No, I don’t believe I asked that question in my post. It’s fairly obvious you consider him a bigger threat to national security than Bin Laden and Putin combined. I think it may be coloring your ability to be reasonable.
The one whose funding goes directly to AIDS research and combating global climate change? THOSE TERRORIST BASTARDS!
How? You still haven’t explained that. HOW will he undermine the Obama administration whenver he feels like it? What sinister control does he hold, exactly? If the man had that much power, Bush never would’ve gotten a second term.
The Bay City Rollers? The reanimated puppet corpse of Lamb Chop?
Ah, screw it. On Inauguration Day, Obama should announce that he is filling his cabinet positions with a basketful of adorable kittens, and have done with it.
Dammit! It was supposed to be a surprise! Alright, who told him?!
No kidding. It’s only been about a week and a half since the election and the Obamacans are already looking to roast him on a spitfire. Let me ask the naysayers this: who, exactly, is qualified for the Secretary of State position who would represent sufficient change for you? Tommy Lasorda? Andy Dick? Hugo Chavez?
Does she really think that her seat in New York is in danger of going to a Republican? Or is she worried about the growing influence of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party?
The Socialist Party. I’m sure that will be more agreeable to the naysayers here.
What do you mean, how? The same way he derailed Hillary’s campaign by turning blacks against her. By running off at the mouth at inconvenient times to inconvenient parties. His little “South Carolina” moment cost her a lot of support by trying to diminish Obama as a “black candidate” like Jessie Jackson. I think that blacks were really insulted by that because Obama is so clearly above the kind of pandering that Jessie Jackson does.
It’s not that Bill Clinton has all that much power. It’s just that Obama is coming into power as an inexperienced guy, so any kind of sensed weakness and he’ll become the next Carter. The benefits of having Clinton are outweighed by any potential negative effects you could see out of him.
There’s an obvious gap in experience between Bill Clinton and Obama. Obama has to prove that he’s in charge in a serious way and can tolerate no blunders. A disagreement between the two would completely undermine his somewhat weak authority. The President can’t really afford to have people undermining his will.
I guarantee you that he is the reason why Hillary won’t be Sec. State, and if you don’t understand the reasons I outlined above you simply don’t understand the way Obama or Clinton work. Obama needs to have a record of getting things done and looking like he’s in charge before he can afford to share the spotlight with Bill Clinton. I don’t think he’s ready to do that yet. Look, I think Bill Clinton is a very powerful man with a lot of good intentions, it’s just that I’ve never seen any evidence of them playing for anyone but team Clinton. They’d be a huge asset when they are on the same page as Obama, but how are they going to act when they don’t agree?
Can you not picture the headlines? “Clinton[Hillary] and Obama ad odds over policy X,” followed by some choice quotes by Bill undermining Obama. After all, he’s got opinions and people care to hear them. If they’re anti-Obama it makes the story even bigger.
That is unless Obama seems to think he can somehow dominate the Clintons. He will have the power to fire them if he wanted to. But then I’m sure they’d try to put him in the position they’ve tried to put him now by crying foul if he doesn’t appoint her. It’s typical Clinton press games like the following:
A) saying that Obama could be her VP when she was behind last spring
B) saying that she was in the running for VP when it was clear nobody said she was
C) acting super hurt that “SHE WASN’T EVEN VETTED!!!”
D) pretending that Obama’s considering her for Sec. State.
That’s bullshit political games that Obama doesn’t really need.
It’s not impossible. Rudy Giuliani is still unemployed, at least politically; William Weld is back in New York (I think), and somebody else could come along. They’d be challenging her replacement, not her, since in theory the replacement would not be as well-known and would not be the person the voters elected. Gov. David Paterson could be vulnerable to a challenge for the same reason. It’s not like there are no Republicans in New York. Pataki won three terms as governor, Bloomberg won election as a Republican and succeeded Giuliani, and Al D’Amato served three terms as a Senator.
Historically, the Secretary of State is typically either a very close advisor to the President (Kissinger, Rice) or an exile (Rusk, Vance, Haig, Powell). Clinton obviously is not a close confidant of Obama, so she if she’s smart, she probably ought to see it as exile.
Why, then, is she floating her name out there? My best guess is that it’s a second-order effect. She assumes there’s no way Obama would appoint her, but this way she gets to portray herself as aggrieved. See, e.g., the VP selection process.
I’m not sure if you’re up on the papers, but Obama isn’t running for president anymore. He was elected. Bill Clinton saying stupid things isn’t going to get him unelected.
I was going to answer the rest of your quote bit by bit but this is the second time you’ve told me I don’t understand why Bill Clinton is TEH EVIL which will wreck the Obama presidency and that I just don’t understand the way these people work, even though you’re the one forwarding a theory that tactics which did not stop Barack Obama from becoming the Democratic nominee or the President of the United States will somehow miraculously work now that he is in office.
Either he will offer the SoS job to Hillary or he won’t, and she will take it or she won’t. If he does and she accepts she will likely do a fine job. If she doesn’t he will replace her. Or she will choose to stay in the Senate and he will find someone else for the spot. So far the Clintons whining to the press has done little other than annoy people who are bored with their whining.
Tactically, I think it would be a good move. Offering her the HHS spot after the debacle of her push for universal health care would re-awaken hostility and Obama will never pass the health care legislation he wants.
Being a Democratic senator in New York is a pretty stable job, so I don’t know if I’d take the offer. A Secretary of State could be out of a job in four years. But usually the rumors don’t get out until they’re pretty sure the person will accept the offer. Then they try to make it seem as if the person had to ponder it. If you like to travel a lot, then you might like it. The problem is that, because you’re a high profile international political figure, you can’t just go to an estadero and hang out, which is the whole point of traveling.
Just because he can’t get unelected doesn’t mean losing support won’t hurt him. A President’s support affects how able he is to govern, just ask the leper, President 20%. A President’s power is a living, breathing thing that is affected by a million factors. Remember how Bill Clinton’s defeats led to the Republican Revolution of 1994? Bill Clinton was seen as an almost failure in the first two years and it hurt him. His failure on UHC and Gays in the Military seriously undermined his power.
'm not saying that Clinton is TEH EVIL. I’m just saying that he shown no evidence of being subservient for overall democratic goals. His support of Obama seemed pretty half-assed. Maybe I came off as a little too alarmist-sounding, but my point is that Obama can’t really afford losing any political capital for stupid reasons. There is simply too much work to be done. He should play it ultra-safe with the Clintons since they are a double-edged sword.
Bill Clinton = possibility for undermining Obama
Undermining Obama = possibility for split between democrats
split between democrats = possibility for Obama legislative failure.
Why run that risk when you can go with a safe pick in Kerry? Kerry will be an effective Sec. State with enough clout on his own to get the job done. I’m not saying that it’s inevitable that Clinton will fuck Obama over, but he could seriously undermine him. People DO care what Clinton has to say, and if times are tough for Obama and if Bill Clinton comes out to criticize him then you’ll have a lot of people on his side doing the same.
He can do that already, but by giving HRC that post Obama would be de facto sanctioning their behavior. They’re too powerful to be inside the Obama faction. Again, Hillary couldn’t keep him under control when it was her ass on the line, why would he obey when it’s Obama’s? Again, not like he’s got some sort of secret powers, but it’s just a risk that Obama would be wise not to take. Clinton can hurt him, and he can hurt him more if his wife is Sec. State. He’s already demonstrated that he’s not particularly interested in helping Obama out beyond what he’s required to do as a prominent Democrat.
The very fact that you and I are having this debate is the reason why it should never happen. You’re obviously a Clinton fan. It’s understandable, but if Hillary and Bill get passed over you’ll forget about it and move on. But what if Hillary does get that Sec. of State job and she starts getting out of line to the point where all Obama can do is fire her? Where are you going to come down? There’s an example of what Obama would like to avoid.
I’m not a “Clinton fan,” other than preferring her tax plan to Obama’s. But so what if I was? I’m a Mavericks fan* too. Does it automatically follow I’m not capable of discussing members of my team without seeing any drawbacks? Sorry, but I didn’t gush over Hill. I just didn’t take the panicked, doomsday scenario you presented seriously. She could be a good pick. Bill doesn’t enter into the scenario, IMO. Not as the spouse of SoS, and I don’t understand why you believe he does. Has the spouse of SoS ever had influence over foreign policy? This is a serious question; I don’t know the answer as I can’t recall people in the media going on about how Madeline Albright’s SO insisted that she be nicer to Turkey or he was gonna put a hurtin’ on that woman, just you watch.
I’m seriously curious as to why you keep saying “Bill Clinton” when he isn’t even being considered for a post unless you’re actually trying to assert that Hillary is a drone who can’t think for herself or say no to her husband when both are demonstrably false.
Do you mean Bernie Sanders? He’s not a Socialist, he’s from the Vermont Progressive Party, which is much closer to the Democratic Party than the Socialist Party.
Does he have much cross-party support in New York state as a whole? I’m asking because I have no idea. During the campaign, he came off as much more of a sad, bitter Republican than he ever did in 2001. (Not to mention that 9/11 is still every other word out of his mouth, which has to start ringing a little hollow eventually, right? Even in New York?)
Has the spouse of the POTUS ever had influence over foreign policy? Did Bill ever give Hillary leeway to express her opinion on matters and shape his decisions?
I think so. Why would it be different on a “lower” level?
My beef against this move is that I think it would contribute to party infighting between the Clintons and Obama. We don’t need that. We need Cabinet members that are of a similar mind as Obama that really are serious about inspiring some kind of changes in our government that actually matter and aren’t window dressing.