
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that the true test of a first rate intellect is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still function.
For example: "Hillary Clinton would make an excellent secretary of state," and "Hillary Clinton would make a terrible addition to the Obama cabinet."
Or: "The current drama surrounding Hillary Clinton's potential appointment to secretary of state is almost entirely the creation of the conflict-addicted media," and "Hillary Clinton would almost surely bring unnecessary drama with her to any new post within the Obama administration."
Or, now that I think about it, maybe this: "I really liked Bill Clinton and thought he was a great president," and "Bill Clinton is a narcissistic sociopath who drags trouble behind him wherever he goes like tin cans tied to a wedding limo."
With all of these disparate notions fighting for supremacy, the question then centers around whether the good to be had by appointing Hillary Clinton to a high position in the incoming government outweighs the bad. Is she really worth all the political and emotional baggage?
Honestly?
No, she isn't.
I won't be one of those people who spent months vociferously supporting Barack Obama only to then criticize him the moment he wins; I in no way feel "betrayed" by any of the decisions he's made in the couple of weeks since securing a landslide victory and the mandate that comes with it. On the contrary, I'm encouraged by his desire to bring former adversaries into the fold; I think it's good for the country, by and large, and fulfills the promise Obama made during the campaign to shun the mistakes of his illustrious predecessor, a man who never met a spineless crony he didn't like.
But bringing Hillary Clinton on board is an entirely different animal.
I despised the kind of cynical and unscrupulous campaign Clinton ran during the primaries, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the nature of modern politics -- particularly because it has no bearing on her capacity to represent the United States as its top diplomat. What does present a problem, however -- and will continue to -- is that with Hillary Clinton, you never get just Hillary Clinton; it's always a package deal that includes Bill.
And if you think Bill Clinton won't find a way to inject his special brand of self-obsessed melodrama -- the proudly sly, Melrose Place-meets-the-White House shtick that we endured for most of the 90s -- into the otherwise focused, serious and drama-free environment created by Team Obama, I've got a story about not having sexual relations with an intern I'm sure I can convince you of.
Bill Clinton doesn't know how to lay low and relinquish the spotlight; he'd be an albatross around the neck of his wife and therefore a 300-pound millstone around the neck of the Obama White House.
And as Obama's own campaign said in reference to its opponent in the general election, that's not change -- that's more of the same.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Don't Believe the Hype, It's a Sequel
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




20 comments:
With Lieberman holding his chair, and Hillary a likely SoS, I'm feeling that Obama is putting aside anything remotely divisive, and is going to great lengths to try to get everyone working together for the good of the country.
First of all, none of the ideas you presented are truly in conflict, they all fit within a single narrative.
Secondly, you talk about Bill Clinton like he's ONLY a bad thing. That's not fair. For all his flaws, and they are MANY, he also came with a hell of an upside and one of the big ones was that the world LOVED him. He was a very popular president overseas, had good relations with most allies, and was a very accomplished diplomat. And he'd be bringing all of that along with the bad stuff. People are already talking about how he could be a huge benefit in sorting out the trade agreement with Colombia, and he has contacts and friends all over the world. He would be a fantastic "black ops" diplomat the Obama white house could deploy to wherever they needed to negotiate without a formal State Department contact, and they could deny any knowledge of it Mission Impossible style if he were caught since he's KNOWN to "go rogue" and have his own agenda.
The Hillary Clinton play would be high risk for all the reasons you list, but it could be even higher reward.
fuck you. let her show what she can do. truth is, you DON'T know how it's all going to shape up. fucking enough of short changing a woman who is capable of being not only secretary of state, but president of this country. hillary clinton is no saint, and neither is any one politician who calls himself or herself that. so what's left to criticize? the fact that she's a woman, that's what. you're implying that hillary clinton will be incapable of performing her duties, because her husband is an attention whore? how fucking sexist is that?
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Secretary of State is a perfect job to give Hillary. Typically the Secretary of State lives on an airplane, and when she is not in Washington, she can't be plotting and scheming to both organize her next Presidential run, and messing up the President's domestic agenda. It will keep her VERY busy, which will suit Obama perfectly.
For all of those reasons, I think she would be foolish to take it. That Senate seat offers her more power in Washington than does a cabinet post, and it is a lot more secure. In terms of a way to neutralize Hillary and keep her busy, though, this is a pretty good one.
Anon 1:23 --
Ah yes, another passionate, ballsy, pissed-off comment from my favorite reader: Anonymous.
There's nothing sexist about it. I don't have an issue with Hillary Clinton because she's a woman -- even a strong woman. I have an issue with her because she's Hillary Clinton and I, like everyone else in America, have 16 years experience in dealing with the unfortunate nonsense that goes with her much of the time.
I'm actually pretty stoked about Hillary as SoS. She's a strong person and a good leader. She handled the Lewinsky thing very well and if that ain't diplomacy ....
I made the mistake of going to hillary44.org. What a bunch of whackos. They think everything Obama does is tinged with deceit. I disagree. He's convinced me. He is a wise man and if he believes Hillary is a good choice, I'm backing him. I'm not blind about it, but he's earned my trust.
Let me reiterate: I think Hillary would make an excellent secretary of state.
But it's a lot of trouble to open yourself up to. A lot of trouble this administration doesn't need.
I also think she'd be great, but ... there are probably a number of members of Obama's cabinet who come with baggage. Maybe the differences here are: 1) Bill & Hill have big baggage 2) their baggage is a matter of record 3) they're under a microscope already and 4) Obama might not be able to control them as well as the rest of his staff, should push come to shove.
Still. He can always fire her if he has to. Which wouldn't really go over with the Hillaryites. They want nothing short of President and the job offer could be seen as patronizing.
I hope he doesn't select Hillary. Hillary is one of the Dem's biggest hawks. She allegedly talked Bill into bombing in Kosovo, she unabashedly supported the war in Iraq, and she condemned Obama's willingness to talk to foreign leaders without conditions. Foreign affairs is one of the few places where she and Obama offer distinctly different viewpoints. After years of continuous warfare, this country needs a Secretary of State who will be an advocate for real peace.
I'm with Anonymous. Not the invective-spitting Torettes-inflicted lunatic one, the other two.
Way back during the primaries, I had a hunch that Hillary would make a way better Sec. of State than President. I never understood her popularity given her rehearsed impersonal and distant public persona. Let Obama lead by inspiration, he's perfect for that. Put Hillary in a room with an Ambassador or a Prime Minister, and let her hammer out the trade deals and cease fires. She is the perfect foil; you want to get in good with Club Obama? You got to get past Hillary the Bouncer at the velvet rope out front.
Besides, as far as baggage goes, she's already "the devil we know." Why risk some noisome Drudge expose' on someone we know less about? I'm not sure there's anything left to surprise us about the Clintons, and after an eight year reign of a cabal of war criminals, any potential Clintonesque buffoonery would almost be a welcome comedic third act. Less genocide, more blowjobs, I say!
Good points, everybody.
And why can't we have both genocide AND blow jobs?
I actually think that Obama is making a VERY, VERY smart move by bringing Hillary aboard as SoS.
Truth is, Bill and/or Hillary is going to be a pain in his ass no matter where she is--Senate, the Supreme Court (which some have suggested would be a better place for her), or the State Department. She'd also be very adept at any of those positions.
What makes the Secretary of State a better place for Obama to put her than either the Senate OR the Supreme Court?
He can fire her.
Interesting post.
One bone of contention. This is not a landslide victory.
Ignore the electoral college for a second, the result of which is assiduously gamed by any Presidential politician worth his salt.
Obama 53% - McCain 46%
That was the popular vote. Sure, compared to W's "victories" it looks like a landslide, but all it is is a solid victory.
No landslide. No mandate. Progressives shouldn't be running their mouths like Bush did when he claimed he had a "mandate" in 2004.
All it is is the first time in 8 years we know America was sure who they wanted to be their President.
Plus, she might, you know....menstruate all over some foreign diplomat, or something....
well put, chez. the clintons have been bad news for years.
I actually think some Clinton drama might benefit an Obama White House. President Obama, for all his great qualities does not have a lot of leadership experience and he's heading into the White House in a time of great turmoil. He's going to make some bad judgement calls, or mistakes, or need some time to get used to the job. If the media is focused on OMG! HILL&BILL during that time, it could make for a smoother learning period for Obama.
Also I find it just a little disgusting that people keep talking about how a woman is incapable of doing her job because of her husband. They've been married for a few decades, I'm sure she knows exactly how to get him to shut up and behave. Maybe it involves tossing him an intern or two, I don't know, but I'm sure she's got it figured out.
Bringing the Clintons into the fold also stops any attempt for them to undermine the Administration. Plus, the foreign press is less likely to care about Bill screwing the help.
Tom Friedman had an interesting perspective on this subject in today's NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19friedman.html?th&emc=th
While I don't doubt that Hillary would always have the country's best interests at heart, would they always be in agreement with what Obama believes is the right course of action? I'm not sure I know the answer to that question, but if he thinks she is a SoS he could confide in and is confident with, then I support his decision.
Anonymous 6:34
Oh my god, a period joke. How fresh. Especially since she's, you know, sixty-ish. I think you may need to take health class again...
When you dial 911 for a noise complaint and they tell you to call 311 instead, so you hang up and dial 911 again, that's not change, it's more of the same.
Post a Comment