The Importance of Having Eric Holder's Back

I want to know if he still backs Mandatory Minimum Sentences and enhanced marijuana enforcement, as he did when US Attorney for DC in 1996. Hopefully he'll be asked at Confirfmation hearings, if not before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/drugs/mjtrafic.htm

"U.S. Attorney Eric H. Holder Jr. said in an interview that he is considering not only prosecuting more marijuana cases but also asking the D.C. Council to enact stiffer penalties for the sale and use of marijuana.

"We have too long taken the view that what we would term to be minor crimes are not important," Holder said, referring to current attitudes toward marijuana use and other offenses such as panhandling...

Holder said he hopes to discourage some of that activity by being tougher on marijuana crimes. New guidelines should be in place by the end of the month, he said, noting that the District could learn from New York's "zero-tolerance" policy."

 

My diary at kos' place http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/19/73027/712

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Ben - Of course I read your diary and your cause is my cause, but I'm utterly unworried about Holder on mandatory minimums and marijuana policy and in fact think his hawkish past on the matters will both help him get Senate confirmation and make him an even more effective implementer of Obama's stated positions against imprisoning nonviolent offenders and stopping marijuana club raids, among other drug policy reforms.

Of course you do realize that by raising these two matters, you help him to get confirmed by the Senate, right?

Many thanks for it. 

Of course, all of the noise about the possible Hillary nomination has come out of the Clinton camp - Obama's people are neither confirming nor denying any of it.

 

Could the Obama camp be deliberately using the possibility of a Hillary nomination for SoS as a diversion, to keep the media and right-wingers buzzing while far more damaging (to the right-wingers and DLC) appointments like Holder are slipping past them, far below the radar?

 

If so, Obama is even more shrewd than I gave him credit for.

My related commentary here.  Appointing Clinton SoS would be a very poor move---its important to pay attention to the source where the Clintons are concerned.  Everything I've seen is spin from their wind machine.  Compare as Al does the AG and HHS appointments---no spin, no drama.  I've been happy not to have to push away all the Clinton spin since she was bested in the primary, this is like a bad flashback...

who point out that at first you were denying that Hillary for Secretary of State was anything except noise coming from her camp but now you are shifting to acceptance that it's an Obama trial balloon that, if the netrooters don't shoot down, will possibly (probably?) become a reality. 

But regardless of how your assessment on that was, I've read your case for Kerry and against Hillary but, forgive me if this is my own disconnect, why not a comparative case of his foreign policy against hers.  I understand your point about no drama but if Obama's considering her- and no doubt he is- he must have decided drama level wasn't his most important criterion.  I mean could Obama really be surprised by this media frenzy?

What are the views of how Daschle at HHS, breaking today, persuade Hillary vis-a-vis staying in the Senate vs. going to State Department?

This reflexive 'netroots' faux prograssive sqauwk has finally imploded lacking a Bush to beat. That was their one tune and they did it well.

Now, we move to the urgent matters and the Firedogs, Mydd's, Digby's and others show little clue of the adaptability we need to actually do the work of getting out of the oil era woods.

The Clinton era agonies and the Lieberman outrage spew are just useless now. Of course Obama will want to deftly cherry pick the best of the Clinton world while ignoring the worst.

I have a feeling your initial observation that Hill is an imposition from the worst of the bubba partisans is spot on and even Ms Clinton seems reluctant to embrace the job invented for her.

Lieberman will just fade, one apt poster over at 538 noted that Obama can just dissolve the ridiculous Homeland Security department and let its constituent parts go to their pre 9/11 homes leaving Joe without a thing to chair over.

And the people of Connecticut are unlikely to reelect the old reprobate anyway. If you think about it, both of us have probably spent way too much time reading netroots entrails. I know I have but now the whole thing is headed toward useless if it can't find new things to do.

They will just be the mirror parody of right wingnuttia, narcissistic and insufferable in their drive to affect the right posture while the more adept will turn toward these useful things such as helping the poor figure out how to weatherize their homes against the oncoming winter.

If these idiots can't look at the individual merit of each Obama selection, freed from whatever past jobs, they are missing everything. A new world looms, even the corporations are choking.

There is a newer, cleaner, less stupid world to start building now and dilletantes are as helpful as a fart in a crowded elevator.

As of 12/1, I'll finally be done with awful Cambridge and I'll be moving to Pittsfield with a particlar interest in seeding a community farm economy to increase arable land use for sustainable food needed here.

It's cool, you can come home now if you want and there will be a lot going on for those who are alert to the contours of the possible.

The near term war is over, we won and the netroots quacks will increasingly resemble those sad Japanese soldiers who spent a few extra decades in miserable jungles cause they didn't notice the change.

It's funny, after it all the best voices online in their respective fields are you, Nate and Kunstler.. the triumvirate.

The amateur pamphleteers of netroots now either need to attain the hard earned analytical acumen you three have in abundance or find some other calling. I see a huge decline in their readership soon as more and more people find their ways to the grand building we get to do.

Here.

As you said Al, here come the Republicans re Holder, with Arlen Specter saying the whole Marc Rich thing will be an issue in any potential confirmation hearings for Holder.

You compared Hillary to the guy who many progressives believe (with some justification) was a war criminal under Nixon and Ford - and threatened to go oppo on Barack just two weeks after his election!

Well, I guess there's no holding back....

You know, in terms of the causes you hold dear, there's at least as strong a case against Holder as there is against Clinton. (See Chiquita Brands etc.) Personally, I think Holder's a fine pick despite his Colombian clientele - hell, if he can change Federal sentencing guidelines he should get the Nobel - but I'm generally supportive of the new President's choices.

I really do think that we elected him and now it's his job to pick his bench; sure, we can kvetch with a bit of Monday-morning QB commentary - it is the blogosphere. But if we want to organize, it should be mainly around issues, not personalities.

PS - "failed" is way too strong, or they're all failures. Who knows, maybe they are, but WJC still ranks numero uno lifetime in that office during my citizenship.

this at Daily Kos--please, please, PLEASE!!!  It just smacked me upside my duh-head and I am very grateful you took the time to explain this.  I know you'll be poking the beehive for some, but you can handle the heat.

I now see you already did.  My bad.....

(which is far from certain, since the vetting will be a daunting procedure), I assume it's because he's taking history too seriously, in an almost superstitious manner. Consider this:

He was a boy with a distant father, raised in a family of modest means. He had a curious intellect, devouring history and memorizing passages from Shakespeare. He became a lawyer and settled in Illinois, where he was elected to the state legislature. With relatively little political experience, he decided to run for president. Few believed he stood a chance of winning a primary campaign against the party's heir apparent, a senator from New York.

But the gangly, bookish Illinoisan galvanized millions across a country in crisis with his soaring rhetoric, speaking in big strokes about transcending partisan politics and creating America as it ought to be. He rose from obscurity to clinch his party's nomination and the presidency. The New York senator returned home deeply disappointed and bitter, having fallen to a shrewd political tactician.

Sound familiar?

The year was 1860, and Abraham Lincoln had narrowly defeated Sen. William H. Seward to become the Republican presidential nominee. After winning the presidency, Lincoln disregarded personal animosity and took the unprecedented move of tapping Seward to be his secretary of state.

[...]

At first, people wondered whether or not Lincoln would be overshadowed by Seward. But in the end, Seward ended up becoming his closest friend. . . . He went on in history in a more profound way than he ever would have had he stayed just a senator from New York.

Perhaps he's (vainly) hoping that history will repeat itself.
And yes, I have changed my mind on this matter. At first I was cautiously favorable to the idea, but I'm now decidedly against it. Al and others convinced me. It's a very compelling image on a symbolic level (team of rivals, yada yada) but the deeper one inspects this potential move, the less sense it makes. Obama and Clinton had serious disagreements on foreign policy in the primaries (remember her "obliterate Iran" comment? not very reassuring), and she does not have any serious foreign policy experience apart from drinking cups of tea with heads of state and her undistinguished service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There are literally dozens of fine Democrats who have more expertise and competence on the subject, which will be very needed since Obama doesn't have that much experience in the area himself.

Tom W - I wrote that HRC would be "the most damaging Sec of State since" Kissinger (a man that quickly and loudly endorsed the idea of appointing her to the post, in case you missed it... without any "I reject and denounce" comeback from Sen. Clinton, I might add).

Hopefully, I won't get the chance to say "I told you so" on that.

I grew deeply and permanently alienated from the Clintons because I saw the cause that matters most personally to me suffer multiple long-term setbacks under Bill's presidency.

I have long maintained that Clinton cynically chose "gays in the military" as his first significant move on the gay agenda precisely because he knew it was doomed to fail, and that he could point to his attempt on our behalf to advocate for an item that was WAY below ENDA our our community's radar as proof that he was on our side without actually having to accomplish anything.  And DADT was actually worse in practice than the status quo had been.

By DOMA, I was disgusted.  That the man sabotaged his own presidency for some head from an intern finished him off for me forever as anything other than a narcissistic jerk.

Hillary today still views LGBT people as an interest group whose votes must be cultivated by primarily symbolic actions.

Obama sees us as Americans.

following your logic re Rahm, she'd be stuck taking orders. I like the idea of Feingold, and not Clinton, as the highest profile Democratic sceptic of Obama's policies in the Senate.

 

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

Al writes above

I am utterly unconcerned about Holder's past positions as US Attorney or elsewhere regarding mandatory sentencing, marijuana policy and the rest. In fact, I think his past missteps on these matters will make it more possible for progressive changes to be made regarding drug policies on various fronts. He will provide cover for them.

First, because those stances will help him gain Senate confirmation in ways that an on-the-record anti-prohibitionist would not be able to do. Second, because Obama has been quite clear about changes he would make to certain law enforcement policies regarding the drug war.

Why not apply the same logic to Hillary? What's good for the goose would appy if it wasn't so sexist.

I must say I am enjoying this.

 

I see the increase in support for Hillary Clinton to be less a matter of guilt and more a matter of forgiveness. It wasn't so long ago that the Netroots were freaking out chicken little fashion about whether Clinton was going to demand a floor count and fight for individual superdelegates on the Convention floor, and instead she called for a nomination by acclamation and Bill gave a very pretty speech. She went to Florida and said "No way no McCain" and stumped for him, and the big rivalry was healed with kisses and hugs by Election Day. So I think a lot of people who were very much against Clinton during the final tense primary days were against her for the long-hyped opposition they anticipated, so they have forgiven her for sucking it up and making up, rather than feeling guilty. But I am sure there are some Kossacks who have Hillary guilt too.

A few thoughts:

 

Isn't SoS going to be a crummy job in this administration?  Obama sets the policy and Biden would always (as he should) be looking over your shoulder -- the VP never seems to have anything to do and I think it is reasonable to think he'd be the foreign policy specialist.  It just seems like a high profile in the Senate would be much better for HRC.  Plenty of power, TV opps and a greater degree of independence.

 

I like the idea of Supreme Court for HRC but does it have enough visibility for her?

 

Al, I agree with your views on the so-called war on drugs.  It would certainly help if federal policy / law was changed, but we'd still have to fight 50 more battles -- one in each state.  I've represented a huge number of clients on drug charges and never set foot in federal criminal court.  Oh wait, we already have an organization in all 50 states...  hmmm....  Maybe this could be a trickle down effect that would actually work!

 

Thanks for all of your work!

Al (or anyone), accepting the premise that all of this drama is perhaps a "head fake" designed to deny Kerry and Richardson from SOS consideration, and given the fact that Kerry is now seriously considering becoming the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee as a consolation http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kerry_expected.html, while Richardson has faded quietly into the the background, who else can reasonably be considered for SOS? Who is well suited to promote the Obama agenda with credibility, authority and sincerity? I have not seen any other names in the offing. Is this an opportunity for "new blood" which requires us to think outside of the box? What are we missing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLU26i3TaP8&fmt=18

if he supports paramilitary groups in colombia..then i dont know why we are supportive.

http://www.counterpunch.com/murillo11192008.html

Very tight and cogent analysis, Al.

Indeed, there is a huge amount of inertia and power politics that need to be negotiated to maximize Obama's overall political capital.

When Obama makes a bold move, he will need the maximum amount of good will that our system will allow.

More, keep in mind that during the New Deal, FDR had less than twenty Republican Senators to contend with--as well as less than 100 opponents in the House.

Obama seems very adept in scoping out the alignment of forces that he has to contend with.

Lastly, I agree that Clinton as SOS was a head-fake--and my view is that her being passed over will grease the wheels so that she becomes a shoe-in for a nomination to the high court.  That, I think, is her prefered legecy.  More, Obama has been very impressive in his ability to honor the Clintons, helping them save face after a tumultuous primary where many feelings were hurt.

Obama is a gracious winner.  This bodes well toward actually getting something done and winning the election in four years.   The path toward substantial progress is so arduous and winding here in the US--so much so that it really takes two terms to leave much of a mark.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kerry_expected.html

I think HRC will be SOS and Richardson will be appointed to another Cabinet post.

@Tonya:  Your answer is Susan Rice

Stephen Rose - You've written me a number of times asking me to add your blog to the sidebar here as some kind of tit for tat or logrolling because you link to mine.

But your comment above and the shameless suggestion of "sexism" here give two examples of why I neither link to it nor find it interesting to read, and generally skip over your submissions when I run across them at HuffPo.

I don't think you have a clue as to the details of the work of the Secretary of State and how it differs from that of Attorney General. That's fine: I don't have a clue as to how, say, the Health and Human Services Department operates because it is outside of my areas of great interest. But I'm certainly not going to pretend to know about it or opine as if I do.

Nor are you a careful reader: The main thrust of my argument about Clinton as one mentioned for Secretary of State have been:

A. that the media circus surrounding all-things-Clinton - whether her fault or not (and she is both victim of it and enabler of it) - are anathema to the functioning of diplomacy and the discretion it requires.

B. that she's a serial mismanager of organizations and bureaucracies and,

C. there are daily tasks necessary at State to protect human rights across the globe that the White House can't possibly micromanage or even keep track of. Senator Clinton has never at any point in her career showed any consistent interest or passion regarding human rights, has used the issue selectively to demonize some governments for other reasons while covering up for such violations in Colombia and elsewhere. She is hostile to human rights and the doctrine of human rights begun with Jimmy Carter will continue to wither under her watch.

In none of my arguments have I cited her Iraq war vote or voting record, or what clients she might have represented.

The qualities needed to run State are very different than those needed to run Justice. If you can't see that and therefore want to insist that the same filter ought to be applied to both posts, I can only conclude you don't know how they work or really what is at stake in either.

Every time I spin off into Booker T Obama land I check back here and you talk me out of it.  I hope you are right

Al, you say Hillary Clinton is "hostile to human rights" - in my view, that's simply false. She's a champion of human rights.

Have you forgotten "women's rights are human rights" - a speech delivered in China?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk3nzRt7p94&feature=related

C'mon - this simply over the top. Most destructive since Kissinger and now "hostile" to human rights. I know you're a passionate Clinton opponent and opposing Hillary was a  big part of your cause this year - fair enough in politics - but this seems way too harsh.

Tom W - Your link and claim back my point. Senator Clinton clearly thinks that "human rights" refers to equal and civil rights. They are, however, two distinct areas of law and doctrine. She will be very active, I'm sure, in working for equal rights for sub-groups, but completely doesn't get what "human rights" are in the global context.

Human rights as a matter of law refer to specific crimes - against political dissidents, labor and other organizers, reporters - by authoritarian regimes and their paramilitary surrogates. Throughout Latin America, and the world, this is a daily atrocity. And she's been silent regarding those rights in Colombia, in Mexico and elsewhere while selectively attacking other countries, like Cuba and Venezuela, when there are other reasons to demonize them, using "human rights" as a cudgel. She probably doesn't know that, for example, Venezuela has had the greatest improvement in human rights in the hemisphere over the past decade. She probably doesn't want to know. Nor does she want to know that her friend Uribe in Colombia has the worst record.

Using the phrase "human rights" doesn't make her a champion of them. The way she used it in China only underscores that she doesn't have a friggin' clue to what it means.

Al, you're not arguing that Hillary Clinton has less of an understanding/interest in human rights (as defined by specific violations of international law) than what she should have - you're saying she has less than the other candidates for the job.

Your favorite is John Kerry (who now seems locked up for Foreign Affairs, which is great) - does he have more concern for human rights than Hillary Clinton? Than Barack Obama, for that matter?

I don't think so.

Take Darfur - a human rights disaster, no question. But the three Senators above did exactly the same thing: condemned Sudan's admission to the UN Commission on Human Rights.

"No friggin' clue" is just a put-down. This is an accomplished woman who began her campaign for President talking about human rights:

"The world we want is also a world where human rights are respected. By surrendering our values in the name of our safety, the Bush administration has left Americans wondering whether its rhetoric about freedom around the world still applies back home. We have undercut international support for fighting terrorism by suggesting that the job cannot be done without humiliation, infringements on basic rights to privacy and free speech, and even torture. We must once again make human rights a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy and a core element of our conception of democracy."

 

Al Writes:

"But your comment above and the shameless suggestion of "sexism" here give two examples of why I neither link to it nor find it interesting to read, and generally skip over your submissions when I run across them at HuffPo."

My suggestion of sexism was aimed at me not you. It would NOT have been sexist to apply your logic regarding Holder to Clinton. I hope that's clear. It would have been consistent.

I am not in a very good neighborhood to safely deal with the rejecting part of your note. Suffice to say that I do have a very good audience of folk who read the Obama Blog and value what I say.

At least you appear to have liked my song.That assuages things a bit.

Al,

 

I share your antipathy for the Clintons anywhere near Barack's White House. Some rumbles in Teddyland are making the SOS "lure" more about getting her mitts far away from health care. I'm believing them. Teddy wants health care reform with his last dying breath and he knows Clinton anywhere in it will delay or sink it big time.

 

I think Barack knows this too and SOS was only big enough spotlight to lure her away from health care reform battle she desperately wants to lead.

 

I'm not thrilled with this deal-making if true. SOS is too important a spot to use as carrot but health care reform would do more to help every US citizen, and Clinton under Barack's thumb at State maybe I can live with it. Anybody who mistakes how strongly Barack will be involved with foreign policy wasn't watching his confidence debating Middle East with McCain.

 

Don't ya'll remember that until September of 2007, Hillary was not against torture, and then changed her mind only after supposedly talking to some generals?  My god, she's supposed to be female - the nurturer gender - and even a 7-year-old girl knows torture is wrong.  HRC has never shown me anything that indicates she has any true empathy for human beings unless they fit into her "niche" categories (e.g., women's rights in China).

WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday belatedly explained that her flip-flop to oppose torture was an evolution inspired by talks with retired generals.

"Upon reflection and after meeting with former generals and others, Sen. Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypothetical scenarios," said campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) came out against all torture - "period" - in Wednesday's Democratic debate after previously telling the Daily News last October it would be okay to torture a terrorist to foil "something imminent."

She    doesn't    get    it.

I hope to hell that Obama - or Michelle - have enough sense to make sure this woman does not become SoS.  I completely agree with Al on this one.  Get a grip, Obama, she was wrong for POTUS and she's just as wrong for SoS.  And for very similar reasons.

Tom W - And they have each shown the passion for them again and again, consistently and without favorites, and have wielded considerable staff energy in their federal posts to calling out governments across the world on their violations.

I'm not making this up. Those of us abroad in the daily work of defending human rights know that when atrocities happen or need to be prevented beforehand, just which Senators and Congressmen we can go to and get letters written, statements made, and pressure applied, and get results, and which (most of them) are like talking to a brick wall.

Richardson did this at the UN. Kerry's done it for 24 years in the Senate. But human rights defenders get an indifferent ear from your junior United States Senator in New York, even when they go to the lengths of fasting outside her local office (as recently occurred when friends of the late New York journalist Brad Will, assassinated in Oaxaca, Mexico in 2006 pled again and again with her office to help force prosecution of his assassins who were captured on camera as they shot at him, but have gone unprosecuted).

They've gotten help from US Rep. Jose Serrano and others on the case. But Senator Clinton, with this as with almost all human rights cases in this hemisphere, has been disturbingly silent and indifferent even when these cases are put in front of her nose.

Those are the facts. Why don't you call her Senate office and ask her to intervene in that assassination case involving her own constituent in Mexico! Then you'll learn, as we have, the hard way the real truth about Senator Clinton and human rights.

Alberto is right. You all are being chumps for a Clinton shill media debate. Obama will not be bum rushed and Hill will not be S of S.

It is a stupid pitiful ploy she had no part of and she is increasingly ashamed of the idiot scam.

As for women's issues...

http://www.listenhillary.org/article.php?list=type&type=115

CodePink is a group of mothers / women who have been advocating peace for the last several years and have now extended their efforts to helping women fight home foreclosure -- including a mother in Queens who had just lost her son in Iraq.

Senator Clinton demonstrated very little interest in their non-violent (often quite creative) pleas for help and compassion and on occasion treated them condescendingly.

Perhaps other women's issues commanded more attention?

 

Here's an updated page from their site highlighting grass roots efforts that are making a difference in women's lives with or without Hillary's help...

http://www.codepink4peace.org/

"The passage of the bailout package-—supported by elected Democrats and Republicans alike—did nothing to calm the crisis and certainly has not stemmed the massive tide of foreclosures.

Jocelyne Voltaire, a single mother who had lived in her Queens Village home since 1987. Her home was scheduled for auction on October 17. There was no government bailout for Jocelyne. Instead, compassionate Americans from all over the country donated to CODEPINK to save Jocelyne’s home. Now we are working with other single mothers to keep the roofs over their heads."

Well, you make blanket statements in support of Kerry and Richardson and cherry-pick one example on Clinton. I guarantee you there have been times when human rights activists have been exasperated with each of them. Why? Because they're mainstream Democrats.

Kerry was, of course, labeled a near-Bush neocon by some on the pacifist left during his run in 2004, when it was pointed out that many of his advisers were of the hawkish variety (you may recall Rand Beers and some of his views on Colombia) and his own voting record was that of a pro-military centrist Dem.

Richardson, of course, represented Clinton Administration policy in the UN - so where's the difference there? (Sure, he's done wonders with hostage releases).

And I can cherry-pick a story as well: in 1996, against some criticism, the then-first lady met with Sister Dianna Ortiz, an American nun and rape/torture victim who'd been protesting her treatment at the hands of Guatemalan security forces, standing in the park outside the White House.

No mainstream Dem is going to be the ultimate paragon in this particular area - no Ted Weiss types become president or secretary of state. And as much as I like Joe Serrano, he's not going to be in the cabinet. It's just the way things are, as much as I agree with the principles you state. You know, FDR refused to allow the Saint Louis to dock....

I just think you may have it in for Senator Clinton in particular...as mainstream Democratic figures of national standing go, she's spoken out as much as anyone about human rights, her future boss included.

Incidentally, I'd support almost anyone President-elect Obama names to the cabinet at this stage.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/11/10967__hillary_clin...

they cross-posted at Huffington.

Oh, and do you think some newly-elected constitutional law expert put this out there?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/hillary-clinton-secretary_n_143...

Of course, wouldn't this also scrap Kerry?

Tom W., if you are going to continue to peddle your Hillary as "champion of human rights" meme, and present one speech (the irony!), as "evidence" of her commitment to "women's rights" (without understanding the nuances and distinctions of either, especially in nonwestern contexts), then give us the track record of initiatives and actual legislation (including the follow up on China) that made an impact on international gender equality.

 

 

You didn't think the Clintons were campaigning for Obama for the good of the Democratic Party? Or for us little people?Get real! They are the MacBeths of the political world without the subsequent crisis of conscience. That SoS offer is (part of) the debt Obama owes them for their 'friendship", bought and sold, subject to whim just like everything else they do.  Holder seems like a good choice as well as Daschle. I get a headache at kos for all the emotion and drama and lack of seeing the big picture. Strategy. Strategy. Strategy. And patience. 

 

Janet Napolitano - Secretary of Homeland Security

Penny Pritzker - Commerce Secretary

What do we know about her creds in this area?  I wondered where she might land since I had heard her name up for AG.  Does this mean she can't run against McCain in 2010?  Also a Chicago businesswoman for Commerce - Penny Pritzker.

Farai Chideya interviewed Holder for NPR's News and Notes a couple weeks before the election.  Though he didn't get into much detail, he did note that "the next attorney general" would probably make de-politicization of the DoJ and prosecution of corporate malfeasance priorities.  Here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/newsandviews/2008/11/flashback_eric_holder_explains.html

if Hillary is a wash, and Kerry is somehow co-opted (re: Josselyn above or by senatorial duties), this would leave the SoS as ... wait for it, ...

Richardson! -- as perhaps Mr. Obama wished it in the first place!

Hmmmmmm....

 

 

The story coming out now about the constitutional roadblock to Hillary's appt. linked above, and here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/19/hillary_clintons_f...

Along with the conveniently timed announcement of two women cabinet members. Yesterday on Hardball or some other show the guests were hyperventilating about how the Holder appt. made Hillary's SoS appt that much more likely, because Obama would have to appoint a woman to his cabinet. Alas, it turns out there is more than one woman in the nation qualified to hold a top position. Who woulda thought listening to the punditocracy.

I'm recakking that back at Bigleftoutside, your greatest concern witrh Kerry involved South America. is he still 'palling around' with Rand Beers? Would he be likely to bring him along for the ride at State?

For mer, the best test of core respect for international Human Rights lies in the record on Human rights at home. Here's the Senators who voted against PATRIOT ACT renewal.

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Byrd (D-WV) Feingold (D-WI)

Harkin (D-IA) Jeffords (I-VT) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)

Murray (D-WA) Wyden (D-OR)

Haven't heard that any are under consideration for State.

 

Democrat for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)

I know Foggy Bottom is some distance from the West Wing, but with nearly all of Obama's key campaign personnel staffing different parts of the Administration, wouldn't HRC view the climate in the inner sanctums of power a tad oppositional (if not down right hostile) towards her presence, despite any magnanimous gestures from POTUS?

Also, with even Kennedy's people making statements and dropping hints, isn't Richardson's radio silence saying something loudly?

And what about Susan Rice (National Security Advisor?) or Samantha Power? Surely, something is in the works for them?

or, God forbid, if she does not want any cabinet position at all ?

amk

One of the commenters on Al's post at Daily Kos has a great signature quote that is so very apt.

We either make ourselves miserable or we make ourselves strong. The amount of work is the same.    

Carlos Castaneda

Obama's responsibility to find Hillary a job ? 

A good question, I felt.

amk

Clinton-Hater  extraordinaire...

 

to Tom W: I think Hillary will do a good job as SoS, but the drama in the media for the last week made me think that she would not be able to control the Clinton insiders who would turn her tenure into a media leak fest which will ill serve the president.

The Clinton insiders are not serving her well, they are running to the media to serve their own agenda. I doubt she will control that, I also starting to doubt that she will serve the president's agenda, not because she will be trying not to, but because there are so many complications( Bill, the Clintonites insiders...) that will cause headaches for her and Obama.

it's becoming such a media shit storm, I fear Obama may be boxed in now.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-foreign-policy20-2008nov20,0,1380983.story

"It's astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix," said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.

Clinton . . . appears to be the top candidate for secretary of State in his administration. Speculation about Clinton has dismayed some liberal activists but has cheered some conservatives such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and editor William Kristol of the Weekly Standard. 

 

Al, I so appreciate reading you after getting caught up in wave after wave of opinion on other sites. You seem to have such a clear-headed and historically grounded viewpoint. Plus that video of Obama just felt so hopeful, nearly sweet. I admit to not really knowing who Holder was other than the ex-Clintonite part everybody repeats.

Just heard them [including Mike Barnicle & Pat Buchanan] saying:

(1) That Obama sources are pretty pointedly saying that all this leaking [and, hence, drama] is NOT coming from their side

(2) They all agreed [Chuck Todd, too, after] that the Clintons are trying to box Obama in [triangulation now has 4 sides?!?!?] AND Bill's most recent move of releasing supposedly 200,000 donors to Obama was him going "all in" in this poker game.

(3) Chuck Todd said you'll know that Obama et al are backing away if they start leaking some of those donor names [even though I'm certain whatever Bill gave them was heavily, shall we say, "redacted"]

(4) They also pointed out that all this is not exactly helping her [again, JUST like in the primaries when her side always seemed to get really heavy-handed/ham-handed WHILE over-reaching] & they actually pointed out how these characteristics are not what you want from somone [or that someone's team] in such a below-the-radar position as SoS

(5) Oh, and they mentioned that stupid Gallup poll that says something like 57% of those polled "favor" her at SoS while 30% "oppose"....but when will anyone point out the obvious assumptions made in polls like this?  Hello!  47% of Americans did NOT vote for Obama.  Do you really think that 57% who want to see Clinton at SoS want it for all the altruistic, Obama-supporting reasons the pundits just assume?  The lack of critical thinking when it comes to the built-in assumptions of some polling kills me!

(6) They reported there are rumblings in the Hispanic community that there is not a single floated candidate so far from their demographic for any posts....again, back to the release of two women last night then this today?  Richardson, Richardson, Richardson.

(6) And they chastised Obama for even going down this road to begin with, that he should have seen all this coming.  Duh!  He did.  You know, I honestly think this was something agreed to at that infamous "secret" meeting at Diane Feinstein's house the night before [what turned out to be] HRC's big concession speech the first week of June.  But I think Obama laid out certain absolute conditions re: vetting and release of information, etc that the Clintons are now trying to wriggle out of or cut corners on to not expose themselves anymore than they think they have to to wrangle this.  That Obama, HRC and BC had a tentative agreement on all this over 5 months ago but I honestly think O is using their natural distrust, old-school political manuevering, etc to sever that agreement.  Just MHO, with a pinch of hope.

I've asked this before, but why are so many people still talking about the Clintons?  Why, after the election we've just had, is any attention being taken away from the importance of the work we have to do, to feed the circus the Clintons create to draw attention to themselves?

Just wondering...

When I read about Bill releasing the names of his donors in order to "smooth the way" for Hillary as Secretary of State, I admit I started displaying Chicken Little symptoms again. I mean, why would Obama be looking at this donor list if he wasn't at least seriously considering the idea?

But then your post reminded me that none of this information is coming from Obama himself and that while Obama can't stop Bill from releasing whatever information he wants, he doesn't have to pay attention to any of it. Your post was just the inoculation I needed.

Thank you so much for the update on where things are at.  I'm sitting here at work, attempting to focus, and having my mind wander in 15 different directions attempting to figure out the master gameplan of Obama in this entire HRC circus.  So...you're comment helped to at least give me more info to base my wanderings on.

Honestly...my "gutt" has been pretty much dead on in all aspects of the entire primary, general and eventual election outcome.  And perhaps it's wishful "gutting" on my part, but I just do NOT believe HRC gets this position, or any other in the cabinet, regardless of whatever deals might have been struck.  I just do not believe Obama would have tied his own hands so competely without several avenues of escape, which I believe we are now starting to see emerge.

If nothing else, he's proven time and again that he knows his adversaries inside & out.  He seems to be able to see 5 steps ahead as to how they will behave and react, and he plans for those ultimate reactions at the outset. 

My gutt tells me this is all part of a plan for SoS that he laid out well back before Super Tuesday....God willing!

at a high dollar fundraising meeting for Democratic Senators during the primaries, as told to me by an attendee (Schumer was supporting HRC):

"When Hillary was elected senator, people said 'You can work with the Clintons.  You just need to remember, it's always about the Clintons.'"

That's why the media circus (thanks to leaks from their camp), and also the biggest reason why Obama shouldn't want her in his cabinet.  In any post.  In my view.

I too loved your post, Josselyn.

I forgot.  They also talked about [and put up a quote from] the David Ignatious piece in the Washinton Post Al previsously linked, around the topic of discussion that Obama has a fresh, clean page internationally and by putting HRC at SoS, that page is immediately written on with some preconceptions, for good or ill.

Here's the source re: the "Obama peeps feeling boxed in".  It's the top of Huffington Post's Politics page.  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=pr...

Suzy, I feel your pain, and that's exactly the point.  Again, gotta wonder if Obama et. al. aren't letting this continue to run and run to use that "Clinton Fatigue" to their advantage as well.

Ernest & sis - happy to help.  :-)

representation. With women and black blocks covered, to me it seems like Richardson will be the SOS, my choice.

amk

I had read that NYT article this morning and it has the Clinton camp's ham fisted style all over it. It confirms Al's original post many times over.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=pr...

Mr. Obama’s advisers said the talks had gone well, but would not say if an agreement to avoid conflicts had been reached, as the Clinton camp has indicated.

...

Aides in each camp have grown increasingly sour toward the other in recent days as the matter played out publicly.

...

Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.

 

 

If it is true that the HRC-for-SecState rumors are coming mostly from the Clinton camp, then they are stupider than I thought.  Afterall, how anyone think they can leak their way onto a virtual leak-free Obama team is beyond me.  Isn't that the equivalent of saying, "I can't be trusted with sensitive information"?

OT, but I'd like to find out what the Fieldhands think of Waxman's appointment to head Energy and Commerce. I have always been impressed with his diligence in oversight and think he's going to make an effective stopgap to a wholesale handover of cash to the automakers. What's the feeling?