You haven't put up an Assignment Desk in awhile, but I'd really love to see a post on what exactly her qualifications for this job are.
I've read over and over how qualified she's supposed to be, but on the most important foreign policy issues of the last eight years she's been dead wrong.

What's she got right?

Speaking of Samantha Power, it looks like she'll be shut out of the new Administration (what's left in top FP positions? UN Ambassador?). That's disappointing, as the things she was saying as Obama's advisor were a good part of what initially made me start to prefer him over Edwards in the primaries. I thought it was reasonable to sideline her after the "monster" comments, but if she gets left out even after the election that's quite a bit more punishment than was called for.

"Speaking of Samantha Power, it looks like she'll be shut out of the new Administration (what's left in top FP positions? UN Ambassador?)."

Meh. There's positions supporting the NSA, or ambassadorships. Power's probably better in an advisory role anyway.

And Obama just appointed her to the most important foreign policy position in the US government.

SoS may or may not be the most important foreign policy position in the administration. In W's first term, it certainly was not. And for most presidents, NSA is arguably a much more important position in terms of setting policy at the high level.

But it is a very sharp break with the Obama campaign's central message.

If you believed that then. Many of us did not. Obama had to use CDS as a tool, and the HRC's Iraq war vote was the simplest path there. Remember, while actually IN the Senate, Obama voted identically to HRC...except, of course, on FISA.

Doesn't this sturm-unt-drang kind of assume that Obama gave up the right to name assistant and under-secretaries in favor of Clinton's people?

What stops him from naming Samantha Power and his more liberal younger foreign policy people to those positions? Or indeed, to the NSC as a counterweight to the State Dept?

I go with Rob Mac. In a national security state involved in "global war" (Obama seems to have bought into the "GWOT") the State Department is largely a non-player, which will suit the unqualified HRC.

The exception was foreign policy. Iraq was a real disagreement on the level of principle.

The candidates didn't disagree very much on what to do about the situation we are in at all. Only about how to get there and some language about "preconditions" which was a windstorm without any rain.

I would expect that many of Obama's people will find their way into State. But maybe not Samantha Power. She will either be in the White House, or not appearing in this picture. Or maybe in 2-3 years.

Too bad, but if you want to be a diplomat, you have to learn to zip it and keep it zipped. What if she said that about Musharraf?

Hillary has no background or particular knowledge in intellectual affairs. Whatever one might say of Condi Rice and Allbright, they had substantial knowledge. Our new secty of state is a pretentious ignoramus. But hey, he says that's the best he could do. Don't forget, she was under fire on the Tuzla airport landing strip.

Obama just appointed her to the most important foreign policy position in the US government.

Well, no. Obama will be occupying the most important foreign policy position in the US government. The SoS has no real ability to work against the President -- if she does, he can just fire her. Where they disagree, she's just going to have to suck it up and do what he wants. Granted, she'll have some influence over him, and he wouldn't have chosen her if their views were really widely divergent, but it's not like this is a permanent or even semi-permanent position, like a committee head in Congress.

I wanted him to pick Anne-Marie Slaughter.

Hmmm. Not happy about this pick, but whatever. I've primarily thought of the First Lady as an informal ambassador so I guess this lines up somewhere with HRC's experience. And certainly the Clinton name is still worth something in the world. But the disagreement between them is in this area, while superficial, IS major precisely because it's been brought to the surface so often. And while I'm not inclined to believe that HRC actually thinks that neocon bs is viable, she's voted for it.

And yes, she can be reprimanded and even fired if she disagrees from the president's stated policy, but only to the extent that Obama isn't fearful of the backlash that such a move might create.

I think a lot of people took campaign rhetoric WAY too seriously. Obama never saw himself as the anti-Clinton; he just had to position himself that way because, as it turned out, Clinton was his main opponent. And vice versa. And that's why both campaigns treated trivialities like "preconditions" as if they were indicative of some fundamental disagreement over foreign policy. The disagreement over the initial invasion of Iraq was of course a major one, but everybody in the running for SoS supported the war. And the difference was entirely backwards-looking: going forward, Hillary and Barack (and Edwards) had basically the same position.

For some reason, against all the available evidence, people convinced themselves during the primaries that Obama was running as a full-throated progressive, while Hillary was running as a cautious centrist. Many of us tried to explain this to the same people who are whining now. Obama has always presented himself as a mainstream, left-of-center Democrat, just like the other candidates. He's not betraying you now; he's doing what he said he would do.

I wasn't rooting for HRC. She does bring a lot of starpower, which is useful. But my primary concern is that on a personal level, she may not have the personality to be SoS. She's smart, informed and may have been an effective senator, but she is adverse to direct one-on-one conflict (hence, she allowed the infighting and intrigue in her campaign because she wouldn't confront her generals). She also seems to take fights personally, which is not what you want when you are directing high-level negotiations between heads of state. What you want is someone who doesn't get riled, doesn't take offense, and continue to utter the phrase, "Yes, and . . ." rather than "Yes, but . .." or "No."
After thinking about it a bit, though, I think Obama outplayed everyone again. HRC in the Senate was a potential rival, whose ego could get in the way of progress. But as SoS, Obama and Emmanuel hold her leash. At worst, HRC is only in it for her own glory, but even if that's the case, the only way she achieves glory is by getting the job done, and the terms and methods of that job are dictated by Obama. The only way she looks good now, is if she makes him look good. Tom Freidman got it right. There cannot be any light between the SoS and the President. If there are cracks shining through, the people at the table know the SoS is irrelevant. That's what happened to Colin Powell. Obama knows this, and HRC is smart enough to know this too. It may be a team of rivals, but it's not a team of equals. Sit! Speak! Quiet! Take care of Bill! Rollover! Good dog!
Brilliant.

The Clintons are hardly team players. They still are two for the price of one, and he is allowing them to set up quite a fiefdom within the administration. It's going to be fun to see how much they try to go their own way. I think this appointment shows weakness, rather than confidence, on the part of Obama.

Hillary is a quick study and a good soldier. Wish she had been appointed to the UN, though.

Hillary has no background or particular knowledge in intellectual affairs. Whatever one might say of Condi Rice and Allbright, they had substantial knowledge.

Bullshit. Go read an interview about the Middle East with Hillary Clinton, and then go read an interview with Condi Rice on the same subject, and see who's smarter.

Hey, Ezra - since you affect an interest in food production you may be interested in a new post on the membership of the ag transition team over at the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's blog. I'm not going to post the URL because of the crappy moderation algorithm used by your software, but they're easy to find.

Obama is not well-versed in foreign policy, defense and national security. It is a brilliant play to get pragmatic, bi-partisan approved stalwarts to head up those areas. There are no good options in Iraq, Afghanistan or if the Iranians really want to develop nuclear weapons. What you need are people who can get you through the long slog without a major catastrophe. This should free Obama up to tackle domestic issues where he has both a broader and deeper knowledge/experience, the problems are just as pressing and most importantly where there numerous different paths to take to achieve the desired outcome.

what jeebus said. i would have said it more rudely.

people need to stop getting bent out of shape over personnel appointments. look beneath the surface; what matters is policy and policy execution. What matters is ending the Iraq war and stopping iran from getting nukes and dismantling al-qaeda and restoring america's standing in the world. There's the real change Obama promised us.

hillary clinton is by far the best fit for SoS. She's the most competent, the most savvy, the most credible. Ideal? Not really. obviously superior to the loser's club Richardson, Kerry, et al? yes. Obama picked the best person he could find. what more can we ask?

I was an Obama guy from the start and I am also happy with this choice. I never bought that there was a blood-fued between Clinton and Obama. They were very close competitors for the nomination that both wanted. When everything was complete, Hillary supported Obama as fiercely as any previous Dem contender by a mile. Romney wasn't on the stump like Hillary was. Yes, they had some differences on foreign policy, but the White House sets the agenda. Marine Gen Jones at NSA looks really good to keep Joe the Biden, Hillary, and all the rest on a short leash.

It is being said repeatedly that Hillary was some kind of dynamo for Obama after the primary was sorted out. I just don't recall it. To the contrary, I remember thinking, and I remember stories to the effect of "Where's Hillary?" and "She's not going all-out cause he won't pay her debt and and she's generally not over." But moreover, I personally remember being underwhelmed by her effort.

I get the distinct impression this is a classic Clintonian introduction of a meme to the early drafts of history that they hope to be accepted as accurate to events going forward. It started before SoS talk emerged, and in any case I don't believe Obama is staffing his cabinet based on gratitude in any case. And since she is getting the job, and Obama seems intent on burying all hatchets in sight it probably doesn't really matter.

But I really do wonder about these claims of extraordinary effort by her. Could anyone fill me in on some stats in terms of appearances or other metrics to judge her effort by?

Mike,

Look them up yourself, and pay closer attention in the future.

Giving Bush authority on Iraq is not a foreign policy mistake. It is a political mistake. Congress' rushed to give up their war-making powers. That was their mistake.

The question of talking to Iran was not a policy difference it was dispute of semantics.

hillary clinton is by far the best fit for SoS. She's the most competent, the most savvy, the most credible.

This is ridiculous. Even if you are, for some reason, excluding Kerry and Richardson, Richard Holbrooke is obviously the most qualified person for Secretary of State, in that he has an actual record of successful achievement in diplomacy. Clinton makes sense as a political decision, but not particularly as a policy one.

The SoS has no real ability to work against the President -- if she does, he can just fire her.

John is right. Holbrooke is so infinitely more accomplished and knowledgeable than she is in foreign affairs, that in the light of his availability, her appointment is a travesty. It might make personal political sense for Obama -- but how could it be in the interest of the country to bypass the more qualified people in her favor? That she is a quick study is of little import, compared to the vast amounts known by others in this area, and the puny size of her knowledge. Would we want a "quick study" at treasury? Do you want a "quick study" performing the next surgery on you??? You want someone steeped in knowledge and experience. The democratic party has those people -- but instead, a diva who has managed to get prestigious positions from men as "make-up gifts" is appointed.

Anonymous,

I'm inclined not to believe the claims, because they don't match my memory. If you're going to make a claim, you need to be able to back it up, or else accept having the claim dismissed. The fact that you respond as you do rather than with statistics comparing her contribution to past primary rivals only supports my contention that this is an idea that has been thrown out there to be picked up by supporters.

I don't buy it -- convince me. Or not.

But I really do wonder about these claims of extraordinary effort by her. Could anyone fill me in on some stats in terms of appearances or other metrics to judge her effort by?

As if such statistics exist. "Why yes let me just consult the internet database of how many campaign appearances in support of the nominee were made by candidates who failed to garner their party's nomination. Would you like that information for the last 3, 4, or 5 election cycles?"

What a douche.

Here's your evidence: Obama himself was impressed by how much campaigning she did for him. That's as much as you're going to get.

Has the potential to be a Bobby Kennedy/LBJ type of situation. Like what's going to happen, he runs everything through his NSA (Holbrooke?), she gets mad she's just a figurehead, starts causing problems, talking anonymously to columnists...

jeebus,

If the idea of some kind of historical comparison is so ridiculous, then so is the claim that she exceeded the norm. And what Obama says about the matter is beside the point: he's made clear reconciliation is nearly job #1. He'll say what's needed to that end.

If what you really want is for me to just shut up because this notion of Hillary's Obama-stumping is important to party unity (my ass?), I'll gladly do that -- I'm as much for a progressive future as most folks here, and party/ideological unity is needed for now. But from an is-it-really-true standpoint, no facts seem to be emerging here. Anonymous is right, though -- if it's so important, I can take up the cause of finding out. I was really just curious if I was missing something definitive on the question. Seems I am not.

But what's up with dropping the D-bomb on this one though, jeebus? Ezra's forum tends to the exremely decorous; am I really that out of line?

Her support of him should not be a qualification for this job. The jobs that are given in gratitude are ambassadorships. But her support in any case would have to be balanced against her previous attacks (naive, unqualified, associates with "slumlords".) Kerry and Richardson supported him early on when it counted. This shows fear of the Clintons.

What jeebus and Courtney H. said.

Does no one else remember Obama's 300-member foreign policy advisory team stacked with Clinton folks? Not exactly an indication that Obama wanted a break from the Clinton foreign policy regime.

So far, I've been very happy with Obama's cabinet picks. Experience, competence, and not afraid of getting read expertise where it is needed.

That's change I can believe in.

But what's up with dropping the D-bomb on this one though, jeebus? Ezra's forum tends to the exremely decorous; am I really that out of line?

No, you're right. I shouldn't have said that.

My complaint wasn't with the idea of a historical comparison, but with the notion that somebody could realistically access the kind of information you were demanding. I don't really know whether Hillary's activity went beyond the historical norm. But the lack of readily available metrics for making the comparison doesn't really cut one way or the other; those who say she did in fact do more are not under any greater obligation to provide evidence than those who say she didn't.

The best evidence I think we are likely to get is the fact that the people close to the campaign, and apparently Obama himself, were impressed with and grateful for the amount of campaigning that Hillary did. A better comparison would probably not be a historical one but a contemporary one: how many events did Mitt Romney do? Or Mike Huckabee? (There's not really anybody to compare with on the Democratic side; Richardson probably didn't do as many events as Hillary, but who wants to see Richardson. Same for Dodd, Kucinich. Biden was the running mate. Edwards was sitting in a corner.)

Thanks.

I understand what you're saying, and you may well be right. I'm not asserting that she certainly didn't do as her people have claimed, and if I were I would be under the same obligation to prove that. But I am not: I am requesting documentation for the claim the she outperformed or met whatever the appropriate expectation would be. If there's no way to measure it, then there's no way to force someone to concede it's true. Obama and his people have plenty of motive to grant the argument regardless of its truth. (So do I really; this is now just an interesting logical debate for me.)

Put more broadly, if you make a claim and you want it accepted, you have to back it up. A skeptic of the claim 'x' is under no obligation to prove or even assert not-x in order to preserve the right to remain unconvinced of x absent evidence.

I was always just asking, on what basis should I believe this? (Because it didn't match my recollection, even though I didn't have much confidence in that recollection and was open to having it corrected.)

Thanks again.

"The heated argument over negotiations with autocrats was similarly fundamental."

Ezra's superficiality and ignorance here is risible.

Re Mike's question, I wasn't paying special attention during the national campaign, since I knew it would be a laugher, but it was impossible not to hear about Clinton campaigning and raising money for Obama every single news cycle. There was just a front-page article in the NYT mentioning that Clinton had campaigned "tirelessly" for Obama, that "he told aides he was impressed by the sheer number of events she was doing on his behalf". If you ask, "Do you have documentary evidence that the sun rose this morning", and people say "duh, I saw it", "on what basis should I believe this" is rather lame.

But I really do wonder about these claims of extraordinary effort by her. Could anyone fill me in on some stats in terms of appearances or other metrics to judge her effort by?

HRC made over 70 appearances for Obama. Mostly in PA, OH, and Florida because those were considered to be the places where she would have the most impact.

Just because the national media didn't cover every one of these events doesn't mean that Clinton was putting in the time. The simple fact of the matter is that on any given day there were multiple events featuring Obama, Biden, and many surrogates -- HRC, Michelle, Kaine, Sebelius, Webb, McCaskill, etc. --there was only so much time the networks were going to devote to covering these things.

But if you lived in a state like PA, OH, or VA you probably heard about one or more of these folks on your local news EVERY night from mid-summer onward.

Thanks for the specifics. 70+ sounds like a lot to me.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Sharon

http://www.autoloans101.info