At a Washington dinner party I attended recently, much of the evening was consumed by a discussion concerning why President-elect Barack Obama has apparently chosen Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state. No one had a good answer. Team of Rivals run amok? Had there been a deal between the two of them: I support you, and you give me state? That doesn't make sense, given that Hillary Clinton had in the past few weeks been trying to negotiate some sort of position for herself in the Senate leadership. One (absurd) possibility was heading up a special Senate task force on health care reform. Why would she be shopping for a Senate leadership post if she had cut a deal with Obama earlier?
When I ran into a television news anchor over the weekend, I asked her what she thought was behind the Clinton pick. This TV person who is in the mix of all political stories. She shrugged her shoulder and said, "I have no clue." And she meant it.
Frustrated that I had no good inside lead on what had prompted this action, I called a person who is close to Joe Biden. I assumed that this person had spoken about the pending Clinton appointment to Biden about the Clinton appointment--or at least to people around Biden. Certainly, the Biden camp would be in the know, right? After all, Biden has a big interest in who becomes secretary of state.
"I am baffled," this person said. "It can't be just Team of Rivals." Come on, I pressed, if you don't have an idea...."No idea," he said, noting that the selection did not make sense to him--not politically, not policy-wise. The Democratic Party, he explained, was already united. And Clinton was not a natural choice for this particular job. More important, he added, the Bill Clinton connection was problematic--perhaps a problem that could not be solved even by setting up rules for his globe-trotting foundation activities and fundraising. Every head of state and every chief executive of a transnational corporation, this person noted, will believe--rightly or not--that if he or she helps Clinton and his foundation or presidential library, that will win him or her influence at State and within the Obama administration. "Why would Obama take this and all the Clinton stuff on?" he asked.
So I've failed to get a good explanation. And no one else in the media appears to have done much better. But this is good news for whoever writes the first insider's tell-all account of the Obama presidency. And perhaps that will be Obama. It's easy to envision one of the teasers for the book: "For the first time, the real story behind President Obama's decision to appoint Hillary Clinton secretary of state." At this point, I sure would pay $29.95 for that.
Meanwhile, Obama's economic team is all-too conventional and profoundly puzzle-free. But is that a good thing?
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Oz geez David, are you still on your Hillary hatred diatribes? It's starting to be a broken record.
Posted by: EuroTom
| November 24, 2008 11:00 AM
DC,
"And Clinton was not a natural choice for this particular job."
Unless she wanted to leave the senate after the tepid support from her fellow senators for her during the primary and superdelegate counts?
Just spitballin'
Posted by: capt
| November 24, 2008 11:05 AM
I fail to see the problem. Clinton's foundation does a lot of good work and if companies/governments think they can get a favor by contributing, that's more money to fight climte change and AIDS in Africa and such, so that Pres. O doesn't have to tap taxpayers. I'm no Hillary fan but she has stature and respect worldwide. If she becomes a thorn in Obama's side he can replace her. If they can work together for a few years she'll be better prepared to take over as POTUS in 2016.
Posted by: ChicagoGuy61
| November 24, 2008 4:50 PM
Post A Comment