Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned. Obama’s advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton’s foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.
The piece sounds more thinly sourced than a New York Times hit piece on McCain, citing no “unnamed sources,” but simply saying “the Guardian has learned.” I have yet to figure out why Clinton would want the position. The slot is prestigious, but the job description includes a particularly anti-Clintonesque requirement that she serve Barack Obama’s legacy, not her own. As a fairly sensible thinker on foreign threats, who seems unallergic to the exercise of American power where appropriate, she’d undoubtedly part ways at times with her more “naive” boss. If I were Obama, I’d be wary. There’s plenty of undermining that can go on in the State Department while Clinton keeps up appearances of loyalty. I continue to think power playing in an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate would be more to her liking. But if she truly wants the position, there’d be something tragically poetic about this:
Could former President Bill Clinton’s charitable affairs cost Hillary Clinton the secretary of state job in Barack Obama’s administration? That’s what insiders are wondering after reports that the former president’s financial and foreign entanglements could hurt the New York senator in her bid for a Cabinet post. Politico.com reported Monday that Democrats “are becoming exasperated” by Bill Clinton’s response to requests for information about his finances.
Predictably, most other would-be saboteurs (outside the Clinton marriage, that is) are in the liberal wing of the party.
And the clearest opposition to the Clinton appointment comes from Obama’s backers on the left of his own party, whose initial support for him was motivated in part by a distaste for the Clinton dynasty, and who now view her reemergence with some dismay. “There’s always a risk of a Cabinet member freelancing and that risk is enhanced by the fact that Hillary has her own public and her own celebrity and that she comes attached to Bill,” said Robert Kuttner, a Clinton critic and co-editor of the American Prospect whose new book, Obama’s Challenge, implores the president-elect to adopt an expansive liberal agenda. “The other question is the old rule – never hire somebody you can’t fire. What happens if her views and his views don’t mesh?”
An unnamed Democratic source points to distraught and somewhat pathetic Obama backers who “believe in this stuff more than Barack himself does,” and see the potential packing of the administration with Clinton officials as counter to their dream of an administration filled only with lollipop princesses and dreams. Meet Barack Obama, the political opportunist, guys. Christopher Hitchens, recent Obama backer and noted neocon ally, missed the “Strange New Respect” express throughout the primaries, and is not about to jump on now, calling the potential Clinton pick a “ludicrous embarrassment:”
Christopher Hitchens appeared on “Hardball” Monday night and voiced his strong opposition to Hillary Clinton being named Secretary of State. Appearing with Peter Beinart of Time, who is for Clinton’s appointment, Hitchens said, “This is the woman who played the race card on Obama… This is the woman whose foreign policy experience consists of making a fool of herself and fabricating a story about Bosnia.” He also brought up the Clintons’ overseas fundraising connections and called the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State a “ludicrous embarrassment.”
He forgets, apparently, that Obama did his share of expert race-card playing, and Hillary was often the victim. Meanwhile, all the right people are happy, and all the right people are mad, so count me in. Update: According to Page Six (which means it’s better-sourced than a NYT hit piece on McCain), Chris Matthews doesn’t much like the Hillary idea:
“I don’t understand it,” Matthews bellowed. “Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She’ll just use it to build her power base. It’s Machiavellian. And then we’ll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn’t want drama. He’s already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He’ll have even more drama with her. “She’s just a soap opera. If he doesn’t pick her, everyone will say she’s been dissed again, we’ll have to live through that again.”
