And Al Giordano has a very interesting read as to why Hillary SHOULD NOT be Secretary of State:
Meanwhile, among the 70 percent or so of the Netroots for whom events have not bamboozled us into thinking that anything at all has changed about Clintonian operating procedure (and have only seen it confirmed by the media freak show and cat-and-mouse Hamlet games surrounding talk of and lobbying for the Secretary of State post), some folks definitely need to learn to see the difference between the ex-Clintonites and the eternally stuck-in-the-90s ones.
Sometimes the best way to test reality is to go see what they are saying on the other side of the ideological spectrum. On the neoconservative right, the gushing over Clinton as Secretary of State from Kissinger on down has been very revealing (and has led some of the right-wing wiseguys that are sometimes capable of seeing the political machinations – in this case John Fund, Rush Limbaugh and Kathryn Jean Lopez – to suggest that we are witnessing another classic Obama “head fake” simply because it seems too good to be true that the Obama that just kicked their asses at the ballot box would so immediately hand back to them that gift that keeps on giving).
The right wing loves the idea of a Secretary of State Clinton.
But they’re super scared about what an Attorney General Eric Holder could accomplish to undo all the harm that they have wrought.
You 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 she is Secretary of State. I stated earlier today that I was ambivalent, and it was pointed out in the comments that I did initially say she was a bad pick. And as I noted in the comments, this really is not an inconsistency for me. I can think she is a bad pick but not really be wedded to that position (despite flashes of rage during the primary when I was appalled by the notion of Hillary anywhere near a potential Obama administration). To state again, if I really thought it would be the end of the world, I would have had 35 posts by now (go ahead and look for Schiavo posts in 2005, I dare you), with the last 25 ending with the statement “This is my final thought on the matter.” So, again, I am ambivalent.
At some point, and this blog is going on seven years, you have to realize that when you have been wrong about so many things, not having an answer or an opinion is perfectly ok. Obama seems to be pretty competent, so I will just sit back and wait and see. If he picks her, it will not be the end of the world, if he does not, life will go on. Again, ambivalent. I can see the pros and the cons.
Trollhattan
Clinton = handy substitute for Janet Reno? Or perhaps the wingnuts are hoping Bill plays grabass with the estimable Mrs. Sarkozy.
Comrade Stuck
Aside from being the longest sentence in the history of blogging, I see this as a big plus. I and others have been saying from about day one that the left is going to be disillusioned when Obama governs from the center. Amid all the holler and hoops, he himself has said this over and over and over again, but apparently, as my Granny used to say, in one ear and out the other. How many times has Obama used the word Pragmatic to describe himself personally and politically. It’s kind of like having a demanding and controlling father. The best way to deal with him is to disappoint early and thoroughly, then you can be free to do what you think is right. No Drama, No Personal, No Grudges, and No Excuses. Just get’er done Obama.
Comrade Stuck
Yea right. :)
WereBear
I have learned that while I might not like certain Obama decisions, I do like the goals he is after.
So I’m willing to concede that he knows more about this than I do. Wasn’t Carter’s problem that he came in with all newbies, all the time… and got hammered by the learning curve and the lack of cooperation?
It’s like an indie director getting their first big studio picture. However it turns out, it’s new rules. And ya gotta play by them.
Antonius
Start thinking like chess player.
The media will go all "chase the shiny" if the Clintons are involved in the administration, leaving Obama to quietly get some work done.
Hillary will be perfectly competent as Secretary of State, and the media will obsess over her and her husband, leaving Obama alone.
MNPundit
What I don’t get, is how Obama expects us to hold him accountable? He hasn’t given a flying fuck what we think.
demkat620
Yeah, I have to be honest. Not really seeing the upside myself. Just doesn’t get me excited. But, I was never a Hillbot.
kay
I have to say, I’m bothered by the very public Clinton decision-making process here.
I don’t see the point of Clinton’s supporters or staffers or whoever they are announcing she’s "torn" or that Bill "will cooperate!"
It gives me pause, is all. I don’t get why they’re doing it, and I’d like it if they’d stop doing it.
I didn’t see Daschle engaging in this stuff. Is it necessary? Is it wise?
Objective Scrutator
I still think that a Hagel pick would be the best political choice for Obama. The media would cease all criticisms of Obama, and he’d win over RINOs to his side.
If you ask me, we need to go with Michael Ledeen for Secretary of State. But Obama won’t pick him. He’ll pick someone like Cindy Sheehan or Ted Rall, knowing his intellect and his hatred of experienced politicians.
Comrade Stuck
@Antonius:
Whatever else it means, it gets the Clinton’s, both of them, out of domestic policy, and mutes the inevitable sniping that would come from POTUS wannabe Hillary. Especially on health care. In the plus column, I’d say.
pseudonymous in nc
Two concerns:
The SoS represents the president. No freelancing allowed.
The State Department needs its mojo back. That requires someone at the top or near the top who can address the structural problems at Foggy Bottom.
One problem here is that the press still has a set of lizard-brain ‘Clinton fever’ learned responses, and they won’t go away any time soon. The templates for articles on Obama-Clinton Byzantine intrigue have already been laid out, even if Pat Healy won’t be around to rifle through Clinton’s underwear drawer.
There’s clearly a desire to avoid the 1993-4 rookie mistakes of the Clinton admin; Obama knows that an administration isn’t the self-contained, bespoke enterprise that a campaign can be; putting solid DC operators at the top, on a tight leash, with new blood beneath them means there’s room to promote from within, perhaps within a couple of years; having Hillary out of the Senate takes away a standard wingnut refrain for health care reform; etc.
demkat620
Now see, you are just trying to hard. Psycheout was much better at this.
Punchy
Jesus Christ in a brothel! Is there ANYTHING the left won’t fuckin bitch about? WFC who his Cabby consists of. Let him pick Bill Cosby for SecofJelloPuddin for all I care.
robertdsc
I don’t like her and don’t think she’s qualified. But until an official announcement is made, I’m going to wait and see. Obama’s earned that much.
And Al Girodano is great. Long live Al.
Comrade Stuck
@Objective Scrutator:
The position is for Secretary of State
NOT
Secretary of Snake
Volum
I don’t understand why anyone thinks Hillary, or anyone else Obama picks, is suddenly going to not follow Obama’s lead.
Obama is POTUS. Noone else is. The people who work in Obamas cabinet, follow his lead.
Do people think he’s suddenly become so weak, that his SoS is going to dictate his foreign policy?
Do people honestly think that anyone will shove him to the side, and he will allow it?
WTH are people smoking?
This same thing happened in the primaries. Every time he’d announce something, or something was leaked, the entire intrawebs would explode with "WHY IS HE MAKING THIS HUUUUGE MISTAKE??"…then two weeks later, you’d discover it was an extremely wise choice, for reasons you just didn’t understand at that time.
kay
@pseudonymous in nc:
There’s this whole school of thought that Obama believes in big, bold moves. The reaction to Wright was brilliant, and it was apparently his alone. A lesser politician would have spent the remaining weeks of his campaign caught up in "what did you know, and when did you know it?" re: Wright.
Obama instead decided to explain race relations, and disarmed his critics, and completely baffled the press.
I don’t understand this pick. The risk seems to outweigh the reward.
Fencedude
Obama is POTUS. Noone else is. The people who work in Obamas cabinet, follow his lead.
How did that old anecdote go?
"The vote is 15 for, and 1 against. The motion is defeated unanimously"
Objective Scrutator
Clinton can do neither, which is why I think she would make an OK Secretary of State.
This is true. HillaryCare, which even the Left will admit is awful, was just one of many bad positions with the Clinton Administration; I still think that the assault rifle ban was what got Mr. Limbaugh and his shock troopers to open fire on the modern day incarnation of Fort Sumter, though. The Clintons also realized, in 1994, that Big Government was a BAD thing. The Hildebeest, however, remains a consistent opponent to just about anyone that tries to steal her grub.
MikeJ
Here’s my guess: after Obama has announced the rest of his cabinet Clinton decides she’d be happier in the Senate. Meanwhile, between now and then the media has left everybody being considered for Sect. of Agriculture alone.
pseudonymous in nc
No, but the press can’t wait to write vaguely-sourced stories about Clinton drama. It’s easy, lazy work for them. (Another thing: the Clinton camp seems to leak like a colander.) Perhaps the idea might be to put in a bunch of second-tier people from Obama’s for-pol circle, but that just sets up the potential for a reprise of Powell getting cut out of the loop while John Bolton got the red phone from Cheney’s office.
Perhaps the idea is to keep the press busy with Clinton trivia, but that’s an extra layer of jujitsu that I don’t buy. Steve Clemons is more interested in the for-pol dynamics, and he sees it as ‘potentially brilliant, potentially risky’, which pretty much sums up how I feel.
A pity, then, that he’s dead.
JWW
John,
Obama seems to be pretty competent
Makes me feel a whole lot better coming from you.
DRD 1812
Did John Cole write that today? No, Agent Flowbee did. Stopped clock, or is he coming around?
Vincent
If it’s true that one of the reasons Obama picked Clinton was so that she could be a lightning rod for right-wing nuttery, then why on earth would she accept the job? Nobody could possibly like drama that much!
kay
@MikeJ:
I followed that for a while. I thought it was to distract from Treasury, because everyone will parse that endlessly, but then he announced NOT Treasury but the entirely non-controversial Daschle pick.
I give up. I’m stumped.
Comrade Stuck
Didn’t say he was a satanist. I said he was a snake. The Urban Dictionary kind.
And reading your rantings is enough torture for anyone. Somebody call the CIA, we got an idea.
Cancel that call, he might well be a dead snake. I won’t cry at such news, if true
Punchy
I suspect Spook Flowbee and his apple polishers will attempt to reinstall themselves into the mainstream Dem party just long enough to hurl "N#gger!", then turn and waddle away giggling and slipping on their own drool.
JWW
Also John,
As I have said before if anyone could or would follow your posts for more than 24hrs. You still convey the same 24 hour news cycle, your readers would like it to be 12 hours. They haven’t the time or inclination go back a full day in history. You seem to be getting that drift now, you change your stance and never commit to anything.
Your spine and your heart must find it hard to co-exist.
DougJ
Sorry, but if Friedman and Broder think it’s a bad idea, it must be a good idea. That’s not snark, it’s just the cold, hard truth. If we can Brooks to weigh in against it, then I hope all of you can admit that it’s a truly brilliant idea.
Steve S.
No, not at all. Virtually all his top people were old Democratic hacks or veterans of the military-industrial complex. Hamilton Jordan was considered a hick (as was Carter to some extent), but most of them had Washington insider bona fides.
ninerdave
What kind of blogger are you? Not having an opinion on a Clinton? That violates all known blogging laws. I mean you’re supposed to either launch in a scathing screed or a gushing love fest. Doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong. Doesn’t matter which Clinton, hell it could be Socks. Seeing Pros and Cons my ass, what are you trying out for a gig at the Times or WaPo?
Shame on you.
Polish the Guillotines
Let’s not forget: Clinton (Bill) was (is) very, very popular overseas. Hillary brings that mojo-by-proxy, and that means lots of open doors and a huge Rolodex of international connections. Now. Immediately. And where the door-hinges might be a little sticky, you can bet Bill will be able to loosen them on the sly.
It’s Instant Foreign Policy(tm). Just add water. There’s so much shit going on right now that Obama’s gonna need a plug-n-play State Department so he can stay focused on the economy.
If Hillary’s the serious, heads-down wonk her supporters claim she is, then this could be a decent move.
Dave Latchaw
Considering the campaign he just ran, I have a sneaking hunch that Barack Obama might just know what the fuck he is doing. I’ll enjoy watching it play out.
Lavocat
HRC is a horrible choice for State for the obvious reason that she has a very Bushian/Rovian outlook when it comes to foreign policy.
Besides, this is a woman very attuned to a domestic audience with little or no gravitas in foreign policy matters.
Other than dodging bullets (ahem) in Bosnia some time ago, the best she can elicit is a yawn when it comes to any substantive accomplishments beyond these shores.
Do I like HRC? No, I despise her. However, she would be most useful in sheparding domestic legislation.
Why not just leave her in the Senate and give her a plum chairwomanship?
HRC is change we can’t believe in.
Joshua Norton
You still don’t come even close to ole Kristol Ball’s record. Little goodies like "Stevens Will Hang On In Alaska" and "McCain Will Conquer The Path To The Presidency" give him as much insight and accuracy as a fortune cookie.
Joshua Norton
I tend to feel the same way. Although my irony detector is going into defcon5 because apparently "Change We Need" seems to involve the same old cast of characters we didn’t need.
Comrade Stuck
@Joshua Norton:
Wonder why we haven’t heard from the God Whisperer, our very own Good Rev Pat Robertson? Maybe cause he’s loading up the Van for his trip to paradise.
Hey Pat, God told me HE was sending you to Venezuela instead, for some face time with Hugo. I asked God why? He answered, because HE could.
Ed Marshall
Cabinet positions are malleable. The Clinton and Bush executives have slid all over the map on how important the job at SecState is. If Obama wants to do direct White House diplomacy the job doesn’t amount to much.
Comrade Jake
I’m not bothered by HRC possibly being Sec. State, for whatever reason.
However… I do have to laugh at all the folks now suggesting she has great foreign policy experience for the job. I simply cannot do that with a straight face, not when I mocked said experience during the primaries. Tuzla, anyone?
Nor can I say with a straight face that she has the management skills that would seem to be required to clean up the State Dept. Nor can I say that she’ll be able to do her job without the media just waiting for her to have a public spat with Obama, or turn a non-issue into a full-blown one-month media extravaganza. Sigh.
So, if this appointment makes sense, it would be for reasons that I really do not understand. I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt here, and hope it works out for the best, but I’m pretty much in the dark as to the rationalization behind it.
Comrade Stuck
Well, you became right about Bush long before your then peers did, and confronted them with their blind wingnuttery. That’s something. And it takes a special kind of foolishness to jump feet first into the quasi anarchic democratic circus, which on a good day could be considered brave.
Ed Marshall
Bush never happened. Bush was a liberal. They always hated Bush. Eastasia has always been at war with Eurasia. They all hated him ever since the prescription drug benefit. It’s fucking amazing.
ninerdave
@Lavocat:
Lavocat ur doin’ it wrong. It’s "HRC is not change we can believe in"…then you do a creepy laugh.
That phrase is going to get really old, really fast. It will be the last thing anyone says when complaining about something Obama’s doing that they don’t like.
ninerdave
@JWW:
JWW how the fuck you been doin??? Still on the sauce I see. Glad to see your incoherent ramblings at John again.
Indylib
@Joshua Norton:
That’s an insult to fortune cookies.
pattonbt
Im no fan of HRC nor am I a hater, but I do believe her as SoS has way more upside than down. The Clintons are beloved overseas and having them gallivanting around the world on behalf of Obama for a US unity pony tour is all sorts of win.
Sure there are domestic media soap opera concerns to consider, but foreign leaders will fall over themselves to greet the Clintons once again. They are a symbolic reminder of better times and a better US. This should help Obama and his agenda immeasurably.
Will the ride last for 4 years? Probably not. But the Clintons have built in street cred and doors will open wide for them right off the bat – no bridge building / repairing needed.
So maybe Obama is willing to put up with some trivial daily US news cycle drama to gets the results he wants from foreign leaders because they want to hang with the Clintons and their new hip black friend.
pseudonymous in nc
That’s sort of how I see it being crafted: use the Clintons to open the doors — and to call in the favours from the address book — and send in the career diplomats behind them to do the fine print.
My gut sense is that it would certainly be greeted favourably in Foreign, albeit with a degree of curiosity over the choice and how much Clinton would be an envoy and how much her own agent — again, you don’t want freelancing, though you choose a chief diplomat with the skill to deliver the message and argue the toss according to the best of her/his abilities.
Conservatively Liberal
Obama could pick the Perfect Conservative (whoever that may be) for SoS and the wingnuts would go batshit insane about them. I am sure that Obama and his crew know that the wingnuts are going to howl with every step his administration takes. Nothing but total abdication of the Presidency to a Perfect Conservative Candidate (whoever that may be) will appease them. Maybe.
Clinton had the disadvantage of the right wingers ramping up the attacks over a period of time. The longer Clinton was in operation the more the Republicans ramped up the Mighty Wurlitzer against him. This helped to drag the public along as it seemed reasonable that if someone was a fuckup then complaints against them would rise over time, the sheer volume of them alone making for the appearance of problems with/for Clinton.
Obama has the advantage of knowing how the wingnuts are going to attack him, and he can use that to his advantage by letting them get as unreasonable as they can. Let them get in to a fine lather so that everyone sees that they have been attacking him even before taking office. The wingnuts are obliging Obama with the sheer stupidity of their attacks as he has not even taken office and yet they are saying we are doomed.
Then all Obama does is just keep on keeping on. Steady and forward, leaving the wingnuts to froth in his wake. All he has to do is do his job as he sees it and produce results. The more results he produces, the worse the wingnuts look. The more he can keep them foaming, the easier it will be to get the rest of the public behind him and get results.
Obama is a pragmatist, and he moves like one. You can bet that he does not make a decision until he has thought it through from every angle he can think of, and even then he will second guess his decisions to some degree. In the end, I believe that he will do what is right for a situation but only time will tell.
Until then, keep the popcorn handy and make sure to piss off all the winger bloggers you can. Keep them foaming and sane people will start to avoid them like they really do have rabies. The more unreasonable they get, they more they will repel reasonable people.
Win – win. ;)
JGabriel
John Cole @ Top:
Yep, that’s pretty much how I feel about it too.
Unfortunately, that’s not an attitude that leads to a clever quip, or, really, anything at all interesting to say on the subject. I wish I had more to add.
.
burnspbesq
The definitive explanation of Clinton-as-SecState was given many years ago:
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
As much as I hated her campaign tactics, I’m of a mind to think she’d be a great SoS. She gets to play world leader chess and if she gets out of line and becomes insubordinate, Obama has the right to take her down. Personally, I don’t see that she would take that kind of risk, it could sully her reputation. I think she’ll be a team player and this is an appropriate bone to throw at her.
Then again, perhaps I’m just naive.
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Copied from a quote, not sure who said this, but whoever you are, I’m in total agreement.
grandpajohn
I would like to suggest that if we survived 8 years of bush misrule, then the next 4 have to look like utopia regardless of who he appoints for various jobs.
LarryB
I don’t think anyone’s mentioned this: Don’t SoSs travel alot? One possible advantage to Obama having Hillary at State is that it gets her out of the country.
dave
Hey, remember when Hillary was going to take the fight to the convention so that Obama would lose the general election?
Remember when she was not going to campaign for Obama?
Why should I listen to people predicting she will attempt to destroy Obama from within when, since 1992, these same people have been wrongly attributing evil motives to everything this poor woman does.
I was never a big fan of the Clintons, but I continue to be utterly amazed at the way they are treated (and especially the way liberals either join in or appear to be fine with it)