This is exactly the kind of detailed political question I don’t follow so let’s try some crude, fact-poor economism. Hillary Clinton commands the loyalties of significant segments of the Democratic Party. The implication is that Obama will need these segments for what he is trying to do. Since Obama already has 58 (?) Democratic Senators on his side, we should conclude that Obama will try to do lots in the first few months of his term; this is the "throw long and deep" scenario.
He can always encourage her to leave later, if the relationship does not work out. Latinos, on the other hand, are stronger as voters than as a lobby or as an organized segment of the Democratic Party. The implication is that they will get relatively little at the beginning of Obama’s term — when lobbies are needed — but successively more as the next election approaches.
Addendum: Andrew Sullivan considers other hypotheses.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
I think this is organizational sociology.
How else can you simultaneously give her a position of “honor,” and send her overseas?
You can’t very well give the almost-President an ambassadorship.
Plus, the Sec. of State has to spend a lot of time explaining why what the administration is doing is the right thing to do.
Finally, you have to believe that the chief objective of Obama is to prevent a Hillary primary challenge in 2012 which, even if unsuccessful, would augur doom for his re-election chances. With Hillary often overseas, she’ll be unable to tap her donors and build much of an organizational network.
I’m more interested in why she accepted. Taking a potential problem out of the Senate seems like a no-brainer, but giving up a life-long Senate seat for a political appointment is a less obvious move. When you look at the fact that she still has mounds of debt, which could be removed by raising money for her reelection, taking a job that has no fundraising aspect is a little bizarre.
This was done to try to keep her from a primary challenge in 2012.
It won’t work, and worse, it puts her in a better position to undermine Obama if she wishes.
Exactly how does this put her in a better position for 2012. It’s not as if the SoS will be criticizing the admin’s policies. Further, it would be utterly shocking to see a standing President engaged in a primary battle. That just doesn’t happen. You don’t eat your own.
Stephen,
It happened in 1980 and 1992.
As for the SoS not criticizing the admin’s policies, that sort of thing is easily done through leaks to the press- leaks that always put the subordinant in the very best light of things.
Obama is being foolish in letting Clinton get close enough to knife him in the back.
I would say that Hillary’s ambitions for the Presidency are over. She realizes that her being a woman and being saddled with Bill are too much to overcome. When an unknown, untried young Senator can sail out of the corner and take away the nomination because: 1. He’s black and 2. He’s not you, it’s clear you have no chance to ever be President. This way she can at least attain her goal of making history with this appointment. She also seems certain she can win a Senate seat again if she wants one.
This is a bad appointment. My idea is perhaps the Clintons have something
on Obama and he knows it. Clinton alluded to it during the primary – that Obama
could never win. I dont buy into that the Clintons are so great – a law degree
and moving into NY to take over a Senate seat that should have gone to a
real New Yorker is so egotisical and greedy (just like RFK).
It feels as if Obama is a frontman for something – he is just too dependent on
others and owe others.
Being young and inexperienced, Obama doesn’t really know many people of significance. He barely had the money to attend the 2000 Democratic Convention.
His close acquaintances fall into two main camps:
1. Sleazy Chicago political operators like the Daleys, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarret, Penny (Superior Bank) Pritzker, and the like. (I know you like to imagine he hung out a lot with U. of Chicago economists, but there’s little evidence for that.)
2. The unhousebroken leftists that he hung out with in the 1980s and 1990s like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and younger versions of them. Once the glare of publicity dies down, the younger leftists will get lower level posts in the Administration, but not yet.
So, Obama is staffing his administration largely with Clinton Administration retreads he read about in the newspaper in the 1990s.
My thoughts exactly–so much cynicism.
It would be naive to think politics didn’t enter into Obama’s calculations, but to assume that they took precedence over everything else (qualifications, etc) seems a bit extreme to me.
Looking at Clinton’s time in senate, it’s hard to deny a few things: 1) she learns quickly 2) she’s gets things done and 3) she’s a pragmatist. Add to that her nearly global name recognition–not to mention how it hearkens back to the days before the current administration made ours one of the most despised countries on earth, and it seems like, regardless of politics, she’s not a bad choice given Obama’s vision for foreign policy.
@ Steve Sailer:
As a President-Elect with a large transition team, you’re telling me Obama’s problem is that he doesn’t know many people? Come on.
Obama knows he over-promised on immediate troop withdrawals. Having Hillary as Secretary of State will allow the administration to gracefully back down from some of Obama’s prior statements, without looking like it is changing course 180 degrees.
The implication is that Obama will need these segments for what he is trying to do.
What is he trying to do?
I don’t see it helping either candidate.
Hillary would have a hard time raising money for another Presidential run as long as Obama is in office. Her old contributers have moved on. If she stayed in the Senate she may just become bored. The endless often petty debates gets very old for people who like to do things, in contrast to people who give speeches about doing things. She should have been a governor.
What does Hillary bring to Obama? Obama has less experience in international relations and the military then any President in the last 100 years. Hillary isn’t much better. I think Obama was stung by the criticism from the left and women’s groups when he never considered Hillary for VP. By offering this position he mutes that crowd. Plus Biden was a pain to Obama after his selection.
If we have an international crisis that goes bad, which is a certainty, he has Hillary to hang out to dry. People are unlikely to blame Obama when Hillary will be such a well know potential target.
Did you consider the possibility that she is the best choice for the job?
What do we need: Someone with extraordinary analytic skills who is willing to master tons of detail about very complex regions of the world. Somebody who doesn’t come with preconceived notions about the important parts of the global. Essentially a collater of information from first class undersecretaries, whose job will be to master the complexities of each individual region (China/Japan, Russia & Co, MidEast, Afghanistan — they’re all hot spots now, with more to come). There aren’t that many people who have the skills to handle problems of this scale.
I think picking Hillary was a total hypocrisy on Obama’s part….she voted for the war….he criticized her for that and I respect that he stood up to her….how about Rowanda? Bill & Hillary did NOTHING!!!
What was the deal behind closed doors after her endorsement of Obama?
He does not need her!
Comments on this entry are closed.