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
For two years we praised Obama for his brilliance, his judgment, and his tendency to always be one step ahead of his adversaries. We didn't always understand the motives for his decisions, but we trusted him and were generally pleased by the outcome. .
Yet, now that he's won the election, we're criticizing every decision he's made, as if the brilliance and judgment and foresight that he consistently demonstrated before his election has somehow disappeared. President-Elect Obama knows what he's doing. He knows everything we know, and so much more than we'll ever know, about the people he's choosing or not choosing to complete his cabinet. He's not making reckless, thoughtless choices, but deliberative choices that will best serve his administration, his vision and our nation in the years ahead, and he will still be the one to set the agenda. The change that he's implementing is a change from the partisan politics that we've all become so accustomed to - the kind of politics we've claimed to despise, the kind of politics that has driven our country into the ground over the past decades, and oddly, the kind of politics we're now insisting that he brings into his government.
We need to stop listening to Fox News and others who're trying to manipulate our perception, and we need to trust in the man we voted for. He's still the astute politician and brilliant man that he was two weeks ago. He hasn't changed ... but unfortunately, some of us
StillIRise, I absolutely love reading your comments. You always speak with clarity and logic, you often move me to rethink my positions. I sure hope you're right on this one.....I'
Thank you connie. The last eight years have taught me to be very cynical about our government and the kind of blind loyalty that the Republicans, both the leadership and the base, so thoughtlessly and recklessly proffered to President Bush. I am a strong supporter of Barack Obama, but it is not a blind or unconditional support, and I will question him and his administration as it is warranted. But I also truly believe in him, and I believe that he wants to be a different kind of president than we've unfortunately become accustomed to, a president who is not constrained by partisan politics and who will seek to bring the best government he can to our nation. His post-election decisions reflect the integrity, the pragmatism, the insightful judgment and the thoughtfulness that he demonstrated throughout his campaign. We're looking at now, but he's looking ahead. Our feelings are still raw from the primary and general elections as his may also be, but as President of the United States, he can't be preoccupied with hurt feelings or vindication. His preoccupation must be with the country. Our understanding is dwindled by the scope of his responsibility and his perspective. I respect and even share some of your concerns, but I've chosen to trust President-Elect Obama, just as I trusted him during the campaign, even when I didn't always agree or understand. I may be disappointed in the end, but we haven't gotten there yet. Meanwhile, I'm praying with you.
THANK YOU!
dear god, WTF.
Maybe all their heads will explode and we can get on with it minus the negativity from these hysterics.
Lord Have Mercy.
We also need to stop being led around by those with an anti Clinton, Hillary hating agenda.
It was unbelievable during the primary- between here, Kos, Matthews, the nutjob pundits etc it was like an assault on reason.
I mean research, don't people research?
The Hillhaters and punditocracy make suppositions and guesses and present it as fact instead of opinions, they enjoy stirring the pot and so many are so willing to join in the hysteria- and then they say SHE is bringing drama- Hewllo?
What I saw was someone campaign like there was no tomorrow for him, over 75 appearances at rallys fund raisers etc- she raised over 8 million dollars for him-
give me a break.
You know, the more these dividers, not uniters slam her the more they drive people towards her- I mean you have to research because some of the claims are so outlandish and when you do a very different picture emerges.
Is she perfect?
Not by a long shot but no one is.
There isn't anyone I will like or agree with 100% of the time.
The sad thing is that this was so predictable.
ideologues just cannot allow for any deviation from their own set in stone ideas.
ugh.
exploding heads! duck!
The Hillhaters.
We don't hate her, we just don't want her to be our Secretary of State. Got it?!
I doubt that many people around here watch Fox News. You sound just like the bushies who 'trusted' every word bush said. Just because people expect him to have good judgment in whom he chooses to get us out of this mess does not make them TROLLS. Every time someone has a difference of opinion, they are called names or accused of being a neocon. I voted for Obama, but I expect him to pick people who can bring REAL change, not the same old tired bunch who have gotten us into this mess. Hillary Clinton voted for every single thing that bush wanted, and she trashed Obama to try to claw her way to the top. The author of this article told the truth. Get the stars out of your eyes ... he may be 'brilliant' but he is mortal.
Unlike what Mr. Bromwich says, I do believe Hillary Clinton shares Obama's fundmental views. She wants healhcare for all, an education system that is well funded and efficient. tougher regulations for the financial industries. I can go on and on. As a staunch Obama supporter, I say give him the leeway to make the choices he feels is best. She would bring much to the postion - brilliance, toughness, eloquence - that would serve his adminstration and the country well. While I don't agree with her hawkish stance on things - some might say that Obama is hawkish on the whole Pakistan issue - I do believe that she will do right in advancing Obama's agenda in the world.
BO would have a hard time firing Hillary should events require such a move. In recent times, secretary's of state rarely have served the full two terms of presidency. Should she leave the senate only to serve one term as SOS, she would be politically stranded. She is risking losing a safe senate seat that she could keep for a lifetime. The speculation over Hillary as SOS has generated more controversy than any other appointment I can recall in recent history. This is not a good sign. The appointments of Powell and Condi proceeded in a fairly straightforward manner.
Should she leave the senate only to serve one term as SOS, she would be politically stranded. She is risking losing a safe senate seat that she could keep for a lifetime.
Right, she should decline the offer.
I think it's premature to assume one way or another about Hillary as SOS.
The pundits are focusing their speculation about SOS on Hillary, and while it is obvious that she is being considered, so are Bill Richardson, John Kerry and a few other people.
This feels more like a trial balloon than a sloppy leak. Part of the buzz is the Clintons campaigning for the position. I'm not sure she is what the country needs this sort of thing.
I would favor Bill Richardson for SOS. He has had some previous diplomatic experience and I think he would be a crediable indication to the world, that Barack Obama's foreign policy will be different than that of the Bush administration. John Kerry also has real, rather than symbolic credentials.
Hillary, smart and tough. But after eight years of Bush, we will have to work to re-establish partnerships with our allies. I'm not sure if Hillary Clinton has the williness or the ability to do so.
Her lack of foreign policy experience is a point of concern.
Her penchant for drama may detract from foreign policy objectives.
Finally, she is not the best choice to convey a change in foreign policy.
So far, Barack Obama has done very well in preparing to take over the office of the President. So, I want to give him a chance, even with choices I might disagree on, before passing judgement.
Hilary Clinton would be President Elect Obama's greatest asset if she can forget and forgive the campaign. She is powerful. She is feminine. She is political. She is probably everything and anything a comrade could expect. But,. if you watch her critizism and black list of Obama during the capaign, it would be hard to think she could just turn the corner and be an advocate. I personally don't think she can set aside all of that. She WANTED TO BE PRESIDENT. not some appointee by the President. I like her, beleive in her platform and know she could do a good job, but maybe under McCain (who wasn't a threat). This has been an unbeliveable Presidential race. I am still reeling but as a firm believer we need a Democratic Government, know we have made a good decision. Get together President Elect and Hilary Clinton and make this a term we can all be proud of.
You obviously didn't read the post. HRC should not be part of this new administration in any capacity. She needs to go back to the Senate and represent her constituents.
The money graf- 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?
Thank you Mr Bromwich. I think I see or maybe I hope I see what Obama is doing. Put Clinton at state and surround her with his people then she is effectivley neutralized. Obama can then work with the Governor of NY to appoint a true progressive to the senate in her place. If she doesn't accept the position again she is neutralized as the junior senator from NY one who holds no real power in the senate. As I said I hope that is the game .
First of all let me say that I am gaining more and more respect for Obama. Many people have said he doesnt have the experience needed to be the President, well by appointing McCain and Clinton to his team he is showing he needs some help and personally I think that shows much more responsibility than some of the other presidents we have had. I did not originally care for Obama, but my views have changed a lot during the last several weeks because of the choices he has been making. Keep in mind the phrase, "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer". Smart, VERY smart on Obama's part!!!!!!
That FISA vote makes sense to me now.....
Dubya surrounded himself with people who thought like he did. He didn't like to be questioned or bothered by contrary views------And we can see how well that worked out. Strong leaders can afford to listen to all sides and they can see value in considering everyone's view before they decide what course to take. Obama is without fear because he has the strength of personality and purpose to get the job done. When either party is in control, they always try to force their point of view down the other side's throat. That just results in repercussions and backlashes down the road. Obama is trying, so far as it be possible, to include everyone at the table. I think that is very wise indeed. He also has core things that he intends to accomplish and I think he'll get a lot of those things done. We mustn't be surprised that he turned out to be the man he said he was. This is a new form of politics, and for the good of the country, it's badly needed. As the Russian ambassador said to Bobby Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, "There are men of good will on both sides." Perhaps not all of them fit that category, but there really are people of good will on all sides. Hillary Clinton loves this country as does Daschle as does Gates. I think we're all going to be pleasantly surprised with the results.
Dream on....
Sen. Clinton is a Democrat and her first allegiance is to that party. When she lost the nomination, she got over it and helped Obama by campaigning for him. It was more important for her to see the Democrats in power than to dwell on petty jealousy about losing. She has been in and around politics long enough to know that you win some and you lose some. She has shown her maturity and good judgment by working on behalf of the American people. Anyone who wants to find fault with her is just being mean spirited and regurgitating right wing propaganda . The whole idea behind electing members of all parties is that once they are elected, they are supposed to unite and work for all Americans. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in a number of years. Lets home things are changing and this country can work together for the common good and representation of all its citizens..
Sen. Clinton is a Democrat and her first allegiance is to that party.
Yea, but which wing?
See Sheri and Allan Rivlin's Profile
I must say I disagree, and my wife and I blogged an alternative view here on Huffington Post and our site CenteredPo
Mr. Bromwich and many others who commented on this post seem quite baffled by Barack Obama’s transition moves. We find them quite easy to explain if you understand one thing: Obama is not defining change as replacing Bush ideology with a new ideology.
Obama is defining change as a rejection of ideology altogether. Not anti-Bush, not anti-Clinton, just an embrace of policies and people that can solve our problems and move us forward.
We are coming out of an administration that clearly believed in rough and tough politics like Mr. Bromwich advocates. Perhaps retribution begets retribution, but it does not have to. Some of Obama’s supporters should perhaps emulate the equanimity and maturity of the young leader they have just anointed. Give him a break, will ya?
For more like this come to CenteredPo
I don't see the Bromwich as endorsing rough and tumble politics or any suggestion of retribution at all. And everyone has an ideology (philosophy) that informs their decisions, or they would be nothing more than simple automatons.
Two pragmatic reasons I can see for Hillary as Secretary of State (1) It may gain Obama broader support for some of his initiatives and policy implementations, and (2) I believe the Clinton's are still popular internationally, so HRC should be able to help Obama promote any agendas he sets forth.
However, given her hawkish and judgment-impaired record, Obama will need to keep her on a short leash.
Thank you for this very thoughtful, clear assessment. I don't know what some people thought change was going to mean, but the change that President-Elect Obama is bringing to our government is a change in governing our nation. It's not about rejecting all of his enemies or rivals or people WE don't like or agree with, and it's not even about simply being more LEFT than Bush was RIGHT. It's about changing the landscape of politics in our government, to bring about a more balanced and united collective effort in addressing the concerns of our nation. If this means bringing in thoughtful and credible Republicans, or experienced Democrats from past administrations or even strangers, then so be it. President-Elect Obama will still set the agenda, and it will be his vision and his values as the leader of our nation that that those he appoints to his cabinet or to other meaningful positions will follow.
We need to trust him, and as you say, we need to emulate his example of equanimity and maturity.
I'm sure we've all heard the saying keep your friends close but your enemies closer .Enough said. I gave him my vote now I must give him my full support. He's not a stupid man, I'm sure all of his choices are well thought out planned , so lets all see what happens .Lets revisit this in 2 years.It will take 1 year to feel his way around. God Bless and keep him and the first Family safe first and foremost.
I love how the MSM is pushing so hard about the bennifits of Clinton as SOS- You know if the MSM thinks its the best idea since sliced bread its got to be a bad idea.
MSM just likes the drama because it advances ratings.
I concur
You know if the MSM thinks its the best idea since sliced bread its got to be a bad idea.
Hillary's a Celebrity. Like Sarah Palin, but a lot smarter.
Re: Tough choices
Everybody warned us about the dreamy types who thought that just because they were in total harmonic vibration with Obama for two years that he would do everything just the way THEY wanted him to. Why don't we cut the guy some slack and see if these choices pan out? One thing I know he'd have to be worried about is being assaulted for his lack of experience, or worse yet committing some real boners because of it. (Anyone who remembers the first few years of Clinton remembers how painful that can be. My guess is that some of you who want him to hire people from outta left field DON'T remember that little piece of history) He has a Hillary problem wherever he puts her and as the old saying says, you ought to "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." That is what he is doing. Let him try it his way for a while.
It's interesting to see how Obama is a genius....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
