negotiation has never been her strong point. But at this point, I’m willing to trust Obama’s political acumen.
ccham44
From the super-long Newsweek article on the election:
I’ll definitely vote for her if she’s running for re-election in 2012, but that doesn’t sound like a diplomat to me.
Sam
You think perhaps the sudden leaks from inside might serve a purpose other than informing who is in the running to get these jobs?
Creating the impression that a very good job is available to someone who neither wants it nor you would actually hire for it can sometimes merely be a ploy.
Athenae
You do realize you’re … criticizing a potential Obama choice here. The cult will be by later to beat you with sticks and make you recant. HERETIC!
A.
Leo
Josh Marshall makes a pretty convincing case that Clinton would have no reason to take this job. Presuming that’s right, this could be a bit of Kabuki wherein Obama’s people leak rumors like this to give Clinton a chance to publicly say she’s not interested in a administration job.
Of course, it also could just be people making stuff up because there’s no other news.
LITBMueller
Sounds like a disinformation campaign to me to the keep the press chewing on bullshit while the transition team does some real work and makes real choices.
Dennis - SGMM
Obama’s team is extensively vetting potential administration members and their immediate families. I don’t know that Bill Clinton would want to have all of his business dealings scrutinized. Even if Bill did play along Obama’s determination to put together a squeaky-clean administration may preclude Hillary getting a post because of Bill’s dealings.
Comrade VidaLoca
I’m willing to trust Obama’s political acumen too, as well as the acumen of the people close to him. Question is, is Obabma willing to trust it? He’ll be surrounded like never before, by people pulling for their own agendas that have little or nothing to do with his own; it would take an incredibly strong person to tell them all to sit down and STFU.
I don’t think Hillary would be a good choice in any position that requires a strong leader and/or a good manager because from the health care debacle of the early ’90s through her recent campaign she’s proven that she is neither of those. But if the desire were to give her an important diplomatic position, why not give her (or Bill for that matter) the ambassadorship to, say, Great Britain? This would also have the desirable side effect of getting them out of the country. Or here’s a novel idea: why not just leave her in the Senate in a position for which she’s well suited, where she could actually do some good?
profbacon
I think it
s perfect for her and Bill. Obama will soon be talking to Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and a whole host of others. It will be his Sec State that gets a huge amount of credit if these talks go well.And if Hill brings Bill along, expect more photos and fame. State is a tough job, but it can also be a heck of an ego stroker. Plus if shes at State and out of the Senate, her chances of running in 2012 become less than nil.
Elvis Elvisberg
This makes absolutely no sense. Clinton can be the next Ted Kennedy in the Senate. Obama has no need to woo Clinton bitter enders. It’s not that they disagree, but that Clinton was wrong about Iraq, and tried to make a big goddamn deal over "meeting with dictators." It’s not like we’re talking about Brent Skowcroft or Chuck Hagel or somebody here, an unusual selection for a Dem known for their views on foreign policy. I hope there’s some game going on that makes this make sense.
MattF
I’m in the "give Hillary what she wants" school. She worked hard for Obama in the campaign, she kept her promises (unlike Mr. Bill)– so what’s the problem?
The Hillary-haters and Hillary-doubters are just being dopey. If she wants to be Secretary of State, then… why not? I think foreign governments would be delighted to be dealing with someone who has been at the highest levels in US politics for the past 15 years.
Walker
Is there a reason why we want to keep removing all these Democrats from the Senate to put them in executive branch positions?
Atanarjuat
Senator Hillary Clinton would be an excellent candidate for the job of Secretary of State.
Since the United States, under the leadership of Barack Obama, is moving toward Europeanization, Ms. Clinton would be a credible advocate — especially among our European allies.
With this in mind, I hope that this rumor is based on actual discussions to put Clinton’s name on the short list, rather than vaporous emanations designed to confuse supporters and detractors alike for the sake of keeping such matters close to the vest, so to speak.
– Country First.
crack
Yeah I think if it’s offered it would be great for her. She’s shown her diplomatic side in the Senate. She has managed to work with Republicans who considered her the wife of the Devil. She’s not flashy, but is apparently effective.
It also gives her a chance at tremendous Fo Po cred. She’d be the prohibitive favorite to succeed Obama if she had a stint at State.
Media Browski
Actually, this is the best of all possible choices, and what I’ve been saying since June. The choice leverages Bill’s popularity abroad, puts yet another powerful Democratic legislator inside the administration (what, you thought Rahm was chosen *only* for organizational skills?) rather than outside causing problems, may well assuage the clintonites (who, in case you don’t know, are still running around DC trying to trash Obama), may well make a few more radical clintonistas come back out of the hills, and finally, it just looks good from a media relations perspective.
Win, win, Machiavellian win.
Dork
Not going to happen. This is a fig leaf to appease her and her supporters.
She’s got a chance at Senate leader (a good choice, IMO), and certainly a Senator who will never be unseated ever. No reason other than boredom to take this gig. But she wont.
wilfred
She’s the past. If Obama is ever going to be his own man he has to start acting like it, instead of continuing to placate this insufferable woman.
Besides, he has to talk to the Iranians. Everybody in the world knows this, even if most Homelanders remain stuck on September 12th. Clinton has already taken the Lieberman line and is totally unsuitable for what lies ahead.
rachel
@MattF: I’d agree to that, although I don’t see why she’d want such a temporary job when she has a good chance of staying in the Senate for a long time if she makes her constituents happy. Plus, I’ve always thought domenstic issues were more her thing. But if she wanted SoS, I’d go along with it.
zmulls
Come on, she’s smart, charming, graceful, tough and knows policy. She knows just about everybody, and is familiar and comfortable with globe-trotting. She’s a bad manager of people but she’ll have undersecretaries for that. She hates asking people for favors but understands horse-trading with "equals." This is a pretty strong choice, if she wants it (and if Obama is actually offering it).
The Bill donor-list is still a problem, but let’s assume for the moment everyone can get comfortable with that.
She has to walk away form a safe Senate seat and shepherding healthcare through the Senate. She may not want to give up the chance to make healthcare reform happen — that’s been part of her life’s work.
But the new career trajectory might be even better: Four to eight years at State, travelling the world and working for relief of things like famine in Africa, conflict in the Middle East, tensions with Russia and China, etc. At the end of her stint, she writes a fantastic book about the world, and then she runs — or starts her own — global foundation, like Bill’s or even take on a global problem like Gore is doing on climate change. She can write her own ticket at that point. (Maybe she can get a Nobel Peace Prize too, like Al Gore).
That’s not a bad life to have. I bet it’s an attractive offer.
greynoldsct00
I’m sure there is a strategy here. But IMO, I think she could get the most done in the Senate.
Punchy
Why not BILL Clinton for SecState? Christ, the whole world knows, respects, and understands him. The guy’s an outstanding orator, and demands attention.
Keep the Hill on the Hill and the Bill and his shrill for the kill with his will….
NonyNony
@Atanarjuat:
I know I shouldn’t expect anything rational from our Canadian movie loving friend, but I’ve seen this meme elsewhere and I have to ask – what the fuck does it mean? "Europeanization"? I have no idea what this means. Does it mean that we’re going to start getting more vacation time? Is the "slow food" movement going to take over the US? Are we all going to have to start speaking Swedish? Are we going to fracture back into a bunch of separate nation-states and go for a more "European"-style federalism? Are we going to force our unions to become more like trade unions?
Seriously – what the fuck is it with people being afraid of us becoming like Europe? And what’s so bad about Europe? I don’t get it – they put their pants on one leg at a time just like us. Their banks fail and need to be bailed out just like ours. I just don’t get it.
tom
She has a reputation in the Senate of being very collegial and working well with others, even those across the aisle. So she may do well as a diplomat. Her management skills seem to be lacking, but a strong number two at State may solve that.
demimondian
@NonyNony: DNFTT
mellowjohn
i kinda though hill would be the pick to replace john paul stevens when he announces his retirement at the end of this term.
Shygetz
@tom: A strong number two in her campaign would have helped, too, but she seems to be incapable of choosing or managing strong number twos. She seems to be a good Senator, but not a good executive.
Bob In Pacifica
I’d let her stay in the Senate and give her a second chance to get healthcare done. If she succeeds she corrects what she helped screw up fifteen years ago. If she screws up again she’s one step closer to the dustbin of history.
I wonder who’s the ultimate source of this (dis)information.
Napoleon
The rumor makes no sense to me.
By the way I actually think it will hurt Obama not to have her in the senate when healthcare comes up. The Rep are going to scream no matter what and I really don’t think the hillarycare think is going to hurt the Dems at all.
Comrade Jake
"I’m looking forward to being advised by you too, Hillary"-Barack Obama, during the primaries.
I wouldn’t mind this choice actually. I do think there’s a good chance HRC would be an obstacle to health care legislation, particularly if she were named some kind of czar.
The big concern, in my book, is her management skills. Perhaps they’re much better when she’s governing vs. campaigning. We’d have to hope so, because the State Dept. is an absolute mess at the moment.
JD Rhoades
Nothing will shut those assholes up. Nothing. these are the people who when Hillary endorsed Obama long and loud, insisted she didn’t really mean it, or that she "had a gun to her head." Actual quote.
They are not sane people.
Comrade Jake
Heh. The folks over at TalkLeft are already speculating about ulterior motives:
Good times.
Atanarjuat
NonyNony, you’d get a lot more mileage from someone you’re supposedly asking a question to if you drop the infantile "I shouldn’t expect anything rational" condescension toward that very person. However, I realize that trying to appeal to good manners on BJ is an exercise in futility, which is why instead of my own considered response, I’ll provide you the following instead.
Here’s a link to an article in the Wall Street Journal that describes in detail just what Europeanization means, and why Americans should be concerned.
http://sec.online.wsj.com/article/SB122504438328069963.html
And yes, the more I think of it, the more I agree the Senator Hillary Clinton would make a very fitting Secretary of State in an Obama administration.
– Country First.
slaneyblack
Not going to happen. This is a fig leaf to appease her and her supporters.
Too right. I doubt they even talked SecState. Mostly healthcare strategy in the Senate is my bet.
CarolinCA
Dear gods. I hope this rumor isn’t true. The very last thing I want to see in an Obama administration is any continuation of Clintonesque policies in Latin America, for example.
I’m not buying that any of this is coming from inside Obama’s team. I think it’s noise-making from the Clinton side…and further, I’d be willing to bet that it’s at least partly a Clinton attempt to torpedo Richardson or Kerry as the SoS choice.
Finally, I can’t really believe the Clintons could survive the vetting process.
donovong
Hmmmm……Keeping friends close, and enemies even closer, maybe?
eyelessgame
@Punchy: I was thinking WJC for SoS too, although Barack would never offer it and Bill would never accept it. Bill is the second most respected and admired politician in the world, and if he were to take the job he’d be really effective.
But mostly, @Shygetz. Word. I second-guessed Obama almost exactly the same number of times as I was wrong about Obama. The president-elect is smarter than I am (how good does it feel to say that?) and I believe he’ll choose people who will effectively implement his plans and be good for the country. If he chooses HRC, then HRC will be a good SoS.
burnspbesq
Now, let’s see.
The Obama campaign was utterly leak-proof, but the transition team is a sieve. Doesn’t compute. This smells like disinformation. Not that I very much mind seeing Andrea Mitchell get played.
P.S. to Atanarjuat. Your guy lost. That insipid slogan is part of the reason he lost. If you want to be taken seriously (as opposed to being treated like a second-rate knockoff of Bart DePalma), retire it, with all the dignity and honor it deserves (i.e., none). Or are you the type who flies a Confederate flag in front of his garage every day?
The Other Steve
Can we kill the Czar? As President, I am hoping that Obama’s first executive order is to prohibit the use of the term Czar.
Czar(or Tsar) is a derivation of Caesar also related to Kaiser. It refers to an Emperor.
The US does not have an Emperor, nor do we want one.
Let us find a new term. Perhaps we could use Minister? It’s quite popular with the Europeans. We could say Chief. Chief is always a good word.
But no more Tsar. The last Tsar died in 1918, and we should honor that by forgetting about them.
Comrade Jake
All you need to remember about Atanarjuat Asshat is that he guaranteed a McCain victory. Guaranteed it. He didn’t state that he thought it was possible, he guaranteed it.
So, basically, his MO is to talk out of his ass.
CarolinCA
Al Giordano at The Field on the Clinton as SoS rumors:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/freak-show-behind-clinton-secretary-state-rumors#comments
I am glad to see I am not the only one who (a) does not believe that any of the rumors are coming from inside the Obama team and (b) is sure that a lot of the drama is grounded in an effort by the Clintons to torpedo (because of their ‘disloyalty’ to the Clinton camp) Kerry and/or Richardson as potential SoS candidates.
I think there are roles that would allow Hillary to serve competently and honorably. Secretary of State ain’t one of ’em.
Mr Furious
HRC would be a terrible choice for SoS, and I think she actually could be the next Edward Kennedy—Lioness of the Senate, if you will.
Let her craft a nice legacy there, and keep her and her drama the hell out of the Administration.
Nylund
I think its great. Whenever Hillary gets too annoying, Obama just ship to the other side of the world for some "talks".
Don’t worry about what sort of job she can do. As far as I can tell, Condi hasn’t done one meaningful thin during her tenure and no one seems to care.
Brian J
I thought something similar, but as Andrea Mitchell pointed out last night, it would be odd to not pick her for vice president, then float her name when nobody expects it but not pick her again.
Brian J
I may be a bit naive asking this, but I thought Emmanuel and Obama were pretty close friends. Nobody’s going to agree all the time, but why would Emmanuel actively blow up the legislation of his president in congress when the guy is his close friend? Are their policy differences that dramatic?
MikeJ
Why on earth would Hillary’s lack of involvement stop republicans from screaming about HIllarycare? I halfway expect them to start screaming about chocolate pickles. These people are deranged. Reality doesn’t enter into their thinking. You cannot plan strategy based on what republicans will do, because their reactions will be nonsensical no matter what you do.
Hyperion
Has she stated that she supports US attacks in Pakistan?
THAT is just way too bellicose for MY taste.
Llelldorin
Obama seems to love watching us all chase our tails. Remember the great furor over whether Bayh or Kaine would be veep? I think there’s at least some possibility that the transition team decided to relax by making BTD explode violently.
Brian J
At least their voices in the media, yes. Who knows about some Republicans in the House and Senate? Perhaps with a new administration and competent people in government, they might start acting differently.
Joshua Norton
Oh the horror! We’d become a smoking wasteland of lutefisk and furniture with clean lines!
Brachiator
Do we really have to go here again? I realize that Hillary’s supporters see her as the Queen of the Universe, who could simultaneously serve as president, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Senate Majority leader.
But the plain fact is that she is an intelligent person who rode her husband’s coattails for decades. She has been a good record as senator, but she is not the bestest woman who ever lived.
The campaign demonstrated that she lacks good political instincts — essential for a Secretary of State — and her answers on foreign policy issues during the presidential debates showed her to be informed but unimaginative.
And then there is the Bill factor. Pulling Hillary into an Obama Administration inevitably gets you Bill as well.
People are pushing for Hillary because she is still in the end a junior senator. It would be hard for her to rise to a senior position no matter what she does.
However, she has yet to show that she has earned a place in an Obama cabinet. The Clinton era is, and should be, over. I look forward to seeing what she accomplishes as a senator, and maybe she will show that she merits something more during Obama’s second term.
Ron
@Shygetz:
2016? unlikely. She’ll be 69 years old in the election of 2016. Not quite as old as McCain would have been but that’s fairly old for a run at a first term.
The Dense & Venally Offensive Svensker
Hill’s too much of a hawk, for me — the reason I supported O over her this year. So why would I want a big ol’ hawk as SoS?
Also, I’m getting tired of the hub saying "I TOLD you Obama was no good. WHAT change?"
wonkie
According to The Field, this is all rumors ginned up by old Hillary supporters ( Stephanopolous) to embarrass Obama and block Kerry and Richardson.
On the other hand it could be a rumor started by Obama people to show respect for Hillary. Show that thhey consider her to be SOS material.
The first seems more likely to me than the second. The Obama team doesn’t seem either vengeful, petty, self-centered or Machiavellian. They just seem disciplined and straight forward. So I think they will, if they leak at all, leak those folks who are really being considered. Old Hillary supporters on the other hand…
Also I don’t think Hillary would pass the vetting process because of Bill’s international activites. Conflict of interest.
So I think this is a case of the press getting played by Stehanopolus.
I also think that the whole uproar matters only in this sense: it shows thatthere are Hillary supporters in DC who are going to try to sabotage Obama. Penn, Carville, Bill himself. Can’t admit to being wrong, can’t accept failure, can’t accept their loss of relevance.
Not acquaintaned with Hillary, of course, but my guess is that she isn’t behind this but Bill is.
Notorious P.A.T.
What IS her strong point? Seriously, what is it?
MikeJ
Michelle Bachman? Inhofe? Brownback?
Notorious P.A.T.
That’s a plus?
TenguPhule
Does our lazy MSM have nothing better to do?
Obama will announce his picks eventually.
Can they start doing their job and see how Iraq and Afghanistan are doing?
Or back to probing how Bush’s people ‘lost’ several million emails?
Dennis - SGMM
April 22, 2008:
That does seem a bit bellicose. Iran’s rulers are in part reliant on poor relations with the U.S. to maintain their power. Hillary as SoS would keep them from having to freshen their résumés.
Comrade Jake
@Notorious P.A.T.:
I would consider it to be, yes. The art of diplomacy is telling your enemies to go to hell in such a way that they’re convinced it’s in their best interests.
Nellcote
There are too many "Clinton people" with their own agendas on the transition team for me to believe any of these leaks. I’ll wait for Obama, Rahm or Axelrod to comment thank you very much.
C
Are you retarded?
Notorious P.A.T.
Yes, if Hillary had used diplomacy to work with Republicans and bring a few of them over to our side on votes, that would be a good thing.
But she just plain votes with Republicans. In these past 8 years, that is not a good thing.
OriGuy
SATSQ No.
I think this is either a feint or idle chatter. Hillary will stay in the Senate and become Majority Leader, if not this year, then 2010. SCOTUS is a possibility, though.
I think the ideal job for Bill is Ambassador to the UN. Keeps him in NYC, gives him something visible to do.
Brian J
Not them, obviously.
Cris v.3.1
Clinton caught a lot of flack for that one, but I felt that was unfair. Her choice of words may have been a bit over the top, but the sentiment is an accurate reflection of reality. The United States would obliterate any small country that used nuclear weapons against one of its foremost allies.
Nuclear weapons are first and foremost a deterrent, and since Nagasaki no country has ever actually used them against another country. The consequences of using them against the ally of a nuclear superpower obviously would be fatal to the user. But for some reason Hillary wasn’t supposed to say so.
For crying out loud, we would have attempted to obliterate the Soviet Union if they had fired nukes at one of our allies — even in the face of mutually assured destruction.
Clio
Doesn’t seem to be a popular opinion here, but I think that if this rumor is true, it’s fucking brilliant on Obama’s part. He sets the tone, he is the boss and makes the calls as to what we will do diplomatically. Hillary is extremely well-known and well-respected, she is a lot more disciplined and a harder worker than Bill (and I think that a lot of the Clinton venom comes from Bill rather than Hillary, he has that insane need to be loved the most by everyone and Barack drives him crazy) and if the primaries showed us anything, the woman is tough as buffalo balls. I have no problem envisioning her handling Putin or the mullahs. Plus, it gets her into the Obama fold, where her success depends on his, and gives her a big and very respected seat at the power table, but Obama still calls the shots. I love it.
Martin
Well, without dissecting this one too much, Obama’s problem with Hillary isn’t Hillary, it’s Bill. Bill would make a very effective Sec of State and so if he’s gonna butt in on Hillary’s job, this would be a good place to put them.
And Bill would love this gig. Hillary can be talking to Sarkozy and Bill can be out back banging his wife. I’m sure there are enough hot wives and daughters of state leaders to prompt Bill to call for a 100 nation world tour to restore America’s standing in the world.
I can’t say this is the best pick for SoS, but I’ve never had a problem with kill-two-birds approaches to solving problems, and Hillary would obviously be highly qualified for it. Can I suggest Bill as US Ambassador to the UN just as a logical follow-up?
Dennis - SGMM
@Cris v.3.1:
What bothered me more than Clinton’s choice of words was the fact that it was reflexive: it seemed indicative to me that no unprovoked or pre-emptive attack by Israel on Iran would be sufficient to justify any sort of Iranian retaliation. I don’t want any nation obliterated and I damn’ sure don’t want to see the consequences if we start slinging nukes.
Brachiator
@Clio:
The problem here is that being well-respected and a hard worker is not the same thing as being a knowledgeable and competent foreign policy person. Again, some want to fall into the trap of investing Hillary with more knowledge and experience and insight than she has actually shown. For example, compare her to former Secretary of State Madeline Albright on just on tiny area (hat tip to Wikipedia): "Albright is multilingual, being fluent in English, French, and Czech in addition to Russian, with good speaking and reading abilities in Polish and Serbo-Croatian."
Again, just being Hillary and just being the wife of a former governor and president does not magically endow her with super feminist woman power. But note here that I am not saying that Senator Clinton would be bad as Secretary of State, just that there are better candidates.
Whoever the choice will be, we need something better than cowboy diplomacy or the fallacy that being tough is the same thing as being effective.
Actually, I think that the Clintons will cause mischief no matter what. Note here that I think it admirable that Senator Clinton showed herself to be a team player while Bill nursed a grudge before doing the right thing.
I gues my bottom line is this: Obama is the president. My first wish for him is that he makes choices that will be good for him and good for the country. If that means tossing a goodwill cookie to the Clintons (or even to Smokin’ Joe Lieberman), that’s OK, but keeping the Clintons happy should not be high on Obama’s list of priorities, and anyone who thinks that Obama "owes" Hillary anything — or that she has "earned" something because of her primary struggle, well these people are just smoking something and need to get a clue.
Sebastian Dangerfield
I think Al Giordano is probably correct that this story was generated by Clinton partisans — not because Hillary wants the job, but because the Clinton camp is venal and wants to queer Richardson’s and Kerry’s chances — who are being aided and abetted by beltway journalists who are desparate for a story and aren’t getting one from Obama’s discipliend operation. I mean, come on, does anyone seriously think that Andrea Mitchell has an inside line with the Obama folks?
Beyond that, I certainly hope it’s not true, as it would reflect very poorly on Obama’s judgment — suggesting that venal domestic-political strategic concerns are outweighing the merits.
Simply put, Hillary would be an appalling choice:
(1) Anyone who casually talks about "totally obliterat[ing]" an entire people — as Hillary did, when speaking of Iranians — if their government did soemthing as asinine as attacking Israel is permanently disqualified from holding a diplomatic post. That idiotic remark — designed to please the AIPAC and neo-con crowds — was very badly received throughout the world.
(2) Relatedly, the diplomatic edge that Obama has already achieved over the clerics who run Iran — an edge that he can build on when actually becomes president — will be "totally obliterate[d]" by appoitning Clinton to State. As this excellent Washington Post article documents, Obama’s offer to negotiate with Iran’s leaders has already put Iran’s clerics and military leaders into a defensive posture, and it threatens to undermine the clerics’ chief rallying cry that the U.S. is the great Satan, further widening the gap between them and the (largely pro-American) population. All this would be flushed down the toilet with a single appointment. Every Friday prayer will feature a reminder that Obama’s Secretary of State threatened to obliterate the Iranian people. Goldmine!
(3) How bad does it look for Obama to appoint as Secretary of State the person who ridiculed a signature aspect of Obama’s entire approach to foreign policy as "naive" and "dangerous"? Moreover, could that person be trusted to faithfully carry out a policy that she previously deemed "naive" and "dangerous"? And if she didn’t really believe that Obama’s approach was in fact "naive" and "dangerous," that’s all the more reason not to entrust her with the single most important foreign policy job in the administration.
(4) She’s a terrible manager. And she has shown no aptitude for negotiation.
Clio
@Brachiator: On pure strength of resume, I’m sure that there are more qualified candidates out there for SoS. But taking in the big picture, particularly how the world outside the foreign policy community would view this, I think it’s a great choice. The Clinton name still carries a lot of clout, and no one can doubt that Hillary is an extremely intelligent woman who does know quite a bit about foreign policy. (It’s not like he’s putting up Palin for SoS.) But Obama is still in charge of setting policy, and I like that she will be accountable to him rather than her New York constituents. I don’t really care about throwing the Clintons a bone, but keeping your enemies close is a pretty good strategy. Hill was also a real trooper during the general and showed that she can play nice. He doesn’t owe her anything, no, but Barack strikes me as a shrewd type of peacemaker and this puts the Clintons in a box, he looks gracious and unafraid to create a "Team of Rivals", and Hillary will likely do a damn good job as well as being a great symbol for the US abroad. Yes, Bill is a problem, but when isn’t he?
Thanks for telling me that we need more than cowboy diplomacy. Gosh, I guess that my support for Obama since January of 2007 and my opposition to the Iraq war since it began to be floated by the administration really shows that I need a lesson in that. Foreign policy was my issue in this election, and why I was on the Obama train right off the bat. But to think that we don’t need tough and well respected people in the position of SoS who can negotiate diplomatically and with strength but get nasty and bring down the hammer when needed is fucking naive. Again, Barack sets the goals and tone, it’s her job to implement his policies and to advise. It’s his call whether to take the advice.
So my bottom line is this: if this rumor is true, we could do a hell of a lot worse with SoS. I’m not going to get all upset or BTD if he names someone else. Any of the names that have been floated are fine with me. All brilliant people who I feel will serve our next President well. I also trust Obama’s judgement enough to think that he’ll make the best choice for what he wants to do. I just like that the Hillary nod also takes care of the always pesky Clinton problem.
Brachiator
@Clio:
The Clinton name has clout, but that is largely because of Bill Clinton who was, actually, you know, the president. I know that Hillary is intelligent, but this is not the same thing as having foreign policy chops. I know that there are people who think that Hillary can do anything, but she has demonstrably weak political instincts, which is a huge weakness in a potential Secretary of State. This is my biggest reservation with respect to seeing Senator Clinton in this job.
Senator Clinton showed during the presidential debates that she was a quick study on foreign policy issues, but her conclusions about foreign policy issues were notably lacking in plausibility or nuance.
I am not sure how Clinton would do as an administrator, and State needs a strong hand here. The way that Clinton handled her campaign does not inspire trust on this aspect of the Secretary of State’s job. Note, by the way, that Colin Powell was not great at the administrative end here.
I don’t see that Obama need do anything for Clinton in order to demonstrate that he can be gracious. And as for being a peacemaker, if there are still Clinton supporters who need placating and who see their egos as more important than the country, I say to hell with them.
Right now, Obama as a symbol for the US has eclipsed anything that Senator Clinton might represent. I am not convinced that Clinton would do a great job.
I did not intend anything patronizing here. I don’t think many of the usual Washington suspects in either party have a good handle on Pakistan and India. And since this area may become increasingly important, I would like to see some new faces and ideas here, not retreads of the same old crew. As an aside, the US has blundered in this reason since the end of World War II. The US tilted toward Pakistan because India insisted on neutrality instead of automatically opposing the Soviet Union. The US backed Pakistan when Bangladesh tried for independence (India kicked Pakistan’s ass and took 90,000 prisoners of war). The US backed Pakistan even as Pakistan supported terrorism in Kashmir, etc. Somehow, nobody in the West could figure out that India and Pakistan were developing nuclear weapons.
But having someone "get tough" is a waste of time. Both Pakistan and India have a strong sense of their own national interests, and will not be anyone’s patsy. Washington has failed miserably in the past in thinking that either country is interested in simply bowing to our will.
My bottom line: I can see what being named Secretary of State might do for Senator Clinton. I don’t see how it would benefit the country.
It also bothers me that there are people who think that Senator Clinton deserves some kind of reward for coming in second place (and please note that I am not accusing you of this).
I agree with you, by the way, in thinking that Clinton would be a good team player. In any event, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
pattonbt
Please leave some Democratic senators in the senate. Hillary can take her shot at being the next majority leader (first female one – that should make a few more ‘cracks in the ceiling’). Reid sucks and with her clout in the party she could make a solid run and most Dems would be cool with it, hell many would probably gift it to her. What would be wrong with that as an ambition. And her style is more suited for a political body than an executive role.
I would like the idea of Hillary running the senate and being a bit adversarial to Obama. It could offset some of the Republicans PR ability to say ‘the Dem congress and Senate just lie down for Obama’. Sure, it could be silly at times if the Clintons let the drama play a bit, but Obama has shown he is cool, calculating and can beat them at their own game so I’ll take the chance.
And while I agree with most that Hillary’s political instincts and management skills seem lacking, I think these weaknesses would be somewhat muted in the Senate. Having these weaknesses is never good, but compared to the current leaders, I’ll even take bozo the clown.
Wilson Heath
Obama isn’t going to Palin up his cabinet. (This would be a light-duty Palin, but a Palin nonetheless — ill-suited, and picked primarily for political reasons.)
This "leak" is theater. The only question is who the director is of this little production. I instinctively blame Lanny Davis.
Phoebe
I don’t like it one bit. She strikes me as impulsive and hamhanded, just not people-smart at all. Hawkish and thuggy. Considering how she went on and on and on about preconditions, why the hell would he want this thorn in his side? I don’t get it at all. Well, I get it politically, but I thought Obama [unlike McCain or Bush] picked people who can actually do the job. I know people say she’ll be "tough with Putin" but her kind of tough I don’t want. Blustery gangsta tough. I want someone who will trick Putin into doing what we want, and make him think it was his idea. That guy is a total thug. You can’t out-thug him without starting a war.
Names4things
I hope Hillary gets something her diehards can live with– put please not Secretary of State. Her vote for the war without reading 90 pages of intelligence should exclude her from any real list of potential SoSs. Her threat to ‘obliterate’ unnamed countries is another.
I don’t hate her, but she hasn’t been a great (or even good) senator in my district, and she ran her own campaign into the ground. I do hate her regional accents, too. And the tall tales, like being strafed by flowers in Bosnia stuff…
Nah. I’m trying to see the reasoning, and I just can’t. Sorry for taking up your time.