Mr. Friedman,
Haunted by ambivalence since the 'Clinton for State' story broke, I could not place my ruddy nicotine stained finger on the reason for my angst until, blessedly, your column set my simple-mind's eye straight. It captured my feelings perfectly.
Drawing a clear distinction between the inane drama the petty are peddling re: 'Clinton for State' and the true import of what must be taken into account by Mr. Obama as he makes this decision was spot on. Of course, many may wonder why a beer-swilling Canuck such as myself should concern himself with who the president-elect appoints as his US Secretary of State? The answer is simple, their exists a collective 'we', a 'we' consisting of the other western democracies, who recognize that an incoming US administration's choice for who becomes the public face of American policy on the world's stage can make or break our shared economic and democratic ideals. As such, the last thing we wish to see is any appointment that diminishes the honest brokering required to both address and protect our collective concerns.
As you point out, as long as Obama has Hillary's back, in exchange for her pledge to adopt a stance akin to filial respect for his foreign agenda, then all should be well. Given the choice, if I were Obama I would take a chance on Hillary. By all appearances Mrs. Clinton is a serious and professional politician. Her chance to marry her gifts to an Obama presidency should not be sold short. And any discussion of Bill's role is extraneous - he is, and shall remain, a lightening rod - but a lightening rod who recognizes its place is not always a bad thing.
Cheers,
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hillary may have made 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling, but in Manitoba its going to take Theresa Oswald to break it!
Draft,
Surely you are on "crack" - the issue here (as with Sen. Clinton for 'State') is competence. Not gender. Simply put, Mrs. Oswald is not competent to lead this province.
She has been an outstanding Minister, and unlike Bill has actually served in government. The path we are on is the Winnipeg Path in Manitoba, lets not go off rails now!
Draft,
Just blew my 5th Cuppa-Joe through my nostrils reading this. Thanks a lot!
With respects, while clearly dogged and determined, you need give your noggin a shake. As a Minister, Oswald has been most notable for employing a reactive philosophy to departmental oversight and policy rather than a proactive one. Often she appears more interested in addressing marginal media stories rather than laying out a sustained vision for her department. While she's made a few good announcements in the past two years - they pale in comparison to the number of times she has decided to engage the media concerning sensationalistic coverage of anecdotal complaints. While all ministers must put the best face on their department - one would prefer if Oswald could demonstrate a long term vision for renewed Health Care delivery in this province rather than exhibit an ad hoc approach to policy and oversight.
Wary of coming across as an Oswald character assassin all I can say is I do not see in her that 'je-ne-sais-quoi' quality so necessary to successful leadership. While she obviously had the where-with-all to successfully position herself within the Doer circle to be get the Health portfolio - such and ability does not mean she holds any unique appeal for the general electorate. In order to do so she would have to articulate a vision that the ability to parrot briefing notes does not easily lean itself to. Unless she can project an authentic commitment to moving this province beyond Doer-ism she is going to find it nigh impossible to attract the party support needed to secure the leadership.
By the way, I find your assertion that she is better equipped to lead than Bill because "unlike" him she has "actually served in government" to be petty-minded and dismissive. Don't think that dog will hunt when the rubber hits the road. Surely there has to be a more substantive argument in her favour - doesn't there?
Post a Comment