UK reporters tend to be rather fanciful in their accounts of U.S. politics, so there’s every reason to hope that the report from the Leonard Doyle in the Independent about the negotiations between HRC and BHO about staffing the State Department reflects a strong imagination rather than good sources.
If it were true it would be hard to figure out which player had made the bigger blunder: Clinton for demanding that she be allowed to staff the State Department with her own loyalists, or Obama for agreeing.
Obama’s lack of interest in getting revenge on his defeated opponents is a welcome change from the recent past. But if he had a similar lack of interest in rewarding his friends, that wouldn’t speak well of his ethics or his judgment. As for Clinton, a Secretary of State known to be on the outs with the White House has relatively little power. Clinton ought to want to have a couple of strong Obama loyalists around her, or she’s going to keep losing fights with the National Security Adviser.
Given the choice of believing either that two savvy players agreed to make an appalling mistake and or that a British journalist got a Washington story completely wrong, it seems to me that William of Ockham would bet on sloppy journalism rather than stupid politics.
At least, I hope so.
