Transition Porn: Secretary of State Chatter

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 08:36


Lots of people are chattering about the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

Clemons points out that this would be the same move as Bush's boxing in of rival Colin Powell in 2001, to keep Clinton from presenting a competitive threat to Obama in 2012 should Obama stumble.  

Tea leaves aside, one possible choice for SoS left off the table is Wes Clark.  Clark is well respected by both Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta, and obviously has the skills and aptitude for diplomacy and repairing American relations.  He would also bring a much needed ace into the cabinet who could handle possible pushback from the military against Obama's command.

It's a thought.  Put your transition porn gossip or speculations below.

Matt Stoller :: Transition Porn: Secretary of State Chatter

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Transition Porn: Secretary of State Chatter | 52 comments
ick (4.00 / 1)
I supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries mostly because of foreign policy. Majority leader, HHS, Atty Gen'l, Majority Leader, fine. But not Sos. And if Obama is really thinking this will "box Clinton in", he's seriously underestimating her ability to take bad advice (her husband reeeeaaaalllly wants her to vindicate his presidency).
I have a bad feeling that the only reason he's considering this is because he doesn't have the stones to choose between Kerry and Richardson, and whatever that (apparent) grudge is between him and Wes Clark.
Why not Kerry for Defense? (4.00 / 2)
Picking a Repub for Defense seems like a really bad move politically. It reinforces a completely bogus conventional "wisdom" about Repubs being superior on security issues. STOP THE MADNESS!

Why not consider Kerry for Sec. of Defense. Richardson seems like a no-brainer for State due to his proven diplomatic skills. I think Hillary has the aptitude for any position. I would worry about a possible rogue agenda. But she definitely has the skills to execute an Obama agenda if she is a true team player.

How about Howard Dean for Labor Secretary? Or Clark?

I would not do anything with Powell except maybe Education.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Does Hillary want it?? (4.00 / 1)
What does Hillary think of all this? She defers to team Obama, who refuse to discuss.

Is it the place to best use Hillary's talents? She deserves a place at the table, she's earned it.

I would rather see her (4.00 / 1)
as Senate Majority Leader. That way she can embarrass Obama from the Left, like she did when she voted against censuring MoveOn, and against FISA.

If she takes a cabinet position then Obama is the one signing her paycheck, and she will not be able to pressure him when neccessary.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I would rather see her on the Supreme Court. (4.00 / 1)
Nothing would make me happier than having her in Scalia's face every day, day after day for the rest of his life.  There is justice in them thar robes, and she could really look out for women's issues in this role.  
[ Parent ]
Bill Bradley dammit! (4.00 / 1)
:)  
Really? ... (4.00 / 1)
Clemons points out that this would be the same move as Bush's boxing in of rival Colin Powell in 2001, to keep Clinton from presenting a competitive threat to Obama in 2012 should Obama stumble.

When, other than Kennedy against Carter, has someone run against a sitting President in a primary?

I believe ... (0.00 / 0)
... Pat Buchanan, 1992, and the "dump Truman" efforts of 1948 come to mind.
[ Parent ]
Reagan ran against Ford in '76 (n/t) (4.00 / 2)

[ Parent ]
But Ford was never elected. (4.00 / 1)
That seems like a special case.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Powell effectively (0.00 / 0)
took himself out of further consideration for the WH in 96, when his wife nixed the idea on security grounds after all those months of positive pub over his possible candidacy.  96 was his time to strike while the iron was hot; it came and went.

Second, Hillary has made similar statements in recent weeks about how 08 was most likely (or words to that effect) her last run for the top spot.  If Obama stumbles in the next few yrs and loses public support, it's unlikely another Dem coming along to wrest away the nomination after a bitter intraparty bloodbath would have any reasonable basis from which to run a winning gen'l election campaign.  At that point, the nomination wouldn't be worth much.

I wonder if Obama's offer, if it is real, is intended both as a makeup for slighting her on the VP spot and as a reward for her positive and energetic campaigning in the fall on his behalf, and secondly (as some have suggested) as a substantive move towards having a solid pro in charge of foreign policy while he concentrates on the more challenging domestic matters.

[ Parent ]
only four heartbeats away! (4.00 / 1)
i can hear the wingnut keyboards rattling now...  

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.
I agree with Josh Marshall's take on this (4.00 / 3)
Link:

Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama.

I'm not sure I agree with the Powell/2001 analogy.  Sec. State was the most logical position out there for Powell, who didn't have any government job at the time, and was discussed frequently during the campaign as the most likely candidate for that job if Bush became president.  It's not the same as with Hillary, who has an influential spot in the Senate and actually ran in the primaries against Obama.

I've always pushed for Clark as National Security Advisor whenever the Dems got back in the White House, although perhaps that position has gone too much in the direction of being filled by someone personally close to the president for him to have a real shot at it under Obama.  Maybe he would have been a more realistic candidate for that position if Hillary had become Prez.

Senator Clinton (4.00 / 1)
The problem with this logic is it assumes Clinton likes being a Senator.  It has always been my belief that she became Senator as means of enabling her run for the White House.  I have no idea if she wants to stay in the Senate or not.  In fact, if there is still one more run left in her, SoS would be the perfect addition to her resume.

So I think she would take it.

[ Parent ]
Indeed, the evidence tends (0.00 / 0)
to suggest that, like Bobby before her, the senate seat was intended to be a means to a larger end.  Not that either of them shortchanged their constituents in NYS -- to the contrary in fact.

As to continuing as senator, given her previous heavy emphasis on job-creation in the state, and given the current short-term dim prospects for substantial economic recovery, she may well not want to have to deal with all the frustrations in being such a small force in a much larger recessionary hurricane.  

She may prefer at this point to move on to issues, foreign policy, where her knowledge and negotiating skills can be more immediately impactful.  Not unlike the 1938-9 period, where FDR tired of tinkering with economic relief and seemed to welcome a shift to dealing with matters regarding the dark clouds gathering abroad.

[ Parent ]
She loves being a Senator (0.00 / 0)
She has always loved being a Senator.  

She loves being productive and in charge. She did not go into this to with the idea she would run for president.  That came later.

I think she wants to be in an arena where she has agency...and the Senate is a seniority organization.  and she's so junior she still doesn't even chair a subcommittee.

And health care seems to be firmly in Ted kennedy and Max Baucus's hands...not hers.  She may not have a significant role. And no Harry Reid aint going nowhere.  

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

[ Parent ]
that's the problem (0.00 / 0)
Whatever sway she has in the outside world, within the Senate she's #68 of 100, and around #35 or so within the Democratic caucus.  I would understand if she wasn't interested in sitting around and waiting.
[ Parent ]
she is more powerful than that (0.00 / 0)
Her fundraising ability, her role in being one of the leaders of a large wing of the party, and the way the media focuses on her means, I think, that pratically speaking she is not #35 or so within the Democratic caucus.
[ Parent ]
in terms of chairing a commitee, that's where she is. (0.00 / 0)
And seniority rules aren't going to change on that.  

Tell me what wing of the Senate she leads, and who's in it.

[ Parent ]
Not what I am disputing (0.00 / 0)
I don't think chairing committees is the only way to weild power in the Senate.  I think having robust power in the party translates into power in the Senate.  Not perfectly of course, but it has to make some difference.

And the wing of the party that she, in part, leads is the DLC.  I never said she led a group within the Senate.

[ Parent ]
What makes you think you know this about her? (0.00 / 0)
Specifically how do you know she loves being a Senator, or why she became a Senator in the first place?
[ Parent ]
I have known her for 17 years (0.00 / 0)
We are not bosom buddies, but political colleagues.  And frankly her body language and other cues, especially when she's not "on" for the press are very easy to read.  She has also said so repeatedly.  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
SecDef seems like it was a more reasonable role for Powell (0.00 / 0)
And he would have done the job better than Rumsfeld.  I don't like Clark for Sec. of State at all.  I don't know why people think that being a general is good preperation for being the Secretary of State.  Even if it is good preperation, I think experience in the State Department or time on the Foriegn Relations committee is far better preperation.  I would bring up some moral qualms about his handling of the Kosovo war, but that might count as derailing the thread.  Plus I am no expert on the issue.
[ Parent ]
Clark (0.00 / 0)
I've predicted before: Clark will not get his phone calls answered by the Obama administration.  I can only guess why.  My speculation is that Obama doesn't want to share the limelight.

As for why HRC would want SoS:

  1. She's sick of Washington and taking the loss of the nomination hard.  She stands up for Moveon, but the guy who piles on gets the nomination.  
  2. If she stays in the Senate, she doesn't even have a committee chair.  
  3. She figures that when the shit hits the fan (there are very very bad times ahead), all Democrats in Washington will get tarred with the same brush. All indications are that the Democrats are going to be too busy feeding at the trough to deal effectively with the huge problems that are looming.  Just look at their inept mishandling of the bailout.
  4. She wants to do something historic with her life.  Perhaps she could bring peace to the Middle East, which is the key to getting the US out of Iraq.

contradiction (4.00 / 2)
obama doesn't want to share the limelight, yet would have HRC as SoS?

I think Wes Clark has given some bad impressions or done something wrong politically that we cannot see in the blogosphere.  

It makes no sense that he's an outsider on paper....his first job would have to be to become a political insider.  He hasn't done that.  

[ Parent ]
Eh. (4.00 / 3)
I think a transition to a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court is a better fit for those concerns than a temporary cabinet posting.  

I'm also unaware of her support of MoveOn causing any detriment to her campaign; I think you just wanted to remind people that Obama chose to abstain from that vote.

As far as "the limelight" is concerned, Wes Clark has barely gotten mainsteam media attention since ending his presidential campaign in early 2004.  I think you're overrating his ability to command attention.

[ Parent ]
she has said no to SCOTUS (0.00 / 0)
It's not her.  They live too monastic a life..it's not for her. She was quite clear about that.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Qualifications (0.00 / 0)
Beyond having a law degree, what are her qualifications for being on the Supreme Court?  Put another way, what qualifications can you point to that she has, which Harriet Miers did not?

Am I the only one who thinks that she is in what might be the best job she could have as a public servant?  It strikes me that her abilities and experience means that she makes a better Senator then anything else.  She quite clearly has a wide range of policy knowledge, but she has nothing to distinguish as among the best in any one area.  That is how it should be for Senators.  They should be jacks of all trades, allowing their staffs to inform them on the details in a given area that they do not know themselves.  She is also very clever and perceptive politically, which makes me think she has to be good at the kind of deal-making that goes on in the Senate.

[ Parent ]
easy (4.00 / 1)
She's actually thought about issues of constitutional governance and the rule of law.  

Look: this is a really freaky, rare time in American history that there's not a single member of the Court who has ever had to run for elected office, let alone served.  The Court that ruled on Brown v Board of Education had nine justices who had never served as judges before being nominated to the Court.  

Someone who's been in the other two branches of government would be very useful these days.

[ Parent ]
Not convinced, but it looks like she is SoS anyway (0.00 / 0)
She's actually thought about issues of constitutional governance and the rule of law.  

This is not that distinguishing a characteristic.  Take any reasonably sized university in the country and I bet you can find several people who have spent more time thinking about these issues then her.  I am not engaging in Clinton bashing here, but given the nature of her political activity there is no way she has been able to give these issues the kind of attention that a legal scholar has.

Someone who's been in the other two branches of government would be very useful these days.

Maybe I am just being stubborn and cranky here, but I don't take being First Lady to amount to significant executive branch experience.  Heading up the health care task force does amount to significant executive experience, but given that the political handling of the bill was an abject failure, and that the policy itself was dissapointingly centrist, I am not sure this is a selling point for her.  

As for her Senate record, while I am pretty deeply ideological opposed to her on a wide range of issues, I will admit she is good at that job.  She is effective and, it seems to me, has just the right kind of knowledge and background for the job.  That is why I think it would be a good idea to keep her there.  She has excelled at being a Senator in a way she has not in her other political jobs.

Look: this is a really freaky, rare time in American history that there's not a single member of the Court who has ever had to run for elected office, let alone served.  The Court that ruled on Brown v Board of Education had nine justices who had never served as judges before being nominated to the Court.

I do not mean to suggest that experience in the other two branches is a bad thing.  I admit that it is a good thing.  I also do not want to say that having been a judge is necessary condition, or ought to be, for being a member of the Supreme Court.  But it is a plus.  Legal reasoning is a very different animal then the kinds of reasoning that goes into policy.  It is also quite different from abstract political theorizing.  Being a judge shows experience with that particular kind of reasoning, and I think that is valuable.  But I admit there have been excellent Supreme Court justices that have had no prior experience as a jurist.  But usually they have distinguished themselves in the legale profession in some way, either as a legal theorist, or an attorney.  She has not distinguished herself in either way.

[ Parent ]
I believe your question was: (0.00 / 0)
"Put another way, what qualifications can you point to that she has, which Harriet Miers did not?"

"She's actually thought about issues of constitutional governance and the rule of law" is the answer you got.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Good point (0.00 / 0)
I lost track of the dialectic.
[ Parent ]
don't condescend (0.00 / 0)
Many of us here (including me) are experienced lawyers.  We know what goes into good judging.  And I don't see that "she has [not] been able to give these issues the kind of attention that a legal scholar has" as being a minus, esp. in a Court with several justices (Roberts, Thomas) whose pre-SCOTUS judicial experience was pretty minimal themselves.

I want another Warren.

[ Parent ]
I didn't take myself to be doing so (0.00 / 0)
So if one lawyer said what I said to a person he knew to be a lawyer, I would agree it would be condescending.  But that isn't the situation.  I am not a lawyer.  I didn't know you were.  And the education I have had in law (which basically amounts to classes about law, not classes in law, if that distinction makes sense on its own) has given me enough knowledge to know that the skill set is not entirely the same between different kinds of theoretical activies relating to politics.  Does a lawyer know this?  Sure.  If I had known you were a lawyer would I have said it?  No.  But I have met plenty of people who think that having a policy background is good enough for being judge, or who think that knowing a lot of political philosophy makes them a competent commentator on the law.  And it doesn't.  And I don't think that is common knowledge.

So if I condescended it was unintentional (which might mean it couldn't count as condescension, I am not sure).  Anyway, I am sorry I made you feel condescended to.

As for your examples, I don't take the fact that Roberts and Thomas had little judicial experience and became justices to be much evidence for what we should do now with regards to SCOTUS nominations.  It might matter if they were good justices, but they (especially Thomas) aren't.  And you might think that part of why Thomas is not a good justice (how often he simply agrees with Scalia), is that he is not himself that adept a legal reasoner.  And maybe I am rushing to judgment or being to partisan with respect to Roberts, but I certainly don't see anything that makes him better then the bare minimum of what we can expect from a justice.

I am open to being proven wrong on this.  I think Warren was a good judge as well, and I think he understood the proper function of the court better then people with lots of experience who are currently on the court (Scalia).  And I certainly don't want to argue that experience as a judge trumps other qualifications, like being really smart or having well reasoned opinions on the issues.  If you can point me towards an article or something like that which looks at the educational and career background of justices I will be happy to simply stop talking about this until I have read it and digested it, because I admit the knowledge I have at hand about the history of the Court is not impressive or anything.

[ Parent ]
here's a list (0.00 / 0)
1/3 of the justices in the Court's history had no prior judicial experience, including in this century alone such jurists as:
William Rehnquist   Asst. U.S. Attorney General   1972-2005
Lewis Powell President of the American Bar Ass'n, Private Practice 1972-1987
Byron White Deputy U.S. Attorney General 1962-1993
Earl Warren Governor of California 1953-1969
William O. Douglas Chairman of the S.E.C. 1939-1975
Felix Frankfurter Asst. U.S. Attorney, Asst. Secretary of War, Prof. of Law at Harvard 1939-1962
Charles Evans Hughes Governor of New York,
U.S. Secretary of State 1910-1916, 1930-1941

[ Parent ]
Thanks (0.00 / 0)
Thanks for the list.  Rehnquist, Powell and White I knew about, but I don't think any of them were particularly good justices (perhaps I am being unfair to White).  Warren I knew about, but I had forgotten about Douglas and Frankfurter, both of whom I recognize as good justices (though I don't think Frankfurter's judicial philosophy was right, I think there is a significant difference in quality between his opinions and the opinions of someone like Rehnquist, whose judicial philosophy I also disagree with).  I think Douglas is the best person to point to with regards to defending Clinton.  Warren and Frankfurter both had extensive legal experience (which I think it is fair to say Clinton lacks) though they weren't judges.

I don't think this list proves either of us wrong, precisely because it is such a mixed bag.  Some of the best justices are here (Warren) and some of the worst (Taney).  At the very least I don't think this list supports the view that getting someone without judicial experience gets you someone of Warren's quality, and it obviously doesn't doom you to someone of Taney's. I also don't think there is much more to say.  For one thing the matter seems moot for now, given the SofS news.  For another the kind of argumentation it would take to advance the debate is more appropriate for an article, or at least a diary.  We would have to compare this list to the list of all the rest of the justices who had judicial experience (which it would probably be wise to break up into people who had experience on a federal or state appeals court, and those who had some lower level judicial post) and trade evaluations of past justices (which would require a full fledged debate about judicial philosophy, among other things).  But I think this has been fruitful anyway.  Again sorry I sounded condescending.

[ Parent ]
Speculations (0.00 / 0)

I'm also unaware of her support of MoveOn causing any detriment to her campaign; I think you just wanted to remind people that Obama chose to abstain from that vote.

I'm only trying to convey what might be her mindset.  Frankly she has got way too little credit for the way she has handled herself after losing the nomination.  I keep thinking of Steph saying that while Bill was soft on the outside and hard on the inside, Hillary was quite the opposite.  I'll "speculate" that deep inside she feels quite bitter.


As far as "the limelight" is concerned, Wes Clark has barely gotten mainsteam media attention since ending his presidential campaign in early 2004.  I think you're overrating his ability to command attention.

SoS would give him the platform to grab more attention.  Kerry is hopeless, just look at him on the gasbag shows, a shadow of his youthful self.  Powell has demonstrated from his stint as SoS that he poses no threat to anyone, he is the original loyal soldier, to a fault.  I don't understand the relationship between HRC and Obama.  I suspect they could make a great team, partly because of the tensions between them.
[ Parent ]
"My speculation is that Obama doesn't want to share the limelight." (4.00 / 1)
Speculation based on what? That seems like a ridiculous statement. If he's averse to limelight-sharing, why would he be considering Hillary or Kerry or Colin Powell to major cabinet posts? That seems like a pointlessly dickish and unfounded speculation to throw out there.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Read Clemons (0.00 / 0)
http://www.thewashingtonnote.c...

The guy has an ego.  Imagine that, he must be the first elected president to have an ego.

I don't care if Obama has an ego the size of Mount Rushmore, as long as it doesn't get in the way of making the right choices.  I don't know if that has anything to do with his relationship with Clark, I did just call it speculation.  Just a personal gut feel based on the way the primary and presidential campaigns were run.  

[ Parent ]
Hillary's possible SoS motivation (4.00 / 1)
She wants to do something historic with her life.  Perhaps she could bring peace to the Middle East,...    

Very plausible. So far so good.

...which is the key to getting the US out of Iraq.

Wha???

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Vis Versa (0.00 / 0)
I've predicted before: Clark will not get his phone calls answered by the Obama administration.

After the way Clark was left out to dry by team Obama last summer, calls from Obama to Clark may go unanswered too...

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Other options for SecState - based on the JFK model (0.00 / 0)
If Obama is the second coming of JFK, then he would be going for someone he trusts on Foreign Policy, someone he's worked closely with. I think it was "The Best and the Brightest" which suggested that JFK wanted to nominate J. William Fullbright. Some might suggest that the current version of Fullbright is already in the upcoming administration (like Fullbright, Biden was chair of Senate Foreign Relations). This also argues for Lugar.

But since Biden is in the administration, perhaps this frees Obama to go elsewhere.

I thought traditionalists always went for a career diplomat for SecState. And yet, all we see on Matt's list for the position are career politicians of one stripe or another.

I've listed a bunch of other options here http://openleft.com/showDiary.... - including several career diplomats, such as Holbrooke, Lake, Kurtzer, and Dennis Ross.

Back to the JFK analogies - Adlai Stevenson did a bang-up job as UN Ambassador - and I think some suggested would have been a better choice for SecState. While John Kerry sort of is in the Stevenson position, as the previous D Presidential candidate, I'm sorry, John Kerry is no Adlai Stevenson.

Another JFK analogy - his final choice was Dean Rusk - of Georgia. On the surface, this sure sounds like Sam Nunn. But Rusk was pro-Vietnam war. Nunn has spoken out in the strongest terms against our military involvement in Iraq - though I suspect he would be slow about our withdrawal.  

Last JFK analogy - I forget which historian argued that the best choice would have been Averell Harriman. The basic argument is that he would have been dynamic in his push to get us out of Vietnam, not a shrinking violet like Rusk. I suppose that could apply to Hillary - as she is no shrinking violet. OTOH, Harriman knew literally everyone in diplomatic circles, so that might also argue for Holbrooke or Clark. (But there's the flip side of "dynamic" and "no shrinking violet" - someone who is not afraid to PO others.)

Clinton to UN? (4.00 / 1)
Wouldn't the U.N. make a lot of sense? If she does hate Washington, it's the biggest job Obama can provide. And it's in her adopted home state, so she could relax at home every night. It's a great job, and she's more likely to stay in the job longer than SoS.

As for "what next?" after that, there's 2016 and another presidential run. (She'll only be 68.) Or she just might end up on the Supreme Court, perhaps if a second slot opens up during the Obama administration. (I'm thinking the first slot won't make as much sense.)

[ Parent ]
I've seen a few articles that suggest (0.00 / 0)
Caroline Kennedy is the front runner for the Ambassador to the UN post.  
[ Parent ]
Re Fulbright for SoS, (0.00 / 0)
he was JFK's first choice, but Bobby argued strongly against based on Fulbright's very public segregationist stance and how that would clash with or undermine Kennedy's plan to reach out to the emerging African nations.  Later in the admin, as they were disappointed with Rusk for his inept managing at State, Kennedy seemed to be thinking of shifting the smart and loyal McNamara to State for the 2d term.

As for Adlai, he thought himself a shoo-in for State, but Kennedy didn't like his backroom and even backstabbing behavior at the Dem convention.  He was neither liked nor trusted by the Kennedys, so was never going to get a top cabinet post, though they gave him due credit for his public conduct at the UN during the Missile Crisis.

Harriman:  the Kennedys thought highly of him early on -- following through loyally and competently as JFK instructed him to negotiate for a neutral status settlement in Laos, a real hot-spot in 61; then for his fine negotiating in the 63 Test Ban Treaty with the Soviets.  JFK though was not pleased with some of his activities re VietNam -- the hasty and unfortunate cable by him which led months later to Diem's eventual overthrow, and as Kennedy sought to engineer a complete withdrawal from Nam where Harriman, strongly anti-withdrawal, acted in ways to quietly undermine such initiatives.

[ Parent ]
Clemons - wrong - Powell was never a Bush rival (0.00 / 0)
This is an incorrect analysis which only sheds a bad light on Obama and HRC.  

Powell best chances by far were the 96 or 2000 nomination.  He was never going to challenge Bush in 04.  He wasn't on the hill, he couldn't cause trouble there.  

Powell was a symbolic pick for Bush, that's all.  It was about optics primarily, and secondarily about appeasing the few remaining R foreign policy moderates.

Powell was not a rival.  He didn't want to run for President.  His wife didn't want him to, that's for certain.

This is stupid beltway power politics party prattle.  

Yeah (0.00 / 0)
According to some sources I've read, Clinton was considering Powell for Sec. State at some point during his first term, partly in order to ward off the potential of a Powell run against him in '96.  But that wasn't what it was all about in 2000.
[ Parent ]
Wes Clark (4.00 / 1)
Is Obama's distancing from Clark just campaign strategy/fear of his raising McCain's POW status in a negative way, or is it something more?

I've wondered if he plans Gates/Clark at Sec. of Defense. Gates for 2 years to oversee Iraq withdrawal and then Clark in 2010 or 2011 when the ten year limit on his military status expires.

That is my hope (4.00 / 1)
I would much rather see Clark in Defense over State.  Our military is completely broken right now and we need Clark to fix it.  Clark would be very good at State but he is needed in Defense.

But I've given up on Clark and Obama working together, unfortunately.  Clark has Obama's back, but Obama seems to barely know who Clark is, and what he does know doesn't seem to be very positive.

[ Parent ]
Other transition porn (4.00 / 1)
Politico says that Summers may be off the list for Treasury.
It kinda makes sense... (0.00 / 0)
Actually, I had never thought of her as SOS, but it makes a weird kind of sense.  I think she would do well in the job.  I think the folks over there would like it.  I hope that her supporters would be happy too.  

The problems that Obama faces are huge!!  Having someone strong in the SOS position would make it easier for him to focus on the problems with the economy.  I think Hillary has the chops to do the job.  As always, there is the problem of Bill, bless him.  

RE Clark, I was a big fan of Clarks in 2004, sent him money re his race for the presidency.  But I saw him (in a casual setting) in Austin, and he looked/acted a bit like a blowhard type.  I still wouldn't mind seeing him in some position, but not SOS, or even Defense for that matter.  And remember, he has an economics degree - there could be other places for him.

Clark is conspicuously missing from ALL cabinet discussions... (4.00 / 1)
...I think this is a ridiculous mistake but there must be a reason. Clark is a pretty liberal Democrat. He would be EXCELLENT in many posts and, goddammit, my vote is for Defense with Homeland Security as runner up. Obama needs to send the message that Dems are just as strong on defense and security (or stronger) than Repubs. This means NOT putting someone like Hagel in as Defense Sec. Hagel can have State. I am FINE with that as long as he pushes the administration's policies and opinions. Also, really praying for fascists like Jane Harman to be passed over for HS
Transition Porn: Secretary of State Chatter | 52 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox