Lynette Long

SINS OF OMISSION GOES GLOBAL

On Monday November 24, my daughter Sarah will co-host the show with me.  It's exciting for me to do a mother daughter event, but even more exciting is the fact that Sarah lives in Europe and we are going to facilitate a discussion about gender roles and sexism around the world.  We both lived in Japan together, I've lived in Korea, and Sarah is now in Sweden.  So tune in and bring your best multi-cultural stories with you.  I'd love to hear your stories.  If you missed last nights show, you can listen at

   

WHY OBAMA WANTS HILLARY - FROM TIME MAGAZINE

Why Obama Wants Hillary for His 'Team of Rivals'

By Karen Tumulty and Massimo Calabresi Thursday, Nov. 20, 2008

Paul J. Richards / AFP / Getty

 

To succeed at modern diplomacy, it helps to take the long view. As word trickled out that President-elect Barack Obama was considering Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State, Clinton was on the phone with the President of Pakistan. Asif Ali Zardari was calling with a long-overdue thank-you. Back in 1998, when Zardari's late wife Benazir Bhutto was powerless and out of favor with the United States, the then First Lady had received her at the White House, over the objections of both the State Department and the National Security Council. Bhutto eventually regained her influence, and before her assassination last December, became an important U.S. ally. But she had never forgotten that act of graciousness, Zardari told Clinton on Nov. 14. "To be treated with such respect was very important."  

As he wrapped up his second week as President-elect, it was clear that Obama was taking the long view in both diplomacy and politics. How else to explain the fact that he had all but offered the most prestigious job in his Cabinet to a woman whose foreign policy experience he once dismissed as consisting of having tea with ambassadors? Or that Clinton might accept an offer from a man whose national-security credentials, she once said, began and ended with "a speech he made in 2002"? Nowhere did Obama and Clinton attack each other more brutally last spring than on the question of who was best equipped to handle international relations in a dangerous world. That they could be on the brink of becoming partners in that endeavor is the most remarkable evidence yet that Obama is serious about his declared intention to follow another Illinois President's model in assembling a "team of rivals" to run his government, in what could be a sharp contrast with the past 40 years of American Presidents. "I've been spending a lot of time reading Lincoln," Obama told Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes. "There is a wisdom there and a humility about his approach to government, even before he was President, that I just find very helpful." (See pictures from Voting Day).

And a shrewdness as well. The surprising proffer to Clinton came the same week that Obama sat down with John McCain in Chicago and helped engineer a commutation for Senator Joe Lieberman, who had backed McCain in the election and faced possibly being stripped of his committee chairmanship. The general amnesty campaign, part of a promise to change the way Washington works, impressed some longtime partisans. "It's brilliant," says a senior Republican Party official. "My hat is totally off to the guy." Viewed more cynically, bringing Clinton into the tent could co-opt a potential adversary in 2012 and put a leash on her globetrotting husband, who has a propensity for foreign policy freelancing. Which raises a question: Would this move, if it happens, be just the first manifestation of that new kind of politics that Obama was promising in his presidential campaign? Or proof that he understands the oldest kind all too well? 

However smart it might ultimately prove to be, the Clinton offer is likely to induce grumbling among some Obama loyalists. The job Obama dangled in front of Clinton has excited a frenzy of speculation and leaking — exactly the kind of thing the no-drama Obama operation did not tolerate during the presidential campaign. And coming amid word that Obama is eyeing an array of former Clinton officials — including former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder for the top job at Justice — even Democrats began to ask how much change Obama really represents. "What were the last two years all about?" asks one exasperated party strategist. "The restoration of the Clintons?"

But as with everything involving the Clintons, restoration is complicated. Negotiating Bill Clinton's portfolio has been one sticking point. The conundrum was on display on Nov. 16 even as Bill hailed his wife's potential to be "really great as a Secretary of State." He made that comment while giving a paid speech for the National Bank of Kuwait, which is the kind of thing for which he earned more than $10 million last year alone. Beyond his six-figure speaking fees, there are also a myriad of undisclosed contributions to the former President's far-flung charitable endeavors and to his presidential library, many of which have come from foreign interests that his wife would be dealing with as Secretary of State.

Team Clinton dismissed suggestions that there was anything in his donor files that could get in the way of her confirmation. As Bill told the Chronicle of Philanthropy in September, "The only reason I didn't want to [disclose] the library donors is that no previous President had. I suppose if Hillary were elected President, or maybe even if she had been nominated, we would have had to go back to the donors and at least disclose everyone that didn't object to it. But I wouldn't have any objection to it." 

In negotiations with the Obama transition team, the Wall Street Journal first reported, the Clintons have offered to disclose the identities of all future donors to Bill's charitable activities, as well as givers of major past contributions. (What constitutes "major" is still under discussion, though a source involved in the conversation tells TIME that the figure is likely to be $1 million or more.) Trickier to manage is the role the former President would play going forward. Should his wife become the country's top diplomat, President No. 42 would probably be required to get clearance from both the White House counsel's office and the State Department's ethics boss before accepting future donations or giving paid speeches.

But just as worrisome as any financial arrangements would be Bill Clinton's ongoing relationships with world leaders and his predilection for offering advice — as he did in 2006, when Dubai sought help in a controversial attempt to acquire six terminals in U.S. ports. (Hillary, a leader in the effort to block the deal that she called an "unacceptable risk" to national security, later said she was unaware that Bill had been coaching the other side.) Ex-Presidents always have that potential; Jimmy Carter has complicated life for every President since he left office. But should Hillary get the job, it might prove difficult to distinguish whether her husband was speaking on the Obama Administration's behalf.

What's in it for Hillary? Her allies point out that the move would not be without its negatives. Friends like New York Congresswoman Louise Slaughter are counseling her not to take the job. They say she would be giving up important work in the Senate, particularly on the health-care-reform cause that is her passion. Others warn that her job description at Foggy Bottom would mean she'd lose her own voice. Against that, enthusiasts for the move point out, Clinton is smart, a fast and thorough study, and tough as nails. And with Obama focused on the economy, she could have a big role in repairing the U.S.'s image overseas. Says an Obama adviser who has not always been a Clinton fan: "She's a great team player."

And the harder truth is that Clinton's options as a Senator are limited, at least in the immediate future. In that chamber, she is just one of many presidential also-rans and a relatively junior member of an institution where power and advancement require seniority. Shortly after the election, she lobbied Health Committee chairman Edward Kennedy and majority leader Harry Reid to create a health-reform subcommittee for her to chair and was turned down. Her consolation prize — to head one of three ad hoc task forces that Kennedy has created — would not allow her to put much of a stamp of her own on any final legislation that emerges. And if there's anything a First Lady who became a Senator would understand, it's that opportunities don't always come to those who wait for them.

— With reporting by James Carney, Michael Duffy and Michael Weisskopf / Washington

LET US NOT BLAME HILLARY

 © 2008 by Artemis March, PhD

November 19, 2008

This notion I'm hearing that Hillary should have taken on her Party and perhaps lead an independent movement—please, get a grip. It's just not who she is. We need to see and respect that. We aren't serving our long-term interests when we do what women too often do with women leaders: project an unrealistic image, feel personally betrayed when she doesn't meet our standard—a standard we don't impose on men—and tear her down.

I don't think Hillary has ever seen herself as a movement leader. Not an MLK but more like LBJ, the insider who can get the nuts and bolts in place so that the outsiders' dreams may become a reality. She has relied on her mastery of interdependent issues and coalition-building skills to gain respect—never trusting charisma or that she even had it. At the convention, she tried to get people to focus on the policies, not on her. It took Marcia Pappas to speak a truth I think Hillary never quite dared believe for herself: "I was in it for you, Hillary. It was about you."

Besides, no one has ever been elected as an independent, not even Teddy Roosevelt who'd already done well in the top job. Like it or not, a woman candidate needs the backing and the infrastruc­ture of one of those wings of the corporate party. If Hillary had ever entertained the notion that this grass-roots movement was going to carry her—well, more than a few peeled off and some say never again. Very precarious being Hillary. Very precarious being a woman in her position.

When die-hard supporters write about feeling betrayed by Hillary's campaigning too hard for him, I think, oh, no, here we go again. The endless meetings we endured during the early 70s to deal with the "horizontal hostility" that we didn't really understand or know how to handle—and still don't. It's so huge and so deeply ingrained. As women, we direct our aggression toward the safer target: other women. Even women who were abused often blame the mother who didn't (or couldn't) protect her, more than the father, stepfather, or boyfriend. That women disidentify with the caste of women, are divided from each other, and direct our anger toward one other is the make-or-break territory for feminism—and arguably the biggest barrier to electing a woman president.

Yet none of these pragmatics captures my global response to these latest attacks on Hillary. The Right's hatred and projections are predictable. The male-identified faux-feminists and the misogynist males of the Left who sank Hillary have shown their true colors this season. But when some of the faithful lose faith, it dredges up an ache in my soul. All that we have endured for five millennia merges with the spectre of this new movement (to which Hillary's candidacy has given birth) crashing once again on the rocks of women's internalized oppression. Our Warrior Queen was checkmated. Will her child slip away as well?

Yes, I know how awful it was for each of us to see her campaigning so long and hard for him (as she always said she would), but how much more dreadful for her to go through this!!  Knowing about the caucus fraud, knowing that the Party to which she was ever faithful never had her back, experiencing betrayal after betrayal from those whose careers she and Bill had made or had propped up—knowing all this and much more, she soldiered on with grace the likes of which I have rarely seen.

Her June speeches (and even her convention speech) gloriously buoyed us up while masterfully never conceding or endorsing him. I thought at the time, thank you, thank you for giving us this. You knew we couldn't stand that right now. You kept faith with us. I wrote a piece that it was not Hillary's job to unite the Party or win it for the loser, but I knew that if he lost, she would be toast. Scapegoating women is how men evade responsibility and justify their power.

How did she stomach what she felt she had to do—for her future, for our future, and in all probability, because of all kinds of threats? I think her choices were made for what she sees as the greater good of this country in these perilous times as well as for her own political viability. Do we really want to tear that down? Men (except those in ideological movements) don't do that to each other. Shall we, who don't have all the pieces, second-guess her?

Perhaps most galling of all, her post-primary choices mean that, although her campaign did lodge complaints about caucus fraud, she is not able to speak the truth about the primaries publicly. Nor, as I have written elsewhere, can she tackle the misogyny on her own because she needs a Greek Chorus to amplify, interpret, and spin with, for, and about her. Holding that silence is way beyond what most, and probably all, of us truth-tellers could handle.

Hillary doesn't have the luxury that we do to be the principled outsiders naming the truth about the underside of her opponent's campaign—the "real campaign." It is vital that we all be the voice that she cannot speak. We must build a truth-based narrative about her, and replace the false dominant narrative about what happened during this campaign. A tall order, but essential to her future, the future of other women candidates, and our own.

Let us not turn our pain, disappointment, anger, despair, and heartache into attacking this extraordinary woman for the choices she made because they don't fit our outsiders’ fantasy. Let us not participate in the scapegoating of female candidates—the behavior we have taken such exception to when done by others. Let us not do what women under patriarchy have done for their survival and crumbs for centuries—turn their anger horizontally rather than vertically—which keeps us divided and subordinated.

Let us train our fire where it belongs: the misogynist behavior of her abusive opponent, her Party, and the media, and the androcentric socio-political system which places women in impossible situations and pits them against each other. Patriarchy thrives on divisions it foments among women. Let us catch ourselves when we fall into that trap, and do the hard work to stop it so that we don't self-destruct as the Second and Third Waves did.

 

THE GLASS CEILING HOLDS STRONG

November 20, 2008

The Glass Ceiling Holds Strong

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- It is time to stop kidding ourselves. This wasn't a breakthrough year for American women in politics. It was a brutal one.

The glass ceiling remains firmly in place -- not cracked, as Hillary Clinton insisted as she tried to claim rhetorical victory after her defeat in the Democratic nominating contest. It wasn't even scratched with the candidacy of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee -- unless you consider becoming an object of national ridicule to be a symbol of advancement. As divergent as these two women are ideologically and temperamentally, as different as are their resumes, they both banged their heads -- hard -- against the ceiling. Both were bruised. So was the goal of advancing women in political leadership.

Even if President-elect Barack Obama chooses Clinton as secretary of state, no ground will be broken. Clinton would be the third woman to hold the post. And there is no longer anything extraordinary in a president naming women to his Cabinet. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it first, when he appointed Frances Perkins as labor secretary in 1933. Since then, every president but Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy has named women to the Cabinet or to Cabinet-level posts, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. Bill Clinton holds the record: He appointed 16 women overall, and at one point about half of those serving in Clinton's Cabinet were female.

But, we are invariably told, surely there are enough women moving through the "pipeline" of lower offices so that someday, some woman from somewhere will win the presidency or the vice presidency. Well, here is how things stand: Eight women will serve as governors in 2009, the same as this year. The proportion of women serving in statewide elective office actually has dropped since it reached a high of about 28 percent in 2000; it is now about 24 percent, according to the center.

The Senate will add one woman next year, bringing the number of female senators to 17. Ten newly elected House members are female. This means that as the class of 2008 enters the Capitol's marble halls, it will include less than half the number of women who first won office in 1992 -- the so-called "year of the woman."

Including incumbents and newcomers, a record number of women will be serving in Congress, but still only 17 percent of its members will be female. This is where that record places us: on a par with the legislative representation women have achieved in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The United Nations, which tracks women's global political advancement, says that at this rate, it will take women in the developing world 40 years to reach parity with men.

How long will it take us? We already are well into the fourth decade since the contemporary women's movement of the 1970s spawned a generation that sought to claim an equal place in the halls of power.

Those who watched the media's sexist hazing of both Clinton and Palin often rationalize this treatment as the result of these two candidates' particular personalities and the legitimacy -- or presumed illegitimacy -- of their campaigns. But Barbara Lee, whose Boston-based family foundation has conducted extensive research of gubernatorial races involving women, routinely identifies the same undercurrents in state campaigns. Voters demand more experience of a woman candidate, and judge her competence separately from whether she is sufficiently "likable." Male candidates typically must clear only the competence bar to be judged -- as Obama indelicately put it during a primary debate -- "likable enough."

"We heard that over and over again -- that no woman is ever right," Lee says of her focus groups. "They like the concept of it but when it comes to a real, live, breathing candidate, they don't."

Lee summarizes the disparate assessment this way: "There are no female Arnold Schwarzeneggers." That is, no woman will ever burst into politics, capture the voters' imagination and be catapulted into high public office without a lick of experience.

Yet American women are a majority of the population and a majority of the electorate. They earn more than half the bachelor's and master's degrees, a level of educational achievement far exceeding that of women in developing countries. There must be some reason we don't do any better than women in impoverished, rural regions of the world where cultural norms oppress women.

Maybe it is because our culture isn't so different after all.

mariecocco@washpost.com

HILLARY CLINTON - THE GREAT RIGHT HOPE?

The Great Right Hope
Hillary Clinton?
by Noemie Emery
11/19/2008 12:00:00 AM

Campaign 2008, which went on for four years, if not for four centuries, was rich in dramatic personae with strange tales -- candidates from Alaska, the Canal Zone, and Hawaii; mavericks, moose-hunters, and multi-racial messiahs -- but none has been so bizarre as the story of Hillary Clinton, who began her career as the wife of a liberal president, who entered the race eons ago as the liberal hope to become the first woman president, and who may end it weeks after the fact as the third female secretary of state in our history, the first ex-First Lady to become a top diplomat, to the relief and delight of many conservatives. How did the feminist wife of Bill Clinton, demonized as a fiend during much of his tenure, end up as the Great Right Hope of the party they bested? The race changed her, and it, beyond all expectations. It was all the campaign.

Candidates of course plan their campaigns, but they are defined more than they anticipate by their opponents, to whom they are forced to react. In 1992, Bill Clinton, an interesting and effective middle-way reform governor, planned to run against liberal Mario Cuomo who would have the support of his party's establishment. To his surprise, Cuomo bowed out, and he became by default the establishment candidate. In 2000, George W. Bush, an interesting and effective reform governor, planned to run against fiscal or social conservatives as an inventive and maverick figure. He ran instead against John McCain, the maverick's maverick, and became in his turn the establishment figure, as the fiscal and social conservatives flocked to his side by default.

And so Hillary planned to run from the left against Evan Bayh or Mark Warner, with the support of the backers she and her husband had wooed over decades in politics: the civil rights groups, the gay and the feminist lobbies, the glitterati of New York and Hollywood, the intellectuals and/or academics, the mainstream and celebrity press. But Bayh and Warner dropped out early on, and she was assailed from the left and above by Barack Obama, whose appeal to her backers unraveled her base. She critiqued the Iraq war and David Petraeus, but he was opposed from the very beginning. She appealed to the young, but he was still younger. She ran as a star, but he was more new, and more glittering. She ran to make history, but the history he was making was much more compelling, as it spoke to undoing the country's most terrible wrong.

-----------------------------------------------

2006 VIDEO ABOUT FEMINISM

New Yorker were interview about what is feminism.  It's very interesting.  We have an uphill battle.

FROM HEIDI LI'S POTPOURRI

Seven to one: not so promising Posted: 17 Nov 2008 09:02 PM CST So far the Obama administration has announced eight high level appointments to the executive branch (John Podesta, serving as co-chair of the transition team says he will not hold a position in the new administration). Of these seven are men and one is a woman. President-elect Obama has held a meeting with John McCain, and the two announced a hope "to work together to together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation's security." I certainly agree that these issues are pressing. But a disturbing pattern is emerging. Neither by virtue of his appointments nor his statements is President-elect Obama indicating that he is taking heed of the concerns of millions of people that this election cycle exposed just how much misogyny and sexism pervades this country. And putting that issue on the back burner is not warranted just because there are other important issues facing the country. Other presidents, including at least one President-elect Obama has taken as a role model, have neglected to attend to the civil rights of certain groups claiming that other issues take priority. John F. Kennedy Jr., for example, largely ignored the issue of black civil rights for the first two years of his administration, preferring to focus on the problems of the Cold War. What finally forced President Kennedy's hand was the increasing intensity of the nonviolent but direct actions led Martin Luther King Jr. and his compatriots. Although black Americans had been demanding full civil and social equality since at least the end of World War II and King's movement had begun in the 1950s, it was not until 1963, after outbreaks of serious violence by officials against nonviolent protestors, that President Kennedy gave an address on the issue of black civil rights and introduced legislation that was enacted after his death, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (source) Imagine if President-elect Obama were to learn from President Kennedy's strategy of delay by showing right now an immediate responsiveness to an issue that may not have figured much in his campaign promises but figures large in the social consciousness. Imagine if his first eight appointments had been seven women and one man. What a powerful message that would have sent. I have discussed the important of the petition drive being sponsored by WomenCount, seeking the appointment of a Presidential Commission on Women.

HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points  (by Zogby) 97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions 57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) 81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) 82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing) 56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing). And yet..... Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!! Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey) http://www.howobamagotelected.com/

LYNNE BROUGHT THIS UP ON LAST NIGHTS SHOW -- PLEASE HELP

Pine Ridge Reservation Emergency Request for Help

Posted at http://nativeamericanrights.wordpress.com/

Donations can be made via link posted at the top left of the page.

Subject: SIOUX NATION
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:42:50 -0600

I have received info from Lakota, Ogala Sioux. It is bad. There are
over 1900 power poles down, no electricity, no firewood, running out
of propane, There are snow drifts 20-30' deep in some places making
it virtually impossible to enter the areas with any vehicles much
less on foot.

The National Guard is helping some…and I understand that the Red Cross may be there.

Here is the address to send either  donations, new blankets, baby food, diapers, wet wipes

for cleansing, new baby blankets, or food stuffs that are not perishable. The higher that you go upward the worse it gets. Hwy # 44 to Wounded Knee to Porpucine, Kyle is very bad, Wmblee and Katoka are suffering.  These are all in the path of the blizzard. Sanitary napkins would be very beneficial for someone to send, also fat candles.


Vice Chairman of the Ogalala Sioux Tribe
C/O Bob Ecoffey
P O box 1203
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
(605) 867-5396

You can also buy heaters for $20.00!  Send one to keep a family warm!  You can get these directly from amazon.

Lasko 754200 Ceramic Heater with Adjustable Thermostat by Lasko
Buy new: $29.99 now $19.99
28 Used & new from $18.99
Get it by if you order in the next 11 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

All of the elderly that were in harms way have been moved out and those that were very sick. All have been accounted for so that is a
blessing.

Much prayer is needed for the people. This ought not to be in this nation!!!!

LYNNE BROUGHT THIS UP ON LAST NIGHTS SHOW -- PLEASE HELP

Pine Ridge Reservation Emergency Request for Help

Posted at http://nativeamericanrights.wordpress.com/

Donations can be made via link posted at the top left of the page.

Subject: SIOUX NATION
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:42:50 -0600

I have received info from Lakota, Ogala Sioux. It is bad. There are
over 1900 power poles down, no electricity, no firewood, running out
of propane, There are snow drifts 20-30' deep in some places making
it virtually impossible to enter the areas with any vehicles much
less on foot.

The National Guard is helping some…and I understand that the Red Cross may be there.

Here is the address to send either  donations, new blankets, baby food, diapers, wet wipes

for cleansing, new baby blankets, or food stuffs that are not perishable. The higher that you go upward the worse it gets. Hwy # 44 to Wounded Knee to Porpucine, Kyle is very bad, Wmblee and Katoka are suffering.  These are all in the path of the blizzard. Sanitary napkins would be very beneficial for someone to send, also fat candles.


Vice Chairman of the Ogalala Sioux Tribe
C/O Bob Ecoffey
P O box 1203
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
(605) 867-5396

You can also buy heaters for $20.00!  Send one to keep a family warm!  You can get these directly from amazon.

Lasko 754200 Ceramic Heater with Adjustable Thermostat by Lasko
Buy new: $29.99 now $19.99
28 Used & new from $18.99
Get it by if you order in the next 11 hours and choose one-day shipping.
Eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping.

All of the elderly that were in harms way have been moved out and those that were very sick. All have been accounted for so that is a
blessing.

Much prayer is needed for the people. This ought not to be in this nation!!!!

HILLARY CLINTON TO ACCEPT OBAMA'S OFFER OF SECRETARY OF STATE JOB

President-elect Barack Obama reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration

• Ewen MacAskill in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Monday November 17 2008

Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama's secretary of state. Photographs: AFP/Getty Images

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.

Clinton would be well placed to become the country's dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.

Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.

As part of the coalition-building, Obama today also reached out to his defeated Republican rival, John McCain, to discuss how they could work together to roll back some of the most controversial policies of the Bush years. Putting aside the bitter words thrown about with abandon by both sides during the election campaign, McCain flew to meet Obama at his headquarters in the Kluczynski Federal Building, in downtown Chicago.

Obama, speaking before the meeting, said: "We're going to have a good conversation about how we can do some work together to fix up the country." He said he also wanted to thank McCain for his service to the country.

Asked by a reporter whether he would work with Obama, McCain, who has long favoured a bipartisan approach to politics, replied: "Obviously".

Sources on both sides said Obama did not offer McCain a cabinet job, but focused on how the senator for Arizona could help to guide through Congress legislation that they both strongly favour.

Given Obama's status as president-in-waiting, the two met in a formal setting, a room decked out with a US flag, and were accompanied by senior advisers. Obama appeared the more relaxed of the two, sitting with legs crossed, smiling broadly and waving to reporters, while McCain sat stiffly, with a seemingly fixed grin.

Although the two clashed during the election campaign over tax policy and withdrawal from Iraq, they have more in common than they have differences. They both favour the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention centre, an increase in US troops to Afghanistan, immigration reform, stem cell research and measures to tackle climate change, and oppose torture and the widespread use of wire-tapping.

Although Democrats made gains in the Senate in the November 4 elections, they fell short of the 60 seats that would have allowed them to override Republican blocking tactics and will need Republican allies to get Obama's plans through. This was highlighted today when the Democratic leadership in Congress announced that a broad economic stimulus package Obama sought was not likely to be passed because of Republican opposition.

Obama confirmed at the weekend that he would offer jobs to some Republicans. One of the names that crops up most often is Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator who is a specialist in foreign affairs and a critic of the Iraq war.