"Why is Sen. Clinton, the spouse of the great influence-peddler, being nominated in the first place? In exchange for giving the painful impression that our State Department will be an attractive destination for lobbyists and donors, what exactly are we getting? George Marshall? Dean Acheson? Even Madeleine Albright? No, we are getting a notoriously ambitious woman who made a fool of herself over Bosnia, at the time and during the recent campaign, and who otherwise has no command of foreign affairs except what she's picked up second-hand from an impeached ex-president, a disbarred lawyer, and a renter of the Lincoln Bedroom."
The guy has a point. I’ve never been a big fan of H.C., and her ridiculous performance in this election cycle didn’t win me over. That being said, I think Hitchens underestimates Hillary’s abilities and overestimates Bill Clinton’s potential influence on Obama’s administration.
Since when does the Secretary of State dictate foreign policy? Condoleeza Rice is an extreme example of how impotent a Secretary can be. I doubt Hillary will be as toothless, but I can’t imagine her openly defying Obama on questions of importance. He’s the boss, and if she’s openly insubordinate to a successful and popular president, she’s not going to win herself any votes in 2012 or 2016. She’s smart enough to realize that, and so is Obama, and so is Bill.
I don’t think Obama’s team is, as Hitchens puts it, “wide eyed.” They dealt with the bad Bill Clinton during the primary, after all (I’m thinking of the “race card” incident). They know he has uncomfortably close ties with all kinds of shady foreign characters. Obama was adept at handling both Clinton’s during the primaries when he was their rival. What makes Hitchens so sure that he’ll be unable to manage them when he’s the Boss Man?
No comments:
Post a Comment