Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Obama and Clinton, then and now.

| 7 Comments


WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama wanted to brush it off, the question about how he came to eat all the harsh words he said against Hillary Rodham Clinton during the heated Democratic primary.

It was not too long ago that Obama was highly critical of Clinton, so naturally he was queried about this turnaround at his press conference in Chicago where he announced Cabinet picks.

Peter Baker of the New York Times was polite when he asked about Obama's reversal on Clinton.

"You belittled her travels around the world, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders, and your new White House counsel [Greg Craig] said her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. I'm wondering if you could talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring."

Obama in reply, belittled a serious question.

"I think this is fun for the press, to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign," Obama said.

"Your quotes, sir," Baker parried.

Obama said he understood. "You're having fun."

Fun?

"I'm asking a question," said Baker.

"I'm not faulting" the question, Obama hedged in his comments. "If you look at the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the -- the heat of a campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure and in order to do that we have to combine military power with strengthened diplomacy. . . . I think she is going to be an outstanding secretary of state. And if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have offered her the job. And if she didn't believe that I was equipped to lead this nation at such a difficult time, she would not have accepted. OK?"

OK? Not really. It was a demonstration of what Obama called during the campaign "the textbook Washington game." Obama, who ran against an army of straw cynics, was now saying what he said during the campaign didn't count. Just words, I suppose. Obama's answer made me wonder, did he believe his criticisms of Clinton when he said them?

I asked Al Felzenberg, who studies presidential leadership, what he made of Obama's answer. Clinton's appointment was "stellar," said Felzenberg, the author of The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn't): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game.

"He showed, I hate to say the word, a bit of naivete there and cynicism. Should we take what you say now with some credence if, a year from now, you say and do something else without providing an explanation in greater depth?"

7 Comments

Lynn, ofcourse they were having fun. Is it really that hard to reconcile Obama's criticisms of Hillary for the top executive position in the country and his appointing her as his subordinate to implement his policies using her own strengths?

And Hillary doesn't need to explain away her harsh criticism?

I did not see a question asking her why she would agree to work for someone who "belittled" her?

I think all that President-elect Obama's answer indicates is a firm commitment to bringing unity to his administration and the country.

Bygones!

Uh, no. Mr. Baker and Lynn Sweet should accept Obama's answers. Don't be so bitter that you can't stir up much controversy here.

the way i see it it's possible to believe that the same qualifications that would be helpful heading up state don't necessarily make her the most qualified person for the larger position of president. obviously he felt he would make a better president and presented his argument for why, if perhaps in more exaggerated terms during the campaign; that doesn't mean that he doesn't think she'd do a great job working under him at state with the same set of skills. a concept i'm pretty sure all of you in the media can figure out.
the media does love to speculate about perceived drama between the clintons and just about everyone on the planet, which is what the media has largely focused on for the past 2 weeks (not incidentally specific areas of policy conflict). pointing out that fact is hardly as egregious as you all would like to make it out to be; and having watched the press conference, he was hardly testy in his response, given the large smile on his face and given that he'd basically been asked the same question in four different ways.

The emperor has no clothes.

IN LIFE ONE MAY BE YOUR ENEMY ONE DAY AND THE NEXT
BE YOUR TEAMMATE!
LIFE IS TO SHORT TO HOLD GRUDGES AND APPEARS THAT
HILLARY AND BARACK ARE VERY BIG PEOPLE AND THEY
HAVE BURIED THE HATCHET!
5 TO 6 MILLION EXPECTED AT THE INAGURATION!

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets

Video

Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on December 2, 2008 9:35 AM.

Obama did NOT buy ring for Michelle, spokesman says was the previous entry in this blog.

Obama, Biden, talk to nation's governors. Transcript is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.