Why Obama Wants Hillary at State

"The job Obama dangled in front of Clinton has excited a frenzy of speculation and leaking — exactly the kind of thing the no-drama Obama operation did not tolerate during the presidential campaign"
.
I find this part interesting. That theme has been prevalent over the last week. The media goes on a feeding frenzy and then lays the responsibility on the subject they are eating.
.
Also the extended focus on President Clinton seems predicated on the Clintons being naive about what is expected during the vetting, something I think is pretty unlikely.

On the story, pretty much all bases covered. No matter what ends up happening, the reasons for its happening appear here.
.
If they can rein in Bill, this is a great choice.

Positive externality: Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews simultaneously explode upon announcement.

I'd love to know who the high ranking Republican is who said his hat is totally off to Obama.

KT
.
I always try to look for hidden upsides to different situations. There is one that I see if HRC actually becomes SOS that I don't know that anyone else has discussed. Because Barack Obama has committed to direct diplomacy with our enemies in the Middle East I think the fact that a woman might be leading that effort might be a big PR move for the US and it might hurt the leaders of places like Iran and Syria, where women are totally subjugated, when they have to meet with her and indeed negotiate with her. I think that will be a blow not only to their bloated egos but also to the people in their countries who have been taught that women are second class citizens not to be seen nor heard. It may even have the effect of pushing women in those countries to start questioning the wisdom of those religious teachings that tell them that men are the only ones who should have any power or be able to make any important decisions. Of course if Bush had allowed Condi Rice to do negotiations with Ahmadenijad and his ilk we might have already been seeing some of these secondary accomplishments in the Middle East. Now having said that I am not saying thats an over riding reason to name her SOS and for some reason I need to say that lest I be labeled sexist. I happen to believe she is emminently qualified to do the job. But if she can also start an uprising within the Islamic fundis in the middle east I would be all for that as well!

Your piece is just unbelievably odious, Karen. It is full of blatant and unrestrained anti-Clinton bias, unsubstantiated innuendo and rumor-mongering. Shame on you and your colleagues. I hope that you will come to be ashamed of this unworthy piece. My esteem for your journalism is greatly diminished by this piece of sh!t.
.
To wit:
"Viewed more cynically, bringing Clinton into the tent could co-opt a potential adversary in 2012 and put a leash on her globetrotting husband, who has a propensity for foreign policy freelancing."
.
Let's see. Did you write such snide public comments about George H W Bush and his son's "globetrotting father" or not? Is there something wrong with a former president traveling to Africa and southeast Asia, where President Clinton is immensely popular, or is Clinton the only former President who has a "propensity" for overseas travel? You know, he traveled extensively with George HW Bush to raise funds for tsunami victims, among other joint endeavors. You have a problem with Clinton doing that, but now HW? Have you also made such snide gossipy comments about President Carter and his "foreign policy freelancing" or not?
.
"However smart it might ultimately prove to be, the Clinton offer is likely to induce grumbling among some Obama loyalists. The job Obama dangled in front of Clinton has excited a frenzy of speculation and leaking — exactly the kind of thing the no-drama Obama operation did not tolerate during the presidential campaign."
.
I'll echo PNNTO's criticism of that disingenuous nugget. It is you and your cable TV brethren who are sniping in a "frenzy of speculation and leaking" here.
.
"He made that comment while giving a paid speech for the National Bank of Kuwait, which is the kind of thing for which he earned more than $10 million last year alone. Beyond his six-figure speaking fees, there are also a myriad of undisclosed contributions to the former President's far-flung charitable endeavors and to his presidential library, many of which have come from foreign interests that his wife would be dealing with as Secretary of State."
.
Again, I haven't seen you do any sniping about former President George HW Bush and his Carlyle Group financial dealing. Or, how about President Carter's "far-flung charitable endeavors? Ever write such tripe about that, Karen?
.
Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that Clinton's "far-flung charitable endeavors" are in any way unethical or illegal, or are you just rumor-mongering in an unseemly way. Because if you DO have some evidence, why not write a FACTUAL piece on that? And let's see hard evidence, not speculation.
.
Karen, shame on you. I thought better of your journalism and your ethics. This piece is awful.
.

All the analysis I see about this is about turf, personality clashes, and the mean stuff that was said during the campaign. What about on policy, where Clinton worked to be seen as to the right of Obama on, ie, bombing Iran and meeting with bad people? My view is that she's campaigned hard for Obama without reservations, and would be willing to implement the president's policies, but I haven't really seen this discussed much.
-
I wonder if it's fair to say that Clinton working under Obama would help move the Democrats away from the defensive crouch/hawkier-than-thou approach on int'l relations that we've seen for such a long time.
-
Much as I hate to say it, Tom Friedman had a point yesterday when he said that it was a huge advantage for James Baker to be known to be speaking for the president. It's not obvious that would be the case for Clinton.

As an ancedote to James' post I would also like to point out that Bill Clinton has to list all speaking fees above $200 on HRC's financial disclosure form for the Senate every year. So the speaking fees aren't some "mystery" or potential "minefield". As a matter of fact some enterprising journalist need only look at her financial disclosure form and they would have all the info they need to write an article about the people who pay Bill Clinton's speaking fees. Unfortunately there has been a huge amount of real anti Clinton rhetoric being thrown around instead of actual reporting. Sad really

I think it is time to totally dispense with the silliness about Obama hiring Clintonites. Ezra Klein has perhaps done it bes. THE AUDACITY OF...COMPETENCE? And one of his commenters put the final nail in this silliness:
.
"Comment Posted by: CK Dexter Haven Thing is, Obama has never done what I would have done. Personally, I would have been all up in McCain's face, I would have reacted angrily to a number of things and he never did. He just kept on winning. So when I am thinking he is making a mistake with Lieberman (and I really wanted his gavel shoved...) I just try to remember that when Obama is wrong and I am right about a strategic matter I can second guess him. I haven't had that opportunity yet."

"Much as I hate to say it, Tom Friedman had a point yesterday when he said that it was a huge advantage for James Baker to be known to be speaking for the president. It's not obvious that would be the case for Clinton." Yes, it would be a tragedy to have a man who is immensely popular around the world, a man seen as truly caring and working to solve intractable global problems to be seen as speaking for the President.
.
As opposed to James Baker, whose machinations put Bush into the White House in 2000. The same Bush who is so revered around the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Y_ncOVlDw

Fun to see that Tweety and Dowdie with their knickers in a twist. Clinton seems to give these two noodleheads a good jolt. Fascinating that the people named in today's NYT article as the vetters and the vetted are all former Clintonites. What does change mean? The idea that they are angry, (a figment of Peter Baker's imagination???)shows how much pot stirring is taking place. This is what happens when reality of cabinet making meets campaign rhetoric.

Elvis
.
Re Friedman. Here is why his article was bullsh!t in my personal opinion. He gives only Colin Powell as an example of when a Secretary of State doesn't have the backing of his president. But if he is believed to go by his line of thinking that should have made foreign leaders dismiss Colin Powell out of hand. Now I have heard a lot of criticism about Colin Powell in regards to his UN presentation about Saddam Hussein, but I have NEVER heard a criticism of him that the heads of other countries didn't take him seriously. So Friedman basically refutes himself in his own column. He also never gives any historical example (probably because there are none) where a President and their Secretary of State were at odds and calamity ensued. The reason he didn't probably is because Secretaries of State serve at the pleasure of he President and in the event that happened 100% of the time they would be fired and this situation is no different. Thomas Friedman is the biggest concern troll who isnt running a blog that I have seen in the last 6 months. To hear him tell it anything Obama does is going to blow up in his face. He is really writing himself into irrelevance

Overall, a pretty fair job, KT. Paul is absolutely right that the feeding frenzy is being self-sustained by the media. The MSM could make a feeding frenzy out of Hillary's going across the street and buying a cupcake.

I think Hillary would be a fabulous choice. She has the right personality combination of being very tough but also warm and charming face-to-face.

Southernbelle: "The MSM could make a feeding frenzy out of Hillary's going across the street and buying a cupcake."
.
Sounds like a contest to me. "The MSM could make a feeding frenzy out of Hillary's . . . ."

sgwhiteinfla: I agree that Tom Friedman has given us a load of bs on all sorts of topics. He is a professional bloviator and his friends in the MSM provide and ever ready platform. Given is horrible record on Iraq any self-respecting outlet would have pased on him.

That's a good point, sgwhiteinfla-- especially noting the lack of counterexamples. I guess Kissinger undermined whoever preceded him as Nixon's SOS, but that's not particularly common.
-
wvng-- I didn't mean to suggest that James Baker is the most awesomest dude ever, just that he was an effective Secretary of State for Bush Sr.

.
We had Condo leezza effin' Rice, the worst, most incompetent national security adviser in the history of the United States of America, the biggest bald-faced liar on the Sunday talk shows between 2002 and 2004, appointed as Secretary of State, you know, the "birthpangs of democracy" lady who was caught buying shoes one day in New York City? Who has accomplished exactly NOTHING during her term. And you are worried about Hillary Clinton?

.
And, by the way, who is contributing to George W Bush's library, Karen? Ever looked into that? I thought not. How about the papers related to Governor George W. Bush? Ever done a piece about that? I thought not. Who contributed to George HW Bush's library, Karen? Ever looked into that? How about Reagan's? How about Nixon's? Anything nefarious about who contributed to those presidential libraries? Or don't you know? What? You mean no one on Time Mag ever looked into that? Who contributed to Carter's library and museum? It's only the Clintonx who gets the snide, gossipy, innuendo-laden treatment and concern-trollism? Why is that, Karen?

sevenoaks
.
I disagree with your definition of change. If people think Obama's change meant not using people who have already been involved with running the WhiteHouse then do they also think his change meant they should have voted out every Democrat who has been serving in Congress since 2000? Because surely they must be a part of the problem too no? Its just crazy to me to see people throwing fits about Obama hiring people who worked with the most recent Democratic presidential administration. An administration that was highly successful at that. I would understand if the Obama team was vetting Monica Lewinsky or Jennifer Flowers but they aren't. They are interviewing and naming former people in the Clinton administration who actually did a pretty damm good job. So is the meme that he should just go to a temp agency and hire a bunch of mofos who have never worked in government a day in their lives? Yeah ask Bill Clinton how THAT story ends. I can tell you now, it aint pretty. To use a sports analogy, Bill Parcells wins wherever he goes. He is a proven commodity but a lot of people like to hate on him. One of the biggest criticisms is that he is always partial to bringing in veterans from other teams especially veterans who have played for him before to lead his team rather than relying heavily on the draft. But the reason he does this is because just about every job he has gotten as a head coach since winning a superbowl with the Giants have been jobs where the teams SUCKED and needed to be turned around quickly. And by bringing in veterans he is familiar with and who are familiar with the way he does things and wants things done he is able to put his imprint on the team much quicker and in turn get the team winning much faster. And again he does this every where he goes and it works every single time. Barack Obama is bringing in veterans because our country is in a ditch right now and we don't have time for rookies to get on the job training. He needs veterans who know how to get sh!t done and have already gone through trial and error to know what the most effective ways are to push Obama's agenda forward.
.
It comes down to this, you can have a whole new cast of characters who have no link to the Clintons or Bush which would mean they probably have NO experience in federal government and be sitting here two years from now waiting to see any of Obama's campaign promises come to fruition, or we can have a cast of retreads who know how things go and two years from now have the potential of marveling at how quickly Obama got our economy back on track, started weaning us off of foreign oil and onto alternative energy, and how great it is to have universal health care.
.
Personally I am going to root for the retreads!

The trouble with Friedman's point is the Condi fits it just as well, and has been a disaster. But that is because Bush is incoherent.
.
It's just a stupid thing to say. Yes, Obama needs a trusted emissary who can speak with is voice. Does that person have to be the Secretary of State? No. Cabinet roles are different in each administration, and the official roles are not always in live with the actual roles. William P Rogers had no idea what Nixon and Kissinger were doing. Paul O'Neill and John Snow were cheerleaders. Powell was windowdressing.

Clinton may serve in many different ways, that may or may included being the voice of the president. That could turn out to Biden. Or the head of the NSC, as under Nivon. Rubin played that role under Clinton as much as anybody.

sgwhiteinfla: very sorry; it was meant tongue in cheek. Really, I agree with you. Sorry to have been so misleading.

The second sentence in the first paragraph was Friedman speaking, as to why close friend and trusted advisor Condi has been so bad. (Note that this also takes out he Powell example. He was incoherent then, too. So if Powell was completely, accurately and trustedly delivered an incoherent message, then he was just like Condi.)

sevenoaks, now that's a sporting event I'd pay to see!

And I do agree that Condi Rice is the prime modern example of a terrible SoS. She's very intellegent and knows her subject inside and out but she doesn't have the necessary toughness and her close personal relationship with Bush did undercut her usefullness.

sevenoaks
.
Then I apologize to you as well. But I did want to post it because there are some who really DO believe that Obama is doing something wrong by hiring people who are sometimes only tangentially connected to the Clintons. I just think its crazy talk, but nobody has to get a psych eval to post on the internet. Thats probably lucky for me too lol

southernbell
.
In my opinion we have to judge Condi the same way we would judge Dana Perino. Its pretty frikking hard to look like you are doing a goob job when your job is to support the agenda of a phucking idiot. Nobody remembers that Condi told Sashaksvilli not to mess with South Ossetia because it would lead to Russia kicking Georgia's azz. Nobody remembers that after it happened she went ballistic on his azz for inciting the incident. All we remember is her going out and brow beating Russia at Bush's behest when she knew it was all bullsh!t. Thats not to say that its all Bush's fault but I could definitely make the case that no one could have done any better and kept their job in his administration

What about on policy, where Clinton worked to be seen as to the right of Obama on, ie, bombing Iran and meeting with bad people?
--
Elvis, Actually they never had substantive disagreements on those issues. They were both exaggerating their differences for political gain. In the GE, Obama quickly moved away from his comments in the YouTube debate on meeting leaders of states like Cuba and Iran without conditions. And Clinton never opposed Presidential meetings with leaders of those states; she just wanted conditions, which was Obama's policy in the GE. On Iran, she talked about massive retaliation and a deterrence shield in a hypothetical. Again, in a hypothetical. So the disagreement was on style - it's not like Obama disagreed with her proposed policy in the event of the hypothetical.
--
That said, his whole primary campaign was based on offering a new kind of foreign policy. I never believed it, but I can see if you did believe it this may be disillusioning. I'm a big supporter of HRC, but even I can see there is no way there will be a fundamental change in foreign policy from the Clinton and Bush I years with her as SOS. Not going to happen.
--
A question for Obama supporters: No 8-year Senator would be offered the position of Secretary of State, so she is being offered this on the basis of her foreign policy experience as First Lady. Considering that Obama's campaign was based on the idea that her experience in the WH meant little, especially on foreign policy, what do you think of this? I have to admit that as a Clinton supporter, this is very cool. Even though I don't think she's the best choice.