Hamlet on the Hudson, Part Two

This isn’t the first time that New York’s most famous politician hemmed and hawed and prevaricated about making an important, and very public, decision, thus leaving those dependent in one way or the other on that decision in a kind of limbo.

In 1992 New York governor Mario Cuomo … waited … and waited … and waited … to announce whether or not he would run for president, so long that he was dubbed “Hamlet on the Hudson.” At the very last instant, as an airplane idled on the tarmac ready to fly him to New Hampshire, Cuomo decided not to run.

Bill Clinton, for whom Cuomo was the main stumbling block to his presidential ambitions, made the comically self-serving statement that he was “moved” by the governor’s announcement. I’ll say (trans: relieved). Ironically, we now have a Clinton, Hillary (Bill too!), vying for “Hamlet on the Hudson” honors, as she engages in a tantalizing media dance, much to the Obama transition team’s consternation:

Will She or Won’t She (accept State, already)?

To Be or Not to Be (Secretary of State)?

Will He or Won’t He (disclose his financial records)?

President-elect Obama must be quite disingenuous if he honestly believed this process wouldn’t turn into the soap opera it’s become. It’s not as if he hasn’t been exposed to the Clintons’ machinations during the course of this long campaign.

And isn’t the Obama camp just a bit disingenuous to be complaining about leaks? Hell, Hillary and Bill may not have leaked that Hillary was “agonizing” over the decision, but this hasn’t stopped their acolytes from leaking.

Realistically, the delay probably has more to do with Bill and his foreign “affairs” than with Hillary. At the same time, the leak of Hillary’s Hamlet act – whether or not it’s true – has placed Obama in a difficult position.

At this point, Obama may need to give Hillary (and Bill) a weekend ultimatum, anticipating an announcement early next week, or cut her loose and cut his losses.

So much for “no Drama Obama”?