Debunking the spin on Senator Clinton's role in 2009

Bill Clinton's foundation work will not be what prevents Senator Clinton from being offered a position in President-elect Obama's cabinet, although that may be a publicly given excuse. For all the fuss over the Obama administration's hyper-cautious, hyper-intrusive vetting, one need only look at the appointments to date to realize that if President-elect Obama wants to include somebody in his administration and he can, he does. His administration may even continue to have an Office of Political Affairs.

I assure you that David Axelrod's emails, client list, and fees raise issues that could "embarrass" the Obama administration. And President Clinton has made it clear that he would cooperate fully in conducting his affairs so as not to cause "national security" problems.

If Senator Clinton is not offered a Cabinet position it will either be because at the end of the day the President-elect does not want her to have one or because she does not want one.

As for Senator Kennedy now creating "working groups" and inviting Senator Clinton (along with Senators Harkin and Mikulski) to head one, here's my most cynical view: Senator Kennedy is providing cover for President-elect Obama should he choose not to invite Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State. The Democratic Party is realizing, rather late in the day, that in any number of ways they botched their approach to Senator Clinton and her supporters.  Now the public is souring on the Democrats even before the inauguration. With the understandable exception of those whose livelihoods may be reduced or eliminated, not too many people are keen on the Pelosi-Reid- Barney Frank plan to give billions to GM if it does not even have the cash to make it to January - if the situation is that tight, GM already IS functionally bankrupt, and should use proper legal means (e.g. submit a Chapter 11 plan to the relevant court for consideration) to handle its affairs responsibly in light of that fact. But, I digress...

My key point is that whatever Senator Clinton decides to do in the coming year, and whatever position she is or is not offered, the Democratic Party begins 2009 with a tremendous internal problem.

The trouble  began to brew when the Democratic Party  hounded Senator Clinton to get out of the primary race; and then refused to allow its own rules and procedures to determine the nominee. Even if the superdelegates had, in an unforced manner, cast their ballots and voted then-Senator Obama the nomination, Senator Clinton's supporters would not have felt shortchanged, as many of them do now. And if the superdelegates had gone the other way, I would think then-Senator Obama's supporters would not have felt shortchanged either. There is a difference between winning fair and square and being pre-selected. Furthermore, had the process been conducted impartially, it would have been natural and relatively easy for the winner to have asked the other to join the ticket in a show of genuine unity. There may have been downsides for either in assuming the vice-presidency but depending upon whether the two were savvy they could have designed a role for whichever was the vice-president that would have suited his or her strengths and showcased them.

None of the poor decisions that have brought us to this point can be undone. I have reminded readers of them because they illuminate the current difficulty. There is no public, impartial procedure left for allocating Senator Clinton the position of power many Democrats, including many who preferred Barack Obama for president, would like her to have. The closest approximation is a position that Senator Clinton may not be interested in, although I think she'd be quite good at it: Senate Majority Leader. But that would require the Democratic Senators themselves to elect her to the post, abandoning their deference to pecking order or, if they are in the pecking order, to graciously step aside.

Heading a working group under Senator Kennedy or serving as Secretary of State puts Senator Clinton in a subordinate position, in both instances to people who her supporters believe treated her and them disrespectfully. While Senator Clinton might decide to accept either post - and I fully respect her right to decide to do so, as she is ultimately the one who runs her career - I think it will be very difficult for the Democratic Party to convince those who it has alienated by its refusal to address the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and many of her women supporters that either of these positions addresses the problem the Party seems unable to grasp. Millions of women - and men with a real appreciation for how the world is for women - will view either of these appointments as typical of the dynamic where, instead of having a woman in a power position of her own, men rely on the talents of a woman to burnish their own power - or to be the scapegoat should things go south.

I do not have a view as to whether Senator Clinton should accept a cabinet position if offered; nor whether she should accept the task of heading a working group on insurance coverage. With regard to Secretary of State, much would depend on how much autonomy President-elect Obama would give Senator Clinton, and frankly, in modern-day cabinets, Cabinet Secretaries are not autonomous. Their job is to execute the policies of the administration in which they serve. They can advise as to what those policies should be, but they cannot publicly deviate from those decided on by the President. If they cannot stomach the policies, they depart. If they free-lance, they depart.

My point is this: it is not Senator Clinton's problem that many in the electorate mistrust the Democratic Party's treatment of women, and it is not clear to me that her occupying either of the positions now being bandied about would do a thing to repair the mistrust. The Democratic Party, and its new leader, President-elect Obama face a real challenge: they need to win back those who have lost all confidence in their commitment to gender equity not only in electoral political participation but in every area.

Comments

[quixote]

"typical of the dynamic where, instead of having a woman in a power position of her own, men rely on the talents of a woman to burnish their own power - or to be the scapegoat"

Yup.

Everything they've done so far, *everything*, shows a total inability to grasp the problem, and, what is much worse, a total unwillingness to even see that it exists or to try to grasp it.

[Cyn]

Bravo! Excellent post with lots of information and insight. You never cease to amaze me, Heidi. That's why I keep coming back.

[Mary Beth]

I love your insight Heidi, and how you get to the whole picture!! Thanks for saying what I was trying to figure out myself!! You always seem to clear the brush away, so I can see what's really going on. And thats why I keep coming back .

[Puma-SF]

Great post, Heidi. I am torn about this decision. On one hand I would love for her to be offered and take the position because I'd like to see the Obots as well as Kerry and Richard blow their stacks. But on the other hand I would like to see her continue her work in the Senate and not be under Barky's thumb. He will just take credit for whatever good she does. Also, IMO if she accepts the position it would effectively end any bid she may have to run for President in 2012.

[CognitiveDissonance]

Quite frankly, until there are major reforms done in the party, there is nothing they can do to get my confidence back. Offering Hillary crumbs just makes me despise them more. I hope that she will just say no.

[Runstadrey]

I'm mightily offended that the repugnant TK would even think of offering to make her head of a working group. It was precisely because of his cowardice way back when that we don't have universal coverage now. If I were HRC, I'd tell the repulsive snake to [...].

I'm a guy, and the Dems have lost my reliable vote of the past 40 yrs for the foreseeable future.

[lynne]

great post! i agree with most points, however i do believe she'd be a fantastic SOS (i mentioned so much to you in denver, when we met)and have no doubt that she could broker a peace agreement in the mid east that would change the world for the better!

[DYB]

The main reason HRC should not accept the position of Secretary of State is Colin Powell. The job destroyed his credibility and reputation because of an inept President and Powell's inability to challenge the President. I can't imagine HRC, who has campaigned for Obama most vigorously, would challenge her boss. No, he'll mess up and she'll be blamed for it.

As far as a working group for a Kennedy committee... After Kennedy publicly slapped her back (not for the first time; let's not forget his Clinton-bashing endorsement of Obama, and his statement that Hillary should not be Obama's VP), after Kennedy slapped her back on the health care subcommittee request - why in the world would Hillary prop up Kennedy's standing? It just makes no sense...

[ainnj]

The main reason HRC should not accept the position of Secretary of State is Colin Powell. The job destroyed his credibility and reputation because of an inept President and Powell's inability to challenge the President. I can't imagine HRC, who has campaigned for Obama most vigorously, would challenge her boss.
*******************************************

Hillary Clinton is NOT Colin Powell. Perhaps it was Powell's too many years in the military that caused his blind obedience even while knowing what laid ahead for our troops, or perhaps that is just giving him too much benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, and regardless of Powell's rationalizations for what he did, I don't believe that Hillary Clinton would stand before the world and baldface lie for Obama, knowing that the lives of our sons and daughters were on the line. At least that is what I choose to believe today.

[Fannie]

Wow, you really branded the cattle with this article - HRC. I totally see your points, and agree.

[Alice Paul]

This is a great article Heidi and spot on. As for me, I am not going to be placated by the democratic party after what they did this year. I am fully convinced by their abusive actions in the primaries and their refusal to act on the caucus frauds or anything else that they are totally and utterly without merit any longer. Senate Majority Leader for Hillary Clinton would be a step towards some minor repairing of their reputation. I think they are starting to wake up to the fact that the divisions they caused ARE going to be a big problem for them in the future.

I can see by their recent actions they are worried about what they've done and the long term impact. They have a big problem now. They've caused many younger voters with outright lies to dis like Hillary Clinton. They've also used misogyny and cheating to "defeat" her and to alienate us. They will need BOTH groups in future contests. How to proceed? Pretend to throw Senator Clinton a bone...then if she accepts use that situation to try and further turn more and more people against her. Clearly, they are afraid of her power. This is all so telling as to what they REALLY believe about a powerful woman who gets a huge approval rating for years on end and nearly becomes POTUS. They wish to destroy and remove her power and say it was all justified.

I've talked to a lot of women. Even some Clinton supporters who caved and voted for Obama because they had never NOT voted democrat. They are not happy campers just because they gave Obama a vote. They are still as disgusted as I am with what I saw happen.

And Heidi, retelling what happened IS important. It's part of the real history of how Obama "won" the White House. It may be shameful for him and for the D.N.C. and for that it's all the more important to keep telling it. They earned, and wrote their own history. It's up to them how or if they repair the damage done. So far, I remain unimpressed. writing down history and holding their feet to the fire in future is the only hope we have to make sure they do not get away with this ever again.

I'm not going back and aligning myself with these misogynists who with outright lies and cheating cost us all probably not only the most capable president of my lifetime but, the only woman many of us felt was the right choice to "shatter that glass ceiling"

If Hillary accepts this position I hope she is extremely careful, if they continue to pull dishonest tactics with her I so hope she is taking notes for a future book and lecture career. There is nothing like the truth of history to expose right and wrongs. I am pleased that history will not be kind to some of these charlatans. The only thing they can do now to redeem themselves is to show with their actions they walk the walk on women's rights and voter rights. At the very LEAST it needs to be Hillary heading up healthcare reform. This entire jock over female positioning is disgusting. Unforgivable.

[votermom]

Great post!

[soupcity]

Great post HeidiLi, I get the same vibe about Kennedy. Although I know she's alot more forgiving than I, I'd like to see her accept SOS just to piss him off. I feel like the fix is in (again)if she remains in the Senate. It already seems as if they are trying to marginalize her. WTF are they afraid of? She's shown more party loyalty than anyone, it gets clearer each day that the only reason for this derangement is because of her gender. Whatever she decides, it'll be done with all the brilliance and grace we are used to.

[JP49]

Heidi: Thanks for a great article as usual. I hope she doesn't take either position. I hope she steers clear of this administration. I have voted almost 50 years straight democrat. This year I voted straight republican. I am disgusted with the democratic party and I cannot support them. I don't think with their newfound power we will see anything other than what we have seen in the primary and general this year. The same goes for the mass news media and Hollywood. I am boycotting both except for a very few. I watched in horror this election season. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. I felt like I was in a never ending nightmare. When I awoke, Obama had been nominated by our un-democratic party. The next nightmare was to watch the press and fellow democrats show the same disrespect to Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain. I don't think I will ever vote democratic again. This is a party that I now have no respect for. Whatever Sen. Clinton and Pres. Clinton want to do I wish them well. I only hope is outside of the Obama administration. Kennedy should go home. Talk about washed up.

[Kendall Johnson]

Great post Heidi, but I disagree with the notion that the democrats care about how women feel about being screwed this election cycle. We seem to get screwed every election cycle. The only difference this year is that so many of us had high hopes in Senator Clinton. Yes the democratic party showed their asses this year and proved that they too carry the banner of sexism and misogyny. The republicans aren't the only ones. But the fact that so many women caved and voted for Obama has only emboldened them in the rightiousness. They feel like Obama's victory in the general election is not only a referendum on their sexist tactics, but reinforces the notion that women are passive and will fall in line no matter what they do to us.

I see no silver lining in any of this stuff. I hope Senator Clinton stays in the senate. She is my senator and we love her here in New York. I would hate to see someone like Guliani replace her. ....

[Swannie]

great post Heidi Li .. and now that it would appear she will indeed be SoS , I think she will make this office uniquely her own and exercise power from that office in a way no one ever has before .
My own personal and private belief is that she will be the de facto president ; given the weakness of bo and the clintonesque team being assembled. She must see a way to serve this country ..., or she would not have accepted the appointment .

[Suzanne]

On the one hand, a senate seat gives Hillary an opportunity to continue to admirably legislate, to advocate and persuade other lawmakers, and to represent New York. Lawmaking is important work in these dire times. She's smart and conscientious.

On the other hand, as Secretary of State, I imagine she'd have the freedom to advocate for women's rights all around the world, and would increase her international knowledge and savvy, making real progress.

I tend to think she should keep the Senate seat, because she doubtless is in the middle of plans she'd carefully made and this would ditch her plans and progress legislating. She'd likely be brilliant in either position.

[Jere]

Great post Heidi. I am not sure I agree that the Democrats perceive that they have a problem going forward. They won without many of us. I think they believe they don't need us anymore, and they may very well be right. I will support Senator Clinton in anything she chooses, but no matter what she does, to the extent she can be, she will be marginalized and contained.

[glennmcgahee]

While intitailly I was against Hillary taking the SOS position, I now beleive the spot is owed to her due to the damage that the Obama people did to her reputation and just the idea of the talking heads having to grovel at her feet and kiss her ass to get her to speak to them regarding foriegn affairs shows that she still has plenty of fortitude and power. Along with the fact that she can be extremely effective in the position, she'll get her cred without being exposed to the inner turmoil that is sure to come as the Democrats try to do something about our economy while she actually can work unimpeded on our stake in world affairs. I beleive Obama will get bogged down in economic problems while she flies around the world having a great time and propping up our stance in the world seeking peace, cooperation and respect.