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
This is the first article that I've read that presented a cogent and persuasive argument that Barack Obama is taking the "team of rivals" concept too far, and applying it in inappropriate circumstances.
I'm persuaded.
Thank you, sir. You have indeed changed my mind from cautious optimism to a more concerned, mild opposition to Clinton as SoS -- and changing MY mind, once I've considered alternatives, isn't often easy!
Thanks Mr. Bromwich for a concise and well articulated piece. Simply put, I am mystified how Mr. Obama could offer this position to Hillary Clinton. On many levels it does not make sense. I hope he withdraws this offer, or else it will be quite a distraction. There is too much at stake to playact such magnanimity. I am simply disheartend by it all. Although I can see how this grand jesture might bring a dramatic vista, it's all a gamble.
Some of us are so against what the Clinton stood for that it will be hard to swallow.
David Bromwich has clearly and eloquently stated the position of many strong Obama supporters, who are miffed by the fact that the Clintons and their drama are not front and center in the Obama transition.
This nation and the world face so many huge challenges. Any moment spent on the egotistical Clintons and their thirst for controversy is wasted. PE Obama, please move on.
Appoint Chuck Hagel. Spit triumphantly in Bill Kristol's face by giving the kiss of death to neoconservatism with a REPUBLICAN.
Without truth?
What! More "Noble Lies" in store for us?
Well, if that favorite of Murdock and Scaife is allowed on the team, thaat is what we can expect.
No HRC!!
Hmm, I think that Clinton's early attacks actually helped Obama win the election - voters had mulled and digested all the uncomfortable things like Rev Wright early on so the Republicans had nothing original to throw at him. That said, I think she is a petty and power-driven woman who probably can't be trusted not to drive her own agenda, and much as I liked Clinton as president, he has really had his time in government and I would have concerns about how much he would want to involve himself in things.
Another truth for reconciliation exists. Political pundits made this election sound like a football game between two traditional rivals, like the Army-Navy game, for instance. Who would accuse the second string Army team of disloyalty to the first string when it brings its best effort to bear in their scrimmages by manifesting the meanest tactics of its rival? Army prepares to win over Navy by anticipating its game plan. That's why I think Hillary Clinton was a team player when she threw her kitchen sink tactics at Obama in the primaries: NO McCain/Palin! Politics is dirty business when you play against the Atwater/Rove Republicans. The Clintons had the foresight and insight to know that if Hillary lost the nomination Obama would be in for the fight for our lives and he had better be equipped to win it, for all our sakes.
Obama has said he wants people who speak truth to power in his cabinet. Clinton can do that. Plus, she earned a chance to redeem the judgment that led her to vote to authorize the Iraq invasion. I'm sure she regrets it now and wants to be keenly involved in the effort to restore integrity as a core value of American world leadership. Hillary is not Bill Clinton. She has her own mind and her own judgment. And, she will be working for President Obama, not the people of New York and not Bill Clinton. Big difference.
HAGEL for SoS!
I was an avid Obama supporter through both the primaries and the general. I also want Hagel for Secretary of State. Hillary is disingenuous and too far to the right.
IF Obama does select Clinton, it would be nice it all those rushing to judge would wait until she proves your doubts right IN THE POSITION HE SELECTS HER FOR. If you voted for him, it was likely in part for one of the reasons I did: I trust his judgement. If he chooses her, I will trust the decision unless it's PROVEN wrong.
At this point, all the doubters are doing nothing but fueling the far-right Obama haters who are already saying "I told you so". He hasn't even taken office yet, for cripes sake!
Thank you David. I only hope it is not too late and that Ted Kennedy making the health care insurance brain trust chairmanship available to Hillary may save Obama and us all from the disaster of a HRC SoS. Dear Teddy even now working to save the day. Hopefully the powers that be will read your piece.
Geez, let's see--When bill was elected we hadn't had a Dem since Carter, for all of one term. So who did Bill fill his cabinet with? Old Republican retreads? No. Old Carter retreads? Nuh uh.
That's right, he picked his own people to move forward with. The fact that most of them had been vetted by the Bilderberg group and the Trilateral Commission doesn't automatically make them all closet Republicans--like the folks Obama is picking.
As somebody here said, If I wanted a Clinton White house, I'd have voted for Hillary.
ummmm
the state department is not the White House.
AND
Presumably you voted for Obama because you trusted and RESPECTED his judgment, discernment, intelligence, leadership, analytical ability to gather and synthesize facts and make appropriate, deliberate, well thought out, reasoned decisions with what he has learned.
Didn't you?
You don't have to agree with every policy decision he makes-- I know I won't (Fisa?) but it shows a profound lack of respect to think he cannot make the right decisions on who will be the most effective person in each person to work with him to effect his vision.
Change= attitudes and actions not faces. Obama has a gift to inspire and lead others to work together, to change the way things have been done and move into a new paradigm. Didn't you vote for him because he had the integrity to make choices that might be unpopular but he felt was best after weighing all the pros and cons?
and you know, I think he knows Hillary Clinton better than you, or any of us do.
Leopards don't change their spots--especially political leopards like Hillary. She is a hawk on war, supported Bush's torture program, and threatened Iran. She is neither well reasoned OR knowledgable enough for this critical post.
At some point if Obama continues to surround himself with people who share these views--as Rahm does, and who was one of 3 major forces for Bill Clinton in ramming NAFTA through Congress--the phrase quacks like a duck comes to mind.
What would we do without optimists?
You believe everyone voted for Obama for the same reasons you did?
As in most elections, many people did not vote FOR a candidate
but AGAINST the opponent, McCain in this case.
So, it's not hard to understand that many people are now disillusioned.
Of course he's better than McCain, but everybody was better than McCain.
Sure, I voted for Obama, but neither he nor Hillary were my first choice.
My first choice wasn't even an option because 2 itty-bitty states got to choose
our candidates for the other 48 states.
That's reality. I wish it wasn't, but it is.
I'm feeling better about Obama's decisions as time goes on- I believe they would work together very well with Hillary as SOS- if that's what she wants-
In seeing them together recently, they have put aside all competitive or hard feelings- That's how Politics work, I believe!
The one who has to make up her mind is Hillary! How will her decision impact on her future ambitions?
If she says "yes"- I believe it will benefit the country right now- Hope she says Yes!
obama is admitting he does not have a clue so he is getting the people who do. He is losing the little crediability he had a bit everyday. At least he has the sense to know he is out of his league. It's a shame that he was so arrrogant that he thought he did. He is like a dog who chased a car a caught it....now what is he going to do with it after he caught it......ab
Where's my shovel?
Are you a mind reader now? I'm sure this is what you and Fox News, and Hannity and Rush would like to believe, but contrary to your insider information, I think there's a growing consensus that President-Elect Obama knows EXACTLY what he's doing, and he's doing it rather well. I know this makes you sad, but the majority of the country is quite comfortable with our choice and looking forward to a government that is more concerned about our nation than about partisan/p
I don't know which to be happier about ... that Obama's in or that Bush is out!!!
StillIRise, ditto twice. I wanted to respond to stell and mrduffin but no need. You expressed my sentiments clearly and intelligibly. Thanks.
It's almost like he didn't really think he'd get elected and he'd figure it all out when he crossed that bridge. His campaign was driven by enthusiasm. That is why he one. A campaign can imitate a lot of things, but enthusiasm isn't one of them. That is what drove the fundraising, it is what drove the phone calls and the get out the vote effort and the sense of hope and possibility of hope fully solving a problem as big as the race problem.
Obviously, you didn't vote for Obama if you believe that the only reason he won and the only reason we supported him was because of our enthusiasm. In fact, you seem to be confusing the core of our support for Obama with the Republicans' support for Sarah Palin, which was based on nothing BUT enthusiasm!
President-Elect Obama was prepared to win the election when he announced his candidacy. We supported him, contributed to his campaign, made phone calls and got out the vote because we recognized the substance and integrity of his character and candidacy, and we knew how critical it was to the future of our nation that he, and not McCain, be elected. Neither Obama nor his supporters, nor any reasonably sane American, ever expected that his election would solve the "race problem", and anyone who would think this likely doesn't have a grasp on the gravity of the "race problem" in America and is therefore likely part of that problem as well.
Your analysis is no more than a projection of what you want and need to believe to justify your own twisted worldview, similar to mrduffin's analysis. It is devoid of both reality and facts and merely exposes your inability or refusal to accept the phenomenon of President-Elect Obama and his phenomenal election!
You WISH that he was losing credibility. Because all the other Presidents didn't need highly qualified and experienced advisors. They could just choose their totally inexperienced friends and campaign contributors to help them run the country; because they were so smart and so experienced that they just did all of the work themselves. LOL!!!
GROW UP and get a clue about when you're sounding really petty and not that bright.
But I am sad for him that he's inheriting such a mess. And I wish him and his advisors godspeed in getting things back on track.
If retribution is what you wan't for past mistakes and engregious acts. Where will that get the rest of us?
What happened to all the hype about "change" and getting rid of politics as usual? So far all Mr. Obama has done is bring out the same old insider Washinton politicians from the Clinton administration. What gives? I thought he was all for getting some fresh new blood in Washington with fresh new ideas for CHANGE. These same tired old professional Washington insiders hardly have an aura of change about them. The only change from Washington business as usual will be these same old faces will all look a little older.
Maybe you'd feel better if he brought complete strangers into his administration??? I have a feeling that people like you were hoping to see Obama name Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright to his cabinet, or to hold a position for Tony Rezko, to justify your warped portrayal of him during the campaign. Ironically, the most vocal critics of his "Clintonesque" choices are the same people, primarily on Fox News, who were promoting Clinton for the nomination and criticizing Obama for the last two years. I think they're afraid now that their lies about Obama will be exposed, so they have to find another way to diminish him. But as always, President-Elect Obama is one step ahead of them.
BTW, other than strangers, from where is Obama supposed to find people for his cabinet? He's selecting the best and brightest from among those who've had experience in government or in other capacities that his administration demands, most of whom will be known Democrats and many of whom have served in previous Democratic administrations, such as the Clinton administration. If he were to go back further than that, he'd be choosing from some pretty old people, and our party would end up looking like the Republicans!!
The problem here is that you filled all of YOUR "hopes" into a contentless slogan called "change." You elected to believe that Obama was somehow a different kind of politician. In actuality, he is just a more skilled one than we have witnessed in some time. Did you really believe that something fundamental had changed about the Clinton presidency to make Obama shift from bashing it in the primaries to embracing it in the general election? Did it really surprise you to see Obama campaign to the left in the primaries and then suddenly shift to the center in the general election? Did it surprise anyone when he promised during a debate to accept public financing in the general election (note that Clinton did not and was attacked for it) and then later decided that the "system was broken" (if true, wasn't it also when he made his promise?) as an excuse to go back on his word? You're in for a lot of heartache if you put your faith in everything a politician says.
Oh, and while I'm on the subject, most people that I know had it pretty great during the Clinton years. The "change" I'm hoping for is a return to having smart, competent people (even if they happen to be old people--oh, the horror!) running our government. I don't give a hoot whether they have "an aura of change about them" or the stench of experience.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
