Hillary Clinton

While it now appears that people around Obama are happy with the choice of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State, there were reservations over this at first. Huffington Post has an excerpt about the appointment from Renegade: The Making of a President.  While I had reservations about her being appointed to this position, I reluctantly supported the decision thinking that Clinton would do less harm in such a post than in the Senate, especially as this would keep her away from health care reform. It turns out that Senate Democrats were also happy to see her out of the Senate:

Obama was under no illusion about the legacy of the long primary season. During one transition meeting, Obama said he wanted to offer Clinton the diplomatic job. “I’m really interested in pursuing this, but I know she has some hard feelings coming out of this campaign.” Emanuel and John Podesta, the former Clinton official who ran the transition, assured Obama that she was over those hard feelings now. Obama smiled and said, “Believe me. She’s not over it yet.”

His decision to offer her the job of secretary of state came surprisingly early. Well before the end of the primaries, when his staff and friends still felt hostile to her, Obama decided that Clinton possessed the qualities to carry his diplomacy to the rest of the world. “We actually thought during the primary, when we were pretty sure we were going to win, that she could end up being a very effective secretary of state,” he told me later. “I felt that she was disciplined, that she was precise, that she was smart as a whip, and that she would present a really strong image to the world…I had that mapped out.”

Recruiting and managing a team of rivals would not be easy, and Clinton came with her own set of issues. Chief among them was her campaign debt, which she wanted eliminated before she took the job of secretary of state. Would the president-elect go out and help her to do so? “I’m not begging her to take this job,” Obama told his senior aides. “If she wants it, I could help. But I’m not willing to go out in these difficult economic times to do a flashy fundraiser in California.” As it happened, plenty of people in the Senate were begging Obama to offer Clinton the job. Obama’s aides believed that many Senate Democrats thought Clinton had extended her presidential campaign far beyond the point where she had lost the election. Her negative advertising wasted Democratic money, threatened to undermine the party’s nominee, and suggested that she was disloyal to the party. They were unwilling to offer the junior New York senator a position ahead of her lowly rank, and she stood little chance of becoming majority leader. “There was a lot of encouragement from inside the Senate to get her into this job,” said one senior Obama aide. “They wanted her out of there.” …

As for controlling the uncontrollable Bill Clinton, Obama’s aides drew up a series of checks on his fundraising for both Clinton Global Initiative and his work on HIV/AIDS across the world. But they really counted on Hillary to be the ultimate safeguard - against both her husband and her own ambition. “It’s in her interests to keep him in line,” warned one senior Obama aide. Others in Obama’s inner circle said the president-elect believed Clinton needed to demonstrate that she was a team player and to shape her own career and legacy. “There are plenty who don’t trust her and think she still harbors something,” said another senior adviser. “It’s still potentially problematic down the road. Barack’s thinking on this is that it’s not in her interests to mess with us. She can’t win that fight internally and she’s smart enough that she won’t want that fight publicly.”

The key to understanding Obama is to appreciate that politics trumps all other considerations when he makes a decision. During the campaign many noted how he "threw under the bus" his mother, his pastor, his long-time foreign policy adviser, etc. when they became political liabilities. Since winning the election politics continues to reign supreme. His first appointment to the new Administration was his political director.And it was not a coincidence.

His political handiwork could be seen in his trek down to the Capitol to talk to House Republican leaders and to his surgical removal of Hillary Clinton from any important foreign policy decisions. Even before Hillary's confirmation her political dissection began to take place. She had to endure the public examination of Bill's foundation contributors and the humiliation of having her number 2 at State appointed without consulting her.

But all this pales in comparison to Obama's decision to set up a White House centric foreign policy apparatus. Not content with only the National Security Council residing in the White House, Obama created the posts of Envoy reporting to him and not the State Department. In his announcement of the first mission of Middle East Envoy George Mitchell the President himself, sitting between Clinton and Mitchell, made it abundantly clear that the Middle East was a priority for this Administration and that Mitchell ( who will report to him) was being charged by the White House and not the Secretary of State.

Then today, the Associated Press is reporting that Obama's friend and adviser Samantha Powers, who left the campaign because she called Hillary a "monster", is coming back as a senior White House foreign policy adviser. Up until now Powers has been serving as the head of a State Department transition team and you can bet Hillary did not choose her for that job.

By selecting Clinton, Obama rid himself of his most dangerous political adversary. In her new role, Clinton is forbidden to participate in poltics. And now he has effectively marginalized her as a force within the Administration. The question is how long will Hillary stay. I would guess until Obama fulfills his pledge to pay off her campaign debt.

Japanese electronics maker Panasonic used to use the slogan

"Just slightly ahead of our time"

Readers of this blog have been treated to similar ahead-of-the-curve intelligence regarding various economic issues. And now, might I remind you what I wrote when Hillary Clinton announced she was stepping down from the Senate to serve as Secretary of State 

New York's next Senator? by Ironman | November 23, 2008 at 1:21 PM

• Just one year ago it would be hard to have imagined the obscure Lt. Gov of New York, David Paterson, having the power to make or break a national level political career.

But with Eliot Spitzer and now most likely Hillary Clinton out of statewide office, Governor Paterson now gets to decide who will be the next great NY state politician.

The Albany Times-Union has a story about the choices facing Governor Paterson. He has taken his own name out of contention, but there are plenty of ambitious Democrats eager for a move up in the world. http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=742556

A few crass political calculations come to mind here. Appointing Attorney General Andrew Cuomo removes a possible primary opponent to Paterson. Having failed in 2002 to win the gubernatorial nod, Cuomo may try again; but as of yet Paterson's ratings are pretty good and he obviously would have a huge bloc vote supprting him in a primary race. 

The other element here is the 2010 NY Democrat ticket violates the time honored "balanced ticket" approach.  David Paterson and Chuck Schumer are both from NYC; which casts less than 30% of the statewide vote.  Therefore there will be great interest in considering an upstate/suburban candidate; especially as Daniel Moynihan and Hillary Clinton were perceived as non-NYC candidates and the state legislature is now controlled by NYC Democrats.

The other demographic concerns are that the huge white Catholic bloc in NY (which frequently votes Republican) may not have a prominent statewide Democrat candidate in '10; nor is there a woman incumbent seeking re-election statewide for the Dems in '10. Hispanic  political figures are also arguing it is time for a statewide Hispanic officeholder, but a candidate like Nydia Velasquez might struggle upstate trying to hold the seat.

Given those considerations, don't be shocked if suburban Albany Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand    gets picked by Paterson. She fits all the necessary balancing factors as an upstate catholic woman, who has a centrist record for a Northeastern house Democrat (She is a Blue Dog). She also has been a fundraising machine in her races.   

Gillibrand would need to resign her Republican oriented house seat.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_20th_congressional_district_election,_2008  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_20th_congressional_district, but we might do well to get a stronger candidate  for the special election than millionaire Sandy Treadwell, a rather low intensity figure.

One thing we should now be painfully aware of is the Democrats have stopped doing things for self-gratification that don't make political sense.  I think David Paterson will help himself with his senate appointment; even if it is perceived as yet another step away from vocal leftism.  

So, I saw Kirsten Gillibrand on the radar weeks ago. And now she's been seen again

Confirmed: Kirsten Gillibrand Chosen to Fill Clinton's Senate Seat

January 22, 2009

 

PIX11 News ExclusivePosted 6:02pm | Updated 7:35pm

 

PIX NEWS is being told that Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the reported choice of Governor David Paterson to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.  Two Congressional sources say members of the New York delegation have been invited to join Governor Paterson for the announcement in Albany at noon tomorrow. 

Of course, there's the usual NY State political intrigue. Gillibrand's awareness the Consitution contains a 2nd Amendment offends some downstate liberals, and LI gun grabber Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is making noise about a possible primary.

I expect Chuck Schumer will put the kibosh on this; especially as McCarthy hasn;t shown any recent fundraising prowess ( Think SE PA libs whining about Bob Casey, circa 2006)  

But, grab the popcorn!

Quin Hilyer doesn't think Hillary Clinton should be confirmed as Secretary of State, for a variety of reasons.  Others suggest the emolument clause of the Constitution or the Clinton's foreign entanglements could create problems during Senator Clinton's confirmation hearing.  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Most of the potential problems seem basically unrelated to the role of Secretary of State, or have been addressed long ago.  Perhaps more relevantly, relationships matter and by all accounts Hillary Clinton has good relationships with her Senate colleagues.  I very much doubt her fellow Senators (especially in a large majority Democratic Senate) will play hardball against a colleague.

But there's a more interesting aspect to Hillary Clinton's appointment as Secretary of State.  Consider...

• Hillary Clinton's major interest and specialty has been a domestic policy: universal health care.
• Hillary Clinton's 1993 health care reform was a famous failure.
• Universal health care will be one of the top, immediate priorities of the Obama administration.
• Obama has appointed Hillary Clinton to a foreign policy position.
• This will take Hillary Clinton entirely out of the picture - even out of the country - during the upcoming legislative fight over health care.

Hillary Clinton is a very polarizing figure on the subject of health care.  It may not have been a major factor, but I doubt this went unconsidered by either Obama or Clinton.

Just one year ago it would be hard to have imagined the obscure Lt. Gov of New York, David Paterson, having the power to make or break a national level political career.

But with Eliot Spitzer and now most likely Hillary Clinton out of statewide office, Governor Paterson now gets to decide who will be the next great NY state politician.

The Albany Times-Union has a story about the choices facing Governor Paterson. He has taken his own name out of contention, but there are plenty of ambitious Democrats eager for a move up in the world. http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=742556

A few crass political calculations come to mind here. Appointing Attorney General Andrew Cuomo removes a possible primary opponent to Paterson. Having failed in 2002 to win the gubernatorial nod, Cuomo may try again; but as of yet Paterson's ratings are pretty good and he obviously would have a huge bloc vote supprting him in a primary race. 

The other element here is the 2010 NY Democrat ticket violates the time honored "balanced ticket" approach.  David Paterson and Chuck Schumer are both from NYC; which casts less than 30% of the statewide vote.  Therefore there will be great interest in considering an upstate/suburban candidate; especially as Daniel Moynihan and Hillary Clinton were perceived as non-NYC candidates and the state legislature is now controlled by NYC Democrats.

The other demographic concerns are that the huge white Catholic bloc in NY (which frequently votes Republican) may not have a prominent statewide Democrat candidate in '10; nor is there a woman incumbent seeking re-election statewide for the Dems in '10. Hispanic  political figures are also arguing it is time for a statewide Hispanic officeholder, but a candidate like Nydia Velasquez might struggle upstate trying to hold the seat.

Given those considerations, don't be shocked if suburban Albany Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirsten_Gillibrand    gets picked by Paterson. She fits all the necessary balancing factors as an upstate catholic woman, who has a centrist record for a Northeastern house Democrat (She is a Blue Dog). She also has been a fundraising machine in her races.   

Gillibrand would need to resign her Republican oriented house seat.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_20th_congressional_district_election,_2008  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York%27s_20th_congressional_district, but we might do well to get a stronger candidate  for the special election than millionaire Sandy Treadwell, a rather low intensity figure.

One thing we should now be painfully aware of is the Democrats have stopped doing things for self-gratification that don't make political sense.  I think David Paterson will help himself with his senate appointment; even if it is perceived as yet another step away from vocal leftism.  

File under "rumors"  at least for now.

In 1988 Joe Biden had two brain aneurysms. Serious to be sure but he's been healthy for twenty years. Good for him. However, there is a rumor that he will withdraw after the VP debate claiming health concerns and be replaced as the nominee by Hillary Clinton. Such a move could be a game-changer though hard to pull off should the rumor become common knowledge in advance of the debate...

It seems according to this report  www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127679 running on Arutz Sheva, silly politics has become more important that defending Israel.

Hat tip to Moe Lane at Redstate for pointing me to Michelle Cottle's convoluted reasoning at The New Republic concerning Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

Titled 'Shattered', it starts out asking the big question for everyone on the Left, "Can someone please tell me what the hell happened?" Obama supporters want the answer to offer substance to go with the stuff they've been shoveling. They know they won but haven't yet figured out how. An answer would point them in the right direction as the diss Hillary strategy is no longer available. Cottle and the rest of Hillary's supporters want answers to ward off the next pretender to Hillary's throne.

I like Cottle's assessment of the Hillary campaign.

... This presidential election was supposed to be a high-water mark for feminism. Hillary Clinton ... wasn't running as a Woman [or] to prove herself tough enough to hang with the Big Boys: [Her] strategy was to prove that she was tougher than the Big Boys. ... Hillary's candidacy was expected to showcase what it means to be a broad-shouldered, ass-kicking modern woman.

Iowa was where Hillary's inevitability narrative unraveled, but New Hampshire was where she got the idea that redemption lay in the legions of gals who rallied 'round when the (mostly male) political establishment and punditocracy began salivating at the thought of her imminent demise. ... Hillary's now famous moment of teary-eyed vulnerability fueled their fury. ...

And, just like that, the strong, proud, fearless, gender-transcendent Hillary morphed into a disrespected, mistreated victim. Grievance feminism came roaring back with a vengeance. ...

... the Democratic National Committee was compelled to insert into its platform this statement: "We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all."

Not even the primary's resolution could end the drama. ... the true dead-enders--an overwhelmingly female cohort--grew ever more marginalized and belligerent. ... they were increasingly derided as overly emotional and downright nutty. ... the extremism of Hillary dead-enders has played into all those tired stereotypes about women being fuzzy-headed and irrational.

The short version is Hillary talked tough but folded under pressure playing the gender card. Her supposed legendary leadership skills fizzled revealing a woman who couldn't run a campaign, let alone a nation. The "If you don't choose Hillary, you're sexist!" group did garner her a loyal core group but it was unable to deliver the nomination. Democratic "girlie-fication" was so complete, PUMAs forced anti-sexist language into the formal platform. That was the extent of real Democratic support for women. Hillary was the feminist heroine struck down while on her holy quest.

Enter Sarah Palin. Determined to stick to her non-sexist guns, Cottle goes after Palin, not on the issue of gender, but on the issue of issues. Well, maybe not so much.

The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor's policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care. ...

... Palin is abjectly unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is less than two years into her first term as governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to that of Baltimore or Fort Worth. Her minimal experience with national domestic issues is overshadowed only by her total lack of experience, or even apparent interest, in foreign affairs. This ... makes the cynical tokenism of Palin's selection all the more vivid.

Having analyzed Hillary well, Cottle fails to bring the same objectivity to Palin's evaluation. She seems unable to conceive that choosing a woman of "intelligence, politcal savvy, [and] judgement"; a "smart, ambitious" woman; a "ballsy" woman who also happens to be a "staunchly conservative" woman could be anything other than "cynical tokenism". Yes, she really did say all those nice things about Sarah Palin before dismissing her just because she's a woman.

Strong, accomplished women are acceptable only if they're Democrats. Drooling GOP neandrathals wouldn't nominate one until the Left showed them the political value in it. Palin isn't the nominee because she's all the good things Cottle says about her. She's the nominee because her vagina might attract votes. Palin is just a political whore being pimped by McCain.

At some point, Cottle and the Left must give up the unqualified token woman meme. It's a non-starter and a bad-ender, too. Go back to championing the right to kill unborn babies, to tax the country into economic oblivion, to enshrine destructive energy policies into environmental utopian fantasies, to cling to 20th century solutions for 21st century problems and the rest of the bunk passing for serious issue debate on the Left. They'll fare better with traditional losing arguments than with talking down the gender they'd love to praise but can't just because of ideology.

But, perhaps Cottle is a faux feminist willing to put Party before private parts. Or maybe, deep down, she's not a real feminist at all. Seeing Hillary implode at the first sign of trouble, perhaps she's convinced if Hillary couldn't weather the storm, no woman can. If the Left brings their own storm - going after Sarah with smears, lies and distortions starting with her family and moving to her person, her positions and Party, then doing it all again; belittle her, shame her, wound her enough and she'll fold. If Hillary couldn't take it, who is this upstart from the outside to think she can? At the end of the day, she's just a woman, after all.

Who knows? Cottle may even be right. I don't believe it, but she sure seems to. What to do, and what to say, however, if she turns out to be wrong? So who is the one advancing the feminist cause? And who is fighting a principled fight for the rights and opportunities of women? It would appear to be John McCain. It sure isn't Barack Obama. And it's not Michelle Cottle, either.

Thinking Cottle gets the nod for President of Hillary dead-enders - but what do I know - I only have a penis ...

Blue Collar Muse

Not even Nostradamus could have predicted that in 2008 the one woman on a major party presidential ticket would be a Republican, or Governor of Alaska, or mother of five, or a moose hunter.  Yet, today, we have all four in Sarah Palin.

Any betting American would have predicted Hillary Clinton as the “feminist” role model of the year.  Hillary Clinton, a product of the feminism of the 60s and 70s, where “femininity” meant weak and “motherly” a flaw.

Sarah Palin, the Republican Party’s new favorite daughter, is of the new breed of feminists, those who believe women have crucial roles as wife, mother, and nurturer, and because of that -- not in spite of it -- they can be powerful, and effective executives. (Note: The lipstick line) 

Last night, Palin gave the speech she needed to give and so much more.  She demonstrated why she was a superior choice for McCain vs. the other so-called "short list" VP picks. Not only is she smart, tough, articulate, and dynamic, but also feminine, compassionate, and real.
Some critics thus far have focused on the fact that she defied expectations because the bar was so low. Hogwash!

I ask them to watch or listen to Sarah Palin again. Her convention address would be considered enormous, even superior, by any standard. That she's a woman, a mom, from provincial Alaska, and was elevated to national player status less than a week ago, all make her showing on the campaign trail thus far all that more impressive.

The bar is now set so high that Palin faces an incredible challenge for the remainder of the campaign and her career: continue meeting the elevated expectations.

Yet, I’m confident Palin will do just fine.  As long as she holds on tight to her integrity – staying true to her values, her personality, her womanhood … as long as she emphasizes her strengths while acknowledging her weaknesses. 

In the primaries, American voters rejected candidates who appeared to “play” leader, rather than act like one -- hiding their true selves and letting the media bait them into running from their supposed flaws.

Palin brings the authenticity to politics that Americans demand more so in a YouTube, people-powered media environment, where everyone is the media and regular people become celebrities in an instant.

Almost every child dreams of being a star at some point, and the Internet makes that possible for more of us.  If you have what it takes, you don’t need to be part of an elite club or have required connections.  Be confident, set goals, reach your potential, stay true to yourself, take care of your community and there’s no limit to what you can do.  Read: Vice President, United States, Alaska Governor, Mom.     

Sarah Palin.  A new hero for women, and men, across America.

In 2000, many Republicans thought they could defeat Hillary Clinton for the NY senate seat by calling her "shrill" 

 ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- The head of the state Republican Party accused Hillary Rodham Clinton of being "an angry woman" driven by "blind political ambition"

It was the second harsh letter from Powers to surface in a week. The first had called the first lady "cold-blooded and hotheaded" and denounced her as a "shrill and scheming person."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/20/newyorksenate.ap/index.html

Didn't work for us. But never mind, the Democratic party brain trust thinks this sort of petty charge will work against a Republican woman candidate.

Palin also took a swing at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of the "current do-nothing Senate" for comments he made about McCain.

Reid's spokesman Jim Manley fired back, calling Palin's remarks "shrill and sarcastic political attacks."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.democrats.reaction/index.html?iref=hpmostpop

I guess namecalling is a step up from cyberstalking pregnant teenagers, but, we're still at the playground level when the worst thing they can attack is the tone of a woman's voice.

A little advice to our unhinged lefty friends; The shrill is gone