The Hillary dilemma
I've been trying to wrap my brain around Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State. As is well documented on this site, I am no fan of Mrs. Clinton, or her husband for that matter. I have tried really hard to like them, and have failed. Miserably.
With that said, my first reaction to hearing that a formal offer had been extended to her was a positive one. I can't really explain why, but it just seemed at the time like a smart move to me. After all, she are her husband are widely adored abroad and have deep roots with many governments and existing world leaders. Plus, it would get her out of the country more often. And that, to me, is a good thing.
Others did not feel the same way. As reported by the New York Post today, Chris Matthews of MSNBC was none too pleased. Here's what the Post reported that he said in an unguarded moment on a train from Philly to DC...
"I don't understand it," Matthews bellowed. "Why would he pick her? I thought we were done with the Clintons. She'll just use it to build her power base. It's Machiavellian. And then we'll have Bill Clinton, too. I thought Obama didn't want drama. He's already got [chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel and [transition team leader John] Podesta. He'll have even more drama with her.
"She's just a soap opera. If he doesn't pick her, everyone will say she's been dissed again, we'll have to live through that again."
True, the Clintons are the Pigpen from Peanuts of American politics....they seem to be perpetually ensnared in a cloud of black dust. The Clintons are that couple at the dinner party that ruins everyone's good time. They show up late, and in doing so hold up the service of the meal, they drink too much wine and proceed to engage in a cringe-worthy argument in full view of the other dinner guests, and then the male half of the couple winds up groping the party's hostess in a sloppily drunken pass while she's loading dishes into the dishwasher. Yes, they are that couple. All of this is certainly valid and indisputable.
Taking in the opinions of all the shouting heads got me to thinking...could this be nothing more than a brilliant tactical political move engineered by the likes of, oh, I don't know, former Clintonites Rahm Emanuel and John Podesta? Here's what I'm thinking...
You nominate Hillary once and for all to appease her crazy death-cult followers knowing full well that her nomination hearings in the Senate are likely to be a complete and utter shitshow. The Clintons will be forced to disclose all of the shady financial dealings that they've gotten themselves caught up in since leaving the White House.
One of two things will then happen...either they comply and become punching bags for the right-wing when she goes before the Senate, thus scoring some political leverage for Obama over that faction (they only have so many bullets in their gun and would probably exhaust them all on the Clintons), not to mention that it would force the Clintons to open all the doors and turn on the lights in their financial house for the world to see. The other thing that could happen is that the Clinton's refuse to comply with the demand for full-disclosure, thus allowing Obama to kick her to the curb with little or no repercussions.
"Well, I tried to get them on my team but they just refused to play by the rules of the game."
Either way, Obama wins, not to mention the fact that making her a part of his administration makes it less likely that she would mount a challenge to him in the 2012 Democratic primaries. Don't for a second put it past her to do such a thing, ala Ted Kennedy in 1980 when he contested a sitting Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.
Again, I'm still knocking this one around in my wee Cajun brain, but it seems to be a smart choice on the face of it all. Then again, I could be horribly, horribly wrong.
13 comments:
If the Dems get 60 senators, there probably will just be a vote with no hearings. I can't imagine any Democratic senator wanting to dirty the party up by taking well intentioned stabs at Clinton. In fact, I would guess that most senators would be happy to see her leave Congress.
My opinion on Obama's pick of her is beginning to smell of sell-out. In fact it makes me uncomfortable that Obama is using the Clinton machine to fill spots in his administration. It really is blurring the line between the two. I voted for Obama not Clinton.
Just my opinion.
I don't know—I too am a longtime Clinton non-fan, but my initial reaction was that it was a good idea, and it hasn't changed after some thought.
I agree with Matthews that it'll turn into a soap opera if she doesn't get something shiny from Obama—so, I mean, yes, give her something shiny, then. Leave her in the Senate, especially without having offered her a sweet spot, and she's got a ton of room to maneuver and essentially to try to wrest control of the party back from him. Put her in his administration, on the other hand, and she's got a lot less flexibility. Secretaries of State don't demagogue against the president; her fortunes, in fact, would be tied in no small part to his.
And the notion of late that this isn't actually change is more or less bogus. The point of the change that I, at least, hope Obama brings is that he'll use his brains rather than govern by popular opinion. The Clintons represent an older school of politics, one I hope we'll see less of, but that doesn't mean they don't have anything to bring to the table. There's a big difference between Obama listening to their ideas and him implementing them.
I would seriously doubt for one second that you would get anything horribly wrong in this. At all. Ever.
My problem is that Obama may have new ideas, but surrounding himself with Clintonites will keep "the machine" alive. I have problems with the Clintons, but Bill was nothing without his people. And I don't want those people hanging around our hopeful future.
Life was good when Bill Clinton was in office, he and those he surrounded himself with did alot of good for our country. and in the world. He continues to do good for the poorest and sickest throughout the world with his foundation. If you want to pick apart and criticize an administration, lets take a look at Nixon and Reagan. The first thing Reagan did was fire the air traffic controllers, then he completely slashed the solar energy funding, then he cut taxes, and cut it again....then he had to raise taxes because his plan was a failure, then he took credit for the Berlin wall coming down when many others paved the way. While we are at it go to you tube and search for Jimmy Carters energy speech, imagine where we would have been if his energy policies had ever been implemented....but they were nixed. The Nixon admin speaks for itself as does the last 8 years of Bush. Stop whining and get behind the president elect, give him some credit for having a brain and using it, something we haven't had for 8 years.
"My opinion on Obama's pick of her is beginning to smell of sell-out. In fact it makes me uncomfortable that Obama is using the Clinton machine to fill spots in his administration. It really is blurring the line between the two. I voted for Obama not Clinton."
Wow. Those unicorns turned on you pretty quickly, eh?
CB I hate to tell you but you got it wrong. I think Hillary would be an excellent choice for Secretary of State, some Americans may not like the Clintons, but the rest of the world admires them. How refreshing, cause they sure did not like Bush......
Hilary for the Supreme Court
hillary for the supremes would be a truly inspired disaster.
my personal choice for sec of state was richardson
i dont mind hillary, but i find it hard to believe that she would truly be willing to work under obama
i still like her as the new majority leader....reid must go
he is a wuss
"Some Americans may not like the Clintons, but the rest of the world admires them."
Who besides Israelis?
I'm torn on this. I think Hillary is an inspired choice, but I'm saddened it didn't go to Richardson. I think he'd seriously be the better choice.
Heard this morning that this is perhaps a very calculated move by Obama to get Hillary & Bill out of politics for a while. When she's S0S, she cannot be very political. And if Bill has to give up his fund raising, and speaking engagements if she takes the job, the focus would be off the Clintons and how they may try to hurt the Obama admin. Obama would be able to show he really is the head of the Democratic party with no interference.
I read that Lincoln, when asked by someone why he had those who were in opposition to him in his cabinet, he said he prefers to have his enemies pissing out of the tent instead of in.
If this is Obama's strategy, it's not a bad one.
It's spooky how often you say things I'm thinking.
Hilary wouldn't suck, but I think it is indeed a brilliantly Machiavellian plan to out the Clintons and appease her fans, and it's highly unlikely she'd take the job. Obama is a shrewd politician or he'd never have come this far.
AND I don't think it makes him any less of a magical unicorn prince that he can work politics so freaking well! I still believe his ideals are high, and I'm glad he has the skills to maneuver among the great white sharks.
I think it's weird to assume that a lot of shady financial dealings would come out. Wouldn't that have come out during her run for Pres? If not, wouldn't she at least have prepared for such an eventuality when deciding to run, and decided that there's nothing too bad that can be dug up?
Post a Comment