Our good friend Joe Gandelman has a good piece putting the Clinton at State story in a larger perspective on what President-elect Obama is aiming for (think FDR big):

Will New York Senator Hillary Clinton accept a reported job offer of Secretary of State from her onetime Democratic nomination rival President Elect Barack Obama? The British newspaper The Guardian says she is going to accept it — and a longtime Democratic strategist says Obama’s offer to Clinton and his victory speech signal Obama’s intention to make his presidency a “big” Presidency.

Read the whole thing.

Let the online riot begin:

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

Joe Conason brings some sense and facts to the discussion:

The concerns about the Clinton Global Initiative and Bill Clinton’s other activities seem slightly overblown (as I’ve noted before). Every paid speech he has delivered over the past eight years is recorded in his wife’s Senate disclosure forms. Nor have donors to CGI been concealed, either, as any journalist who attends its meetings or examines its Web site should be able to determine. The countries that have donated funding to the Clinton H.I.V./AIDS Initiative are also a matter of public record.

When such questions arose during the campaign, he promised to publish the names of all future donors if his wife were to be elected president – and presumably he will now make any reasonable disclosures requested by the president-elect as part of the vetting process.

Next phony issue? We await Josh Marshall's next anti-Clinton missive.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

This is so much the very definition of irony:

Team Obama, after all but offering SecState to Senator Clinton, is expressing EXASPERATION with the Clinton camp for the difficulty in getting a clean vet on President Bill Clinton’s many entanglements. . . . Given that everyone's mystified by how deliberately public the Clintons have made this once secret process . . . [G]enerally the sense among the no-drama Obama world is: This is well on its way to winning best Oscar for drama.”

The irony of leaking to Mike Allen your complaints about "Clinton drama" is too freaking rich. Obviously Allen's Obama team contacts are NOT part of the NO DRAMA part of the Obama team.

And from the actual No Drama Obama Team:

[T]here's been no delaying, there's been no acrimony . . . Clinton and her team have acted professionally and appropriately.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Kroft: There are a number of different things that you could do early pertaining to executive orders. One of them is to shutdown Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?

Mr. Obama: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn't torture. And I'm gonna make sure that we don't torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world.

Obama can do these things on Day 1. Of course, closing Gitmo will take some time to do but announcing its closing can happen Day 1. And torture ("enhanced interrogation" as John Brennan describes it) can end and must end immediately. No ifs and or buts.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Greg Craig was named White House counsel. Marcy Wheeler is not pleased.

My take is somewhat different than Marcy's. Craig was trying to justify Barack Obama's flip flop on telecom immunity when he spouted nonsense about FISA expiring. I think he knew that what he was saying was pure nonsense. But then, the real issue is that Greg Craig does not tell the truth and thinks most of us are idiots or do not care about the truth when it comes to Obama. But, in Craig's defense, it seems true that many do not care about the truth when it comes to Obama and warrantless wiretappping, telecom immunity and other such issues. Of course, we do not know YET where Obama will end up on these issues. But I submit that that is precisely the problem.

Update - I am told that on 60 Minutes, Obama was quite forceful on the issue of torture and on closing Gitmo. This is terrific and important news. I will post a transcript and/or video when it becomes available.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

At the end of the economic summit, President Bush said:

Those of you who have followed my career know that I'm a free market person — until you're told that if you don't take decisive measures then it's conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depressions.

The conclusion -- that a cause-and-effect relationship existed between his free market philosophy and the present fear of an Extra-Great Depression -- went unspoken and presumably unrecognized. [more ...]

This information gets firmer and frankly, more fascinating:

A Democratic official confirms to the Huffington Post that Sen. Hillary Clinton met with President-elect Barack Obama on Thursday to discuss her role in the new administration. Clinton's trip to Chicago, described in press reports as "personal business," came following a request from Obama, the official said.

Is it about State? Or perhaps HHS to be Obama's Administration point person on health care reform? Is it a play for Doris Kearns Goodwin?

This seems more serious than mere trial balloons.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only?

While I think Barack Obama is right (and if anyone is kidding them self that Obama is not calling the shot on this, well . . ) to look for a way to neutralize Joe Lieberman while keeping him in the Dem caucus, there is certainly a strong argument for not keeping him. Ed Kilgore makes it here. And Rachel Maddow gave the brief last night on her show:

I admit I am more concerned with the John Brennans and Cass Susnteins surrounding Obama than this, but hey, maybe folks are right to pressure on this. It would be more interesting I think if they actually pressured the guy who is calling the shot- Barack Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Via Digby, Newsweek reports:

Although both [intelligence chiefs] McConnell and Hayden expressed a willingness to stay on for some period of time, sources close to the Obama transition say this is unlikely, given that both men zealously defended controversial Bush administration policies-such as the warrantless-wiretapping program-that the incoming Democratic president opposed during the campaign.

Of course Digby is right that Obama voted for expanding the wiretapping program and telco immunity. But just as importantly, Obama's intelligence issues transition chief John Brennan vehemently championed it and McConnell in particular. Something is not right here.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

It appears I am not alone in my concern about John Brennan. Now, according to HuffPo, Russ Feingold is a "concern troll" too:

"For eight years, the current Administration has shown contempt for the rule of law, including in intelligence-related matters, while repeatedly refusing to work cooperatively with Congress. . . . New leadership is needed to move our intelligence policies in the right direction," Feingold's statement concludes.

Feingold -- perhaps the Senate's most indefatigable civil libertarian -- has been a stalwart opponent of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, as well as extensive searches of Americans' laptops and other property at airports by the TSA. It would be practically impossible to read his statement as anything but a reaction to a Wall Street Journal report earlier this week that claimed Obama is "unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

The Washington Post examines how President-Elect Barack Obama may overhaul the Justice Department in an attempt to restore confidence. First, the problem, created by the Bush Administration:

The infusion of politics into the Justice Department and an abdication of responsibility by its leaders have dealt a severe blow," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the panel's ranking Republican, wrote in an opinion piece last month. "Great damage has been done to the credibility and effectiveness of the Justice Department."

Next, the possible solutions and reading the tea leaves on what Obama may do: [More...]