General Jones is great, but I am preoccupied by Clinton at State and poor Biden, better qualified for State, but relegated to a lesser role. Could Obama's failure to name Hillary as his running mate (and promise Biden the post at State the one he most coveted) been his most important political error in the 2008 campaign?

In his press conference today Barack Obama grinned and brushed off a reporter's question about primary campaign statements he had made about Hillary Clinton's actual foreign policy experience -- a series of tea parties with a few heads of state. He handled himself with charm as usual. But this was not a gotcha question -- it was a fair and good question.

I am not opposed to the Clinton appointment today. I have long advocated a team of rivals approach and Clinton certainly has a valuable international profile. I have also written that she provides "cover" to Obama for any foreign policy mistakes in his administration by avoiding the Clinton faction's labeling the mistakes as "rookie" mistakes.

However, it occurred to me when I heard the reporter's question and Obama's answer that Obama may indeed have made a mistake about Clinton, but not today. It may have been made before the Democratic Convention.

1. Although Joe Biden was a strong Vice Presidential candidate this summer, he would have made a much stronger Secretary of State. His knowledge, flexibility, philosophy, and nimbleness in foreign affairs is unmatched.
2. On the other hand, Clinton would have guaranteed the election to Obama had she been named Vice President. At the time, the only objection many raised to her selection as running mate was her potential incompatibility with Obama or the risks posed by Bill Clinton.

In the light of today's appointment one must wonder whether a wiser plan would have been to name Clinton as Obama's running mate and Biden as Secretary of State. In other words, did he get it backwards?

• Biden would have brought much more knowledge and ability to the job at State.
• Biden's foreign policy experience may now be potentially smothered by a Clinton at State.
• As VP, Clinton could have been given any portfolio that suited her and would have been supremely happy as Vice President. She also could have been kept much more under control in the event she interfered in a non-constructive way.

Obama's campaign was brilliantly run, but now that I know he is and probably has always been open to inviting Hillary into the administration anyway, I find it odd that he did not turn the race into a slam dunk last summer with Hillary on the ticket. There would have been zero doubt from the day he named Clinton to the ticket that the race was over. The excitement of the dream ticket would have made McCain/Anyone crumble. Not to mention we would have been spared Sarah Palin.

It's not that Obama needed Clinton in the final analysis, but when he named Biden he must have believed she might be a necessity. He took an uncharacteristic risk in rejecting the "sure thing" for VP. Ironically, he now has her where she can do much more harm to his administration and has lesser qualifications.

I also worry a great deal about Biden becoming marginalized in foreign affairs now that I see the otherwise brilliant national security team. Obama should announce a very significant Bobby-Kennedy-type role for Biden as soon as possible. Otherwise Biden's enormous talents may be wasted and he will surely regret to agreeing to become VP rather than Secretary of State -- a post that surely would have been his.

With Biden as the running mate and therefore unavailable for State, Clinton is a good choice today. But I must wonder if he got it backwards last summer when he could have promised State to Biden, selected Clinton as his running mate, and put the campaign away before the democratic convention.

I hope he had a plan all along on this. But we will see by the way Biden is used in this line-up.

At least at State she won't have the opportunity to "obliterate Iran" any time soon.

I think you're worried about the right thing, but that you don't need to be too worried. Who do you think had more influence over foreign policy in the last 8 years? The VP or the Secretary of State? Cheney is leaving a gift for Biden in the form of the most greatly expanded office in Washington.

What I'm hoping for is that Obama is trying to create a Brain-Trust of sorts, and is aware of what it will take to balance these big personalities. Clinton, Jones, Biden, Gates, these are all heavy hitters who have something worthwhile to contribute. The key thing will just be managing the crew. Maybe thats why he brought in Rahm Emmanuel first...

I disagree strongly. There might be some better choices for Sec.of State than Hillary Clinton but one of them is not Joe Biden. He'd probably make a good Deputy Secretary though. There is more to the job than knowledge. You have to be a performer on the world stage. And Joe Biden has proved over and over again that he is NOT careful with words, a grievous flaw for the chief diplomat of the USA.

As the article suggests, self-discipline is a very important aspect to success in the job and few accuse Hillary of lacking that. She can be tough and abrasive but I suspect she is at her worst during a campaign. She is clearly also capable of being pleasant, engaging and a team player. She just might have the right balance for Sec.of State. We'll see. If not, well, plenty of precendence for replacement at that position.

I don't agree. Choosing Clinton as his running mate would not have gauranteed the election. The opposition research on Clinton was MASSIVE and the republicans couldn't wait to get at her, as indicated by their Briar rabbit support during the primaries. She very well could have sunk Obama's run because the right would have legitimately clouded the airwaves with all of the Clinton year's battles. As it was, they had to go with Bill Ayer's which proved too weak and insubstantial. Obama did the wise thing by choosing Biden as he did precisely what a VP pick is supposed to do : strengthen the ticket and get out of the way. Clinton would not have gotten out of the way; it would have been all about her.

The ship of state to be must surely manage to appoint someone better than Joe Biden! Despite a thirty-odd year career in the US Senate he still makes a lot of guffaws and otherwise proves he is careless with words, notably when last he called a statement by the current President 'Bullshit'(!!). The reactionary(!) Democrats have in recent years resorted to bad manners, imprecise wording in how they would like deals overseas and domestically to be worded, and Mr Bush has been effectively 'overruled' by the hostile media whenever he has tried to explain his actions!! If Democrats think they can ram stakes thru opponents' hearts and call this an argument...then they surely deserve another beating come 2010 when history has another victory in sight for the Republicans...

Hail the new strategist - once Speaker of the House - Mr Gingrich!!!!!

Hail also the coming President as of 2012: Bobby Jindal!

It really doesn't matter whether you or anyone else things Clinton would have "guaranteed" the election for Obama. The McCain campaign only have a brief post-convention "bounce", but then sank quickly in the polls as they made one miscalculation after another. Obama won handily and he did it without picking Hillary as his running mate. Maybe that still rankles Hillary's ardent supporters, but oh well.

As for those who think Hillary will "go rogue" and undermine Obama from within the cabinet, here are a few things to keep in mind:

1) Unlike the VP, the Secretary of State serves at the pleasure of the president. If Hillary won't follow Obama's playbook, he can fire her on a moment's notice.

2) Obama's successes and failures are now Hillary's. By accepting the SoS post, Hillary has now married her future ambitions to Obama's foreign policy prospects. Even if the Obama administration completely tanks, she will not be able to run as a spoiler in the 2012 primary. How can she run against a foreign policy that she had a hand in implementing?

3) None of this is happening in a vacuum. Party insiders will be watching, including the incoming DNC chairman. If Hillary isn't seen as a team player, she can kiss any future prospects for elected office goodbye. Nobody in the democratic party is going to hold fundraisers or lend their superdelegate support tomorrow to someone who is undermining the party's success today.

4) Finally, credit Hillary with enough intelligence to be aware of points 1-3.

Yes. If Hillary was foolhardy enough to bank on unseating Obama in 2012 she wouldn't deserve any of these posts. Sec. of State is clearly her best chance to make an impact during the next 8 years. I predict a more stellar career in State for her than Madeleine Albright OR Condolezza Rice ;- ).

Re: Ali-Eliajah moslems need not serve in USA military!
by uncommOner
12/02/2008, 2:39 PM

<link>

Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship

<link>

Obama’s comments about a national security force came during a speech in July in Colorado in which he called for expanding the nation’s foreign service

" We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

No! The GOP needs to be seasoned by a few decades in the wilderness.

They have dug a deep hole by barrow & spend as well as using marketplace forces without regulation to distort the economy. Their method of spreading the wealth by Black water et al is too dammed expensive and out of control; talk about smaller government. Hell over paid un-monitored contractors extend government where Eisenhower warned us not to go.

We already have a National Security Force. We call it the National Guard. Obama was thinking of service in exchange for College tuition in the form of VISTA or Peace Corps.

Calm down.

By the way, what makes you think that Obama was elected unfairly? ACORN was a voter registration organization. They DO NOT enter people on the voter roles. A local election board does that. I'm an election judge, and I assure you that Mickey Mouse CANNOT get an opportunity to vote.