Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, November 18, 2008 08:44 PM

  @Joan Walsh

  "Andrea Mitchell of NBC first reported the Clinton/SoS rumor and she said she had two OBAMA advisors as sources."

  Oh, yeah? What were their names? You don't think reporters lie? To protect their political sources? Have you been involved in political media long, or were you actually born yesterday?

  I think it's perfectly safe to say the Hillary camp is behind the leaks. Hillary has everything to gain, Obama nothing. Hillary might, with luck, generate enough buzz that her appointment becomes a fait accompli, and everyone forgets to check on where all that beautiful grubby money came from.

  Also, if she were going to turn down the appointment, we'd never have heard about it at all.

  Now we get that she's "undecided". This piece of utterly avoidable drama will continue for the next couple of days, and then she'll announce on Thursday afternoon that she's decided to take it, milking every gram of media attention she can manage.

  If that doesn't show Obama that he's making a big mistake bringing her on board, nothing will. Sure, she's knowledgeable enough about foreign affairs, even if she can't tell when she's being shot at, and sees political and diplomatic wisdom by lying about other countries, but what are the odds that she'll screw up badly enough in the job that he'll have a politically opportune moment to fire her? Probably not before she's started a few wars and shoveled nearly infinite money towards her husband, who seems to have developed a taste for the finer things in life, like becoming richer than God.

  This is a substantial mistake. Obama's insistence that no one else in his administration provide drama just leaves the spotlight free for the Hill and Bill Show. What a colossal disappointment.

  —Thadeus Crumb Read Thadeus Crumb's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel