All the talk--and melodrama--about Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state continues. On Tuesday, I noted that a good argument against her was her management--or mismanagement--of her presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton did a lousy job of putting together a team that could work cooperatively and competently. She veered from one tactic to the next. She engaged in spin above and beyond the call of duty. Her campaign was a mess. Could she do better at State--which desperately needs to be revived after having been kicked in the teeth for eight years by the Bush-Cheney White House?
But here's another reason to ponder. Consider how smoothly the Obama campaign ran. Were there many leaks? Signs of internal disputes? Short answer: no. It was a disciplined shop. Disagreements were worked out in private. No one ran to reporters to play the usual game of leaking. Now consider what has happened in the past week. There has been a flood of leaks about Hillary Clinton and the State Department post. Where are they coming from? The best guess is, the Clinton side. And that side is bifurcated between Bill's people and Hillary's people, who don't always get along. If Obama places Hillary in his cabinet, it's likely such behind-the-scenes scheming and leaking will continue. Imagine if there are any disagreements between State and the National Security Council or the Pentagon. Won't the Clinton ops go into their usual take-no-prisoners-and-leak-away mode? Does Obama want to bring the Clinton circus into his Big Tent?
The more this drama plays out, the more curious it appears. What's Obama thinking on this front? I don't see any leaks about that.
Meanwhile, this morning, I appeared on Democracy Now to discuss Obama's transition team and the initial appointments to his administration.
I had recently written a piece on the agents of change working on the transition units reviewing various federal agencies. Also on the program was Jeremy Scahill, who has decried Obama for looking to Clintonite hawks to provide foreign policy advice and to fill high-ranking posts in his administration.
It's back to the future--regarding Obama's initial appointments (or possible appointments) as well as to the possible conflict between the left and the Democratic party. The Clinton years were tough ones for progressives, who were not always able to figure out (or agree on) how tough to be regarding the Clinton administration. For instance, Clinton's advocacy of NAFTA split union-oriented liberals from corporate-minded Dems. But the right's impeachment crusade against Clinton did spur many liberals to back Clinton, even if they were disgusted by his personal conduct. Hey, if Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich were trying to impeach him, he couldn't be that bad, right? It was complicated.
Is Obama setting up a similar dynamic? It is tough for those who cheered Obama's promise of a new foreign policy to applaud the prospect of Hillary Clinton--who voted for the Iraq war and never truly recanted and who attacked Obama's national security cred--becoming secretary of state. Let's not forget that prior to running for president, Clinton had positioned herself as a hawkish Democrat. I disagree with Scahill that she and other centrist foreign policy Dems (who by and large supported the Iraq war) represent a continuation of the George W. Bush years. But they sure aren't agents of change.
I TWITTER, THEREFORE I AM. I am going to try to send out tweets whenever I post a new blog item or article--or when I know I'm going to be appearing on radio or television. If you want to be Twittered by me, feel free to go to Twitter and sign up to follow me. My Twitter ID: DavidCornDC. And if you think Twitter is silly, this paragraph never happened.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
David,
Sam Donaldson on "This Week" quoting LBJ:
"It's better to have 'em IN the tent, pissing out than the other way around."
Which begs the question...Why are watersports so popular in DC?
-T
Posted by: Hajji
| November 20, 2008 12:26 PM
OMG Hajii that comment is sooo funny...
David you are obsessed with Hillary drama that you and your ilk recreate it over and over again.
I don't care if Hillary voted for authorizing the war in Iraq... she was lied to as were the other dems who supported the resolution. In the typical "gotcha" politics, you castigate her for not saying "I'm sorry". She had nothing to be sorry for. If she had known it was a travesty of trumped up intelligence, and still voted for the resolution, she would have a lot to account for and saying "sorry" wouldn't change anything. Hillary was correct to point the mea culpas to Bush and his administration.
David, I am also a leftist, but your Hillary hatred is despicable.
I am for Hillary Clinton and hope she will be Secretary of State. She is strong, intelligent and hardworking You make her sound like a waif out of her league in terms of diplomacy. I disagree... She didn't have the best campaign but she also didn't quit and I admire her guts and toughness along with her humanness and caring. It's a great combination. I look forward to see Hillary as SOS... And all this Clinton bashing is getting fricken old. sheesh.
Posted by: EuroTom
| November 20, 2008 1:49 PM
LBJ had a point, but HRC would do better to decline, IMHO.
Posted by: David B. Benson
| November 20, 2008 3:02 PM
If HRC wanted it she would have accepted by now.
This thing can't drag out for much longer.
I don't think she really wants to be SoS.
She can be very effective but maybe more so in the senate.
I don't think the hold up has anything to do with Bill at this point.
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2008 3:22 PM
Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet
Activists note that most of the candidates for top security posts voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq or otherwise supported launching the war.
http://tinyurl.com/63ak22
Posted by: as_if!
| November 20, 2008 6:07 PM
BHO has fairly consistently expressed suppot for the (bloated) military.
Bloated is my comment, not his. He thinks it ought to be even more bloated. :-(
Posted by: David B. Benson
| November 20, 2008 7:13 PM
I am sick to death of so-called pundits/journalists continuing to throw around the proverbial "drama" meme. First off, where is the friggin drama?!?! The media knows the election became a bit boring when Hillary dropped out, and they are just giddy with "ratings dreams" with a proposed Clinton drama! For goodness sakes, the media is quick to run "breaking news"...of every single utterance, thought, or opinion from any and every advisor to Clinton or Obama camps. It is ridiculous!!! If the media pointed out that Hillary was considering the role of SOS, and left it at that, there'd be no freaking drama!!!!
As to Hillary's management skills with regard to her campaign. I wish everybody would flash back to before "Iowa caucus". All the media could talk about was how organized Hillary's campaign was, and what a tight ship she was running. All it took was a misrepresentational caucus in Iowa to have people saying she ran a poor campaign!!!! Hillary didn't become a poor organizer, she underestimated Obama, as did every single other human being! Why doesn't somebody point out more often that from the end of February forward, Hillary beat Obama handily, and on far less money. Actually, whenever all people were "allowed" to vote, with no disenfranchisement whatsoever, Hillary almost always won!!
I recently read a report on the Hill, and I don't recall the writer, but it was pointed out that Hillary's Senate office is the envy of the hill because it is run so efficiently. Why isn't this reported on more often?
As to the healthcare reform effort back in the 90's that almost everyone wants to villify Hillary for, she did not lose this battle because of lack of organization skills, the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies began to bombard the airwaves with commercials scaring people to death of healthcare reform, and the public bought into the commercials. Having said this, I'm not saying Hillary didn't make mistakes, but something as transformational as healthcare reform rarely happens on the first try. Hillary is more knowledgeable on healthcare reform than anybody.
I think Hillary would be a magnificent SOS, but that doesn't mean I hope she takes the job if offered. I love her being a Senator from NY. In addition, if Obama made policy blunders on foreign policy, I can guarantee Hillary would get the blame.
I also wish the media would put as bright a spotlight on the wonderful works the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative do, as they do on where the money is coming from. I'm glad Bill is able to get rich people to give for relief efforts on poverty, aids, malaria, etc. Heck, there's $200 million in campaign donations Obama received that appears suspicious, and I've read a little about it, but where's all the "drama" about this?!?!
Posted by: karenmb
| November 20, 2008 9:35 PM
So what's a progressive supposed to think when David Brooks is practically swooning over the center-right Obama administration that's now taking shape.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html
He doesn't mention it, but Homeland Security pick Arizona Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano -- immigration "expert" -- supported building the wall.
Sigh... remember back when DC was lamenting that Biden might undercut the "change" message?
Posted by: Diff
| November 21, 2008 2:17 AM
Mr. Corn,
Stop whining about the Clintons! You and Maureen Dowdy Dowd are
becoming shrill and rather pathetic in your vitriol against Hillary.
It's time to stop the divisiveness and get on board the Obama transition
team. It cracks me up that all you Obama maniacs couldn't wait
until your savior was crowned president, now most of you complain
constantly about his decisions. Get used to it--Obama wants and
needs Hillary near him. He has chosen her as his second most
important person in the inner circle of his cabinet. Live with it. All your
adolescent ranting is not going to change Obama's mind. Thank goodness.
Posted by: prof marcia
| November 21, 2008 3:59 AM
General Motors to Invest $1 Billion in Brazil Operations -- Money to Come from U.S. Rescue Program
General Motors plans to invest $1 billion in Brazil to avoid the kind of problems the U.S. automaker is facing in its home market, said the beleaguered car maker.
According to the president of GM Brazil-Mercosur, Jaime Ardila, the funding will come from the package of financial aid that the manufacturer will receive from the U.S. government and will be used to "complete the renovation of the line of products up to 2012."
http://tinyurl.com/69k5mt
Posted by: as_if!
| November 21, 2008 10:07 AM
GM invested $5 billion in China (3 to start) and Ford did more than a billion in Mexico.
GM also posted record profits - not long ago (last year?)
Seems like the management didn't manage their money very well.
Posted by: capt
| November 21, 2008 10:21 AM
Post A Comment