Early in the presidential campaign, when then-Sen. Barack Obama was asked to describe the model of presidential leadership he hoped to emulate, he cited Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals." The book describes how Abraham Lincoln filled his cabinet with people who were selected for competence, not loyalty - peers and adversaries alike. Lincoln knew the gravity of the times called for far more than an administration of yes men.
When Obama mentioned it, nobody seemed to take him seriously. Commentators brushed it off as a high-minded idea that would never actually happen, just another example of this feel-good, "Kumbaya" rhetoric about unity. What kind of presidential ego would permit such a gesture?
In other words, "Cute idea, kid, but you'll never do it. Besides that, Hillary has a lock on the nomination, and you can't win white America."
We saw how that turned out. So as the political world churns with rumors of Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in President-elect Obama's administration, I can't help but marvel at Obama's gift for telling these sages of conventional wisdom where to stick it.
Much of the reaction has focused on the politics of the potential choice, not the merits. For Obama, this is positive. Nobody has questioned Clinton's aptitude for the position; even the most partisan Republicans have a grudging respect for her esteemed reputation among defense and foreign policy personnel. She brings with her a demonstrable sense of backbone and a little black book with more international contacts than just about anybody alive. If she is offered the position, she will be an eminently capable secretary of state.
Many have speculated about the complications Bill Clinton would pose. I would need a book to unpack Slick Willy in his gaudy, magnificent entirety, so I'll refrain. I just hope he can stop the jet-setting bimbo parade for long enough to not screw this up.
The left-wing peanut gallery has also shown signs of mutiny, criticizing the possible selection of Clinton as "more of the same." They point to Hillary's past disagreements with Obama as evidence that she will pursue her own agenda in the U.S. State Department, insisting she can't be trusted as an agent of change. Obama can credit himself with this headache. His admirable message continuity during the campaign, the droning repetition of "change," has created a monster that accepts no hint of status quo. "Throw the bastards out!" goes the refrain - bastardly credentials be damned.
These criticisms miss the mark. The secretary of state is, by definition, an extension of the president's policies. If Obama's "change" means Clinton will dance a jig in Beijing, then she's on the next plane to China. If she betrays any hint of doublespeak, she'll be shown the door in disgrace. I have no naive expectations about the Clintons' propensity for self-serving drama, but the State Department is not the place you go to look out for No. 1. Narcissism is a far cry from stupidity, and Hillary Clinton isn't stupid.
I know we've been conditioned to assume the worst of our leaders for a long time now, but perhaps this is the first sign of Obama's "new politics." For all their charms, it's hard to imagine Bill Clinton or George W. Bush making such a magnanimous offer to an archrival. Maybe we finally have a president who considers policy before politics. What could be more of a change than that?
Jake Miller is a political science and anthropology senior. His column appears on Fridays.
