I still don’t get it. It will be nothing but leaks and drama, she brings all sorts of baggage to the table, and remember- she was wrong about Iraq, she wants to bomb the hell out of Iran, and she signed the AUMF. What is the point of a fresh starts on the foreign scene when it is little different from the status quo?
I know I will just be accused of Hillary hate by the Clinton dead-enders, but she just brings nothing to the table in my eyes (and spare me the “She is super popular worldwide” nonsense. So is Michael Jackson.). I think she is a bad choice.
Punchy
Say what? You have a link to this accusation?
Dennis - SGMM
Another drawback for me is her demonstrated lack of managerial ability. Her campaign was a train wreck and she had the final say in its decisions. Besides being our top diplomat the SoS also presides over the management of a few thousand State Department employees. Hillary just does not seem up to that part of the job.
joe from Lowell
Maybe it’s a "keep your enemies closer" type of thing?
Still, State? I don’t get it. Why not Treasury? HHS? Defense?
John Cole
Punchy- you asleep during the election? Here. Here. She was as bellicose to Iran as any AIPAC member.
scarshapedstar
In the spirit of moderate bipartisanship, I hereby nominate Dick Cheney. He’s about as far from Michael Jackson as anyone can be, and he knows exactly which pitfalls to avoid.
Mavericky!
Dennis - SGMM
@Punchy:
During the campaign Clinton stated that if she were the President, the US would totally obliterate Iran should Iran launch a nuclear strike on Israel.
Xenos
The most plausible justification I have seen is that it would be easier to deal with her at Foggy Bottom than in the Senate. If she and Bill screw up enough she can be fired, and then voila no more Hillary problem.
If she works out, great. If she is fails, great. This is the opposite of managing by arranging for crappy dilemmas zugzwang that we are used to seeing from Bushco.
...now I try to be amused
I don’t get it either, unless it’s a Machiavellian move to distance her from the domestic agenda.
Zifnab
See her vote on the "Is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization" Senate Resolution.
That said, Hillary won’t be in charge of the Pentagon, she’ll be in charge of the State Department. They don’t get to bomb anybody. Clinton’s success or failure in the position will be linked to how many conflicts she quells, not how many she starts. Clinton is also a political opportunist, and when war-fever is sweeping the nation that means doing lots of saber-rattling. Right after 9/11, people were out for blood, so I can at least understand her itchy trigger finger with Iraq, even if I don’t agree with her final decision. But the Obama Administration is setting a different tone. He won’t be hawking wars like his predecessor, so Hillary won’t feel the need to cater to the wartime demographic.
And, best of all, she won’t even be a Senator. That means no constituency to answer to directly. She’ll be in Obama’s inner circle, which means Obama gets to keep an eye on her. And if she gets out of line, she’s the one who goes down in disgrace. She won’t put a bullet in her own head just to graze Obama.
Is Hillary the best choice for Secretary of State? I don’t know. But she’s a tough negotiator, a respected national and international figure, a popular politician, and a damn sight better than the last eight years of Powell / Rice.
And so far Obama’s been batting .500, so I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Rick Taylor
I’m not sure. I keep hearing how well she gets along with colleagues in the senate and lots of able people rave about her. During the election I think we saw her at her worst; perhaps it’s a weakness for the temptations of power. Certainly she’s able and has a huge amount of energy. On the other hand, I was completely wrong about her going into the primaries, and could be completely wrong again. But for now I’m certainly willing to give her (and Obama) the benefit of the doubt.
The Moar You Know
It’s good cop/bad cop done the right way, where the bad cop is the subordinate sergeant who will stop the elevator and beat the shit out of you, and the good cop is the kindly lieutenant who promises to put in a good word to the DA if you’ll just tell him when you buried the body.
It probably seems strange to do it this way because we’ve been doing it wrong for the last eight years – the good cop being the subordinate and the bad cop is the division commander. The bad cop spends most of his time playing with plastic GI Joe dolls, also.
I’m not worried. Hillary will do a fine job.
Morgan
I hope these are just cases of premature reporting, but I’m definitely pretty disappointed with this and with the news that Leiberman will likely keep his chairmanship.
Leaving aside whatever foreign policy positions she may have taken in the primary, I have two problems with this pick.
First, it goes against Obama’s "no drama" policy in a big way. The Clintons just inherently bring a lot of media attention and drama with them. On a related note, it’ll be politically impossible for Obama to fire her if she performs poorly. Not good.
Second, as Dennis pointed out, I really don’t want someone who manages organizations the way the Clinton campaign was managed to be in charge of the entire State Department. At this point I don’t really trust her to staff it with competent people instead of incompetent loyalists.
sparky
it is a great way to neutralize domestic opposition: for example if Obama really wants to pass health care legislation, then he would have to deal with Clinton, who could make his life miserable (it only takes one in the senate, after all).
this way she’s out of the country. how great would that be for him?
also, New Yorkers could get another senator. too bad about Spitzer–he would have made a great senator.
maybe a native this time?
Paragon park
Clinton is just reaffrirming what has been our position for 60 years with regard to Israel. Neither Party has ever wavered from our commitment to Israel and only extreme moral cowardice would cause any serious candidate to repudiate the pledge. If Israel is subjected to large scale we will and we should defend it, regardless of who the President or SOS may be.
The real question is what would/should the U.S. do if Israel unilaterally launched a preemptive strike on Iran.
MR. Bill
I just think there are better choices, that say "Change" more clearly. I too wish the Clinton family drama were not part of the daily news feed…Maybe this is best thought of as Clinton being brought in to clean up a department in crisis.
What’s the average length of service for an SOS, anyway?
sparky
@The Moar You Know: hadn’t thought of that before but i think you are right. and it would provide a good balance.
Comrade Jake
Let me just point out, again, that we have exactly one source reporting this at the moment, and it’s the foreign press. Let’s maybe wait to begin the hyperventilating until we have a bit more in the way of reliable confirmation.
Either that, or listen to Sully:
Xenos
@sparky: Why not Spitzer? Charges have been dropped, and over the last few months he has been proven right and his critics on Wall Street have been discredited. I rather like the idea of sticking a Spitzer-sized fork in the establishments’ eye at this point in time.
Gravenstone
When her name was first floated, I tightened my tin foil hat and started wondering about a post primary quid pro quo.
Term 1 Obama administration – Sec. State.
Term 2 – Biden resigns, Clinton named as new VP
2016 – Clinton runs as functional incumbent
Now, can someone help me loosen this damned thing? I think the circulation is starting to cut off up there…
dave
Name a plausible candidate to be Obama’s Sec. of State that didn’t support the Iraq War.
Oh wait . . . you can’t.
Whats my point: Her Iraq stance is not the reason you oppose her nomination for the position.
Personally, I have no idea if she would be a good or bad S.O.S. But lets at least acknowledge that your opposition stems from somewhere else (justified or not).
Also, her statement that we would retaliate with full force should Iran nuke Israel is a straightforward and truthful statement reflecting the reality of this country’s foreign policy for the past 50 or so years. Obama believes the exact same thing.
Adam
Do not want. So sick of her and Bill and their inner circle and their supporters and the histrionics that seem to follow the Clintons wherever they go. We finally elected an adult who manages a team of adults and I don’t want these egomaniacal drama queens anywhere near the White House.
sparky
@Xenos: i like the idea, too. but it’s wishful thinking. once Spitzer gave up his office, he lost his leverage to get back in the game. now he’s just a rich lawyer with a bad hooker habit and a lot of well-connected enemies. Patterson would get crucified (literally) if he tried to appoint Spitzer to anything meaningful.
Comrade Jake
The only valid criticism of this choice, IMO, concerns her management skills. State’s a mess. We would have to hope that because the job wouldn’t first and foremost be all about her, that she’d do a much better job running it.
Contrarians will say that she’ll make the Sec. State job all about her. I understand those concerns, but I guess I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making the calls here. He does have a certain knack for hiring.
sparky
incidentally, as a long-time Clinton loather, the more i think about this potential appointment the smarter i think it is. gives everyone something and removes a major intra-party problem. (as SoS she has to toe the line; not so as a senator, where she can really grandstand, not to mention fight with Obama).
change is about making smart moves. sometimes they will be ideologically pure, sometimes not.
if this is true, A+ to Obama for a neat resolution to a big problem.
Napoleon
I don’t get it either. The only difference between this being a bad idea and making her VP being a bad idea is that at least at State she is out of the White House and can’t muck around in the day to day stuff (other then the State related matters). I still think the opportunity cost of not having her in the Senate with what is sure to be a big push on health care is enough to make this a bad move.
In defense of it though (if true) she is perceived as a heavy weight, and there is something to have someone perceived that way in that position. Short of making Bill the SOS, she really is the only person on the Dem side I would see as being perceived that way.
Xenos
@sparky: OK then. Louise Slaughter? Mark Green? Al Franken?
Getting too silly here… to whom does Patterson owe the most?
Brian J
I’m not really sure one way or the other. It does seem a little surprising, to say the least, but what do I know? Politically speaking, and perhaps policy-wise, too, people seem to be saying that she would be a better Sec. of Defense. Mark Kleiman lays out a bunch of reasons for her to not want the job at the State Department, but I think they do a good job of explaining why Obama would want her in the position, assuming he has some desire to limit her influence in the Senate or something, even if I come to the opposite conclusion of what he says at times.
I’m not sure if I agree with the idea of the Clintons sabotaging Obama at this point. I just don’t get how that would help her, even if she is successful.
Dan
Agreed – bad choice for all the reasons stated.
sparky
@Xenos: not sure who has the biggest IOU but i think it will be Suozzi. and that would be a great move, too.
Mr Furious
What’s wrong with Bill Richardson?
I don’t trust these fucking rumors not to be coming straight from the HRC side of the equation as an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Obama—"ZOMG, he can’t slap her in the face AGAIN!!"
I don’t even care if she’ll do a competent job at the actual task of being SOS, to me she doesn’t have the qualifications and she and Bill pocket a hell of a lot more from the table than they bring to it.
Incertus
@Napoleon:
I think Teddy Kennedy made it pretty clear that Clinton wasn’t getting anywhere near health care in the Senate, so I don’t see that as an issue. I’m also not worried about Clinton being belligerent as SecState because she’ll be taking her cues on world affairs from Obama. She won’t be speaking for herself or her constituents anymore–she’ll be speaking for him.
eyeball
John: Don’t be "drudged" by the headlines at HuffPost. The drama is inside-beltway-media yappery. Hillary is perfect — she can take a huge load off O’s shoulders, shut down the pumas, even help him with the evangelical demo. We want the Iranians to think our Sec of State is a hawk — so O doesn’t have to be. He has to do outreach to the Muslim world. Bill is part of the Hillary deal — and a good part. And O can focus like a laser on the economy. Also, Biden can backstop him on Hillary. Don’t let the last throes of Clinton Derangement Syndrome throw you off. This makes a lot of sense, even if Hitchens and Matthews and Gingrich are driven to {even more} drink. Soft power still needs a hard heart.
MR. Bill
Xenos, I want Eliot Spitzer to be appointed Special Prosecutor for Wall Street Weirdness….
Since it appears he won’t be charged with anything, and probably not disbarred. His editorial in the WaPo was greeted with either adhominem attacks or praise for his early warnings of trouble and criminality..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/13/AR2008111303634.html
It seems the worst thing for conservatives is being right too early…
Mr Furious
Yeah. In theory. I don’t trust her and the trainload of lackeys she’ll surround herself with to worry about anything over their own self-interest and political futures.
Brian J
Which is probably one of the saddest turn of events I can think of, particularly when you think that David Vitter, among others, is still in office.
qwerty42
Any SoS will have a built-in potential for conflict not just with the president, but also with the VP. Biden supposedly said to Obama, on being offered the job, that he’d be of more use to him in the Senate. Obama told him no, this was serious stuff. I have nothing against HRC, but this would be a bad move for her. Admittedly, there is a lot of foreign policy stuff that has to be dealt with, some that cannot wait for the resolution of the financial crisis (geeze, that might be, like, not in my lifetime), and smart decisive action is needed on so many fronts (Greg Djerejian only posts occasionally now, but his endorsement of Obama was full-throated and provided a catalog of the many failures to be addressed. As usual, he has some great observations especially wrt foreign policy).
I think it would be a mistake for HRC and a mistake for Obama, but I guess we’ll see.
Zifnab
@dave:
John Kerry, Russ Feingold, or Bill Richardson. That’s three. You want more? I – personally – would love to see Richardson make it into a cabinet position. He had an impressive resume in the primary, he would be a tip of the hat to Obama’s hispanic constituency, and he was the biggest anti-war candidate (at least in terms of rhetoric) in the race.
What PUMAs? There are no PUMAs. It was a myth from the start. Please stop playing the PUMA card. It’s a 2 of clubs in the hole.
Incertus
@Mr Furious: Assuming Obama has offered the job and she has accepted, then it seems clear that he trusts her, at least as far as this. Nothing personal, but whose judgment on this sort of stuff has been better for the last two years? Not mine, that’s for sure.
crystal dawn
Obama had the same stance on Iran as Clinton did. In fact, they are both political moderates and have almost identical stances on every issue. Oh, except Iraq. Well Biden had it wrong too.
Hillary would be a decent choice. And she sucked it up and went to bat for Obama’s campaign. Let’s move on, shall we?
p.s. I think John Kerry did support that Iraq war too….
AkaDad
I think Hillary would be a great Ambassador to Bosnia.
Incertus
@Zifnab: Sorry, but Kerry was on the same side of that vote as Clinton. I love Feingold, but I don’t know if he has the temperament necessary to be SecState–he’s a bit to fiery and too eager to put his principles ahead of the requests of those higher up. That’s an awesome trait in a Senator, not so much in a Cabinet member.
Svensker
What JC said. With Hills at State and Rahm as gatekeeper…meh, two too many warmongers in place, for me.
I also wonder whether Bill will be able to keep his nose out.
dave
Zifnab:
John Kerry and Bill Richardson both supported the war.
Feingold ain’t plausible (and I’d prefer he remain in the senate).
TheHatOnMyCat
I don’t like the Clintons and do not look forward to several years of them being on my tv any more than they have to be.
However, Obama is my guy, and if he picks her, then he picks her, and it is what it is. I can’t expect to like everything he does. He’s smart and I believe that he knows what he is doing, so, let him do it.
Xenos
@MR. Bill:
That is because they are adherents to magical thinking and moral relativism. The effort to clean up Wall Street caused the problem, as it introduced the skepticism that that now makes all the parties unwilling to trust one another. And furthermore, because Spitzer would benefit from successfully battling Wall Street, his zeal in taking them on is just as self interested and corrupt as their theft of hundreds of billions of dollars of dishonest compensation for running Ponzi schemes.
crystal dawn
I just wonder what Obama’s stance would have been on Iraq had he actually been in the Senate and had he actually had to worry about being re-elected. I have a funny feeling he would have gone with the grain just as almost every Senator at the time did.. except for a lone leebural few.
Mr Furious
Incertus, that’s the only consolation. If Obama actually appoints her, I will actually defer and give him the benefit of the doubt. He hasn’t been wrong on anything yet, and every time I’ve second-guessed him, I’ve blown it.
Until that day, I will treat this as the Clinton camp setting expectations and bored media types speculating out of their collective ass.
DanF
There are other people that say "change" better, but for the rest of the world, a "change" back to dealing with a Clinton will be a breath of cool, fresh air. Sen. Clinton would bring instant credibility to our foreign policy and allow Obama to hit the ground running on the world stage. Our biggest problems right now are domestic and economic and Clinton gives Obama a little breathing room on the foreign policy front. She has the experience to deal with foreign leaders at high levels and the extra clout of popular ex-President as her spouse.
I’m not a Hillary fan by any stretch, but I think it’s a shrewd pick.
And it gives us another chance to put a real liberal in the Senate…
eyeball
Don’t be naive about the pumas. They can raise money and a flash mob faster than the republicans, not that that’s fast or anything. Just don’t be naive. Or drunk with arrogance. Or whatever it is you are.
Original Lee
At first I was puzzled by the rumored pick, too, but remember that Obama and Clinton had "significant discussions" over the summer, and I think those discussions were a negotiation of how much her support was worth. You have to admit, she and Bill really got out there and campaigned hard for Obama this fall. So the price of that support, which probably helped substantially in putting Obama over the top, was a Cabinet position.
OK, so now you’ve committed to having Clinton in the Cabinet. Where to put her? Not HHS; even though her position and Obama’s position were pretty close, Hillarycare has too much baggage. Not Education, because that’s not prestigious enough. Not Energy or Commerce, because of ongoing business relationships Bill has. Not Agriculture, because that’s not her thing. Not Defense, because too many people remember the contempt the Clintons had for the military during their early White House years. Homeland Security? Maybe, but not really her forte.
HUD? I don’t see it. Interior? Ditto. Labor? Possibly. Transportation? Nah. Treasury? Nope. VA? Only if there’s nobody else, and I’m sure there is. AG? Um, I’d be really uncomfortable with that.
To be honest, I think that if Obama has to put Clinton in his Cabinet, State is probably the one that makes the most sense. I had actually thought that UN Ambassador would make a lot of sense, but that’s not a Cabinet position.
mgordon
Michael Jackson? hmmmm, do we have an ambassador to the Vatican? He’d fit right in.
Comrade Sock Puppet of the Great Satan
"I know I will just be accused of Hillary hate by the Clinton dead-enders, but she just brings nothing to the table in my eyes (and spare me the “She is super popular worldwide” nonsense. "
Well, she *is* popular worldwide. My relatives in Europe were incredulous in late 2007 that Obama was an option, because they preferred Hillary and thought Obama was unelectable.
I think it’s an Israel/Palestine move, myself. Instead of waiting until the arse-end of the presidency to make a move on this, we might see movement in the next two years. See the interview with Ehud Olmert in the recent NY Review of Books, which suggests an increasing desire in the Israeli political class to cut a deal. If a Israel/Palestine and Israel/Syria deal is done, then that reduces a lot of our problems in the Middle East, including weakening Iran’s position.
The Other Steve
I don’t understand why Hillary would want this. Wouldn’t it be better for her to stay in the senate leading initiatives for different bills?
Has anybody asked Brick Oven Bill his opinion?
comrade rawshark
Haven’t heard that name since the old amusement park across from the beach closed down.
Tymannosourus
@Zifnab:
John Kerry? Was that before or after he authorized the president to use force in Iraq?
Anyhoodles, I really can’t stand Hillary for a lot of reasons, but I don’t think this pick is a disaster… it unifies (sort of) a democratic party which needs to make sure that it gets 8 years out of Obama, and it gives Arab countries the distinct pleasure of having to answer to an American woman on foreign policy issues.
kayce.
you know, my first reaction to this hillary news was "YES!", but the more i think about it, the more i have to agree that she is a bad choice, even if i don’t nec agree w/ all your premises…
it is not necessarily her i object to, but i just see bill clinton ruining shit for obama… he certainly tried to during the campaign and i think that, even if it’s inadvertently, he will do something (some things?) to bring negativity to the obama white house and give repubs a reason not to take him seriously (as bill did to himself by lying about a stupid bj).
but, this is just me screaming into the wind, b/c news is that hillary is going to accept the position… i just have to hope that, as usual, barack is smarter than me. :-P
Punchy
@John Cole: How freakin disingenuous. The caveat is a mile wide: IF IRAN HITS ISRAEL WITH A NUCLEAR BOMB, then we bomb Iran. Unfuckingreal.
Riddle me this: who DOESNT the US nuke if they were to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon?
srv
You obviously don’t understand what Change is.
Oh, you were expecting something different than the last 28 years. Ah, well, we told you so.
demimondian
@Gravenstone: Sure — here’s a good tool to loosen your hat: 26 October, 1947
garage mahal
Shorter Cole
Whaaaaaaaaaaa!
Bill H
Maybe I’m just being overly cynical, but the best reason I see for the choice is that it effectively prevents her from running against his reelection in 2012, and that does not reflect well on him.
Juan del Llano
@TheCatonmy Hat:
I more or less agree. I’d just as soon not ever see or hear any Clintons again, but dang, Obama won. He gets to decide. He gets to make mistakes, too, and doing so is frequently the fastest way to learn. I see zero benefit to kvetching about Obama appointments unless he picks someone to do something that **I** could do better.
The one thing I’m sure about w/ Obama is that the dude is mega-serious. This isn’t any kind of family "entitlement" thing, like with Hillary or Bush. He earned the job and he’s gonna do it and do it his way. Has there ever been an administration where I loved every appointee? Hah!
qingl78
O wants to make headway with the middle east peace process right out of the gate. I think that O wants to (needs to) focus on the economy. Hillary brings with her, her husband, I think that BIll wants another kick at the can with peace in the middle east.
If O gets this right then there would be enough glory to go around and there would be a significant removal of a major impetus of global terror organizations.
dan robinson
I think this is being driven by Clinton. She is the junior senator from NY and, while she lives in a media fishbowl, does she really want to deal with whatever issues the people in East Fishkill need for their streets?
No, she wants to be a player on the global stage. Being SecState is on her initiative, not Obama’s.,
John Cole
@Punchy: The US doesn’t need to nuke anything that attacks Israel, because it will just be a waste of a nuke. Israel will have already leveled the place.
I do not know why we need to continue this fiction that Israel requires the US nuclear umbrella to stay safe. Israel could level a decent portion of the middle east at their whim.
Zifnab
@dave:
They did in 2003 – and Richardson hardly counts, as he was a Governor at the time. By 2006 they were major anti-war advocates. Hillary was trying to defend her pro-war stance in the freak’n primary which was one thing that threw a very large anchor around her neck.
I mean, Obama could certainly tap one of the 29 Senators to oppose the war from the original resolution. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with nominating Senator Inoyue from Hawaii to the post. I just don’t know anything about him. Hell, he could nominate Chafee. But, again, I don’t really know Chafee’s foreign policy creds.
That said, I think you’ve got a bit of tunnel vision if your only candidates are from a pool of Senators who cast a single vote in a resolution that’s 5 years old. There have certainly been some major changes in public opinion and policy since March of 2003.
eponymous
Like others, I’m not a huge Hillary fan (although I would have happily voted for her were she the Democractic nominee). But if she accepts the position, then it does have advantages:
– Gets her out of the Senate where she could potentially be a thorn in the side of Obama on domestic issues (re – health care);
– Becomes the face of the US in international dealings (with the added benefit of her popular husband likely involved in some capacity as well). This has the potential to heal some of the ill-will other nations have had against us over the last 8 years;
– Rewards her for her support in getting Obama elected and forces her – to some extent – in towing the line as she’ll be working for Obama (and not herself);
Disadvantages are her (questionable) management skills as other have pointed out. However, it will be interesting to see who is appointed as Assistant Secretary of State (who I believe is also appointed by the President). If I understand things correctly, the Assistant would largely be involved in managing the day-to-day affairs of State (the inward face of State versus Hillary’s outward face to US population and world).
If Obama appoints someone who brings with them good managerial/administrative skills (and is committed to making necessary changes at State), then I think we can all make a better judgment on the pick of Hillary as SOS.
Gwen
I had my hate on for Hillary in the primary as much as the next Obama kool-aid drinker. But she didn’t cause any drama as a Senator and I think if appointed SoS, she will work her tooshie off to be the best gosh-darn SoS ever. I just think she’s totally class-President wannabe material that way.
I’m not sure what people are really worried about when they bring up Hillary’s harder-line foreign policy saber rattling during the primaries or even her Iraq vote. Do we really fear she’ll go off the reservation and call up the various embassies to bomb countries she doesn’t like? Do we given any credence to the fact that the State Department doesn’t do that?
Do we believe that Obama will be a strong executive or are we falling back into "Obambi" as potential Clinton roadkill territory again, even among his most ardent supporters?
And if she’s disqualified for voting for the Iraq resolution, why the hell did so many support Edwards for Prez? Why are so many interested in Kerry for the SoS job?
I just don’t see Hillary undermining Obama. He’s more popular than she is. He can basically crush her. The only real problem with her as SoS may be her husband’s dealings since he left office and his role going forward. That’s a legitimate issue and if Obama wants to work it out, he will.
AnneLaurie
With due respect to all the opinions above, I just can’t see what Hillary gets out of it, apart from another line on her resume. She’d be giving up her safe Senate seat, with no guarantee that whoever Patterson appoints will be able to keep that seat Democratic. If she does a good job, her enemies will say that anybody could have done better than Rice. And her every misstep will get more negative media attention than Britney Spears’ next stint in rehab. It’s kind of like Mark Twain’s joke about being ridden out of town on a rail: "If it weren’t for the honor of the attention, I’d be just as glad to decline the invitation."
TheHatOnMyCat
What, all 500 of them?
Brachiator
@Gravenstone:
I think you have nailed a plausible scenario here. The problem is that Clinton’s acolytes are just as loony as are Palin’s. They are people dedicated to the notion that their woman is the queen of the universe and must be kept in the national spotlight so that she can become the first woman president. Both sets of acolytes are blind to their queen’s faults, or fall back on the stoopid idea that since their leader is a strong, powerful woman, she must by definition be able to do anything.
I do not doubt that Senator Clinton is intelligent and hard working. But as I have noted before, her people and administrative skills are weak, and both of these are necessary attributes for a secretary of state.
But Clinton’s supporters realize that it is unlikely that she could ever become Senate Majority Leader; she simply lacks the seniority to be able to move up into that position. Supreme Court Justice? Although historically, the Senate has been very accommodating when one of their own is nominated to the Court, Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam and is not a deeply experienced legal scholar, although she did do some very interesting legal work early in her career.
Still, her supporters are really stuck on the notion that Hillary Clinton absolutely positively must be the first woman president, no matter who else might come along between now and 2012 or 2016. And Secretary of State, and possibly a VP slot later, might be a smooth path to the White House.
It’s too bad that these people feel that facilitating Senator Clinton’s ambitions is more important than effective foreign policy, but this appears to be the hard political reality that Obama has to deal with.
TheHatOnMyCat
Pumas, I meant.
Or, Republicans. Either one.
hacienda
I think she’d be a better fit at Justice. The issues with Bill’s foundation, the exaggerating of her foreign policy experience…putting her at State isn’t a good idea.
Justice, on the other hand, puts her in good position to advocate for women and families, her customary arena, and is prestigious enough to placate her fans (hardly a Slap In The Face)…?
Rainy
He needs to pick Bill Richardson. The man is miles ahead of Hillary. Plus he has a track record to back it up. I have no problem with Hillary, but she should stay in the Senate.
tom.a
AnneLaurie
Being in the Senate takes her no where but to have the next few years of votes held over her head. She’s not in a seniority position in the Senate and will never achieve a level of Seniority to warrant a position of power or respect unless she plans on being in the Senate well into her 90’s. As SoS she can call it quits whenever it’s not going well for her. While she’ll need to do Obama’s bidding she’s in control of her own destiny in that position and if what you want to do is ready yourself for the NEXT step in your career (whatever that may be), canoodling with world leaders for a few years is a good way to do it.
Punchy
@John Cole: That’s a whole diff argument than "She wants to bomb the hell out of Iran" without mentioning the very necessary and critical caveats.
It’s no diff than McCain accusing Obama of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergardenrs (sp?) without the caveat of admitting he wanted it to be "age-appropriate".
Tymannosourus
@Zifnab:
That’s the vote that counted, though. It’s easy to stand in opposition of something once it is unpopular. A lot of politicians like Kerry start acting with the prevailing winds. Windsocks can do the same thing.
Real courage and vision come from people who stand in the face of the mob and speak up for what’s right.
atari age
Look, being you are an avowed Clinton foe from your GOP days to now, I’m not sure I can take your judgment on anyone named Clinton at face value.
That’s like trusting that people who hate the government to run the government. Or a scifi hater reviewing a scifi movie.
You hate them and always have, we get it. It’s a filter you are permanently wearing.
And wait, how is criticizing a possible choosing of Clinton less horrible than criticizing a choosing of another cabinet post?
Seems inconsistent.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I think it does the exact opposite – it is a way of putting a leash on Bill by giving him a stake in the success of the administration (beyond just the generic Democrat thing). If he f***s up and Hillary is SOS, it makes her look bad too, not just Obama. Putting his wife’s career on the line gives him more reasons to beee-have, than would be the case if both of them are outside the administration looking in.
Bill could make a world class PITA out of himself if he really works at it, this may be a move to keep a lid on that problem by setting up the right incentives.
Tsulagi
When first heard rumors Hillary being considered for SecState, I thought it was a crazy idea. For many of the same reasons thought he shouldn’t pick her for VP.
But now, I dunno, it’s got some things going for it. Maybe a little bit of keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. At State she answers directly to Obama. Sure, she could wander off the reservation a bit. But if she went too far, she could be canned and don’t think there would be a huge outcry in her support from Pubs or even Dems.
Bigger points in her favor I think is other than some craptacular moments in her campaign, she is intelligent, competent and capable. She knows that job likely better than anyone who hasn’t already been a SecState. She wouldn’t be awed by foreign leaders nor insecure to play up a phony macho front with someone like Putin who’d dismiss her as a joke like a Condi. She’s smart enough they wouldn’t be able to blow smoke up her ass, and she can be a pit bull in a pantsuit. Obama could use that. Plus with Bill’s time in the presidency might know of some skeletons in foreign closets that could be useful.
On balance, don’t think it would be a bad pick.
James F. Elliott
I agree: I don’t get it. I don’t see an upside for Sen. Clinton. Is it possible for her to wrest Senate Majority Leader out of Sen. Reid’s cold, dead fingers? She’d have a far better ability to stamp her imprimatur on an Obama Agenda from that position (with the upside of ousting a truly lackluster leader) than she would as an important but ultimately backseat Cabinet secretary. The Secretaries of State that get the most mention in the history books are the ones everyone hates.
Cain
@Brian J:
No David Vitter is a perfect reason to put Spitzer in any political office. All Spitzer has to say is that he would cheerfully resign as soon as David Vitter does since they both seem to be guilty of the same social "crime". As long as Spitzer gets the job done that’s all that’s necessary. Now if he gets splashed with acid and one half of his face turns horrid, and he starts flipping a coin, well we might need to look at it again at that point.
cain
Damned at Random
I don’t think the appointment is about domestic policies. I think it is a signal to the world that the last 8 years were a mistake and we are returning to a time when the rest of the world considered us a rational power. The Clinton symbolism outside the US borders isn’t about drama, it’s about competence.
Also, Hillary demonstrated that she is a team player in the general election. Her having a high position in the administration will keep Billl from sniping at Obama at every opportunity – less drama domestically.
And if Obama plans a major push in the middle east, her presence will be reassuring to Israel.
harlana pepper
Thank you. The Iran-baiting was my biggest beef with Hill as a candidate. Didn’t seem to bother most people.
Doug H. (Comrade Fausto no more)
What Obama gets out of it: A figure of international respect fronting the nation to the world. A ‘Bad cop.’ Further allaying the fears of Hillary’s supporters.
(Exploding the heads of NoIQ and the PUMAs is our cherry on the sundae.)
What Hillary gets out of it: A bigger seat at the table. Face time. The chance to put a Clinton stamp on Middle East peace pacts.
harlana pepper
sorry, apparently i keep forgetting to block quotes
myiq2xu
I guess Obama needs some grown-ups with experience around to answer the phone at 3am.
Half of his administration will be GOPers and the other half will be Clintonistas.
Mr Furious
What happened to the rumor that she was destined for a Supreme Court seat?
(Not that I want that either)
frankly0
Pretty amazing to see the amount of absurd rationalization Obama supporters are willing to plunk down for their guy.
Look, people, not long ago you were all lecturing the blogosphere that Hillary was the worst sort of warmonger, that her vote for AUMF, and her unflagging support of that vote exhibited both her wretched judgment and terrible character.
And now your fave Obama is, supposedly, offering her the job of SoS?
Really, if you don’t see the contradiction in your own alleged "convictions" over your defense of Obama’s choice, what is there left to say to you?
At least John Cole has the minimal rationality required to recognize that there’s a little inconsistency afoot here. Of course, it does him little good: he achieve consistency by looking like he’s been played by Obama for a perfect sucker.
Oh, and BTW, John, will it be OK to say now that there’s a problem with Obama’s Presidency if he chooses Hillary as SoS, given what you yourself have said? Or are we still obliged to keep celebrating and savoring our "victory"?
Objective Scrutator
Hagel would be the smartest choice for Hussein Osama to put in as Secretary of State. Hagel has the same foreign policy stances as the rest of the moonbat crowd does, he would be a Republican (Obama has promised to pick some), and he doesn’t have any real controversy associated with him.
The media would go from giving BJs to Obama to letting him be on top in the missionary position if Obama did that. And it’s quite hard for the media to love someone that much.
A Secretary of State job would be one of the few jobs a Clinton could get right. Keep in mind, though, that Bill Clinton’s inability to catch Osama caused 9/11. Still, I’d trust Hillary on these issues more than Bill.
Steve S.
Yes, she brings all kinds of baggage to any table you seat her at. He has to do something with her, she can’t just be left as a junior senator as there was probably a quid pro quo when she bowed out of the race, so why not SoS?
Obama is up to his eyeballs already in people who were wrong about Iraq and lots of other things, and he is making nice with McCain and Lieberman, who are wrong about everything. So again, I don’t see a basis for rejecting Hillary.
And having a SoS who is well-known and generally liked by world leaders is nonsense, why?
LarryB
I thought Digby had an interesting take on this:
Obama assumes unhinged wingnut criticism and installs HRC as a lightning rod. If true, that’s thinking way outside the box.
MMM
John Cole hates women – plain and simple explanation.
Chuck Butcher
The only concern I have regarding Hillary as SoS is the leaks and drama aspect. C’mon folks, she has the tools to do the job provided somebody who is a good executive is riding herd on the mechanisms.
I don’t like Hillary as POTUS, that is a different matter. Since I don’t have a seat in the political power structure I don’t know what the political scenario is that is playing out. There has to be an advantage for Hillary and Obama, both and I doubt it is the past election. You’d have to know what drives Hillary, beyond the publicly obvious, to know why she’d take it and while I’m sure there are a handful that actually do know, I don’t think they’re found here. I think we’ll have a better insight if this plays out.
This gives her a seat directly at the table, you don’t get much closer access to the POTUS to have yourself heard. If you take political sniping out and put these two together as colleagues, you have a different picture.
dave
I just "love" this argument that Hillary brings a lot of baggage. It conveniently ignores the fact that 98% of it is made up hysteria for which she bears no responsibility.
But fine, by all means, deprive this country of a talented and intelligent public servant because Chris Matthews can’t deal with the fact that she spent her time in the white house doing something other than baking cookies while Bill received the ten bjs that changed the world.
A partial list of the "baggage" she brings (h/t Hardball, NYT and Wash Post):
-murdered vince foster
-slept with vince foster
-lesbian
-drug dealer
-Whitewater
-Travelgate
-Filegate
-Lincoln bedroom sleepovers
Gosh, I wonder why half the country hates her. Obviously, the solution is to validate these lies by refusing to vote for or appoint her to any meaningful post.
dbrown
Sorry every one but Obama’s pick of Hillary for State is brilliant on so many levels.
First, it brings in a powerful and respected agent for the Middle East. No deal is worth spit if Israel does not agree in principle and then lives up to the agreement. Hillary with Bill’s help makes this a far easier job – especially since most people in the Middle East will say "Obama who?". Yet top people in Israel will listen closely to her and give Obama a chance to get his ideas into the light without immediate refusal.
Next, in both Asia and Europe Bill is loved (and even SA) and this solves a lot of issues too. Hillary will be respected since she has Bill’s ear and they will assume that he has a hand in all negotiations.
Big one: Oil. Bill has extensive and respected contacts in all the big oil countries and by tagging along with Hillary, that issue is addressed as well.
Big issues like Iraq/Iran are purely Obama’s responsibility to set policy and Hillary can easily carry that load and it removes her from being in the Senate and making noise.
Finally, no matter your like or dislike, Hillary has a good bit of real foreign policy knowledge and can be an asset to Obama and give him an honest appraisal (no need to fear for her position unlike a weaker pick) and maybe prevent a policy blunder.
As for stopping Hillary in 2012 – get real; Obama can not be opposed by Hillary unless she becomes an independent.
AkaDad
That’s absurd. Everyone knows he hates white people.
DFH no.6
I’m not thrilled by Hillary as SecState, not at all, but that pales in comparison to my feelings regarding Lieberman.
Obama’s gonna do what he’s gonna do, though. He’s a compromising, pragmatic centrist, not a reflection of his "base".
Us unwashed millions of his supporters, campaign volunteers, and financial donors will have to learn to live with a pretty fair amount of disappointment. I’m prepared to be not-thrilled by any number of things President Obama decides primarily because the alternative was far, far worse.
pattonbt
I had Hillary hate in the primaries like many Obama supporters, but my reason was simple – the AUMF vote. My stance has been and always will be in Democratic primaries to oppose anyone who voted for the AUMF or was publicly cheerleading for it.
That said, once the primaries are over and a winner emerges the D gets my vote (unless the D winner is a total tool and the rep is Obama like adult and pragmatic) and from there its about pragmatism. I never expect any politician to do everything I would want. So I deal.
I must say, though, I didnt and still dont see Hillary as SoS. But she (and Bill) are beloved in the world and that kind of public face to the outside world is fine by me.
Hillary, not so much Bill, came out hard for Obama after the primaries and showed she was a great team player. She surprised me and proved me wrong. I am willing, for the first term, to cut Obama some slack as he puts in people with experience in key positions. Its seems to be accepted truth that the Clintons came in in their first term and staffed with intelligent neophytes but, while the people were competent and intelligent, they didnt know how to get things done. Obama doesnt have the luxury to take the time to fight through with neophytes.
I just hope that in his (hoped for) second term he turns to a new generation of leaders and gets them into the key positions. I hope to see those people in second tier key positions in his first term though.
TheHatOnMyCat
I don’t think you mean a word of what you wrote, but for the sake of argument ….
Your idea of victory and mine are not the same. My idea of victory is a competant government. How that is achieved is yet to be determined, but one thing is sure, your spin-drenched nasty-politics based nonsense will surely have nothing to do with it.
Your post is dripping with winning and losing in a contest of personalities and talking points. I see a bright future for you as a bullshit artist, maybe as a Kristol replacement at NYT.
But we are looking for a government that works. Check back in a year or two and see how it’s going. Meantime, get out of the way, we don’t have time for you.
Seriously, get out of the way. Everything that has gone wrong in the last eight years can be traced to some bunch of people who talk like you.
Yours is absurd generalization. I for one have simply said, it’s his job now, let him do it as he sees fit. That is neither absurd, nor a rationalization. It is just what it is. If it works, then win. If not, then fail.
Meantime, your comment is just resentful rock-throwing, probably spoof, certainly insincere.
Ella in NM
Some people are nightmares when they are bosses but irreplaceable as employees.
If Hilary gets State, she will have one of the best supervisors in the world to keep her bad shit in check, but she will have all the opportunity to show her truly, inarguably "good" stuff. That ‘s what good supervisors–leaders–do: bring out the best in their team.
She would have sucked as a President–or Vice President–because without structure, she would have run amok. Instead, with someone like Obama running the show, she really could make history. And hey, if she doesn’t–Barack can fire her.
Oh, yeah….LIKES IT!!!!!
mclaren
Simple explanation: this is the price Obama had to pay to get Hillary to throw all her delegates behind him.
Good news: it’s not much of a price to pay. Actual foreign policy is made by the President and the national security council, not by the secretary of state. Just as America hasn’t actually declared war on any country we’ve gone to war with since 1951, actual foreign policy hasn’t been made by any secretary of state since Dean Acheson.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
movie fan
if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or career plans, etc.