Change I Can't Believe In
Before I turn sour, let me start by shouting, "Hooray!", as the Alaskan King Crab is finally cooked. Alaskans voted by a slim margin to oust the Pork Magnate and convicted felon from public office.
Now on to the lemons.
I'm a bit surprised by a couple of Obama's candidates for top positions in his Cabinet. Now it makes sense to have a Washington veteran like Rahm Emmanuel in the position of Chief of Staff. Yes, he's got a reputation of being rough, but he's also a no nonsense guy, which he needs to be in that role. However, Obama shouldn't be looking at candidates that are going to be inviting controversy with just their nomination.
For instance, his choice of Eric Holder to be the nation's first black attorney general would seem to be a good idea, except for Holder's role in the pardoning of Marc Rich on the last day of the Clinton administration. Who was Rich's attorney? Scooter Libby.
And speaking of Clinton's, why the hell would Obama even be considering Hillary for the role of Secretary of State (SoS)? Yeah, I get the whole "Team of Rivals" bit, but this goes too far.
First off, as we learned back in '92, Bill and Hillary are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Obviously, there are some residual legacy issues to deal with (pardons and campaign finance). These days, Bill is busy with the Clinton Global Initiative, which, as its name implies is international in scope. He's still an imposing figure in the world. Since I highly doubt that Bill would just set his work aside, it presents an opportunity for a conflict of interest to arise should Hillary become SoS.
But irregardless of Bill, there's issues with Hillary herself. This is the person who questioned whether Obama had the experience necessary to handle the "3 AM phone call" yet proudly proclaimed that her role as first lady made her qualified. She exaggerated her experience claiming that she landed in Bosnia "under sniper fire" and played a key role in the Irish peace process. Neither of which was true. While she was the most traveled of all First Ladies, tourists don't make policy.
She voted for the Iraq War, Obama was against it from the start. It wasn't until things turned sour that her position began to change. And her resume looks thin for foreign policy experience.
The role of the SoS is to represent the President and his policies abroad. I have had a hard time believing that Hillary Clinton would be willing to toe the line and "follow orders" as it were. She's a strong willed person; which is fine in and of itself, but the President is the boss and sets policy, not the SoS. Obama already has an experienced foreign policy guy who voted for the Iraq War to consult with, his VP, Joe Biden. At least Biden has a vested interest in the war being successfully concluded as his son, Beau, is currently deployed there. With Biden, I sense that he knows who the boss is and doesn't plan on following Cheney's interpretation of the job. I don't get that from Hillary. She's someone who doesn't give up when she feels she's right. Witness her campaign. Despite needing massive numbers of superdelegates to defect and thus overturn the majority of Democratic voters who chose Obama in the primaries, she continued campaigning to the very end (June).
Wouldn't it be better to have less controversial, yet qualified, candidates take the role. Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel would make for much smarter choices. And, in the case of Hagel, would be a conciliatory nod towards Republicans and might prove useful.
Hillary's place, for right now, is in the Senate. With the departure of other senior members after this election, she automatically moves up the ladder. Maybe she'll even get to chair a committee. If she plays her cards right, maybe she can challenge Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader. I'd support her in those efforts. At least there she'll get to lead something.
11/24 UPDATE: Mike says that all of this pales in comparison to Geithner's nomination for Secretary of the Treasury. I find it difficult to argue against his point.
\_/
DED
Now on to the lemons.
I'm a bit surprised by a couple of Obama's candidates for top positions in his Cabinet. Now it makes sense to have a Washington veteran like Rahm Emmanuel in the position of Chief of Staff. Yes, he's got a reputation of being rough, but he's also a no nonsense guy, which he needs to be in that role. However, Obama shouldn't be looking at candidates that are going to be inviting controversy with just their nomination.
For instance, his choice of Eric Holder to be the nation's first black attorney general would seem to be a good idea, except for Holder's role in the pardoning of Marc Rich on the last day of the Clinton administration. Who was Rich's attorney? Scooter Libby.
And speaking of Clinton's, why the hell would Obama even be considering Hillary for the role of Secretary of State (SoS)? Yeah, I get the whole "Team of Rivals" bit, but this goes too far.
First off, as we learned back in '92, Bill and Hillary are inseparable. You can't have one without the other. Obviously, there are some residual legacy issues to deal with (pardons and campaign finance). These days, Bill is busy with the Clinton Global Initiative, which, as its name implies is international in scope. He's still an imposing figure in the world. Since I highly doubt that Bill would just set his work aside, it presents an opportunity for a conflict of interest to arise should Hillary become SoS.
But irregardless of Bill, there's issues with Hillary herself. This is the person who questioned whether Obama had the experience necessary to handle the "3 AM phone call" yet proudly proclaimed that her role as first lady made her qualified. She exaggerated her experience claiming that she landed in Bosnia "under sniper fire" and played a key role in the Irish peace process. Neither of which was true. While she was the most traveled of all First Ladies, tourists don't make policy.
She voted for the Iraq War, Obama was against it from the start. It wasn't until things turned sour that her position began to change. And her resume looks thin for foreign policy experience.
The role of the SoS is to represent the President and his policies abroad. I have had a hard time believing that Hillary Clinton would be willing to toe the line and "follow orders" as it were. She's a strong willed person; which is fine in and of itself, but the President is the boss and sets policy, not the SoS. Obama already has an experienced foreign policy guy who voted for the Iraq War to consult with, his VP, Joe Biden. At least Biden has a vested interest in the war being successfully concluded as his son, Beau, is currently deployed there. With Biden, I sense that he knows who the boss is and doesn't plan on following Cheney's interpretation of the job. I don't get that from Hillary. She's someone who doesn't give up when she feels she's right. Witness her campaign. Despite needing massive numbers of superdelegates to defect and thus overturn the majority of Democratic voters who chose Obama in the primaries, she continued campaigning to the very end (June).
Wouldn't it be better to have less controversial, yet qualified, candidates take the role. Bill Richardson and Chuck Hagel would make for much smarter choices. And, in the case of Hagel, would be a conciliatory nod towards Republicans and might prove useful.
Hillary's place, for right now, is in the Senate. With the departure of other senior members after this election, she automatically moves up the ladder. Maybe she'll even get to chair a committee. If she plays her cards right, maybe she can challenge Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader. I'd support her in those efforts. At least there she'll get to lead something.
11/24 UPDATE: Mike says that all of this pales in comparison to Geithner's nomination for Secretary of the Treasury. I find it difficult to argue against his point.
\_/
DED
Labels: politics
posted by DED at 11:03 AM
4 Comments:
You make excellent points against HRC as Secretary of State. FWIW, I give even odds that she will resign from the position before the first term is up. I disagree with you about Rahm Emanuel, but as someone who reads my blog you, likely know that.
Since his election, Obama is not impressing me as a change agent. This is no surprise given his choice of Biden for Veep. The President elect's greatest task will be to break with just the sort of people that he is filling his cabinet with. We'll see if that comes about. I want to be wrong, but am betting against Obama breaking from the "Bilderbergers."
Since his election, Obama is not impressing me as a change agent.
Me either. It's "change" insofar as the W years are concerned. However, it's shaping up to be similar to Bill's term (minus the philandering). For me, that's not enough as I wasn't a fan of the Clinton years. Still, they were far better than these 8 years of disaster.
This is no surprise given his choice of Biden for Veep.
Maybe that was a clue we should've picked up on.
I want to be wrong, but am betting against Obama breaking from the "Bilderbergers."
I share your skepticism and also hope to be wrong.
I don't mind Hillary for SOS.
Tim Geithner for Treasury causes me far more concern: a real inflationist who made the AIG and Bear Stearns deals go.
Lots more bailing out, lots more intervention coming.
I was unaware of the Geithner nomination when I wrote this and I was also unaware of his involvement in all of these bailouts. Great. More cheery news.
Post a Comment
<< Home