No disrespect to Doris Kearns Goodwin. I'm happy her book is in the stratosphere. Anything that helps with dead tree publishing is alright with me.
Still, there's something disturbing about how reporters have unquestioningly adopted Obama's line on this. I like the guy, obviously. I'm also excited about Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But I know that has more to do with me seeing the world through the lens of the Uncanny X-Men than with any real world impact. (Remember when Storm's team reunited with X-Factor? Awesome.) I get creeped-out when I hear reporters repeating the politician's line. Barry's got YouTube. He's good. Tell me what you see in all this, not what he's telling you to tell me.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Tell me what you see in all this, not what he's telling you to tell me.
But that would require expertise, and effort. It's so much easier to interpret and rehash.
I think she's a really poor choice for Secretary of State. It doesn't seem to match any of her interests or strengths; I hope it's a trial balloon that got floated prematurely or a misunderstanding on someone's part. I understand having people who challenge you in the cabinet; I think it's a good thing. But this person in this position doesn't make any sense to me. She appears to be a lousy diplomat who cares mostly about domestic issues; why the hell would she be a choice for Secretary of State? Give her Joe Lieberman's damn Senate chairmanships (yeah, yeah, I know seniority, but you see my point) or something that corresponds to the lives of everyday people instead.
On which parts?
Clinton as SoS: Not my first choice but he knows more about both her and the job than I do. And it's not clear to me whether this is serious (leaks for trial balloon) or some Clinton supporters trying what they did with veep.
Clinton as something in government: Lion of the senate makes sense, but given her success at the end of the campaign some sort of poverty commission might make sense, too. And couldn't he be meeting with her to discuss getting health care and economic reform through the Senate? (Or her campaign debt, but, yawn.)
Cabinet as team of rivals: That's his management style, closing meetings going around and having each person say one last thing, bringing in Biden and Rahm whom one can't imagine as yes men. This needn't mean every political opponent will be co-opted into the cabinet, just that he'll appoint strong personalities who will stand up and propose some new directions when things aren't working, or even when they are. The problem is more people getting sick of the phrase, which is not a big deal.
The media adopting Obama's framing: They were really good at this in the campaign--choose a way to frame the issue strategically, repeat consistently. This part is just whether the media does some independent thinking, from both the Obama framing and the RedState framing.
Obama has definitely been pitching "team of rivals" since the primary.
In general, I think it is a good idea.
As far as the press, before anything happens, what should their position be?
The danger, as Kearns-Goodwin has noted, is that the discussions in a cabinet of rivals is that 1) debates can paralyze policy decisions rather than simulate and 2) that if people aren't fully on board with the concept, they can try and scuttle policy decisions they disagree with, ex post facto.
As far as these dangers, we don't know how they will play out. Neither does the press. If Obama has a strong leadership style a la Lincoln, it should work. If he goes the more neurotic route a la Nixon, it would be a disaster.
But, I don't know if we have enough data on Obama in these types of situations to make a strong prediction right now.
Do you disagree?
It's got a lot more to do with Bush not trucking any form of criticism than anything else.
My Hillary dream is for her to replace Reid. She's decidedly farther back on the corruption curve, and actually can lead her way out of a paper bag.
BUT. (1) Presidents have no authority to give that or any Congressional committee leadership either; they can only promise support. (2) Worst, Hillary's not showing any signs of interest.
B., I do think we have data on Obama's leadership style - we've had not one, but two crises during the election cyle - financial and Farther Georgia. We saw McCain be neurotic and Nixonian, and Obama be cool as a cucumber and thoughtful. Looks promising to me on the Team Of Rivals front.
TNC,
Your comparison to the Storm/X-Factor team up makes a good point why it might not be such a great idea to appoint Clinton as SoS. First, Hillary Clinton has the brains and the international reputation to be great at the job - much as Storm could headline a second banana series like X-Factor, no problem. However, pulling Clinton out of the Senate deprives it of one of its better talents. Imagine if Storm leaves the regular X-Men cast - you're talking about one of the most powerful members of the team, one of it's longest tenured talents and - this is crucial in comic books - without Storm, X-Men is a total sausage-fest. If Clinton stays in the Senate, I'd give it a year or two at the most before she's senate majority leader - and she'll be a damn good one too. With regards to Ms. Goodwin - whom I greatly admire - Obama's cabinet with or without Clinton is NOT really a team of rivals. The Democrats are largely on the same page on most issues. Appoint Lieberman as Sec of Defense or Jeb Bush as head of FEMA and then it's a team of rivals. Anyone who watched the primaries knows the Democrats had to strain to find things they disagreed with each other about.
The talking heads are desperate for something to talk about. They aren't getting polls, and they aren't getting sound bites, so they keep circling around this idea until we're all sick of it.
They need to subscribe to the Atlantic.
via TNR:
Let Hillary Cover For Summers
Asking Hillary to head the State Department might create some headaches for Obama, but could help him in at least one extremely important way: by giving him cover to appoint Larry Summers as Treasury Secretary.
As Jon Chait notes, some feminists are already pushing back against a Summers appointment--saying impolitic remarks he made while President of Harvard should disqualify him for the job. But if Obama announced Hillary will be Secretary of State and then appointed Summers, it would surely take away some of the sting.
That would allow Obama to head off a resurgence of the identity politics that paralyzed Bill Clinton's first term, while simultaneously putting the best economic mind available in charge solving our most pressing problem--the economic crisis. As an added bonus, it would keep John Kerry and Bill Richardson from heading up the State Department.
--Barron YoungSmith
It's Barry's tank, we just swim in it.
I think it's more likely that most people in the media is agreeing with the 'team of rivals' framing because that is what they would like to see in the administration, rather than because they are unquestioningly following Obama.
If we accept the contention that the MSM is largely centrist (I know, some would argue the MSM is center-right), then the notion of Obama filling the cabinets and White House with so-called "rivals"- in their mind, read "conservatives" and "centrists" - would of course be an attractive prospect. Why wouldn't they want to accept this framing when it is what most of them prefer anyway?
On the other hand, on This Week earlier, Sam Donaldson (of all people!) seemed to rip into Obama a little bit about this team of rivals stuff. He said - "you gotta dance with who brung you".
"And it's not clear to me whether this is serious (leaks for trial balloon) or some Clinton supporters trying what they did with veep."
Pretty sure it's the latter. The hoopla over this is soooo UnObama. Al Giordano, who did the best commentary on the primaries - almost as good at analysing where the race was going as Nate Silver was for the general, although as a more overt partisan for Obama - had this to say:
http://tinyurl.com/5v3ub3
The biggest problem with the Clinton nomination - aside from the fact that he's taking on a subordinate it would be problematic to fire - which never makes sense - is that O would also have to suspend the vetting process in order to accomodate Bill. Let the Clinton's keep making their own choices. The truth is that if Obama, from his position in the Oval Office, gets himself into a fix where Hillary becomes a serious challenger from the Senate, it probably would mean he deserves it. I don't think that's likely. But having a Secretary of State who generates as much, or more, drama and attention than the President is a bad idea - unless you happen to be a marginally competent, intellectually lazy character like George W. Bush, in which case you need the cover.
If it were someone like Bush, I think this Team of Rivals stuff would be just another idea about to get pointlessly run into the ground. But Obama seems to me to get to the real life of things like this and think about them more deeply, if not than the rest of us (which I think is possible), then at least more deeply than the rest of our politicians. I'm not idolizing the guy. In fact, let me probably get banned from this site and the internet for all time by saying what I think his secret might be: tobacco. I think every once in a while he has a smoke (the old-fashioned kind) and simply figures stuff out. It used to work for me.
I believe the job at Foggy Bottom should be Richardson’s- Period.
If it was just Hillpatine, I’d be reluctantly ok with it.But, it’s never just Hillpatine. Bubba comes along with it, and until someone reports that Obama has SEEN the donor lists to the Library and Foundation, I don’t wanna hear about it.
But, the truth of the matter is, she’s a middling Senator in The Senate. And who knows, Obama might have someone else in mind to be Senator from New York. After all, her replacement would have 4 years in which to build up their cred, and establish themselves. I am hesitant about Kerry being SOS, mainly because, and we don’t want to be morbid, but be realistic, that would mean that in probably the next 2 years, Massachusetts would replace both their Senators, thus plunging the Seniority of the state.
No offense, but in my opinion, that "Let Hillary cover for Summers" article is very insulting and idiotic. It assumes that women are silly little creatures that can be pacified by gifts - hey, look, I'm giving one of you this big cabinet job, now can you shut up about that Summers thing?
The two appointments are completely unrelated. Hillary Clinton and Larry Summers should both be judged on their merits for the job, period.
This is the relevant West Wing episode. The one where P-E Santos coopts his Republican presidential opponent Vinick by offering him SoS. Mostly, I just see this as a shift in the Obama-Hillary relationship away from the Hillary operatives' complaints regarding her remaining campaign debt. I agree wholeheartedly that it makes no sense whatsoever given her policy interests and experience. But you notice that mini-news cycle regarding her remaining campaign debt died faster than you can say Rahmbo. I actually wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow's news cycle included trial balloons regarding McCain for SoS.
Team of Rivals is not History, it's hagiography. I don't think the plagiarist Goodwin has done any primary research since she had her *special* relationship with LBJ.
At no point does Goodwin question any of Lincoln's decisions. She just says that he was all good and we're all so lucky that he was there to save the union. As long as we continue to worship wartime leaders like Lincoln, FDR and ChUrchill, we will be unable to get past the idea that war is a good thing. It's not. It is one of the most evil things in the world.
The Civil War killed over 700,000 combatants and yet it still took another century for African Americans to achieve full civil rights in this country. Furthermore, several countries were able to end slavery without resorting to war.
Was the Civil War a good thing or a bad thing? It was both. But no human being, not even a historian, can say that it was necessary to kill 700,000 people.
I think the idea that we have to rehash Summers' comments is idiotic.
You don't have to agree with the guy.
But he's obliged to call it (and by that I mean gender differences) the way he sees it (and by that, I mean the research.)
As a woman, I was embarrassed that women were so offended by his comments. One Harvard prof said she was "in tears" over it.
Please. Metaphorically, may we grow some? We are not victims. We are not unaccomplished. We can take criticism, and we can even take studies that may reflect that we don't perform some tasks on an overall basis as well as men do.
There are plenty of female mathematics Ph.D.'s that counter Larry's "controversial" statements, and plenty of research to back up his ideas. So let Larry say what Larry will; it is a testament to our strength as women that we can take his comments for what they are, investigate the research on our own, and MOVE ON. He's not a misogynist just because he is open to studies that don't support our doctrinaire feminist views.
Commanding a team of rivals requires more than just hiring the rivals, and listening to each of them. It requires that you be able to manage the decision making process in such a way that the rivals feel they are heard and have influence, while shutting down the worst backbiting and still arriving at functional decisions.
That was Lincoln's skill, and it comes out in the book. He would tell stories, folksy backwoods sorts of stories, to explain decisions or to point out, gently, when someone was being obstinate or obstructive. BO may well have that ability, Hillary, from what I've seen, did not.
Which makes her unsuited for Majority Leader, in my opinion. I think she's would be much better at championing legislation. She seems quite good at negotiating, and busting down into the details of an issue. Therefore she would make a pretty darn good SoS. I think the "Bill baggage" could be managed, too. But why would she take the job?
They aren't getting polls, and they aren't getting sound bites, so they keep circling around this idea until we're all sick of it.
Obama could squash this if they'd just get a couple of really cute puppies. That'd be good for most of a week.
As Jon Chait notes, some feminists are already pushing back against a Summers appointment--saying impolitic remarks he made while President of Harvard should disqualify him for the job.
This is why I ceded the term "feminists" to the extremists this election--way too many "I'm a feminist, but I'm not a crazy person" moments. I was fine with Summers losing the head of Harvard--he'd annoyed the faculty--but one dumb introduction to Pinker's work does not mean he is incapable of running a financial department. (Also goes for those at CBS having fits that Obama might appoint to his cabinet a woman in a role already held by another woman, which is NOT OK. Per this feminist, he has to appoint women to all the roles they haven't held yet; the rest can go to men.) He should appoint the best people for the job; that already includes Jarrett and will undoubtedly have Rice and Powers and a slew of others.
As for the X-men comparison--the guy may be a nerd, but we can't expect him to come out and explain which X-men issue, or West Wing episode, captures his thinking--I don't blame them for taking a Lincolnesque analogy over a geek-fiction one. Likewise, they should not compare the administration to any Bond movies or episodes of Veronica Mars, no matter how apropos.
You expect the press to start doing independent analysis now?
I would really like to get all the major press figureheads together (especially the cable guys) for a roundtable: What is the Purpose of the Press Corps? Its certainly not to inform. Its more like entertainment, these days.
He should save Hillary for a seat on the Supreme Court.
I promised myself I wouldn't second-guess Obama or come up with a list of "should do's" in the wake of his election. I was a very early supporter and it amuses me to see so many punditry folks who came on board late now giving Obama reams of advice, offered with the same certitude that marked their earlier inability to recognize how strong and realistic his candidacy could become. My impulse now is to retain my early faith in the man, at the same time I "let him go." He's not "my guy" anymore. But the Clinton thing bugs me and I've got a few thoughts.
First, I'm convinced this is, on Obama's part, an exploratory move that's turned into, on Clinton's part, the usual Clinton entitlement drama. Now we've got Bill publicly stating what a great SoS she'd be - when he should simply shut the fuck up let the Obama team play their decisions out sans declarations from ex-Presidents and/or loyal husbands.
I'm fairly certain that the "leaks" putting Hillary in the forefront for SoS were the work not of Obama aides but of Clinton Dems trying to paint Obama in a corner. I'm waiting for Lanny Davis to editorialize on FOX. The old war criminal Kissinger is touting Hillary as we discuss, which should be grounds for considering her appointment less than desireable.
Also, do we want a SoS who had this to say in the course of the primaries: "Asked what she, as president, would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, Mrs. Clinton replied: 'I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.'" (NYT) For someone who criticized Obama for stating the obvious - i.e. that he would act on reliable intelligence against top al Qaeda operatives in the region on the Afghan-Pakistani border even if Pakistani officials refused to green light the mission - that's quite a mouthful, even in defense of Israel. "Totally obliterate?" Hell, we didn't even do that to the Germans and Japanese. Not the consummate diplomat IMHO. Also, I doubt that Obama is pleased with the level of speculation and that it's typical Clintonite service to the narcissistic duo at the center of their political faith.
I don’t see Hillary as a big loss from the Senate. She’s a conservative opportunist like too many of her colleagues.
Reid and Pelosi may be craven corporate tools, but the bigger problem was that they actually represented the critical mass of the Dem caucus.
Let’s hope that next session’s lineup will be better.
The question that IMHO raises just about every other question as to why an HRC appointment to SoS is this: How the hell does he fire Hillary if he so deems or desires ? If a President is dealing with a Secretary of State who has their own political base within the party that rivals his own in it's depth and breadth - particularly once Obama is inevitably pushed as President more and more into the Beltway version of "politics" - he becomes, at least to some degree, their captive. This is bad. Unless, of course, one thinks that HRC should have been President in the first place. So I see the floating of her meeting with O as some sort of "she was offered the job and just needs to think it over" done deal as sabotage of Obama by the cluster of Clinton loyalists using their ability to influence the press. Apparently the first signal about this came not from Andrea Mitchell - and is there a bigger Beltway hack ? - but from Stephanopoulos !!! Doesn't that do anything to set off one's bullshit detector ?
OOOPs - 1st line should have been "why an HRC appointment to SoS ISN'T OPTIMAL is this..."
Andrea Mitchell on MTP this morning said that the Obama team did not leak this purposely to test reactions; that she found out about it as a result of "reporting" (read: someone naughty leaked it to her when he/she wasn't supposed to).
I'm wondering if this is just something that got out of control - Obama was considering several different people, he wanted to meet each one of them, he thought that his transition team would be as leak-proof as his campaign team, unfortunately he was wrong. Compare this situation with the VP pick, the difference is night and day. I always thought that Tim Kaine did himself no favors when his friends families started babbling on about how he was being vetted - way to put yourself out of contention there, Governor.
If the leak really is unintentional, can Obama not pick her after all the hoopla? I hate to think that the leak and the surrounding noise would put him in a position where he has to offer her the job when he might not want to otherwise.
i ain't smart enough to keep up with y'all, but i will say that nothing we say has anything to do with what is going on in Obamaland. He do what he do, and we watch.
Of course, brucds idea that Hillary's people leaked it is also possible. Maybe both sides leaked, an orgy of leaking.
Next we'll probably see Hillary's hand-wringing rivalling that of Rahm Emanuel - I want to take the job, I don't want to take the job, I'm thinking of my family, I'm thinking of the good people of New York, I'm thinking of the people of the world, I'm thinking of health care, yada yada yada.
It's exhausting just thinking about it. I miss the Obama campaign team already. What happened to No Drama Obama? He should have brought Plouffe with him.
We need fresh faces!
No more Billary! No more Clintons!
Gawd, I am so sick of them. What's so special about these narcissists? Is it that the New York Times has a leaky Clintonista trying to force Obamas' hand with regards to these people?
Change I can believe in: a majority of his appointments are people under 55, and very few served with any past Administration. Out with the old, in with the new!
>>Still, there's something disturbing about how reporters have unquestioningly adopted Obama's line on this.
specific examples please.
Rather than an Uncanny X-Men metaphor, I prefer to use the 95-98 Chicago Bulls:
Obama = Jordan
Biden = Pippen
Clinton = Rodman
Rahm Emmanuel = Phil Jackson
Bill Richardson = Tony Kukoc
Rev. Louis Wright = Craig Hodges
Bobby Jindal = Kobe Bryant
Oh, and Bill Bradley = Bill Bradley, just to make it really meta.
I became an Obama supporter when I made the decision he was competent to rule the country from an executive perspective. Bush was E Stanley O'Neal(MER) he only wanted results that fit his political picture:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/business/09magic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.
I want him to be Dick Parsons(TWX), i.e. someone whom has a broad outlook on what he wants done, competent people to do and a no nonsense manner.
Obama is currently doing much to undermine this view w/ the hiring of many Clinton Staffers. I do understand that finding White House staff w/ experience is difficult given the political nature of the job.
The Clinton's are guaranteed to turn the Sec of State position into this:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+world+revolves+around+me+little+jackie&search_type=&aq=0&oq=the+world+revolves+around+me
Even if HRC is cool and clinical WC is not. He couldn't keep it under control for her campaign how is he going to do it when she is not a free actor, i.e. HRC works for Obama.
As to keep your enemies closer how do you control an ex-President whom has a platform through his charity to criticize foreign policy?
Last of all I am a hater when it comes to them. I never wanted Clinton to be President. His abuse of poor ugly white women whom worked for him was the start. He was the Governnor of Arkansas where there had to be a older woman of means whom could discreetly carry out an affair. The idea of a Co-Presidency was an insult to the office. Then HRC's healthcare plan as published and verified as accurate had as much success chance of success as a Stalinst five year economic plan.(like glass production all two hundred thousand metric tons of it beeing 1m by 3m by 6cm yet all the windows are 2m by 2.5m by 3cm). Lastly HRC's overt appeal to race and class in her campaign exposing the fracture lines of her own party was an act of treason. They both belong on the 8th level of hell constantly scurrying about to maintain their space in two sections of of the 8th level.
A choice of the Clintons for anything means the vampires live. I walk if HRC is elevated into the executive branch of government
The historical anaologies have officially gone too far. Obama isn't Lincoln, FDR, Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter, Fredrick Douglass, or Jesus Christ.(Sarcasm warning.) Although I was hoping he would turn out to be the re-incarnated spirit of Malcom X because this time our chickens really have come home to roost. (end warning)
Seriously Barack Obama is a man with a hell of a lot of work to do. Like every other president we have had, including G.W. Bush, he will do the best he can to promote the American National interest as he sees it. He is neither a historical force or a messiah. In my personal opinion Equaiting Obama with any of our great presidents cheapens the man himself. It is not our place to say just yet exactly what impact an Obama presidency will have on our nation because we cannot know what he will do until he actually endeavors to do it.
Currently in this country we have a lot of problems both with our foreign policy and our domestic situation. There is no magic pill that will suddenly restore America and fix everything that has gone wrong during the last 8 years. Certainly a good start is reversing some of the more odious practices of the current administration. However balancing the budget, pulling troops out of Iraq, and providing free health care to all Americans is no guaruntee of future greatness. Unfortunately for presidents they are often overtaken by unforseen events. How Obama deals with these unplanned for eventualities will ultimately determine how his Presidency is seen by posterity. We cannot know for sure wether Obama will be a good president or a bad one. However we can hope that he will do the best he is able, and try to make rational informed decisions about policy that are based on the world as it is not the world as he would like it to be.
First time post here...
While I definitely see Obama regretting the leak on this case, I think the "Team of Rivals" aspect is positive. If Obama can avoid a squabbling cabinet, I think that the variety of viewpoints would not only be healthy like everyone says, but possibly a unifying force in our country. I really hope that this administration will mark at least a reduction (is that too much to hope for) of the gridlock and the culture wars.
Heck yeah...it freaks me out too...it is like an echo chamber.
"team of rivals" "team of rivals" "team of rivals"
but you know...we are really just speculating what is really going on....
who knows if he asked clinton to be sec. of state...maybe he just wanted to hear what she has to say...
we don't know..it is driving me crazy...let's just see what happens.
Am I the only person who basically just expects Obama to be eminently competent, not the Jesus of progressive politics?
I don't need to be delivered. I just need to be competently and thoughtfully governed.
Joe Lieberman = Horace Grant
The betrayal still stings.
I've read ALL of your comments, and it seems you guys are all missing the forest for the trees. While I think that he IS genuinely interested in listening to honest strong willed people and seeking advice from people who disagree with him now or may disagree with him in the future. He wants to seek the advice of the best and the brightest, and HRC fits the bill, because he is comfortable in his own skin and has faith in his own abilities EVEN if he isn't the smartest guy in the room at any particular time about any particular subject. But, that doesn't come close to answering TNC's question about the true *political* reasoning behind it. Let's look past the surface shall we....
First, this is classic Obama strategy, pure and simple. This guy is RUTHLESS. Obama is offering this to box her in and neutralize her power if she accepts it, and/or knock her down a peg and expose her if she doesn't. If she accepts, she is out of the Senate and her political power base is largely neutralized. It would be largely considered improper for her to politically engage as SoS. Right now, HRC is the *most* dangerous person to his administration. She poses the largest threat - forget Pelosi and Reid - it is HRC who would have the power to do the most damage if she were to decide to publicly criticize his administration and/or challenge him in 2012. If she's in the administration, she can't sh!t on it. AND, it gives her incentive to truly hope that the Obama administration is successful (and therefore not try to undermine it) whether or not she chooses to run in 2016 because her political future or legacy will largely depend on Obama's success (or failure).
If she chooses to turn him down, it just shows, once and for all that she's all about self. How would it look if the President-Elect personally asked her to serve her nation at a time of great national turmoil and she turns him down to stay in the Senate as the Junior Senator from NY? Seriously, what REAL excuse could she give to turn him down that wouldn't get her completely slayed in the media? That public lashing, if it were to happen would make her politically unviable for the forseeable future and if she did ever decide to criticize him after she declined a personal invitation to serve in the cabinet she would be laughed out of the room.
All in all, politics is a chess game and Obama is not just looking at the board as it is, but is looking at the board as it might be and anticipating many moves away. This just might be checkmate on HRC.
I don't see Bill as that much of an issue in any job that doesn't have a built-in first-dude component. In trying to think of anything at all done by the spouse of a secretary of state, I think Mrs. Powell suggested her husband not run for president. That's it. Whereas veep spouses--Lynn writes historical stuff, Tipper fought for music ratings, etc.
Either he learns that he is not "Bill Clinton, former president, giving his unbiased take on the situation" or he becomes a standard dismissal "ignore Bill; you know how he is." And since looking up Pump Head, which describes my own dad, I have a bit more empathy for where Bill is coming from.
Adrienne, assuming that Clinton has been offered the job (which I give about 2 to 1 odds in favor) if she turns him down she still has the hard-core base she does now. (Which, I think, is not that big. She did not have 17 million bargaining chips at the end of the primaries; the chips had their own ideas.) They'll applaud. She can be a critic from the Senate, and if her criticisms are valid then they'll have some effect. (She'll have her hands tied until there's something that unmistakably deserves criticism, but that's as a result of wanting to be taken seriously--no sour grapes about her campaign debt--not as a result of having turned down an offer to work for him rather than with him.)
However it turns out, the Dems would be idiots to fight Obama's nomination for a second term--if he's done that poorly, voters aren't going to put in an I-told-you-soer from the same party, they'll let a reasonably competent Republican have a turn. If both parties are beyond hapless, Bloomburg can finance his own independent campaign.
Are we really gonna let that Rahm = Phil Jackson comment stand?
Or can we all agree it is the most thoughtless, idiotic politics = sports metaphor in history.
Those two men couldn't have more different styles.
If you are gonna compare Obama's cabinet to a team, better would be the Boston Celtics of 1986.
Obama = Larry Bird = Reigning MVP, best player alive
Clinton = Kevin McHale - 1st Ballot Hall of Famer, #1 option on any other team
Rahm = Danny Ainge - Annonying Prick who gets things done
Biden = Bill Walton - Old big mouth on the bench
I'll admit that the Rahm/Jackson metaphor was a little tossed off, but jeez Foulness - Hyperbole much?
The hyperbole was in honor of Bill Walton.
Best. Hyperbolizer. Ever.
In the history of the universe.
Deborah: "They'll applaud. She can be a critic from the Senate, and if her criticisms are valid then they'll have some effect."
Some effect, yes, but not much. Her decline to serve will be cast as blatantly and obviously political. Now, we ALL know that HRC is a political creature, but if she declines a position to help rebuild this nation choosing instead to "throw rocks at the building" in an attempt to further her political career at the expense of the country, that wouldn't fly.
Everytime she went out in public to criticize Obama, the interview would start something like this: "Yeah, but weren't you offered a position in the cabinet, which you promptly declined? If you were so worried about the fate of this nation, why did you decline to serve? And if you weren't worried about the nation, what does that say about your judgment given that you endorsed Obama and campaigned for him?". You could stick a fork in her because she'd be DONE.
Unless and until we have some confirmation from Obama of the substance of his meeting with Hillary, there's no forest and no trees. Just rumors. Since Obama doesn't play rumors, I'm inclined to believe this is a Clintonite generated hoopla.
I don't like Hillary that much, but I rather like the idea, mainly because State sucks political clout from its Secretary...
In general, State needs to be revived -- Powell was initially quite beneficial -- and it needs a politically strong figure to rebuild.
Its worth noting historically Obama is coming in with a far stronger mandate than any Democrat... really since FDR: Truman wasn't his own man, JFK won by a squeaker, LBJ felt hounded by Camelot, Carter didn't win as much as Nixon lost it for Ford, Clinton's Presidency came as a result of Perot's insurgency.
He can afford to coopt Clinton. For Clinton, except for th donor base, SOS is a promotion: she's still a junior Senator. (and it's not as if Bill won't continue to build his donor base...)
It is not a particularly original idea either. Most of us have to work with people we don't necessarily like. Most of us don't go around patting ourselves on the back for doing this.
You could stick a fork in her because she'd be DONE.
They've been saying this for a year now; time to embrace zombies as the dominant metaphor of the campaign and move on.
It's not like she's opting to retreat to a writer's workshop for the next few years--senator from New York counts as service.
It is not a particularly original idea either.
I'm telling you, they need to get that puppy. Give people something besides cabinet speculation.
I am delighted to know that you can run a totally racist and redbaiting campaign against Obama and still be chosen as SoS.
You can invoke his assassination as rationale.
You can lose the nomination because you were wrong on the war and be chosen as SoS by a guy whose candidacy was made possible by his early opposition to it.
You can beat out out a qualified Bill Richardson (or any of a number of more qualified folks) who helped save BHO's even though you crossed every red line to destroy it.
You can even bring back your tired repellent drama when it is so clearly not in BHO's interest to do so.
And you can be an oldtime pol and be chosen by Mr. Change.
I suppose none of this would matter if he really believed that she would make the best SoS. But no way he thinks that. She has no record except being wrong on the most important issues recent years.
But, worst of all, was her racist campaign which started the whole Muslim, Wright, Ayers BS. He forgives that. The MSM will see that as strong. I see that as being a wuss.
I think the concept of a 'team of rivals" is a bit silly, but I haven't read the book, so maybe I'm wrong...
I tend to agree with other comments, in that I think she would be a good choice for Sec of State, but I also think she would do a lot of good in the Senate if she stayed there.
There are already too may former Clinton associates in the Obama transition and inner circle. Where is the diversity that got him elected? One African-American in the inner sanctum. Where are the Latins, Asians, and American Indians. So far, this is not the change I voted for. Clinton as SOS? No way, no how. Obama can do better!
"Next we'll probably see Hillary's hand-wringing rivalling that of Rahm Emanuel - I want to take the job, I don't want to take the job, I'm thinking of my family, I'm thinking of the good people of New York, I'm thinking of the people of the world, I'm thinking of health care, yada yada yada."
Ok, I know it's extremely tacky to quote oneself, but I wrote this 2 days ago, and what do you know, the hand-wringing has started today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15738.html
Money quote:
"Clinton, the person said, remains deeply “torn” between the possibility of serving in Obama’s cabinet and remaining in the Senate to “help pass health care and work on a broad range of domestic issues.”"
Sigh. I really wish I was wrong about this. So the soap opera continues. I think I AM suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
Farewell, Internet - my final post (can a choking sound register in a cyber-voice?) I live in a place where there's no light pollution and I don't use prescription drugs and I grow a large portion of my own food and every night I step out my back door and swear a prayer or two to the dear, beautiful eternal night. For me Obama is that Indians grew tobacco and Europeans wanted it so bad they sold their souls for slavery and now Obama, with roots from all over the world, still sends the old smoke skyward. It's like the last 400 years come down to earth and pain and smoke, redeemed solely by the beauty of a few words. It's not that there's anything to my point of view, it's just that there's no place for it in the seemingly infinite cyber-space. To paraphrase again an old favorite poet I really haven't thought of much in years - there's a hell of a good universe next door - I'm going!