The Obama/Clinton Alliance
Posted by Ashish on 12.02.2008
And you thought the crazy election year was over with the election...
Hillary Clinton is now officially part of Barack Obama's cabinet, a bizarre turn that few could have imagined months back when the two were bitter rivals. That being said, the move is a brilliant political one for Obama. He has now removed perhaps his only threat to the Democratic nomination in 2012 (obviously that would only be in question if he screws up in a major way). He has now tied Hillary Clinton's Presidential ambitions to his own success, ensuring that if Clinton does still have ambition to be President, she'll have to make Obama look really good and then run on that record in eight years (running against him in 2012 is now a dead option).
I'm not too worried about Clinton being a team player, again, because her future now relies on her being just that. She is part of the Obama administration. If Obama is viewed negatively, she likely will be too. Whatever she runs for in the future, she will either run on her record as part of the Obama team, or her opponent will use it against her.
What kind of Secretary of State Clinton will make is tough to say. She has a lot of positives -- she knows and has met many foreign leaders, is used to this type of work, is a tough negotiater, and is very popular around the world.
And here's a good find by Ben Smith, from over a year ago, when Obama was asked at a debate how he can offer change while relying on so many old Clinton advisers. When the question was asked, Hillary said out loud that she wanted to hear the answer to this, and Obama responded with this:
"Hillary, I look forward to you advising me as well."
OK I remember that line, very nice, but why couldn't old Smithy include Obama's response to the question?
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on December 02, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Here's the rest of his answer, for what it's worth:
"I want to gather up talent from everywhere.
You know, we haven't talked too much about the war, but one of the points that I've tried to make during the course of this year during the campaign is, I want to change the mindset that got us into war.
Because I think that since 9/11, we've had a president who essentially fed us a politics of fear and distorted our foreign policy in profound ways.
And I think that there are a lot of good people, in the Clinton years, the Carter years, George Bush I, who understand that our military power is just one component of our power.
And I revere what our military does. And I will do whatever it takes, as commander in chief, to keep the American people safe. But I know that part of making us safe is restoring our respect in the world.
And I think those who are advising me agree with that. And part of the agenda that we're putting forward, in terms of talking not just to our friends but also to our enemies, initiating contacts with Muslim leaders around the world, doubling our efforts in terms of foreign aid -- all those are designed to create long-term security by creating long-term prosperity around the world."
Posted By: Eric (Guest) on December 02, 2008 at 01:21 PM
For a Constitutional Lawyer he sure does like to throw away the parts he does not like.
It is against the law for Hillary to take the Sec of State position because she is an elected Senator. She (according to the Constitution) is not allowed to accept this position until after her term has expired (not resigned). That will not be until 2010. She would also have to take a pay cut since she was in office when the SOS received a raise. Her pay would have to be reduced to the pay before she entered the Senate.
Posted By: George, Ben & Thomas (Guest) on December 02, 2008 at 05:47 PM
Meh, The McMahon/Helmsley Alliance was more powerful and better organized.
Posted By: Guest#5258 (Guest) on December 02, 2008 at 10:09 PM
"It is against the law for Hillary to take the Sec of State position because she is an elected Senator. She (according to the Constitution) is not allowed to accept this position until after her term has expired (not resigned). That will not be until 2010. "
If you're referring to the emoluments clause, it doesn't say she can't be appointed because she's a Senator. It says she can't be both a Senator and Secretary of State at the same time. And even if that were true, it would be 2013.
"She would also have to take a pay cut since she was in office when the SOS received a raise. Her pay would have to be reduced to the pay before she entered the Senate. "
Not before she entered the Senate - the salary as it was when she started her second term in 2007.
Anyway, I doubt SCOTUS would overrule her nomination because of the common law precedent set by the Saxbe Fix.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on December 02, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Thanks for that, Eric.
It's been over a year, I was curious to what degree he actually answered the question, and (as far as political debates go) it seems he addressed it fine.
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on December 02, 2008 at 11:43 PM
We probably agree that Rice is not actively involved in the formulation of policy. Colin Powell faced similar isolation resulting in his resignation.
Can anyone name the most recent Sec. of State that was relevant to policy development and implementation? Not a rhetorical question. Certainly wasn't Albright.
Does anyone know how Clinton and Obama solved Clinton's campaign debts. As Hilary was stepping out of race, remember all the discussion about Obama paying her debts. Anyone know the outcome?
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on December 03, 2008 at 01:23 PM
"He has now removed perhaps his only threat to the Democratic nomination in 2012 (obviously that would only be in question if he screws up in a major way)...running against him in 2012 is now a dead option)."
When was the last time an incumbent was challenged by his own party at re-election? I don't recall.
Posted By: demOcratic (Guest) on December 03, 2008 at 03:58 PM
"When was the last time an incumbent was challenged by his own party at re-election? I don't recall."
The last 'serious' challenge was probably to Jimmy Carter by Edward Kennedy in 1980.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on December 03, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Ronald Reagan
Teddy K.
Pat Buchanan
G. McGovern
Posted By: AdmChesterMynutz (Guest) on December 03, 2008 at 05:48 PM
Adm,
Read an LA Times piece this afternoon that said her campaign would continue to try to bring down her debt through fundraising. She had to write-off $13M that she had loaned her campaign, and there's still $7.5M owing, "most of which" is owed to Mark Penn, her campaign strategist. Sounds like a nice gig. Anyway, a recent example of this fundraising is an email sent out by Bill asking supporters to send Hillary a congratulatory email and/or contribute to paying the debt. As for any Obama involvement, nothing I've seen or read since the summer.
As for your other question re: SoS, I don't have a freaking clue.
Posted By: Bisch (Guest) on December 03, 2008 at 06:16 PM
"When was the last time an incumbent was challenged by his own party at re-election? I don't recall."
George H.W. Bush was challenged by Pat Buchanan. That's the last serious challenge.
Posted By: J.D. Dunn (Registered) on December 03, 2008 at 06:23 PM
Dammnit
I only voted for Obama because I hate republican policies, and I hate Hillary Clinton. I wanted Edwards to win the nomination.
Hillary Clinton is the most disgusting and evil woman since Countess Elizabeth Bathory.
Posted By: Freakzilla (Guest) on December 09, 2008 at 01:22 PM
STAY CURRENT