Harry’s Place

But they WILL be a deal-breaker. Obama is just going through the motions, he knows he has to pretend to take her seriously, but he knows he can’t be associated with her. The whole thing has been set up to humiliate the Clintons and show the party he is the new boss.

Another commited Zionist. The more the merrier. Perhaps the USA will save Israel from the likes of Olmert and Livni.

Netanyahu as Israeli PM would be a great match.

Funny how Obama’s administration might be regarded as more neo-con than Bush’s. Any chance we could have John Bolton back at the UN please Mr Obama?

I think it would be an excellent choice, but it yet again begs the question: what’s the point of Obama?

As we know, since he won the nomination he has adopted every single policy position that Clinton had during the primaries and has set about reassurring everybody that he’s a centrist by appointing endless former Clinton people. I think that’s great, but if you came out for one of those caucuses in the middle of winter in Iowa, especially to stab Hillary in the back, aren’t you going nuts right now?

All that rhetoric over the 18 months before the nomination about turning the page on the last 20 years turned out to be complete bunk.

Bizarre choice. I don’t understand what’s in it for either person. Obama would have a cabinet member who would be nearly impossible to fire, and Clinton would spend 99.9% of her time in public mouthing State Department pablum.
I supposed it gets her out the Senate, where she is a potential focus of Democratic resistance. Perhaps Obama intends to follow the Nixon-Kissinger model and make the State Department superfluous.

Surely the point of appointing Clinton people is not that he is neccessarily adopting Clinton’s policies (although the differences between them were never huge anyway) but that they have good experience of government and so will enable him to “hit the ground running” as the saying goes.

An excellent idea. And has the added bonus for Obama of keeping her a: busy with the most complicated policy issues and b: out of the country for long periods.

I think the point about Obama is that he had to say what he said to get elected.

Once elected he can play a different tune and cite circumstances like the economy.

I also think that the people behind Obama, the real power brokers and not the Kos Kids and moveon.org, have got just the stooge and result they wanted and Obama knows that and is happy to have got the top job. I think we will find Obama will do whatever it takes to win. I admire that.

As it so happens it also suits me and I am warming to an Obama administration as I see it as Bush/Neo-Con with a softer centre.

At last, a secretary Bill can sleep with without repercusions !

GW

Well the only bonus to Obama is that he has, and will continue to, reduce anti Americanisn in Europe and around the world in a way that Hilllary wouldn’t quite have been able to match. He’s already caused absolute meltdown on the far left in the UK - I don’t think Hillary would have done that.

Apart from that there’s not a single reason why he would have been better than Hillary.

I think the political upside for Obama is that he removes Hillary from the Senate, where she cannot build up an alternative powerbase and ties her to the fortunes of his administration. And he can sack her if she screws up.

The rule in British politics was the foreign secretary does all the dirty work, the PM swans in to take the credit on the world stage. I assume it’s similar in the States.

And yet, why? She’s well-known worldwide, for sure, but what diplomatic credentials does she have; what useful skills? I can see the sense in making sure she goes nowhere near health policy, but isn’t there another job he could give her?

Surely the point of appointing Clinton people is not that he is neccessarily adopting Clinton’s policies (although the differences between them were never huge anyway) but that they have good experience of government and so will enable him to “hit the ground running” as the saying goes.

That concept undermines everything he said about not changing the chairs in Washington and expecting to get a differerent result. It’s not the “real” change he promised.

He’s also doing it to try and lesson the uncertainty that he presidency has to overcome in foreign affairs and in economic matters - an uncertainty that wouldn’t have been there with Hillary. Uncertainty can be quite dangerous.

Dick Morris says Hillary will make deals with people abroad and bounce Obama into agreeing to them, and all these Clintonites may be more loyal to her than they are to him, which spells doom; it would create a distablising power centre in the state department.

That concept undermines everything he said about not changing the chairs in Washington and expecting to get a differerent result. It’s not the “real” change he promised.

“The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result.”

Barack Obama, December 27, 2007.

The only thing standing in her way could be Bill Clinton’s business dealings. I hope it’s not a deal breaker.

Bizarre if that’s the case - ‘Senator Clinton, have you any relationships that might bring the country into disrepute, like being married to a former president?’

Gordon wrote:

There have been a lot of criticisms of Hillary Clinton on just about every front and she clashed bitterly with Obama in the nomination race, but they have both moved on

Somehow I don’t think Gordon or indeed Gene would have been quite so forgiving if Mc Cain had used race quite like Hillary Clinton’s campaign did.

But anyway though rather less than a fan; I wish her well as secretary of state and hope she has a better run of it than has Condi Rice.

The systemic Leftist threat to free trade and globalisation, Iran’s pending Nukes, Afghanistan - the Islamic problem and China will figure large, as well as consolidating the good work done and gains made in Iraq under the Bush administration.

Who first whispered in Barry’s ear, I wonder, that this might be a smart move? Someone from Little Rock or someone from Chicago? And if it was someone from Chicago, could it have been the chief of staff? If so, look out for plenty more flak flying from the Hamas-Hizbullah wing of the Democratic Party aimed at the eminence grise who can truly say, “Israel? It’s my middle name!”

…..oh…and so much for the ‘change’ mantra!

Gordon, thanks for the blandishments. It reads like a press release from the Democratic Party. Less of the happy talk though. Christopher Hitchens knows a lot more about the Clintons than many, and none of it’s particularly savoury. He predicts this decision, if Clinton does get this job, may come back to bite Obama. He quite rightly regards the appointment as some sort of poor joke.

People said that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Now it appears that the first black president is just Slick Willy-lite. Now thats change you can Xerox.

It looks like a smart move. But if it happens it will probably end in tears.

People said that Bill Clinton was the first black president. Now it appears that the first black president is just Slick Willy-lite. Now thats change you can Xerox.

I’d have thought after your experience of defending the Palin selection you may have exhibited a little more depth over this one, Bell Curve Stu.

She’s odious. Any further comment is superfluous.

Well, let’s hope this doesn’t end up being a blow to the presidency…..ooops!

If she pisses off the Nutroots, then I’m all for it.

Oh, God, I hope not.

People who had wanted the Clinton-Bush foreign policy agenda to continue seamlessly as the Clinton-Bush-Clinton foreign policy agenda could have given her the Democratic nomination, which she failed to secure.

The attempt to set up a non-contest between Clinton-Bush-Clinton and Clinton-Bush-McCain was mercifully unsuccessful. And Clinton-Bush-McCain was then defeated by Obama.

However, not wishing to see Hillary The Hawk as Secretary of State is not the same as not wishing to see her as anything at all.

The creation of a Senate vacancy in New York could well be very good news indeed for a Democrat whose economic populism and whose foreign policy realism had secured the nomination of the Working Families Party.

A Democrat whose moral and social conservatism and (one trusts, now that Bush is as good as gone) whose foreign policy realism had secured the nomination of the Conservative Party.

A Democrat whose economic populism, moral and social conservatism, and foreign policy realism had united the warring factions of the Independence Party in unanimous nomination.

The election of such a Democrat, especially in place of Hillary Clinton of all people, would send exactly the right signal.

Speaking of signals, I will, where possible, keep you posted over on my blog.

Blah blah blah Sarah Palin blah blah blah

Bell Curve Stu,
Perhaps a little time to evaluate why you got so many things wrong during the campaign rather than some more shallow anti Obama nonsense may be helpful for you.

Judging the nature of an Obama administration by the few announcements so far is a very dangerous game.

MIKE - Well the only bonus to Obama is that he has, and will continue to, reduce anti Americanisn in Europe and around the world

Doubtful. Most anti-americanism is a reaction to globalisation, which will not disappear with Obama’s presidency.

I think the nature of the Obama administration was shown by the extremely professional and disciplined campaign they ran against McCain.

They didn’t panic after the Palin bounce looked like it was going to sweep all of Hilary’s women voters - especially when Dem partisans attacked her as a woman rather than her politics. They didn’t bite when McCain tried to use the financial crash to look “presidential”. They put Michelle in a box when she might have became a liability - then brought her back with impeccable timing.

And the coup de grace was bringing out Hilary and Bill in the last two weeks - and sweep all those women voters back.

So we know from this that Obama has surrounded himself with professionals who are political experts who know the stakes, the huge problems ahead - and who know Capitol Hill.

Timbot,

I always thought that Obama was a Chicago machine pol, not up to the job, and spouting vacuous “hope/change” cliches.

I’ve seen nothing yet to change that opinion.

If the rumours are true and that Summers and Clinton are his two next picks, then hope/change truly was a vacuous cliche. Or do you think the two of them with Rahm Emanuel constitute a new broom of change, and a clean break from old Wahington politics as in Mesquito’s quote from 2007?

Actually don’t bother answering as I don’t care two figs for your opinion given what a lying little weasel you are…

Bell Curve Stu,
I refer you to Phomesy above.

Not only (though certainly) because no one deserves a clear run againt nothing more than Sarah Palin, Obama needs to face a serious primary challenge in 2012, rallying the people who put in him and who can put him back out again: economically populist, morally and socially conservative foreign policy realists.

What experience has Hillary in foreign affairs? (Other than playing kissy face with Miss Piggy aka Sufia Arafat and sitting silent while Sufia accused the Israelis of infecting Palestinian children with Aids*; and then voting for the Iraq War regardless of the evidence because it was the popular thing to do.)

Only justification I can see for Hillary to be Sec. of State is by using LBJ’s reasoning for keeping J. Edgar Hoover as FBI Director. That Hoover was a Pissant and it was better to have him inside the tent pissing out then outside the tent pissing in!

*Seems like Sufia was listening to Obama’s preacher Rev. Wright and decided to adopt some of his slanders! (Of course, Obama managed never to Hear any lies of this sort from his Minister of 20 years!)

What experience has she of anything? Her only “qualification” for anything is her surname.

Yes, from the appointment of his fellow Chicago Machine Politician to be his Chief of Staff, I expect the Obama Administration to govern like the Chicago Political Machine with a Human Face!

Maybe Obama is taking the Abe Lincoln “Team of Rivals” route.

Maybe Obama is taking the Abe Lincoln “Team of Rivals” route.

Perhaps, but there is no civil war and the “hang together or hang separately” imperative is hardly in force.

Limbaugh is wondering if Obama knows that Bill and Hillary could not complete his executive questionaire without embarassment, and that he will will use it at a pretext to turn her down at cut her off at the knees.

Soembody named Matthew Pinsker argues that the Team Of Rivals is pop-history buncombe.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-pinsker18-2008nov18,0,1022347.story?track=rss

Or, maybe, Gene, this is Obama deciding not to eliminate his Kirov. Well, if Bush burned his Reichstag.

Alec, you may have just hit upon the slogan for crazy right-wingers, Obama/Stalin. Makes as much sense as Bush/Hitler did!

Gene: “Maybe Obama is taking the Abe Lincoln ‘Team of Rivals’ route?”
Could be, Gene, but I prefer LBJ’s reasoning!

“Them fellas are pretty damn smart, especially that one with the Sta-Combe in his hair.”

LBJ, on Robert McNamara

“Could be, Gene, but I prefer LBJ’s reasoning!”

If she can piss through the flap of a tent, in either direction, she is one exceptional woman.

Well there is always the risk of big personalities conflicting - I’m thinking even earlier than Lincoln - you never know, perhaps VP Biden and Secretary Clinton can reenact the Hamilton*-Burr duel for a jaded Washington elite?

*My apologies to Hamilton for the comparison with Clinton and Biden which is a considerable disservice to his memory.

Mesquito: Pinsker makes several valuable points in his review of “Team of Rivals”, but I think he overstates his case. He fails to mention that Chase as Secretary of the Treasury was responsible, along with Thaddeus Stevens as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committe, with setting up the financial system that allowed the Union govt to raise money for the cost of the immense Union War effort. (Lincoln was absolutely clueless about taxes, revenues, etec.) Also that while Lincoln did remove Chase from the Treasury in early 1864 because Chase was working to challenge Lincoln’s nomination by the Republicans for a second term; Lincoln did in late 1864 appoint Chase as Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and it was Chase as Chief Justice who swore Lincoln in for his second term as President.

The man who LBJ, then VP, told so glowering about McNamara, Rusk, Mac Bundy and the rest of JFK’s foreign policy team, “the Best and the Brightest” was LBJ’s mentor, the long time Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn who replied prophectically:
“Well Lyndon, they may every bit as brillant as you say they are, but I’d feel a whole lot better about them if just one of them had run for Sheriff once back home.”

Monty: I, like LBJ, was speaking figuratively, my lad, figuratively.

Oniad: If VP Biden and Secretary Clinton were to reenact the Hamilton-Burr duel, I know which one to bet on and its not the VP!