An Interesting Parallel (That I’m Sure Hillary Clinton Wouldn’t Appreciate)…
First of all: hello, everyone. It’s been a while.
This will be a brief post, because I need to get up and go help out with the Thanksgiving preparations, but it’s a post better suited to a discussion between you all than an oration from me to you anyway.
I was thinking about Obama’s selection of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State (unofficial as that selection may be) – mulling over Clinton’s qualifications for such a post, lamenting the fact that Obama hadn’t selected New Mexico’s Prodigal Son (who is extremely well-qualified, in my opinion), and (finally) thinking how strange it was for Obama to select as his Secretary of State a politician with whom he butted heads over the most important foreign policy issue of our time – the war in Iraq.
Clinton refused to renounce her initial support for that war – she stuck to the “Bush is an evil genius who tricked me” line (which is funny, considering how many people opposed the war in spite of Bush’s evil ingenuity, but whatever). The point is, that was the deal-breaker for a lot of people when it came to voting for Hillary Clinton – myself included (although there were other reasons as well).
And this is to be the foreign policy face of an Obama administration?
I was immediately reminded of another politician who chose a popular female politician who didn’t agree with him on some core issues as his right-hand…person: John McCain. And that reignited an internal debate over the following question (which had lain dormant since the selection of Sarah Palin):
Where do you draw the line between a pandering (but doubtlessly effective) political selection and a prudent (but boring) policy selection (that is, someone whose policies are in direct alignment with your own on the issue relevant to their position)? Where does it become dangerous to play politics in selecting your cabinet (or your vice-president, for that matter, assuming the VP isn’t a member of the cabinet, which may or may not be the case)?
I’d say that picking Hillary was not an unreasonable choice because I think Obama is really a liberal hawk, same as she is. The disagreement over one particular application of doctrine is not nearly as significant as agreement on the overall doctrine.
Also, it is now in Hillary’s interest not to undermine Obama. If she wants to succeed at the job, that reflects well on both of them–and by the same measure, if she doesn’t do a good job, that will undercut Obama, but only at the cost of doing herself damage. And if he doesn’t do a good job, that will infect her brand as well. So now she has to work to make his foreign policy a success.
Comment by kishnevi — 11/27/2008 @ 2:14 pm
I’m not sure if the comparison is quite apples to apples. McCain was in a position in which his choice could make the difference between winning or losing the presidency. Whatever opinions one might hold about Palin, the energy and excitement she brought to the Republican ticket is undeniable. I can only imagine that if McCain had picked anyone else, the outcome would have been even worse. During the campaign, the first priority has to be getting into office. Maybe the choice of Palin would have come back to haunt McCain, but at least he would have been in office to attempt to implement his ideas and policies. For McCain, the scales are tipped toward making a pandering selection that helps him win the election.
Obama is in a much different position. He already has the job. Whether he picks Hillary or not, he’s still going to be president. It would seem that for Obama, the scales should be tipped toward a selection that furthers Obama’s own policies and goals.
Based on what Obama said during the campaign, Hillary doesn’t seem to be the right choice. One might suppose that picking Hillary was the culmination of some deal-making during the campaign, perhaps at that private meeting they had. Perhaps the Hillary pick was an attempt at healing some rifts within the Democratic party. Or it could very well be that Hillary is very much aligned with Obama’s privately held but not publicly expressed beliefs. Or heck, every boss needs a hatchet man (or woman) to do the sometimes necessary dirty work while the boss keeps his hands clean.
In an ideal world, every choice should be made based on policy. In the real world, the guy who acts ideally is exceedingly likely to get his neck stomped by the iron boots of reality. And it all happens because we reward such behavior with our votes.
Comment by D91 — 11/28/2008 @ 10:54 am
Kimberley Strassel of the WSJ writes about this today here.
Comment by Another Drew — 11/28/2008 @ 5:30 pm