This “Will She, Won’t She” Stuff Is Getting Old

I’ve had mixed feelings about Hillary Clinton becoming Secretary of State from the start, but the longer it takes for Sen. Clinton to make up her goddamned mind already, the less open I’m becoming to being persuaded that it’s a good move:

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.

Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation. Mr. Obama’s office told reporters Thursday that the nomination is “on track” but Clinton associates only confirmed Friday afternoon that she has decided.

“She’s ready,” said the confidant. Mrs. Clinton was reassured after talking again with Mr. Obama because their first meeting in Chicago last week “was so general,” the confidant said. The purpose of the follow-up talk, he added, was not to extract particular concessions but “just getting comfortable” with the idea of working together.

A second Clinton associate confirmed that her camp believes they have a done deal. Senior Obama advisers said Friday morning that the offer had not been formally accepted and no announcement will be made until after Thanksgiving. But they said they were convinced that the nascent alliance was now ready to be sealed.

Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, issued a statement Friday afternoon cautioning that the nomination is not final. “We’re still in discussions, which are very much on track,” he said. “Any reports beyond that are premature.”

Jonathan Alter — not someone who normally offers compelling or trenchant commentary — told David Shuster on Countdown a couple of nights ago that Hillary’s “Hamlet act” is disrespectful. I agree.

Kevin Drum pretty much expressed my feelings in a post he titled “Obama’s First Drama: Hillary Clinton“:

I was agnostic on the matter of Hillary Clinton’s possible appointment as secretary of state–until last night.

If Barack Obama, the president-elect, wanted to pull a Team of Rivals play, that had seemed fine to me. And placing Clinton in Foggy Bottom would remove her from the dicey business of passing health care reform. Would it unite the party? Well, judging from the election results, the party is pretty darn united already. Despite the griping of a few Hillaryites at the Democratic convention, her voters certainly swung behind Obama in the general election (see Pennsylvania), after HRC and WJC campaigned for BHO in the fall. Unless an explicit deal was made between Obama and Hillary Clinton, it did not seem that Obama, after bypassing her for veep, had to appoint her anything for the party’s sake. Still, if Obama and his savvy band of advisers thought that handing her one of the best jobs in the Cabinet would generate political benefits they could use to advance their agenda, I, as a non-fan of Hillary Clinton, was willing to say, okay–for what that was worth.

But then this happened: the presidential transition of no-drama Obama became infected by the never-ending soap opera of the Clintons. And it really is time to turn that program off. There are plenty of policy and political reasons for a progressive not to fancy Hillary. She served on the Wal-Mart board when the mega-firm was fighting unions; she screwed up health care reform for almost a generation; she voted wrong on the Iraq war and then refused to acknowledge she had erred. But, worst of all, as the cliché goes, with the Clintons, it always does seem to be about the Clintons.

So we’ve had a week of will-she-or-won’t-she and what-about-him. Couldn’t this have been handled with a little more grace? Maybe not, since it involves the Clintons.

Josh Marshall thinks Clinton would do better to stay in the Senate:

On CNN this afternoon Wolf Blitzer quoted some critical stuff I wrote yesterday about making Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State. So I wanted to add some context. It’s not just that I have doubts about the job Clinton might do as Secretary of State, which I do, it’s also that I want her to stay in the senate. I think it’s the perfect job for her. Hell, she’s my senator. I’ve voted for her. Her voice, ability to politick, her smarts, just who she is as Hillary Clinton are really needed there, especially as Ted Kennedy’s health may limit his ability to push big legislation in the way he has for decades. It’s not one or the other; it’s both. She’s needed in the senate.

If some Clintonites are concerned that the senator is putting her independence at risk by moving to State, many Obama supporters have the same fear: they worry that putting such an opinionated and powerful political figure at the head of foreign policy will put Obama’s presidency on the path to repeating mistakes of the past:

Some in the Democratic foreign-policy community worry about the implications for a cohesive diplomatic message, given the differences in substance and tone between the supporters of the two Democratic giants.

“Foreign policy is probably where Clinton and Obama differ the most,” said the Democratic official. “They just have fundamentally different instincts. On the big decisions, Obama can and will certainly call the shots, but the consistency of follow-through could really be a problem. And the instincts on the smaller decisions will be very different. Cohesion of our foreign policy could suffer.”

More commentary: The Moderate Voice, TPM Election Central, Matthew Yglesias, Steve Benen, The Reaction, Taylor Marsh, Donklephant, and Lost in Transition.

Via Memeorandum.

Explore posts in the same categories: Politics

Tags: Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.