« Daschle at HHS | Main | Rubin v. Rice »

November 23, 2008



I'm not so sure Obama should be hiring based on or in large part because some people endorsed him early.

Dylan Matthews

But they took risks, Daniel. They endorsed even though Dick Holbrooke was calling them and telling them they'd be shut out of a Hillary Clinton administration. They endorsed even though they knew Clinton had a better shot. What kind of message does it send when they then get passed over for Clinton and her cadre? What kind of message does it send to young policy wonks who are considering supporting the progressive candidate in 2016 even though he's behind?

What's more, these people worked their asses off to get him elected. I still remember walking into the Lebanon, NH Obama office last January and seeing Richard Danzig and Greg Craig, ready to canvass. Not to act as surrogates, mind you. They went door-to-door in freezing New Hampshire weather to get people on board. What does it say, then, when Danzig looks like he's going to get passed over for a Republican?


Well of course you're right there and it would be indeed a dick move to leave them out to dry like that. I also agree with you that Danzig and Craig and Rice would be superior choices but you know, what's scariest to me about the NYTimes quote you include in the post is that foreign policy is THE area where Clinton and Obama really disagreed. It doesn't really make sense to make her the head of foreign affairs. What's more alarming is that even though she was given that position it was reasonable to assume her powers would be limited, especially with better foreign policy voices nearby. But no, it's starting to look like she'll get the position and be able to do whatever she wants with the staff she chooses. That's basically Obama saying 'Clinton's foreign policy stances are better than mine.' That's why this is a bad idea.

The comments to this entry are closed.