Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State - thoughts?
 

What are everyone's thoughts on Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State?

Background on me: It's probably not a secret that I'm a pretty devout liberal. I supported HRC over Barack Obama in the primary, not out of dislike for him - I'm jazzed he's our President-elect - but after a side-by-side comparison of the two helped me determine that I preferred HRC's policies. I was concerned about her electability and the liability of her husband, but being that I knew I'd be happy to vote for any of the Democratic candidates in November, I decided to cast my primary ballot for the candidate whose ideals most aligned with mine.

That being said, while I'm thrilled that the President-elect is considering HRC for State, I have had a low-level feeling of discomfort about it. This article in the Chicago Tribune is the closest I've found to a summary of my fears.

To summarize the article: The best Secretaries of State have not only had good relationships with world leaders and gravitas - both of which HRC brings to the table - but they've also been very close to their Presidents, such that on the world stage there was never any doubt that the Secretaries of State were speaking for their Presidents. Specific concerns are that HRC has not publicly abandoned the notion of ending her political career after her tenure as Secretary of State. What role will be played by her own positioning of herself for future electability? Will world leaders always believe that she's the voice of the President and not speaking for herself? Also, even if she walks the line, her husband may still be a rogue. WJC has been known to call reporters on his own in an effort to spin a story in his wife's favor. Of course, coming from a former President, those conversations always appear in print. Will the former President be able to hold his tongue and let his wife take some heat for her boss, which would be her job as Secretary of State?

Thoughts?

My thoughts? I've been expecting it, so it comes as no surprise.

I think it is a good idea. Hillary is more moderate than Obama. So this will be a good balance. I would have very much preferred her become the Democratic candidate- I would have even voted for her if she had won and McCain had not picked Palin.

I think it's a mistake. Ms. Clinton is one of the most divisive figures in American politics today, and as such, while she will likely (not certain, but likely) take her marching orders from O if necessary, she is not a good representative of what America wants. I believe she'll get the nod, and take it (since her presidential election chances are gone), but I think it will hurt the nation in the long run.

I detest her, but I don't mind it.

I love her and would love to her on board! The past is the past and I'm sure she's more than ready to look toward the future of America.

Ha i'm the opposite.

I really like her (I was a Hillary Supporter as well) but I don't think this is a good move.

I would have rather seen Richardson (who i'm lukewarm about) get the position over Clinton.

I don't care too much for her, so I don't want her to have it. Even though the Clinton brand, as we can call it, is a symbol of division here in the States, the name is still gold in some countries throughout the world.

I agree with this completely. I compare her to the two Secretaries of State that I have seen most in action - Powell and Rice. Even though they were appointed by a divisive Republican President, they are both more moderate in their political views and therefore more palatable to the majority of Americans. The average folks don't have negative gut reactions to the two of them as some tend to have about HRC.

Additionally, both of them have had more "life" experience in foreign relations as Chairman of the JCS and as a career student/researcher/advisor of international affairs. Sure HRC has had some exposure to foreign relations through her position as Senator, but just not as much single-area focus as the previous Secretaries.

But I don't necessarily have a better suggestion!

i agree totally...im very wary of HRC for the pick of Sec. of State...i just don't see her as one to 'toe the line' as it were and to be seen as a unifier. she...well she strikes me as the ultimate opportunist and so i am never fully sure if her actions are or will be with the nation's best interests at heart...

that said, i think she's smart as all get out, and i believe she's knowledgeable enough for the job, but it is her personality, reputation, and motive that i am wary of.

and though when things got ugly during the primaries she was able to get Bill to hush up, i wonder if having all that 'star power' in having a former US President as your husband and confidant will in some way hinder her service.

but for whatever reason Obama wants her...so i suppose that if she accepts, we'll just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best

Whatever Obama is smoking, I think it's very inconsiderate of him not to share with others. This is a horrible, horrible decision on his part and I think that both the POTUS and VP are going to have to watch their backs constantly. She doesn't give a crap about them, their vision or the nation...only about herself.

I was joking before when I told my friend to make me a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Ralph" t-shirt....but now I'm kind of not.

Don't like the choice at all. Bill Richardson would've been my choice. She was in bed with the neo-cons and I would suggest she still listen to the AEI type of people.

I am a big fan of Hillary Clinton and believe that she will do a good job. But I wonder how she will be able to work together with Rahm Emanuel, Bill Richardson, & Joe Biden.

Biden was selected as VP for his foreign relations experience and honestly, I think he would have made a better choice for Secretary of State.

I would have liked to have seen her as Secretary of Education, Labor, or Energy.

Unfortunately, President-Elect Obama has not returned my phone calls yet.;)

I said this in another thread, but I think Obama is playing by the old adage "keep your friends close and your enemies closer."

Whether or not she is an "enemy" is a matter of opinion. Whether or not she would have been a constituency in the Senate which would have to be accounted for and could possibly be an obstacle seems to be a definite possibility, if not a certainty.

By appointing HRC to the SoS post, he's effectively removed her ability to be an obstacle and further, he makes it in her best interest that his administration does well.

A master stroke, IMHO.

Bill Richardson? Really? Or are you being funny?

I think there are better qualified individuals, but since cabinet appointments are more about partisan politics than with actually finding the best qualified person for the role, I'd say that Kevin is pretty much dead on.

Its official, Clinton got it... Obama Biden Pelosi and Byrd better watch their backs, because Clinton does whatever it takes to be the pres...

whose Byrd? did the chain of command change again?

I think the only thing that Byrd has to worry about is Father Time. President> Vice President> Speaker of the House> Secretary of State.

I agree with the other dissenters who have posted, but I also feel that the post should be held by a man. Yeah, I know that's not a popular opinion, but our SoS should be able to speak to and be respected by foreign leaders of all religions.

Corrected.

I hate Bill Richardson and can't believe that there are people on this board who still like him after stabbing the Clintons in the back. I like Hillary more than almost any other democrat because I feel that she is very experienced and capable, something that Obama will need.

Nevermind, I figured it out.

Well, this will make her the democratic shoe-in for 2016, of course, she will be 69 by then... I am worried that if that is her aims, that she will do whatever it is in her power to make sure that this administration goes her way, so that the democrats are in favor in that year. This makes me nervous.

yeah...i don't think she'll do a good job

Wait, what?

First off, she'll have little to no power to shape "this administration" . . . wow. Second, instead of making it go "her way" she should likely ensure that it is popular, to prevent the kind of mid-term meltdown that happened while her husband is in office. That doesn't mean any sort of self-serving motive, but rather a likely willingness to play ball as long as the Obama administration doesn't falter horrifically.

Also, most sources think there is very little chance she'll run in 2016 (or 2012 or 2020 or whatever) after the stress of this campaign.

I mean . . . if you have a substantive policy issue, I can see being nervous, but she's fairly well qualified and gives a completely different angle than most SOS nominees (she's not from a military background; her heavy support of international woman's rights movements).

I'll even give you a hint: her beliefs on Iraq don't exactly mesh well with Obama's stated stance, not to mention Iran. And even in spite of that, I think this is a relatively inspired pick - and I really don't like HRC all that much.

even so, i think other roles would be better suited to clinton
 

Funny you say that because I thought the same thing. Well, I hope she does a great job.

Umm... She is highly qualified for a lot of positions, I agree, but Secretary of State? I thought it was her foreign affairs jabber is what loss me during the primaries... esp. her retelling of true events that are almost as bad as Palin's Russia experience...

What qualifies her for anything, including Secretary of State? Six years in Senate do not a foreign-policy expert make, by a long shot.

Do we remember the "under sniper fire" story?

Remember, it was Tina Fey who made the Russia comment, and the Africa comment has been shown to be a hoax.

AND, she pilloried Bill Richardson because he dared to let his conscience, rather than party loyalty, be his guide. Mind you, Richardson is another kook, but Her Royal Hillary's treatment of him was atrocious.

I understand what you are saying and in the short term it may seem reasonable, but basically it rewards the sexism of other nations and perpetuates their bias. If we're ever really in a situation where we believe the sex of the SoS will make a difference in achieving OUR aims, since so far we've had male Presidents, we can handle things at a different level.

Oh - a hawk when convenient, I see?

Life isn't (and shouldn't be) the union hall - seniority is garbage, meritocracy is fundamental. Let's focus less on temporal or ephemeral BS like "experience" and go for some more tangible qualities:

-Her hawkish views on Iraq/Iran (considerably further right than Obama) give a nicely-rounded view on foreign policy to the cabinet, especially when combined with Gates. Since you've shown yourself to be, basically, a far-right Republican, you should appreciate this sort of ideal - it's not stacked with "Obamabots," a decision that can only benefit us all.

-Her name/reputation is gold in many parts of the world, an important consideration when rebuilding from literally the lowest point in the history of America in terms of foreign reputation.

-She does indeed have substantive foreign diplomacy experience, although accrued as First Lady - you can argue that it was done for political gain, and we can point out her exaggerations, but that doesn't change the actual experience. Sure, her baggy ass didn't get shot at in Serbia, but she has visited 80+ nations, set up discussions and negotiations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India (which Bush rejected, btw), etc. It's still there, even if we accept that her job is mostly to fly and wave.

-The angle she brings (more interested in human/woman's rights than any previous SOS) has genuine utility - far more so than, say, John Kerry's corpse (but he has EXPERIENCE!).

-Additionally, of all the major candidates save McCain, HRC showed the best preparation and ability to discuss and adapt to foreign policy concerns during the primary season - she's a wonk.

You can argue for intangibles, or argue that she sucks, or argue that you don't like her, but I doubt you can really rebut that she's uniquely qualified for the position. That doesn't mean she's necessarily best-qualified . . .

Right, Tina Fey said the words, "I can see Russia from my house"... but Palin still said she had FP experience because Russia is Alaska's neighbors///

The under sniper fire was the story I was alluding to about Clinton...


BULLSHIT! How?

Plus the fact that she's pretty darn intelligent (Wellesley undergrad, Yale law). I'm not her biggest fan, by any means, and I think this is a high risk pick for Obama, but saying she's not qualified for "anything" is going a bit too far.

Umm . . . did you watch any of the debates? Anything at all? This isn't just my opinion, by the way - it was basically the consensus among pundits that HRC was the best-prepared during foreign policy debates (other than McCain), in spite of her somewhat hawkish stance, and she is known for being pedantic and constantly on-point in her briefing, preparation and talking points, which has real value for the Obama campaign. She might exaggerate, but she won't be caught with her pants down because she didn't do her homework (see: which papers does she read?).

I think it is pretty easy to see why Obama picked HRC for Secretary of State. He is simply planning ahead.

A senator can take a year or two off from his/ her work obligations to run for President. Heck, we might not even notice if they aren't doing their job for weeks and weeks on end.

Secretary of State can't exactly do that, now can she?? She can't even utter a word in public to criticize the President she serves!

By selecting her for this position, I think Obama effectively elimnates HRC's option of running for president in 2012 AND does a great job of shutting her mouth to disagreement for 4 years. Pretty smart move, when you think about it!

This really just doesn't happen. The incumbent very rarely faces serious reelection pressure, and there's almost no way HRC would run against him unless things had fallen through the floor (in which case Obama is screwed anyway).

I certainly wouldn't say that.

even though rice did a good job, i always wondered how the middle east muslams thought of it having a woman instead of a man to deal with. i wonder also about all of husband bills bagage.

Tom, I don't think Bill has any baggage overseas. As KSigRC noted, the Clinton reputation (however overrated it has become here) has popularity in other parts of the world.