The negotiations, the leaks—and the conflicting advice Sen. Clinton is receiving on whether she should join the new administration.
Barack Obama held a secret rendezvous with Hillary Clinton in Chicago on Thursday to discuss the prospect of her becoming his Secretary of State. Although no promises were made on either side, a senior source who knows the players on both sides confirms that both the president elect and Mrs. Clinton are seriously considering her joining what would become a “Team of Rivals.”
“She wasn’t doing holiday shopping, I can tell you that,” said the source. “Nor was she visiting her mother, who doesn’t live there any more.”
The Chicago meeting is the culmination of a number of conversations between the two about the New York senator joining the Obama administration. Still to be defined is how the role of Secretary of State would be defined if Mrs. Clinton accepted the post.
“I would tell her not to do it,” said a close Clinton ally. “Never, ever, count the Clintons out. Never assume that they will quietly drift away into the sunset.”
“With the economy in the tank, Obama has at least two hard years of domestic problems to sort out,” said the source. “She would take the load off his shoulders. She is hugely qualified for the job, there is no doubt. But she needs to know who his national security adviser would be and how they would work together, things like that.”
Tipped to become Obama’s national security adviser is Jim Steinberg, who was the deputy national security adviser in President Clinton's administration. But if another, more prominent name were suggested for the position, Mrs. Clinton may demur.
“Remember, Henry Kissinger was the national security adviser in Nixon’s administration,” said the source. “No one remembers who Nixon’s Secretary of State was because Kissinger was so all powerful.”
Vice president elect Joe Biden, who has well established foreign policy credentials and might have liked to involve himself in foreign policy, is understood to have agreed to adopt a broader portfolio of duties in the new administration.
Apprehension has been expressed in the Clinton camp about the leaking of the face to face discussions, which was thought to have unnecessarily raised the stakes in what is proving a delicate conversation between the two top Democrats who so fiercely fought for the presidential nomination. The role Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, played in allowing news of the event to leak is causing concern.
News that Obama is considering giving one of the most important posts in his new administration to his fiercest rival, who won a near identical number of votes as he did in the Democratic primary, is a blow to Senator and 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry, who was the favorite to be awarded the State Department by Obama and who is known to covet the job.
John P. Avlon is the author of Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics. He writes a weekly column for The Daily Beast and is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Previously, he served as Chief Speechwriter for New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and was a columnist and associate editor for The New York Sun.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Kevin Buckley was a reporter and Saigon bureau chief for Newsweek between 1968 and 1972. He is the author of Panama—The Whole Story (Simon & Schuster, 1991). He is a contributing editor of Playboy and an adjunct professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Michael O'Hanlon specializes in national security policy at the Brookings Institution. He is senior author of the Iraq Index. As a defense budget analyst, he advised members of Congress on military spending.
Abby Ellin regularly writes the "Vows" column for the New York Times, and previously wrote the "Preludes" column for that newspaper about young people and money. Her work has appeared in a range of publications, including Time, Marie Claire, More, Self and Glamour. She is the author of Teenage Waistland, but her greatest claim to fame is naming “Karamel Sutra” ice cream for Ben and Jerry's.
Senior editor at The Daily Beast.
Senior editor at The Daily Beast.
Senior editor at The Daily Beast.
Memo to unnamed source: Nixon's Secretary of State was William P. Rogers, so it's not true that no one remembers him. But point taken.
An additional thought to the fact that Kissinger overshadowed Rogers. It is really difficult to imagine that there is any national security personality who as NSC advisor would be able to oveshadow Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State. That simply isn't going to happen, because there isn't anybody of Kissinger's caliber who would take that job today.
Moreover, the unamed source is really not thinking clearly on the topic of Sen. Clinton's future. She serves one term at State and then turns it over to someone else. If the new Obama/Clinton/Biden and whomever else team manages to improve the U.S. foreign policy situation -- which is more than possible with these people working together -- Sen. Clinton will find herself in one of the most advantageous positions imaginable to pursue the presidency if she wants to in 2016 -- and she won't need her seat in the Senate to do it. To think otherwise is just the same narrow-minded, Washington politics as usual myopia that Obama is striving to extinguish. The positives here far outweigh the negatives for both Obama and Clinton. And if people don't realize or believe that, then they really don't yet understand Obama and his vision for the future of our government. Assuming the few negatives can be mitigated -- and they can -- this is an inspired, thinking outside of the box choice. Bravo to both of them.
Rahm...
as in bomb, ticking time...
as in only a matter of.
With guys like this having your back, Barack, we need for you to get some side cover... quick.
Axelrod & Gibbs are gonna need all the help they can get.
Too much Arkansas so far, bud. Too much Arkansas.
Nonetheless, Godspeed, sir... Godspeed.
In no way would Clinton's acceptance of the Sec'y of State post require her to give up her presidential hopes. On the contrary, it would keep her in the national limelight and make her perfectly poised to run in 2016, when she'll turn 69, with eight years of
major foreign policy experience under her belt and three years younger than John McCain was when he ran this year.
Rham is already starting to piss me off. He's got a colorful personality and is well known for getting stuff done, but he needs to stick to the Obama motto: NO DRAMA!
I think that it would be a wise decision for Clinton to accept the post of Secretary of State. It would give her plenty of opportunities to display her wise and powerful qualities. However, as for running for president, I think she should just abandon that idea. I think the American public is tired of these political family dynasties (besides the Kennedy's). Why would we want to go from Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, to Clinton again? I think that was a big factor in why Clinton didn't clinch the Democratic nomination. Clinton would be wise to accept the post and it would only result in her being more respected throughout the country and world. Pick respect over ambition!
I just find this whole thing so odd. There has rarely been a political story in recent times that I could not get my head around, but I just don't get this at all. Perhaps we need to be discussing just what are the qualifications for someone to be Secretary of State. My guess would be that Clinton would really not be qualified, and I don't see any political gain for anyone on any side of such an appointment. Clinton is in an excellent position in the Senate, and would be a huge asset to Obama there. And why is no-one considering Clinton as Attorney General?
I think this is a win/win for Obama and Clinton. If he offered it to her, she'd be remiss in not taking the position. There's far more national/international visibility at state than in the senate.
Hillary Clinton should do it. She'd do an absolutely fantastic job, and she'd still be in a position to run again in eight years if she so chose. She is an absolutely extraordinarily gifted and intelligent politician. Why be one of 100 when you can be Secretary of State? Go, Hillary, go!
I think that anything Hillary Clinton does will be good for our new President and right for our country. She could serve as the Secy of State for a period of time (and having Bill at her side on the world stage, it couldn't be better) and then find herself nominated and confirmed for Supreme Court, which would be brilliant!
They must, and will, find the best ways to use this woman's talent and it seems clear to me that President-Elect Obama is doing what he said, looking for the best and the brightest, whoever they are.
Oh, and by the way, get over the "leaks" thing, EVERYTHING IS ORCHASTRATED and we might as well recongnize it and deal with it. It's just another way to fill the airwaves while they sell us the products that the advertisers buy time for.
Yes, respect over ambition. How refreshing that would be. As for the Presidency, staying in the Senate would be of no help to Hillary. Obama is an anomaly, the only Senator to win a Presidential election since JFK. For Hillary to get another shot, she needs a stint in a Governor's chair. Between then & now some foreign policy leadership could be very helpful.
There's a hint here that Kissinger is a positive memory--the great Machiavel himself who some, less than fondly, remember as a possible war criminal. Whatever one remembers, a post that attaches the word "caliber" to Kissinger is worrisome.
Clinton is qualified for many jobs and perhaps Sec of State is not the one being discussed--who knows? The health care issue, however you view it, is as enormous as any other issue on the table. If you ask a polled respondent to name priorities they are put into a box of listing "jobs" "economy" "war" etc. What you touch is the surface skin of the body populous. Go underneath to the muscles and heart and health care is a deeper, connected concern to many of issues listed. Fear of losing one's job is intrinsically tied to fear of losing one's health care (which unfortunately too often has people tied to jobs they hate.) The economy? Well, our large businesses are losing place in global competitiveness in some part due to their huge health care costs. Forget the small businesses, just ask the guy with the dump truck who is self employed what it costs him for private health insurance--never mind taxes and the fact that he has NO unemployment benefit access. He's too angry at the government right now to actually vote his self interest or even think straight--and by the way, I don't blame "him." If the Democrats give him some relief with at least the health care portion--his brain will clear.
Don't trust the polls. It's the health care issue, stupid.The pill-pushing, research funding-to-find-more-pills-to-push, pharmaceutical companies--the for profit hospitals--the self employed--the Cobra payments--the assembly line Dr.'s office--the ruination of families that have health insurance when the 20% patient portion is 200 grand--and on ad nauseum. It ripples into everything and the uninsured are only a small piece. Somehow, in someway, Clinton deserves a position of power that enables her to finish what she started--leave a legacy that alters everything. I have no idea what title this job is--but it's not Secretary of State. If it doesn't exist, make it up. This has got to get fixed.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.