Release of new book on 2008 campaign not kind to Clintons, not kind to a lot of people, other than the Obama who comes off unscathed [meaning we should view the book's sourcing and motives as unreliable?] - but as article today in Politico points out Clintons really get a rough ride, especially Hillary, who is portrayed as petty, self centered, intolerant of criticism, rabidly ambitious, condescending, given to irrational temperamental outbreaks - well, one gets the point: not fit apparently for higher office, at least that seems to be the obvious though not explicitly stated subtext to the portrayal. But this creates or exposes or begs a fairly glaring problem and query that Politico only touches on lightly at end of article: if she's so flawed, so unfit for command, why did Obama make her Secretary of State, and do so with avowals of high privately expressed praise raised over the objections of his inner circle? If the portrayal is to be believed she does not seem a good candidate for a post that requires delicate diplomacy and at times humility - so what gives? and why did Politico not bother to ask that question? Because the awkward conclusions one is left to draw are legion: the book's portrayal is not accurate, making it difficult to write an article that acts as if it is; Obama is a bad judge of character; Obama is out of touch with, or kept sequestered from by handlers, certain details that he probably should be aware of; Obama was willing to risk the viability of an important cabinet position in order to score political points; Obama feared an embittered Hillary and was practicing old adage 'friends close, enemies closer' and again doing so at risk of undermining the effectiveness of State; the decision is a reflection of Obama's lack of interest in or facile understanding of or naive approach to foreign policy - the point being the harsh portrayal forces one to ask several difficult questions none of which Politico saw fit to ask. Why? All we're left with at the end of the article is the presumption that it was a deft move by Obama to put a woman who apparently has some significant personality issues in charge of State. I mean, the book quotes one insider as expressing a deep concern that someone as unstable as Hillary could become president! And yet we're just supposed to accept that it was a cunning move by Obama to make her Secretary of State. Doesn't add up.
For my part as a former Hillary supporter the portrayal seems to suggest I was a wee bit misguided in my endorsement - or maybe not - after all, great leaders of the past have often been somewhat complicated - one could even argue that you don't or can't rise to such a level without having some serious personality disorders - the average citizen wants to believe it isn't so because we need order and fear disorder, but reality doesn't work that way - so I'm not necessarily going to think her a bad choice on my part because of an unsavory portrayal [but wouldn't that mean it was a savvy move by Obama? Possibly, but I'm reluctant to think so, as judged by the terms of the portrayal you understand, which left one thinking the job she's best suited for is mob boss] - besides, it's a conceit that fits with my belief that the image of Obama as the cool, calm, highly rational operator is false or misleading and that those who seem to fancy that hyper-intellectualism is a great trait for a leader to have are naive.
On positive side we now know that Hillary likes to say 'fuck' a lot when she's mad - that's a point in her favour.
