Questioning Hillary's Judgment on This One

NoZed Avenger

Penultimate Amazing
N
Joined
Apr 19, 2002
Messages
11,286
My opinions regarding HC have fluctuated, especially depending on the topic.

But I never thought that she was stupid.

However, I have to question the wisdom -- from a political standpoint as well as in real life -- of this:


Michael Hirsch reports that one of Hillary's most influential advisers on national security/foreign policy is Sandy Berger, of the documents shoved down his pants fame.

The more experienced Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has relied largely on her husband and a triumvirate of senior officials from his presidency—former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke and former national-security adviser Sandy Berger (who tries to keep a low profile after pleading guilty in 2005 to misdemeanor charges of taking classified material without authorization).
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20628439/site/newsweek/page/0/

Whatever her alleged faults, HC has always struck me as intelligent and (usually) politically savvy. Berger's presence as an adviser is therefore baffling to me.

Put aside for the moment the ethical questions about using someone who voluntarily gave up his law license to avoid cross-examination under oath for deliberately stealing and destroying classified documents. Even looking at it from a purely political angle, why would you hire the guy? The suspicion against him at the time was that he destroyed documents to avoid having Clinton look bad regarding 9/11. Won't this open her up to immediate, loud, and bothersome charges that his position is payback for that shady business? Won't this put the episode back into the public spotlight?

Is his expertise so indispensable that it is worth opening yourself up to these attacks?

Does anyone else understand this move?
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Won't this open her up to immediate, loud, and bothersome charges that his position is payback for that shady business? Won't this put the episode back into the public spotlight?
Click to expand...

Indeed, I think it will. And the thing is, we know so little about what exactly he did and why he did it that there's really no counterargument that Clinton can make to that accusation. I find the pick of Berger to be very troubling, and even the most generous reading (that she really thinks he's so useful that she'd put up with the stink) doesn't cut the mustard.
 
Ziggurat said:
Indeed, I think it will. And the thing is, we know so little about what exactly he did and why he did it that there's really no counterargument that Clinton can make to that accusation. I find the pick of Berger to be very troubling, and even the most generous reading (that she really thinks he's so useful that she'd put up with the stink) doesn't cut the mustard.
Click to expand...

And that's kind of my real question. Regardless of what you thought about what Berger did or didn't do, what kind of political judgment leads you to pick him for a prominent role as an adviser?

Is there something I am missing? This looks like a bad decision from any angle.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Berger's presence as an adviser is therefore baffling to me.


Does anyone else understand this move?
Click to expand...

Yes I Do understand. The same logic can be applied that HC "kept BC on", even though he had improprieties. Right?
 
Iamme said:
Yes I Do understand. The same logic can be applied that HC "kept BC on", even though he had improprieties. Right?
Click to expand...

I don't really see a parallel. President Clinton has plenty of baggage, but there are a ton of differences. First, he was and is still pretty popular, overall. Second, his baggage is old news, and cannot be fashioned into much of a weapon at this point (a lot of people would be tired of hearing it). Berger's stuff still has life, at least potentially. Third, she was already married to President Clinton and stayed married to him throughout the presidency. Dumping him would not be a good campaign move, and would expected to alientate as many people as it might potentially help with. Fourth, Bill is the husband, but is not listed as part of her cabinet.

There are some others of varying importance, but the main points appear to be that (1) she is already tied to President Clinton's image, for better or worse (dissassociating herself would be complicated and ineffective -- as opposed to Berger, whom she actively placed into her proposed cabinet), and (2) "Keeping" President Clinton has upsides and downsides -- the upside arguably outweighs the good side. With Berger, I don't see the upside. Is there one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom