A Word On State

I really do not think Obama should offer Senator Clinton Secretary of State myself but I do not have a strong feeling about it one way or the other. I do have a strong feeling, as I have, since 2006, about Bill Richardson. The man should not be allowed near any job with actual responsibility. He is not smart. He is not rigorous. He is, imo, a fool. John Kerry is 10 times the candidate for Secretary of State that Richardson is. And I am no big fan of John Kerry.

Speaking for me only

< What You Got Wrong And Right | Bush's Unstated Conclusions and Irrelevant Remarks >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I was actually relieved (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by Lil on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:40:43 AM EST
    when I heard about Clinton, because I feel similarly about Richardson. Everything I heard him say throughout the primaries and general campaigns was tainted with dumb comments. He may be smart, but he can not shoot from the hip at all.  I keep imagining Kerry putting all the worlds' leaders to sleep (which come to think of it, may be a decent strategy).  I loved Albright and if HRC followed in her footsteps, I would be proud and sleep a little better at night.

    Richardson looks (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    to us like a doofus, but he was apparently no slouch at the U.N. and he's rather weirdly got a real diplomatic relationship with the North Korean and negotiated the release of a couple of people they had arrested as spies.

    So I think he's nowhere near as much of a lightweight in diplomacy as he looks domestically.

    Let's face it, he can't possibly be as big a doofus as he looks!


    I've never quite understood... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    ... why Richardson gets to run his own foreign policy as governor of New Mexico. He must have something going for him.

    Richardson was a doofus on domestic issues (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    His comments about Byron White being his favorite Supreme Court Justice (forgetting he dissented on Roe), and saying being gay was of course an acceptable "choice",  show him to be tone deaf on domestic issues.   His "choice" comments were made in front of a GLBT group and were so clearly goofy that they gave him a mulligan on it--because it was clear Richardson favored gay rights and was trying to say the right thing but just didn't know what that was.

    On foreign policy issues, he has not been a doofus.  I think he would be fine as Secretary of State....


    Richardson's "choice" (none / 0) (#95)
    by MKS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:45:44 PM EST
    comments, iirc, came after had been hammered on the Byron White comments.  So, he didn't want to make the same mistake twice and was completely programmed to support "choice."  When a comment came up about being gay, he said of course he was in favor of "choice" on issues of sexual orientation.....It was funny.  You could see the thought process:  Democrats like "choice"....."Choice" is good........  

    So that is how he transposed an abortion rights concept into the gay rights field....That was entertaining....



    Horrifying, actually (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:55:33 PM EST
    I can forgive people for misspeaking, but Richardson gave the impression that he knew so little about the issues and rights I care most about, that he couldn't be trusted to protect them as President.

    I don't think any of the other serious Democratic contenders ever came close to doing that.


    Your impression was (none / 0) (#111)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    rightly fortified by his choice of Byron White as his favorite Supreme Court Justice. With the laudable exception of White's commitment to civil rights for African Americans, White was a conservative along the lines of his contemporaries,  Burger and Rehnquist. White showed his colors in Bowers v Hardwick (1986) when writing for the majority he reduced the egregious Hardwick arrest to the question of whether the constitution "creates a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy", and then proceeded to answer his own misguided question in the negative. Justice Lewis Powell, later publicly expressed his regret for his know-nothing decision, but we are still waiting to hear from White, unless it comes from the beyond.  Richardson claims he liked White because of his football background.  Richardson's resume and accomplishments made me, at one time, think highly of him. However, based on seeing him in the debates, I discovered a new talent in him--that of keeping whatever intellect he has cunningly concealed.

    Yup (none / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:44:09 PM EST
    Who knows, Richardson might be a decent manager, but it seemed like he didn't pick up a firm policy understanding along the way.

    yep yep yep--Richardson was a disappointment (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM EST
    A huge and horrifying one. He seems to have gotten where he has by being a schmoozer--lotsa grinning and jokes and kissing up to distract from his lack of substance.

    He reminds me a lot of George Tenet, someone the political establishment rewards for being "a good guy," but one who seems to lack knowledge and integrity.

    However, at the beginning of the primaries, he certainly had the strongest resume--thanks to Bill Clinton--and I had him in my top three with Hillary and Obama. He finished neck-and-neck with Gravel, who at least got gay marriage right.


    Difference between (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:26:53 PM EST
    being a good behind the scenes negotiator of policies someone else (Bill Clinton) establishes, and being SoS, who, to me, should lead on policy ideas.
    Yes, I heard, rightly or wrongly, that although Richardson comes across on the campaign trail as highly inarticulate (especially compared to HRC & others), he is a good at face-to-face negotiations. Not enough by itself, IMO, for SoS.

    Not only putting them to sleep (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by cpa1 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
    but confusing the daylights out of them.  Kerry was unable to put together a paragraph to explain why he voted against the Bush $80 billion dollar defense appropriation to Iraq because it did not include medical insurance coverage to families whose bread winners got conscripted to Iraq, leaving them with no income and no insurance while he voted for the Democratic $80 billion appropriation that did included the needed help to the American families devastated by this unnecessary and stupid war.

    As BTD alluded to, what jobs has Richardson done well?  As Secretary of Energy, he oversaw a department that allow TOP Secret information to flow to China.  A UN Ambassador, he made no mark.  Did anyone notice Richardson's ticks the day he went on Larry King with Carville?

    How can you compare Hillary's sharpness and knowledge to John Kerry wild goose chases for words and Bill Richardson's unimpressive performances anywhere.


    It will be Richardson payback (none / 0) (#161)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:43:24 AM EST
    For when he threw Hillary under the bus and jumped on the Obama bandwagon.

    Please elaborate? (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:41:58 AM EST
    I really do not think Obama should offer Senator Clinton Secretary of State myself

    Why bother? (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    BTD just called Richardson a fool!!

    A fool? The guy is a governor, a former Congressman; Energy Secretary; UN Ambassador, and negotiator extraordinaire. He has been a dedicated public servant. He has been a teacher at many colleges and universities including being a Professor at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard. And on and on...

    I'd like to see anyone here match their resume and dedication to public service to Richardson's. I'd like to see anyone here say they are a go to guy to negotiate with foreign countries when that is not even your present formal position to do so.

    A fool. Sorry BTD but he is no fool. I think you know that. The question is why you take a talented  man and try to paint him a fool.


    Whoa that's a high bar you set there. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    I hope it doesn't come to the point where we have to match resumes with anyone we criticize. This is America, after all!!!! ;-}

    No it's a high bar (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    that Richardson set - for others, but primarily for    himself

    I'm all for criticizing public servants for specific things that are disagreeable. But to blanket paint an accomplished man a fool beyond the pale.


    Richardson is truly a fool. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:16:12 AM EST
    Getting high up in politics is not always for those of high intelligence.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    Getting high up in politics?!!!!

    You have a real grasp on who is and his accomplishments don't you? ROTFLMAO.

    I'll say this: from reading you very thoughtful and fact filled post <insert snark> I can say with great confidence that you are in no position, nor are you intellectually on a level to be judging Richardson. You should be so lucky to have his intelligence, education, knowledge, experiences, and contributions to people of this country and of the world. But of course if you had ever taken two seconds to actually read about him you would know that.


    That's not a particularly cogent or convincing (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by fuzzyone on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM EST
    argument for Richardson.  An impressive resume does not equal someone I want in high office.  Cheney has quite a resume.  The times I have seen Richardson speak I have been utterly unimpressed.  Maybe there is more to him that I have not seen but nothing you have said has convinced my to raise my opinion of him.  Of course disparaging the intelligence of other posters in a grammatically incoherent post is also less than compelling.

    Wow. Well someone (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    too personal offense, huh?  I actually DO know a lot about Richardson (remind me to tell you about it sometime). And it's because of that knowledge that I can tell you he's a fool. Also, watch him talk about gay rights for about 1/2 second and you can see the idiocy dripping.

    Don't take it so personally. Unless, you're Bill Richardson of course.
    Let's not forget that Sarah Palin is a governor as was George Bush- who, also an enormous fool, was able to become a twice-elected President.


    He won't offer, she won't take it (none / 0) (#162)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 02:43:54 AM EST
    Hillary and her "creds" (1.00 / 4) (#167)
    by GuerillaJGal on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    I fervently hope that Hillary is not offered the SOS position.

    1. Although her campaign tried desperately to beef up her foreign affairs bona fides,they failed miserably. Irish peace leaders mocked her claim that she was part of the peace negotiations ("She gave out the cookies at meetings," said its leader); her claim to tarmac heroism was embarressing. As First Lady, she hosted foreign leaders; that makes her a good hostess,not a world class diplomat.

    2.She is not a team player and never will be. She is divisive and overly ambitious for the presidency. If not for herself, for her daughter Chelsea who has already been floated for the presidency in 2012.

    3.We will need to get a second term for Obama in order to roll back the many horrors Bush/Cheney/Rove left us. Hillary will energize the Republcan party like nothing else Obama could do.

    1. I doubt Mrs. Obama is thrilled with HIllary who gave all the talking points needed to help trash her beloved husband as a muslim, an empty suit,and less qualified to be CIC than their Republican opponent. And wasn't it Hillary who alluded to the assassination of Robert Kennedy when asking us to give her more time to win the nomination?  

    2. Hillary is the epitome of the "same ole, same ole".  

    No Hillary, puh-leeze.

    Groundhog Day? (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by Spamlet on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    Is it January again? Is this DKos?

    Ladies and Gents (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:30:26 PM EST
    Here we have Exhibit A of what Clinton Derangement Syndrome looks like in all of it's twisted, delusional and hate-filled ignominy.  

    What an embarrassing display.  I'm embarrassed for you.


    Michael Savage (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    must be running a contest: "Name as many discredited, debunked, and disproven smears promulgated by the MSM, talk radio, and the rabid right as you can."

    The winner gets his sure-to-be Nobel Prize winning "Psychological Nudity."

    Happy reading, Gal!


    Your CDS (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by jar137 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST
    is reaching critical mass.  Seek help.  And, if you're going to promote ridiculous anti-Clinton talking points, do a modicum of research first.  No one is promoting Chelsea Clinton for president in 2012.  She won't even be of age then.  

    Agree about Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    not so sure about Hillary taking the job.

    Yeah well (none / 0) (#43)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    if you are calling Richardson a fool then what are you? Go look at his life long resume in public service and consider his accomplishments. Consider that he is a self-made man. Can you match him? If not and he is a fool then please describe what that makes you.

    It just blows my mind the nonsense I sometimes read on blogs.


    Blogs said a lot worse about (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ding7777 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    Sarah Palin even she has steadily risen though the ranks of public service

    But regarding Bill Richarson:

    1. Wen Ho Lee 2. Rumored too touchy-feely with women  


    Credentials are necessary by insufficient (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:43:55 AM EST
    I've seen him in action, and that's all I've needed to see.

    Well if you have seen him in action (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    then there is much to admire. There is much to respect. There is much that should be emulated. That you don't recognize that here speaks volumes.

    The guy does not come across as a strong speaker or personality in a national media setting. That does not make him a fool. He'd bury you and everyone else here in knowledge and the use of his intelligence in a world setting that deals with powerful people. He is a people person not a media person.

    Now I think that a SoS needs to be a combination of people person; negotiator; organizer and manager; and media persona. Richardson doesn't have many equals on the first two.  The third I don't have enough knowledge of his skills to comment intelligently on. The fourth is just not his thing. Not having a media persona does not make him a fool.

    These blanket statements being tossed around here about him being a fool are grossly misplaced. Say he is not a media persona and that is an important aspect of SoS and leave it right there. But to call him a fool is to be a fool to do so because he who does is not looking at the entire man and is judging him summarily on how he speaks on TV.

    There are many idiots we see on TV everyday who couldn't hold a candle to Richardson. Being good on TV is easy. Being the other things that Richardson is are not so easy and takes real talent beyond the ability to be a blow hard and reading a teleprompter.


    While I tend to agree (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:03:54 PM EST
    with much of your analysis of Richardson, I think the 'people-person' effectiveness is limited to male persons.  He does not have so good a record with females, of which I am one.

    In addition, there is a 'can he be loyal to the boss' factor...can he be trusted when his own ambitions come into play?  Can you trust his word?

    I'm with Carville on that one.


    Ending his career? (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    Who wants to end his career?

    Not me.  Maybe Carville.  Maybe BTD who thinks he's a fool.

    He can stay governor or run for another office...fine with me.  Let the voters decide...

    But hire him?  No way.  For both the reasons I stated:  He cannot be trusted with women in or out of politics and he can't be trusted IN politics because his word is meaningless.

    Other than that...good luck to him.  It's not personal.


    I thought Richardson was a (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:53:23 PM EST
    real possibility early in the game and said so on Daily Kos about a year ago.  Someone gave me an earful about some of the things he had done including the womanizing which left me concerned.   The poster did support some of his statements which i will not go into here.  However, when I saw how he turned on  HRC and some of the things he said later about his terse conversation with her, I decided discretion was not his long suit, nor was the pledge he made to remain neutral. Recall that he continued to comment about how the knives were out for him and he needed to watch his back, etc. Not real smart.

    "his own ambitions" (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    "can he be trusted?"

    Well, some people have called him "Judas" for his recent performance in the primaries.  Perhaps there is a counter example?


    Nope. No counter example. (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:49:06 PM EST
    Judas fits.

    How about temperamentally? (none / 0) (#123)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:12:44 PM EST
    suited for the job.  Maybe if he has a full time assistant to "clarify" his remarks or a minder to remind him to think, at least once, before he opens his mouth.

    Grabby Richardson? (none / 0) (#53)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    He's a fool and a dumb man.  You can see it whenever he talks. Being successful in politics does not mean he's intelligent...Bush is President after all.

    He's a dope.


    Cult of Richardson? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:25:24 AM EST
    Did Richardson ever apologize (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:18:49 PM EST
    for his proposal to poach the Great Lakes water?

    Knowledge?  Fail for the reasons that the idea is neither legally possible nor economically feasible.

    Diplomacy?  Fail for provoking the economically hard hit Great Lakes states AND our friendly neighbor to the north, the nation of Canada.

    Maybe Richardson has the personal schmooze factor of George W Bush, who appears to do well one-on-one, but he's best kept away from public speaking.  


    Oh I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    Im just fascinated watching Pepe tailspin with apologist desperation.

    In defense of Pepe (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:37:11 PM EST
    While I don't agree at all with Pepe's overall assessment of Bill Richardson, if those of us who do not see him as the right person for SoS were to say why, instead of throwing epithets, perhaps Richardson supporters would not be so bent out of shape. I understand that Richardson is good at one-on-one, behind closed doors diplomacy. IMO, regardless of resume, that is not enough for SoS. I do not see Richardson as being a leader on foreign policy ideas and solutions, and I think SoS calls for that. In addition, I don't think he compares with HRC on intellect, breadth of knowledge, ability to see complex interactions between competing groups, issues and effects.

    So, if Richardson is not SoS, what else could President-elect give him that might be appropriate?    


    I think he did. (none / 0) (#110)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    Did Richardson ever apologize for his proposal to poach the Great Lakes water?

    I think he spent much of the primary apologizing for and explaining various comments he made.


    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    Maybe Press Secretary if spinning and backpedaling is his forte.

    Richardson--- No No No! (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:11:15 AM EST
    Hillary would make a great SoS. She had the surport of Albright throughout the entire campaign. The one thing about Senators, people do not remember what they did from 2 years ago. They make law, they appear on Hardball, they defend the position of their party. Senators are remembered but a Secretary of State is known throughout the world. What a great US representative she would make. She is cool under fire.

    Kerry is like Biden. He likes to hear himself speak and count on his fingers.Because he did not defend himself against the Swiftboating, it says to world leaders that he has a small weakness. And Richardson, what happened to him? At least he use to speak with authority. Now he seems to be like the guy with the beer on the party boat trying to kiss everyone as he falls over them. OK, buffoon. And he can't be trusted. Hillary would be great for the country. Plus, when you name current Cabinet Members, it is usually 2 or 3. And SoS is one of them.

    Hah! Great image (3.50 / 2) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:39:12 AM EST
    with Richardson.  There's something that seems sort of faintly sleazy about him, isn't there, especially with that silly beard he has now.

    Sleazy? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:33:13 AM EST
    WTF is wrong with some of you people today? Beard? WTF! Now we are putting down people for facial hair? gyrfalcon you are better than that.

    The beard looks silly on him (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM EST
    I'm not allowed to say that?  And yes, there's something faintly sleazy about the way he comes across.

    I do not, however, as I said in another comment, think he could possibly be as much of a dope as he has appeared to be in this campaign.  He's obviously got some diplomatic chops.  And Obama is no fool, either, and would not be even considering him for SoS or any other major job if he was as much of a dope as he seems.

    I do not like him, period, but he's not an incompetent or a fool.


    Don't worry (none / 0) (#79)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    He got rid of the beard. Immediately sparking speculation on local news in NM that he did it to appear more clean-cut for a cabinet position..

    I think that SoS would (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    be perfect for Hillary.  And more than that, perfect for Obama.  She would be our face around the world.  Combined with him, do we get just how powerful and GOOD of an image that is after the destruction that was Bush?  I adore her as my Senator and if she says no then I am more than happy to keep her. But I think this would be great for her and I don't see any nefarious reason for Obama to ask her such as "she must agree with him at all times" or that he's trying to get rid of her power in the Senate. I think if he asked her, it's because he wants the best.

    Agree about Richardson (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Coral on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    I'm on the fence about Hillary at State. I think she'd do a good job, better than Kerry, whom I prefer to Richardson, but I hate to see her leave the Senate.

    I liked Richardson before he ran (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    for President and displayed such a lack of rigor and preparedness.  
    Secretary of State requires a person with gravitas and stature, someone like Kerry or Clinton.

    If Clinton wants it, she should take it.  God knows she's earned the right to do whatever she pleases.  I think she would be a very good SoS, and so would Kerry.  

    Don't hit and run like that BTD. What do you (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:45:29 AM EST
    mean by that first sentence?

    It is a bit odd (none / 0) (#54)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:54:07 AM EST
    that someone who was on the Unity Ticket bandwagon (along with millions of others before him) isn't pleased with Clinton being SoS.

    I'm going to continue (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:04:28 AM EST
    to stick with the intruiguing Hillary-Bill Seward parallel, which I wrote about yesterday at length, which I also noticed David Gergen, clearly having seen my post, talking about last night with Cooper Anderson.  

    So, she accepts SoS, and after perhaps an awkward start (Seward's first few weeks involved a major misstep, but Lincoln wisely and very tactfully sidestepped the unfortunate advice), she goes on to be Obama's most valuable advisor, even on matters not normally w/n the SoS's purview.

    Seward served a full 8 yrs, and I see Hillary following suit.  

    I thought of you when I saw that. He said (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Teresa on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:08:16 AM EST
    Seward became Lincoln's closest advisor.

    Yeah, Gergen accurately (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM EST
    hit the major highlights of the Abe-Seward relationship.  After that initial awful advice Seward gave, including his surprising offer to assume "leadership" in the admin, which the self-confident Lincoln smartly ignored, they got on wonderfully, and Abe met with Seward almost daily one-on-one on State matters plus, later, some extras in the domestic area.  

    Well, I find parallels like this too tempting to give up.  Not that I think Hillary is the reincarnation of Bill Seward -- I don't quite see the physical resemblance ...


    Of course we also have Seward to blame (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by JDM in NYC on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:53:14 PM EST
    for Sarah Palin.

    Indeed. (none / 0) (#186)
    by Landulph on Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 09:17:34 PM EST
    Or, as she has become known, "Seward's Other Folly."

    David Gergan (none / 0) (#56)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:57:23 AM EST
    had to have read your post to talk about that subject? Interesting that he is not capable of thinking for himself. Who knew?

    (sigh) ... (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    Nah, just some obvious exaggerated self-inflation, which I'm sure Gergen, as he reads this thread, quickly picked up on and chucked over.

    Not that I don't think some of these media pundits don't steal a talking point or two from the blogs now and then.  But Gergen is probably well acquainted with fellow MSMer DKG's book -- he's cited it and her often enough in recent times -- so there's little doubt he was already familiar with the overall Seward analogy.


    It's not just Gergen who's familiar with the book (none / 0) (#117)
    by ChrisO on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    I've been reading forever how Obama is enamored of Band of Rivals. I don't mean to pick a fight, but it's not exactly a new thought.

    "Team of Rivals." (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:04:15 PM EST
    Well, I am positive that she is discussing (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by feet on earth on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:28:09 AM EST
    this offer with Bill right now, together with the limitations Hllary's SoS position would impose on Bill's freedom to pursue his international work.  Gag orders would not work well with him (or with any past-president president for that matter) just because of perceived conflict of interests he would be accused with.

    They are two of the smartest politicians, I will be sitting on the fence on this one and wait to hear what she'll decide, but I would not be surprised if she declines the offer.

    Richardson???  He only deserve 30 pieces of silver, not 30 bars of gold.  Overpayment is not Obama's style.  BTW, when his he going to pay Hillary's campaign debts?.  

    I read on another site that (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 05:01:22 PM EST
    she is weighing who will be head of CIA and DOD before she says yes.  She has to work well with these people to be effective and she is smart enough to know how those jobs may impact State.

    She is also going to be the messenger (none / 0) (#148)
    by lilburro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:46:39 PM EST
    to reassure the world about what the CIA and DOD do in secret.  If she has to go around the world telling countries how everything has changed, and McConnell or Brennan are on board in the CIA, she will be in quite a pickle.  That's not a situation I would want to be in though I am sure compromising territory is the only territory for a SoS.  

    If she has to wait to hear who will be in those positions, maybe she isn't suited for SoS.  Though it might behoove us to have an SoS with more backbone than Powell:

    "Larry Wilkerson later characterized Cheney's view of Powell's mission as to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too." [powell's wiki]


    Hillary has great potential as SoS (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    Her leadership role in the Senate is limited because of seniority.  Obama is right to want her in his administration.  She obviously has the talent to do well in any cabinet position.  I would prefer her at HHS because health care is such an urgent priority.  As SoS, she can help an Obama administration do great things.  A Marshall plan for Iraq and the whole Middle East would be a benefit to the world.  In many countries, women are second class citizens.  Hillary has the interest and the ability to address that.

    Ultimately, I trust Hillary (and Obama) to do what is best for the country.  She obviously has political capital and talent that should not be wasted.

    Bill C ruining Hill's chances... AGAIN! (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by weltec2 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    What nonsense. The press is wringing their hands over Bill Clinton's lectures and humanitarian donations from international sources. We have had for the last eight years a Vice President whose conflict of interest on no-bid contracts has been criminal... sincerely deeply criminal and the press has turned a blind eye. But they are very very concerned about Bill and what it will mean for a Hillary appointment to Sec of State.

    The press (none / 0) (#166)
    by rooge04 on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:57:38 AM EST
    is awful. Bill is a great man and a great humanitarian and still they hate him. It's pretty unbelieveable just how much they hate him.

    'Weepy talk"? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    Pardon?  Did I really hear that correctly?

    Why not? You must have a reason. (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:22:14 PM EST
    Why shouldn't he offer her the job at State?

    Hello...?  Anybody home?

    All of TL wants to know!

    C'mon...you're turning into a tease...

    Florida is playing South Carolina right now (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by kempis on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:17:47 PM EST
    We won't get any answers from BTD until after the game.



    Fans don't multitask? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by oldpro on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:46:56 PM EST
    Who knew?

    She'll be (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by jb64 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM EST
    A Great SoS. It's perfect.

    She'll be wasted in the Senate at this point, period. She has no platform there to advocate any issue.

    At State, she'll have the opportunity to perform on a world stage, with greater autonomy than in the Senate. Plus, it's the right thing to do. It makes this administration stronger both here and abroad. Sometimes its simply a matter of doing the right thing, I applaud Obama on realizing this, and I hope the Senator will accept the position.

    All three would be great (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by in the future there is only war on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    Richardson would be great, he's probably got the most experience working diplomatically by himself. Kerry would be great too as he's very knowledgeable.

    Politically, Hillary is probably the best choice. There's no question that she, like Biden, will make her views and opinions known to the President. It's pretty hilarious watching the pumas fall all over themselves with conspiracy theories and saying how Hillary can't "sell them out." They'll end up hating her as much as the Repubs do.

    not I (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by jedimom on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    I dont, I am ecstatic about this and feel much better about the incoming Administration being open to the most talented people

    AP already has a headline up about (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:05:39 PM EST
    how Bill Clinton's contracts with foreign governments and fundraising for his foundation would present a conflict if Pres.-Elect Obama selected Sen. Clinton for Secretary of State.  Not going to happen, for all the reasons he didn't choose her as his VP.  

    Oh, darn! (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:05:54 PM EST
    "I see that your spouse has extensive experience in this field and for that reason, we must disqualify you."

    It's as if they treat Bill Clinton as if he had served as the leader of another country!  If Hillary's spouse was the former President of some country the United States had a shaky relationship with, I could see all this hand wringing and pearl clutching.

    Being part of the Nixon administration didn't cause anyone to have anxiety attacks about either Bush's administration picks.  GWHB didn't catch much flack about his parent being a former POTUS.

    I've given up looking for logic wrt Media reaction to the Clintons.  


    That evil Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by caseyOR on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:44:25 PM EST
    How dare he raise $$$ from the rich to fight AIDS in Africa! We can't possibly have a SoS whose husband has a charitable foundation. Think of the children!

    (yes, it's snark.)


    Really aggravating. What say you: (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 06:15:36 PM EST
    would Pres-Elect Obama have carried FL w/o personal campaign efforts of both Clintons?  Please don't tease by talking w/her in Chicago not once, but twice; and then snatch away a cabinet post for which she is imminently qualified.

    You are right about Richardson. (1.33 / 3) (#59)
    by JeriKoll on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    Hey let's add "panderer" and "toady" to the list for Richardson.

    Hilary Clinton isn't such a bad choice EXCEPT it brings Willie Jefferson Clinton back into the mix.  It is time to just let him fade away.


    Your statement is idiotic. (4.00 / 4) (#63)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    Isn't it weird (5.00 / 7) (#85)
    by lucky leftie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    how the GOP turns Reagan, a mediocre president at best, into a saint, while democrats denigrate the only successful president we've had in decades?  

    I'm old enough to remember the Clinton years as a hopeful time in America.  Compared to the last eight years, they were paradise on earth.  


    Not just the GOP (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    go to some so called "progressive" sites (like dkos)and there are a lot of thirty something progressives who still consider Reagan a heroic figure.  It's a macho thing, I think.  But sadly it shows how much lacking in facts and history some are.

    While certain groups want Hillary Clinton to wear a Scarlet Letter for her votes, call Bill Clinton a war criminal, sleaze bag or slick Willie, they pay homage to Reagan for "destroying the USSR."  

    Ask them how they justify Reagan's support of Pinochet and his murderous regime, or how they justify his training and arming and financing of terror squads who murdered innocents throughout Nicaragua and Guatemala and you get silence.
    Now, not to disparage Jim Webb, but here's a guy those progressives worshipped and yet Webb worked in the Reagan administration.

    So the same progressives who demonize the Clintons, sanctify and beatify people who have been far more hawkish. I really don't get it and find myself frustrated by it.  


    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#1)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM EST
    As far as Richardson goes, I think his Presidential campaign unmasked him as a buffoon, as I said quite recently.

    As for Senator Clinton, I think she would be more wrong to accept it than he would be to offer it to her. Basically, I don't think it would last very long, and then where would she be? As it is now, she has a solid position in the Senate.

    Actually, I think Kerry would be a great choice. He's smart and articulate but I also think he would be willing to follow the boss.

    Kerry - articulate? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:48:20 PM EST
    I don't think so.  He speaks Senate speak; doesn't know what a simple declarative sentence is.  Kerry is very smart, but my sense is he's lost is edge and interest in thorough-going analysis of the issues since losing the presidency. His work on BCCI was exemplary, I believe.  That Kerry might be good at state. The other thing I like about Kerry was rumor he would have appointed Holbrooke as SoS. Holbrooke may have a big ego, as rumored, but I think he is enormously knowledgeable about foreign policy. With the exception of Hillary, why are all these career politicians being considered for SoS, but none of the well-known foreign policy wonks whose ideas we could use?  Bill gave us Albright, and if HRC turns down SoS, who will Obama give us?  It makes me wonder what role he has in mind for SoS.  Perhaps he's confident HRC won't turn him down, but I don't know.

    What's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:22:11 PM EST
    is that Obama met with Clinton and Richardson about SoS, but not Kerry.

    I really want Hillary in the Senate working on (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:39:36 AM EST
    healthcare and whatever else she wants to do.  I see putting her at State as an attempt to get her out of the way, to keep her quiet, to keep her out of the everyday picture and an attempt to somehow lessen her chances to be a candidate for president again.  Richardson is a buffoon and needs to stay in the Governor's office, not in the cabinet.  Kerry, well, he wouldn't fight back against the Swiftboat stuff....nuff said about him.  I think he's a loser.

    Clinton asked for a subcommittee chairmanship (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:48:07 AM EST
    I think it's in the NYTimes article today that she asked Reid for a subcommittee chairmanship on health care and was denied because Ted, as Chair, wants to guide that when he is back.

      And if he can't, then Chris Dodd is next.  She is super Junior in the Senate and it would probably take her another 8 years (she's 60 now?) before she'd get a senior position.

      As SOS, if their relationship is good, she could have input on policy, and I think Obama would be interested in hearing it, and be dealing with important events instead of shuffling paper in the Senate and spending most of the time fundraising and campaigning for re-election.

      She has a real head for details (because she is so interested) of any place she visits, and this would be a good use for it.


    Clinton's Supposed Request for SubCommittee Head (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    Shortly after the election, a rumor was floated that HRC asked Teddy to let her take over the lead on healthcare by creating a subcommittee (not of Ted's committee) she could head. To me this rumor smells of Pelosi or others trying to make HRC look bad, put her in her place, and send another message that healthcare is off the table (Pelosi said this 11/5).
    I don't believe HRC would be so crass and politically dense as to tell Ted right now that he's not up to leading on healthcare.  Leave it to the NY Times to repeat anything negative about a Clinton.  Beware, the NY Times has always had it in for both Clintons.  
    Unless someone has a valid source for this claim about Hillary?

    I bet you're right (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    It hadn't occurred to me at all until you posted this, but I thought it was a little ham-handed for Hillary, so you may well be right about it.

    You Don't Understand (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:52:58 AM EST
    Just how little power Hillary and Obama had in the Senate.  Neither of them was close to controlling any of the big banner legislation.  They were both very far away from that stuff which is rather jealously guarded by the chairs.

    Hillary at SoS gives her far more power and influence at the table than staying as a very junior  Senator.

    Also, she'll probably be able to run for President in 2016 even before she'd get remotely close to the real levers of power in the Senate.  There's no reason for her to sit in the Senate with little power for 8 years.


    Yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:37:40 PM EST
    HRC as SoS (gotta love the acronyms) gets her out of the everyday domestic picture, but front and center in foreign affairs.  That could actually be beneficial in a future Presidential campaign.  Or not.  Depends on where the electorate's priorities are at the time.

    Looks like a 'twofer' to me: Obama stands to get HRC inside the tent applying her talents to FP instead of outside the tent potentially causing domestic policy trouble in the Senate.  It will be interesting to see whether or not she decides to take it.  I assume she won't if there is a rat to be smelled.


    Btw, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Lil on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:45:48 AM EST
    The story is she was asked and said she would think about it (in essence). I always thought the general rule was "if the President asks, you serve."  Is that true? If anyone knows. If so, does HRC really get to say "no". Also doesn't it make Obama look weak, if he asked and she said no? Does this have the potential to be a big political mis step, early on. I think if it was "leaked" that she was asked, they must be reasonably sure that she will be Sec.

    I cannot imagine that no one ever (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    said "no."  If true and Clinton said she would think about it, what the heck is wrong with that? SOS is a big change for her AND her family. It entails more travel and out of country work than any other public job I can think of.  It demands a kind of lockstep with the President that is more crucial to the job than other positions.

    If true and Clinton wants to think about it, that is very wise AND very reasonable.

    I want her to choose what is best for HER and her family.  She deserves that.    


    Agree. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:11:15 AM EST
    You are right, (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    not only the personal and professional ramifications need to be considered, but the greater good to the country. President Lyndon Johnson made, in my view, a miscalculation when asking Justice Arthur Goldberg to leave the Supreme Court to take on the UN Ambassadorship.  While Mr. Goldberg did a good job at the UN, his keen legal mind and liberal thinking was a long-time loss to the Court and our legal system.

    Heh. I don't think old Lyndon (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    miscalculated, since he was looking for a way to put his personal lawyer and crony Abe Fortas on the Bench, the UN spot suddenly opened up, and he was led to believe, rightly it turns out, that Justice Goldberg was very susceptible to flattery and the Johnson Treatment.

    Promises of Goldberg being able to influence VN policy from that post, and especially the hint dropped by Lyndon that AG would then be positioned to later become the first Jewish VP in history.

    Huge mistake by Goldberg (he was replaced w/n a couple of yrs by LBJ), and because he lived on into the 1980s the public was deprived of another 15 or so yrs of his outstanding (and liberal) legal mind on the High Court.  Even worse, Fortas was later forced out of his Court position, and (iirc) it was Nixon who got to name his replacement.

    Ah, don't get me started about Lyndon and how far too many otherwise smart and sane people just couldn't resist his insincere flattery and arm-twisting ...


    Yes, I like (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by KeysDan on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:18:03 PM EST
    your assessment much better than mine.  Lyndon could be a rascal and yet many accomplished people succumbed, apparently, to his flattery and arm-twisting.  Maybe it was his unorthodox, yet rather intimate, meetings while he was driving the porcelain bus.

    Clinton has to think about this (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    She has a Senate seat and her constituents to consider, as well as (i) leaving behind her commitment to working on UHC, (2) need to talk this over with Bill so they can figure out how he could do his work without interfering with her as SoS -- do you really think HRC should open herself up to MSM claims, for her entire tenure as SoS, that Bill is a problem, that his activities give her tenure the appearance of impropriety?, and (3) need to consider who will hold related positions (NSA, Secys of Defense & Intelligence, etc) and whether she can work effectively with them).  HRC has a lot at stake, & she needs to consider the offer carefully.  She wouldn't be the thoughtful policy wonk many of us supported if she jumped at the opportunity without knowing whether it will enable her to make a real contribution.  Despite all the nasty things said about her being a power-monger, she is not in politics for power or title alone, but to use her position to make a positive difference for people.  Whether she can do this as SoS is something she has a right to consider.  According to the Obamas, Barack didn't decide to run for President without consulting Michelle and gaining her support after her initial reluctance. If the Obamas make joint decisions, they are the model couple, if Bill and Hillary confer, they're up to something nefarious. It's time to identify our double standards so we can be better than that.

    It's More of A (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    "Hillary has first dibs if she wants it" kind of thing.

    That's the impression we have.

    If Hillary says no, then Richardson or Kerry will get it.

    That's the dance we're seeing right now.


    Gore just said no (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    And I don't think Obama looks weak because of it.

    What did Gore say no to? (none / 0) (#101)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:42:45 PM EST
    Apparently ANY position (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:59:29 PM EST
    in the Obama administration.

    Any Gore fan knew this was going to happen.  Gore has been there, done that and thinks that the Change needed is going to come from pressure outside the government.  Joining the administration means giving up a large degree of autonomy, becoming subordinate to the President and his/her political ambitions.

    No surprise here.


    Climate czar (none / 0) (#107)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:16:42 PM EST
    You can say no to the Prez (none / 0) (#6)
    by ai002h on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:51:29 AM EST
    as long as there's a decent reason. Family etc...It wont make him look weak because 90% of the public stops paying attention directly after the election, most people are not closely focusing cabinet appointments this early.

    Plus, once Obama has to deal with real problems, who did and didn't accept positions will be ancient history.


    The better political reporters (none / 0) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:53:47 AM EST
    are saying that she was not asked, but that it was a much more delicate dance in which she was asked what she would think about it if she was asked.  IOW, it was more of an exploratory meeting, not an ask.

    On the other hand, this reporter (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:57:34 AM EST
    writes details that are more than I'd expect, and seems sure of her source(s).

      If Obama does want her to represent him abroad when he is not there, that says a lot about him - in self-confidence, in  respect for her capabilities despite a harsh campaign, since he could have offered a position less influential.

      This is huge, if it goes through.

      There is the problem of Bill possibly having to open records of who donates to his library.  Also, what he does with his Global work will be affected by her position.  So it makes sense she'd want a little time to consider this.  

      Reid's No on her request for a subcommittee chair on Health Care indicates she'd not have that much influence in the Senate.  

      That 6 or 7 page application is a stopper for any human, though!

      As for Richardson, his debate performances seemed like high-school debating to me.  I voted for Kerry against Bush, of course, but the man does nothing for me.  I just doze off.  Where's his zest?  


    Obama's Attitude toward Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    Did anyone see the Charlie Rose hour in which he interviewed John Meacham and another top editor at Newsweek and then Jack Tapper of ABC?  One of the three indicated that during the Dem VP selection process, Obama himself kept asking his team if they didn't think Hillary should be VP.  I think the anti-Hillary as VP bit came largely from other forces, to wit the ghastly behavior of many DEMS at the Rules & By-Laws Committee meeting at which Dems stepped all over themselves to violate their own By-Laws and Charter to ensure that HRC would not get the nomination.
    I also think -- and this I don't have a source for -- that Obama recognizes Hillary's worth and the extent of the help she provided by campaigning for him.  It was also Obama who, upon advice, kept reaching out to Bill, to get him to campaign.  Many here may not like the conduct of the Obama campaign toward HRC during the primary, but I think that was, inter alia, politics. Let us not forget that the Obama kool aide drinkers keep drudging up anything HRC said about Obama during the primaries that was not complimentary, and how we react to that.  I guess what I'm saying is that I find it believable that Obama truly appreciates Hillary effective support during the election campaign as well as her extraordinary abilities.  He is also intellectually disposed, based on his reading of Team of Rivals, to think such a team can benefit his administration. If Obama did not think he could benefit, he would not consider Hillary.  
    If I were Hillary, I'd have one important condition -- that Obama send a message to the press that the season of Hillary-bashing is over.

    "HIllary Clinton has my full confidence (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Fabian on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:36:27 PM EST
    and support."

    From the very, very beginning.  

    I know that phrase has become a joke because when GWB used it, someone's career was almost over - but it's useful as a code that unfounded rumors will not be tolerated.


    During the general (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by daria g on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:51:55 PM EST
    My speculation is, during the primary campaign a lot of the things his camp said about Hillary were inexcusable from my POV (it's necessary to move forward right now, but not airbrush the recent past).  I also think many in the Obama camp sincerely believed them, that she'd do or say anything to get elected, basically every Machiavellian line you heard from the mainstream media about those horrible Clintons.  I think they got paranoid about it and crossed the line repeatedly in what they accused her of doing.

    The media's still at it of course - to the press, why would Hillary want this job, other than to undermine Obama, and why would Obama offer it, other than to undermine Hillary?  I am sure that politics haven't fallen out of the equation, but the primary reason for the offer couldn't be because they really care about what is best for the country?

    Anyway, I recall Hillary stating unequivocally during a debate that she would "campaign her heart out" for Obama should he win the nomination.  I think during the general, Hillary proved (once again) that she was as good as her word.


    I like your approach (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:46:36 PM EST
    but I think, I'm sorry, it's a little naive.  Obama did not "keep reaching out to Bill," he stiffed him and didn't return his phone calls to the point that Bill had to go public more than a month after the primaries were over that he'd volunteered to do whatever Obama wanted him to do, but that he hadn't heard from him.  Obama reportedly called him-- finally-- a couple days later, but he still didn't give him campaigning assigments until the very, very end of the GE.

    All the evidence points to the idea that Obama has felt incredibly, ridiculously I'd say, threatened by the Clintons.  He did his best not just to defeat Hillary in the primaries but to utterly destroy both of them as political forces in the country by smearing them with the worst thing one Democrat can call another, a racist.

    YOu can't look at the SoS thing without that context in mind.  I'm sure he thought it was a stroke of genius, make use of her undoubted talents and world standing (which you may remember he denigrated and sneered at during the primaries as no more than "having tea"), pacify her supporters and get her the hell out of the domestic political arena.

    I don't believe he seriously considered her for VP for one split second.  He's notorious for wanting to hear arguments among his advisers, and that's all he was doing.  Good for him for inviting questioning of assumptions, but I dont think there was a bat's chance in you know what that he had the slightest, faintest, remotest idea of picking her as VP.


    I agree with you but (none / 0) (#158)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:27:38 AM EST
    I agree that the Obama primary, anti-Clinton campaign was ugly.  And, I think Obama would not offer Hillary SoS unless doing so and having her as SoS was good for Obama.  That said, it is possible that it MAY be good for both, and for the country.  
    On the issue of Obama reaching out to Clinton, I forget where I heard this, but supposedly, during the last month of the election cycle, Obama had become frustrated that Bill would not return Obama's calls, & Obama was advised to keep reaching out to Bill and he'd eventually get through.  If you saw their joint appearance in FL the last week of the campaign, you'd have to say Bill supported Obama with as much enthusiasm as effectiveness.  
    Somehow Hillary has put the animosity of the primaries behind her, and her decision now is what is best for her; and from her point of view, what is best for her necessarily incorporates what is best for the country.  
    We'll have to see what she decides to do.... I have post elsewhere in several different ways that I am concerned that the appointment could be harmful to her, but I don't know.

    If BC had not (none / 0) (#163)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:37:02 AM EST
    been returning Obama's calls during the last month of the election cycle -- and I'm dubious because I think if that were the case, it would have been the subject of non-stop coverage on the cable nets, and I sure never heard it -- it would have been because he was beyond frustrated with Obaam's refusal to use him before then.  Just like good ol' Al Gore.

    I agree with you entirely that Hillary will know what's best for Hillary on the SoS thing and she'll do what she wants to do.

    I'd sure rather see her stay in the Senate than leave the domestic political field, and although I think she'd make a fine SoS, I'd rather see Holbrooke there since I think he'd make a spectacularly successful and effective one. There's a bureaucratic job involved there, too, and he'd be superb at that part of it.  Hillary not so much.  And I doubt he'd be willing to be her deputy. He'd probably end up as National Security Adviser, which would also be good, but he'd be best at State.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#170)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:08:35 PM EST
    Holbrooke is under consideration for any spot.

    I'd love to know why (none / 0) (#181)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:04:39 PM EST
    And if not, it's criminal.

    Me, too (none / 0) (#182)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 09:02:22 PM EST
    I believe Holbrooke advised Hillary Clinton on foreign policy during the primaries.  I also believe there are personality conflicts between him and some Obama advisers -- I don't know where I heard this.  I agree Holbrooke is a resource who should not go untapped.

    I also understand (though don't know) that Hillary asked Obama if she would have authority to name her deputies. Perhaps she has Holbrooke in mind.  

    What do you think of Anthony Zinni?


    Forgot to say (none / 0) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:47:56 PM EST
    that although Jake Tapper has some juice, Jon Meacham is a complete idiot.  I'd go so far as to say that if he says X, you'd better believe Y.  He really is awful, one of the worst for incorporating his biases and fantasies into his "analysis."

    An interesting thing I read was that (none / 0) (#155)
    by hairspray on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:14:20 PM EST
    Axelrod was moving to the WH with Obama but David Pfoufle (sp) was not.  And the piece reported that David P was the most anti-Clinton of the bunch that advised Obama.

    Yes. And Anelrod (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:33:38 AM EST
    has good personal reasons NOT to be anti Hillary.  She bent over backward to help his wife and child...and not at any easy time for her...with no payoff expected.  It was personal.

    Before this campaign.


    When did that happen? (none / 0) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:40:14 AM EST
    How did Hillary help Axelrod's wife and child?  Also not something I ever heard.  Any details?

    NYT April 07 (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:36:28 PM EST
    Sorry...I don't do the linky thing (google will get you there) but the relevant excerpt is this:

    ..."Today, as Axelrod basks in his profession's highest glory -- shaping a historical presidential campaign -- he is experiencing one of its nastiest turns: in a tiny and ideologically promiscuous world, you often need to go to war with your friends. (If Obama hadn't run, Axelrod says, he would have sat out this presidential race, and he says he told all of his other former clients that early on; he hasn't had much interaction with them since.) There is Dodd, and there is Edwards, but perhaps most poignantly, there is Hillary Clinton. It's a matter of epilepsy. David and Susan Axelrod have three children in their late teens and early 20s. Their eldest, Lauren, has developmental disabilities associated with chronic epileptic seizures and now lives in a group home in Chicago. But for years her illness required enough of her parents' time that it kept Susan Axelrod out of the work force and kept David from moving to Little Rock during the 1992 presidential campaign. Susan and two other mothers of children with epilepsy started a foundation, Citizens United for Research in Epilepsy (CURE), which Susan runs, to promote research and raise funds for a cure. Because of David's political work, they have had political celebrities do fund-raisers: Bill Clinton, Tim Russert, Obama. But few have done as much for the foundation as Hillary Clinton.

    It was January 1999, President Clinton's impeachment trial was just beginning in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the foundation's fund-raiser in Chicago. Despite all the fuss back in Washington, Clinton kept the appointment. She spent hours that day in the epilepsy ward at Rush Presbyterian hospital, visiting children hooked up to machines by electrodes so that doctors might diagram their seizure activity and decide which portion of the brain to remove. At the hospital, a local reporter pressed her about the trial in Washington, asked her about that woman. At the organization's reception at the Drake Hotel that evening, Clinton stood backstage looking over her remarks, figuring out where to insert anecdotes about the kids. "She couldn't stop talking about what she had seen," Susan Axelrod recalled. Later, at Hillary Clinton's behest, the National Institutes of Health convened a conference on finding a cure for epilepsy. Susan Axelrod told me it was "one of the most important things anyone has done for epilepsy." And this is how politics works: David Axelrod is now dedicated to derailing this woman's career.


    Then shame on him (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 08:03:01 PM EST
    I didn't know this.  Shame, shame, shame, shame on him. Man, does this make me just angry as all-get out. SHAME on him.

    To run against her, OK.  But to set out to slime and detroy her-- I literally have no words.  For once.


    Calm down. (none / 0) (#183)
    by oldpro on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 10:43:08 PM EST
    It's politics...disheartening, I know, and pretty hard to take -- especially in the short term -- but here's the thing:

    ...my bet is that Axelrod, knowing her well, is pushing for Hillary for SoS and that's why Obama may, in fact, offer her the post and convince her to take it.

    Remember, also...she's from Chicago, too!

    Funny world, huh?



    Plouffe was architect (none / 0) (#159)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:28:48 AM EST
    as well of the anti-D.C., pro "change" meme.

    Plouffe (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 07:39:09 AM EST
    Heh.  Although I kinda like Pfoufle better!

    That's a very interesting piece of info.  I have no knowledge of it, but that does have the ring of truth to it.


    This is one of dozens of (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by hairspray on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    personal stories I have read about the "real Hillary".  Allegre's corner chronicled them during the primaries.  Gives one a good sense of the things Hillary did on small and often unreported issues.  Interesting that David thought so little of Hillary that he didn't become her manager.

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    Martha Raddatz is another superb, careful and accurate reporter.

    Nut graf from the piece:

    "A source with knowledge of the transition process describes the meeting as not a hard offer. Obama is more cautious than that.

    "He is doing this more elegantly, but a source said Obama took a big step toward Hillary. They had a long private meeting in which they talked about their philosophies and what had transpired during the campaign."


    There's also this (none / 0) (#83)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:02:13 PM EST
    quote from the same piece:

    Obama does not want to be seen as being rejected by her, but it is "hers to turn down," one source put it.

    They have an agreement to have another meeting or phone conversation about this very soon.

    I'd like to know who these are (none / 0) (#28)
    by sallywally on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:50:57 AM EST
    because I always respect your comments and would like to know who you think are good political reporter....

    Generally print (none / 0) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:55:08 AM EST
    reporters over broadcast, for one thing, and some of  the older, savvier TV people like Andrea Mitchell.  When she starts expressing her opinions, she can be a real jerk, but she's a hard-nosed old-fashioned reporter as a reporter.

    You can't be serious. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:39:14 AM EST
    Andrea Mitchell is awful.  In any form.

    I'm quite serious (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:17:54 AM EST
    She gets it right almost all the time, although of course not always.  She's not at all insightful and she's a terrible pundit when she's asked to play that role.  But she's a first-rate reporter.  You want opinion and analysis, listen to somebody else.  You want to know who said what to whom and what the intended strategy behind it is, listen to Andrea.  She has that old-fashioned value of saying she doesn't know when she's asked about something, rather than substituting speculation.  If asked to speculate, she'll speculate, but she makes it clear it's speculation based on guesswork.

    Although it's gotten lost in the subsequent firestorm, she's the one who actually broke the original story about Hillary and SoS.  She knows how to work her sources and she doesn't allow them to game her.


    Huh. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by rooge04 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:26:00 AM EST
    Take a gander at this:

    Andrea Mitchell is one of the worst the press corps has to offer. Specifically because she gives off the aura of knowledge.  She's absolutely dreadful as a journalist. Then again, so are most of them.


    Surely you have forgotten (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    Mitchell's breathless reporting about how the Clintons ran off with White House furniture at the end of Bill's term?  Or how they vandalized the White House?  Mitchell, to my knowledge, has never corrected the record.

     The Daily Howler on Andrea Mitchell paints an entirely different picture of her journalistic skills.


    She's an awful PUNDIT (none / 0) (#75)
    by ai002h on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    but she's actually a damm good reporter. Two different things.

    It is not good reporting (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    when your own negative opinions of Hillary & Bill (or other public figures) or your belief that such negative opinions are in vogue informs the "facts" you report.

    Andrea Mitchell, being married to Greenspan, also has no ability to be objective on financial markets.  

    She, like Matthews, allows her own predispositions to get in the way of reporting. And she is also a female misogynist -- the worst kind, IMO.


    Financial markets? (none / 0) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:32:41 PM EST
    She doesn't report on financial markets, nor would NBC allow her to, so what are you talking about?

    As for her "anti-Clinton" and "misogynist" views, I repeatedly heard her slap down male colleagues on discussion panels for their overly negative interpretations of Hillary and her motivations-- though she's clearly no Hillary fan.

    People really have to stop having firm opinions of things they haven't had enough exposure to.

    I'm not suggesting she's any kind of saint, and I said she was not a competent analyst.  Her reporting, however, is almost always very solid, although she doesn't get it right 100 percent of the time.


    I've heard Andrea Mitchell (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    say many things during the last year that have been rather unflattering to HRC that were not by way of reporting news.  If I can find some quotes, I'll post.

    Thanks, gyrfalcon. nt (none / 0) (#141)
    by sallywally on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM EST
    Obama can control HIlary (none / 0) (#9)
    by Saul on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:54:26 AM EST
    by offering her the Sec Of State job if he runs for a second term.

    Everyone keeps on saying this (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by ai002h on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    but why would he need to "control" Hillary?? I don't this she's scheming anything, and I don't think HE thinks she's scheming anything. And she's wont run against a sitting president in 2012, even if his first term isn't great.

    Time is what controls (none / 0) (#19)
    by Saul on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    She only has the next go round to run for president.  After 2012 she would probably be to old and she knows that.  It's either at 2012 or never.  I have not seen anything that shows me that she has given up her desire to run for the presidency.

    Under no circumstances (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:42:51 AM EST
    will she run in 2012. Obama need do nothing to ensure that.

    And she absolutely could run in 2016 if Obama has a successful Presidency.


    Exactly... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Thanin on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    at this point its in Hillarys full interest to ensure Obama has a successful presidency.  I say this because I believe her experience narrative (what I think would be the most successful one for her to have) will be the winning strategy for any Dem nominee after a quality Dem administration.

    Obama and HRC's political destiny (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:59:10 AM EST
    are intertwined now. They will swim or sink together. A successful Obama Presidency (strongly supported by HRC as SoS/Secretary of any other high profile cabinet portfolio or U.S. Senator) will make her the sentimental frontrunner for party nomination for the Presidency in 2016, if her health, inclinations and family committments allow for it. If the Obama tenure is disappointing (even with Democrat majorities in the Senate and House), the tide of public opinion will be so much against the Democrats, that it will be impossible for HRC to win a GE in 2012. I am also absolutely certain that she is not thinking about running for the Presidency in 2012 because she is too keen a student of history and a good team player, to plan otherwise. A primary challenge to an incumbent President from within the party has a corrosive influence on party spirit as recent history will indicate (Kennedy challenge to Carter in 1980, Reagan challenge to Ford in 1976, Buchanan challege to GHW Bush in 1992). All said and done, politics is a team sport, and HRC knows that better than most!
    The Democrats have a unique opportunity to rebuild America. The party has not experienced such back to back electoral success since the 1930s. It is important that all people who believe in progressive causes seize the opportunity and work unitedly towards common goals. HRC and Obama understand fully what is at stake, it will really help if all their supporters (even the most partisan ones) think likewise.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by Manuel on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 01:14:22 PM EST
    What evidence is there for Hillary putting her personal ambition above country and party?  She strikes me as an issue oriented person.  Her greatest interest appears to be advancing the issues that she thinks would improve the country.  Of course, personal ambition plays a part but not to the extent that she sells out on issues.  Consider her AUMF vote.  It would have been easy for her to disavow it as Kerry and Edwards did.  The political gain might have been enough to get her the nomination.

    I agree, but (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    I agree that it would be difficult for any DEM to run against a sitting President in 2012.  The only opening I see, is if Obama does not pressure the DEMS in Congress to do something for a change, and succeed in so doing. The DEMS signed outrageous bailout legislation that allows for the secretiveness of what the current Admin is going, has no quid pro quos, does not help main street, and... shall I go on?  Congress voted for FISA, has failed to use its powers to enforce subpoenas, was wholly ineffective in opposing the nomination of Roberts, even though he refused to turn over relevant records.  Care to add a few? If the DEMs do not deliver in the first 2 years on the economy and healthcare, they may suffer big reverses at the polls in 2010.  Typically, I understand, a new president gets more than 2 years, but the country is facing an epic financial crisis.  And, there will probably be many foreign policy crises to deal with in addition to the obvious ones.    

    Well if Obama thinks as you do.... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    ...then I guess that would be a good reason to give her State. But I hope he isn't operating on that level at this point. I don't think he is.

    As for Hillary's "desire" to be president, why would you think that her desire is so much stronger than any of these other candidates. Is it because she was more successful?


    Time is a major factor IMO (none / 0) (#32)
    by Saul on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:56:24 AM EST
    She would be close to 70 in 2016.  Remember it all depends on how good or bad Obama does during his first term.  If Obama 1st term is a disaster then why wouldn't she run since yes she is the more successful candidate and Dem could still keep the white house.

    If Hillary is part of the Obama (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:11:34 AM EST
    admin as SoS, and things go bad, she's going to be tarnished along with the Big O -- not exactly the best basis from which to launch another run for president.

    If she stays in the senate she's a little better positioned in that scenario, but she'd be facing a tough choice in having to decide between going for senate re-elect in 2012 or going through another tough primary battle in a year where the Dem president idea has been damaged.  If she loses for the nom again or in the general, she's out of a job completely.

    I don't see her running for president again.  And the history of these things in our party isn't favorable for defeated primary candidates getting the nod in their second try.  We tend to prefer fresh faces.


    There's a difference with (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:26:00 AM EST
    Hillary because of how incredibly close she came to the nomination. I think if she had lost in Ohio/Texas or earlier, she wouldn't think about running again.  But she didn't and gave Obama a run for his money.  

    Also, there's been people who ran before and gotten the nomination later on namely Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore.  

    SoS can add more to her resume and burnish her foreign policy credentials for another run for the Presidency.  


    Sitting VP is a natural position (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    from which to launch another run, but not SoS.

    Still, she's a unique political figure, and over the course of 8 yrs if she does a great job in the post, and is given her due credit by pols and the MSM, something like the way Hank Kissinger was lauded ad nauseum in the media for years, well you never know.

    But when was the last time the media gave Hillary a fair break?


    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM EST
    things change.  

    We've never elected an African American for President before and we hadn't had a Senator for President since Kennedy etc. etc.  Remember all those rumors about Condi running for President?

    I agree that Hillary is a unique political figure and I'm sure she'll continue to be a unique political figure breaking all sorts of glass ceilings, maybe even the highest one.    


    Mebbe (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:48:53 AM EST
    Four years as SOS and if she's succesful, then Biden retires and she gets four years as VP, then runs for P.

    Funny, I was thinking about (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    just that scenario last night.

    Like Abe and FDR before him (and like some of the 1963 rumors had it re JFK getting a replacement for Lyndon), Obama shuffles his lineup and gets a new VP, Hillary, with Biden going to State or Defense.

    Problem for her is that the stories about her being lined up for another run for P would be nonstop and so loud that not much else of a positive nature in the admin gets reported.  Of course, that could also happen if she stays at State and makes a big success of it.  Interesting possibility, but I can imagine enormous amounts of energy needed by the Obama admin just to manage the media's firestorm of speculation, so for that reason I think the VP scenario may not be in the cards.


    If Obama gets HRC into his (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:35:23 PM EST
    administration, he will have to get the word to the media that the days of Hillary-bashing are over.  I think he could achieve this if he wishes.

    Dream On (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 04:03:50 PM EST
    If anything, (none / 0) (#150)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    Obama is supremely confident about his decisions.  He didn't ask Biden to be a placeholder and he has and will have a congenial working relationship with the incoming VP.  Obama will not drop Biden for a guy he doesn't even know.

    Can't you run for both at the same time? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Saul on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:16:25 AM EST
    I am under the impression that if 2012 is her renewal date for Senate and she also wants to run for the nomination of president that she does not have to resign her senate seat to run for president.

    Depends on the state law, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    and I'm not familiar with how NYS handles these things.

    I think though that politically she would be under more pressure next time, in the very unlikely event she runs once again in the next cycle, to make a clear choice between the two offices.

    Fortunately, I don't think the issue will arise since she's very unlikely to be running again against Obama, who's unlikely to so totally screw up, à la Jimmy, such that she would see an opening and take it.  And given Ted's example, she's not likely to take it.

    Which means the next plausible time for her to run would be 2016, and for reasons of age and how that matter is a little different for women than for men in our society, and because of the Dem party's tendency to go with fresh faces, she would face a tough primary battle that year too.


    She wont run in 2012 because (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ai002h on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:49:40 AM EST
    even unpopular sitting presidents are tough to beat in a primary cause they're still popular with their own party. Kennedy in '80 and Reagan in '76 were formidable opponents, but they both came up short for good reasons. Considering Obama has proven himself to be a great campaigner, he would need to be historically unpopular for Hillary to even consider it, and it aint easy to get to those levels, it took Bush 2 terms, lol.

    Ahem (none / 0) (#71)
    by blogtopus on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:37:15 AM EST
    Since the subject of age came up with McCain, and everyone was dictating actuary reports, how exactly old is Hillary likely to be?

    I think she's going to be JUST FINE. :-)


    Talking frankly about (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by brodie on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:59:55 AM EST
    age-related matters gets into sensitive areas, I know, but it's just my sense that our society is a little more forgiving of older men pols than women.  Wish it were otherwise.  

    But, you never know.  With advancements in science and dermatology and all the fancy and weird stuff they have to make folks look younger these days compared to yesteryear, she could end up looking as good at 69 in 2016 as she did at 61 this year.


    But then (none / 0) (#157)
    by SM on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:52:42 PM EST
    all you'd be hearing about during the campaign would be her botox shots.

    Let's not kid ourselves - if such a big deal was made about McCain's age, you can bet that the media will be fixated on Hillary's age and will probably do segments comparing her appearance from her 2007 run to her 2015 run or some other such inane subject.


    Hillary born October 26, 1947--women tend to be (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    written off at an earlier age than men in our society. For a 2012 attempt, she would begin running when she was 67 years old.

    Just sayin'.

    I don't know how well she will feel by then, whether she'll feel up to the incredible grind of a campaign.

    McCain was born in 1936.


    Ooops--I meant 2016 run. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jawbone on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    What in the world are you talking about? (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by zvs888 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM EST

    That would make all of the work she's put into getting him elected worthless.

    2016 is the closest we're going to get a new Democratic nominee.

    The reason we'll never see another big primary challenge is because of how much of a disaster 1980 was.  No one wants a repeat of that debacle.


    I attended several of Richardson's events during (none / 0) (#11)
    by JSN on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:09:36 AM EST
    Iowa caucus and came away with the impression "There is a lot less there than meets the eye." OTOH I fail to see why anyone would think Kerry is ten times better than Richardson.

    Clinton is qualified to be Secretary of State but that does not mean she would be a good choice. I would prefer Albright.

    This should be obvious to Obama as well. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    I really don't think they will pick Richardson. I just think he is being "handled" as a courtesy since he obviously wants the job and came out to endorse Obama during the primaries. There are so many better choices. Clinton would be just fine as Secretary of State but I think she would be better in the Senate or in HHS. Maybe they could offer Reid some other job and let Hillary take over Majority Leader.

    Reid isn't moving over (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by WS on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:23:48 AM EST
    and even if he did, there are other Senators who would take over and its not Hillary.  Sen. Reid likes being Majority Leader and running the Senate.  

    Hillary as SoS would be best for her and her future prospects at even higher office.  


    What latino individuals can Obama bring in (none / 0) (#64)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM EST
    I don't know much about the latino leadership in this country, but at least in the popular press Richardson is up there in terms of important figures.  Given that identity politcs (combined with competence) is important, who could he appoint and to what to help him continue to build a strong relationship with the latino community?

    Side note.  If Clinton does become the secretary of state, the unforunate thing is that it will give Dick Morris just that much for camera time to blather.  I am almost willing to throw her under the buss just so I don't have to hear him or see him as much (just kidding).  I am guessing the Clinton's curse the day (I know I certainly do) they let that snake be part of their lives for a second.

    I can almost guarantee... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    ...that Frederico Pena will be appointed to Obama's administration in one capacity or another.  

    Former Mayor of Denver, Obama's National Campaign Co-chair, Sec't of Transportation/Energy under Clinton.  Pretty solid resume and a decent, smart, pretty down to earth guy.



    I forgot Senator Ken Salazar... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    ...who is reportedly being considered for a couple of positions.  

    Gets him out of the Senate and allows Gov. Ritter to appoint one of the many rising (and more liberal) stars in the state party.  I would love to see Andrew Romanoff finishing Salazar's term.  


    and Feddy Pena is likely in the mix.

    Thom Hartman made ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    an interesting comment about Richardson a while back.

    He was talking about how most people take in information primarily through their eyes, or primarily through their ears.

    But he said there's a there's a third group.  Those who take in information kinesthetically, i.e. through their bodies.

    He said Richardson falls into this group.  It's so true.  Watch him listen to question in any of the debates, and see his body and face go into all sorts of odd contortions as he takes the question in.

    Since Hartman mentioned this, it's all I can see when looking at Richardson.

    Agree About Clinton (none / 0) (#94)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    But that's mainly because I think her talents would be wasted on being SOS.  I've always thought Clinton could be a pretty great senator and believed her during her weepy talk in New Hampshire that she wants to help regular working people.  I think she could actually do that in the Senate -- leading on health care reform, card check unionization, extended family leave, etc.

    As Secretary of State she will have a prestigious job, but she will simply be implementing Obama's policy.  She will not be a leader.

    The other reason for not wanting Clinton to accept the SOS position is that I would prefer that Kerry get it.  That would leave Russ Feingold as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  And that would be a fine thing.

    Though Kerry has not had a particularly distinguished career in the senate, those areas where he has distinguished himself have been on investigating involvement of the contras in marketing cocaine in the U.S. and in investigating the BCCI scandal.  He was a congressional leader in those investigations. Kerry has shown himself to be a determined opponent of the abuses of intelligence, training and weapons sales to torturous, despot friends of the Republican national security elite.  He would be a good pick for the job.

    And, circling back, Kerry's absence from the Senate would not be as big a loss as would Senator Clinton's.

    I don't think she will take SoS (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    unless Obama's foreign policy direction is going to emphasize many of her core issues: health care, women's equality, child welfare.   She would be a fantastic and credible advocate for women and children on the world stage.  Although I hadn't really thought of her as SoS, I see the genius in her selection.

    If she wants it, I hope she will take it.  


    I would like Hillary as be our SoS (none / 0) (#168)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 11:02:07 AM EST
    I'm all good with that.  My spouse (being the soldier that he is) has voiced that Obama should beg Powell to do it.  It is difficult for my husband to grasp that Powell was a small miracle that the Bush Administration had going for it once but that the Democratic party can probably pull from its own ranks several someones more versed and capable to deliver what the job requires.  As far as the thoughtfully serving military goes it would seem that Powell is still God's right hand man :)

    I thought your husband was in the tank (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 06:16:34 PM EST
    for Hillary Clinton?  (I also thought Powell walked on water!!!)

    I just read my comment from yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    I really need to stop changing my sentence in mid sentence :)  I just can't help cracking myself up I suppose.  He's still in the tank for Hillary.  He is worshipful of Powell though too as many soldiers are and I think he felt a lot of pride having someone who was decent, thoughtful, retired military as our SoS.  He doesn't hold that U.N. thing against Powell either, not like I do though I try every day to find some forgiveness.  Perhaps when Powell publishes his memoirs I'll find out what the heck really happened.

    I haven't forgiven Powell yet. Good (none / 0) (#185)
    by oculus on Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 10:57:24 PM EST
    idea:  tell-all memoir.

    Richardson is fine (none / 0) (#175)
    by joel dan walls on Sun Nov 16, 2008 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    If memory serves me correctly, the Secretary of State deals with foreign affairs. Bill Richardson can speak to several hundred million Spanish speakers in their own language. Someone remind me which foreign languages Hillary Clinton speaks fluently.

    "Threw Clinton under the bus"--what nonsense.