Picking former Clinton people for key cabinet positions is an example of political expediency. There is the obvious risks that Clinton could use her perch within the Cabinet to pick fights, or seed division and distrust. Then again bringing Clinton onboard could allow Obama advisers to more quickly coalesce around the new administration, and achieve more, faster.
Personally, I can't say where Obama's headed, but his recent picks are clearly trying not to change Washington, but revert back to Clinton-era norms which honestly weren't too bad. Yes, there were numerous issues, but Clinton years don't look too bad right now. Anti-government partisans in the alternative media have brought out old conspiracy theories about the Clintons, everything from Vince Foster's "alleged" suicide to Kosovo.
Yes, there are Clinton skeletons in the closet. Hillary Clinton is also part of the establishment Obama appears intent on restoring through his picks. Hillary was awarded a tremendous number of votes and commands a large following. To ignore or 'dis her now might not bode well for party unity under the new President. Yet many ardent Obama fanatics might see the reconciliation as weakness, an affront to the purity of their ideology, being that Clinton opposed their candidate in the Presidency.
Anti-Clinton folks might say that her vote supporting the Iraq war demonstrates her allegiance to Bush policies. Perhaps. I do remember a lot of smart people getting suckered in to voting for the war. Hearing the quiet voice of caution is hard amid the clamor of war drums and post-9/11 hysteria, channeled by the Bush administration and all its "intelligence."
I see in the choice of Clinton (remember this is not Bill but someone quite different) an effort to placate her followers, perhaps in a way that least threatens Obama's base of power which is clearly his domestic policy agenda. With so many in the Clinton camp obviously voting for him, extending a reward to her was a shrewd political move.
Appointing Clinton to Secretary of State acknowledges her power, and follows the axiom that it is better to keep one's friends close, but one's enemies closer still. The two appear good friends but politics will be played in Washington nonetheless.
Washington Elite vs. the Public
The relationships between those in power run deep and transcend political affiliation. We saw this in the recent Ted Stevens trial, where his friend Senator Inouye from Hawaii testified on his behalf, saying whatever Stevens said can be "taken to the bank." [source]
Washington's critics could say that all this mutual appreciation is evidence of a Star Chamber, a network composed of cross-affiliated clusters where social bonds transcend political allegiances. They would claim Inouye's defense of Senator Stevens proves that "they" are all in it together, trying to protect their friends in a web of loyalty that makes a mockery out of their job to represent the people. It's simply the way Washington does business, they might explain.
Social bonds can overcome political affiliations. Perhaps they should. Americans who perform the same job together long enough are bound to become friends.
Political differences shouldn't preclude the possibility of friendship, at any level. Ultimately we will need all Americans, Red or Blue, to work with each other in order to produce real change (oh no, I'm beginning to sound like them...) This cooperation has been sadly lacking, and people need to feel they can come together and make a difference despite their differences.
Friendship isn't evidence of a conspiracy to defraud the public. Complain as critics might about Washington, transcending political differences can from time to time produce positive results. During the Presidential campaign, John McCain stood up to defend Obama when a room of GOP stalwarts got testy up in Wisconsin, calling Obama "dangerous." Right to their hate-filled faces, McCain said Obama was an honorable man, not an easy thing to do in the midst of a heated election race.
Membership in the very exclusive Senate does create relationships which distinguish Senators from more ignorant voters. Those close to power do cling to one another, and avoid more crude partisan rivalries, although McCain did in fact challenge a fellow Senator to a fistfight at one point, but maybe that's just McCain's infamous temper.
Separation has come not between the American people but between them and their political leaders. Even with eight years of Bush exacerbating and working on our differences, the American people have more in common than opposed. Our political leaders--from both parties--have more in common with each other than with the people they represent. They are in short, the elite, maintainers of the Establishment.
Under Bush, so firmly have the partisan lines been drawn that we can't see how much we all have in common, how deeply our futures are intertwined. We have common interests that transcend partisan ideologies. No President can disconnect us from each other, although I'm sure that's how many have felt under Bush: isolated and unloved.
Rather than simply disenfranchise the political opposition, Barak Obama seems willing to embrace it. Rather than thrust the losers into the corner, like Bush did, Obama seems willing to contemplate some positions held by the Republicans, even to the point of threatening his popularity with the progressive base that brought him to power.
