Rahm as chief of staff, Podesta as head of the transition team, Summers or Rubin at Treasury, and now Her Majesty at State?
Why’d they nominate Hopenchange instead of her if we’re only going to get Clinton retreads anyway?
There’s increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for Secretary of State these days and that the field may be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.
There’s talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.
As much as I’d prefer a SoS who helped designate the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and who speculated publicly about possibly having to nuke Iran to a tool who played useful idiot to the mullahs at Davos by badmouthing Bush, why would Obama have an issue with Kerry or Richardson as frontrunners? If she stays in the Senate, she’s bound to end up as a point man on health care anyway, which should be enough to placate the PUMAs ahead of 2012. Naming Richardson, who’s got more experience than she does, would help him lock up Latinos, and naming Kerry would signal that he’s ready to pass “the global test.” Naming Hillary achieves nothing, really. Exit question: Anything to this at all?