Did you read about the Long Island school that changed its name to Barack Obama elementary?

“It was Washington’s conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of U.S. foreign policy,” writes Power, who declined to speak for this story. “The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced and even naïve.”

Some in the Obama camp are left wondering whether picking Clinton as secretary of state represents an acquiescence to such conventional wisdom. “That memo was emblematic in many ways of the difference between the two groups,” said a Democratic foreign-policy expert and Obama loyalist. Asked about the ideological implications of the difference, the expert said, “The early Obama supporters were generally much more opposed to Iraq and you can draw out assumptions from there.”

Yet those assumptions are not entirely clear cut. Susan Rice opposed the Iraq war, but she was still a member in good standing of the traditional Washington foreign-policy community, ensconced at the ultra-establishment Brookings Institution. Her Brookings colleague, Lee Feinstein, signed on with the Clinton team and often criticized Obama, but he also wrote in favor of “unconditional negotiations with Iran” even before Obama entered the race.

Richard Holbrooke, a longtime progressive bete noir — and assistant secretary of state under Bill Clinton — was an Iraq war supporter, but also been a leading voice with the Campaign to Ban Torture, a bipartisan pressure group devoted to rolling back Bush’s interrogation policies. And Clinton’s campaign gained the ardent support of liberal heroes like Gen. Wesley Clark and retired Amb. Joe Wilson, both of whom opposed the Iraq war.

The Democratic official noted Obama’s stated intrigue with presidential scholar Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals,” which documented the ultimately-constructive fissures in Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, but rejected the comparison.

“The situation is fundamentally different today than in Lincoln’s time,” the official said. “The agencies are much more vast, so the people under the secretary, who aren’t directly controllable by the president, are a much bigger part of the equation these days. And when they are part of a group like the Clinton folks, it’s a real issue. Besides, even the Lincoln cabinet was much more dysfunctional than Goodwin’s book portrayed.”

i mean, who could forget the brilliance and competency of the great viceroy l. paul bremer.

the american establishment at its best

Asked for comment on the stories, Reines emails me this:

"We're still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature."

It's still possible that it's true that she's told confidants that she'll accept the gig and that this statement refers to the question of whether she and Obama have shaken hands on it. But perhaps a bit of caution is in order.

Late Update: Jake Tapper reports that after deciding against taking the gig...

On Thursday, many people in Obama's world reached out to Clinton and convinced her to take the job.

By Thursday night, she had conveyed to President-elect Obama that she was interested in the job. In other words, she essentially accepted his offer.

Details are still being worked out, but everything is on track for Clinton's nomination for the job to be announced after Thanksgiving, along with other members of the Obama national security team.

That would square with the statement from Hillary's spokesperson, as well as the Obama camp's claim that the deal is "on track." She's decided to take the gig, but she and Obama haven't shaken hands on the particulars.

My friends and I started a website called www.bigblackditz.com. Would you like to be on it?

Sorry. I'll stop. Its Friday, and I got that itch. Feeling a little goofy.

Eliot Spitzer!
Eliot Spitzer!
Eliot Spitzer!

I know. He fucked up. He was punished, he lost his job. But he's too good to throw away.

See?

That wasn't so hard.

Powers is SOOO not gone.

She and Clinton would both work for The President.

Period.

this time we call it "humanitarian intervention"

as always, we really do have good intentions

a kinder, gentler america

Equally troubling is Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security Secy. She was the Democrat with the best chance of defeating John McCain. Now McCain is virtually guaranteed re-election to the Senate. McCain ran a red-baiting, fear-mongering campaign against Obama. Obama is crazy to give McCain a pass by removing the opponent best positioned to defeat him.

Napolitano could have said no - I'm going to run for The Senate. Nobody forced someone who had a job to say yes.

I am waiting for their magical mystery reason for picking Clinton, it better be good...

- Sam Power may in fact be gone, and with respect to Nina's post: The "hype" of Sam Power is best defined by, "A Problem From Hell" (Pulitzer Prize)

- Now while I will say I have a visceral reaction to this pick, Obama has an interesting way of turning insiders into change agents-- Axelrod, Gibbs, Daschle are fine examples. He seems to be hell bent on bringing in these old Washington heads and defining the mission his own way. So while I have a strong aversion to Hillary, I'm curious what type of utility Obama sees.

I provided the link about 24 hours ago, but the filter caught it and its in limbo.

Its terrible netiquette for TNC not to link to Spencer's post.

BTW I doubt Power is picked for NSA.

That's looking Susan Rice-like to me...