What did she know, and when did she know it?
The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that ifhad her way, her successor would be Sen. (D-Mass.) rather than the embattled U.N. Ambassador .
Clinton, of course, served with Kerry when she was in the Senate, and supported him in his failed bid for the presidency in 2004. Kerry is the current chair of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee and has long had an abiding interest in “foreign affairs.”
“Hillary is not close to Rice, who is tough — but is not the friendliest person,” said a top White House source quoted recently in several media outlets, including the Sun-Times. “And Hillary’s brief comment recently that Rice had done ‘a great job’ was considered underwhelming and tepid.”
“It would be hard for President Obama to back away from Rice, but he’s dealing with what’s known as “the Club of the Senate,” which includes Republican Arizona Sen., who is apparently totally against Rice and a virtual cheerleader for Kerry.
I smell a rat.
A favorable “job reference” on Rice’s behalf from Hillary Clinton at this point in the obviously contrived “controversy” over the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi imbroglio would most likely make all the difference. But if the reports of bad or at least hot blood between the two strong-willed women are true, then we should not hold our breath waiting for Hillary’s press release endorsing Rice.
On the other hand, and as stated above, should the president “cave” into the wishes of the Senate naysayers and Rice detractors, he will, once again, appear to have done just that – “cave.” What McCain and his senate caballeros are doing is as clear as mud. McCain himself literally reeks of bitterness that the man who defeated him in 2008 has now defeated another Republican presidential candidate and is poised to bring some real change to the American political landscape.
But beyond McCain’s continuing sour grapes, Republicans generally are still having a hard time believing, accepting that Obama beat them again. All kinds of excuses and rationales are being offered for their predicament: Obama outspent them; his “ground game” was far too sophisticated and effective; the “minorities” conspired to vote for “free stuff,” “gifts,” and slothfulness. And, of course, women, particularly white women of all classes, simply misunderstood the Republican message this time around due to some unseemly remarks from some out of control down ballot candidates.
Oh, and the latest reason they lost? Obama and his supporters committed "massive voter fraud" throughout the country, and thus "stole" the election from a deserving Willard Mitt Romney. (This last one is dripping with an irony that Republicans just can't seem to grasp. It comes from the same folks who brought us fraudulent elections in both 2000 and 2004).
For those Republicans who have accepted the voters’ verdict, the Susan Rice/John Kerry question presents an opportunity for them to serve up a significant early defeat for President Obama. Sort of a line in the sand kind of thing, a signal that even though he may have beat them at the polls, he will not be allowed to run roughshod over them in Washington.
And then there is the whole question of how Hillary Clinton, who is, after all, the secretary of state, has managed to remained unscathed by this so-called scandal over Libya. Since we have been dragged into this thing, where are the questions and investigations and testimony of Madam Secretary?
Indeed and again, what did she know, and when did she know it?
So Clinton’s non-endorsement-endorsement of Ambassador Rice falls right in line with the Republican meme of continued obstruction of the president and his policies. Clinton must know this. But she does not seem to care -- or...she is motivated by "other" concerns.
How do you spell 2-0-1-6?