Secretary of State Clinton? I Just Don't Get It

For the life of me I just don't understand why a) President-elect Obama would want to choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and b) she would accept the post.

Why would Obama want to tarnish his brand new administration with the Clinton soap opera of Monica, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Marc Rich and company when he could start fresh with an entirely new team? And why would he want a mortal enemy like Hillary who is probably at this very moment plotting her comeback strategy for 2012, inside his administration, leaking to the press and undermining him? I thought he put the Clintons away for good. He seems too smart to do something like this.

Then again I don't understand Hillary's reasons either. Why would she want to take the post of Secretary of State, not exactly traditionally a stepping-stone position to the Presidency when she could stay in the Senate, knock off Harry Reid and become Majority Leader and be in good shape either for a rematch against Obama in 2012 or a run at Joe Biden in 2016.

Hey, they can get hitched if they want to, but it just doesn't make any sense to me.

Follow Mark Joseph on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markmjm

Comments

[cgoodie]

Hillary's probably success as SOS has nothing to do with how she is currently perceived here at home. But more to do with her "superstar" status abroad...especially in the middle east. THAT is what PE Obama, himself a superstar abroad, will use to implement success diplomatically.

[mjc]

Guess it is my turn to say, I just don't get it! Mark Joseph's blog has some pretty fatal errors in it, linking the Clintons' activity as one and the same person but why you refuse to post my thoughts on this beats me. Hillary was not involved in the Monica scandal; she had nothing to do with Mark Rich's pardon; Whitewater never went anywhere even after much investigation; likewise the Vince Foster death....and on and on. You do rank with the neocon political assassins with your charges without proof, BUT you really fail, in my opinion, by missing the point that Obama is relying completely on Clinton leftovers, good people for sure but hardly a change. Hillary would be a change because she has a lot more initial experience than Condi Rice or Madeline Albright did when they took that spot. Obama has to trust her and she insisted on that. I am not one who wanted her to take the job because there are a lot of folks like you out there Mr. Joseph and it certainly doesn't do this nation any good to read or see such hate for someone who has done so much for this nation, but she will do a superb job as SOS.

[MagisterLudi]

Here's my post from several days ago. Ain't I prophet....
" I despised the right wingers who indulged in personal attacks on Clintons during the Presidency. How is this tripe any different? It is only a question of time before Lewinsky and Whitewater comes into play.
posted n MagisterLudi on 20 Nov., 2008

Mr. Joseph:"Why would Obama want to tarnish his brand new administration with the Clinton soap opera of Monica, Whitewater...."

[ApolloSpeaks]

Omaba chose to Clintonize his adminsistration to compensate for his weaknesses which were carefully concealed during the campaign by Axelrod and the Media. Joseph like millions of supporters domestically and worldwide got carried away by the empty rhetoric and false image of Obama as someone greater and grander than life and bigger than the Clintons Already one senses that something vital is leaving Obama as happened with Jimmy Carter once he entered the White House and hit the ground stumbling..

[Kache]

"it just doesn't make any sense to me" - which is why you are Mark Joseph and Barack is President.

[HoraceOvidson]

Barack picks Hillary as Secretary of State because he thinks she can do a good job in that post. Hillary accepts the position because she thinks she can accomplish something worthwhile in that post.

[MagisterLudi]

Someone who actually capable of reasonable statement. Thanks Horace.
However, I do think as a n additional factor there was a deal between Clinton and Obama a few month ago.

[LizM]

Political deals do not bode well for effective diplomacy. And, without a President and SoS acting as one, the implementation of smart foreign policy will be a difficult process if it can be achieved at all.

In other words, everything will be dependent upon whether or not the kind of relationship that will exist between Obama and Clinton will be one that is genuinely based on mutual trust and respect.

If media reports are correct, and I rarely have any reason to believe that is the case, then I would hope that political deals have nothing whatsoever to do with this critical appointment - America's future depends on it.

[LizM]

If you think for a New York second that Joe Biden will be running for President in 2016, then you still don't understand the first thing about who he is or what motivates him or why he ran for President in the first place...sadly, I guess you never will.

I'm with you on the Clinton nomination to the state department, though...doesn't make much sense, anyway you slice it. But, I suppose, that would depend on one's perspective.

[CrashRiley]

She's probably inspired by Eleanor Roosevelt, and wants to leave her mark on the world.

She might also have trouble raising that amount of money again.

Still, there's nothing preventing her from serving as Sec. of State for 4-8 years and trying again in 2012.

[campgranata]

Not paying one's creditor's makes it a tad difficult to mount another campaign especially one as mismanaged as MRS Clinton's.

[ignorantwillyharper]

The only thing that would make sense for a very intellgent man like Obama is taking Hillary on, then after her seccessor is picked and seated, fire her. She then is no longer a senator, nor is she Madame Sectary. We can only hope he's smarter than he's appearing to be on this pick!
Wouldn't it be great as we watched the Clinton's exit leftf the political stage...for good !!!

[anachoret]

I guess I don't get the "mortal enemies" thing.

Seems a bit of an exaggeration to me.

[ApolloSpeaks]

THE CLINTONS AS OBAMA'S MENTORS

Unless you're one of the millions of naive Obamaites who believe that Obama has been specially and mystically prepared by divine grace to take on the complexities and responsibilities of the presidency why should his dependency on the Clintons surprise you? Since Obama is profoundly inexperienced and grossly unprepared to be Commander in Chief what Democrats are better suited to be his mentors than the Clintons? There's nothing absurd or illogical here; what makes it so is a fantasy notion of Obama's capabilities, that he's another Lincoln, FDR or JFK. My God, he's not even a Bill Clinton, and he knows it. Soon all the world will see Obama shrunken down to his true size and wonder how they could have been so badly deceived and hypnotized. With good reason Obama said during the campaign: "I don't stay up nights worrying about losing the election. What I worry about is winning it." To face the millions of disillusioned voters that he fooled with his talk of tranformational, fundamental and foundational change is no little thing to worry about it.

[standard]

Just a few points of disagreement:

1. Obama supporters aren't naive: we're the pragmatists who just won the White House.

2. Obama isn't profoundly inexperienced. He's spent more time in elective office than Mrs. Clinton has, and has successfully navigated both Chicago politics and national politics--without lying about or smearing his opponent, nor having to exaggerate his own resume.

3. The Clintons aren't Obama's mentors. He won despite their every effort for almost two years.

4. Obama isn't dependent on the Clintons. Should Mrs. Clinton prove to be inept or disloyal as a member of his cabinet, he'll be able to dismiss her at will. He has the upper hand.

5. "Soon all the world will see Obama shrunken down to his true size." That statement manages to be, simultaneously, completely wishful and revealingly Freudian: almost Republican.

6. The word is "transformational", not "tranformational" and the "it" at the end of that last sentence was as superfluous as, pretty much, that last sentence and all those preceding it.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Compare Obama to FDR and JFK: they brought fresh blood to Washington called "New Dealers" and "New Frontiersmen" so called because they were "NEW" not oldtimers from the Wilson and Truman eras.

Unlike Obama FDR & Kennedy were ready to take command on day one of the presidency and take America is new directions; they didn't need stale old men from the past with outmoded views to mentor them in their new jobs.

Obama if you recall ran against the Clinton and Bush eras promising like FDR and Kennedy to being a new universe into being, a new age of progress and change unprecedented in our history. He talked the talk but can't walk the walk because he has nothing really new to offer except the old New Deal promise of tinkering and intervening in the economy with costly experiments that ended up prolonging the Great Depression.
As Hillary said during the campaign "All he has is promises and speeches," and would have to get "on the job training" as Joe Biden rightly said.

Obama is a babe needing guidence from Bill and nurturing from Hillary. Without them he is lost and knows it. The problem with the Clintons however is that they came to power during the internet boom while the nation was at peace not during war time with an economy in crisis.

By the way I'm not a Republican and much prefer Jung to Sigmund Freud.

[StillIRise]

WRONG ... on all points!

1. The debate about Obama's experience vs. Hillary's was resolved when he won the nomination.

2. Obama is not dependent on the Clintons; the Clintons are now dependent on Obama. Secretary of State is not an independent position. In fact, as SOS, Hillary will be more beholden to Obama's agenda than many of his other appointees, which in effect gives Obama significant control over Hillary's role and responsibilities. For Hillary to be an effective SOS, as I'm sure she wants to be, she will have to promote Obama's policy positions and vision for America and the world. Therefore, in order for Hillary to shine, she must make Obama shine. In other words, her reputation and political ambitions are now in the hands of the future President. President Clinton has also yielded a modicum of control to Obama. His speeches must now be vetted, which precludes any opportunity for him to use his speaking platform to advance Hillary or undermine the President in his speaking engagements around the world.

3. Obama is already putting in place the transformational, fundamental and foundational changes that he espoused during the campaign. What will bring it all together will be his leadership. Rationalizing your pessimism and obvious disappointment that your guy or girl didn't win, by suggesting that Obama's supporters are naive or that we've been deceived, does not change the reality, Obama will not only meet our expectations ... he will likely exceed them.

[closetodemfection]

Are you trying to argue that Obama has more experience than Clinton? Or that nobody cared about experience when they voted? I hope you mean the latter. Obama has only 16 months of elected national office before he started campaigning, HRC had over 6 years not counting her previous experience. There is no comparison.

It is impossible to say that Obama has met your expectations as he has yet to serve a day in office as POTUS. He is all based on projections. The voters took a huge risk and we all hope it pays off. At this point, it's Obama's instincts and his advisors are all that we have. He has not learned from previous mistakes as he was only in office for a very short time. And there is little room for error now as he's inheriting a mess. So he better turn out to be VHS and not BETA or the country will have lost it's gamble on hiring someone with huge intelligence, charisma and a knack for expressing his vision of "possibility" but zero personal knowledge of how to execute that vision.

[ApolloSpeaks]

When has Obama showed the spirit of true independence from his party and its leaders? Never! He is the darling of the Washington establishment because he's not a threat to them as McCain and Palin would have been.

One of the expectations that will hit the dust is Obama reforming the way Washington does business. It will be business as usual with Obama as President, his Clintonized administration and White House proves it. His plan to expand the federal government with a massive health care bureaucracy and job creation programs will only worsen the sins on Capitol Hill as corruption grows proportionally with power. There is no reformer in this man; that was just one of his many campaign masks.

[scrutiny1]

How you can tear down Obama after eight years of the Bush debacle and Sarah Palin running as VP in this election is beyond me.

[ApolloSpeaks]

It's reality that's starting to tear down Obama's false campaign image as a left wing national messiah, savior of the poor and downtroden and healer our very souls. There will be a period of disilluionment and readjustment to the real Obama, the man behind the skillfully crafted mask.

[teddyquin]

Many have weighed in and many are not in favor of this choice for SOS. The fact is that it is done and over ,,and we have to find a way to accept it, just like we had to accept Bush, and whatever he brought during his 8 years. Nothing said will change anything. I, personally, feel saddened that we will not have a New Change, but only the Clintons back again,, and helping to shape our future.

[StillIRise]

Comparing the selection of Hillary Clinton to the election (?) of President Bush discredits your entire post.

[campgranata]

Should Mrs. Clinton prove to be inept or disloyal as a member of his cabinet, he'll be able to dismiss her at will.

if she starts crying he can not .

[Zenpilot]

Hillary in 2012? Relax. Try to see the big picture. Hillary cannot run from this position until 2016.

[DirectProf]

Yah, I agree with you. I like Mrs. Clinton and think she's a good senator and all that, but I think Obama is making a *giant* error, and I think she is really doing herself more harm than good by leaving a Senate seat where she could really make a difference on issues she cares about. It's a bizarre move on Mr. Obama's part ...

[Scar1]

And how the heck did someone get Obama's cell phone messages. Now that is really security issue.
And folks that is not funny. Security should have been on that. Verizon and e-mail system needs a fix. I caught some people looking at my emails as I typed. They said it in Spanish but they didn't think I could read it. Oh were they wrong. As I would type I noticed these comments that maybe should have been hidden but, weren't . And some things were really personal. I warned my partners on the email list I have that someone was snooping. This is very serious these type of hackers and workers in the communications systems.

[Scar1]

How much of our economy has been invested in a foriegn system of government and exchange? How much of it is oil money with the wrong people? How much does China, Iran, Mexico and a whole list of threats influenced our economy? Has anyone checked and figured this into the equation as to why we may be sinking?

Oil seems to be doing alright lately? So, what is the real deal here? Anyone care to answer or investigate how many of these bailouts have such arrangements? Outsourcing came with a price people!! You sacrificed our jobs to folk who could build their own freaking economy if they stopped the drug trade and pirates taking over their systems.