I think a significant Obama win in WI today would mark the time for Clinton to start considering what she’d want in exchange for quitting the nomination race. So I got to imagining where she might be an asset to Obama’s administration. She’s competent, experienced in the ways of DC, and ambitious. She could be a significant asset But doing what?
Turns out to be a harder problem than I first thought. She has focused heavily on child welfare, so maybe Sec of Education. But she seems committed to the oppressive testing program and federal busybodying that characterize NCLB. I think states or other local governments need funding without all the bureaucracy. Would she be willing to make the transition?
Or there’s Health and Human Services. But Bill’s “welfare reform” makes that seem kind of iffy. And the shadow of her health-care disaster would be a barrier. Still, she could probably be counted on to get the theocracy out of the department’s policies, which would be a big step forward from what we have now.
As AG, she’d certainly put a shitload of fear into the hearts of a bunch of Republicans. But where does she balance between civil liberties and the appearance of security? I’d worry that she’d tilt pretty far toward the latter.
Maybe the best spot, to my mind, would be Social Security administrator. Her administrative abilities and committment to SS might bring much-needed retooling. But would that be a visible enough position to interest her?
That’s as far as I got. How about you?
Although AG might be interesting for her, I don’t think she will give up her senatorial duties. She’s got some 4 years left representing my state and probably will have the job for as many terms as she wants. I really don’t think there’s anything that Obama could entice her with, short of the VP slot.
I think Obama should offer her the first vacancy in the Supreme Court. She would make a really good Supreme Court Justice, and we need another woman on the court.
As far as education is concerned, check your facts! Hillary has said she wants to get rid of NCLB. Obama wants to “fix it.” I agree with Hillary that it can’t be fixed. I think it’s all too easy if you are a progressive and support Obama, mostly because of his stand on Iraq prior to the invasion, that he has a more daring and progressive approach than Hillary to all issues. That is not true. I have followed him from before his election to the Senate, and have been disappointed by his failure to speak out and take a daring stand on many issues.
Actually I think her earlier speeches on education were very good:
But she is talking reform, not getting rid of NCLB. I’m not sure how you measure “passion for learning” without some kind of test, which by its nature can’t do the job. As long as fed education money is allocated based on fed standards, I don’t see how it can work, and she doesn’t seem to support letting local/state governments make their own decisions.
Anyway, I take it you think she’d make a great Education secretary?
scrub that thought. Why would you wish an Obama administration to be distracted by the Clintons?
The Clintons need to retire and continue milking the connections made during their White House years.
Let them pursue money and power elsewhere because rules on conflicts of interest don’t apply. There’s no shame. Just push the envelope, preferably stuffed please.
I think Bill would be a problem with Hillary as president, but can’t see it if she were a member of the cabinet. There are things she could do well and constituencies she can energize — why not take advantage of that?
still think it a very bad idea.
The No:1 problem is Bill and his varied activities.
The No:2 problem is the media focus will be on the Clintons…with other scandals ahead. Count on it.
Would Obama injext his administration with such a circus? Unwise.
Reid will be stepping down at some point and the post, Majority Leader of the Senate, will be available.
l would hope that there’s not a place.
if obama pulls this off, the best place for all the DLC types is the unemployment line, imo.
staying in the senate, where, should she decide to, she could actually give support to the changes that need to happen, would be a far better choice. as far as consideration of her as majority leader…l’m thinking dodd is a better option.
I’m not sure where she’d fit in in an Obama administration that would be better than where she is now (i.e. in the Senate helping to drive legislation). The best I can come up with would be if Obama were to go to her and make some kind of deal: “Listen, if you suspend your race and put your weight behind me, I’ll nominate you for HHS Secretary, I’ll drop my health plan after the election and you can drive your health care plan from there. Not only that, I’ll set up Bill as UN ambassador.” And even that isn’t very good, and pulled completely out of my ear.
I’d rather see Edwards in that position. I’m not sure who else would be up for consideration. The only names I can think of are Spitzer, who is in a good spot right now as governor of NY, and Fitzpatrick, and I’m not convinced his work will be done by the time Obama would take office.
She’ll be better in the Senate, much better than she’s been so far. Once the albatross of a presidential run is taken off her neck, she can stop triangulating and use her formidable brain and guts to push good legislation. She’s been neutered by this Presidential stuff. Once that is off the table she can make a hopefully considerable mark in the Senate, following in the footsteps of Jacob Javits and Daniel Moynihan.
Videogame Ratings Board.