http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... id=topnews
One thing he did not mention is the perceived (and possibly real) hawkish stance on international relationships of the Clintons. This is particularly important in stabilizing two very challenging and shakey regions: the Israeli-Palestinian issue and Latin America (which is again drifting away from US and toward Russia). The Clintons have well established credibility and trust and good will in both regions.President-elect Barack Obama's decision to name Hillary Rodham Clinton as his secretary of State likely will be viewed as one of the defining moments in the shaping of his administration.
At the heart of the new union between one-time rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination is a simple question: Why?
That is, why would Obama, a man who ran a campaign based on a new kind of politics that was an implicit rejection of the Clinton years, choose a potent symbol of those years as his chief diplomat?
And, why would Clinton, a woman who is used to being the boss, walk away from the Senate to serve as a cog in the vast Obama machine?
It's impossible to know the definitive answer to either of these two questions but here's our take, based on close observation of both politicians over the last two years.
For Obama, picking Clinton accomplishes practical and symbolic goals.
On the practical level, it's hard to argue with her credentials or her readiness to represent the United States in the world during an extremely challenging time, as evidenced by the Mumbai terrorist attacks over the long Thanksgiving weekend.
Clinton was among a trio of high profile elected officials considered for the job that included New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
While both Richardson and Kerry were dedicated Obama supporters, neither carried the star power of Clinton -- a known (and respected) commodity throughout the world.
Symbolically, picking Clinton sends a series of fascinating messages.
It reinforces the "Team of Rivals" meme that seems to have transformed into conventional wisdom in the month (or so) since Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States.
Put simply, picking Clinton shows Obama's bigness -- that his pledge to bring in the best and brightest regardless of their past political entanglements is more than just lip service.
And, despite the hunky-dory report of relations between the two one-time opponents, bringing Clinton into the Obama cabinet also serves as an example of the old adage that you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The Clintons -- since Bill and Hillary are a package deal -- were certain to be a base of power within the Democratic party no matter whether they were part of of the Obama Administration or not. By inviting them in through the front door, Obama is ensuring that he will have some control -- how much remains to be seen -- over the country's preeminent political power couple.
Could that move backfire? Sure. Giving Hillary Clinton such a prominent place on the world stage entails risk. But, Obama and his advisers clearly believe that they are better served with Hillary and Bill Clinton under the tent rather than throwing stones from the outside.
As for Clinton, the "why" of her decision to vacate the Senate to become secretary of State is equally fascinating.
In conversations with a number of people close to Clinton, it's clear to us that she saw this decision as a real crossroads in her political life.
Remember that she only emerged as an elected official in her own right eight years ago and that the entire focus of her time in public life over the past two (four? six?) years had been on running for president.
With that dream deferred -- certainly for a while, probably forever -- Clinton had to resolve for herself how she wanted to spend the next five to ten years of her life.
On the one hand was the job as top diplomat where she would be a high-profile and influential force in the world community at a time when America is seeking to redefine its role and reposition itself.
On the other was her seat in the Senate where her symbolic power as a national spokeswoman for the Democratic party occasionally conflicted with her decidedly junior status in the chamber.
Clinton was not likely to play a major role in any of Obama's domestic policy initiatives -- healthcare, energy, etc. -- and, despite an alleged promise to give her a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee, it was relatively clear that Clinton would be taking a back-seat role on the issues nearest and dearest to her.
The Clintons -- more so than the average political family -- are abundantly aware of their own legacies and faced with the choice of playing a subordinate but influential and high profile role in the Obama Administration or toiling in (relative) obscurity in the Senate, it's clear that Hillary Clinton believed she could have more impact in the former role.
That Obama and Clinton could stand together on a stage -- one as president, the other as his secretary of State -- speaks to the unpredictability and soap-operatic nature of politics.
Make no mistake: this is the beginning not the end of a fascinating storyline in American politics. And we will be there every step of the way.
Again, this is a move that can be viewed as the Prez-elect's strategy to pursue centrist (some would say conservative) policies without himself appearing too conservative to his liberal base.
