Obama And Secretary Of State Hillary: Good Cop, Bad Cop
A very smart analysis from Steve Clemons of the rationale behind the Hillary Secretary of State pick:
The Clinton we have grown accustomed to over the last year is perceived as a spear-carrier for the Madeleine Albright school of values-driven liberal interventionism. Albright proponents argue that in contrast to the reckless efforts of neoconservatives to spread democracy and promote global justice at the end of a gun, Albright got regime change right in the Balkans.Obama is the guy who wanted to meet the world's most thuggish leaders, who wanted strategic change, and who wanted to avoid the "wrong kind of experience" -- implying Clinton's team was riveted in the past and not ready for the future. Obama strategist David Axelrod went so far as to tie Clinton to some responsibility for Benazir Bhutto's death for not doing more to stop Bush's wars in the Middle East.
Despite all of these differences, hiring Clinton may be a masterstroke of genius that has all the markings of a high-risk, high-reward move with which this political tycoon Obama has grown comfortable...
If Obama wants to change the strategic game on Iran, Israel-Palestine, Syria, Cuba, Russia and other challenges, he will need partners who are perceived as tough, smart, shrewd and even skeptical of the deals he wants to do. Clinton is all of these.
Clinton may be the bad cop to Obama's good cop. Because she is trusted by Pentagon-hugging national security conservatives, she may legitimize his desire to respond to this pivot point in American history with bold strokes rather than incremental ones.
Obama...intends to, in part, be his own secretary of state, focused on re-sculpting America's global social contract and working in partnership with a diverse team of hard-edged policy players like Clinton to make even his rivals do his direct bidding.
This could be a kind of proactive agenda-setting in foreign policy we haven't seen in decades.
It would be the ultimate irony if Obama were able to change national security politics at home, and achieve true transformation of America's posture abroad, in part because of the political cover he got from someone he long derided as captive to the very same foreign policy mindset he's setting out to transform.
Political jujitsu.
November 20, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume that you say that because of Obama's notorious political naïveté and foolish disregard for the advice of those here who could have made him successful in his political efforts. Oh, wait.
November 20, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. I see Hillary as having more clout with foreign leaders than either Richardson or Kerry. With her, if they try to bullshit or finagle her, they're likely to get immediate push-back from her. With the others, foreign leaders might try it in the hopes that their BS makes it back to Washington before the US decides to push back.
She's smarter than either of them, IMO.
November 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
if you're trying to get folks to drop the knee-jerk hawkishness it's good to be perceived as a ball buster ;)
November 20, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rah, Rah, Rah. Give me a break.
By the way gregg, who is it that leaks to you from the clintons camp in light of your earlier posts? Inquiring minds want to know.
November 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was looking at it from the foreign perspective. What you say is something I hadn't thought of 'til I read your post -- clout within the Beltway foreign-policy power structure. That's what goes to your point about irony.
Ball-buster is a good way to put it. In this regard, Big Dawg might actually be more of a help than hindrance. He's more than qualified for an informal role as back-up ball-buster.
November 20, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't it be lovely if together they won a Nobel Peace Prize?
Creativity often comes from the resolution of holding opposites together.
November 20, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting analysis...hmmmm...we have good cop/bad cop with Emanuel and now the same for SOS...sounds consistent...if nothing else.
November 20, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent analysis! This sounds more like Obama than any other pro or con article.
November 20, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barak is on record as supporting a college football playoff. This is a masterstroke of political jujitsu that will give him the ethos of action, the prospect of pugilism needed to bring about a more meaningful steroids policy in baseball. Masterstroke! He just can do no wrong, can he?
November 20, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I disagree with him on the CFB playoff concept.
Go figure.
November 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not just have a three-round coin-toss?
November 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously?
I'm in favor of it, myself.
The ridiculous posturing on the part of Division I presidents about the academic challenges posed by such a play-off system are just laugh out loud ridiculous, given that Division II and Division III teams have playoffs.
And Division II and Division III teams are often more academically challenging than Division I.
November 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with it as well. I think it is a financial loser and would fail due to lack of alumni support.
November 21, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is so brilliant that I am sure that he is 10 steps ahead of any of us in terms of his plans.
November 20, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wants a legacy. It was to be the first female President, but that looks unlikely right now. And Kennedy is intent on owning Health Care, and Daschle has been named HHS so she seems to be on the outside looking in on that issue. So either she can remain in the Senate and wait in line or accept being Secretary of State and work hard there to create a legacy.
Hillary will not sign on to be a puppet though, playing the bad cop without having any real say in the policy decisions.
Sen. Clinton is in a pretty unique role of being able to play hawk to the enemies (given her primary language and Senate career) and trusted and respected friend to the allies (from the Clinton White House years). Her hawk tendencies will play well in that countries she's visiting will know she's in Obama's ear to take a harder line and that she has tremendous pull and somebody who can speak truth to Obama.
November 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's OK if she does not want to sign on...he has a significant player for plan B...Susan Rice.
This is like having A Rod first string and Jeter as back up.
Hillary may not want to take directives from Obama but she may want a significant legacy more.
November 20, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It ain't going to be Susan Rice, if for nothing else than the sake of appearances. Obama is not going to place 3 African Americans in the top 3 of 4 cabinet positions.
November 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it should read "Obama is not going to place 2 African Americans in the top 2 of 3 cabinet positions.
November 20, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think race has anything to do with who is selected for Cabinet positions. If it does, then the GOP already had 2 in the cabinet, therefore Obama can have 4-5 if he likes. Which means that in addition to Rice and Holder he could select Greenspans' Vice Chair, Roger Ferguson, for Treas Sec because he knows where all the errors were made and has the experience to do a great job. Likewise, he could selct, Mfume for HUD secretary and Quintin E Primo III for Commerce, Mellody Hobson as Sec of Labor and John E Rogers as Sec of Interior.
There are a whole host of well qualified people in Chicago alone, who Obama knows that could fill his entire cabinet.
Given that over 40 Presidents had no persons of color in their cabinet, there should not even be a quota based on color.
I suspect he will select the best qualified independent of race/gender.
November 21, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't expect her to, and I can't imagine that's what Obama is looking for. She's gonna have real policy-making power. I mean, not in a vacuum, but as a powerful voice among her, BigO, Biden, NSA chief, etc. Not at all like the token that was Colin Powell.
November 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy ask Hillary to head Senate healthcare team yesterday. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-hillary19-2008nov19,0,4156588.story
November 20, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still. I'll believe HRC as SoS when I see it.
November 20, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't play good cop/bad cop as secretary of state. It makes no sense. The secretary of state is supposed to be speaking on behalf of the president, not promoting their own agenda.
The clintons as secretaries of state would be a terrible idea. They have zero credibility, are untrustworthy and have their own agendas that they are promoting, not the country's or obama's. It's amazing how these foundational issues are constantly ignored.
I can't wait until this clinton drama is over once and for all.
November 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
MichaelA
In my heart of hearts all I want is for the Clintons to get off the national and world stage, just fade into anonymity. But they love the spotlight and they do bring drama drama and more drama.
I have significant Clinton fatigue.
November 20, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have major, major, major clinton fatigue. It really is amazing. We heard nothing from the clintons for years, until she made her presidential run and its been a nightmare ever since.
It really pisses me off that they weren't leaking to the press and screwing with the press in the lead up to the iraq war to stop the country from going to war. Total silence. Total silence the whole time when she was in the senate and now, it's just unbelievable.
November 20, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the total lack of political and moral courage on the war was the most significant reason I came out against HRC, long before this TPM-EC came into existence.
There is no doubt that HRC does what is politically expedient for her, and she uses her power and influence to forward her individual goals not the overall good of the party or country.
I bet she is still having nightmares about how all her careful plotting and politically manuevering wound up with her being bested with a rookie two years out of the State legislature.
Which is why I do not trust them in the Cabinet. The Clintons are seething and smoldering and just waiting for an opportune time to unleash their jackals like Caraville, for maximium damage to Obama.
I have no doubt that HrC will run in 2012...and SOS will burnish her FP credentials, in a way being First Lady never convincingly did.
November 20, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely agree 1000%.
November 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree completely. For all that I do believe Obama is playing a long, deep game and operating 10 moves ahead of everybody else, his making Hillary Secretary of State just about erases any good he's done or could do.
I never believed that "the Clintons will do anything to win" crap until Hillary's Iraq vote. I will never, never, NEVER forgive her for that.
That alone disqualifies her from representing the U.S. in any capacity whatsoever.
(And yes, I realize she's got lots of company, including Biden. Fuck 'em all. The blood of 4,200-plus of our best is on their hands.)
November 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqi women and children, and tens of thousands of american heros horribly maimed for life. A totally destroyed and devastated country. For what? For a gd LIE!!!!! It's enough to make you cry. However, this stuff never gets raised by the media or anyone. The sufferring, death and devastation just gets ignored. Women and children and families that did absolutely nothing wrong. It's an outrage.
November 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too early to tell what Obama's FP approach will be or if it will be a departure from the views held by Clinton and others of the neoliberal or hawk persuasion who are on the team. Watch appointments to the NSC and State dept for clues as to the direction an Obama administration will take.
Dennis Ross has already taken it upon himself to speak for Obama in response to a Times of London story about Obama's reaction to the Arab 2002 proposal during the most recent visit to Israel. Ross denied the account; though apparently only to Haaretz.
An interesting side note is the speculation about Bill Richardson's prospects. The most plugged-in NM political blogger reported awhile back that Richardson wanted to be ambassador to China. Rumor denied, but the most recent leak to Joe Monahan includes some interesting color about the process:
("alligators" are informants)
"BILL'S TRAVELS
Yes, Big Bill did meet with Obama Friday afternoon in Chicago. And, yes, the two did discuss a possible role for the Guv in the Obama administration. That comes from an Alligator with knowledge of the meeting. Richardson apparently also headed to Las Vegas, Nevada over the weekend to celebrate his 61st birthday which was Saturday, says a Senior Alligator.
As we have blogged repeatedly, the chances of Richardson becoming Sec. of State seem small. However, we feel our Senior Gator report that stated Obama asked Richardson to list four jobs he was interested in is solid. Our source said one of the jobs listed was ambassador to China. And our senior source also said that is the most likely one the Guv would get.
In recent days speculation has mounted that the Guv could have trouble passing the "vetting" process for a high-level job because of a federal probe into campaign contributions he received and any role such contributions played in awarding a state contract. The story has been in the ABQ Journal, but nothing new of late. "
http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/
November 20, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. Now that is hilarious, richardson would have trouble passing the vetting process, but the payment of hundreds of millions to the clintons to play by foreign governments and entities wouldn't be a problem. Unbelievable.
When will the drama end?
November 20, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find that funny, too.
Richardson couldn't possibly have as much to vet at the Big Dawg.
November 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole clinton drama is just mindboggling to me. A substantial amount of obama's original support was to keep the clintons out of the whitehouse. Now, what does he do? He wants to put them back in the whitehouse. It really is mindnumbing. Ugh!
How could they possibly pass the vetting process? They can't and yet we are witnessing this drama and potential disaster? It is infuriating.
November 20, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know - Richardson was never vetted by the Republicans like Bill Clinton was, so assuming we're only talking about the last eight years for Clinton (of which Obama would have did oppo research for the Clintons during the primary) and a lifetime for Richardson. Not to mention Bill Clinton was obviously aware that Hillary had Presidential aspirations and thus all of his post-Presidential dealings would be open to scrutiny by the Republicans so he would have kept his nose clean.
November 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Monahan, the NM blogger, reported more than once during the primary process that the Clintons had the "long knives" out for Richardson.
November 20, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are kidding about the clintons keeping their noses clean. That is hilarious.
They had a rabid republican congress investigating everything from christmas cards to stays in the lincoln bedroom during the 90's and they didn't keep their noses clean. They never do, it is beyond their capacity. Throw in the rich pardon and the other stuff as they were bailing from the whitehouse.
I think that is the funniest thing that I have heard. The clintons keeping it above board and being honest? Tooooo funny.
November 20, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgot to add that Ed Rendell just told Andrea Mitchell that he had a "hunch" that Richardson would be named ambasador to China while denying that he had any inside information......
Sure, Eddie.
;>}
November 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is bad news. If Richardson gets the China nod, he is going to gain at least 50 pounds dining on Pecking Duck. Poor guy.
November 20, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know Richardson is fluent in Spanish does he also speak Chinese.
November 20, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now this is some good news. More ordered release from gitmo, no evidence. Gee, what a shock. No wonder the world hated us until November 4. We have a chance to right the situation. Let's not screw it up with clinton drama and bull.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_go_ot/guantanamo_detainees
November 20, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Obama/Clinton SecState riddle is the ultimate Rorschach test. I have read ninety-eleven analyses of Obama's offer of the job to Hillary and every single one of them reveals the author's own preconceptions.
My own answer is that a deal was struck way back when Hillary agreed to drop out. So that is ninety-twelve different analyses. Take your pick.
November 20, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a similar thought. And thus I assumed the vetting happened a while back.
November 20, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the ninety-twelfth interpretation.
Sort of. But it's a little inconsistent with the drama revolving around the Veep pick.
Or maybe it isn't. Maybe that was all manufactured drama on the part of Clinton supporters.
Oy.
November 20, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Times like this you have to say to yourself "Maybe I should stop complaining, because this guy is much smarter than I am and PROBABLY knows what he is doing better than I do."
November 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I can tell, Obama is an excellent poker player and I think he's brilliant enough to pull anything off.
I'll say it again - I'm still on my honeymoon with President Awesome. He's gotten us this far...
November 20, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
O/T: missed you, Tena.
November 20, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could also see a scenario with HRC as SoS and Richardson getting an appointment as Obama's "personal ambassador" - the one who goes in to those places like Iran, Syria and North Korea to set up face-to-face meetings with Obama.
November 20, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that call that Ambassador Without Portfolio. It may be a great job for Richardson, esp. in South America. There would need to be a truce pact between him and Hillary though. You know, the "Judas" thing, and Bill's "two cabinet positions weren't enough for you?"
November 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, everybody who's 40 something or older, close your eyes and imagine yourself back in late 1991 as Bill Clinton's transition was underway. Now imagine someone at that time telling you that someday people would refer to Hillary as a person, indeed, the Democrat who is "trusted by Pentagon-hugging national security conservatives."
November 20, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I'm only 38, but I'm fairly certain that Bill Clinton wasn't so conceited as to begin his transition in late 1991, seeing as how he hadn't even won the election until late 1992. ;)
(He took office January 20th, 1993.)
November 20, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some recent reports have referred to John Bolton predicting Hillary as SoS pick way back in July. AFAIK, that was the only speculation that she was even interested in the post way back when.
So far, I haven't found the original report for Bolton's forecast.
No way to know fer sure, but I wonder at Bolton's source(s) and doubt(?) they came from HIllaryland.
November 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference between Clinton versus someone like Richardson, is that Richardson actions and statements would be generally perceived by others (foreign leaders, press) as Obama's, more or less, whereas with Clinton there would always be the question of whether Clinton was acting from her agenda or Obama's until one could get confirmation from Obama. I'm not saying that Clinton would be always a candidate for going on her own agenda in spite of Obama wanted her to do, just that would be the perception out there. If the perception out there is that the Obama administration is in conflict over what direction to take, it may make it more difficult to get countries to take risks, like peace deals, because they may be always waiting for confirmation that this is really where the Obama administration stands.
November 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make an excellent point ac, that's one of the main reasons Baker was one of the best to ever do it. When he spoke to a foreign leader you knew he was speaking for Bush. It gets a little more confusing wit hill as SOS.
November 20, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, baker and bush I had some of the best foreign policy in the last 50 years plus. The clintons will just muck everything up. Obama needs a mouth piece, not someone promoting their own agenda.
November 20, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Richardson loves mixing it up with the "bad guys". He does it in Santa Fe behind closed doors as well; has a real reputation for strongarming even those in the NM Dem party if they balk. He also is rumored to have a "zipper" problem similiar to the other Bill's.
Whatever, the ambassador to China business is puzzling unless he knew he would not be picked for State. Given that dealing with some of the world's toughest guys is a big part of his resume, I'm assuming he really, really, enjoys it.
November 20, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the irony would be compounded by the fact that such an appointment it would sideline Hillary Clinton from the one issue which almost everyone agrees is her strongest suit and signature political promise: American health care reform.
Wouldn't it be truly ironic if an Obama administration's international success came at the expense of the American domestic needs that were the centerpiece of his campaign?
November 20, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm ... in retrospect, maybe it would be easier to enact health care reform without Hillary in a position to push for mandated individual participation.
Ha! I don't envy Obama for the next 4 years - what a puzzle. Much more fun to opine from the sidelines!
November 20, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not go too far into the weeds; I doubt that success in Obama's adminsitration will depend so completely on Hillary's contribution.
This is really Hillary's choice--and a fine bit of justice it is--go for foreign affairs experience as SOS or play in the Senate to pass healthcare. Which door will she choose?
November 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's this "almost everybody" who considers her some goddess of health care? Certainly not me and not, so far as I've heard, the public at large.
November 20, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this all make Amb. Wilson's head explode?
November 20, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is stupid. Good cop, bad cop? That's called schizophrenia. The last thing we need right now is a disjointed, schizophrenic foreign policy. We need change, a new direction globally, not change mixed half and half with hawkishness and the old way.
She's a horrible choice.
November 20, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink