Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hillary Clinton to Accept Obama's Offer of Secretary of State Job
President-elect Barack Obama reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama's secretary of state. Photographs: AFP/Getty Images Obama's
advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which
distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to
ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not
believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.
Clinton would be well placed to become the country's dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.
Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.
As part of the coalition-building, Obama today also reached out to his defeated Republican rival, John McCain, to discuss how they could work together to roll back some of the most controversial policies of the Bush years. Putting aside the bitter words thrown about with abandon by both sides during the election campaign, McCain flew to meet Obama at his headquarters in the Kluczynski Federal Building, in downtown Chicago.
Obama, speaking before the meeting, said: "We're going to have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country." He said he also wanted to thank McCain for his service to the country.
Asked by a reporter whether he would work with Obama, McCain, who has long favoured a bipartisan approach to politics, replied: "Obviously".
Sources on both sides said Obama did not offer McCain a cabinet job, but focused on how the senator for Arizona could help to guide through Congress legislation that they both strongly favour.
Given Obama's status as president-in-waiting, the two met in a formal setting, a room decked out with a US flag, and were accompanied by senior advisers. Obama appeared the more relaxed of the two, sitting with legs crossed, smiling broadly and waving to reporters, while McCain sat stiffly, with a seemingly fixed grin.
Although the two clashed during the election campaign over tax policy and withdrawal from Iraq, they have more in common than they have differences. They both favour the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, an increase in US troops to Afghanistan, immigration reform, stem cell research and measures to tackle climate change, and oppose torture and the widespread use of wire-tapping.
Although Democrats made gains in the Senate in the November 4 elections, they fell short of the 60 seats that would have allowed them to override Republican blocking tactics and will need Republican allies to get Obama's plans through. This was highlighted today when the Democratic leadership in Congress announced that a broad economic stimulus package Obama sought was not likely to be passed because of Republican opposition.
Obama confirmed at the weekend that he would offer jobs to some Republicans. One of the names that crops up most often is Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator who is a specialist in foreign affairs and a critic of the Iraq war.
- Posted in
58 Comments so far
Show AllObama is reaching our to Conservatives (Hillary Clinton) and Neo-Conservatives (McCain).
But he still absolutely refuses to reach out to Liberal and Progressives.
Nor does he seek counsel from anyone who has views that challenge his own.
Why isn't he talking to Kucinich about health care?
Scott Ritter about approaches to Iran?
Naomi Klein about how to fix the banking system?
Good questions all.
My current answer: he is what he seems to be. He is a militarist, pro-empire, corporate, conservative politician who happens to be a Democrat.
Paul Street's book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics documents this quite thoroughly. I hope I am wrong. I hope he brings true progressives (such as those you mentioned) into his administration. We'll see. But I am doubtful.
Obama is what he is, and you hit it dead on. He's already declared his committment to perpetual war (the corporate state's fondest dream) via a buildup in Afghanistan, just another theatrical gambit to try to convince the world that the empire has some real substance. He won't appoint any true Progressives, because he doesn't seem to know any.
I couldn’t agree more.
And still most people don’t see it. Everyone I know is in a state of over-rationalizing all the dumb moves that Obama is making, trying to preserve the delusion of “change” when it’s really “more of the same”. They all call me an old man, lost in the past. I call them young spoiled brats who don't understand the present.
Myself I have been in a depression since the election. Indeed, this is the first post I make since that sad, sad day when the American population unanimously and blindly handed over their government to those responsible for 58,000 military deaths, as well as over 2 million civilian deaths, in Vietnam (both Democrat and Republican parties) without even the slightest consideration for third party candidates. It is incomprehensible to me. How can such madness receive the unanimous approval of an entire population that claims to represent human rights and democracy. Of course I knew that no third party candidate would win. But at least if Nader and McKinney had gained some ground it would show some hope for future elections. But no. Nothing. Total rejection. Even here, in a totally blue state, where it was most safe to vote third party, less than one percent did so. It is obvious that Americans lack the intellectual capacity to handle democracy, preferring instead to do as they are told and vote for a cartoon style image, which is all they are capable of understanding, an image that behind the scenes is a fascist, imperial, evil military industrial complex. Although I say, “Behind the scenes”, it's not exactly hard to see, is it? Yet essentially no one does. Or perhaps no one chooses to.
I'm so sick of hearing people say, "We did it!". They did nothing. This country is going nowhere.
And, Cindy Sheehan lost? And, she lost 17 to 71 percent? How is that even possible?
I saw a documentary recently that concluded that Kennedy was NOT shot from the front. What blind ignorance. The windshield had a frontal bullet hole in it. Indeed, the person who repaired that windshield under tight CIA/FBI security recently died and left a hand written admission of the fact. But no one seems to care.
I give up. Hillary (Hitler) Clinton for Secretary of State? Sorry. You can’t spin that one for me. I give up. I can’t read the new any more. It's too depressing.
In a single day three steel framed skyscrapers suffered total structural collapse and fell into their own footprint at near freefall speed.
in the United States of America, anything is possible.
PK
OREZ,
Don't give up. There is purpose in continuing to speak out. I understand the depression, after getting clued in about 911 at some point in 2003--and I'm talking about long periods of frustation and depression over the last several. There's is the temptation to think, "Well, what's the use??!!." I've worked through most of that and there is personal power and even joy in consciously trying to change your way of thinking. I've had relatives, who, when I try to relate my perceptions of what's going, have said, "I feel so sad for you." Now I just chuckle to myself, because they are slowly beginning to realize a few things for themselves. It may be getting too late to stave off the misery of the world, but misery will have plenty of company. Not a pleasant thought, but we have much to do. Refresh yourself with simple joys, but don't give up the battle. Many of us are aware that the tyranny will probably get much worse. I appreciate your posts, so keep expanding and sharing your awareness. Procede with life.
Sioux Rose
CYGNUS: That is the quintessential question, and quite foreboding! I miss the voices in this forum that analyze things the way they are, not as we wish they could be... but apparently they have been given persona non grata status!
Daily Kos is reporting this afternoon that Senator Ted Kennedy is beginning the work in his committee on universal health care and has delegated subcommittee leadership posts to enlist the services of Barabara Mikulski, Hillary Clinton, and Tom Harkin. It is encouraging news!
Well now, Hillary has been tested "under fire" in Kosovo. And she's just as good as Obama at lying with a straight face.
First task, get us out of Iraq. We are in a recession. Getting us out of Iraq will save a bundle. Unemployment may well go up to 8 plus%. And that is only the official count that doesn't include everybody who is employed. Since the 1948_1949 to the 2001 recessions the lowest number of months in recession was 6 months, the highest was 16 months. And those are only official numbers. Pressure the new administration to stick to the tax plan they proposed. Pressure the new administration to stick to the returning Veterans services they proposed. Already 2000 vets are coming home to California per month. May none of them be homeless and without necessary health care. Many of them did 4 and 5 turn arounds and were sent back still wounded. Many of them are depressed and suicidal. PTSD. and/or are suffering from TBI, traumatic brain injury. Also a common casualty of being around bombings is impaired to loss of hearing. My concern of taaking care of returning Vets by no means is meant to lessen the need for health care for civilians. I live in a relatively small city. The Democratic Headquarters here is quite inclusive and sensitive to peace and justice issues. I have been working with them on various issues. I have found them most responsive and effective in getting word out to Obama. I hope others will find productive experiences at their local Democratic headquarters also.
I think it's a good idea it shows Obama, to be a man of great character. How many times in the past has the opposition democratic or republican rivial for head of the party been given a role in government on sucess? Normally never happens.
I'm also happy for the Hillary supporters; I think she could make a great 'secertary of state', but we'll see. There is lots to do, I wish them luck.
You are being sarcastic, right?
I forgot to add that there is also a local Peace and Justice center here with which I work. Another idea is that our local 2 times a week Farmer's market here is quite well attended and sort of a gathering place. I have convinced a couple of vendors to display for sale Scott Ritter's book, Waging Peace and some other material Sort of a mini bookshelf idea to feed the mind as well as the body. It has been well received. And I like it because I get to talk one on one with people, hear about their lives, their concerns and worries.
l m t:very effective organizing.
This is a wonderful idea. I was at the local Farmers' Market and got into a conversation with two older African American women shoppers about some housing issues in our area. They were very upset at the bailouts and the layoffs. They said nothing will improve unless we keep organizing. I didn't trigger this. It just spilled out.
Thoughtful people buy and sell goods at Farmers' Markets. It is a GREAT idea to have some books on display, "a mini bookshelf idea to feed the mind as well as the body". That is something I will look into. Hope others will too.
Joe
Since the Clintons actively campaigned for Joe Lieberman against Democrat Ned Lamont in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race, can Obama count Clinton as the Republican he promised to include in his cabinet?
Birds of a feather--Obama also supported Lieberman against Lamont.
This is an outright lie.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601187.html
Obama supported Lamont, donated money to his campaign against Lieberman, and they both were on the same page about Iraq and bringing our troop home.
Perhaps a misstatement, but not necessarily a lie. In March, 2006, Lieberman was being booed at a Connecticut fundraiser, when Obama rose to his defense. After praising Lieberman, he went on to say that he was sure that the people of Connecticut, with their good sense, would return Lieberman to his Senate seat. This was interpreted as an endorsement of Lieberman at the time.(article posted on Talkleft website based on NY Times piece.) Months later, Obama threw his support to Lamont, which I was not aware of. Thanks for your correction. I had read another article which I cannot locate now that suggested that Obama had gone further in his support of Lieberman. I don't know, but the shift to Lamont does not surprise me, since Lieberman would most definitely have been way too much baggage for Obama's own bid for office. But hey, things are going Lieberman's way, neverless. It's a great country, no?? Also, look up Cindy Sheehan's Common Dreams article, "Cegelis vs. the Machine", March 3, 2006. It's just one example of Emanuel, Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the cabal weighing in favor of DLC candidates against anti-war Democratic challengers.
Yes, Scott Ritter!! Naomi Klein- let's see him create a truly BROAD coalition.
We have our work cut out for us.
Obama cannot keep the US from going down the toilet and could not even if he were a progressive. The only question is whether the US, with Obama at the helm, will take the rest of the human race down with it. The appointment of Hillary Clinton as SOS does not bode well.
Exactly! I think "SOS" is the operative expression here.
I voted for Obama. I knew he was a centrist. I am not pleased with the rumors of a Hillary Clinton Sec'y of State. There's lots to fight for as Americans to get from the new Administration. It's not inaugurated yet. I am fascinated at how the comments vary from website to website:CD, Alternet, DailyKos,etc.
Why do you think she won't be an effective Secretary of State? Frankly as opposed to some of the names floated she is a much better choice.
Cindy Sheehan would make a better Secretary of State.
Better than Richardson?
"...Richardson traveled to Baghdad with Peter Bourne and engaged in lengthy one-on-one negotiations with Saddam Hussein to secure the release of two American aerospace workers who had been captured by the Iraqis after wandering over the Kuwaiti border. Richardson also visited Nicaragua, Guatemala, Cuba, Peru, India, North Korea, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Sudan to represent U.S. interests and met with Slobodan Milosevic. Due to these missions, Richardson was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize three times."
Meanwhile, Hillary attends tea parties, fantasizes about ducking sniper fire and through her husband somehow has vicarious experience. Not to mention her NeoCon posturing as big cock of the walk commander in chief bravado.. Please. In the very area that Obama claims to challenge Clinton's lack of judgement, he now elevates her as the winning candidate?
It won't be Richardson.
As if the evidence accounted for anything.
It is one sad day that CD apparently purged the truly progressive Left but left the mundane mediocrity around. Myself included, lol.
Vern! We may all be mediocre, but not mundane. Surely not mundane! (lol)
"I voted for Obama. I knew he was a centrist. I am not pleased with the rumors of a Hillary Clinton Sec'y of State."
I'm with you, NYCartist. Having voted for Obama, and pleased that he won the nomination and not Hillary Clinton, I am somewhat disappointed in this pick. Clinton is very capable, I'm sure, but oh, the drama and baggage that she will bring.
As one who apparently doesn't have the analytical skills to see things as they are (I simply must get that crystal ball fixed), I try to see things as they appear to me, using all the tools and experience I can. I also realize that sometimes others see things differently and maybe, just maybe, it could be just as valid.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Time after time it needs to be said, politics is the art of the doable. So many of the folks making comments here want to see Obama make sweeping or radical progressive changes, but those folks completely fail to comprehend that such action would be polarizing, not reforming. Such action would continue negative partisanship and result in little better than a swing of the pendulum to the opposite extreme.
While it is generally true that government and leadership yet need to move further left, it is unrealistic to expect that to occur in dramatic fashion, leastways for such a move to also be effective and lasting.
It is also true that most of Obama's appointments and policies will support the status quo more than not. But it is completely wrong to see that as a betrayal or failure on his part.
I suggest the way to best further progressive ideology is to demonstrate how it is patient and realistic, and to show how it can work to synergize common interests, to better the whole lot before fixing lines in the sand. I suggest we keep in mind how there are significant percentages of Americans and competing political forces that would love nothing more than to pounce at the chance to expose the downside of any extreme progressive actions - especially when that haste inevitably turns to waste later. Bush killed his party and neocon ideology that way, and now there are those who would act to bring the same fate to a yet growing and fledgling progressive movement.
Clinton is an appointment that speaks to Obama's willingness to embrace differences, something that is indeed suppose to be a progressive characteristic. And Clinton's appointment is one that many around the world will respect, especially those in this America that preferred Clinton to Obama. The way I see it, Obama is surrounding himself with the people that almost every faction in this country can subsequently perceive as representing them in at least some part. This makes Obama a genuine uniter, and not a divider. And that is the very first thing this country needs to begin healing.
Embracing differences??? Hillary talked about getting out of Iraq so that the U.S. could be prepared for the next war. What kinds of differences are you perceiving in this globalist dog and pony show??
Fundamentally speaking, Hillary's foreign policy positions on key issues like, the Cuban embargo, speaking to hostile heads of state, support for the Iraq war, etc. are reasons why many people voted for Barack over Hillary in the primaries. She still believes in the old school type of politics where sanctions, military threats, starving-them-out, and "our way or the highway" prevails over any other policy that might promote fairness. How can Obama implement key changes to our foreign policy if his "point" person is not a true believer? The situation makes Obama look disingenuous to the progressives who supported him.
Phoenix, Obama has made a habit of being disingenuous. I believe this will become increasingly apparent to the progressives who supported Obama. Obama is not playing the game for us, he will continue playing against us, as a principal in the power structure.
I fail to see why selecting Bill Richardson or John Kerry would have been seen as "sweeping or radical progresssive change" or, for that matter, would have caused him to be perceived as a "divider." Obama has made his first substantive mistake, and it's a doozy.
I just checked the MSNBC and CNN websites and this news is NOT there. I can only hope the Brits have jumped to conclusions and gotten it wrong. Are we never to have a Democratic administration without the Clintons dragging their baggage in with the cat???
I think the "pendulum" model of politics is useless.
In a pendulum model, there is no use pushing at all.
Push, and after a bit, it swings back the other way.
Where would you put America's penulum's "centre",
compared to other coutries? Far to the right!
Over the past 8 years, it went from right of center
to the extreme right, and stayed that way. It will
continue to stay hard right unless Obama undoes at
least some of what Bush did. There is little or no
danger of the pendulum ending out on the other side
during Obama's presidency.
But undoing is not so easy. What Bush has put into
place, far from swinging the other way, will
endure for a long time. Bush wanted to make history.
He wanted to move America to the right. In doing
those things, he has been very successful.
One of Bush's early moves was to allow Rupert Murdoch
to control more than he would otherwise have been
allowed to under law. Fox has done a good job of
moving the entire population to the right. Try
undoing that one. Try undoing the top legal
appointments.
A more realistic model of political America would
probably be one that says wherever we are currently
is the new centre. You can then move to the right
or to the left of that.
"Time after time it needs to be said, politics is the art of the doable. So many of the folks making comments here want to see Obama make sweeping or radical progressive changes, but those folks completely fail to comprehend that such action would be polarizing, not reforming."
There is a lot of truth to your words.
Too often, we expect politics to stop being politics, and politicians to act as something else. I don't know why we insist on barking up this tree - it isn't going to change.
We are an incredibly polarized nation. While I don't like all the decisions Obama seems to be headed toward, I agree that the first thing he needs to do is to start bringing some of the factions together so that they work toward a common and larger goal other than their own little issues. If we truly want to start to heal this place we call home, we need to put down our certainties and petty gripes and try to work outside our comfort zones. Usually, that means walking in someone else's shoes for a while.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
YES cosmobilly!
I think it is good to see an administration that includes those who made it to the last round in the electoral campaign. It is yet to be seen who will fill all the positions - so why prognosticate negatively? Obama's approach so far is interesting and somewhat of a departure from the past, perhaps his idea of leadership is more inclusive than the bias speculated on by posters.
I have always hoped for a Presidency that acknowledges those who believe they have some answers - rather than simply "beating the other side" and governing from one set of priorities. While I do not see things the same way that my right winged fellows do, I know many that are good people, so respect that they have basis for their thinking/believing too. Obama seems to be the sort of leader who intends to consider more than his own view point. In a nation with better than 50% of our budget allocated to military solutions, I do not believe it at all unusual that our slate of leaders lean in that direction - after all the public accepts these budgets with little protest, and national security seems to worry many. While I would prefer a less military based future - I can't deny that many many others see it as the only way to be "safe". I know that anger, force, cohersion and other not-so-peaceful choices still seem to shape a lot of the daily contests in life -perhaps our leadership simply mirrors the prevailing mindset?
The dynamics of an administration with diversity as it's backbone may not be as progressive as my own beliefs - but it is shades closer than the past eight years. We progressively minded folks do not yet comprise even a quarter of our national perception. Posts on Common Dreams are not yet of pervasive peaceful tone either. IMHO, rather than tearing at the new fabric of the coalition that is being formed - our time/energy/intelligence might better be spent working on being the ideals we hold for our communities - and in so doing, forge a more pervasive and effective voice in the process.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
"Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live"
As a start---yes!
"We progressively minded folks do not yet comprise even a quarter of our national perception. Posts on Common Dreams are not yet of pervasive peaceful tone either. IMHO, rather than tearing at the new fabric of the coalition that is being formed - our time/energy/intelligence might better be spent working on being the ideals we hold for our communities - and in so doing, forge a more pervasive and effective voice in the process."
Thank you, Mainestay - I couldn't have said this better.
You know, pundits and others read these blogs. Many times, they form an opinion based on what is said here. Not that we shouldn't say what we believe, but if we tend toward the fantastical, that is how we will be perceived. And, most people do not want to see the fantastical in charge. Neither do I.
We all have many goals in common. In Common. Common Grounds. Common Dreams. Communal. Community. Let's pay attention to these - they are what matter.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Mainestay/Ted Markow
Excellent comments.
Thanks, Thomas.
And to belabor the point of commonality, I just saw a great piece with Dennis Kucinich, arguing for commonality, and supporting Obama's conciliatory (read: peacemaking) stance. The word, "transcendence" was mentioned.
A worthwhile 7 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahM6Q6h_oGk
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Actually, I seriously doubt many mainstream media pundits visit Commondreams or read these comments - or if they do, I don't think it is any purported lack of "peaceful tone (whatever that is - were even MLK's speeches in a "peacful tone"?). This is about the most civil comment section on any news site i've ever seen - including mainstram newspapers. But our comments, per Herman-Chomsky Theory, lie outside the extremely restricted range (leftward anyway) of acceptable discourse set by elite interests.
In my town, our peace and justice center had an award dinner for the New-Orleans Katrina/poverty/race/prison advocate Malik Rahim. He was introduced by the well-known, balck and liberal columnist Tony Norman (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). Malik proceeded to deliver an incredibly eloquent speech using a simple quiet delivery style that simmered with indignation of the injustices - but was was also polite and non-polemical. My eyes got quite wet, and Tony seemed to be very impressed too.
So, I eagerly hoped to read a timely column in the Post-Gazette from Tony about Malik. Nothing yet in the last tow columns, and I am not expecting any. Why? Malik was a former Black Panther and an ex-con, who praised Cuba for their hurricane preparedness and response and for their healthcare syatem - so to merely suggest that Malik's remarks have any merit would fall outside the range of acceptable discourse, and Tony Norman has been a MSM journalist long enought to know this. Attempting such a column would get shot down by the editor anyway, repeated attempts would get him fired. Every US professional journalist knows this.
And Ted, what is "fantastical" about advocating the sort of things every European takes for granted, such as uiiversal fre healthcare, a real living wage (min wage in Eurpoe is $12-$18 per hour) among others?
---USAn---
"And Ted, what is "fantastical" about advocating the sort of things every European takes for granted, such as uiiversal fre healthcare, a real living wage (min wage in Eurpoe is $12-$18 per hour) among others?"
Nothing at all - that's not what I was referring to. What I meant by fantastical is the expectation that some political messiah will come riding a third party horse and slay the dragon that is the bane of all progressives.
We simply must get away from that circular thinking and take the best we can get while working for better. That, is not fantastical. That is nature.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
About ten days ago I believe I said something on the order of
WELCOME TO THE CLINTON THIRD TERM.
The more things "change" the more they stay the same.
Wow, that's wonderful. Yet another ardent Zionist as Secretary of State. The Palestinians will be screwed over for at least another four years. "Change" indeed.
I was pretty shocked during the primary debates when Hilary Clinton casually mentioned the use of "tactical nuclear weapons" against Iran and none of the pundits even batted an eye!
I guess she was trying to look tough and perhaps it backfired, but the Obama Administration should address the issue of nuclear weapons before someone makes a big mistake. Unless the United States wants the rest of the World to hate us even more.
"CHANGE" =
perhaps from the last eight years. We will be stepping up operations in Afghanistan and leaving Blackwater in Iraq.
another Democratic president, ala Clinton.
What a joke. Every few years we fool ourselves that we can elect a shift in policy. Oh, what a suprise, Obama is appointing all of Bill Clinton's go-to guys, ... lest we not forget Madam Sec of State.
When will the REAL progressives come together and stop this madness?
Damn the more things change the more they stay the same.
"CHANGE" =
perhaps from the last eight years. We will be stepping up operations in Afghanistan and leaving Blackwater in Iraq.
another Democratic president, ala Clinton.
What a joke. Every few years we fool ourselves that we can elect a shift in policy. Oh, what a suprise, Obama is appointing all of Bill Clinton's go-to guys, ... lest we not forget Madam Sec of State.
When will the REAL progressives come together and stop this madness?
Damn the more things change the more they stay the same.
is it really a done deal or am i dreaming that it is?
we've made no progress at all so far... this is the "change" that you've all been waiting for so hopefully. in fact, i'd say we've regressed if anything.
and what about emmanuel rehm's appointment? pretty insane if you ask me, and i still am having trouble believing it.
and now the grand slap in the face. a recent triple whammy of obama pushing for an unconditional bailout of the auto industry, sucking up to lieberman, and formally asking clinton for the secretary of state post. even if she rejects it, the fact that he already asked her is enough for me. totally unacceptable move.