The Note: Clinton Makes it 3 am for Obama Transition
EmailABC News’ Rick Klein reports in Friday’s Note:
So much for no drama.
Surely a certain soon-to-be-ex-senator knows this by now, but here’s the thing about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: She tends to steal the scenes she’s playing in.
Until the subject of her “private business” Thursday in Chicago is resolved — and maybe until and even beyond the press conference announcing the new secretary who’s headed to Foggy Bottom — it will be 3 am in the transition process.
The Hillary rumors are the first potential stumbling block for the smooth machine that is President-elect Barack Obama’s transition efforts — and it revolves around a storyline that seems never to get old.
There’s a decent chance this is just flattery, and an almost-equal chance that Clinton doesn’t even want the job. But what does it say that no one is seriously waving off the possibility that Obama actually does want Hillary Clinton answering that ringing phone?
Read the rest of The Note — and get all the latest on the 2008 election, Congress, the White House and the wide world of politics every day — from Rick Klein by bookmarking this link.
“Discussions about Clinton, D-N.Y., being asked to accept the post are ‘very serious,’ an Obama source says,” per ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Jake Tapper, and Z. Byron Wolf. “Asked if Hillary Clinton would consider the secretary of state job, a former official in President Clinton’s administration said, ‘I think so. What would you rather do — be senator or secretary of state?’ ”
“She’s smart, she’s strong, she’s experienced, she’s a team player, she is usually pretty diplomatic, and she also brings some gender diversity to an Obama Team concerned about such matters,” ABC’s Tapper and Sunlen Miller report. “She brings instant stature to the job, one Democrat told me. Many world leaders have known her for almost two decades.”
“But Obama and Clinton clashed frequently on international issues during their contentious primary battle,” Tapper reported on “Good Morning America” Friday. “Clinton suggested Obama was naive on wanting to talk to Iran and reckless in discussing a willingness to strike terrorists in Pakistan without government permission.”
“There’s increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days,” Al Kamen writes in his Washington Post column. “And Obama could put her in his speed-dial for a 3 a.m. phone call each morning.”
(Easiest joke in town: Would Bill Clinton want to fill out those Obama job application forms? Does Hillary Clinton want to go into detail about revelations that could potentially embarrass her would-be boss?)
Obama, of course, has plenty of experience with the Clintons. But in this delicate period where he remains around the presidency but not quite of it, this is one piece of the process where a little less transparency and openness could go a long way.
Continue reading today’s Note by clicking HERE.
ABC News’ Hope Ditto contributed to this report.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I not sold on Hillary as SOS. Too much drama. Would Bill Clinton come along too? What about his business dealings abroad? Too many “?” marks there. No Drama Obama. That’s how it should be.
Posted by: Vanessa | November 14, 2008, 3:51 am 3:51 am
Obama
Biden
Clinton
the start of a more earthly “Hall of Justice”…
looks like Superman and Batman just found their Wonder Woman.
Posted by: dl | November 14, 2008, 3:58 am 3:58 am
# Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
# Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
who brings more to the table and presence in negotiations… on behalf of the US and Obama…than Clinton…
and anyone who has ever seen the two letters “dl” at the end of a post comment knows I was not a fan of Clinton during the primaries.
Posted by: dl | November 14, 2008, 4:02 am 4:02 am
This appears to be the real deal if you listen to what has been coming out of the Obama transition team. Or it could be a well placed leak intended to soothe Hillary’s ego and keep the press interested in them and not Palin.
Posted by: matt | November 14, 2008, 4:02 am 4:02 am
I think Richardson should be SOS and Hillary should take the next Supreme Court position.
Posted by: pt | November 14, 2008, 4:05 am 4:05 am
supreme court would be a waste of Hillary’s actual skills and attributes…
there is a latina judge …that mark my words is going to be Obama’s first supreme court nominee.
Posted by: dl | November 14, 2008, 4:08 am 4:08 am
and mark my words …if it is between Clinton and Richardson…Hillary is going to take it.
which as much as I like Richardson…he is too milktoast for the situation we have.
and to compare the effect Clinton would have in negotiating and diplomacy…and Richardson or Kerry…
well there is no comparison.
Posted by: dl | November 14, 2008, 4:10 am 4:10 am
CLINTON? SOS? Great! Two great Lawyers. Did I say lawyers? Didn’t she say that Obama was not qualify to be President? Didn’t he say that she voted for the war? Do we see a tend here? I guess we just don’t care.
Posted by: CHARLIE | November 14, 2008, 4:16 am 4:16 am
Nonsense,
Obama may have used the Bill Clinton argument in the veep selection but we all know H & B have separate existences. I hope Hillary gets this job. I think she would be very good. 1) women are good at diplomacy. 2)by now Bill probably knows more about the world than he does about the US. So he would be an asset to her if she decided to seek his input. and 3) Matt, who is Palin?? and why would Obama and Hillary be interested in playing a children’s game like that. It seems to me those two are serious grown ups interested in seriously grown up matters, unlike some baby politicians we have seen running around this week.
Posted by: Question | November 14, 2008, 4:19 am 4:19 am
I guess I missed the part in all the empty “Change” rhetoric were it said it would be change back to the daily dose of sleaze of the Clinton administration.
You liberals remember the Clinton administration right?
The one that was handed the most robust economy in history just to see it tank 3 months prior to it being handed to GW Bush.
The one that took millions from the Chinese government in exchange for our most highly guarded missile secrets.
The one that saw the President more interested in getting BJ’s than responding to the first time the WTC was attacked.
The one that passed just the largest, but the 2 largest tax increase in US history.
The one that brought fame, glory and honor to the memory of Lincoln buy renting out his bedroom.
The one that dismantled the intelligence and military of this country that directly led to the first ever attacks on US soil by a foreign country.
The one that permitted corporate corruption to run rampant allowing for the likes of Enron, Tyco, etc; costing retirees hundreds of billions in savings.
Yeah – it sure will be refreshing to get back to those good old days. Now that’s change we can believe in.
Looks like Obama better get his step n fetchit shoes on.
Posted by: Obama - the Socialists' puppet | November 14, 2008, 4:23 am 4:23 am
I can understands that hispanics will want a high profile reward but I think Clinton would be great in the role.
Posted by: ed | November 14, 2008, 4:23 am 4:23 am
Vanessa – You’re post, as always, is amusing. I’ve watched you post to this blog for quite a while now, almost always shaking my head at your one dimensional views when it comes to Obama. I’m glad he won, but Clinton would be an excellent SoS. I’ve seen your derogatory comments regarding both Clinton’s throughout this election and it only shows your naivety and makes you less credible in your posts. You were obviously not paying attention in the 1990′s when Bill Clinton was President during the most prosperous time for middle America in the last 35 years (perhaps you were too young to notice). The better of the two men running for President won this election – why waste your time sowing more discontent after the fact? Move on.
Posted by: mhhunt | November 14, 2008, 4:24 am 4:24 am
Please, just stop with the Hillary Clinton rumors. Give it a rest. ABC- you may not know this, but she lost her battle for the Presidency. She ain’t gonna be Secretary of State, not after the way she treated Obama in the primaries. It will be either John Kerry or Bill Richardson. Both worked much harder for Obama.
Posted by: alison | November 14, 2008, 4:27 am 4:27 am
Hillary would be great for the position. The Clinton were very popular over seas. The one thing you can not deny the pair is they work well together. I believe Hillary would be a great help with Obama and foreign policy. For those that dislike Hillary, stop haten on her. The woman has worked hard to get the position she is in. And she has done nothing different than any man hasn’t done.
Posted by: Storm | November 14, 2008, 4:31 am 4:31 am
alison,
I would want to agree with you, however I would not be unhappy with Hillary for Secretary of State. Although I still do not understand why many dislike John Kerry, I think Clinton probably brings much gravitas to the job.
I’m just not sold to the idea of Bill Richardson doing a more effective job than Hillary Clinton. Well, aren’t you glad you’re not the one making this choice? I can imagine it is not an easy choice for Obama. By the way, I do like the meeting with Senator McCain. One thing Senator McCain should admit-other than the Keating Five piece, Barack Obama did not go negative on him during the campaign as some would suggest.
Posted by: D | November 14, 2008, 4:34 am 4:34 am
who is leaking why this information?
Posted by: maz hess | November 14, 2008, 4:36 am 4:36 am
Question>>said a lot of sour grapes…Clintonian prosperity must not have come your way…Too bad.. For most of us, tax increases and all, we saw our
quality of life grow. We enjoyed the man’s engaging disarming personality and his upbeat and world embracing rhetoric. And we were shocked but not unduly by his infidelities. Yet, to hear you, you’d think he was the great Satan. Greater then even your very own George W. Bush right Question? Slight of hand cannot remove our vision from W. – the most undemocratic, under-educated, war-mongering, corporation schmoozing, freedom dissolving, home price devaluing crack pot who thinks God told him to invade Iraq president that America has yet produced. Leave Bill alone and remove the mote from your won parties eye – we have had enough of your bitterness and slanders.
Posted by: Johnnyr51 | November 14, 2008, 4:44 am 4:44 am
or maybe that equally talented alaskan governor . clintons bring tooooooooo much baggage. maybe arnold and we could get a democrat in california.
jimmy carter is much more highly respected internationally ,if he would take the job,
Posted by: wo fat | November 14, 2008, 4:45 am 4:45 am
BTW – I don’t think Hillary will pass up a long and prosperous career in the Senate for a short term job with State.
Posted by: Johnnyr51 | November 14, 2008, 4:46 am 4:46 am
Why? There’s got to be someone else! Did he forget how dirty she is?
Posted by: TruthIsGold | November 14, 2008, 4:52 am 4:52 am
This really is the microwave generation. It’s like the election is over and it’s as if the previous 18 months never happened. It’s like Hillary didn’t try to throw Obama under the bus to get the nomination. Like she didn’t plant people in press conferences to ask preprepared questions or dramatize her travel to Bosnia. And oh yea, isn’t she an elected senator from NY? Shouldn’t she spend some time doing that job? It seems she’s always campaigning for the next job. Gee, I wonder if that’s what she’d do as SOS? Hmmmm. It’s like all that talk about how revolutionary Obama change was going to be and here we are with all the same characters in the show: 2 from the Clinton administration and Axelrod a Washington insider. Wow, what crazy change. If anything Obama is proving how it’s true that the same people keep running our country and “We The People” have no say about it.
Posted by: Don | November 14, 2008, 4:53 am 4:53 am
Did someone just compare Biden to batman….maybe Adam West….maybe
Posted by: Adam | November 14, 2008, 4:57 am 4:57 am
Two Clinton’s for the price of one! Both of which know the leaders of the world? Sounds like a slam dunk!!!
Posted by: Timus | November 14, 2008, 4:59 am 4:59 am
How much credibility will the world give someone who said she was met with bombing when she got off the plane in Bosnia…….oh, well, maybe it wasn’t. Kerry is a thinker, which might prove useful in these coming years.
Posted by: gg | November 14, 2008, 5:02 am 5:02 am
Maybe not my first choice, but I like her over Kerry.
Posted by: Marcus | November 14, 2008, 5:03 am 5:03 am
Obama is closely following in the footsteps of Honest Abe when he was the President-Elect in 1860. Lincoln hand picked his republican opponent to become his SOS. Lincoln also reached across the aisle to Southern democrats to fill other positons on his cabinet.
Maybe all those books Obama read on Lincoln are finally paying off.
Posted by: TAH | November 14, 2008, 5:04 am 5:04 am
I hope it is true and Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State. Good decision.
Posted by: SN | November 14, 2008, 5:05 am 5:05 am
I’ve been a critic of the Clintons since ’92, but I have had to admit, that the job Hillary and Bill did in bringing the party back together, rather than fracture it further – coupled with their efforts in supporting Obama – impressed me very much.
It’s been a year of firsts for me, and I would support some senior position for her in the new Administration.
Posted by: wolf | November 14, 2008, 5:09 am 5:09 am
It isn’t an easy choice. Obama will be damned if he does pick Hillary and damned if he doesn’t. Just imagine the uproar though if he were to pick Sarah Palin for SoS! She’s obviusly angling for a big fish position. If only she could see Africa from her house…
Posted by: James50 | November 14, 2008, 5:22 am 5:22 am
Why is JOHN KERRY being considered??
His place is in the Senate .. the man hasn’t proven a damn thing to be in Obama’s cabinet of “change”.
He was such a lukewarm candidate in 2004 that I’m shocked his name is being thrown around with Hillary Clinton’s. There’s NO comparison, Hillary’s got him beat and so does Richardson for that matter.
Posted by: AJinNYC | November 14, 2008, 5:44 am 5:44 am
Where’s Jimmy Carter when you need him :o).
Posted by: Mike | November 14, 2008, 5:50 am 5:50 am
This is all starting to look like “more of the same”. Where’s the change? From a former Army Ranger’s perspective, I wouldn’t want a Clinton anywhere near the White House, much less brokering foreign policy. Remember Somalia…remember Bosnia?
Posted by: Loves this Country | November 14, 2008, 6:07 am 6:07 am
Hey soldier (Loves this Country 11:07:37), you can’t talk sense to most of this crowd. They’re still giddy and wet in the pants about the prospect of an Obama/Biden/Clinton regime further dividing our nation. When the Kool Aid wears off, they’ll say things like, “I can’t believe I voted for that guy,” and then they’ll vote for him again.
Posted by: OIFVet06 | November 14, 2008, 6:13 am 6:13 am
I guess I missed the part in all the empty “Change” rhetoric were it said it would be change back to the daily dose of sleaze of the Clinton administration.
You liberals remember the Clinton administration right?
The one that was handed the most robust economy in history just to see it tank 3 months prior to it being handed to GW Bush.- I’m sure when Obama turns the economy around this idiot will give credit to W.
The one that took millions from the Chinese government in exchange for our most highly guarded missile secrets.- Show the facts and I’ll believe you.
The one that saw the President more interested in getting BJ’s than responding to the first time the WTC was attacked.- There was no more international terrorism in the U.S (that’s the line you like to use for W.)after that, only from right wing nuts like you. There was FAR LESS terrorism on our allies.
The one that passed just the largest, but the 2 largest tax increase in US history. But the overall tax rate had been cut from the 50+ percent it was during the most successful period our country has ever seen. At his highest, it was only 39%. And the economy improved.
The one that brought fame, glory and honor to the memory of Lincoln buy renting out his bedroom. At least he didn’t give away the names of US intelligence officials and lie about a war.
The one that dismantled the intelligence and military of this country that directly led to the first ever attacks on US soil by a foreign country. That’s funny, I remember reading a headline “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” Clinton increased military spending. And 9/11 COULD HAVE been prevented by Bush, but he was too busy reversing everything Clinton did.
The one that permitted corporate corruption to run rampant allowing for the likes of Enron, Tyco, etc; costing retirees hundreds of billions in savings.- Again, this all happened under Republican watch.
Yeah – it sure will be refreshing to get back to those good old days. Now that’s change we can believe in. -God forbid we have a strong economy where jobs are created rather than lost.
Looks like Obama better get his step n fetchit shoes on. – I hope so, although really I think he should be a lot better because Clinton was only so-so.
Posted by: matts | November 14, 2008, 6:26 am 6:26 am
This is all starting to look like “more of the same”. Where’s the change? From a former Army Ranger’s perspective, I wouldn’t want a Clinton anywhere near the White House, much less brokering foreign policy. Remember Somalia…remember Bosnia?
Somalia was a mistake, but god forbid we dispose of a leader in Bosnia without losing one soldier and have it turn into a success. Bush has done such a fabulous job of that in Iraq, right?
Posted by: Loves this Country | Nov 14, 2008 11:07:37 AM
Hey soldier (Loves this Country 11:07:37), you can’t talk sense to most of this crowd. They’re still giddy about the prospect of an Obama/Biden/Clinton regime further dividing our nation. When the Kool Aid wears off, they’ll say things like, “I can’t believe I voted for that guy,” and then they’ll vote for him again. – Right because the Democrats spent your taxpayer money investigating non issues and governed from the most rigidly structured ideological beliefs of any modern president. How many times did you vote for Bush?
Posted by: matts | November 14, 2008, 6:36 am 6:36 am
She’s smart, she’s strong, she’s experienced, she’s a team player. GIVE ME A BREAK. SHE BECAME A SENATOR THROUGH THE WORKS OF HER HUSBAND. THIS DIDN”T WORK FOR HER WHEN SHE RAN FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE HER HUSBAND’S WORDS THAT UPSET MANY VOTERS. LETS NOT FORGET THAT SHE WAITED DAYS TO CONCEDE TO OBAMA’S VICTORY IN THE PRIMARY. GAME OVER…PERIOD
Posted by: CHARLIE | November 14, 2008, 6:41 am 6:41 am
Yo, Charlie, where are the indictments for your claims on Whitewater? In fact, where are any convictions and charges you brag about? It was the great and noble Republicans stooge Ken Starr that investigated all these charges and couldn’t substantiate a single one, so stuff it.
Posted by: jdona | November 14, 2008, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
She would be wonderful. Instant respect, trust. He would make a smart choice. I can’t imagine the others compared to her. She has class, poise, smarts, historical knowledge and ready to go to work now.
Posted by: rafraf | November 14, 2008, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm