Even if you read this morning’s NYT story about the rapprochement between Obama and Hillary Clinton, you might have missed one little sentence toward the beginning of the story:

By this past Thursday, when Mr. Obama reassured Mrs. Clinton that as secretary of state she would have direct access to him and could select her own staff, the wooing was complete.

Last week, I raised the question of whether this would happen and what the impact would be on both the Obama-Clinton relationship and the morale of those in the foreign policy community who chose to support Obama rather than Clinton:

During the primaries, the Clinton campaign asked foreign policy experts to remain “exclusive” to Hillary (meaning they could not also offer advice to other candidates).  That’s not an unreasonable position, even if the other leading candidates (including Obama) chose not to follow suit.  I know many people in the foreign policy community who volunteered for the Clinton campaign because they thought she was the best candidate.  But I also know a few who, because of ambition, felt that they had to work for her even though they preferred another candidate.  When Obama ultimately won, all of them were welcomed by his campaign and integrated into Obama’s existing campaign apparatus.

If Hillary were to become Secretary of State, I presume that she, like most Secretaries, would be given significant leeway in picking most (if not all) of her senior advisors (meaning in the case of State the two Deputy Secretaries, the Under Secretaries, and those Assistant Secretary postions not assigned to career foreign service officers).  It would be logical (and not unreasonable) to conclude that she probably would favor those who served her during the primaries.

But doing so could create two problems.  First, the team of rivals could turn into rival fiefdoms, with Obama supporters dominating the NSC (and Defense) and Clinton supporters dominating State.  Given the fact that the next Administration urgently needs to reintegrate State into existing foreign policy structures (and give it the resources both to achieve its mission and play a more robust role in intra-agency negotiations), Obama needs to end existing inter-agency rivalries, not create new ones.

Second, there was no love lost among the two camps’ advisors during the primaries.  The Clintons attacked those they viewed as disloyal (such as Bill Richardson and Gregory Craig), which angered many in the Obama campaign.  In addition, I heard from more than one friend that they were warned that they could forget about a role in a Clinton administration should they not support Hillary during the primaries.  Given those realities, Obama risks angering those who did support him, and some of his supporters may regard Hillary’s likely selection of her loyalists to senior posts as a betrayal.

It’s too early to say whether the issue of competing fiefdoms will pose a problem, but it’s already pretty clear that Obama foreign policy types, particularly those who chose to support him back when he was far from a sure thing, are not at all happy with this development.

Even though it’s a Sunday, I’ve already heard from several bitter and angry friends.  They are wondering why they stuck their neck out twenty months ago only to see Hillary’s supporters get the plum foreign policy jobs.  At the time, they supported Obama not to get a job (after all, Hillary looked like a near-lock then) but because they sincerely believed that Obama represented a new and fresh approach.  Most knew that they were taking a big chance — after all, they had been warned of the consequences were they not to support Hillary. (And again, I believe that most of those who supported Hillary did so because they thought she was the best person for the job.)

My friends would be less than human if they did not want some reward for the chance they took.  Now, they feel, their payoff is to see the key jobs at State go to those who played it safe.

Although it’s true that Hillary might appoint some Obama loyalists to her team, most of my friends don’t think that’s going to happen.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who has been hearing such things:  over the weekend, several stories reported astonishment, anger, unhappiness, and bad morale within the Obama foreign policy ranks.  The Telegraph (UK):

[A] little after lunch on Wednesday two Obama aides went to a local coffee shop to talk. Both were veterans of the campaign. . . . [T]hey agreed on one thing: “He’s making a mistake.” As one of the participants told a friend later that night: “She’ll do a good job but she’ll do it for herself, not for Barack. I can’t bear the drama again.”

Then there’s this anonymous Obama team member, quoted by Michael Crowley over at TNR:

With General Jim Jones looking a strong bet for National Security Advisor, Hillary Clinton slated for State, and Bob Gates staying on at DOD, it appears increasingly likely that the three senior foreign policy positions in the Obama Administration will be filled by people who were not active Obama supporters during the campaign.

Moreover, these principals are likely to bring their own hanger-ons – Hillary alone is likely to absorb into State the foreign policy advisors from her primary campaign, not necessarily their Obama counterparts.  So how do you think that makes the “Gang of 300” who staffed Candidate Obama on foreign policy issues, wrote white papers, served as surrogates for him, etc. during the long campaign feel?

I still believe that Hillary would be smart to pick an Obama loyalist to the Deputy Secretary position.  As I’ve noted, if Obama can reach out to his rival, why can’t she do the same?

I have to wonder what both Susan Rice and Samantha Power are thinking.  After all, they were two of the earliest to support Obama.  Now Rice is likely to get no better than Deputy National Security Advisor and Power may not get anything at all — does anyone seriously think that Hillary would want someone who called her a “monster” to serve as her Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor?

Related posts

• The Transition
• The Foreign Policy Team: No Surprises
• The Fake Controversy over Samantha Power
• Obama’s Foreign Policy: Turning the Supertanker
• The Panic over Political Appointments