Why would Obama put Clinton in his cabinet? THREE WORDS.

[Bicoastal]

Team. Of. Rivals.



Chase, Steward, and Bates ran against Lincoln for the Republican nomination in 1860. And Stanton was--GASP--a Democrat.

[Ozma]

1. Lincoln was wise to do that. And we know that Obama

has been reading about Lincoln recently.

[mr_hat]

2. I've got four:

Keep your enemies close.

[Bonn1997]

4. So he'll give a position to McCain and Palin too then!

[jenmito]

13. They aren't enemies. They're failures and distractions not worthy of paying attention to.

[Bonn1997]

15. Yeah, that's a fair point

[jenmito]

17. Thanks. :)

[TheDoorbellRang]

36. No. His cabinet were all his competitors for Republican nomination

Not from the other parties.

[Nederland]

51. Wrong

Edwin M. Stanton was a Democrat.

[TheDoorbellRang]

53. By golly. You're right. Forgot he started out as a Dem

You think this means Obama would consider adding McCain to his cabinet?:scared:

I wonder how far Obama is willing to go to follow Lincoln's template for his cabinet.

[Nederland]

54. Nope

I think there is a chance he'll keep Robert Gates on as SecDef though...

[Hippo_Tron]

60. I've suggested all along that he should give positions to McCain and Palin

Palin can be Secretary of Making Sure the Russians Don't Invade us From the Alaska Border and McCain can chair the Follow Bin Laden to the Gates of Hell Commission.

[Bonn1997]

76. Big LOL!

[BlueEyedSon]

77. We could send McCain to Afghanistan to search for OBL personally....

[Sequoia]

18. Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.

Hillary is not the enemy, she can be a friend. Sarah now, that's another story. I wish she would disappear into the white blinding snow of Alaska and stay there.

[elocs]

29. That statement is continually repeated like it is some immutable law of the universe

and it is unquestioningly accepted, quoted over and over like it came from the mouth of god. Sounds clever, but I don't necessarily buy it.

[Sequoia]

71. It's pathetic isn't it? I sure don't my enemies closer to me.

I'd rather kick them to kingdom come (where ever that is!)

[pnorman]

56. I don't think O'Bama would regard her as an "enemy" (some of her PUMA followers, perhaps)

I have that book in Audible.com format, and have listened to it twice so far. I'll probably listen to it again before the inaugaration!

pnorman

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. But why make it easier for them to stab you in the back?

Despite the snarky, I do think that there should be a position for the Clintons.

[moodforaday]

74. That's a dumb thing to say

and even dumber to repeat it every thread this comes up.

Hillary I couldn't care about one way or the other. But people like Larry "Women have inferior brains" Summers are not Obama's enemies: they are your enemies and mine.

(ed: typo)

[HeraldSquare212]

3. The Republican party was new then, formed of pieces of other parties.

Putting all the party leaders in the administration made sense and was probably a necessity to govern.

[WI_DEM]

5. or maybe because he thinks she would do a terrific job?

[lapfog_1]

6. I don't care about the "rivaly" of whoever he hires

what I do care about is the judgment, honesty, experience, and competency of whoever he selects.

Hillary does not have any of those qualities.

[Bicoastal]

9. At this point, I think Obama might know Clinton a little better than you do...

...no offense.

[lapfog_1]

14. I'm just going by her record - no offense - n/t

[Deep13]

10. "...judgment, honesty, experience, and competency...."

How do you figure? Seems to me she has all of them.

[greguganus]

12. Honesty? What about sniper fire? n/t

[Deep13]

27. You think she shot people?

You did not explain what you meant so I have to guess at which campaign factoid you are talking about.

Anyway, that proves nothing. I frankly believe her. She's a civilian with limited experience about those things and may simply have misunderstood what she heard.

Do you REALLY think a campaign exaggeration makes someone dishonest? That is pretty naive. I think ones good faith in serving the public is far more important an indicator of honesty than that.

Anyway, this is old ground and I am not going to reargue it.

[lapfog_1]

30. "factoid"? We have film, lots of film.

She said she landed under sniper fire. And they ran for the armored humvees.

The film shows something entirely different.

And it wasn't like she told the story one time, she told it repeatedly.

It was a lie.

Does the President want his SoS coming back from some trip to a foreign country and telling him out an out lies about the experience?

[Deep13]

34. You made your point and I made mine. I'm done with rehashing the primary. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

42. Wow. You said it. I'm going to be dropping out of DU until all this Clinton-hate goes away.

Christ. I thought we were done with this shit.

Clinton endorsed Obama, cast her OWN VOTE at the convention for him.

Obama is considering Senator Clinton for what is probably the most important position in his cabinet, but we get the primary shit all over again.

See you later, Deep13, when the shit-storm is over...

[lapfog_1]

21. OK...

judgment - she voted FOR the Iraq war.

Honesty - Kosovo trip. (out and out lie)

experience - First Lady is not a job. 6 years in the Senate and what does she have to show for it? What in her education qualifies her for SoS?

Competency - Her campaign. She had all the advantages coming in (a ready made base, money, name recognition, etc, etc), and her HIRES to run the campaign were some of the worst in recent history and ran her campaign right into the ground.

[Deep13]

32. Your remark about first lady is blatantly sexist.

She's just his wife! What did she do besides wash the dishes and make coffee?

That is an ignorant and sexist thing to say. She was the president's closest advisor for eight years. She has experience no one else has or could have besides Bill himself. If being VP is qualification, then being the kind of first lady Hillary was certainly is. Frankly, she's a lot more qualified in terms of experience than the new president is.

I don't know what you mean about Kosovo and I will not guess. Her commitment to public service demonstrates honesty more than any remark on the campaign could. For example, I do not consider Obama dishonest for denying that he said he would meet with the president of Iran without preconditions when he clearly did say that. He hadn't thought it through and quickly realized it was not the right position, but he did say it.

I can't argue about the campaign. That was a royal screw up. I do not, however, think poor campaign management means inability to do the job or part of it (as the State Dept. is part of the executive.) Anyway, that criteria would also exclude Al Gore, John Kerry and Joe Biden.

I'm not going to reargue the war vote yet again. Suffice it to say, that vote also disqualifies Kerry and Biden.

[lapfog_1]

39. Bullshit.

Anytime someone says anything negative about Hillary, the charge is sexism.

She did absolutely NOTHING to get the "job" of First Lady. She married Bill.

No one elected her to that role, AFAIK there were no other candidates to fill that "cabinet" role.

She didn't have a security clearance and did not read the Presidential Daily Briefs.

She was nowhere near being VP. She had NO constitutional duties, unlike the VP. She took no oath of office.

And if we elect a woman to be President, the EXACT SAME THINGS will be true for that person's husband (or wife or partner).

It speaks VOLUMES that you missed the Kosovo trip controversy. She lied about it. It was all over the news and DU.

I glad you agree with me that she is incompetent. The way she ran her campaign showed a lack of experience and judgment in running an organization. She promoted people that did not deserve her trust. And it IS important because so many career politicians (including Obama before this campaign) never demonstrate executive abilities. Running a large government agency or department requires more than political skills.

As for the Iraq War vote, you imply that Kerry is also disqualified. I have no problem with that.

[Phx_Dem]

73. Sexist? That is absurd.

The only person who mentioned washing dishes is you. I seriously doubt Hillary either washes dishes or makes coffee, but that's beside the point. Being married to someone doesn't qualify you for their job. Period.

[TankLV]

48. That is only YOUR opinion.

Not based on the FACTS.

Don't let your irrational hatred of all things Clinton cloud your judgement...

[No Elephants]

7. Another theory: Obama promised her the position. If he appoints her to anything, that will be

the reason, IMO.

[mtnsnake]

8. beachmom suggested that book, too, earlier this morning in another thread

[WI_DEM]

16. It's an excellent book.

[Pirate Smile]

11. Another theory First Read is pushing:

*** Hillary at State? As we've learned with anything regarding the Clintons, one never knows exactly how serious the speculation might be. But let's assume the news -- reported last night by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell -- that Hillary Clinton is in the mix as a potential Secretary of State is as serious as it appears. (Because if it's not, and her name is being floated only to be rejected, it's going to make her more upset. But we digress…) The best reason for Obama to be looking for a place in his cabinet for Clinton is simple: to get her out of the Senate. Just ask George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter what it was like to have a once or future presidential rival in the Senate serving as a one-person Roman tribunal. Remember how easily the press gravitated to John McCain in '01 or Bob Kerrey in '93 or Ted Kennedy in '77 to allow them to be one-senator judge/juries on Administration proposals? The upside for Obama putting Clinton at State (or even the Pentagon) is that it gets her out of the Senate and gets her out of the domestic policy debates. Also, one other thing to keep in mind if Clinton does end up at State, she'll be off the political circuit; it’s considered unseemly to practice politics while serving in one of the big cabinet posts, especially at State or Defense. So this would mean no more Hillary on the stump for candidates, no more Hillary raising money, no more Hillary collecting chits. OK, we will now take First Read away from Machiavelli and turn it back over to the current authors.

[crispini]

19. Hehehe that's brilliant.

Very plausible. :D

[Skwmom]

25. Since when did something being considered unseemly stop the Clintons?

The Clintons would NEVER take the position if they thought it would decrease her political power. Did they ever think of that?

[Beausoir]

59. Like a broken record...smear after smear after smear.

Perhaps you should try finding employment?

[karynnj]

37. Very clever

Add to that that it is the President who is the "decider" on foreign policy. Obama, backed by Biden and anyone else he trusts as advisor in addition to the SoS will make the decisions.

The best thing is that he has a lever to control Clinton drama. If either Clinton goes off speaking their own foreign policy - Obama NEEDS to reel them in. So, as long as they are helpful she is in - if they aren't she is an ex S0S.

[phleshdef]

20. If he gives her anything its because she IS qualified and she worked her ass off for him.

I've been an Obama supporter since the beginning. But I would never withhold due credit. Hillary became a great asset to helping get Barack elected and even though I didn't support her for president, I can't deny that she is a very smart and very savvy on the issues.

I can't believe anyone is even acting surprised by a possible high position for Hillary. It should have been an obvious thing to assume after the conventions.

[karynnj]

38. Did she work as hard or well as Kerry and others?

Not really.

[Arkansas Granny]

41. I don't know how many rallies Kerry and others held for Obama or how

much money they raised for his campaign. Do you have that info?

I do know that Hillary campaigned hard for Obama as she promised she would do after he won the nomination.

[karynnj]

65. I don't know the numbers,

but Kerry was at rallies from January onward. he also was the surrogate who was on TV constantly. Kerry sent his endorsement to his list of 3 million people - urging them to contribute and to join Obama's list. This helped raise money in January when it was needed. Kerry's assistance was certainly greater than the Clintons - which was considerable in September and October.

I know the Clinton fundraisers raised money - but the majority of Kerry fundraisers (and many of his strategists) went to Obama after Kerry opted not run. That makes this impossible to compare.

[Arkansas Granny]

70. So, if you don't know the numbers you don't know who worked the

hardest. I would say that the help that Kerry and Clinton both gave to Obama was immeasurable and very important.

[karynnj]

72. No I do not know the number you request

but they don't measure the whole of Kerry's support.

Kerry gave him the 2004 speech (without which I seriously doubt he would have run)

Kerry gave him an early endorsement - after HRC won the NH primary.

I don't know the number of rallies - but over the 11 months it was higher than HRC's count. In Sept/Oct he was doing many Obama rallies, doing appearances in MA because he had a September primary (thanks to angry Clinton supporters) and a general election run - though neither were ever remotely close. He was on as an Obama surrogate multiple times a week - and unlike Clinton who had more in her Senate account, he gave $1 to the DSCC in addition to many fundraisers.

[MaineDem]

22. Or...he wants to

Many of us who know very little are making very big assumptions about Obama's thought process.

[Skwmom]

23. So you put one of the MOST POLARIZING people, one that MANY do not trust or respect

in a key position and hope to unite this country how????????

Obama is sending signals that it will be business as usual and that he is too weak to enact real change.

[Bicoastal]

28. NO--Sarah Palin is the most Polarizing person in the country.

Clinton isn't so polarizing anymore, IMO--she won a lot of people's respect after the primaries, including mine.

If you want to believe that Obama beat the Republicans and the Clintons this year because he was "weak" and "business as usual," be my guest.

[sohndrsmith]

24. Mark Murray (Murphy?) on msnbc made a very good point this morning on this:

At least I think it was him... Clinton would be less of a rival in his cabinet than she could (potentially) be in the Senate... which could be a risk considering their contentious battle in the primaries and her fierce ambition (to a fault, at times). Their agreement on most policy issues would tend to discount the idea that she would be a thorn in his side in the Senate, but her example of putting personal power/ambition over integrity (which is what I saw in her during the primaries) concerns me.

As far as SoS, I find her too adversarial for that role. When I think of the need for detente, the image of Hillary Clinton just doesn't fit for me. I'm not wild about Kerry for the position, either. That said, I think - and hope - both of them are in the cabinet in positions that make the most sense. Obama is waaaaay smarter than I will ever be, so if he ends up choosing Clinton for SoS then it will be fine with me.

Lynn Sweet had the best perspective on this, (I paraphrase)... she said that Obama is just about the most confident person there is, and he does owe some gratitude to Kerry for launching him with the DNC speech, but Obama isn't going to pick his cabinet based on emotion or sentimental reasons or as "payback". He's going to pick whoever he thinks is the best person for the particular position. That is as it should be.

There are other ways to show gratitude, but offering top-level posts based on paying back a favor is one reason we have an abundance of very bad, unqualified, under-qualified, ineffective politicians. Obama gets that, thank goodness...

[Skwmom]

26. Well, there is a thing known as over-confidence (as in I can appoint Clinton to this

high profile position and control her and Bill).

[sohndrsmith]

78. hm... possible, I s'pose. You really think? I don't see it, personally.

Obama has done nothing that speaks of over confidence in my view. I think many of us are so used to poor judgment in politicians (and yes, over confidence) that we're not sure what to do with good judgment when we fall over it. Which is right about now.

I'm curious - you see something else?

[blm]

31. How about THIS: His meeting with Bush2 went a LOT like Clinton's meeting with Bush1

and Obama was treated to a clear drawing of what the future holds for him and his family if he dared to be the open government advocate he said he'd be during the election.

[mtnsnake]

35. How do you know this?

[blm]

49. this thread is speculating....I'm offering what I believe Bush WOULD say to Obama knowing the

history of the Bushes and what they NEED from their successors.

You must think Bushes are honorable people. I believe the Australian head of state who reported that Bush1 via Quayle threatened his life if he didn't play ball with them at the time.

[mtnsnake]

58. Sorry, I didn't realize that you were putting it in a speculatory sense

but after re-reading it, I see that you were. My bad.

You must think Bushes are honorable people.

You know better than that, and I'm surprised to hear that, even coming from you.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[leftist.]

40. I'd argue that he already did this with Biden.

This was his first majour decision as a serious candidate and he chose someone who hammered him during the primaries. I absolutely LOVED that move for all the reasons stated elsewhere in this thread. Contrast this with McCain's first majour decision, and I know I don't need to go into why Palin was a bad pick here. I'd also like to note that republicans and hate radio were exceptionally quick to jump on the fact that Biden had criticized Obama in the past when really Americans as a whole should have breathed a massive sigh of relief with the pick of Biden, a formal rival. It was the first piece of evidence that actual CHANGE from the last eight years was on it's way.

[suston96]

43. One of the best posts I have seen on DU. Good for you. nt

[Cosmic Charlie]

44. so this is the new talking point? you guys are like pavlov's dogs

anytime there is a major position available,
you foam at the mouth and insist that Hillary is the only viable option.

I, on the other hand, trust Obama to make the right decision.

[scheming daemons]

45. So.... if Obama names her, that means you are ok with it... right?

since you "trust Obama to make the right decision".

[Cosmic Charlie]

47. sure. I just think it's ludicrous to 'leak' something like this in efforts to force his hand

remember when the same thing happened for VP?

remember how Hillary supporters were upset?

If we don't learn from the past, we repeat it.

[Bicoastal]

69. For the record, I am not and never have been a Hillary supporter...

...but if it's out there, we may as well talk about it. And I happen to think it's a good idea.

[TankLV]

46. Good, INTELLIGENT, COMPETANT, people in his cabinet! Perish the thought!

Why indeed...

[nolabels]

50. Betty Crocker's Cookbook: Everything You Need to Know to Cook Today

So you are stating that Obama has some type cookbook type of operation going on. This would not possible today, the chefs of the world would of recognized and outed the plan long ago :shrug:

[hughee99]

52. "President's food tester" are those the 3 words? n/t

:hide:

[w4rma]

55. Lincoln's presidency didn't exactly end well and his successor didn't follow through with many of

Lincoln's plans.

[FrenchieCat]

57. I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that History should or will repeat

itself as a re-enactment. But then, you knew that.

[w4rma]

63. My point is that Lincoln's placing of enemies within positions of power is probably a bad idea. (nt)

[Bicoastal]

68. They were RIVALS, not enemies.

Lincoln didn't put Jefferson Freaking Davis into his cabinet.

[sohndrsmith]

79. excellent point/distinction. thanks... n/t

[suston96]

64. Huh? You mean Andrew Johnson - who was impeached BECAUSE he followed Lincoln's plans? NT

[Bicoastal]

67. That's ridiculous--"didn't exactly end well?!"

At the time of his assassination, Lincoln was the most effective President the country had ever seen. He successfully preserved the Union and chose reconciliation when it was all over, not punishment. He also managed to get re-elected in 1964 when a lot of the country blamed him for the war. And he put Democrats in his Cabinet and even into the Vice Presidency in the name of unity.

Last time I checked, Lincoln's death was a freak occurrence that had nothing to do with his presidency and everything to do with a bitter, Pro-Confederacy nutball actor named John Wilkes Booth.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Hmmm. Seemed To Me It Would Be Because She'd Do An Amazing Job.

To each their own perception.

[Retrograde]

66. so Hillary can keep Bill under control? (n/t)

[progressivebydesign]

75. Someone just referred to her here as his "ENEMY" WTF is wrong with people???

yeah.. she's his enemy. she's his rival. She's evil. She's (fill in the blank with everything the freepers have called her for the past 16 years).

Hillary campaigned harder than any other person, outside of Obama and Biden, for him in the GE. After a grueling primary, she spent another few months out on the road. She didn't have to. Her seat in the Senate is still there. She did it because she is a good person, and NOT an enemy to Obama. Where people get such lame ideas??

I find so much of the thinking here on DU to be childish and provincial. How hard is it to grasp that they are not enemies? It's funny.. it's like you guys think that Hillary and Obama are going to flip each other off in the halls or something, or write mean messages and shove them through the vent in their locker.

[boppers]

80. SINCE WHEN DOES A DEMOCRAT ATTACK ANOTHER DEMOCRAT?

(This is a reference too her prior on-camera tantrums).

She also admits to off-camera tantrums in her written works.

Hillary, as a person, may not be the "enemy", but politics via poutrage and tantrums certainly are.

[JVS]

81. Lincoln won office without any kind of mandate compared to Obama. He also had to be very careful...

that his actions did not provoke they border states from joining the Slave Power ™. Obama is in a much stronger position.