Hillary (Clinton!) accepts Secty of State

[BigDrawMan]

that was empowering

[Flybrick]

I simply cannot fathom this one - for either Obama or Clinton.

For Obama, why? He didn't need her and any of the inevitable Clinton drama (his or hers) will just detract from his efforts.

For Clinton, as mentioned before, she could be fired (unlikely, but possible). She gives up her Senate power to be a constant check/rival to Obama. What does she gain by becoming SECSTATE?

Finally, I really thought a stake had been driven through the vampire-like Clinton persona. This thing just won't die...

I was wrong. Imagine that.

(Sarcasm switch to on, for those that won't get it/think I'm totally inflexible.)

[silverscreenselect]

I simply cannot fathom this one - for either Obama or Clinton.

For Obama, why? He didn't need her and any of the inevitable Clinton drama (his or hers) will just detract from his efforts.

For Clinton, as mentioned before, she could be fired (unlikely, but possible). She gives up her Senate power to be a constant check/rival to Obama. What does she gain by becoming SECSTATE?

Finally, I really thought a stake had been driven through the vampire-like Clinton persona. This thing just won't die...

I was wrong. Imagine that.

(Sarcasm switch to on, for those that won't get it/think I'm totally inflexible.)

Obama does need people who have a clue about what's going on in the world, since he doesn't have one. The only Democrats below retirement age who have actual foreign policy or experience at running this country are Clinton people. Left wingers who believed that nonsense about Obama changing the way government would do business and the way Washington was run are just the latest rubes to get conned by him. Obama talks in flowing terms, but if you look at his actual record, what little of it you can find, you get a conservative Democrat (not the same as a conservative Republican, but still someone whose way of doing business is the same as the Nelsons in the Senate than the Sanders). People naturally assumed that if he was a charismatic black politician who compared himself to JFK and talked about hope and change that he would be a liberal. Their mistake, not mine.

If the Hillary stories are true, and there's always the chance this won't materialize, especially considering the personalities inolved (and it's a lot more than just Obama, Hillary, and Bill), my guess is that she extracted this concession from him as the quid pro quo for her enthusiastic support during the campaign. I had always expected her to sort of pay lip service to supporting Obama, but she went all out, and the election results in late August and early September were considerably in the air.

The question is how much authority is Hillary going to have as SOS. If she's just going to be an updated version of the First Lady, going around and schmoozing foreign leaders with little or no power, this is going to be a disaster in the making, which will likely implode when the first actual crisis arrives. I have no doubt that Obama would throw her under the bus to save his reputation in a Chicago second. On the other hand, it looks as if she's actually going to be able to put some more hardnosed, reality based people in place than the hope-and-change, can't-we-all-just-get-along bunch that Obama's supporters might have envisioned. This indicates that she may be given considerable carte blanche in international affairs, with Obama taking the Queen Elizabeth ceremonial role of showing up for photo ops. He'd do that in a flash if he thought it would work (he's about looking good above all else).

The good news for the country is that with some reality based people in charge of foreign affairs, the chances of Obama getting taking for a ride by the Iranians or Russians will go down considerably.

[ne1410s]

Bloggers say that her appointment is patently unconstitutional because she voted for a pay raise for the Sec of State (and others).

They'll get around this I'll betcha... (like others have done before).

[BigDrawMan]

I simply cannot fathom this one - for either Obama or Clinton.

For Obama, why? He didn't need her and any of the inevitable Clinton drama (his or hers) will just detract from his efforts.

For Clinton, as mentioned before, she could be fired (unlikely, but possible). She gives up her Senate power to be a constant check/rival to Obama. What does she gain by becoming SECSTATE?

Finally, I really thought a stake had been driven through the vampire-like Clinton persona. This thing just won't die...

I was wrong. Imagine that.

(Sarcasm switch to on, for those that won't get it/think I'm totally inflexible.)

Obama does need people who have a clue about what's going on in the world, since he doesn't have one. The only Democrats below retirement age who have actual foreign policy or experience at running this country are Clinton people. Left wingers who believed that nonsense about Obama changing the way government would do business and the way Washington was run are just the latest rubes to get conned by him. Obama talks in flowing terms, but if you look at his actual record, what little of it you can find, you get a conservative Democrat (not the same as a conservative Republican, but still someone whose way of doing business is the same as the Nelsons in the Senate than the Sanders). People naturally assumed that if he was a charismatic black politician who compared himself to JFK and talked about hope and change that he would be a liberal. Their mistake, not mine.

If the Hillary stories are true, and there's always the chance this won't materialize, especially considering the personalities inolved (and it's a lot more than just Obama, Hillary, and Bill), my guess is that she extracted this concession from him as the quid pro quo for her enthusiastic support during the campaign. I had always expected her to sort of pay lip service to supporting Obama, but she went all out, and the election results in late August and early September were considerably in the air.

The question is how much authority is Hillary going to have as SOS. If she's just going to be an updated version of the First Lady, going around and schmoozing foreign leaders with little or no power, this is going to be a disaster in the making, which will likely implode when the first actual crisis arrives. I have no doubt that Obama would throw her under the bus to save his reputation in a Chicago second. On the other hand, it looks as if she's actually going to be able to put some more hardnosed, reality based people in place than the hope-and-change, can't-we-all-just-get-along bunch that Obama's supporters might have envisioned. This indicates that she may be given considerable carte blanche in international affairs, with Obama taking the Queen Elizabeth ceremonial role of showing up for photo ops. He'd do that in a flash if he thought it would work (he's about looking good above all else).

The good news for the country is that with some reality based people in charge of foreign affairs, the chances of Obama getting taking for a ride by the Iranians or Russians will go down considerably.

Hillary is all about reality.
Like her stated "involvement" in the peace agreement in Northern Ireland.
Her "whats best for hillary" Iraq War vote.
Dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

I dont know of anything she has been in charge of that has turned out well.

It could be worse, she could be the President-elect.


shudder

[christie1111]

[Chat really makes a difference in your typing skills.

I know it has made a world of difference in mine!

[earendel]

I simply cannot fathom this one - for either Obama or Clinton.

For Obama, why? He didn't need her and any of the inevitable Clinton drama (his or hers) will just detract from his efforts.

For Clinton, as mentioned before, she could be fired (unlikely, but possible). She gives up her Senate power to be a constant check/rival to Obama. What does she gain by becoming SECSTATE?

Finally, I really thought a stake had been driven through the vampire-like Clinton persona. This thing just won't die...

I was wrong. Imagine that.

(Sarcasm switch to on, for those that won't get it/think I'm totally inflexible.)

Perhaps Obama is taking that old adage to heart: Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

But seriously, I agree that this doesn't seem to make any sense. Yes, I know that Clinton is tired of being the "junior" senator from NY, but to give up that seat for a Cabinet position, even SofS doesn't seem to make much sense. AFAIK no SofS has ever gone on to be President, so she must be giving up on her ambition to succeed Obama in '12 or '16. As for Obama, it's another area in which he'll be criticized for going with the "old guard" instead of bringing "change". Not to mention the baggage that Bill brings to the situation (his consultant fees for foreign companies, etc.).

[MarleysGh0st]

AFAIK no SofS has ever gone on to be President

Thomas Jefferson.

[Bob Juch]

AFAIK no SofS has ever gone on to be President

Thomas Jefferson.

And Madison, IIRC.

[franktangredi]

AFAIK no SofS has ever gone on to be President

Thomas Jefferson.

And Madison, IIRC.

And John Quincy Adams.

[wintergreen48]

AFAIK no SofS has ever gone on to be President, so she must be giving up on her ambition to succeed Obama in '12 or '16.

James Buchanan was also Secretary of State. As it happens, Buchanan was probably the 'most experienced' person ever to become President (he was extraordinarily successful as Secretary of State and in other roles), but 'experience' proved worthless when he got to the White House; the 'temperament' thing probably came into play. Consider that he was succeeded by Abraham Lincoln, who was probably the least 'experienced' person ever to become President, and he did pretty well.

The closest that Hilary has to ever becoming President is by becoming Secretary of State: if Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Byrd all resign/die in office before anyone is appointed or elected to their positions, then as Secretary of State she is next in line for the Presidency. She will never be elected on her own, not because she is unelectable (she might be unelectable, but I take no position on that), but because of the context: Obama is in now, and he will no doubt run for re-election in 2012; no one succeeds running against an incumbent President of her/his own party, so whether or not Obama actually wins in 2012, Hilary's next chance will be in 2016. She will be almost 70 then, and it is tough for people that age to get elected to the Presidency (Reagan managed it, but I doubt that she would like to give him as a 'reference' if she were to run; William Henry Harrison did it, and he was dead within six weeks of inauguration, so not another good role model; and Bush I ran for election at that age-- and failed-- and BobDole and John McCain were that age or a bit older, and also failed), so she will be pretty strapped. Her best hope this year would have been for Obama to lose the general election, and then come in in 2012 on her own, when she would probably have a strong shot.

If she decided to wait for the Presidency in 2016 and stayed in the Senate until then, she would still not be all that senior (she would only have 16 years, and Schumer will probably still be there, so she would still be the 'junior' senator from New York, and she would still be 40 years behind Robert Byrd for seniority in the Senate as a whole), so she will have a LOT of frustration over the next eight years (consider that that is how much time she has already been in, and she seems to be frustrated with it already; what would ANOTHER eight years do?) Secretary of State is the most presitigious appointment Obama can make (other than Supreme Court, which is prestigious if you are of a legal bent), she will get her own flag when she flies in to shoot snipers in Bosnia and other spots, she gets her own official portrait, none of which she gets as a Senator. She will also get named, in her own right, in trivia books about American politics (every almanac will list her with all of the Secretaries of State; no almanac lists all of the Senators). So its pretty good for her. Unfortunately, she won't be listed anywhere as First Woman Secretary of State, but still, she gets lots of perks.

It's also possible that this will be just a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, which might be what she really wants anyway. I would.

[MarleysGh0st]

Does anyone suppose that Obama made the offer and Clinton accepted, not out of any calculation for personal gain, but to serve the country?


Or is that just crazy talk?

[ulysses5019]

It's also possible that this will be just a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, which might be what she really wants anyway. I would.

Are you still available?

[tanstaafl2]

It's also possible that this will be just a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, which might be what she really wants anyway.

Now there is a scary thought. And one that hadn't really occurred to me before. Thanks for ruining my day...

I would.

That would prove to be a much better choice I am sure!

[tanstaafl2]

Does anyone suppose that Obama made the offer and Clinton accepted, not out of any calculation for personal gain, but to serve the country?


Or is that just crazy talk?

Politicians wanting to serve their country and not themselves???

Sounds like crazy talk to me...

[franktangredi]

Does anyone suppose that Obama made the offer and Clinton accepted, not out of any calculation for personal gain, but to serve the country?


Or is that just crazy talk?

I'm half crazy. I believe personal considerations always play a part in any of our decisions. But I also think the offer would not have been made our accepted purely for personal gain.

Hell, I couldn't stand George W, and I still believe he sincerely thought he was doing what was best for the country.

[nitrah55]

I simply cannot fathom this one - for either Obama or Clinton.

For Obama, why? He didn't need her and any of the inevitable Clinton drama (his or hers) will just detract from his efforts.

For Clinton, as mentioned before, she could be fired (unlikely, but possible). She gives up her Senate power to be a constant check/rival to Obama. What does she gain by becoming SECSTATE?

Finally, I really thought a stake had been driven through the vampire-like Clinton persona. This thing just won't die...

I was wrong. Imagine that.

(Sarcasm switch to on, for those that won't get it/think I'm totally inflexible.)

Just a note on Hillary's power in the Senate.

She is the JUNIOR senator from New York. As much as she and Chuck Schumer get along, he'll hold onto his seat until it's pulled from his cold, dead....seat.

She's one of a hundred in the Senate. As SofS, she's the international face of the US. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Obama may have recalled something LBJ is supposed to have said, "Better to have someone in the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in."

[silverscreenselect]

Just a note on Hillary's power in the Senate.

She is the JUNIOR senator from New York. As much as she and Chuck Schumer get along, he'll hold onto his seat until it's pulled from his cold, dead....seat.

She's one of a hundred in the Senate. As SofS, she's the international face of the US. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Obama may have recalled something LBJ is supposed to have said, "Better to have someone in the tent peeing out, than outside the tent peeing in."

Hillary in my mind stood a good chance to become Senate Majority Leader if Harry Reid continued his less than stellar performance.

Hillary's is not the only puzzling pick of Obama's Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is at the least an implicit acknowledgement by Obama of the changed tactics in Iraq the last two years (it's more than just "the surge"). Many administrations have shown "bipartisanship" by picking someone from the other party to a cabinet level post, but it's usually something second tier like Secretary of Transportation. I can't imagine Gates going along with this unless he received some sort of assurance than he wouldn't be a figurehead.

I'm having a tough time getting a handle on just what Obama is up to here. You can't go by what he's said in the past because you can't believe anything he's said. He could be content to let his advisors run things for the most part (domestically and/or internationally), with himself taking credit and making the big speeches. Or he could be looking for people to shield him for blame the first time things go wrong.

The situation in India could be Obama's first big test. If the terrorists were trained/funded in Pakistan (which appears likely) and there's more of them there (which is equally likely), then the Indian government will undoubtedly ask our help in getting those who were behind this. It will be interesting to see how he reacts to this.

[ne1410s]

sss: ( I know, it's like NOT looking at a traffic accident)

He could be content to let his advisors run things for the most part (domestically and/or internationally), with himself taking credit and making the big speeches. Or he could be looking for people to shield him for blame the first time things go wrong.

When, exactly, did Obama stop beating his wife?

[MarleysGh0st]

I'd like to ask all of those who are being critical of this appointment to name who should be made Secretary of State. Is there anyone who you would recognize as a good choice? (Please don't rehash how you can't believe anything Obama ever says, yada yada yada. We've heard that.)

[smilergrogan]

Thomas Jefferson.

And Madison, IIRC.

And John Quincy Adams.

And Monroe and Van Buren, to be anal retentive about it. Five of the first ten SOS went on to become President, making five out of the first eight Presidents former SOS (and of course Washington and Adams Sr. never really had a chance to be SOS since they were otherwise occupied). But only Buchanan since then.

[SportsFan68]

I'm having a tough time getting a handle on just what Obama is up to here. You can't go by what he's said in the past because you can't believe anything he's said. He could be content to let his advisors run things for the most part (domestically and/or internationally), with himself taking credit and making the big speeches. Or he could be looking for people to shield him for blame the first time things go wrong.

Good grief, SSS, give him a chance!

Give him six months, and if he does one of those two things, say "I told you so," and I'll agree that you did tell us so and that you were right.

If neither situation obtains, I probably won't remember this, so you don't have to worry about any "I told you so"-ish announcements from me.

[silverscreenselect]

Good grief, SSS, give him a chance!

Give him six months, and if he does one of those two things, say "I told you so," and I'll agree that you did tell us so and that you were right.

Unfortunately, being right about Obama six months from now will be very painful for all of us.

Some of what I have read indicates that Hillary extracted a promise from Obama to be SOS during the summer in exchange for her support, which was much more enthusiastic than it could have been. The feeling is that Obama will be too busy with domestic affairs to spend much time in the international arena, which will give Hillary free rein to pursue her goals and agenda (and a lot more visibility than any other SOS in recent memory).

There's also some interesting speculation about Hillary's successor in the Senate. Two names being prominently mentioned are very familiar: Bill Clinton and Caroline Kennedy. Kennedy apparently expected to be named UN Secretary, but didn't get the job so this may be the "consolation" prize. There's another rumor going around that she will be named the next Senator from Massachusetts when Uncle Ted resigns in the near future for health reasons.

[earendel]

I'd like to ask all of those who are being critical of this appointment to name who should be made Secretary of State. Is there anyone who you would recognize as a good choice? (Please don't rehash how you can't believe anything Obama ever says, yada yada yada. We've heard that.)

Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing. I'm just trying to understand the rationale. I figure whoever Obama wants, barring skeletons in the background, he should get.

[SportsFan68]

Good grief, SSS, give him a chance!

Give him six months, and if he does one of those two things, say "I told you so," and I'll agree that you did tell us so and that you were right.

Unfortunately, being right about Obama six months from now will be very painful for all of us.

?? I thought that Obama's top cabinet choices and advisers doing well and then his taking the credit was your best-case scenario -- for most of us, anyway. Not for those doing well and not getting the credit, of course.

At least your giving him a chance would postpone further doomsday predictions for six months.