« Rahm Challenges Business Leaders: Let's Do Real Health Care Reform | Home | Report: Obama Picks Daschle For Health And Human Services »
Obama Camp Not Disputing Reports About Bill Helping Hillary Get Secretary Of State Gig
The Obama transition team is not disputing the stories out this morning reporting that Bill Clinton is helping Hillary's quest for the Secretary of State gig by agreeing to a number of concessions with regard to the vetting of his post-Presidential life.
Among those concessions: Bill has reportedly agreed to release the names of major donors to his charitable foundation, will submit future foundation activity to strict review, and could remove himself from day-to-day responsibility for his foundation.
We asked Obama transition spokesperson Stephanie Cutter for comment, and she didn't knock them down, declining to say anything.
So it looks like it's full speed ahead.
Advertisement
I bet the vetting occurred long ago. And I'm not sure it proves Hillary will leave the Senate.
So let's not jump the gun. We've got facts. And then there's speculation.
November 19, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's our job!
November 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, our job is frenzied and unhinged reactions based on puerile speculations.
November 19, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am dearly sorry my good sir, but I seem to have taken offense to your assertion of us speculators appearing to be, ahem, 'unhinged'.
November 19, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed...loosely hinged at worst.
November 19, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
But loosely hinged doesn't swing it. I'm just a dork when I don't have torque.
November 19, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe in fact it is Bill Clinton himself on tap for SOS- hows that for speculation.
November 19, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Ayers for Homeland Security?
November 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a vicious rumor that would get the Witch of Wasilla up in arms!
November 19, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that be fun?
November 19, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
SSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHH!!!
It's been quiet on the Bible Spice front for the last few days, let's keep it that way!
November 19, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just getting plain stupid. No offer has been made. You don't make an offer conditioned on vetting. You vet and then you make the offer. I assume similar vetting is going on for Richardson, Kerry and whoever else Obama is considering.
This public contemplation and campaigning by Clinton underscores why she SHOULDN'T get the job. They are more interested in making news than getting shit done.
November 19, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I mostly agree with you, except that I don't agree that it's Hillary Clinton who presents the problem.
It's the scores of peoplel around Clinton who just can't keep their mouths shut. I think she'd be a good choice for Secretary of State, but the press' insatiable desire for Clinton drama, coupled with Clintonite's seeming inability to shut up creates an atmosphere that would be terrible for a Secretary of State.
Imagine week after week of Maureen Dowd columns like the one today.
November 19, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, replay loops of the bosnia sniper fire bull, and replay loops of all the distortions and statements from the campaign trail, and replay loops of all the clintons drama from the 90's, and republicans constantly dredging all the garbage up trying to taint the whole obama administration with the clinton garbage, and the sound of the dump truck dumping the garbage on the front porch of the whitehouse, and . . . What a nightmare.
November 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Big Dawg counts for at least one score of them.
Oh, MoDo is really just For Amusement Only. Even at that, her predictability can get tiresome really quick.
November 19, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Big Dawg is probably the biggest Drama Queen of all in Clintonland.
November 19, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Among, many, many, many other reasons. I hope it isn't true and I believe that it will be a huge mistake. Unfortunately, it looks like that's where we are headed. The clintons as secretaries of state. How can anyone take us seriously or believe a gd word that comes out of their mouths??????? Ugh! Here comes the drama big time. What a shame.
November 19, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
wow.. we've got an unhinged clinton-hater here... rush limbaugh would be proud of you!
November 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. Not unhinged at all. He just happens to have a strong opinion about Clinton as SOS. Strong opinions do not = "unhinged".
Although labeling someone as "unhinged" is much easier than actually engaging in a discussion.
November 19, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I always love the immediate throw aways like "clinton-hater" and unhinged and rush limbaugh, etc., etc. Why bother.
Never is there any logical defense or discussion. There has never been one. It always is to attack the messenger to try to avoid any discussion. Same old, same old.
Bottom line, what a nightmare.
November 19, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might if you need the appointee's cooperation to make vetting happen.
If Hillary is an appointment he really wants, and if the vetting process is a big pain in the ass for her and Bill, you might have to dangle a really juicy carrot to make it happen.
November 19, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone list Hillary's qualifications for SoS - listing the duties of the office would be a good place to start. Can anyone tell me why she, to the exclusion of all other possible candidates is best suited to the job? Obviously I don't think she's qualified and obviously I don't think she's the best suited, but maybe someone can change my mind.
November 19, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, maybe the boatload of republicans that are supporting her for Secretary of State. Pat Buchannan, kyl, eagleburger, and virtually every other republican senator. I'm sure they know her "qualifications." Otherwise, why would they be in her corner? Hmmm, kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it. Buchannan was literally screaming his support the other night. Very bizarre.
November 19, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no, not to said exclusion, and not necessarily the best. But I can see one advantage to having her as SoS.
It's the seriousness with which foreign leaders will listen to her. It goes along with her star power.
Imagine BigO sends his SoS to bang some Israeli and Palestinian heads together, looking to make a few cracks in their intransigence. Hillary is likely to have greater perceived credibility and authority among them than either Richardson or Kerry.
There are other aspects of her SoS'ness that are very problematic. I don't think I can say how it all balances out.
November 19, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but when the North Koreans were screwing around a few years ago (if I recall correctly, they were holding a few folks "hostage" and some kind of craziness with some "nook-you-lar" type stuff), it wasn't Hillary Rodham Clinton who got the folks released, it was Bill Richardson. G. W. Bush hadn't wanted Richardson to get involved, but he did and he resolved the situation. And later he hosted the North Koreans for extended talks at the governor's manse in Santa Fe.
I don't recall Clinton being involved in any substantive talks during her White House or post-White House years. You don't want "star power" in a diplomatic post. You want someone who foreign leaders can trust and will both talk and listen to. Is that Hillary? I don't think so....
November 19, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary as SoS is like going to Vegas with $1 million in your pocket and only play penny, nickel and quarter slots instead of sitting down at the Baccarat or Roulette tables. SCOTUS is where she would do the most good.
November 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
We know that. Or we think we know that. But it looks like this is up to her. Or, hell, we could be just shooting bull and she's already decided something and they'll be announcing someone else.
November 19, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As if Billy-boy has no say, eh? It makes me wonder just who's wearing the pants at the moment?
November 19, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why appoint someone already past 60 to the Supreme Court?
November 19, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, but think of her like an itch the repugs can't scratch sitting on the bench for the next 20 plus years.
November 19, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's not that liberal, and certainly far from the left intellectual equivalent of a Scalia, Alito and Roberts.
The conservatives understand the need to install judges who have devoted their careers to forwarding the movement ideologically. We need to do the same thing, and Hillary Clinton does not make the cut.
November 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I thought she said she didn't want that.
November 19, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Declining to say anything = yes?
And here i thought that declining to say anything equals declining to say anything. Isn't Obama's policy that he doesn't want anyone to talk about the vetting process. If she said no then she would be giving away information.
So to say "So it looks like it's full speed ahead." is a bit off.
In fact there is no story here at all, all you got is someone in the Obama campaign doing their job and not telling you anything about the process and then your just jumping to conclusions.
Your doing just what Josh was talking about on the front page.... hyperventilating
November 19, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And your title is also incorrect, "Obama Camp Not Disputing Reports About Bill Helping Hillary Get Secretary Of State Gig" It is true that they aren't but the better wording would be Obama Camp Not Discussing Reports About Bill Helping Hillary Get Secretary Of State Gig.
November 19, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second.
November 19, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or even better, Obama Camp Refusing To Comment On Reports About Bill Helping Hillary Get Secretary Of State Gig
November 19, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It almost seem we are not ready to hear the very plausible outcome. I agree with you partly. Press assertions have been parabolic. But I think at this point it's clear she is a serious candidate for a major role in the Obama White House.
November 19, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Until I see a named source in the Obama campaign that has the level to know information about this give out information i am going to hold the reports about her becoming SoS as pure speculation. I do agree with you that it does look like she is a serious candidate for some role in the Obama White House.
November 19, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, consider this headline: Obama camp noto confirming reports about Bill helping Hillary....
Whole different interpretation possible with that.
Confirmation bias at play here?
November 19, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
For me this comes back to a point I made a week or so ago. There needs to be clarity in reporting - so that news and opinion are differentiated. If TPM wants to do serious reporting, and I don't dispute that, then the posts MUST be clear as to facts and speculation.
November 19, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
As you well know, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings. Or at least leaks. You can Depend on that.
November 19, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to HRC, Greg always sees glass as half-full.
November 19, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
It sounds deceivingly deceptive. Perhaps Pres. Obama is just letting us play with our imagination to see how receptive the public is to rumors? Napolatano was suppose to be the shoo-in for the AG spot and look who showed up for dinner.
November 19, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope your right. I was on the Napolitano bandwagon and thought that bandwagon was half-way to dc already. I guess we'll have to wait and see. One can always hope.
November 19, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The AG appointment bothers me. Not that I'm against Eric Holder or even in support for someone else.
I'm beginning to wonder if we will have any fresh outside the beltway appointments in key positions. If Hillary takes SoS and Gates remains at the Pentagon and concievably a Washington insider may be appointed as the treasuary. Very few popular and visible positions are left for a fresh face.
I always though AG would be a great spot for a someone tough and fresh outside the beltway.
I personally wouldn't be heartbroken to see a rehash of a Clinton WH but would prefer a few fresh faces instead.
November 19, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the problem with DOJ. The last 8 years have so broken the spirits of people who worked there and so many left, that the AG needs to be someone with a memory of how a functioning DOJ works. It can't be someone without that historical base. So to me the pick makes sense. Glenn Greenwald has a great post up today on this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
November 19, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't dispute. I just saw it as one potential position to deviate from the Bill Clinton WH.
November 19, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The president sets the agenda. It's a whole different ball-game. Even if he uses some players. Think of a sports team. (I'm not a sport person, but still...) If you have a different coach, even if you're using a few of the same players, those players are going to do the plays the coach has in mind.
I'm trusting Obama here. And I'm trusting his ability to pick good players. And insist that this time they all work together and win!
November 19, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. However, I also think there are many other opportunities/vacancies to handle that. Not to worry. I think Senator Clinton will be fine as SOS. The world thinks quite well of her (yes, and Bill too) and that alone is worth a lot following the last eight disastrous years of foreign policy.
November 19, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo: I meant "*would* be fine as SOS". Meant to include the obvious possibility she may not become SOS.
November 19, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with Hillary either. Though she isn't my first choice.
November 19, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was ok with it, till this collaboration with Kennedy was offered. Now I'd rather see her working with him to get health care passed. She could always be elevated to state or whatever at a later point.
November 19, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've got a fresh face where it counts. At the top.
November 19, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me tell you something, kash. I work at the Department of Justice, as a trial attorney. This Department does not need a "fresh face." It needs someone who knows this place inside and out, who is smart, who is connected, and who happens also to be right on the law.
All these lofty "fresh face" vagaries and cabinet Monday-quarterbacking ("Too many experienced people! Too many Clintonites!") is just seat-wetting. These agencies are massive, and they have, for the last 8 years, been fucked with. Tinkered with. Damaged.
We need experienced agency heads at the big three: Justice, State, and Defense.
Just the view of someone who works in D.C. and sees the wheels and cogs turning (or not, as the case may be).
November 19, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Lars. That should be shouted from the rooftops! It's so clear after everything we saw as the DOJ problems emerged here at the Muck, that a very ethical and experienced DOJ person is needed.
I'm glad you're there too!
November 19, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The geological time line of my career goes back to when HHS was HEW, during the Saturday Night Massacre days. I worked in what is now the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (then quaintly entitled "Bureau of Health Insurance", then situated within Social Security). Casper Weinberger was Secretary. Thereafter he was Secretary of Defense. Past a certain point, it doesn't matter who gets what job. At a certain level of capability and having been around, these players are sort of generically Secretary-ready (whether they work out well or not), and so it goes. Within federal regulatory agencies there is a wild scramble of advantage-positioning that goes on during the first couple of years of a new presidential administration, pretty much all the way down to the GS-14 level. Marking on Bush's curve, ensuring that people are at least not criminals will represent a skyrocketing step up. Maybe the most important skills for a Secretary are the ability to maintain coherence internally and (as Friedman pointed out in the Times this morning)the ability to project unanimity with the President, and be viewed as speaking for him. I think we're over-obsessing.
November 19, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for that insight.
Depressing as it is.
November 19, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Secretary of State?
Can someone explain how confident we are that the position for which Hillary is being considered and vetted is State?
I personally feel she would be far better in Homeland Security. The budget is far larger. The job is much bigger and much more well suited to a tireless worker with lots and lots of plans.
And the need is so much greater. The department has yet to be pulled together and it is simply so important: immigration, port security, ...
There is a significant foreign policy component, but it is primary confined to Mexico, the Caribbean, and Canada, so the Bill Clinton vetting process is less critical.
My key question though, is: "Are we really sure it's state?" All I've seen is media hype based on anonymous reports, all of which would be exactly the same if the job were something else.
Don
November 19, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not a bad thought and entirely possible, eventhough I don't want them anywhere near the whitehouse. On another note, I bet a couple of things on "homeland security."
1. Name change. It sounds so fatherlandish.
2. They break it up again. It's way to big, cumbersome and impossible to operate by one individual. It would be much more efficient the way it was to a certain extent. I think this department was a rush to do something after 9/11. I bet it gets broken up.
November 19, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I co-sign on the name change. Too many fascist connotations.
November 19, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice idea, given what should prove a strong Democratic commitment to inspections of ships, aircraft and other such necessary drudgery.
While Hillary's managerial chops would prove useful in such a setting, it's not nearly a sexy enough post to justify giving up a seat in the US Senate and potential stint as majority leader.
November 19, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One tea leaf suggesting SoS is this: What cabinet position would interest her enough to give up her Senate career? There are lots of reasons why she'd want to stay, so it'd have to be a pretty juicy plum to tempt her.
November 19, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And this op-ed explains another reason that this would be a bad idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
I hope it doesn't happen. It would be nothing but problems.
November 19, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would Chris Matthews say? Oh ya HRC is the antichrist.
November 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This excerpt from an article in today's NYT:
November 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the thousand reasons why she should not get the gig. Her operation leaks like a sieve and they are more interested in playing the media to stroke the clintons' egos than anything else. What a smack in the face of obama. She should be saying nothing.
November 19, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of those reasons is her statement during the primaries that Iran needs to know ". . . we would be able to totally obliterate them.” Admittedly it was in response to an overheated question about what the US should do if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, but HRC seemed to relish the opportunity to lay out some belligerent rhetoric. Not exactly setting the stage for productive negotiations as Secretary of State, eh?
November 19, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
First up for Hillary: a 158-nation 'listening tour.' See you in 2010, Hill!
November 19, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thought of WJ at loose ends with nothing to keep him busy is disconcerting for me and probably should be for Obama, too.
November 19, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had enough of the old hag. Please step aside along that dumb fuck of a husband.
November 19, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink