The World Newser is World News' daily blog. Here, you'll find our staff's thoughts on the day's news and the way we build our broadcast. Plus, we'll share reports from our team of correspondents in the field, as well as producers behind-the-scenes.
RECENT POSTS
- Clem's Chronicles: Toyota Recall/Afghan Speech/State Dinner Crashers
- Charlie Gibson...On this Thanksgiving
- Quotes of the Day: 'It is my intention to finish the job'
- Start Your Shopping Engines
- The Hajj and Women's Dress
- Clem's Chronicles: Afghanistan/WH State Dinner/Holiday Travel
- Photos: White House State Dinners Through the Years
- Are We Becoming A Nation of Know-Nothings?
- Quotes of the Day: 'President Obama has the information he wants... to make his decision'
- Clem's Chronicles: Jobs/Afghanistan/Health Care Reform/Deficit
- Child Safety: Crib Recall and Other Recently Recalled Kids Products
- You Buying Less This Holiday?
WORLD NEWSER CATEGORIES
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Will Hillary? Won't Hillary?
November 19, 2008 10:46 AM
In case you've taken your eye off the latest transition news...here's an update...and once again much of oxygen in the room is being sucked up by speculation over Hillary Clinton.
It seems likely that Clinton will - in the end - be Obama's Secretary of State. But George Stephanopoulos is reporting this morning, Senator Clinton is not 100% sure she wants it. Here's what George writes: "She's concerned about giving up the independence she has as a senator. She also has to worry about the $7.6 million campaign debt she still has from her presidential bid."
Concern too has be rising over Bill Clinton's earnings. What sort of restrictions can and will be placed on the former President's speaking tours?
Add to the mix an interesting take by Tom Friedman in today's NY Times on whether or not Hillary is the best choice for the job. Obama's much touted 'team of rivals' approach may not work that well when it comes to the peculiarities of State.
Here's Friedman's reasoning: "My question is whether a President Obama and a Secretary of State Clinton, given all that has gone down between them and their staffs, can have that kind of relationship, particularly with Mrs. Clinton always thinking four to eight years ahead, and the possibility that she may run again for the presidency. I just don't know. Every word that is said between them in public, and every leak, will be scrutinized for what it means politically and whether there is daylight. That is not a reason not to appoint Mrs. Clinton. But it is a reason for everyone around the president-elect to take a deep breath and ask whether they are prepared to have the kind of air-tight relationship with Mrs. Clinton that is required for effective diplomacy. When it comes to appointing a secretary of state, you do not want a team of rivals."
November 19, 2008 in President 44 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (12)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
See this is why Obama needs to stay waway from the Clintons. They are drama magnets. Obma does not need any drama right now,
Posted by: Jenny Rome Ga | Nov 19, 2008 10:53:05 AM
By bringing in the Clinton third and second string players, Obama has created the illusion that all that the Clinton's can offer he has accepted and that a failure of his administration will be perceived as a failure of the Clinton legacy.
Which means she can't run against him on his record should he fail.
So take the Secretary of State position and do the right thing by the country. If he is mad as a hatter, do what Colin Powell couldn't bring himself to do: resign and say why.
THEN run against him.
On the other hand, if he succeeds, remember that Clintonistas made that possible, and run anyway if a win is possible for some reason.
In the coldly calculated win scenario, the right thing to have done was to have destroyed the Obama image a year and a half ago before the media went into the tank. Spilt milk. The truth is, Hillary Clinton isn't that cold, and that is something we should all remember when buyer's remorse comes to roost.
Posted by: len | Nov 19, 2008 11:01:58 AM
Bill Clinton was president and Hillary ran for president against Obama and is currently a Senator. That's why MSM is attracted to them. The "drama" is in your own mind.
Posted by: tina | Nov 19, 2008 11:04:10 AM
Isn't friedman's article kind of self redundant...
that the media will speculate...
guess what Obama cares less about the speculation and more on who the best team is...
the idea that he puts forth does not look at who Obama seems to be by all accounts and history for the past 2 years...
a good manager of teams.
and ignores the obvious "levelness" between the two people themselves...in order to tell a story and grab onto the media myths and hype.
even Friedman and George S.
seem to have jumped into the buying into gossip from advisors who want to look more important to their press contacts than the actual video and interaction between the two people and their beliefs and history themselves.
Posted by: dl | Nov 19, 2008 11:08:19 AM
it really is funny to watch pundits and editorialists...loose site of facts for some jkind of created 2 year gossip machine that is based on advisors looking out for their own importance...and leaking to support that.
only the leaks have more to do with them looking important to their press contacts than what normal everyday Americans see when people like Clinton's genuine inner circle member like Steenburgen speaks this morning ...or when Bill is agfreeing to release his records...
and we see a genuinely professional and respectable relationship between the two very smart individuals.
Posted by: dl | Nov 19, 2008 11:12:14 AM
Obama, I'm a supporter of you. Your supporters/ voters don't want you to pick Hillary for Secretary of State. Don't do it Obama. Pick someone else!!!
Posted by: Tanya | Nov 19, 2008 11:22:37 AM
I am sick and tired of anything to do with Clintons.
Enough - stop no, no, no!!
All the republicans cannot wait for a an other Clinton to beat up.
Posted by: GHM | Nov 19, 2008 11:24:52 AM
NO Obama
your supporters mostly want you to pick Clinton if she is best for the job...as she is.
Just keep doing what you have always done...smart thoughtful decisions... based on facts and abilities to do the job.
we forgot that is what a President is supposed to do.
Posted by: dl | Nov 19, 2008 11:34:38 AM
THANKS Mr. O'Babble, I guess that the "Change we can believe in" is a rerun of the Clinton Administration. All we need now is to hire Monica Lewinsky.
Posted by: Ron | Nov 19, 2008 11:53:54 AM
Obama can't rule the country without the Clintons, he is too stupid, thats why he is doing the right thing and bringing in all Clinton people..good for him,
Posted by: like it or not here I come | Nov 19, 2008 12:20:55 PM
I am getting so sick of all these blog entries... enough with this "Will she? Will she not?"...
I think she will in the end!
Just leave her alone!
Posted by: DMK | Nov 19, 2008 12:26:34 PM
Republicans don't really care who Obama picks. I, personally, think Hillary would be a mistake. Hillary has too much baggage and hype with her.
Obama can pick whoever he wants.
Just pick someone with real international experience.
We need a diplomatic person, but also who won't cave into threats.
Posted by: Democrats & Republicans need each other now. The election is over. | Nov 19, 2008 3:12:49 PM
Post a comment
