In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 2169 of 2798
- next ›
Hillary at State
HILLARY AT STATE....The latest on the Hillary front:
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
....Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.
I don't know what sources the Guardian bases this on, but there are no weasel words in that first sentence. If this really turns out to be true, color me gobsmacked.
Me too.
[Please stand by... looking up a recipe for a chocolate cake in the shape of a hat.]
Great! I'll see if I can dig up that chocolate cake shaped hat.
I think it's a good move for her. She's 61, and probably doesn't want to stay in the Senate for 16 more years anyway.
It's high profile, and maybe she things that people will get accustomed to seeing her at such a high level, mitigating the demonization that has been done.
Me too, too.
Sullivan has the perfect analysis of this. Obama to Clinton: "You voted for this bloody war. Now get us out." I still think Bill was screw this up for Hillary and rescue you from chocolate hell.
No !!!
"...if you think the world will be better when run by women then you don`t remember high school..." - Madeline Albright
I couldn't believe that you were so adverse to the idea in the first place. It seems like such a natural fit (for many reasons) for both. Talk about a "win/win". Maybe the fires had you distracted.
How does one get in on this chocolate cake deal?
I have no doubt Hillary will do a great job. Of the other
candidates who have been mentioned, only Richardson comes close.
Those who are surprised at the prospect of Hillary abandoning her Senate seat for the State Department just don't get it. This is Ms. Clinton's opportunity to make her indelible mark on the world. Outside of Joe Biden, none of us have any idea what kind of crises will unfold on the world stage in the next four years, but whatever happens, Hillary would have multiple opportunities to make history. I can't name even a handful of U.S. Senators from 1973, but we all know who the Secretary of State was.
What Dave Brown said. Plus, is it really a reasonable ambition to be senator for life? Just because you can walk and talk and pass legislation at age 75+, is that how you would want to spend your years? Hillary could do a lot of other career things after a 4-yr gig at the State Dept. Like write another book about being SecState. Maybe she looks over at the fun that Bill is having while being an ex-Pres.
EL,
I suppose one man's perfect analysis is another's inanity. Sullivan begins from what I see as a flawed premise, namely, that Obama viewed the Iraq war as something other than a club with which to beat primary opponents. Personally, I doubt whether Obama ever gave a damm about Iraq. As I recall, Obama gave one, possibly two, speeches in the period 2002 to 2004 against the Iraq war but thereafter did not actively oppose it and, in fact, supported it in every way possible since being elected to the Senate.
I am not aware that Obama had any leadership role in the anti-Iraq war movement. Can you or Sully point to anything that he did (or even said) in the run-up to the invasion, which establishes his "legendary " opposition to the war?
More specifically, what did he do in the Senate to end the war and bring our troops home? What did he risk? What price was he prepared to pay to take a stand on this burning moral issue? What legislation did he introduce to end the war?
I am sorry to rehash this but really nobody knows how Obama would have voted had he been in the Senate during the run-up to the war. But if his actions since his election to the Senate are any guide, he probably would have voted for the war for exactly the same reason that Clinton and his other Democratic primary opponents did.
No cake for you, Guthman.
...but there are no weasel words in that first sentence.
Indeed, but did I miss something? I thought an Obama offer of SoS for HRC was still in the rumour stage... nothing 'official' as of yet. Again, did I miss the official press release from team Obama offering Hillary the SoS spot?
I'm surprised a whole bunch of things. I'm surprised that anyone thinks Hillary will run for POTUS in 2016 when she will be 69. No, imho, her sole shot at the WH was this year, unless Obama lost. The US is moving on, and Hillary's generation has had their time in the sun. I'm also surprised that anyone thinks being a senator was ever HRC's ambition. Winning a senate seat was simply the first stage in the Clinton 2008 campaign to regain the WH. The seat is of no further use to her.
Finally, I am surprised that anyone thinks HRC has the experience to be SOS. She is a very competent woman, yes, but her credentials are very different from those of previous Secretarys of State: Condi Rice has a PhD in Political Science with an emphasis on Russia & eastern European nations. Colin Powell was a 5-star general. Madeline Albright is a distinguished political scientist, the daughter of a diplomat, fluent in four or five languages.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Hillary Clinton said yes to an offer of SoS. It is much higher profile position than mere junior senator from NY, a huge consolation prize.
PTate in MN,
Yes, it's true that Rice and Powell possessed superb academic and professional credentials for the SOS position. I won't bore everyone with a recitation of how well that's worked out for them (and the country) except to say that such qualifications would appear to be vastly overrated and should probably not be considered as an indicator of how one will perform in such a job.
By contrast, the war criminal Henry Kissinger is considered by many (including me) to be the very model of an excellent Secretary of State who conducted the nation's foreign policy brilliantly and effectively (albeit immorally and largely in pursuit of evil goals). Yet Kissinger had never served in either the national security or diplomatic establishment prior to his appointment as Nixon's national security advisor.
Looking back, of course, we think of Kissinger as the archetypal SOS but in fact his appointment as national security advisor was heavily criticized on grounds similar to the criticism being made here regarding Sen. Clinton's lack of academic and professional experience.
Smoke this over: Rice was among the most highly qualified persons (in terms of her credentials) ever to serve as Secretary of State. She is almost universally regarded as ineffective, as having been in over her head and indeed quite possibly the worst ever Secretary of State. Kissinger, criminality and immorality aside, was probably the best, most capable and most effective NAS and SOS in history.
In any event, she is as well qualified and experienced to be SOS as Obama is to be President. And the two biggest flops as SOS in history had better "credentials" than both Obama and Clinton combined.
Clinton will do a great job as Secretary of State.
No, the real problem will be when we dig up all the so called liberal bloggers and commenters who assured us that Clinton as VP or Secretary of State would try to do a Vince Foster on President Obama.
Condi Rice earner her PhD from a school that was at best second rate at the time.
She completely missed the collapse of the Soviet Union during the era of Bush I. As NSA she completely ignored Al Qaeda. Madame Secretary's qualification for her current job was Shrub liked her.
You do know that this may cause Sullivan's Obama love and his Clinton hate to basically drive him insane? I think this isn't being chatted about enough on the blogosphere. It would be like matter and anti-matter creating a massive explosion.
What I find bewildering about the prospect of Clinton at State is that she has never struck me as very enthusiastic about foreign policy. She had to gin up positions on international affairs for her candidacy, but it was clear that once back in the White House she would hand the whole thing off to Richard Holbrooke.
I remain surprised that you would be surprised that Clinton would want the job. I agree with commenters above who suggest that she doesn't have any ambition to run again in 2016. So SoS is a good 'legacy' job.
Both Clintons are more international than national figures - this is a good place for her to exercise a more global portfolio.
Hey-Take it easy, it all fits together. Any world leader that denies Hillary's proposals will be put on her list of people to "Get" when she becomes President! That philosophy comes straight from the Bush-Cheney Whitehouse and hopefully will change to a uniting rather than devisive force under Obama!
I continue to be amazed by the power of many commenters to move beyond "opinion" to fact when looking into the minds and motivations of others (usually with the slimmest of information and evidence). But, then, EVERYBODY owns the truth about THE CLINTONS, I guess...not only what they think but what they will for certain DO...time for another hobby.
Outside of Joe Biden, none of us have any idea what kind of crises will unfold on the world stage in the next four years
And inside of Joe Biden, it's too dark to read. But if you really think he knows that stuff, why aren't you asking him?
Seriously, I'm surprised if she wants it. Big prestige of course, but not really her area of interest. Plus, not a legacy post. If she sorted out health care in the Senate, it would be known as the Clinton Act till the end of time, but if she re-established relations with Iran, the history books would say that Obama did it.
Given what happened to Powell and Rice, perhaps the SoS needs the political clout and ability to push back against the Sec of Defense more than she needs international politics credentials.
ERIC - "What I find bewildering about the prospect of Clinton at State is that she has never struck me as very enthusiastic about foreign policy."
I agree. What really pisses me off about all the chatter on this is how it's all focused on the politics of the decision - bringing her inside the tent, removing her as a potential power centre outside the administration.... HOW ABOUT IS SHE THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE FREAKING JOB!!!!
To me SoS requires, or should require, a thorough understanding of international politics and strong negotiating and diplomatic skills. Here does Hillary fit with that? Foreign policy has never been her strong suit. Can she even explain the balance of power system in 19th century Europe and how the alliance structure contributed to WW1? To me the issues that matter to her are domestic.
I really don't think it's a good fit and is more about giving Hillary a Scooby Snack for being a good soldier in the campaign rather than giving her a dossier for which she has the proper knowledge or skill set.
I scoured this post and comments for the words "Israel" or "Palestine." If Hillary and Bill share views, then it seems clear to me that she would like to be the one to arrange peace between these parties. If she and Obama could do it, nobody would ever forget them. Bill got close, and dearly wanted to succeed in this. She has the credibility, as a friend of Israel, to finish the job. That would be great.
One point that nobody seems to be mentioning is that the SOS position maybe the promise that Obama had to make to HRC for her to FINALLY bow out of the primaries. His supporters may be upset, and it might not be the best fit but it could be the bargain made back in June. Just speculating.
Removing obstacles from the Senate and House can be the only explanation for Obama's VP, staff and cabinet selections, if one should actually think Obama is going to make any substantive changes to establishmennt policies. If one does not think Obama will make any substantive changes to establishment policies, then Obama's choosing establishmentarians like Clintona and Emanuel makes perfect sense for nuking Iran.
1. I think Hillary would do fine. She's good in a conflict on foreign soil. Remember how well she kept her cool under sniper fire in Bosnia?
2. What the f--k is the chocolate cake hat joke? I want an explanation on my desk before class is out.
3. All snark aside, I DO believe Hillary will be fine.
4. Who knew Madelaine Albright was a women-hating woman?
Mitch Guthman,
I'm not necessarily opposed to Hillary becoming SOS, but I think your comparison to Henry Kissinger is a little off-base. Kissinger may have never served in the government in an official capacity before he became Nixon's National Security Adviser, but he had plenty of academic experience & had consulted on numerous projects. According to Wikipedia,
Kissinger remained at Harvard as a member of the faculty in the Department of Government and at the Center for International Affairs. He became Associate Director of the latter in 1957. In 1955, he was a consultant to the National Security Council's Operations Coordinating Board.[4] During 1955 and 1956, he was also Study Director in Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He released his Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy the following year.[5] From 1956 to 1958 he worked for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as director of its Special Studies Project.[4] He was Director of the Harvard Defense Studies Program between 1958 and 1971. He was also Director of the Harvard International Seminar between 1951 and 1971. Outside of academia, he served as a consultant to several government agencies, including the Operations Research Office, the Rand Corporation, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the Department of State.[4]
David68: "What really pisses me off about all the chatter on this is how it's all focused on the politics of the decision - bringing her inside the tent, removing her as a potential power centre outside the administration.... HOW ABOUT IS SHE THE RIGHT PERSON FOR THE FREAKING JOB!!!!
Exactly. A position as important to the security of the USA as SoS should not be a political appointment. We believe HRC to be very competent--although we have some evidence that suggests that she doesn't do so well in executive roles such as managing campaigns or delivering health care iniatives. Nor has she previously shown particular interest in international affairs. She doesn't bring a unique perspective or vision to the position. Her record has some evidence of poor judgment (supporting the War in Iraq, eg.)
On the other hand, she'd probably be pretty good at the very important SoS skill of negotiating--she is hard-working, persistent, and hard-nosed. Her experience as a corporate lawyer may be good training for that. She's smart, she can learn, she can have good advisors (and the direction of foreign policy will come from Obama's WH.) Being famous will help as well. She may well be a better SoS than POTUS.
And of course, the SoS serves at the pleasure of the POTUS, so if this comes to pass AND she doesn't work out, Obama can fire her. But we all hope, of course, that she will be diligent, effective and successful. If she could secure Peace between Israel and Palestine, as David in NY observes, that would be fantastic.
PTate in MN,
Well, HRC has served on the Senate Armed Services Committe since 2003, but that would probably better qualify her for Sec of Defense than SoS.
The only thing keeping me from getting completely bummed out about Hillary as SOS is her potential to make progress on Israel/Palestine as David in NY mentioned above. Why did I give all that money and pound all that pavement just for Clinton Redux (and a freaking pass for Lieberman)?
Wait... aren't "plans to" considered weasel words?
Why did I give all that money and pound all that pavement just for Clinton Redux (and a freaking pass for Lieberman)?
Ha Ha!
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare
A better"job for life" would be the Supreme Court. She could have cut that deal months ago. I can't imagine it wasn't her ultimate dream at Yale Law.
I also wonder what Hillary Clinton would bring to the table and that got me wondering, is it possible that the attention paid to Hillary is a cover to vet Bill Clinton for the job? Bill Clinton brings a ton to the table. And other than the possbile selection of Dennis Ross no other name says "we're serious about the Palestinian/Israeli peace process" than Bill's.
Am I completely in the twilight zone or is this possible?
if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, it seems like she will be distracted by her other issues and/or her own career plans