Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New York Mag Heilemann Must Read: What's Behind Obama's Consideration of Hillary as SOS

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:43 AM
Original message
New York Mag Heilemann Must Read: What's Behind Obama's Consideration of Hillary as SOS
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 09:07 AM by flpoljunkie
The Closest of Frenemies

In all the dizzying personal and political complexities of Hillary at State, one thing is clear: Obama has nerve.

By John Heilemann
Published Nov 21, 2008

It wasn’t a done deal when these words were written, but there’s an extremely good chance that by the time you read them, Barack Obama will either have named or be on the verge of naming Hillary Clinton his secretary of State. The job would seem to be hers if she desires it, with her spouse vowing to do “whatever they want” to eliminate potential conflicts of interest posed by his promiscuous globe-trotting and buckraking. Although I’m told by people close to Hillary that she’s ambivalent about exiting the Senate, she craves a new challenge and sees a grand one in being America’s ambassador to the world at this hinge-of-history moment. And, hey, let’s be blunt: Were the idea, having coming this far and become this public, to fall apart now, the ensuing humiliation would be grievous and mutual for Obama and Clinton. Too grievous and too mutual, that is, for them to let it happen.

So it appears that we’re about to embark on a new chapter in the Obama-Clinton saga. Motivating the characters is a blend of cold-eyed calculation and gauzy idealism; selfishness and selflessness; the good, the bad, and the ugly—all the stuff that’s made the drama in which they have co-starred as operatic, twisted, and riveting as any in modern political history. What is different now is where Obama and Clinton might be headed: toward a kind of reconciliation that eluded them even after the hatchets were supposedly buried once their nomination fight was over.

No one disputes that the implications of this putative development are huge: for Obama and the Clintons, for foreign and domestic affairs. And opinions differ wildly over whether the pairing would be a stroke of genius or a match made in hell. But what strikes me as most interesting about it—along with the other appointments Obama has made so far—is what it suggests about the president-elect, from his conception of his embryonic administration to the size and contours of his ego.

The sheer improbability of the thing is striking, too, of course. All the happy-pappy posturing of the general election—the emphatic endorsements, the labored “unity” in Denver, the energetic stumping by Hillary for Barack, the two-way tongue bath between 42 and the soon-to-be 44 at a rally in Florida in the campaign’s final week—did little to alleviate the bedrock enmity between the two sides. The Clintons continued to regard Obama as a featherweight, a phony, a usurper. Obama neither liked nor trusted nor thought he needed Hill or Bill; he bridled at their apparent insistence that he kiss their rings.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/52428/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent, excellent read. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. Very good article. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. What's the point of referring to Kerry and Richardson as "pompous" and "doofus".
I finished the piece, but frankly, it lost me there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
high density Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Pompous?
That is a trait of about any elected official in DC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. I don't consider either Kerry or Richardson in a negative light and
believe they both are quite humble men despite both having almost unlimited gifts.

For me, true arrogance resides in someone like George W. Bush, who carries himself as if he is top dog despite knowing almost nothing about anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I agree with your assessment, Old Crusoe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hey there. Good morning.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Good afternoon!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomaco-10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
14. I don't know OC. bush* does not seem to be ....
carrying himself like the top dog as of late. He looks defeated and slump shouldered to me. I think he's been boozing it up hard and looks like a dejected, dried up, old drunk to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Hi, nomaco-10, and let me say straight away that your descriptions of Bush
in posts on DU have been just about perfect.

You're writing the caption beneath his picture that he deserves.

Yes -- lately he does look dispirited and out of it. After Obama's Inauguration, I think your point on Dubya's drinking will come to light.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Exactly! Why can't someone write
a political article without using stupid corporatemedia descritions of our most dedicated leaders?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Hi, zidzi.
You blue angel, you. Happy November!

We WON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Yeah, we did! And, we're going
to be celebrating in so many ways we don't even know, Crusoe. :fistbump:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:17 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. That made the piece irrelevant to me. I read it yesterday, when when
people feel necessary to insert things like that, it generally means their point is weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
4. Some juicy, compelling writing in this piece.
Thank you for posting the link for us.

I like the zoom-in/zoom-out energy of the piece especially.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
6. Not The New Yorker, New York Magazine. Very different publications. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Sure are! Inadvertent error. Thanks, NYCGirl!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nomaco-10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:06 AM
Response to Original message
8. Good read. Thanks for posting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. Second to last sentence: "This strategy is either shrewd or delusional."
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 09:17 AM by ClarkUSA
If there are still "Hillary, Hillary, Hillary" media circus leaks by "Clinton associates" occupying every other MSM news cycle for
the next four years, the verdict will be that the decision was "delusional." If the only time we hear about Hillary is when Team
O wants to mention them, then the answer will be "shrewd."

For the Obama administration's sake, let's hope the recent past is not prologue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
16. Brilliant
Kicked & Rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
17. I love it that Obama has the nads to name Hillary SOS.
He's awesome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. Very good read.
K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
20. It's interesting..very. I don't agree
with the writer's negative corporatemedia descriptions of Kerry and Richardson, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
22. who could it be... who could it be... could it be...?
SATAN????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. That blows the hell out of the epithet "O'Bambi" launched in the primary.
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 05:59 PM by AtomicKitten
Turns out Obama is the one with testicular fortitude after all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
24. Good article.
These two paragraphs summarize it best for me:

Then there are the more subtle advantages to picking Hillary. Foreign policy is prone to internecine conflict in any administration, with the secretaries of State and Defense, the national-security adviser, and often the vice-president all jockeying for position. And Obama’s regime—with Joe Biden in the building and Robert Gates likely to remain atop the Pentagon—will be no exception. But Clinton is much closer to Biden than most people realize; that campaign gaffe of his about her making a better V.P. than him was more like a Freudian slip. And Gates, like many Republicans, is said to respect Hillary immensely; indeed, no Democrat is regarded more highly by the opposition and the generals.

Little of this, it should be noted, is true of the other shortlist candidates to run State. John Kerry and Bill Richardson are both fine men, qualified on paper for the job. But Senator Pompous has long had an intensely competitive relationship with Biden (“They’re like brothers—in every sense,” reports a Biden confidant) and is unbeloved by the GOP. And does anyone really think that Governor Doofus (or, if you prefer James Carville’s formulation, Governor Judas) possesses anything close to Clinton’s candlepower? Or gonads, for that matter? You can bet your last dollar that Emanuel, for one, does not.

I agree that Biden and Hillary are close, they have been friends for years and the Republicans in Congress do respect Hillary. That's why almost every Republican, including the chairman of the party, hailed her SOS likely appointment as a good one. She also won the respect of the military brass by being very prepared when she met with them, by listening to their concerns and by acting on their advice. I also don't think that either Kerry or Richardson would have the immediate impact on the world stage as Hillary. She knows most world leaders personally and is well liked and respected by them. Ditto for Bill, for that matter.

I still have my doubts whether it will be a good choice for her as she will lose some of her independence and the power base that she enjoyed in the senate.

;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
25. Another dig at Richardson and Kerry, what a surprise.

Amazing, how Bolton thought back in JULY she could end up in the State Dept. I still think it was a brokered deal. State Dept was the best they could get but they want to sell it that Obama just had to have Hillary, they expected no quid pro quo (and of course let's make sure we trash Kerry and Richardson in the process).

John Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, who forecasted as early as this past July that Mrs. Clinton could wind up at the State Department, laughed as he offered the incoming president this piece of advice: “Obama should remember the rule that you never hire anybody you can’t fire, especially as secretary of state.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15obama.html?hp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC