New Book about Obama talks about the SoS decision

[TayTay]

There is an ecerpt on the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/exclusive-excerpt-from-re_n_209577.html">Huffington Post. Ah, I have no idea what to make of this paragraph. Apparently, the idea to offer then Senator Clinton the position of Secretary of State dates back to the end of the primaries. After the election, it picked up steam from, ah, other sources, I guess.

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." ...

Sen. Reid had a new book out that talks about this choice. I wonder if it compliments this reporting.

[wisteria]

1. Interesting. I promised to be respectful while speaking about Obama's

choice for SOS,I haven't changed my POV, but I will keep any further comments to myself-LOL. The ideas presented in the paragraph above though, seem probable. Thanks for posting.

[Luftmensch067]

2. Finally read the whole excerpt!

Fascinating! Who knows the whole truth of it, but this take is what my instincts told me might be happening. Brilliant choice on Obama's part, in my opinion, and today's post about JK's key groundwork re Syria making SoS call possible underlines my feeling that the right people are in the right places at this time. Excited to see scheduled SFRC hearings on China and climate change, the latest threat from N. Korea this week, courtesy of Chairman Kerry, and I think the Obama's assessment of HRC as a public face for the Administration's foreign policy was shrewd (not to mention the added benefits alluded to in the excerpt!)

[wisteria]

3. Funny how we both came away with different takes on this issue.

I didn't take this as possitive at all regarding our SOS, she has not lived up to any of the suggested hype. And, I personally feel there were other reasons she was offered this position that have less to do with Hillary herself and more to do with her last name- but, there again I am moving to a place I promised not to go- so I will say no more.

[karynnj]

4. It depends how you look at it

I agree with you that HRC has not lived up to the hype that came out when she was nominated. But that was the media - not Obama. His view of what he was getting may have been more on target. I think HRC is a mediocre at best SoS. Now some of that is beacuse I am biased against her, but it also is something I can back up.

I can not point to one major accomplishment where she caused anything to move in the right direction - other than possibly in the loop that got Iran invited to the Afghanistan summit - though I don't think it was her as much as someone reporting to her. I still think giving Russia a gag gift with a red button is brain dead.

In the last month, there have been 2 rather negative opinion pieces done - one, totally on HRC in the LA Times ( http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-clinton24-2009may24,0,6159398.story ) and one in the NYT on Iran ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html ), where the authors list her as a problem.

More broadly, President Obama has made several policy and personnel decisions that have undermined the promise of his encouraging rhetoric about Iran. On the personnel front, the problem begins at the top, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As a presidential candidate, then-Senator Clinton ran well to the right of Mr. Obama on Iran, even saying she would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has told a number of allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf that she is skeptical that diplomacy with Iran will prove fruitful and testified to Congress that negotiations are primarily useful to garner support for “crippling” multilateral sanctions against Iran.

First of all, this posture is feckless, as Secretary Clinton does not have broad international support for sanctions that would come anywhere close to being crippling. More significantly, this posture is cynically counterproductive, for it eviscerates the credibility of any American diplomatic overtures in the eyes of Iranian leaders across the Islamic Republic’s political spectrum.

It is easy to dismiss the first as a hit piece, but the second is speaking to things she has done.

But, you have to consider the alternative. HRC and her media and party supporters were demanding a role inconsistent with her seniority in the Senate, ignoring that it could not even be defended because she was extraordinarily effective as a
Senator. She likely would have tried to emerge as an opposition leader to Obama. (Ironically, she would likely use things Kerry first did with better motives. She likely would place herself to the left on healthcare - arguing for things that could not pass and would be the first to criticize any missteps.) So, she is likely less dangerous as SoS, especially if Obama has her mainly doing the administrative things. She is very smart and very hard working - if she is not an asset as a diplomat, she could likely be good as an administrator.

Kerry is very helpful on foreign policy in the Senate. I would bet that the unusual forum/lunch he set up for the intelligence, armed services and SFRC with the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan likely help pull those Senators into feeling part of the effort there. It likely co-opts them and could make it easier to avoid bad amendments and to pass legislation. The ease with which he countered the various Kyl amendments showed the influence his reasoning has.

He also has made on extraordinary number of trips where he has quietly made an impact - in the middle east, Pakistan and Sudan. (On the trip to China, it was interesting that his opinion was more optimistic that Pelosi's.) Between just the Syrian diplomacy, the work in Sudan, and the fact that he seemed to have smoothed over some problems in Pakistan, he has more substantive diplomatic accomplishments than HRC does so far.

As to foreign policy, no one other that President Obama will set it, which is as it should be. I would be willing to bet that Kerry's position does not impact the degree to which he has Obama's ear. The one thing lost is that his persuasive voice is not there in the cabinet. There was also the risk that Kerry as SoS could be seen as leading foreign policy, where that is not the case with HRC.

For Obama, he minimizes a potential problem. It is very hard to believe Kerry could be more useful than he has been.

[wisteria]

5. I don't disagree with what you have said and we are almost in total agreement on Mrs. Clinton.

Senator Kerry is certainly very influential and is playing an important role in foreign policy behind the scenes. My only regret is that he does not receive the acknowledgment of doing a fine job or the praise that would come from a role as a really exceptional SOS. I always envisioned a SOS as being more powerful and influential, and something more than just an administrator. Why is it wrong to have a SOS that can take a leadership position right behind the President on foreign policy. A true leader would recognize that some one other then himself may be more gifted and have more expertize and experience in a particular area, and allow that person to be an extension of himself.

Getting back to Clinton-yes, my opinion is a bit jaded, but it is not the woman herself that irritates me, but the way in which she has risen in rank- which I consider undeserved.

[karynnj]

6. I think that Secretary of States have varied greatly in their roles

with some really being the foreign policy guiding light and others having far less importance.

I suspect that Obama may have decided that there were so many trouble spots that a SoS running the State Department and many envoys dealing with the many problems. In addition, I've noticed that Obama himself has made the key announcements.

I agree with you that Kerry, with his expertise, knowledge, and real diplomatic ability would make a fantastic Secretary of State - and likely one far more likely to be loyal if the chips are ever down. My point though is that he is directly influencing foreign policy now - which has to feel great after the last 8 years. But, watch the hearing with HRC - Kerry looks happy, engaged and very very comfortable. It is also great that Teresa has accompanied him on these trips - something that didn't happen in the Bush years.

Though I wish he got better press and more credit, in a way given the number of times he took on the status quo, it is amazing he got the nomination and is still a powerful player.

No one "earns" a Presidential nomination - which HRC didn't get though she obviously thought she was entitled to it. No one "earns" a SoS nomination - the President chooses. I actually buy the idea that he wanted to have a lever to keep the Clintons under control. Given their history, I can see why.

[wisteria]

7. I see the Clinton pick as more out of some necessity. Obama needed to tap B. Clinton

and utilize the wealth of expertise and knowledge B. Clinton had gained as President and Obama wanted him on his side. Hillary just happened to be the price that needed to be paid. I will just never by the idea that Obama made the best choice possible for SOS. It may be considered shred to some, but personally, I consider the choice to be otherwise.
I don't mean to keep harping on Kerry's lack of positive press, I realize that it doesn't bother him and I doubt the attitudes out there will change. And, I didn't mean for what I said to be viewed that way. I look at things through the eyes of history, and I would like to know that it will be noted in our history, that it was Senator Kerry who actually made things happen and got the job done. I certainly am not privy to his true feelings, but I can see that he is none the worse for the outcome of things.

[Luftmensch067]

8. I actually totally agree with you!

It's all about her last name and the way she's used it to promote herself beyond what I believe to be her true capabilities. That said, Obama's choice of her as SoS capitalizes on her fame around the world while also keeping her ambition in check. Meanwhile, Senator Kerry is free to truly effect positive change which, it would seem, is the reason he chose public service.

[wisteria]

9. I am certainly in agreement with most of what you said also.

I understand what you are saying but, I do have a problem with the frequently repeated comment (I hear it a lot in defense of Clinton) that Hillary Clinton is so famous and beloved around the world. I have yet to have anyone provide me with any real proof that this statement is based on facts and not just her PR team spinning things in her favor.

[Luftmensch067]

10. I didn't say it was merited! LOL!

I don't actually believe that it is. I think the Clintons are all about hype and image and glitz. But self-promotion can make you very, very famous, and also being a former First Lady gets her automatic attention. I don't consider her the most diplomatic person I've ever seen (though I believe that she can schmooze with the best of them) but she's presided over enough state occasions in her long political life, as wife, and then as Senator, that I think she can "pass." As for the real work of diplomacy, though, the hard work, it appears that Senator Kerry is the one who knows how to get it done, efficiently and quietly. That said, I hope her pride and ambition raise her to a higher level in this job and that she can perform it with distinction, for the sake of our country.

[wisteria]

11. Yes, it does appear he knows how to tackle the hard work and get it done efficiently.

As for Clinton I have been negative enough. I will keep any other comments to myself- and I do have plenty.

[beachmom]

12. Actually, I had read during the SoS gossip period in late '08 that Hillary was offered

the job as early as September. I didn't realize it was even before the primary had concluded. I tend to believe Wolffe who I think is a pretty good journalist. The book has already gotten critical acclaim:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/01/AR2009060103409.html

At some point, I definitely want to read the whole book.

To the point of the excerpt, well, in my mind it appears that Kerry was being strung along for many months, when in fact, he was only a long shot for the SoS position (if Hillary declined in taking the job). That really stinks, and is not nice, but I have a feeling that is the nature of the political business, and if one doesn't like this sort of treatment, one must not bother being in politics.

Back when this all happened, Wisteria worried out loud that now with Kerry not being SoS he would be marginalized. I guess that has happened to a certain degree, as far as getting real media coverage (which he rarely gets these days), but I think Hillary has been marginalized as well. Now that COULD change in the future, but really: how many times do we see Hillary on the TV? Not much. It is usually Obama who announces things. Foreign policy, although interesting to us and choice publications, has been put on the back burner by Big Media because of the economic downturn. Now, of course, Iran is front and center, but that is the first time I have seen foreign policy being a huge deal in a long time, and there it is really about Iran, not necessarily Obama's foreign policy.

[beachmom]

13. Actually, there does seem to be an uptick of coverage on Sec. Clinton:

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13856297&source=hptextfeature

Do we really know this to be true?

But she has won more battles than she has lost—notably with Mr Biden, over whether America should send 21,000 troops to Afghanistan.

I am sorry, but Hillary Clinton is not a foreign policy expert. Biden, flaws and all, is. Kind of strange.

This seems like pure spin:

A workhorse not a showhorse

Mrs Clinton has also seemed content to delegate the day-to-day management of some of the world’s most volatile regions to special envoys: the Afghanistan-Pakistan region to Mr Holbrooke; the Middle East peace process to George Mitchell; and the Gulf and south-west Asia to Dennis Ross. (That last appointment, though, has gone awry: Mr Ross is apparently being moved to the White House.) But in general Mrs Clinton has disentangled herself enough from the daily demands of these regions to focus on strategic questions that are too often given short shrift: overhauling the management of foreign aid, improving the United States’ relations with Latin America and managing the rise of Asia, which is arguably the most important strategic issue facing the country. Mrs Clinton’s new-found collegial style and managerial competence is a godsend for the Obama administration at a momentous time for American foreign policy—and a principal reason why the country has been spared from one of the “difficult transitions” that Mr Steinberg once wrote a book about. The only disappointment, from her point of view, is that she did not bring the same skills to fighting Mr Obama, a year ago, that she is now bringing to serving him. If she had, Mr Obama might have been the one learning how to play second fiddle.

How is delegating the most difficult jobs to other people make one a "work horse"? And, of course, Kerry's role in Syria and elsewhere is completely ignored.

Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with a ceremonial Secretary of State, which is what I think Clinton is, but I think her role should be properly described. She is not this great foreign policy strategic thinker. I just don't buy that.

[karynnj]

16. What really annoys me about this is if Obama had been honest with Kerry,

Kerry would have fought just as hard. He would though have been able to tell people in MA that he would be there for them in the difficult time for the state and gotten credit for it and avoided being the one named by the media and then all the implications that he was "lightweight" vs HRC - when in fact that was absolutely untrue. Kerry deserved better.

I don't think HRC's position has been an complete blessing to her, but I think the book is right on the fact that she really did not have a power position in the Senate and had burned bridges. HRC's coverage has been weird. There are the puff piece articles that remind me of the ones when she was first in the Senate taking a backseat and not pulling rank, followed by the ones starting in 2005 on how she was a power in the Senate and how she made friends on both sides of the aisle. In all three cases, there was verbiage but never a substantive accomplishment. So, it really is a mixed bag - with some ultra fawning with near insignificant credit for anything real - and a few articles suggesting that she really isn't a diplomat. These articles are written by many who had waited, some for over a decade, for her to be the first President.

In the USAtoday article trumpeting her victory over Biden - which was the basis of the Economist article below , the victory is that she supposedly was for the more pro-war position and supposedly Biden was the one who was telling the story. Three comments - 1)it was also clear this was the position of Gates and likely Petraeous so it may be more Obama listening to the generals over Biden (and likely Kerry - though Kerry's disagreement seemed to be more on the role and their footprint.) 2) Would this help HRC with the Democratic base? and 3) Why would Biden tell a story that undercuts his own image as a force on Obama's foreign policy. The only other accomplishment was that supposedly HRC got the OAS to mention democracy before letting Cuba in. Not a major gain.

The nastiest crack in that HRC article is to speak of how, she unlike Biden, has no gaffes. I guess saying in Europe that we are the oldest democracy and giving a gag gift, with the wrong Russian word, written in the wrong script and likely reviving cold war history to the recipient were not gaffes!

It now seems two things are clear:

1) Obama, with any SoS, would and should get most of the credit for foreign policy. As you said, Obama himself makes all the key announcements. It is not clear any SoS, including Kerry, would have been allowed to claim credit for anything and he possibly might not have even been able to do foreign policy speeches or written pieces. HRC has yet to give a foreign policy speech. Biden may have given just two - at the NATO conference and at AIPAC.

2) Although Clinton is getting more coverage than Kerry, he likely is having more impact on policy. From what we know of Kerry, he had a lot to do with Obama's Middle-east and Iran policies. The back to back Kerry and Biden AIPAC speeches took Kerry positions that Biden really hadn't taken before. Kerry was clearly the real representative at the Jordan conference - not Jarrett, who has no foreign policy experience and didn't speak. The respect for Kerry there was obvious and the importance of that Gaza trip was major. Then there was the Syria article. Obama clearly took Kerry's Iran policies on nuclear power and engagement and on speaking of "not meddling" after the elections. The form was NOT a Clinton position and from the NYT anonymous source, both Biden and Clinton wanted stronger talk on Iran. On Iraq, he is still following a stretched out kerry/Feingold plan.

I suspect though, that even if he were Secretary of State, he might not get much more credit. Obama, like Bill Clinton, kind of absorbs all the light and oxygen. Over time, I suspect smart people in the foreign policy circles will know who really does what. If that is true and Kerry really did lead on these things, I suspect that at some point - at least in scholarly books that will be known. Even if it isn't - he will still have moved the US in the right direction. For a man, who likely was the best candidate for President produced by his generation, this is less than it should have been. (He certainly beats Bush, both Clintons and I think Gore) He may have been right as a young man when he admitted that (doing the anti-war stuff that needed to be done) made that impossible.

[beachmom]

21. I don't blame Obama & Obama advisors keeping the info about Hillary as SoS

close to their sleeves. Think about it: it leaked to no one prior to the election, and that was for the reason that everyone kept their mouth shut. There was no need for Kerry to know; it just would have been nice if they had let him know. And really, we have no idea what Kerry's side of the story is, as he refuses to get into it (smart move on his part, even if we're all dying of curiosity).

[beachmom]

14. The Politico also notices what I have. That the Sec. of State is not in the news a lot:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24067.html

Most surprisingly, she has about as low a news-making profile as is possible for someone who is arguably the most famous woman on the planet. When she slipped and broke her elbow last week, it was the most press coverage she had gotten in months. A Nexis database search showed she had fewer mentions last month than any time since she launched her presidential bid in January 2007.


Hmmmmm .....

Clinton's inner circle at State also reflects personal preference. She chose not to bring any foreign policy experts into her personal staff on the State Department's seventh floor. Her top aide is lawyer Cheryl Mills, a former deputy White House counsel and impeachment warrior with a reputation for fierce intelligence and loyalty, but no major foreign policy experience, who holds the dual titles of counselor and chief of staff.


Some Clinton allies outside government worry this preference for loyalists over foreign policy credentials leaves her outgunned against the administration's alpha males.


"She's decided to put people around her who know nothing about foreign policy," complained a former senior Clinton aide.

[Luftmensch067]

15. This sounds remarkably similar

To what we heard about how she ran her campaign. Doesn't really seem the best way to run the State Dept. to leave out foreign policy cred!

[karynnj]

18. that is so true

It is telling that in both she brought in loyalists with no regard to their skill set.

[karynnj]

17. that really seems stupid unless she views her job as managing everyone in the state

department rather than actually becoming a foreign policy expert and diplomat.

It really does make you question what her real role - other than being Hillary - is. One would think it would include:
- being a diplomat - which she has not shown a real knack for
- being a foreign policy expert - which she wasn't and doesn't seem to be trying to be
- being a great manager - this shows the same flaws that sunk her campaign

Consider there are two major foreign policy crises happening now. North korea and Iran - and the SoS has hardly been heard from on either.

[Luftmensch067]

19. I still think she's there

mostly to keep her someplace where she can't cause too much trouble for the Administration. And, as you point out, above, JK seems to be doing the work that counts.

[wisteria]

20. The very mention of Clinton as SOS gets my blood boiling. She is ineffective and

IMO just wanted this position because of the prestige associated with it. It sounds great for the history books and it feeds her ego. Franky, she has so unimpressed me at this point I would be afraid to have her actually get involved in nitty gritty foreign policy.

[beachmom]

22. It seems someone (Obama? Hillary? Biden?) was smart enough to put two envoys

in the most difficult places we face: Af/Pak & the Middle East. And that Utah Gov in China is a good choice, too, since he is fluent in the language and knows a lot. Maybe someone else can do the actual managing of the State Dept. And then, well, all the work has been done. Nothing to worry about, Wistera, ha!

[karynnj]

23. They have special envoys for climate change and Sudan as well

To me this does make SoS more a title than the co-President handling foreign policy her supporters claim. (Take a look at the hearing when HRC came to the SFRC in May. Kerry looks in his element, relaxed and focused - HRC looks strained, for lack of a better word. Near the very end, there is an interesting exchange on Afghanistan - it seems less cordial than the Afghanistan discussion at her hearing. )

[wisteria]

24. Yes, Pres. Obama has made good to excellent envoy choices. He has been advised wisely on this.

I do wonder who has done the advising. I don't think it could be Clinton, foreign policy has never been a field of true interest for her and these picks show that the adviser has extensive knowledge of the areas and of the people being placed in these positions. It could possibly be Biden.