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
Bromwich is comparing Hillary to Lieberman?
Hillary prooved herself to be a loyal democrat, swallowed her sense of entitlement and campaigned for Obama. And she has what it takes to be an outstanding Secretary of State. If President-Elect Obama considers her to be the best choice for the job, I'm not going to second guess him.
It's not the moment to talk about mistakes. This is a man who accomplished incredible, oustanding and unprecedented acheivements - let's let him do it his way.
i would agree that she is more of a team player than Liebermann and deserves something to show for it.
We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated.
Barack Obama
Keynote speech to Democratic National Convention, July 2004.
"Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.
Barack Obama
Luckily for U.S. Obama and Sen. Clinton are of a single mind on this issue. Make no mistake.
Mr. Bromwich,
Obama's questionable judgement on appointments doesn't stop at Hillary. When I read this story in The Nation today, I became downright angry about his decision to put Holder in as AG:
http://www
1.) Eric Holder played a key role in negotiating the deal with the Justice Dept. that got Chiquita Banana off the hook for hiring death squads to kill workers trying to organize in Colombia.
2.) Holder's words on CNN in June 2002 about civil liberties and surveillance come right from a Neocon treatise. He invoked 9/11 fear language and mocked representatives and state governments concerns over civil liberties and privacy.
3.) Holder was part of the team that developed strategies for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act.
Of course the whole media take is going to concentrate on Holder influencing Bill Clinton's decision to pardon Mark Rich. Nobody will ask Holder about his unsavory association with a company that hired thugs to kill workers or his very iffy stance on the Bill of Rights.
I voted for Obama and so far not only am I not impressed, I'm becoming concerned.
I voted for Obama too, and really choosing Hillary Clinton, is the best thing he can do!
stop being so bitter
It's not bitterness to question the appointment of an AG that has serious drawbacks as far as character are concerned. The Patriot Act is an affront to the Bill of Rights, working on the side of corporate thugs is an affront to humanity, and Eric Holder worked on the wrong side of both issues.
Obama is not God, he isn't all knowing or perfect. I didn't expect him to be, but I expected a Constitutional law professor to be on the side of the Constitution. When he chooses someone as suspect as Holder to be the nation's top cop, everyone should be concerned, including you.
I agree 100%!
I voted for Obama (or against the neo-cons to be exact) but I never expected much 'change'. Slogans are for suckers. If he was really going to change anything he would not have passed the screening by the real power brokers.
Absolutely baffling on behalf of Obama. The appointments he has made go well beyond governing from the center.
It is unrealistic to expect a progressive governance from Obama, but picking borderline likudniks such a Rahm, Clinton, Daschle and Biden are a very tedious sign.
What is the man thinking? Is he being manipulated? Is he that acquiescent?
Making friends is well and all, but one has to be wise with regards to the appointing of former adversaries. Why not give Hillary another shot at health care reform?
Biden, Clinton, Dashle, and Rahm all folded to president Bush, and in the case of Rahm, he was one of the war's cheerleaders.
Give Richardson Secretary of State before claims of puppet governance gain traction.
Richardson would far better as Secretary of State. He is well accepted in Latin America for several reasons, not the least of which is that he is a native speaker of Spanish. Perhaps more important, he would be accepted in Muslim countries of the Middle East and Asia where women have little or no status. Muslim heads of state would be polite to Hillary if she were our Secretary of State, but they would not respect her. In the Far East, Richardson has already proven his ability to deal with the substantial cultural and political differences.
The only ones who are pushing the narrative of a "puppet governance" are Republicans and their talking heads, and it is only to try to diminish our trust in President-Elect Obama. They can't understand, much less relate to, the integrity and judgment that defines Obama's choices, so what you don't understand, you criticize ... especially if your criticism is directed at a person you've been trying to undermine for the last two years.
Obama is not playing the game of partisan politics as usual. I'm sure that if you look close and deep enough, you could find something of concern about every political figure in Washington, past or present, which - according to your standard - would disqualify all of them from holding office. Eric Holder is another brilliant and excellent choice, and he will have no problem being confirmed by the Senate.
For some reason, although I personally can't see Hillary as Sos, and I'm also bothered by the same things said on this blog, I find myself not getting worked up about it. I don't know why, but something tells me she's not going to accept. What's more, I fell like Obama knew this all along.
I hope I'm right. ;>)
Perhaps one of the problems here is that many of us (myself included) often have trouble imagining/
I like and agree with your sentiments.
I understand what you are saying, however I have to agree with the author of the piece, what about all of the loyal and strong supporters that Obama already has. He has not even taken office yet and he is rewarding a very divisive (no matter which side of the aisle you fall on, everyone agrees that Hillary evokes strong reactions in people) character with the Secretary of State position. I could see Hilary on the Supreme Court but quite frankly not as Secretary of State.
I understand that it is supposed to be an olive branch, however Obama won fair and square by running a brilliant campaign and does not owe the Clinton machine anything.
You can't see Hillary as Sec of State but you can see her in a lifetime appointment Supreme Court? What?
A previous poster said that Hillary should be SOS because she has world wide name recognition. Interesting thought, unfortunately, dead wrong. The worst thing that you can do to a new brand that has risen to worldwide recognition is to tie it to an older world wide brand that carries old baggage. The Obama name has become a world wide brand identified with hope and change, adding the Clinton baggage will do more to undermine his ability to define himself by his deeds, than any negativity thown at him by the either Republicans or an adversarial foreign government.
Obama / Clinton dilutes the Obama brand image.
I'm not particularly happy, either, with Clinton as a pick for Secretary of State. Two reasons: I think she's a hawk and will reinforce the worst tendencies of those around Obama, and Obama himself, to view foreign policy through a macho prism (international swagger as a defense against right wing attacks for being "soft" on national secuity). The second reason is that I agree that Bill, with his insatiable need for attention, will end up being a distraction for the Obama Administration. I wasn't fond of the Clinton Administration and, in fact, bolted the Dem ticket in 1996 and 2000 for Nader (Stop! I live in Connecticut, not Florida, and learned my lesson!) Clintonism is corporate centrism. Can't stand it.
On the other hand, Hillary's conduct in the primaries no longer bugs me as it did in the spring. I think there is a strong argument that her "kitchen sink" campaign against Obama did him a big favor (although it was hardly her intention). She was right in saying that the GOP would use those attacks in the fall. Of course, by the time the fall came around, the Wright/Ayers/bitter attacks were yesterday's news with little bite left, thanks to Hillary. Her intent was to damage Obama but she really made him stronger. AND she campaigned strongly for him in the fall. As far as the primaries go, I've moved on.
I agree with everything you wrote except for she campaigned strongly for him in the fall. I hardly classify what she did as "hard campaigning" and I certainly don't think she did it out of true support for him. She just didn't want her political capital completely killed in the Democratic Party.
It's only been 2 weeks, he isn't even president yet. I don't think now is the time to start tearing his administration down. While I wasn't too sure about the Hilary as SOS choice, it isn't my choice to make. I worked very hard to get him elected too. I'd like to see him sworn in before I decide what kind of decision maker and president he is.
I've read on a lot of websites and blog posts that some are noticing that some of Obama's supporters are expressing buyers remorse. Let's not get divided before we even get this thing started
amen to that!
I wish these naysayers would cut him some slack - do they forget the campaign he ran? It was practically flawless. I'm not saying he is going to be without mistakes..
After ingesting and inhaling BS for the past 8 yrs, it's not hard to recognize.
What an eye-opening piece! I voted, contributed, prayed and canvassed for PE O. You are right in so many ways.....m
Anyone who thinks Obama "weaves fantasies" about anything has not understood him at all. He is hardheaded, practical, thoughtful, and from all appearances, a very good judge of people. If he thinks he can work well with Hillary Clinton (with whom he seemed to have real rapport during the recent campaign), I am perfectly willing to trust his judgment.
I agree, Dang, I get do tired of people trashing Clinton. I am not a fan but I trust Obama. He knows what he is doing and so does him team.
EXACTLY.
He knows her better than we do - that's for sure. We only heard and saw what was on the surface for the most part.
Thank you...so am I.
"Hardheaded" implies someone who is excessively decisive with an inability to reconsider. This more aptly describes Bush, Cheney, McCain, Palin, and Sen. Clinton. Perhaps the term "strong-willed" is a more appropriate way to describe the president elect.
That last line should have included '...becaus
"Sign, Sealed, Delivered" - Obama campaign theme song.
"1999" - Obama transistion theme song.
First of all, what we are failing to realize, is that Obama is smarter than all of us.
His campaign, while inspiring, was full of tact and discipline unlike we've ever seen.
The guy is just flat out smarter than us.
If he chooses Hillary, he has a plan.
If she somehow turns it down, that was foreseen and probably planned out too.
One thing is for sure, he will have who he wants and there will be a reason that may not apparent immediately.
I feel the same way you do about Obama. Noted Harvard Law professor, L. Tribe said he had 5000 students before ... and after Obama. No one like him. Pundits can have all the fun they want creating controversy-- the news thrives on it, but I've learned that with Obama-- its best to hold my tongue for a change.
Wish press would focus their light on rape & pillage going on to agencies regulations & staffing the last days of the Bush Administration. Maybe we can embarrass Legacy Man to behaving like a man who cares about this country for the next two months.
I agree. Throughout Obama's campaign (especially after his 12 consecutive wins drew admiration and more notice), he showed that he has an overall plan that is not so readily apparent to those who are, what I like to call, "surface-thinkers". Everyone thinks she's smart enough to be an armchair psychologist and Tuesday morning quarterback, but the fact is that we're not. We're all suffering from distrust of the government, and that is why we elected Barack. However, this is the Bush (and to some extent, the Clinton) legacy - we no longer believe what we've been presented as fact by the gov. It's good that people are questioning Barack, but let's not let paranoia (instigated by the right-wing, neo-con sore losers) make us question to the point where Barack can't even make a move for fear of Americans' (uninformed) disapproval. I don't think he's that weak, but let's not help his irrational critics tear him down before he's even had a chance to work for us.
Imagine inheriting a company that is losing assets left and right, its employees have been laid off (AND KILLED!), embezzlement ran rampant, and facing hostile takeovers from its competitors. How long would you give the newly appointed CEO to fix the company? Could you wait until he was at least given a parking spot, an office, introduced to his new staff? Or would you start attacking him right after he says "I accept the offer"? We're lucky he took the job.
Sickening. Give it up. What don't you understand about BO stating on 60 Minutes that he "sought her counsel" You are nothing but a Hill . Ha....t..e
Not a hater, a see...her
Was there anything Hillary could have done to redeem herself in the eyes of those who have always hated her? No matter how hard she worked after the primaries to help Obama get elected, she is still being attacked by both the left and the right. Give it a rest, for crying out loud.
David,
I think that most of what you write is well founded. I do, however, think that almost everybody has misinterpreted the impetus for the support for Obama's campaign. A lot of us were reacting to the two stolen elections. Someone wrote that this election needed to be an overwhelming win so that it couldn't be stolen. I don't know how everyone else felt, but I felt sick after both 2000 and 2004. Add to that Gitmo, Abu Graib, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, torture memos, the unjust Justice Department, the US Atty. firings, that took place on Dec. 7th, a day that still lives in infamy, pedophiles, Plame, obstruction of justice at the highest level.....
When I learned that no one would be charged in the rendition and torture of prisoners I felt sick again. This is not a demand for an "eye for an eye". This is a plea for the restoration of our constitution.
This is what I manned the phones for. This is what I wanted my contributions to bring. Real, honest to god justice. The only way for us to learn the truth of the last eight years is for un-obstructed investigations to be carried out. This is what we wanted a Democratic president in the White House for: to lift the veil of secrecy from the criminal actions of this executive branch mafia.
At this point, America can't afford to waste time and resources on avenging wrongs....
So to everyone who's pissed off that Lieberman still has his chair, Hillary's getting offered SOS (yea right), and anything else that smacks of "reconciliation without truth": I share your anger. BUT, that's why we elected someone with a thinker's temperament, right? We rushed into the Iraq War because Bush stirred up our emotions. Now it's time to support a POTUS who will make decisions not based on impulsive emotion, but on cool logic.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
