I was impressed by Clinton’s speech as a political act. My thoughts related to what I thought she was attempting to accomplish with her speech and I emphasized her goals and agenda, and what the speech did to advance those, more than what it may or may not have done to benefit Obama. From the comments to my prior post, I get the feeling that some of you think that I allowed her speech to convert me into a Hillary supporter for Vice President. That is not the case. So, to clarify my thought process, some further remarks are in order.

(cont.)
First,

I do not want Clinton as the Vice president, and I hope Obama doesn’t either. However, she isn’t going away, and she will want something in exchange for dropping her scorched earth campaign and getting herself, Chelsea and Bill out on the hustings stumping for the Junior Senator from Illinois. I have to think Obama and she came to some meeting of the minds during their tête-à-tête at Feinstein’s house on Thursday night, even if that agreement is contingent on what she does for him from here on in. And she did deliver a good speech yesterday as the first down payment, on her part, for whatever it is she does want.

Second,

Obama strikes me as the kind of person who has a unique ability to bring former enemies into his camp and get them working with one another. The analogy I’m making here is to Lincoln, obviously, who filled his cabinet with all his rivals within the party. It was a high wire act on his part, but it also made each of them responsible for the performance of his administration, and it kept them close where he could keep an eye on them and prevent their ambitions in check. I suspect we could very easily see the same thing happen with a President Obama, with Edwards, Biden, Richardson and maybe Dodd all appointed as cabinet members.

Now the Clintons present a unique challenge in this regard. Both can either do great harm or great good for an Obama administration, and both would be valuable assets in the general election campaign. Both still remain ambitious, Bill for the sake of his legacy, and Hillary for her continuing political career. In my mind the best way to deal with them is to harness them to Obama in some fashion. So what can he offer them?

Bill is probably the easier of the two to handle. He can be given several opportunities that might appeal to his vanity and play to his strengths. One might be an appointment as the next UN ambassador. It’s a role he would play well. His popularity overseas, his formidable people skills and his relationships with many of the world’s leaders would be definite assets for the job.

He might also be offered a position as Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East to work on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Clinton was unable to complete his own peace plan when Arafat couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver the Palestinians. I suspect nothing would appeal to Bill more than the challenge of finding a lasting peace after Bush made such a hash of Israeli Palestinian relations through a combination of neglect and enabling the worst excesses of the Olmert government in Lebanon and Gaza.

Hillary is the harder nut to crack (no pun intended). She will want a high profile position even if the Vice presidency is not an option. In her concession speech she made universal health care a point of emphasis, mentioning it numerous times. One option may be to create an unofficial cabinet level position as Health Care Czar. I’m certain Hillary Clinton would like to remove the glaring failure of her health care plan during her husband’s administration. At the time she was seen as a parvenu. Now she is a well established Washington player, and like it or not, Obama cannot accomplish what he wants to do by ignoring the way the Washington game is played.

Third,

Unlike Bush, Obama will not come into the Oval Office with a solid bloc of mindless radicals behind him, willing to march in lock step to his orders, and willing to bully those in the party who believe differently to get with the program. He has no intimidating force like Tom Tom DeLay in the House who can deliver every member of the party either out of loyalty or fear, and no toady like Frist in the Senate. And unlike Bush, he won’t benefit from the trauma of 9/11. That was a one time event, and its effects can never be repeated. He won’t get that rally round the flag moment when he takes the oath of office in January, 29009. Instead, Obama will be forced to work with shifting coalitions of competing interests both within his own party and among Republicans.

Between moderate/conservative “Blue Dogs” in the House, old time politicos like Hoyer, Conyers and Pelosi in the House, a stratified and pompous group of egos who rule the Senate like Reid, Byrd, Rockefeller, etc., and progressive factions in both houses that seem unable to effectively advance their own agenda on policies both foreign and domestic, Obama will have his work cut out for him if he hopes to achieve the goals he has set for the country in this campaign. He will need to make collaborators out of former (and current) adversaries. He won’t have the benefits of simply stamping his foot and watching all the Democrats fall into line, as a petulant and spoiled George W. Bush was able to do all too often with the Republicans.

For better or worse, the Clintons represent a significant faction of the Democratic Party, one now in decline, but hardly eradicated by any means. Something will have to be done to ensure their cooperation with, and willing effort on behalf of, Obama, both now during the campaign and after he becomes President. It will be one of Obama’s most difficult challenges as a politician in the months and years ahead to see that both the Clintons and their followers work for his vision of the Democratic party and America, not against it.