Tuesday, November 11th, 2008
The Winds, They Blow
Sorry to have been so MIA since the election. I’m sure my one reader has just been beside themself with feelings of desperate abandonment.
Suffice to say lots of things are changing in the life of yours truly — and not just political leadership. The date is set of my girlfriend and I’s move — the festivities begin November 21st — and the powers that be at my job now know that the New Year will bring a new vacancy to the company call list when I leave to begin The Great Gamble.
Packing and year-end family planning are edging into overdrive, and hard decisions are already being made. First one? No trip to D.C. for President-elect Obama’s (wow, that does feel good to type, doesn’t it?) Inauguration. Money is too tight, and I’ve got some promises to myself I need to make good on come January.
But I’ll be back up shortly here with some postage — thanks for checking back. Next year should be a good one for the site, incidentally. More is coming from Uneasy Lies The Head, and a new short film is in the offing.
Thanks for hanging out.
-bcb
p.s. Nothing provides a more sobering view of one’s accomplishments then filling out a job application for an upcoming Presidential administration. I mean, seriously.
Blog
Congratulations on the upcoming move and all the positive changes going on for you right now! Matt and I will have some designated couch space the next time we’re out in LA, right?
Off topic: Any thoughts on Hillary postentially being on the Obama staff? I know you were not a fan during the primary process, but with hindsight… any thoughts???
It’s been interesting hearing some of the umbrage some Obama folks have been taking with the potential Secretary of State appointment. Fears that she’s going to try to screw him from within or something, or that it’s not really “Change” if a Clinton is involved.
I definitely wasn’t a fan of Senator Clinton during the primaries — but looking back on what was essentially the first primary I’ve ever been engaged in, primaries seem to be all about ideological purity and emotional connections (wasn’t it Bill that said in primaries you vote with your heart, and in the general you vote with your brain?).
I didn’t like Senator Clinton for purely personal reasons — all based on pre-existing notions (to give a bit of context for those readers that aren’t Dan, I grew up in a Republican household where Rush Limbaugh was on every morning, and my first vote ever was for Poppy Bush. Bill Clinton beat “my guy”, so I didn’t like him. That’s an 18-year-old for you). Of course, a lot of those pre-conceived notions were built on fear of knowing how effective either one of the Clintons could be.
I think a lot of the former Republicans and Independents that became Obama supporters had a similar take on both Clintons — wariness derived from fear — that made all the anti-Hillary rhetoric even more strident during the primaries. I would imagine a lot of the skepticism from Obama supporters towards a Hillary appointment is coming from this particular group.
My personal take, however, is a bit different, and it’s mostly just a logic game:
There’s no question she’s got the chops, and the relationships to do the job well. In terms of the places where her views and his views differ slightly, which seems to bother some… So? Is there any Secretary of State in history who has held the identical views on every issue as the President they served? (We only need to look to Colin Powell to see somebody that disagreed in private but did what the President asked.)
For those that fear whether she would chaffe under Obama’s leadership; do they really think she’s going to take the job not knowing what it would mean? Or that Obama would go down this road if he didn’t trust her as a team player? (And no matter what anyone on either side of the aisle thinks of Hillary Clinton, one thing she can’t be accused of as a Senator is not being a team player.)
Obama also clearly seem to want somebody in this position that is not only incredilbly smart and brings with them great expertise, but is also somebody that is a recognized leader in the global community. John Kerry and Bill Richardson both fit this bill. They’re not just appointments; they are individuals that carry a certain amount of stature on the world stage. And who would carry even more stature than Kerry and Richardson? Hillary Clinton.
The notion that it wouldn’t be “Change” if she was somehow involved is also pretty misplaced I think. You either think Barack Obama has the ability to put forth his vision for the future of this country, and work with other politicians to make it happen, or you don’t. This isn’t really a “maybe” quality.
Lastly, there’s also a particular symbolic component to this appointment. Our standing in the world is shit. People thing we’re aggressive and petulant; we’ve become a nation full of Ugly Americans. There’s hope out there in the world that Obama may signal a change to that, but campaign talk is one thing; what you do as President is another. So what message does it send to the global community if he appoints one of his harshest critics as his Secretary of State? What does that say about his willingness to find common ground, and the best solutions possible between differing parties?
Taking it a step further, what does it say to our Washington culture? What example does it set for future discourse?
All good things, I think.
So, if you asked me to sum this up in a REALLY concise, not-rambling-so-much-because-I’m-at-work-and-can’t-type-more-than-a-sentence-at-a-time fashion, I would say this:
I think she would be a great pick, and it would be a politically brilliant thing for Obama to do. Any fears or trepidation people have are hangover symptoms that will quickly disappear after her first day in action.
I mean, I want everybody that’s leading us to kick ass, not just the one guy. What’s wrong with that?
Did you ever get a chance to read that journal article?
Re: Hilliary Clinton as Secretary of State… Amen, my brutha. That choice is nothing but smart.
Jack and I are counting the days until we can hang.