The Clinton Gamble

I am utterly fascinated by the recent developments surrounding President-elect Barack Obama and his Cabinet selections. This is true government in motion, and I have to say, his list of both candidates and actual picks is impressive — except one.

I’m not saying Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is not a capable and very bright individual. I actually think she would make a good ambassador for the country.

But the way in which this entire vignette has unfolded baffles even my politically astute mind! For starters, if Obama were not even remotely interested in Sen. Clinton for any post, why did he bring her to Chicago? He had to have known that her mere presence would effectively lock him into whatever position she wanted.

Why? Because she was already passed over for the VP slot, and to snub your nose at that family twice in a given year does far greater damage than merely getting bumped off the Christmas card list … So, now, the Obama administration “owns” Sen. Clinton’s and her husband’s problems and checkered history. That doesn’t bode well for the mantra of change.

From Sen. Clinton’s perspective, the move was political genius — to an extent. If she truly wanted the role, then it’s hers now, because she must have seen the same writing on the wall Obama’s camp did — that he can’t deny her twice. Yet, if she takes this post, she now “owns” whatever record Obama earns in the next four years. And she has essentially acquiesced that she will not seek the White House until at least 2016. I think that’s shortsighted on her part. As Machiavellian as she is, why lock herself into a situation where you have no idea what could happen to a young president and his potential missteps?

I think this makes great grist for the cable TV mills, but it’s a gamble for both sides, and one President-elect Obama probably didn’t need with so many serious issues facing the country.

Visit www.armstrongwilliams.com .