It's my fault, really. "Change" in and of itself is neither good nor bad. But still, I can't help but be at least a little disappointed.
First comes the rumor that the President-Elect will make Hillary Clinton his secretary of state. Granted, it's technically just a rumor, but given the Obama camp's tight control of the flow of information, its hard to believe that they would have allowed speculation to get to such a point unless it was true.
I can't help but wonder what he's thinking. Senator Clinton is undoubtedly a smart, talented, and accomplished politician and public servant. But secretary of state? Huh? There is nothing in Senator Clinton's résumé that indicates that she has any special talent for – or interest in – foreign policy. Yes, she sits on the Armed Services Committee. But does anyone seriously think that she got that appointment out of a burning interest in international relations rather than a need to burnish her foreign-policy street cred in preparation for running for president? And yes, as first lady she met a lot of foreign dignitaries. But so what? Angelina Jolie has met a lot of foreign dignitaries too. Maybe she should get the top job at Foggy Bottom.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton's most well-known forays into foreign policy were supporting George Bush's invasion of Iraq and lying about landing "under heavy sniper fire" in Bosnia. Hardly a glowing recommendation. And, after the bitterest primary battle in living memory, I have serious doubts as to whether a Secretary Clinton would be a team player. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the president – is she willing to do that? Could we ever be sure that she was putting the interests of the administration ahead of her own political interests? And what about Bill? He's been conducting his own freewheelin' foreign policy traveling revival show for the past eight years – is he going to be willing to take a back seat now?
A Hillary Clinton appointment brings with it too much baggage and too many questions. My guess is that the President-Elect is trying to bury the hatchet with the Clintonista wing of the party. That's admirable, but there has to be a better way. For that matter, I can't help but wonder why Senator Clinton would even want such an appointment. It kind of seems like a step down. A secretary of state should be subordinate to the president he or she serves. A United States senator, on the other hand, has far more freedom to be an independent actor. Hillary Clinton has the opportunity to become a lion(ess) of the Senate, influencing policy on the issues most important to her – health care, education, etc. – for decades to come. Why would she throw that away for a job that could last only fours years (or less) in a field in which she only seems to have a passing interest? It just doesn't make sense.
It also doesn't make sense that Obama would keep Bob Gates in his job. If the buzz is true – and again, maybe they're just baseless rumors – The President-Elect wants Gates to remain secretary of defense for six months to a year in the name of "continuity." Again I'm forced to say, "Huh?" Why would Obama want to "continue" ANY part of the Bush administration? Wasn't his election largely a referendum AGAINST Bush and his policies?
I understand the desire for bipartisanship. But to be honest, I'm not a fan. We won, we should be governing. What, eight years of Republicans weren't enough? If Obama wants to make a gesture to the other side, fine. Let them have Transportation or Agriculture or something like that. But you don't give one of the biggest cabinet prizes to the other side. And you CERTAINLY don't give it to a member of the administration you ran against. Maybe I'm too partisan, but let's face it, this is the first time in many of our lifetimes that we have convincingly won the White House. We have a clear mandate. I don't think we should give an inch.
Make no mistake: I have great confidence in Barack Obama's abilities. But that confidence has been just a little shaken by these choices. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.