See today's post for a discussion on Hillary Clinton's eligibility to even take the job. Complete with "the Saxbe fix" explained and everything...

-CW

Hillary was considered as one of many. She wasn't given any priority. She came to visit Obama just as Richardson and others did.

But that wasn't good enough for Hillary. I'm betting they intentionally leaked the meeting, and saying that "Obama offered it if she wants it" trying to box him in so he has to offer it. All this drama and the leaks just make it seem more like her and her cronies are trying to force him to pick her, by making it a PR nightmare if he doesn't.

I'm really hoping he uses this Constitutional conflict as a get out of jail free card.

1

On Tuesday -- several days into the media speculation about Hillary as SoS -- Ted Kennedy announced that he had tapped Hillary to lead a Senate working group on health care.

According to Kennedy's statement:

Sen. Clinton [has] generously offered to step forward and assume an expanded role on critical aspects of health reform.

If Kennedy -- who, one assumes, is in regular contact with Obama -- believed that SoS Hillary was serious, is there any reason why he would do this now?

At the very least, Kennedy knows that Obama is likely to name his SoS pick within a week or two. Is there any reason why Kennedy couldn't just wait two weeks to make his own announcement?

Story here.

2

If you're Barack Obama, and you know that -- according to plan -- Hillary is about to politely decline your "offer"...

If you also know what media-connected Gender-Equity-in-the-Administration Scorekeepers know -- that (a) you've thus far tapped only men for Cabinet and White House staff positions, and that (b) Hillary's announcement will seal State for a man, too...

Finally: If you know that, absent any other top-level gender equity cues from you, Hillary's announcement would be the Scorekeeper's cue to ramp up the pressure...

What better way to inoculate yourself than to preface Hillary's announcement with your own "announcement" that you want to put Janet Napolitano at Homeland Security and Penny Pritzker at Commerce?

Story here -- although it appears that Pritzker, for business reasons, might already be taking herself out of consideration.

Here is the link to 'Madame Secretary', by TF...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

And, as for the 'increased emoluments'...just please tell me that Biden didn't vote for it, too...okay!? Geesh.

Because, you know, that's not exactly the kind of constitutional prohibition that would preclude the VP-elect from also being SoS I've been worried about. Let me know if you come across anything else that might prevent such an outcome!

-CW

WOW!!

Over 12 THOUSAND comments on that piece.. That has GOT to be some kind of record.

I was kind of bummed, though that they didn't cover the constitutional conflict much other than mentioning that it exists.

It will be interesting to hear the argument from that... Considering the high regard the US Constitution is held in other matters...

Michale.....

Speaking of links, how about a link to that Friedman article? Inquiring minds want to know...

:-)

-CW

Here's a link to what BLaws is talking about.

-CW

BLaws is talking about a possible problem that I haven't yet researched -- Hillary voted to increase the pay of cabinet members this term. Which means, by the letter of the law (the Constitution), she is ineligible to take a cabinet position until her current Senate term is up (in 2012, I believe). But there may be a loophole... which, as I said, I haven't researched yet...

kevinem2 -

I'd never get past vetting. But I'd love to be Secretary Of Telling Everyone What To Do, I have to admit in all honesty. Or maybe Secretary Of I'm Surprised I Have To Explain This Stuff. Heh. heh heh.

:-)

-CW

I gotta tell ya...that was about as clear as mud.

Apparently the Constitution! may prohibit Hillary from taking the SoState position or any other cabinet post. It would also block a few other Senators.

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

I would say that your scenario and premise could be reasonably based simply upon the conduct of Hillary Clinton throughout this entire presidential primary, election, and transition process - not to mention the behavior of her husband. In other words, your scenario seems perfectly logical to me and is a powerful argument against her nomination as Secretary of State.

My own thinking on this has - how shall I say - ‘evolved’. Well, what I really mean is that my favourite NYTimes columnist, Tom Friedman, has recently reminded me about what is most important here. The important question to be considered, he suggests, is not whether Hillary Clinton is qualified for the position but rather what kind of relationship she would have with President Obama. And, her effectiveness as Secretary of State would be dependent upon how her relationship with the president is perceived by the world leaders with whom she will interact.

If these world leaders view her relationship with the president as genuine and one that is based on trust, then they will believe that she is a true representative of the president and know that when they speak with her they are, in essence, communicating with the President. Hillary Clinton could be a very effective diplomat if this kind of relationship with Barack Obama actually exists.

But, there’s the rub. I don’t believe for a second that the relationship between Senator Clinton and President-elect Obama is one that is either genuine or based on trust. And, I would bet that many world leaders may believe that, too - or become convinced of it over time. Because, a relationship like this that operates at such a high level is not the kind of thing that can be successfully portrayed as something that it is not.

By the way, I don’t suppose you would know of anything in the constitution - or otherwise - that would preclude the VP-elect from also being nominated as the next Secretary of State, would you? After all, there is no one more qualified for the job and his relationship with the President-elect is nothing if not genuine and based on trust and respect.

Al Franken's recount has started. Check it out here -- because of ballot challenges, both candidates are losing votes, and Franken is currently only 181 votes behind (down from 215). But this process is going to take days and days, so check back to it often.

-CW

...Stan