• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

After roe, women are no longer free.

Why did Dr. Oz lose? well, according to the exit polls, it’s because Fetterman won.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

I did not have telepathic declassification on my 2022 bingo card.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Is it negotiation when the other party actually wants to shoot the hostage?

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

Why is it so hard for them to condemn hate?

Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

A Senator Walker would also be an insult to reason, rationality, and decency.

“Everybody’s entitled to be an idiot.”

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

A snarling mass of vitriolic jackals

Wow, I can’t imagine what it was like to comment in morse code.

Not so fun when the rabbit gets the gun, is it?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / That’s How I Roll

That’s How I Roll

by John Cole|  November 19, 20081:11 pm| 85 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

I was ambivalent about Hillary at Secretary of State, but figured if Obama and Clinton can work out there differences, more power to him. Additionally, I find all the angst about former Clinton acolytes in the Obama White House to be pretty amusing:

More now on the “Raw Politics” of the attorney general pick and, in a larger sense, the retread factor, between John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, Holder, and possibly Hillary Clinton, an awful lot of ex- Clintonites running around these days. Is it wise? Is Eric Holder a good choice, in any case.

Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration? From the Bush administration? Clearly, Obama is bringing in a lot of new blood, but I have no problem with old hands like Eric Holder being tapped for administration jobs.

At any rate, all of this is a long way of me saying the following- now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection, and look forward to four and hopefully eight years of her at the State Department. I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Just A Thought
Next Post: The Most Important Book of 2008 »

Reader Interactions

85Comments

  1. 1.

    MarkusB

    November 19, 2008 at 1:14 pm

    even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing

    Kristol’s come out against this, too? Oh. You meant the other guy like that.

  2. 2.

    Church Lady

    November 19, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    She’s smart, she’s a workhorse, and she’s shown that she can be a team player. That Broder thinks it would be a mistake is just the icing on the cake. Hillary for SoS – win.

  3. 3.

    Juan del Llano

    November 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Broder’s against it? (Haven’t read a word of his in years…) Well then, there ya go. I think Hillary would be a kick-ass secretary of state. Not worried a bit.

    This Obama guy ain’t no wimp, either. I’m already having LOTS more fun than I’ve had in years.

  4. 4.

    Michael D.

    November 19, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing.

    Did I miss something? Or did you mean Dick Morris???

  5. 5.

    LarryB

    November 19, 2008 at 1:24 pm

    John, You made me laugh out loud. It’s true: Broder is sort of an anti-pundit, isn’t he?

  6. 6.

    Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse

    November 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    John and Hillary sitting in a tree,
    K-I-S-S-I-N-G …

    I think she’d be a good choice. The woman is fierce smart, she’s shown she can be a team player, and the heads of the deadenders will explode all over the landscape like plastiqued Jack-O-Lanterns. What’s not to love?

  7. 7.

    Punchy

    November 19, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    The problem is that Hill is a woman. How in hell is Hillary supposed to perform her duties as SoS when she’s so busy cooking and cleaning? Terrible choice.

    Secretary of the Interior? Perfect. She’ll match the drapes and sofa perfectly.

  8. 8.

    myiq2xu

    November 19, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    David Broder – the George Costanza of punditry

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    November 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration?

    ZOMG! That’s not change we can believe in!!!!

    Even the most die-hard Obamafans weren’t naive enough to think he’d bring in an entire array of fresh faces for cabinet level positions. People have been talking about Edwards for Attorney General, Richardson for Secretary or Ambassador of this or that, Hillary for VP, where to stick Durbin, where to stick Kennedy, where to stick freak’n Byrd since before the primaries were even over.

    Its just comic that the people acting all shocked at "Clinton retread" are the ones who love to smear Obama supporters for being so dreamy eyed and idealistic.

    "Obama isn’t Jesus! He’s not going to really bring change!"
    "OMG! Obama isn’t Jesus! He’s not ushering in a massive structural revolution! That’s not really bringing change!"

    I’ve said before and I’ll say it again. Obama’s slogan might have been "Change", but he still echoed a great deal of the Clinton years. What people were ultimately voting for was for him to "Change it back."

  10. 10.

    AhabTRuler

    November 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    As much as I hate referencing Seinfeld, it is very much like when George starting doing the opposite of what his instincts were, and it was full of win.

    I have almost convinced my mom that Broder is an asshat. She said "Oh, I only read him once in a while, and I thought he was having off-days."

    Nope, mom. He’s always like that. The Dean of FAIL.

  11. 11.

    ppcli

    November 19, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    I sure hope Bill Kristol doesn’t come out in favor. The universe might end if two certain wrongness indicators disagree. Cats and dogs living together too. It would be bad.

  12. 12.

    gnomedad

    November 19, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    I think she’d be a good choice. The woman is fierce smart, she’s shown she can be a team player, and the heads of the deadenders will explode all over the landscape like plastiqued Jack-O-Lanterns. What’s not to love?

    Plus, she has experience dodging bullets.

  13. 13.

    AhabTRuler

    November 19, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Huh. Must have been the word asshat that called to him.

    Sorry.

  14. 14.

    D-Chance.

    November 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Clearly, Obama is bringing in a lot of new blood

    He is?

    Biden, not new blood.
    Emmanuel, not new blood.
    Clinton (Hillary), not new blood.
    Holder, not new blood.
    Orszag, not new blood.

    Wake me up when "change we can believe in" stops looking like "change means the same old, same old"…

  15. 15.

    Jeff

    November 19, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Weren’t all of Clinton’s experienced folks from the Carter administration? Hell, Bush’s most experienced and worst picks were from Nixon’s administration. The new folks are going to be under the older ones so they can get the needed experience before taking charge a few years later when the experienced folks go spend more time with their families.

    Obama has consistently shown he values experience and knowledge, so that is what he is doing.

  16. 16.

    ppcli

    November 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm

    Wake me up when "change we can believe in" stops looking like "change means the same old, same old"…

    Well, if "change we can believe in" turns out just to mean "a more efficient, only slightly more left-leaning version of the Clinton days, with no blowjob-driven impeachment hearings, and a more self-disciplined #1" then I guess I’d be disappointed, but I could live with that. Those were pretty good times, as I recall. They sure are looking good right now.

  17. 17.

    Studly Pantload

    November 19, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    Here are Obama’s options, as I see them:

    Bring in a much of neophytes and watch his administration get eaten for breakfast before you can say "one hundred days."

    Bring in some folks from the Clinton years.

    Or reach back to the last Dem admin before Clinton — which ended in 19-frakkin-80. Gee, what’s Mondale up to, these days?

    People will bitch because they wanna bitch. And those ostensibly on the Left that are grasping for a bag to breathe into because ZOMG the Clintonistas drew so much fire in the ’90s! need that Obama "chill" picture tattooed to the insides of their eyelids. The man clearly knows what the fruck to do with a clue.

  18. 18.

    D-Chance.

    November 19, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    Add:

    Daschle, not new blood.

    Yes, "change". Indeed.

  19. 19.

    J.D. Rhoades

    November 19, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    The woman is fierce smart, she’s shown she can be a team player, and the heads of the deadenders will explode all over the landscape like plastiqued Jack-O-Lanterns. What’s not to love?

    Bill. And Bill’s baggage.

  20. 20.

    BombIranForChrist

    November 19, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    I agree. If Broder thinks Hillary is a bad choice, then Hillary is a great choice. QED. It’s practically a law of nature.

  21. 21.

    boonagain

    November 19, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    "their", please

  22. 22.

    Evinfuilt

    November 19, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    Another advantage of Hillary is she already knows how to dodge the gunfire as she enters war zones.

    Personally I do want to see her on the Supreme Court, with her legal background, her attitude, she’s exactly what we need there to counter the Alito’s of this world.

  23. 23.

    low-tech cyclist

    November 19, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Everybody laughs at Broder. Or should.

  24. 24.

    Garrigus Carraig

    November 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm

    I’m not gonna fret too hard, but Josh made a good point:

    It seems that Clinton at the State Department is close to a done deal. But I think we should consider that during her time on the national stage Sen. Clinton has been at the helm in two big undertakings — had two big executive leadership tasks. One was health care in 1994 and the other was her presidential bid in 2007-08. Each was something of a trianwreck from an executive-level management perspective. And the State Department is a notoriously intractable bureaucracy. I still need some help understanding this decision.

    It would still be a major improvement over the recent past. I remember reading a lot about unhappy State staffers of late.

  25. 25.

    Brick Oven Bill

    November 19, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    I believe that Obama has showed his true colors with the appointment of Peter Orszag .

    "A costly rescue for Fannie and Freddie is just a worry, not a certainty at this point. Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, predicted in a letter to lawmakers Tuesday that there’s a better than even chance the government will not have to step in to prop up the companies by lending them money or buying stock."

    Six weeks after giving this ‘independent watchdog’ assessment from the CBO, telling us that it would probably cost nothing, but may cost $25 billion, Orszag advocated that the government take over Fannie-Freddie, transferring trillions in liability onto the US taxpayer. In my opinion, Orszag should be indicted, not selected by Barack Obama to head the Office of Management and Budget.

  26. 26.

    Comrade Stuck

    November 19, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    Crisis ———>new blood——>OJT——-delay–>

    Brownies?——>FAIL

    OR____________________________

    Crisis———>old blood——–>Clinton—–>Drama–>

    Competence?——–>WIN

  27. 27.

    Incertus

    November 19, 2008 at 2:08 pm

    @Studly Pantload: Bingo. The other thing to remember is that change can have a very narrow definition in DC, depending on your point of view. If you’re Ralph Nader, then there really is only a dime’s worth of difference between what Obama wants to do and what McCain would have done. If you’re a bit more centrist, however, the differences are quite noticeable.

  28. 28.

    Napoleon

    November 19, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    So what Obama is bringing on people from Clinton’s administration. It would be one thing if it was Cabinet level or similar White House staff level from the Clinton administration, but these people almost all were junior level people. Does anyone really think Eric Holder somehow thinks like Clinton or something just because he was the number 2 guy in the AG office?

    As to Broder, if he is against Clinton that is reason enough for me to be for her. Everything that is wrong with Washington is personified by Broder.

    Weren’t all of Clinton’s experienced folks from the Carter administration?

    No, and that is part of the reason that Clinton f-up so bad so early on. By the way, this same problem existed with Carter, who brought in his Georgia Mafia who thought they knew better then the old hands. It ended up not working out so good for Carter. I think Obama is bringing the right amount of balance.

  29. 29.

    Vincent

    November 19, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    I have always assumed that by "change" Obama meant change in policy, change in the tenor of political discussions, getting shit done. Look at his speeches and what he has said about change and not what you think it is. Obama’s not doing anything different from what he said he would do.

    And what exactly was so utterly horrible about the Clinton years that this ‘taint’ spells horrible doom for the next 4 years?

  30. 30.

    Studly Pantload

    November 19, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Bill. And Bill’s baggage.

    Bill and Hillary have not been representing the people of New York since her Senate win. Only Hillary has. People lob the ideal of Billary around like some boogeyman people scared their kids with back in days of yore. It’s overplayed.

    No, this is a smart move by Obama. Hillary has the smarts to grow into the job and the star power to beg some forgiveness is she starts slow. Hell, if it weren’t for Obama, she’d be president-elect, right now. I think she can handle SOS.

    Oh, and someone needs to talk Josh Marshall down. He’s looking back to Hillary’s healthcare initiative as a bad omen. Bill has acknowledged that pushing that matter at that time was too big of a bite before he’d had time to really learn the lay of the landscape (at the time) and build goodwill by, say, focusing on welfare reform, first. (OK, yes, her presidential campaign started throwing sparks, but a) Mark Penn is all gone, and b) they got gobsmacked by Obama — contrast and compare how derailed McCain’s campaign became under the same circumstances.)

  31. 31.

    Tymannosourus

    November 19, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Wake me up when "change we can believe in" stops looking like "change means the same old, same old"…

    At 3 a.m., or just whenever?

  32. 32.

    Napoleon

    November 19, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    @Garrigus Carraig:

    All Obama needs to do is say that they are appointing a number 2 in that department who will effectively be the State Department’s COO and that Clinton has to be on board with that, then appoint a good manager that Clinton doesn’t interfer with. From the article on her campaign (was it Ryan Lizza or Josh Green who wrote that) the problem with her wasn’t so much that she mettled with what her campaign people were doing as much as she never bothered to have her hand on the rudder. Tell her going in that she doesn’t really need to have her hand on the rudder, that someone else will handle the nuts and bolts and she gets to be the public face and handle the high profile stuff.

  33. 33.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    November 19, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration? From the Bush administration?

    One of the advantages of taking back the White House now is that it has only been 8 years since the last time you had Democrats gaining practical experience running the executive branch, so Obama isn’t being forced to make a choice between picking fresh and enthusiastic but inexperienced people vs. recruiting from the old folks home.

    The latter problem was I think part of the reason why things were so disorganized at the beginning of the Clinton administration in 1993 – the last batch of Democrats who’d had WH experience back then were from the 1-term Carter administration twelve years gone bye, and before that you had to go all the way back to 1968 at the end of the LBJ admin., so instead of being able to draw on lessons learned by people who’d been thru it before Clinton’s team had to learn a lot of stuff about the purely administrative aspects of putting together a WH staff and a cabinet all over again from scratch.

    Obama on the other hand seems to be hewing to Bismarck’s saying about the wisdom of learning from other people’s mistakes.

  34. 34.

    Comrade Kevin

    November 19, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    @D-Chance.:

    Yes, "change". Indeed.

    It sure as hell is a huge "change" away from the Bush crime syndicate.

  35. 35.

    eyeball

    November 19, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Could we commission a contest:

    WHO HAS BEEN MORE PUBLICLY, INEPTLY, VENALLY WRONG:

    – broder
    – kristol
    – morris
    – friedman
    – barone
    – barnes
    – WSJ edit page
    – bay buchanan
    – {pick your own}

    And then we could announce the Wrongies, a new award. Damn, I wish i knew how to do this shit.

  36. 36.

    The Moar You Know

    November 19, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    If you’re Ralph Nader, then there really is only a dime’s worth of difference between what Obama wants to do and what McCain would have done.

    @Incertus: Ralph Nader is not a leftist. Ralph Nader is nothing but an attention whore.

  37. 37.

    J.

    November 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm

    Word has it Clinton may not really want the job. So all of this sturm und drang may be for naught. Personally, though, I am with you, JC.

  38. 38.

    Comrade Stuck

    November 19, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    All Obama needs to do is say that they are appointing a number 2 in that department who will effectively be the State Department’s COO and that Clinton has to be on board with that, then appoint a good manager that Clinton doesn’t interfer with

    After basic competence, the single most important aspect of being an effective SoS is credibility on the world stage. The Clinton’s, both of them, have as much of that as probability anyone alive. You’re right about the #2 being an important cog in the SD machine. And despite Clinton’s caustic campaign rhetoric of being some kind of badass bomber, I don’t see Obama and her as being that far apart on foreign affairs philosophy and policy. That said, Obama would be wise to grow an extra pair of eyes in the back of his head

  39. 39.

    Brian J

    November 19, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    There’s two separate forces at work here. One group thinks that bringing anybody associated with the Clinton administration in is bad news, despite any sort of relevant experience in running the government. This is cute in an idealistic sense, but also very wrong. The second group seems to think that it’s not a problem that former Clinton administration officials might be working in an Obama White House, but that they need to be the right people. Of course, the second group seems relatively pleased so far.

  40. 40.

    Tony J

    November 19, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Well it looks to me very much like Obama offered Hillary a deal in return for the fullsome (you can tell it was fullsome because the MSM chose not to opine on it) support she gave his Presidential campaign. She’d get a Cabinet position where her face would be out there on a regular basis, but it wouldn’t be anything domestic (too much scope for drama) and she’d have to be working to his policy guidelines.

    That’s the SOS job. Bringing the soft power of the Clinton name to a role rendered equally pointless and tarnished by eight years of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice waming the seat. Given a good Chief-of-Staff to bring organisational ability to the party, Hillary gets to be the person negotiating an end to America’s Imperial Adventure, and if she does it well, in his second term she gets a Supreme Court nomination.

    Sounds like the kind of deal a junior senator who will never be President might go for. Supreme Court is for life, and sticking it to any future GOP Administration fom that kind of height would be a pleasure that never gets cold.

  41. 41.

    Hugh

    November 19, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    Staffing is not where to look for "change we can believe in". Policy is where to look for it. I am very impressed with Obama. He is not afraid of working with heavy hitters and he pays attention to history while planning for the future. Pretty exciting. He’s creating a team that has so much wattage it’s hard to imagine them being intimidated by anybody. I think he might really get things done.

  42. 42.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    November 19, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    Seriously, what are Hillary Clinton’s qualifications to be SoS? Seriously, what are they? I mean, really.

    Bill Richardson was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize after negotiating hostage releases, and Hillary Clinton thought invading Iraq was a nifty idea. I don’t see how there is any comparison here.

  43. 43.

    Brian J

    November 19, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Staffing is not where to look for "change we can believe in". Policy is where to look for it. I am very impressed with Obama. He is not afraid of working with heavy hitters and he pays attention to history while planning for the future. Pretty exciting. He’s creating a team that has so much wattage it’s hard to imagine them being intimidated by anybody. I think he might really get things done.

    Your statements would imply that people like Paul Volcker know more about the economy than the people at, say, The Corner.

    Where in the world would you get such an idea?

  44. 44.

    John Cole

    November 19, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Wake me up when “change we can believe in” stops looking like “change means the same old, same old”…

    D-Chance, you were a Clinton supporter. Are you really here to make the argument that a Clinton Presidency would have fewer Clintonistas in the administration? You really wanna try that nonsense here?

  45. 45.

    Tony J

    November 19, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    That’s supposed to be "from" not "fom"and "old" not "cold".

    I wish that ‘edit’ worked.

  46. 46.

    Hyperion

    November 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    I was ambivalent about Hillary at Secretary of State

    bullshit.

    https://balloon-juice.com/?p=13919

    where you say:

    I think she is a bad choice.

    that ain’t ambivalence.

  47. 47.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    November 19, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    The woman is fierce smart

    As evidenced by what? Her brilliant handling of health care reform in ’93? Her wise vote regarding military force against Iraq? Her ingeniously plotted and executed presidential campaign?

  48. 48.

    Napoleon

    November 19, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    Her brilliant handling of health care reform in ‘93?

    That is a myth.

    It was Bill’s plan and Bill was the one who mismanaged it, not Hillary.

  49. 49.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    November 19, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    Given a good Chief-of-Staff to bring organisational ability to the party, Hillary gets to be the person negotiating an end to America’s Imperial Adventure, and if she does it well, in his second term she gets a Supreme Court nomination.

    Jesus Christ! What did she ever do to deserve any of that?

  50. 50.

    Garrigus Carraig

    November 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    @Napoleon: Well said. I was coming around to similar ideas after I posted.

  51. 51.

    The Moar You Know

    November 19, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    OT: For the record, I want to clarify that I think Joe Lieberman is a sack of crap that should be flogged out of the Senate.

    That being said, I am deriving a perverse pleasure from watching Markos and the rest of his Filthy Orange Horde shit blood about Lieberman’s retention of his chairmanship. Even though I find the idea of Lieberman’s withered, Bush-violated ass sitting in a Senate chair for the next four years disgusting, I’m almost OK with it because of the BAWWWing emanating from the Great Orange Shithole. Christ almighty, I find Kos’ horde of brainless sheep nauseating.

    Alright, I’m done, thanks for listening.

  52. 52.

    John Cole

    November 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    that ain’t ambivalence.

    Are you new here? That IS ambivalence for me. I even summed the positive and negative aspects as I saw them in a previous post.

    Simply stating I think she is a bad choice and moving on is ambivalence. If it was something that really had me worked up, there would have been 35 posts on the issue, and after the first fifteen posts, each one would have ended with me saying “This is my final word on the issue” or some variation of that.

    I’m an idiot, but I do have a degree of self-awareness.

  53. 53.

    crshedd

    November 19, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    obama said he would change how business is done in washington NOT who would do the change.

    let’s see if change comes regardless of who he picks.

  54. 54.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    November 19, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    That is a myth.

    It was Bill’s plan and Bill was the one who mismanaged it, not Hillary.

    Honestly, that doesn’t rehab Hillary Clinton’s image. That whole initiative was a fiasco, and Hillary was right in the middle of it. Sure, that article refutes criticisms of her that I’ve never believed, but it doesn’t do her any good beyond that.

  55. 55.

    Jack H.

    November 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    The change that’s needed is that C word so lacking in the Bush administration – competence. It’s not some crazy Doogie Howser Cabinet.

  56. 56.

    eponymous

    November 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    What Napoleon said (I made a similar argument in a previous post) – let’s see who Obama appoints as Assistant SOS. If it’s someone with good managerial/administrative skills, then Hillary doesn’t have to deal with the day-to-day stuff and can be left with being the face of State to the American public and the world.

  57. 57.

    Josh Hueco

    November 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    Christ almighty, I find Kos’ horde of brainless sheep nauseating

    For some reason I still go there every day, just because it’s good to know what people are talking about. But it’s not what it used to be. I love a lot of things Kos and the netroots have done (even got to meet him and Jerome before Jerome went to the dark side), but there is a lot of YAYYYYY!!!! or NOOOOOO!!!! over there and that gets old quickly.

  58. 58.

    Raenelle

    November 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Holy crap. Using anti-Broderism as the basis for judgment is pretty much equivalent to my lazy-ass anti-Bush rule of thumb for the last 9 years. (I knew his values were fucked up when I learned about his Karla Fay Tucker response.) Knee-jerk anti-Bushism was really, really effective. If Bush supports it, I’m agin it. Worked about as well as the laws of thermodynamics.

    However, what am I going to do now? Is one unintended negative consequence of Obama’s election going to be that I have to start thinking again? I might have to be occasionally wrong about things again? It’s been so pleasant over the last 9 years being absolutely 100% right about everything. I’ve just loved being able to say "I told you so." Every time.

    I’m going to have to think about this. Is it really worth losing my comfortable certainty, my benign neglect toward policy arguments? Merely in exchange for the improving fortunes of the the country and its citizens? Holy crap. I hadn’t realized the slacker upside to the Bush presidency until now.

  59. 59.

    eyeball

    November 19, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    Important point:

    With Hillary as SoS and Kerry as chair of Foreign Relations, Obama has all the pieces he needs in place.

    That’s why he’s the -elect and we’re all just blogging.

  60. 60.

    Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)

    November 19, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Hillary for SOS? Sure, why not. Holder for AG? Sign me up. As long as Cheney and Abu Gonzalez and Condi are gone, I can deal.

    The Democratic Underground Purity Police showed up at Tbogg’s joint the other night. In their tiny minds, anything less than Noam Chomsky for SOS and Fifty Cent for AG was unacceptable, and they wrote many, many words proving their point. At Tbogg, fer chrissakes….

    As for me: I’m easy. Obama speaks in complete sentences and Michelle sends starbursts around the living room. I’m good to go.

  61. 61.

    Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)

    November 19, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    OT: For the record, I want to clarify that I think Joe Lieberman is a sack of crap that should be flogged out of the Senate.

    Agreed. But I’m sure Obama now owns his ass. BO seems like a nice guy, but under the surface there seems to be a savvy, tough customer. I’m sure he extracted his pound of flesh.

  62. 62.

    Gwen

    November 19, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Obama spelled out what "change" meant in very specific terms in his acceptance speech at the convention. It was all about policy and getting things done and nothing to do with not working with people who have executive experience. Hell, in an early primary debate, Obama told Hillary he would seek her advice if he was Prez. It was a funny line, but it was also completely in line with everything he said all along and still says — he’ll call on good people with good ideas to help him clean up after Bush.

    So, when people trot out the old tired "that’s not change…" line about transition appointments, and potential staff and cabinet positions, it’s really just lazy and whiny. And not applicable.

  63. 63.

    passerby

    November 19, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Broder:

    What, then, is the problem? Clinton is the wrong person for that job in this administration. It’s not the best use of her talents, and it’s certainly not the best fit for this new president.

    What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations.

    Though I’m generally disgusted by the way most pundits frame the issues of the day, I agree with Broder’s opinion as set forth in this article.

    The Clinton’s have never impressed me as being interested in anything but their own power in this world. I don’t get the impression that they really give a damn about the people who elect them or of serving the Obama administration.

    And, I don’t think Bill is willing to give up the role of superstar-global wheeler/dealer and power broker at which he shines. Lots and lots of money in that.

    I wonder if Obama is trying to get discovery of the unpublished money-trails of Bill through the vetting process (which Bill would not reveal during the Hillary for VP consideration.)…Or, whether this is just part of the political deals that were made in return for her efforts during the campaign…Or does he want her out of congress for some reason. None of us has inside info, so we’re left with conjecture as to what has influenced his choice here.

    I’m dismayed at the thought of Clinton as SoS, but, Obama may have motives that haven’t been made clear yet.

    I don’t trust the Clintons as far as I can throw the Clintons.

    [blockquote anomoly]

  64. 64.

    passerby

    November 19, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    anomaly

  65. 65.

    Capelza Gradenko

    November 19, 2008 at 3:42 pm

    Josh Hueco…what dark side did Jerome go to?

    And I agree, there’s a lot of bullshit at Kos. But I still like Kos, even when he’s being an asshat, it is his site..though it seems that sometimes a few hundred thousand users forget that and the other few hundred thousand agree with every word.

  66. 66.

    Studly Pantload

    November 19, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    @The Moar You Know:

    I’m actually a GOS old timer, and while the rabble there does grate on my nerves plenty, I’m usually on board with Markos’ views. But seeing him bitch at Reid about Joe L. when it was obviously Obama’s call really has me scratching my head. Although, I do note with assurance that Krago’s FP post today regurgitating the whole thing is being swatted down fairly solidly. We’ve got too much on our plate to be succumbing to Lieberman Derangement Syndrome.

  67. 67.

    DougJ

    November 19, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    At any rate, all of this is a long way of me saying the following- now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection, and look forward to four and hopefully eight years of her at the State Department. I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing.

    Amen. This is like how I knew Obama had it wrapped up when Nagourney wrote about how McCain still had a chance. Up until then, I was nervous, but Nagourney is always wrong.

  68. 68.

    Studly Pantload

    November 19, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    @Josh Hueco:

    But it’s not what it used to be.

    Just to play devil’s advocate — would you be referring to pre-pie-wars or post-pie-wars?

  69. 69.

    Notorious P.A.T.

    November 19, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Or does he want her out of congress for some reason.

    That, to me, is the best reason to nominate her for SoS. But she is a junior senator, and would almost certainly be blocked from leading any major initiatives by more entrenched members (Ted Kennedy has blocked her from leading health care reform, for instance).

  70. 70.

    Brachiator

    November 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm

    Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration?

    Obama is practically deluged with offers to join up and work some of that "change" mojo on the nation and the world. I not worried yet, but am slightly disappointed that there are not more new faces. I’ve had more than enough of what we got with Bush, i.e., a lot of old hands mumbling about "experience" but determined to fight old battles that no one else cared about.

    People make a fetish of "qualifications" and "experience" when vision and competence may be much more important. Besides, Washington insiders and former power players often have an inflated and totally unearned view of their past influence and their future usefulness.

    Given a good Chief-of-Staff to bring organisational ability to the party, Hillary gets to be the person negotiating an end to America’s Imperial Adventure, and if she does it well, in his second term she gets a Supreme Court nomination.

    Clinton may do OK as Secretary of State. I hope she does well if she is selected. But Clinton and her acolytes have a weird sense of her abilities. They really need to let go of the idea that just because she is a "strong and powerful woman," she can then do anything.

    Senator Clinton has never successfully negotiated much of anything, and even her name recognition carries only so far in a rapidly changing world with a number of new players in place. And it is doubly weird that some people are floating the strange delusion that Bill and Hillary would be co-secretaries of state, spooning and negotiating and bringing peace to the world. This kind of crap is a bad romance novel.

    And as for Senator Clinton’s eventual elevation to the Supreme Court, well, this might be a tough sell given the fact that Clinton failed the D.C. Bar Exam and hasn’t shown a deep grasp of constitutional issues.

    I think that Clinton would be far more effective in the Senate, but if she goes to State, she will have to demonstrate that she really does have the goods and is not still coasting on her and Bill’s past reputation.

  71. 71.

    kay

    November 19, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    I can’t decide if it’s good or bad. My biggest problem with HRC is that I think she’s deeply and completely conventional. This is not a slam or an insult. I’m a long-term interested Democrat and I’ve always thought that about her. It’s why I thought the conservatives of the 90’s were slightly ridiculous: she’s no radical.

    This impression was reinforced during the primary,and particularly on foreign policy. I didn’t hear anything new out of Clinton. Not one thing. Nothing even interesting.

    It’s a "concern" for me.

  72. 72.

    tavella

    November 19, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    @ppcli: Well, if "change we can believe in" turns out just to mean "a more efficient, only slightly more left-leaning version of the Clinton days, with no blowjob-driven impeachment hearings, and a more self-disciplined #1" then I guess I’d be disappointed, but I could live with that. Those were pretty good times, as I recall. They sure are looking good right now.

    Yeah, the anti-Clinton hatred was stupid in 2000, stupid during the primaries, and stupid now. Bill Clinton’s administration was filled with smart people who wanted to make government work. To the extent that they sometimes screwed up early and thus we got 1994, it’s all the better to have people who *remember* those mistakes.

    What was rather amazing about his administration was how effective they were during the last 6 years, in the face of Republican control of the legislature and foaming hatred in the media.

  73. 73.

    Comrade Stuck

    November 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Yeah, the anti-Clinton hatred was stupid in 2000, stupid during the primaries, and stupid now. Bill Clinton’s administration was filled with smart people who wanted to make government work

    Baloney, the Clinton hatred you speak of was actually anger that she and her campaign purposely instigated. It started after her defeat in South Carolina, with mudslinging specifically designed to draw Obama into a tit for tat war that the Clinton’s excel in, at least with GOP opponents. But guess what, it didn’t work, and Obama turned it back on the Clinton’s and whooped their ass.

  74. 74.

    Dennis - SGMM

    November 19, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Obama is practically deluged with offers to join up and work some of that "change" mojo on the nation and the world. I not worried yet, but am slightly disappointed that there are not more new faces.

    Maybe in his second term. In his first term he needs competent mechanics more than he needs brilliant scientists.

  75. 75.

    DougJ

    November 19, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    Friedman’s against Hillary for SoS too.

    Have Friedman and Broder ever — and I mean ever — agreed on something that turned out to be true?

  76. 76.

    Steve S.

    November 19, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration?

    Well, you’re just a blogger so I don’t expect you to know where these people are hiding, but Obama is highly educated, has lots of connections both in and out of government, and has had the better part of two years to think about this. I’m not surprised that he is simply installing the Hillary Clinton Administration, since everyone outside the idealists knows that the "change" stuff was just horseshit to get elected, but I thought that he might at least sprinkle in a few new faces for the sake of appearances. Maybe he still will, we’ll see.

    Not that this is the worst thing in the world, of course. The worst thing in the world would be a continuation of comically inept Bush cronies and extremist, warmongering neocons. But the "change" we are getting is definitely with a small c.

  77. 77.

    David in NYC

    November 19, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Since Nader has reared his head in a couple comments, I wanted to share this comment from another site (can’t remember where and don’t have time to search right now, unfortunately):

    Ralph Nader spent the first part of his career putting seat belts in cars, and the last part putting turds in punchbowls.

    As for Obama’s methods, I think we can stipulate first and foremost that he knows what he’s doing, or he wouldn’t have been nominated and then elected. Can anyone here honestly say they thought that would happen 12 months ago?

    Second, Obama appears to be playing a different game (even in a different league) than most. I know he says he has been reading a lot of Lincoln lately, but he clearly has read and absorbed, among other things, The Art of War. I am particularly reminded of this:

    Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

    And, from that perspective, an interesting analysis of the Lieberman kerfuffle.

  78. 78.

    Comrade Stuck

    November 19, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    @Steve S.:

    But the "change" we are getting is definitely with a small c.

    Campaign rhetoric is always exaggerated, always has been. But extrapolating out whether, or how much, Obama will make changes simply based on his selection of his subordinates is in the BTD zone of future telling. His squeaky clean vetting standards are already a change in themselves, and they are actually happening in the here and now. But I know, you’re a really smart dude and already know what’s going to happen.

  79. 79.

    Brachiator

    November 19, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    @Dennis – SGMM:

    Obama is practically deluged with offers to join up and work some of that "change" mojo on the nation and the world. I not worried yet, but am slightly disappointed that there are not more new faces.

    Maybe in his second term. In his first term he needs competent mechanics more than he needs brilliant scientists.

    Life is rarely simply either/or. The best new solutions are typically "both/and." The Manhattan Project required both visionary physicists and practical engineers. Eliminating polio required the vision to see the possibilities and the practical creation of an easily produced and deliverable vaccine.

    I looked forward to a lot of new change agents who would be energized not by their mere loyalty to Obama but because they were unleashed by him. And I applaud many of his Clinton-related appointments, but look for more people who will not sit around talking about how they used to do things during the Clinton Administration, but who will be focused on what needs to be done now.

  80. 80.

    Cassidy

    November 19, 2008 at 11:30 pm

    @ Steve S.
    Really? Small "c"? We just elected a black man as President, you dolt!

  81. 81.

    CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII

    November 20, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Clinton’s problems had nothing to do with who he had in his administration, but had to do with his sliding zipper (and for the record, I see no reason why Obama would have that particular problem).

  82. 82.

    Joe Buck

    November 20, 2008 at 12:53 pm

    In addition to federal government experience, there’s also state government experience, particularly for domestic issues. The focus should be on large states (New York, California, Illinois, etc).

  83. 83.

    fred lapides

    November 21, 2008 at 11:54 am

    what needs to be said:
    cynics and conservatives et al now bitch that we are not to see change since Obama appointing people from Clinton era. But Malcolm Gladwell in his latest book Outliers, points out that very bright people can not begin to produce their brightness till they have a few thousand hours of experience behind them. Thus, Obama needs to call upon those with much experience and he will then lead them to the changes he has in mind. He does not plan to let the appointees do what they had done years ago but rather to call upon their expertise to assist him.
    Would you want a surgeon brand new, never before tested, or one who has been around and whose work is well known?

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » And Now The Other Argument says:
    November 19, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    […] know, I just don’t know. Even though I snarked earlier about Broder, my gut instinct was to oppose her in this position, but to not think it is the end of the world if […]

  2. Speculation Frustration « Grand Moff Texan’s MOMENT OF TRIUMPH says:
    November 20, 2008 at 11:11 am

    […] Benen, Kevin Drum, and John Cole each have their own STFU take on this noise. […]

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • Gin & Tonic on Our President Joe Open Thead: The Man LOVES His Job (Feb 8, 2023 @ 7:13pm)
  • Steeplejack on War for Ukraine Day 349: President Zelenskyy Goes to London (Feb 8, 2023 @ 7:12pm)
  • Bill Arnold on War for Ukraine Day 349: President Zelenskyy Goes to London (Feb 8, 2023 @ 7:11pm)
  • sanjeevs on War for Ukraine Day 349: President Zelenskyy Goes to London (Feb 8, 2023 @ 7:10pm)
  • Baud on Our President Joe Open Thead: The Man LOVES His Job (Feb 8, 2023 @ 7:10pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!