The Clintons are back -- more cost than benefit?

Even more so when you work as a husband-and-wife political ensemble. Now while Bill Clinton got away with a certain number of imperfections -- he is, after all, a great statesman and able speaker and knows how to raise funds for good causes -- there is always this certain air of infidelity attached to his years in office. His wife, Hillary, had much to endure family-wise, correct. But she is part of the same Clinton clan.

In a period of global financial meltdown with terrorism lurking in every corner, we need strong, assertive leaders. We need leaders without past ballast. The name "Clinton," despite its many domestic and foreign achievements, is forever linked to personal imperfections and marital chaos, too.

I would go so far as to say that President-elect Barack Obama has gambled a lot of his newly won political capital by allowing another Clinton husband-wife team to get back into the spotlight. Hillary Clinton does not come alone; she comes as a package. Lights on and center stage one more time for her husband, Bill Clinton? He has the global relationships. He knows everyone from Nelson Mandela to Tony Blair and most in between. Every meeting where the new secretary of state is present will always have this notion of "By the way, Mrs. Clinton, how is your husband?"

I do not say that it is wrong per se that after a successful husband ends his career or public mandate, his wife takes over. Of course not; we do not want women to be sidekicks for successful men. Equal partners make a modern marriage tick.

What are the lessons to be learned for Turkey? While everyone applauds Obama, I shall act today as the whistleblower who argues that political correctness alone does not make good statesmen. Let me elaborate.

If every newly elected president, minister or mayor continues to employ people from the previous administration, change is reduced to a zero-sum game. You do need advisers who have worked in the capital or administration before, correct, but if you proclaim the winds of change, you must set examples. I was hoping Obama had the courage to finally say "no" to Hillary Clinton, nominate a person with better credentials and reposition the United States at the forefront of pursuing democracy and aiding other nations that are less fortunate. Obama reinstated nothing but the previous Democratic Party status quo -- except for himself, that is. A secretary of state is in many instances more visible than the president himself, particularly abroad. A lot of responsibility rests on his or her shoulders. The Clinton years were over -- or so I thought.

The Democratic Party is heavily indebted to the Armenian lobby in Washington, and I do not see any serious change in direction with regards to solving this issue in Turkey's favor. The Clintons never really actively pursued the route toward reunifying Cyprus -- not that it is an American job, but support toward reunifying the island in the United Nations would not harm, either -- hence, again nothing on the plus side. Bill Clinton was a friend of certain EU leaders but never embarked on a "serious" proactive stance with regard to Turkey's EU membership, which was in the cards even before the EU Helsinki summit took place during his term in office. It is a mixed bag of political success stories and failures alike, to say the least.

The other night I watched ABC News live from the US. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin addressed a crowd of her Republican Party supporters the evening before Saxby Chandliss fought for his US Senate seat in Georgia. She gave a motivating, nearly flamboyant speech to a cheering crowd. The day after "her" candidate secured his political return ticket to Washington. I am not saying that Mrs. Palin may not have imperfections (we all do), but being in the public eye or basically becoming public property merits some extra scrutiny. Mrs. Clinton will have to measure herself against both Palin, who may well run for president in 2012, and accept a comparison with Condoleezza Rice, too.