Different Ballgame in DC (0.00 / 0)

Regardless of who Obama appoints, "leaking, back-stabbing and in-fighting" will prove unavoidable.  

This isn't a political campaign staffed with tight-lipped loyalists, but a congeries of complex bureaucratic networks populated by thousands of ambitious wonks, partisans, and various other interested parties, many of whom have law degrees.  

While I expect Obama to do what he can, there's only so much control one person can exercise over such a massive operation.    

---

by: wobbly @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 16:57:38 PM UTC

Drama (4.00 / 1)

I initially supported Clinton at SOS, if for no other reason than the fact that congenitally wrong people like Tom Friedman and David Broder opposed it. But I'm starting to think it's time for Obama to withdraw the offer. There will be much more drama and gnashing of teeth over that in the short term, but I don't think I can take a couple years of this crap.

It's funny that of all the appointments, some of them people from the Clinton era, the only one that's caused a headache so far has been Hillary herself.

Of course, all this pales in comparison to the disaster that was Bill Clinton's AG selection process.

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:01:01 PM UTC

And also (0.00 / 0)

It's a reminder of why Obama was a better choice than Clinton in the primary, and why Obama's people correctly advised against picking her as running mate (though even they could not have predicted that picking somebody else would lead to the gift of Sarah Palin.)

Conduct your own interview of Sarah Palin!

---

by: fwiffo @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There is every reason to believe the leaks are coming from BOTH camps (0.00 / 0)

There are many long time Obama people in completely typical, predictable response, who hate Hillary Clinton and thought that the purpose of the primary was about denying her and her views any influence. The very act of leaking itself would serve to undermine the SoS possibility because it would wrongly be assumed that her side was doing the leaking.  Andrea Mitchell made it clear her sources were in the Obama camp.

Stabbing your enemies is something the Obama peopl, who are politicians, are more than capable of.  They maintained comity within the campaign because they all had the same interest.  Many think that this is neither in their interest or Obama's interest.

On her side, there are some who don't want her to take the position as well. And they too could leak to derail it.  

But frankly there is a lot more urgency from early Obama, anti Clinton partisans to do everthing they can to make this sure this causes enough controversy that it would keep her from SoS.

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

---

by: debcoop @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 19:50:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Pretty drama free so far (4.00 / 1)

except for the SOS Clinton manufactured by the media drama.  

---

by: illlaw @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:12:11 PM UTC

Too true (4.00 / 3)

I see no drama. Just Broderism run wild. No one worked harder than Clinton in the GE for Obama. She is a good Democrat first and foremost. If Obama wants her to serve so be it.

---

by: OhioDem @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 18:02:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To amplify - (0.00 / 0)

is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11...

It refers to "leaks," but gives no clue to what they're referring to.

It talks about removing a thorn in his side on health care.  I have no idea what that means, unless Obama is going to be passive and conservative on health care.  It suggests the Obama is afraid of a challenge from Hillary in 2012. That seems a pretty speculative  consideration and if true makes me lose some respect for Obama.  It talks about putting the animosity of the primaries behind them - but I thought they'd already done that.  Where is the evidence of current animosity?

Maybe Clinton isn't the right person for the job: maybe they have fundamental differences in their foreign policy perspectives, maybe Bill Clinton has conflicts of interests or damaging connections, or maybe it's the wrong note to strike.  But this silly game of Sirota, HuffPo, and the Versailles media of inventing drama, and then complaining about their own invention is tiresome.

---

by: kanzeon @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 20:02:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Odd there's so little discussion of National Security Adviser post (0.00 / 0)

The only thing I've seen is this:

Naming National Security Team Will Be a Priority for Obama

Surely, HC would not accept the SoS job without knowing who Obama's National Security Adviser will be. She would not want to be in the position of William Rogers, when Henry Kissinger was Nixon's NSA!

---

by: Alexander @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 17:41:47 PM UTC

Anyone got Richardson's Number? (0.00 / 0)

Why all the Clinton drama? Because that's what they do. Meanwhile, Bill Richardson, who risked his political standing by supporting Obama, sits well-qualified and drama-free.

---

by: asl @ Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 18:16:03 PM UTC