A Health Care Role for Hillary

Why not retire from politics, work at a law firm and make lots of money?
.
Or write another book? There’s seems to be a market for losing candidates these days.
.
This stuff is so inside baseball.

So Kennedy is offering Hillary a role of a bit player in his show? Really? I realise the Dems have behaved stupidly in the Lieberman matter. But is this another manifestation of solid thinking about how you deal with a fellow Democrat, who, in spite of all the nay saying, put up a pretty impressive perfomance in support of Obama after she lost.

KT here–

Bitter: Yes, a real window into how the Senate really works, isn’t it?

KT — Appreciate the candor!

As my Native American friends would say, Hillary has powerful medicine, with a constituency maybe even larger and more faithful now precisely because she lost in the primaries. And she doesn’t have the burdens and visibility of the presidency on which to be judged. Hillary needn’t worry about Kennedy or anyone else, as she’ll be an extremely powerful figure long after he’s gone, God love him.

I think the order is: Committee -> Task Force -> Posse -> Entourage -> Crew -> That One. Hillary wanted Committee or nothing at all.

Why is Senator Clinton being treated with less respect by the Democratic party than Joe Lieberman, who isn’t a Democrat?

KT here–

Cedar et al: Yes, that is how it looks to the outside world. Inside the Senate, she is yet another failed presidential candidate in a place where there are plenty of those, and no one is inclined to move over so that a less junior member can move up. As you may recall, as it became clear that she was going to lose in her bid for the nomination, there was a lot of speculation that she would return to the Senate and become Majority Leader. I never took that seriously. There simplay are too many people ahead of her in line.

I think, by the way, the same dynamic was at work in the Lieberman situation to some degree. In the end, the club takes care of its own.

PNNTO: It’s all about the chromosomes, Paul. And who her husband is.

KT here–

Sorry, I meant //junior// not //less junior.// Preview would be my friend. If we had preview.

KT — If not having preview saved someone’s job at Time, then I don’t mind not having preview. If not, then @#$%^%$#@.

KT here–

No, Andy, in this case, it really isn’t. It’s all about enormous egos and seniority. Tom Foley, before he was Speaker, once explained to me that seniority was really the reason that African-Americans actually got ahead in the House. There were racist southerners there who would have cut off their right arms before they would give a powerful job to an African-American, but they would cut off BOTH arms before they violated the seniority system.

Speaking of which, let’s watch that Dingell-Waxman fight. Congress is the only place a 69-year-old guy could be a “young turk.”

“In the end, the club takes care of its own”
.
That’s what I was observing in another thread-
Convicted felons don’t get expelled. People who campaign against your party get rewarded.
The Senate really is a club above anything else.

KT — The Foley story is very interesting. I can hope that Waxman can beat Dingell, but I wouldn’t make book on it.

If it is all about seniority why bother with this charade?
I’m starting to think this really is part of it
.
Asked what it would mean if Lieberman kept his chairmanship, one Senate Democratic aide said bluntly: “The left has been foiled again. They can rant and rage but they still do not put the fear into folks to actually change their votes. Their influence would be in question.”

Wait a minute. Seniority is a valid criteria for power-sharing. What is Clinton’s claim over other Senators on the health care issue – having failed at it in the past? Being famous?

“What is Clinton’s claim over other Senators on the health care issue – having failed at it in the past?”
.
One strike and you’re out!
Hasn’t Senator Clinton worked on health broadly and child health care specifically for decades?

It’s relative, Paul. Relative to other Senators. I’m defending seniority as one very valid tool for distributing leadership positions among a group of people who all have anecdotal claims to desired turf. That’s how seniority came to be an organizational construct used in a variety of similarly ambiguous situations

KT here–

Also, on the Lieberman thing, it seems to me that losing a chairmanship is a rare thing in Congress in general, but even rarer in the Senate, absent an indictment or something. Can anyone remember when the last time was that it happened in the Senate? (Other than when a guy like Thurmond or Byrd gets elderly and frail, and is persuaded to give it up.)There was a huge fight over House Armed Services in the 1980s, where Les Aspin ousted a guy named Mel Price. And Newt ignored some seniority rules in handing out chairmanships. But I can’t remember anyone in the Senate really fighting for one and losing it. Commenters?

Senators on the committee with higher rank.
.
Christopher Dodd (CT)
Tom Harkin (IA)
Barbara A. Mikulski (MD)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Patty Murray (WA)
Jack Reed (RI)
.
Other than seniority I am unsure what their claim is.

No fault of hers, but thoroughly sick of Hillary Clinton already.

pour rather than “one very valid tool” I am reading all this as it is the “only” valid tool.
.
I’m not sure I sign on to the “anecdotal claims” either. People are qualified by experience or they or not. Of course by varying degrees.

It’s worth remembering that the Senate is snotty and elitist by design, not chance. Less members. Longer terms. I know I’m in the minority here, but I approve in general terms of the clubbish nature when taken in context of the larger checks and balances of the entire system. We are days out from an election that brought clear one-party rule. However, that’s not always the case and I like the idea of the Senate caretaking its status as a fuse as a bulwark against future chaos. Reasonable people can disagree over the particulars of Lieberman’s case, but in general a little snootiness on the part of the Senate is not a bug; it’s a feature.

I still don’t understand why Hillary is credible on health reform. Cheney and Rumsfeld weren’t credible on war policy BEFORE Iraq because they had already screwed one up (Vietnam). Hillary has already screwed up health reform once (1994). Why do people keep wanting those that have proven they are incapable of doing a job to keep trying that job in the hopes they’ll eventually get it right?

KT here–

P-NNTO and Pour: Rising in the leadership, by the way, has its own ladder, one that is based on personal relationships that are not always apparent to the outside world. (Murtha, for instance, was an early mentor and patron of Nancy Pelosi; George Mitchell was one for Daschle.) Harry Reid, while often criticized outside the Senate Chamber as being an ineffective public face, has a huge reservoir of support internally. So while many pundits in the blogosphere and elsewhere saw it as “obvious” that Hillary Clinton would become Senate Majority Leader, it was anything but.

I don’t want to conflate Majority Leader (something that really hasn’t been pushed all that much) with a position to get something done in committee.
This all seems to be process over results.

Pointing to the Lieberman situation and screaming that it makes a mockery of direct democracy is to misunderstand the Senate’s role as a buffer on direct democracy. I know that enrages some people, but as I said earlier I am in the long run alright with Senators working out some space for themselves to be a more statesmanlike, deliberative body. That is a 30,000 foot view hard to see at this moment, but worth considering.

I didn’t think it was obvious that Hillary should become Majority Leader and I don’t think she would be very good at it. I had heard that Reid had a lot of internal support. That doesn’t help that I think he is terrible for the Democratic party in that position. He is exactly the wuss he looks like. McConnell also looks like a wuss, but he manages to make his party behave even if it isn’t in their best interests.

KT here–

P-NNTO: Point taken. I’m just trying to make the point that, whatever her stature nationally, her options inside the Senate are pretty limited.

“Pointing to the Lieberman situation and screaming that it makes a mockery of direct democracy is to misunderstand the Senate’s role as a buffer on direct democracy.”
.
A mockery of direct democracy? Where are you reading this arguement? That really is silly.
.
And are we confusing things? The Clinton and Lieberman issues are not issues of the Senate they are issues of the Democratic caucus.
Or am I confused?

“Process over results.” Yes, agreed. I just believe a workable long-term process should trump short-term results for a deliberative body as large and complex as the Senate – particularly the upper house with long six-year terms and only 100 members making collaborative relationships a must.

“I’m just trying to make the point that, whatever her stature nationally, her options inside the Senate are pretty limited.”
.
I get that, KT, and you are certainly right. My point is that the reasons stated for her limited options are pretty disappointing.

Where am I reading the argument? EVERYWHERE. Start at the top: read Kos today and follow his links if you want more.

pourme makes a good point about the Senate being a place where a group can apply the brakes on the WH or the House when runaway plans are on offer. But Bush put and end to that by encouraging a pretty divisive Senate aided and abbeted bt Lott and McConnell.There is also a good deal of backscratching. Otherwise how does one explain the shenanigans of Stevens (who managed the dollar highway to Alaska) and Byrd who did the same on his own highway to WV. I thought the Senate was a place of sober second thoughts then I heard Inhofe!!!!

whatever her stature nationally, her options inside the Senate are pretty limited.

Which of course helps explain the attraction of the State department.

I have to check out for meetings, but this is a conversation I always have with my kids about politeness – you say pleasantries not because you necessarily mean it, but because you get in the habit and the habit has value. In the Senate, I find value in not settling (valid) scores. Gotta wimp out of the fight now, though.

@ivb: “…Reid had a lot of internal support…I think he is terrible for the Democratic Party in that position.” –I second that!
.
@coffee: I believe that most Swampers agree with you that the seniority system in and of itself is not a bad attribute around which to organize the Senate; it is a problem *at this time* because it appears to prevent the majority party from more effectively deploying and asserting its leadership role.
.
It may be the rules, but it also appears to be a failure of imagination and vision on the part of Reid. (Remember, the approval rating for congress are even lower than that of W’s.) Reid has managed to hit the snooze bar again, as he’s been doing throughout 2006-2008. He’s worried about breaking eggs *right now*. A year from now, we’ll all be wondering why he hasn’t produced an omelet.

Obama frees Hillary from the Senate, where her lack of seniority would keep her on a path to nowhere fast, and ensures that Bill Clinton owes big time ( a chit that Bill can use with certain Senators when it comes to fundraising and campaigning).
.
Clearly McCain and Graham are on board, it can’t be a coincidence that the meeting with McCain and Graham took place before the Lieberman vote. I’m pretty sure that McCain wanted to at least save his friend. after all its not like McCain picked Lieberman for vice-president, he can’t let him lose his chairmanship too. I’m thinking that a deal to ensure bi-partisan support and a filibuster free zone on Obama’s key legislation makes sense. If we lose Franken and Martin that’s still 60 isn’t it?

Many have said what I wanted to say about how HRC is being treated.

I really hope she is offered and accepts the SoS position.

And I agree, I like Reid but he is terrible at his job.

In the long run, I think the points Dems will score with the public outweighs any benefit to giving Lieberman what he deserves – a swift kick on the asterick.

After today, I am left with the impression that the Senate is run by children. The repugs are the schoolyard bullies. The Dems are the kids who play by the rules even when the rules make no sense. They seem incapable of thinking outside of their box/bubble.
.
The Dems had two imminently credible candidates for president. They ran a very close race, and one of them won (my preferred candidate, but whatever). Had Hillary been the Dem candidate, I have little doubt she would have won in the general, and in losing the nomination she worked very effectively for Obama and for down ticket senators. She was asked to help because she is, and is perceived as, a national leader by the voters. She was not shunted to the side as a “loser.”
.
And what happens in the Senate? Instead of being propelled by her performance into a significant leadership position that she earned on the national stage and that would be a politically smart thing for the caucus to do, she has to “wait her turn.” And they reward a disreputable turncoat who WILL turn on them.
.
I’m sorry. Rules and tradition are good, but sometimes you break with tradition, as Tevye did for the good of his children..

Two threads up memekiller said:
.
“Tuesday, November 18, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Yet again, Dems demonstrate they can not perservere against the most possible of odds.”
.
Worth repeating.

KT here–

Just updated my post with the announcement. The other two task force chairs are Harkin (prevention) and Mikulski (quality).

Yet again, Dems demonstrate they can not perservere against the most possible of odds.

Was this surprising? Since the Republicans are collapsing and there’s no other real competition, they’re all but obliged to self-servingly underperform. Welcome to the two-party system.

Hey KT, no one is listening. Tell us what you really think about the Lieberman situation.

They are leaving quite a bit of ambiguity in the responsibilities of those task forces. How much autonomy will the groups have? Does Senator Clinton have to start chasing cars at the behest of Kennedy or does she get a little freedom?
.
Also, you guys are trashing the seniority system without pausing to contemplate its benefits:
.
1) Provides a clear, no-nonsense right of ascension
2) Intrinsically ensures that ranking members will have enough experience to navigate complicated Senate rules
3) Eliminates the need to vote on every appointment to committee, task force, study group, investigative body, or whatever.
4) Ensures ORDER so that the Senate can actually get things done without spending an entire session challenging and re-challenging appointments of influence
.
There are obviously downsides of a seniority system, such as the exclusion of less senior but perhaps more capable members.
.
I’m not saying seniority is the right set of rules. I’m just saying don’t overlook its benefits.

wvng -
.
You can’t just break with tradition if the entire caucus will revolt. Clinton gets her leadership position but everyone resents her for it. What would that accomplish?
.
Alas, the seniority system is notoriously difficult to repeal. The ones with the power want to keep it and the ones next in line want to keep it so they can rise to power next. The only ones wanting an exception from the rules are those at the bottom, and they have no power because of the rules.
.
Just ask professional pilots. Airlines assign jobs (and pay) to pilots based almost purely on seniority. It sucks being at the bottom, but it’s posh when you get the top.

The ones with the power want to keep it and the ones next in line want to keep it so they can rise to power next.

This rule is even more generally applicable. I had a coworker ask me why we still retained the electoral college. I found myself explaining how as long as the people who benefit from a system have sufficient power to protect it, it’s not going to budge.

That’s why even changovers like the current administration transition represent a shockingly minute amount of actual change and real revolutions are appallingly violent.

Also, on the Lieberman thing, it seems to me that losing a chairmanship is a rare thing in Congress in general, but even rarer in the Senate, absent an indictment or something.

How about keeping your seat when the netroots refuse to fund your campaigns?
.
Have they thought of that one? We have LONG memories. (no, I’m not bitter, why do you ask?)

KT-
.
She has State? I had the teevee on for a little bit yesterday to see what Wolf was shouting about, and it sounded like she did. I don’t see how Bill can keep doing what he’s doing if she has State. And I can’t see him sitting on his hands either.

How about keeping your seat when the netroots refuse to fund your campaigns?
.
Have they thought of that one? We have LONG memories. (no, I’m not bitter, why do you ask?)
.
Tow words.
.
Steny Hoyer.
.
And then four more seats. We can fund four more better democrats.
.
Every cycle we can fund five. And then they will have to listen.
.
And I want Schumer. I’m sick of being represented by a pro-choice Al D’Amato. He does not vote his constituency.

And I want Schumer. I’m sick of being represented by a pro-choice Al D’Amato. He does not vote his constituency.
.
At least your senator is sort of a dem.
.
I’m represented (what a joke) by two republican senators and a real jerk-off rethug thanks to Delay’s redistricting.
.
Did the senate dems help us in this cycle? no. They sat on their fat *ss’ and fat war chests and let Cornyn be reelected. Hillary is the only senator who came to this state and campaigned for Noriega.
.
and yet they have the nerve to hit me up almost daily for contributions. Feh.

Inside the Senate, she is yet another failed presidential candidate in a place where there are plenty of those
.
It’s a shockingly big number, actually, 16, 18, something like that. That joke about the shaving mirror is well placed, but has to be updated now that girls are allowed in the club. In a just world they’d have to resign their seats to run. That’d cause them to look a little more bleakly at their prospects.

1) Provides a clear, no-nonsense right of ascension
2) Intrinsically ensures that ranking members will have enough experience to navigate complicated Senate rules
3) Eliminates the need to vote on every appointment to committee, task force, study group, investigative body, or whatever.
4) Ensures ORDER so that the Senate can actually get things done without spending an entire session challenging and re-challenging appointments of influence
.
Counter arguments? Strom Thurmond. Ted Stevens. Robert Byrd.
.
It institutionalizes corruption.

Mikulski (quality).
.
Unintentional punning there, but I agree. Babs has done some quality work.

This rule is even more generally applicable. I had a coworker ask me why we still retained the electoral college. I found myself explaining how as long as the people who benefit from a system have sufficient power to protect it, it’s not going to budge.
.
I will defend the electoral college at any length.
.
But this does explain gerrymandering. What made the 1994 “revolution” was the democrats tacit deal to exchange safe black seats for safe republican seats. Look at Georgia’s electoral map.
.
This is actually quite important, because the partisanship David Broder is constantly complaining about is directly related to the creation of safe seats for both parties. The best that could, and won’t, happen in 2010 is setting up rules for drawing up seats that are based on a geographical algorithm, prepared without reviewing the impact it would have on seats.
.

Someone should email this thread, especially KT’s insights, to Nate Silver, who was pondering over at 538 why Hillary might want SofS. Seems obvious to me.

I have questions.
.

Senator Hillary Clinton will lead the working group on insurance coverage.

.
Does this mean that Hillary Clinton will not be going into the Cabinet? One might suppose that she would have had the opportunity to say “thanks, but no thanks” before the press release was, um, released.
.
.
.
Didn’t anyone mention that Max Baucus “controls” the health care debate in the Senate? His Committee on Finance already has a Subcommittee on Health Care. He recently released a general set of guidelines for what a health care plan should detail.
.
Will there be a joint committee/task force/working group/special team-up between HELP and Finance? That would be where the health care reform center of power in the Senate would reside.

Again, and this is a totally serious question:
-
Hillary royally screwed up health care reform the last time she tried it. Why exactly is she viewed as being a good choice to try it again?

But this does explain gerrymandering. What made the 1994 “revolution” was the democrats tacit deal to exchange safe black seats for safe republican seats. Look at Georgia’s electoral map.
.
Worse yet, look at Texas’ map.
.
Austin is carved into 4 districts – I actually had a republican tell me last week, “hey it’s better! Austin has 4 reps instead of just one.”
.
Right – 3 of them don’t agree with their constituents on ANY policy matters. Representatives chose their constituents, not the other way around. It’s just flat wrong.

Blogwhore:
.
I turned a deadthreaded comment on Scherer’s biblical corrections into a blog post.
.
In case anybody is interested.
.
Ah, preview. I miss you. I’d like to check that link creation for typos. But, alas, in your absence, I’ve just gotta hit that submit button. And there is no edit button, either, which I wouldn’t like as much, but is still better than nothing.

Cedar et al: Yes, that is how it looks to the outside world. Inside the Senate, she is yet another failed presidential candidate in a place where there are plenty of those, and no one is inclined to move over so that a less junior member can move up. As you may recall, as it became clear that she was going to lose in her bid for the nomination, there was a lot of speculation that she would return to the Senate and become Majority Leader. I never took that seriously. There simplay are too many people ahead of her in line.
I think, by the way, the same dynamic was at work in the Lieberman situation to some degree. In the end, the club takes care of its own.
–
Thanks for your honesty, KT. What’s amazing is that there is nothing in all that about figuring out the best way to get important legislation passed. Hillary Clinton has millions of devoted supporters who will happily flood newspapers, the blogosphere and insurance companies with calls for health care reform. She attracts attention no matter what she does, and she is widely respected as someone who is both very intelligent and absolutely committed to providing everyone with health care. Can no one put these two things together and see how much she could help the cause of health care reform? Apparently they’re too worried about taking care of their own to take care of their constituents.
–
Aaron, I think Ted Kennedy had to release this to not look – I’m really trying to think of a nice way to say this – unwise. He’s had some bad PR over all this, and it would have been much worse in different circumstances. The statement is classy, and Clinton and Obama are classy to give him time to make it, assuming that’s what going on.

Eric Holder as AG.

Billiecat – took the words right out of my mouth. Anyone (still) wondering why Hillary would want a different job right about now isn’t thinking of the obvious. Despite who she is, she’s still the JUNIOR Senator from New York, fergawd’s sake. Obama, let’s remember, also was our Jr. Sen. in IL, up until Sunday’s resignation was handed. Anyone want to guess what committees he’d be on now and where he’d be in the true pecking order, if McCain had one?

This seems to me like we’re all finding out just now exactly what it was that Obama and Clinton were talking about back in early June, in almost total privacy, in Diane Feinstein’s living room. My dad was convinced he was going to offer her the first opening on the SCOTUS, but here we are, and the biggest name, save Obama, in American politics is lending her family’s star power to the new Admin. It all kind of reminds me of when Bush picked Powell for the same job, only I hope that it turns out a little better.

Anyway, seems to me that Obama, knowing how the Senate works, has kept Clinton in mind for something big – he knows full well that she is NOT a back-bencher, by any stretch.

How it will all work out practically remains to be seen, and I hope it doesn’t backfire on all involved, the country can’t handle this whole Obama and Clinton pairing blowing up badly right now. But as pure political maneuvering, it’s all pretty brilliant stuff.

Hillary royally screwed up health care reform the last time she tried it. Why exactly is she viewed as being a good choice to try it again?
.
My opposition to her for president was entirely tied to this failure. I think she is a natural legislator, not a natural executive.
.
However, the answer to your question is that she certainly understands the nature of the terrain, and the campaign that will be necessary to take it, if it is to be successful.
.
In point of fact, I think all this is windowdressing, and the policy will be made in the White House. The more chairs there are, the more obvious this is.
.
The real work is finding a way to buy off the insurance companies who are the source of all the difficulty. And here I quote Krugman–Prudence is folly. They should go for it, the whole thing. Negotiating with themselves won’t work. There is nothing that will fix this that doesn’t take the insurance companies out of business. So they should suck it up, and take them out of business.
.
I actually read Clinton’s health plan document, btw, downloading it onto my office’s 384K, 1500 dollar a month T-1 (the same price I paid for my two W2 employees’ Oxford plan, just btw). It was a scam. There were two options. A state could implement a very complicated system of insurance provision, with multiple layers of oversight and an awful lot of regulation. Or one could implement a single payer plan. No governor with half a brain would have chosen the former. And those who were constrained by their money constituency would have been dragged into it when it became clear that the former sucked.
.
This is why I’ve disliked Obama’s camel’s nose under the tentflap approach. The people who this affects most dearly can see the nose just fine, and will stamp on it as hard as they can. Harder to stamp on the whole effin’ camel. More people will notice.

This is probably a really dumb question for any of you, but if Hillary’s passion and commitment are to health care, why isn’t Secretary of HHS a more appropriate appointment? Is it just too low on the status ladder or something and, if so, why wouldn’t her apointment signal a new day in how we handle health care in this country? So what is the obvious answer I’m missing?

Is it just too low on the status ladder
.
Yes. That’s the real issue. HHS would be an insult.
.
Substantively, though, I’m tired of there being girl jobs and boy jobs in the Cabinet. State seems to have been transformed into not having such a status. Next, Defense.

Is it just too low on the status ladder
.
Yes. That’s the real issue. HHS would be an insult.

Maybe it’s time to elevate its status.

Hillary royally screwed up health care reform the last time she tried it. Why exactly is she viewed as being a good choice to try it again?
–
Sean DeCoursey, two reasons. A. People believe she’s sincere about health care reform. It may seem like a small point, but sincerity is a rare quality in politicians. B. She knows a lot about health care. I was just speaking to someone recently who knows her, and he was pretty awestruck by her knowledge of the subject. Again, that may seem like a small point in comparison to her record of failure, but expertise and sincerity are nice qualities. Plus, she does have a record of success in children’s health care. Ted Kennedy – long before he endorsed Obama – credited her with the passage of children’s health care reform: “The children’s health program wouldn’t be in existence today if we didn’t have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.”
–
CedarFlute, it’s status and also the Secretary of HHS doesn’t have much influence over health insurance, Clinton’s big issue. That’s Congress and the President.

Worse yet, look at Texas’ map.
.
Yup. But the black district in Atlanta is a wonder to behold. I don’t think it’s even contiguous.
.
Something I’m finding funny about this, though, is gerrymandered districts aren’t stable. People move around. Republicans are deeply dependent on this. (See the national party vote totals. They have too many seats for their vote totals.) One of the reason the Hammer is in a KStreet office suite today is that his district changed character. Now, mind you, he arrogantly thought HE was enough to keep the seat safe, and made it less safe so that he could get a bigger delegation. But still, it changed.

Maybe it’s time to elevate its status.
.
That’s what i was sayin’ there, you betcha, with the girl job/boy job remark.
.
Dean might be good.

The first part of the link does work. I’m not sure what happened on the next 5 lines. I miss preview!

Oh,cedarflute, and what rose said.
.
The slot, like education, is largely ceremonial. And that’s why they are girls’ jobs.

I think Dean would be very good.

Sometimes the right person in a ceremonial slot can elevate it.

Sometimes the right person in a ceremonial slot can elevate it.
.
My point exactly.

Who are the people who will be supporting the thoroughly unqualified community organizer’s attempt to socialize medicine in America? “Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.” http://www.zogby.com Anyone have a guess on where the other 98% stand on Obama’s socialized medicine scheme?

Eric Holder selected as attorney general….first African American AG.

Hiya Textee, are you still palling around with the washed-up Wasilla whack-job? Or was that incoherent babbling all your own work?

Sometimes the right person in a ceremonial slot can elevate it.
.
Did mention Dean? DNC.
.
this is indeed true, and would be a great idea for Obama to start the campaign over the terrain. In fact, this might be the place for a socialist republican male nominee. Somebody like Ridge, except Ridge is an idiot. Is Warren Rudman still alive?

Rose said: “…the Secretary of HHS doesn’t have much influence over health insurance, Clinton’s big issue. That’s Congress and the President.”
.
Thanks. AND, I still wonder if HHS’s portfolio couldn’t be expanded when providers’ and payers’ issues are so interdependent.

Jay, Rose,
-
I completely agree with you about the need for killing the insurance companies and just implementing a single-payer system run by the government. I even wrote a blog post about it! (Warning: self promoting link follows.)
-
http://www.124monkeys.com/business/2008/11/of-banks-insurers-and-middlemen-pt-2/
-
But I just don’t get why being knowledgeable about something or sincere about it makes up for a record of competence. Hillary might be sincere about health care, but Rumsfeld and Cheney are pretty sincere about war. That didn’t make them not suck at it. I know a lot about woodland tracking and shooting. That doesn’t make me not suck at hunting.
-
If a CEO who failed at a reorganization attempt was hired by a new company to spearhead their reorganization effort the board of directors and shareholders would be up in arms. I guess I just don’t understand why government is different.
-
Thanks for the replies though. I appreciate seeing the different thought processes.

Who are the people who will be supporting the thoroughly unqualified community organizer’s attempt to socialize medicine in America? “Just 2% of voters who supported Barack Obama on Election Day obtained perfect or near-perfect scores on a post election test which gauged their knowledge of statements and scandals associated with the presidential tickets during the campaign, a new Zogby International telephone poll shows.” http://www.zogby.com Anyone have a guess on where the other 98% stand on Obama’s socialized medicine schem

hahahahahahahahah!!

[pointing]

jayackroyd-
.
I’m not sure that the seniority system fosters corruption. The government already has mechanisms to deal with corruption, i.e. the justice department, the two party system, and the voter. If corruption persists, it’s the fault of those three, not the Senatorial ranking system.
.
At some point you have to lay the blame on voter apathy. The fact that Ted Stevens was convicted of a felony and yet still managed to garner enough votes to get elected again (potentially) has nothing to do with the Senate ranking system.
.
The biggest problem with the current system of ascension is that rank can determine committee appointments irrespective of expertise. Someone can end up regulating an industry they know nothing about simply because they are the most senior member of the committee (series of tubes?). Senior members must have senior influence. That’s the rule.

Sean–
.
I gave you the argument. I don’t agree with it. I think she’s demonstrated that this is something she can’t do well. She might be a great person to staff such an assignement, or broker a deal between two parties who are talking past each other. But, IMO, she has shown she doesn’t have the right personal qualities to run such an operation. She reminds me of Carter in this regard. And the way she ran her campaign reinforces this impression. And, just by the way, Obama has, every day since the election, reinforced the impression of competence and diligence made by his campaign.
.
(Note to self: Something else modern conservatives seem to be unable to do–explicate an argument they don’t agree with.)
.
Did I close that tag properly? Did I remember to put in manual paragraph breaks? If my friend preview were still around, I wouldn’t have to wonder about this before launching this into the submission space. Nor about double checking whether I properly used the subjunctive just now.

Gotcha, I misinterpreted your post. Concur about the campaigns and Obama’s projected (and hoped for) skill set.

At some point you have to lay the blame on voter apathy. The fact that Ted Stevens was convicted of a felony and yet still managed to garner enough votes to get elected again (potentially) has nothing to do with the Senate ranking system.
.
Stevens getting so many votes is the point. Stevens’ legislative portfolio was graft, much of it for Alaskans. It turns out that this is fine with Alaskans. It’s fine with lots of other states too. It drives me nuts that it’s fine with my father, who judges his elected officials based on whether Bath Iron Works continues to make armaments we don’t need.
.
The seniority system enables and reinforces this tendency. Sitting senators actually say, out loud, they should be reelected because they have accumulated seniority and therefore can get more pork for the state’s citizenry.
.
AND it ticks me off that the six year terms doesn’t work to stop this. It was supposed to. Senators were supposed to represent the country,not their state, at least some of the time.

Sean-
.
There is a difference between failing at something because you weren’t capable of doing the job and failing at something because everyone else wasn’t ready for the job you were doing. I think Senator Clinton’s previous efforts to reform health care fall (mostly) into the latter category. Hence I don’t see a reason why she shouldn’t be given the opportunity this time around now that everyone else seems more amicable to the idea of health care reform.

jayackroyd said: And the way she ran her campaign reinforces this impression.
.
Can’t argue with that.

If a CEO who failed at a reorganization attempt was hired by a new company to spearhead their reorganization effort the board of directors and shareholders would be up in arms. I guess I just don’t understand why government is different.
–
Sean DeCoursey, I guess it’s more like if a CEO failed at a big reorganization attempt, then succeeded at a smaller reorganization attempt and said they understood what went wrong the first time around. Of course that applicant wouldn’t necessarily be hired. I understand looking at people’s records, and being skeptical that they’ve improved, but I worry that this kind of thinking leads to writing off people with long records. Anyone, absolutely anyone, who has been active in politics for decades has mistakes on their record.
–
About HHS… what about Mitt Romney? It’s essentially a powerless position, but it would be difficult to label plans for health care reform as socialist if Romney were pushing for them. He would probably turn it down, but he needs to do something. He’s not going to win the nomination in 2012 – Bobby Jindal has the “I want a smart President” part of the Republican vote locked up. And maybe this would help him win Kennedy’s Senate seat in 2012. It’s worth sounding him out.

Obviously the Senator from MA isn’t going to give up his role to anyone, so no matter if she could do a terrific job, Hillary isn’t going to get to play.

Sitting senators actually say, out loud, they should be reelected because they have accumulated seniority and therefore can get more pork for the state’s citizenry.
.
Ok. I’ll have to agree with you on that one. I guess that’s one area that a John McCain style fanatical crusade against pork would help. Although constituents tend to re-elect incumbents, period, and I’m not sure how to quantify how much that has to do with steering home federal funds.

I hope that italics tag worked.

I’ve been reading the interesting discussion about seniority and gerrymandering on this thread, and really they’re linked. Once you win your seat, chances are you’d have to, basically, have inappropriate relations with underage pages of the same gender to get voted out. So once you’re in, you can just wait and eventually you’ll get real power. Even if you’re a lazy idiot. Oddly, it’s like a caricature of a Socialist system. In fact the reasons I don’t like seniority are pretty much the same reasons why I’m often infuriated by unions. Meritocracies are good…

rose83,
.
Thanks for the answer to the “inside baseball” question. (I’m still trying to figure out the jurisdiction issue between the HELP and Finance committees. Ezra Klein has his take here and here.)

nathan–
.
this is why defense cuts require the appointment of commissions and vows to vote on the whole package up or down without amendment. This shows they know that what they are doing is wrong, but can’t help themselves.
.
Rose–
.
I’ve been careful to refer only to the senate when writing about seniority, because I don’t want to intertwine these issues. And because the seniority system is less strongly in place in the House.
.
And you don’t mean “socialist.” You mean “Soviet.”

In fact the reasons I don’t like seniority are pretty much the same reasons why I’m often infuriated by unions.
.
But you don’t want to abolish seniority for the same reason you don’t want abolish unions. Unions give collective voice to the voiceless. If you abolish unions, you abolish the ability for workers to organize. For the same reason, if you abolish seniority, you abolish the system that has bestowed order upon the Senate since inception. You don’t want the Senate to act like the House.
.
If you want to abolish a system, first you need reason to do so. Second, you need another method that can provide the same benefits as the system you just abolished. If you don’t have one, then you need to give a reason for why you don’t need those benefits.
.
Once you win your seat, chances are you’d have to, basically, have inappropriate relations with underage pages of the same gender to get voted out.
.
How many seats did the incumbents lose this election? Surely not all of them had innapropriate relations with underage pages of the same gender

They have emotes on this platform? Hah! Look at that.

On pork: the real culprits are the interest groups who press members and senators for same. We can’t sit back and criticise senators like Stevens until we have some group in Alaska say to him: Hey we don’t want the Bridge to Nowhere. The voters and non-voters are the real enablers of the junk that passes for govt spending.
On HRC: Jay, I tend to disagree with your line on HRC. She marshalled a formidable voting bloc. She lost – but not so badly that Obama can ignore her. It may work for a while. Dumping on HRC is a short term gain for long term pain. If Lieberman can be accommmodated????

If you want to abolish a system, first you need reason to do so. Second, you need another method that can provide the same benefits as the system you just abolished. If you don’t have one, then you need to give a reason for why you don’t need those benefits.
.
Once you win your seat, chances are you’d have to, basically, have inappropriate relations with underage pages of the same gender to get voted out.
.
How many seats did the incumbents lose this election? Surely not all of them had innapropriate relations with underage pages of the same gender
.
Ah, nathan, you are making my argument for the electoral college here.
.
And please note–the proportion of people losing seats was much, much higher in the senate. You can’t gerrymander states.

On pork: the real culprits are the interest groups who press members and senators for same. We can’t sit back and criticise senators like Stevens until we have some group in Alaska say to him: Hey we don’t want the Bridge to Nowhere. The voters and non-voters are the real enablers of the junk that passes for govt spending.

The real problem is systemic and hard to overcome. Stuff that affects a few people dramatically tends to get done at the expense of everyone suffering a little. Hence you get mohair trade subsidies that were put into place for national security reasons during WWI.
.
On HRC: Jay, I tend to disagree with your line on HRC. She marshalled a formidable voting bloc. She lost – but not so badly that Obama can ignore her. It may work for a while. Dumping on HRC is a short term gain for long term pain. If Lieberman can be accommmodated????
.
She certainly has earned whatever she wants. However, as I said about her as a VP, Obama also has to govern. Bill is a problem in that regard. He’s got clearances. He can get briefed on anything, at anytime, and anyone will take his calls. I don’t think SoS is a good idea, for that reason.
.
I think the health care business is fine, because I think it’s ceremonial, or, perhaps better, thinktanky. If they come up with something smart or effective, that element will be used. But the White House is going to be making the executive decisions. Not any commission.
.
As for the campaign, that was a train wreck. It was hers to lose. And the way she lost does not indicate great executive skills. Quite the opposite.

You won’t hear me advocating for abolition of the electoral college for the same reason you won’t hear me advocating for the abolition of the seniority system: I can’t think of an adequate replacement.
.
Gerrymandering, however, seems to have no benefit. It is an insidious, underhanded, and corrupt method of maintaining power in the face of changing demographics that would otherwise strip you of that power. Heaven forbid political offices actually respond to shifts within their constituency. The current approach in the House is just to get a new constituency instead.

jayackroyd, seniority is less of an issue in the house, but it’s still there. And there’s an informal seniority that’s difficult to regulate: the more chances a politician has had to collect favors, the more power they have. We’ve all seen Charlie’s Wilson’s War. Safe seats and seniority are a bad combination, regardless of why a seat is safe.
–
She certainly has earned whatever she wants. However, as I said about her as a VP, Obama also has to govern. Bill is a problem in that regard. He’s got clearances. He can get briefed on anything, at anytime, and anyone will take his calls. I don’t think SoS is a good idea, for that reason.
–
All true. The other side to that though is he can delegate to her. Anyone will taker her calls, too. Given the demands on Obama’s time and attention with the economic collapse, having a powerful Secretary of State makes sense. If he can’t attend some meeting in a foreign country, they will feel less insulted if someone as prominent as HRC comes in his place.
–
nathan7777, I wouldn’t advocate eliminating seniority, just reducing it. Maybe after 2 terms, seniority should no longer count, so someone who has served 3 terms would have the same opportunities as someone who has served 4 terms. The current system rewards people who became full-time politicians in their 30s, largely regardless of the quality of their later work. It’s a crazy system. All it’s evaluating is how smart and well-connected someone was 25 years ago.

HRC aside, I’m thinking about the prestige (described above) we assign to Defense and State vs HHS, HEW, etc. Why aren’t internal priorities as important? Isn’t it time? It seems to me our fixation on external threats is largely a product of fear, and we know to whom to look for that obsession.
.
I don’t for a minute discount the importance of paying attention to external threats. But could we possibly consider an elevation of emphasis on internal human priorities and the status of those cabinet positions? I won’t bother with a list of what needs attention…..we all know too well.
.
If not this president, who?

Why aren’t internal priorities as important?

Hear hear! I agree. With our eyes focused outward we will slowly bleed to death from within.

HRC aside, I’m thinking about the prestige (described above) we assign to Defense and State vs HHS, HEW, etc. Why aren’t internal priorities as important?
–
I think they are. The GE was focused on the economy. The issue is that according to the dominant interpretations of the constitution, the executive branch has more influence over foreign policy than domestic policy, and vice versa for the legislative branch. So the Secretary of HHS will always be less powerful than the Secretary of State. OTOH, the chairs of domestic committees in the Senate probably have more power than their colleagues who chair more foreign policy oriented committees.

Anyone will taker her calls, too.
.
Yes, this is the best argument for her at State. She is already in these circles. As I say, if Bill weren’t in the room, I wouldn’t have so many doubts about her at State.
.
But I still say she is a really good legislator, and might be better off in the Senate. This is not a common talent.

Interior, Energy, Labor, and HHS should be very important this go round.

You won’t hear me advocating for abolition of the electoral college for the same reason you won’t hear me advocating for the abolition of the seniority system: I can’t think of an adequate replacement.
.
Yes, that was my point.
.
gerrymandering doesn’t exist everywhere. Not in Maine. Not in Nebraska. In some ways, it is a reflection of the residual effect of segregation.
.
A commission could settle this. Or a determined president. But it won’t happen. Anymore than effective campaign finance reform will happen.

I’m thinking about the prestige (described above) we assign to Defense and State vs HHS, HEW, etc. Why aren’t internal priorities as important?
.
They are in the constitution, you know. This is not a recent development.

Sorry got that wrong. Act of Congress:

According to the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, the Senate president pro tempore1 was next in line after the vice president to succeed to the presidency, followed by the Speaker of the House.

The Vice President Dick Cheney
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Robert Byrd
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
Attorney General Michael Mukasey
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of Agriculture Edward T. Schafer
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steven C. Preston
Secretary of Transportation Mary E. Peters
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake
Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff

THAT’s weird.
.
The html interpreter apparently recognizes paragraph breaks and terminates a tag.
.
So why do I have to put in these stupid paragraph breaks by hand?

l it’s evaluating is how smart and well-connected someone was 25 years ago.
.
Or lucky.
.
But I guess I shouldn’t make fun of luck. There’s been nobody luckier than Obama.

Well part of luck is timing. Obama had the determination to take his shot when it was there. If Edwards or Hillary won Iowa though, Obama was done. But, he didn’t. But, he out hustled them. So how much of it was luck?

Rose, I appreciate the background you provided, and I certainly understand the economy was the major, if not determining factor in the GE. I think BO knows he has a unique opportunity to shift focus to other internal problems–unique because of who BO is and the mandate he represents. Why not signal his seriousness with some serious domestic cabinet appointments?

I didn’t mean the presidential, trifecta. I meant the senate. He had no real opposition.

Jayack: I want to come back to your issue with HRC and Bill. My wife works in the African circuit for the WHO and she completed an inspection tour. Bill’s reputation is really high. In his most recent efforts he has organised for medications (HIV , malaria and anti-tb drugs) to be delivered by a cadre of nurse aids who go from village to village to treat locals who can’t get to a hospital. It is a really innovative program and costs tons of money which Bill has raised. When I hear that he collects millions from rich Arabs I ask myself: does that go to the sick. The WHO says it does.

I think there is too much of this knee jerk rubbish that Chris Matthews/ David Gregoryy/Andrea Mitchell/Chris Hitchens spout from their comfortable and well paid chairs in Washington. Is Bill collecting fees from rich Arabs? Yes. What’s new. A ton of Washington types including Ann Coulter collect that stuff from our own circuit where they spout awful rubbish.

My wife told me that if Bill gave her a 100,000 anti-malaria pills and anti-smallpox tablets or whatever she can live with Hillary as SOS.

Jayackroyd — I respectfully disagree with you about gerrymandering in Maine. Because of population shifts in the southern part of the state, the 2nd congression district was redrawn to include Lewiston-Auburn, a largely democratic population. LA as it is known to the locals was once part of the first congression district. I believe this was done within the last census.

sevenoaks:

My father is in South Africa working out of the British Embassy and he focuses on health care issues (aids) in the region: really tough stuff in SA, Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana. The Clinton Global Initiative with the help of Pres Mandela is very active on the aids issue which has been downgraded by the SA ggovernment under Pres Mbeki – now gone. Perhaps this is why Bill Clinton is appreciated in Africa, where they are desperate for help than in America where we have to bring down anyone with whom we disagree politically.

[...] | Tags: government, lieberman, senate Karen Tumulty, in the comment thread of her Swampland post “A Health Care Role for Hillary”: Also, on the Lieberman thing, it seems to me that losing a chairmanship is a rare thing in [...]

The state legislation races are quite critical in 2010. Census is going to be interesting. I do like Jay’s idea of throwing this to computers. Trying to get people to agree is the problem. If you slice up a contiguous urban area, you have issues. But if you keep it intact, you benefit Republicans more than their percent of the population merits. If a state had 10 districts, and the state was 50/50 as a rule on voting patterns, I would be tempted to try to create 10 50/50 districts. But, there are problems. Would you carve up an urban area, and attach farm country to it, to achieve this goal?
.
I would love for their to be some mechanism for creating 50/50 districts first. Then doing whatever with the rest as the population falls.

[...] me to now hope that Hillary Clinton is offered and accepts the position of Secretary of State. Karen Tumulty posts an announcement that Ted Kennedy has asked Clinton to head one of three task forces on health [...]

Andy-

thanks for that link. I didn’t know that had happened. All my gods have feet of clay….

I agree on the value of Bill’s work, and his value as American ambassador without portfolio. I even like that he has his office on 125 rather than midtown or the financial district.
.
The developed world has been shameful wrt to water, sanitation and malaria prevention in poor countries, and it’s great to see both of the Bills (Gates) working on it.
.
I just don’t think it will easy to govern with an expresident’s spouse as a SecState.

Trying to get people to agree is the problem.
.
Right. First, you have to stop talking about party affiliation, entirely. Put together a presidential commission, with academics and software designers on it. Look at Canada and Mexico. Figure out a way that divides them up into pretend districts that everyone agrees is a fair method. Then give it to state governments. You can’t make them use it, but they will look bad if the don’t. And the minority part would make a ruckus.
.
If David Broder were really worried about excess partisanship, he’d fund it himself out of his own pocket. Or one of the GIS companies might do it for free, for the publicity. It’s not a difficult software problem. It’s just a matter of polygons on a map based on population centroids, which is a solved problem.
.
But you have to develop it with Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance over the results.

apparently my y key isn’t working so well. Please mentally insert them where appropriate.
.
Did I mention that preview guy? It was great when he was around.