A Clinton Question

by: David Sirota

Tue Nov 18, 2008 at 12:00


In all the media discussion - and celebration - about Barack Obama potentially naming Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State, has anyone bothered to consider that the specific tasks of the job involve a major point of policy contention between the two?

I seem to remember Clinton attacking Obama for saying he would consider diplomatic engagements with certain foreign leaders that we don't like. I also seem to remember Clinton threatening to "obliterate" Iran. Obama now making his top diplomat that person who attacked over his views on diplomacy doesn't seem "Team of Rivals"-ish to me - it seems dangerously contradictory in an area of policy that is extremely delicate.  

David Sirota :: A Clinton Question
Look, I'm not conceptually opposed to Clinton in some sort of Obama administration role. I'm not even conceptually opposed to her being Secretary of State, as long as she lets the country know she's re-thought her high-profile criticisms of Obama's positions on diplomacy.

But without that, I find it weird that the role she's being considered for is a role that - at least if you take Obama's rhetoric seriously - seems at odds with what Obama campaigned on, and campaigned on specifically against one Hillary Clinton. Are we just supposed to forget all about that, after it was broadcast ad nauseum around the globe for the better part of six months? Isn't part of strong diplomacy making sure your public signals to the world are clear - and isn't it a less-than-clear signal to hire a Secretary of State who has very publicly criticized the incoming president's diplomatic stances?

I mean, sure, as a reporter, it's fun to simply prognosticate about intangible traits like Clinton "being a team player" - and doing that requires no actual journalistic work. And yeah, it's a lot to ask professional political reporters to contextualize their reporting with even a tiny bit of very recent history - that might take 5 seconds of Googling, which is a huge burden, I know. But it might be worthwhile considering that little thing known as American global credibility is at stake...  

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A Clinton Question | 33 comments
Representative democracy my ass. (4.00 / 1)
I really don't care anymore what they do.  It is apparent to me that we have frick and frack running our country and that they will do as they please.  If you like it, good for you.  If not, tough and better luck next time.  If it wasn't for those pesky elections every couple of years, it would be so much easier for them to forget we are even here.  


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
Pros and Cons (according to obama...) (4.00 / 3)
Obama Pros:

1. Brings together rival dem factions under one roof. Unites dem party in one fell swoop. (Netroots be damned.)

2. HRC is hawkish

3. Clintons adored abroad

4. Obama adored more.

5. He can't do it all at once so he puts nat'l security in hawkish able hands while he focuses on the economy, health care and energy.

6. Eliminate HRC influence over anything domestic.

7. Huge risk demonstrates courage. Faith in his own leadership.

8. Team of Rivals is worthy idea given the seriousness and level of difficulty of current problems.

9. How bad could she be?

Obama Cons:

1. Obama base hates Clinton dynasty and doesn't trust HRC to be loyal to Obama.

2. Will her political machine ever shut the f%%k up?

3. Will Bill ruin everything?

I don't know David I detest the clinton political machine and worked like hell to dismantle and destroy and beat it to death. So this is a little like a resurrection for me....however I am beginning to see the genius in it.

Could be pure genius (4.00 / 1)
A year or two as Secretary of State, maybe a new Israel/Palestinan accord and then a seat on the U.s. Supreme Court.

Remember the old adage, only Nixon could go to China?  Maybe only someone with Hawkish/AIPAC credentials can move the peace process.  

[ Parent ]
Clinton is not a SCT type (4.00 / 1)
She will not get on SCT.  She's not that type of jurist.  She's first and foremost a politician -- not a con law scholar.  
[ Parent ]
Historically SCT type's weren't all con law types (0.00 / 0)
Taft was a SC Justice, Frankfurter was more a political type than a con scholar and even Rehnquist owed more to politics than to scholarship.

Right now, we have a very narrow band of experiences on the SCT.  Might be time to broaden it.  An SCT appointment may even be a fitting culimnation for HRC's career by bringing her full circle back to Yale Law School and her work on the Watergate hearings.  

[ Parent ]
Taft (0.00 / 0)
Taft is not a Justice that Court scholars look to as doing anything monumental. O'Connor was a politico, but she was clearly a constitutional theorist.  There are politicians who have the capacity and desire to occupy the bench.  HRC is not one of them.
[ Parent ]
If you remember, however, (4.00 / 2)
she was one of the very first people to express support for the idea of Palestinian statehood, to great howls of derision from Newt Gingrich and Rudy Guliani.  She moved to the right on Irsrael/Palestine once she started representing New York, obviously.  

Hillary Clinton is a bit of a complicated chracter.

[ Parent ]
Team of Rivals? ... (0.00 / 0)
As someone else said .. what's with making Doris Kearns Goodwin queen all of the sudden? ..  Lincoln was trying to keep the republic together ... does anyone think Obama is in that same boat? .. yeah Congress sucks ... but the country isn't going to disintegrate like it could have back then .. so the "Team of Rivals" comparison is overblown .. which makes me think that a lot of people are on Kearns Goodwin's payroll
[ Parent ]
one more pro for SoS (according to obama) (0.00 / 0)
10. She is likely going to cause trouble no matter where she is so why not put her directly under you on the presidential org chart, rather than leaving her to her own devices.
[ Parent ]
politicking vs. governing (4.00 / 3)
My sense was that Hillary adopted a more hawkish stance towards Iran during the campaign (and leading up to it) because she knew that a woman candidate would be held to a double standard in terms of their toughness on foreign policy.  The same can be said for the AUMF because she was effectively running for president at that point.  I think now that she is no longer campaigning, it won't be too difficult for her to soften up on this in line with Obama's rhetoric on the issue.
She's no longer campaigning? (0.00 / 0)
Really?

She surely wants to follow Obama as president and Hillary being Hillary, she will want to solidify her reputation of a hawk who would eagerly "obliterate" nations.

What a terrible choice. Foreign policy was the one area where Obama ran clearly to Clinton's left.

Meet the new establishment, the same as the old establishment.

[ Parent ]
campaigning (0.00 / 0)
Taking the SoS position would seem to indicate that she is no longer campaigning, because it means she ties herself to the Obama administration, and is thus at most hoping to follow him in 2016.  She'd be seriously kneecapping herself to run against him in the primary in 2012 if she was his SoS.  If she doesn't take it, then the still-campaigning argument makes more sense as she might be trying to remain separate from the Administration, in case things go south.
[ Parent ]
My point was that she wants to be pres in 16. (0.00 / 0)
And will want to be seen as the former SOS who advised Obama from his right.  
[ Parent ]
That would 2016...she'll be 69! (4.00 / 1)
Admittedly women usually age better than men..

However I have heard her say to scores of people in a public/private venue that there is next to zero chance she would run again for president.  Now that ain't absolute zero...but damn close

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
yep (4.00 / 2)
It is indeed a weird pick if it happens not just because of the dissonance between Obama's policy positions and Clinton's but also because there's very little evidence that Clinton is effective at diplomacy or managing a large bureaucracy. It also seems rather doubtful that she and Bill would conform to the "no drama" style that Obama prefers. I am unclear on the logic behind the pick other than a desire to impress Dorris Kearns Goodwin.
I keep reading stuff like this and shaking my head (4.00 / 4)
If Hillary is Secretary of State, that means she and Obama will likely have discussions regarding America's foreign policy.  If they disagree on a particular issue, Hillary will likely try to convince Obama.  However, if she can't convince him, then she'll have to follow Administration policy.  

As for the flip side, I don't see adding Hillary to the team as undermining the message of change anymore than adding Biden.  First off, the change mantra is policy not personnel, and in terms of policy it meant Bush far, far more than any  other single figure in American politics.  

Seriously, what's the big deal?  You don't agree with someone else 100%.  Obama wouldn't offer the job to Hillary if he didn't think she would follow policy even if it wasn't hers, and Hillary wouldn't take the job if she wasn't willing to do that.  

Saxby Chambliss  

Question (0.00 / 0)
However, if she can't convince him, then she'll have to follow Administration policy.  

Why?

[ Parent ]
protest (4.00 / 1)
This decision on Clinton is a TERRIBLE betrayal of the left base of the party, and of the anti-war movement which helped propel Obama into office.

I have no understanding of why any leftist would be a member of the Democratic Party, but if you are, start raising hell!

Write letters. Call Obama's offices. Use your media contacts.

Clinton is completely unqualified for this position and represents the same old bellicosity as Bush.

Sniper fire? Obliterate Iran? Race baiting? Saber rattling at Russia and Venezuela? Refusal to lift the embargo on Cuba? Raising the specter of Bill Ayers -- who did everything to fight AGAINST the criminal war in Vietnam, unlike Clinton.

Obama currently has two constituencies -- (1)the mass of poor and oppressed people in the US and their supporters in the middle-class left, and (2) Wall St. and old school Clinton elites.

So far, Obama has acted solely with an eye towards the elite.

If the left doesn't oppose and organize against Clinton as Secretary of State, then everything it worked for will be lost. Clinton has wretched views on foreign policy and represents the antithesis of change.


nice try (4.00 / 2)
According to govtrack, Clinton's voting record is farther left than Obama's.  Obama's record establishes him as a 'rank and file Democrat', while Clinton is a 'far-left Democrat.'  This has never really been a secret.  Actions speak louder than words.

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...

[ Parent ]
The Good News Is... (0.00 / 0)
...the Obama team know what the issues are.  According to today's NYT:

The Obama transition team is focused on the wide array of Mr. Clinton's postpresidential activities, some details of which have not been made public. This list includes the identity of most of the donors to his foundation, the source of some of his speaking fees - he has earned as much as $425,000 for a one-hour speech - and his work for the billionaire investor Ronald W. Burkle.

The vetting of Mr. Clinton's myriad philanthropic and business dealings is "complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides," said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama's closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. "There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they'd have to be made public."

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton's activities abroad.

It's all up to Bill:

"The problem is it's going to require some sacrifice by him," said a former Clinton aide who is not involved in the discussions but did not want to be identified because the talks are confidential. "If he's not willing to do that, it could blow up."

Many Dealings of Bill Clinton Are Under Review  

So don't take Obama's rhetoric seirously (4.00 / 3)
Hey, wasn't it Obama talking about pre-emptively entering or attacking Pakistan? Iran's Guard is a terrorist organization? He'd take nukes off the table for terrorists but not other uses. He got schooled on the "without pre-conditions" bit - there will be no heading off to Beijing without a good grip of what's desired and possible. Of course any negotiation can produce an innovative solution, and it's not like Bill Clinton refused to meet with Milosevic, Arafat, the Northern Ireland leaders, etc.

In short, there's hardly a dime's worth of difference - it was just Obama's weakness in expression that came out. (I pointed out elsewhere that Obama trusted Bush on the bailout knowing what a liar he is - and whoops, a $140 billion loophole/giveaway got stuck in unknowingly. Same thing would have happened with Obama in the Senate during an Iraq war vote).

I am conceptually opposed to Clinton..... (0.00 / 0)
But I do not think the issues raised in the primaries matter too much. First of all, half of what she said she did not necessarily believe. On policy the two were very close, so to attack him she needed to make him seem naive. She has no problem saying something that is not necessarily true to get elected. I believe much of what she said was just bull. Second, the SOS really does not have any power that the President does not allow them to have. She would go where he says and speak to whom he says to speak to. The SOS does not decide with whom to have dialogue with, the president does. Now I could see her making some snide comments to the press about positions she disagrees with, however, I am sure Barack let her know that if this happens, then he will cut her loose. She is a politician at heart and will do what is necessary to make it work. If she stirs up too much it would hurt her chances in 2012/2016. I am not saying I agree with giving it to her - I do not. But, I do not believe it will be "all that bad" politically.
Well she (0.00 / 0)
believed that clusterbombs should be used in civilians areas long before she was running for president.
[ Parent ]
Many make wrong assumptions about the SOS job (4.00 / 2)
People forget that job descriptions are flexible.

Obama will define this job as he sees fit.  If HRC wants to be a diplomatic advocate for the President's foreign policy, it will work fine (like Condi Rice).  She'll have to toe his line.

If Hillary wants to go rogue and fight Obama on his policies, then she can be Cyrus Vance if she wants to.  She'll leave the job, but whatever.

It's win-win.  And the optics of an HRC as SOS appointment are good.    

Advisors advise (0.00 / 0)
Obama will go to his SOS and say, what do you think about ----?

I'd rather have someone other than Hillary answering that question.

She's only re-enforce Obama's own overly hawkish tendencies.

[ Parent ]
there will be 10 other people Obama will turn to (0.00 / 0)
don't worry, she won't be the only fp voice he hears.  i really cannot believe that he thinks she's the person to turn to on strategic stuff...foggy bottom has a lot of smart people.
[ Parent ]
Inflated differences (4.00 / 1)
During the primaries both candidates where doing all they could to inflate the differences between them.  In reality, they were never far apart.
Just one conflict??? (0.00 / 0)
I think that people decided to close down the critical sectors of their brains as soon as Obama won the Iowa caucuses.  I voted for the man, but I am able to place him in appropriate context -- i.e., view him as a politician.  Obama, his campaign and surrogates said that:

1. Clinton's war vote showed a lack of judgment.  So why nominate her as the nation's top diplomat?

2. That she is divisive.  The opposite of diplomacy, right?

3. That she cannot escape the failed "politics of the past."  Antithesis of change...

4. That all she knows how to do is fight.  

5. Many of them also argued she was a racist and the campaign even circulated Olbermann's and the NY Post's coverage of the "assassin-gate," a pretty nasty slur.

If Obama actually meant these things, then we should be shocked by Clinton's selection.  If he did not, we should be shocked that no one is mentioning that he did not!

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

Past (campaign) performance is no guarantee of future results. (0.00 / 0)
she's being considered for is a role that - at least if you take Obama's rhetoric seriously - seems at odds with what Obama campaigned on

You would also have to take Clinton's rhetoric seriously. I suspect much of her rhetoric was driven by expediency and political calculation--including the AUMF Iraq vote.

Putting her in a position where her interests will be to effectively promote Obama's own views likely means that she will work to promote his own views--because that's where her own political interest will lie, and her own political interest will be a powerful motivator. She will not be so motivated if she stays in the Senate.

I think he wants her under his thumb.

misrepresenting Clinton? (4.00 / 1)
With respect to rogue leaders, Hillary basically acknowledged she too would engage in "high level" meetings with the rogue nations. Her only substantive difference from Obama was that she would wait a year. Obama never said he'd sit down face to face himself with Ahmadinejad within days of taking office anyway, so the actual difference in policy is probably even less.

And as far as obliterating Iran, that was solely in context oif Iran launching a nuclear strike against Israel. Making it out to be some kind of Bush-esque statement of raw unadulterated aggression is nonsense - in fact, making such statements is ESSENTIAL in diplomacy - it's modern-day MAD which is how we need to deter Iran from aggression, which is far preferable than launching another ill-advised war. The neocons disagree, but Iran is eminently deterrable, so it will never come to that.

Both of these issues were standard mountain-out-of-molehill primary brawling, by both sides. Your own links provide all teh context to see how insignificant these manufactured controversies actually were.

I've blogged on this at City of Brass in some detail - I've moved my blog to Beliefnet by their invitation to be their muslim blogger guy, but I've been blogging more politics than Islam issues over there of late. Plus, my post has the best title ever.

You are right (0.00 / 0)
Obama amended his no preconditions stance to

1. waitng a year or some time.  He's already demurred about meeting Ahmenijidad immediately

2. Just like Clinton said in that debate there would be lower level meetings first...Obama later "clarified"  that implicit in what he said about meetings between heads of state that of course, there would be lower level meetings first.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
It's a prestige appointment (0.00 / 0)
There are plenty of qualified individuals who could have got the job, many of whom have been right on recent foreign policy issues. Clinton jumped the queue not because of any extra acumen (most of her wonkishness, and certainly the more attractive parts, is to deal with domestic policy) but because she's a powerful figure and Obama wanted a) an internationally known figure and b) to make sure she's onside and perceived as being onside.

She would have been great for something like HHS, but domestic policy is seemingly just not important enough to get an Inner Cabinet post and she's too notable for an Outer Cabinet job not to be perceived as a slight.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

false hopes? (4.00 / 1)
maybe the problem is that obama is not on the left and the democratic party is still the democratic party.

maybe the problem is that the left read into obama something that wasn't there at all?

A Clinton Question | 33 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox