I wonder how much of a thorn in the side this could be, if Hillary does become SoS, and there is a showdown with Iran. If, and insofar as, she disagrees with the course decided upon by the administration as being too dovish, she may be under some intense pressure to make her true views known to the relevant parties (i.e. Iran hawks) in case there is someday a chance for her to run for president.

www.youtube.com/watch

Hillary: "Drop out of the primary race and endorse you? I'd rather come under sniper fire at a foreign airport."

Obama: "I can arrange that."

Dear Mr. Crowly:

Please define the word "subtanitally" as used in your post.  I have checked three different dictionaries, and can't find it listed in any of them.

I think your "(visible)" caveat is important. I sent an email to the change.gov thing saying that the primary campaign should disqualify Clinton from the sec. state job and that we voted for Obama for a reason.  The only point of me saying this is that I'm not sure how anyone except the transition team would know how much blowback there's been on the grassroots level from this nonsense.

As an Obama supporter, I found it odd, too.   Some of his supporters are dismayed at the number of Clinton-era appointees he is considering for posts as well. Those people underestimate the heft it takes to run a government.  The 'Democratic brain trust' developed in the last Democratic administration.  Thank god!   With the number of domestic and international problems he will inherit, Obama needs only skilled professionals who know how to get things done in his Cabinet.  After seeing him overcome the many obstacles  slung at him during the primaries and general election, I find it hard to second-guess him in the transition.  Like many, I bit my nails to the bone during August and September waiting for the campaign strategy to definitively 'take.'  I'm letting them grow now.  (horribledictu.com)

(Sam Stein in Huffington Post posted a very plausible case for Hillary as SOS this week.)

Excuse me for the off-topic post, but big things have been happening in this country over the last week or so in protest of proposition 8 out in California, and I haven't seen any coverage here at TNR.

Why is that, don't you have any gay or lesbian people working here? Don't you think that this obvious civil rights issue is worthy of coverage?

I would really like to see someone, anyone, here take an in-depth look at one of the most important issues facing America today. Little help Mr. Crowley?  Here's some photos that might inspire some action.

Proposition 8 Protest St. Louis, MO (11-15-08)

moon-shadows.blogspot.com/.../proposition-8-protest-st-louis-mo-11-15.html

Obama is consolidating power, it's of a piece with the Lieberman move.

The media's (and especially TNR's) Clinton derangement obsession is getting absurd, she'll likely make a perfectly fine S.O.S.

Why should Obama get caught up in relatively benign bickering when he has this opportunity to change the course of a nation?

Me? I only care about what he DOES with this consolidated power.

Can't he just give her the first Supreme Court post that becomes available? Wouldn't it give her a chance to place a far greater imprint on the nation while also keeping her at bay? Everyone wins! (And it has the added benefit of driving the right wingers crazy for YEARS.)

(semi-cross post):

Here's a clue, one of Obama's 5 favorite movies is 'Lawrence of Arabia,' note the scene toward the end when Faisal throws Lawrence under the bus, Obama might be doing the same thing here with Liebeman/Clinton, i.e., consolidating power, but this time by co-opting them. Why risk powerful and popular Dems arresting his agenda?

Jeffrey Goldberg has little starbursts popping up all over his lap at the thought of Hillary Clinton at State because her "uncommon understanding of the Middle East could truly revive peacemaking." In fact, Goldberg shows himself to be a complete imbecile when he suggests the following demonstrates Clinton's "acute understanding of what makes negotiations work:"

-- You do not get people into a process or to the table to make any kind of tough decisions, including compromises, unless the other side knows that your commitment to Israel is unshakable.

If this reflects his understanding of negotiation, Goldberg probably thinks the salesman is on his side when he's buying a car.

jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/.../one_reason_hillary_could_be_ex.php

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this website and by other news sources, a nomination of Hillary would force Bill to disclose the sources of his post-presidential income. With an honor like this, a snub might look attractive.

With Dashelle, he's adopted Hillary's health care view.  With Hillary as SoS, he's embracing her foreign policy views.  When he applies that "scapel" to the budget and combines it with his tax plan (or just letting the Bush tax cuts expire) he'll be adopting Clintonomics.  And of course: Rahm.  Reports of the death of the Clinton Restoration were highly exagerated.

mmathog -- Obama winning Iowa was like Lawrence taking Aqaba.

Aaron: James Kirchik is gay I believe. He does tend to be a neo-con socially conservative type (except when it comes to bigotry, natch - typical of conservative types, things are only valid that happen to them) so I'm not sure if he was even against Prop 8.  But on balance, I agree with your off point, shamefully zero coverage on this whole issue.  John Boehner's supposed cleverness?  I mean who effing cares?

Anyway, there's a Nixon goes to China quality to the Hillary pick, plus - in all honesty, it was always hard to decipher whether her hawkishness was tactical or inherent.  Probably some combination of both. It's easy to imagine her pivoting pretty easily in other words.

Seems to me that the presumed Obama-Clinton feud that would presumably prevent such an appointment, like the [insert name here]-Clinton feud, is a function of the media's obsession with measuring the span of the (presumably infinite) Clinton ego -- which often impedes their ability to notice that Hillary is a consummate political professional in the best sense of the word.

The idea that Hillary Clinton is some sort of endlessly duplicitous, conniving and power-mad Lady Macbeth type, with little sense of responsibility to country or party, has adequately been disproven by her post-primary conduct.  If you seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton would be able to get behind and work tirelessly to further an Obama foreign policy agenda -- after providing the input and/or disagreement Obama is reputed to solicit from his advisors, where applicable -- you really need to take a fresh look at the world, and let go of some of your well-worn anti-Clinton mythology.  She's never been that hateful caricature you've been bad-mouthing since January, and it's time you all got over it.

Is there any real evidence at all that HRC has 'foreign policy views' aside from the somewhat rightish positions she took to position herself as a 'tough woman running for President?'

Why assume Obama doesn't have the stronger views? That he's the stronger leader? And that she'll largely carry out his views and agenda?

"mmathog -- Obama winning Iowa was like Lawrence taking Aqaba."

totally.

I hear you Austin.

Hey Austin, I am over it, I have been over it for a while, but this doesn't mean people can't question her fitness for the job without being called recalcitrant. As to me I have zero problem with her being Sec. of State.  I just don't see her being all Al Haigish.

lymon, just because people worked for the nation under the Clinton administration, it doesn't mean they are shills for the Clintons. Clinton did bring in a great many very capable people, no reason they should sit on the shelf. Now if Obama puts forward Lanny Davis for any post...

AaronBBrown,

Excuse me but  Barack Obama says tat  'marriage is between a man and a woman'.

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Barack-Obama-marriage-is-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html

Michael Crowley said:

" Obama's campaign was substantially built around a harsh critique of Hillary's basic foreign policy worldview.

Obama is a clever guy.

To understand the ofttimes strange transactions that take place in the political world many pundits seem compelled to explain them in the manner in which, say, a geologist seeks to explain what a layer of rocks tell us about the formation of the planet.

In other words, the relationship between a geologist and a layer of rock almost never involves any complex psychological or emotional reactions.

With people though things can get a bit more complex. Especially if they are up on a stage that the whole world is watching.

Here's my own take on the current Obama/Clinton courting ritual:

Try to imagine just how flabergasted and incensed Hill and Bill felt when the inevitable coronation in Denver turned into one of the most public humiliations of all time. They were next in line. They had paid their dues and then some. So how could some upstart poseur with all of two undistinguished years in the Senate take that throne away from them? And then when the economy started to really tank and they knew there was no way in which Hillary could have lost in November, it must have been all the more excuriating.

Obama owes her big time. At least that's what Hillary, Bill and many of the 18,000,000 Clintonistas are thinking.

But, again, that's just my own take on it. In situations like this, there is simply no way in which the mind of a mere mortal can grasp What This Means.  

Let alone What This Should Mean.

george walton

As George Hebert Walker Bush would say, "Whatever."  During  the 1980 primaries Bush dismissed the centerpiece of Reagan's platform as "Voodoo economics".  That didn't stop Reagan from selecting Bush as V.P.  So Hillary criticized and opposed Obama during the primary. Obama criticized Hillary.   What of it?  She and her husband strongly endorsed and campaigned for Obama in the general election.  

In case "The Stump. 'Obsessive Coverage of the '08 race'"  hasn't noticed, the primary is over.  The election is over.  Now is the time to govern.  

"Obama owes her big time. At least that's what Hillary, Bill and many of the 18,000,000 Clintonistas are thinking."

It's not a hereditary monarchy, george:  the Democratic Party doesn't "owe" anyone the shot at the presidency because of connections to the glories of the past.  Obama succeeded because he fought a smarter, more inspirational game.  People with name recognition have discovered that now and again (going all the way back to the Adamses), in all parties.  As have the Clintons.

ironyroad said:

"Obama succeeded because he fought a smarter, more inspirational game"

Obama succeeded because he lied inspirationally.

I think one of the biggest reasons for lack of "blowback" is that there is a reasonable amount of support for Hillary's inclusion in the administration.  After all, Obama didn't exactly blow her out in the primaries.  She has plenty of lingering political support and I think it's in Obama's best interest for 2012 to include her in a very real way.  If the support of independent women swings Republican in '12 Obama may have a problem, especially if the economic picture hasn't brightened significantly during his watch.

"Obama succeeded because he lied inspirationally."

The people were fooled Jacob?

Funny, that's what the Communists always say, maybe we've found you your new political home!

"If the support of independent women swings Republican in '12 Obama may have a problem, especially if the economic picture hasn't brightened significantly during his watch."

Not in a million years.

People need to get something through their heads, the GOP is in incredibly deep trouble (did you SEE the latest Gallup poll?) Analogies to '92-'94 are absurd, that Dem Congress had been sitting around for decades, Bill Clinton did not win all that convincingly.

The last two cycles, the American people have clearly and overwhelmingly chosen Dems to govern, and yes, they BLAME the GOP for the mess.

The press might not agree, but Obama is gonna get a lonnnggg honeymoon from the average voter.

Heck, the honeymoon is already over and he is being sniped at from every direction.  With the economy a disaster, he will be faced with painful decisions.  There are quite a few people in the financial field who feel this economic hole we are in will last for 4 to 6 years.  I don't think Hillary is a good choice at State for the reasons stated above--she has a different approach (on the surface anyways) from Obama on foreign affairs.  But it will help him to have a big tent during this economic crisis.  Better to have your competition on the inside working for you, rather than in the Senate sniping at you or voting against you.

jacob, your guy lost.  Lost, understand?  Get over it.  You're beginning to sound like an adolescent with a grudge against the world.  There's gonna be plenty of time for legitimate criticism of Obama when he's president.

"Heck, the honeymoon is already over and he is being sniped at from every direction. "

Only from the GOP and the Washington press corps, it's something, but it's not 'every direction,' his approval ratings will remain solidly high for quite awhile.

thank you ca180.

A successful  Obama presidency is by no means a done deal.  It's going to take all of the political skill he can muster.  I personally believe he's up to the task.  But the last thing he needs is a powerful rival in his own party left out in the cold.  The reality is that Hillary has no real power in the Senate and there's no way she'll run for NY governor.  She needs and deserves to be able to exercise some real power and I think Obama's smart enough to realize this.  And...as they say...keep your friends close but your (potential) enemies closer.

Dubya writes:

As George Hebert Walker Bush would say, "Whatever." During the 1980 primaries Bush dismissed the centerpiece of Reagan's platform as "Voodoo economics". That didn't stop Reagan from selecting Bush as V.P. So Hillary criticized and opposed Obama during the primary. Obama criticized Hillary. What of it? She and her husband strongly endorsed and campaigned for Obama in the general election.

In case "The Stump. 'Obsessive Coverage of the '08 race'" hasn't noticed, the primary is over. The election is over. Now is the time to govern.

George:

Yes, this sort of role playing embedded in more rather than less cynically scripted performances is a part of the American political tradition. There are still alot of voters, however, who refuse to believe that anything short of their own sacred narratives on Daily Kos, RedState, Rush Limbaugh, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Hannity's America etc. is nothing short of either socialism or fascism.

Obama in particular adroitly manuveurs in and out of this now you see it, now you don't policy calculation. And in the interregnum between November 4th and January 20th he has the opportunity to obscure the relationship between ideality and realpolitic all the more.

The media of course will parse every twist and turn looking for the optimal trope to explain it all; to tie everything together. After all, that's their job. But how many times since the start of the campaign coverage have their bungled predictions been exposed?

Then swept under the rug, rebooted and begun anew.

Of course, this bothers folks who take a civics book, equal opportunity American democracy literally.

But I don't think Barack Obama is one of them. He knows that the only thing that counts in governing is results. And he knows that whatever the result is, some segments of population will be riled up about it.

george

mmathog  said,

"The people were fooled"

Yes they were.

"I wanted to piggyback on what Abe says about Andrew Sullivan, who is oh-so-angry that Barack Obama is apparently considering John Brennan to be the next director of the CIA.

Andrew, like Keith Olbermann, seems to be most himself when he is in a state of perpetual moral outrage. What separates Olbermann and Sullivan, though, is that Olbermann has been somewhat more anchored and less unstable in his worldview. (I realize that saying anyone is less stable than Olbermann is by itself a remarkable statement.)

Sullivan, for example, writes that naming Brennan would be “an unforgivable betrayal of [Obama’s] supporters and his ideals.” Those who want to take the time to review Andrew’s web site prior to the Iraq war will find him making essentially the same charge against President Bush and Vice President Cheney; if they refused to go through with the war against Saddam, it would be a betrayal of those who supported them and their ideals.

There is something slightly amusing watching (or reading) people who are constantly feeling betrayed by those whom they once passionately embraced. My sense, though, is that a frenzied and melodramatic state of mind works better when you’re a writer for, say, an HBO series. It works less well when you hope to be taken as a serious voice in public affairs."

www.commentarymagazine.com/.../44131

"Obama owes her big time. At least that's what Hillary, Bill and many of the 18,000,000 Clintonistas are thinking."

It's not a hereditary monarchy, george: the Democratic Party doesn't "owe" anyone the shot at the presidency because of connections to the glories of the past. Obama succeeded because he

fought a smarter, more inspirational game. People with name recognition have discovered that now and again (going all the way back to the Adamses), in all parties. As have the Clintons.

George:

I wasn't being literal. I was surmising their reactions to this particular campaign...conjectures that might plausably be made based on my own observations of the Obama Clinton contest.

What people often do is over analyze these things. Calculations are made based on what they see and hear along the campaign trail. But what many are less inclined to probe are the far more complex psycho-emotional states that propel actual behaviors.

And that is because when these more opaque states of mind are factored in we are forced to assess motivation as well as performance.  And human motivation is profoundly problematic, to say the least.

george walton

Jacob writes:

Obama succeeded because he lied inspirationally.

George:

Someone once said of art that "great art is the least untrue lie".

Same with politics. And that is because the conflicted moral and political values most embrace can never be reconciled or resolved objectively.

george walton

"Yes they were."

Your respect for democracy is admirable, were they fooled when Bush was elected in '04, or were they weirdly wise that time?

I do agree with you jacob that, for different reasons, Sullivan (astonishing narcissism) and Olbermann (opportunistic lack of intelligence) are pretty much worthless blowhards.

Jacob writes:

Andrew, like Keith Olbermann, seems to be most himself when he is in a state of perpetual moral outrage. What separates Olbermann and Sullivan, though, is that Olbermann has been somewhat more anchored and less unstable in his worldview. (I realize that saying anyone is less stable than Olbermann is by itself a remarkable statement.)

George:

Yes, if you looked up the word megalomaniac in a dictionary one of the defintions would be Keith Olbermann.

And Ben Afflect was spot on in his SNL send up of Keith's hopelessly self-righteous and bombastic "special comments".

But Olbermann [unlike, say, Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reily] is funny as hell at times and many of his segments are highly entertaining.

And I like Keith because you can count on him to lambaste the right wingnuts without any pretense of being fair and balanced. He is an unabashed liberal like Rachel Maddow. But unlike Maddow you won't be subjected to a wink and a nod "the other side" of the story. That I can get from any number of media outlets. Countdown is a liberal oasis and for one hour a day, five days a week I can soak in it, snarky commentary and all.

george walton

jacob didn't "write," george.  Rather, jacob cut'n'pasted from another publication -- his favorite mode of discussion.

Irony writes [or, perhaps, more acurately, typed on a keyboard]

jacob didn't "write," george.  Rather, jacob cut'n'pasted from another publication -- his favorite mode of discussion.

George:

Thanks for the blowback. I'll pass it on to Keith. I don't him going after the wrong guy in his next special comment.

george walton

Indeed