Slings and Arrows

You can run, but you'll just die tired

Liz Emrich

Liz Emrich
Location
Virginia, USA
Bio
A column that brings the wisdom of a lawyer and a mom to the politcal landscape.

MY RECENT POSTS

Liz Emrich's Links

Salon.com
Editor’s Pick
NOVEMBER 20, 2008 11:33AM

Wuthering Hillary?

Rate: 28 Flag

 

clinton-obama
 

Yesterday morning, the New York Times reported that Hillary is “agonizing” over the decision of whether to accept the position of Secretary of State that the Obama camp has not “officially” offered her yet, but for which it says it is “interested” in her and currently vetting her.  At stake for the junior Senator from New York State is her independence.  Obviously, she is well aware that being Secretary of State means that she does not set her own agenda, but instead executes the agenda of an Obama Administration.  As a Senator, she would be free to continue to carve her own path, draw her own conclusions, stake out her own policy positions.

Does anybody else find this somewhat distracting?

Certainly, as an initial matter, whoever it is that is leaking this information to the press needs to shut the hell up.  The continual speculation of “will she or won’t she” of “should she or shouldn’t she” is not helping anyone.  Not Hillary. Not Obama. Not the country.  At this point, the appointment has been talked to death to the point where even if you believe that it’s a good idea, there’s been so much speculation and opinion heaped upon it that it threatens to collapse under its own weight.

A number of well-respected pundits have weighed in on the wisdom of choosing Hillary for this job.  David Broder thinks that Obama doesn’t need someone who will try to tutor him on foreign policy. Thomas Friedman thinks that Hillary doesn’t have a strong enough relationship with Barack Obama to be effective in the position.  Our own Joan Walsh thinks that we should trust Obama, that if Clinton is good enough for him, she should be good enough for us.

I don’t know if it makes me a curmudgeon, but I disagree.  With everybody.

I think that Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State is basically like every tragic love story I have ever read.  At the heart of every tragic love story is the basic truth that love doesn’t always conquer things like bad timing and poor circumstances.  Don’t believe me?  Romeo and Juliet – a pair of lovers who would have just made it, had Romeo not been a Montague and had Juliet woken up from her potion-induced death-like trance only a few minutes earlier.  You can fall in love with anyone you like – and people do, all the time.  The problem is when you fall in love with someone who has so much attendant baggage that you’d need a C-4 cargo jet to haul it all (see MTN’s post re: Crazy Girls), or when you simply can’t ever get to a place where both of you are able to be free to see each other.  Indeed, the whole of the “Sex and the City” story line with Carrie and Mr. Big is built on the lack of timing between them.

Hillary would make a fantastic Secretary of State.  She is incredibly well-respected around the world, and has a keen expert’s grasp of the major foreign policy issues facing the United States.  She is disciplined and tough, and perfectly capable of towing the party line and not forcing her own agenda.  And were that everything to be known about Hillary Clinton, that would more than justify her selection for the job.

But Hillary comes with both baggage and timing issues that make being Secretary of State for her a “can’t get there from here” proposition.  In the baggage column – Bill.  And no, it’s not because of his foundation or the financial issues.  There are plenty of means to fix that, and Bill is being a remarkable husband by agreeing to them so readily.  He wants this to be her time, and he is bending over backwards to try and make it happen for her, which is a great example to successful couples everywhere.  But none of that is going to change the fact that Bill Clinton is a former President of the United States, and a very well-liked one both home and abroad at that. 

Bill is doing everything in his power to make himself a non-issue to Hillary’s selection, but the fact remains that as a practical matter, if Hillary is Secretary of State, Bill becomes the spouse of the Secretary of State.  He will wind up at state dinners, at conferences, and other events where spouses are expected to attend.  But unlike your ordinary spouse, this one used to have the same job as Hillary’s boss.  Even if he could restrain himself from offering his opinions and advice (and we all know Bill has always had some difficulty with restraint), would the world community be able to resist the urge to look to him for such things anyway?  Bill would be a constant distraction, a wild card that would undermine the discipline of an Obama-Clinton foreign policy team, and attract unwanted media attention in the wrong direction.

On the timing side of the equation is the fact that Hillary has just emerged from a very historic, epic and contentious run for the Presidency.  Hillary came within inches of being the Democratic nominee, and indeed, had she been, she would likely be in Obama’s shoes.  This naturally casts her in the role of senior party leader and potential successor to Obama.  From a timing perspective, going from peer and rival to Obama to being grateful servant to his Administration is a tough jump, unnatural even. 

Had it been even a year or two ago that such things happened, there might be enough time and distance from the event that everyone would be capable of dealing in the here and now, and Clinton could take the post without stirring any controversy.  But right now, there are too many people looking at this through the lens of Clinton’s very recent and failed primary run.  There is too much speculation about her own Presidential ambitions and recent failure to obtain them that it’s impossible to get through the noise of it.

In other words, the fact that Hillary is not the right choice has nothing to do with Hillary at all.  It has to do with the colossal amount of circumstance that attends the appointment.  Obama needs a seamless transition of power, the ability to focus like a laser on the salient points of his domestic and foreign policy agenda right out of the gate.  Clinton and her baggage turn every single episode in the execution of foreign policy into a process story about how Clinton is handling the job, whether she’s doing right by Obama, what Bill is doing, and whether she’s readying herself for another run at the Presidency.  Clinton’s actual competency, along with Obama’s agenda, will become lost in the media noise.  Making actual change for the United States’ reputation on the world stage is too important to get lost in process stories.

“It’s not you.  You’re great…..It’s me…..It’s the situation.”  Yeah, it sounds like a bad kiss-off to a tortured relationship.  But really, right now, it might be the best answer.

 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Liz, this is the best and most thorough analysis of this situation that I've read. Leave it to you and your intelligence and wisdom. It will be fascinating to see what evolves.
My mom does not like Clinton at all. Yesterday she asked me, "So, what do you think of Clinton as Secretary of State?"

I told her I didn't really feel strongly about it. That even though I didn't want Clinton as president and think she's a mediocre Senator, Secretary of State might be a good role for her.

"But there are so many other people who would be better!"

Isn't that always the case? I said Clinton wouldn't be my first choice, but I don't think it's all that bad.

"Yeah, I guess so..."
Now that is a thoughtful, interesting analysis . There always would be drama and yes, some things are Shakespearian in their tragedy. I still think the world would love her and that would override the current scene.
And as a NY resident I have to disagree with ST. She has been a great senator.
Dead on as usual, Liz. Hillary is both intelligent and competent but I do not feel she is the best fit for the job at this time. I would like to see Richardson take the job. He has the diplomatic experience and the smart chops without the excess baggage. Plus, he sided with Obama in the primaries, a difficult choice considering his long term relationship with the Clintons. Yes, I'd like to see a different Bill as SOS. Hillary can do her best where she is, and work on health care in the process.

Thumbed.
Liz, excellent post and anaysis of this intriguing possibility facing Obama. Something tells me, as in his prudent choice of VP, he will also select someone equally if not more qualified than Hillary for this high profile position. Some, here in California, are also speculating that Hillary would make a good Secretary of Defense, over "SOS." SOS indeed, as I am also in the camp of "to much baggage,"comes she, not to mention the incremental babbage left by her husband. Don't think Obama will risk the "bad taste in the mouths of so many worldwide." Lot of talk radio here yesterday on this hot topic. Will be interesting to see how he swings. Really appreciate your sensibility and well written weigh-in on this pending decision.
I'm with Joan Walsh, sorry.

Wuthering Heights is one of my favorite novels, not because its a tragic love story, but because it is a story about the love/hate relationship and revenge. Heathcliff is one of the most interesting characters in literature. (rated)
I agree - great post!

I get why Hillary wants the job, though. She's sussed out her options in the Senate and been rebuffed at her request to queue-jump over her seniors. If Obama succeeds, she has 8 years to wait to run again and she'll be 69 and that will seem even older to the electorate 1) because they just had a young Prez and 2) because she's a woman (due to prejudices about women and aging in our culture).

So I think it is the best move for her vs. waiting 15 years in the Senate to move into positions of power. But whether it's good for Obama is the real question.
I agree with Mary Liz, you took away the Bill equation of his past and opened my eyes to "potential" future problems. The thing that pisses me off are the pundits saying "the vetting of Bill" will be a pain in the ass. That's ludicrous. He was vetted for 8 solid years by Gingrich, Dole and Starr. He's been vetted 8 subsequent years even as a philanthropist. He is the love to hate villain of the RNC.

My comeback, with all due respect would be, ok, so Bill chimes in with Barack and others with his opinion. Is that for sure the worst thing that could happen? Obama seems to be one candidate that could possibly handle this. I'm saying, if you put Bill, Hillary and Barack's minds together, what wonderful things just MIGHT be achieved.

Or not.

Great post!
rated
"Clinton and her baggage turn every single episode in the execution of foreign policy into a process story about how Clinton is handling the job, whether she’s doing right by Obama, what Bill is doing, and whether she’s readying herself for another run at the Presidency."

Yeah, that's a good point. She wouldn't be my first choice.

That said, she'd probably do fine in the job, as long as she uses that famed discipline to keep the baggage, especially Bill, in check. And if she does end up as Sec State, she might be a good one. Some of the best have had a bit of the bastard in them, people like Baker and Kissinger. Ready to be a tough, mean SOB for their president and their country. I think Hillary could have it in her.

And Obama can handle her. He's got a bit of the bastard in him, too. Just watch.
Liz Emrich, you have a fine mind and always articulate your views with such clarity.
I too wish the MSM would not have built this up because what if he doesn't ask her? Let's not give any more disappointments...

rated/
You nailed this. My only minor disagreement is that I would not completely dismiss the "other" distractions Bill brings.

You nailed it.
Mary t., thanks. Being called wise by someone who has a clue is very flattering. Thank you.

ST, my feelings are mixed on it too....I think if the timing had been different, she could have been a great one. As it stands right now....no. And it's entirely not her fault.

Verbal, thank you.

Lea, thanks. I hope that if Obama and Clinton go through with it that you are right. It's just that for that to happen we would need to have a grown-up media willing to back off from the stupid process stories. Not sure we have that.

P-f, I think Bill Richardson would be great. There are a number of folks who could do the job amazingly well.

Cathy, thanks. I am not sure she'd be so great as Sec Def. I would love to see Wesley Clark there, actually. Actually, he wouldn't be bad as SOS either.

Thomas, thanks for dropping by. Actually, I'll cop to laming out on the title a little...

Silkstone, I think anytime you get asked by the President of the United States to serve in the Cabinet you consider it seriously. You're getting a great opportunity to participate in shaping policy in a single area of government intimately. I do think that Hillary has an auspicious career ahead of her in the Senate even if she doesn't take this job. I always wondered why she would want to be just like Bill Clinton when she has the opportunity to be a William Byrd or Ted Kennedy.

GT, I agree with you that Bill is the right's bete noir, and they love to hate him. But I do think that currently vetting him is appropriate, and an entirely different thing from the "vetting" of being in the fishbowl of the Presidency. I think that if Obama really wanted to assume a Clintonesque mantle, he could and allowing Bill and Hillary to participate in that would be appropriate. But I am not sure that is really what we need right now. I think Obama has to be post-Clinton in his thinking. This is not entirely the same world the Clintons dealt with.

MTN, I have every faith that Obama can "run with the big dogs" including the Clintons. But the issue is, should he have to have that added to what is an already full plate?

O'Steph, Geoff, thanks so much.
"Clinton and her baggage turn every single episode in the execution of foreign policy into a process story about how Clinton is handling the job, whether she’s doing right by Obama, what Bill is doing, and whether she’s readying herself for another run at the Presidency. Clinton’s actual competency, along with Obama’s agenda, will become lost in the media noise."

To me, this is the crux. All of it ceases to be an issue during good times. But we are not in good times - not economically, not in terms of our foreign relations, not with a war still lumbering on.

But I was thinking, SoS for 8 years, then another run at the Presidency for 16 years of Democratic rule sounded pretty good.
You mentioned some pundits who oppose her selection. Interestingly, of a lot of names bandied about in the past few days (Lugar - who apparently asked not to be considered, Dodd, Kerry, et. al.), former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger thought Hillary was the best and most obvious choice of all.

I'm fairly agnostic, I think there are a lot of exceptionally qualified people to choose from, including her. I think she'll do a very good job, too. I do marvel that all the talk about her role in an Obama administration, first as VP and now at State, seems to dininish her current role. When did being a Senator become a low prestige occupation?
Thanks, Liz, for a superb post. Thoughtful, analytical, and, most important, of some consequence. Not to mention the fact that it's written immaculately in the language not universally honored on this truly "open" forum, where the articulate is all too often forced to rub elbows with stream of (un)conscious street talk.

I would not, however, be overly concerned with Clinton's being Secretary of State somehow impeding her ability to "stake out her own policy positions." Is there any evidence that these policy positions are any different from what Obama's are (or could easily become given the requisite amount of political pressure)?

To quote your charming biography, "there are very few behavioral differences between politicians [Clinton] and toddlers [Obama]."
True enough on it being a different world. I'm just so thoroughly disgusted at the timing of Newt Gingrich showing his ugly ass face on TV again. I hadn't missed him at all these last 8 years. I had 90's flashbacks and it pissed me off last night and I apologize to anyone who read my angry tirade on another blog.

Bill Clinton is imperfect. I'm imperfect. He has strengths that I don't, and I have strengths (self-control) that he doesn't. I agree this is NOT a moral issue as the right will invariably try to make it, but rather a question of "fit". As long as her (and Bill's) vetting is based on merit and both sides agree that it's a fit, I'm for it. Otherwise, I agree with you Liz and you don't try to jam a square peg in a round hole.

Great retort and thanks.
Greg
Good analysis, Liz. I do think the MSM is overplaying this. But, I guess I'm pretty agnostic about it. I'm pretty sure it will happen and I don't know that Bill will be as big of an issue as the media is portraying it to be. Sure, there's baggage and the potential for power-struggles or hot-dogging.

But, there's also a scenario where she travels extensively without Bill and he is simply not a factor. It seems to me they were living pretty separate lives before the campaign.

I also think that the process noise will die down when the real work gets started.

At least those are my hopes, if the appointment does happen.
To be quite honest, I wonder if Bill and Hillary haven't been living separately for quite some time now... Maybe not literally, but figuratively. I think they have a marriage of understanding (IMO). How else could she put up with his ways? I love the guy, but his overactive libido is ridiculous. I don't look to a President as a moral leader though, I look at their ability to govern. I guess that's what separates us centrists and downright liberals. If Hillary is away, the cat will play, and that IS literal. If she can live with it, it's THEIR business, no one elses.
Fab post but what I find the most interesting is perhaps the true Shakespearean reason that BO might want her in the cabinet; to keep her from stabbing him on the Ides of March. Well not literally but you get it...
I believe that there is a thought on the part of our new administration, that having Hillary in the Senate might cause some distractions from a new agenda. Even though, technically she would be on the right (or left) side of her President, that does not mean she would wield a rubber stamp for his agenda. With all the talk of uniting the Democratic Party, this might be an issue. Having her in the actual administration certainly helps keep her bound to the proverbial party line.
Liz: as usual your thoughts are eminently logical. The problem is that the genie is out of the bottle. This thing has been dragged out for 10 days now. The press, as you note, has beaten it to death. And I am reminded of how Hillary took a long time to admit defeat in the primaries, and how Obama took a long time before not selecting her for his Vice Presidental running mate. It is an odd dance that they are now dancing, but it is not unlike the prior two dances.

The difference is that this dance is being watched in the bright light of the media and therefore if she WANTS it and Obama says 'no' this late in the evening there will be great and permanent anger between the Clinton and Obama camps at precisely the time when the President Elect needs Democratic Party solidarity.

What should have happened did not: a quick up or down decision in quiet, no leaks, by Obama. What he has now allowed to happen is a flaw, to my way of thinking, in his decision making style: allowing the potential appointee to control the decision process.

He often is so laid back that it looks like the tail is wagging the dog. It isn't. But the public can't see that, if for no other reason than that the press won't let them.

My guess is that Obama's hand is now pretty much dealt and Clinton holds the best cards.

I also think that the best decision at this point would be for Clinton to turn it down, and stay in the Senate and take up Teddy Kennedy's offer to lead the Senate's effort to enact health care reform. Several advantages accrue from doing that. She has her independence. She is highly visible, and she positions herself to be open to other possibilities in 2012 and/or 2016. Yes, she could probably position herself as SOS -- but not nearly as freely. It takes at least 2 years to build up the support needed to successfully run for President.

Very good work, Liz. As usual.

Monte
Sandra, I'd be so up for 16 years....especially if the last 8 were Hillary.

Procopius, so with you on that...I think that Ted Kennedy's offer of making her the point on healthcare reform is an excellent place for her, perhaps better than being Sec State.

JRDOG, thanks. Gordon, Thanks (I think).

G-- Don't get me started on Newt....just....don't. Thanks for all your comments. Love to have you here.

lps-- I know that Bill won't always be glued to Hillary's side. And while I don't like to speculate on the nature of the Clintons' marriage, I do still think it's hard for him to resist the pull of being consulted about the events of the day. Just ask any CEO who hangs around the boardroom after retirement how welcome he really is and you get the idea.

Alison, I don't know if the offer is as Machiavellian as all that. Honestly, I think at worst he's just trying to avoid being accused of snubbing her again by making a show of considering her for a spot in the Cabinet.

Monte, thanks. I think that some of this has to do with the fact that the Clinton's don't like to be vetted unless the job offer is on the table. And so this is what happens. This was why I think he didn't consider her seriously as VP. I don't think transparancy is a bad thing. We've been so used to the Bushies and their Omerta style of operation, that to see real transparancy is a little scary and outside the box. But I don' t think it's weakness, really.
"I always wondered why she would want to be just like Bill Clinton when she has the opportunity to be a William Byrd or Ted Kennedy."

Well, but again, she has at least 15 years of time to put in to get to that level. The Senate is entirely seniority driven. She's got over 30 Senators ahead of her seniority. And that's assuming the Dems maintain control. If they don't, then the Reps get committee chairmanships etc. She just doesn't have the time to wait it out.

And as many pundits have said, it's hard to go back to being the junior Senator from New York when you nearly got nominated to be Prez and almost certainly would have won if you had. The SoS position is far closer to the action and the limelight, both.

I think it also uses her considerable public political gifts better. The Senate is mostly a behind-the-scenes job.
Well said, and all of your points have merit. I think that the former President would be able to restrain himself and make himself less of an elephant in the room, but at the same time, will that somehow put the grey area of "Former President of the United States" into a doubting light for the rest of the world, and if so, is that a bad thing? If nothing else it shows that this country really can elect a common man to the highest office of the land and, when that term is done, he can go right back to being a common man. As populist as it sounds (and as many valid arguments one can make of Clinton being anything but a "common man") there is something nice about the idea. That being said, I agree that just about everyone (American and otherwise) is looking at this through the lens of her near miss of the nomination. And that could be quite detrimental to getting this country on the road to recovery. (rated)
Good question Liz. You asked, does anyone else find this distracting. It just occurred to me, what if that is what it is. What if this is merely a distraction. What if the Obama camp accurately predicted the sensation over this pick. And what if they accurately predicted the Clinton camp would leak info. This could be a pressure test on the lines, to see where or if there will be a leaker. And it could be a way of getting a Machiavelian Clinton camp, if they were so inclined, to take the bait, be manipulative, and thereby rule themselves out. The Obama camp gets credit for making the offer, takes a hit for being naive, which everyone has been calling him for two years anyway, and then precludes any need to appear cooperative with the scheming Clintons in the future. While the press, and the political junkies go for the fake handoff, the QB throws deep and gets some other candidate for Sec'y of State who might have drawn too much fire as a first choice. Maybe someone like Colin Powell.
You're still looking at this with a women's eyes Liz. It ain't all about "relationship" all the time. Come on. I've seen your work. You're a smart cookie. Get over it. She ain't suckin' her husband's ass. She made that clear a long time ago. It ain't the model, but it is what it is. She's a consummate player. That's all the matters.
Liz, another home run. Even though we don't agree. Because in the end I don't think anything matters but her ability to do the job without clashing with Obama. I predict a few small internal skirmishes, but that's it.

Bill is an asset (if financial matters are in order), why don't people get that? And Hillary owns his ass. He owes her Bigtime. We want somebody extremely qualified, well known, well liked and also tough enough to add the fear factor if necessary. She's got all that and then some.
Really good post, as so many have adequately said already.

I did find myself thinking the following about the Bill issue: If she runs for Pres again, this will again be an issue because the same issues are there as for SoS. Doing SoS could offer her a chance to overcome that, showing that Bill behaves himself at the social outings. So that would be an advantage for her if she was confident it would work; it could also sink her chances for Pres later if it turned out not to work. Personally, I continue to believe the answer is to give Bill his own post so he has to spend more time worrying about his role in that than about his lack of post or his co-appointment to SoS along with Hillary.
Obama won, Hillary might not have. I don't think it was that close. She probably won't get another chance. Time for new blood and new ideas.
Excellent post. And great analogy to gothic literature -- well done.
I can't add anything beyond what has already been said, but did want to say that I really enjoyed reading such a thought-provoking, insightful piece.

Since the press is now reporting Clinton has accepted, we will just have to see how the game plays out.

And yes, Sally, I wholeheartedly agree with you: Bill owes Hillary more than he will ever be able to repay.