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

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.... ABC News' "The Note" wants drama and is willing to manufacture it if necessary.

So much for no drama. Surely a certain soon-to-be-ex-senator knows this by now, but here's the thing about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: She tends to steal the scenes she's playing in. [...]

The Hillary [Secretary of State] rumors are the first potential stumbling block for the smooth machine that is President-elect Barack Obama's transition efforts -- and it revolves around a storyline that seems never to get old.

I had the same reaction as Tim Fernholz.

No, it does get old! It's old right now!

Quite right. Is there some great hunger out there for this "storyline" about Clinton and Obama?

I mean, really. Clinton "tends to steal the scenes"? Her discussion with Obama represents a "potential stumbling block"? The non-existent feud "never gets old"? I'd hoped we were past this.

Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"we" are.

the Note isn't, and never will be, since it represents the median beltway pundit mindset, and in that class of people, once a storyline is set, you never deviate....

Posted by: howard on November 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hate to say it, but by naming so many old Clinton people to posts in the new administration, Obama brought this upon himself. Mark Shields, of all people, made a good point last night when he noted that John F. Kennedy didn't pack his 1961 crew with people from the Truman administration -- which had been out for eight years when he took office, just like Obama.

"Meet the new boss...same as the (almost-new) boss..."

Posted by: Vincent on November 14, 2008 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ahh, the Machiavellian machinations of Ma Clinton.

Clinton vs. Palin 2012!!

Are you stoked yet?

Posted by: henry lewis on November 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Hate to say it, but by naming so many old Clinton people to posts in the new administration, Obama brought this upon himself."

***

Oh, please, I'm tired of reading this sort of concern troll pap.

As if everyone who served in the eight years of the Clinton administration is somehow completely loyal to Bill and Hillary and not to be trusted in an Obama administration? As if all the political wisdom and savvy they've accumulated in the eight years since Clinton left office should be discounted as well?

What is next, criticizing Obama because, despite his pledge for bipartisanship, he is actually appointing VASTLY MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS? ZOMG THIS IS HORRIBLE NEWS AND DEMONSTRATES THAT OBAMA REALLY DOESN'T WANT CHANGE!!!1

Posted by: castanea on November 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

vincent, obama has named exactly one ex-clintonian to a post in his administration (as distinct from his transition team), so maybe everyone should stop hyperventilating.

after all, let's remember, while it may have been 8 years from truman to kennedy, truman represented the end of 20 years in office, and an entirely different generation.

nor did jfk take power at a time when there was an enormous economic crisis and a withdrawal from a foreign misadventure to be managed. (i'm also willing to bet that if there had been a few more old hands around jfk, he wouldn't have approved the bay of pigs invasion.)

regardless of all of this, the comment that steve draws our attention to is not the issue of "change;" it's the issue of "drama." obama most assuredly isn't bringing that on himself; nitwit pundits who can never abandon a storyline are bringing it on, period.

Posted by: howard on November 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

I like to call all of this "Estupido Pendejo" for lack of either a better understanding or disinterest in the truly inane, your choice!

Posted by: The Galloping Trollop on November 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need a good "Obama asks McCain to replace Lieberman in Dem Caucus" rumor to put this one off the front page.

Posted by: howie on November 14, 2008 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Just remember what Chuck Todd said: the 'narratives' that the corporate media creates are more important THAN ACTUAL TRUTH OR REALITY.

Obama is choosing people for their capacity .. the best folks available .. if some of those are former Clinton folks, then so be fucking it ...

Posted by: stormskies on November 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

This is yellow journalism that would make William Randolph Hearst proud. There has to be a war still going on with Clinton and Obama...not because there really is, but because the corporate media wants it so bad it can taste it. Clinton made over 100 appearances for Obama after he got the nomination. They agree on almost everything. They respect and actually like each other. Sorry corporate media, save that shit for disreputable rags and Billo.

Posted by: Patrick on November 14, 2008 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Mark Shields, of all people, made a good point last night when he noted that John F. Kennedy didn't pack his 1961 crew with people from the Truman administration -- which had been out for eight years when he took office, just like Obama.

Considering that Kennedy was the one who hired Robert McNamara (among others), who pulled us into Vietnam, I think he probably would have been well-advised to have at least a few Truman officials around to put on the brakes.

Posted by: Mnemosyne on November 14, 2008 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

"John F. Kennedy didn't pack his 1961 crew with people from the Truman administration" - Vincent

"Meet the new boss...same as the (almost-new) boss..." - Vincent
------------------------------
Vincent, he should be the same as JFK to be different then Clinton, or be the same as Clinton to be different the JFK ? I suspect you will not be happy with anything done by Obama.

Posted by: ScottW on November 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, I have some concerns about the subject of this rumor, but Hillary stealing the show didn't ven show up on my radar screen. I have minor considerations about whether she seems to have a secretary-of-state personality. And whether statements made during the primary inorder to prove her toughness, might detract from her international reception (Obama has a similar problem with Pakistanis). Mostly I am concerned about the number of seated Democratic senators may have to give up their seats in order to join the administration. Are their seats safe, but for the nearterm replacement cycle -and for their first re-election cycle should the party retain the seats?

Posted by: bigTom on November 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Mark Shields, of all people, made a good point last night when he noted that John F. Kennedy didn't pack his 1961 crew with people from the Truman administration -- which had been out for eight years when he took office, just like Obama.

I think a better analogy might be the first Clinton administration, in which transition planning was, by all internal accounts, poor. Clintonites generally acknowledge now that those first months would have gone much more smoothly if they'd had some experienced hands on deck rather than bringing in all new people.

It's not worrisome that Obama wants to have some people who've been there, done that--and done it well--on hand. I'd be more concerned if he were starting completely from scratch, and in fact Obama will bring a lot of fresh blood in. As happy as I am that we're finally done with the wretched DLC, there isn't any good reason not to use good talent just because the Clintons did. Everybody is well aware whose administration they'll be working for.

Posted by: shortstop on November 14, 2008 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

I think this is a great play at co-opting Hillary Clinton. Bring her into the tent, where she's be Obama's employee, rather than have her in the Senate making demands on health care and other subjects. I doubt Hillary will fall for this, by the way.

Posted by: Magic Dog on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Obama knows exactly what he is doing: He's Nobody's Fool.

Posted by: Nobody's Fool on November 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

I am reminded of an exchange I heard on NPR between their talking-airhead Debby Elliot and our really good local New Jersey reporter on WNYC, during the Democratic convention. Roughly paraphrased:

Elliot: "Bob, do you think that Bill Clinton's speech tonight finally puts the Clinton problem behind the Democrats?"

Reporter: "Not if we keep talking about it, Debbie."

Posted by: David in NY on November 14, 2008 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

I am honored that I lived long enough to vote for the first African-American Clinton. (just a joke, at this point...but too good not to post,imho)

Posted by: Michael7843853 on November 14, 2008 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

As long as Clinton haters in the Obama camp continue to pillory Hillary despite her unswerving and highly effective support during Obama's general election campaign, it will still be an issue. The comments at TPM prove that these haters will take any opportunity at all to trash, smear, and take swipes at HRC. Gracious winners they are not.

Posted by: Unrove on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Tha albatross around Hilary's neck is Bill. I would side with those who have some doubts as to her suitability for Secretary of State. But with Bill and his vaste and more direct experience in foreign affairs you have to wonder how much he might try to promote his own judgement and agenda over that of the actual administration.

Hillary needs to establish her own carrer as a senior stateswoman rather than nailing her flag to the mast of Obama's ship.

Posted by: notthere on November 14, 2008 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Hate to say it, but by naming so many old Clinton people to posts in the new administration, Obama brought this upon himself. -Vincent

A very wise person appearing on the Rachel Maddow show recently made the point that, since Bill Clinton is the only Democratic president in recent history, getting someone with some White House experience who wasn't involved in the Clinton administration is a very difficult thing to do.

Democrats with the requisite experience and knowledge for most of these jobs a should not be disqualified because they worked for Bill Clinton.

Or, what shortstop said.

Posted by: doubtful on November 14, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

The comments at TPM prove that these haters will take any opportunity at all to trash, smear, and take swipes at HRC. Gracious winners they are not. ... Unrove

Is this a parody? I fear not. But it is a little, even a lot, short of evidence for its view. I just read a whole thread of TPM comments about the Hillary for SOS rumor, and they were uniformly "gracious." This kind of trolling is just absurd.

Posted by: David in NY on November 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

"never gets old"

That reminds me, what's Sarah Palin been up to lately?

Posted by: ckelly on November 14, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

From TPM comments:

". . . why does everyone seem to think Hillary is qualified for SOS or SCOTUS?

1) Does she have foreign policy chops I never heard about?

2) Does she have some heavy legal chops I never heard about?"


"Hillary likes the limelight and attention."


"Whew!!! I was getting worried on this one. No more clintons in the whitehouse. I can't handle the drama."


"I think it needs to be pointed out that one of the few policy-related attacks Hillary made against Obama in the primary was on his philosophy of diplomatic engagement...now who in their right mind things that that would make her a good choice to carry out that very same philosophy on behalf of Obama??"


"Whether she has met -- or can name -- the leaders of most countries around the world is largely irrelevant. As a senator, she has not distinguished herself as a foreign affairs expert, nor has she demonstrated great passion or creative approaches for global issues."


"I don't like the Clinton's drama. The country want a break from this mess."


"Do you think Hillary's foreign policy views mesh with Obama's? I don't think so. Hillary voted for the Iraq War and Obama opposed it which is just the most obvious difference."


"Having Hillary Clinton in the Cabinet at all makes no sense."


"The entire HRC as SOS is a plant by Clintonites."


"Word's could not express my disappointment if Obama appoints Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State."

Posted by: Unrove on November 14, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, "Unrove" (is it you again, colonpowwow, Rielle Lovechild and Paris Sailin?)... but what do comments from *TPM* have to do with comments here? Much less with the original -- Benen -- post?

And, even when you reached to a different blog and a different set of commenters, you had to trim some of the comments to make your fake point. Frankly, I think you're unhinged.

Posted by: exlibra on November 14, 2008 at 8:27 PM | 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