Maybe this is putting the cart before the horse, but in the interests of getting this meme out into the blogosphere, here's my big theory about how Barack Obama should handle what will be one of his big problems come next January when/if he moves into the White House. Sure, he'll have to figure out how to end two wars gracefully, a coming economic meltdown, the prospect of global warming, as well as drought, deforestation, the rise of China and the perhaps deadly nuisance of Iran. But first he'll need to deal with Hillary Clinton and how he keeps her doing everything in her power to undermine him. Well, I think I have figured it out — not through any political genius of my own. Instead I asked: What would Abraham Lincoln do?
First a little history, which comes to me courtesy of the awesome Doris Kearns Goodwin, whose book Team of Rivals I recently read. When Lincoln ran for president in 1860, the smart money was all on New York Senator William J. Seward. Seward seemed to have everything going for him. He had the money, the name recognition, the ambition, a long record of public service. He'd been a long avowed enemy of slavery and though he never quite got in bed with the abolitionists, he sent a lot of messages that he shared their basic goals and values. But then, as he got serious about the White House, he began to muddy his position. He didn't quite disavow his oft-stated support of emancipation, but he made it clear to anyone who'd listen that it was a very complicated issue. He never exactly said he was for slavery, but he made it clear that he wasn't with all those lefties who wanted to overturn the old order and accept whatever consequences might come. In short, he tried to convince the nation that no matter what he'd said and done his whole career, he really wasn't some squishy liberal.
His move to the center seemed like the politically expedient thing to do — America would never elect a true abolitionist — but in the end it pretty much backfired. The lefties (the abolitionists that is) decided that they couldn't trust him anymore and turned against him. The conservatives he was trying to woo never trusted him in the first place and viewed his new posturing with the same suspicion they'd always felt towards him.
Sounds familiar, right? That pretty much exactly explains Hillary Clinton and her position on the Iraq War. Both Hillary and Seward were canny political operators with deep (but nonetheless conveniently fungible) moral convictions. The other thing they have in common: each of them was on a glide path to the White House until their way was blocked by a tall, obscure Illinoisan with gift for splendid oratory, a perfect sense of the moment and a record just thin enough that it was hard to know exactly what he stood for, except for the fact that you probably agreed with him.
When Lincoln eventually won, he knew that Seward would start undermining him from day one, with the intention that any second Lincoln term would in fact become the first Seward term. So, in what was the first of his many acts of political jujitsu, he turned around and made Seward his Secretary of State, the first and most powerful of cabinet appointments. In many ways, Lincoln tied the success of his presidency to the performance of the man who should have been his greatest political enemy. But he also neutralized his greatest political enemy.
So, how's that sound: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It seems like the perfect move. She saves face. She stays inside the tent. And President Obama, should it come to that, gets an able public servant at his side who'll be charged with what will likely be the biggest, trickiest job in his administration: restoring America's reputation around the world. And by giving his rival such a job, he instantly demonstrates that he is above petty political squabbles and that he has the self-confidence and inner resolve to join together with someone who spent an entire year trying to intimidate him. As Maureen Dowd said last week, if he shows he can handle Hillary, going toe-to-toe with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be a piece of cake.
You can say you heard it here first.
Share
Email
Stumble
AIM
Del.icio.us
DiggThis
Fark It!
- Portions of Album Content Provided by All Music Guide © 2009 All Media Guide, LLC.
Get RS Mobile
RSS
Jen | June 3, 2008 3:38 AM
IN theory good, but I would make her secretary of Health and Human Services. Richardson should be Secretary of state, and Biden and Dodd should be there somewhere. Add a couple of republicans, and walaa, a Lincol style cabinet. As for "haters," look Obama is getting the nomination and all your whining and claiming "can't win" won't change that despit the fact that it's total tripe. I can't wait til tomorrow when that's clear, and he gives his last primary victory speech right before he claims the nomination. I'm so excited that I get to be there in St. Paul when it happens!!!!!
Greg | April 11, 2008 12:21 AM
This is definitely one of the most absurd political commentaries this drastically out of touch magazine has posted in recent years. Granted, I am a Rolling Stone subscriber, but as soon as it runs out I plan on not renewing.
It's articles like this that are driving the Democratic party apart. Hillary Clinton is not the reason there is so much commotion in the presidential campaign: it's the ridiculous media coverage and especially angled reporting like this that is doing the damage. It's bad enough you guys went out of the way to endorse Obama before he's the nominee...don't you think that a large percentage of your liberal readers support Senator Clinton? Don't you understand that YOU Rolling Stone are only adding to the division in the party...not the actual candidates. Quit attacking Hillary Clinton and get back to "attempting" to review new music. She has every right to run a campaign on her experience and ability to bring about change just as much as Obama can go out and attempt to seem like he knows what he's talking about.
Also, your covers have sucked for the past 5 years. Why don't you try something different besides a plain white background. Maybe this is why you have so much time to spend bitching about Hillary since you're obviously not putting much time into making interesting covers.
Michael Ross | April 10, 2008 8:45 PM
If anything, I think Obama has proven himself as a liar. The NAFTA screw-up as well as his association with his pastor's views more than gives him ample credit as a slick talking politician. What lies has Hillary told by the way?
Sam | April 10, 2008 8:20 PM
This is all ridiculous. Does anyone here make decisions on fact rather than sensationalism? Politicians are politicians and liars and all. We know this. But who is the best liar? Hillary is! She has been doing it for many years. She is the master! O'bama? The dude isn't convincing enough as liar. I think he might even be telling the truth! We gotta have a good liar, folks. At least we can feel secure in the lies, right? We have spent eight years now with a bad and unconvincing liar in office. This MUST be a new era. We must take control of our destiny, our bed of lies!
Ella Speed | April 10, 2008 5:26 PM
The Abe Lincoln comparison has been crossing flitting in and out of my consciousness for quite awhile now. Just so many dovetails that if I believed in reincarnation, I'd say Abe thinks it might be time to step in and take the wheel again.
Elliott Roth | April 10, 2008 4:46 PM
Here's one way for Obama to solve the Hillary problem: spend the years she has in getting the experience needed to run a country.
Hmmmm | April 10, 2008 3:20 PM
How odd that you called abolitionists the "lefties". They were, in fact, Republicans, the party started on the sole issue of ending slavery and equal rights. The "lefties" were the Democrats, who supported slavery so much that they seceded from the Union. The same "lefties" who started the KKK, Jim Crow laws, segregation, the lynching of blacks and Republicans for supporting equal rights, blocked the right for blacks to vote, tried to filibuster the Equal Rights law, tried to block the women's right to vote amendment, on and on and on.
Oh snap. We don't talk about that in this unintentionally hilarious, ultra-liberal magazine :). Go ahead. Rewrite history.
Katie | April 9, 2008 11:25 PM
In recent weeks, I have been sickened by the racist comments on this and so many other boards. Jesus Christ could be Obama's preacher and the racists in this country, including Sean Hannity, Michael Savitch, O'Reilley, Coulter and Limbaugh would still never vote for him. These racists never intended to vote for Obama; therefore instead of using Wright as an excuse, just admit that they are racists and move on. I am also sick of the comments being made about Mrs. Obama. Why is it that Sean Hannity and the religious right give John McCain a pass on Adultery. Why not talk about how with his election, the Country will have its first felon first lady. Yes, Cindy McCain is a convicted felon. She was hooked on drugs and stole drugs. Money and McCain could not prevent the conviction, but they kept her out of prison. Lastly, being a prisoner of war does not a president make. I served my country in the military and I can say first hand that the type of military service that he had no more qualifies him as an expert on foreign policy anymore than Bush's minimal National Guard service did him. Although Billary would make a horrible president. Hillary would be great at being the first female Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts is very sick and will not make it another year.
John Hall | April 9, 2008 6:39 PM
Keep your friends close...and your enemies closer.
Mark Jeffery Koch | April 9, 2008 3:59 PM
Hillary Clinton has run the most divisive, polarizing campaign in history trying whatever she could do to smear Obama and has injected racism and slung mud every chance she got. She lies constantly about her so called experience. She is obsessed with secrecy and getting revenge on her enemies. When a person like Carl Bernstein, who helped bring Watergate to the attention of the American people says "Hillary Clinton has had a long term problem telling the truth" the American people need to ask themselves if she is a female version of Richard Nixon. Frankly, when you combine her non stop lying with her passions for secrecy and revenge you come to the conclusion she will be much worse than Nixon if she manages to steal the election from Obama which she is trying mightily to do.
John McCain | April 9, 2008 3:39 PM
This is gonna be too easy.
Obama? | April 9, 2008 3:21 PM
Obama will get ripped to shreds by the republican party. There's no way he's becoming the president.
Jack | April 9, 2008 2:51 PM
Obama needs to figure out his major problems first of all. Like doign things and making his own decisions before someone tells him what he needs to do. He is clueless. I will vote for McCain before I ever vote for Obama
Terri | April 9, 2008 1:17 PM
Good idea, wrong Secretary spot. If she really had to dodge sniper fire . . . !
Health and Human Services would be a better match for her talents, formidable even coated in all that ambition.
BGriffin | April 9, 2008 5:48 AM
The idea of including her in the administration is a sound one I think. I differ only in that her true strength is in the area of domestic policy. So perhaps she'd be right for that new cabinet level poverty czar position.
Avant Strangel | April 9, 2008 1:52 AM
Whoever wrote this article must have been high because this comedy is so divorced from reality I can't believe someone capable of rational thought actually decided to write this drivel. Here's the short version. The Clinton tactics, her deception and distortions have helped her attain such levels of toxicity that if she's anywhere near the whitehouse it will doom Obama's chances of attaining the white house because now he will have saddled himself with her handicaps. It will mobilize the republicans and Obama's message of change will be diluted to nothing BUT words if he makes some faustian pact that allows the slithering Clintons back in. Not only will he neutralize his campaign he'll have to deal with the incoming fire of every arrow Hillary gave to the Repugnicans. Why taint onesel with a crazy person and their pathological stalker as a mate into your house? Especially after they tried to bury you in lies.
mmaacc | April 9, 2008 1:20 AM
W.W.A.L.D.?
Has a nice ring to it.
I wonder where we'd be today if that had always been the rule....
P.U. | April 8, 2008 10:55 PM
RS=really stinky
Moron That | April 8, 2008 9:54 PM
Make the old cow the secretary of agriculture. God knows she knows how to chew cud.
burlingame t-man | April 8, 2008 7:45 PM
HIllary is out! not worth wasting any time -- put her back in NY and get someone deserving of the post
Lawrence | April 8, 2008 7:09 PM
Nice idea, but you assume Hillary will not support Barack if he is nominated. She has said she will support the nominee whoever it is, and as negative as she has been, I think it would be in her best interest to keep her word.
Nice idea none the less and a good history lesson.
Thanks.
Wow | April 8, 2008 6:58 PM
Hey "Haters Leave Now",
Do you get all of your lines from Rush and Hannity? Why don't you think for yourself instead of "inhaling" the "forcefeeding" the media is lumping on you.
People like this is why this country is going down the tubes.
Maybe... | April 8, 2008 6:38 PM
The general idea is ok. Give her a bone and keep her close. But I disagree on a few points. (1) Clinton's strengths are in domestic issues. My personal back ground in in International Affairs, internationals Law and Middle Eastern Studies. And my assessment has always been that when it come to foreign affairs, Hillary, is less than solid (though McCain know far worest I'm shocked at how little he actually knows). Obama is much stronger. But I this HRC understands job programs and health care as well as anyone (even though I might distrust willingness to push against big business). (2) I think Obama needs to announce his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense choice at the same time he picks his VP running mate While I think Obama is knowledgeable on Foreign Affairs issues, I part of that over-educated demographic that is suppose to be in love with the man. The average American still sees ex-Military guys and hawkish speak as the test for Commander and Chief. They also see Obama as a rookie. By announcing these cabinet posts during the election her send a sign to voters that he's got solid back up.
So maybe Hillary won't be the best Rice replacement. I love Samantha Power, her books are amazing she would do a great job. Hilary would be best suited for some other post.
Haters Leave now | April 8, 2008 6:35 PM
So now We are supposed to vote for an elitist snob who doesn't salute the flag, whose wife works for a hospital who pays her a six figure income, and who said recently that she was not proud of America until now. Nope!!!! Does that mean if her man don't win she won't be proud of the USA anymore. Don't think so scooter. What we have here people is men behind the scenes who are so afraid of a woman being in charge and OH MY GOD maybe getting the things done that the men including her own husband couldn't, that they would vote for a man any man just to keep that from happening. I have free will and that tells me to vote for whoever I think will do the job best and media and know it alls trying to force feed Obamasan down my throat don't cut it.
Gabi Hoopasteak | April 8, 2008 6:06 PM
Interesting proposal for the carpet-munching, er, I mean carpet-bagging senator from NY. Ultimately, I don't think it would pan out- her tactics in the campaign have seemed desparate and antagonistic, which is in-line with her political behavior to this point. This country needs somebody with a different temperament.
Manny | April 8, 2008 5:56 PM
If he is anything like the people who support him, then he must find it very hard to trust her. Not a good message to be sending abroad.
Anonymous | April 8, 2008 5:37 PM
biden's a better choice. more knowledgable about foreign affairs. although that shoe in his mouth may make it difficult to communicate.
Funny | April 8, 2008 5:33 PM
I think Obama will try to solve problems by giving more speeches... and I doubt they would work, especially with the crazy dictators and Mullahs
Kathryn | April 8, 2008 5:24 PM
I like it. Except that I hate her now. And I don't think she's up to the task. Can't we just have her be first lady again? It's the role she's most suited to...