Head of State

Font Size

Print

Feedback

Email

Discuss

: At the height of the recent Democratic civil war, Samantha Power, an Obama adviser and a student of genocide, told a Scottish newspaper that Hillary Clinton was a “monster”. Ms Power had no choice but to resign. But she was only giving voice to what most Obamaites happily said in private.

Mr Obama’s apparent decision to offer the job of secretary of state to his old rival has inevitably caused a furore. There is a long tradition, going back to John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, of treating “State” as a consolation prize. But Americans are nonetheless obsessed by divining the meaning of the choice. Is Mr Obama kissing Mrs Clinton’s ring?

Or is he trussing her up in a golden straitjacket? They are equally obsessed by deciding whether it will work or not. Will the Clintons undermine Mr Obama’s administration? Or will they complement it? Is this, in short, a marriage made in heaven or in hell?

Many hard-core Obama supporters are furious about the decision to embrace the “monster”. They did not spend two years of their life working for “hope” and “change” only to see the Clintons and their various incubuses and succubuses restored to power. The man who promised to transform Washington is doing nothing more than turning the clock back to the 1990s.

A lot of old Washington hands are also dubious about the decision. Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist, argues that, if they want to have a successful foreign policy, presidents need to have a close personal bond with their secretaries of state: witness Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger or George Bush senior and James Baker. There can be no such bond between former (and perhaps future) rivals, particularly when they have such marked differences of generation and style.

David Broder, of the Washington Post, worries that Mrs Clinton will escape from Mr Obama’s straitjacket and try to fashion an independent foreign policy (“He needs an agent, not an author”). Old foreign-policy hands argue that it is foolish to appoint somebody you cannot sack. And everyone worries about Bill Clinton. Will his global junketing create conflicts of interest? Will he be able to resist giving his advice to his wife—or to stray journalists? What happens if team Clinton and team Obama disagree over what to do when that 3am call comes in?