Like George W. Bush before him, and unlike Bill Clinton, Barack Obama has taken the transition process very seriously. It looked for a while there like he would beat Bush's record of seven cabinet appointments by inauguration day. That's perhaps an unfair comparison, as the Bush transition was artificially lengthened by the election irregularities. But it now looks like Obama won't break that record.
So far I see only one appointment that raises serious questions about Obama's judgment. It's not Bill Richardson, whose withdrawal was an embarrassment to the Democratic Party but not to its new chief. It remains to be seen how much trouble the New Mexico Governor is in, but two Democratic governors facing Federal investigations, that's a lot of governors.
And it's not Timothy Geithner for Treasury. Geithner's failure to pay his self-employment taxes is a genuine full tilt bozo sort of thing. It's going to come back to haunt him that he couldn't get his own taxes right whenever tax policy becomes an issue. But as long as he gets this issue squared away, it won't be a reoccurring problem. If Geithner looks to be the right man for the job, he ought to be confirmed. I don't buy the argument that the times are so perilous that we need to forget about silly things like personal integrity. I just think that the Senate ought to give the President the appointments he wants unless there is something really wrong with the nominee. I don't see this as that serious.
It is Ms. Clinton's nomination to State that still seems problematic to me. I am guessing that Senator Obama picked her for two reasons. One is that he wanted to take his former rival out of the Senate, where she might be trouble, and put her in his administration where he can control her. That required giving her a really significant post. But it shows a kind of strategic thinking that is desirable in a President. The second is that he may think she can succeed him after a successful eight years, if that is what he achieves. That is strategic thinking over a long period that is rare in presidents.
I see, however, three significant problems with the appointment. One problem is that Obama brings into his house two very strong and difficult personalities. Can the Clinton's be brought to heel? Maybe, and there are signs that Obama has thought about this. Apparently Mr. Bill has signed all kinds of agreements about what he will do and say, but the Scandal-in-Chief is not known for scrupulously abiding by any set of rules except the rule of "me first." That could be a problem. Of course it may be Obama's plan to fire Ms. C. as soon as the first problem arises, but that will be inconvenient.
A second problem is Bill's Clinton Foundation. Mr. Bill is raking in cash from sources all over the world for his foundation, which is going to combat global warming, cure AIDS, and "translate ideas into action." Christopher Hitchens points out the problem:
Here is a thought experiment that does not take very much thought. Picture, if you will, Hillary Clinton facing a foreign-policy conundrum. With whom will she discuss it first and most intently: with her president or her husband? (I did tell you that this wouldn't be difficult.) Here's another one: Will she be swayed in her foreign-policy decisions by electoral considerations focusing on the year 2012, and, if so, will she be swayed by President Barack Obama's interests or her own?
The next question, and I must apologize in advance for once again making it an un-strenuous one, is: Who else will be approaching Bill Clinton for advice, counsel, and "input" on foreign affairs? It appears from the donor list of the Clinton Foundation that there is barely an oligarch, royal family, or special-interest group anywhere in the world that does not know how to get the former president's attention. Just in the days since the foundation agreed to some disclosure of its previously "confidential" clients—in other words, since this became a condition for Sen. Clinton's nomination to become secretary of state—we have additionally found former President Clinton in warm relationships with one very questionable businessman in Malaysia and with another, this time in Nigeria, who used to have close connections with that country's ultracorrupt military dictatorship.
The problem is not, I expect, that Ms. Clinton will put State Department resources at the service of her husband's foundation. The problem is that any time American policy happens to be convenient for one of Mr. Clinton's world gangsta sugar daddies, it's a potential scandal. Giving Ms. Clinton the State Department might be the gift that keeps on giving.
The last problem is that Senator Clinton revealed herself during the campaign to be a disastrously bad manager. Obama probably wouldn't be President if she had been marginally competent. Has she suddenly acquired executive virtue? We'll see. But Obama has turned over the U.S. State Department to someone with a clear record of managerial failure. That might matter. I remain unconvinced that she was the right choice for Secretary of State.
Recent Comments