Didn’t Hillary seriously bungle the organization of her campaign, worse than even the shoddy results we saw? Fear, chaos, confusion? Is this the manager we want putting together an organization designed to represent the United States to the world?
Rather than politically stupid, this is starting to strike me as politically smart, if extremely short-sighted. That short-sightedness speaks to an unbelievable indifference to the leadership task at hand. It’s incompetently stupid. At least before, I thought it was motivated by something thought out.
Now I don’t even think that. It helps him protect his flank because Hillary’s political future rests on helping Obama rather than undermining him. But she’s not competent to do the job he’s offering, which is to correct and manage our international reputation and interests. Who thinks she’ll fall on her figurative sword at the first major screw-up?
I think Kip’s theory is likely, that Clinton will be the Democratic VP nominee in 2012. How better to protect himself from her, if necessary, during his potential second term? I also think this confirms my analysis on Obama saving Lieberman for his own political sake, not because he’s a new type of politician.
I’m thrilled that I did not vote for Obama. No buyer’s remorse here.
P.S. I link to Megan McArdle’s blog entry stating buyer’s remorse at Austan Goolsbee apparently being bypassed for chairman of Obama White House Council of Economic Advisers not to gloat that I’m smarter because she voted for Obama and I didn’t. I’m only saying that being skeptical beyond the point of cynicism will successfully predict a politician’s future behavior more often than his considering his campaign behavior. Ohio revealed the real Obama, not the rhetoric he offered before, or “secretly” during.