Clinton Pick Would Be Big Gamble For Obama

Politico: Appointment Would Show President-Elect's Icy Tolerance For Risk And Belief In The Power Of The Grand Gesture

(The Politico)  This story was written by Ben Smith.

---

What is Barack Obama thinking?

We’ve heard all the rational arguments: Hillary Rodham Clinton has more star power than Richard Holbrooke, more discipline than Bill Richardson, fewer bad jokes than John F. Kerry. She’s tough and competent. She’s a woman and a Democrat, making space for a Republican guy at Defense. It would get her out of the Senate. Both Obama and Clinton loved Doris Kearns Goodwin's book, “Team of Rivals.”

But the sum of those parts seems something less than the whole explanation for Obama’s first great presidential gamble: his move toward giving his former adversary, whose judgment on foreign policy he criticized relentlessly, by offering her the most important Cabinet position in his administration.

Neither Holbrooke, Kerry nor Richardson would bring Clinton’s downsides: Her towering, volcanic husband; her own ambitions; and the endless speculation about the two of them.

“She brings so much to the table,” said Abner Mikva, a former Clinton White House counsel and an Obama mentor. “On the other hand, there are the obvious downsides, the conflicts that that her husband has.”

Insiders around Obama say the X factor at play is Obama’s icy tolerance for risk, and his belief in the power of the grand gesture.

Throughout his political career, Obama has had a tendency to “go big,” as his aides say, with dramatic moves and giant spectacles punctuating his run for president - his head-on race speech, his presidential-style tour of the Middle East and Europe, an acceptance speech held in a football stadium.

The Clinton move, like those, marries an arguably practical choice with lofty symbolism: He’s enlarging his own administration by bringing in one of the leading figures in American politics, and delivering on a promise of a new politics that doesn’t play favorites or hold grudges.

“It says that he has the personal confidence to engage someone of the notoriety and substance of Sen. Clinton,” said Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, an early Obama supporter and prominent campaign surrogate. “Implementing change is an exciting exercise.”

Indeed, Obama’s transition appears suffused with a sense that the actors are living a historic moment, for which extraordinary gestures are appropriate.

“This would really give her a very unique platform to really be a part of this historic time we’re living in right now, even greater than her role as a powerful senator,” said Democratic Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri, another early Obama backer.

Obama supporters point to her specific qualifications, her global celebrity, command of the issues and personal acquaintance with international players (assets Obama downplayed in his long campaign against her) as central to the decision to offer her the position.

“She is a capable and strong candidate for that post,” said Carnahan. “Probably few people would have the kind of built-in knowledge and relationships with world leaders she would have.”

But beyond the triumphal symbolism is a specific job, accompanied by a serious downside. Negotiations between the two camps focus on the former president’s role, as do many of the quiet doubts among Obama’s supporters, though Bill Clinton said Wednesday he would do “whatever they want” to make the arrangement possible, should his wife and the president-elect agree.

Still, imagining how the former president could cause Obama problems has become a popular Beltway pastime, and not a particularly challenging one. He could criticize administration choices that differ from his own. He could inconveniently rise to his wife’s defense against a foreign leader. He could be too close for comfort with any of the dozens of foreign leaders and tycoons he’s courted as head of a private foundation. He could remobilize an army of investigative reporters, beginning with the National Enquirer.

Clinton herself poses specific challenges as the president’s chief international envoy.

“This notion of team of rivals is an absurd concept,” said Aaron David Miller, a longtime State Department official now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

Miller said Clinton has some of the key attributes of a good secretary of state - stature and toughness - but that she’s untested as a negotiator, and her status as an erstwhile Obama rival might undermine an envoy’s traditional trump card.

“People need to know that you speak with the authority of your president, and she … lacks a close relationship with” Obama, said Miller, who wrote that she is the “the best of a weak field of potential Secretaries of State.”

Obama is undeterred by those worries, Democrats say. Though some of his backers cringed at the idea of nominating a woman they’d spent more than a year hammering, his circle has come to view the move as another masterstroke on the road to creating the most unified, powerful Democratic leadership in living memory.

With Clinton out of the Senate, the considerably lower-profile Russ Feingold of Wisconsin would probably be the highest-ranking Democrat with a propensity to oppose the new president in the Senate.

The new president, meanwhile, would be able to conserve his political capital for the issue on which he was elected, the economy.

On Wednesday, Obama’s circle remained sanguine about the choice, and apparently confident that the appointment would come to pass, even as some close to Clinton expressed doubts that she’d accept.

“It’s a risk with a big upside,” said one Democrat close to Obama.

[libra217]

Hillary Clinton is divisive and portrayed herself as desparate and obsessed with power.

Posted by liberate40 at 01:14 AM : Nov 21, 2008

This is only your (erroneous) interpretation of how she behaved. After Obama won the primary, she gave a very gracious and classy speech throwing her support to Obama. She was in no way "desparate".

She then campaigned for Obama (and other Democratic candidates) tirelessly and enthusiastically. She took her primary defeat in stride and quickly moved on. She was quite happy to return to the Senate and said her philosophy was "bloom where you''re planted". Hardly "obsessed with power" as you claim.

Again and again shed urged her supporters to support Obama as she was (I know since I was on her email list). Hardly "divisive", she was successful in uniting the party behind Obama.

[miamiderick]

Hillary Clinton strrogly opposed Barack Obama%u2019s objection to the war in Iraq and suported and promoted our illegal invasion of a soverign state. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, would be a complete contradition of all the values we voted for in the last election.

Clinton as secretary of state would be a terrible setback to U.S. diplomacy and an insult to our standing in the world. Bill and Hillary are known around the world for their underworld and shady dealing.

[libra217]

Hillary views it as nothing more than a means to her own personal agenda.

Posted by TommyGun083 at 09:43 AM : Nov 21, 2008

Her "personal agenda", viz. her foreign policy aims, are essentially identical to Obama''s: ending the war in Iraq and bringing the troops home, pursuing Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Afganistan, ensuring that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, and improving the image of America in the eyes of the world. She is smart and tough and thoroughly versed in the complexities of foreign policy. She is strongly committed to the success of this Democratic administration. She will make an EXCELLENT Sec. of State.

[ken88882]

So now the Dow has dropped below 8000. Yes, I know that a good deal of the blame here goes to the credit crisis brought about by the sub prime mortgage mess. (Blame the Democrats for this one, by the way), but what role does the election of Obama play here? None, you think? Well try to think a little more.

In about eight weeks we''re going to coronate a new president that is clearly not in love with capitalism. Barack Obama wrote of his flirtations with Marxism during his college years. He gravitated to Marxist professors and hung around student gatherings where Marxist literature was sold. His campaign rhetoric parroted may Marxist maxims.

Now you may not like this .. and I''ll probably get some of those silly "Obama''''s been elected, get over it" emails. How many of you remember any pro-capitalism statements from Obama during the campaign? Did you hear him praise the role of business and entrepreneurs in the American economy? If he said it, I sure didn''''t hear it.

So give me just one good reason why a capitalist - an investor, a business owner, or an entrepreneur - should feel positive about the upcoming Obama presidency? This is going to be a presidency for people who love and worship government. If we could sell stock in the federal government I''''m sure the analysts would be giving it a strong buy recommendation right now.

[newbie43]

And I''ll sign up for those Obama ''freebie'' handouts. I want my something for nothing now!
Posted by TheMasses10

What ''freebie'' handouts are you talking about? Name a couple, please. And the ''average working man''s'' taxes will go DOWN under the Obama tax plan, unless you''re an ''average working man'' making over $200,000. There is no ''50% tax hike.'' Get a grip.
We can also remind you that the Republicans and McCain supported the bailout, too.

[tommygun083]

Should be either Bill Richardson or John Kerry. These guys have the credentials and would act as servants of the people. Hillary views it as nothing more than a means to her own personal agenda. Obama during Primary: You can''t go to washington with the same players and expect a different outcome... Well, if he picks Hillary, he apparently doesn''t want a different outcome. I voted for Obama, but if he chooses Hillary for SOS, then it would be obvious that he is just pandering to the same old powers.

[libh8er]

BTW, has his majesty finished commissioning his presidential-elect seal yet? Personally, I hope Chairman Hillary takes the job. She can do far less damamge as SOS than as a US Senator.

OOooo.....wonder if I mihgt be investigated for these subversive remarks???

[intheshade-2009]

Hillary Clinton strrogly opposed Barack Obama%u2019s objection to the war in Iraq and suported and promoted our illegal invasion of a soverign state.
As Secretary of State, she would be a complete contradition of all the values we voted for in the last election.

[irmcvet97]

We didn%u2019t know this Obama person very well, we just took him at face value. However, judging by the company he keeps, he must not be of good character. A good person could not surround himself with so much sleaze and not be of the same ilk. The meeting with McCain was telling. You could see McCain wanted to take part and contribute, but when he looked across the room at Rahm Emanuel, it was making his skin crawl. Obama might be able to appoint some good people on his cabinet to start with, but they wont stay. Bad people drive out the good. During the election we watched endorsements from people like Richardson, but now they have been pushed aside. Now people like Madam Albright and George Soros are coming out of the woodwork. The foundation of his administration is proving to be rotten and corrupt. We voted for change. We voted to get rid of all these old corrupt politicians and lobbyist. He fooled us once, but never again. No I didn''''t vote for McCain, I wish I had.

Posted by jgunther7 at 07:54 AM : Nov 21, 2008

RIGHT!! So we should have voted to continue "Trickle Down" and Bush''s Policies because!? LOL THAT is the Change Obama Promised and THAT is the Change people voted for. Sorry all you Neocon''s your bait and switch just isn''t going to work this time. ROFLMAO

[jgunther7]

We didn%u2019t know this Obama person very well, we just took him at face value. However, judging by the company he keeps, he must not be of good character. A good person could not surround himself with so much sleaze and not be of the same ilk. The meeting with McCain was telling. You could see McCain wanted to take part and contribute, but when he looked across the room at Rahm Emanuel, it was making his skin crawl. Obama might be able to appoint some good people on his cabinet to start with, but they wont stay. Bad people drive out the good. During the election we watched endorsements from people like Richardson, but now they have been pushed aside. Now people like Madam Albright and George Soros are coming out of the woodwork. The foundation of his administration is proving to be rotten and corrupt. We voted for change. We voted to get rid of all these old corrupt politicians and lobbyist. He fooled us once, but never again. No I didn''t vote for McCain, I wish I had.

[irmcvet97]

Posted by libsRcrooks at 04:09 AM : Nov 21, 2008

Wow! You took the appointment of the VERY competent Hillary Clinton and turned that into a shopping list of Fascist Talking Points? Why??

[irmcvet97]

The scariest words in this story: "%u2026his circle has come to view the move as another masterstroke on the road to creating the most unified, powerful Democratic leadership in living memory." The Obama voters made a tragic mistake.

Posted by horse3farm at 06:25 AM : Nov 21, 2008

How''s that? LOL You poor losers are so predictable!!

[irmcvet97]

Looks as if Obama''''s big moves are like McCain''''s ''''game changer'''' in choosing PALIN.
Palin cost McCain many, many votes--perhaps the election.
The choice of Clinton will be as disastrous for Obama.
Sad that it is the American voters who will pay the highest price.

Posted by demsts at 04:32 AM : Nov 21, 2008

LOL Clinton = Palin? ROFLMAO Right!! ROFLMAO

[irmcvet97]

As an independent, I voted for change. I fell for the manta that %u201CYou can''''t go to Washington with the same players and expect a different outcome%u201D. This fraud hid all the old democratic hard liners out of sight until he was elected. Now we find out we got a Trojan horse. I will never believe that man again. He has already failed.

Posted by jgunther7 at 07:36 AM : Nov 21, 2008

Then you voted for McSame is what you are saying! Obama said loud and clear he intended to change the way Washington did things. He intended to end the way BUSH did things, Incompetence and Political Appointments without regard to qualifications. So come on, you can be honest here... LOL You ain''t fooling no one! LOL

[jgunther7]

As an independent, I voted for change. I fell for the manta that %u201CYou can''t go to Washington with the same players and expect a different outcome%u201D. This fraud hid all the old democratic hard liners out of sight until he was elected. Now we find out we got a Trojan horse. I will never believe that man again. He has already failed.

[ofbyfor3]

And because people were asleep at the switch under Clinton, a few months later we were attacked!

Posted by stlouisman3 at 05:59 PM : Nov 20, 2008

No. People were ''asleep at the switch'' during the first months of the BUSH administration.

The Clinton administration provided them with the ''Bin Laden Determined to Attack US'' report. The Bushies CHOSE to IGNORE it--hence 9/11.

[horse3farm]

cdfoxtrot5, Pres. Clinton was also impeached while in office.

Posted by stlouisman3
-----------
Yes he was for lying about having ***. I''ll take a president with that lie over the lying cheating, criminals Bush and his administration are. Crimes so heinous that no one is, or has made a push to impeach him. There is something very wrong with you people who keep hanging on the *** thing. Just read the news..all sorts of politicians are either sleeping around or married and secretly gay.

[horse3farm]

The scariest words in this story: "%u2026his circle has come to view the move as another masterstroke on the road to creating the most unified, powerful Democratic leadership in living memory." The Obama voters made a tragic mistake.

[shanev137]

If it doesn''t work out he can just fire her.

[demsts]

Looks as if Obama''s big moves are like McCain''s ''game changer'' in choosing PALIN.
Palin cost McCain many, many votes--perhaps the election.
The choice of Clinton will be as disastrous for Obama.
Sad that it is the American voters who will pay the highest price.