Hillary To Be Named Secretary Of State Tomorrow In Chicago
It's official. A person close to Hillary Clinton tells me that she will be in Chicago tomorrow to be named President-elect Barack Obama's Secretary of State.
This confirmation from the Hillary side that she will officially be named comes after the Associated Press earlier quoted "Democratic officials" saying that Obama was set to name her as Sec of State at a press conference tomorrow.
The New York Times reported late yesterday that Bill Clinton had agreed to disclose the names of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation, clearing the way for Hillary's nomination.
Advertisement
The appointment, and acceptance thereof, speaks well of both of them.
November 30, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
how so?
that she can say anything she wants about him and he can reward her for it?
November 30, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's like Johnson said, though it's more anatomically challenging to apply it to the feminine gender: better to have her inside the tent than outside, pissing in. And she earned it, very energetically campaigning for him. I just hope it does not go sour.
November 30, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, that's the nature of intra-party political campaigns; candidates say stuff they don't mean for transitory advantage. Obama realizes that, as do many of us. That's why he was quickly able to move past it.
November 30, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
why not?
...worked for Lieberman.
November 30, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I missed the part where Hillary spoke at the Repug convention and contributed money to Republicans.
November 30, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? You're comparing this to Liebermann?
I don't think your analysis will be missed too much after that reasoning, frankly. You can hate Senator Clinton as much as you want but you cannot dispute she is a thorough democratic party soldier.
November 30, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
What reward did Obama give Liberman? Did they announce his cabinet post yet?
All I've seen is Lieberman with his head so far up Obama's butt, he can no longer kiss McCain's ring. The "elder statesman" is now the bitch of "eloquent young man without a record."
November 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The high road has been traveled so little these past few years I don't blame you for not appreciating the behavior.
November 30, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
that she can say anything she wants about him and he can reward her for it?
Please grow out of the naive hour.
November 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama defeated Hillary in the primary, and both she and her supporters got over it and supported Obama. Time for the die hard Hillary haters to get over it.
November 30, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct. And this coming from an anti-clintons person. However, without a doubt, that is an accurate observation.
November 30, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A parting tip for Condie:
As you exit the building, do not permit
the door to strike your behind!
November 30, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was an incredibly elitist way to say such an old, american phrase.
November 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
She can take it. She's going back to Stanford (still a nimrod, though), not Crawford.
December 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many of us most faithful Obama supporters have questioned some of his decisions in the past and seen his wisdom shine through as time passed. Let's see how this plays out.
November 30, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can live with waiting, but I hope the Obama loyalists (a camp I feel a need to quickly leave) will allow, in the meantime, discussion of Obama's moves without engaging in insults and demagoguery.
So far, the record is not good, but we need to allow open discussion rather than demand slavish obeisance. Frankly, the blind loyalty makes me uneasy.
November 30, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
So far, the record is not good, but we need to allow open discussion rather than demand slavish obeisance. Frankly, the blind loyalty makes me uneasy.
Huh?
Disagree.
November 30, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, for Pete's sake. You have got to be kidding.
Look at any liberal blog where someone raises the point that Obama has excluded, to date, liberals from his Cabinet and leadership. You will see all kinds of comments about "whiner," "STFU" and various other insults.
Really, this response is very similar to typical right wing "dialog." It emphasizes, a) silencing liberals, b) following the leader and c) ad hominem over rational discussion.
And, ironically enough, it's the opposite of the respectful dialog Obama encourages.
November 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall any sensible discussion coming from you, AlphaLiberal. I recall you posting how Obama had lied, deceived and how much you regret supporting him. I recall you referring to him derisively as "The Leader" and saying that those who don't condemn him before he's sworn in as "hero whorshippers."
Please point to your posts about how and why you disagree with his appointments. Point out where you said that despite your disappointment, you will to determine if he actually follows through with main campaign promises--healthcare, bringing troops home from Iraq, addressing climate change, investing in green jobs, de-politicing the justice department--before demanding his impeachment.
When you start ranting like an Obama-hater from NoQuarter, gleefully screaming that he's a snake-oil salesman, expect to be verbally castrated and don't whine about it.
November 30, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I recall you posting how Obama had lied, deceived and how much you regret supporting him."
Bullshit. Got a link where I said he lied, deceived and I regret supporting him?
November 30, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not bullshit. It's the post where I told you I'd personally reimburse you for whatever you donated to Obama since you regret having voluteered for and supported him because he was keeping Gates on at Defense
Are you denying it? I'll find a link if you want but don't make me because you'll look stupid. Make that "more stupid."
November 30, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I went and looked at just that post. And it does not say what you say it does.
Here's the post. Sure, it was a bit PO'ed but it did not say Obama "lied, deceived and how much (I) regret supporting him."
I don't say that and don't believe it. This link doesn't show me saying this. You can't back up this statement, which is a lie.
And your response to that was to call me a "whiny little shit" for disagreeing with you.
November 30, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't call you a whiny little shit for disagreeing with me. I called you a whiny little shit for whining like a little shit!
Look at your other posts. There were several of them. You were ready to have Obama tarred and feathered. And because I'm willing to see how the cake turns out before I shoot the baker, you said I had a case of "hero whorship" for "the leader."
November 30, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you still do. The "Follow The Leader" bit wasn't directed at Obama, it was directed at you.
Look, calling someone a "whiny little shit" is really not acceptable. If you're truly an Obama backer (I have my doubts), it's no way to speak to an ally.
If this is going to be the prevailing attitude toward liberals from centrists, then this coalition will melt down in record time. We need to respect that we all come to this with different backgrounds and experience and views. And listen to each other and disagree respectfully.
November 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, you whiny little shit, no one who knows me has *ever* called me a centrist. I am a liberal, a hardcore, pinko commie. But I am old enough to recall liberals shooting themselves in the foot because we let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If something wasn't 100% perfect, we rejected it and went home empty handed.
We could have had healthcare in '93 or '94 but Hillary took a "take no prisoners" attitude; she locked out democratic members of congress and moderate republicans because they wanted to take an incremental approach.
That's just one example. You don't beat your opponents into submission; you persuade them of your common interests. Obama understands that. You, apparently, don't.
If he were to pick uber-liberals at pentagon or state, the opposition would go into rebel mode against whatever he proposed. But Gates can bring home the troops without a word of dissent and without costing Obama political capital. Hillary can negotiate a two-state solution in the middle east without anyone screaming she's a terrorist lover. RESULTS MATTER.
And, as long as you refuse to give Obama the benefit of the doubt at least until he's been sworn in (like he's earned), you and I are not allies. Get it?
November 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, in your world, am I supposed to respond to your insults with more insults?
I wonder how many people you silence with your bullying?
You're in violation of the TPM Comments policy:
TPMCafe is a venue for lively and passionate debate. But insults, personal attacks and the like make that sort of enlivening exchange impossible. If you just want to scream and taunt, please go somewhere else. If you have any question about what is and what's not acceptable, follow this rule: If you wouldn't use a certain word or talk to someone a certain way in a real-life political discussion at a Coffee House, don't do it here either.
November 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, I hate to interrupt this exciting-as-hell pillow fight, but Hillary's "take no prisoners" narrative isn't exactly the way I remember it all coming down.
My understanding was, secretive or not, Hillary was working to effect one of those "centrist" compromises that would keep the insurance industry involved in health care, and making money. Newt Gingrich's muse, Bill Krystol, pointed out helpfully that if the American people were somehow rescued from the health care morass by the Democrats, that would be the end of the Republican Party. Therefore, at all costs, health care reform had to be shot down totally, destroying the personal reputations of whomever had to be destroyed in order to do so.
It was at this precise point that "Hillary" became synonymous with "bitch", in the lexicon of the right. By design. And the insurance industry was easily persuaded that merely having a piece of the action was less preferable than keeping the status quo... and thus, "Harry and Louise" were born, financed with your insurance premiums.
Now... please explain the "take no prisoners" propaganda, and how this was yet another case of the odious Left wanting all or nothing at all. Cite something.
November 30, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the letter Hillary wrote to Moniyhan after she left the WH. She said "I was wrong. I should have listened to you." She took full responsibility for screwing up healthcare. Jim Cooper (D-TN) is still pissed at how she froze him out, as well as others, including governors who found themselves trying to defend a policy they knew nothing about. Ask Doug Wilder.
Kristol brought down healthcare but Hillary's screw-ups gave him the opening.
November 30, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but if Hillary's real "screwup" had not involved being so damned accomodating... if she actually had been "all or nothing" about, say, Single Payer; just said fuck the insurance companies and rammed it down their throats... and hired a p.r. firm... and had one privately-financed "issue" ad for every "Harry and Louise" spot on TV... you know, things it took the goddamned Dems until 2008 to figure out were actually necessary to win... which the R's were doing to her in 1993!!... we all would have been better off, and no one could have touched either her, or Blow Job Boy, for the next 7 years. And 1994 would never have happened.
Instead, we are today stuck, listening to all this revisionist crap about how Hillary "tried to accomplish too much", all after a dozen more years of Republican devastation.
November 30, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never said Hillary tried to accomplish too much.I said she used a "take no prisoners" model. She was too inflexible and too much of a know-it-all when she didn't know a damn thing.
You say she should have forced her plan down the throat of the insurers. Here's a word for you: CONGRESS!! She couldn't even get her own party on board first because she pissed them off so royally. I'll look for that letter she sent Moniyhan which states as much.
You should stop defending how Hillary handled healthcare in '93. She already has.
November 30, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, you proved incapable of showing my words where I said Obama lied, deceived and I regret supporting him.
You have a habit of glaring inaccuracies which, in this case, amounts to a lie.
You should retract your words.
November 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep waiting for that retratction. It'll arrive with the tooth fairy. I didn't lie and you know it.
November 30, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey alphaliberal,
How did you find your old posts? I knew how to navigate this site before it changed to TPM-EC, now I am unable to find any of my posts. Also how did you link to the posts? I use to know how to do that as well before this change over.
November 30, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember something like that freerider. Alphaliberal is rather extreme back and forth. I don't quite follow what Alpha's problem with commenters here. Seems over defensive to me.
November 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just hope other users will know this post is a lie:
"When you start ranting like an Obama-hater from NoQuarter, gleefully screaming that he's a snake-oil salesman, expect to be verbally castrated and don't whine about it."
To question actions of PE Obama is not the same as being an "Obama-hater." Sounds very like a Bushie argument.
FreeRider is spreading falsehoods and can't back this up. And, really, FreeRider, your whole style is very Freeper.
November 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. Are you denying you referred to him derisively as "the leader" and said we suffered from "hero worship?"
Are you denying that you posted that you regretted supporting him?
Are you denying that you said complained that he'd turned his back on his campaign promises?
It's possible that you regret posting such whiny hyperbole but fess up before you're "shamed up."
November 30, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "Leader" remark was directed at you and people like you who insult those asking questions. Not at Obama. (This was clear).
"Are you denying that you posted that you regretted supporting him?"
I said "keep it up and I'm asking for my money back." No regrets there. Dry humor that went over your head, obviously.
"Are you denying that you said complained that he'd turned his back on his campaign promises?"
Yes. That's your invention.
It seems you're projecting an awful lot onto what people say. You might want to stick what they say and avoid the clearly dishonest practice and putting words in their mouths.
November 30, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. And weren't newspapers threatening Sarah Palin's First Amendment rights, somehow, in the same vein?
Look, to the extent I go all STFU on people who are hitting the fainting couch about Obama's appointments, it's not so much out of blind loyalty. (I hated the FISA thing, and the Lieberman thing, as much as the next cat.)
It's actually because I have precisely zero reason to think that the people hitting the fainting couch know their ass from a hole in the ground.
November 30, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So do you often pass judgment on people after hearing one thing they say? Do you often think people with different points of view don't know anything?
When, exactly, will you drop your insulting attitude toward Obama backers who question the appointments? After 100% of the appointments are done? 50% Or after 4 years?
Look, if we're going to keep it together, a little bit of respect toward each other will go a long a way.
And the newspapers aren't telling Palin to STFU, that she's an idiot for disagreeing with them, etc. Your comparison is apples and... turkeys.
November 30, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
... adding, this includes Al Giordano, who will lecture anyone with the patience to listen to let Obama be Obama -- except when Obama has the temerity to violate Al's own obscure precepts:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/18/02358/694/496/662582
November 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're the only one who actually seems to have followed Obama the last two years. Sensible. Co-Sign.
November 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, and to think I bothered to go out on a frigid Minnesota February night to vote against her foreign policy.
Nothing changes.
November 30, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think about it this way. If she still harbors Presidential aspirations, her biggest challenge is to convince voters like you that she meant it when she -- finally -- apologized and said that she regretted voting for war in Iraq. There was a lot that she said over the course of the campaign that I disagreed with, but in the end, I chock that up to a rough and tumble primary they were both trying to win. The best way for her to show us that she possesses a reasoned and thoughtful voice on foreign policy is to show us during Obama's administration.
In other words, it's Obama's house, she's just hanging in it for awhile. And if Obama didn't think that she'd bring something to the table, he wouldn't have invited her.
November 30, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Woah Woah Woah, give me the link to when she apologized about the Iraq war vote.
November 30, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I gotta see it in writing. Give us link.
November 30, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no link, because she never did.
November 30, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, admitted it was a mistake.
The no apology thing rubbed me the wrong way for a very long time as well. I'm over it now though.
November 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
No prob. The whole iraq disaster infuriates me. In fact, in my opinion, an apology doesn't cut it anyway. Hundreds of thousands of dead iraqi women and children and men, thousands of dead americans, tens of thousands horribly wounded, a devastated country, for what? A freaking lie and an insane foreign policy based on fantasy? Unbelievable and a complete tragedy.
November 30, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you learned your lesson the hard way either that or you're just too quick to jump to judgements- either way I'm sorry for you.
November 30, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she's still not President. She's SoS and answering to Obama, who is calling the shots. So your work in the cold made a difference and still does.
Whether or not she will follow orders from headquarters remains to be seen. That's quite a change from thinking you should be the President to serving your opponent loyally. And will she and her backers (Bill) STFU up on her being Pres?
November 30, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and surprising based on your past posts. I am wondering about mr. bill as well. I guess time will tell.
November 30, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. ?
Your surprise would seem related to your tendency to project stereotypes onto people.
November 30, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother. I guess I shouldn't have said anything.
November 30, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reading over this thread I think you are right. Maybe when Alpha posts comments we are all supposed to agree or just STFU! Honestly reading over this thread Alpha is sounding more over the top than the commenters that Alpha is attacking.
Lighten up will you Alpha?
November 30, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you should be happy. Since she's working for the man whose foreign policy you voted for, did you ever consider she might be implement Obama's foreign policy instead of her own?
Nahhh. If you considered that, you might not have anything to whine about.
November 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
There you go again. Why do you need to insult people?
November 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I insult whiners who insist they know how the next four years will turn out.
November 30, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Step way from the keyboard, and try to consider for a moment that insulting anyone you're having a disagreement with is bad practice.
Just sayin'.
And bluebells didn't say anything about the next 4 years.
November 30, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whaaaaaaaat! I thought Hillary was the personification of pure evil?
The hypocrisy here could fill the Grand Canyon.
November 30, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hypocrisy, in certain circles, is called politics.
You want hypocrisy? How about Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Rush Limbaugh and his little habits, Bill Bennett, ...
Or is there no difference between this kind of twisted self-loathing and the give-and-take of a tough campaign?
November 30, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I followed the campaign and both candidates very closely, almost obsessively this year, I couldn't stand HRC during the primaries and I STILL do not get why anyone is surprised that he would want her in his cabinet. I thought it was inevitable. And I am also not surprised at the Lieberman "pardon" by Obama, either.
November 30, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought some of us would wait until we see the first policy moves by the new administration, before giving up or declaring them a colossal dissappointment.
But again as someone said above nothing changes.
November 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
However, will you shout down and insult anyone raising any questions? Seems like a lot of Obama loyalists demand silence from the ranks.
November 30, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which part of my opinion seems like a insult or shut down? I'm arguing from one end just like you from the other end.
November 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say you said that. But there have been a lot of Obama backers, here and elsewhere, making the point you did and then adding "STFU," "whiners" and various other slights.
For example, they want to prevent liberals from raising their exclusion, to date, from the Obama leadership in favor of rightists and triangulating Clintonites.
When we will be "allowed" to discuss these things is not clear.
November 30, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, for one, hear a lot of it and willing to include in the discussions. I ain't a big fan of Senator Clinton and she isn't my first choice- but my argument is not to come to quick conclusions.
And that's not idolizing Obama. I was not particularly happy, and I'm still not, his 180 degress U turn on FISA. But I don't see Liebermann pardon or his cabinet appointments as signs of broken promises.
November 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Alpha, It is nice to read your comments. Yes, blind followers are still blind, even if the leader is Obama.
Anyone who has been reading this board has seen examples of this "STFU attitude" you mention. Some want to look the other way and say that it is not happening, that we simply need to be patient...
Whatever. What we never need is such demonizing.
November 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting and please post more to offset the STFU crowd. We need to have a constructive dialog without insulting our allies.
I do wonder if some of the personalities here are actually Obama backers!
November 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh stop whining about being shouted down. You didn't raise questions; you trashed Obama and said you regretted working, donating and voting for him. Wait and see attitude. Not so much.
November 30, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know that. Hmm..what's up Alpha?
November 30, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odd, the posts before were way over the top. Today they seem more rationale that was the point of my post up the thread, where I got accused of stereotyping in return.
November 30, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
May be "STFU attitude" posts work?
LOL..kidding.
November 30, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, Michael. Alpha's posts could have been written by repugs and noquarter wackadoos, designed to stir up trouble on the left before Obama has had a moment to do anything. "Where's the change?"
I can take dissenting, fact-based opinions; I can't take it when folks are scruitinizing every thing waiting for a chance to scream "a ha! I told you he was nothing but a lying politician who would betray us and couldn't be trusted."
November 30, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. Other than the combat now, the original posts today are competely different.
November 30, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you have lied about what I say.
Why don't you just avoid putting people's word in their mouths? Try a little honesty.
November 30, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's lying about what I said. I gave him the chance to back it up and he can't do it. All he does is repeat the same charge, with insults, over and over again.
I posted a link to my post where he claims I called Obama a liar and regretted supporting him. It doesn't say that.
Even though all these comments have a "Permalink" on them, he can't post the comments where he says I called Obama a liar, etc.
----
I'll admit to being ticked off after a steady 10 days of centrists and rightist appointments. I'm hoping the domestic cabinet is a bit more inclusive.
November 30, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a lie. I have given you the chance to prove I say these things and you can't back it up.
But you keep lying. And insulting.
November 30, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes me suspicious about you "AlphaLiberal" is not only your moniker, which is a bit of an oxymoron, but your insistence on everyone meeting the liberal litmus test. Back a few days ago I asked you to define "liberal" since you had your knickers in a knot over no "liberals" being appointed to the Cabinet. I asked you to define the term. You never did. There's only one group that throws the word liberal around like you do, and they aren't liberals, or even Democrats. What would a "liberal" Secretary of Defense do? A "liberal" Secretary of Commerce, Labor, HHS, DHS, etc... ? Just curious.
November 30, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just like you have the right to criticize Obama - his "backers" have a right to defend him. You are not being silenced. We can't unplug your modem and shut you out of this website. If someone writes something you don't like, they have the right to respond and vice versa. Let's stop playing the victim. A lot of Obama criticism on this and other websites usually includes some insult that those who are defending him aren't independent thinkers and are drinking the Kool-Aid. It implies that you are more intelligent and more capable of seeing the "truth". The proof is in your "the leader" comment towards another member. I am one of those defenders and anyone who knows me can testify that I am no follower. From where I stand, Obama has given me no reason to be concerned - Yet! I've been listening to him, closely, and nothing he has done has surprised me.
November 30, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it.
November 30, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is making sure the stories will be about getting work done, not personalities and soap opera bullshit.
November 30, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, what a shock. It's only been reported through leaks in the press for weeks now ad nauseum. I guess we'll have to wait and see. Nonetheless, obama would rather have rivals pissing outside the tent than pissing in, which is obvious from this nomination. Hopefully, he will be able to keep the drama to a minimum with jones and gates trying to put the kabbash on clinton hystrionics and drama. Talk about a team of rivals. Oh brother.
November 30, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
A lot of talk about pissing around tents these days. I was always taught to piss far away from the tent.
And this whole team of rivals thing raises the possibility that the fastest way to an appointment is to be an opponent.
Seriously, liberals may want to take notice.
November 30, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, not arguing with any of the points. I guess time will tell. Nonetheless, he does hold the ability to can someone who isn't playing ball and based on his track record, I don't doubt that he will pull the lever if need be. I believe that clintons biggest problems have been her advisors and the people around her, primarily mr. bill. Maybe, just maybe, as SOS she will shine, because the advisors won't have as much influence. She will be answering to obama and coordinating with jones and gates. Totally different than a campaign mode.
November 30, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with you on that one. I don't believe in the Clinton conspiracy theories and I think she will do a fine job, not any better or worse than any other potential nominee.
But I'm a bit worried such precedence will not discourage opponents to run a filthy campaigns in the future.
But again I think not much will change in that front- irrespective of whet Obama does.
November 30, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
any of you clinton haters look up what Obama did in both Orange and Osceola counties in FL.
he won them both by 20% after Kerry tied bush in 2004.
Hillary campaigned with Obama heavily in Orlando, and Bill did in Kissimmee.
that is why he did so well in those 2 crucial counties in FL. and that is why Obama won Florida.
so yeah hillary should be welcomed with OPEN ARMS
November 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton supporters should not give all the credit to to her either. If roles were reversed I'm sure Obama would be offered Zilch by the Clintons.
Obama has made a bold move- because I'm sure there are other equally qualified candidates he could turn to, if he wanted.
November 30, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's just guessing but I am pretty sure he would be offered the VP slot. Bill was already all for it and unlike Obama, Hill would have capitulated nicely to the push.
November 30, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Whatever to sideline. But what I meant was when nothing was at stake. Obama had nothing at stake, he didn't have to offer her- but he did. That signals a lot more courage and honesty.
November 30, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. I'm happy with how hard Hillary worked for Obama. But you're drinking something if you think Hillary's campaigning is responsible for his win in FL.
Do you have any idea how many new voters the Obama campaign registered in FL?
Do you have any idea how many more African Americans voted in FL in 2008 v. 2004 and that 95% of them voted for Obama?
Do you have any idea how many votes Bush got for Obama?
Hillary never set foot in IN for Obama but he won the state by 1 point when Kerry lost it by 21.
She and Bill never set foot in NC for Obama but he won the state by 2 points when Kerry lost it by 12. Times change.
November 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I for one believe these are two of the most intelligent capable people we have in the upper echelons of the Democratic party. They will be a formidable duo in the future O administration. Just don't be suprised when that happens.
OT But has anyone ever held the top posts in economics and diplomacy like James Baker?
November 30, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting observation and I don't recall anyone. Throw in the chief of staff by the way as well. He had a trifecta. I hope obama names baker as special envoy to the middle east to knock some heads together by the way. He would be perfect.
November 30, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about being an accomplished American.
November 30, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
A post at Politico put it well - this isn't "a team of rivals" it is "a team of giants"
November 30, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually wondering how the next press conference will go? So far the press hasn't asked any direct questions to announced nominees or appointees in these pressers. Pretty much it's been all Obama show.
I'm willing to bet Press will be eager to bypass Obama and directly ask Senator Clinton a few questions tommorow. There will be a lot of anxiety for the first few months.
November 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, the press only addressing obama is probably a condition of the nominating press conferences. Otherwise, I will bet you that the press would have directly asked the nominees questions. They will be questioning clinton outside the nominating press conference and it will be interesting to see her responses.
November 30, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know that. But still I'm predicting a few ackward moments tommorow.
There will be some anxiety until the newness of her appointment erodes, but in the long run she will emerge very much as a second or third fiddle.
I think slowly it will sink in she isn't the leader but a memeber of a team led by him. No doubt she triggers strong positive and negative emotions right now but I think in the long run some of her image will be dilluted and she will be seen more as a representative of the Obana administration.
That seems to be the idea anyways.
November 30, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know it as well. I am just guessing, but you would have thought that the press would have been itching to ask questions of summers and geitner and volker. At least one, so odds are, again a guess, that the condition of the conference was that it was just a roll out and only obama would be answering questions.
I am keeping my fingers crossed on the clintons. Maybe she will be awesome and maybe she will be a disaster. Obama is definitely going long with this nomination. Who knows. And I am definitely not a fan of the clintons.
November 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep your friends close
And your enemies closer.
Obama knows this.
November 30, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
This makes no sense in this situation because they are of the same party and so would necessarily share the same pool of staff, advisors, etc. The sitting POTUS trumps a sitting senator of the same party even if said senator's husband is ex-POTUS.
November 30, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really skeptical about Obama's ability to "contain" Billary's shenanigans and penchant for drama so real work can get done.
I don't know why Obama felt she is the best fit for the job. Yes she is qualified and might even do great things.
The trade off is Obama's campaign for change gets watered down before he even gets sworn in because if you believe the Clintons (and everything that comes with them) had an 11th hour conversion into Obama's promised new way of "doing businesss" in Washington then I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.
November 30, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with these concerns but think that Obama must have seen that coming. The Samantha Powers appt for State transition may keep a firm Obama grip on State.
Oddly, he put Clinton in a policy area where I, and probably lots of liberals, disagree with her, and her hawkishness, most. Is the team stacked with hawks?
November 30, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if he saw it coming and did it anyway it must mean he is confident he can keep Hillary a disciplined team player. Can anyone do this, really? Hillary thrives on drama. I believe she believes it is what keeps her qualified in the minds of a lot of people. So, unless she all of a sudden feels that her political ambition has taken her as far as it can and all that remains in her political career is to be an effective team player and public servant, Obama can expect drama that detracts from getting real work accomplished.
November 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and idiots like you thrive on drama, gushing repeated vomitous drama. Hillary was quite quiet most of her years in the White House, she took a back seat during much of her time in the Senate, she was worked on Democratic causes and national campaigns and anti-poverty initiatives since 1968.
She helped Obama get elected through extensive campaigning and fund-raising.
She is a team player.
You're simply a whiny jerk with a grudge. Piss off.
December 1, 2008 2:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't want Hillary at State but I'm OK with it and I don't believe she or Bill will cause trouble since causing trouble for Barack means trouble for Hillary. I honestly don't think she will run for prez again but her best chance of success comes if she is a success at State. Sinking Obama's foreign policy will sink her career.
Hillary operated in a drama-free environment in the Seante. I believe she'll do the same thing as SOS.
Also, Jimmy Carter has been a thorn in the side of every president since he left office because of his foreign policy freelancing. Clinton would pose a similar problem for Obama and there was no way to reign him in . . . except appoint Hillary as SoS. Brilliant!
November 30, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she operated a drama-free environment at the senate because she had both eyes on Decision 2008. It is generally agreed that by taking this post she effectively forfeits further ambitions to be POTUS. I'm inclined to agree.
So what is in it for her? I know it is mean to ask but to simply say "she feels this is the best way she can serve the public interest" is somewhat naive considering her and her husbands ego. Sure she will be a competent SOS but at what cost to Obama's promised campaign for change in the ways of Washington? I don't think she'll go rogue on Obama but its the many little distractions that will hinder the process for real change.
November 30, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you were worried about Obama compromising the "appearance of change" you should have been having a cow when he picked a guy who's been in the Senate for 36 years.
I don't give a 'possum's puss about the appearance of change as long as we get a change in policy. And if that means picking folks who've been around the block a few times to get it done, I'm good.
What's in it for Hillary? Oh, I don't know. How about the most coveted position in the cabinet rather than being no 34 in seniority in the senate? How about the chance to become the next George Marshall?
November 30, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have every confidence that Biden, though having been in the senate for 30+ years, is a team player and effective without making a lot of noises in carrying out the grunt work of Obama's campaign promises. Hillary not so much. There is always some kind of distraction with her or Bill. I really don't think they have completely come on board with Obama's way of thinking and doing things. That is why I view this appointment with some suspicion.
So you say what about Gates, it can be argued that he is not completely on board with Obama? I say Gates is a professional and not a politician. If the disagreement is significant I think he would just resign. Clinton on the other hand would most likely hang around until some measure of political gain is achieved no matter the cost in actually getting things done.
November 30, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary did 50-60 campaign events for Obama. She raised $10 million for him. That alone earned her a lot of chits in my book.
Question: what does Hillary gain by undermining Obama? NOTHING! If she screws Obama as SOS, she screws herself. Simple.
I don't have a problem with Gates. I believe that people accept positions in an administration with the clear understanding that the Prez calls the shots. That includes Hillary.
November 30, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has been said that if Obama chose law over politics he's be the front runner for a Democratic Presidents first SCOTUS appointment. His "Team of Rivals" just isn't with him, but with each other. It sounds like he wants competing views, will hear both sides arguments and then make a decision - very Judge-like.
I would like to see a very experienced diplomat as Hillary's deputy Secretary of State.
November 30, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I felt Bill Richardson would have been a better choice.
November 30, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That raises the question -- what, if any, role will Richardson have in the Obama cabinet?
November 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Commerce secretary. Already leaked.
November 30, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Michael,
I finally read a cogent analysis today that made gave me a fresh very plausible rationale for the selection of HRC as SOS, as well as Jones and Gates in their respective roles.
I gotta tell you...it just made so much sense and it sounded just like the type of strategic move Obama would make.
Beinart, in Newsweek..said that these folks have not been selected to persuade Obama to their right of center hawkish views, but rather they have been selected because of their hawkish views being able to persuade the right to give Obama's 'dove' tactics a chance. That they have the credibility with the right to sell Obama's strategy to them.
That made incredible sense to me. Particularly, as Obama has said repeatedly, he sets the policy and the team executes it.
Moreover, it fits perfectly with what Dubya & Cheney did with Powell. Powell was the one with the credibility and he was used as their pawn to sell the war to the rest of the nation, to give credence to the validity of their pre-emptive strike 'bring it on' mentality. Folks, knew Powell was not a war monger so he was effectively able to sell their saber rattling to the rest of the nation.
Obama is being perceived as a dove, naive and inexperience on foreign policy, folks are not willing to trust his 'walk softly and carry a big stick' FP views nor accept that America should lead by the might of her example and not the example of her might.
When Obama decides the plan and sends out HRC, Jones and Gates to sell...the right will listen and give his strategy a chance.
AIPAC will fall in line as well due to how much they believe HRC is in their pocket and they too will be forced to not attack the Obama's FP as he will have Rahm Emanuel as another spokesperson adroit in the art of diplomatic talk. lol
So, that is how I can now relax and watch this plan roll out.
Obama is a master politician...and we are about to watch a thing of political might and strength this nation has not seen in a loooong time.
I even laughed thinking about who the heck are the experts that come out against Obama when he has all of them working either in his cabinet, on an advisory board or part of the WH staff?
He even has Scowcroft on board.
Game, set..match...time to watch it.
November 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post and I agree with the analysis. I saw it on the other thread. I agree that it appears to be game, set and match. I liked bush I's foreign policy. I think it was probably the best in many respects, so if obama employs the same foreign policy or large portions of it, I am all for it.
November 30, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful! I think this is an excellent choice. :)
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
November 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The DRAMA is just beginning
The State department will be LEAK CENTRAL
November 30, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be interesting to see whether or not people close to the Clintons leak Obama's foreign policy plans.
November 30, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It still amazes me how petty and irrational the Clinton haters are. Thank heavens Obama is not at all afraid to step past this kind of endless personal bullshit and get things done.
Who the hell better than Hillary to represent the best and the brightest I cannot imagine. Bill Clinton was ever so close to a deal with Israel and the Palestinians. Bush let everything burn to the ground and was proud of it. Clinton and Obama will put it back together and we will all celebrate this moment of good people getting good things done.
November 30, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone who keeps repeating "change" as if it were a talisman, please ask yourselves why Obama is doing this.
Why he doesn't oppose Lieberman remaining in the Democratic senatorial caucus. Why he wants Clinton as his Secretary of State.
Is it because he fooled you into thinking he was something he plainly isn't?
Or is it because his understanding of how to implement his policy - his changes to how the White House and the Executive Branch operate - goes a little beyond what you may have read from someone at Kos, touting about three more minutes of research than you yourself have done?
Clinton is probably the second most important figure in the party that holds the White House, and Lieberman's continued goodwill shall make it much easier for Obama to do what you have elected him to do. Give him and his circle the same credit for competence that you did when you voted for him, and wait until an actual mistake arises before you pounce.
November 30, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've now resigned myself that this is going to happen. Maybe Bill can be designated as some sort of "Ambassador at Large" (with a $1 salary) to focus on Africa. He's already doing this privately so perhaps this can be a public, official role for him going forward.
The press conference tomorrow is a "must watch".
November 30, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
heh... it would be hilarious if he named Bill Richardson as his
Secretary of State instead of Hillary. lol
November 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, how was Hillary on torture, again? (Amazing article).
November 30, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell better than Hillary to represent the best and the brightest I cannot imagine.
hollywood, you might want to acquaint yourself with the political frame of reference for the phrase the best and the brightest.
December 1, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink