About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media figures continue to suggest Clinton will pursue rogue agenda if named secretary of state

November 18, 2008 5:50 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Media have continued to respond to reports that President-elect Barack Obama is considering naming Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state with the smear that she (or Bill Clinton) might pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not President-elect Barack Obama's, including the assertion that "Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new 'Clinton Doctrine' of foreign policy."

24 Comments

Media have continued to respond to reports that President-elect Barack Obama is considering naming Sen. Hillary Clinton secretary of state with the smear that she (or Bill Clinton) might pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama's. For instance, in a November 17 post on the Harper's blog Washington Babylon, Washington editor Ken Silverstein asserted that Sen. Clinton "[i]s not a team player" and claimed that "Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new 'Clinton Doctrine' of foreign policy."

Additionally, on the November 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker speculated that Bill Clinton "could be out there creating his own foreign policy on the side."

While Silverstein and Tucker suggested that naming Clinton secretary of state could create problems, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker suggested that one of the reasons Obama might make the nomination is because Clinton could potentially cause problems for him if she stayed in the Senate. On the November 17 edition of MSNBC Live, Parker said that "clearly, you know, there are other reasons for Obama to select" Clinton as secretary of state, adding: "[H]e gets her out of the Senate, gets her off of the continent."

Media Matters for America previously noted that several media figures similarly speculated that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama's, with at least one pundit speculating that she would attempt to set up a "parallel government" while others speculated that Obama is considering the nomination because if Clinton remains in the Senate, she poses a threat of challenging him for the nomination in 2012 and can "mak[e] trouble" for him in the Senate.

From the 1 p.m. ET hour of the November 17 edition of MSNBC Live:

ANDREA MITCHELL (host): One of the things that we saw with Teddy Kennedy's return to the Senate today is that Ted Kennedy is still in charge of health care in the Senate, another reason why Hillary Clinton doesn't have that much leverage in the Senate, not enough seniority, and why it might be very attractive to her to go to the State Department.

PARKER: Interesting timing, wasn't it? That --

MITCHELL: Very.

PARKER: -- Senator Kennedy shows up just as she's trying to decide this. Well, clearly, you know, there are other reasons for Obama to select her and to -- I mean, she -- he gets her out of the Senate, gets her off of the continent, and the benefit is that she and Bill might run in to each other every now and then. That was very catty of me, wasn't it?

MITCHELL: But that's why we love you. Thank you so much for being with us.

PARKER: Thanks, Andrea.

From the November 17 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Let's talk Lincoln history here, Team of Rivals. Let me go to Cynthia first. Team of Rivals. This man, the new president, our president-elect, is very Lincoln-esque. We've known that from the beginning. Does he really believe that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton can be in the tent, in other words, total Obama-ites? Really rooting for his historic success, and if so, how does he test that motive before making the final decision?

TUCKER: Well, certainly, he believes Senator Hillary Clinton can be in the tent.

Now, Hillary Clinton was never the Clinton that Obama had to worry about most. She has still a long political career in front of her, which can be very successful. She has everything to gain by cooperating with the Obama administration in whatever position in which he wishes for her to serve. Secretary of state would be a great plum appointment for her if indeed it has been offered.

But Bill Clinton is out there doing his own thing. His financial ties are a problem. He brings his own drama -- that's a problem. And for heaven's sake, he could be out there creating his own foreign policy on the side.

So, the difficulty for Obama is not Senator Hillary Clinton, and keeping her in the tent, but how do you get her in the tent and then keep the former president under control as well?

From Ken Silverstein's November 17 blog post, "Five Reasons Hillary Clinton Should Not Be Secretary of State," on his blog Washington Babylon:

It looks like Barack Obama has offered Hillary Clinton the post of Secretary of State and she's mulling over whether to take the job or not. Obama's apparent offer makes him look magnanimous and delights Hillary Clinton's former backers, so maybe it's smart politics. But there are a number of good reasons why Clinton should not be secretary of state. Here are five:

1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She's not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new "Clinton Doctrine" of foreign policy.

2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.

3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill's personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.

4. The Clinton style of management-for example, pitting one faction of staff against another-would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.

5. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state... look at who endorses her.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:00 pm ET)
         

      What, so now the media is not allowed to speculate or opine on what kind of secretary of state Mrs. Clinton would be?  Or it would fine if they fawned over her and said she'd be the greatest ever?

      MMFA. reporting on conservative misinformation is one thing, but driving the narrative to dump on any reporting that isn't strictly complimentary on one of your own is a little bit of an overreach, don't you think?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2008 6:08 pm ET)
           

        Is there a basis for saying that Hillary would pursue a rogue agenda?

        Report Abuse
        • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:14 pm ET)
             

          Rogue agenda are MMFA's words.  I never used that word. I simply said that the media is well within it's rights to discuss her possible performance.  If you disagree and can provide your own reasons why, go for it.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2008 6:21 pm ET)
               

            I didn't say they were your words.

            My reason is that there's no basis for saying that she'll pursue a rogue agenda, obviously.  That's why I asked the question.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:27 pm ET)
                 

              In your opinion there is no basis, the media people that MMFA quote in this thread give their reasons.  Read it again.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2008 6:34 pm ET)
                   

                I read it, what reasons are they giving as to why she would behave that way?

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:43 pm ET)
                     

                  They are speculating, given their knowledge of her history, it is their opinion.  Now you can certainly disagree and give your own reasons why you feel differently.  And that would be nice since MMFA does not give any reason, just that it's a "smear".

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by OnceYouGoBarack (November 18, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
                       

                    Oh.  It's time again to bring out the Tommy rubberstamp:

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Sylvanz (November 19, 2008 12:03 am ET)
                         

                      Perhaps tommy is unaware that this is MMFA's sight, and they can put anything they wish on it without his permission?

                      Clinton hatred from the right (and even more oddly, from the media) really confuses me. Neither Clinton is no where near "Liberal" at least to my way of thinking. What is it about them that evokes this knee jerk loathing? I've yet to see HRC or even President Clinton do anything to deserve the over the top demonization practiced by the right, and the news media. It really is quite bizarre.

                      Really, she worked doggedly to get Obama elected and these common taters are still treating her like a dangerous disease. I wish they'd all go write the melodramatic novels they secretly wish to be writing and get out of the, "news," business.

                      Report Abuse
                  • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2008 6:51 pm ET)
                       

                    I guess it depends on what the subject is.

                    I would say that is not only fear-mongering wackiness, but such a baseless and ridiculous assertion...

                    I would say the same thing about an assertion that there's some sort of gay fascism that wants to impose its will over the country.  And that's bearing in mind that Gingrich was "speculating" and giving his opinion, and also gave reasons why he felt that way.

                    That post was excellent, because you realized that an opinion is not sacred, it can be criticized.  When we're talking about Hillary, then that principle vanishes into thin air.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:53 pm ET)
                         

                      Your attempt to introduce an irrelevant off topic discussion never has impressed me, it only illustrates your weakness in this argument, try again.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by Brabantio (November 18, 2008 6:56 pm ET)
                           

                        You're the one arguing against yourself.  One day a baseless assertion is contemptible, the next day it's just fine and dandy and MMfA is way out of line for pointing it out.  Your argument from yesterday is much stronger than your argument here.

                        Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (November 18, 2008 6:24 pm ET)
               

            What, so now MMFA is not allowed to disagree with media figure speculation and opinion?

            MMFA disagreed with the media figures in question.  They provided their reasons.  They "went for it."

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:26 pm ET)
                 

              "They provided their reasons"

              They did?

              Report Abuse
              • Author by pete592 (November 18, 2008 6:36 pm ET)
                   

                It's in the first sentence.  The prediction of "rouge agenda" is a smear.

                Report Abuse
                • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:38 pm ET)
                     

                  That is their reason?  That isn't a reason why she wouldn't pursue her own agenda.

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by pete592 (November 18, 2008 6:49 pm ET)
                       

                    You're right, it's not a reason why she wouldn't pursue her own agenda, which is not what MMFA is providing you in the first place.  They're not providing evidence, they're calling out a lack of it.

                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by tommy (November 18, 2008 6:52 pm ET)
                         

                      Opinions on public figures and/or politicians based on their history is based on subjective perception, to each his own. It does not require a stack of evidence, it is not a court, it is an opinion based cable talk show.

                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by pete592 (November 18, 2008 6:59 pm ET)
                           

                        This also is not a court, it's a website.

                        Report Abuse
                      • Author by mefirst (November 18, 2008 7:01 pm ET)
                           

                        based on what history?  parker has a history of not merely disagreeing with democrats, but insisting their motives are devious.  she did it with gore and kerry.  and yes, it's opinion, and it's fair to give the opinion they are wrong.

                        Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (November 18, 2008 6:39 pm ET)
                   

                i don't think it's any mistake to use the words "rogue agenda".   if media figures are saying she or bill will pursue their "own" agenda, then that would seem to fit the term. 

                Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (November 18, 2008 6:30 pm ET)
           

        I think assume is the correct term here. They assume clinton will be a rogue. They assume she is power hungry. There never was really a discussion about multiple ideas of what she would do, they were pretty much just agreeing with each other on what they thought clinton's plans were.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (November 18, 2008 6:57 pm ET)
         
      "dump on any reporting that isn't strictly complimentary on one of your own" -- I wouldn't call making stuff up "reporting". But MMFA here isn't dumping on merely uncomplimentary novelization, they are dumping on novelization that has already been repeatedly proven false. The media has tried the "Clinton as usurper" storyline during the primary, her concession, the democratic convention, and the general campaign. It failed every time. If the media has nothing better to do than novelize, they should not use novelizations that have already failed, over and over again.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mary59 (November 18, 2008 7:30 pm ET)
           

        Agreed.  It's already overusing "Lincolnesque" to describe Obama.  Cant' they just do straight reporting anymore?  All this mind reading and speculating is just taking away from understanding what's going on.

        We need more REPORTING of more stories that matter to more citizens. 

        Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.

Most Popular Tags

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace