What hath Obama wrought?

It still is hard to believe but, if Hillary’s “confidantes” are to be trusted, Obama is about to appoint her secretary of state and she is about to accept.

This appointment represents the capstone of betrayal of Obama’s promise to be the “change we can believe in.” Having upended the Democratic Party, largely over his different views of foreign policy and the war in Iraq, he now turns to the leader of the ancien regime he ousted, derided, mocked and criticized to take over the top international affairs position in his administration.

No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary’s “judgment” as he did during the debates, when he denounced her vote on the Iraq War resolution. Now, all is forgiven. After all, Obama’s election — the only change he apparently truly believed in — is a fait accompli.

But apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of any foreign policy experience in the new tandem of president and secretary of state. Neither has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past. Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the halt leading the blind (or the blonde).

And then there is the question of whether we want a secretary of state who is compromised, in advance, by her husband’s dealings with repressive regimes in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Dubai, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco and governments about which we know nothing.

These foreign leaders have paid the Clinton family millions of dollars directly and through their library and/or foundation — funds they can and have used as personal income. How do we know that she can conduct foreign policy independently even if it means biting those who have fed her and her husband?

But the most galling aspect of the appointment is that it puts Obama in the midst of an administration that, while he appointed it, is not his own. Rather, he has now created a government staffed by Clinton people, headed by Clinton appointees and dominated by Hillary herself. He has willingly created the same untenable situation as that into which Lyndon Johnson stepped when JFK was assassinated in 1963.

Johnson inherited a Cabinet wholly staffed by Kennedy intimates, with Bobby himself as attorney general. LBJ had no choice and had to spend two years making the government his own. But Obama had all the options in the world and chose to fence himself in by appointing Hillary as secretary of state, Clinton Cabinet member Bill Richardson for Commerce, Clinton staffer Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, Clinton buddy (and top lobbyist) Tom Daschle to Health and Human Services, and Bill’s deputy attorney general, Eric Holder, to Justice.

Presidents Clinton and Lincoln similarly appointed what Doris Kearns Goodwin has famously called a “team of rivals” to staff their Cabinets and administrations. Lincoln named all of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination to senior posts in his Cabinet, and Clinton staffed his White House and much of his Cabinet with ambassadors to other wings of the Democratic Party.

George Stephanopoulos was his ambassador to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, Harold Ickes his emissary to organized labor, Al Gore his delegate to the environmentalists, Leon Panetta his liaison with congressional committee chairmen, Ron Brown his man in the black community and Henry Cisneros as his go-between with the Hispanics.

In each case, the president acted to bolster his ties with the factions of his own party because he feared how he would fare with his party in total control of Congress. Neither the Republicans of 1861 nor the Democrats of 1992 saw the president from their own party as their natural leaders.

Lincoln’s colleagues had chosen him only after a deadlock between the two front-runners had paralyzed the convention. Clinton got the nomination only after Gov. Mario Cuomo of New York, the party’s favorite, had pulled out. Each man was elected with barely 40 percent of the vote. So each felt constrained to share power with their rivals.

While Obama was not the early favorite of his party, he does not need to defer so ostentatiously to those who fought him for the nomination. His general election mandate clearly entitled him to name whom he pleased. But he has chosen to nominate men and women with no loyalty to him and no real stake in his future.

And, standing above all his appointees, like a president in exile, is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If Obama needed any warning about how Hillary will play the game, he need only look at how she handled her appointment. She forced Obama to see her by publicly complaining that she had not heard from him. When he raised the possibility of her appointment to State, she then leaked word that it was in the works. Even the announcement of her appointment was not made by Obama but leaked by Hillary’s “confidantes.”

Hillary will be a loose cannon as secretary of state, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the ‘30s have we had a secretary so interested in running for president. Not since William Jennings Bryan in the 1910s have we had a defeated nominee named as secretary.

Obama will not be able to control Hillary, nor will he be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as chief of staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer if he is lucky — and Hillary’s if he is not.

Either Obama has chosen to put himself in this untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington or because he plans to be little more than a figurehead. Given his campaign, neither seems likely. But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is, too.

COPYRIGHT 2008 DICK MORRIS AND EILEEN MCGANN. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

login to post comments | Dick Morris and Eileen Mcgann's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by Bonkers on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 5:32am.

Having a right to do so isn't the correct answer!

If Obama had appointed people who were just the opposite to the ones Morris complains about, he would have had something terrible to say about them also.
He makes his living following the one bleeding the most!

The very fact that FOX pays him also is evidence enough of his methods.

I would have preferred McCain as President, but we have Barack Obama. There is no purpose in "guessing" how he may do just because of his appointments at this time. Other than to make money, of course.

As to Hillary being Morris' worst enemy (or money-maker, as Limbaugh desperately wanted her to be President--would have made him more multi-millions), who is to say whether Obama wants or doesn't want someone in that position who will perform it without being told every move to make?
She is no fool--and will check on substantive ideas before acting. Why would anyone think differently? He can fire her in a New York minute if necessary, and will in my opinion if need be.
Bill will be a great advisor there!

Hatred of those in the other party and of those who have moral and selfish problems isn't helpful---only controlling them is what is important.

I'm sure Cal doesn't check the morals of those who buy huge ads!

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 10:13am.

Dick Morris probably thought he could weasel his way back into respectability with the Obama administration until all those Clinton people got back in. Now he realizes he's still off the Christmas card list. He should'a listened to Obama's next sentence which he said after almost every mention of “change”: “We can't continue with the failed policies of the last eight years.” The “change” was change from the Bush administration policies and even Dick has to admit that Obama's administration is a change from that. Dick's just mad because he realizes that he's doomed to years of writing for Drudge and he's back to sucking his prostitute's toes again; as if those were two different things.


Submitted by jimsells on Sat, 11/29/2008 - 10:11pm.

Dick is in heaven. It is much better being a commentator for Fox than being a servant for the Clintons. He is a former Clinton insider. He will be in big demand whether this new administration succeeds or crumbles as he predicts. He wins either way. I was disappointed you went for the gutter with the prostitute thing instead of offering a rational rebuttal. I was hoping for a liberal viewpoint. Just "change"? Bad to worse is "change".

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 12:19pm.

I have no intention of rebutting Dick Morris. Let him be in demand as long as he has no influence with those in power. As for the prostitute reference, a political whore is a political whore. Morris made his own bed.


Submitted by jimsells on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 7:33pm.

That was 10 years ago. No redemption? No chance to become a better man? I think you are safe. There appears to be no chance he will have influence on those in power. Dicks article made sense to me. I got no opposing view to consider. I hope Dick is wrong. If he is right we are all screwed. Whoops, I mean in trouble!

JeffC's picture
Submitted by JeffC on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 11:05am.

Morris makes a very good living bashing the Clintons. I’m perfectly fine with that but it doesn’t make his arguments either true or persuasive. The whole article assumes that Obama is going to be dominated by Hillary at every step without consequences. Is there any reason to but this argument? After all, it’s Obama that beat thee entire Clinton machine much to their surprise and chagrin.

“This appointment represents the capstone of betrayal of Obama’s promise to be the “change we can believe in.” Well, not to me. Obama’s promise of change was change to the “failed policies of the last four years” as he said over and over ad nauseum.

“No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary’s “judgment” as he did during the debates…” What difference does it make unless you assume that Obama is off somewhere uninvolved while Hillary makes and carries out policy? Supposedly, Hillary is going to offer her judgment and then carry out Obama’s decisions.

“How do we know that she can conduct foreign policy independently even if it means biting those who have fed her and her husband?” Well, she is not going to be conducting foreign policy independently. She is going to be implementing Obama’s foreign policy.

“But the most galling aspect of the appointment is that it puts Obama in the midst of an administration that, while he appointed it, is not his own.” Says who? Morris is galled? Good. Who cares?

Morris complains about Bill Richardson being a Clintonite? Do you think he missed the spectacular rift between to two camps when Richardson endorsed Obama? Rahm Emanuel is a secret Clintonista? Gimme a break, he was the Congressman from Obama’s district, much closer to Obama than to the Clinton’s. Tom Daschle a Clinton stooge? Well, I disagree.

“But he has chosen to nominate men and women with no loyalty to him and no real stake in his future.” Ridiculous.

“And, standing above all his appointees, like a president in exile, is Hillary Rodham Clinton.” Really? We’ll see.

“Hillary will be a loose cannon as secretary of state, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the ‘30s have we had a secretary so interested in running for president.” And Obama will allow this why? Do you think Morris is unaware that if Hillary or anybody else wanted to run for Pres. In 2012 she would have to start in 2010? What’s Hillary’s position now? She’s going to be SecState for two years then quit and run against the administration she worked for?

Again, we’ll see. Since so much of it is total conjecture by Morris based on nothing but his imagination it’s hard to point to specific facts to dispute it. Morris writes for that segment of the Republican Party that buts books like “Obamanation” and thinks his birth certificate is fake. More power to him but it’s not serious political commentary.


Submitted by jimsells on Mon, 12/01/2008 - 6:44pm.

OK, I appreciate you taking the time to give me an opposing view. Bonkers was helpful too. Now we'll see what happens. He'll have his hands full even if all his team does all they can in a positive manner. The next couple of years ay least are going to be wild!

carbonunit52's picture
Submitted by carbonunit52 on Sun, 11/30/2008 - 12:34pm.

How do you really feel about Dick Morris? This fluff is not your usual style.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.