« What a massive fiscal boost can and cannot accomplish | Main | The Citigroup bailout »
Why did Obama pick Hillary Clinton?
This is exactly the kind of detailed political question I don't follow so let's try some crude, fact-poor economism. Hillary Clinton commands the loyalties of significant segments of the Democratic Party. The implication is that Obama will need these segments for what he is trying to do. Since Obama already has 58 (?) Democratic Senators on his side, we should conclude that Obama will try to do lots in the first few months of his term; this is the "throw long and deep" scenario.
He can always encourage her to leave later, if the relationship does not work out. Latinos, on the other hand, are stronger as voters than as a lobby or as an organized segment of the Democratic Party. The implication is that they will get relatively little at the beginning of Obama's term -- when lobbies are needed -- but successively more as the next election approaches.
Addendum: Andrew Sullivan considers other hypotheses.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 24, 2008 at 06:23 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Posted by: Anon E. Mouse at Nov 24, 2008 7:53:28 AM
Uh, how about "She has a good reputation abroad and allied countries will find it easier to work with the U.S. than under the Bush administration"?
Posted by: ogmb at Nov 24, 2008 8:01:20 AM
I think this is organizational sociology.
How else can you simultaneously give her a position of "honor," and send her overseas?
You can't very well give the almost-President an ambassadorship.
Plus, the Sec. of State has to spend a lot of time explaining why what the administration is doing is the right thing to do.
Finally, you have to believe that the chief objective of Obama is to prevent a Hillary primary challenge in 2012 which, even if unsuccessful, would augur doom for his re-election chances. With Hillary often overseas, she'll be unable to tap her donors and build much of an organizational network.
Posted by: jigga at Nov 24, 2008 8:18:01 AM
Because Madeline Halfbright wasn't available?
Trick question, right?
Posted by: torabora at Nov 24, 2008 8:40:19 AM
I'm more interested in why she accepted. Taking a potential problem out of the Senate seems like a no-brainer, but giving up a life-long Senate seat for a political appointment is a less obvious move. When you look at the fact that she still has mounds of debt, which could be removed by raising money for her reelection, taking a job that has no fundraising aspect is a little bizarre.
Posted by: Mario at Nov 24, 2008 8:43:51 AM
When you look at the fact that she still has mounds of debt, which could be removed by raising money for her reelection, taking a job that has no fundraising aspect is a little bizarre.
Whether reported or no, taking care of the debt was part of the deal.
Posted by: at Nov 24, 2008 9:36:16 AM
This was done to try to keep her from a primary challenge in 2012.
It won't work, and worse, it puts her in a better position to undermine Obama if she wishes.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Nov 24, 2008 11:03:07 AM
This is straightforward. If the problems facing the the federal government improve over the next two years, Obama will get the credit. If they continue to deteriorate, Congress will bear the consequences. Democratic members of Congress have every reason to be risk-adverse in their support of the new administration.
The President-elect knows this, and so is building his administration largely out of the existing Democratic establishment, to make future cooperation easier.
Still, this will be interesting, because while he was campaigning, Obama showed very little tolerance for associates who attracted media attention themselves, and there are few people in Washington who can draw a camera as fast as the Clintons.
Posted by: Cyrus at Nov 24, 2008 11:17:16 AM
Exactly how does this put her in a better position for 2012. It's not as if the SoS will be criticizing the admin's policies. Further, it would be utterly shocking to see a standing President engaged in a primary battle. That just doesn't happen. You don't eat your own.
Posted by: Stephen at Nov 24, 2008 11:24:18 AM
Let's see: Obama just led the Democrats to greater electoral victories than they have seenin -- how many years? -- but he needs Hillary to unite the party? Keep thinking please, or, should I say, start.
Posted by: Mandy at Nov 24, 2008 11:38:35 AM
Stephen,
It happened in 1980 and 1992.
As for the SoS not criticizing the admin's policies, that sort of thing is easily done through leaks to the press- leaks that always put the subordinant in the very best light of things.
Obama is being foolish in letting Clinton get close enough to knife him in the back.
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Nov 24, 2008 11:42:47 AM
Hillary and Bill have it all. A two term President and former Govonor also a NY Senatator and now Sec. of State.....plus they have a 100 million dollars and Barack pays off her campaign debts. Fame, fortune, accomplishment, a place in American history secured. Don't wonder why Hill is doing this.......she has an ego as big as the country she pretends to serve.
Posted by: tonynoboloney at Nov 24, 2008 11:47:00 AM
I would say that Hillary's ambitions for the Presidency are over. She realizes that her being a woman and being saddled with Bill are too much to overcome. When an unknown, untried young Senator can sail out of the corner and take away the nomination because: 1. He's black and 2. He's not you, it's clear you have no chance to ever be President. This way she can at least attain her goal of making history with this appointment. She also seems certain she can win a Senate seat again if she wants one.
Posted by: Anonymous at Nov 24, 2008 12:07:05 PM
Yeah, yeah, yeah, "Keep your enemies closer," you say. I think the more relevant Godfather allusion is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOOdU2bIN8
It's true that by pulling her into the cabinet Obama defuses her potential role as a troublesome Senator. Clinton proved beyond a shadow of a doubt during her campaign that she's not a good manager. And drama surrounds her wherever she goes. I prefer a little less drama in our foreign policy. The State Department is not the place for someone who can't manage and who creates vindictiveness and petty jealousy among her staff. Clinton is certainly smart but this appointment is ripe for regret.
Posted by: Floyd Waterson at Nov 24, 2008 12:16:01 PM
This is a bad appointment. My idea is perhaps the Clintons have something
on Obama and he knows it. Clinton alluded to it during the primary - that Obama
could never win. I dont buy into that the Clintons are so great - a law degree
and moving into NY to take over a Senate seat that should have gone to a
real New Yorker is so egotisical and greedy (just like RFK).
It feels as if Obama is a frontman for something - he is just too dependent on
others and owe others.
Posted by: krystal at Nov 24, 2008 12:37:00 PM
Wow. A lot of cynics here.
In my opinion, the toughest challenge Obama will face is his fellow Democrats in the senate, because they'll likely use their majority to force his hand on several issues. This is already happening. Take a look at the Baucus health care memo, for instance, which has set off a bit of a scramble between Kennedy and Baucus over who will draft the first piece of health care legislation. Obama's statements on the economy make me think that he (wisely) wants to take more of an incrementalist path, getting to issues like health care and immigration late in his first term rather than right off the bat. If he had his way, I think he'd only address the economy and foreign policy in his first year (I'm excluding smaller issues, like stem cell research).
Then, of course, enter Hillary. Yes, Secretary of State is not a domestic policy job, but I think having her in his cabinet a) removes another strong senate voice from forcing Obama's hand on hot-button issues, and b) allows Hillary to try to persuade her (former) senate colleagues to be a little more patient with new legislation.
How does it feel to have a government where Congress actually has the power? Something tells me the founding fathers would be proud.
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 24, 2008 1:01:09 PM
Being young and inexperienced, Obama doesn't really know many people of significance. He barely had the money to attend the 2000 Democratic Convention.
His close acquaintances fall into two main camps:
1. Sleazy Chicago political operators like the Daleys, Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, Tony Rezko, Valerie Jarret, Penny (Superior Bank) Pritzker, and the like. (I know you like to imagine he hung out a lot with U. of Chicago economists, but there's little evidence for that.)
2. The unhousebroken leftists that he hung out with in the 1980s and 1990s like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, and younger versions of them. Once the glare of publicity dies down, the younger leftists will get lower level posts in the Administration, but not yet.
So, Obama is staffing his administration largely with Clinton Administration retreads he read about in the newspaper in the 1990s.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 24, 2008 3:03:11 PM
Regarding Hillary's presidential ambitions, 2012 was always very
unlikely short of Obama's first term being totally disastrous, which
would probably be due to the economic situation getting much worse
than it looks now, in which case probably nobody would have been able
to do anything about it anyway, but the incumbent always gets blamed.
Much more likely in her calculations regarding accepting (aside from
getting campaign debts paid off) is 2016. She will not be too old,
and by then she may have earned more brownie points on policy wonking
and made herself more acceptable to broader segments of the party,
getting more fully out from under the onus of Bill, if he can be kept
to behaving himself, and she does not obviously mess up.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Nov 24, 2008 3:15:27 PM
My thoughts exactly--so much cynicism.
It would be naive to think politics didn't enter into Obama's calculations, but to assume that they took precedence over everything else (qualifications, etc) seems a bit extreme to me.
Looking at Clinton's time in senate, it's hard to deny a few things: 1) she learns quickly 2) she's gets things done and 3) she's a pragmatist. Add to that her nearly global name recognition--not to mention how it hearkens back to the days before the current administration made ours one of the most despised countries on earth, and it seems like, regardless of politics, she's not a bad choice given Obama's vision for foreign policy.
Posted by: Laura at Nov 24, 2008 3:17:29 PM
Hillary as SoS fits as part of the bigger pattern - he is staffing with Clintonistas because they are experienced and used to working with each other. Presumably Hillary promised she wouldn't run against him in 2012. She gets her place in history and he doesn't have to worry about about her as a challenger any more.
Posted by: PJ at Nov 24, 2008 3:49:14 PM
@ Steve Sailer:
As a President-Elect with a large transition team, you're telling me Obama's problem is that he doesn't know many people? Come on.
Posted by: Matthew at Nov 24, 2008 4:45:03 PM
Obama has little experience working on hard projects with nationally prominent individuals that would help him know who can get things done and who are just empty suits.
Obama almost couldn't get into the 2000 Democratic Convention because his credit card was tapped out and nobody at the DNC much cared about him -- he was a loser who had recently gotten trounced in the Democratic House primary. Obama was in the Illinois State Senate until four years ago. Since then, he has spent most of his time writing a bestseller and then running for President. He has relatively negligible experience working with people outside of Illinois to get things done (other than his campaign). And he didn't have much experience getting things done in Illinois either -- e.g., look how much he and Bill Ayers' spending $50 million of Old Man Annenberg's money did for Chicago students' test scores.
There are only so many Chicago sleazeballs he can bring with him to the White House before it gets a little too obvious. He can't appoint Richie Daley as Secretary of State. (Besides, Hizzoner wouldn't accept -- it would be a demotion for Hizzoner.) And he can't put the far leftists he hung with before 2000 in big jobs, so what's he to do? With no alternatives, he's turning to names he read about in the newspaper during the Clinton years.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at Nov 24, 2008 5:27:40 PM
Obama knows he over-promised on immediate troop withdrawals. Having Hillary as Secretary of State will allow the administration to gracefully back down from some of Obama's prior statements, without looking like it is changing course 180 degrees.
Posted by: Doug at Nov 24, 2008 5:43:12 PM
IN my opinion choosing Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State was a very good idea, she has a soft touch in communication that we are going to need in negotiating with the global communities,we need a powerhouse in the Washington cabinet for President Obama,to help with the new technology that has been sent abroad for the purpose of a new world peace order and economic transformation.I know this to be true because the technology being created will need leaders of this magnitude to help inspire and help me with the global leadership that is evolving today.I am the deliverer and creator of SOA,SAAS,and WEB 2.0 and I am a woman.
Posted by: Gail R Hughes at Nov 24, 2008 8:52:32 PM
The implication is that Obama will need these segments for what he is trying to do.
What is he trying to do?
Posted by: Matt Shay at Nov 24, 2008 9:51:54 PM
