Cross posted:

"Hillary Clinton is a grossly over-rated nothing who will be nothing as Sec'y of State.  She has little real political or managerial experience of any kind, and most of that has been the experience of failure.  She has not demonstrated her competence at anything.  In my opinion, that is because, while bright but not at all brilliant, she is very, very deficient in emotional intelligence.  I only hope that she will not create trouble for Obama, but I suspect she will and that she will end up marginalized and then out.  This was unnecessary except as a sop to her feminist supporters who think she was cheated out of what the party, the country, and the world owed her and them.  I just hope and pray that there will not be big regrets."

Given Hillary's terrific record in choosing staff, I think we can expect a righteous mess at State in short order if Obama has really given her the ability to choose the department's senior staff without his approval.  We can expect lots of hacks and "friends" and backstabbing, running-off-at-the-mouth and general incontinence in the best HRC tradition.

Do Secretaries of State usually have to go through White House Staff before getting to the President?  Would Obama be making a concession, or would this be something his SoS would get no matter who it was?

I think it depends on the president and the SoS.  Colin Powell discovered that he was only getting second-degree access to the president and indeed State people were being disinvited from key planning meetings regarding Iraq, and thus the impression spread that he wasn't in the inner loop.  I think foreign leaders -- as Tom Friedman pointed out a couple of days ago -- find out pretty fast if the SoS is just an ambassador with a big office or if s/he speaks for the president.  It's good if it's the latter, as in the case of James Baker and the first Gulf War.

Roid, I agree one hundred percent.  Putting her in as SoS is a huge disappointment.  I pointed out on Marty's post that Obama's Achilles heel seems to be trusting people who turn out to be menaces (see:  Rev. Wright).  That's my explanation for his hiring her.  What are your thoughts?

... double post here, I'm sure, apologies.

In short: Obama looks weak.

His conservative picks (Teasury Sec) aside are perplexing, with that Change mandate and all.

Why take the Own Goal  from the left on some obscure, pro-torture, intell bureaucrat for the CIA post? Woods from the Tree's stuff.

Not to metion, some very suspect Union bashing to shore up " bi-partisan" MANDATORY infrastructure investment.

When for organized labour and all its benefits, if not now?

I hope Obama's "centrist" weakness isn't being taking advantage of by the welfare-to-minimum wage, moderates.  

I think our experience with Condoleeza Rice in the role of National Security Advisor should have called into question the need for a National Security Advisor. Furthermore, it beggars belief that any administration seeking to demonstrate competence would require the Secretary of State to go through the National Security Advisor to speak the the President.

Honestly.  So many seem to have bought into the Right-Wing meme that Obama was some kind of leftist.  He has always been a centrist, with the significant exception of the war.  All of the sturm und drang of the left over Obama's choices is a bit rich.  

As someone who continually advocated for the inclusion of Russ Feingold in the Obama administration, I believe I have some credibility as a progressive (or as fellow history and philosophy faculty state, 'mushy-headed quasi-Marxist').  But I never believed, nor would ever think of arguing the point, that Obama was anything other than a middle of the road Democrat with a deep strain of pragmatism.  To those attempting to sound shocked at such sentiments, please, you cannot be surprised. At all.

from the Cross post...

This was unnecessary except as a sop to her feminist supporters who think she was cheated out of what the party, the country, and the world owed her and them.  I just hope and pray that there will not be big regrets."

BHO made very smart decisions throughout the entire campaign and can someone please explain why he would put HRC in SoS as aconcession after he won.  This position if HRC does not do what he expects allows BHO to "fire" HRC and throws a severe wrench into her career ambitions by forcing her to give up her Senate seat?

I think that we must leave aside for now questioning the wisdom of making Hillary SOS.  I disapprove of this choice as well, but Obama made it, and I trust that he knows what he's doing.  At any rate, it's a done deal (unless she should choose to back out at the last minute).

Schreiber's post is about Hillary's demand for concessions. As for (1) it seems like a no-brainer.  Ironyroad made a reference to Friedman's article; if you haven't read it yet, now's the time.  His main point is that foreign leaders can sniff out in about 5 minutes whether the SOS is a figurehead or really speaks for the president: www.nytimes.com/.../19friedman.html   ndmackenzie's so right: "t beggars belief that any administration seeking to demonstrate competence would require the Secretary of State to go through the National Security Advisor to speak the the President."

As for (2), we don't know whether Obama has yet agreed to this demand.  If he does, I surely hope that there will be strings attached: e.g., he gets veto power over any of her proposed appointees.

BHO wants Hilary out of a 2012 presidential competition. Yes that is possible and weakens the sitting president. Reagan did it to Ford in 1976. Ted Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980. Neither challenge succeeded, yet both weakened the president.

By getting her out of Sensate, BHO id cutting her power base and precluding her from challenging him in 2012.

It's instructive how Obama supporters are towards the 47% Democrats who voted for Hillary. It can be summarized in two words: fuck them. So much for your talk of unity. Your unity means: no debate, shut up, do what we say and worship BHO for good measure.  

Obama's not a bad guy. He's not some saint, but an absolutely ruthless pol from Chicago with the gift of gab, the courage of his own choices and a reasonably good program - far better than any of the Republican ones, which is all that matters for a good presidency.

But his rabid supporters, especially most of you TNR supporters, are pretty fucked up bastards. Fucked up totalitarian and intolerant bastards, to be precise. You behave like Chavez supporters. You yourselves with your fucked up nasty instincts of shutting people up, might bring Obama down, because this is not Venezuela. Most of you sound exactly like the rabid left-wing fascist Kos. If you guys get any traction in the next four years, in 2012 all independents will flee Obama like pest.

I believe he looked at the votes she garnered and the passions she stirred during her campaign and honestly feels she's earned a place on the national (now international) stage. He's seen her up close, he's thoroughly checked her out, and he's confident he can use her to carry out his vision.

Rice was a fart catcher, nothing more, Powell was out-maneuvered by Cheney and Rumsfeld, Albright was worthless and did nothing to deter terrorism, etc.. Clinton may be just what's needed. Obama will be the most engaged President on the international stage we have seen in our lifetime, even more than Bill Clinton. The economic problems are a global problem. Clinton will be working for Obama. That will become clear early on.

kgrant, the fact that I have always believed he was a centrist doesn't make me surprised at all, in fact it was one of the main reasons I supported him over Edwards and Clinton. Edwards had gone far too left and I think Hillary would have been a disaster as President. But I don't think she will be bad as SoS at all. She is a helluva bright woman, and as powerful as SoS is, it is not President, I think she will be loyal in her post, she knows history will be watching her. I am not sure why people are so insistent on reliving the campaign in judging her for this post.

sleepy, I think it is silly to assume that Hillary would have run against Obama in 2012, if Obama fails it will be because the policies failed, and the policies are pretty much the same that Hillary fundamentally agrees with, with the possible exception of FP and she couldn't have used that to run against him.  And especially not now since that will be her job. She couldn't beat Obama when he was a short term Senator, no way in hell can she hope to beat him as sitting President, and I doubt Bill and HIllary will want to throw away another 10 million of theirs. And what the hell is it with you saying the 47% of Obama's supporters, that is just silly. There are a few diehard Hillary haters here and they have their own reasons, it is not all of us. For the record I had no problem if he made her his VP or his making her his Secretary of State, and you know full well during the primaries I hated Hillary as much as anyone. So you are in fact very wrong with your aspersions. The primary campaign is over, Hillary won't ever be Pres. but I recognize she has talent for a lot of other posts. Was she the best choice? I don't think so, but I have no problem with her in that posting.

And check out Hillaryis44 for insight into real whack jobs.

sleepy, I have nothing but respect for Hillary supporters. I would never wish to have any Hillary supporter believe that I even had the thought "fuck them" cross my mind.

But I do not respect Hillary Clinton, at least not as a politician. My lack of respect for her is not a lack of respect for her supporters. It is a disagreement with her supporters regarding our estimates of Hillary's talents and character. That is all. I don't want Hillary in any position of real authority, because I do not trust her to act in the public interest, and even if I did I do not believe she is capable of doing a good job. This opinion has no bearing on my respect for anyone who disagrees with my assessment. For all I know, maybe Hillary's entire adult history of not being very good at any public job and not being a particularly honest person has been a prelude to a sudden turnaround in character and aptitude, and she will be a fantastic secretary of state or Supreme Court justice or whatever she winds up doing next. It's possible, and I admit the possibility, but you can't go around assuming that everyone who doesn't think Hillary Clinton is the bestest person who ever lived disrespects those who do.

Not wanting Hillary in the cabinet is not saying "fuck you" to people who supported Hillary. It is not wanting Hillary in the cabinet. Period.

Hi Molly, long time.

I wouldn't exactly say Obama is too trusting of people.  He is perhaps too trusting of his own ability to win over and conciliate people who are not supporters of his.  In this case, I think his primary motivation is to mollify Hillary's supporters so that they don't mess up the Democratic party and his ability to achieve his agenda.  Secondarily, he wants to prevent Hillary herself from working against his agenda and seeking to topple him.  Given her ego, he has to give her a fancy job if he wants her "on his team," which doesn't leave him very many options whether she is qualified or not.  Finally, I think he believes that he can win her loyalty and probably believes the endlessly repeated trope about how capable she is just because it is repeated endlessly.

I don't think she is particularly capable, at least there is zero evidence to that effect, and I think Obama underestimates both her dysfunction and her inability to devote herself to any cause other than herself.  Hence, I think he will be disappointed.  I can only hope that the consequences will not be serious for him and therefore for us.  We shall see.

I have a bet going that some of you angry misogonists will continue to bash ( not intelliently discuss) Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin for months. So keep it up!

Deb, none of the above posters have said, or even intimated, that they are for or against Hilary as SoS because she is a woman.

But if you can't spell, I suppose it's not surprising you can't figure that out either.

agentzero, I respect your point of view even though you spelled Hillary incorrectly. I guess my point is exactly what you just did... which is ending with a sacastic , putdown comment after you state your opinion. I guess that is  the style or attitude of some of the responders. It just feels worse when that bite is about women in power because I was an elected official and felt it everyday. I am not whining , just being honest.

" . . . which is ending with a sacastic , putdown comment after you state your opinion."

I think some people do that here at TNR, deb, and I do it myself on occasion, but I don't believe being male or female is the decisive factor in rhetorical style -- in fact, in some cases, posters here have been confused/wrong over other posters' gender(s).

deb, Sarah Palin is an idiot, simply stating the obvious is not sexist. Just recently she gave an interview at a Turkey processing plant (going there to pardon a turkey) while a man butchered turkeys in the background.  She is utterly clueless and nowhere near the same league as Hillary Clinton, or any of a number of Republican women. It is impossible to use the words intelligently discuss Sarah Palin, she is a joke.

Thanks for the comments. Fair enough. I am not sure you got my point. So I am still hoping for a free lobster dinner from my friend who agrees with your point of view. Deb

Sexist blather, deb.  

Is it supposed to be verboten to hold negative opinions about women in public life merely because they are women?  Then I guess you don't think they are able to shoulder the same burdens as men, a rather sexist opinion on your part.  And if we are permitted to hold negative opinions of women in public life -- and my opinion of Hillary Clinton is quite low -- then what opinions are we allowed to hold or express that you and yours would not condemn as sexist?  There don't appear to be any.  For that matter, how do we know that in your time as a public official the criticism you apparently faced was due to your sex rather than your performance?  Because you say so?  Have there been no other women who successfully held public office wherever it is that you are?

For the record, I don't see that Hillary has demonstrated any record of achievement in public life that she can attribute to her own ability, skill or effort rather than to her marriage to Bill Clinton.  Her own efforts have been marked by failure and a lot of noxious behavior.  That does not commend her for the role of Secretary of State or anything else.  I would vote against her reelection in a heartbeat.

Roid: whatever one thinks of Mrs. Clinton, she is a "leader" of the Democratic Party and she does have a significant following.  And, again, whatever one things of her and Bill, the two of them are, rightly or wrongly, held in high esteem internationally.  Finally, whatever one things of her political sagesse (and I am not impressed by it), her policy wonkish-ness is remarkable.  For these reasons, for her to be offered a post in a Cabinet led by a man who is, by all evidence, very confident in his own judgement and his own ability to make decisions is not such a bad thing.  

In Mrs. Clinton's history, I see two things that have poisoned the career and the persona of a woman who might well have got to where she is without the step-ladder of her husband's career.  The first is what we have seen in the course of the primaries and also throughout the Clinton years: whatever it takes to win.  And, the second, the constant pressure on her to abnegate herself in favour of her nacissistic and egomaniacal husband.  Taking her out of electoral politics deals, to some extent, with the first; making her SoS, which does not have legislative policy component, also means that she will be out of domestic politics completely for the next few years.  As for the second, one can only hope that by using Obama as a shield, and given that she and Bill had to do to get the job, she will be able to wean herself from the noxious influence of her husband.

It is possible and I think quite likely that there is something there - and, regardless of any political calculation, it is that potential that, I think, explains why Obama has selected her.

Of course, the same cannot be said about the Palin.  To mention both of them in the same breath is to piss on Mrs. Clinton's achievements and, to be blunt, to reduce her to a Vagina and a pair of boobs.  So those who might wish to decry "sexism" for whatever reason - fair enough, you are entitled to your views and to your sensitivities and so on, but please, in decrying sexism you do not have to insult the other women in politics.

I dunno, Icarus,

I know the narrative is that Hillary could have, or would have, been a ocntender in her own right but for having subordinated her career to Bill's.  But I don't see it.  I have met dozens of people in my professional career who are a lot smarter than Hillary, and intellect isn't the most valuable quality for political success in any case.  Everything I have ever seen or heard from Hillary tells me that she has a political tin ear and has demonstrated no unusual ability to deal effectively with people whether as subordinates, colleagues, voters, or political powers in their own right.  As far as I can tell, she has done nothing in the Senate despite her star power.  Before becoming First Lady of Arkansas and then the US, she was a partner in a nothing law firm in Little Rock.  I'm just not buying the "oh so talented Hillary" story because I simply do not see any evidence of any unusual talent other than taking abuse, public and private, and continuing forward in the face of it.  I guess that is useful.  For that reason, I see no particular reason to believe that, with or without Bill. she is likely to achieve anything that matters.  Indeed, given the dysfunctional manner in which she managed the Clinton health-care initiative and her own presidential campaign, the two great opportunities of her professional life, my expectation is that she will make a mess of things.  That's her track record.

Icarusr, there you go again. Look, I totally agree that Hillary and Sarah are not even in the same league, but to bring up the "boobs and vagina" bit again reinforces my point. Unless ,of course ,if I read that you have referered to a male who is not ready for prime time as just a "beard with balls. " Then at least you would be equitable in  your apparent    need for sexist  remarks.

I think, deb, that Icarus's point, far from being sexist, is that lumping Hillary together with Palin is sexist because just about the only things the two have in common are certain body parts.  If those body parts are sufficient to guide what we can and cannot think and say about the two of them, that is indeed sexist to the core (or should I say "to the corps").

roidubouloi, good point (or should I say points) deb