What Hillary Clinton Gets Out Of A Cabinet Spot, And Other Thoughts

1. There's was a private meeting. Contrary to what I said earlier, Rahm Emanuel wasn't in the room. He was in DC. But no one was in the room with the principals.

2. The meeting was not a formal interview; the guidance we're getting is that the two discussed the upcoming administration and the ways they can work together.

3. When the reports about Clinton taking the Sec/State job first surfaced two weeks ago, their genesis was largely a circle of Democrats in New York who are angling for their preferred to candidate to become the next senator from New York.. ... .Along these lines: the arguments made by some people close to John Kerry and Bill Richardson that their campaigning for Obama somehow gives them an edge in this process... these arguments are rather absurd given Obama's penchant for "rewarding" people who didn't endorse him, like Joe Biden and Rahm Emanuel.

4. The Obama transition probably doesn't want to make the mistake that the Obama campaign made when Obama sung Clinton's praises, confirmed she'd be on anyone's short list, and then failed to vet her. Some in Clinton's orbit believe that Obama is going out of his way to show respect for Clinton, even to the point of floating her name for a top job and doing his due dilligence this time.

5. Don't believe reports that Max Baucus intends to take the lead role on health care legislation, anticipating a leadership vacuum because of Sen. Ted Kennedy's illness and a possible Hillary Clinton departure. What Baucus wants to do is make sure that his finance committee plays a key role, so he's found a way to invest in the debate.

6. The CW in Washington is that Obama wants Clinton in his cabinet more than Clinton wants to be in the cabinet, the theory being that the moment she steps into the administration, she loses her power base, she loses her Senate seat forever, and she loses her voice on domestic policy. She concedes her political identity.  Actually, on policy: uncuriously silent in all this is Sen. Joe Biden, who has strong foreign policy ideas of his own and a bigger platform to share them with Obama.  Would Clinton become a glorified PR tool for Obama if she accepted the job? A Powell, rather than a Rice?

 

Comments

The clinton plan would be term I: sec of state, term II: change jobs with biden and set herself up for a 2016 run as vp while biden gets state...do obama/biden like that plan? don't know but that's my guess of her plan, works nice politically though to make that move in 2012 for his re-election.

Posted by blue | November 14, 2008 1:38 PM

One, a lifetime Senate seat isn't necessarily a great thing. Eight more years in the Senate means 8 more years of tough votes. It's no surprise that the two most recent Senators to ascend to the Presidency had spent relatively little time there.

Two, Ms. Clinton can spend the first term in the Administration and then spend the next term (whether it be a 2nd Obama term or a 1st term for the GOP) campaigning for other Dems and building a power base. This is Hillary Clinton, she doesn't need "Sen." before her name to either have a voice or political identity. John Edwards did zip in terms of public office holding in the years following 2004 and he was definitely viewed as a credible candidate.

Posted by John | November 14, 2008 1:40 PM

The loudness of the Sec-of-State clamouring makes it seem like it is coming out of the Clinton camp, but I agree with Marc, what really is the incentive for Hillary to do this? Obama gets a high profile diplomat with serious weight on the international stage and also clears out a serious domestic policy voice (not quite an opponent), what does Hillary get?

Posted by Greg | November 14, 2008 1:47 PM

Making HRC Sec/State (i) brings her into his branch and under his nominal authority, as opposed to leaving her in the Senate where she could be a source of push-back on administrative proposals, and (ii) unlike VP, it sends her out of Washington much of the time.

Also, first graf: 'principles' --> 'principals'.

Posted by miked98 | November 14, 2008 1:48 PM

Re: #4: Although such an appointment would bridge the Democratic Party, failure to tamp down speculation like the Obama camp did with regards to VP, could further ignite those who were strongly on Senator Clinton's side if she is not selected. The feelings are fragile and if she is not the top contender for the job, the president-elect's team needs to kill the story fast.

Posted by TexasDem | November 14, 2008 1:53 PM

re: miked98's "prinples" to "principals" correction.....

maybe Marc should strike the "the" before "principles" and leave "principles" as is.

Posted by spell check | November 14, 2008 1:58 PM

What does she get out of being Secretary of State? She gets attention. Being the narcisist that she is, being one among 100 senators will not get her the attention she wants. She will get plenty of attention by being able to travel all over the world and meet with world leaders and negotiate peace agreements, etc.

Posted by Texas Libertarian | November 14, 2008 2:13 PM

Marc, any sense of the implications of a Clinton as SoS pick for the National Security Advisor. Would BO be happy with Steinberg or would he want someone more firmly rooted inside Obamaland who would advance and protect his agenda on occasion against HRC. Who could play that role?

Posted by pt | November 14, 2008 2:43 PM

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman. She has been an asset in the Senate. I think the world of her. But, we need Bill Richardson to lead us in world negotiations. He has the best 'resume' and the best performance, in his many endeavors, to be Secretary of State. In addition, he has the courage to walk on untread soil, help to change the world's view of our country, and to "give a damn" while he is negotiating, whether it be on the environment, the ability to communicate with adversarial dictatorships, or reaching out to middle class America.

Posted by Margaret King | November 14, 2008 2:47 PM

Wouldn't Bill Clinton's Global Initiative be some sort of conflict of interest if Hilary is made SoS? Or is she immune from her husband's activities?

Posted by Michele | November 14, 2008 3:05 PM

The woman who wouldn't meet with Iran without preconditions would now be the diplomatic face of the Obama administration? My mind boggles as the thought of it.

Posted by David | November 14, 2008 3:11 PM

Obama, like all presidents, must have a rather large ego. Despite all this "team of rivals" nonsense, there is no way that Obama would let HRC act as the "foreign policy president" taking credit (or bows, at least) for Obama's foreign policy truimphs.

Posted by David | November 14, 2008 3:57 PM

I'm not sure what both sides get out of this position, frankly. It seems like lose-lose.

Posted by BaxterJ | November 14, 2008 4:03 PM

I am of the opinion, "Let's wait and see what happens." No one knows who Obama intends to chose for any of these positions, but Obama and a small coterie of advisers. Everything else is just rampant speculation by a bunch of bored political junkies. Aren't there other real world events to cover now that the endless campaign is over? Obama never chased the daily news cycle and it served him well. Maybe, the blogosphere needs to start thinking Big Picture as well.

BTW, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a base any more. What's the internet saying, "All your base belong to us." Obama was just elected president by over 65 million votes. The number of Hillary dead-enders must be vanishingly small, even though they occasionally troll the internets.

Posted by Courtney H | November 14, 2008 4:06 PM

Courntey...ya the Hillary dead-enders that are left will proably end up in Obama's adminstration....oh ya some of those dead-enders are also a "small coterie of advisers" (Chief of Staff).....and is it "the internet" in the real word...or the "internet" in your world.

Posted by Val D | November 14, 2008 4:26 PM

Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer

Posted by cpdix | November 14, 2008 4:26 PM

From a purely political standpoint, there's a lot of arguments you can make about who wins, who loses and whether it's worth it for Clinton to be offered/take the job.

From a policy standpoint though it's hard to argue that this wouldn't be good for the Democratic Party and probably the country. No doubted her knowledge of policy details during the campaign - she'd clearly be an asset to the White House in terms of fleshing out polcies and legislation.

It's easy to fall back into the gamesmanship mindset of the Presidential race, but the bottom line is that she's the most qualified person for the job - in the end, that's what I think will be most important to Obama. Yes, Obama has an ego, but it's more in the vein of "I won't have any problems managing a popular Sec. of State who may sometimes disagree with me" than "I don't want any strong dissenting opinions in my Cabinet."

Posted by ly_yng | November 14, 2008 4:31 PM

From a policy standpoint though it's hard to argue that this wouldn't be good for the Democratic Party and probably the country.

I don't know about that.

If the Democratic Party and the country wanted an unabashed hawk doing all their negotiations on the world stage, they would have nominated her in the first place.

Bottom line: Hillary will not take orders from President Obama. Therefore, she will not be offered the job.

Posted by Oracle | November 14, 2008 4:35 PM

I think the people who think that Obama stands to lose with "Clinton supporters" don't really have a grasp on how things have evolved. I know a good many "Clinton supporters", both in "the internet" real world and in the actual living, breathing real world.

Generally speaking, Clinton supporters have reconciled themselves to the fact that Hillary Clinton will go back to the Senate, become an influential and powerful Senator, and probably eventually take the top job. All the former Clinton supporters that I know are truly over the primary psychodrama, and are looking forward to the new expanded majority.

The risk that Obama runs in not knocking down these rumors more directly isn't so much from "Clinton supporters" being upset, as it might be from Clinton insiders, or Kerry/Richardson supporters feeling a bit betrayed.

The fact that the words Bill Clinton and vetting haven't come up more frequently during all this speculation makes me think that this entire thing is mostly speculation that Team Obama is happy to let reporters run with, within reason.

Posted by dannity | November 14, 2008 4:54 PM

I think Hillary has more to gain here. She never had any intent to be a senator any longer than necessary to mount a presidential campaign. After assuming for so long that her own administration was fait accompli (and being Spouse-in-Chief!), it must be painful to face the reality that the rest of her career will be partisan squabbling over the wording of legislation. Worse, she's returning to a body where many of her allies hold some hostility toward the way she ran her campaign and the idea that she might jump seniority to become Majority Leader. Ten years ago she was essentially the leader of the party; in the senate she's a nobody.

Further, a cabinet position would allow her to feel like she's accomplishing something and give her an entire staff of people to be the boss of.

On Obama's end, the downsides are obvious. The only upside is he doesn't have her meddling with policy he's trying to sign.

Posted by Dan | November 14, 2008 5:02 PM

Courtney H said: "BTW, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a base any more. What's the internet saying, "All your base belong to us." Obama was just elected president by over 65 million votes. The number of Hillary dead-enders must be vanishingly small, even though they occasionally troll the internets."

Deluded much? Sorry to disappoint you, but just yesterday CBS exit polls proved Hillary Clinton's base is still very alive and well. She would have beat McCain by 11 pts rather than Obama's 7 pts in the General election. 15% of McCain's voters preferred Clinton, and many of her voters that voted for Obama did so because Hillary asked them too in 80 campaign stops. Get your facts straight.

Posted by NYDem12 | November 14, 2008 5:05 PM

Marc,

If you're correct about Kennedy working with Dingell, then I think he's in for a rude awakening. You are familiar with Obama's plan to restart the economy. I assume that means you know what's necessary for that to happen in terms of climate and auto legislation. We all know Dingell's atrocious record on those issues.

Too bad Kennedy's backing the wrong horse here. That's a shame.

Posted by Peter | November 14, 2008 5:10 PM

I agree with one of the above comments. This will be another great chance for Hillary to land under sniper fire in other parts of the world, other than Bosnia. Then she can use the story when she runs in 2016. I mean, how could she not take this wonderful offer?

Posted by Anthony | November 14, 2008 5:12 PM

The CW in Washington is that Obama wants Clinton in his cabinet more than Clinton wants to be in the cabinet, the theory being that the moment she steps into the administration, she loses her power base, she loses her Senate seat forever, and she loses her voice on domestic policy. She concedes her political identity.

If this is the "CW," it's interesting that we haven't heard it until now. But I think it does make sense, and I will be surprised if she takes the job, if indeed it is even offered.

Posted by Magic Dog | November 14, 2008 5:13 PM

Deluded much? Sorry to disappoint you, but just yesterday CBS exit polls proved Hillary Clinton's base is still very alive and well. She would have beat McCain by 11 pts rather than Obama's 7 pts in the General election.

FAIL

Posted by Oracle | November 14, 2008 5:18 PM

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/few-more-hillary-hypotheticals.html

"If America had woken up last Tuesday morning and magically found Hillary Clinton's name on the ballot in lieu of Barack Obama, might she have won by 11 points? Perhaps. She certainly proved herself to be an exceptionally compelling candidate, even if her execution and staffing decisions were sometimes wanting.

But what would Clinton's numbers have looked like if she had actually endured ... you know ... a campaign?"

Posted by Oracle | November 14, 2008 5:22 PM

@NYDem12

I won't be the person to relitigate the primaries. God knows we've already gone down that route. I'll just say that there's a lot of potential reasons for numbers like that. And the biggest thing to remember is that nobody actually campaigned against Clinton. I have no doubt that Hillary could have beaten McCain as well. Would she have won by 11 points? I highly doubt it. Could she have won in red states like Virginia, Indiana, or Colorado? Maybe, but she wouldn't have tried. Could she have gotten all the new voters out to the polls like Obama did? Doubtful.

Let it go. It's over, and done. It's interesting to speculate on whether Clinton wants to join an Obama administration, and what that might mean moving forward, but it does nobody any good to go back and guess "what might have been" if only Clinton had been on the ballot last Tuesday.

Posted by dannity | November 14, 2008 5:24 PM

Oh my ... dare we imagine her "principled resignation" in late spring 2011 ... !?

Posted by Machiavelli | November 14, 2008 6:29 PM

Obama's advantages:
1. HRC is a brillian, policy powerhouse, and is a very familiar, respected global figure.

2. He would bandage the chronically bleeding, gaping wounds he and the 'new Democratic Party' inflicted on her, and hence on her supporters, since the beginning of the primary season.

3. He would take her out of the running and dampen her potential to oppose his administration in the future.

4. He would at least somewhat hush the criticism against him by Republicans for dissing the Clintons. Not that Reps are Clinton fans, but they have been effectively using HRC's treatment by the Obama campaign as an example of Obama's lack of character and cut-throat tactics.

5. Let's face it. Obama owes the Clintons pretty big after that all of their tireless efforts to elect and raise funds for him. Last I checked, HRC raised >$12M for Obama, whereas he didn't even make a concerted effort to keep his promise to help retire her debt..not yet anyway.

Obama's disadvantages:

None, really, except that she is a force to be reckoned with. Hillary has gained more respect and clout after losing the primary than any other time in her political life. Her favorable ratings are the highest they've ever been--She supported Obama with full sincerity and conviction and, not unlike in previous situations, she once again proved all of the outrageous claims made by her fanatical critics wrong about 'dividing the Democratic Party' and trying to force an Obama loss in the GE, etc.

Clinton's Advantages:

1. More visibility, which should position her very well at keeping the POTUS dream alive. "Blue" offered a very intriguing scenario above. Quite frankly, I think she still has excellent chances within the senate.

2. Complementing her husband's legacy by brokering a deal to create a Palestinian state.

Clinton's disadvantages:

1. She loses her US Senate seat, which has ultimately proven to be her best option at advancing her agenda. Sure, the Dem Nom campaign helped her, but given her position how else would she have the opportunity to compel Obama to adopt from her healthcare, science-related and economic plans? He's already doing that from what I read in the last week or so. I believe that in recent months, HRC has let on how crucially important it is for her to advance her policy agenda. I believe this is her #1 priority and it trumps everything else.

2. There is no cabinet post big enough for a person of HRC's political and intellectual caliber. Although, she's smart enough to know how to make it work in such a way that she get a lot more out if it than expected.

Obama gains the most out of this potential SoS arrangement, while Clinton loses the most. And to all the frothing Clinton-haters posting above, especially Courtney, that proclaim her base to be tiny and full of 'dead-enders,: please get off the crack pipe. Senator Clinton is the most powerful, familiar and respected female politician at this time, and she can only go up from here.

Posted by Real Democrat | November 14, 2008 7:04 PM

I see Hillary winning the Nobel Peace Prize...it is a tough day for all the Hillary haters...they have to come up with some kind of spin now that Barak is even smart enough to recognize that she is perfect for this job and not only he and his administration will benefit but so will the world..."win - win" for everyone but the Hillary haters...and there is no hope for them stewing in their irrational hate

Posted by S | November 14, 2008 7:13 PM

I'd have to agree with Real Democrat. I'd add that Senator Clinton knows how to deal with loss and she has parlayed it into action. She went all out for Senator Obama, and that's a fact. I think whatever she decides to do will be an act of service. While I voted for Obama in the general election, my vote was for Clinton until the end of her campaign. I deeply admire her intellect and her passion for the issues she's associated with, and if she's back on the trail in the future, she has my vote.

Posted by Tina | November 14, 2008 8:09 PM

Wait a minute..all this talk of 2106..how old does that make Hillary then? 68 is my best hipshot guess. Retirement would be a good thing for the Clintons after a long political career. Retire and enjoy the millions of dollars and grandchildren that may be . Sure, lots of jockeying for position . Richardson would dump New Mexicans like yesterdays trash and it seems they would be glad to see him go, they just cant afford his spending as I read it. He too needs to retire, raise chili and stop meddling !
I am hoping that Obama will be his own man and not a puppet for the big backroom power in the Democratic Party. Not just a token...president!

Posted by ballonist | November 14, 2008 9:23 PM

Dannity

I agree with you concerning revisiting primaries and the campaign. Here is problem. NYDem and other Clintonites will defend Hillary and offer their continual support when the others deride Hillary or her supporters with comments referring back to the Democratic primaries. But when somebody mentions Hillary’s Bosnia sniper story, I am able to rattle off a number of mistruths spoken by Obama only as a counter argument that all politician are not perfect. When I have completed my exhaustive list, the ardent Obama supporter says “Can’t you just get over it?” As a Democrat, I voted for Obama in the election and supported his campaign after the nomination. I have moved forward and so have my friends. It is the fervent Obama supporters who are unable to move past their hatred of Clinton.

I have friends and family from NY and Clinton is their representation in the U.S. Senate and do not view themselves as “dead-ender” because in the future they may have to fundraise and campaign for her again for her reelection in the Senate.

So when you tell people to let it go, don’t just single-out the Clinton supporters when there are Obama fans unable to think beyond a future with Hillary. Also remember that Clinton still serves a state of around 20 million Americans and they have a right to defend their voice in Washington.

Posted by JSiobhan | November 14, 2008 10:10 PM

Sure, the political power analyses are somewhat interesting, but better are those who address teh real issues.

How about taking Obama and Clinton on their word that they really care about our country and the state of the world?

I think Hillary Clinton could really shine as SoS and reflect well on our country. She could do very good things--I'm assumign she'll take a much less hawkish tone since she'd be working in an Obama administration. Obama sees this, and he continues to impress me.

Posted by Beth in VA | November 15, 2008 10:02 AM

One more conspiratorial addition to Ambinder's "Here's what might be happening" list:

Barack Obama was solicitous and genuinely interested in hearing from Clinton, as well as her thoughts on whether she might be interested in a possible position within his administration, which has since morphed into an attempted hostile attempted takeover of a pre-inauguration Obama White House.

This would explain why this story has continually gained steam through leaks that are totally against type from what we've seen of the Obama team thus far, and why in the middle of intense speculation and anonymous reporting Obama had a face to face meeting with Bill Richardson. The plan would be to leak, wet interest, than leak more and more until Obama either has to withdraw the offer and knock down the reporting (causing him some embarrassment due to the optics of having been "turned down" by his top choice and former rival) or he carries forward, giving her a stronger hand to dictate her terms for joining on.

The problem with this theory would be it would require a degree of political malice toward Barack Obama that nobody wants to attribute toward the Clintons post election. Or at the very least, a degree of hardnosed cynicism that might lead her to make one last attempt to guide this political neophyte in a direction she feels is best, both for him and the party as a whole.

As for those saying that the upside the union is all Obama's and the downside Clinton's, I sincerely disagree. It would depend on what Clinton envisioned as her political future. If you think she's happy and resigned being the junior Senator from New York, waiting her turn for Chairmanships, then there's no reason to do this other than public service. I happen to think she's still looking for a larger role.

Obama's advantage to having Clinton as Sec of State would be in the event he's tied up for a considerable period of time with domestic affairs, he'd have a highly intelligent, policy driven, well connected political dynamo heading his diplomatic agenda. His downside would be Hillary Clinton is no ordinarily political rival, and if any part of the "Hostile Takeover" scenario is true, he'd have a veritable viper inside his tent who has boundless ambition and lots of political favors still owed to her and her husband.

Hillary's advantage would be getting out of the Senate and away from 8 years of votes that can be parsed any 100's of ways during a future run for President. Plus, the Senate has gotten her what she needed, which was a way to get out from under Bill's wing and forge a political identity of her own. She now has a concentrated power structure within the party of her very own. A downside for her would be if she thought tying herself to Obama could hurt her long term if he falters, but chances are if Obama goes down it'll be due to the economy. By concentrating on foreign policy, she's somewhat inoculated from the economic downturn while burnishing her credentials.

All things considered, if Hillary wants to make a serious run in 2012, a high profile stint at the State Department would be preferable to 8 dry years in a Senate in a state that's due to lose a bit more of it's influence in 2010.

Posted by tldr | November 15, 2008 10:22 AM

I love how the the HILLARY haters come on and say how we troll the boards or that Hillary doesn't have a base anymore. I am left wondering if so many people would dislike here if she had a different lastname?

-Sure Washington consists of many scandels both in the past and even more so now! Yes, you read it right...more so now! Bush told more lies than Bill Clinton did that's all that I am saying!Needless to say, is it too much to think that perhaps Hillary and Barack really DO have the best interest of our country at heart? Part of what makes a president great is the people of whom he surrounds himself with. Perhaps Obama realizes how much of an asset Hillary is to him, Washington and our country. It's time to END all of this bickering and back and forth and really come together to save this nation without all this garbage of "he did this" or "she said this"! Grow up America! Grow up, or maybe we will never solve this crisis. Work together in spite of our differences, and who gives a darn what someone did or said in the past! It is time to start looking to the future and get over it!

-I for one don't really want Hillary to get the job as I would rather she stay Senator in New York, as we need her in NY! But I guess I will deal if we lose her as the country could gain from our loss.

-But let's all be civilized grown Americans for a change! Oh, change? This a thought!

Posted by PGP | November 15, 2008 12:35 PM

Hillary has a huge base and has made great inroads for women in politics this election. Like her or not she will make a great Secretary of State and has earned the respect of millions of Americans even if she didn't get their votes.

I think she needs to decide where she can do the most good: in the Senate or as Secretary of State and then take that spot and run with it. Hillary represents the social liberal, economic centrist a large number of Democrats have become.

Posted by pantsuitpolitics.net | November 15, 2008 6:44 PM

I have been an ardent Obama supporter from the very beginning of his presidential campaign. I was solidly against Hillary Clinton during the primaries, solely because she was a rival of my chosen candidate.

Does that make me a Hillary-hater?.....

I don't think so. Now that the dust has settled and Obama is in the job, I can return to my former position of utter respect and admiration for an incredible woman. I would be very proud to have her as SoS under an Obama administration, as she has a good global reputation and the true desire to solve some of America's deep foreign policy issues...

In fact, I think choosing Hillary for Sec of State proves that Obama is sticking to his promise of picking the best person for the job no matter what. He can recognise Hillary's intellectual and political brilliance, as well as the genuine and sincere effort she put in during the election campaign to help him win. He realises that the primary bickering is long gone and that he has a formidable friend and ally in Mrs Clinton, a talent that would be wasted in the Senate when she could be tackling some of the most pressing issues of our time-such as Israel/Palestine, hostility in Moscow and two wars in the Middle East.

I love Barack Obama, and I trust his judgment. Hillary Clinton would make an excellent Secretary of State, and it would make me very happy to see her ordained as one.

Posted by Athena | November 15, 2008 6:49 PM

The Hillary choice as Secretary of State is a horrible one. Obama will have to get rid of her, she will not be loyal to OBAMA. Hillary and Bill Clinton will have there own agenda. It also a mistake to have all those people from the Clinton administration, they will be more loyal to the Clinton's than Obama. He has too many Clinton adminstration picks. Obama will regret his choice and have to get rid of all of them soon. It won't last!!! Hillary voted for the war on Iraq as did Joe Biden. They will not be loyal and get the Troops out.

Posted by Matthew Adams | November 26, 2008 9:01 AM