President-elect Barack Obama has interviewed primary election rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Richardson for secretary of state, according to Democratic officials who revealed his secret meetings with both as he weighed the decision on folding former foes into his new administration. Obama met with Richardson late Friday afternoon, a day after conferring one-on-one with Clinton at his Chicago office, said several Democratic officials.
Richardson has already proven his diplomatic mettle in places like Sudan, North Korea and Iraq. Also, it would be great to have a proponent of No Residual Forces in Iraq so high up on the power ladder. So, should Clinton not accept, I think Richardson would be a very good choice.
As far as Clinton goes, while I'm sure she would do a fine job, and while I'm sure some would disagree, right now I would rather return to the question of whether being Secretary of State would help her chances of becoming President in 2016. Yesterday, I wrote that it would, as long as the Obama administration is popular. In response to my assertion, Nate Silver offers "a qualified no," which I will discuss in the extended entry.
Still, we haven't really addressed our question: If Hillary Clinton's goal is to become President of the United States in 2016, would she improve her odds by accepting the Secretary of State position?
My answer to this is a qualified 'no'. If the Obama administration is perceived as successful, that will likely make Clinton's road to the White House easier. But this is probably true whether or not she serves in Obama's Cabinet. If the Democratic brand is strong in 2016, Clinton will have little trouble riding that wave and presenting herself as a safe, trusted, capital-D Democrat (which is essentially her brand to begin with), almost no matter what she had spent her time doing.
On the other hand, it would probably be easier for Clinton to extricate herself from an unpopular Obama had she avoided serving in his Cabinet. This is particularly the case if Obama loses in 2012, in which case Democrats would inevitably want to go in a "new" direction in 2016. Clinton would find it easier to present herself as that alternative if, say, she served as Governor of New York, rather than as a member of Obama's cabinet.
As far as Clinton's 2016 chance are concerned, I'll go along with the comparison between the benefits of being Governor of New York and Secretary of State, and examine it in the three most likely scenarios we will face in eight years:
Obama defeated for re-election in 2012: In this situation, it would obviously be better for Clinton to be Governor of New York than Secretary of State. If Obama is unpopular enough that he is defeated for re-election in four years time, then the country will not welcome back the highest-ranking members of his administration in 2016. See Mondale, Walter. In this scenario, accepting the job it would indeed hurt Clinton's chances. The only Democrats with a chance would have to come from outside the administration, such as Governors.
Obama is re-elected in 2012, but is unpopular during his second term. Let's say that Obama follows a similar trajectory to Nixon or Bush, and is re-elected but then quickly becomes unpopular. In this scenario, it will be virtually impossible for any Democrat to win, no matter if they are inside or outside the administration. See Ford, Gerald for the inside example, and McCain, John, for the outside example. If one party has been governing for eight years, and that party is unpopular, then it really doesn't matter if Clinton is Governor of New York--the very heart of Democratic, blue-state governance--or Secretary of State--the very heart of the Obama administration. Either way, there is no path to the Presidency for Clinton in 2016, which will be the last year when she has a realistic chance at the job.
Obama is re-elected in 2012, and is popular during his second term. In this scenario, it would be better for Clinton to be a part of the popular, winning team. The country would probably be looking for a steward to carry the Obama administration forward, or at least the Democratic brand forward, and Clinton would be at the top of the list on both counts. If she were Governor of New York, then she might actually face problems in the Democratic primary from, say, Secretary of State Bill Richardson, who would be the steward of the outgoing Obama administration. Secretary of State would cover her bases by allowing her to remain the most highly visible Democrat in the country, and in the administration, after Obama.
On balance, if these scenarios are considered equally likely, then game theory still slightly leans toward Clinton as Governor of New York being the best choice. However, there are complicating factors specific to Clinton and the New York Governorship that flip the decision back toward accepting the job.
For one thing, David Patterson might not go quietly from his job, and running a second brutal primary against an African-American won't help Clinton repair her image with the African-American community (not to mention that New York has, at least in terms of raw numbers, the largest African-American population in the entire country).
Second, the three scenarios above are not equally likely. The first and most damaging one, if Obama is defeated in 2012, is also the least likely outcome. Republicans are in disarray to the point where a Democratic Congress with an 11% approval rating just won the largest national popular vote victory this country has seen since 1984. It is going to take longer than four years for the country to forget what it was like under Republican governance. Further, the Republican bench is pretty weak right now. So, Obama's chances at re-election in 2012 seem pretty good, thus making the second two options, which favor taking the Secretary of State job, the better bet.
Third, Secretary of State rounds out Clinton's resume more than Governor of New York. Our still sexist nation will have difficulty viewing a woman as a tough leader on foreign policy even in eight years time, but it will have a lot less difficulty viewing a former First Lady and Secretary of State that way. Clinton's skills on domestic issues are somewhat in question given her leadership in the 1994 health care fight, and being Governor of New York would offer her an opportunity to put those fears to rest once and for all. However, she is still a Clinton, which has always given her strong domestic credibility.
I say that, at least in the abstract, being Secretary of State improves Hillary Clinton's image more than being Governor of New York. Further, it certainly helps her image more than remaining in the Senate, where many long-term Senators are ready to cap their careers by taking leading roles on coming legislation. The path to Senate glory for more junior Senators will be difficult:
Democratic officials, speaking only anonymously about private negotiations, say Clinton asked Sen. Edward Kennedy to establish a subcommittee that she would lead that would allow her to shepherd health care reform through the Senate. But Kennedy, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, wants to lead the effort as a capstone to his career, and there also are other members with more seniority than Clinton whom he wouldn't want to bypass.
It is a reasonably close call, but I still think Clinton does more for her chances in 2016 by accepting the Secretary of State job than by declining it.
STATE BLOGS
