Oh, and these positions aren’t just “fun” ones, like being the Ambassador to the Bahamas, for instance. You may have heard of this position: US Attorney General. Yes, indeedy, Eric Holder was an Obama contributor, though comparatively speaking, he and Susan Rice got their jobs for not a whole lotta green (between $50 - 100,000). Ain’t politics GRAND?

Naturally, rhese are paid positions - and the pay is mighty nice, as you will see below. What you might not realize is that there are actually professional diplomats. You know, people who know how to play the game of diplomacy. They would not be in this group of folks Obama is putting into these plum roles, either. Oh, you know they’re happy about that - not.

Fredreka Schouten had this article in USA Today, Top Obama Fundraisers Get Posts. She should have written, “Plum Posts” in her title:

More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found.

Overall, about 600 individuals and couples raised money from their friends, family members and business associates to help fund Obama’s presidential campaign. USA TODAY’s analysis found that 54 have been named to government positions, ranging from Cabinet and White House posts to advisory roles, such as serving on the economic recovery board charged with helping guide the country out of recession.

Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats. A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees, said Susan Johnson, president of the association. An appointment is considered political if it does not go to a career diplomat in the State Department.

That’s a rate higher than any president in more than four decades, the group’s data show, although that could change as the White House fills more openings. Traditionally about 30% of top diplomatic jobs go to political appointees, and roughly 70% to veteran State Department employees. Ambassadors earn $153,200 to $162,900 annually.

Dang - that’s a mighty nice salary! Can you imagine being the Ambassador to, well, anywhere, but I’ll pull one out - BELIZE - and getting that kind of salary? And BONUS - you don’t even really have to know how to do the job!! Sheesh! No wonder real diplomats are a bit peeved:

“It is time to end the spoils system and the de facto sale of ambassadorships,” Johnson said. “The United States is best served by having experienced, knowledgeable and trained career officers fill all positions in our diplomatic service.”

The administration is “well aware of the historical target of career vs. non-career ambassadors, and we will be right on that target,” said White House spokesman Thomas Vietor. He said the first round of diplomatic jobs traditionally go to political appointees because those are the first available when a president takes office.

Vietor said Obama also made it clear early on that he would “nominate extremely qualified individuals who didn’t necessarily come up through the ranks of the State Department but want to serve their country.”

Among the top Obama fundraisers with jobs: former technology executive Julius Genachowski as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and Nicole Avant, a music industry executive who is the top envoy in the Bahamas. Neither granted interview requests.

Always a man of his word, that Obama. Ahahahahaha - I could barely type that out. I mean, he does say words, and so what if he rearranges the order of those words from time to time so that their meaning is the exact opposite of what he said previously? Picky, picky.

I know you are worried about those people who gave Obama a bucket of money who DIDN’T get to come work in the White House, or in Paris. Don’t you fret - Obama is taking care of them, too:

Those not in the administration benefited in other ways, including attending invitation-only White House bashes, such as a St. Patrick’s Day gala.

Fundraiser David Gail, a Dallas lawyer that the campaign identified as raising between $100,000 and $200,000, joined dignitaries in July for an East Room country music concert featuring Alison Krauss and Charley Pride. He said he greeted Obama after the event but doesn’t have special access to the president, who was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington.

“I’ve seen people who have been included on conference calls or events who were very involved at the grass-roots level,” Gail said.

“Contributing doesn’t guarantee a visit to the White House,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Wednesday, “nor does it preclude it.”

Oh. My. GODDESS. Have you ever seen such mealey mouthed contradictory hooey? Oh, wait, you probably have - the LAST time I quoted Gibbs. You know, someone who can hedge like that ought to have a career in landscape design, for cryin’ out loud.

Okay, so some of these people aren’t ambassadors, or the US Attorney General, or Chair of the FCC, but they are still getting by:

Others not on the campaign’s list of official bundlers also have reaped rewards.

Sacramento developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, a fundraiser in Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsuccessful presidential campaign, was nominated this month by Obama to serve as ambassador to Hungary. Clinton is now secretary of state.

Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis did not respond to interview requests, and her office referred calls to the White House.

It’s too early to tell how big a role Obama’s fundraisers will play. On the ambassador front alone, nearly 100 top positions remain unfilled, according to the American Foreign Service Association’s tally.

Ronald Neumann, president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, wants Obama to limit political appointees to about 10% of diplomatic jobs. “The direction is not good,” he said of Obama’s appointments to date, “but you cannot definitively say what the picture will be for the whole administration.”

“The direction is not good.” Uh, yeah. These are the people either running our country, or having an impact on foreign affairs, or charged with ensuring the very laws that govern our land. And you wonder why Washington is such a mess. The people who are running it are the ones who washed someone’s back, and are simply getting their payback. It is some kind of payback they are getting, too - plum positions, and positions of power. All because they have deep pockets. I bet that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside (for me, it is my blood pressure rising).

Below is the list of people thus far, also from the USA Today article. Have fun perusing it and seeing just what a few hundred grand will get you. Wait, is THAT the kind of “change” Obama meant??

FROM FUNDRAISER TO STAFFER

President Obama has named 54 fundraisers to government positions. Here’s a look at who they are and how much they raised. The campaign reported fundraising in broad ranges only.

RAISED MORE THAN $500,0000

Nicole Avant Ambassador to the Bahamas
Matthew Barzun Ambassador to Sweden
Don Beyer Ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein
Jeff Bleich Ambassador to Australia**
Richard Danzig Member, Defense Policy Board
William Eacho Ambassador to Austria
Julius Genachowski Chairman of Federal Communications Commission
Donald Gips Ambassador to South Africa
Howard Gutman Ambassador to Belgium
Scott Harris General Counsel, Department of Energy
William Kennard Ambassador to the European Union**
Bruce Oreck Ambassador to Finland
Spencer Overton Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Thomas Perrelli Associate Attorney General
Abigail Pollack Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Charles Rivkin Ambassador to France and Monaco
John Roos Ambassador of Japan
Francisco Sanchez Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade
Alan Solomont Ambassador to Spain and Andorra**
Cynthia Stroum Ambassador to Luxembourg**

RAISED BETWEEN $200,000 and $500,000

A. Marisa Chun Deputy associate attorney general
Gregory Craig White House counsel
Norman Eisen Special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform
Michael Froman Deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs
Mark Gallogly Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Max Holtzman Senior adviser to the Agriculture secretary
James Hudson Director, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
Jeh Johnson General counsel, Department of Defense
Samuel Kaplan Ambassador to Morocco
Nicole Lamb-Hale Deputy general counsel, Commerce Department
Andres Lopez Member, Commission to Study the Potential Creation of a National Museum of the American Latino
Cindy Moelis Director, Commission on White House Fellows
William Orrick Counselor to the assistant attorney general
John Phillips Chairman, Commission on White House Fellows
Penny Pritzker*** Member, Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Bob Rivkin General counsel, Transportation Department
Desiree Rogers White House social secretary
Louis Susman Ambassador to the United Kingdom
Robert Sussman Senior policy counsel, Environmental Protection Agency
Christina Tchen Director, White House Office of Public Engagement
Barry White Ambassador to Norway
RAISED BETWEEN $100,000 and $200,000
Preeta Bansal General counsel, Office of Management and Budget
Laurie Fulton Ambassador to Denmark
Fred Hochberg President, Export-Import Bank of the United States
Valerie Jarrett Senior adviser to the president
Kevin Jennings Assistant deputy secretary of Education
Steven Rattner Treasury Department adviser
Miriam Sapiro Deputy U.S. trade representative**
Vinai Thummalapally Ambassador to Belize

RAISED BETWEEN $50,000 and $100,000

Eric Holder Attorney general
David Jacobson Ambassador to Canada
Ronald Kirk U.S. trade representative
Rocco Landesman Chairman, National Endowment for the Arts
Susan Rice Ambassador to the United Nations

** Nominated, not yet confirmed by Senate; *** National finance chairwoman
Sources: Obama campaign, Public Citizen; White House; USA TODAY research
Contributing: Andrew Seaman

In her first trip abroad since taking office, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Asia, departing Washington, DC on February 15. Secretary Clinton will visit Japan (February 16-18), Indonesia (February 18-19), the Republic of Korea (February 19-20), and China (February 20-22).

As she prepares for her first overseas trip as Secretary of State I got to thinking of the Hillary I know, not the Hillary some imagine.

There are those, like wifebot, who are convinced she drank the Kool-Aid and is dedicated to carrying out the foreign policy goals of his Oliness.  These are the people, many former Hillary supporters too, who always ask me, “aren’t you thrilled with the new Secretary of State’, ‘What an achievement.”  I’m not here to pass on how I respond to them.

These people, IMHO, truly imagine that Mrs. Clinton realized the error of her ways and has been doing penance since she bowed out of the race last spring.  She latched on to Obama’s superior foreign policy concepts with a vengeance, then asked to be given the opportunity to sell the policies to the world.

I say Cow Patties.

President Obama is no dummy.  He knew very well that the person his team blasted as just a first lady, is in fact brilliant and incredibly well informed on world issues.  He on the other had no clue and proved it in many a debate, yet I believe he is smart enough to know he had no clue.  The policy she and he will be managing is her policy that he has embraced and not the other way around.

Now I’m not saying I trust him any more than Blago.  I’m just saying that I think she is really in charge of this game and, and the “economic crisis” has given her a window of opportunity to amaze the world and all Americans with the depth of her brilliance.  Essentially, he and a brilliant staff, framed the entire campaign, trumped her at every move leaving her always playing catch up.  Now she has the very visible ball of foreign policy to frame in her image.

But you ask, where has she been?  Why has Joe Biden been traveling and speaking about policy?

She, dear friends, has been doing what sets Hillary Clinton apart from all others.  She has been in her room studying.  Preparing and learning before jumping into the battle.

Joe Biden speaking to that security forum in Munich was the correct person to be there.  It was almost entirely heads of state or their second in command.  It was a higher level, no real work sort of deal.  Had Obama sent his Secretary of State, some would have seen that as a slap in the face, in fact I bet it was Secretary Clinton’s decision. Update: Since initially posting this at Partizane, I’ve learned that I was wrong on the count of attendees. “13 heads of state and government, as well as 46 ministers and 6 heads of international organizations have announced their attendance at the 45th International Security Conference.” http://unian.net/eng/news/news-299345.html My response to the reader who pointed out the true numbers: “typical bosses meet and would have been a real waste of Hill’s valuable time. Joe has 4 years to waste on funerals and useless meetings where no real work is done.”

And you worry about those other strong women, Rice and Power.  Rice as UN Ambassador is strickly a spokesperson for the administration.  Power on the otherhand, will be in a position to back stab but she will also be in a position to be closely watched and squashed by Obama if needed.  If those two are all Hillary has to worry about then her job should be easy.

Hillary has been quiet, Hillary has been working hard to prepare for her role and the immediate needs of the upcoming trip.  I think most of us normal people have no idea about the level of focus she will give to the countries and leaders she is about to visit.  I think those leaders are about to be amazed by the focus she brings to the table and the uncanny knowledge one can only get by hard, detailed studying.

Bon Voyage Madam Secretary.  I know you will make us proud.

Originally posted at Partizane

Why is it that the coldest countries are the ones that seem to be the most forward thinking? Is it that they figure if you can find someone with whom to spend your time during the long, cold, winter months, more power to ya? Maybe they are just built to be more open minded and less judgmental. Whatever the case, once again, they are leading the world in the arena of GLBT rights. Good for them! And good for the world.

Here’s the story:

World Gets Its First Gay (sic) Leader: Former air hostess to be sworn in as Icelandic premier after economic collapse

The first government collapse of the global economic crisis is about to yield the world’s first openly-gay leader. Johanna Sigurdardottir, a former air hostess, is expected to be sworn in as Iceland’s Prime Minister by the end of the week.

Her moment in the international spotlight comes at the most horrendous moment in her nation’s recent history. As the global meltdown began, the collapse of Iceland’s grossly over-leveraged economy was followed smartly by the implosion of its banks and currency. Now its government has gone the same way, the first to succumb to the backwash from the crisis.

Ms Sigurdardottir’s party, the Social Democrat Alliance, was asked to form a new government but its leader is taking a leave of absence to recover from treatment for a benign tumour. And so, “Saint Johanna”, as she has come to be known, has been propelled from the social affairs ministry – which she has presided over for a decade – to take centre stage in a choice hailed as “unexpected but brilliant”.

The 66-year-old politician lives with her partner, Jonina Leosdottir, a journalist and playwright. The couple were joined in a civil ceremony in 2002. Don’t expect them to show up togetherfor photocalls, however – that’s not the Icelandic way. Though she is famous across the island, having been a top politician for years, her lesbian union was no big deal in this calmly progressive nation of only 300,000 people.

“Johanna is a very private person,” said an Icelandic government source. “A lot of people didn’t even know she was gay. When they learn about it people tend to shrug and say, ‘Oh’. That’s not to say they are not interested; they are interested in who she’s living with – but no more so than if she was a man living with a woman.”

Ms Sigurdardottir has two grown-up sons. She entered politics via the labour movement, was first elected to parliament in 1978 and was given her first ministerial office in 1987. She will be Prime Minister of a minority caretaker government composed of her Social Democratic Alliance and the Left-Greens, with outside support. It is only expected to hold office for two or three months, until fresh elections are called.

“In opinion polls Johanna has repeatedly been chosen as the most popular politician in Iceland,” said the government source. “She is a good choice, because one of the problems the government is facing is lack of trust. Getting Johanna to become Prime Minister was a way of saying trust is an issue. Politicians want a fresh mandate from the electorate and, before they get it, they need to rebuild trust. Choosing Johanna is a way of saying, ‘Let’s bridge this gap, let’s have peace to be able to implement the emergency measures’.”

Geir Haarde, the former prime minister, endured months of angry protests over his poor handling of the economy; demonstrators pelted his car with eggs and police were forced to use tear gas on the streets for the first time in 50 years. Compare that to a poll in November that gave Ms Sigurdardottir a 73 per cent approval rating, she was the only minister to improve on the previous year’s score.

“She is often described as the only politician who really cares about the little guy,” wrote Icelandic journalist Iris Erlingsdottir in a blog this week.

She did stand for the leadership of her party back in 1994 and lost badly, but in her concession speech she predicted “my time will come”. And some 15 years later, it truly has.

Congratulations, Prime Minister Elect Sigurdardottir! I wish you great success in your new position.

Now for the bad. Remember this woman, Samantha Power? Here’s a little reminder for you (along with more hooey from Obama on the Iraq War, and more negative crapola from people on his staff):

Wanna guess who is about to become Obama’s Senior Policy Adviser? You got it - Samantha Powers (H/T to Andy). Oh, that cannot possibly make Hillary Clinton’s job any more difficult. Just like making UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s position equal to Hillary’s won’t make her job as Secretary of State any harder.

Show of hands - how many of you just KNEW this was going to happen?? Yeah, exactly.

Obama will always find a way to hamstring Clinton. And insult her. We have Rice competing with her, a woman who insulted her on an international stage, and don’t forget Obama’s boy, Favreau, also insulting her on an international stage. I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so! Good thing Clinton is a tough, smart woman. She’s going to have to be to accomplish anything with people like that around her (oh, and let’s not forget how much OBAMA insulted her throughout the campaign - the number is legion). Just shaking my head at all of this…

Like I said, bad knee day, so The Ugly will have to wait. I’ll give you a hint, though. It has to do with Prop 8. And it is truly ugly. So for today, I’ll end on a good note: Congratulations again, Prime Minister Elect! Well done!

The job requires him to work unnoticed, even in plain view, so Jon Favreau settles into a wooden chair at a busy Starbucks in the center of Penn Quarter. Deadline looms, and he needs to write at least half a page by the end of the day. As the espresso machines whir, Favreau opens his laptop, calls up a document titled “rough draft of inaugural” and goes to work on the most anticipated speech of Barack Obama’s life.

Isn’t this the very same paper that published THIS photo of Favreau:

And they think no one recognizes him? Yeah, okay. This is the extent of the Post’s dealing with that reprehensible action by Favreau and his buddy:

Especially now, as Favreau and the rest of Obama’s young staffers begin a transition that extends far beyond new job titles. Three months ago, Favreau lived in a group house with six friends in Chicago, where he rarely shaved, never cooked and sometimes stayed up to play video games until early morning. Now, he has transformed into what one friend called a “Washington political force” — a minor celebrity with a down payment on a Dupont Circle condo, whose silly Facebook photos with a Hillary Rodham Clinton cutout created what passes for controversy in Obama’s so far drama-free transition.

Blech. Blech. BLECH. The author completely dismisses the blatant sexism demonstrated by Jon Favreay. In his mind, it’s just a silly little thing. Yes, Teflon Man isn’t touched by ANYTHING, it seems, even the degrading treatment of his Secretary of State to be! Grrr.

Not to quibble, but the author thinks this has been a drama-free transition?? I guess this is where the MSM tells us what to think rather than report what actually happened. I am pretty sure more than a few people were shocked - SHOCKED - by Obama’s choice of Secretary for State, for example. Dr. Rice? Susan Powers?? GATES (not that he was a bad choice, but all of those folks who thought Obama was going to immediately cease the Iraq war must have had mini-head explosions)? Bill Richardson, also under investigation for “Pay for Play”?? Seems like they are continuing to redefine words, just like they did for Bush. Now, surprise and outrage at choices will be considered “drama free”! Wow. Just sayin’.

Now, a whole lot of this article is singing Favreau’s praises, so feel free to go read it for yourself. But there are several quotes that deal directly with the relationship between Obama and Favreau:

During the campaign, the buzz-cut 27-year-old at the corner table helped write and edit some of the most memorable speeches of any recent presidential candidate. When Obama moves to the White House next month, Favreau will join his staff as the youngest person ever to be selected as chief speechwriter. He helps shape almost every word Obama says, yet the two men have formed a concert so harmonized that Favreau’s own voice disappears.

“He looks like he’s in college and everybody calls him Favs, so you’re like, ‘This guy can’t be for real, right?’ ” said Ben Rhodes, another Obama speechwriter. “But it doesn’t take long to realize that he’s totally synced up with Obama. . . . He has access to everything and everybody. There’s a lot weighing on his shoulders.”

Ah, yes, Favreau and Obama are all linked up:

Still more daunting is the list of things Favreau can’t think about as he writes the inaugural. He went for a run to the Lincoln Memorial last month and stopped in his tracks when he imagined the mall packed with 3 million people listening to some of his words. A few weeks later, Favreau winced when Obama spokesman Bill Burton reminded him: “Dude, what you’re writing is going to be hung up in people’s living rooms!”

Oh, but just wait. It gets better: Obama sometimes jokes that Favreau is not so much a speechwriter as a mind reader.

He carries Obama’s 1995 autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” with him almost everywhere and has memorized most of his famous keynote speech from the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He has mastered Obama’s writing style — short, elegant sentences — and internalized his boss’s tendency toward reflection and ideological balance.

So, let’s be crystal clear here: all of those speeches that had people fawning all over Obama were written by a 27 yr old who lived in a house with 6 other people, often playing video games into all hours of the night (according to the article). And this man is completely simpatico with Obama. Competely:

In four years together, Obama and Favreau have perfected their writing process. Before most speeches, Obama meets with Favreau for an hour to explain what he wants to say. Favreau types notes on his laptop and takes a crack at the first draft. Obama edits and rewrites portions himself — he is the better writer, Favreau insists — and they usually work through final revisions together. If Favreau looks stressed, Obama sometimes reassures him: “Don’t worry. I’m a writer, too, and I know that sometimes the muse hits you and sometimes it doesn’t. We’ll figure it out together.”

“The president-elect understands that Jon is a rare talent. He knows what he’s got,” said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor, who also worked in the Senate office. “There’s a mutual respect and appreciation between them, and the president-elect trusts Jon’s instincts and ability. It’s a partnership.”

Wow. Oh, the article goes on and on about Favreau, probably more information than you really want to know about this 27 year old who acted in an incredibly sexist manner toward Hillary Clinton.

Oh, and Favreau wrote the speech on race, too, with a little retooling from Obama. Huh. I wonder if Favreau also wrote Obama’s “listen to what I say, not what I do” speech at his recent press conference, detailed in this Washington Post article, defense for why he chose Rick Warren to give his Inaugural Invocation:

President-elect Barack Obama this morning defended his choice of evangelical megapastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at next month’s swearing-in, saying that although he differs with the conservative pastor on social issues, he wants to have diverse voices at the ceremony.

“I am a fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency,” Obama said at a morning news conference to announce several financial appointments. “What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues…

“During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented,” Obama said. “And that’s how it should be, because that’s what America is about. Part of the magic of this country is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated…

Obama added: “That dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign’s been all about: That we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.”

Oh, well, okay. So we are not supposed to pay attention to what you DO, but what you say. And those of us who continue to be oppressed in this country should just go ahead and take it because Obama wants “diverse voices” at his inauguration. He thinks we should just go along to get along. Because THAT has worked out so well in the past. Hahahaha.

Apparently, Favreau and Obama don’t understand that some of us actually do see through these false claims. When Obama, not his transition committee, but OBAMA, picks this minister to give the invocation out of ALL of the ministers in this entire country, then tells us that we should just take this huge slap in the face because, in his most patronizing fashion, we should just be able to accept differences.

See, it’s OUR problem, not Obama’s, for choosing this man. WE just need to get over it, and stop being upset that Obama purposely chose a minister who is opposed to same sex marriage, who is a creationist who thinks homosexuality should have already been weeded out of the gene pool (H/T to AF Catfish, alert NQ reader, and who is anti-choice. Once we let go that Obama surrounds himself with homophobes in the name of diversity, this won’t be upsetting to us anymore. Got that? Good - lay off the man already, he’s just trying to Unite us, after all, by choosing this Divider to kick off his gala. And if you don’t get it this time, maybe the next speech Favreau writes will convince you. If not, Obama will re-tool it and sprinkle magic dust or something on it so you won’t remember all of the other crap he’s pulled. Hey, it’s worked before for the ‘N Sync team of Obama/Favreau, I’m sure it will work again.

Yes, the other day, this story appeared: Susan Rice to Install Own Transition Team Within State Department: President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations — Susan Rice — reportedly has plans to install her own transition team within the State Department.

I am just soooooo surprised to hear this:

The first sign of cracks in President-elect Barack Obama’s foreign policy team of rivals emerged on Monday as his choices for secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations visited the State Department.

As Secretary of State-pick Hillary Rodham Clinton and U.N. envoy-choice Susan Rice separately visited the diplomatic agency’s headquarters in Washington’s Foggy Bottom neighborhood, persons familiar with the transition said that Rice wants to install her own transition team inside the department.

Such a move by an incoming U.N. ambassador is rare, if not unprecedented, because the job is based at the United Nations in New York, where Rice already has a small transition staff, the sources familiar with the incoming administration.

Golly gee. Dr. Rice needs TWO transition teams? One inside the State Department? And that will impact just whom, exactly?? Oh, gee - take a guess:

The push by Rice, an early Obama supporter whose position the President-elect wants to elevate to a cabinet post, is also a signal that she intends to use her influence with the new president to play a more significant role than previous U.N. envoys, they said. The transition sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Officials with Clinton’s transition team declined to comment on the matter, and aides to Rice could not immediately be reached. State Department officials declined to comment on issues related to the transition.

It was not clear if Clinton and Rice — who had strained relations during the Democratic primaries because of Rice’s steadfast backing of Obama — saw each other at the State Department as Clinton left the building shortly after Rice arrived.

Honestly, it is bad enough that Obama brought back Susan Powers to be in his Administration, but to nominate Susan Rice, and then ELEVATE her position to be equal to Senator Clinton was a big, huge mistake. And a big slap in the face to Senator Clinton:

During the presidential campaign, some Clinton aides saw Rice’s early decision to back Obama as a betrayal because of her previous role as a high State Department official during President Bill Clinton’s administration. Rice’s desire to place her own team in Washington could fuel speculation that those tensions will carry into the new administration.

The officials could not say if Clinton’s team had formally objected to Rice’s plan, or even if Rice would be able to install a separate transition team inside the State Department. But they noted that dueling transition teams could complicate the handover by blurring lines of authority.

Uh, gee - ya THINK??? Who in their right minds did not think this was going to be a problem??

Then there is this:

Technically, the job of U.N. envoy falls under the authority of the secretary of state, although some previous U.N. ambassadors have held cabinet rank. The last U.N. ambassador to be part of the president’s cabinet was Richard Holbrooke, who had a famously icy relationship with then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright during the Clinton administration.

Albright, who was President Clinton’s first ambassador to the United Nations, was a mentor to Rice. But the two had a falling out when Albright, America’s first female secretary of state, lined up behind Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination and Rice backed Obama.

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, was to dine Monday evening with the nation’s current and second female secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, at Rice’s apartment in the exclusive Watergate complex. The two Rices are not related and Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday that she thought Clinton would do a great job.

Also Monday, Clinton was to meet privately with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. and the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, according to a Democratic official. Kerry, once a contender for the secretary of state job, will oversee Clinton’s confirmation. Kerry has pledged to hold “swift and fair” confirmation hearings.

Okay, I do kinda like that John Kerry has to meet with Secretary of State To Be Hillary Clinton. Teehee! Couldn’t happen to a more deserving, back-stabbing guy.

Anyhoo - some of us have been saying this was coming. Obama selected her, sure, but he has done everything possible to undermine her ever since. Like elevating Dr. Rice to a comparable position. By allowing Jon Favreau to still have a freakin’ job. Sure, it looks good on the surface, but like I keep saying - I don’t trust Obama, and I think with damn good reason. So while Dr. Rice has her TWO transition teams, one INSIDE the STATE DEPARTMENT, I think it is safe to say that Senator Clinton, soon to be Secretary of State Clinton, is gonna have a hard row to hoe. But that’s just me.

Reverend Amy from Rabble Rouser Ruminations posted a piece (the other) day (12/5/08) (cross-posted at No Quarter) in which she expressed her concerns about the way things are going with regard to the nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. I agree completely with her comment and it piqued my interest. Here’s what Reverend Amy wrote:

Well, you know I am not all that crazy about Hillary Clinton being the Secretary of State for Barack Obama because I do not trust him. As it is, he is already complicating her job by appointing a special Middle East Envoy who will report directly to HIM as opposed to the Secretary of State, as well as by elevating the position of UN Ambassador, to which he appointed Dr. Susan Rice, to a Cabinet Level position, already makes Clinton’s job more difficult. Oh, and Dr. Rice’s position is particularly galling because she claimed Colin Powell proved Iraq had WMD.

According to the Haaretz article Reverend Amy links to, the name being floated by Israeli sources for the envoy slot is one Daniel Kurtzer, a former American Ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001) and Israel (2001-2005)–a diplomat who worked under both Bill Clinton and George Bush:

Obama’s decision to appoint a special envoy reporting to him directly, rather than to the secretary of state, indicates that the president-elect attaches special importance to the regional peace process. Reportedly, several of Obama’s advisers recommended the appointment.

The special envoy job could infringe on the prestige of Hillary Clinton, who was appointed secretary of state on Monday. On the other hand, it could ease any apparent conflict because of Bill Clinton’s close ties with the Gulf States.

Kurtzer, 59, joined Obama’s primary and presidential campaigns as a senior member of the president-elect’s foreign advisers. He also helped prepare Obama’s visit to the region and was among the main writers of Obama’s address on the Middle East to AIPAC in June 2008, which was seen as one the candidate’s most important speeches on international affairs.

What’s really interesting is that back on November 20, the topic of whether or not a Middle East envoy should even be appointed was discussed at MESH–Middle East Strategy at Harvard. According to the MESH site:

Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. The Olin Institute is part of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

MESH is a community of scholars and practitioners who are interested in the formulation of U.S. strategic options for the Middle East. Since 9/11 and the Iraq war, the Middle East has occupied a place of primacy in debates over U.S. global aims and strategies. MESH brings together some of the most original thinkers in academe, research centers, and government, in a web-based forum for exchanging and disseminating ideas.

In the post entitled, “A Middle East Envoy?,” the results of a poll conducted among MESH members were reported. On the list, but near the bottom, was the name of Hillary Clinton:

From MESH Admin:

Over the past week, MESHNet, the closed-forum companion to MESH, conducted a poll of MESHNet members, asking them who would make the best Middle East envoy of the Obama administration (if it is decided to appoint one). The structure of the poll emulated an earlier poll administered to a panel of Israeli experts, taking the same nine candidates and the same scoring system. MESHNet members (persons with a professional interest in the Middle East, 179 in number) were asked to rate the candidates, from “most suitable” for the job (a score of 5) to “least suitable” (a score of 1). Sixty-three MESHNet members responded to the poll question. Here are the results, comprised of the average score for each candidate:
Dennis Ross 3.350
Bill Clinton 2.904
Richard Holbrooke… 2.904
Colin Powell 2.747
Daniel Kurtzer 2.619
Condoleezza Rice 2.458
Bill Richardson 2.394
Hillary Clinton 2.336
James Baker 2.222

In parallel, MESH asked a number of its members to assess whether the appointment of a special envoy is advisable. Their nine responses appear below. (Respondents did not have prior knowledge of the poll results.)

I went through the comments to this latter question and found that there was a wide range of opinion on the subject. One of the experts noted that Bill Clinton did have a special envoy (Dennis Ross, who topped the poll) while Bush did not. But the most interesting aspect of the discussion were some of the observations about how an envoy would “mesh” with the Secretary of State and the President…the concerns that were expressed by Reverend Amy. It’s clear that there are a lot of “ifs” about how Clinton’s role will actually play out, but here are a few possible scenarios/considerations to mull over from the following experts (I’ve highlighted sections that were of particular interest):

Mark N. Katz (Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University. He writes on Russian foreign policy, the international relations of the Middle East, and transnational revolutionary movements.)

“Because of the time commitment needed for seriously trying to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian settlement,

neither the president nor the secretary of state should get immersed in the nitty-gritty negotiations that will be required. There is simply too much other important business for both of them that will not receive sufficient attention if either (or even more unfortunately, both) become overly involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Nor is this a task that the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs should undertake either, as this would leave precious little time for him or her to deal with America’s many other important relationships in, as well as the other problems of, this region.

In short, for there to be any hope of an American-brokered Israeli-Palestinian settlement, it will have to be undertaken by someone whose sole task it is to try to achieve one. If this effort is successful, the president can—rightly—take the credit. But if it is unsuccessful, the blame can be assigned not so much to the president as to (yes, you guessed it) the Middle East envoy.”

Robert Satloff (Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a post he assumed in January 1993.)

“Candidate Obama promised he would appoint a special Middle East envoy. President Obama’s decision whether to fulfill that promise depends a) on the purpose of the appointment and b) on the personality of the envoy…the personality of a proposed envoy is important.

The particular choice should be someone endowed with patience, persistence, and a willingness to pass the baton to someone else – perhaps the president, perhaps the secretary of state, perhaps another envoy – depending on circumstances. This is not the job for someone who believes that the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be achieved on his/her watch or someone who views this responsibility as the path to a Nobel Prize.”

Tamara Cofman Wittes (Tamara Cofman Wittes is Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, where she focuses on U.S. efforts to promote democracy and the Arab-Israeli peace process.)

” Obama stated repeatedly during the campaign his intention to devote early and focused attention to the Middle East peace process.

Since the transition period is mostly about structure and personnel, observers are naturally focused on the question of whether to appoint a special envoy for the peace process. But to my mind the question is misplaced.

In a bureaucracy, structure is power—but appointing an envoy does not necessarily convey much power or many resources to a diplomatic effort on behalf of Arab-Israeli peace. A special envoy without many staff, or one who is not situated at a senior level within (or above) the State Department bureaucracy, will not have the authority or capacity to mobilize efforts across the department, and will therefore not have as much impact as an envoy with his/her own office and a reporting line direct to the president or the secretary of state. So structure matters, and appointing an envoy does not alone produce the required structure.”

Raymond Tanter (Raymond Tanter is adjunct professor of political science at Georgetown University and an adjunct scholar of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, researching U.S. policy options toward Iran. He is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Michigan. From 1981 to 1982, Dr. Tanter served on the National Security Council staff and was personal representative of the secretary of defense to the 1983-1984 arms control talks held in Madrid, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna. Currently, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.)

” Whether it is wise to appoint an envoy for the Middle East depends on the president-elect’s planned focus of attention, whether he intends to have a White House-driven or cabinet-driven administration, and whether he would like to encourage or suppress differences in recommendations to the White House within and from the State Department.

If the president-elect wishes to focus on the economy from the White House, he should have a strong secretary of state, which would argue against having an envoy for the Middle East. However, if the secretary of state were to be given a substantial part of the action on international economy, a Middle East envoy would be desirable. Likewise, if it looks as if policy-driving national security events from the region merit an overarching strategy developed within the White House, he may wish to have a less prominent secretary of state, a strong national security advisor, and an envoy who reports to the White House and State.

And if the president-elect wishes to encourage a process of ‘multiple advocacy’ at State, then an envoy with direct reporting to the White House and to the secretary of state would be warranted.”

So, we’ll have to watch to see if Hillary Clinton becomes what Tanter calls a “strong” Secretary of State or a “less prominent” head of the State Department. Stay tuned…

AGAIN, special thanks to InsightAnalyticalGrl for this post. Please check out InsightAnalytical for more thought-provoking articles.

Of course, I want what is best for Senator Clinton, and what is best for this country. And I HOPE that Obama isn’t just setting her up to fail, or to take the blame for his errors. If that proves to be the case, and I hope it doesn’t, don’t say I didn’t warn ya.

So, in order for Hillary Clinton to be able to take this position, her husband had to be willing to have his donors and speeches be more transparent and accessible to the POTUS. And with that, we have this article from The Onion (and for those who don’t know, its a parody-based “news” source): Bill Clinton Agrees To Disclose Guacamole Recipe

WASHINGTON—In a major stride toward increased transparency of former presidents’ culinary activities, Bill Clinton agreed Monday to disclose a highly guarded guacamole recipe—including a full list of ingredients—so that his wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton, can be named the next Secretary of State. “President Clinton’s efforts will help us avoid any potential ethical problems that the continued secrecy of the preparation instructions for this delicious Mexican appetizer could cause,” said Obama transition team spokesperson Ian Gloucester, who added that the recipe will be vetted for any undue foreign influence from Middle Eastern flavors such as cumin. “We’re just trying to steer clear of the issues that would arise if this dish was to be served in the White House, and it was discovered that the provenance of the recipe was less than savory.” Administration insiders said that if the guacamole recipe is traced back to celebrity television chef Rachael Ray, Sen. Clinton will be compelled to decline her nomination.

That President Clinton - he is wiling to do ANYTHING for his lovely wife…I wonder if he really IS being considered for her Senate seat? Wouldn’t THAT be a kick???

Because I have been talking about our students, teachers, and schools of late, I give you this video, also from The Onion:

In The Know: Are Our Children Learning Enough About Whales?

It’s Friday, people - hope this gives you a laugh.

The Clinton campaign ad featuring a 3 a.m. telephone call as a metaphor for experienced leadership in foreign policy has generated considerable comment, but much of the reaction is from people who have never been involved in foreign policy and certainly never had to field such a call in a crisis situation. Some of the responses are from advisers to the Obama campaign who know better but are actively diminishing the importance and realities of presidential engagement for immediate political advantage.

To begin with, there are such 3 a.m. calls. During my long career as a diplomat, including crises and military actions in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, I have been on the receiving end, the sending end, and the development of options that led to some of those late night calls. The president’s role in crisis management is direct, critical and reflects the exercise of leadership in its most fundamental and powerful form. That capability is not intuitive; rather, it comes from years of experience, training and exposure to the complexities that are in inherent in international relations.

On August 3, 1990, while serving as acting Ambassador to Iraq, I received a middle of the night call from then President George H.W. Bush’s Middle East adviser, who informed me that Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. While the president had not personally called me, it was clear to me from that moment on that he was directly responsible for every significant decision made and engaged in marshaling the forces of the U.S. government and the support of the international community in what ultimately became Desert Storm.

In 1995 and 1996, while serving as Political Adviser to the Commander in Chief of U.S. Armed Forces, I was directly involved in the diplomacy associated with the movement of troops from Western Europe to Bosnia in support of the efforts of President Clinton and his special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to implement the Dayton Accords and bring an end to the Balkan genocide.

In 1998, as Senior Director for Africa in President Clinton’s National Security Council, I helped orchestrate six phone calls, some late at night, directly from President Clinton, three each to Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles, and Eritrean President Afwerki, to stop the air war between the two countries. Two of Barack Obama’s senior advisers, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also involved in that effort, and could attest to the importance of presidential involvement if they would choose not to remain silent as a ploy to protect their candidate’s slender credentials.

In each of the three cases, there was a critical common denominator: direct presidential engagement. During the Desert Shield part of the first Gulf War, then President Bush personally chaired many of the National Security Council meetings and made nonstop calls to foreign leaders to assemble the international coalition and secure the U.N. resolutions that provided the legal underpinning for the military action.

In former Yugoslavia, President Clinton played a similar role, reaching out to friends and allies, to adversaries and belligerents, in order to reach agreements that permitted the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

And in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict, the aerial bombings of Addis Ababa and Asmara ceased thanks to the personal efforts of a President.

Contrast the above examples with the last seven plus years of George W. Bush and the conclusion is inescapable: presidential leadership is critical and should be tempered with experience and capability.

Senator Clinton has a long and well documented history of involvement in many of critical foreign policy issues we have confronted and will continue to confront as a nation. Critics can quibble about the details of the health plan she fought for in the 1990s, or whether hers was the decisive or merely an important voice in the Northern Ireland peace efforts, but there can be no denying that she has been in the arena for a generation fighting for what she believes in, gaining experience and developing leadership skills. She has traveled the world and met with international leaders both as the First Lady and as a respected senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. As NSC director on Africa I experienced her direct positive involvement in U.S.-African relations; it was she, as First Lady who advanced through her own travel, then urged and made possible President Clinton’s historic trip. In the Senate, she has aggressively exercised her oversight responsibility and held the Pentagon’s feet to the fire on plans related to withdrawal from Iraq, shaped legislation requiring reports to Congress, and cosponsored legislation with Senator Byrd to deauthorize the war with Iraq. She has exercised the levers of power because she knows how to do so. That is not a small thing; it is not a campaign theme. It is simply true and goes to the heart of whether she, or anyone, is prepared to be the president to manage at once two wars and a global economic crisis.

Senator Obama is clearly a gifted politician and orator. I disagree profoundly with his transparently political efforts to turn George Bush’s war into Hillary Clinton’s responsibility. I was present in that debate, in Washington, from beginning to end, and Obama was nowhere to be seen. His current campaign aides in foreign policy, Tony Lake and Susan Rice, were also in Washington, but they chose to remain silent during that debate, when it mattered.

Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama’s public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.

Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of “fear.” One of Obama’s fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn’t about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.

There will, in fact, be 3 a.m. phone calls for the next president. They are not make believe. I have been there for such calls. The next president cannot be afraid or hesitant of handling the enormous national security crises that President Bush will leave behind. One thing is certain — the calls will come. Obama has only an abdication of his chief senatorial responsibility as a basis for assessing what his judgment might be if and when the phone rings. Which of his shifting coterie of volatile advisers would he turn to? Will it be the one who repudiated his withdrawal plan, exposing his real intention, prior to being forced to resign? Or will it be those advisers who remained silent until politically convenient — several years and several thousand lives after the shock and awe invasion, conquest and disastrous occupation of Iraq?

The calls are real and experience is real, too. The campaign might be treated as a game by the media, but those calls are serious, deadly serious.