By
Russ Wung
December 2, 2008
There was a time when people of all political stripes saw a threat of epic proportions coming and resolved that they would stop it in its tracks.
It was, in fact, such a grave menace that caused millions of brave Republicans and Democrats to join together in a common cause.
Like minutemen marching from towns all across the nation to the field of battle, they came forward in America’s time of need.
Without ever developing a united organization, and mostly through media bombardment, they were able to turn back the forces of the Dark Side.
They stopped Hillary Clinton from becoming president.
Even college students got in on the act. The Facebook group “One Million Strong Against Hillary” had reached its eponymous membership goal by April 18 of this year. Significant numbers of liberals, while enthusiastic about Obama, disliked Hillary from the get-go.
Obama’s choices for his administration have ranged from the good (Geithner) to the utterly atrocious (Daschle), suggesting a variety of forces at work. The strongest thread running through them is they are not the mouth-foaming activists that got Obama elected, but the old guard of the Clinton era, with a few nonpartisans here and there.
Naturally, the activists are already whining that the Obama cabinet isn’t as left-wing as he is, or not antiwar enough. The appointments, however, merely reflect the reality that voters don’t want radical leftist change. They just want a sense of stability and security, false or otherwise. Choosing familiar faces and relative moderates is just good politics on Obama’s part.
Many of the people chosen for high-profile posts — such as Emanuel, Gates and Geithner — reflect a desire to project continuity and stability above all else. When you think of Hillary Clinton, stability isn’t the first word that comes to mind.
Whether she’s dodging fictitious Bosnian sniper fire, playing an “instrumental” role in Irish peace deals or attempting to shove socialist health care down our throats, Hillary comes across as manipulative, dishonest and hard to pin down.
So what’s up with the secretary of state choice?
A diplomat must be able to talk through both sides of his or her mouth at times, but unlike Bill, Hillary isn’t even a good liar.
Part of it may be hedging against the inevitable zombie-like resurrection of the Clinton campaign. If Obama’s first term turns out to be a disaster, Clinton will have a good shot at dethroning him in the Democratic primary. In the state chair, Hillary can only separate herself so much from her boss; in the Senate, she could make all kinds of trouble as Obama’s Chuck Hagel.
Still, the position of secretary of state was once considered the primary stepping stone to the presidency.
Could Hillary still turn this appointment to her political advantage?
The Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel suggests that the position of secretary of state would force Clinton “by law and custom” to “dismantle her extensive political operation, and end the patronage that has earned her continued loyalty,” thus crippling her presidential aspirations.
That is probably what Obama is hoping for, but law and custom were never obstacles for the Clintons. Hillary is a risky choice that could go okay at best, or become the stuff of soap operas at worst.
It should be an entertaining spectacle, at least. And thanks to the dazzling array of media choices available in the 21st century, we’ve all got box seats.
Reach columnist Russ Wung at opinion@dailyuw.com.
4 Comments
#1 Kaasa
on December 2, 2008 at 12:47 a.m.(Seattle, WA | Unverified Name | UW Community)
The most important part of the Bosnian sniper fire story wasn't her shameless fabrication of the event. It was the irony of the fact that the country wouldn't have been nearly so dangerous had she not persuaded her husband in 1993 (over the advice of his State and Defense Secretaries, National Security Advisor, and Vice President) to blow off his promise to strike Serbian military positions in order to stop Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaign, reasoning that it would dry up political capital that needed to be saved for her vaunted health care blitz. (Which, being as it was a sweetheart deal cooked up in private for HMOs and the pharmaceutical industry, was certainly not socialist enough for me.)
And yes, "law and custom" certainly were never obstacles for the Clintons. Even less so for the Bush team, but, you know, who's counting?
#2 Andy
on December 2, 2008 at 1:08 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
What a piece of trash! Wung makes several personal attacks against Hillary Clinton with only a passing mention of two instances where he alleges that she misrepresented her role. If that is all the material Wung has, then Hillary Clinton must be a saint. Critique of Obama's cabinet nominations is fair game and there is plenty to write, good and bad, about Hillary Clinton. But, this piece is opinion journalism at its worst.
#3 Sean K.
on December 3, 2008 at 1:02 a.m.(Seattle, WA | UW Community)
Russ is our very own Bill Kristol. Nice tool. Sit!
#4 Carlos Navaroo
on December 4, 2008 at 4:17 a.m.(Cornelius, NC | Unverified Name)
Barack Obama’s decision to name Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State post could well turn out to be his first major blunder, for these obvious reasons:
First, there’s the inseparable bond with her husband Bill. Given the duo’s unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be content to play second fiddle. From day one they would be scheming to usurp control of the White House. Once they get a foothold, Obama would be hard-pressed to rein them in.
Then, there’s the Clintons’ long history of corruption, deception and sleaze—Whitewatergate, Pardongate, Cattle-futuresgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fellatiogate, the using of uniformed marines as waiters, the plundering of White House property, the Impeachment and near conviction, the punitive IRS audits, the violent deaths of potentially incriminating witness. This alone would provide Obama’s enemies with all the grime they needed to smear his presidency.
Consider further that unlike a Condoleezza Rice or a Madelaine Albright—not to mention bona fide statesmen like Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk and John Foster Dulles--Hillary Clinton lacks the educational and cultural gravitas to represent our nation abroad. Her lawyering in Arkansas and stint in Congress doesn’t quite cut it. She did get 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, probably more than Obama, but a large proportion of those votes were cast by diehard feminists and the less educated, hardly the constituency whose support lends credibility to a Secretary of State.
Barack Obama should recall the reasons why he didn’t choose Hillary as his VP running mate. For his and the nation’s sake, let us hope that within his first year in office he reconsiders and induces the Clintons to quit the Secretary of State post. Hillary’s coyness in accepting the post--making Obama beg, in effect--was an ominous sign.
Post a comment