On The Secretary of State (The Cohen Endorsement)

I must admit that I've been feeling stunned the last few days.

Oh, not about the presidential election, but about President-Elect Barack Obama's selections to his cabinet, which is quickly becoming filled with rivals including many of those Clintonistas--even the grand Senator from New York herself. The rumor is that Sen. Hillary Clinton has been offered the position of Secretary of State.

Now, as the Chicago Tribune, among others explained, there's a historical precedent for this kind of selection called the "Team of Rivals." Past president Abraham Lincoln embraced it and apparently so will the Lincolnesque Obama.

To that end, there's also a precedent of sorts for U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen's endorsement of Clinton for Secretary of State in a column that appeared on The Huffington Post Friday: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn).

During the election, Bachmann called Obama "very anti-American" and of course, she later apologized--or better yet, sought to clarify--when the criticism came and nearly derailed her re-election. And post-election, Bachmann praised Obama, calling his victory "a tremendous signal we sent."

The parallel exists with Cohen, who during the Democratic primaries compared Clinton's refusal to quit campaigning once she had no mathematical chance of winning to Glenn Close's character in "Fatal Attraction." Cohen profusely apologized too. In Friday's column, he praised Clinton even more:

During his first year in office, President Obama will likely need to keep a laser's focus on domestic issues as we try to climb out of the economic hole dug under eight years of President Bush's financial policies. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to select someone with the experience, toughness, and depth of knowledge to handle increased authority in foreign policy and deliver on President Obama's promise to the world; and who could be more qualified to manage the duties of the nation's top diplomat than the internationally revered junior Senator from New York? She brings two decades worth of foreign policy experience, much of it on the front lines as First Lady during one of the most peaceful eras in U.S. history. Furthermore, she brings instant prestige and credibility to the position; no foreign leader would ever feel diminished sitting in the presence of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I have had the privilege to know the Clintons since their days in neighboring Arkansas, and I know of no one more intelligent and capable of tackling the enormous challenges we face abroad than Hillary Rodham Clinton. During the Bush Administration, the country watched with horror the consequences of rewarding campaign benefactors with important positions within the executive branch (see: Brown, Michael), and President-elect Obama's selection of Senator Clinton would signify a remarkable step in the right (and opposite) direction by rewarding accomplishment, intelligence and talent rather than patronage.

Sure. Right. Of course. Whatever.

I don't mean to be dismissive. I guess, I'm expected to look beyond the words said in the heated moments of campaigning as pure rhetoric not something that the candidate actually meant. I mean, is it not fair game to go back and review previous statements? I know, it's a matter of context and folks have the right to change their minds and stances. That sort of excuses Cohen and Bachmann, even if we question their motivations.

I'm not so sure about Clinton as Secretary of State, though. Sure, I can rationalize the foreign policy arguments that she made against Obama during the primaries. She offered a different point of view.

But it's hard to wash over the disputed accounts of her "brokering" a peace treaty in Northern Ireland or the sniper fire-that-wasn't in Bosnia--the very things she used to bolster her case to be this nation's premier representative to the world:

When you make a false claim that's in your prepared remarks, it's not misspeaking, it's misleading," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

"It's part of a troubling pattern of Senator Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience."

Guess, we should all move on now since the pattern, as troubling it was then, isn't how we should see it now. After all, she apologized.

It's all good, right?

Sure. Right. Of course. Whatever.