Why Obama Wants Hillary at State

“The job Obama dangled in front of Clinton has excited a frenzy of speculation and leaking — exactly the kind of thing the no-drama Obama operation did not tolerate during the presidential campaign”
.
I find this part interesting. That theme has been prevalent over the last week. The media goes on a feeding frenzy and then lays the responsibility on the subject they are eating.
.
Also the extended focus on President Clinton seems predicated on the Clintons being naive about what is expected during the vetting, something I think is pretty unlikely.

On the story, pretty much all bases covered. No matter what ends up happening, the reasons for its happening appear here.
.
If they can rein in Bill, this is a great choice.

Positive externality: Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews simultaneously explode upon announcement.

I’d love to know who the high ranking Republican is who said his hat is totally off to Obama.

KT
.
I always try to look for hidden upsides to different situations. There is one that I see if HRC actually becomes SOS that I don’t know that anyone else has discussed. Because Barack Obama has committed to direct diplomacy with our enemies in the Middle East I think the fact that a woman might be leading that effort might be a big PR move for the US and it might hurt the leaders of places like Iran and Syria, where women are totally subjugated, when they have to meet with her and indeed negotiate with her. I think that will be a blow not only to their bloated egos but also to the people in their countries who have been taught that women are second class citizens not to be seen nor heard. It may even have the effect of pushing women in those countries to start questioning the wisdom of those religious teachings that tell them that men are the only ones who should have any power or be able to make any important decisions. Of course if Bush had allowed Condi Rice to do negotiations with Ahmadenijad and his ilk we might have already been seeing some of these secondary accomplishments in the Middle East. Now having said that I am not saying thats an over riding reason to name her SOS and for some reason I need to say that lest I be labeled sexist. I happen to believe she is emminently qualified to do the job. But if she can also start an uprising within the Islamic fundis in the middle east I would be all for that as well!

Your piece is just unbelievably odious, Karen. It is full of blatant and unrestrained anti-Clinton bias, unsubstantiated innuendo and rumor-mongering. Shame on you and your colleagues. I hope that you will come to be ashamed of this unworthy piece. My esteem for your journalism is greatly diminished by this piece of sh!t.
.
To wit:
“Viewed more cynically, bringing Clinton into the tent could co-opt a potential adversary in 2012 and put a leash on her globetrotting husband, who has a propensity for foreign policy freelancing.”
.
Let’s see. Did you write such snide public comments about George H W Bush and his son’s “globetrotting father” or not? Is there something wrong with a former president traveling to Africa and southeast Asia, where President Clinton is immensely popular, or is Clinton the only former President who has a “propensity” for overseas travel? You know, he traveled extensively with George HW Bush to raise funds for tsunami victims, among other joint endeavors. You have a problem with Clinton doing that, but now HW? Have you also made such snide gossipy comments about President Carter and his “foreign policy freelancing” or not?
.
“However smart it might ultimately prove to be, the Clinton offer is likely to induce grumbling among some Obama loyalists. The job Obama dangled in front of Clinton has excited a frenzy of speculation and leaking — exactly the kind of thing the no-drama Obama operation did not tolerate during the presidential campaign.”
.
I’ll echo PNNTO’s criticism of that disingenuous nugget. It is you and your cable TV brethren who are sniping in a “frenzy of speculation and leaking” here.
.
“He made that comment while giving a paid speech for the National Bank of Kuwait, which is the kind of thing for which he earned more than $10 million last year alone. Beyond his six-figure speaking fees, there are also a myriad of undisclosed contributions to the former President’s far-flung charitable endeavors and to his presidential library, many of which have come from foreign interests that his wife would be dealing with as Secretary of State.”
.
Again, I haven’t seen you do any sniping about former President George HW Bush and his Carlyle Group financial dealing. Or, how about President Carter’s “far-flung charitable endeavors? Ever write such tripe about that, Karen?
.
Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that Clinton’s “far-flung charitable endeavors” are in any way unethical or illegal, or are you just rumor-mongering in an unseemly way. Because if you DO have some evidence, why not write a FACTUAL piece on that? And let’s see hard evidence, not speculation.
.
Karen, shame on you. I thought better of your journalism and your ethics. This piece is awful.
.

All the analysis I see about this is about turf, personality clashes, and the mean stuff that was said during the campaign. What about on policy, where Clinton worked to be seen as to the right of Obama on, ie, bombing Iran and meeting with bad people? My view is that she’s campaigned hard for Obama without reservations, and would be willing to implement the president’s policies, but I haven’t really seen this discussed much.
-
I wonder if it’s fair to say that Clinton working under Obama would help move the Democrats away from the defensive crouch/hawkier-than-thou approach on int’l relations that we’ve seen for such a long time.
-
Much as I hate to say it, Tom Friedman had a point yesterday when he said that it was a huge advantage for James Baker to be known to be speaking for the president. It’s not obvious that would be the case for Clinton.

As an ancedote to James’ post I would also like to point out that Bill Clinton has to list all speaking fees above $200 on HRC’s financial disclosure form for the Senate every year. So the speaking fees aren’t some “mystery” or potential “minefield”. As a matter of fact some enterprising journalist need only look at her financial disclosure form and they would have all the info they need to write an article about the people who pay Bill Clinton’s speaking fees. Unfortunately there has been a huge amount of real anti Clinton rhetoric being thrown around instead of actual reporting. Sad really

I think it is time to totally dispense with the silliness about Obama hiring Clintonites. Ezra Klein has perhaps done it bes. THE AUDACITY OF…COMPETENCE? And one of his commenters put the final nail in this silliness:
.
“Comment Posted by: CK Dexter Haven Thing is, Obama has never done what I would have done. Personally, I would have been all up in McCain’s face, I would have reacted angrily to a number of things and he never did. He just kept on winning. So when I am thinking he is making a mistake with Lieberman (and I really wanted his gavel shoved…) I just try to remember that when Obama is wrong and I am right about a strategic matter I can second guess him. I haven’t had that opportunity yet.”

“Much as I hate to say it, Tom Friedman had a point yesterday when he said that it was a huge advantage for James Baker to be known to be speaking for the president. It’s not obvious that would be the case for Clinton.” Yes, it would be a tragedy to have a man who is immensely popular around the world, a man seen as truly caring and working to solve intractable global problems to be seen as speaking for the President.
.
As opposed to James Baker, whose machinations put Bush into the White House in 2000. The same Bush who is so revered around the world: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6Y_ncOVlDw

Fun to see that Tweety and Dowdie with their knickers in a twist. Clinton seems to give these two noodleheads a good jolt. Fascinating that the people named in today’s NYT article as the vetters and the vetted are all former Clintonites. What does change mean? The idea that they are angry, (a figment of Peter Baker’s imagination???)shows how much pot stirring is taking place. This is what happens when reality of cabinet making meets campaign rhetoric.

Elvis
.
Re Friedman. Here is why his article was bullsh!t in my personal opinion. He gives only Colin Powell as an example of when a Secretary of State doesn’t have the backing of his president. But if he is believed to go by his line of thinking that should have made foreign leaders dismiss Colin Powell out of hand. Now I have heard a lot of criticism about Colin Powell in regards to his UN presentation about Saddam Hussein, but I have NEVER heard a criticism of him that the heads of other countries didn’t take him seriously. So Friedman basically refutes himself in his own column. He also never gives any historical example (probably because there are none) where a President and their Secretary of State were at odds and calamity ensued. The reason he didn’t probably is because Secretaries of State serve at the pleasure of he President and in the event that happened 100% of the time they would be fired and this situation is no different. Thomas Friedman is the biggest concern troll who isnt running a blog that I have seen in the last 6 months. To hear him tell it anything Obama does is going to blow up in his face. He is really writing himself into irrelevance

Overall, a pretty fair job, KT. Paul is absolutely right that the feeding frenzy is being self-sustained by the media. The MSM could make a feeding frenzy out of Hillary’s going across the street and buying a cupcake.

I think Hillary would be a fabulous choice. She has the right personality combination of being very tough but also warm and charming face-to-face.

Southernbelle: “The MSM could make a feeding frenzy out of Hillary’s going across the street and buying a cupcake.”
.
Sounds like a contest to me. “The MSM could make a feeding frenzy out of Hillary’s . . . .”

sgwhiteinfla: I agree that Tom Friedman has given us a load of bs on all sorts of topics. He is a professional bloviator and his friends in the MSM provide and ever ready platform. Given is horrible record on Iraq any self-respecting outlet would have pased on him.

That’s a good point, sgwhiteinfla– especially noting the lack of counterexamples. I guess Kissinger undermined whoever preceded him as Nixon’s SOS, but that’s not particularly common.
-
wvng– I didn’t mean to suggest that James Baker is the most awesomest dude ever, just that he was an effective Secretary of State for Bush Sr.

.
We had Condo leezza effin’ Rice, the worst, most incompetent national security adviser in the history of the United States of America, the biggest bald-faced liar on the Sunday talk shows between 2002 and 2004, appointed as Secretary of State, you know, the “birthpangs of democracy” lady who was caught buying shoes one day in New York City? Who has accomplished exactly NOTHING during her term. And you are worried about Hillary Clinton?

.
And, by the way, who is contributing to George W Bush’s library, Karen? Ever looked into that? I thought not. How about the papers related to Governor George W. Bush? Ever done a piece about that? I thought not. Who contributed to George HW Bush’s library, Karen? Ever looked into that? How about Reagan’s? How about Nixon’s? Anything nefarious about who contributed to those presidential libraries? Or don’t you know? What? You mean no one on Time Mag ever looked into that? Who contributed to Carter’s library and museum? It’s only the Clintonx who gets the snide, gossipy, innuendo-laden treatment and concern-trollism? Why is that, Karen?

sevenoaks
.
I disagree with your definition of change. If people think Obama’s change meant not using people who have already been involved with running the WhiteHouse then do they also think his change meant they should have voted out every Democrat who has been serving in Congress since 2000? Because surely they must be a part of the problem too no? Its just crazy to me to see people throwing fits about Obama hiring people who worked with the most recent Democratic presidential administration. An administration that was highly successful at that. I would understand if the Obama team was vetting Monica Lewinsky or Jennifer Flowers but they aren’t. They are interviewing and naming former people in the Clinton administration who actually did a pretty damm good job. So is the meme that he should just go to a temp agency and hire a bunch of mofos who have never worked in government a day in their lives? Yeah ask Bill Clinton how THAT story ends. I can tell you now, it aint pretty. To use a sports analogy, Bill Parcells wins wherever he goes. He is a proven commodity but a lot of people like to hate on him. One of the biggest criticisms is that he is always partial to bringing in veterans from other teams especially veterans who have played for him before to lead his team rather than relying heavily on the draft. But the reason he does this is because just about every job he has gotten as a head coach since winning a superbowl with the Giants have been jobs where the teams SUCKED and needed to be turned around quickly. And by bringing in veterans he is familiar with and who are familiar with the way he does things and wants things done he is able to put his imprint on the team much quicker and in turn get the team winning much faster. And again he does this every where he goes and it works every single time. Barack Obama is bringing in veterans because our country is in a ditch right now and we don’t have time for rookies to get on the job training. He needs veterans who know how to get sh!t done and have already gone through trial and error to know what the most effective ways are to push Obama’s agenda forward.
.
It comes down to this, you can have a whole new cast of characters who have no link to the Clintons or Bush which would mean they probably have NO experience in federal government and be sitting here two years from now waiting to see any of Obama’s campaign promises come to fruition, or we can have a cast of retreads who know how things go and two years from now have the potential of marveling at how quickly Obama got our economy back on track, started weaning us off of foreign oil and onto alternative energy, and how great it is to have universal health care.
.
Personally I am going to root for the retreads!

The trouble with Friedman’s point is the Condi fits it just as well, and has been a disaster. But that is because Bush is incoherent.
.
It’s just a stupid thing to say. Yes, Obama needs a trusted emissary who can speak with is voice. Does that person have to be the Secretary of State? No. Cabinet roles are different in each administration, and the official roles are not always in live with the actual roles. William P Rogers had no idea what Nixon and Kissinger were doing. Paul O’Neill and John Snow were cheerleaders. Powell was windowdressing.

Clinton may serve in many different ways, that may or may included being the voice of the president. That could turn out to Biden. Or the head of the NSC, as under Nivon. Rubin played that role under Clinton as much as anybody.

sgwhiteinfla: very sorry; it was meant tongue in cheek. Really, I agree with you. Sorry to have been so misleading.

The second sentence in the first paragraph was Friedman speaking, as to why close friend and trusted advisor Condi has been so bad. (Note that this also takes out he Powell example. He was incoherent then, too. So if Powell was completely, accurately and trustedly delivered an incoherent message, then he was just like Condi.)

sevenoaks, now that’s a sporting event I’d pay to see!

And I do agree that Condi Rice is the prime modern example of a terrible SoS. She’s very intellegent and knows her subject inside and out but she doesn’t have the necessary toughness and her close personal relationship with Bush did undercut her usefullness.

sevenoaks
.
Then I apologize to you as well. But I did want to post it because there are some who really DO believe that Obama is doing something wrong by hiring people who are sometimes only tangentially connected to the Clintons. I just think its crazy talk, but nobody has to get a psych eval to post on the internet. Thats probably lucky for me too lol

southernbell
.
In my opinion we have to judge Condi the same way we would judge Dana Perino. Its pretty frikking hard to look like you are doing a goob job when your job is to support the agenda of a phucking idiot. Nobody remembers that Condi told Sashaksvilli not to mess with South Ossetia because it would lead to Russia kicking Georgia’s azz. Nobody remembers that after it happened she went ballistic on his azz for inciting the incident. All we remember is her going out and brow beating Russia at Bush’s behest when she knew it was all bullsh!t. Thats not to say that its all Bush’s fault but I could definitely make the case that no one could have done any better and kept their job in his administration

What about on policy, where Clinton worked to be seen as to the right of Obama on, ie, bombing Iran and meeting with bad people?
–
Elvis, Actually they never had substantive disagreements on those issues. They were both exaggerating their differences for political gain. In the GE, Obama quickly moved away from his comments in the YouTube debate on meeting leaders of states like Cuba and Iran without conditions. And Clinton never opposed Presidential meetings with leaders of those states; she just wanted conditions, which was Obama’s policy in the GE. On Iran, she talked about massive retaliation and a deterrence shield in a hypothetical. Again, in a hypothetical. So the disagreement was on style – it’s not like Obama disagreed with her proposed policy in the event of the hypothetical.
–
That said, his whole primary campaign was based on offering a new kind of foreign policy. I never believed it, but I can see if you did believe it this may be disillusioning. I’m a big supporter of HRC, but even I can see there is no way there will be a fundamental change in foreign policy from the Clinton and Bush I years with her as SOS. Not going to happen.
–
A question for Obama supporters: No 8-year Senator would be offered the position of Secretary of State, so she is being offered this on the basis of her foreign policy experience as First Lady. Considering that Obama’s campaign was based on the idea that her experience in the WH meant little, especially on foreign policy, what do you think of this? I have to admit that as a Clinton supporter, this is very cool. Even though I don’t think she’s the best choice.

I find myself hoping more and more that Senator Clinton accepts the Secretary of State position. I hope that she becomes the best SoS ever. I’m an Obama supporter, because I’m a fellow hope-monger, and I think it would be so cool to see this work out.

Hillary isn’t great with money, she’s not great with political hacks, but she could be great with real people dealing with policy issues that invokes intelligence, empathy and determination. I think Obama’s instincts on strategy coupled with her personal charm and warmth (and ability to get work done amidst crazy political pressures), could be a great partnership.

I also hope for this because it would be great to fundamentally change the Clinton story, as I think this would.

Because if you DO have some evidence, why not write a FACTUAL piece on that? And let’s see hard evidence, not speculation.

I can’t help but note that Massimo Calabresi shares the byline. This might be relevant.

Which raises a question: Would this move, if it happens, be just the first manifestation of that new kind of politics that Obama was promising in his presidential campaign?

Again, we have to note that everything that’s currently being written is based on speculation. It’s part of the disease and one of the reasons why the motivations and track records of the authors are an important consideration whn evaluating ANY news story.

KT here–

PD et al: She is under serious consideration for the job. To say that this is just speculation is not true. Also, I did a lot of reporting for that story, talking to people who are involved in the negotiations for both sides. And that’s what they are–ongoing negotiations. Which is a big and valid story.

“It’s part of the disease…..based on speculation”. So true. Andrea Mitchell started the ball rolling, Brian Williams pushed it, Matthews brought in hatchet man Chris Hitchens… and it took off. Another totally anti-Clinton story which simply gets moved by every journalists adding a sentence here, an innuendo there..a Mike Barnicle type “innocent” question elsewhere. Chucky Tee, thus far a poll analyst now says Bill Clinton must reveal all before he can give his stamp of approval. “Clintonitis” seems be have a delusional effect on our talking heads/knee jerks and assorted scribblers.Pity.

A question for Obama supporters: No 8-year Senator would be offered the position of Secretary of State,
-
Disagree.
-
so she is being offered this on the basis of her foreign policy experience as First Lady.
-
Disagree. There isn’t a whole whole lot of experience in that role. She’s being nominated because she’s a political leader, in part due to the prominence that came from the First Lady role, more due to her talent.
-
Considering that Obama’s campaign was based on the idea that her experience in the WH meant little, especially on foreign policy, what do you think of this?
-
Seems to make sense. He ran a better, more disciplined, more honorable campaign. He was less knee-jerk bellicose on foreign policy– certainly never used the word “obliterate” regarding Iran, and didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. She did have a better health care plan than he did, though.
-
I have to admit that as a Clinton supporter, this is very cool. Even though I don’t think she’s the best choice.
-
Enjoy it!

KT: just saw your post. The point is that there IS speculation. The reporting is not as clear cut as you suggest.

She’s very intellegent and knows her subject inside and out
.
Except the Soviet Union fell some time ago.

It’s such a delight to disagree with Dirks. It never happens.
.
This is a big story. And there’s no way it can happen other than this way. Trial balloons must be launched. People who might have a useful opinion or information need to find out about it. Political reaction must be gauged.
.
She’s clearly on a short list. And that’s very newsworthy. You didn’t see Bush considering McCain for a cabinet position, never mind the most prestigious. This is much less likely than handing your nearest rival the Veep slot, and then telling him to go away once in office.

.
It isn’t that the *story* is just speculation, it is that way you, Karen, and your gang of 500 pile on the Democrats with innuendo, false rumormongering and substanceless speculation that has no equivalence for Republicans. Your evidence-free gossip, published in a national magazine, about Bill Clinton’s “foreign policy freelancing” and speaking engagements are just an example.
.
I see a destructive narrative forming here that needs to be quashed ASAP. This is how it happened in 1992 against the Clintons and I see it forming now against the Obama administration. You and your colleagues don’t have enough to report without resorting to rank gossip and innuendo? How about bringing some actual FACTS to the table.
.
Here’s an idea: Go watch this <a href=”http://torturingdemocracy.org/”< Torturing Democracy and do some *real* reporting instead of gossip-mongering. The real journalism in this piece presents eyewitnesses and document evidence to bear on an actual newsworthy story, something that you and your collegues have obviously forgotten, opting instead to pile on the Democrats again with trivial innuendo that is without substance or importance.
.

forgot to close my tag. sorry.

KT here–

James: I’d think the Dubai example, which is cited in my story, counts as foreign policy “freelancing.” As did the whole Kazakhstan deal:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

The Clinton Global Initiative works directly with foreign governments on a number of projects.

Do you need more examples? I really have other work to do.

And it rare to disagree with you JayAck. The issue is not that any nomination needs to be reported on and due diligence undetaken. It is the fluff, the indignation, the “What, not the Clintons again!”, the contempt ironically from some of the most contemptible people in journalism that rankles. I have no wish to diminish KT’s serious efforts, Joe Klein’s change of heart or the work of a serious journalist. I just find the double standards when applied to Democrats in office somewhat disconcerting.

KT: what is wrong with making a speech on fp in Dubai? have you seen the text? can we be directed to it? As for Kazakhstan: how do we deal with the Saudis given their awful human rights record. TheCcarlyle Group (Bush the Elder) has access to lots of Saudi cash. Citigroup, too. That is all business. Why is Clinton the only one called to account? Last I looked making money, lots of it (and using corporate jets) seems to be SOP in the States.

I guess what I’m having the most trouble understanding is why all these issues over Bill’s business dealings are suddenly a problem if Hillary is in the Cabinet but were a absent from consideration when she was running for President. And the point I was trying to make about journalists is the fact that they are active participants in the political discussion so that we should certainly be aware of their leanings.

Does Obama do what the media wants, or what is best for the country? The media should just LEAVE IT ALONE. But since one of its main features is vulture-like behavior, I suppose it can’t and it will go after this relentlessly.

Hillary should take the job,if it indeed was offered, wow the world and have all those questioning the judgment *”swallow their long, poisoned tongues or pens”.

*I wanted to be a bit more crude…but I abstained myself so that I would not be censured. But read between intentions regarding their long poisoned tongues or pens. It has to do with introducing them “where the sun don’t shine”.

KT–
And yet, I’ve never seen you wax snide and gossipy over the father of our present prez:
.
To wit:
.

Connections between the Carlyle [Group] and the Bush family have created controversy, particularly in relation to the War on Terror and the Iraq War. George H. W. Bush and his Secretary of State James A. Baker III have at times been advisors to the group. One writer claimed that Saudi Arabian interests have given $1.4 billion to firms connected to the Bush family.[citation needed] Of this figure, $1.18 billion comes from contracts awarded to defense contractor Braddock, Dunn & McDonald, which Carlyle sold before George H. W. Bush became an advisor.[22] A Carlyle spokesman noted in 2003 that its 7% interest in defense industries was far less than several other Private equity firms.[23] The group has in the past had links with the Bin Laden family, although the group argues investment was relatively minor and made by relatives including a half brother to Osama Bin Laden who had “disowned” him.[24]
.
In February 2008, a U.S. Senate bill was introduced that would increase the regulation of nursing homes such as those run by HCR Manor Care which Carlyle purchased in December 2007.[25] Furthermore in February 2008, a bill was introduced in California that would have barred CalPERS from investing money “with private-equity firms that are partly owned by countries with poor records on human rights,” which would include Carlyle because Mubadala Development is owned by part of the United Arab Emirates. The California bill was later withdrawn.[26]
.
George H. W. Bush, former U.S. President, Senior Advisor to the Carlyle Asia Advisory Board from April 1998 to October 2003.
George W. Bush, current U.S. President. Was appointed in 1990 to the Board of Directors of one of Carlyle’s first acquisitions, an airline food business called Caterair, which Carlyle eventually sold at a loss. Bush left the board in 1992 to run for Governor of Texas.
James Baker III, former United States Secretary of State under George H. W. Bush, Staff member under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Carlyle Senior Counselor, served in this capacity from 1993 to 2005.
Frank C. Carlucci, former United States Secretary of Defense from 1987 to 1989; Also, former Princeton wrestling partner of former US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Carlyle Chairman and Chairman Emeritus from 1989 to 2005.
Richard Darman, former Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget under George H. W. Bush, Senior Advisor and Managing Director of The Carlyle Group from 1993 to the present
Randal K. Quarles, former Under Secretary of the U.S. Treasury under President George W. Bush, now a Carlyle managing director
Allan Gotlieb, Canadian ambassador to the United States (1981-89) and member of Carlyle’s Canadian advisory board.
Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2001 to the present
Dan Senor – political consultant
Norman Pearlstine – editor-in-chief of Time magazine from (1995-2005)

(Source: Wikipedia, Carlyle Group)
.
Why is that, Karen? Why all the baseless gossip and innuendo about the Clintons, and yet you never write about Republicans in the same way? You, nor anyone at Time.

Reasons why this pick doesn’t make sense:

1. Even though John Mccain was demonized for the campaign he run, the whole script for the Mccain campaign was written by Hillary during the primaries.

2. Hillary doesn’t agree with Obama’s foregin policy stance on diplomacy with rogue nations.

3. Hill and Bill come with a lot baggage that will bring the Obama administration into negative light and continue to overshaddow the President himself.

4. The Obama-Clinton relationship will be under the microscope and heavy scutiny. Every disagreement will leak to the press who will then blow it out of proportion and stoke the fire of animosity/suspiciousness that already exists.

5. Does anyone remember “shame on you Barack Obama!” and sniper fire?

6. world leaders (especially russia and the middle east) will not be receptive to clinton due to her hawkish nature. Most people don’t believe she has an open mind on most world issues.

7. Why in the world is Obama insisting on bombarding us with the obama-clinton drama? After two years of hearing Obama and clinton in the same breath, Obama should break free and be his own man.

8. Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Jack reed, Chuck hagel, Richard Holbrooke…………These are all qualified people that come with no strings/drama attached.

…………… The elections are over and one has to wonder why Obama is still trying to court the clinton supporters. If anything, she should have been picked as secretary of HHS since she has more experience in the area.

Reasons why this pick doesn’t make sense:

1. Even though John Mccain was demonized for the campaign he run, the whole script for the Mccain campaign was written by Hillary during the primaries.

2. Hillary doesn’t agree with Obama’s foregin policy stance on diplomacy with rogue nations.

3. Hill and Bill come with a lot baggage that will bring the Obama administration into negative light and continue to overshaddow the President himself.

4. The Obama-Clinton relationship will be under the microscope and heavy scutiny. Every disagreement will leak to the press who will then blow it out of proportion and stoke the fire of animosity/suspiciousness that already exists.

5. Does anyone remember “shame on you Barack Obama!” and sniper fire?

6. World leaders (especially russia and the middle east) will not be receptive to clinton due to her hawkish nature. Most people don’t believe she has an open mind on most world issues.

7. Why in the world is Obama insisting on bombarding us with the obama-clinton drama? After two years of hearing Obama and clinton in the same breath, Obama should break free and be his own man.

8. Bill Richardson, John Kerry, Jack reed, Chuck hagel, Richard Holbrooke…………These are all qualified people that come with no strings/drama attached.

…………… The elections are over and one has to wonder why Obama is still trying to court the clinton supporters. If anything, she should have been picked as secretary of HHS since she has more experience in that area.

“Do you need more examples? I really have other work to do.”
.
I’ve seen that before.

KT, I don’t doubt Hillary is seriously being considered. My point is that the MSM is really hyping the “drama”, thus creating “drama” so they can comment on the “drama”.

I’m probablyr reading too much into this but it’s interesting Bill is stumping for Martin in GA but not Hillary, who was a real trooper for senatorial candidates this past election.

KT’s right. This is a legitimate story.
–
Elvis, really?! She doesn’t have a Ph.D in IR or a related subject, or any significant scholarly record. She has never worked at the state department, she has never served in the military or worked as a diplomat. She has no “official” foreign policy experience, except from her time in the Senate. She’s not even on the Foreign Relations Committee. She is on the “Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,” but that’s a very weak qualification.
–
If she hadn’t been First Lady, this would be close to a Palin-style pick. (Although as I’ve always said, I’m sure if she hadn’t been First Lady in the 90s she would have been a Senator, or a Governor, or something else equally impressive.) Here’s the list of past Secretary of States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Secretaries_of_State_of_the_United_States
If her time as First Lady doesn’t count as foreign policy experience, their resumes are on a different stratosphere.
–
BTW, my question wasn’t whether you were reconsidering your choice from the primaries! I was just wondering what you thought about Obama basically rejecting two of his campaign’s arguments against Clinton. I’m impressed by the positive reactions of so many of his primary supporters here – on TPM and OpenLeft they are not handling this so well, which I completely understand. If Clinton had won, and she asked Obama to lead the health care reform effort, I’d be a little upset.