I find a couple of things troubling about the latest Clinton assault on Bill Richardson.  For starters, I’m still somewhat surprised by what the Clintons seem to brand as “loyalty.”  You would like to think that Bill Richardson’s loyalty was paid in full during his years of service in the White House.  Indeed, as Matt Yglesias noted last week, you would like to think that most presidential appointments are premised on the appointee’s resume; rather than some bizarre expectation of quid pro quo-style patronage. 

This also says something about the way the Clintons view politics.  Working more like a cartel or the mafia, choice is never something that should come into play.  It’s always about entitlement and rank with them.  I understand that these things have always been a factor in American politics, but that doesn’t make it excusable.  The notion that Bill Richardson can’t simply use his judgment and change his mind shows that this concept of “leadership” that politicians love to harp on is really a trifling annoyance for them.  Leadership requires risks and unpopular choices; something the Clintons have no time or patience for unless it immediately benefits them.

More at memeorandum         

Trackback URI | Comments RSS