The Trouble with Hillary

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that the true test of a first rate intellect is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still function.

For example: "Hillary Clinton would make an excellent secretary of state," and "Hillary Clinton would make a terrible addition to the Obama cabinet."

Or: "The current drama surrounding Hillary Clinton's potential appointment to secretary of state is almost entirely the creation of the conflict-addicted media," and "Hillary Clinton would almost surely bring unnecessary drama with her to any new post within the Obama administration."

Or, now that I think about it, maybe this: "I really liked Bill Clinton and thought he was a great president," and "Bill Clinton is a narcissistic sociopath who drags trouble behind him wherever he goes like tin cans tied to a wedding limo."

With all of these disparate notions fighting for supremacy, the question then centers around whether the good to be had by appointing Hillary Clinton to a high position in the incoming government outweighs the bad. Is she really worth all the political and emotional baggage?

Honestly?

No, she isn't.

I won't be one of those people who spent months vociferously supporting Barack Obama only to then criticize him the moment he wins; I in no way feel "betrayed" by any of the decisions he's made in the couple of weeks since securing a landslide victory and the mandate that comes with it. On the contrary, I'm encouraged by his desire to bring former adversaries into the fold; I think it's good for the country, by and large, and fulfills the promise Obama made during the campaign to shun the mistakes of his illustrious predecessor, a man who never met a spineless crony he didn't like.

But bringing Hillary Clinton on board is an entirely different animal.

I despised the kind of cynical and unscrupulous campaign Clinton ran during the primaries, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the nature of modern politics -- particularly because it has no bearing on her capacity to represent the United States as its top diplomat. What does present a problem, however -- and will continue to -- is that with Hillary Clinton, you never get just Hillary Clinton; it's always a package deal that includes Bill.

And if you think Bill Clinton won't find a way to inject his special brand of self-obsessed melodrama -- the proudly sly, Melrose Place-meets-the-White House shtick that we endured for most of the 90s -- into the otherwise focused, serious and drama-free environment created by Team Obama, I've got a story about not having sexual relations with an intern I'm sure I can convince you of.

Bill Clinton doesn't know how to lay low and relinquish the spotlight; he'd be an albatross around the neck of his wife and therefore a 300-pound millstone around the neck of the Obama White House.

And as Obama's own campaign said in reference to its opponent in the general election, that's not change -- that's more of the same.

Comments

[gracie99]

What's wrong with a bit of drama? Why has drama become such a bad word lately?

Women are so often accused of drama for their communication styles that I feel uncomfortable condemning anybody, including Mr. Clinton, with simply the use of that word. People who are disadvantaged and disenfranchised are also often accused of drama when they try to make their voices heard. People should state what they fear Bill Clinton would actually do rather than resort to vague accusations like "drama."

If drama-haters could survive Bill Clinton's drama during his long presidency, certainly they can endure it now that he's merely a political spouse.

Of course Bill Clinton may be playing a larger role than is usual for spouses, but on the other hand, as his stumping mission to Georgia demonstrates, it can be extremely desirable to have an unemployed ex-president ready to deploy on quasi-official missions.

[Zernk]

Reporters hungry for a juicy story in order to keep their jobs create the drama you bemoan. If they would focus on what these smart people actually do in their jobs instead of amplifying ordinary personal mistakes into international crises, we could have a sane discussion of the merits of a candidate. Hillary is a smart and capable lady who wouldn't have any problems from Bill if the sharks would just quit circling.

[liberalnfree]

"I despised the kind of cynical and unscrupulous campaign Clinton ran during the primaries"

"Bill Clinton is a narcissistic sociopath"

Some people ARE good at holding two contrary thoughts at a time. For example, when launching a campaign to stop someone from becoming Secretary of State, they hurl ad hominem insults while at the same time complaining of another's "unscrupulous campaign."
When the author has successfully negotiated an agreement to bring down the cost of AIDS treatment in Africa to $1 dollar a day, as the Clinton foundation has, I will be more convinced on her judgments as to who and who is not a narcissistic sociopath.

[Moka11]

I am a huge fan of our next President and was viciously opposed to Hillary and her campaign. But I frankly am not understanding the nasty, trumped up speculation and faux manipulation being charged towards Hillary and Bill now concerning this possible Sec. of State pick .
Obama spoke of "change" overwhelmingly throughout his campaign and it seems everyone has their own definition of the word.
Maybe if everyone takes a minute to think that he was asking for all of us to "change" our way of looking at, approaching, debating, politicking, positioning, attacking, and beating each other down and that we're all wanting a better country.
So far, I have seen Obama cordially invite John McCain to meet and expressed his hope that Joe Lieberman stay within the fold. The fighting and partisanship has to stop if anything is going to get done. I haven't seen a vindictive sign from Obama yet and maybe he's expecting we can all get over ourselves and stop with the nastiness. If anyone deserved to be banished from Obama's support there are three people that come to mind. McCain, Hillary, and Lieberman.
I'm just saying that we can have a government that fights endlessly and doesn't "change" anything including their politicking.

Hillary has baggage but to suggest she would be anything but a strong, knowledgeable, cooperative Sec. of State is ludicrous.

[Count1]

My feelings exactly. Hillary can rehabilitate herself in my eyes only if she stays in the senate and does some real good there. Her behavior during the primaries was shameful. The race-baiting, the 3AM ad, the Bosnian sniper-fire business, all of it. She is bad news.

[IamaGApeach]

You talk about Clinton as if he's some diabolical villian....he's been running a charity to STOP THE SPREAD OF AIDS IN AFRICA! He's a respected former president, not some international gangster. You could at least show a little confidence in the judgement of the president elect.

[XME]

I couldn't agree more with your assesment of Bill Clinton. However, as much of a concern as I have about the Bill/Hill package deal, I have to say that I also have a LOT of respect fo Obama, his judgement, and for his thorough consideration before making a decision about anything.

Because of that, should he in fact select Hillary for a position, I will trust in the decision until some EVENT proves it to be a poor one...no speculation. For all we know, an offer her may come with the condition that he have the ability to fire or (or force her to step down) should she or Bill do something that causes a problem for him. Obama KNOWS what both of them is like, probably better than any of us, so I have little doubt that he would step into an offer to her lightly and without "preconditions".