Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 14, 2008

SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON?.... In general, there's no real point in chasing down every rumor about who is or isn't going to be in Barack Obama's cabinet. Most of the scuttlebutt is baseless. That said, some reports are more credible, and more important, than others.

The Washington Post's Al Kamen noted this morning that there's "increasing chatter" that Obama's team "is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field may be expanding." And who's emerging as a top contender? The name is kind of familiar.

Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of State, a move that would create the ultimate "Team of Rivals" cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions.

President-elect Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of State and Clinton is among those being strongly considered, the officials said. Some even call her the favorite.

It is not known what Obama himself thinks of the idea. But the fact that it is being entertained within his camp shows how much things have changed in the months since he defeated her for the Democratic nomination in a protracted primary marathon.

By all appearances, this is not just idle chatter. Reports about Clinton being considered for the post have run on NBC, ABC, and CNN, and there's an AP wire story on the possibility this morning.

How likely is this? Ben Smith reported that "Obama has, himself, recently discussed the possibility with advisors." Even more importantly, Marc Ambinder reports that Hillary Clinton spent the day in Chicago yesterday, adding that a Democrat privy to Sen. Clinton's schedule said that "the speculation that she was under consideration should be taken seriously."

There are no doubt plenty of competing arguments on the merit of the idea. From where I sit, Hillary Clinton would be a fine choice. Between her Senate work and time as First Lady, Clinton has established international respect and credibility, and she's on a first-name basis with leaders around the world. She's arguably more hawkish than the President-elect, but when it comes to global diplomacy, there's no reason to think Clinton and Obama aren't on the same page.

If Clinton is nominated, the pick is not without risk. Bill Clinton's private business work with other countries may become problematic, and one assumes the Obama team would want to review the former president's dealings with a fine-tooth comb.

That said, I'm also a little surprised Hillary Clinton would even want the job (if she wants the job). Right now, she has one of the safest seats in the Senate, and I expected her to have a leading role in the upcoming healthcare debate. Indeed, were she to give up her seat, it's unlikely she'd get it back. Then again, it's hard to beat the prestige of being the Secretary of State.

As for Obama, that he'd consider his former rival for one of the top positions in his cabinet speaks highly of him. Stay tuned.

Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Deja vu. This strikes me as eerily similar to the talk about her as VP. It would be a slap in the face to reject her after the public speculation and all the help he's going to need from her (or now, has given him). Ten to one says the rumors come from her camp, and yes she wants the job. Begging for money and pandering to the masses is not the part of politics that she loves.

Posted by: Danp on November 14, 2008 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

I was sortof hoping she'd be replacing Stevens on the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Alphonse on November 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM | PERMALINK

It may be true, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but I'll need more information than "several Obama transition advisors" before I believe the possibility is there. Obama's team is notorious for not leaking, while Clinton's leaked like a sieve including lots of leaks to try and put pressure on Obama to pick Hillary for VP. I don't believe these leaks came from anyone with decision-making authority on the Obama team.

Posted by: Shalimar on November 14, 2008 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

The Dems are twisting themselves into a pretzel to placate Joe Lieberman because they need the sixtieth vote in the Senate to avoid a filibuster, yet they're willing to sacrifice a vote to the Cabinet? Doesn't make a lot of sense, especially since Clinton's diplomatic duties were confined largely to social occasions. Has she ever done any tough negotiating, like Bill Richardson? Then there's the prospect of her alter ego hovering over the office. Will he have a permanent spot in the waiting room, like Todd Palin? Hillary seems to have a touch of the Grouchos: she just can't stand to hang with the group she's actually been elected to.

Posted by: ericfree on November 14, 2008 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

This was actually billed as a SCOOP on Countdown last night, and Rachel interviewed Andrea Mitchell, who is the source, it's claimed.

That doesn't, however, make it more or less credible, but if it was truly Andrea's, she should get attribution.

In the same report was the suggestion that Hillary is not at all interested in a Supreme Court nomination, and I don't think she has a background that would make her a fit there.

Posted by: msmolly on November 14, 2008 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

I forget her name, but a week ago one of Obama's top people told the press that unless information came directly from Obama, it was only speculation.

Personally, I don't see Obama pulling Democrats from Congress unless he absolutely can't find anyone else to fill a slot. Or anyone for that matter. It's disruptive and expensive for states that would have to hold new elections.

Posted by: tAwO 4 That 1 on November 14, 2008 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

She is the best of all possible choices. She is much respected around the world and Obama told us months ago he wanted to build his Team Of Rivals. Well Seward was the top contender for President and when Lincoln shocked everybody and won, he appointed Seward to Secretary Of State, where he performed brilliantly and loyally and even became Lincoln's closest friend and adviser where they had been bitter opponents only months before.
Supreme Court is not for her. I think some people only suggest that to get her out of the way. She is not a constitutional scholar. She is a policy wonk.
I am so hoping that he picks her.

Posted by: Patrick on November 14, 2008 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, this just makes me want to puke.

We've been living in a country defined by the Bush and Clinton clans for over twenty years. We've had their drama and moral decay spewed at us non-stop, and I'm sick of it. I'm sick of hearing about them, thinking about them, listening to them and enabling them.

If Hillary Clinton wants to be a political star, she should do it the way Ted Kennedy did it. I don't want her and her husband messing around with America's foreign policy because they are constitutionally incapable of using every contact and overture first and foremost as an opportunity to improve their own political standing. Give me Kerry or Holbrooke, maybe even Richardson -- although I think he didn't help himself during the campaign. Hell, give me somebody I've never even heard of who's spent their life living and breathing foreign policy.

Anybody but the Clintons or the Bushs. Anybody.

No more.

Posted by: ThePhantom on November 14, 2008 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Holy whiplash, batman!

"Between her Senate work and time as First Lady, Clinton has established international respect and credibility"

I could well have my internet political gossip sites mixed up, but weren't you arguing that experience as a first lady didn't count as international credibility when it was Obama vs. Hillary in the primaries?

Posted by: Ben on November 14, 2008 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

She might make a fine Secretary of State, but she'd be a distraction...its already becoming one just based on rumor. I think he has other choices that wouldn't be such a circus. Plus, we've already heard about the intensive background checks being run on possible adminstration figures. I don't think Bill's business ventures would pass the test...too many questions there.

Posted by: Saint Zak on November 14, 2008 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

Patrick writes of Seward - But, Patrick, there is a law of unintended consequences - Seward's Folly, that being, either Alaska and/or Sarah

Posted by: berttheclock on November 14, 2008 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

I've long suspected Hillary had the blueprint of her ultimate ambitions mapped out ahead of her. Even in '91 when I first heard the name, it was said to me by many, "We'll deal with him until we can get her." Her move to NY and run for the Senate there seemed cheesy, but cheesy does runs all through that family.

The core reason I loved Barack Obama from the very beginning was not only his speech at the convention. It was the sneer on her face as he gave it. Finally, I thought, we have someone who can break through.

If she accepts the SOS, or anything that moves her away from the Senate, it will confirm to me (as if her presidential run hadn't already) she's really just another run-of-the-mill carpetbagger who had no sincere intention of helping NY whatsoever. And it pisses me off that Obama must still placate smarmy Ol' MissPissyBritches.

Mo' betta choices.

Posted by: MissMudd on November 14, 2008 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Cue Keith O for another Trash Talking Clinton Smearing Special Commentary.

However, with all that necessary world wide travel, Bill just might be able to find a new hobby.

Posted by: berttheclock on November 14, 2008 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Can somebody please explain why in the world HRC would accept such an offer? She has the prestigious US Senate seat from NY probably for life, while the length of a Secy of State is never more than (and rarely even reaches) 8 years.

Unless she thinks that Secy of State is a good jumping point to try for Prez in 2016 -- but I think working in the Senate on Health Care, along with her duties already at Armed Services would be much more safe for her.

I don't get it . . .

Posted by: A DC Wonk on November 14, 2008 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

Secretary of State does not require spending half of one's time fund raising for re-election.

Posted by: berttheclock on November 14, 2008 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

There is no real information coming out about who Obama's going to choose for various cabinet appointments (and hasn't the transition team said anything you hear before official announcements is just talk) so people are just casting around. The chattering class are picking-up on the obvious. Can't help but feel this is idle chatter to fill-up airtime and blank pages.

Though I can't see why she would want this. She has got a pretty secure seat up there in NY and I see no benefit to her career moving over State.

Posted by: ET on November 14, 2008 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

It's only rumor unless/until Obama announces it, but this has the smell of the real deal, just as Rahm Emmanuel for CoS did. And it makes sense.

Two things we know about Barack Obama. He likes to play big ball, and he has a LOT on his plate. He needs a strong Secretary of State, because there is serious heavy lifting to be done, and he will not have time to do all of it himself. Hillary will be a much stronger SecState than anyone else in the name pool.

Globally it will go over well, reassuring people that they won't be dealing with good hearted noobs like the last two times Dems were in power. And in most of the world Bill Clinton has been viewed as the anti-Bush, the embodiment of what people like about America, not what they dislike. Obama is stepping into those shoes, but the association does not hurt.

Posted by: al-Fubar on November 14, 2008 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

I don't get it . . .

I don't either. I think the only people who are for it are the PUMAS. Even on the symbolic level it wouldn't mean much, since we've already had two women there.
I'm also getting sick of the whole "team of rivals" nonsense. I want highly qualified people who aren't afraid to speak their minds, but who will ultimately carry out the policies of the president--not engage in freelancing or using the post to advance their own career.
I like Kerry or Richardson, because in addition to being highly qualified, they were supporting Obama before the primaries ended and not after they had spent a year telling everyone how unqualified he was and disparaging him.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on November 14, 2008 at 9:30 AM | PERMALINK

Giving Hillary SOS would not lose a Senate seat--NY has a Democratic governor, who would pick a Democrat to replace her. And the SOS is a prestigious position, which would also enable Obama to keep Clinton in line with his policies. I could see it being a good move for everyone.

Posted by: frazer on November 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

The press goes batshit nuts with anything that mentions Hillary. The AP, NBC, CNN and ABC reporting breathless stories about her as SoS doesn't give the rumor any cred at all.

It's difficult to imagine that HRC would be offered (or would want) ANY position in Obama's cabinet. There are more qualified people for every spot, and she's got a decent gig in the Senate. Plus, there's the whole issue of Bill's enormous, meddling ego.

Posted by: DanR2 on November 14, 2008 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Also, Mitchell said she got this from two "advisors" to the Obama team, didn't say if they were actually part of the transition or if they were "inside" or "outside" advisors. I don't doubt that they would consider her, but not sure how serious it really is.
And I don't equate Hillary with Bill Clinton in this case--it was apparent that her actual involvement in diplomacy was limited as first lady. Her arguments during the primary on this issue were kind of thin.

Posted by: Allan Snyder on November 14, 2008 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Meh. It's like Crooks and Liars said. This is just a trial balloon. They're floating it out there to gauge public reaction. It probably isn't anything serious. Not yet, at least. Which mean that, at this point, it is still just speculation.

Posted by: Shade Tail on November 14, 2008 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

DC Wonk: Why WOULDN'T she want to be Secretary of State? Whether she is playing for 2016, the history books, or both, where can she have more impact and a higher profile - as one of 57+ senators, or as Obama's Dean Acheson?

Posted by: al-Fubar on November 14, 2008 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

To offer the SS to Clinton would be a slap in the face to John Kerry who lauched Obama into national prominence by having him as a keynote speaker in 2004. Also, it was Kerry who threw his support to Obama after the disappointing NH primary loss.

What have you done for me lately?

Posted by: puppydog on November 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

I do not get it either. SOS basically serves at the discretion of the president. There is no job security and what happens to Hillary after Obama asks her to step down? I can understand why she does not want a SCOTUS position unless Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy or Alito is stepping down--talk about having no power- but at least there is job security and she is plenty qualified. I think Obama would be wise to give her something within reason that she wants, but I am thinking that should be to remain in the Senate.

Posted by: terry on November 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Wouldn't Hillary as SOS throw a monkey wrench into the ME peace talks? Or is the assumption that her more Likudnik-than-AIPAC role was just the usual political BS?

Posted by: MikeN on November 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

I definitely think this would be a good move for Obama to name Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. She has the background and is poised to handle Foreign relations.

Posted by: millie on November 14, 2008 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Ben,

The problem was Hil saying her time as First Lady made her an expert on EVERYTHING. Like she was president-lite. It stretched the imagination.

All of us have opportunity to immerse ourselves in policy here in the states, but globetrotting and having audiences with the associates of world leaders (and a few of the leaders themselves) is an opportunity that is in short supply even to members of Congress. Even less so to non-elected officials.

Clinton, more than many, has the goods in this ONE aspect of national leadership. She has an edge Kerry does not. Add to it the considerable goodwill her husband managed to put in place between Bosnia and the IRA cease-fire.

I don't admire Bill Clinton's record very much, but I recognize that his foreign accomplishments are some of his best. (even if he missed opportunities in the Middle East and Russia)

As much as I don't like her as a presidential choice, Clinton is not an unreasonable choice for this post. Mr. Benen is not inconsistent.

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on November 14, 2008 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

I like the way that report just gratuitously insults Kerry and Richardson.

Posted by: John on November 14, 2008 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Can somebody please explain why in the world HRC would accept such an offer? She has the prestigious US Senate seat from NY probably for life, while the length of a Secy of State is never more than (and rarely even reaches) 8 years...Unless she thinks that Secy of State is a good jumping point to try for Prez in 2016...

In 2016 she'll be 69. Not as old as McCain was this time, but still a bit longer in the tooth than Americans seem to prefer their presidents to be.

Whether she'd accept such an offer depends on how she's looking at the end of her career. If, as many have postulated, she saw her Senate seat mostly as a launching pad to the presidency, and if she realizes she's almost certainly never going to be president now, she may find winding up her career as SOS during a transformative time in American foreign policy to be preferable to hanging out in the Senate.

I hope she doesn't see it that way, but she may.

Posted by: shortstop on November 14, 2008 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

I'll bite, what qualifications does Senator Clinton have to run the State Department?

As far as I can tell the closest she has come to being a diplomat is running from gunfire in Bosnia. She certainly doesn't have the educational qualifications and her work experience in the field is nil. Compare her to the last 50 years worth of SOS and she comes up wanting.

And if she runs the State Department the way she ran her campaign, it will be chaos ruling.

She should stick to Senator, she is good at that and mostly harmless.

Posted by: mikeyes on November 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

I agree, she only wanted to be a senator to run for president. I see her when she comes to Buffalo with her pained smile, pretending to give a crap about our closing auto parts plants and the complete depopulation of WNY. She cares only as much as it's important for her re-election.

She wants to run with the big dogs. SoS is much more her style than being 1 of 100 senators. Why not take 4 years as SoS and then retire? Does she really want to work forever? She'll be 65 in 2008; she'll never be President.

Whether it is a good idea to have her be SoS is a different discussion, but I can see why she'd want the position.

Posted by: Buffalonian on November 14, 2008 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Cue Keith O for another Trash Talking Clinton Smearing Special Commentary.
Posted by: berttheclock on November 14, 2008 at 9:09 AM

People seem to forget that Olbermann said nothing but positive things about the Clintons (and Hillary in particular) in 2007. Whether he turned on her in disgust over the way her campaign was run (as he says) or because his viewers were by and large Obama supporters and he gave them what they wanted to hear may be open to question, but I find it hard to believe he has anything personal against Hillary Clinton at this point. On last night's show, he seemed very receptive to the idea of her as SoS.

Posted by: Shalimar on November 14, 2008 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

I think Senate Majority Leader Clinton sounds better, don't you? So much better than Senate Majority Leader Reid, right?

Frankly, after the undiplomatic way she campaigned, I'm not so sure I'd want her diplomating on an international stage.

If Obama offers the job to her, it should be conditional: he gets to pick her staff. That way Penn and Wolfson will be kept miles away from the White House.

Posted by: doubtful on November 14, 2008 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Glad to see I haven't missed anything by not visiting PA much anymore. I used to be a regular on here (under a different name mostly) but I got so weary of the tiresome, self-righteous, gratuitous shots at Hillary and Bill Clinton (even after their unprecedented support and campaigning for Obama).

If I want all the hate and slant against loyal, successful Democrats, I'll go to Fox News or something. At least with them it was original.

I assume I'll get a snotty, snarky response from one of the Cheetos-eating Clinton-bashers who live on here, so you go right ahead now. I won't be around to see it.

No, it's not that I can't abide astute analysis, or that I suffer blindness to everything possibly involving real Clinton shortcomings - it's just that so much of the stuff I see here is just knee-jerk Hillary-bashing unfounded in fact. I still belong to the fact-based community - you know, I'm an actual Democrat who works at our county Democratic headquarters.

Looking forward to the next 8 years with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Great candidates, great victor, great president, great team.


Posted by: Paris Sailin on November 14, 2008 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

you know, I'm an actual Democrat who works at our county Democratic headquarters.

Yes, you've mentioned that a couple of hundred times. Good work helping to turn Indiana blue, BTW.

Oh, but you won't see this compliment because you never read these threads anymore. Got it.

Posted by: shortstop on November 14, 2008 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

I assume I'll get a snotty, snarky response from one of the Cheetos-eating Clinton-bashers who live on here, so you go right ahead now. -Paris Sailin

Sounds a lot like Sarah Palin dismissing bloggers as basement dwelling, pajama clad losers. Give the current iteration of your handle (what is this, the third or fourth different one?), the irony is not lost on me.

Have fun at Fox News. Your inability to accept that other people have views different than yours will fit right in.

I hope this was sufficiently snotty and snarky for you. (I'll pass on the Cheetos, though.)

Posted by: doubtful on November 14, 2008 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

We need Hillary in the Senate. I don't see where the problem is. There are a number of qualified people (Bill Richardson, anyone?).

We can't afford to make this selection on a purely political basis. There's too much at stake.

Posted by: bdop4 on November 14, 2008 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Asshole:

"...I got so weary of the tiresome, self-righteous, gratuitous shots at Hillary and Bill Clinton (even after their unprecedented support and campaigning for Obama)."

The only people who said that Hillary and Bill's support of Obama was 'unprecedented' were Bill, Hillary and their paid thugs. They supported Obama because they had to politically, not because they wanted to, which means they get zero moral credit for doing so. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton, as a former President, should never have come off the sidelines to advocate for his wife in a partisan manner. That's the only 'unprecedented' aspect of this campaign.

"I assume I'll get a snotty, snarky response from one of the Cheetos-eating Clinton-bashers who live on here, so you go right ahead now."

Everyone else on this site immediately recognized the hypocrisy of this statement. I'm pointing it out because you, as the author, clearly remain oblivious.

"I won't be around to see it."

Sure you will. Assholes like you always come back to read the comments. You're weak and don't have the willpower to stay away.

Posted by: ThePhantom on November 14, 2008 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Obama has better judgement. Hillary is too abrasive--might be nearly as destructive as Dr. Condi Rice. A job for someone with diplomatic skills.

Posted by: Luther on November 14, 2008 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

I became a Hillary for president back after 1) hoping she would not run, and 2) backing Edwards (healthcare and poverty issues, plus announcement in New Orleans).

When Edwards did poorly in Iowa, I began to investigate Obama and became leery or how he would govern (I was was influenced by his tendency to not take stands and how he managed his proposed legislation to force nuclear power plan owners to inform localities and other governments affect, along with the public, of radiation leaks into underground acquifers: After he met with the offending local nuke company, and began working with Repubs on the committee involved, he ended up with a basically voluntary program. Bothered me. Then came FISA.... And his Harry and Louis-style ads. Ooof. He lost me.). I also learned things about Clinton I had not known, thinking that with all the MCM attention surely we knew all there was to know about Hillary. (For one, she became an early, very early proponent and implementer to micro-lending, when she was first lady of Arkansas. Impressed me.)

Since she didn't witn the nomination, my fondest hope is that she stays in the US Senate and works there as the most liberal senator a senator from New York can be.

I see her as the Lioness of the Senate (I love the work "lioness," and enough with the gender typing of that word. It is what it is.), fighting for liberal programs, working to push Obama from his crouch in the center to more liberal and progressive actions. (Yes, Obama may be more liberal than he let on, but...who knows?)

Perhaps Obama wants to prevent having a strong voice in the Senate who can command attention and bring focus on what he does or does not do?

Not just keeping your friends close, your enemies closer, but get your competition completely off the playing field. It's how he ran all his previous elections, btw, so it may be an Axelrod strategy.

Hillary, please: Just Say No. Stay in the Senate.

We need someone we can depend on to fight for us.

Puhleeeeeeeeeze!

Posted by: jawbone on November 14, 2008 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

I'm going to trust Obama no matter what he decides, he definitely has proven he has excellent foresight. But something tells me it's not going to happen.

Posted by: beans on November 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hilary Clinton's appointment would be Obama's first - and monumental - gaffe since his election. He'd send Hillary out to make the world believe us? PUUUHHHLeaz!! Or to make the world like us? Bahh! Yuck!!
If he wants a Clinton - Bill would be a far, FAR better choice.

Posted by: Fred D. Ross on November 14, 2008 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

Is there any reason he can't pick Bill Clinton?

Posted by: Downpuppy on November 14, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Has Samantha Power weighed in on Hillary as SoS yet?

Posted by: DanR2 on November 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

How about an actual, you know, diplomat for Secretary of State?

Posted by: Cal Gal on November 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary would be a much better SOS than Bill. She has much, much better impulse and emotional control than he does and, frankly, probably has 10 IQ points on him (to take nothing away from him - he is seriously bright, even if his actions aren't always good evidence of that).

The one I find mystifying is Kerry. SOS should not just be a prize for giving early support. Kerry didn't impress me in the 2004 elections, and he really doesn't strike me as either a great policy wonk or the most convincing diplomat. What exactly does he bring? I'd take HRC over Kerry.

Not that I am fond of either for this spot. In terms of any actual, you know, relevant background, I don't see how Richardson doesn't trump them both. And other than being a dull choice with no political component, Holbrooke seems a more obvious choice than any of the former candidates.

Posted by: zeitgeist on November 14, 2008 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

I swear I'm not stalking zeitgeist, but I have to say I once again agree with every word he just wrote. Except for one thing: I'm not wild about the Holbrooke part.

Posted by: shortstop on November 14, 2008 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think it is only considered stalking if it is unwelcome :)

Posted by: zeitgeist on November 14, 2008 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

With Hillary in the mix, this just got interesting!

Posted by: BaxterJ on November 14, 2008 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Giving Hillary SOS would not lose a Senate seat--NY has a Democratic governor, who would pick a Democrat to replace her.

There are some interesting possibilities (Charlie Rangel? Andrew Cuomo?)

I highly doubt Paterson would pick himself. Spitzer might have, but... oops.

Posted by: Thlayli on November 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say, now that I'm reading Obama actually offered her the Secretary of State position yesterday -- meaning this isn't just speculation, but he's offered her the job -- I'm surprised at my reaction.

My reaction is that the bubble of interest I have in Barack Obama just popped, and I suddenly feel like he's just another politician. And I'm honestly surprised by that. But also in some way relieved.

In a very weird way I feel like I can stop caring and hoping now, and that actually feels good.

Good luck to him. With the Clintons and all else. He's certainly going to need it.

Posted by: ThePhantom on November 14, 2008 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary Clinton is the JUNIOR senator from NY, even if she'd be reelected every six years without breaking a sweat and wouldn't have difficulty raising the money. She's 61 years old, and pretty far down the seniority list. 2008 was her one shot at the presidency. Even then there were lots of people carping about her looks. If she ran again in 2016, she'd be 69, and I don't even want to think about the criticism she'd face.

SoS looks pretty good by comparison.

Posted by: nj progressive on November 15, 2008 at 7:20 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly