What is the legitimate upside to having Hillary Clinton at the State Department? I keep trying to come up with the best case scenario, but I just can’t convince myself. It’s being sold as a bold move, but it looks more like a possible castration.
Meanwhile, several sources said [Ret. Gen. Jim] Jones has moved to the top of the list to be Obama’s national security adviser and the sides are in advanced talks. Sources familiar with the talks said Obama is considering expanding the scope of the job to give the adviser the kind of authority once wielded by powerful figures like Henry Kissinger.
If Obama moves national security policy inside the White House a la Richard Nixon then the State Department won’t be worth a warm bucket of spit. Clinton will be nothing more than a national cheerleader with no platform to differ publicly from the Obama administration and no pathway for a primary challenge. If the idea is to neuter Clinton, then this move might make sense. The problem is that Lanny Davis lives and breathes, and the Clintons will be an unrelenting pain in the ass.
Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.
H. Clinton presents a tough Cold Warrior visage which may help in some negotiations, but while she can threaten pushing the button she can’t push the button. I wouldn’t say castrate, she brings something to the job, but it’ll be hard for her to create any mischief in the Senate if she’s in State.
It appears that H. Clinton wants State. Maybe she’s getting bored with the Senate.
She’s the Jr. Senator from NY. That ought to tell you all you need to know. Chairs no significant committees, has no platform. Would have to spend years going from one lousy rubber chicken banquet in upstate NY or on Long Island after another.
State gives her back the spotlight. And better dining opportunities.
Very true. Although, if I were advising Clinton, I would tell her to treat her shameful campaign as her personal Chappaquidick. Put her nose to the grindstone and become a legendary legislator like Teddy Kennedy, and eventually she’ll have her reward in posterity. It’s something she is pretty good at doing, so she should do it.
at State. She needs to rehab her reputation, and knows I am sure how many dems she pissed off. She needs to rehab, and the only way is to really do well at a high-profile job like State.
Teddy was 37 and had already been in the Senate seven years. Most of the Senate giants get there early in their thirties. Hillary is looong in the tooth for a meaningful Senate career.
I disagree. She could easily rise to the chair of Armed Services with 8-10 years.
Of course, to us ordinary Joe Sixpacks, being the junior senator from NY seems like a dream job. To others it is merely a placeholder.
Never saw you as Joe Sixpack, Boran2!
I don’t see an upside.
It seems like it would be better to let the Clintons fade slowly into the past. There is nothing ‘new and bold’ in stepping back into the past.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
We are so screwed in this country. No matter where we turn, we see the same faces staring back at us.
nalbar
I can craft partial upsides, but I find them all ultimately unconvincing. Now, if Bill Clinton didn’t exist, that would be different. If Clintonistas didn’t exist, that would be different. But they do. And they’ll screw everything up for Hillary like they always do. And that will ultimately screw things up for Obama.
“so…..you still think you can control them huh?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReIAna459sg&feature=related
some things never change
Of course it’s a method for marginalizing the Clintons. They are a known brand and a known quantity. They will shoot themselves in the foot, as they so often have. Obama, after having offered the Clintons the olive branch, will have no choice but to excuse them from the table — probably because of some of Bill’s backdoor shenanigans.
If the Clintons do manage to keep it together long enough to make SoS work for them, it will be because Hillary publically divorces Bill and embraces Brzezinski’s tack on global politics. Otherwise, this Washington power couple will be increasingly seen as a political backwater that no other country will be interested in dealing with.
We are in too much trouble to play these games. If this appointment is simply a plan by Obama to put the Clintons on the margins than Obama is dangerously incompetent.
Clinton to SoS then to SCOTUS when an opening comes up is the same situation. Right now we need EVERYONE in the administration to be on the same page, both home and abroad. Certainly Obama knows this. So Obama must believe the Clinton’s agree with him on all substantial matters, or else we are at risk of sending a blurred message at a time that we cannot risk it.
So either the Clinton’s have agreed to follow orders, or Obama agrees with Clinton’s positions, and the positions of all the advisors she will bring with her.
It’s more likely the second.
nalbar
I hadn’t heard the Supreme Court option before. Does Hillary have the legal credentials to be credible as a Supreme Court judge? And wouldn’t such a move be an acknowledgment that her Presidential ambitions were over?
SCOTUS is way better than President, any day. IMO.
If she shoots herself in the foot too badly, Obama will have to “reluctantly” accept her resignation as the whole of Congress clamors for her head. Then she will have no power base as a senator to come at him in 2012.
By putting herself under his command, she puts herself in his power. On the other hand, perhaps there is a deal to give her the VP slot in 2012 if she pulls it off.
I think economic events will overshadow foreign policy except to the extent the two are related (i.e., G20 summits, etc.) and in that case the Treasury Secretary will have far greater significance.
International events have a tendency to set their own time table.
nalbar
Sorry Steven D,
Foreign Policy and Economic Policy — different side of the same coin.
Oh My. Perhaps the Treasury printing presses or keyboards are down.
US seeks 300 billion dlrs from Gulf states: report
Not to mention should Citigroup goes, who will pony up $600 billion jeld by foreign depositors?
Obama is considering expanding the scope of the job to give the adviser the kind of authority once wielded by powerful figures like Henry Kissinger.
That comes as no surprise to me. Justin Raimondo speculated that Obama thinks that he is going to be so preoccupied with domestic policy that he wants to delegate foreign policy to someone else, and that he decided that it might as well be to the Clintons. But it occurred to me that if a president is going to delegate foreign policy, a more appropriate model might be Nixon and Kissinger as his NSA.
So Obama might be pulling a bait and switch on the Clintons!
Well, remember, Nixon didn’t delegate foreign policy to anyone (until Watergate overtook him), and that is precisely why Kissinger was so powerful and Rogers and Laird were so weak.
If Obama is to follow Nixon’s lead, that means that all major foreign policy decisions will be made through the National Security Council and inside the White House. That’s not delegation, it’s the opposite.
Of course, Reagan managed to do both by letting Poppy run everything thru the NSC and Bush Jr. delegated to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
But Obama isn’t a doofus like St. Ronnie and the Chimp.
I think that’s all correct.
Running foreign policy in the NSC might not be delegation exactly, but if the president has high confidence in his NSA, the president himself doesn’t need to spend a lot of time thinking and talking about foreign policy.
I don’t think that delegating to the Department of State would make much sense at the moment, given that there are two wars on. Wars are part of foreign policy.
Ultimately, presidents have to delegate almost everything. But keeping Defense and State out of the decision making process is a decision that some presidents make and others don’t.
Republicans have always distrusted the State Department, so they always marginalize it. Democrats use the State Department more constructively. If Obama marginalizes State it will be pretty demoralizing for the institution, and I think that would be a mistake.
Geeze what a job Obama has. There is not one single Department that does not need its moral raised. Certainly after Rice the State Department needs to be ‘brought into the loop’.
So your post may touch on the whole point of the appointment. Clinton might be just the person to bring an uplifting attitude to State. It even might allow Obama to marginalize State if there is the APPEARANCE of influence, which both Clinton’s can do. She is no toady, like Rice.
I can see Obama looking at the situation of State and Justice needing their moral boosted. The way to do it with State is with a ‘can do’ person who can negotiate with the best. That could be her.
Justice? You need a ball breaking prosecutor that puts the cuffs on the bad guys.
nalbar
In all of this HRC SoS discussion, let me ask of our forgotten VP, Joe Biden who apparently was picked for his foreign policy expertise and made it a condition of his acceptance (or so I read) that the Obama-Biden gig was a partnership –Biden would help, mot just sit on sidelines as a spectator.
Hmmmmm. Serious deep thought there.
that the job of repair of our good name and our relationships to other countries will be very big. Perhaps they will divvy it up. If we had one person who did South America and Africa, and one who did Europe and Asia, that might be a good model.
More than enough work for 2, 3, 4. But someone has to lead…
I’m not sure that Obama really is going to delegate foreign policy. It sure looks like he will (1) have contending views, (2) involve Congress (through Joe Biden), and (3) keep his own counsel. And he will consult with allies.
If Richardson does indeed wind up at Commerce, I suspect that there will be some attention paid to the architecture of a new international economic framework. Whatever a Bretton-Woods type agreement looks like in this environment. And Commerce might be the point for trade negotiations.
Hillary’s value. She can go to Teheran without appearing to support enemies of Israel. She has unfinished Clinton business in seeing the build-down of the Cold War US vs Russian nuclear arsenals.
I’m not sure if he’s going to do that, either. At the moment, I’m having trouble figuring out what he wants to do.
You’re suggesting that Obama is going to have a very forward-looking agenda when it comes to foreign policy. Everyone will be very pleased if you turn out to be right.
Forward-looking agenda? I didn’t say that. I just said that it would be Obama’s agenda, not Clinton’s and that it would be arrived at after contention of views among advisers.
At this point, I and a lot of other folks are trying to imagine what a forward-looking agenda might be–beyond the obvious Middle East and Afghanistan policy questions and actions.
IMO, this is a moment of reframing international relations in a way that has not been done since Harry Truman put the frame of the Cold War on national security policy. The “GWOT” is nothing more than the same frame with a different enemy; no wonder it did not work to make us more secure (indeed it increased the risk of nuclear proliferation).
Everyone is clear, even the Chinese, that high national security costs are sapping the global economy. How do you create the security framework that permits coordinated build-downs of military arsenals without jeopardizing national security?
And there are huge amounts of war cleanup to be done around the world–mine removal, reconstruction, and so on.
So the question is whether Obama can pull this off with Clinton’s legwork.
The fact that you can’t figure out what Obama is trying to is classic. Time and time again through the nominating contest and through the general election it has been hard to figure out just what he was trying to do. And it always worked out for him.
So I don’t know what he’s trying to do either, but I have a lot of confidence that he has his reasoning and that it will probably work out for him.
supposed racism which absolutely dominated this site and DailyKos for the entire primary season?
It was a ridiculous charge which went undiscouraged by Obama or his team and now that he’s bowing to political expediency by giving her one of the most important jobs in the world the word “racist” doesn’t seem to come up anymore.
Why not?
I’m not sure what was ridiculous about calling Clinton out for the blatant racism in her campaign.
let’s not revisit the Primaries campaign.
I can provide links to all the race baiting the Clintons unleashed.
I can’t understand this Obama SoS move that may so turn out that he’ll be raising the other SOS.
Sometimes what you see is what you get. I take this as a straight up appointment. Obama beat Clinton square and fair in the primaries, and he beat McCain by more than Mrs. Clinton could ever have hoped to. I don’t think he has much to worry from her or Lanny Davis, who might get a job as her janitor at Stateif he’s lucky.
Here’s the thing. She is an incredibly talented woman and an incredibly good soldier. She is going to make State a premier agency again, after Ms Ferragamo finally leaves the mess she left. She works hard, and has creds, and her husband is a two-fer when it comes to dealing with Israel and the Palestinians, which is — let’s face it — the central foreign policy issue facing the United States. Until the Palestine issue is cleared up, nothing else that really matters can. Take that monster off the table, and the USA can once again start dealing on the international table.
She’s a good pick. I think Israel is the reason.
Next topic: Where’s Wes Clark in all this? He deserves something big. I thought Defence.
So far, the Obama team is staffed up with people that really have a very poor record inre Israel, which is one of the major concerns I have with the team that is emerging.
Having said that, I fully realize that the best way to get progress in Israel is to include it’s most ardent defenders in the process. That’s just the reality of American politics. So, I am concerned but not without hope.
Great post, but I am not sure about Obama beating McCain more than Clinton could. Maybe, maybe not. She would not have taken the same route, but she beats McCain BAD.
nalbar
would have truly inspired the rightwing nuts in a way that Obama couldn’t.
The wingers don’t know enough about him to hate him quite so viscerally as the nuts hate Hillary. They’d’ve turned out in droves to vote against her.
If the SoS leaks are not “premature”
says Clintons’ aides to TPM*”
“We’re still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature.”
Obama has been Clinton shafted, Again.
First during the Primaries.
And then came the blackmail…“you need my 18 million supporters to win the GE… we will show a face of unity..campaign a few rounds AND for that HRC will be rewarded with SoS.
a deal made in Hell.
Over 30 paranoid posts (including the originating article) before someone makes some sense here.
Thank you.
Thank you.
This kneejerk Clinton bashing is absolutely, incredibly stupid.
I give up.
With very few exceptions, the entire leftiness blogosphere has gone right off the rails on this one.
You minimize your influence with this foolishness, folks. There is quite possibly not another major political figure alive in America who has done as good a job for the people of America as has Ms. Clinton over an entire career. Has she been she perfect? No. But she has been damned good.
Fools.
You know what I like best about her?
She doesn’t give up.
Scares you flitting weaklings to death, doesn’t it?
Deep.
Your impotent sniping disgusts me.
It really does.
Later…
AG
P.S. Billl hasn’t done so badly himself. Y’all sound like a bunch of ants pissing up at elephants.
‘There is quite possibly not another major political figure alive in America who has done as good a job for the people of America as has Ms. Clinton over an entire career.’
Maybe you could clue me in to some factual details of her beneficial work for the American people? You sound so convinced of her high capabilities and qualities I’d like to know what your judgment is based on. You make me begin to doubt my own negative take on her. I can’t see any accomplishments that suggest she will be a good SoS. Up to now she hasn’t been a disaster either. So don’t get me wrong. You keeping popping up in these threads as a supporter of hers but I have yet to read a straight, serious explanation of your standpoint. Maybe I missed something.
Necessarily a team, as far as she was concerned, because when they came up a female stood no chance whatsoever of becoming a truly dominant force in the political world. It has long been my belief that without Hillary, Bill would have just been another charmin’, bright southern pol, and I’ll bet you that Bill would say exactly the same thing given a sufficient amount of truth serum.
Now…you can argue that the Clinton presidency was some sort of disaster, but given the awful Nixon/Reagan/Bush years that preceded it and the even worse Bush II years that followed, I would disagree. They made mistakes, but just exactly like Barack Obama, they were artists of the possible. It is fairly easy to say the right things…witness any number of second and third-level liberal pols who never manage to get into a position where they can actually do much. In fact, witness the thousands of bloggers who do manage to do almost nothing except comppllain. But to fight up to the pinnacle of power like the Clintons, like the Kennnedys (If they had not been shot great things would have happened. Bet on it.), like FDR?
That’s a whole ‘nother ballgame.
That takes Odysseus-level hustle.
And she has done that.
In spades.
She plays the game AND gets things done.
I personally cannot ask much more of a national leader in this system.
Don’t try this at home, though.
Results will most certainly vary.
Later…
AG
I agree. There is such a mindless bleating about this, such a huge amount of whining and idiot blather that it absolutely makes me nuts.
Some here on BT have called Obama a H.N. for this. I kid you not. That is simply beyond the pale, BTW – absolutely unacceptable.
Clinton is a good choice. Is she the best? I have no idea. What is the “best”?
Clinton has great experience. She is a capable person. She has the opportunity now to reclaim her good name from her campaign, which veered into a bad lane at the end.
I have no problems with this appointment.
Yes, I quite agree. I mean, between her spectacular failure on health care, her totally awesome vote for the Iraq War, and all those critically important post offices she’s renamed — My Lawd, where would we be without Hillary?
Neuter the Clintons? Not in the cards. Will Bill walk away from these riches so his wife can be SoS? Quite a pay cut!
They’ll undermine the Obama presidency. Take that to a safe bank.
Kissinger is smiling. The two top cabinet posts – Geithner a former Kissinger adviser and HRC of whom he approves. Wall Street smiled today.
I still don’t get why anyone thinks that Hillary Clinton is a sensible choice for Secretary of State. She failed badly in the two biggest endeavors of her life– trying to get a healthcare bill through Congress in the 90’s, and running her own campaign for President this past year.
She began the run for the White House as the presumptive nominee, with huge political momentum, the blessing of the Democratic Party establishment, all sorts of political and social connections, and $100 million in the bank. She had all of this before Obama even got into the race. And look what happened– she surrounded herself with awful advisors and operatives (Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson, et al.) she mis-managed her money, she made a devious and sleazy attempt to steal votes from bogus elections in Michigan and Florida, and on and on. Her campaign was an embarrassment, and clear evidence that she has zero administrative ability.
On top of all that, she voted to launch the Iraq War, and she repeatedly voted to continue funding it. And now she ought to be our SOS? I keep waiting for someone to tell me just what Hillary Clinton’s policy acheivements are– I can’t think of a single thing she has done in her career that has made a significant positive impact. All the rest of Obama’s Cabinet choices look good to me– this one stinks. She and her spouse bring all sorts of drama to Washington that we don’t need. Without being sexist, I can honestly say that I don’t believe that she would be a visible player in national politics at any level if she hadn’t married a President. Her defenders keep saying that she is “tough and smart.” Sorry, but all that I’ve seen from HRC is incompetent and ineffective.
You are so old-fashioned, applying common sense on your own instead of accepting the conventional wisdom without thinking.
Do you even own a television?
I’m not a Hillary supporter, but I do question your idea that she would not be a player “if she hadn’t married a President”. For all of Bill’s charisma, there’s a strong argument that he wouldn’t have got where he did without Hillary’s brains and drive. She could still have been a player without him.
Right on the money.
AG
You’re up very early Arthur… or is that up very , very late?
Travel schedules…
AG
Nobody can answer those questions. What we can say is that Hillary has demonstrated the managerial skills of a six-year-old. It’s one thing to have drive and brains, but if those things aren’t complemented by common sense and basic skills, they aren’t worth the powder to blow to hell. And they don’t seem to be complemented by those things in Hillary’s case.
She is the lead negociator. The assistant SoS manages.
It’s really hard to tell how things will pan out within the Administration, but I must admit that all the MSM attention being paid to this story (and to the extent the Clinton camp is fueling it) is getting annoying and makes me wonder about how effective things will be run and how well this experiment will turn out.
A rival while giving them a polite out.
Classic Obama.
Will HRC and her team be able to recognize that SoS is about THE world, not HER world. Not sure it’s in her DNA to put herself 2nd. On the other hand, a jump from SoS to 2012 rival for Obama would certainly be a stretch now.
Yes, it’s a stretch but one the Clintons could thrive on. She and Obama will now fall or survive together. He has hitched his political future to theirs unless there is a god-almighty row between them in the next four years. Then the Clintons will exhibit their consummate political brinkmanship and savage him. Obama is their hostage. He could have dumped the whole trivial problem of the Clintons’ emotional exhibitionism and left her to the Senate. What did he have to lose? Evidently he knows more than I do. Or not.
Reminds me of the original Indian Jones where they have to drop down into the tomb and the floor of room is covered with hundreds of writhing snakes and Indiana says, “Snakes, did it have to be snakes?”
Mmm, I’m surprised that I have only seen once or twice and briefly mentioned that HRC can be fired if she doesn’t toe the line or do her job well. Regarding this I have two points.
First: If it did come to this, it would not be seen as a failure of (Obama’s) leadership the way that type of flame out in a high level post might usually be seen. This is because there are so many well founded doubts about HRC in the first place, because Obama’s clearly being very gracious as a winner and most of all because the beltway pundits have a long track record of Clinton hating. They would love nothing more than to say “I told you so” about this. So Obama, while he might take a small hit in the process, has a certain degree of political insurance if this doesn’t work.
Second: Hilary, say what you will of the people around her (and they are a problem, no doubt), is a very sincere person with a clear track record of taking her jobs seriously. She will very likely want to do a very good job and she is a very capable woman. Also, Hilary has a very very deep commitment to the women of the entire world. She sees women’s rights as human rights and human rights as a foreign policy issue. She will bring a strong commitment to fair and equitable development strategies. HRC as Secretary of State is by far the greatest advocate of the world’s downtrodden and voiceless that the country has had in this post, probably in all of history.
A note as regards Israel: Some may remember that Hilary, when first running for Senate, met with Arafat’s wife (Sofia?). The IDF had been recently outed for using military grade tear-gas on Palestinians in enclosed spaces–a clear human rights violation. Hilary’s first impulse was to decry this brutality quite vocally, and it was news that she did so. The guardians of acceptable discourse would have none of it, of course, and so Hilary had to back away from her comments quite quickly and dramatically. But I think that at State she will have a degree of shelter from which she can advance human rights concerns such as this and not take personal heat.
In all, time will tell and we will see.
I think Hillary Clinton may be her own person and a team player for Team Obama. I’m sure she will distance herself form the DLC and those who lead to her failed campaign.
With Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, foreign affairs will be handled–get us out of Iraq–which is a big drag on our economy. it will free up Obama to cure the recession from becoming a depression.
I’m not concerned with her appointment, she can always be fired, if she goes “rogue.”
Distance herself from the DLC? The whole friggin’ administration is DLC!
I guess what has troubled me all along is the hesitancy on both sides, as if no one is completely sure of this pick, but they are hoping for the best. I’m always of the mind, if the President asks you to serve, you do it, no questions. Aside from the vetting of Bill, the back drama has been “will she accept if asked?” In other words, again, it’s all about her. I have absolutely no qualms about her abilities to carry out Obama’s agenda. I do still have questions about her unflinching willingness to do so. However, every time I think Obama is making a misstep, in the end he always knows exactly what he’s doing and things turn out just fine.
I don’t really understand the pick, myself, and given my rather strong feelings about Mrs Clinton, I am not inclined to celebrate. However, at this point, I have a lot of faith that Obama knows what he’s doing. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Here are a number of things to bear in mind:
1. Hillary was never set to disappear off the face of the earth on the day Obama takes office. She was going to be SOMEWHERE, at the very least in the Senate, and if it was her intention to make life more difficult for Mr O, she would make use of whatever opportunities she had at hand. As SoS, she works directly for Obama; as Senator, she does not.
2. I don’t believe Bill Clinton is a big fan of Obama, but you’ve got to ask yourself, what is his success rate in trying to undermine him? I would say it’s about minus 100%, i.e. everything he’s tried to do to cut Obama down has backfired on Bill Clinton himself and greatly reduced his stature in the eyes of the American public.
3. Hillary’s positive work for Obama during the campaign was something she pretty much had to do if she was going to BEGIN to make up for the bad impression her negative camapigning made on a lot of people. But given his victory in the primary and in the national, I don’t believe the Hillary people were in a position to “force” Obama to pick her for a very high-profile position. Obama has already cut them down to size. In other words, I don’t believe he was snookered into this. Although these orchestrated leaks about the pick were vintage Clinton, I think they affected Obama about as much as a gnat on an elephant’s ass.
I think he genuinely wants her in his cabinet. And given that he wants her — as others have pointed out — where else would he put her? Certainly not in HHS. Go through the list. No cabinet post for her would make sense, other than State.