Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Given that much, if not most, of the speculation we hear about staffing in the coming Obama administration isn't necessarily going to be reliable, I was reluctant to pass on the reporting (first from NBC News' Andrea Mitchell) that not only was Hillary Clinton under consideration for the position of Secretary of State -- she was in fact traveling to Chicago today. Yet given that the news is just about everywhere now -- The Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, Politico, Reuters... you name it -- it's probably worth a mention here at MyDD. Here's the Associated Press' take:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is among the candidates that President-elect Barack Obama is considering for secretary of state, according to two Democratic officials in close contact with the Obama transition team.

Clinton, the former first lady who pushed Obama hard for the Democratic presidential nomination, was rumored to be a contender for the job last week, but the talk died down as party activists questioned whether she was best-suited to be the nation's top diplomat in an Obama administration.

The talk resumed in Washington and elsewhere Thursday, a day after Obama named several former aides to President Bill Clinton to help run his transition effort.

The two Democratic officials who spoke Thursday did so on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering Obama and his staff. Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines referred questions to the Obama transition team, which said it had no comment.

Just because Clinton's name is out there doesn't mean it's a foregone conclusion. But whenever there's this much chatter, there's clearly something going on. It might be real movement towards a pick. It might just be a trial baloon. It might merely be an attempt at a bait and switch (though probably not as misdirection isn't particularly well received by the press).

As for the substance of a Clinton pick, should that be the direction in which Obama goes, there's no question that such a move would underscore Obama's determination to put together the strongest possible team -- even if that team isn't exactly new blood (think Joe Biden, think Rahm Emanuel, think John Podesta, think Ron Klain, et al.). Clinton and Obama might not have looked exactly eye-to-eye on all matters foreign policy during the primaries, but their approach to the world is by and large similar. And I can certainly see Clinton being a strong surrogate for the Obama administration throughout the world.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Obama Administration, secretary of state (all tags)



Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I think it's a brilliant choice.

by brimur42 2008-11-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I whole heartedly agree, Hillary has a very good standing overseas and tho many dont care for him, so does Bill who would be an added asset.

by mztower 2008-11-13 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

You must be a NY voter thinking you're getting an upgrade.

by Bob Brigham 2008-11-13 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?


by IssaquahIndie 2008-11-13 10:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I wish it was Spitzer.

Probably Cuomo

by world dictator 2008-11-14 06:27AM | 0 recs
Just so you know

It was mentioned at MyDD a while ago. 9/1122

Maybe not as eloquent, but it is there.

by kevin22262 2008-11-13 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I don't understand why Obama is choosing Hillary as secretary of state. Obama has been hammering in the primary that Hillary's only foreign policy experience is having tea with foreign leaders. Something wrong with him?

by dtysaint 2008-11-13 07:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Well, few in the Obama echosphere believed me when I said that the New! Improved! Politics was nothing more than the Old Politics with a new coat of paint and a good marketing campaign.

That said, I think Hillary would be nuts to leave the Senate for SecState unless she was guaranteed Veep in 2012.

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-13 07:17PM | 0 recs
i think biden is definitely a one termer

but it won't be Clinton. i think (or maybe it's hope) Warner or Webb.

then again, if hillary accepts sos and obama is an unmitigated disaster, she would come out looking pretty rosy.

by highgrade 2008-11-13 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: i think biden is definitely a one termer

Is there any precedence for changing VP in the 2nd term short of a scandal or death?  I'm not aware of it.

by auronrenouille 2008-11-13 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: i think biden is definitely a one termer

Sure, Roosevelt switched VPs a few times.  I don't think there was scandal involved.

by Jess81 2008-11-14 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Wow, we are still bitter, aren't we.

by gavoter 2008-11-14 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Not bitter enough to troll rate people I disagree with.

I expect a lot of Obama's most passionate supporters to be deflated within a year.  "This isn't what I expected!" being a lower-key refrain.

And I'm happy that Obama won.  Given the choices, it was no contest and I'm pleased to say that I did my damnedest to flip some Clinton voters who were thinking of sitting it out into voting for Obama.

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-14 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

bitter bitter bitter.

by Jess81 2008-11-14 12:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Operative word here?


His attacks on her on that subject might have more to do with campaigning that actual truth. just saying'.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

As with Rahm and (maybe) Gates this makes sense because of who will be setting the policy: President Obama.

by Beomoose 2008-11-13 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

This is getting kinda weird. Obama is picking out Senators with good seniority i.e. committee assignments and putting them into play working for him. His administration is beginning to look like Clinton 3.  What gives in 2006 we elected a whole bunch of new Dems to Congress and what did we get--Lady Pelosi and Whimp Reid who duplicated the McCain record of voting over 90% of the time with Bush--I don't get this at all--where is the new blood that should be coming in--I mean like aren't there some people "under 60" out there who need a job in this Administration....My excitement about Obama is starting to wane a bit....

by hddun2008 2008-11-13 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Remember this Obama's comment: "my fear is not winning or losing election but governing". Is he  choosing people for cabinet positions based on fear? May be not. May be he cares more about seeing result now!

by dtysaint 2008-11-13 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

i think it's safe to say that biden isn't running in 2016.  if that happens, there will be an obvious power vacuum for prez.  hillary would be the obvious choice, but much will depend on the popularity of obama and his administration.  imagine if bush's popularity was somewhere around 60-65% in 2007-2008.  understandably the people would want a rep of a hypothetical (and unlikley) popular bush administration to run.  cheney wouldn't, so the obvious choice would be sec of state rice.  african american, female, experienced, new and experienced at the same time.  she would be the defacto frontrunner with mccain as the main challenger and guilianni as the third alternative.  imagine her as hillary, mccain as obama (as hard as that is to fathom) and guiliani as edwards.  romney wouldn't even bother, or would be a richardson, just running for a cabinet seat.  

by Doug Tuttle 2008-11-13 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

forgot to make my point :S.  hillary as sec of state could be the rep of a popular obama administration running for prez.  otherwise, if obama is popular and has no obvious heir, many of his cabinet members could run for president, and if the anti-hillary people are still there, they will eventually coalese around one of them.  i imagine sec of state richardson or energy sec/agriculture sec schweitzer (second term hopefully, let Awesome Bolo-tie serve out his term in montana).

by Doug Tuttle 2008-11-13 07:40PM | 0 recs
what are you talking about?

But whenever there's this much chatter, there's clearly something going on.

Yeah, team Hillary making it all about her, again. Just like the VP talk when they demanded the conversation be about her. Just like the convention when they made the first few days about her, not Obama.

there's no question that such a move would underscore Obama's determination to put together the strongest possible team


by Bob Brigham 2008-11-13 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: what are you talking about?

This is not team Hillary making noise.. but Obama team! I think Obama team is playing politics to stop Richardson group. I heard that hispanic groups are pushing Obama to select Richardson for this post but he is not happy about it.

by dtysaint 2008-11-13 07:58PM | 0 recs
Team Hillary is making it about her?


CDS is so passé, but the addiction is hard to shake.  

by Radiowalla 2008-11-13 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: what are you talking about?

That seems strange. Clinton gets an invitation to visit Obama in Chicago and it's team Hillary making the noise?

Especially seeing that quite a lot of team Hillary has been hired by the president elect and has become part of team Barack now...

And normal people would think a 8 year senator who has been active on the international stage for 16 years and has a stellar reputation oversees would be a strong addition to any team.

Especially since about 13 million voters voted for her last year, an absolute number that most foreign head of states wouldn't come close too. Most international politicians would be very impressed by that.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?
I don't believe it for a minute. Sure it plays into the band of rivals, but she'd be better for AG then state. I don't believe Richardson or Kerry either. This all feels like VP speculation. giving everybody an early pat on the head.
I think we will know who the NSA is before we know State and Defense and that will say a lot about who is in line for those slots.
by Judeling 2008-11-13 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

But the final three names listed before we found out were correct. It's true that Obama's choice wasn't known, but we all knew Biden was in the top 2.

by vcalzone 2008-11-13 11:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I can't think of a policy area where Obama and Clinton were more diametrically opposed.  Why would this appointment make sense when there are any number of domestic policy areas where there was very little daylight between them?  I'm not buying this until I see something more tangible and if it is the case I will be profoundly disappointed.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

They both have the same goal--to improve our relations abroad and bring peace to the Middle East.

Are there differences? Yes. Absolutely. Clinton wants to obliterate Iran, Obama wants to bomb Pakistan. Oh, and Biden wanted to split Iraq into three ethnic countries.

by RJEvans 2008-11-13 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

To suggest that Obama wants to 'bomb' Pakistan is a reductio ad absurdum of his clearly stated policy regarding 'actionable intelligence' and operations specifically against the al-Qaeda leadership.  And Biden's partition plan was ludicrous but he's not being discussed for the position is he?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

It was meant to be absurd.

Give me a break Appleby, you're acting like they are considering Cheney for State.

by RJEvans 2008-11-13 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Quite frankly I saw her foreign policy position during the campaign as a cautious 'splitting the difference' of the Bush/Cheney excesses with the conventional wisdom of the centre-left of the Democratic party, all with an eye on domestic political outcomes above policy.  This strikes me as unimaginative when a considerable shift in emphasis and perhaps some bold initiatives are called for, such as in our relations with Russia and Iran.

Granted that the secretary of state in an Obama administration would be acting within a different set of constraints but, honestly, of all the possible applicants where would you place Hillary on the scale of status quo versus innovative or hawkish versus seeking engagement even with our 'enemies?'  And just what exactly is her foreign policy background, anyhow?  My reading is that she has much more to offer in her chosen skill-set, domestic economic, social and health policy.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Diametrically opposed?  I don't see it that way.  Yes, they had a different view on the Iraq war seven years ago, but they both have pretty much the same view as to how to move forward in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Their supposed differences about being willing to negotiate with enemies in the first year was just posturing.  (If you disagree, you tell me the likelihood that Obama will meet with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, and Venezuela in his first year of office.)  Hillary took a more aggressive posture against Iran, but I never noticed any substantial policy difference there either.

I would say that Dennis Kucinic and Sam Nunn are diametrically opposed on foreign policy.  Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton--not really.

by markjay 2008-11-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

The AUMF vote, Kyl/Lieberman, sucking up to AIPAC, obliterating Iran, soulless Putin...  I'll admit in the toxic post 9/11 environment and allowing for the largely uninformed electorate there was a bit of 'posturing' going on by both of them but if you can't see the distinction than I've wasted twenty-two months writing diaries on the subject.  

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

AUMF: Obama does not even know how he would have voted if he was in the Senate and he chose Biden, who voted for the Resolution, as his VP. Kerry voted for it as well.

Kyl/Lieberman: Obama was not there to vote. All it was was a "sense of the Senate" vote.

Obliterate Iran: So if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, we let them go free? The question was, what would you do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. I thought he answer was appropriate.

AIPAC: So did Obama.

by RJEvans 2008-11-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Good answers.

by markjay 2008-11-13 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

No sale.  We've argued these points ad nauseum in the past and while we obviously both remain obdurate the differences are clear to those who chose to see them.  If you want to reopen this discussion in more detail I would gladly do so but perhaps this diary is not the appropriate place.

And on the dynamics and realpolitik of the Iran/Israel dilemma we are worlds apart, I don't know where to begin.  Iran isn't going to attack Israel with nuclear weapons, for one thing.  And the message her hypothetical comment sent was unnecessary and counter-productive.  It was strictly for domestic consumption which is my chief objection to Hillary's foreign policy positions.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Yes Iran isn't going to attack.

But her comment was just the regular updated MAD position on nuclear weapons; Anybody who uses nukes get nuked in return. This was a hardly noteworthy statement, and was already said by president Chirac as well before that. It's been understood as the standard policy in international politics. she said nothing new or even noteworthy.

Your objections on this subject have been self rationalization from the beginning and it's time you gave it a rest.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

There is a reason why I'm limiting my responses to you.

by RJEvans 2008-11-14 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Iran has not the capability to make nuclear weapons in the next eight years.  

by lojasmo 2008-11-14 01:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

But, that is not the point is it? The point is, WHAT IF Iran attacked Israel with nukes.

by RJEvans 2008-11-14 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

The point is that she was engaging an impossible frame.  It was a stupid mistake.

She should have said:  "that is a stupid question.  Iran won't have the capability to make nuclear weapons in the next ten years."

Instead she went on to yap about "obliterating Iran"  Stupid, as I said.

by lojasmo 2008-11-15 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

But what if Iran could make a weapon within 10 years. They can enrich uranium. That's the first part in a very complicated process. Remember, the U.S. is trying to prevent the U.S. from acquiring nuclear weapons.

by RJEvans 2008-11-18 05:38PM | 0 recs
just a different view on Iraq?

Hillary blew it -- HUGE -- on the largest foreign policy decision in a generation and has yet to admit she was wrong.

by Bob Brigham 2008-11-13 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: just a different view on Iraq?

How did Joe Biden vote?

by world dictator 2008-11-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Shaun, prepare to be profoundly disappointed.   If not about Hillary, then about many other things Obama does.  

Oddly enough, the appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as CoS reassures me.  But it also vindicates my point of view that a bunch of y'all got suckered by Obama.

by InigoMontoya 2008-11-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I totally endorse the Emmanuel choice and it confirms what I expect and hope for in an Obama administration's appointments.  Hillary as secretary of state, not so much.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Oh, you mean the way his transition is going so smoothly so far and his approvals are up to 72%+

You are correct, I would rather have the disaster of a transition that we had back in 1992 when Bill went into the office already behind the 8 ball because of the terrible job that was done.

by gavoter 2008-11-14 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Well, Seeing that it's mostly Clinton insiders that are helping Obama's transition along it's clear he thinks more highly of them then you.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I think she could take the job. Because of the importance of foreign policy, it would almost be like being President in some sense, which she wants, and hopefully we can see her elected in 2016. It will buff her up more on security, and she gets to avoid votes in the Senate, but still have positions on health care, as her knowledge on that isn't going away. She does have foreign policy experience, not just in the Armed Services Committee, but she was no normal First Lady, she knows many of the leaders all around the world, and the Clintons are respected by many far and wide.

by Lakrosse 2008-11-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I'm pretty certain she would take the position.  Her entire time in the Senate she has been working to strengthen her credentials in military affairs and foreign policy in order to increase her chances of winning the presidency.  It didn't work out this year, but I suspect, at least for now, she still has 2016 in mind.  And Secretary of State (as opposed to a lot of other cabinet positions) would be a great launching pad for that.

Whether she would still have those ambitions several years from now, when (a) she's older and (b) she sees the competition, I don't know.  But she can deal with that when she gets there.  Accepting an offer to be Secretary of State would leave all her options open.

by markjay 2008-11-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
that is the whole problem

She is only focused on trying to be president. If she would have focused on doing the right thing on Iraq -- or at the very least admit she was wrong -- then she would quite likely be president. But as you point out, she's only interested in Hillary. Her selfishness and lack of foreign policy judgment combine to make this a disaster of a choice.

by Bob Brigham 2008-11-13 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: that is the whole problem

But as you point out, she's only interested in Hillary

I pointed out no such thing.  All I said was that her own future ambitions would influence her decision as to whether to take this post.  (Though, even without future ambitions, almost any U.S. Senate would jump at the chance to be Secretary of State.)

But I guess if a woman wants to be president, she's selfish.  As opposed to men who want to be president, like Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, etc., who never in any way let their interest in being president influence any of their decision, right?  Or is an ambitious man a good leader, while an ambitious woman is.....

by markjay 2008-11-13 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: that is the whole problem

Dude, the election is over.  Didn't you hear, Obama won?  And in large part because "selfish" Hillary defied your expectation, by working hard to get Obama elected.

So let's get the "selfish" meme out of the discussion, please.

by Sieglinde 2008-11-13 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I doubt she has 2016 in mind. The Secretary of State position is also the second most important position as a launching pad for a successful career as an elder statesman/woman.

With her unique history as First lady, senator, and her historically close campaign for the nomination a run as SOS would cement her central place in in the party and in the history books.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:31AM | 0 recs
Good point

I hadn't considered that.

by orestes 2008-11-15 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

A good way to prevent her from sabotaging Obama's legislative initiatives.

by BDaddyL 2008-11-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

Which legislative initiatives do you anticipate Hillary will sabotage?

by Sieglinde 2008-11-13 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

For example Healthcare, Obama is opposed to mandates and I think rightly so.

by YourConcernsAreNoted 2008-11-14 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

And Hillary will sabotage that, by doing her job as a Senator, and trying to legislate what she and many Democrats believe?

Healthy debate is good, my friend.  Unless you're of the Bush-Cheney-Rove style of politics.

by Sieglinde 2008-11-14 02:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

For example Health Care, Obama is opposed to mandates, and I think rightly so.

Haha. I guess someone hasn't heard the news. Various people (Ben Smith, Ezra, Krugman) say their sources are telling them his opposition to mandates was just political posturing.

by world dictator 2008-11-14 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

According to all reports he isn't opposed to them to the extent that he wants to fight the majority of senate dems that are working on healthcare and want to include mandates.

His opposition to mandates was never that strong outside primary rhetoric.

Whether Clinton is amongst those senators or not will not influence Obama's eventual decision.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Reality Check

Josh Marshall unpacks this story:

Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama.

Late Update: This post, not surprisingly, has generated a big response. And a few of you have suggested that this is a way for Hillary to angle for another shot at the presidency in 2012 or 2016. But that strikes me as deeply, deeply improbable. Never an easy thing to challenge a sitting president of your own party, next to impossible to do it from his own cabinet. I don't have an answer on why either party would want this appointment. But that ain't the reason.

Josh Marshall - Don't Get It TPM 13 Nov 08

Fair comments all.  Where did this curious 'leak' originate anyhow?

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 10:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Reality Check

I find it strange that he can't think of reasons why Hillary would give up a senate seat for life, while he doesn't blink an eye when several far more senior senators for life are mentioned.

Being the SOS is a very, very high regarded, unique job. It's easy to see why anybody could want it. Especially seeing that Clinton is not directly in line for any chairmanships and the majority leader post is not only currently firm in the hands of Harry Reid but has several competitors better situated to succeed him.

After a 4 year stint at the SOS she'd be an elder stateswomen within the democratic without parallel outside her own husband.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

It's a fantastic idea, it really is.

We know the reason she wasn't named VP was Bill, right? Well, as head of the State department, his proximity would be an absolute boon.

I don't see it as being a step downwards, I see it as leading to her being named VP just in time for 2012 and President in 2016. Gives her and Bill a reason to work FOR Obama beyond simple party loyalty. I imagine Bill would gain a ton of respect for the guy, too.

by vcalzone 2008-11-13 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I have a bad feeling about this.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-11-13 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

See, I just look at it from the perspective of who will do a good job in the position. People overseas love Hillary and Bill, much moreso than people here.

And frankly, even if she doesn't want the job, if she gets a serious offer like this, you can't say that he snubbed her or didn't show her respect. You don't get more respectful than that, particularly at a time when you no longer need the goodwill. Even a rejected offer could heal some wounds, particularly between Obama and Bill.

by vcalzone 2008-11-14 03:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

This is just a catchall for all the comments about how Clinton either does, or does not, see eye-to-eye with Obama.

First of all, I think we all know that obliterating Iran, "dangerously naive", and probably even the AUMF were electioneering.

More importantly, the Secretary of State generally doesn't set policy: see Mssrs Powell, Rusk, Vance, Forrest... now that I think about it, strong Secretaries of State have been the exception since National Security Act, and that was over 50 years ago.  State is the Wimbledon of
Cabinet departments: it's prestigious but it's not where the money is.

Even so, the point is that the West Wing sets policy, not the Cabinet.  You get yourself some capable administrators and get their input, but it's not like there's any doubt whose viewpoint would prevail.

by Jess81 2008-11-14 12:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

I don't want her as Security of State. The area of foreign policy is where I saw Bill Clinton as disastrous during the 1990s for my home region (the Balkans).

Not as disastrous as Bush was, mind you, but still pretty bad. They waited too long to intervene in Bosnia (allowing ethinic cleansing and the horrible creation of Republika Sprkska), then they acted inappropriately in unqualified support for the UCK in Kosovo (a thing which promoted civil conflict in the Republic of Macedonia as well).

Bill Clinton may have been brilliant in domestic affairs and the economy for all I know -- but he was mediocre in foreign policy, acting alternatively too little or too much (probably depending on whether he had a sex scandal to cover up or not).

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-11-14 12:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

You do know that many democrats in Congress didn't want Clinton to intervene at all right?

In fact many liberals to this day still say he shouldn't have intervened. You can't underestimate how many Americans are pseudo isolationists.

Read through some of the primary threads and see for yourself. I got into many arguments defending Bill's decision to stop the genocide.

by world dictator 2008-11-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

In both cases his hands were bound by the senate. And in both cases his response was better then that of the majority of the international community.

Overall his foreign policy was as about good as it can get. With foreign intervention the tools are so blunt that there are never any really clean opperations. It's impossible to consistently get it "just right"

by Ernst 2008-11-14 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Foggy Bottom for Hillary?

The Clintons as Obama's world diplomats would be incredible.  The world would love us once again.  

by karajan72 2008-11-14 05:45AM | 0 recs
If it happens

then I would love to see the look on the faces of Kerry and Richardson.

But it aint gonna happen and frankly after the whole Clinton-as-VP fiasco, I wish that Obama camp had not gone down this road. Because, if Cliton is not made SOS then that will be taken as
(fairly in my opinion) as another humiliation of Clinton. Frankly, Obama does not need this.  

by ann0nymous 2008-11-14 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: If it happens

As runner up with 49% of the primary vote she had a reasonable case for the VP-ship (I always backed Biden, but I do think it was a reasonable case.)

So not getting it could be considered disappointing to her and/or her voters. In this case she has no claim or case for the SOS, being considered is wholly due too Obama. Therefore it cannot be a humiliation if she didn't get it as if he didn't think highly of her and her suited, she wouldn't have been considered at all.

It's the difference between getting passed over for a promotion and soliciting for a job and getting through to the final candidates but just falling short. The first is humiliating, the other is just life.

by Ernst 2008-11-14 07:04AM | 0 recs
Not really

We know to a large extent that Clinton was never considered for VP position. The problem here is that these rumors should not be floated (considering the history) if she is not going to be offered the SOS position. I think it will be considered a put-down if after going the whole rigaramole with secret meetings and what-not if she is not offered the SOS position.

by ann0nymous 2008-11-14 07:16AM | 0 recs
Whether it would

constitute acceptable process is not the point.  The public perception would be that Obama has toyed with and humiliated her again.  And that would diminish a significant amount of the goodwill Obama enjoys from the American people.  

by orestes 2008-11-15 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Whether it would

Most of the "American people" are either ambivalent about, or have some animosity toward, Clinton.

by lojasmo 2008-11-15 04:56PM | 0 recs
You should have your CDS treated

as well as your snarky tone.  If you don't think dissing Clinton re SOS would create ill will you are politicslly tone deaf.

by orestes 2008-11-15 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: You should have your CDS treated


As far as being politically tone deaf, I think not.

Sure the bitters would be angry.  Talk left would implode.  Who cares?

More Americans would be upset by HRC as SoS than would be made angry by a different choice.  Our nation is not comprised of just  the HRC for POTUS gang.

by lojasmo 2008-11-16 04:30AM | 0 recs
You're ridiculous

You make unsupported claims that are belied by recent history.  If HRC is so disliked, why did Obama have her campaign so vigourously for him?  Why was she involved at all?  With you, these questions cannot be treated rhetorically.  She campaigned for him because she was very popular with large segments of the population.  She also received essentially the same number of votes in the Dem primary as Obama.  Furthermore, he is the one who called her to Chicago to discuss the SOS position.  Your inability to process these facts demonstrates that you are motivated by something other than reason.  

by orestes 2008-11-16 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: You're ridiculous

Look.  I am PERSONALLY fine with HRC as SoS.  I think, however, given her high negatives among republicans and independents, it would be a polarizing choice.

by lojasmo 2008-11-17 06:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads