Mark Montijo - If I Get To Heaven (Rabbit Haven)
27 minutes ago
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Historical/Political Comment
With all the discussion of the now-likely prospect of President-elect Obama naming Hillary Clinton to serve as his Secretary of State, I started to wonder about how likely it might be for her to return to the Senate later, following her service in the executive branch. First of all, I should mention that I don't see any significant down-side to Obama naming Clinton to his cabinet, in practical terms (as opposed to the rhetorical hay likely to be made by their opponents, especially among the right-wing pundits). But I have to wonder if that is such a great career move for Mrs. Clinton. I would think she'd have a better (and longer) opportunity to secure her own legacy as a leader in the Senate, moreso than by serving in the cabinet (which, by the way, does not appear to be much of a stepping stone to the presidency, if history is any guide-- I think William Howard Taft is the last to make that particular transition). Back in the nineteenth century, it was easier to move back and forth between the two branches-- men like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun all did so quite regularly over the course of their respective careers (though again-- none of them became president, although Clay for one very badly wanted the job). But back then, the state legislatures selected senators, not a popular vote, and so party insiders (and each of those three was definitely that) had a huge advantage to fill any vacancies. Today, the road back to the Senate would be noticeably more competitive. Of course, history is never a perfect predictor, and maybe the heightened international profile for Clinton will secure her nomination as the next Democratic presidential candidate after Obama. But if that doesn't happen, I wonder just where the next step will take her, especially if, for whatever reason, she does not end up staying in the cabinet for the duration of Obama's presidency (which again, by historical standards is the likely scenario). It seems a calculated risk on her part, especially if she still harbors ambitions to return to the White House.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dr John,
I for one find this a very interesting topic. I have longed believed that the Clintons (yes both of them) have been nothing but power hungry politition. Look at their background from govenor (him) to president(him) presidential confidant and advisor (her) to senator (her) - and might I add they had to move to NY where most people agree that it was a "step up" politically from Arkansas. I have read and really believe that she is only trying to pad her "resume" by being an international "star" with her accepting the Secretary of State. And like you said looking for the international profile to secure her next step - to the presidency!
I won't argue the point of whether they have benefitted the country in their respective positions - some believe they have- but they both just bask in the glory of politics and seem to be always trying for the next "high".
I agree that she could have had more influence in American policies being a senator but the siren call to the international stage was just too strong for her -and Bill (who will, I am sure, be there to lend his "support"- read influence).
What I really don't understand about Obama is why he is bringing back the old guard (Clinton's cabinet and advisors) if he ran on a platform of change of what we see in Washington (DC) - was it just a change to the past?
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
I think you kind of missed my main point-- that the cabinet is not a stepping stone to the presidency. There is a fundamental reason why this is so-- it does not lend itself to building the kind of organizational support necessary to raise money for campaigning, nor does it allow the opportunity to bolster the kind of political alliances that are necessary to govern effectively. I guess those things aren't impossible to do from the cabinet, but it makes the effort twice as hard. Your view of the Clintons is not unique, but whenever I hear it, it makes me wonder if you don't see the same thing in the Bushes, or the Doles, or any other multi-generational political family (like the Kennedys or the Longs... well you get the idea-- it's a long list). After all, the Bushes have been in politics for at least three generations-- why is that seen as less than a will to power than the Clintons relatively recent ascension? I'm not denying that's part of the Clintons' make-up-- it just doesn't seem to be at odds with the general class of people who choose politics as a career. But for some reason, in the Clintons, it seems to make people angrier for some reason (whether that's true of you or not). Even Hillary's move to NY to run for the Senate is not unprecedented-- Jeb Bush was hardly a native of Florida (for that matter, Poppy Bush was no Texan). Why do the actions of the Clintons seem worse to you (if in fact they do)?
Dr. John
Post a Comment