Hillary Learns a Lesson
by Taylor Marsh
I wonder how many people are depressed that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are not only getting along, but the boss is showing his game while his Secretary of State is doing a little of that on her own. It wasn't supposed to be this way according to the black cloud crowd. I still get emails, and a smattering of sore winner comments, that Secretary Clinton will be the undoing of President Obama. Hoping ain't gettin'. Hasn't happened yet. Though Mark Penn continues to do his utmost in this regard.
As for HRC's job at State, after a disastrously run campaign, much of it compliments of Mark Penn, but also Clinton's unwillingness to face the fact and fire the guy, Hillary seems to have learned from her previous primary disasters and is putting those lessons to use:
As a candidate, Mrs. Clinton was criticized for poor management of her campaign. She appears determined not to repeat her mistakes. Mrs. Clinton said she had sought fresh voices; mindful that previous secretaries of state have been criticized for cloistering themselves on the building's seventh floor, she has made a point of dropping in at its bureaus.
Meanwhile, Mark Penn continues his rehabilitation tour, delivering a preposterous argument just yesterday over Edwards, Iowa and how things, in his overblown imagination, might have been different if John had done what Elizabeth says he should have and not run. No one wants to rehash this, but Penn refuses to relinquish his delusions, so I'll bite. Considering the Clinton-Penn partnership had HRC resorting to loaning herself money after being clobbered in Iowa, two things that sent back-to-back shock waves across the political landscape, it's ridiculous to argue that the presence of Edwards caused such mismanagement. Never mind that they didn't have a single plan for post-Super Tuesday and the primaries to come. Yet Clinton remained loyal to Penn. This is not exactly what others have experienced post-primary, though the savvy aren't surprised. But anyone who's cleared the year-old primary fog and is willing to be honest senses that if Edwards hadn't been in Iowa Obama would have likely won by a larger margin, not less, though I doubt reality will ever penetrate Mark Penn's fantasyland. That's how badly Clinton's campaign was managed. That she's not repeating her mistakes at State comes as a huge relief.
But the author of the Times article excerpt above, Mark Landler, does seem shocked that there might be "jockeying" among Obama's top aides. What, egos around the leader of the free world? Shocking. Insert famous Casablanca, with small rewrite, here.
Besides, what's in it for Clinton if she's not anything but stellar at State?
Oh, and she's going to have fun while she's at it.
On a recent afternoon, at Mrs. Clinton's suggestion, the two moved their meeting outside to a picnic table on the South Lawn, next to a new swing set installed for Mr. Obama's daughters. "We just had the best time," she said.
Hillary Clinton is someone you certainly wouldn't want as an enemy. But as far as loyalty to President Obama, this is the best gig of her life and she's smart enough to know it and has no intention of hurting herself by blowing it. She's an adept judge of her surroundings, but most especially her own situation. So if anyone can sense Obama's high flying performance as president, as well as the reaction from Americans but also the entire world, it's Hillary Clinton. Obama's stature is something she has to respect, because he's proven that in this time and place there's no one else who can match it. It's Barack Obama's time and if anyone knows this it's Hillary.
There is also reality. Presidents hire, but they can also fire, which applies to everyone in his cabinet, including Secretary Clinton.
Follow Taylor's D.C. live tweet reporting on Twitter, which is also cross-posted on her blog. (Here's a sample.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
As I watched the primaries, I was disgusted by Hillary's (and her campaign's) behavior....until the general election. I think Barack truly shined because of Hillary and all the crap she put him through. The connection to William Ayers is one example. By the time the republicans jumped on this in October, the Democrats had spent a few months on it....as did the national news agencies because there was no ongoing republican primary to follow.
So, I think she knew she basically had lost come Super Tuesday, but had decided to be a sparring partner for Barrack. In that avenue, she did pretty well.
Taylor, it's hard for me to read your posts because I saw your site during the primary and it was poisonous. I had liked the Clintons until this primary. I was very objective in the candidate to support based on one of those "quizzes" where you identify your positions and it gives you the candidate that most closely matches. It was then-candidate Obama. Then I saw him speak, got to know him more and chose to be a delegate for his candidacy.
I am so glad all of that is behind us now. I'm once again liking Hillary. A lot. I'm very very proud to have President Obama representing us. And the angrier the GOP gets, the more I'm sure we're doing it right.
I don't see any reason to not get along with Hillary. She quotes Obama nearly verbatim. On message, 100% of the time.
Sort of a high-level campaigning job.
I will keep writing in Hillary's name on my ballot under PRESIDENT until she finally becomes it.
That's your perogative of course. But, practically speaking, the worst thing you could do is do that in 2012.
Hillary won't run in 2012. It would be impossible because she can't serve as Secretary of State while putting together a campaign against the President she's working for. Campaigning would have to start next year and it would be both bad form and bad politics. Obama's supporters such as myself would never give her a vote, and other people on a fence would be highly suspect of a candidate who's undermining their boss. She wouldn't thank you for that.
The best odds she has would be for her supporters to support her in her job as Secretary of State and to support President Obama. By 2016 she'll have created formidable bonafides through her current job and she'd have President Obama's support.
But if you insist on replaying disappointment from the past, you're going to be hurting her chances. Getting Obama relected is her best chance for running in 2016. Without him, she's not Secretary of State. So the question would be which is more important to you? To give Hillary another shot, or to punish everyone for not electing her in the past? Which would be punishing her in effect.
I supported HRC, and definitely believe her campaign was poisoned by the toadstool Penn. Nonetheless, I think Obama is doing very well thus far, and so is Hillary. Of course it's still early going, and there will doubtless be huge bumps in the upcoming road, but I believe they make a credible and solid team.
Also, with the Republican elephant melting like Dorothy's witch, I'm feeling optimistic about the future for the first time in a long, long while. Can't wait for 2010 and 2012 and 2016...!
~WolfLady~
I wasn't a Hillary fan until very recently (To give you a hint where I'm coming from, I voted for Bob Barr for President, and don't regret it.) Obama showed great acumen in choosing her for the Secretary of State post. The Bush administration left a very challenging foreign policy environment, to say the least, but I feel that Obama, Clinton, Gates, and Biden are up to the challenge.
Whatever happened to Bill's promise to spill the beans, so to speak, about the primaries? You know, when he expected the Pres. to lose to McCain, and he could talk about how he knew it was going to happen all along and how America Hillary should have won.
The answer seems to be that Hillary accepted the SoS appointment and Bill agreed to be quiet.
That's a fact-jack.
Unfortunately, the Clintons worked hard to make sure Obama lost, not only by challenging him publicly but by promoting the view to Democratic Party leaders and fundraisers that he could not win. The Clintons are benefitting from the fact that Obama is a confident person with a strong character who wants to unite the nationnand is not vindictive.
Don't you love when people are able to delude themselves into believing they can evaluate the "true character" of people they see on TV?
Too funny.
Taylor, I notice you mentioned that you still get a few emails from the "sore winners". Why couldn't you admit that there's still a few sore losers also? Time and again, I see a comment somewhere from someone who STILL professes to be a Democrat who left the party after the "anti christ" or "annointed one" got elected - in other words... a Hillary voter....
fair point
Yes, it hurts when it looks like we are moving in the right direction for a few.
It is very interesting to see the Hillary spin machine going full force to declare her a success after 100 days of a warmed-over first-lady act , tourist in chief, meet and greet, smile and wave, photo op, make a few hollow bold pronouncments, and do a daily GPS check on Bill. Most of her press on Huffpo is about her choice of clothes, colors and brooches. And the gaffes though embarrassing, have not been distracting: the "misstatement about human rights in China being subordinant to our need for their investments, the silly red reset button with the mistranslation for the Russian Foreign Minister, the ignored warnings to North Korea and Somali pirates, and the oh so Bush-Cheney rhetoric about a new rash of suicide bombings being evidence of success in Iraq.
I do think Hillary is being successful at doing exactly what she was appointed to do. By appointing her SoS, President Obama pacified his harshest rival, her influential husband, and many of her bitter followers, extacted a promise to keep a lid on Bill, and gives her free reign to go through the public motions as SoS, confident the team of Biden, Jones, Gates, Power and Susan Rice can do the heavy lifting on foreign policy. It is disappointing to see the usually powerful, Consitutionally significant SoS position used as a symbolic consulation prize, but so far it seems to be working.
The fact that most of the reporting has been about her clothing isn't a failing of Secretary Clinton so much as a failure of reporters in general to care about much more than what a famous woman wears.
The fact is, most of the SecState's work goes on in private venues and the public hears about what is leaked or what the administration wants us to know.
Have to agree with Isobel on this. Hillary Clinton doesn't control what gets written about her, and as we saw during the Democratic primary, the press takes a keen interest in her hair, clothes, laugh, and even the way she claps. I wasn't one of her supporters in the primary, but I think this ridiculous focus on appearance has got to stop. (She's not alone in this. All women in politics have to put up with some of this crap.)
Personally, I think it's too early to evaluate the job she's doing at State. We can make judgments once she has more of a track record. Nevertheless, I think it's foolish to assume that Hillary can't "do the heavy lifting on foreign policy." If you haven't noticed her intellectual abilities, you've been living under a rock. And if you think she isn't up to the job, you obviously didn't watch her eating a couple of Republican senators for lunch during her recent appearance on Capitol Hill. You can disagree with Hillary Clinton, but you shouldn't dismiss her.
I agree with all of the posts. The true diplomat works quietly without fanfare. Before she was appointed SoS, however, few would have described Hillary as "diplomat." She was and is a partisan politician, too often pandering, divisive, and, unfortunately, vindictive. Her ambition seems to drive their thrist for media and headlines, rather than the quiet work typically part of skilled diplomacy.
What are you talking about? You should really stop reading lonelypartyofonegop claptrap and think is true. I think the article just told you that.
You are sooooo good at reading her mind. Tell us, what is your secret, ...
.... tarot cards, or just mind reading?
Uhhhm ... you ARE partyofone. So now you're posting under another screen name to bolster your lame opinions.
Should have chosen know-some-pathetic-secrets.
I hated her campaign and I know ultimately she bore the responsibility but I will always think it was all those men in her life who sunk her with their advice.
I think its kind of ironic that she is now working with her former enemy/rival and seems to be thriving and coming into herself in a real way. For the first time I think I am seeing Hillary Clinton full force and she is warm and smart and impressive. Barack and Hillary surely have a lot on their plate but I am would not be at all surprised if in the future their relationship and accomplishments together on the world stage will be something memorable. I hope so.
It is interesting to see that you blame "the men in her life" for sinking Hillary's presidential campaign. But doesn't that mean she was not a good leader and failed to show good judgment. And what about the "dream team" of women she assembled and who surrounded her, gaining much credit for her "inevitable" campaign when it was flawlessly launched? Did they have no influence? Were they weak victims too? Staff, advisors and co-chairs like Patti Doyle, Ann Lewis, Mandy Grunwald, Lisa Caputo, Evelyn Lieberman, Shirley Jackson Lee, Neera Tanden, Kim Molstre, Leecia Eve, Cheryl Mills, Tamera Luzzatto, Lissa Muscatine, Melanne Verveer, Capricia Marshall, Minyon Moore, Huma Abedin, Barbara Mikulski , Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Sheila Jackson Lee, Doris Matsui, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Susan Lynch. Do you think we would be hearing a lot more about the women in her campaign and their roles, if she had succeeded? Does the continuing portrayal of Hillary as the poor victim of evil men really contribute confidence in her capacity for national and world leadership?
It is also interesting that you blame many of Obama's appointees (Geithner, Emmanuel, Clinton, etc.) for the the "mistakes" made to date. But doesn't that mean he is not a good leader and failed to show good judgment?
Truly--people need to move on. I supported Clinton, then Obama. Now I support the President and
The Secretary of State. Ms. Clinton has proved herself a brilliant adversary and a remarkable no-nonsense Secretary of State.
Mark Penn is delusional. Let's leave it at that.
And as a sidebar; when I watched a clip of Secretary Clinton owning Mike Pense over his idiotic
blabbering about Obama and Chavez--I thought, I don't think I know of anyone in the administration
who could have eviscerated anyone like that with common sense, basic history, while owning her past
and drawing a line in the sand about where her loyalties lie.
Brilliant.
From my perspective, the Clintons brought Bush-Rove style tactics into a Democratic primary, and tried to use distortion and division at any cost to win. Forgetting that and pretending it never happened, only invites more of the same. Obama is a pragmatist, and chose to make peace with Hillary by giving her SoS. He also seems inclined in the face of much larger offenses to "forgive and forget" all the Constitutional, international and human rights abuses of the Bush administration, prefering to move forward. Sometimes it is important for misdeeds to be remembered, and those responsible to be held to account.
I do not disagree with what you say about the tactics used during the campaign. And it is not about forgetting all that came before. But at this point in this country we have a virulent, dying (but nonetheless toxic republican party) Blue Dogs that are exceedingly annoying, Iraq, Afghanistan, economic downturn, joblessness, global warming and an administration trying to get a devastated nation back on her feet--and pass universal healthcare. . . . .
Grudges will not help us, but as I said before moving on--will.
History stops for know one. We none of us have the luxury of unforgiving memories towards anyone who may help our cause. And as you say, President Obama is a pragmatist. And as a pragmatist--he made a very wise choice.
"From your perspective" ...?
no kidding....
I was an Obama supporter from day zero. I knew that it would be a Herculean task to run against HRC, and it was, but I was shocked and disappointed by the shortsightedness and negativity of Secretary Clinton's presidential run. She is much, much better than her campaign ever was. Her appointment as SOS was a brilliant stroke, and it gives us all a chance to see her genius in action. Her fatal flaw was absolutely her choice of Mark Penn, who not only bungled on all strategic points, but also sucked the campaign dry. A ridiculous amount of the crushing, post-campaign debt was owed to Penn. The most shocking blunder was his lack of understanding when it came to the basic structure of the primaries. He seemed to think that the Dem primaries were a winner-take-all scenario like the general election, which is why he ignored small states and district battles. He denies that he misunderstood the primary system, but it is the only thing that would explain his stunning incompetence on the delegate front.
I wanted Hillary to win, early on. I expected that she would know that her true calling, and the one who ultimately would win this election would be the true progressive, the one who was most the anti-Bush.
People make decisions based on Present Dissatisfaction, times cost of change, and equalling ultimate promise. The dissatisfaction with the GOP has rightfully been so strong, most are still underestimating it. 2010. will dispel all the uncertainty.
Had Hillary gone all the way, demanded universal health-care, express to immediately close Guantanamo, frequented blogs like this one DemocracyNow.org, made all the demands that progressives wanted in an absolutely unashamed liberal manner, I still believe she'd have left Obama way behind. It was the only way- to drive the sword ALL THE WAY in with no half-steps, no catering to the big-boy special interest rich elite. They and Mark Penn truly cratered her campaign because we all saw right through it.
The bigger dynamic is that people are learning more and more that this country doesn't belong to them, and Obama is making that especially clear now. It belongs to the banks. His actions have shown he's deep in their pockets. "Shame on you, Barrack Obama!"
I sure hope the voters move on this present dissatifaction next time.
.
Yeah both Mark Penn and Brother Bill were a bad combo. She'd have made a decent Prezzie, but am liking her as the Sec of State, too!
Mark Penn needs a new career.
I was an Obama supporter (Oh how I wanted that man to be my President) so naturally I was delighted by every mistake Penn was making. (And it was clear to anybody watching that her campaign was being run by maroons.) Being honest. But she deserved better than his ineptitude. She was exhausted by that primary, she was running on fumes and desperation toward the end and that was Penn's fault. He should be ashamed, not out making excuses.
Meanwhile, she and Obama are making a great team. I loved the photo of them sitting at the picnic table. When people are that smart, that full of plans and goals, it's hard to find a companion who understands them on a gut level. I think they understand each other. I think they earned each other's respect and I'm glad they're a team on our behalf. I got my President, and my President got a worthy ally.
Mark Penn needs to be permanently unemployed.
Unless he's being employed by Republicans.
You know something? At one point, I don't recall the moment, but it actually occured to me that Penn in the 11th hour had struck some kind of backroom deal with Republicans. That passed of course, because I knew that the Republicans desperately wanted her to win. Just ask Limbaugh.
He should work for them. He's as ham fisted as they are, and makes excuses for failure in the way they do. And about as shameless. Plus it's always a win if the bumble bums inflict themselves on the GOP. I think he should work for Michel Bachmann's re-election. ;-)
I think even HRC would agree that the responsibility for the mistakes of her campaign ultimately rest with her.
Of course. I'm sorry, I think I'm not saying it right. Yes ultimately the responsibility is hers. (One of the points of an election is to show how the candidate handles their agenda and resouces because it's an indicator of how they'd handle what they're asking us to hand over to them - our agenda and resources. Her campaign didn't make a good show for itself and it was her campaign. Buck stops.)
However Penn has taken no responsibility for the part he played and it's annoying to watch. That's my point.
I remember some of her more "rabid" supporters making a big deal of the caucus losses. And I thought "They were there for the contesting. Why didn't she contest?Why didn't she at least try. That's on her. Obama did. That's on him." At the end of the day, the candidate is behind the wheel. Drive the campaign or crash it.
I'm just glad it all worked out as it did. President Obama. And Penn is wee bit of a hack who needs to hush up.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
