1.13.2009

WORTH THE TROUBLE?

BY CINCINNATUS

As more and more
documentation accrues showing a clear conflict of interest represented by Hillary Clinton’s nomination for Secretary of State, I continue to shake my head and ask, “is she worth the trouble?” Is there really something so special about Hillary Clinton that it’s worth compromising American foreign policy, or at the very least appearing to compromise American foreign policy, just to have her in the Cabinet? The coming Obama administration has been adamant about repairing America’s image around the globe and engaging in an aggressive diplomatic campaign to make more friends than enemies. That’s why the Clinton choice really has me scratching my head.

I know what some may be thinking: the Clinton supporters had to be made to feel welcome. But why? They largely voted for Obama anyway. The PUMA movement never materialized for McCain on Election Day. What recourse do they have now? Clinton will surely not challenge a sitting Democrat president for her Party’s nomination in 2012. Indeed, President-elect Obama could have made a strong statement by shutting out the Clintons altogether from his administration, both to make good on his promise for a “new politics” and to assert himself as the unquestioned leader of his Party. Such a move could have sent the Clintons tumbling into the “dustbin” of history with Jimmy Carter, anachronistic relics of a bygone era, no longer relevant.

But Obama didn’t do that. Instead, he’s chosen to make himself the butt of his own “McCain will serve Bush’s third term” quips by surrounding himself with former Clintonites and elevating Clinton herself to such a prestigious position in his government. I think it’s fair to say that Obama will serve out Bill Clinton’s third term, no? We shall see. But I once again have to assert that, if Obama seriously intended to deliver on his image of change in Washington and an end to “politics as usual,” he could have done better than Hillary Clinton (plus
baggage).

6 comments:

Hariolor said...

My money says she has something on Obama - some dregs from his Chicago career that he didn't sweep under the rug fast enough.

Hariolor said...

Also, Obama lied about new government. The Clintons have lots of gravitas and he intends to use them for every ounce. It will be interested to see if he gets burned playing with fire this time around.

Chris Berry said...

My guess is that if Obama doesn't already regret this pick, he will very shortly. Bill Clinton may soon replace Jimmy Carter as the most meddlesome living ex-president.

Ben Wheat said...

I think two things are certainly clear:

1. Obama's rhetoric about "new politics" is just that, rhetoric.
2. The Clintons have a hidden bargaining chip that they've used to leverage themselves into the Obama administration

Tony Cannizzaro said...

Considering the lengths I believe Hillary Clinton is willing to go to secure power, I am guessing negotiations on the seat went something like this:
"Make me your secretary of state and I will give you the antidote".

Ben Wheat said...

Confirmed by the US Senate today by a vote of 94-2. Opposing senators were Jim DeMint and David Vitter. DeMint's stock is already pretty high in my book, he's been one of the few consistent conservatives in the Senate thusfar and a staunch opponent of the successive bailouts. Vitter is known to consort with prositutes, so I could give a rat crap about him. Filthy, filthy low-life.