Possibly a crazy idea, but I was struck by it after reading BTD's post on how happy the Obama campaign is with Hillary Clinton's work on its behalf and wondering if she would be rewarded. Now, I'm not sure AG would be an adequate reward, but I think floating the idea could help Obama politically in a number of ways:
- It ends the meme that he and Clinton are feuding once and for all;
- It makes it more likely instead of defending Palin from sexism, the GOP engages in their typical Clinton-bashing sexism, which can only help with independent and blue collar voters;
- It's a chance for Obama to show women and blue collar voters that he's going to put someone they like in charge of enforcing the FACE Act (access to clinics), the Civil Rights laws (including equal pay), the Antitrust laws, and the fraud laws (think mortgage crisis). Hillary isn't just campaigning for him, he will involve her in governing the country.
- It also would be a nice symbolic gesture to the Clinton wing of the party that they will be participants in any Obama administration.
- The idea of putting a Clinton in charge of a Department with thousands of investigators, subpoena power, and prosecutors will scare the crap out of the GOP after the last eight years and their reaction will turn the topic to GOP crimes and away from Sarah Palin and her family.
Now, Clinton might not want to be AG, but I would argue that if she really cares about fixing Government and making it work again for the people and follow the Constitution, next to being President, no one is going to be more important than the next AG. Among other things, she would be able to:
- Bring her understanding of how Government works to one of the Departments most affected and damaged by the political hacks and mismanagement of the Bush Administration. More than anything else, the Department needs a strong manager.
- Have the ability to restore many of the Constitutional rights trampled on for the last eight years through DOJ policy as well as the rule of law, particularly as it applies to corruption and domestic terrorism since the FBI has primary jurisdiction over both.
- Oversee the Civil Rights office and enforcement of a lot of the Civil Rights laws, giving teeth to rights she has fought for her entire career.
The list goes on.
We are going to need a powerful person as the next AG if we're going to fix a lot of these problems, whether it's taking on the mortgage industry's fraud (prosecutions are in order for some of these folks, no?) or restoring protections for civil rights. The President cannot run the Justice Department, he has too many other things to do. A strong AG, able to speak directly on behalf of the Administration to the American people would be a huge benefit to Obama and a great asset to the country.
Also, did I mention it would freak Republicans out? I'm just sayin'.
- BDBlue's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
You just want her as a boss, BDB
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
If Only That Would Make Her My Boss
Sadly, it would not. Although I could always switch jobs I guess. Might even be worth the move back to Washington. That wouldn't make me part of the Village
would it?
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Supreme Court
Justice Hillary Clinton, has a certain ring to it, doesn't it?
A Very Nice Ring
Mostly because she seems good at consensus building and that's very important on a split court. But I think that's dreamland, sadly.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
No, No, No
Obama is all over the map when it comes to policy. He could be a saint or worse than McCain. (On a spectrum, I say he's closer to the latter.) Also, there is a real divide in the Democratic Party between the libertarian usurpers (e.g. Cheetos, HuffPos, and "creative class") and more traditional FDR types. Hillary is the biggest spokesperson for the latter and Obama is the face of the former, whether he wants to be or not. I think we need to have someone in Congress willing to stand up for more liberalist positions. And we need someone to fend off the Libertarian power grab.
As AG, Hillary is still pretty much a pawn of the Administration and all decisions are ultimately the decision of the President. I think she can be a better advocate in the Senate. She will have a much bigger bully pulpit there where she will have complete independence. She won't have independence as AG. Not by a mile.
Only tyrants rig elections.
No, No, No
I second everything gqmartinez says. However this idea:
...putting a Clinton in charge of a Department with thousands of investigators, subpoena power, and prosecutors will scare the crap out of the GOP after the last eight years...
makes me positively giddy with delight.
But I'd rather have her maintain her autonomy and make laws, actual policies, hold hearings, etc., and not be answerable to Obama.
Who Said She'd Be Answerable to Obama?
Maybe on an org. chart somewhere. But her independent power base is part of what makes her so appealing as AG. AGs who are the President's lackies haven't exactly been working for us lately.
And I question how much power she's going to have in the Senate, which is mostly a seniority based institution. If I thought she was going to be in the leadership, then I might agree. But right now she's one voice among many. A loud voice, but still just one voice.
Which is not to say I'm convinced about my suggestion, because I'm not. I have very mixed feelings about having her anywhere near an Obama Administration. I'm torn between not wanting her to be part of what I see as an inevitable disaster and trying to find a way to make it not be quite so disastrous for the nation.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Not quite so disasterous
I agree about finding ways for that, but Obama's repeated demonstrations of pettiness have left me skeptical of any person's ability to keep disaster from happening.
Obama's all over the map on policy so I can't trust what he says he wants to do. What I do trust is that he is a firm believer in "post-partisanship", whatever that means. It seems to me that he doesn't want confrontation on policy (but is fine to trash opponents personally), so I don't see him wanting a particularly aggressive DoJ.
As Senator, Hillary will have more ability to have press conferences, draft legislation and be vocal--the bully pulpit. That's regardless of her seniority. I also see her joining an Obama administration as a further step to solidifying the Libertarian take-over of the Dems, which is really bad, IMO.
Only tyrants rig elections.
Executive Branch
She'd be part of the executive branch, no? Department of Justice? Which is diff from the judiciary?
As opposed to being a Senator.
Or do I need remedial American Govt. 101?
No Need for Remedial Govt. 101
She would be part of the executive branch and technically would report to Obama. Having said that, you have to think of the Government like a corporation. It's easy for the President to fire some middle manager. The higher up you get, the harder it might be for the President to fire you because you might have your own support from shareholders (the public) or the Bd. of Directors (Congress). So just because the AG reports to Obama on an org. chart, doesn't mean the AG is totally within Obama's control. An AG with a strong political base of his or her own can be fairly autonomous. Not entirely (and that wouldn't be a good thing, you don't want parts of the Administration warring with the President), but I don't think it's true that she would merely become some sort of Obama-bot by virtue of working in his Administration.
Again, I'm not convinced of this idea myself. But we are going to need someone who will be a strong voice for the rule of law and the Constitution in the next Administration, someone who can make that case to the American people and the list is pretty short on folks who can do that (not that Obama necessarily even wants that or, at the rate his campaign is going, he's going to get the chance).
For me, the downside is that Clinton is the natural choice to dig the Democrats out in 2012 if Obama wins and is a disaster. But I think it's a long shot that she would challenge a sitting president (even if he's headed towards electoral failure) or that the Dems would support such a challenge (even if Obama is headed towards electoral failure). The other downside is not so much that she would lose her autonomy in terms of what she says and does, but that she loses control of how long she's in public office. If she splits with Obama, she would be out and her voice would have less meaning.
So I can see an upside to having her as AG in terms of what she could do, but there's also a downside if things don't go well in that she doesn't have her own elected office.
My feelings on this are a lot like they were on the VP, she would know better than I if something is a good thing for her to do. I have no idea what she would think about AG. But it's hard to resist the fear it would strike in GOP hearts everywhere.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
That's the reason Obama would never
do it, BDB. The very last thing he wants is an uncontrollable Clinton with her own power base in his administration. That's why he didn't pick her for VP.
Hillary's great strength -- now -- is in public leadership, not working essentially behind the scenes either as AG or on the SC, with her nose buried in line-by-line analysis of the law.
I agree, though, it sure would be fun to watch all those Republicans wet their pants at once if she were appointed there.
Gyrfalcon, I was writing
this post in my mind as I was reading along, then got to yours and found you'd already written it.
But here's a thought: McCain has said he'd appoint Democrats to his cabinet. If he were to get elected and wanted, once he was in office and no longer had to pander, to prove he was a maverick after all...
Naah. But it's fun to fantasize about.
I agree with gqm
When McCain becomes president, the progressives in the Senate will need leadership and who better than the one person who worked tirelessly on THEIR behalf?
Come together at The Confluence
Come together at The Confluence
A NY Times editorial
"Not Just a Glass Ceiling" makes the case even stronger.
Women and minorities are under-represented in government. The editorial refers to minorities and women in state governments, but a cursory look at Congress reveals the same dearth of minority and female representation in our federal government.
I want Hillary in the Senate
At a minimum running a Truman Commission on Iraq, which will rip the scabs off every Republican thief in the Beltway and hopefully send some to jail.
After that, we can get to work on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Perhaps Bill Clinton could head it up. Haw.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
I Want That, Too, lambert
I'm just not sure we're going to get it. If those were my choices, then I'm with you.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
head of Judiciary Cttee would rock
--but i bet Reid would never allow it---she's too Junior.
A phrase that's as pertinent as "and we get?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09clinton.html?ref=politics
Except the answer is problematic
Who is for you? Not the Dem leadership
Who will fight for you? Me and those like me.
Not the answer Hillary wants, I don't think.
Let 'em fix universal health care instead of demogaging it. They won't.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
BDB's post is an important discussion
Regardless of whether I agree with it or not. What do we want to do after 11/4/08 and what will we be able to do? What if Obama wins? What if McCain wins?
We're too focused, IMO, on the details of the horse race--which is fun and useful to document the atrocities. What we have now seems to be a discussion of how evil McCain is rather than what the best way to keep him in check should he win would be. We have a view that on the issues, Obama sounds better, but little on how we can force his hand.
I like this discussion a lot. BDB could be right or wrong, but at least they are throwing out positive ideas, rather than purely reactionary.
Only tyrants rig elections.
That's Really What I'm Getting at GQMartinez
What do we think will be important and how do we get it if Obama wins? Or for that matter if he loses?
Hillary comes into it because of all the people who got screwed in the primary process, she's the one with the most power. Most of us have very little.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
Congress, congress, congress.
that's how--no matter who wins.
Well, so far
they've earned their sub-20% approval rating. How do we get them a collective spine implant??
Hillary Clinton
would actually make a fantastic Secretary of State for a number of reasons, chief among them her ability to actively listen to others, to be assertive without being aggressive, and to persuade through force of logic....all traits in genuinely short supply at the national let alone international level. Add to that her experience in dealing with heads of state and the level of respect she and the former president still command around the world.
But it ain't gonna happen (unless, perchance, by a double triple bankshot by a McCain postpartisan administration) 'cuz Obama seems to prefer to stride across the world stage himself rather than leave it to one of his minions, whose jobs shall be to run the economy and all that other messy stuff the god-clinging, gun-toting, bitter masses care about.
Good GRIEF
Sort of OT, but this is a jaw-dropper. Joe Biden, quoted by CNN's Alexander Marquardt (via Alex Koppelman's War Room on Salon):
"Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let's get that straight.
"She's a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be president of the United States of America; she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and quite frankly [she] might have been a better pick than me."
http://tinyurl.com/6d5uud
That was his response to someone at a town hall meeting who said he was glad Obama had chosen Biden rather than Hillary.
why should we vote for 2nd best?
it's so so so so dumb--both Biden and Obama are idiots.
unless he's gonna drop out,
and they're softening the blow now?
(and it's too late for that anyway--Obama would just look weaker and like he made a horrible decision w/Biden)
Just shoot me
I mean, good for Biden for saying it. But what else does it say?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
That was a classy comment by Biden
Even if it does make one wonder why we ended up with him instead.
nah--he's not a humble guy, and he's in the spot
that he says he's not the best for--it's not classy or even gracious.
Biden can afford to be gracious -- he won.
And if he's humble compared to Palin, that also brings forth a means of talking about what's right with this country -- respect for colleagues, even if we didn't see any of that in action during the campaign.
but it's not gracious to remind us all
of how much better Hillary is--nor does it help him or the ticket.
classy, gracious=never reminding people of bitterness
and unresolved things that anger people--to me, at least.
But Biden endorsed neither Clinton or Obama during the primaries
and if you can find evidence that he joined in Clinton's trashing, I'd be glad to see it.
Otherwise, I'm going to assume Biden means what he says about his friendships, with Clinton and McCain. He's already shown more emotional maturity and tactical smarts than Obama has, concerning building a bridge back to the discarded base.
Hillary's no Janet Reno,
but I can hear the republicans now talking about revenge.
Frankly, this is a horrible idea. Truly. Horrible.
I'd rather she stayed in the Senate.
Exactly.
I mean, good for Biden for saying it. But what else does it say?
He's too seasoned to say something like that. I look at it as a mender with Hillary supporters.
do you think it mends tho?
i don't.
No, it doesn't mend
Not for me, at any rate. It only makes me see red. How many times (sorry, guys, to go through this again) have women been passed over for promotion by an inferior guy, only to have said inferior guy turn around and heap condescending praise on the woman in order to look like a wonderful great mensch to his bosses?
To me, it's just infuriating and completely insincere.
Ack
You're right. Oopsie.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
FWIW, according to the CNN story
his comments were delivered "testily"--he was clearly annoyed that the questioner said he was glad Biden had been picked rather than Clinton. I'd have to see video, but he may not actually have been condescending. It almost sounds to me as though he feels guilty.
What I find amazing about the remarks is that they reflect so poorly on Obama. He could have found a way to praise Clinton and squelch the questioner for dissing Clinton without saying outright that she might have been a better pick.
I mean, he's right. But it makes Obama look bad and makes Biden sound as though he lacks self-confidence.
Biden is right, but
do you believe for one second he actually *believes* what he said? Mr. Ego? He was trying, grossly insincerely, IMHO, to deflect criticism of himself, is all. It's the same thing he's done for years after he pops off angrily about some Republican whatsis, and then the next day delivers effusive praise for the brilliance and integrity of whatever Republican he dissed the night before.
I agree he could have found -- if he was sincere, it wouldn't have been hard -- a way to convincingly praise Clinton and deflect the questioner's point. He's only been a pol for, what, 100 years now? He certainly has ample skill to carry that off, if that had been his impulse.
Maybe to some who don't know him it looks like he lacks self-confidence, but to those of us who do, it comes off either as commendable honesty or utterly obnoxious and phony inverse haka.
Sorry to be so cranky, I just spent a few minutes reading comments over at TL about "lipstick on a pig"...
Kinda, sorta
It mends insofar as the Biden "brand." And a little self-deprecation is welcome.
But kinda, sorta for the ticket as a whole. It makes Biden look like the accidental VP.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Rephrase.
Janet Reno was competent, but she certainly was a target for republicans because of the war against Clinton.
Hillary would not be in Reno's position now. But she could be hamstrung because of the history, although she's one tough person.
Again, Janet played by the rules.
Republicans? Not so much.
I agree
with Lambert.
I have to say when I first read that, the appeal to Hillary supporters was a gut reaction.
Obama has never done it, and it's too late now.
And all I get from Obama supporters is OMG! The world will end if McCain is elected! Funny.
Biden reaching out to Clinton might be more plausible than Obama
doing it, considering how much Obama distanced himself from any commonality with Clinton as a politician.
I wouldn't be non-plussed to see Biden and Clinton doing joint rallies. Somebody has to talk sense to the youth about what the Democratic Party should be, from the old skool....
I can see this
and agree that Biden is smart to reach out. But again, what it says about the ticket, though...
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi