Nov 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Geithner! Clinton!
As you probably know, it now looks like Tim Geithner for Treasury and Hillary Clinton for State. Geithner seems like a win-win — better-regarded by liberals than Larry Summers, but about equally well-regarded by centrists. Clinton at State is popular choice if the polls are to be believed, but I have doubts on a variety of scores — including the fact that I think she’ll be missed as a leader and spokesperson on health reform issues in the Senate. My primary preference for Obama over Clinton was that I thought his foreign policy judgment had been superior, and I know I wasn’t alone in that respect. For those of us in that boat, this has been a disconcerting turn of events.
89 Responses to “Geithner! Clinton!”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
China
climate
COIN
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
New Jersey
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Seriously, why do people give Hillary Clinton so much credit? How is she qualified to be Secretary of State? And why would we want her leading the way for health care reform? Look how that turned out last time. Since then, she’s taken more money from the insurance companies than any other candidate, of either party; how is that someone we can trust with real reform?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I didn’t think I’d ever be saying this, but Al is absolutely right.
Why oh why couldn’t he have chosen the Big Fella?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I suspect Obama will still be making the decisions regarding his foreign policy, right? He will, after all, be the guy in charge.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Hmmmm–Al complains that an Obama appointee is too closely associated with the policies of the adminstration Al supported . . .
November 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Perhaps enough dirt will come up on Clinton in the confirmation hearings to knock her out because really that is really all I want for Kwanza this year.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
rea,
The problem, as Al (damn him) accurately pointed out, is that Geithner was Rubin’s golden boy at Treasury during the Clinton years. It was Rubin who got him the New York job.
As a result, Geithner was party to the dot com asset bubble of the Clinton years as one of Rubin’s top aides AND to the current one provoked by Easy Al and atrocious regulation of banks by one of their chief regulators, the New York Fed. Whose President is the Vice Chairman of the FOMC. And who voted every SINGLE TIME with that asshole and with Bernanke.
Obama could hardly have picked someone MORE in touch with the current disaster if he had went ahead and picked Dick Fuld, or say, a recent Goldman chairman.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“Heckuva job, Geithner! Change you can believe in!”
The Fed has been at the heart of the (sl)easy money policies and lax oversight that has so much to do with the mess we’re in now. I’d rather see Obama pass over any of the current Fed crowd. But he probably felt he needed someone with close ties to Wall Street given the current crisis. But Geithner at Treasury just doesn’t sit well with me. Same old, same old.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The thing that always pissed me off most about Obama supporters in the primary season was this apparently widespread belief. Judging Obama by what he said as a state senator from a liberal district in a liberal state rather than judging him by how he voted in the Senate was always retarded. Obama’s votes were clones of Clinton’s votes, and the expectation that they would differ meaningfully on foreign policy was never anything other than fantasy.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The Big Fella, on other hand, has the attraction of being waaaaaay ahead of anyone else on the Housing crisis and Wall Street run amok.
Not to mention the fact that he was last Fed Chairman with balls and honor. And the fact that even Reagan bowed to him.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
So. . . Hillary Clinton is a Senator from, what, Cobb County, Georgia?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
This hand-wringing by Obama Dem primary-supporters over Clinton is precious.
You do realize now, I hope, that his use of the Iraq War vote against HRC was little more than a (smart) strategic move to win the nomination, and he in fact had (and has) very little differences with her on foreign policy in general.
I mean, c’mon, he picked Biden, and Kerry and Richardson were State runners-up, Iraq War supporters all. Any differences with Clinton weren’t any bigger than the man he picked as VP.
I’m sorry you guys feelings are hurt, but get over it, you were (brilliantly) played.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
I’m sure that somewhere this is considered thinking outside the box. Hmm
So a black AG, and a female SoS. Guns and money? White guys.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
When this all started, I was resigned to accepting Hillary Clinton at State as just an unavoidable cost of doing business in American politics. But the more it has dragged on, the deeper my lack of enthusiasm has grown.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
For better or worse, let’s hope that Hillary’s reign as SoS will be judged on the actual foreign policy achievements of Obama’s administration. Even for the most skeptical Obama supporters (I’m a cautious optimist), we should grant Hillary the wisdom to know that her only gains out of this position will come if she succeeds in implementing Obama’s goals—HIS goals. Of course, that assumes that the Clinton-hating press would acknowledge her success if she deserved it.
I also think Jones’s appointment as NSA could be a strong help in making sure her goals are in sync with Obama’s. I’m still willing to give BO the benefit of the doubt…
November 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
[Haaretz] “Will she be good for Israel?”
[Haim Saban] “I think so.”
ARRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
November 21st, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“Judging Obama by what he said as a state senator from a liberal district in a liberal state rather than judging him by how he voted in the Senate was always retarded.”
I’m so glad I’m not the only one to think that. Yglesias, and a bunch of other folks, got played by Obama’s tactical and meaningless opposition to Iraq and his slick Rorschach rhetoric early on in the primaries. How long will it take him to admit it?
Just remember Obama, politically, is made by Chicago, that shining beacon of political integrity.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
I think Geithner’s fine. The thing is, if what you want is complete purity from the economic mess that we are in right now, who are you going to pick? I just don’t see any really plausible candidates with really, really clean hands.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:30 pm
It seems sad that in the biggest economic crisis in living memory, the most important thing is whether you pissed off academic feminists.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Where was Hillary born and raised again?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Re R Johnston’s comment “The thing that always pissed me off most about Obama supporters in the primary season was this apparently widespread belief [that Obama's foreign policy judgment was superior to Hillary's] ”
——————
When Obama acts like Hillary — i.e., votes to send 4500+ US fathers and sons to their deaths because she wants to kiss the ass of Israeli billionaire Haim Saban — then I’ll campaign against Obama as well.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Haim_Saban
November 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The two best qualified candidates are Volcker and Bill Richardson.
I’m disappointed.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
It seems sad that in the biggest economic crisis in living memory, the most important thing is whether you pissed off academic feminists.
Please tell me you have actual proof other than breathless articles in TNR blaming feminists for screwing things up for Obama that this is the reason Geithner gets the job.
I happen to think the Larry Summers controversy was stupid myself; Summers is an equal opportunity offender, he offends everyone, that’s the way he does thing. But I don’t think a second go around of Summers at Treasury is what we need right now.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Once in a person’s lifetime–if they’re lucky–they get a chance to decide upon a catastrophe of historic proportions. Hillary Clinton had that chance, and blew it big-time. She didn’t even read the pertinent intelligence briefings before voting for military force against Iraq. Now, years later, after thousands dead, millions driven out, and countless women and children forced into sex work to survive, she STILL doesn’t regret her vote.
What is “meaningless” about any of that?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I agree about Richardson, don’t know as much about Volcker.
Richardson negotiated the release of hostages. Hillary threatened to “annihilate” Iran. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
including the fact that I think she’ll be missed as a leader and spokesperson on health reform issues in the Senate.
Don’t worry. There are plenty of people left in The Senate to kill single payer healthcare even with Hillary gone. She’s not the only one who can protect insurance company profits.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
This hand-wringing by Obama Dem primary-supporters over Clinton is precious.
You do realize now, I hope, that his use of the Iraq War vote against HRC was little more than a (smart) strategic move to win the nomination, and he in fact had (and has) very little differences with her on foreign policy in general.
I mean, c’mon, he picked Biden, and Kerry and Richardson were State runners-up, Iraq War supporters all. Any differences with Clinton weren’t any bigger than the man he picked as VP.
I’m sorry you guys feelings are hurt, but get over it, you were (brilliantly) played.
=============================================================
He he he!
Well, BO was roundly critized for his vague promises on Hope and Change. Now we are finding out he really Hoped to Change things back to the Clinton Administration with him in charge.
There’ll be some relived Repubs if this keeps up. Oh, and somebody call Al From – he’s back in business
November 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
“Just remember Obama, politically, is made by Chicago, that shining beacon of political integrity.”
You don’t know what your talking about. Talk your gatuitous swipes at a city you know nothing about and shove them up your ass.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Hmm, I must be missing something, but why does appointing Hilary imply that Obama doesn’t have better judgement on foreign policy? I’m agnostic about the pick, but the sec of state obviously doesn’t actually run America foreign policy, the position is basically chief diplomat. Obviously Obama wouldn’t be appointing her if he didn’t think she is in broad agreement with him about foreign policy goals, but that is going forward. It isn’t really necessary to have someone who showed all the right instincts over the years, Obama is still getting the phone call at 2 am. Hilary brings some real star power to the job. Whether that turns out to be a good thing or a bad thing I don’t know, but pretending that somehow this all means she and Obama were always the same person is asinine.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Where was Hillary born and raised again?
She was born in Chicago but she moved to Park Ridge, a Republican leaning suburb of Chicago at the age of three.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I hear Charlize Theron is available.
Seriously though, if nothing else, shouldn’t promotions go to people who WEREN’T horribly wrong?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I think Geithner’s fine. The thing is, if what you want is complete purity from the economic mess that we are in right now, who are you going to pick? I just don’t see any really plausible candidates with really, really clean hands.
Just off the top of my head, Volcker.
I agree about Richardson, don’t know as much about Volcker.
Who do you think I was talking about when I mentioned the Big Fella?
Volcker saved our asses in the 80s, and then Greenspan turned around and essentially destroyed the gift.
As I said, Volcker killed inflation and even St. Ronnie knew not to touch that guy.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:53 pm
You don’t know what your talking about. Talk your gatuitous swipes at a city you know nothing about and shove them up your ass.
Hey asshole, I’m a Chicagoan, and the first election I ever voted in was for Hizzoner.
And I am fucking proud that this is the city that works.
But come fucking on, this is a ruthless political machine likes of which Karl Rove couldn’t even imagine.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ha, Ha, Ha!
And I’ll bet that Clinton gives Michael O’Hanlon an important job at State—with Rahm Emanuel’s strong encouragement.
Then, a few months from now, Matt gets an Obama Administration job, just as he’s been hoping for…and ends up as a junior speechwriter for O’Hanlon!
…Exactly as I’ve been predicting on poor Matt’s blog for the last year or two…
November 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Shaquille O’Neal
November 21st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Oh, and Sarah, Geithner’s hands aren’t simply dirty, they’re some of the most filthy out there. Who the fuck do you think has been responsible for regulating banks the last five years, and has been effectively running economic policy with Paulson for the last year?
November 21st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Who do you think I was talking about when I mentioned the Big Fella?
Shaquille O’Neal
Volcker’s in his eighties, and he could still lay Big Diesel on his ass without breaking a sweat or lowering short term interest rates.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
For me, there’s still value in having defeated Hillary in the primaries. Regardless of how sincere Obama was in his antiwar sentiments (although I think he was entirely so), the point at the time, for me, was to send a message to any Democrat who wants to be president someday: When a war is proposed, don’t just assume that voting for the war is the politically safe thing to do. If the war turns out badly, you can be held accountable.
Aside from all that, I think he’ll be a great president and I don’t think hiring Hillary and some other Clinton administration folks indicates otherwise at all. Some of the people from the Clinton administration are very smart and effective, and of course they have experience. Obama would be silly not to hire some of those people for his administration. I’m not sure about Hillary personally — opinions about her seem to vary wildly. But some people think she’s very good, the health care debacle with which she’s associated happened a long time ago, and maybe she’ll actually make a good SoS.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Boo to Clinton.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Well, I’ve never voted for Daley.
and I would suggest you, as a Chicagoan, read a recent column by Ben Joravsky in the Reader before you keep trumpeting the nonsense that Obama was part of Democratic machine politics in Chicago. Obama was a favorite of the North Shore and Hyde Park liberals, who have historically been the mayor’s only (marginally, to be sure) effective opposition.
As Joravsky said, there are two ways you deal with the machine if you are a Democrat with aspirations to higher office in Illinois. You either run as their candidate, or you look the other way from their hamhandedness and corruption. Obama was a look-the-other-wayer.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Thank heavens! With Hillary’s vast diplomatic expertise as an instrumental actor in the Northern Ireland peace talks and her close encounters with death during her diplomatic missions to the Balkans, this surely means we will enjoy an unprecedented period of transparent honesty from a State Department dedicated to America’s mission of two-faced diplomacy.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Obama was a favorite of the North Shore and Hyde Park liberals, who have historically been the mayor’s only (marginally, to be sure) effective opposition.
Where the hell do you think I live?
Oh, right, I live 5 blocks away from the President-Elect. 
I completely agree that Barack is a look-the-other-wayer. That’s what we here at the University of Chicago are all about. But my family’s been voting for Daley since the first time Hizzoner (the real one, not the fat kid) ran.
And believe me, although we deny it six ways to Sunday, but Hyde Park is definitely part of the machine.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Ooops, that but in the last sentence ought not to be there.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I may be just a naive progressive, but why the hell is Volker in consideration? “Volcker saved our asses in the 80s…Volcker killed inflation and even St. Ronnie knew not to touch that guy.” Does no one remember HOW Volker did these things, and what their impact on the working class was?
I’d prefer a Treasury Secretary whose political career didn’t involve the longest extended class war since WWII.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Matt: “My primary preference for Obama over Clinton was that I thought his foreign policy judgment had been superior, and I know I wasn’t alone in that respect. For those of us in that boat, this has been a disconcerting turn of events.”
No shit, numbnuts.
If you’d get your head out of your ass, this sort of thing has been predicted for weeks now.
Don Williams: “When Obama acts like Hillary — i.e., votes to send 4500+ US fathers and sons to their deaths because she wants to kiss the ass of Israeli billionaire Haim Saban — then I’ll campaign against Obama as well.”
Dude, what part of taking the troops from Iraq and sending them to Afghanistan – and Pakistan eventually – seems different to you?
Not to mention Iran, since he’s ginning up a war with them as well. AND in Iran, he has explicitly said he will NOT go to the UN for sanctions for military action.
And if you don’t think he’s kissing the ass of AIPAC, excuse me, how about Joe “I’m a Zionist” Biden and Rahm Emanuel who fucking enlisted in the IDF???!!! Not to mention Dennis Ross, his most likely envoy to the Middle East.
Christ, next Obama will be proposing Tzipi Livni for Secretary of State if Clinton declines!
November 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
As far as I’m concerned, Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan was equally responsible for the resulting mess.
SO yeah, Geithner’s hands may be dirty in this current scandal, but Volcker probably have blood of working people on his hand.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
As far as I’m concerned, Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan was equally responsible for the resulting mess.
SO yeah, Geithner’s hands may be dirty in this current scandal, but Volcker probably have blood o working people on his hand.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Now, now , Richard. You’re looking at this as the “glass is half empty” way.
Try looking at it the way a guy in the Aryan Brotherhood would.
Which is that Hillary serves at Obama’s pleasure. He can fire her at any time. At which point, she is little more than Jane Sixpack. And has jack shit for a public platform.
Hell, he can even orchestrate a disaster in which she is the designated scapegoat– whom he has to relieve of duty “more in sorrow than in anger.”
Whereas if she stays a Senator, she can be a real pain in the ass.
Feel that shank against the kidney, Hillary? DO you feel lucky?
November 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Oh, and Sarah, Geithner’s hands aren’t simply dirty, they’re some of the most filthy out there. Who the fuck do you think has been responsible for regulating banks the last five years, and has been effectively running economic policy with Paulson for the last year?
George Bush that’s who. And he basically delegated the job to Paulson. Then there’s Bernanke too.
Hillary will be taking directions from Obama. I think it was a good move. The Clintons did help Obama get elected and Hillary had a ton of support during the primary. If Hillary starts going rogue she’ll be replaced. Is it possible Samantha Power will get a position somewhere? She is really good too and has advised Obama for a while now. Should be interesting.
Obama is taking the approach he campaigned on with Hillary and Lieberman. He’s trying to move things forward and is giving them a chance in the process and a chance to be part of the winning team. There are reasons Hillary did as well as she did in the primary and why Al Gore picked Lieberman as his running mate.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Hackman:
Not to mention Iran, since he’s ginning up a war with them as well. AND in Iran, he has explicitly said he will NOT go to the UN for sanctions for military action.
You guys said Cheney was ginning up a war with Iran. You’ve been saying it for a while now. He’s running out of time…
November 21st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Obama has pledged to:
1. Bring the troops home from Iraq
2. Send more troops to Afghanistan to stabilize them
3. Exhaust diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from gaining nukes.
4. Improve America’s standing in the world
5. Ensure free trade agreements have fair labor and environmental protections.
He didn’t talk about much else. He was mostly focused on domestic issues, including health care, a middle class tax cut, more affordable college, a green energy future that reduces our dependence on foreign oil, improving education, addressing foreclosures, stopping companies from getting tax breaks while shipping jobs overseas, and reducing the clout of lobbyists in Washington.
That is pretty much it. Obama stuck to these few campaign themes. He could have talked about all sorts of issues, domestic and international, but he didn’t.
So now he has Hillary at SOS, and the media and blog commentaters are full of sorts of bizarre predictions.
I would like anyone complaining about this to specifically map out just what policy (of the above mentioned), that would be in Clinton’s domain, would she not support.
There were two big policy differences in the primary. One centered around Clinton’s initial support of the war. Who cares. The Iraqis are sending the troops home.
The second was negotiating with Tehran, and this was far more an issue with Mccain. Hillary will now have the lead on that. Does anyone believe she won’t support this policy? Getting an agreement on Iran nukes could win her a Nobel peace prize.
There are many posters here that seem to be missing something about this. Obama calls the shots. Hillary implements. Of course she will have input, as will many others. But Obama gets to have final say.
This is a great opportunity for Obama and Hillary. The Clintons have a lot of support around the world. Hillary has existing relationships with a number of world leaders. And in the Senate she earned the reputation as a team player.
Mark my words, she will be a great Secretary of State. We have a historic opportunity. America’s image is in tatters. Our clout is at an all-time low. Our planet is in peril. We have no place to go but up
Hillary will become the face of American diplomacy. And all the right wing nutjobs that have called her all so many names after all these years will have to watch her on their teevees as she meets with world leaders, helping to resolve big world problems.
The right really wanted to beat up on Hillary in the general, and they didn’t get to do it.
Now they’re stuck with her for another 8 years.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I’m not a Democrat or an Obama supporter, so take this for what it’s worth, but I don’t understand this appointment at all. Hilary is not even a member of the Foreign Relations committee! (See http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html for proof.) If Obama wanted to placate Hilary supporters, he should have made her Vice President. Since he proved he could win without her on his team, I don’t know why he feels the need to include her now. If he had made Hilary veep, then he could have appointed the highly qualified (at least on paper) Joe Biden to be Secretary of State. He seems to have got it backwards.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“Seriously though, if nothing else, shouldn’t promotions go to people who WEREN’T horribly wrong?”
So, P.A.T., I assume you refused to vote for Joe Biden for VP?
November 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Re Patrick Bradish’s comment “One centered around Clinton’s initial support of the war. Who cares. The Iraqis are sending the troops home.”
—————
Who CARES?
How about a widow who’s buried a husband and is raising a child alone?
How about a parent who’s buried a dead son? Or a wife trying to support a husband horribly burned and crippled for life?
Or maybe those of us who prefer that our Secretary of State not be an agent of a foreign power?
November 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pm
The more Obama pisses you guys off, the more I know he’s on the right track.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
From the NY Fed’s Website entry on Geithner, and from their description of what they do:
he serves as the vice chairman and a permanent member of the Federal Open Market Committee, the group responsible for formulating the nation’s monetary policy.
The New York Fed’s supervisory activities are designed to ensure a safe and sound banking system. The New York Fed conducts onsite and offsite examinations of banks in New York, New Jersey, and Fairfield County in Connecticut. It also examines U.S. bank holding companies, state-chartered banks and the U.S. operations of foreign banks.
Like the other Federal Reserve banks, the New York Fed is responsible for enforcing laws and establishing rules to protect banking customers in its region. Finally, the Fed ensures that banks in each district observe community reinvestment laws and try to meet the credit needs of their communities.
No, Peter, I’d say that it’s Geithner’s job to regulate the banking system, since the organization (not a government agency, mind you) to which he was appointed to lead is responsible for this – not Bush’s.
Furthermore, you don’t seem to get how the FOMC works. Geithner is the second most important person on it, so don’t talk about how he’s some kind of slave to Helicopter Ben.
Second, it has been exhaustively reported that Geithner, and NOT BERNANKE, was Paulson’s primary collaborator on the Bear Stearns deal, and the measures taken since.
In particular, Geithner is the one who lobbied against saving Lehman.
Gee, I wonder how that’s worked out for us?
And Sarah, Volcker didn’t have any damn choice. What he did was to eliminate inflation as a practical concern. Which was annihilating us. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you ask Paul Krugman? Unless you think he’s a reactionary proponent of class warfare?
Unfortunately, Volcker was replaced by Greenspan, who undid much of what the former accomplished. Then of course we had Irrational Exuberance in the 90s and whatever the fuck we had in the 00s. Not to mention the Grand High Asshats of Rubin and Summers (whose aide Geithner was) collaborating with Gramm to eviscerate Glass Steagall.
So yea, I’d stand by my statement that Volcker has an order of magnitude less filth on his hands.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Re James Kabala’s question “If he had made Hilary veep, then he could have appointed the highly qualified (at least on paper) Joe Biden to be Secretary of State. He seems to have got it backwards. ”
———
No –POLITICALLY Obama got it right. If Hillary takes the Secretary of State position, Obama’s major rival becomes Obama’s bitch –subject to dismissal at will.
The only one whose position is protected by the Constitution is Joe Biden — and there is no way in hell Joe Biden could ever be a serious rival to Obama for the nomination 4 years hence. As VP, Joe will be motivated to provide Obama the best advice Joe can so that Joe stays relevant.
Whereas Vice President Hillary would be plotting a challenge — and possibly an assassination — from day one. But if Hillary becomes Secretary of State, she goes from being Obama’s major rival to being Obama’s subordinate –serving at Obama’s pleasure and without a Senate position to fall back on.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
You’re probably right – and I would add that only two Secretaries of State in the last fifty years (Dean Rusk and George Schultz) served more than one term. Perhaps the goal is to have Hilary a forgotten has-been by 2016 – a form of long-delayed revenge.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Hillary hasn’t taken the bait yet.
She’s smarter than I thought. If Obama steps in deep shit–which is likely given the multiple disasters Bush is leaving him (plus time bombs not yet detonated) — then Senator Hillary would be well set up in 2012 if Obama did not stand for reelection. Whereas Secretary of State Hillary would go down with the ship.
Maybe Wild Bill is advising her. He’s not that smart either but he did pick up a certain low animal cunning in those Arkansas trailer parks.
PS News has it that Larry Summers is slated for eventual Fed Chairmanship to replace Bernanke. Bill Richardson on the list to be Secretary of Commerce –which could be pretty important as we try to dig out of this deep hole Bush has stuck us in.
See http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081121/bs_nm/us_usa_obama
November 21st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Well, Don, the Powers that Be have probably decided that if Summers did such a great job with Russia, he’d be even better destroying the US.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
How long will it take him to admit it?
Isn’t that what I just wrote in this post?
November 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
This is a poor decision; the voters chose to reject her as a candidate, this robs their decision of its meaning.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:29 pm
As a Hillary lover who became a Hillary hater, I’m trying to make some lemonade out of this lemon.
Just as it took Nixon to go to China, it will take an indisputable supporter of Israel to give Israel the tough love that will be needed in order to convince the Israelis to make the compromises that are necessary to achieve peace with the Palestinians. With Livni as the good cop and Clinton as the bad cop, reality will have a chance to prevail.
That’s assuming that Obama understands what needs to be done, and can convince Hillary to go along.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Amen Brotha Matt!
November 21st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
DTM,
I am in the camp who thinks this means Clinton has moved to Obama’s way of thinking on foreign policy, not the other way around.
Well you would be, wouldn’t you? Wishful thinking, lack of evidence, and all that.
I think the New York Times has a rather more plausible assessment of the implications of these choices: Obama Tilts to Center, Inviting a Clash of Ideas
November 21st, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I’ve got to stop reading these threads about Obama’s cabinet picks; the stupid is so thick and multiform, and the intelligent and informed comments are so few and far between. Here’s the thing: we can’t change who he picks, and we’re in deep deep doodoo. Thus, he needs to be effective, and we need to be supportive — critical, but not destructive.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:22 pm
This is a poor decision; the voters chose to reject her as a candidate, this robs their decision of its meaning.
A mindbogglingly stupid comment.
FWIW, Biden and Richardson were also rejected as candidates.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:38 pm
The thing is, Obama has always represented himself as a pragmatist, and in fact he really just is a pragmatist. So sure, these picks are consistent with him being a pragmatist (rather than, say, a left wing ideologue), but that doesn’t mean he has changed his thinking on foreign or domestic policy.
Whatever his “thinking,” it’s a sign that he plans to govern more to the center-right, as the Times piece says. The Clinton pick suggests he will be more hawkish on foreign policy than previously believed, and the Geithner pick suggests he will be more fiscally conservative.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I think it’s clear that Hillary was only interested in the Senate as a platform from which to return to the White House. She was no doubt calculating her own Presidential run even before her husband left office. Now that her Presidential aspirations have failed, she needs to actually achieve something or her legacy will be one of failure. Hopefully she has more talent as a diplomat than a legislator.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:29 pm
DTM,
Since you have no produced no evidence whatsoever that Obama’s choice was based on some “perceived ability” of Clinton that is independent of the more hawkish agenda and style she is likely to bring to the position of secretary of state, we can safely consign this suggestion to your usual wishful thinking.
And “pragmatism” in the context of Democratic foreign policy is just code for a greater willingness to sacrifice “progressive” principles or ideals in the service of more tangible and immediate goals like neutralizing military threats or protecting U.S. oil supplies.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 am
I look forward to Obama’s formal nomination speech explaining why Hillary is right for this post in particular. The number and magnitude of the (especially but not exclusively intra-Democratic) political benefits of this are so glaring, they practically blot out the technocratic justifications that I want to hear, so I will be listening closely for them. Generally, I want a specialist at State. This seems much closer to a presige appointment, albeit one where the qualifications are beyond dispute, at least among the establishment people who sign off on the pick, and even — especially! — on the right side of that establishment spectrum.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 am
Yep. The appointment also gives Hillary’s silly-shit supporters the illusion that Obama’s tossing them a bone of respect. See,e.g, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin The comment by Gloria Steinem is particularly idiotic.
And it gives the deep-pockets Israel Lobby the illusion that they have seat at the table. Which may let Wild Bill convince them to pay off Hillary’s campaign debt.
It’s going to be a tough 4 years — so Obama needs to circle the Democratic wagons. Select everyone to be part of the TEAM –so that they all know they will be equally blamed as well if the ship goes down.
In reality, Joe Biden has forgotten more about foreign policy than Hillary will ever learn — so he will be a good check if she trys to get creative. And Hillary knows that she will need lots of support and advice from the White House to avoid looking like a fool.
November 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hmm…I’ve heard decent things about Geithner, and as others have said, it’s virtually impossible to find anyone who’s clean in this economic mess. (Volcker, maybe, but he’s really old and also has the 82 Depression on his ledger sheet, which was fairly awful).
As to Clinton, what strikes me about it, now that it really does seem to be a done deal, is the following:
1) In terms of politics, it’s brilliant for Obama. He co-opts Clinton and can now fire her at will. She’s out of the Senate, and any possibility that she challenges him in 4 years is gone. It also makes Clintonite efforts to whine about the transition more difficult. In general, it’s a very good choice for holding the party together.
2) In terms of policy, I think the idea that this means Obama is a superhawk now is kind of absurd. Obama was right about the Iraq war and Clinton was wrong. But in terms of what to do now, I don’t see that many strong disagreements. Obama was never really a dove, and I don’t see how this changes much of anything. The basic fact, though, is that it is Obama (and his White House national security people, undoubtedly) who will set policy, and Clinton will only be able to execute it (although obviously she will have input). If she ends up disagreeing with Obama, she’ll either be marginalized or she’ll quit.
3) That being said, I don’t really see how she’s qualified for the job. If Obama wanted a Clintonite hawk at Foggy Bottom, in what way is Clinton conceivably a better choice than Richard Holbrooke, who for all his flaws is by all accounts a brilliant diplomat? Other than the political benefits I outlined in point 1, what does Clinton have to offer that someone like Holbrooke does not? And, of course, someone like Holbrooke (or Richardson) has demonstrable skills and experience that Clinton does not. This is not to say that Clinton will be bad at the job – who knows? Just that I am uncertain of what her exact qualifications for it are, and how Obama is going to claim with a straight face that this is anything but an appointment made to get him advantages in domestic politics, rather than because she’s the best candidate for the job.
4) Finally, I don’t understand why Clinton wants the job. All the factors in point 1 that make it such an attractive choice for Obama are factors which ought to make it an unattractive one for her. It makes her Obama’s subordinate, rather than a rival who has to be satisfied. And she’s giving up a safe Senate seat to do it. Besides the flattery of it, I don’t understand why she’d want the job.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Maybe, a part of Obama’s reasoning for choosing Hillary is to bring her camp of Democrats over to his way of thinking. Ultimately she’ll do the bidding of Obama and as long as he stands up to her it will be his mark, not hers, that shapes foreign relations. In my view he’s making a move to bring all the Democrats under the same roof whereas during the primary they were very split.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:45 am
Re tom a’s comment “Maybe, a part of Obama’s reasoning for choosing Hillary is to bring her camp of Democrats over to his way of thinking.”
————
1) You CAN’T bring billionaires like Haim Saban and S Daniel Abraham over to your way of thinking. You can only kill them or impoverish them or marginalize them or make a deal with them.
2) Those guys are dangerous not just because their loyalty lies with Israel, not with the USA. Not just because they are billionaires. It is because they already have their money in the bank.
3) There are lots of billionaires who stay out of politics –because they are hostage to the very companies that make them their money. Many billionaires stay neutral in politics –other than where their specific business interests are involved –because they don’t want their company harmed by political retaliation in the form of adverse regulatory or legal actions.
4) But someone with several $Billions in the bank –and an ego to match — is a formidable force. You need the Hispanic swing vote in California, Texas, and Florida? Haim Saban BOUGHT the Spanish language TV network Univision.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:48 am
Israeli Haim Saban dumped $15 Million into the 2000-2002 campaigns. He could have dumped $150 Million into getting Hillary elected if not for McCain-Feingold.
November 22nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Brett in #55 nails it- if Obama caved every time the online left threw a hissy fit, he never would have won.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Don Williams: While I would like to believe that Obama is doing this to defang Hillary completely, I have to think that’s really not that likely. And she can do a lot of damage before she goes. Also, if he makes her SOS and then fires her the following week, month, year, whatever, it makes HIM look bad.
Peter: “You guys said Cheney was ginning up a war with Iran. You’ve been saying it for a while now. He’s running out of time…”
Dude, try to grasp reality. This isn’t a TV show. There is a real country out there called Iran, another one called Israel, and another one called the USA.
One country has a legal right to have centrifuges and a nuclear energy program, and has complied with all IAEA requirements for years now and has not attacked its neighbors in a thousand years (or whatever the figure is)
One has an imperialist, fascist, racist, religious ideolog and has over 200 nuclear weapons and a modern military with which it has attacked ALL of its neighbors within the last thirty or forty years, attacking the last one just 2 years ago – if you don’t count the air raid on the alleged Syrian nuclear plant.
One country is run by its military-industrial complex, who see the war in Iraq running down. It’s newly elected President has, once again, for morons like you and Matt who can’t read and don’t bother reading Obama policy statements, has:
1) Explicitly said that he will not allow the country with the legal right to have centrifuges to have ANY centrifuges.
2) Explicitly said that he will not second-guess the country with the 200 nuclear weapons which has said it will attack the first country at any time if the third country does not do so.
3) Has explicitly said that he not go to the UN for sanctions authorizing a military attack on first country.
4) Has explicitly said that he will institute a naval blockade of the first country’s refined petroleum products – i.e., cutting off all their gas, thus destroying their economy – a specific act of war prohibited by the UN Charter which his country happens to be a signatory to.
Now – against this backdrop, how do you figure country one is going to avoid a war with countries two and three, if they CANNOT and WILL NOT suspend uranium enrichment?
Or do you think Obama is just blowing smoke like George Bush and Dick Cheney, and all he will do is either give in and accept enrichment, or push the problem off on the next Administration?
And how do you suppose he will do the latter, if country two initiates a military strike on country one because it doesn’t like his delaying taking action?
Or is all this just some sort of fictional byplay that nobody means?
Really – what’s your opinion on this? How do YOU – and Matt – see the Iran story playing out WITHOUT a war?
I’d really like to see the predictions – or even a policy statement that ACTUALLY provides a resolution given that Iran CANNOT and WILL NOT suspend enrichment – the key demand of the US and Israel.
Without that, you’re just blowing smoke out your ass.
December 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
“including the fact that I think she’ll be missed as a leader and spokesperson on health reform issues in the Senate.”
You are such a moron. You’ll never leggo your Hillary dementia. Hillary consistently was considered the primary candidate most Democrats trusted on health care by a large margin, and for good reason. But you don’t believe people feel she will be missed on this issue? You don’t think she’s a popular choice as SOS? Honestly, where do you get off? The woman won half the votes of the Party. She’s popular, you dolt.
February 8th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Hi, I just became a part of this forum here and I would love to be a part of it.
Seriously, love the contribution of the community.
I thought I’d do some contributing of my own and share with you this amazing program i just got into thats making me now about $8000.00 a week and i just started.
check it out http://www.endlesscash365.com
Anyway, enjoy a superior online experience and hope to hang out with you guys more often.
Peace!
February 9th, 2009 at 3:13 am
Hi,
I just became a part of this forum here and I would love to be a part of it.
Kudos goes out to the mods and members! Seriously, I love the contribution of the community. I thought I’d do some contributing of my own.
Our company is currently engaging in a weight loss product development.
We are very confident that our product is revolutionary and therefore we are giving out free samples to ladies who want to participate in our on-going study.
Participants should at least weigh 200 pounds or more and strictly for ladies only. Kindly visit [url=http://tinyurl.com/aoc325][b]Our Website[/b][/url] for more details.
February 9th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Nice site!
with great servie.
i used this company last month.
i can asure you that it is the best in the moving and storage industry.
I move many times BUT : [url=http://www.peacemovers.com] Nationwide Relocation [/url] by Peace Movers Inc.
……… Is by far the best you can get when moving
I know what i say i moved many times.
I would love to open a thread about movers…
March 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 5:14 am
Great site. Good info
March 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 14th, 2009 at 5:56 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
xanax
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:23 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra
April 10th, 2009 at 4:04 am
The topic is quite hot on the Internet right now. What do you pay attention to when choosing what to write ?
April 18th, 2009 at 5:35 am
[url=http://ticketvoid.com][img]http://verifiedfile.com/images/TicketVoid.jpg[/img][/url]
Tickets can be expensive. Citations relative to drinking & driving can potentially cause your license to be suspended.
[b]TicketVoid.com[/b] is a web service that can help you find a qualified lawyer for [b]Driving Under the Influence (DUI)[/b], Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), speeding tickets, careless driving, license plate violations and other serious traffic violations. Ticket Void expedites your legal search for experienced and reliable DUI and [url=http://ticketvoid.com][b]traffic ticket lawyers[/b][/url].
Simply visit the site, insert the circumstances of the ticket, and we will find you a local attorney for free located in your area.
Our in house legal team can answer your questions. Please call, email or visit our website !
[url=http://ticketvoid.com][b]DUI Traffic Ticket[/b][/url]
Steven Hill, Esq.
+1-888-327-9113
steven.hill@ticketvoid.com