Hillary's putsch
David Frum
A few weeks ago, I visited Dubai for the first time. It’s an impressive sight, this metropolis in the desert, and everyone said the same thing about it: “Don’t worry! It’s environmentally sustainable.”
To get the truth, you sometimes have to ignore the answers people provide and listen instead to the worries underneath their cheerful replies.
So when Shrum assures us that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has every reason to be loyal, not to leak, to postpone her presidential ambitions, etc.—I hear him saying he expects she will in fact be disloyal, leaky, and power-crazed.
And when he holds out the hypothesis of a Hillary run in 2016, I think I hear him saying that what he’s really worried about is a Hillary putsch in 2012—either a primary challenge to President Obama or an attempt to muscle her way onto the ticket in place of Joe Biden.
Let me offer an alternative suggestion: It’s time for Democrats to bring down the curtain on the Hillary Clinton story.
Everybody understands that she wants very badly to be president. What’s never clear is why this should be anybody’s problem other than her own. How has she persuaded so many Democrats that they “owe” her some kind of consolation prize? First the senate, then the presidency, then the vice presidency, now the job of Secretary of State. Hillary’s relationship to the party reminds me of the character of Margaret Peel, in the Kingsley Amis novel Lucky Jim, who emotionally manipulates Jim into believing himself duty-bound to marry her. Jim eventually rebels and marries someone else, explaining to himself: “There was no end to the ways in which nice things are nicer than nasty ones.”
The message to Hillary should not be: Behave yourself as Secretary of State and you might be nominated in 2016. Hillary Clinton will be 69 on Election Day 2016. That’s not quite as old as John McCain in 2008 or Bob Dole in 1996, but still . . . old. She has to know that the prize won’t be there for her.
No, the message to Hillary should be: Behave yourself as Secretary of State—don’t leak, don’t freelance, don’t backbite—or the president will fire you. And fired secretaries of state don’t get elected president. Just ask Al Haig.
Any other stance by Barack Obama would license exactly the kind of conflict inside U.S. foreign policy that Democrats, like all Americans, should wish to avoid.
One word more, to some of my Republican friends: There’s been a tendency in recent months for Republicans to “talk up” Hillary Clinton, to see in her a more hawkish alternative to Obama. Some of this talk is plain old partisan mischief-making—the kind that led so many Democrats to praise John McCain at the expense of George Bush in 2003 and 2004. Some of it is residual mistrust of Obama’s left-wing background combined with an overeager reading of Hillary Clinton’s voting record in 2001-2004 as a guide to her “real” foreign policy views.
But are those views “real”? Or were they calculated attempts to position herself politically based on Clinton’s (mis)estimate of what her party and the country would be seeking in a president four years later? We cannot know. But it would be overly trusting to assume the best.
The political imperatives that pushed Hillary Clinton to the right as she prepared to run for the presidency are the national security imperatives that have already begun to push Obama to the right now that he has gained the presidency. And it’s those imperatives that should claim our attention—not the exorbitant psychic needs of any individual politician.
Show: Oldest | Newest
5 Comments
Posted by NYDem12, Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 8:36 pm Sorry, your article is so 2007. The country has finally been able to separate the REAL Hillary Clinton from the media myth. As a result, Hillary Clinton has a higher approval rating than Obama right now at 70%. Heck, 50% of REPUBLICANS approve of her as Secretary of State. According to exit polls, she would have beat McCain by 11pts to Obama's 7 in the general election. Bottom line: The majority of Americans would RATHER have had Hillary Clinton as President than either Obama OR McCain! Yes, she has political aspirations - and who, pray tell, in politics doesn't?! Why exactly is that a negative? She will do a fantastic job as SoS because she has proven that she works her tail off at any job she does and, oh, yeah, she wants to make a difference in the world. She did a heck of a lot more for NY in 7 years than most of her peers did in their states and, frankly, if Obama is a mess domestically, there are millions of Americans who will be jumping for joy if she decides to run in 2012 or 2016. Deal with it.
Posted by kmb08, Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 8:53 pm I am so sick and tired of journalists making mention of Hillary wanting to be President!!! Hell, do you think Obama might have been a tad ambitious!?!?! Why not write about his unabashed ambition?!?! Do you know of any national political figure who isn't ambitious?!?! Why hold Hillary to a different standard??? '' I'm happy for Hillary to be SOS, but I was also a bit sad, just as it appeared she was, for leaving the NY Senate seat. I think she dearly loved being a Sen. from NY, and she worked her heart out being the best Sen. she could be. She must have been damn good, as she was re-elected by almost 70% of the vote, and has one of the highest approval ratings of any Senator. I wish the media would stop with all the "media created" drama surrounding the Clintons. Yes, the Clintons are shrewd and cunning, but I dare you to find two political figures who have been better public servants than these two their entire lives. I admire the hell out of Hillary, and the more negative vitriol I see in print or tv, the more I will defend her.
Posted by skmckinny, Wednesday, December 3, 2008, 10:16 pm "She has to know that the prize won’t be there for her." How presumptuous can you be?? Dont impute ageism and sexism in one sentence. The country has grown up.. And perhaps you can help the rest wake up and recognize that it is not for the media and pundits to feed sexism and ageism anymore. And yes, I do want to see Hillary as our President. Stop yapping! See and recognize that she is the best that we had and the best we have to lead the world.
Posted by Carolyn (Rodham), Thursday, December 4, 2008, 11:57 am Oh puhleeze. I wouldn't be too quick to ignore or reinterpret the answers you've been hearing in Dubai. You know what I'm hearing from every virtually every /NearMiddle Easterner I meet -- India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Qatar, etc. etc. ? How THRILLED they are that Hillary will be the next SOS, how beloved and respected the Clintons are around the world, how smart and tough and confidence-inspiring she is, what a smart choice on Obama's part. But then again, most of those countries are quite comfortable with the idea of strong women in leadership positions. Unlike many American men...
Posted by jdona, Thursday, December 4, 2008, 2:47 pm Hillary Clinton is a public servant with a long history of activism and work for the public good. You apparently are still in the midst of Clinton Derangement Syndrome for which there is apparently no cure. What does it say about this country when people who dedicate their lives for the betterment of others, for the equality of others, for universal health care for all, still has to fight the public perception of ulterior motives simply because it fits your own personal agenda? You can't see the forest for the trees. It makes you uncomfortable. Hillary is a champion for 18 million people. We see her as she is, warts and all, and we admire her and we respect her. And if it takes until 2016 to nominate her for President, we'll still be here supporting her every step of the way. Maybe by then someone somewhere will develop a cure for Clinton Derangement Syndrome and hopefully you will be the first in line for the cure.
Post a Comment