I know everyone is waiting for me to weigh in on the big question of the week: Hillary to State, yea or nay? Well, I offered some thoughts on this matter at MotherJones.com. And here they are:
I was agnostic on the matter of Hillary Clinton's possible appointment as secretary of state--until last night.
If Barack Obama, the president-elect, wanted to pull a Team of Rivals play, that had seemed fine to me. And placing Clinton in Foggy Bottom would remove her from the dicey business of passing health care reform. Would it unite the party? Well, judging from the election results, the party is pretty darn united already. Despite the griping of a few Hillaryites at the Democratic convention, her voters certainly swung behind Obama in the general election (see Pennsylvania), after HRC and WJC campaigned for BHO in the fall. Unless an explicit deal was made between Obama and Hillary Clinton, it did not seem that Obama, after bypassing her for veep, had to appoint her anything for the party's sake. Still, if Obama and his savvy band of advisers thought that handing her one of the best jobs in the Cabinet would generate political benefits they could use to advance their agenda, I, as a non-fan of Hillary Clinton, was willing to say, okay--for what that was worth.
But then this happened: the presidential transition of no-drama Obama became infected by the never-ending soap opera of the Clintons. And it really is time to turn that program off. There are plenty of policy and political reasons for a progressive not to fancy Hillary. She served on the Wal-Mart board when the mega-firm was fighting unions; she screwed up health care reform for almost a generation; she voted wrong on the Iraq war and then refused to acknowledge she had erred. But, worst of all, as the cliché goes, with the Clintons, it always does seem to be about the Clintons.
So we've had a week of will-she-or-won't-she and what-about-him. Couldn't this have been handled with a little more grace? Maybe not, since it involves the Clintons.
I don't know how the Obama camp approached the issue. But before Obama met last week with Hillary to talk about this, his team should have done a pre-vetting of Bill. And then Obama, at this meeting, ought to have said something like this to her:
If you might be interested in the State position, there are a few issues that would come up concerning Bill. Let me run through a few. Would he be willing to release the names of his foundation's donors, as well as those who contribute to his presidential library? Would he be willing to forego contributions and speaking fees from foreign governments, foreign heads of states, and major foreign companies that would have an interest in US foreign policy decisions? Would he be willing to discuss with my national security adviser his foreign travel plans and his foundation's projects before they are announced and undertaken--and would he be willing to defer to us if we believe they are not appropriate or helpful at the time? I know that these are big things to ask. But given his global activity and standing, there's not much choice. And if it's a deal-breaker, I certainly would understand. But before you and I go down this road, we should make sure there are no major obstacles. Can you talk to him and get back to me in a day or two? And, to be helpful, Rahm has come up with a list....
Hillary's answer would have to have been either (a) of course, or (b) thank you for considering me, but I don't believe this would be a good fit. Two days would pass, and then the drama--or at least this part of it--could be over.
Today the news is that Bill will do what he can. AP is reporting:
Former President Bill Clinton has offered several concessions to help Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his wife, become secretary of state, people familiar with President-elect Barack Obama's transition vetting process said Wednesday.
Clinton has agreed to release the names of several major donors to his charitable foundation and will submit future foundation activities and paid speeches to a strict ethics review, said Democrats knowledgeable about the discussions.
They also said that Clinton would step away from day-to-day responsibility for his foundation while his wife serves and would alert the State Department to his speaking schedule and any new sources of income.
Does that take care of it? Note the use of the word "several." It's hard not to see some sticking points arising about what is disclosed and when. The negotiations between the Obama camp and the Clinton team are supposedly proceeding smoothly. But why should there be negotiations? And could it end up with news reports saying Bill Clinton is willing to reveal X, but the Obama side wants him to release X plus Y? That is, more drama. According to AP, "One Clinton adviser noted that former President George H.W. Bush has given paid speeches and participated in international business ventures since his son, George W. Bush, has been president--without stirring public complaints or controversy about a possible conflict of interest." This does raise the suspicion that the Clintonites might not agree to all the necessary limitations. And don't they--or at least, this aide--understand there's something of a difference between their case and that of the Bushes (though it was probably not appropriate for Daddy Bush to engage in that activity).
Bottom-line: if HRC came fuss-free, then maybe there'd be no reason to kick up a fuss about her appointment. Yet that doesn't seem to be what's happening.
But there's another issue to consider, one that has been overshadowed by the drama: if she runs the State Department in a fashion similar to how she managed her campaign, then the country will be in trouble. Her spinners went beyond the boundaries of fair and reasonable spinning. Her team was a snake pit of competitive aides. She did not master the art of refereeing internal disputes. She signed off on strategic blunders. Hers was not a steady hand.
Perhaps that's the better argument against her. Being secretary of state isn't just about giving speeches and touring the world as a celebrity, it's about managing (and now reviving) the creaky and beleaguered foreign policy apparatus of the United States. And Clinton's résumé is not strong on that front.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
DC,
Good piece, great insights.
Two words - Bill Richardson.
Posted by: capt
| November 19, 2008 12:16 PM
Always strikes me as funny when an Obama supporter complains about someone not being progressive enough.
Admiral Mullen's in the paper today saying he's ready to hop to it and follow the orders of the new C-in-C...gung-ho to rapidly shift forces out of Iraq for Obama's great new offensive in Afghanistan!
Yaayyy!
Seriously, I'm as much in the dark as anybody, but if you think the new President is unambiguously on the record promising to lead a new progressive turnabout in Washington, you're just plain dreaming.
Listen, I deeply hope he's a new FDR, and that he listens to cooler heads and realizes there's nothing to accomplish in Afghanistan or Pakistan that's worth the egregious cost...
...but frankly, the jury's still out.
Posted by: Diff
| November 19, 2008 1:14 PM
If I had to predict, I would guess that Obama's most cherished goal is, in fact, to bring a new "tone" to Washington...wherein the two sides of the ideological divide can come to work together and negotiate in a civil and mutually respectful manner... The result, however, will be compromise and split-the-difference governance that is likely to be a profound disappointment to real progressives.
The obscenely-rich (MANY of whom were big Obama backers) will be "respected" and protected from anything remotely resembling confiscatory progressive tax hikes (i.e., won't have to give back their billions in ill-gotten gains), real FDR-style economic stimulus will remain a dream, and the folks at the bottom will continue to be first in line to pay the costs of the economic downturn (for which they are NOT responsible)...
We are, after all, all about "returning to our best traditions..." America hardly has anything that could be called a "tradition" when it comes to protecting the common man from reckless few at the top, and certainly not when it comes to anything that might discomfit in any way those who've reaped their "just rewards."
Posted by: Diff
| November 19, 2008 2:10 PM
http://marccooper.com/obamas-choice/
A very good piece.
Posted by: capt
| November 19, 2008 3:18 PM
Will The US Government Accept Responsibility For The Slaughter Of Over 1,000,000 Iraqis.
By Michael Schwartz
I recently received a set of questions from Le Monde Diplomatique reporter Kim Bredesen about the 2007 Project Censored story about 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths due to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The questions and answers are, I think, useful in framing both the untold story of the slaughter in Iraq and the failure of the U.S. media to report on its extent or on U.S. culpability for the deaths of 4% of the Iraqi population.
http://tinyurl.com/5vg9jr
Posted by: as_if!
| November 19, 2008 3:56 PM
Did y'all read some of the comments below the article Capt posted? In particular, I liked the one where the guy said Obama plays Chess, not checkers. haha
Oh it's gonna be great to have an intellectual in the Oval Office again.
Posted by: Alan
| November 19, 2008 3:59 PM
I'll bet Dubya can't play anything more challenging than tiddly-winks.
Posted by: David B. Benson
| November 19, 2008 5:37 PM
I am forever in debt to Barack already.
He saved me from having to say: "President Palin"
I imagine we wouldn't have to worry about McCain/Palin appointments being too centrist?
Posted by: capt
| November 19, 2008 6:55 PM
2 more words.
Chuck Hegel. (or Bill Richardson)
How has Chelsea grown to be such a swan while living the "Nightmare on Pennsylvania Ave". Someone needs to refer her to a meeting of Adult Children of Dysfunctional Families.
If keeping your enemies closer means Joe the Lieberman stays in the caucus, how does this rank Hillary; worse than Osama Bin Laden?
By the way, the percentage of Iraqis that we have killed and displaced would translate to 60 million Americans. And while we are worrying about our mortgages and 401k and the latest election, we've been robbed of another 7 trillion dollars by Bush.
How can we support the next administration in cleaning up the mess they've inherited?
Can you say 'Guillotine'? After Rendition, of course.
Posted by: geof01
| November 19, 2008 10:18 PM
Following the same tact, if we keep our enemies this close, how far away should we keep Reid and Pelosi?
For two years they've done anything except political expediance and leadership. Cutting off the war funds was a simple as doing nothing, yet they managed to increase the outflow.
Posted by: geof01
| November 19, 2008 10:37 PM
David Corn's article is right on target. We were having dinner this evening and said the exact same thing; what on earth was Obama et. al, thinking when they leaked the Hillary cabinet appointment! Throughout his candidacy, Obama has been diligent about avoiding drama! Once again, it is all about the Clinton's. We thought this part of the presidential campaign was finished...forever!
Posted by: jocomo
| November 19, 2008 10:49 PM
David Corn's article misses the point. President-elect Obama is not bringing "Change" to Washington. He's filling his cabinet with Washington insiders and Senator Clinton is the ultimate insider. This is only the beginning. Senator Obama kept the drama down, because he was running for President. There's no need for hiding any longer...he can do pretty much whatever he wants to get whatever he wants. His supporters will be surprised at what comes next (or at least they'll feign surprise).
Posted by: The3Ltrwd
| November 20, 2008 6:12 AM
I think the HRC thing is Barack playing the media.
HRC will decline - say hello to SoS Bill Richardson.
Bill as SoS would have never taken hold of the media 24/7 cycle and narrative.
The HRC thing bumped a bunch of stuff off the radar. Yes I think he is that calculating and I like it!
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2008 9:00 AM
I am for Hillary Clinton and hope she will be Secretary of State. She is strong, intelligent and hardworking. Corn makes 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 10:29 AM
Sorting Out Hillary's Secretary of State Decision
[...]
It's time for the New York senator to take a step forward -- to use her experience for the benefit of the country. She'll always have to put up with the likes of Vanity Fair's Christopher Hitchens who despises her and uses her to get on Larry King Live. There will always be Gloria Borger's type and many of the CNN "senior political analysts" making a career at Hillary's expense. So as a visible secretary of state, it will not always be a picnic. But Hillary thrives in a firestorm and she has a driving desire to serve the country in a profound way.
As for President-elect Obama, he's a smart guy. He'd rather have Hillary Clinton as part of his inner circle than part of the outer one. I have no doubt that she would respect his authority as president even if they disagree and that he'd respect her opinion and the experience she'd surely bring to his administration. All else is fabrication when it isn't simply pathetically using a visible woman to prop up a flagging journalism career.
http://tinyurl.com/5hwtss
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2008 10:24 PM
Post A Comment