“Liberal” Media to Hillary: Stay where you are.

For some reason, “Apocalypse Now” popped into my head (it could be the pain killers, I’m still getting over a root canal.)

Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I’m a soldier.
Kurtz: You’re neither. You’re an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

Today’s errands boys are Thomas Friedman of the NY Times and the Washington Post’s David Broder. Both have turned out columns filled with praise for Senator Hillary Clinton. Both are sure she is more than up to the job of Secretary of State and both hope she stays in the Senate. It seems the Great Obama must not be sidetracked by the distractions of the Clintons! What they fail to mention is that most of the so-called distractions of the Clintons are created by the media in the first place. So in other words, the most qualified candidate for Secretary of State should not take the job because we (the MSM) will simply make it impossible for her to function since we will be spending inordinate amounts of time looking into every moment of private citizen and former President Clinton’s life, interpreting every utterance from him again and again and investigating every dime he makes. We will also dissect every facial expression from Hillary to figure out what she really must be thinking at every moment.

You can read Friedman here and Broder here.

Meanwhile, the man who will be President remains unvetted.

Friedman is concerned with the relationship between Senator Clinton and the President-elect. He argues that for the Secretary of State to be effective, the world must know she is speaking for the President.

Frankly, Obama could appoint his dear mother-in-law as secretary of state, and if he let the world know she was his envoy, she would be more effective than any ex-ambassador who had no relationship with the president.

Our current president never cared about this, so neither of his secretaries of state were particularly effective. Rather than having Colin Powell’s back, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld delighted in stabbing Powell in the back, particularly when he was on the road. But being close to the president is not enough. Condoleezza Rice had a close relationship with Bush, but Bush had no coherent worldview to animate her diplomacy, so all her travels added up to less than the sum of their miles. The two most impactful secretaries of state in the last 50 years were Baker and Henry Kissinger. Both were empowered by their presidents, and both could candidly talk back to their presidents.

Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they’re talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president.

It is a valid point. However, Senator Clinton’s performance on Obama’s behalf during this campaign more than proves she can be a team player. As a woman she has been forced to understand time and again how to succeed and forge ahead while playing a “subservient” role. As for their personal relationship, the MSM has been telling us about President-elect Obama’s great judgement for months. Shouldn’t they trust him on this one?

As for Broder, well he just wants Obama to think for himself.

What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations. One of the principal reasons he was elected was that, relying on his instincts, he came to the correct conclusion that war with Iraq was not in America’s interest. He was more right about that than most of us in Washington, including Hillary Clinton.

Uh, David, what if he doesn’t have a foreign policy? This could be a President-elect reaching out because he needs help shaping that policy. If you haven’t noticed, most of President-elect Obama’s foreign policy talks have been at Rashid Khalidi’s dinner table. Yes, there were some vanity trips abroad during the campaign, but the experience and knowledge is not there. I am surprised Broder is not praising that “superior judgement” for the President-elect actually recognizing this.

And of course, Broder reminds us she is married to Bill.

Even if Hillary Clinton were ready to play such a subordinate role, which she might be, in return for a promise that her voice would be heard in the most serious policy debates, the presence of Bill Clinton makes that a doubly difficult assignment. The former president has, through the Clinton Global Initiative and his own extensive foreign travels and worldwide contacts, made himself a force in international affairs. It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife’s responsibilities. But foreign leaders would inevitably see Bill Clinton as an alternative route toward influencing American policy. And he would be unlikely to remain silent.

Are you trying to say that Mrs. Clinton would not be able to act independently of her husband? You admit Bill is doing good work abroad, so he shouldn’t stop and she shouldn’t be Secretary of State because of that? If the President-elect wants her and she wants the job, this can be worked out. And my guess is that former President Clinton would do whatever it takes to see to it that she has what she wants.

There are reports out today, that Senator Clinton has reservations about the job. She may decide she is better off staying in the Senate. If nothing else, remaining in the Senate will make it easier for her to raise funds to retire the debt she incurred during the campaign. As Secretary of State those activities are severely restricted. As a Senator she is free to speak out on any matter whenever she feels it is necessary. As a cabinet member, you must carry the company line.

But it’s her decision to make. As for Friedman and Broder, another line from Apocalypse now comes to mind.

Civilian: “Terminate with extreme prejudice”

Terminate their columns, that is.