Bernard: Hillary Clinton "will run a parallel government" if named secretary of state
SUMMARY: On Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted that if President-elect Barack Obama names Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state, "she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem." Additionally, Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked: "Will she [Clinton] be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?"
Discussing the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton becoming the secretary of state in President-elect Barack Obama's administration on the November 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted: "If she's secretary of state, she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem." Additionally, Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked: "Will she [Clinton] be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?"
During the program, Bernard also said Clinton "could give him [Obama] some cover, and she could also walk -- go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States -- the president of the United States. That's a huge danger for him. It's a very, very high-level job." Host Chris Matthews then asked Donahue, "[W]ould you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?" Donahue responded:
DONAHUE: Well, let's take past as prologue. I mean, how did she handle herself during the nominating fight? How did she handle it when Obama was coming up upon her and then lapped her? She didn't handle it very kindly. She didn't allow him to have his piece. She went negative. She tried to bury him. And I think that he should take a lesson from that. I mean, I understand this idea of hug your friends tight, hug your enemies tighter. I think that's often true. If you look at it, you and I were talking about [Nicolò] Machiavelli and The Prince. Absolutely true stuff in there. And I think it's smart to do it. But what will she do overseas? Will she be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?
Matthews began his response to Donahue by stating: "You guys are so suspicious. Look, I think that since she lost the fight for the nomination, Michelle and Jennifer, she has been not just a good soldier, she has sang the tune of this guy. She's been illustrious, she's been admirable. She -- her spirit seems to be with him."
From the November 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Well, here's the question. Because of the very reason that Jennifer mentioned -- she is a notch or two to the right of this guy Barack Obama. She did vote for the war resolution. She did oppose -- or support naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. She has spoken positively of keeping permanent bases in Iraq. She's a bit of a hawk on the Middle East. She could give him some cover on any Middle East deal that is struck with Israel and Middle Eastern countries.
BERNARD: She could give him some cover, and she could also walk -- go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States -- the president of the United States. That's a huge danger for him. It's a very, very high-level job.
MATTHEWS: Jennifer, would you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?
DONAHUE: Well, let's take past as prologue. I mean, how did she handle herself during the nominating fight? How did she handle it when Obama was coming up upon her and then lapped her? She didn't handle it very kindly. She didn't allow him to have his piece. She went negative. She tried to bury him. And I think that he should take a lesson from that. I mean, I understand this idea of hug your friends tight, hug your enemies tighter. I think that's often true. If you look at it, you and I were talking about Machiavelli and The Prince. Absolutely true stuff in there. And I think it's smart to do it. But what will she do overseas? Will she be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?
MATTHEWS: [unintelligible] You guys are so suspicious. Look, I think that since she lost the fight for the nomination, Michelle and Jennifer, she has been not just a good soldier, she has sang the tune of this guy. She's been illustrious, she's been admirable. She -- her spirit seems to be with him. Bill's a little more troubled, obviously, by what happened. But she's been totally with him, and that's why he's obviously thrown her name out. Why would he even be thinking of her if he thought she might be insubordinate?
BERNARD: Well -- well --
MATTHEWS: Why would he think of it?
BERNARD: -- because there are a lot of people out there, particularly women, who are saying, "We've had Madeleine Albright, we've had Condoleezza Rice, let's have another woman in the -- you know, in the top post at the State Department." There will be people also, I will tell you, who will be saying, "Why not Susan Rice?" She was one of his chief foreign policy people --
MATTHEWS: OK -- OK -- this is so hot --
BERNARD: -- throughout the campaign.
[...]
MATTHEWS: We're back with Michelle Bernard and Jennifer Donahue for more of the "Politics Fix." Jennifer, you're up there in New Hampshire, we're down here. I have to tell you, it's amazing to watch how these things develop. First of all, the word comes out tonight -- here we are on Friday night -- that Hillary Clinton has been offered the job if she wants it. That's the word that's floating around. And then she's coming back, the senator from New York, and saying, "Well, I want to look at a couple things like, is Joe Biden gonna get in my way as vice president?" I would assume that among her other concerns are, which are stressed here in the news reporting, is who's gonna get Defense, who's gonna get CIA, who's gonna get NSC, the national security adviser. In other words, she's sort of dictating terms here in what looks to be a proffer of a job. Jennifer, it's an extraordinary position of power she's in, in what normally would be considered one of the great prizes in the world she's being given.
DONAHUE: Yes, and I think this reflects how she behaved in the idea of who was gonna be the vice-presidential candidate that Barack Obama picked, so she's got a competition going on with Biden. Biden's the vice president. Her strength: HHS, Supreme Court -- there's plenty of places -- education, children. These are things that are near and dear to her. I just don't see where she's a foreign policy expert to the extent of Chuck Hagel. Team of rivals? Chuck Hagel. Colin Powell. Both sides of the aisle. Sam Nunn.
MATTHEWS: Right. Well, Jennifer, do you think -- do you think there's an ingenious Machiavellian streak in Barack Obama, who wanted her to hang herself with these public demands, the fact that they're being leaked --
DONAHUE: Ah -- I think --
MATTHEWS: -- and therefore he tried to bring her aboard, but she set too many standards, too many conditions. He just couldn't do it. He couldn't give away his presidency.
DONAHUE: Yeah, I think that's a really good point. I mean, this man can think two steps ahead of any opponent, and that's what we've seen. We see it with him meeting with McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Rahm Emanuel, sort of brokering this big meeting. This guy thinks way ahead of anybody else. That's how he got here; he'll continue to do that. He picked Rahm Emanuel not to be someone who could bring people in every party together but to keep his own party in line. That's what Rahm Emanuel knows how to do. Are they going to keep Hillary Clinton in line? Yes. Are they going to keep watch on her? Yes.
BERNARD: No, they're not going to keep her in line if she's secretary of state. If she's secretary of state --
DONAHUE: Well, that's why she's not gonna get it.
BERNARD: -- she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem.
DONAHUE: I don't believe she'll get it.
MATTHEWS: If he hires her, he cannot fire her.
DONAHUE: She's not gonna get it.
[crosstalk]
BERNARD: Well, he could fire her, but it would look horrible. He can't do it.
DONAHUE: He can't do it.
MATTHEWS: That's the prob -- well, we'll decide --
DONAHUE: Michelle, you're right.
MATTHEWS: -- I think you two are probably the toughest people in the world who are on it.
"political analyst Michelle Bernard" -- can anyone tell me one thing, besides talking smoothly, that a "political analyst" can do that your neighbor cannot?
Get on national television to spout his/her own personal brand of drivel.
What are these people talking about? Here's the thing. If Clinton gets to be Sec of State, she does something that Obama doesn't like, guess what happens? She gets fired. The Sec of State, and the rest of the cabinet, serve at the pleasure of the President. End of story. If someone gets too out of line with what Obama is trying to do with his administration, and doesn't support him, they can either resign, or get the boot. The cabinet, and other advisors are there to advise, and offer advice, dissenting opinions, but after the decision is made by the guy in the Oval Office, that's it. If you can't get on board, you leave, that's it. Clinton steps out of line, she gets fired. It's not that hard to understand. The woman couldn't, and actually probably wouldn't, go rogue, and even if she does, fired.
Simple as that.
if obama wants her, it's his decision. does this crap ever end?
I think MediaMatters is allowing crazy neo-cons to frame arguments.
I just came back from a couple days watching big Pacific waves crash on rocks. I realized that the rocks have an advantage in that they don't assume the waves are making rational arguments. The rocks literally sit there and ignore the waves.
The parallel is that we would be better off ignoring the crazy neo-con (wing-nut?) claims of people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, et al.
I further suggest we should go them one further and invent our own crazy chatter about our own positions. Seriously! When I read satire in The Onion, and then realize that Savage has already claimed something similar on nation wide radio, the cognitive dissonance is profound.
We should therefore be proactive, not reactive. Write our own fiction. I altereed my wife when Obama flew to Hawaii that some right wing talker would claim Obama murdered his own grandmother. Can you prove otherwise?
You and I know that Hillary is being given Sec of State so that Obama can keep her from coming back into the country after her lesbian marriage in The Netherlands is revealed.
See, it's easy, fun and creative.
I suggest we would do more ridiculing these people that attempting to respond to their fallacious claims with logic.
Rumsfeld asserted a syllogism that enabled the US to go to war in Iraq: "Start with an illogical statement and proceed logically from there." it's still ILLOGICAL!
I suggest we would do more ridiculing these people than attempting to respond to their fallacious claims with logic.
Rumsfeld asserted a syllogism that enabled the US to go to war in Iraq: "Start with an illogical statement and proceed logically from there." it's still ILLOGICAL!
MMfa has to look at the framing to describe and examine it. Your tactics are pretty much what we do down here in the threads.
Failing to take the framing and voices to account is part of how these voices came to be dominate in the media.
A parallel government. Gee, that's swell. They'll be two oval offices, with Hillary's flag in one and Obama's in another. Then we'll get two ambassadors to every country, two state of the Union speeches, they'll both throw out the first pitch, get parallel puppies, two airforce one planes, on and on. Will they be in parallel universes? Maybe Michelle can find a parallel universe in which to speculate.
parallel government.................i have visions of George W Bush and his subjects at the Crawford TX ranch. All sitting around a long table.
I think I posted here a few weeks ago on another item based on "future strawmen". The right wing media is realizing that even their dopey base is catching on to things that can be proved as BS, so the trend seems to be discussing wild hypotheticals to keep the fear factor up in their target audience.
Seriously, it's not just the far-right sources like Fox and am radio, it's the center right mainstream media that's debating things that only exist in their paranoid imaginations. I guess they figure it's harder to expose lies about events that haven't actually happened yet, but it's a little scary that some of our fellow Americans are buying this crap.
i understand their fear col. it must be frightening, after 8 years of listening to a barely articulate occupant of the oval office, to have people able to utter a complete sentence in charge. it will take some time for them to get used to the idea.
I love both alliteration and rhyme, (and parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme)
Chris Matthews: didn't he invent twitter?
These women's "analysis" is idiotic and Matthews is feeding their lunacy with his ridiculous premises. I hope they're not getting paid to spout off such nonsense.
The idea that Clinton would purposely try to damage Obama with her actions were she to become Secretary of State in an attempt to make him a "one term" president is ludicrous. Setting aside the extreme paranoia and cynicism of such a claim, it doesn't make any kind of sense.
How would undermining and sabotaging Obama's Presidency benefit Hillary? As a key player in his administration, she would receive only blame and recrimination. She would never be rewarded for being a bad Secretary of State and for bringing down Obama, not by either the Democratic Party or by the voters. These "political analysts" should think through the logic of such outrageous allegations before they blather on and make fools of themselves on national television.
The pundits always bring up Hillary's Iraq Resolution vote as a way to try and disqualify her from being able to work with Obama. They don't, however, make a similar argument against Joe Biden or John Kerry, both of whom voted the same way HRC did. Why do people consistently given a pass to those guys when it comes to this supposedly "deal-breaking" issue if it's such a major point of contention? Is it because they don't have it "in" for John and Joe like they have it "in" for Hillary? It seems like "selective" outrage to me.
Regarding the Secretary of State position, HRC has diplomatic star power and is highly admired and respected around the world despite what far-left Clinton-bashing bloggers and pundits want to believe. The Clinton era was a time of great respect for America across the globe and as the former First Lady during that time, Hillary evokes an instant admiration, recognition and comfort level from foreign leaders that a John Kerry , Bill Richardson, or Susan Rice just don't bring to the table.
HRC is a great choice and would demonstrate that Obama is confident enough with his own leadership to surround himself with strong people, not a bunch of "yes" men. It would show he wants to choose the best possible team for his cabinet, not just the ones who were the nicest and most non-critical of him and that he is truly putting "country first".
Analyst, speculator, common gossip...it matters not. This is what people do when they discuss politics. In this case...it's quite topical to discuss how Hillary might conduct herself as Obama's SoS.
mmfa has apparently taken the position that Hillary could only be the loyal soldier to Obama policies...I guess that's why they have listed this as misinformation.
Naming her SoS has a high risk factor. It could turn out to be a stroke of genius by Obama or it could be a real stink bomb exploded in the inner sanctum of Obama's administration.
Anyone who thinks that if she acted contrary to the wishes of Pres.Obama's policies that it would be a simple and unmessy matter to fire her...better remove their naivete goggles.
Vince Foster time um?
MMFA hasn't taken any position nor made any clairvoyant statements regarding Clinton's performance. Bernard did. Your "guess" at why this is listed as misinformation is wrong.
What a right-wing stooge you are, wes. Your defense of this whacko Republican paranoia speaks only to your own John Burch style disconnect from reality. Heck, you didn't even cast a real vote for president and yet you think your opinion matters. Pathetic, truly.
Obama made it very clear in the primary debates that he wasn't going to fill his cabinet with groveling sycophants who only say "yes." So don't bother us with your unitary executive philosophy of government.
You have included a bunch of "it coulds" in your post and then close by making a statement based on your array of "it coulds" concerning naivete goggles. These political analists wear their naivete high powered binoculars when delving into the future. IT COULD end up that between this President-Elect and Hillary as SoS the world finds peace in many quarters. IT COULD happen..
P.S. My Versace ,rose-colored naivete goggles work as well as the blacked-out glasses of these analists.
Hold on there, Your Princiness, I'm getting something on my crystal ball---
(he he... sorry, Wesley, I don't know what you look like, so I had to do a composite of other wingnuts I know)
Colonel, I heard thru a variety of political analists that Wesly did not have that much hair. Must be that crystal ball. I used the Magic 8 ball for my diffivult decisions.
At least I am only kidding.
Pretty good work colonel...except for one thing that really hacks me off.
I, like our looming president, have a certain sensitivity about one of my physical features. Obama doesn't like anyone making an issue of his rather large and protruding ears...and my knees are not that damn knobby...so lay off!
-- IT COULD end up that between this President-Elect and Hillary as SoS the world finds peace in many quarters. IT COULD happen -- prince
-- It could turn out to be a stroke of genius by Obama -- wesley
Is it just the fascination of seeing your fingers move that causes you to post?
Yes, but they have some meat on them...Stroke of genius, how about common sense and doing what is good for the country? It could be that.
"it's quite topical to discuss how Hillary might conduct herself as Obama's SoS" -- since we've all embraced the utter uselessness of the media, I agree that all they can do is make up a dime-store novel, cross their fingers, and hope that reality has the slightest thing to do with it.
However, the "Hillary as Usurper" novel was written months ago and crashed and burned. When that happens, you don't repeat the novel, you make up a new novel. If you keep inventing enough stories, you're guaranteed to be accidentally right once. And that's the best the media can hope for.
This is nuts. This dialogue looks and sounds like a "style" argument on The View. The "enemy" is not named Clinton. We can have a brilliant politician with a good and long Senate history and with solid foreign credentials who happens to be a woman representing our nation as Secretary of State. And she is a good Democrat and a liberal. And she is known from Dubai to Hong Kong to London to Paris to.... How the hell could Obama do better than that?
It's called trying to incite the Second Civil War. Instead of Free States vs. Slave States, it'll be... Red States vs. Blue States?
Can anybody tell me why Hillary Clinton wouldn't be a risky move as Secretary of State? Look, I'm all for dismantling the right-wing propoganda machine, but how in the hell is this a "smear"? And Michelle Bernard is no wingnut. She's pretty good. But back on the subject of Hillary. Look, this is somebody for whom ambition precedes all. You need only remember the way she behaved in the primaries to know that. She took credit for all sorts of Clinton administration achievements, she attempted to destroy her rival who is a member of her own party, and she even resorted to accusing the media, incredibly, of having some sort of "liberal bias" for Obama. She ran a right-wing campaign with right-wing tactics, and if Obama knows what's good for him he'll keep her at arm's length. Will Media Matters do a story on how I'm "smearing" Hillary Clinton now?
What the hell are these people smoking?
If Hillary wants to run in 2012, there is no way she would accept the post. Sabotaging him from the inside would fail because she ran such a bare-knuckle campaign against him. All he would have to do is fire her, and her campaign of this year on top of that would make her 2012 run look like pure vengeance and hatred. Besides, dividing the Democratic party this way would be a sure-fire way to lose against a unified Republican party. How anyone can believe this is her plan is beyond me.
This is the part that drove me crazy during the campaign. Notice, of course, that the potato with a wig chose two women who already have a demonic portrait of Hillary, so he doesn't have to let his true self out. No other opinions need apply.
Look, I supported Hillary, and she is NOT a notch or two to the right. Her healthcare plan is to the left of the overcautious Obama's. Other of her policies were to the right, but slightly. Yes, there was the war vote, but that was opportunism, not warmongering. "Anybody who voted against the war will be picked off," she thought. Well, she was wrong.
There are those who think she only lost because she's a woman. That's not at all true. Obama ran a much tougher, smarter campaign. And oddly, the real reason she lost was that she was not tough enough to control her husband and her campaign. But nobody who has seen her efforts for Obama since she lost can possibly believe that she's so power-mad as they say. She's smart, she brings a lot of tools, she knows a lot of the players, the people of many countries will be cheering, as they did during the days of Bill. And she will be loyal. She was loyal with Bill, wasn't she?
FINALLY. This woman, and other African Americans, were hired by the MSM with no transparency regarding thier political leanings. The picture was, if they are black, they MUST support Obama, because you wouldn't know otherwise. I find these people embarrassing as an African American. She works for an outfit that is VERY conservative, actually founded to support Clarence Thomas.
Eleanor Clift on the McLaughlin Group has tried to out her on numerous occasions, but she just keeps on popping up. Please, help to rid the airwaves of this woman; contact MSNBC and the McLaughlin Group, (Where John McLaughlin has also also become an embarrassment).
"Will she [Clinton] be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?"
Only in their RWing fantasies.