Hullabaloo

Friday, November 14, 2008

 
Brokeback Press Corps

by digby

Reader Bill wrote in to ask "why can't the press quit the Clintons?" I will never know. Today we are watching them have another one of their squealing bitchfests over the fact that Obama has her on the list for Secretary of State. You'd think he'd just asked a Republican or something. Oh wait ---he has a bunch of Republicans on his short list and that's just fine. I forgot. This isn't about Obama or the State Department or the possible "team of rivals." This is about the bizarre and freakish relationship between the political press and the Clintons.

Eric Boehlert writes:

... any interaction between Obama and Clinton is now part of an on-going "soap opera," and that she's forever inserting herself into the process.

That's the angle ABC's The Note takes today:

So much for no drama.

Surely a certain soon-to-be-ex-senator knows this by now, but here's the thing about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: She tends to steal the scenes she's playing in.

Until the subject of her "private business" Thursday in Chicago is resolved -- and maybe until and even beyond the press conference announcing the new secretary who's headed to Foggy Bottom -- it will be 3 am in the transition process.

Will Clinton become Secretary of State? We have no idea. Would she be qualified? Most people would likely say yes. Is there any evidence that by reportedly reaching out to her for the post the Obama campaign has created "drama" or a crisis? Of course not.

What is clear is that Obama and Clinton are conducting themselves as adults trying to help lead the country, while the portions of the press corps (sadly, it's the so-called 'elite' portions) continue to behave like juveniles.

They just can't let it go. But then, they've never been able to resist turning into a bunch of nasty schoolkids over Bill and Hillary Clinton --- it's like some switch is turned on and they instantly regress to junior high. It's a psychological disorder.

I don't care if Hillary becomes Secretary of State. I assume Obama will run his foreign policy the same no matter who it is. I do think it's preferable for members of his administration to be beholden at least in part to the Democratic side of the aisle if only to show that it's not only Republicans who have credibility, especially in foreign affairs. If Obama keeps Gates at defense (which I sincerely hope he does not) then I think he has to pick a Democrat for State and pull from the more progressive ranks for the national security posts at CIA and elsewhere. The same is true for the economic jobs. Otherwise, he's just reinforcing the GOP's main argument that only Republicans can be trusted in such positions. If he has to bring in Republicans, put them in charge of HHS or some other counterintuitive place. Put Democrats in charge, succeed, and then you can longterm political power. (Of course, if you believe that Obama has ended the two party system and repealed human nature then it doesn't matter.)

Joe Trippi just said on CNN that he thinks Obama should ask McCain to join the administration as well. (What do you think? Special envoy to Tehran?) This is because "Obama only won 52%" of the vote and he needs to be sure he doesn't get "too cocky." GOP strategist Leslie Sanchez agreed wholeheartedly, pointing out that he must resist the crazy left and govern from the center. Trippi nodded sagely.

This appears to me to be a losing battle. We'll just have to see if the bipartisan propensity to kick "the left" in the teeth has any application in policy, which is the most important thing. But the rhetorical battle is pretty much over. Maybe that's the way it needs to be considering the the circumstances. If he can placate the village he may get some extra running room. And progressives may still play an important role by being the omega dogs who are beaten for the "common good" to create solidarity among the pack. The partisan divide will be bridged through their mutual loathing of liberalism. It could work.

Update: Here's Ron Brownstein with some advice for Obama:

On many issues, the initial impulse of most Hill Republicans will probably be to oppose Obama. The last two elections have decimated congressional GOP moderates. More dominated than ever by conservatives, the congressional Republicans won't be inclined to cooperate with Obama unless they believe they must. That's why he would be smart to reach around GOP elected officials and engage directly with interests that usually ally with Republicans -- oil, automobile, and utility companies on energy; insurers and small-business owners on health care.

[...]

None of this requires Obama to abandon his principles. Elections have consequences, and the magnitude of the Democratic victory shifts the entire spectrum of debate toward that party's priorities. But a strategy of inclusion would require Obama to show flexibility in addressing the needs of voters and interests beyond his coalition -- an approach that would inevitably be met with resistance from the most-ardent activists within it. For Obama, as for all presidents, disciplining the coalition that elected him will be the first step toward enlarging it.

Hit me baby, one more time.


.
digby 11/14/2008 02:30:00 PM |