Hillary Clinton has been strangely silent for the last several days. Given the State Department’s possible role in failing to prevent the Christmas Day terror incident, that might be understandable.
My prediction for 2010: Hillary will resign her position as Secretary of State, and rebuild her own promotional machine, a la Sarah Palin, to restore her political fortune. It must really chafe her to watch Palin waltz about the country, free as a bird, appearing before large, adoring crowds, while she is stuck on a diplomatic mission to Lower Slobovia. She will position herself as the anti-Obama, the progressive who has all the right credentials, but also the experience and competence to do the job right.
Heard from Hillary lately? Nope, me neither.
Jennifer Rubin turns the spotlight on yet another example of Hillary’s poor decision-making: Her decision to accept the Secretary of State position.
Had she stayed in the Senate, she might have inherited the mantle of liberal leadership from Ted Kennedy. Clinton might have been the one to pull a rabbit out of the hat to save health-care reform. But once again her ambition got the best of her and her self-image of super-smart, super-capable policy wonk led her to a poor career choice. Now, politics is filled with second and third acts, and maybe her political career will recover. But I’m not sure her reputation ever will.
I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of Hillary. But from now on she will be relegated largely to the late night joke circuit.
Obama promised that America would once again be respected across the globe after he became President. And to reinforce that theme, he appointed the most qualified person he could find to be his Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton.
She is off to a smashing start in her efforts to rebuild our credibility:
With performances like this, America will be respected alright — just like Rodney Dangerfield.
Obama insiders are worried that their grand poohbah has screwed up big-time by appointing Hillary as his Secretary of State. Columnist David Ignatius shares their fear:
The idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton, a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still, strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions.
I agree. Everything the Clintons do is calculated to benefit themselves, not others. Appointing a former rival to a top cabinet post sounds very Lincolnesque, but I’m confident this won’t turn out the way Lincoln’s magnanimity paid off. Obama will eventually rue the day he came up with this idea.
That would be . . . Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is being considered for appointment as Obama’s Secretary of State, but Bill Clinton’s global escapades could derail that scenario.
His complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief. . . . .
A particular issue could be the donor list of Bill Clinton’s global foundation, which might show connections to international figures who push policies that might conflict with those of the new Obama administration.
After Bill’s numerous errant campaign performances during his wife’s presidential run, this latest development could be the last straw for Hillary. Now that she has proven she can run with the boys on her own, I wouldn’t be surprised if she decides he is a liability that she can live without. You know, I’m just sayin’ . . . . .
Here’s how the Palin speech was received by a UK correspondant:
Sarah Palin’s sensational performance at the Republican Party Convention may turn out to be the tipping point of this rollercoaster American election. . . . This speech has turned the election upside down. It was simply stunning.
Even better was this prediction:
But most fascinating of all, consider this: If Obama loses, Hillary Clinton will run in 2012. Opposing her is sure to be Sarah Palin.
That would guarantee America its first woman president.
And my fistful of dollars, having seen both in action here, would be on Palin.
Joshua Green, writing in The Atlantic, reveals what brought down the Hillary campaign. Taking advantage of access to a lot of internal campaign emails and memos, Green paints a picture of a campaign in chaos, beginning at the top.
In fact, she never behaved like a chief executive, and her own staff proved to be her Achilles’ heel. What is clear from the internal documents is that Clinton’s loss derived not from any specific decision she made but rather from the preponderance of the many she did not make. Her hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.
It’s a fascinating insight into what was really going on inside Hillary’s inner circle of advisors — and the lack of her own decisive leadership that allowed the campaign to spin out of control.
If this is any indication of the kind of President Hillary would be, we can thank Obama for knocking her out of the race.