Reconciliation without Truth
Implausible as it sounds, this is the best explanation anyone has given of the offer of the position of secretary of state to Hillary Clinton. Lincoln took William Seward at State, and Seward was a rival indeed, but he had fought for Lincoln with ferocious loyalty and all his eloquence throughout the campaign, and he put his considerable vote-getting power at Lincoln's disposal. What can be said for Hillary Clinton? She fought against Obama until the last possible moment, and on the way exploited, for the purpose of discrediting him, most of the devices the Republicans would later tap in the general election. She said Obama had not shown himself fit to be commander-in-chief. She pretended not to know for sure whether or not he was a Muslim.
Team of Rivals is a pleasant work of popular history, only harmful to the extent that you weave fantasies around it. Anyone who cares about Obama's fortunes after his first large public mistake (for even to offer Clinton the position was a mistake) should close his copy of Goodwin and open the actual words of Hillary Clinton on Iraq, and the things Barack Obama said about those words.
It may seem an incidental detail but none of the people in Lincoln's cabinet had a husband who was a former president with a pronounced need to be at the center of the national stage at all times. Why not repeat the truth? Barack Obama's election was a real breakthrough, without precedent--something he did by himself with the help of a million workers who were not working for Hillary Clinton. When the reading is done and the analogies played out, we should also admit that no two situations in history are much alike.
The wars President Bush has involved this country in, awful as they are, don't in any way resemble the Civil War: not in magnitude, not in necessity, and not in the domestic threats that can be supposed to attend them.
Is Obama's misstep part of a larger pattern? Signs going as far back as July, and as near as yesterday, from persons "close to Barack Obama" ranging from Patrick Leahy to Cass Sunstein, have suggested there ought to be no serious investigation of crimes around domestic surveillance and torture. What of the hundreds of Bush appointees sown throughout the departments and the agencies? These people's ideas of right and wrong will come in part from what the new administration shows itself to care about and what it prefers to disregard. Indifference in this setting is not magnanimity.
Tuesday the Democrats voted to allow Joe Lieberman to keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman did his worst to tear down Barack Obama in 2008 by questioning his love of his country and his fitness to lead a secure government. Compare Lieberman and Clinton now with another person who has been mentioned for secretary of state, Chuck Hagel. Hagel accompanied Obama on his foreign tour even as Lieberman accompanied McCain. That we are not now at war with Iran may also be owed in part to a courageous letter that Hagel wrote to Admiral Fallon last October, on the recklessness of American saber rattling--this, when Clinton and Lieberman were voting the AIPAC line and saying, with docility, that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist organization. They hoped if there was a war it would be over by the election.
Any president needs around him people of courage, judgment, and competence who share his fundamental views. If Hillary Clinton all along fit that description for Obama, why did he not tell us so? A party in control must in some respects resemble any other institution that hopes to maintain itself. Reward those who sap and undermine, and you likewise discourage those who are loyal. People will practice the bad arts that they see are profitable. And who that voted in 2008 was looking to have a government of reconciliation without truth?
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Fighting like minded opponents , in a political campaign,is extremely different than working with and for a similar minded person after that campaign is over. These people are dedicated , hard working and highly principled and not likely to waste their time bickering.
I am a 100% supporter of Obama BUT....
I'm glad that Obama didn't put Kerry in his cabinet - because Kerry is a member of Skull and Bones, but Kerry will now take over Biden's chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so he is still in power.
And Tim Geithner (nominee for Secretary of Treasury) is part of the Rockefeller Group of Thirty, so that is still something to worry about since Rockefeller is a member of Bohemian Grove.
And Bill Clinton has been out at Bohemian Grove ... and that has me worried now that Obama is thinking of putting Hillary in as Secretary of State.
I don't want to think about any of it anymore... goodnight!
Let's talk real Conspiracy Theory: Obama is conspiring to permanently remove Hillary from the national political scene. Once she resigns from the senate and accepts the job at state, her political fate is totally in Obama's hands. If, after a year of being a poor administrator -- remember her campaign -- and a foreign policy debacle or two, Obama will fire her and put Bill Richardson in the position (which should have been done in the first place). At that point, without any national office to keep her in the spotlight, Hillary (and Bill) will vanish forever into the corporate speaking circuit. As a failed Secretary of State, she won't have a chance of mounting a 2012 rebellion, and by 2016 she'll be a historical footnote. Brilliant!
If you think that, you know nothing about Bill Richardson.
And Tim Geithner (nominee for Secretary of Treasury) is part of the Rockefeller Group of Thirty, so that is still something to worry about since Rockefeller is a member of Bohemian Grove.
And Bill Clinton has been out at Bohemian Grove ... and that has me worried now that Obama is thinking of putting Hillary in as Secretary of State.
Bohemian Grove. The people who go there are the ones who run the show. Worldwide.
Mr. Bromwich,
You clearly give Mr. Obama no credit whatsoever for having any intelligence if you think he's only picked Hillary Clinton because he is trying to emulate a book he liked.
Neither you, nor any of us, know the inside story of the evolution of their relationship since August...o
Furthermore, to insinuate that Barack Obama could only choose her in an effort to emulate Lincoln, without any serious insight or thought put into what he is doing in his own situation is a huge insult to Barack Obama.
I cannot tell you how many debates I've been in with folks challenging Obama's wisdom in this possible pick of HIllary for SoS. Every single time I questioned Obama's wisdom, he showed me that what appeared unwise in my view was ultimately in his best interests. Consider this gang: Hillary os considers the possible best opponent for Obama in 2012 is Hillary. You know how fickle we can be, many of us will abandon him if we do not get our "hopes" met in the first few years. Hillary is effectively foreclosed from the politics that would allow her to raise money and otherwise because of the rules that govern her SoS position. Obama may just be protecting his own legacy. He is much more likely to meet our" hopes" in 8 years withut Clinton in the Senate stirring up trouble. If she screws up, he can fire her. Biden, Emmanual, Obama's NSA and the staff Obama puts in the State Dept. Clinton all will keep an eye on her. (Not to mention Michelle looking at her out of the side of her eye) Also, McCain owes Obama for getting Napolitianano out of his way for 2010. Lieberman will owe Obama too. He will need a few Repubs on big intitiatives that lefty democrats get stubborn about. Don't forget that Connecticut folks are ready to ax Lieberman in 2010. Guys, I bet it will become clear exactly what Obama's wisdom was at some point.
I couldn't agree more with sahenderso. Why bother thinking when the "ONE" has all the answers. Zogby's poll showed that the majority of Obama's supporters are just like sahenderso.
Zogby's poll? Surely you jest.
Oh, RCE, please enjoy your Kool-Aid, while, listening to Zeigler.
Only problem with Seward was "The Unintended Consequences" - Seward "begat" Alaska which "begat" Palin
Clearly Hillary comes from the school of thought that says you need to "Say anything" to get elected. She felt (or her handlers felt) that people would perceive woman as too soft on terror and foreign policy, so she came out as tough as nails. She is well-informed and smart and thoughtful--once she settles in. I'm not concerned that she will be too hawkish, and if she is more so than Obama then he will be able to hear an opposing point of view and weigh the options better.
I'm not certain I fully trust her, but I trust Barack Obama to respect her opinions but make up his own mind and set the policies based on thoughful consideration.
All I can say is the guy must have the strongest marriage in history for this to fly with Michelle. He also must have the healthiest ego I have ever witnessed in public life to share the hard earned limelight with these two egomaniacs and their army of lobbyists and blowback baggage. The only consolation is, State was gutted of honorable people under the Neocons, demoralized by croyism and international infamy, and marginalized in influence by the Cheney shadow government. The post is largely ceremonial, given the immanent whithering of our empire..
Reconciliation without truth is the American way. The offenders are always hoping citizens catch a severe case of amnesia because confessing sins requires too much character and integrity. And the fog of denial is thick because too many lack the courage to tell or even accept the truth.
Speaking of amnesia... hope someone will hold Obama up to his campaign promises..
Can you list the promises that you "hope" the President will fulfill?
And if you wouldn't mind, would you be so kind as to also explain how your voting Republican will help the President fulfill those promises . . . all of them?
I've been hearing this from Republicans sore at losing. I wonder who's radio show has been hammering this theme?
Bush accomplished nothing in eight years and you want to hold Obama's feet to the fire when he hasn't even been sworn in yet?
You can't be serious . . . .
I find people are jumping way ahead of themselves about a guy who's not even President until January 20th and already some people are judging his legacy?
I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton and never will be...and I expressed it quite angrily too.
BUT never forget that we finally have a thinker, a pragmatist, yet visionary President.
TWO THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER:
1) Obama always said that he wanted to have people that aren't always going to agree with him
2) bipartisanship (this goes with Gates, Jones)
3) his positions haven't changed, he still is the same guy, but he also said he wanted to get things done and he's getting people that will get things done
Nailed it.
These are probably the same people who were calling on Obama to "go negative" during the campaign when he went down in the polls RNC.
Those who doubt the genius of President Obama have a history of having to do an about-face while egg drips all over it.
Didn't expect the HP fil ter on that one; I'll try again.
N ailed it.
These are probably the same people who were calling on Obama to "go nega tive" during the campaign when he went down in the polls RNC.
Those who doubt the genius of President Obama have a history of having to do an about-face while eg g dr ips all over it.
I give up. Excellent!
2) bipartisanship (this goes with Gates, Jones)
He could still have bipartisanship without Gates or Jones. They are career people with many ties to the military and the CIA for the past thirty. Not fresh blood at all, not change that I can believe in.
"Any president needs around him people of courage, judgment, and competence who share his fundamental views."
I thought the idea of a cabinet of rivals was to have people who challenge your opinions and force you to question your views. If everyone shares "fundamental views" and see the world the same way, don't you run the danger of group think?
Obama, in my opinion, has called for a forgiveness of Lieberman and a cabinet position for Mrs. Clinton because, before he was running on the economy, or health care, or the Iraqi war, Obama was running on changing the way Washington works. He was running on ending divisiveness. Were he to adopt your advice, Mr. Bromwich, he would not be an agent of change, he would merely be another in a long string of partisan technocrats with an agenda that favors the left instead of the right but doing nothing to repair the national politics of the United States.
Also, again in my opinion, he would have lost in the primaries. If Democrats wanted business as usual, we would have nominated Mrs. Clinton for President because when it comes to the current political climate, she would be more effective than Obama. But Democrats did not vote for her, we voted for him largely because he is not following your advice but instead doing things a new way, which includes not surrounding himself with a bunch of people who already think the same way he does.
I agree- I think he needs to be surrounded with people that will challenge and stimulate him, not a bunch of yes (wo)men. Look at the last administration and try to argue otherwise.
Obama could be the smartest guy in the world. How did he convince Clinton to abandon a powerful Senate position, a chance for real vocal strength on domestic issues, and a future Presidential bid? I think he offered her something much better. There aren’t many books written about Senators, even powerful ones, but there will be a metric ton of books written for decades about the US Sec of State who brokered the lasting Israel-Palestine peace agreement. She might just do it too. Obama has turned her “deficits” into assets; “shady connections” are morphed into established relationships; her “ruthlessness” will garner respect, her “personal ambition” becomes the investment needed to achieve a stable Middle East.
excellent post ....
Hillary will certainly overshadow Obama. I wouldn't get too excited about any accomplishments though. She still has to run in 2012.
Don't think for a minute that it was Obama who persuaded Clinton to abandon her Senate seat. Hillary was promised something very big by someone for her to accept this position..
Obama knows the repairs to the last 8 years is going to be difficult and the more discussion about issues with a smart, thoughtful and experienced team will get the best results. It may take time to resolve the issues but once they get going and they understand Obama it will gain momentum. There is more than full sentences in Obama. I just hope someone watches over congress. His chief of staff will be very busy.
I think Obama is great and support him to the max.
I have always disliked Hillary Clinton, have always found her and Bill greedy and self-serving. These qualities are not appropriate for a goverment employee, let alone a Secretary of State. The Clintons cannot be trusted, she will run against him and use everything she can to defeat him when she gets the chance. I know the drill, keep friends close and enemies closer, this is the Presidency of the United States of America and I don't like the idea of the Clintons being anywhere near it.
There. Now, I have to trust that Obama won't open a can of worms he can't handle.
The right is so populated with talking heads who's meal ticket is to sow discord even try to rip apart or social fabric. This is not how Obama works.
There is no US and THEM.
Just because you disagree with someone does not mean that that person is evil or not patriotic. You need to grow up Bromwich and accept that you are not and never will be Rush Limbough.
I agree with this article. I remain an Independent, even though I usually vote Democratic, for these reasons. I don't know what it is about the Democrats. They seem to need to shoot themselves in the foot. What is wrong with not rewarding those who tried to defeat you, sometimes by scurrilous means?.
I have to hope that Obama has something up his sleeve other than Kumbaya.
Why don't they just call her Doris Goodwin? Why do they insist on always using her middle name?
Because it's what she prefers. Most modern career women do the same, you know! (cough, cough, Hillary Rodham Clinton) She had already established her career as Doris Kearns when she married Richard.
Most modern career women do use their husband's name. Hillary only added Clinton after Bill became president because there was so much outrage re/ this issue. For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Nancy Pelosi do not use their husband's names. Doris Kearns and Hillary Rodham are throwbacks to an earlier generation.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
