Hillary Clinton Offered Secretary Of State Job

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 16:26


Nico Pitney reports for the Huffington Post:

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

This is a high-risk, high-reward opportunity for Hillary Clinton. If she accepts, and serves out six or eight years in a popular Obama administration, then she is practically guaranteed the Presidency in 2016. Consider that the Secretary of State has been the most popular political figure in the entire nation for about twelve years running now, starting with Albright, then to Powell, then to Rice. It makes sense, since about all Americans see the Secretary of State doing is looking stately while meeting with powerful foreign leaders who suck up to him or her.

However, there is always a chance she will be replaced, or that Obama will not be a popular President. In either of these scenarios, taking the job might make it the last job Hillary Clinton has in politics.

In terms of politics, some progressives are worried that Clinton voted for a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus making it difficult for her to hold the job. However, given that the other names most commonly floated are Kerry and Lugar, I fail to see how Clinton is inferior to either option.

Update: I should also add the rumors about Durbin and Kennedy supposedly denying Clinton a leading role on health care reform. If those rumors are true, then Clinton should probably take the job. It is the best leadership position available to her.

Update 2: Some people in the comments are saying they would have preferred Bill Richardson or Wes Clark. Clark would be a great choice, I think. Also, I did cut a television ad for Richardson, he is already proven in dealing with foreign governments, and it would be fantastic to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so close to the top. However, I have not heard either Clark or Richardson floated as serious contenders.

Update 3: Some are expressing frustration over such a high profile position for Hillary Clinton, since they supported and worked for Obama in the primaries. All I have to say to that is any belief that defeating Clinton in the primaries would somehow vanquish all Clintonistas from the reigns of power was foolish. Obama's appointments so far are full of Clinton administration officials. It makes sense, since lots of Democrats went to work for Clinton, and if Obama wants people with prior executive branch experience, that is where he has to look. Further, while the party is supposed to come together after the primaries, that doesn't mean one side is supposed to be entirely subservient to the other side.

I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton.
Chris Bowers :: Hillary Clinton Offered Secretary Of State Job

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Hillary Clinton Offered Secretary Of State Job | 77 comments
Clinton wants to be president in 8 years? (0.00 / 0)
I suppose it's possible, though I'm not sure she'd still want it then. She'd be getting up there in age, and there's no reason to believe that winning the primary then would be a cakewalk either (really, it was supposed to be a cakewalk for her this year).  After 8 years of potential "change", people are going to want to go back to Clintonism?

I'm not saying she'd be bad... just saying that this is probably looking way too far ahead, and also isn't necessarily what she'd want by then... She'd be 69 in 8 years, so who knows what she'll want.

She actually did say she didn't see herself running again (0.00 / 0)
So there's that.  But other thoughts:

1. The two main reasons I did not want her to be President were Iraq and the "Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton" issue.  But (hopefully, please God) Iraq should not be an issue in 2016.
2. She closed the campaign strong, and by the end was perhaps the best debater on the national stage, and her ability to fire up a crowd had become much improved.
3. McCain won the Republican nomination this year at age 72, and with physical limitations from his military experience that made him appear even older (specifically, the limits on his arm movements).  Hillary, at 69, would be 3 years younger, have no such limitations (at least none that are clear now), and women live longer than men on average.

I'd still prefer Richardson as SecState.  First, the guy has been proven extremely effective in foreign relations, to the point where even Bush reached across the aisle for his help on Norther Korea.  In addition, one of the things that I'd like to see Obama do is improve relations with Central and South America, and I do think that Richardson's Latino heritage would be at least moderately helpful with that.  

As for Lugar, I'm really getting tired of people bringing him up when Lugar explicitly ruled out working for the Obama-Biden Administration last week.  

Saxby Chambliss  

[ Parent ]
McCain won the nomination when he was 72... (0.00 / 0)
But lost the presidency, and his age became a major issue during the course of the campaign despite the Obama camp only pushing on it sort of gently and subtly.  Not that I care much about what Republicans think or what they'll do in 8 years, but you think they wouldn't be utterly brutal to a 69 year old woman?

Again, I'm not saying she'd be bad necessarily... just that I think this assumption that she'd have the Presidency all wrapped up in 8 years (assuming Obama does a decent job) is really premature.

[ Parent ]
My top choice is Kerry. But I think Richardson and Clinton are both good (4.00 / 3)
for different reasons.

At least, that's how I feel about the common names being floated around.

Lugar would be foolish. Honestly, I appreciate we need to reach out to Republicans... but do we really need to keep falling for the idea that Republicans manage foreign policy better than Democrats?

Yeah, Lugar is stupid (4.00 / 3)
you give one of the relatively unimportant departments to a Republican--transportation or Veterans Affairs or something.

Giving a Republican something high-profile like Treasury, State or Defense strikes me as counterproductive, at best.

[ Parent ]
Being a veteran (4.00 / 1)
and utilizing a lot of services through the VA, I really don't appreciate you sluffing Luar off on us so readily!
[ Parent ]
Veterans affairs isn't trivial (0.00 / 0)
it's an important department, obviously.  

But managing it is more about being competent and technocratically sound, rather than something like State or Defense, where major policy is formulated.

Perhaps I am misrepresenting what the Secretary of Veterans Affairs does, but I'm under the impression that it is much more about good management than anything else.  I don't doubt Lugar's ability to be a good manager.  I doubt his ability to come up with Progressive policy.

[ Parent ]
I Think It's Vital To Have A Democrat In There (4.00 / 5)
Someone who really cares about the vets, as opposed to caring about, and covering the ass of the military establishment.  Can a Rep do that?  Sure, anything's possible.  But considering how badly the Reps have screwed the enlistees and vets these past 8 years, I'd say it would just not be responsible to put a Rep in there.


"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
Quite a few posters on DailyKos (0.00 / 0)
were suggesting John McCain for that Cabinet position! They saw it as a way for Obama to prove his bipartisanship. How quickly we forget...
[ Parent ]
I Don't Know About The Cabinet (4.00 / 2)
[ Parent ]
How about Ambassador (0.00 / 0)
to Belarus?
[ Parent ]
Mmmmm Cardassia, Maybe??? (0.00 / 0)
Or the Klingon Empire?

I'd love to see him eating gagh.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Sheila Bair is a Republican (0.00 / 0)
she's been mentioned by several people (such as Dean Baker) as a potentially very good Treasury pick.

The key is finding the right Republicans.

[ Parent ]
for me, it's not about profile, it's about change. (4.00 / 1)
I'm comfortable giving a Republican something like Department of Education because it's not something they've tried to claim superiority over for the past decade. If we can find a Republican who wants to drastically reform or scrub NCLB, they'd make a great choice. A Republican who has actually helped Veterans in actions, not words, would be great for Veteran's affairs.

My issue is the "fiscal conservative" and "Republican security" hype. They keep insisting that they're the only ones who can balance the budget, the only ones who can keep us safe. They've failed. It's time to kick them out, flat out. You can't let people make big claims over and over when they're full of shit, and blow it over and over.

Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Treasury have to be Democrats. Symbols matter, here.

Everyone else I'm more flexible on. But they have to have gotten it right over the past decade, if not longer.

[ Parent ]
guaranteed the Presidency in 2016 (4.00 / 12)
She'll be 69 and ancient by then.  Who the hell wants that?  I don't even want it, and I'm 63.  Hillary needs to be on the Supreme Court where she can piss off Scalia on a daily basis until he dies.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  
Funniest damn thing I have heard all day .. (4.00 / 8)
Hillary needs to be on the Supreme Court where she can piss off Scalia on a daily basis until he dies.

I suppose there are others that could piss him off just as much .. I am sure Russ Feingold would drive Scalia nuts too

[ Parent ]
She's far (4.00 / 2)
too old for SCOTUS.  I doubt anyone over 55 will every be picked again.  Or even 50. It's a young judge's game these days so the vote gets locked in for decades.  
[ Parent ]
cuts both ways (0.00 / 0)
if you make a mistake, a la GHWB and Souter, the mistake lives on for a long time.
[ Parent ]
She's a special case (0.00 / 0)
I think given all the service she's given to the country, if she wants the lifetime seat and the ability to avoid campaigning and gossip for the rest of her life, I'm happy to let her have it.
[ Parent ]
I don't understand why people say this (4.00 / 7)
She is not and never has been a judge.  She is not and never has been a legal scholar.  She is not and never has been the leader in any civil rights movement.  She shares with thousands upon thousands of people in this country the qualification of a JD, having passed the bar in a state, and practiced law.

There are a lot of jobs that Hillary Clinton is qualified for.  SCOTUS is not even remotely one of them.

I am not sure the state department is either, but I am partial to the view that the job of heads of agencies is not to provide knowledge or expertise but to effectively manage the top level career people who do bring a high level of knowledge and expertise.  The problem is that she has no experience doing anything like this.  Neither does Obama, but you might have thought that could be made up for by giving cabinet level positions to people with administrative experience.  I am not a fan of her having an executive branch job.  Her skill set is appropriate for the Senate.

[ Parent ]
I'm Not Arguing FOR Clinton, But This Sense of Qualifications Is Ridiculously Limited (4.00 / 2)
Earl Warren had never been a judge.  He'd been a DA, an AG and a governor.  And he got the top spot, and did a damned good job of it.  As a politician, he had an interest in consensus-building, which didn't always work out, but when it did... well, let's just say that a lot of people wanted to see the dissent to Brown v. Board of Education, but they couldn't, because there wasn't any dissent.  And that was largely Warren's doing.

Me, I'd like to see Erwin Chemerinski up there.  Not just an excellent law professor (now dean) as well as an advocate, but also someone who is very well respected by those with whom he disagrees.  When the yahoo right came after him, and got him bounced from being appointed dean at UCI's new law school, he had some of the most high-profile conservative legal scholars coming to his defense.  He didn't get that by being a wuss, but simply by being respectful and fair-minded.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
Honestly (4.00 / 1)
I think "DA" and "AG" (and even "con law professor") are logically qualifying experience for the Supreme Court in precisely the way that "Senator" and "First Lady" are not.
[ Parent ]
I have been trying to be careful (0.00 / 0)
to make sure that I am not suggesting that a nominee absolutely must have been a judge, but everyone keeps interpreting me that way.  I am not sure whether it is because there are people who say it is indispensable and I just can't avoid hooking into that debate, or whether there is some problem in the way I am writing.

I think there is a standard list of good-making properties for potential nominees and on that list will be 'experience as a judge'  I don't think it is indispensable, but I am also arguing that she doesn't have many of the other properties on this list.  Experience as a DA and AG would be on that list too I think, and it is relevant that Clinton has no legal experience to match what Warren brought to the job.

[ Parent ]
As I Said, I'm Not Arguing FOR Clinton (4.00 / 1)
I just want to make the point that we've come to have a much narrower view of what to look for than folks have had in the past.  This is partly an understandable response to how politicized movement conservatives have made the process. But it's still an unfortunate development.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
1/3 of the Justices in the Court's History Weren't Judges Before (0.00 / 0)
Here's the list, including most of the justices who ruled in Brown v. Board of Ed.
[ Parent ]
I would give you an 8.... (4.00 / 1)
...for that comment, if possible.
[ Parent ]
It's A Good Thing (4.00 / 1)
For the party.  For the 18 million.  For Obama.  For the country.  For the world.  

I wasn't a fan but am now.  Hope she takes it.

I'm Batshit Crazy over this (4.00 / 2)
This is a nightmare.  If I wanted Hillary in control of FP, I would not have busted my ass supporting Richardson, then Obama in the Primaries.  Unless someone wants to convince me that it was entirely political posturing that Hillary has refused til the bitter end to apologize for her Iraq war support, I have no option other to conclude that she does in her heart feel that she made the right decision and that if she had to do it over again, would do the exact same thing.  I guess you might argue that Obama is the only one truly in control and she won't do anything he doesn't want her to do, but I am severely worried about this.  I do not want Hillary going rogue all over Obama's foreign policy.  I don't want her any where near it.  Seriously, what have Richardson and Clark done to deserve getting smacked around like this.  Serioulsy, WTF?
Not really sure (4.00 / 10)
I see what you're saying, but I think you're overestimating what Hillary's influence would be on foreign policy.  In recent U.S. history, Secretaries of State do not freelance or make policy in contradiction to the executive.  She'll basically be responsible for carrying the message of Obama's foreign policy to the rest of the world, and I suspect she'd be a serious advocate and a tough negotiator.  

I think for the purposes of image, it would be incredibly powerful - I'd still wage to think that Hillary is the second most popular major political figure in the United States right now (after Obama), and probably so in the rest of the world.  
On purely identity terms, Hillary and Barack represent a more diverse, tolerant and progressive America, and that could really amplify efforts to restore American global credibility - the moment either (or even both of them) land in a foreign country, that's what the story will be.  Imagine them in major negotiations with Iran or China - I think it will represent an authoritative new American diplomatic voice.

[ Parent ]
Rice has had a moderating influence (0.00 / 0)
on the Bushies.  I suspect that without her, as generally incompetent as she is, we'd be at war with Iran and in a much worse place with North Korea.
[ Parent ]
Secretary of State is not just 'top diplomat' (4.00 / 1)
She would also be managing the State Department and would serve as the filter between the career officials at State and Obama.  Obama could get around that by getting an undersecretary who was personally loyal to him, but that would have the potential of creating a messy administrative situation in State.
[ Parent ]
That's Not So Unusual (0.00 / 0)
Obama could get around that by getting an undersecretary who was personally loyal to him, but that would have the potential of creating a messy administrative situation in State.

It's pretty standard practice for presidents, governors, what-have-you to have their eyes and ears in as many places as possible, and everyone in politics pretty much expects this.  After all, a person who wins high executive office has a lot of loyal--and hopefully competent--friends to reward.

It's not generally a problem, and can even be a help, since having someone trusted as an information conduit can actually serve as a check on wild rumor-mongering.  The problems come when the person isn't just serving as an information conduit, but when they are messing with decision-making.  One can't always draw a bright line between the two in practice, but it's still a pretty clear distinction in concept.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
I agree in part (4.00 / 1)
I agree about the distinction being clear in concept, but that doesn't allay my worries in the least.  I would prefer to the have the person from the Obama camp in the Secretary position, not the undersecretary position.  If you want input from liberal hawks like Clinton, get it when you liase with Senate leaders.
[ Parent ]
A win-win-win (4.00 / 2)
A win for Hillary: big increase in popularity, really nice line of an impressive lifetime resume, restores Secretary of State to its previous political prominence, makes her the party standard bearer in 2016 if she so chooses without having to be VP.

A win for Obama: virtually eliminates the chance of Clinton freelancing/the Bill factor in the Senate, shifts Clintonites to Foggy Bottom and away from domestic policy, looks like a 'uniter' while potentially eliminating the only internal threat to a successful presidency.

A (potential) win for progressives: Hillary is good on a lot of issues, but I get the sense that we have a really good bench in New York, and whoever replaces her has the potential to be even stronger than she was on a lot of issues, especially given Paterson's progressivism.  

Chris, I know you're from New York - didn't Nita Lowey really want that seat back in 2000? Who do you think gets it, and will most (if not all) of the people mentioned on the short list be as good or better than Hillary?

I've heard ... (0.00 / 0)
didn't Nita Lowey really want that seat back in 2000?

that it was Lowey's till Hillary decided to enter the race .. and that Lowey was a bit bitter afterwards .. but things change .. would Lowey be the odds on favorite now? .. who knows

[ Parent ]
Lowey is my representative (0.00 / 0)
And unless moving her to the senate means I get to go to the House in her place - which seems just slightly far-fetched - then I would be against it.

Lowey is a fine, pretty predictably, old-fashioned liberal.  But she's also (I think) a bit too old.  I would prefer someone young, who could inhabit the seat for decades.

[ Parent ]
old is ok (0.00 / 0)
Let's not get trigger happy about ageism. A young president is fun, a young justice is very consequential, but New York state doesn't have a good reason to get desperate over incumbency protection.
[ Parent ]
I Had Heard That Too, But (4.00 / 2)
during the primary, a New Yorker here told me emphatically that it wasn't so, that Lowey hadn't been interested, even though people had tried to get her to run.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"
[ Parent ]
I just know that my gramps .. (0.00 / 0)
a union guy through and through .. hated Hillary .. but to be fair .. he hated RFK too .. because he said they were carpetbaggers
[ Parent ]
Meta (4.00 / 2)
And MSNBC host Keith Olbermann posts a diary at Dkos pointing to HuffPo's article on this.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

This is weird! :)

It's going to take a while to get used to our new Democratic overlords, which I, for one, welcome.

Wesley Clark (4.00 / 2)
would've been my pick among the options I've seen, although he's admittedly the darkest of dark horses.  

I predict Clinton will accept, but disagree with the SoS as a steppingstone to the presidency logic.  More than even Senate Majority Leader, the SoS, particularly now, is a position of world historical importance and will do more to advance the her standing for posterity.  

Although I'm no fan of the Clinton's, I do not say this to suggest that they act only for reasons of self interest.  Nevertheless, potentially playing a big part in middle eastern peace, the capture of Bin Laden, negotiations with Iran, &c, &c. must weigh large in Hillary's decision making here.

I'm also glad for the chance for New York to have at least one real liberal in the US Senate. Mark Green, anyone?  

I'm gonna be honest. I don't get this (4.00 / 1)
Why SoS, in specific? Is Clinton really particularly known for diplomacy with foreign leaders?

A consistent strength of the Obama campaign starting with the primaries, and one would have expected a major strength of his upcoming administration, is the surprisingly effective enforcement of the "No Drama" rule; the Obama campaign was relatively free of the factionalism, infighting and leaks that marked the Clinton and McCain campaigns. If there is a well-defined Clinton "camp" within the white house, does this make such a "No Drama" rule harder to enforce? Is there any particular reason to believe that among Clinton's experience is the ability to be not necessarily a leader, but one member of a large team?

Incidentally, who's likely to be Clinton's replacement as Senator from New York?

She has a ton of experience with foreign leaders (4.00 / 1)
From her time at state and from serving on the Armed Services committee.  

As for your second point, I think it depends largely on who the Defense appointment is going to be.  Drama out of the State job is usually over turf clashes with the Defense department--the ongoing fight that the two usually have over Pakistan (Defense believes them to be strategically critical and in need of wooing) and India (State thinks they're more stable and a beacon of third world democracy that should be strengthened) is pretty legendary.

[ Parent ]
Okay, let's say Defense goes to Gates. (4.00 / 1)
Because I've not heard any other names floated as trial balloons. What then?

Though I'm not sure we can be totally sure there will be no friction between the State dept. and the Pres/VP's office, given that he seems to have picked her for possibly the cabinet spot with the greatest distance between him and her. I mean, think about this last year. Clinton attacks Obama for being willing to negotiate without preconditions. McCain attacks Obama for being willing to negotiate without preconditions. Obama hires Clinton to... negotiate without preconditions... for him?

[ Parent ]
Political postruing (4.00 / 2)
I'm kind of amazed that people really think Clinton isn't sorry for the Iraq War and doesn't believe in negotiating with enemies. I have an impossible time imagining an alternative universe where the first woman within reach of the presidency doesn't take steps to make herself appear more hawkish.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
Huh? (0.00 / 0)
From her time at state and from serving on the Armed Services committee.

When did she work at the State department?  And except for status of forces and NATO issues, what other interactions with foriegn leaders would Armed Services give her?  

[ Parent ]
No Drama (0.00 / 0)
Wings this and wings that.  It all comes down to leadership.  If Obama doesn't want the squabbling AND he has the leadership skills, there won't be a lot of squabbling.  He'll just cut it off and people that can't stop won't be there very long.  And I honestly think he has the skills.  Can you imagine getting sent in to the Oval Office to face him and have to explain why you were shooting your mouth off to some journalist... it would be worse than getting sent to the head Nun's Office in Catholic school... and remember she's got God on her side.  
[ Parent ]
The HuffPo article does make a good point, though (4.00 / 1)
Her not being in the Senate probably doesn't help Universal Health Care any.  Though I guess she can talk with Patterson about her replacement, and try to make sure it's someone strong on that front.

Is Ted Kennedy going to be able to serve full-time next term?

A good move... but (0.00 / 0)
I don't agree with your conclusion, Chris. No one can anticipate whether Clinton will want the presidency, who the contenders will be, whether she will be seen as too old.. in eight years. She should take the job if she wants it... period..
Bottom line..Most of all I think it's a good move for Obama and will help his administration and the party.
I don't believe it (0.00 / 0)

Do you really believe this?  I don't for a second.

Al Giordano, who has been right about almost everything to do with the Obama campaign, nails it:

http://narcosphere.narconews.c...

um, it sure looks like al was off-base here.... (4.00 / 1)
he really hasn't been right about much since the primaries, during which i suspect he had a source (who dried up for the general).  
[ Parent ]
Al has been right about most things (4.00 / 2)
So I guess it depends how much you trust the unnamed sources here.

In any event, what I find strange is that there would be a story of Obama offering the position, if he really is unsure what the answer would be.  Yet, we saw the same dance when Emmanuel took the chief of staff position.

My guess is that, if the story is accurate, then it means that she's already decided to take the position.

[ Parent ]
al got texas wrong (0.00 / 0)
but he sure nailed the chicken littles.
[ Parent ]
Not to be argumentative (4.00 / 1)
But is Condi Rice really popular? I don't know her poll numbers, but I would think the view of her is pretty inept and a liar.

2nd, an ex-Secretary of State hasn't been elected since James Buchanan, who, I believe, was SofS under Polk.

That's a couple of years ago.

She is extremely popular... (0.00 / 0)
for a republican holding national office.

The main reason why SofS don't get to be president is because they tend not want the job for various reasons.

Next to when the last SofS was elected it's also important to note when is the last SofS ran for president. Does anybody know?

[ Parent ]
On paper, OK. But I trust Hillary as much as I trust Lieberman (4.00 / 2)
I believe that backstabbing is in her DNA.  
No matter what... (0.00 / 0)
as SofS, Hillary will be serving at the pleasure of the President.  I'm sure Obama will allow her some latitude, but if she goes "rogue" I suspect she'll be wishing she hadn't given up her Senate seat so easily.  
[ Parent ]
Backstabbing is in EVERYBODY's DNA (0.00 / 0)
Screwing over buddies and stealing their mates is an essential part of human reproduction.

But Hillary in the cabinet?  No, thank you.  We need as few people there with an interest in covering up old administrations' errors as we can get.

[ Parent ]
project much? (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Who has she backstabbed? (4.00 / 3)

[ Parent ]
The people of New York State (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Really now? (0.00 / 0)
seeing that she won her second term with 67% of the overall vote and The NY primary against Obama with 57% It seems that both democrats and the entire voting populace of new york as a whole disagrees with you on that.
[ Parent ]
Shit. 2 DLCers (4.00 / 2)
Rahm on one side and Clinton on the other.

Where's the change?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

DLC doesn't worry me anymore (0.00 / 0)
One thing to consider about DLC'ers is that they are not ideologues.  If you have been reading their position papers over the years, almost everytime they support a right wing/corporatist position it is on the basis of the perceived electoral benefit of supporting it.  So they don't go to the right because they think the evidence is clear that the Republicans are correct, but because they think the polls suggest you cannot win with another policy.  It is all about finding that vital center of American politics, either with the blind faith that the center is correct, or a lack of concern with whether they are correct.

But this makes the DLC essentially a group of followers.  If you move the center of the American political spectrum farther to the left on 'the objective political spectrum' you move the DLC to the left.  If you make them believe that FDR-style liberalism is back in I think most of them will go back to where they started, being FDR-style liberals.

[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 2)
but they're wrong about where the electorate is and this affects the policy decisions they make.
[ Parent ]
But I take it (0.00 / 0)
that they are open to being convinced that the electorate has shifted.  They already decided it shifted once in the 1980s.  What they haven't shown is any willingness to advance progressive policies when it is unpopular, or any willingness to try to make those policies popular.  But in my pollyanish way I am hoping we went a long way towards doing that a week and a half ago.
[ Parent ]
Two immediate reactions/ questions... (0.00 / 0)
1. How far will Obama push the Lincoln metaphor from his announcement to the Cabinet of Rivals?

2. How deep can the Senate's headliner bench be poached before some serious replacement issue (via nomination & special elections) emerges?  How good is the succession planning: strong, younger, talented candidates with high chances of success in holding on to the seat for the LONG haul?  The same would apply to the Governors' ranks if, say, Richardson, Napolitano, Granholm were tapped?

JML

On Clark (0.00 / 0)
How would Clark go over with the Russians?  Especially after the war in Georgia, it would seem pretty provocative to pick the military commander in Kosovo as SOS.
Why Does Hillary Hate Us? (0.00 / 0)
And by "Us," I mean me and my fellow New Yorkers.

If she didn't want the job of Senator, she shouldn't have run.

Is this a joke? (4.00 / 3)
If someone wins a Senate seat, and they leave it part of the way through to serve a new administration that asks for their help, that means they "hate" the people they represent?

Tell me this was sarcastic.

[ Parent ]
Where were you last Spring? (0.00 / 0)
She tried to leave us then, too.  Remember?

[ Parent ]
Us? (4.00 / 1)
I take you voted for her?

I am confused. If she is as corrupt and backstabbing as you claim, why did you vote for her? Why do you want her to remain your senator?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
As a fellow New Yorker (4.00 / 4)
Huh?

Are you suggesting that in 2000 when Clinton ran for Senate she didn't want that job at all, and it was just a stepping stone to her secret ambition to be Secretary of State for a man who was at the time an Illinois State Senator from Chicago?

I am also hoping this is a joke.

[ Parent ]
Wow, amnesia is catching! (0.00 / 0)
The primaries?  This year?  Running for President in a very ugly manner?

That was Plan One for dumping us.  

[ Parent ]
And what do you think about Obama leaving the people of Illinois? (4.00 / 1)
Some double standard at work here.

Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter
[ Parent ]
Right... (0.00 / 0)
Because New York state isn't in the union at all... As president she'd no longer have anything to do with New York...
[ Parent ]
mixed feelings (0.00 / 0)
I think that with proper handling, Clinton could be an excellent secretary of state. However, I'd still prefer Holbrooke or Gore, and I think Clinton would be more effective in a different role.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
Hillary Clinton Offered Secretary Of State Job | 77 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox