Hillary At State: Done Deal?

Politico (and Andrea Mitchell at NBC) say so:

President-elect Barack Obama is "on track" to name Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as his secretary of state shortly after Thanksgiving, two senior Obama aides said. Financial disclosure issues have been worked out, aides said. The officials said they expect her to accept.

I think this is right and I think it has been a done deal, subject to the Bill Clinton financial stuff, since last Thursday. Basically, when the President asks you to serve, you can not say no. I think a lot of the drama was folks on the Obama side hoping to torpedo the idea and hoping that Bill Clinton would provide the excuse. Bill Clinton knew this and made sure that it was perfectly clear that he would do whatever was necessary. On a related note, I agree with Josh Marshall on this:

I want her to stay in the senate. I think it's the perfect job for her. . . . Her voice, ability to politick, her smarts, just who she is as Hillary Clinton are really needed there, especially as Ted Kennedy's health may limit his ability to push big legislation in the way he has for decades. It's not one or the other; it's both. She's needed in the senate.

That's why I wish she was not going to State as well. I think the idea that she can not do a fine job at State is absurdly ridiculous and, for whatever reason (perhaps even because he believed it) Josh chose to push that line and it became fodder for CNN. In any event, Obama appears to have made his decision and what I think or you think or Josh thinks is, as it always was, irrelevant. The President-Elect has made his choice apparently, and that's all that matters on personnel matters. BTW, that holds for John Brennan as well, though I will continue to vociferously oppose his presence in an Obama Administration. You know what effect that will have on Obama's decision? That's right, none.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Helping People and Defending the Indigent: The Other Infrastructure | Obama Rejects Clinton Derangement Syndrome >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I knew they would come through! (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:48:04 AM EST
    She was such an awful Senator--a hawk, dishonest, ambitious (gawd forbid!)--and disqualified from being President.  But now that they don't want her in the Obama administration she's just too good in the Senate. Make up your mind, Josh! Which is it?  Methinks you'll love her at State once Obama tells you she is.

    I love this about Obama. He's unwilling to listen to the bloviators. I'm loving him more and more every day!

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:58:48 AM EST
    For the record and to avoid any confusion, I think Sen Clinton made a grievous mistake on IWR, but is a terrific Senator and frankly, I think we need her there more than we need her at State.

    She'll do a fine job at State of course, but we need a strong, vibrant, intelligent and powerful Senator more than we need Clinton at State.

    Let me put it this way - I can live with Kerry at State in exchange for having a powerful Sen Clinton in the Senate. Now, if Richardson was the backup, then Clinton was imperative at State.


    I agree with you. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:03:41 AM EST
    I think it benefits US as Americans more to have her in the Senate.  However, I think that it's a wonderful thing to have her representing us to other nations. She will do a great job at State.  

    Do you think Obama will address the CDS in the media? She's on HIS side now (always was, just officially at State). I wish he would!

    Honestly? The best thing to me about her at State is that it forces her down the throat of the CDS sufferers in the blogs.  What are they going to say? Obama made a mistake? Gawd forbid!


    I think he addressed it (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:06:27 AM EST
    by naming her Secretary of State frankly.

    On some level, I think this move was more important than any words he would have said.

    You know, I have underplayed that aspect of it - Obama basically rebuking CDS by this move.

    I should have given him more credit for that.


    True. This is his way (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:10:12 AM EST
    of telling them to shove it. And I love it.  That's really one of the biggest benefits to this in my view. It kills CDS. It's the only cure!

    See my new post (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:16:13 AM EST
    Hillary as SOS (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by S on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:36:41 AM EST
    yes, I agree she would be instrumental in the Senate, however I believe that Hillary's presence is needed on the international world stage at this crucial time in History, if not as President, then along with our democratic president...

    she is the right person...the right woman...at the right time...

    ...all the talents, cache, charm, experience, relationships with world leaders, intelligence and strength of her personality will be a profound help in fast forwarding the restoration of our country and our place in the world...Hillary automatically comes with world admiration and credibility and good will...

    ...Kerry or Richardson do not even come remotely close...the bench team in comparison...

    don't want to go to far ahead...but I am on record for seeing a Nobel Peace Prize in Hillary's path...


    Disagree (none / 0) (#26)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:07:14 AM EST
    that Clinton would be 'better' in the Senate than as SoS. You forget that she is a junior Senator with no chairmanship and even just got declined by Kennedy to form a new sub-committee that she wanted to chair. No chairmanships = very little power in the Senate. She knows that, I know that, but apparently a lot of people in this thread don't know that.

    So given the choice of where she can do more good and have more influence for our country and for the world it's an easy decision for her. The Senate offers little in the way of those things. State allows her to use her talents and have a daily direct connection to the WH and to all members of congress and to the leaders of the world. What a No Brainer for Hillary.

    Side note: I can't believe you are buying Marshall's tripe. He no more believes that than he believes the moon is made of cheese. His words are nothing more than deodorizer after his stench filled CDS for the last year. That he fooled you is amazing.

    Side note 2:

    Last Wednesday while you were still pondering whether the SoS offer was real I called it and simply and logically explained why.


    My take (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Trickster on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:39:15 PM EST
    John has gotten a few tons of critical e-mails and is stepping back vis this post.

    John? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    Do you mean Josh? And he is backing off what?  I don't understand what you are talking about.

    Josh - yes (none / 0) (#39)
    by Trickster on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:36:52 PM EST
    Heh heh, don't know what caused my slip, but me and a guy named John are cooperating on a project here at work. . . .

    Knowing she has NO power in the Senate (none / 0) (#45)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:15:31 AM EST
     -- no more than she'd have being on her own --
    Josh's column read more like a "Get back to the kitchen"

    Not really ... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Erehwon on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 07:50:20 AM EST
    HRC is my senator too, but my state can easily find another competent Democratic junior senator. But State will be critical in the next few years to correct the damage of the last eight! So it would be good to see HRC head that department.

    Good thing about my state (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:04:47 AM EST
    is also that we have great people that could take her seat--Nydia Velazquez, Nita Lowey, or RFK Jr (remember they were talking about him maybe taking his dad's old seat should Hillary become Prez?)

    I totally agree with this (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Lil on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:10:38 AM EST
    I hope Obama really just picks who he thinks is the best for particular jobs and critics be damned. State needs someone superior, IMO. Lots of Dems are waiting in line for Clinton's Senate seat.

    who? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Nasarius on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    I saw a list of names recently floated by Politico as our potential next Senator, and didn't particularly like any of them. It'll also be a shame to lose one of the best proponents of universal health care when there will certainly be a big fight in the Senate over that issue in the next year or two.

    That said, I absolutely agree that State is critical in the era of post-Bush cleanup, and I can't think of anyone better than Hillary Clinton for that position.


    I think the above mentioned (Lowey (none / 0) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:24:07 AM EST
    and Velazquez) are both good choices. Lots of experience for both of them. Lowey is fairly liberal and Velazquez is quite so.

    Not so sure about Kennedy though.


    No reason not to appoint a real liberal (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    I don't think a Republican has won statewide in New York in ages, excepting Pataki.

    Kennedy is off the list as far as I'm concerned. He's a conspiracy theorist with a big name. (The autism vaccine link and Ohio vote fraud are his greatest hits). I also hear that he isn't pro choice, though I'm not sure about that.


    Heh, I just realized (none / 0) (#41)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    the new senator will also be Hillary's senator, lol!~ They better have a spine  ;)

    I may be (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by OldCity on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:25:39 AM EST
    a cynic, according to Marshall, but I'm comfortable with that, having never met a disappointed pessimist.

    I think the recent task force assignment is a bit telling for HRC.  Much noise has been made about her influence and her effectiveness, etc, but truthfully, she wasn't going to have an agenda setting role. She wasn't given a committee assignment that would give her power.

    Realistically, if HRC wants a position that will give her a true role in setting policy, SOS is better.  The Senate doesn't work on fame.  There's a misapprehension about that HRC was going to be a powerful force in the Senate...not so true.  She's truly knowledgable about healthcare, but they didn't give her a position of power; her task force has none.  Now, an arguement can be made that she wasn't given more because of the potential SOS appointment, but I don't think so.  The Senate is still a pretty traditional place; you've got to put your time in to get a gavel.

    The SOS appointment, while it reeks of mutual compromise, is a good deal for both, moreso for Obama.  The SOS is not an independent actor.  He/she works for and must advance the policies of the President...to not do so invites a loss of position, which would be horrible for HRC in the very unlikely event she broke from the administration.  No Senate seat, no cabinet position...bad.  

    Of course, the thing that we miss about HRC is her pragmatism...she is a team player.  So she will do well as SOS.  Team play isn't so important in the Senate, while dickering over legislation.  The ultimate goal might be shared, but not necessarily method.  


    Seems a moot question now (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:29:28 AM EST
    Good career move for Hilary (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:21:21 AM EST
    After the pathetic performance by Condi Rice, Clinton will look fantastic! I do agree, I would prefer her in the Senate but I'd like to see her as majority leader. That isn't going to happen. As SOS she will be one rather than one of a hundred.

    With Ted Kennedy's future looking bleak, Obama is going to need a strong Senator to steer his agenda. Clinton could have been that person.

    He has Daschle now (none / 0) (#46)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST
     - knows the legislative processes, for sure, and also the details needed to be given much thought.

    WKJM's comments.... (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by rise hillary rise on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:35:24 AM EST
    to me were so transparently BS that it made me gag. yeah, right, he's proud of her and thinks she's a good Senator. yeah, right. he HATES her.

    it's interesting to see Reid et al try to throw her a few bones to see if she'll stay in the Senate, after they thought they could just pretend that her Pres campaign didn't matter, she'd just meekly go back to sitting in the 4th row. not so fast. healthcare subcommittee? cold leftovers. now if they'd offered her Homeland Security, that might have meant something. this looks like an afterthought.

    after everything she's done for the party, they still gave her less respect than they gave to Loserman.

    she can distinguish herself as SoS in a way that she will never be able to do in the Senate. I say, go for it.

    Completely agree (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    After everything he's said, and all the lies and disinformation he's shoveled her way, there's no way I believe that his opinion is now based on how wonderful he thinks she is in the Senate. He just can't stand to see her gain prominence, he wants her as marginalized as possible.

    Disingenous hack IMO.


    Reid or Kennedy (none / 0) (#31)
    by WS on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    Reid wasn't so bad and during the primary, he stayed neutral always complimenting both Obama and Hillary.

    Kennedy, on the other hand, was disappointing.  So he denies her a subcomittee chairmanship, which is his prerogative, but once she's offered the SoS, he offers her a spot on crafting UHC policy?  Not to mention Kennedy's comments about a VP Hillary way back in the summer when Obama clinched the nomination.  Ugh.

    I admire and respect Kennedy but I have no idea why he does not like Hillary and badmouthed her in public.      


    IMHO, no reason to admire nor respect him. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Amiss on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:09:30 PM EST
    I admire and respect Kennedy but I have no idea why he does not like Hillary and badmouthed her in public.

    He has worked on health care, but I can not admire nor respect a man that left a woman in a car at the bottom of a river. IMHO he has no right to badmouth anything the Clintons have done or been accused of doing. IOW, he that is without sin................and he is far from that. Although I have been a faithful Democrat all of my adult life, I can not see all of the Kennedy family adulation.


    Leaving her in the river after trying to find (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:24:35 AM EST
    a way to get her out of the car was understandable.  Not getting help and then greeting people with small talk and then going home to bed to sleep without reporting it was what was indicative of the worst, at that stage in his life at least.

      Yes, his remarks about the VP needing to be someone with integrity.  That takes gall.  A friend reminded me that when Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Obama but Massachusetts went for Clinton, that was probably not taken well.

      Her crime was continuing to run once Obama was selected.
    1980 is a HUGE example to show why there should be no hard feelings for what she did, which was to run hard for the job, though less hard than was done in 1980.


    Fun with anger! (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by MaryGM on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:37:32 AM EST
    I was admittedly kind of indifferent to her taking the position. I know she'd be good at it, but it's not like she doesn't have plenty to get done in the Senate (and I prefer her domestic policies). However, all of this Pavlovian anger over her appointment has been kinda fun.  Christopher Hitchens losing further control of his alcohol-soaked motor skills on "Larry King" the other night was too hilarious to not hope for more.

    I think you are gracious to Josh in assuming that (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by bslev22 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:55:08 AM EST
    his modified explanation for opposing Hillary's appointment to be SoS is based in large measure on his desire to keep her in the Senate.  I guess I initially thought he was seeking to retreat in a dignified way from the precipice of absolute and irretrievable CDS, but if you can be gracious to him than so too should I be gracious and assume his good faith.  I accept and concur with the view that Hillary Clinton will be missed in the Senate, as the Democratic majority seeks to navigate through tough waters to get healthcare reform and labor law reform, etc. without the kind of strong leadership that Hillary could have provided.  I also do believe she will make an absolutely incredible Secretary of State, and will be a great asset to President-Elect Obama and this country.

    Grrrr. My first sentence is totally garbled. It (none / 0) (#23)
    by bslev22 on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:58:05 AM EST
    should have read "I think you are gracious to Josh in accepting his explanation that the reason he opposes Hillary's appointment to be SoS is based in large measure on his desire to keep her in the Senate".

    Or something . . .


    No it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    it forestalls tons of future "investigation" by the loony right

    We all know that it won't forestall any such looniness. The right was perfectly happy to make stuff up that warranted "investigation." And we've seen that even Democrats are not immune to CDS-inspired looniness. Why, even some posters here have hinted darkly at the need to "muzzle" the Clintons, "eliminate distractions," keep them in line and properly subservient to Obama. Imagine that.

    I Like State (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Trickster on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 12:50:40 PM EST
    Remember the circumstance here:  our nation is facing what is probably its greatest domestic crisis in the last 75 years.  Dealing with that is going to require almost all of the President's time, attention, and political capital.  If Obama does not turn the economy around, he will not be re-elected, period.

    At the same time, our nation's international prestige has taken a monstrous nose dive over the last 8 years, and we can't afford to turn our back on the world while we deal with our internal problems.

    A further complicating factor: the new President has virtually no foreign policy experience at all, with his experience pretty much confined to a single tour of the Soviet Union under Dick Lugar's charge, focusing on the no-brainer issue of nuclear disarmament.

    The solution: put Hillary, strongly assisted by her chief advisor, pretty much in charge of foreign policy, providing only a broad framework to work within.  Wrest an agreement that she and Bill will conduct the political kabuki necessary to make it appear as if their policies and ideas are Obama's policies and ideas, then turn them loose.

    My sentiments exactly, Trickster (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:21:53 PM EST
    I have been thinking about what may well be a convenient, mutually-beneficial division of labor as well. She has an unusual cache, a personal and reflected power, so significant for the international arena (almost like the classic Secretaries and Foreign Ministers of whom we read.) Obviously, none of us really knows the background or what may evolve, but the more one looks at the potential success for them and for us...well, it has incredible zing. (Sort of a merger of two famous houses--ala old European history--that could serve everyone well.) Its a good bet because they both display the brilliance and determination to conform all behavior toward achieving stated strategic goals. People like that often develop deep, genuine respect for each other in the process.

    oh yeah, geez, (4.00 / 1) (#12)
    by cpinva on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:54:04 AM EST
    subject to the Bill Clinton financial stuff.........

    some horrid person might donate money to bill's foundation, to help eradicate AIDS in africa. obviously, that would be a clear conflict of interest!

    give me an f*ng break already! every time i think the obama people couldn't get any more pretentious or arrogant, they rise to the occasion and prove me wrong. exactly what is they think they (and anyone else who's been conscious for the past 16 years) don't know about the clintons, short of (maybe) the size of her cervix? they have to be the two single most vetted people in history.

    on that basis alone, were i sen. clinton, i'd tell (nicely) pres.-elect obama, and his advisors, to "take their job and shove it", and stay in the senate.

    Financial (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by OldCity on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
    disclosures and confict of interest declarations are always part of government service.  They're no more exempt than anyone else.

    It's certainly not arrogant to be pre-emptive.  Full and thorough vetting only benefits the Clintons, in the sense that it forestalls tons of future "investigation" by the loony right, and becuase the administration will be prepared to defend any untoward allegations made against either Clinton.

    If she's going to be there, they want her focused and successful, not pre-occupied with other cr@p.  


    It seemd a fair concern to me (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 08:55:54 AM EST
    Heh, great esteem here for the 59 dem senators!!! (none / 0) (#27)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    All the talks about how we need Hillary in the senate, as the lioness of this or that, speaks  volume about the esteem and regards tat exist out there (and here) for the democratic senators (old and new). I say, let's them show the nation their back bones without Hillery.

    I disagree with the opinion that it would be better if she stay in the senate.  There are 59 of them there, while there is only one SoS. She should not be their babysitter, the one that shakes their conscience: let them take on their responsibilities and perform.  That's what we should demand of them, period.

    I believe we need Hillary in the SoS position more than we need her as the Democratic Senators' Peter Piper (hot peppers they are not, that's for sure, but let earn their own heat).

    There is more to the SoS job in this global economic mess than the traditional foreign policy negotiation duty.  We need the best possible international cooperation to get out of our economic mess.  Foreign governments own our horrendous debt.

    We need her to keep good economic relations with them more that we need her in the Senate, if the main reason for her too be there is to babysit this new bunch of low heath pepper senators in the Senate.  

    Clinton to accept SoS (none / 0) (#32)
    by jes on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    per the NYT.

    Politico (none / 0) (#36)
    by WS on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    also said the same thing although I think they're just copying from the NYT report.  

    Politico did report that Holbrooke might be Deputy SoS.  


    Hillary is awesome, but... (none / 0) (#33)
    by faster on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 01:57:10 PM EST
    I was for Hillary in the primaries, until I learned how much better Obama was.  Her credentials are profoundly good, and it'd be a shame to let any of them go to waste.  On the whole, I still like her, tho her campaign methods made my respect drop considerably.

    But there ARE considerations to give one pause.

    The "Bill factor," which I needn't go into in detail since everyone knows all about it.  Tho Bill helped kickstart her political career, she is no longer just an "adjunct" of a former president, but a vital, talented, knowledgeable and hardworking politician in her own right by now.

    The A-personality and ambition factor, however, is another matter.  She's accustomed to being at the head of any conference table, and won't take graciously to Obama being there.  He's going to be sitting in the chair she still feels he stole from her.  Despite their two very obvious statuses, she will still try to steal his thunder for her own political gain.  THAT is not going to help Obama's administration utilize her talents, knowledge and experience maximally.  She could conceivably become more an irritant than a help.  If THAT could be avoided, though, I'd stand up and cheer for her as Secretary of State.  She'd be a true force to contend with.  I don't doubt that Obama has taken this, and the "Bill factor" fully into consideration, and has probably demanded certain things from her regarding them.  If he appoints her, it would surely mean she has agreed to concede to those requirements.

    I feel sure he knows how valuable she could be.  He undoubtedly WANTS her as SOS, but these reservations must be considered and, if need be, dealt with in advance of offering her the post.

    There's also the fact that many international leaders are aware of any and all "dirt" that our politicians have dug up about her over the years, and they might use that to be less than cooperative, too.  But only those close to the people involved can gauge the importance of that.  Obama is a very canny person, so I feel confident he'll take that into consideration in his decision.  If he's content with it, who am I to tell him otherwise?  I voted for him in large part because I found his judgment to be extremely good, levelheaded, realistic, rational and fairminded.

    So while I have my concerns about Hillary as SOS, my confidence in Obama's research and judgment is strong enough to accept her, if he finds her acceptable.

    I'm sure he's also taken her lobbyist support into consideration.  She DOES tend to be more hawkish and more right-leaning than the average Dem, but while the former isn't desirable, the latter can have its good points at times.  A moderate, responsible conservative is no monster.  I doubt Obama will be influenced by her into hawkish policies.

    Also, the minute she's appointed SOS, the right wingers will begin to chew on her for all they're worth.  That may not thwart policies, but it can certainly demoralize the people, and confuse them, too.  Which, of course, is the whole purpose of chewing on her - to sap the public's confidence in the entire administration.

    All that's left, then, is whether or not Hillary still feels animosity toward Obama, for beating her to the nomination.  Nobody can know for sure whether she still has any, and if so, how much it might affect her performance.  All we can do is hope she won't try to sabotage Obama somehow.

    This sounds like a lot of negatives about her, but none of it is necessarily terminal to her becoming SOS.  And if he and she CAN make it work out, it'll be fantastic for our country and its international status.

    This comment is full of CDS (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:03:53 PM EST
    or at least the incidents of it.

    Luckily, it's revealed immediately (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by nycstray on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST
    and you don't have to read much of it before you skip on.  ;)

    Heh, skip on ... faster than Faster (none / 0) (#43)
    by feet on earth on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    There goes the high school reading (none / 0) (#35)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    CDS is so 4th grade.

    Not to worry... (none / 0) (#38)
    by christinep on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 03:33:45 PM EST
    I think the natural division of labor to which Trickster referred (a few remarks above) is quite probable. Senator Clinton has unmatchable international appeal in this regard...and Obama clearly realizes that. (As for Republican chewing, it is always harder to do that internationally for a given Secretary of State--absent outlandish conduct--than it is to do on the domestic stage. Really. This situation is one where the additional small risk that may be involved is more than justified by the great benefits to be seen when it succeeds.)

    I've come to like Obama a little more (none / 0) (#44)
    by ChrisO on Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    but I do get some satisfaction out of knowing that Hillary's chances of looking good dealing with foreign policy are much greater than Obama's chances of looking good on domestic policy. Not that I think he'll be worse at it than anyone else, but because no President is going to turn this economy around in short order.

    That's going to be a partnership... (none / 0) (#48)
    by andrys on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 11:32:08 AM EST
    At least it'll start out that way unless they have some vast disagreement but I don't foresee any, knowing how both their stands on Iraq and Iran were misconstrued.

      So, they'll both get credit or blame when it comes to foreign policy.  On the economy, well, that really IS a tough one.  Good luck to him and to us.