Hillary At State Would Be Like LeBron at Interior

The 'Hillary will be Obama's Secretary of State!' rumor makes no sense. Five reasons:

5. No foreign policy bigthink gains. You could go with a firm antiwar liberal for obvious reasons. Or if you're feeling creative, a GOP pragmatic realist to expand the anti-neocon coalition. Hillary isn't either.

4. This is a great time to get big domestic stuff passed. Hillary cares about health care a lot -- does she really want to miss out on the fun?

3. My sense about the Clintons is that they're more suited to being electoral politicians than top-level civil servants. Would Hillary be happy in someone's Cabinet?

2. As the Newsweek story suggested, Team Obama doesn't like being chained to Bill Clinton.

1. Most of all, why would Hillary leave the security of a safe Senate seat that she can be re-elected to for the next 20 years for a high-turnover Cabinet position?

Comments

[Corvus]

Number One is why I've never understood why people leave their seats for the Cabinet. People elect senators and governors to president, not cabinet secretaries. It's not as high profile, so I don't see why they seek it out. The allure of the Executive?

On the other hand, I think it might make sense if she really is planning on running for president again (in 8 years). Assuming the Obama administration is a good one, and gets two terms, whoever is going to get the nomination after him will have to in some sense be seen as his successor. Biden could run, but he will be older than McCain, so the field is essentially open. After this last primary, which I think will still be part of the narrative in 8 years 9 (it was that epic, and that divisive), she really needs to wed herself to Obama in order to run as any kind of continuation of the New Democratic Brand (whatever it is at that point). Being the Secretary that is, I believe, fourth in line to the presidency is a pretty good way to do that.

Also, in the slightly more grotesque, "small" concerns of electoral politics, Hilary will be 68 in 8 years, and there will be even more ageist, sexist hurdles for her to deal with. Somehow, I think the aura of being a diplomat (+ being Hilary) might blunt that a little. No one wastes time talking about what Madeleine Albright is wearing, or how old she is.

As far as five goes, he will probably keep on Gates, thus his drawing in the GOP realists, so state is a different call.

Basically, I think she goes for it if she still has aspirations of being president someday, no if she just wants to be a senator for life.

[Stephen]

In her current position she gets to keep her campaign money and raise more when she's up for reelection, and since McCain wrote the campaign finance law so he could use his Senate campaign cash to run for President, Hillary will once again be able to enter the race at a huge advantage. That goes bye-bye as SecState.

It's also incredibly unlikely that Hillary would last 8 years as SecState; no one else ever has. She could run for NY Governor, probably, but that would actually diminish her national stature and she would run into the same campaign finance issues every other Governor does when trying to run for President.

There's no upside for either Obama or Hillary here. And Kerry as SecState is just dumb, as is Al Gore. Pretty much what we've got is the myopic Beltway press throwing darts at a list of all the Democrats they personally know who have been prominent in the last couple decades. Their Veepstakes speculation was more informed than this nonsense.

[Corvus]

I doubt Hilary would last 8 years as SecState, but she doesn't need to. She only needs to last about four, or maybe five or six. I don't think you can fulfill the role of SecState while running a major presidential campaign, and campaigns are starting, what, like two years ahead of election night? Be SecState for a term and some change, resign, write a book, then start campaigning for president without a dayjob in the way.

I'm not saying it will happen; that really depends on she wants. But I don't think it is as farfetched as you guys are making it sound, and there is a logic behind taking it.

[Corvus]

Hey, look: its seems Andrew Sullivan has the same idea as me (although I don't think it's a position to oust him in 2012).

[Corvus]

And he's right about healthcare (in fact, I was thinking of that too, but didn't put it in comments). Hilary's biggest problem with staying in the Senate is seniority. Most of the major legislation that comes up will be coming from committee chairs, and Hilary has no chairmanship at the moment. If she runs for president after 16 years in the Senate without being able to claim credit for any of a host of democratic legislative accomplishments, she will be in a very poor condition. She was able to run absent these before because she's Hillary Fucking Clinton, but after 16 years, if she can't claim credit for health care (and she won't, Baucus or Kennedy will) then she won't have much to run on. If she is SecState, she can run as both Obama's successor and on whatever foreign policy successes the administration accrues, which could be huge.

It's just a question of if she still wants it.

[Stephen]

Sullivan has a very real and very serious Clinton pathology. I don't mind him, generally taking each thing he writes on its own merits or lack of same. But I refuse to give any weight to what he says about either Hillary or Bill Clinton because he simply cannot get free of the original and still the only real Derangement Syndrome.

Sully might be right, broken clocks and all that. But he just has no credibility writing about the Clintons.

[Corvus]

You think Sullivan has CDS? Try Al Giordano.

I suppose it's worth keeping in mind whether or not Obama really wants Clinton as SecState.

Sullivan might have devoloped a hatred of the Clintons under conditions I don't agree with, but I think the primaries proved ("Hardworking Americans, white Americans" "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice.")that his general assessment of them has weight .

[Sir Charles]

For all of the reasons Neil outlined this makes no sense to me as well -- from either Hillary or Barack's perspective.

[Jon O.]

This story has really done a lot to put all the primary ugliness before us one more time. Sully turned up the crazy again (and he's always been more pathological regarding the Clintons than just about anybody, even Palin.) The folks at TalkLeft are in agreement that this is just a way for the Oborg to hamstring Hillary. It's infuriating, really.

Honestly, has nobody really considered that he's not planning out his cabinet with politics as the primary consideration? That's not even how he ran his campaign (picking Biden, refusing to take the bait time and time again.) If he's going to pick Hillary, maybe he sees her being able to do a good job with it. Am I drinking the Kool-Aid or something?

Moreover, why would anybody at this point consider rationally that the Clintons still have knives out for Obama? He's the face of the Democratic party, won the election with a clear mandate (that's right, mandate), and has already indicated an affinity for co-opting his rivals. Long story short, anybody planning an intra-party insurgency on this guy probably hasn't thought it out very much. And even if we do end up with the nightmare scenario of an abject failure on Obama's part, Hillary becoming the 2012 nominee isn't going to help Democrats hold the White House.

[Joe]

Obama may offer the secretary of state position to Clinton out of respect while fully expecting her to turn it down-- and Clinton may want the honor of the offer. Also, Kerry and Clinton, (and for that matter, Biden) may all be or have been bored in the Senate. It seems like a difficult place to get anything done, and they might see people like Kennedy and Byrd as having stayed too long.

[Mudge]

We all sit here and assume (as males) the mindset of Hillary Clinton. Perhaps she would view Secretary of State as a challenge. Perhaps she sees a long haul ahead of her to achieve a meaningful Senate chair and wants some visibility. Perhaps the Senate was always a means to an end and she has given up on that end. There are all sorts of reasons why individuals of independent means do things that I do not understand.

If she takes the job she will be doing something very important in this post-Bush era. It will be difficult and a huge challenge. She'd be putting America first.

[Sir Charles]

Mudge,

Are you suggesting that there would be a unique female perspective on this question?

I assume that like most politicians Hillary foresees herself in a long term influential role. A cabinet secretary is by definition subject to a finite time in office and is obviously circumscribed by whatever role the president finds appropriate. I can't imagine Hillary giving up a safe Senate seat for a job in which she will likely have a shelf life of 4 to 6 years, after which what?

[Corvus]

after which what?

The presidency?

Closed the tag - Stephen

[Mudge]

Sir Charles,

I have not found women to think in the same way as men in many respects. Not better, not worse, just different. It is the bounty or burden of the differencs in how we are raised and treated.

But that aside. You assume that Hillary wants a safe Senate job. Why? She does not need the money and she may not, for whatever reason, enjoy the club all that much. Who knows? I for one admire someone who wants something more than a safe Senate seat. She's been "the wife of Bill", one of 100 in a (largely) men's club and sought the presidency. Maybe she enjoyed the self reliance and freedom of the presidential campaign and wants to do something more individual than the Senate. Maybe 50 years from now she would rather be remembered as a Secretary of State of some achievement than be a forgotten senator (most are), the loser of a presidential primary, or the wife of a president. Ambition takes many forms.

And after 4-6 years..a faculty position?..a University Presidency?..an ambassadorship? Being an influential blogger? It seems to me there are many options open to her.

If you assume that Hillary foresees herself in a long term influential role, then of course, we must ask, how long is long and is it more influential to be a Secretary of State or a Senator? For some reason I just don't see Hillary slogging along another 20 years in the Senate. Would you rather have lunch in the Senate cafeteria with Lieberman or caviar on the Black Sea with your counterpart from Georgia. Would you rather go to Baghdad for a photo-op or to solve a difficult problem?

I think there are many rational reasons why an ambitious, energetic individual would reject the Senate for Secretary of State.

[Sir Charles]

Mudge,

I'm skeptical about ascribing modes of thinking to gender. That aside, I think Hillary could be a major power in the Senate and could emerge as the eventual majority leader and be instrumental in passing some truly important legislation. This could be pretty appealing at a time when it looks like we may be on the verge of a new progressive era.

Secretary of State can be a pretty frustrating position. Very few Secretaries of State over the last fifty years have really controlled the foreign policy agenda. Some, like Powell, Rogers, and Vance have been completely undermined. Hillary's a pretty astute student of history and I don't this has slipped her attention.

[Sir Charles]

That's "doubt" not "don't." Typing on a bus from DC to NYC, It's a little bumpy.

[raft]

prediction for the record: Obama will offer the job of Secretary of State to Clinton and she will take it. It will prove to be one of the most brilliant decisions either of them ever makes.

[Corvus]

Thank you raft. At least someone agrees with me, in some degree.

Let me respond to each of Neil's points, for Neil is wrong.

5) I think you are judging the usefulness of such a pick by the wrong standards. Obama is much more interested in personal skill and knowledge than token ideological balance. Besides, Obama is himself a firm antiwar liberal, and he can probably cover the GOP realist base elsewhere, say by retaining Gates at Def. Including a liberal hawk actually would be expanding the bigthink; at least, it would be giving them some sense of presence in the administration.

4)Healthcare is already shaping up to be a battle for credit between the Baucus and Kennedy. Baucus has the procedural power, and Kennedy will have the soft power from the cuacus. Hilary will be third in line after both of them, and unable to claim substantial credit for it, and lacking a committee chairmanship, will be unable to majorly shape it, leaving her a bystander on her main issue. Other than that, what are the big domestic issues that Hilary has been working on? Video games? Flag-burning?

3) Being SecState is one of the most powerful positions in the country, and is incredibly high profile. Hilary's profile is the Senate came from being Hilary, not from her power as a senator. Running state would give her the power and prestige to fit her stature in the party. Remember, this is State we are talking about, not agriculture or something.

2) Still a worry. But, much easier to handle when you can fire them.

1) As I said upthread, it all depends on what Hilary wants. Did she become a senator to be a lifetime Senator? Or did she want some high profile office for a launch at the presidency? (the latter) Does she still want to be president someday? (yes) If she would rather have another shot at the oval office, is she served better by being in the senate, or being a powerful voice in the cabinet? If she stays in the senate for the next eight years, (Let's just assume she isn't pure evil and plans on a usurpation in 2012) she has to rack up a list of accomplishments to justify her time there and her relevance. That might be hard to do, because a lot of the big bills will probably pass from committee chairs, or be part of an agenda that Obama is advocating. Her star might fade. Also, after eight years, the make-up of the party with be Obamaism, not Clintonism, so no one will be interested in a simple return to the nineties. However, if she is Obama's top diplomat for several years, that gives her a very public role in major foreign policy decisions, giving her the opportunity to claim a position as the actual heir to Obamaism, since Biden will be super old. In order to be relevant in 8 years, she needs to reinvent herself as his successor, and she can't really do that in the senate. Also she doesn't really even need to stay there 8 years, just four or six, then start running for office, possibly racking up an early presidential endorsement. (You can't run for president as SoS anyways).

Hey Neil, Obama might not really be making the offer, and Hilary might not accept it. But it is nowhere near the nonsense you make it out to be. You reasons are based on suppositions of character that be don't really know for sure, and are no more likely than my own suppositions.

By the way, like raft, I think it's a brilliant choice, if he goes with it, and gets it. Going with people of Clinton and Emanuel's caliber gives a really clear sign that he is not fucking around with this. He wants the big guns only. He clearly wants the Executive running as a large, turbo-charged machine. He wants to get stuff done (and I think it will be stuff I like, or at least in the right direction).

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

5> I don't see the case for Hillary Clinton having enough 'personal skill and knowledge' in foreign policy to justify this. She was on the wrong side of the Iraq War and Lieberman-Kyl Iran bill. There's a lot of fish in the sea and wonks in the think tanks, and I'm sure we can find someone better. A Secretary of State need not be a generalist like Hillary, and once we open the field to foreign policy specialists who don't need to be able to win US elections I'm sure we can find better people.

4> The Ezra gossip is that Kennedy's health situation keeps him from playing anywhere near as big a role as he'd like. Being third on redesigning the US health care system, especially when Baucus basically came out with your plan, is a good gig.

3> Don't know who I want to say is more powerful -- do you want broad and diffuse power, or concentrated power to deal with a few issues?

1> When was the last time somebody made the move straight from Cabinet to President? The Senate allows you to act for yourself and engage in individual political positioning a whole lot more than the Cabinet does. And 2-term presidents don't usually have one SecState the whole time. The average SecState lasts 3.22 years. If you want to be president, stay in the Senate and spend the next 8 years doing something that Democratic voters will love you for. Don't take a job where you're basically supposed to take bullets for Obama if anything goes wrong.

[Stephen]

Hillary just doesn't bring anything special to State. The best pick at this point is Richardson, unless he does have enough inappropriate baggage to disqualify him - a level that I suspect is going to be a bit lower in Obama's administration than others we've seen. Richardson has acted like an ass ever since he got back to NM from the campaign trail, but that's because he's better suited to be a good soldier than the Executive, no matter what he thinks. He'd behave and brings incredible diplomacy skills to the table - and a good reputation around the world, perhaps in this arena a bit better than Hillary's.

[BruceMcF]

5. No foreign policy bigthink gains. You could go with a firm antiwar liberal for obvious reasons. Or if you're feeling creative, a GOP pragmatic realist to expand the anti-neocon coalition. Hillary isn't either.

The Obama administration may not be looking for foreign policy big-think gains in their first term. They may be looking to backing out of ill advised overseas adventures, rebuilding frayed relationships, and trying to stay ahead of brush fires before they blaze out of control.

So put the big-think person as NSA, and advance them when Secretary Clinton retires from the position in year 5.

4. This is a great time to get big domestic stuff passed. Hillary cares about health care a lot -- does she really want to miss out on the fun?

This is another Obama reason to like the idea ... too many cooks spoil the broth, with Baucus and Kennedy both working on it, and the Obama administration working on it, having the Clintons working on it too may not be a net benefit. And the Gov. of New York would definitely be appointing a yes vote on any Obama health care plan, so there's no risk on just the head count front.

3. My sense about the Clintons is that they're more suited to being electoral politicians than top-level civil servants. Would Hillary be happy in someone's Cabinet?

This could be conflating Bill and Hillary. Definitely Pres-elect Obama has interacted with Hillary at closer quarters than any of us, so he may have a different view ... he may think she would be an excellent executive for a branch of government that desperately needs bulking up to take on the Defense Department parallel foreign service.

2. As the Newsweek story suggested, Team Obama doesn't like being chained to Bill Clinton.

Hillary may be more independent of Bill in an executive position than in a legislative position ... this could be helping to side-line Bill Clinton more than if Hillary is the Junior Senator from NY and Majority Leader In Waiting.

1. Most of all, why would Hillary leave the security of a safe Senate seat that she can be re-elected to for the next 20 years for a high-turnover Cabinet position?

This would explain why the deliberate leak ... to reduce the bargaining time Senator Clinton has to bargain over the terms for her taking the position.

[John Rove]

It seems that Hillary's personality is more the type to paracute in and be the hero. The Senate doesn't give her that opportunity the secretary of state would. So I guess if she is offered the position she will take it. I also bet she is fired from the position or resigns for personal reasons sometime during the first term as her instincts for what is the right thing to do seem highly askew.

[Corvus]

In response to Neil:

5) SoS need not necessarily be a wonk. The State departments main job is at diplomacy and international relations. It's a diplomatic role, and thus one where personality and prestige is key. Hilary knows everybody, and is reportedly quite warm in person (kos says she is, at least). You can fill out the lower levels with wonks (like NSA). Assuming this is an actual choice, then Obama is clearly going for star wattage, someone who can negotiate with their own heft, and not just as an emissary of the president. Basically, making Hilary State is like making it its own sub-presidency, where the master is not necesarily the best informed on all issues, but the one best situated to combine those threads and make a decision.

1) When was the last time someone went from being first lady to senator of New York? When was the last time a newly reelected one-term female senator was considered the favorite to win a major party presidential nomination? Hilary's career in politics is completely unprecedented. Being at State gives her automatic exposure to the public eye, and allows her to rebrand as part of the Obama team, which is likely going to be useful if she runs in 2016. 3.22 years is quite enough time to do this, provided she fills her time with something else, and starts running around when she did last time.

[Stephen]

The Baucus/Kennedy dynamic is just as likely to be one where Baucus is positioning himself to receive the baton when Kennedy dies, as it is a competition to the "I saved healthcare" legacy. And when it comes to the Senate, there's always 100 cooks for every piece of legislation, so it's not like having Hillary around would put that aphorism into play any more than it already will be.

More important than what Obama might want - and speculation on that score based upon any purported desire to neutralize a Clinton threat is silly - is what Hillary wants. Her foreign policy has always been standard-grade DC groupthink, which suggests that Hillary's self-assessed strengths are not in that area but domestic policy. Politicians always run to their strengths. And she'll always be Hillary Clinton, even in the 100-person Senate. She'll always overshadow the entire body, especially on healthcare. If a national healthcare plan is passed, it'll be seen as personal vindication for Hillary Clinton, especially if she's in the Senate when it happens.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

I do like the 'Hillary as international celebrity who can use her star power on foreign leaders' thing. If this is actually happening, that'll definitely be an upside.

Being at State gives her automatic exposure to the public eye

Your own argument explains why she doesn't need this -- she has it already whenever she wants and sometimes when she doesn't.

and allows her to rebrand as part of the Obama team

Yeah, this would have to be the point.

[Corvus]

Your own argument explains why she doesn't need this -- she has it already whenever she wants and sometimes when she doesn't.

I mean more in the sense of getting individual stories into the media. How has Hilary stayed in the eyes the six years before running? I remember things like holding press conferences with Newt Gingrich, hanging out with Rupert Murdoch, complaining about video games and flag-burning. Basically making up controversial partnerships and demagoguery concerning inconsequential. She has had to create events to stay in the public eye. This isn't to say that she can't get media attention on her own. Most senators wouldn't have gotten the same attention for the same stuff. But she has had to come up with excuses for the media to follow her. It was never just the media going, "Where's Hillary Now?" As SecState, she could just do her job, and the camera will follow. And as thus, the things she gets attention for will be more substantial, and not things that piss of free speech absolutists and partisans.

Also another thing to consider. Watch this diavlog with Anne-Marie Slaughter and Stephen Walt. Consider the huge number of foreign policy issues that are going on right now, issues that the president can't deal with all at once. Having someone with Clinton's global stature at State allows the Executive to open up a second front for dealing with foreign affairs. There's the president talking with Pakistan, there's the SecState conducting meeting between Israel/Palestine. Not only does this allow for more things to get done, it will also give Hillary clear accomplishments she can claim as her own.

[Corvus]

Sorry, the diavlog is here.

Just in case:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/15813

[BruceMcF]

and speculation on that score based upon any purported desire to neutralize a Clinton threat is silly

Which Clinton threat? Heading off a 2012 challenge is expecting to fail, not working to succeed, so heading off a Hillary challenge is a silly reason to advance.

OTOH, there's Bill, where the issue is not so much a threat as the natural desire of a new administration to avoid the shadow of Big Dawg.

[BruceMcF]

and speculation on that score based upon any purported desire to neutralize a Clinton threat is silly

Which Clinton threat? Heading off a 2012 challenge is expecting to fail, not working to succeed, so heading off a Hillary challenge is a silly reason to advance.

OTOH, there's Bill, where the issue is not so much a threat as the natural desire of a new administration to avoid the shadow of Big Dawg.

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

So: I'm short Hillary for SOS on Intrade at 72.5. That's right, the market was giving her a 72.5% chance of becoming SOS.