MSNBC's Phill Griffin answers his own question (County Fair, Media Matters for America)
Addressing students at Vassar College, the cabler chief bemoaned "the parlous condition of traditional news media," according to a local newspaper account. Griffin also informed the students that, looking back on the historic 2008 campaign, Sarah Palin ""made this election." We're pretty sure there's a connection between those two points.
The Agony of the Women of 2008 (video, thanks to InsightAnalytical)
Men pontificate on the role of women in the 2008 presidential election.—Caro
Obama calls on his Internet campaign army to march again (McClatchy)
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama's 3 million campaign volunteers got re-enlistment notices this week. Campaign manager David Plouffe, in a mass e-mail sent Wednesday to former workers, asked how much time they can spare for four missions integral to Obama's effort to transform his victory into a broader political movement.. "Obama's building a political machine," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a center-left Washington research group.
Trust Obama on Clinton (by Joan Walsh, Salon)
If he believes she can contribute to his foreign policy, but most important, carry it out; that she can represent him well and inform his worldview; that she can improve our standing abroad, well, then, I believe she can, too. This choice is neither a popularity contest nor a meritocracy; it's all about the person the president believes can best represent his foreign policy and America's interests in the world. He has to deeply trust the man or woman in that role.
Oh, Joan, you are so sweetly naïve. You obviously don’t know anything about Chicago hardball politics. He offered her the Secretary of State position to force her to give up the organization of a million donors and activists that she built during the primary. He wants HIS organization to be the only force to be reckoned with. And it won’t necessarily be tied to the Democratic Party. It might be the Obama Party.—Caro
Clinton set to be nominated secretary of state after Nov. 27
Nov. 21 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Hillary Clinton is likely to be nominated for secretary of state after the Nov. 27 U.S. Thanksgiving holiday, according to an aide to President-elect Barack Obama. Potential hurdles related to the financial disclosures of Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton, have been worked out, said the aide, who asked not to be named. The appointment, should the New York Democrat accept the post, would make her Obama's highest-ranking Cabinet official. Backers say the popularity of both Hillary and Bill Clinton overseas would be a boon to the U.S.'s global reputation.
See? By making this announcement he tried to force her to say yes. For those who haven’t noticed the thuggery, it’s time you did. As Booman, who refused to listen to me when I tried to tell him about Chicago politics, said, “People would do well to heed Emanuel's message [about health care], lest they get a fist in the mouth or a dead fish in the mail” (thanks, Lambert).—Caro
And she has decided to accept, I’m sorry to say.
Clinton Decides to Accept Post at State Dept., Confidants Say (New York Time)
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.
Click here for more politics and media news headlines.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
- Caro's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
I hate this part too
"If he (Obama) believes that she can contribute.....well, then, I believe she can, too."
AAHHHHH! The complete submission to all things Obama is just too much.
So Joan, if he believed that Hillary wasn't fit to be SOS, would you believe that too? How do you determine what you believe? Whatever he says you should?
I don't understand the worship. I don't understand the blind faith. I don't understand the refusal to recognize anything negative about Obama. This is all way too creepy.
"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator
on Bill--
hasn't it been Obama "aides" all along leaking all that "vetting"/"Bill's the problem"/"dirty money"/etc bs?
if he's really gonna offer it -- and i see no reports that he definitely officially has -- she should turn it down.
(it's true tho she has no real power in the Senate and won't have any for ages bec of seniority--she can run for Governor if she wants power)
Yes, most of the leaks ...
... until this afternoon were on the Obama side. They were pushing her into it. This afternoon, her aides leaked that she will accept.
but all week i've heard
--all from her "aides"--that she was torn and didn't know what to do and changing her mind every day, bla bla bla.
and from Obama's "aides"--that it wasn't a done deal--mostly because of vetting, and Bill and his foreign money and his library and that they didn't trust that Bill wouldn't be out of the picture (like they want), bla bla bla.
i'll believe this when i see it for real--and i don't think she should take it anyway.
Me, either.
I'd rather see her stay in the Senate and use her activists to pressure the administration and Congress to push for her issues, which are largely MY issues.
this is typical of what i still see--
WaPo 4pm today -- "President-elect Barack Obama appeared close today to landing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James Jones as his national security adviser, sources said.
One friend said Clinton is ready to accept the job although the Obama transition team and Clinton's Senate spokesman said nothing has been finalized. But for the first time, her office officially confirmed that she is discussing the job with Obama.
"We're still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature," said Philippe Reines, Clinton's spokesman and senior advisor. ..." -- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-tra...
He "forced" her? Baloney.
"Take the job or ...." Or what? He'd call her bad names? Oh, wait....
The donor list was already turned over to Obama in June, along with Ickes and the other people who created and maintained it. Her millions of supporters? They either voted for Obama already or simply faded away into irrelevance, hardly a worry for Obama or the Democratic Party under any circumstances and completely meaningless now that she's eagerly come on board.
This SoS position is the Clintons' choice to accept or not, and who could have blamed her if she did refuse? Plenty of outs including the one that was handed to her, that Bill would be too much of a distraction. That she's accepted can only mean that it suits her purposes, or that her own ego is so outsized that she truly thinks she is the one and only Bestest Person for the job.
Reality is, there never was more than a dime's difference between her and Obama on any policy matter foreign or domestic. She'll fit right in no problem with a center-right POV administration, same as hers would have been, and apparently be more than happy to be the glamorous jet-setting headline-making oh-so-very-powerful Ambassador to the World rather than just another Senate back-bencher.
Looking back now, I'll lay 10 to 1 this appointment was the agreement worked out at Feinstein's DC house all those months ago; Hillary's price for stepping aside and not causing any trouble at the convention. Someone other than me should put a term to that kind of deal brokering between consenting adults.
"Hillary's price for stepping aside/not causing any trouble"
She had to do that anyway and knew it -- or give up any hopes of a political future with real power anywhere in DC -- ever.
It could be that she wanted something with real power and visibility (SoS would be that)--as opposed to VP (which makes Biden the sloppy second)-- but given that the entire media--and blogosphere now too--all are obsessed with her and Bill, giving her any very high-profile spot like SoS is only a plus for him if he wants her to suck all the media attention and oxygen away from himself. I doubt that.
a Mary Tyler Moore administration--
just like the show--where she was the dullest, and it was everyone else around her who was interesting and funny-- and always stole the show.
does he want that?
The word used was "forced"
And I fail to see how she benefits in terms of security by shifting from a safe-for-life Senate seat to - goddess help me - serving at the pleasure of the President. She'll be #3 at the White House at best, and further down depending on how the pecking order sorts; Powell was maybe #20, and Condi isn't even on the Power Chart. In the Senate no matter what she said she'd get headlines, and still be able to travel and
stick her nose innegotiate with foreign leaders as much as she wanted, no restrictions.Staying in the Senate, even without any real power, she'd have had a bully pulpit from which to goad/prod/harass Obama if she chose; now, she'll dance to his tune or he'll make her meaningless and then sack her.
You tell me why she made this deal other than she's perfectly comfortable with Obama's objectives. It sure as hell isn't because she was "forced."
bec being 8th in line for a cttee chair
when you're already 60 means you'll never ever get it.
bec acting as goad/prod when both the leadership and Obama's people are all on board with his shitty and tepid policies gets her only terrible publicity -- and continued demonization from the media and hurts her future desires to run again.
bec taking a job where it's obvious you're acting for someone else helps her with the party, and with the media--and takes some heat off her and earns her lots of cred, even tho the media will still be fixated on her.
i don't want her to take it either, but i see the pluses for her. She'll never get real power in Congress -- but acting subserviently in a very high-profile position as SoS helps her become Governor later or at the UN or as head of some Organization or University or whatever--or if she runs herself later.
and it's not about security, but power--
if security was her concern she wouldn't have run for Pres, and would have been like Liddy Dole--happy to sit in the Senate til she dropped dead or was defeated.
it's about ambition -- just like Obama, who didn't even wait to finish his first term in the Senate.
So your saying that she accepted
Because it served her own ends?
Because that's a far cry from "forced".
I have my reservations about this, but at the same time, I acknowledge her own power and strength. The woman is, in her own words, impervious. Do you honestly believe they could force her into anything? If you do, you are denying her agency in this matter, and revealing that have a very low opinion of her.
I don't, and fully believe she accepted this job, because she believes it is best for herself, her ambitions, and her country. Her plan to get out of Iraq was far superior to Obama's, and I believe that the delay in confirming this, is because she was negotiating for the most autonomy she could get. Obama's attention will be focused mostly on the domestic, leaving Clinton's competent hands to formulate foreign policy and enact it.
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
What *I* said was ...
... TRIED to force her. Get used to it. It's the Chicago way.
if she accepts,
it would be because it served her own ends--and because it's far better than being powerless in Congress--which they've pretty much all made clear, no?
not allowing her to lead on healthcare or anything is kinda "forcing" too, no? if you take away all other possible options, you're only left with the administration.
Unless of course the reason they didn't allow her to lead
On healthcare, was they were fairly positive she was going to be otherwise occupied? Being SoS. And after the SoS offer was leaked, they also made sure it was known that an opportunity working on health care was going to be there in the Senate(esp since Kennedy is aging).
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
but doesn't that tell you
that the healthcare work in Congress offer wasn't serious?
She made it clear ages ago that that was her priority, and ever since she dropped out of the race, she made it more clear--and never got any offers and was not included in any planning or meetings or working groups at all.
that the offer was only made after the SoS stuff came out tells me that it's not serious--and is also probably a face-saving "out" or cover if she declines SoS, so that both she and Obama have a good excuse if it doesn't happen, and he stills gets the credit for seriously considering her.
It tells me they are willing
To let her do what she wants to do. If she wants SoS, fine. If she wants the Senate, fine. It's win-win.
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
yet they weren't willing
in the Senate at all before--only now they've suddenly become willing.
It seems like we keep talking past each other
the SoS deal was probably decided months ago, pending a victory and some restrictions. Their long term planning wouldn't have her in the Senate.
You want to see an underhanded motive in it, and that's fine. I agree there are probably a few, but there are probably a few concillatory moves, so it's all just wait and see, and screech loud enough to move the Overton window.
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
it smells to me
because for months there have only been rebuffs to her on health, and on jumping the seniority line too--she was shut out of both Congress's plans, and the administration's. they wouldn't have to create a task force for her if they never planned on her being in Congress--they just did--why? Why make staying in Congress more attractive if they all planned on her not being there?
if they were really serious about her being in on healthcare, they would have included her earlier---plus they wouldn't put her in charge of a just-created working group on insurers (which means she has to deal with "Harry & Louise" and all those who poured millions back then and millions more now to ensure they profit from whatever happens)--it's a terrible fit for her.
on the overton window--she's to the right of him on many foreign policy things--it was domestic policy where she was better and could move the window, i'd say.
"An Option for Clinton: Enhanced Senate Role"
"Democratic leaders in the Senate are prepared to give Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton a still-undefined leadership role there if she does not become Barack Obama’s secretary of state, Democratic officials close to the situation said Thursday.
The discussions about an enhanced position for Mrs. Clinton are factoring into her deliberations over joining the cabinet, the officials said. ..." -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/pol...
Apropros Hillary able to be Secy
Pretty apropos isn't it. A woman as Secy is much more acceptable by Obama pony machine, I suppose they figured they had to make at least ONE female appt.
Although by now why isn't it Administrative Assistant of State?
http://www.correntewire.com/ye_olde_writ... fiction link
Wow.
I thought I was cynical. What are Obama's objectives?
Obama needs all the help he can get. Eighteen million people didn't jump on his bandwagon, btw. And millions of others couldn't even be bothered to vote in the primary or the general.
He doesn't have any sort of mandate, any more than Bush did, except from the freaking media.
Hillary only has to worry about Obama if he fucks it up. There are several ways he could do that. Not listening is one.
Obama is safe for 4 years--
he doesn't need any voter for anything anymore. Even if Congress goes GOP in 10, he still gets to ride out his 1st term no matter what.
I'm thinking he wants the same freedom Cheney had--and he can only get that by surrounding himself with media magnets and bright shiny things that will distract them. Rahm and Biden are two of them already doing that job--especially Rahm, so far.
Obama doesn't want the media all over him--especially when he's "sitting at the table" with health insurers and drug cos. and everyone who has money/interests in every issue.
Obama won't have the luxury
of a Bush presidency.
Just sayin'.
but if he can maintain
the whole narrative and themes that the media drools for, he will have some luxury---he already has tons that no Democrat has ever had.
We need help
in this country. Healthcare, jobs, education...
Push, push, push for those things.
Bush managed to divert attention with "terrorism." ENOUGH!
Well
we all saw how well that narrative thingy worked out for Bush didn't we? That kind of thing only works for so long and the only reason Bush got a pass for long was because of 9/11.
think Reagan--
the most carefully packaged/calibrated product launch in politics or out of it since Reagan, i'd say.
Think how many years Reagan got away with it--and how he still does even now.
Think how it was always about style over substance, and about biography and persona--and not about policy.
And also remember that what he's planning to do--and how-- is what the media always calls for and fetishizes. (and that they still have never really told the truth about how Dubya "governed" nor allowed any investigation, let alone punishment.)
Yeah
but Reagan would never have been able to do that today. We have a much larger flow of information. You have to realize that when Reagan was President there were basically three news stations and CNN only started in 1986 iirc.
Once the approval ratings fall, then that's when the media goes in for blood. They're all about telling people what they want to hear. The only reason the Reagan myth lives on is because conservatives have made it their goal to keep that myth alive.
I blame the lack of investigations into Dubya largely on the Dems. They could've done something about that once they took the house and the senate but they failed. Obama isn't going to investigage Dubya either. He's too cowardly and seems to want to continue his policies too.
HRC as SoS: Go-to player and convenient scapegoat
That's what I feel. She's one hell of a candidate on her own so he automatically gets a go-to clutch player on the international stage, but she's also dogged by a misogynistic feeding frenzy of rabid hate, which he was most fond of exploiting during the primary to boost and protect himself (or just for the hell of it*). He kills two birds with one stone.
*When he pushed that outrageous RFK smear he had the nomination in the bag (post-RBC) and yet he still did it. It's like he couldn't help himself. It was beyond excessive and I just don't see that disappearing all of a sudden.
He's given me some hope
By selecting her for this, I wasn't expecting this, and I'm going to look at this, until further indications prove otherwise, that he is trying to counteract the misogyny he stoked up, by appointing to her to such a prominent position. If he gives her the opportunity, she will do an incredible job, and he made the CDS'ers in his base assplode their little heads.
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
He's trying to counter the misogyny? No.
Listen, she's the best person for the job and these are desperate times. He almost can't afford not to pick her. The fact she's a woman is secondary. She's their to help him out. I can't see him of all people out there trying to seriously counter anti-female bigotry.
Besides, who says just because she's SoS that it'll somehow counter the deeply entrenched hate? Will she stop being dehumanized and demonized somehow? No. Bigotry will run rampant and she'll do her job well. Besides, she won't be breaking any new ground or have her own autonomy (Notice how many people are talking about Obama keeping HRC on a "leash" or "under control"). If she had been elected president that'd be a different story due to the immense power she would have had.
on a leash--
totally. It's totally subservient and subordinate--and they're praising him to the skies for even considering it--let alone if he does it.
If she takes it, the boyz all over will cheer at MSNBO and elsewhere--she'll be "in her place" --and he'll get the credit for "taming the shrew" -- the demonic Hillary. (she gets stuff out of it too, but it's certainly not countering any misogyny at all in any way)
Hillary is the "best person for the job"?
Based on what? Her extensive attendance at teas and state dinners?
There are a hundred people more qualified and available, starting with Bill Richardson. Her appointment feeds Obama's domestic political issues much more immediately than foreign ones, and a big part of that is to defang the charges of misogyny. If Hillary can accept this position it makes absolutely clear that whatever was said or not said during the primary she is able to overlook it all and move on. Anyone who wants to carry on with the claims against Obama will have to do it not just minus their Poster Woman but with her walking around electively subservient to him.
That "Whoosh" sound you're hearing is all the air leaving what remains of PUMA; another enemy co-opted and another hide on the wall for Obama, who is just a little bit starting to impress me.
TEAS AND STATE DINNERS????????????
I didn't know there was anyone at Corrente who bought into that stupid right-wing lie that was promoted by the so-called progressive blogosphere.
Hillary Clinton has won the admiration of everyone who has bothered to meet with her personally.
And being "admirable" gets you what?
That crack about teas and dinners was offered to balance the "best person" canard; must keep the scales at level, somehow.
Oh, and I'm not so much "at" Corrente as "tolerated" here - and that only barely. No fear, I don't speak for the blog.
But seriously, what has she done that makes her qualified for State compared to, say, a Richardson? I don't see it.
What
makes Obama even remotely qualified to be President? Nothing that I can see. What makes Daschle qualified to be HHS head? He has no record in that area and has been a lobbyist for the last 4 years. Napolitano at Homeland Security? Nada qualifications for that. The only nominee that seems even remotely qualified for the job that he's being appointed to is Holder and even then Obama is going to have to eat his hat because of his statements about the Marc Rich pardon which Holder was part of I understand.
Apparently, to people like you, only Hillary has to meet some imaginary qualification hump even though she was very much an activist first lady. The Teas at Embassies is one of the most sexist and degrading things that Obama has said. No wonder 60% of women think we have a huge misogyny problem in this country.
The assertion was made and I challenged it
Apparently, to people like you, Hillary is above questioning. Is Hillary the only one who can't be challenged? She's the topic in this thread because, well, she IS the topic in this thread. All those other people are not.
And the Mark Rich canard is one maybe you should look into closer before you throw it up. All Holder did was render an opinion on legality of a pardon in advance of conviction, it was a pro forma staff legal task and nothing more.
You're blaming
Hillary for Marc Rich?
Eeek!
Looks like your problem is with Bill.
Hillary is not Bill last I looked.
I never will understand you people.
Said no such thing, pie
Read it all again, including the comment I was responding to. I'm very clear that the decision on Rich was Bill's and nobody else's. Do I have a "problem" with Bill? not overwhelmingly, but he was a big disappointment in many ways from my Progressive perspective.
And what is it with the "you people" thing? What kind of "people" do you think I am?
no
she's not above questioning. All during the primaries we questioned her and questioning was allowed but it was never allowed of Obama.
Obama ran a holier than thou campaign with himself as the head of a purist cult who can do no wrong.
The tea thing is one of the most sexist things you can say.
Rendering an opinion on Marc Rich is all that may be needed to kill his nomination.
Let's face something: Obama is a hypocrite. He lied to a ton of people to get them on board and then does an about face.
So let me ask you
I know you were a Clinton supporter more out of pragmatism than belief, but even today your attitude towards this appointment seems overly harsh.
You don't feel that Clinton's 8 years of service as an activist First Lady, qualifies as diplomacy?
And, she was onto microloans before they won a Nobel prize. You don't think someone with that kind of intellectual curiousity is a good person to deal with the impending global economic crisis, as our economy begins to collapse.
And if Obama is as smart as you give him credit for, he has to realize that Clinton's Iraqi withdrawal plan was far to superior to his, and he should give her enough autonomy to oversee it herself, freeing him to focus on domestic issues.
I am quite excited about the possibilities, because she is uniquely qualified for this, more so than any others who have been speculated, and certainly better than a Fucking Repub.
I don't think that Obama is setting her up to fail, because he risks alienating many people who like this idea. But as lambert says, Obama has never really missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so we shall see. Right now, he's still getting the benefit of the doubt. Most of what he has done, is what I expected him to do, but this proposal has definitely peaked my interest.
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
Let me answer, Aeryl
No, I don't think the pro forma activities of a First Lady qualify as international diplomacy experience.
And harsh? Hardly; I can do harsh, and this isn't it. Hillary is very smart, and I think the choice of a woman sends a very good message about equality - or at least our aspirations towards it - to the most benighted regions of the world, so there are pluses. I don't like her overall foreign policy attitude, which I find too heavy on militarism, but that's my taste. Good old Bill has an ego as big as anyone on the planet, and it is one thing for him to keep it in check with his wife as President and quite another for him to do it with her as SoS in someone else's administration.
I hope it all works out, but I am mildly apprehensive.
Richardson better than HRC?
How so? Richardson comes off as a dolt and his history during the Clinton administration wasn't one of superior excellence. I should have my statement by saying that she was the best person realistically available to do the job of SoS (i.e. amongst those being seriously considered: Kerry and Richardson).
With regards to PUMA: All they ever were were a rag-tag group of people who said they weren't going to vote for Obama, not necessarily that they were going to vote for McCain. That has been repeatedly said here and yet people continue to push distortions about "them" (Mind you, they weren't really an organization; it started at Riverdaughter's site as just a way to name the lot of people, like myself, who planned on not voting for Obama, whether it be leaving the top of the ticket blank, staying home, voting for a third party, or even, yes, voting McCain). Why you continue to consider them "the enemy" is beyond me.
And why do you need to mention that whoever still has problems with what was done during the primary (hint: more than just misogynistic and homophobic bigotry) will have to do it with our "Poster Woman" "subservient" to Obama? There's no reason to inject such a misogynistic undertone. It's unnecessary to say the least.
Just the plain truth regarding SoS
It is a subservient position, entirely, and one she does not have to take. Her buisiness, her decision, entirely, but it isn't the act of someone harboring deep ill will from having been serially abused. In my view it rather takes the impact out of continued umbrage.
Your opinion of Hillary vs Richardson is one I do not agree with, no more complicated than that. I asked for some justification to support the contention that she is the Best Available for SoS, and am still looking for that. Not suggesting she'll be bad, she's smart and tough and a quick study, but IMHO more than a little too enamored of power and not near enough taken with diplomacy.
Raises hand, BIO
I asked for some justification to support the contention that she is the Best Available for SoS, and am still looking for that.
See above
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
answered, Aeryl
see above
teas and state dinners, and hostage negotiations
hostage negotiation is a specialized [and useful] skill, applicable to a specialized and finite situation, a situation that's going to have one of only a few possible outcomes.
the figurehead of the department that's all about getting along with the rest of the world? relationship-building is a long-term [never-ending, actually] enterprise, requiring all the skills of a generalist. just the kinds of skills [and relationships] that teas and state dinners are designed to build.
and a woman who's got the ovaries to travel to a large country in the grip of a secretive and brutal and misogynistic regime and tell them to their faces that they've got to treat their women and girls like human beings? dayum. and who still remains widely loved and admired the world? you do know the definition of diplomat, don't you?