BAD MOVE!

I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton's. So it's little wonder that I was almost equally upset by her nomination for Secretary of State as I was pleased by Barack Obama's election as President. I was thrilled when he defeated her in the primaries and I was hoping she'd relegate herself permanently to the Senate and focus her efforts there (i.e. no more worrying about her trying to be president). So much for all that! Not only will she be working closely with a man she seems to look down upon, but despite what she says, she can now angle for her next presidential bid from the comfort of the State Department. Surely being the top diplomat under a historic presidency can't hurt her too much. Sadly, however, I think it hurts the rest of us.

She is not a likable person - not at all. For someone who will be representing the US abroad, that's not a good thing, at least not if we hope to regain respect in the eyes of the world. She is arrogant and exudes an air of baseless self-entitlement. That's not the type of representative this country needs at this point in time. In fact, she embodies one of the worst American stereotypes: an air of selfish infallibility - case in point, her comments on Iran back in May. Even Condi would be better than her.

But my dislike for Hillary aside, I seriously cannot think of one good reason to have her serving in that capcity. Her supporters and Obamaniacs rush to her defense to say that she is a 'strong' and intelligent woman who knows her way around Washington and has (limited) experience abroad. All that is fine and well, but I know at least a dozen others personally who share those same attributes and are equally undeserving of being US Secretary of State. Of course, her biggest advantage remains her last name (the one she got from Bill). If Obama wanted someone shrewd with an assertive personality there must have been others he could have chosen. However, by selecting Clinton he seems intent on solidifying his support within the Democratic party, particularly with the die-hard Hillary supporters who still haven't gotten over her defeat in the primaries; he didn't need to do that, but it was a good move from the Democrats' perspective. More importantly, he has made clear that he is willing to work with his biggest rivals and trust them to do their jobs. I have a bad feeling that his trust in Hillary Clinton is misplaced. At some point, she will probably feel compelled to do things her way.

Much has been said of the team of rivals that Barack Obama is putting together. They are considered such because of their history in Washington (change?), their egos and their strong personalities. The logic is that by having dynamic individuals around him who aren't afraid to make their positions known, Obama will be privy to better advice. There is considerable validity in that argument, but as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, my gut tells me that she is so hell-bent on being president that she will be more a thorn in his side than anything else. She did not seem at ease up on that stage - there was a look in her eye that suggested she wasn't exactly in her element. Afterall, she wants to be the boss, not his helper. (At the very least, she wants to shine.)

As uncomfortable as I am having an Israeli as the White House Chief of Staff (swearing allegiance to any other country would be unacceptable), in my eyes, Clinton has been the worst pick so far. Of course, there is something disconcerting about Obama's choices of economic leaders, considering they played a part in bringing about the current financial crisis. His selection for Attorney General, while aesthetically noteworthy, is also a remnant of the Clinton years. Keeping Robert Gates around makes sense, but there's not much change in that either. The only change I see so far is a willingness to make unusual picks by virtue off their stature. With the exception of Clinton, everyone else seems relatively qualified to do their job. The problem is that they are mostly more of the same. Who's to say that picking someone unheard of couldn't turn out better than making a deal with an 'experienced' Washington insider?

Our president-elect isn't so far off - four years ago most people had no clue who he was. Since setting off on the road to the White House he has promised to do things differently. However, there are no indications that we will be seeing any new faces in his cabinet. I understand the desire to bring aboard experienced (known) people, and in a two-party system it's not surprising that such choices are limited. Will there be any independents in Obama's administration as he promised? Obviously not in the big chairs. 

One's memory should span more eight years; whether we realize it or not, the decision makers - with the exceptions of the President and Secretary of State - are the same we have come to love (or hate). While I may be reasonably cool with Obama, I'm obviously not happy about Clinton... for several reasons. We'll see what happens, but as much as it pains me and as much as I'd like to believe otherwise, it seems I'll be watching her just as closely as him from now on.