Wither the Subcabinet?
Spencer Ackerman has a great article on the concern that a lot of Obama-minded people have about the prospect of Hillary Clinton at Foggy Bottom — they worry about what that means for subcabinet positions:
Some progressive Obama supporters think the arrival of Clinton at the State Dept. will mean they’ll be frozen out. That would have implications for their advancement in subsequent Democratic administrations.
“Basically, you have all of these young, next-generation and mid-career people who took a chance on Obama” during the primaries, said one Democratic foreign-policy expert included in that cohort. “They were many times the ones who were courageous enough to stand up early against Iraq, which is why many of them supported Obama in the first place. And many of them would likely get shut out of the mid-career and assistant-secretary type jobs that you need, so that they can one day be the top people running a future Democratic administration.”
In the foreign-policy bureaucracy, these middle-tier jobs — assistant secretary and principal-deputy-assistant and deputy-assistant — are stepping stones to bigger, more important jobs, because they’re where much of the actual policy-making is hashed out. Those positions flesh out strategic decisions made by the president and cabinet secretaries; implement those policies; and use their expertise to both inform decisions and propose targeted or specific solutions to particular crises.
To add some further context here, back during the primaries there was tons of talk of the most senior “foreign policy community” types in Clinton’s orbit “warning” younger national security professionals that there would be big-time payback if they backed Obama and he wound up losing. At the same time, while on the top level Clinton tended to attract a diverse group of people with personal ties to her, at the bottom level you tended to get a lot of very risk-averse careerists — the sort of people who just sign on with the frontrunner and don’t really have any passion or vision. I think that sort of thing wound up ill-serving Clinton during the campaign, when one advantage Obama had was a staff full of genuinely passionate supporters, and I doubt it’s a dynamic she deliberately wants to foster. But you could have a situation where Secretary of State Clinton wants to bring in as key subordinates loyalists who she’s comfortable with, and then those loyalists want to go about fulfilling their threat of punishing Obama supporters by locking them out.
Suffice it to say, that would be a bad thing.
41 Responses to “Wither the Subcabinet?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
But Obama-Biden still get to choose all the appointed positions. People will get frozen out only if Obama consents to that.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
If there are really any people who want to punish the people who supported Obama, my guess is that they would be doing so at their own peril. Obama and his counselors aren’t stupid or naive. They are making this move with their wide eyes open, and will likely be mindful of protecting their own people.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I’m baffled by all this. Clintonite foreign policy never inspired confidence, it was a muddle. Why is Hillary all of a sudden being handed the keys to the kingdom?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Bu..but, Matt, just earlier this week you assured us that left wing dissatisfaction with the Obama transition was just a bunch of hooey:
I’ve seen a certain number of news accounts trying to gin up basically fake tale of deep left-wing disgruntlement with the shape of the Obama transition. Other, more intellectually honest journalists, have written of their own personal frustration at the lack of awesome disgruntlement stories to write.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/long_and_deep.php
In fact, that was just Wednesday afternoon. Here it is early Friday afternoon and you and Ackerman are already bitching about Clinton’s imminent designation as Sec of State and its effect on other appointments.
I take it your statements from Wednesday are “no longer operative.” Who’s being intellectually honest?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
The idea that Hillary Clinton needs all these loyalists to be “comfortable” is ridiculous, even if Hillary herself believes it. Live like the rest of the world in a new job and take your favorite mug or a picture of your dog to be comfortable. The vast majority of people don’t get to pick their co-workers and the managerial successs of any Secretary of State comes from how career civil servants respond, not the paper thin layer of career appointees.
Obama’s people don’t leak and don’t backstab. Any group of them can fill 80% of the Clinton SoS political appointments and it should make zero difference to her.
Hillary Clinton is a smart, capable, inspiring figure to millions of people. Let’s not assume she’s also some kind of diva that needs a team full of 15 year loyalists to butter her toast. Those people served her poorly during her campaign and she’d do well to embrace a bit of change her own damn self.
Shorter me: Quit whining about your careers Obama supporters.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Coda to me: Ditto for Hillary supporters. It’s not about you. It’s about the country.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Anyone read the article in the New Yorker from about a month ago on the foreign policy approaches of the Obama and McCain teams? The focus was on Obama’s team and how by attitude and ideas, they did seem to represent significant change from the past, to include both the Bush and Clinton administrations. The differences outlined between the Clinton and Obama camps seemed very substantial. Bringing in Hillary and her advisers would seem to completely undermine the plans of Obama’s FP team.
Can someone explain to me why this is being done? Is this a sop to AIPAC or to some other powerful interest group? WHY?
November 21st, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I think these paragraphs, from the end of Ackerman’s piece, are key for putting this in a perspective less worthy of the sort of hand-wringing MY engages in here:
It should be noted moreover than many Clinton foreign-policy operatives who who went so far as to work on her campaign later helped out Obama’s during the general election.
It’s not strange, if you think about it. Just because, say. some former Clinton establishment Bolivia expert had spent December in Iowa working for her wouldn’t mean that the Obama people wouldn’t call that expert for advice when Bolivia came up in the general election a few months later. And things would proceed from there.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
There is no team.
Obama makes the call and Hillary executes the routine. Obama is Bela Karolyi, Hillary Clinton is Mary Lou Retton. She’s going to be doing backflips according to plan, not improvising that shit on the floor. The fact that Hillary is known all over the world means that Obama gets people in other countries to pay attention to Obama’s views who otherwise wouldn’t be paying attention.
I’ve seen no evidence that Hillary Clinton isn’t exceptional when put in the role of a complimentary player. I don’t care if she has Michael O’Hanlon as the Undersecretary of State for Horribly Fucking Stupid it’s not going to persuade Obama to change his views. And if O’Hanlon takes the job and actively undermines his boss then he’ll be fired and/or have his nuts cut off.
Obama isn’t some pale flower who is going to be swayed by some think tank bozos who was the flavor of the month in October 2002. Ugh. I’m cranky and hate cabinet speculation. Nobody knows anything including me. You can be brilliant and fool at the same time. The same Al Gore that won a Nobel Peace Prize and opposed the Iraq War picked Joe Lieberman to be his VP. Just let some of this shit play out in increments bigger than 4 hours. Sheesh.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Matt, I agree with everything you say in your post on Obama-Clinton. I’m only sorry that you and Spencer don’t read my blog, which said the exact same things four days ago:
You can find the whole thing at
http://www.undiplomatic.net/2008/11/17/hillary-update-4/
I appreciate the fact that you guys used to share a house and read each others’ blogs, but it might be useful to look at newer sites as well. Maybe, just maybe, there are newer voices out there who didn’t have the prescience to start blogging five years ago.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
joejoejoe, I hope you are right. It would be really sad if O’Hanlon and the Truman Project Dems ended up running things in the Obama administration.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:51 pm
OK, Charlie, since you seem to have a clue or two, why is this being done?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
joejoe,
Why would Hillary want the position if she’s essentially going to be a carrier or executioner of policy rather than a maker (or at least assistant shaper)of policy?
November 21st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I always thought it funny that Obama was running against Mrs. Clinton on “Hope” and “Change” since those were the exact buzzwords Mr. Clinton had run on in 1992. Now, we see that he really just intended all along a restoration of the Clinton Administration, only with him as President.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
This is quite possibly one of the worst decisions since McCain picked Palin to be his running mate. A team of rivals? The difference between Hillary Clinton and Seward, Bates, and Chase is that the latter 3 cared about this country. Hillary Clinton (and her husband) have demonstrated, time after time after time that that they only care about advancing themselves.
And then there’s the issue of foreign policy. I don’t remember who it was that pointed this out, but what could Hillary possibly do to get fired in this administration? Let’s say that she starts to Sabre rattle on Iran and completely undermines the President-elect’s more realistic thinking on the issue. Could he dismiss her? I think not. This reality sets up the liklihood of a rogue department in this administration. Anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton isn’t going to use this as a platform to start planning for the next election doesn’t understand just how low this woman is willing to go.
As Matthew and I have alluded to, the last thing this country needs is a Wilsonian hawk at the helm of the State Department. What the new administration has done with this appointment is left themselves open to a more united Republican front (now that disaffected realists have nowhere to go). Come the next national security crisis, watch as the neocon supporters of Hillary (like Michael Goldfarb) turn around and blame the death and destruction on Obama. That will resonate, especially when there isn’t a Republican around to support the Obama administration (and Bob Gates doesn’t count). Trust me on this one.
This is a very serious strategic error and may very well hobble this administration in the first 12 months. I realize that many of the people that visit this forum are either overtly or secretly dismayed over this appointment. I really can’t believe that Obama has just thrown away a durable and realistic national security policy for perceived political gain. Some change…
November 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
BTW, Geithner was a great pick. Good to stay away from that moron Summers and pick someone who’s actually been in the trenches during this calamity.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Bragan - Because she’s largely on the same page as Obama, because it’s a powerful job requiring great skill and would be a personal challenge, because it’s probably one of the top 5 jobs in all the world, because Hillary isn’t a selfish person, because it’s a job Thomas Jefferson once held. Pick one. There are a lot of reasons. She’s got a healthy ego and big ambitions but that doesn’t mean she is selfish. This unity crap isn’t just crap, it’s healthy if Obama can pull it off and I think Clinton is on-board with actually governing and tackling some big problems. If HRC is going to be forced to play games then diplomacy is a cooler game to play than Democratic politics any day of the week.
Also, the US Senate just gave a standing ovation to a felon. Democrats may have almost 60 votes but that doesn’t mean the Senate isn’t still 90% full of asshats. Hillary Clinton is 60 years old. Some of these dudes are 75 and not going anywhere. She could be in the Senate in 2016 and still not chair any committee that matters. I’m half convinced what convinced Obama to run was the culture of the Senate. It sucked so bad he had to get out of there. The Senate is so tired it makes Wilford Brimley look like 50 Cent.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:57 pm
I think Hillary has made a number of mistakes on foreign policy already, and she doesn’t seem the diplomatic type to me. More like a fighter, who defends her turf. Attorney General would fit but that is taken.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Hillary Clinton isn’t selfish? Is that a joke? A healthy ego? Compared to whom? Bill?
On the same page as Obama? On what with respect to Foreign Policy? The two most important issues are Iraq (which they disagree on) and Iran (which they also disagree on).
The question is, given all of the damage that has been done by the Bush administration, what if he doesn’t pull the unity thing off? Moreover, what is the “unity thing?” Unity amongst democrats????? YOU GUYS WON!!!
November 21st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
The Bush administration just signed a withdrawal agreement with Iraq and both Obama and Clinton don’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons. And the world is much bigger than the Middle East. 95% of the difference between Obama and Clinton in foreign policy comes from her running a risk averse presidential campaign, not policy differences.
As for her not being selfish, selfish people don’t bust their ass doing hard work. They expect things to be handed to them. Hillary Clinton has always worked hard and will continue to work hard. She’s far from perfect but she’s not some kind of a monstrous harpy. That was campaign heat, not policy light.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
In reality, Ed, you could throw a dime over the Obama-Clinton foreign policy positions because they’re virtually identical. The fact that they spent most of the campaign dramatizing a 5-year-old vote that Obama never even had to make should be all the proof of that fact that is necessary. Their foreign policiy votes in the Senate were close to 100% identical.
That makes all this fairly easy, since I don’t think there are going to be a lot of policy spats between the “Clinton camp” and the “Obama camp,” except to the extent that their are persons in either camp who (1) misunderstand their own camp leader’s positions and/or (2) have bad feelings for the other camp leader. The problems won’t stem from Obama or Clinton themselves.
The only significant possible staff irritant I ever foresaw was Greg Craig, who got kind of personal and a bit nasty as the Obama team’s designated attack dog during the primaries. Not too surprising, since he is a veteran litigator and very good at his job, and litigators tend not to just gum at you when they bite, but since he is also Bill’s former lawyer I imagine that caused some raw feelings. Craig, however, got the White House Counsel job, which is a nice plum job and probably well-deserved, and that will keep him well clear of State, which has its own legal staff.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Whither the subcabinet? I think.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Well Trickster, if that is indeed the case (I had always felt that Obama was more of a pragmatist than a Wilsonian), Obama will last one term.
If this country is hit (God forbid) by a terrorist attack, the neocons will rip Obama apart…and not one Republican realist will come to his defense. What democrats don’t understand is that the country still does not trust the dems on defense issues despite all of the mistakes that Republicans have made. That’s going to leave Obama with two choices, either he look tough and overreach, or he is pragmatic and looks weak. Without prominent Republican realists supporting him…he will either wreck this country even further or be booted from office.
I can’t believe that he is so naive/arrogant to believe that he can control Hillary Clinton. Like Icarus, he is about to fall.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
And trust me. It gives me no pleasure to predict that. I had great hope that he got it. He doesn’t…The country has once again been fooled.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I thought Obama promised “Change.” It seems to me he’s just appointing the old Clinton crowd. Hmmm… so far it’s appearing he’s just an empty suit inflated with hot air pretty rhetoric.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Maybe even more important than the fact that they hold similar policy views is that, I think, they are both essentially technocrats. Neither wants to impose an ideological orthodoxy either on the world or on U.S. policy toward the world. Each would rather listen to the diplomatic and intelligence professionals and carve out pragmatic solutions to problems, and that will be the primary basis for our foreign policy going forward.
November 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I think you mean “Whither.”
March 17th, 2009 at 2:36 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
viagra