The New York Times published a front page article Saturday addressing the whys and wherefores behind Barack Obama making Hillary Clinton his Secretary of State without addressing how a 2012 presidential run by the former first lady might enter into the equation.
Instead, the Times focused on how such an appointment could be unifying to the nation while helping Hillary get more influence than it appears will be accorded her if she stays in the Senate.
Yet, authors Jackie Calmes and Helene Cooper completely ignored what could be at the heart of Obama's calculus, and why Clinton might turn it down if offered: Isn't it likely given the state of the union, and, in particular, the economy, the Clintons are laying in the weeds waiting to see what things look like in 2011?
Consider the following possible scenario:
The recession deepens, unemployment explodes, and the Republicans take over one or both chambers of Congress in November 2010. During this point, Obama's favorability ratings plummet -- which, in reality, seems almost a metaphysical certitude because it's unlikely he could possibly live up to the current lofty expectations for him.
At that time, couldn't Hillary if she stayed in the Senate mount a campaign to win the Democrat presidential nomination in 2012? Isn't it plausible that this is exactly what the Clintons and their surrogates are thinking at this moment?
If so, wouldn't it be in Obama's best interest to take her out of the 2012 competition by making her part of his administration? And wouldn't it be in Hillary's interest to politely decline?
Oddly, the Times didn't address any of this on Saturday, and instead stuck with non-controversial trivialities:
[T]here are clear dangers for Mr. Obama as well, not least of them any lingering rivalry between the two of them after an often-contentious primary campaign. The drama-averse president-elect would also inevitably be sharing the stage with both Clintons, with all of the attention and baggage that accompany them wherever they go. And her appointment could undercut his argument that he is bringing true change to Washington.
It is not clear what room Mrs. Clinton’s presence as the nation’s top diplomat would leave for Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. to be an influential player in his specialty of foreign policy. And now that his consideration of Mrs. Clinton has become so public, he faces another danger: the risk of reopening old wounds in the party and among Democratic women in particular if he does not appoint her to a top job.
For Mrs. Clinton, there are pros and cons to taking the job as well. Senior Senate Democratic officials say it has become increasingly clear to Mrs. Clinton and her advisers that there was no quick route to a position of influence in the Senate, potentially increasing her interest in a prominent role in the Obama administration.
She had approached the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, about becoming chairwoman of a special subcommittee to handle health care issues, but he squelched the idea, Senate officials said. Aides to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, made it clear that despite his illness, he intended to consider health overhaul before the full committee that he leads.
Mrs. Clinton was also discouraged from trying to mount a challenge to any junior members of the party’s Senate leadership, one official said. In a seniority-driven institution like the Senate, it could take years for Mrs. Clinton to accumulate real power despite her status as a national political celebrity and the appeal she demonstrated in the primary season.
Likely all true, but by no means as compelling as how such an appointment or non-acceptance could be tied to elections four years away as well as indicative of the current Democrat unity being just another media fabrication.
Stay tuned.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Noel
November 15, 2008 - 12:09 ET by shawn228As I said over a half year ago when the primaries were still going on, the Democrats would be united under whomever the nominee would be..
Obama won with 53 percent of the vote, which is the most since Ronald Reagan.
If Obama is unpopular in 2012 do you really believe anyone even if is Hillary Clinton would try to split up the party like this?
I do not remember any serious challenge to a President running for re-election from within their own party in my lifeime Democrat or Republican.
He had my vote
shawn
November 15, 2008 - 12:10 ET by Noel Sheppardshawn,
Ted Kennedy tried to unseat Carter. Reagan tried to unseat Ford. Eugene McCarthy actually did unseat LBJ even though Humphrey ended up getting the nomination.
Forgive me, but you're looking at this through much too small an historical prism. ns
Well, Noel, as you can see
November 15, 2008 - 12:18 ET by motherbeltWell, Noel, as you can see below, I agreed with shawn (and I'll leave it there, I won't edit it). But I admit I wasn't aware of the challenges you mentioned (I wasn't really following politics back then; I was busy raising twins LOL)...so I guess there is the possibility...but I think Obama would have to manage a disaster of biblical proportions for it to happen. (Racism! Racism!)
MB
November 15, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Noel SheppardMB,
A disaster of biblical proportions? Not at all. Let's understand that this is likely to be the worst economy since at least the mid-70s and possibly the '30s. Many economists I read see this contraction lasting through 2010. I could make the case for it being worse than that.
By November 2010, the Dems would have been in control of Congress for four years. Sure, this will continue to be labeled the Bush recession. However, at some point, the Congressional Democrats will also be blamed. If things haven't turned around by January 2010, a Republican revolution in Congress will be quite possible. If that happens, the momentum will have switched again, and the Clintons -- who are always out for themselves and could care less about the country or party unity -- will be looking to get back to the White House.
Don't mistake all the supposed unity today for what is going to happen in the next two years as this economy worsens. It's easy for Dems to be unified now when they can blame it all on Bush, but at some point in the near future, the public will view those in power as responsible and not the man in Crawford. Trust me. ns
Noel, I was just making the
November 15, 2008 - 13:32 ET by motherbeltNoel, I was just making the point (apparently clumsily) that challenging any other President was child's play compared to the prospect of challenging our first black President.
And the racemongers would have a field day.
Most likely THE WORST presidency ever
November 15, 2008 - 16:38 ET by needleNot only do we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid restrained by fewer Republicans than ever, but also there is, and will be, the completely over-the-top fawning and enabling media. This is a prescription for the perfect storm. And lo, it is already forming with Obama staffing his administration with cronies and extremists.
The Democrats may have a picnic blaming the economy on Bush, but that will harm the economy and them even more. Why? Because the problems with the economy are directly traceable to the Democrats. First of all the [Democrat] media has been trying to talk down the economy for about the last year and a half. Finally they got everything they have been urging to occur and much more, namely the subprime loan catastrophe, which was completely orchestrated – and blocked from investigation – by the Democrats.
The Democrats can blame these problems on Bush all they want, but the more they do so the less they are going to actually come to grips with them. Basically, the people who voted “against Bush” in their anger over the economy have actually voted in the arsonists!
And on top of that none of the foregoing takes into account the mischief various foreign powers might come up with to test the resolve and finesse of Obama and his foreign policy expert Joe Biden (cough, cough).
All of this is a setup for what could very easily be unquestionably the worse presidency ever. It will be interesting to see if, like LBJ, Obama loses his nerve to run for a second term. I think Hillary is looking forward to “rescue” us in 2012.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Noel
November 15, 2008 - 12:23 ET by shawn228Sorry I was not aware of any of these scenarios. Was there ever a successful coup to an incumbant President from within their own party?
He had my vote
shawn
November 15, 2008 - 12:40 ET by Noel Sheppardshawn,
Yes, as I said, Eugene McCarthy and RFK forced LBJ out of the race in 1968. And, if not for the Iranian Hostage Crisis, many people believe Kennedy would have beaten Carter in 1980.
This is just recent history. Go back further and there are MANY such instances. ns
I agree. Her only hope for
November 15, 2008 - 12:15 ET by motherbeltI agree. Her only hope for '12 was if he failed. Now she's stuck until '16.
I wonder if Obama really wants to be known as a rehash of the Clinton administration, but it appears that is his plan.
So how's that "Change We Can Believe In" thing coming along, Mr. President-elect?
motherbelt, Broom Hilda can't afford to wait until 2016.
November 15, 2008 - 12:58 ET by R D HelmBy that time, she will be a craggly old hag.
Which is why I believe she is going to work diligently behind the scenes (if she isn't already) to severely undermine Obama. You just know that she views him as a usurper of her throne, and is no-doubt willing to do whatever it takes to get back what she feels was stolen from her.
I believe she'll get back at Obama even if it means destroying this nation in the process.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
I believe she'll get back
November 15, 2008 - 13:42 ET by motherbeltI believe she'll get back at Obama even if it means destroying this nation in the process.
I fear you may be right. The Clintons have this aura of "manifest destiny" about them; therefore whatever they do is ultimately for the greater good, in their eyes.
I know all politicians turn on a dime, but to me Hillary Clinton is the worst. When I think of all her simpering and smiling and "working with" McCain, acting as if they really were friends as well as colleagues, only to have her hit the trail for Obama with "No way, no how, no McCain!" it just makes me ill.
I don't feel bad for McCain however. He got what he deserved, he was hoist on his own petard. Live by media love, die by media love.
And Obama is just as bad...he has broken one promise after another: the funding pledge first and foremost: now instead of change we get Clinton-era retread hatchet-men. How he can talk about a "new kind of politics" and "unity" in company with Podesta and Emanuel is just jaw-dropping.
I guess that means everyone in Washingon will go along with whatever he decides "change" is, or be destroyed. (Dead! Dead! Dead! -Rahm Emanual re uncooperative Democrats)
OK Rant over. You must have a talent for drawing things out of people ;-)
You must have a talent for
November 15, 2008 - 13:44 ET by R D HelmYou must have a talent for drawing things out of people
LOL-I'll take that as a compliment.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
It was meant as one. :-)
November 15, 2008 - 13:46 ET by motherbeltIt was meant as one. :-)
Shawn
November 15, 2008 - 12:41 ET by BlondeYou can bet your a** HRC will do anything, including "splitting" the party, to obtain her self-perceived God-given right to be the first female President of the United States.
Hillary is all about one thing....never forget it. Hillary. If Obama bollixes this up the way I know he will, Hillary will be the first to file.
Personally, I don't see Hillary doing anything that will help Obama, even if it is a perceived step up for her. Remember, even the SecState has to shut up and sing when the President says so (Powell disagreed with Bush often). Right now, HRC is still the junior senator from New York, but she can raise a ton of money, and in DC, money is power.
Noel knocked this one straight out of the park, maybe out of the city limits even.
FYI, I registered as a dem the first time so I could vote AGAINST Teddy Kennedy in the primary when he attempted to unseat Carter (that's how visceral my loathing is for the Whale of the Senate). I then switched my party affiliations and voted for the great Ronald Reagan.
If you want to read some interesting stuff, read The Truth About Hillary by Edward Klein.
bambi-elect (aka 57 states)
November 15, 2008 - 12:22 ET by jdhawkbambi-elect (aka 57 states) is using the adage, keep your friend close and your enemies closer. Nevertheless, I doubt that billary will accept if in fact she really is being offered the position.
She is more powerful and exerts more influence as a NY senator than she would in the often frustrating and thankless job of secretary of state. Besides, if bamb-elect stumbles, she would be in a better position to run against him in 2012 than being inside his administration.
Hillary would be ill
November 15, 2008 - 12:51 ET by R D HelmHillary would be ill advised in accepting any position in an Obama administration.
"Democrat Party Unity" is not only a lie, it is an impossibility in itself given the ever widening range of useless and worthless government hand-out hopefuls that support that party.
There is no way that bad blood does not exist between Hillary and Obama, given the contentiousness of the primary campaign, and Hillary has a long memory.
What I find more than a little puzzling is that Obama, he of the constant "change" mantra, and allegedly so much more "intelligent" than we mere mortals, is inexplicably hiring so many Clintonista re-treads to work in his administration.
I can't help but think that many of them are still rather loyal to Hillary, so much so that you have to wonder of Obama is anywhere near as intelligent as he is being painted by the left.
Seems to me that the messiah is perhaps unknowingly setting himself up for sabotage somewhere down the road.
-Dave
Did this country just elect Obama/Biden, or was it Soros/Ayers?
Hey, you stole my "Clinton
November 15, 2008 - 13:51 ET by motherbeltHey, you stole my "Clinton re-treads" line!! LOL
I agree; you gotta wonder where Emanuel's and Podesta's loyalties really lie. Is it with the Clintons or do they just want power in any Democratic administration?
Seems to me that the messiah is perhaps unknowingly setting himself up for sabotage somewhere down the road. -
Dave
I read in a novel long ago a line that I've remembered: Every man has within himself the seeds of his own destruction.
Something to think about.
Could be just more
November 15, 2008 - 12:53 ET by doug1950of the MSM pushing their agendas and candidate just as we have witnessed them doing over the past two plus years. They only have to go out and plant these seeds in order to get grassoots support of their ideas. Remember, the Democrat Party wrote the book on following popular polls and giving "the people" what they think they want. The media may see this as a way of getting back in Hillary's good graces after the drumming they gave her (doubtful she will ever forget anyone's name or organization if they crossed her). This would pad Hillary's resume nicely and give her a chance to posture and pose on the world scene, hobnob with the world leaders without Bill in tow and wear her big girl panties. She actually may be good at this, for all her faults she is as cunning as a snake and we may need that with Ob in the WH. Gives me the willies to think of it but so far everything else in this elections does too.
doug
November 15, 2008 - 13:12 ET by BlondeIt's rather funny that you referred to HRC wearing her "big girl panties".
In the book I referred to, above, for Shawn, that is exactly what the WH staff called Hillary behind her back...the Big Girl!
Funny too, in the book, HRC was totally shocked when she met with Patrick Moynihan's wife, who ran his campaigns. The Moynihan's only conducted one poll, every six years, during the middle of the Senator's term, to find out what the voters knew and didn't know about his performance. That's it. It knocked Her Highness over with a feather....as the Clinton's polled incessantly every single issue in the known universe.
BTW, Moynihan couldn't stand Hillary, for the life of me I can't figure out why he launched her as his replacement. Anyway, I digress.
I agree with everything you wrote....HRC will never forget, and trust me, she'll never forgive. I just don't see her "helping" Obama in any way, shape, or form (remember, he "stole" her issue, too....Health Care....she's angling for that Committee Chair when Ted goes to the big Gin Joint in the Sky).
Also, I'd imagine HRC still harbors some malice toward Joe Biden (Mr. Idiot Foreign Policy). I don't even want to think about the conversations she and Bill are having about Obama/Biden foreign policy, but I'd imagine it involves a whole lot of cackling. I've got a vision of Shakespeare's witches dancing in my head.
Blonde
November 15, 2008 - 13:44 ET by doug1950Hi,
Oh, I agree completely with your assessment. What better way to be a thorn in the Emperor's side than to be his SOS and run the entire State Dept. crossgrain to his policies. Many have done just that in the past. The State Dept is huge and they have their own ideas on how things should be run and done. This is what got Colin in deep sewage with the Bush WH but Bush being the kind of man he is, did not wish to make a big scene and allowed Colin to just "depart" for the second term. Bush apparently has a problem firing people who need to be fired. Secretary of Treasurer springs to mind right off the top of my head. Reagan had no such problem nor did the Clintons as we all know. She can make huge inroads if she were to be SoS whereas being the Junior Senator from NY, she is just one of 100 votes. She has a lot of loyal supporters and swings a pretty big hammer. Meanwhile the GOP senators are all still trying to figure out their expense accounts and how to stay in office. We really need some new blood in Washington. Time to retire the bunch of them. Bob Martinez has been a huge disappointment here in FL along with Crist as the Gov. In fact, the whole stable needs to go to the glue factory.
Back at you, Doug
November 15, 2008 - 13:59 ET by BlondeAs I was reading your response, I had another reason why Hillary won't accept SecState.
She was the one who fired Rahm Emmanuel when her Health Care fiasco went down in flames. Can you imagine the Big Girl having to go hat in hand through Rahmbo to get to the CIC? Oh my! The phone rings, Rahm picks it up, HRC says "hi", and Rahm starts stabbing his desk with the knife "dead, dead, dead, dead".
No, I suspect there's all of this talk, just as there was for VP, to assuage the Clintons' egos, and to help them save face. Who knows what tomorrow may bring, and with the Clintons, nothing is a surprise. Maybe Chuckie has a scandal or somesuch.
As to Florida, my friend, I'm beyond over it. I live in the heart of darkness here, Broward County. Our lovely little freshman rep was re-elected (barely).....he took more money from the banking industry than any other Congresscritter! In his first term, the little weasel.
Christ is the worst sort of RINO (when's he going to marry his beard now that the election is over, hmmm?), and Martinez is beneath contempt. He was such a great RNC chair that no one outside of Florida knew who he was.
The Republican governor's conference was in Miami this week...this is the leadership we need for the party. There are only a few good (R) Senators (like Inhofe)...the rest are just like McCain.
But back to Her Highness. She's going to do what's best for her (including trying to get back the $13 million she loaned her campaign)....and remember, she can't do that kind of fund raising as SecState. I just wonder, though, if we'll ever know the extent of her back room moves as she undermines The One.
(remember, he "stole" her
November 15, 2008 - 13:44 ET by motherbelt(remember, he "stole" her issue, too....Health Care....she's angling
for that Committee Chair when Ted goes to the big Gin Joint in the
Sky).
I read somewhere that she expected to be given the job now...but Ted got it.
That's gotta rankle.
Quite so, mb
November 15, 2008 - 14:00 ET by BlondeCankles is rankled.
Sorry....I couldn't resist.
Hillary for VP
November 15, 2008 - 12:51 ET by MystapittHow does this scenario sound:
Biden is not at all Presidental timber for 2016. He would be 76 years old in 2016. Obama will replace him on the ticket in 2012 with Hillary. IF he wins, she is the first female VP and all primed for 2016. btw....no matter how bad the economy is the next 2-3 years, Obama will not feel any heat with the blame Bush crowd raging. The media will cover for him.
RINO Herd Culled
November 15, 2008 - 16:56 ET by allanfYes the media will use the moniker "Bush Recession". However, anger at President Bush will be hard to maintain once he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue. At some point the voting public will actually begin to hold the Democrats accountable for their reign.
The Democrat victories have also had the effect of culling the RINO herd. The Democrats are larger in number, but not necessarily in raw power.
RINO Chaffee - Gone
RINO Warner - Gone
RINO DeWine - Gone
This is Change?
November 15, 2008 - 13:40 ET by northoneThe "change we can believe in" is turning out to be rehash of the 90's, with former Clinton cronies making up a good chunk of The Great One's administration. Wow- what change! The Messiah should be careful, though. Hell hath no fury like a Clinton scorned, crossed, or defeated. It's going to be a very interesting four years!
Hil For Supreme Court Justice
November 15, 2008 - 13:52 ET by Wildcatter1980Though he may very well ask Hillary to Sec'y of State, I think it is more likely that Obama will look to nominate her for the Supreme Court.
Obama has to realize that he can no longer hide. There can be no more "Present" votes. Everything he says or does will be analyzed, scrutinized and criticized unlike never before.
All his far left supporters are already pressuring him to push for their favorite and pet policies. He must also understand that they were not exclusively the reason he won the election. It was moderates who did that.
He must now walk the tight rope between the far left loons and the moderates who may have voted for "hopenchange," but that does not mean making radical changes to our country and society.
The moderates want greedy corporate (and, I hope political) types punished for the current financial/economic mess. They objected to the bailout-palooza (aka Cr*p Sandwich 2.0 and the followup maintenance revisions). They did not blame Obama for it because he was able to stay above the fray.
Now, as President, Obama is now on the hot seat. Make one wrong move and his approval rating may rival that of Bush 43.
With all this in mind, Obama and his advisers have to worry about a new Hillary run in 2012. She will be able, if she wants, to mount a very legitimate primary bid to unseat him as the Democrat nominee. She will be able to play the "I told you so." card if the Obama Presidency is as rocky as I suspect it will be.
What better way to head off that possibility than to put her on the SCOTUS Bench instead? Also, she might find a Supreme Court Justice position more appealing because she will be able to stay there for as long as she wants to remain there and it will be a lot less stressful than having to "slug it out" in a political campaign, again and again.
--
Ignorance, our most costly commodity - paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh
She may have been a lawyer
November 15, 2008 - 15:35 ET by motherbeltShe may have been a lawyer back in the day, but she certainly has never been a judge. She has no history as a judge upon which to base a judgment on whether she has the capbility to fulfill the job...
oh, sorry..what was I thinking???
I Take It...
November 17, 2008 - 17:42 ET by Wildcatter1980...you realized that being a judge has little if anything to do with being nominated for SCOTUS. These ARE Democrats we're talking about. LOL
--
Ignorance, our most costly commodity - paraphrased from Rush Limbaugh
Let me get this straight.
November 15, 2008 - 13:59 ET by Chris NormanLet me get this straight. I've been busy on a project at work and have not been following the News or it's Busters, but Hillary Clinton - who was criticized as having had foreign policy experience by way of teas and elephant rides - is being seriously discussed as a potential Secretary of State? Good grief...
»→ Makes sense Chris
November 15, 2008 - 14:05 ET by Cool ArrowShe also dodged sniper fire when Gen. Wesley Clark'stroops were incapable of supplying adequate cover for the First Lady, her daughter, Sheryl Crowe, and Sinbad.
Now there's a real go-to entourage.
That Hillary - is there nothing she can't do?
November 15, 2008 - 14:09 ET by Chris NormanSince she was able to protect herself and her daughter in that onslaught of bullets and rockets, drinking tea and laying down cover fire, perhaps she is imminently qualified to be Secretary of Defense...
Wrong question, Chris.
November 15, 2008 - 14:19 ET by BlondeThat Hillary ~ is there nothing she won't do?
I just had a horrible thought....if HRC is unable to get into the WH on her own....she's going to stage mom Chelsea.
We're going to get yet another round of Clintons after HilBilly.
Blonde,I see your point,
November 15, 2008 - 14:31 ET by Chris NormanBlonde,
I see your point, I was just being sarcastic about the all the positions for which Hillary is seen to be "qualified". Now, as for Chelsea, unlike her mother and father, she's perfect - charming, intelligent, gracious, and graceful - did I leave off any of her media-given attributes...oh, yes...beautiful, too... :)
Sorry, Chris
November 15, 2008 - 15:26 ET by BlondeYour sarcasm got the best of me....
Hope your bro is not too insufferable....I can console myself by being surrounded with conservatives. It helps, until we start crying. :)
»→ Chelsea
November 15, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Cool ArrowAnd Chelsea also works for one of those evil hedge fund companies.
Did I say evil? Sorry, I meant to say "one of those hedge fund companies that uses its power and wealth only for good"
Unless the offer comes with money
November 15, 2008 - 15:15 ET by katiejaneto help pay her campaign debt I don't see why Hillary would want the job. As others have said the woman is ambitious if nothing else. Would she really want to be in the position of working for someone she thinks isn't qualified to be Pres - the position she "deserved?"
It also smacks of Obama either trying to pander to her supporters and make peace in the Party or putting her in a position where she can't challenge him on anything. If she stayed in the Senate she could speak against things he might do but if she was in his Cabinet she would have to support everything. Additionally the Senate seat could be hers for a number of years - the Sec job might not extend beyond 4 years. Add to that the baggage of the Clintons having to own up to whatever Bill has been up to - I just see the offer as face saving for everyone.
Well if she were to run in
November 15, 2008 - 21:24 ET by GregEWell if she were to run in 2012, so far the staff is being setup for her to not have to change anything.
2 appointments so far.......2 Clintonistas.
#2 - http://www.politico....
I think this scenario is
November 15, 2008 - 22:20 ET by hirogen73I think this scenario is very very unlikely.
Wouldn't all the
November 15, 2008 - 22:50 ET by katainkentWouldn't all the international pies that Bill has been sticking his fingers in preclude Hillary from being Sec of State?
member of the Conservative Independant Witness Protection Program since Nov. 5, 2008
RE: Senator Clinton
November 15, 2008 - 23:46 ET by sccSuzy C. I wonder if Senator Clinton can pass that 68 question interview process to work in the President Obama administration.
It covers spouses. President Clinton is busy with his Global Iniative Program and is accepting donations worldwide for his many charitable grants. It could be seen as a conflict of interest.
Senator Clinton would be wise to stay in the Senate and try to bring about all those things that she ran on with such passion.
Do not count her out for 2012 !!! She would love to take it away from President Obama.
Conflicts of interests
November 16, 2008 - 15:19 ET by doug1950have never stopped any of these people in the past, in fact they seem to trive on them. The whole Clinton tenure was froath with COI and the "Crisis de jour". In the midst of that much chaos you can get away with all kinds of crap because there aren't enough people to keep their eyes on all the balls they have in the air at one time.