Clinton as Secretary of State?
There are quiet rumors that Senator Hillary Clinton may be offered the position of Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. Obama met Clinton late Thursday in Chicago to discuss a possible role for her in 2009. Granting there is nothing concrete at this point, one Clinton “friend” has stated that she would probably take the secretary of state job if offered. Many have speculated that the Secretary of State job is between Clinton and Senators John Kerry and Tom Daschle. Although I’ve heard other names such as Richard Holbrooke, Dennis Ross, and Bill Richardson.
This brings to light an interesting proposition, would Senator Clinton make a good Secretary of State? I’m not really sure. Here’s my intuitive reaction for why and why not.
Why She Would
Senator Clinton spent 8 years in an administration that dealt directly with the post-Cold War international system. It certainly played a hand in events such as the break-up of Yugoslavia and dealing with a post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Her lawyer instincts and debate-like mentality would make her an ideal negotiator. Clint has been long known for her work on international women’s issues and human rights. She comes across as a institutional-friendly neo-liberal, much like Obama. They could use their new garnered political capital and progressive mindsets to transform the way American deals with the world. Also, picking the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member could work wonders in healing party divisions for the Democrats — something that may turn out to be of great importance for Obama.
Why She Wouldn’t
What real foreign policy experience does she really have? Being the First Lady doesn’t exactly qualify one for the position of chief negotiator. Besides, the age of the Clintonians is over. This is 2008, not 1992. The Clinton political strategy proved to be largely ineffective in bring about any lasting international change. Clinton seems to be part of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton (Mr.) era. Unmitigated prosperity and hands-off policies seemed alright at first, but have gone belly-up as of late. In addition to being a part of the New World Order optimism, Clinton seems at odds with Obama’s negotiation-stance. During the campaign, Clinton took the more conservative/realist position on matters of negotiating with enemies. She said that she didn’t believe in unconditional negotiations, a stance opposite of Obama’s. Although this may simply have been unsubstantiated Primary scuttle butt, it does play into the notion that Clinton is from an older era.
Perhaps the most compelling reason against Clinton as Secretary of State is the fact that Clinton’s leadership may seriously be needed in the Senate. Passing New Deal-like legislation won’t be easy. It seemed as if Clinton and Obama at least agreed on the passage of a universal health care bill; it seems Clinton could help negotiate terms and bridge any internal Senate strife, particularly between Democrats.
****
In reality, I find it hard to believe that Obama would pick his former archerival and one-time establishment-candidate for such a powerful position. It may be in the best interests of Obama’s new administration that he go for something new. However, this may not be the case. It seems that Obama isn’t necessarily going for new, but for strategic. His designation of Rahm Emanuel, senior advisor to Clinton from 93-98′, as Chief of Staff, and his indication of keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, signifies to me that Obama isn’t necessarily going for new and uknown, but for tried and true. So, again, I’m torn as to whether this would be good.
I am very confident that she would be very good if she accepted the position, but what is in it for her? The seanate is her future and I hope that she uses all of her talents for the causes that she and so many other Americans believe in (health care for everyone and equal pay for women to name a few). She blazed a trial for us and I look forward to see where sh takes us…
Indeed. I do think that her leadership in the Senate is imperative to passing key pieces of legislation, i.e. universal health care.
She has certainly set a new role for women in politics, and remaining in the Senate for be best for that movement.
i’m gonna have to agree w/ Catherine. i think it’d be a great political move on obama’s part and i think she could do an excellent job (much better than kerry anway), but i can see hillary wanting to stay out of the obama administration (at least at first) so she can tell us all “i told you so” when ever he screws up. i also think she has a excellent chance of taking over harry reid’s spot if he ever steps down/gets removed/isn’t reelected in 2010. And, she made her career on domestic issues, not foreign (of course, adding sec of state to her resume likely would make her the most qualified person to never be elected president since adlai stevenson)
I vote yes.
That’s it?
Do you think she wants the position, Kolby? Or any position in the Obama administration?
If she’s interested, I don’t think she wants any position. She’ll want to make a major contribution.
State is the only position (other than the SC) that I can see her taking (besides emergency replacement president). I think she would be fantastic, and I think its good for Obama in that it shows (once again) that he isn’t some sort of far left loon. Its certainly better than either Kerry or Richardson getting it.
I think agree.
Obama’s transition team is full of Clintonians.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15648.html
Perhaps it was imprudent of me to say that the Clintonian era is over. Maybe in terms of international relations, but definitely not in terms of beltway politics. So it seems.
I do hope that Clinton and Obama can work things out together. That way they would control the Democratic party. Who wants to oppose two of the most powerful Democratic leaders? If they can get Baucus, Kennedy, and Pelosi to cooperate, I don’t see much opposition. Do you?
When I hear of so many Washington insiders being considered for appts in the new regime, I’m wondering where the “change” he promised is coming from? Didn’t he campaign against “Washington” and the old way of doing things?
Wouldn’t the old way of doing things be appointing only “yes men/women” and party loyalists?
What’s going to happen to this blog now that the election is over? Looks like political blogs everywhere are collapsing in the absence of news!
What are you talking about steven?
i mean seriously, you’re undecided about clinton?
what about? rahm? ross? gates? zbig? rice? gonzales? negroponte? chertoff? blackwater? john roberts? defense authorization act? hr 2863, 4939, 2419, 5682? the zarqawi bombing? patriot act? military commission? fisa? etc?
where does the concession end?
What are you talking about jesse?
There is a political advantage you are overlooking. Obama will be running the FP in his administration so why not get a well-known figure head? Plus he gets rid of his biggest rival in the Democratic party. She cannot oppose him on health care or anything else for that matter. She will have to chance to put up a challenge to him in 12 (assuming there were an opportunity). As far as I’m concerned it’s a heck of a lot better than Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton.
hey everybody! jesse’s back with more of his crazy shit!
She will have to chance to put up a challenge to him in 12 (assuming there were an opportunity)
Huh? How nuts would it be for a secretary of state to mount a primary challenge against the president’s reelection campaign?
leave me alone j_ball
brett, these are all things obama has given his stamp of approval for. and that was a short list.