Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Obama and the Clintonistas

This is thoughtful on the issue of Obama using so many Clinton folk in his transition (and administration), but it doesn’t mean that Hillary Clinton will take over the State Department. I think the Obama guys are floating this (and the Kerry baloon) for their own purposes. It is also in Hillary’s interest to be talked about in this way. If she has any sense she will want to have Reid’s job.

Discussions - 10 Comments

Wouldn't Kerry be a fright in that position? Actually, all of those mentioned in the article for Sec. of S. make me queasy. Given the options, I like Clinton the best for the post.

I see what you mean about Hillary wanting Reid's job, but that is a "trying for" situation and isn't a plum job in the hand worth having over one you have to grasp for? And can her career take another defeat just in case she did NOT win Reid's job? Besides, the State post builds her "Experience" portfolio, for a later presidential bid, carries less blame and more credit and international glory.

Thank you for pointing out the article. I have a few more quibbles, but this is a writing weekend and I can't be having fun like this.

A dancing and singing Machiavellian (with a dash of Chicago in him) might persuade Mrs. Clinton that this "trying for" job is really a shoo in (she's fallen for that one before) and that the "plum" job she thinks she wants is actually beneath her and her potential for greatness. But Reid is such a thin reed and so easily bent by a guy like Obama. To watch Harry Reid is not to watch a complex intellect at work. Obama would probably prefer to keep him where he is. And Obama has already proven (as did Bill before him) that he can get away with using Hillary ill. Why should he be eager to accommodate her now? At least, that's what I'd suggest . . . particularly if my boss were charged with the responsibility of paying her bills. And then, I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that the "shoo in" job was actually a different kind of shoe . . . or rather a boot . . . and that this boot was kicking Hillary to the curb.

Is he kicking her with an UGG boot so as not to leave visible scars for those people who (incredibly) still think she's wonderful? The woman still has a faithful following, as does her husband. "Kicked aside" sounds great to me, but if she did manage to become majority leader of the Senate, the wrestling for power between the two is something I'd rather not deal with, if I were Obama. What was the Johnson quote about vile creatures pissing out of rather than into your tent?

I heard an interview with Richard Holbrooke where he sounded sadder but wiser after being rolled by Yasser Arafat at Dayton and through all of their dealings. Maybe he wouldn't be so bad, unless he is actually the sort of person for whom liberal hope springs eternal, or is forced to foolishness from an administration with that inclination. I would really rather have someone whose education in the matter of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chavez being just guys, merely misunderstood, does not happen upon reflection, ten years after the event, when we are miserably living with the consequences. There seems to be enough "Hate America first" at State without that being the default, top down foreign policy position.

He's already kicked her aside once and lived to tell about it. I don't see why he can't do it twice. Her "loyal followers" made some noise . . . but they didn't bite. He can woo them to a much greater degree than even Bill Clinton could. And so can Michelle. I'd look for that.

A glance at Yahoo News brought the headine that Bill's international deals may be the deal killer for Hillary. Bill as boot?

But, good grief, this article mentions Chuck Hagel as a possibility for the office. Isn't there some Democratic, Henry Kissinger-type guy with something like a pragmatic approach to foreign policy? Does it have to a known political fathead?

Re: Bill as Boot

A reprisal of an old role for its own sake or an encore designed to serve him in the future in some way? I imagine it's a bit of both.

I will have to go to YouTube and watch an old Hillary speech to regain my sense of balance. You have me feeling absolutely sorry for the old dear.

That will serve the purpose, I assure you!

"But, good grief, this article mentions Chuck Hagel as a possibility for the office. Isn't there some Democratic, Henry Kissinger-type guy with something like a pragmatic approach to foreign policy? Does it have to a known political fathead?"


I think you are refering to Z. Brezinzski....I'm sure there are others from the council on foriegn relations who are worthy. That entity filled both Bush and Clintion's Cabinets nicley, along with the other Bush and Reagan.

I apologize for the lack of "be" in that sentence, as in, "Does it have to BE a known political fathead?" Mac Owens addresses that a little in a new post on the front page.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/13249