Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam Day in Preview: Barack and Hillary Together Again!

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- At 10:40 am this morning, the (sort of) unthinkable will happen: President-elect Barack Obama will announce Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as his choice for secretary of State.

Obama is also expected to name retired Gen. Jim Jones as his National Security Adviser and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as the head of the Homeland Security Department; Robert Gates, the current secretary of Defense, is expected to be on hand and will remain in his post for the start of the Obama Administration.

"In this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning - a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example. The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that. They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world," said President-elect Obama.

The naming of Obama's national security team comes just days after the attacks in Mumbai reminded Americans of the threat from international terrorism and amid further evidence that the domestic economy continues to struggle.

We'll have MUCH more in this space and at washingtonpost.com throughout the day about what picking Clinton as secretary of State means for the one-time rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And, while we're at it, don't forget that the choice of Clinton as top diplomat means New York Gov. David Paterson (D) will have to appoint her replacement some time in the next few months. Check out our latest handicapping of the race to be New York's next senator.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 1, 2008; 5:20 AM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Pick: Being Bobby Jindal
Next: Obama and Clinton: Answering the Whys

Comments

Our great President-elect Barack Obama has chosen the right security team including Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state.

And most important American people know Hillary Clinton to be somebody who has what we need most in this job, which is a deep love of United States of America.

The national security challenges we face are as great and just as urgent as our economy crisis.!!!

Posted by: akber_kassam | December 1, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates picks could work for Obama and even for Hillary to fix the mistake for voting for the Iraq war.

1. If this team helps Obama end the war in Iraq fast it will reconcile her politcal future for a 2016 run.
2. By ending the War Obama and this team can take all the credit.
If Obama follows through ending the War, following the liberal agenda(wage increase, universal healthcare, jobs)
his presidency will be a success.
That will also rehabilitate Joe Biden and Hillary for historic reasons and a polital future. Obama will also secure his reelection for 2012.
The Republicans would not be able to stop him from reelection and getting the whitehouse back. He and his team really needs to accomplish those goals for a successful 4 years.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | December 1, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Hey Chris i was happy to hear that Chris Matthews is running for the Penn Senate seat by Spector in 2010. This is very brillaint of soon to be Senator Matthews to run at this time. I thinks he has a STRONG shot at winning. Chris Matthews will be missed. It will be a tough fight for Spector to beat Matthews considering he's had health issues. Matthews will be missed.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | December 1, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

When was the last time you wore your sport jacket while at work?

Posted by: BPINZ | December 1, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse









I just like seeing my posts in the white space. It gives them a certain majesty. I suggest everyone do it.

The Palestine thing is a pretty delicate balancing act. I'm wondering if the US should perhaps just play the role of moral arbiter. Simply condemn inhumane acts on both sides. We have such a history of Israel pandering that it will be tough to break away from it, but we have got to start. I think this can be done without too much of a political cost if you are only going after the most heinous acts.

Incidentally, the Bombay incident is threatening to strain relations between India and Pakistan. The latter seems pretty desperate to ward off confrontation while the former seems to want to escalate. I'm not real sure if either of those nations has any particular love or antipathy towards Clinton. India did seem to like Bush due to the fact that he was willing to share nuclear secrets with them. Pakistan almost definitely has less affection due to the US support of Musharrif. It will be important for SOS Rice to act quickly, though. A nuclear Iran scares me FAR less than a destabilized Pakistan. We can't wait for Clinton to start defusing the situation.







Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

BB, Ddawd was attempting to shame StreetCorner, but that will not be a successful strategy.

My concerns about HRC are as follows:

1] see

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01cohen.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1

wherein Cohen talks about Israel policy;

and

2] as the self-proclaimed "senator from Punjab" [I assume she spoke in jest, but it was a pander to an Indian-American audience] the perception of her in Pakistan just may be negative. Maybe.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 1, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Since we are talking Lincoln cabinet historical analogies, this is what happened to Lincoln's Secretary of State:

On April 14, 1865, Lewis Powell, an associate of John Wilkes Booth, attempted to assassinate Secretary of State Seward - on the same night and at the same moment Abraham Lincoln was shot.

Powell gained access to Seward's home by telling a servant, William Bell, that he was delivering medicine for Seward, who was recovering from a recent near-fatal carriage accident on April 5, 1865.

Powell started up the stairs when then confronted by one of Seward's sons, Frederick. He told the intruder that his father was asleep and Powell began to start down the stairs, but suddenly swung around and pointed a gun at Frederick's head.

After the gun misfired, Powell panicked, then repeatedly struck Frederick over the head with the pistol, leaving Frederick in critical condition on the floor.

Powell then burst into William Seward's bedroom with a bowie knife and stabbed him several times in the face and neck.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 1, 2008 9:11 AM | Report abuse

...1014 - Where did you get that 12% number? Would you care to explain how Obama won overwhelmingly white states such as Iowa? I think your calculator needs a check-up.

BB

BTW - Can anything be done about the idiotic addition of excess white space? It was bad enough when only Georgetown was doing it. With another poster chiming in, my page down key is going to wear out.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 1, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I'm dreaming of a white space Christmas. . .

37th and O roasting on the fire
Jack Frost nipping at his prose

Posted by: optimyst | December 1, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


corridorg4


Excellent Point - along with the analogy of the anti-tax forces lining up against Obama - the tory analogy is extremely fitting.


Very good point.


We need to go to Dorchester and Congress immediately.


.

.


.

.

.

.

.

,

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 1, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


DDAWD - I recommend that you move immediately - your neighbors are extremely confused.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse










"While I do not doubt that white liberals voted for Obama en masse, he could not have won 54% of the vote with only 12% of white moderates and conservatives. I live in a very white, very Republican county and he won here 55-45%."

Yeah, that 12% among whites is totally fabricated.








Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

interesting historical aside - Clinton and Gates were top British generals during the Revolutionary War

Diet Manager, I don't know where you got your vote breakdowns, but they are completely and utterly wrong. Where do you get this stuff? According to your numbers, there are white liberals and then there are whites. While I do not doubt that white liberals voted for Obama en masse, he could not have won 54% of the vote with only 12% of white moderates and conservatives. I live in a very white, very Republican county and he won here 55-45%.

Posted by: corridorg4 | December 1, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse













"Early this morning i was reading that most latinos are upset with his picks. Latino's did honesty help him win states like Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. The worst mistake was the Hillary pick. That will hurt him. The Republicans are now reaching out to all those groups including the Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. That would be a MAJOR LOSS and now if he loses the support of liberals and their agenda he is gone after 2012."

I think this is the great Republican hope. That somehow the country is going to turn on Obama for not delivering a utopia within three weeks. Yeah, I'll admit that Democrats expect more from their elected leaders, as opposed to the Republican base who just want to see them wave Bibles around. But still, everyone has measured expectations.

As for Latinos being upset with the Hillary pick, didn't Latinos support Clinton over Obama in the primaries?












Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

if only the same level of obsessive sniffing was directed at bushco at any point during these past eight years, this country wouldn't be on the slow slide to fascism.

sniffsniffsniff, chris. that clinton sheet sniffing never gets old for the entrenched wdc crowd. sniffsniffsniff.

Posted by: mycomment | December 1, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse

I think the appointment of Senator Clinton and Bill is going to cause President-elect Obama many problems. They won't be little problems, but major big problems.

Posted by: oliver6 | December 1, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Hey Chris, 37thRules is correct. I think he is saying that having a Clinton third term will pose many problems in the future. I think he is correct: Obama had
95% African American vote
95% white/black liberal vote
70% Latino vote
75% Gay vote
12% white vote

I wish affirmative action was gone. But he had the support from these groups to win. If he loses their support, they will turn against him BADLY! He needs to focus on the top 5 groups agenda above to get reelected 2012. Early this morning i was reading that most latinos are upset with his picks. Latino's did honesty help him win states like Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. The worst mistake was the Hillary pick. That will hurt him. The Republicans are now reaching out to all those groups including the Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. That would be a MAJOR LOSS and now if he loses the support of liberals and their agenda he is gone after 2012. Obama needs to show he is in control, experienced, is ready and have the abilty to lead.
1. If he can't bring troops home fast within 16 months
2. Fix the economy
3. Not follow through on his campaign promises like the min wage increase/liberal agenda
4.Piss off the Liberals, Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. They will all swing toward the Republican direction in 2012.

I predict a Republican surge in 2012

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | December 1, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

I'm still kind of curious what the political motivations are behind this. Is it to create an alliance with the Clintons? If so, that's fine. I don't think she is the best choice for SOS, but I do think she would be good. If this helps Obama push his agenda, then I'm all for it. Having Bill's backing would be quite powerful indeed.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


This is a bad idea, a really bad idea.


.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | December 1, 2008 7:18 AM | Report abuse

Obama is putting together a strong team here. While I'm a bit sad (as a New Yorker) to see her leave the Senate, I think she will make a very good Secretary of State. Both Bill and Hillary are greatly respected outside the US, so there would be inherent goodwill from many allies, eager to put the Bush years behind...

Posted by: RickJ | December 1, 2008 6:54 AM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton was an excellent choice for SOS.Now if Governor Patterson will just appoint President Clinton to replace Hillary in the Senate,the Republicans can go ahead and cimmit Hari Cari.

Posted by: cincigal74 | December 1, 2008 6:53 AM | Report abuse

I don't think either of them saw the rivalry as anything more than business. I'm sure they will be able to work side by side. This will increase Clinton's foreign policy bona fides in case she decides she wants to give the whole Presidency another shot in 2016. She will have plenty of time to go after some statewide position later on to launch a presidential candidacy from(no SOS serves for eight years)

I have yet to see why she would be a good pick for the job itself, though.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2008 6:04 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company