Obama's Team of Rivals

If Barack Obama asks Hillary Clinton to become Secretary of State, it would be a brilliantly audacious political move. Choosing Clinton would elate her fans, soothing any lingering bruised feelings, and bring some major star power to the State Department. Clinton would possess real clout and, like Obama, serve as a kind of ambassador to the world. It would also show that Obama, like Abraham Lincoln, who, as the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin showed in her book "Team of Rivals," is unafraid of tapping powerful cabinet members.

But would it be good for American foreign policy? Would it be consistent with the kind of change Obama promised on the campaign trail? Clinton's record is markedly different than Obama's. She supported the Iraq War. In 2006, she supported legalizing the torture of an individual who knows about an "imminent threat" to millions of American, but backpedaled on the idea in September 2007. In April 2008, she said the U.S. could "totally obliterate" Iran if it threatened Israel with nuclear weapons. In essence, she decided to run as a foreign policy hawk for president, figuring that she couldn't run the risk of appearing "soft" on foreign policy. Clinton represents, or has represented, what I would call the Lieberman wing of the party -- Democratic neocons based at places like the Progressive Policy Institute and the Democratic Leadership Council. They don't believe the Iraq War was itself a mistake, but that it was simply conducted ineptly by the Bush administration.

Already there are splits in the Obama camp between those who believe that the United States needs to push for democracy and human rights abroad (Russia or China) and those who think that Obama should focus on limiting America's commitments abroad. Choosing Clinton would be a big victory for the first camp.

Comments

[Jenoah2008]

We are world renowned for continuous talking, which we claim as freedom of expression. Besides cluttering collective and individual brain-space, there is phenomenon of being expert when standing behind the holders of the cards in the game. Responsibility for winning--successfully leading this nation out of the domestic and global quagmire for which we voted in 2004, even when we saw disaster looming--is another matter.
Give Obama space to gather facts, think and act. Many voted for him because "he thinks." Careful thinking is critical given the dominance of biased and Hollywood-like motive-analyzing media. A nightmare would be for him to digest all of our opinions along with those of vacuous self-exalting generalist-experts--talking heads-- and instant homegrown specialists. We often appear to lose the ability to hold our thoughts, listen deeply, analyze critically and then speak or act.
The great deception--LIE-- is that we are all born leaders and, therefore, anyone can be trained to lead with excellence in anything. An example is the current discussion on "Creating the 2004 Republican President by remaking Sarah Palin." Truth is that there are other possible Republican male and female contenders with less antiquated social divisiveness.
We now need collective-self-reflection to implement change not only in economy but in family, education and community. We are the society we dream of when we discourage collective and individual delusions of grandeur. Yes we can!.

[katie did it]

I think that HRC would do best in health and education, not SOS.

Soooo I went to the "new" Obama site, www.change.gov and sent my comments to the camp, so if you are not in agreement with his decision, let him know.

[bellecloche]

I agree. It would be good in terms of helping her supporters to feel more represented in his government, but very little of what she's done on foreign policy in the Senate demonstrates an alliance with Obama's post-Cold War philosophy that I voted for.

[who38]

You do realize that helping Hillary's supporters fee more represented will also result in progressives feeling less represented. So far, Obama's appointments have been DLC all the way.

[bellecloche]

Hey, I'm one of DailyKos-reading, DLC-hating progressives who would love to see the end of the Clinton influence on Washington. However, it's obvious they're not just going to disappear and the comments on HuffPo in the past day show that just the sheer mention of HRC's name gets her supporters excited, so all I can hope for some cooperation that doesn't leave one of these two very polarized sides furious.

[Bonobo]

I have been concerned for quite some time that Barack Obama has an emotional attachment to the ideal of inclusion (for painfully obvious biographical reasons) that frequently overwhelms his otherwise formidable intellect. He has a history of abandoning his most reliable progressive supporters for the fleeting favors of those who will never truly accept him. He rationalizes this by telling himself that he is the great healer, the one above partisanship, that rancor is the cause of our nation's divisions, rather than a symptom. He thinks Lincoln's team of rivals philosophy will bring the nation together, forgetting that the South saw it instead as weakness they could safely defy. If Obama is too intent on showing favor to his enemies, it makes little sense to be his friend.

[who38]

Your explanation of Obama's motivation is very plausible and meshes well with his history. I quite agree that he is taking his friends for granted. Many Huff posters have relied on the knee jerk homily of "keeping your enemies closer" as justification for O's reported stance on this issue. Thanks for offering another point of view complete with supporting rationale.

[boing007]

He thinks Lincoln's team of rivals philosophy will bring the nation together, forgetting that the South saw it instead as weakness they could safely defy. If Obama is too intent on showing favor to his enemies, it makes little sense to be his friend.

Agreed. Don't overdo it, Mr. President-Elect.

[wannetta]

I AM HOPEING ALSO PRAYING THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA CHOOSE HILLARY I THINK SHE WOULD
MAKE A OUTSTANDING Secretary of State

"Bonobo" HOW CAN YOU COMPARE HILLARY TO THE BIMBO PALIN THAT THING DOSE NOT EVEN
HAVE VOCABULARY, HILLARY IS A VERY INTELLIGENT BRILLIANT WOMAN I TRUST PRESIDENT
OBAMA TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOOSE HE IS A INTELLIGENT BRILLIANT SMART MAN ALSO

[Bonobo]

So...you're criticizing Palin on her inability to express herself coherently?

[infinity]

BINGO!!! Spot on. And you should have added do we need another liar running State?

[FairyBear2000]

I voted for Pres.-elect Obama for a multitude of reasons. One of those reasons is because I trust him. If he thinks Sen. Clinton would make a good Cabinet Secretary I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Knowing as little as I do she would not be my first choice for State, I certainly think he knows more than I do. I realize that being a Clinton fan has affected my objectivity.
Tomorrow I think Pres.-elect Obama will be meeting with Sen. McCain......hopefully he won't be offered Secretary of Defense! That would be truly scary.

[Adamwestiii]

I believe Richardson would be my choice as Sec of State. Hillary and Emanuel are too pro-Israel and we need to have honest mediators decide the fate of the two state solution between Israel and Palestine.

[mongus]

No thanks. I, and many of us who worked hard for Obama, would like a STATESMAN this time, and not a political rival.

I don't have much faith in the woman who called Obama's foreign policies "irresponsible and reckless".

I was hoping for something better that a 'warmed over' Clinton II administration.

[SouthernMod]

So your saying that choosing her would prove her claims correct then?

[Grit]

I believe Clinton would do very well in any job she ends up with. I would love to see her as supreme court justice but she doesn't what that one. Which is fine. Whatever she does she will do excellent.

[who38]

You forget that she couldn't hold her staff together well enough to win the primary. There was too much in-fighting and Bill was out of control This is her history; remember the Health Care debacle? I would like to see her on the Court as well where her focus will be on an issue (content) and not strategy (form).

[abluevoice]

Hillary would be the perfect two for one deal. You get Bill traveling with her, and the world leaders know and respect both of them.

[who38]

Bill and Hillary don't travel together; didn't you know?

[zookie]

I voted for Obama and his promise to "confer with 'enemies' as well as friends." I voted for Obama because he was against Iraqi war. I voted for Obama because he didn't want to "nuke" Iran to save Israel. I didn't vote for Hillary (primary) because she espoused all of these and more anti Obama statements. Now.....he offers a Sec State position?????? Geez.....maybe McCain would have been better. He either gets some 'peaceniks' on his team...or I don't vote for him in 2012. Hillary is a hawk; his entire transition team...also hawks. What the hell is going on? Flip-flop..big time.

[kevinw]

Maybe you can hold your breath till you turn blue, that might also be effective. The hawk, peacenick profiles were obviously exaggerated during a hard fought campaign. Obama has worked with Hilary during his time in the senate as well as during the primary fight and when she was actively campaigning hard for him during the general. Now he may or may not select her for Secretary of State. Especially if the people being hinted at for the position, Richardson, Kerry, Hagel, and Lugar, Hagel and Lugar are on par or more experienced. She has the combination of foreign policy knowledge and personal communication skills to handle this position. The Clinton name is well respected around the world (everywhere except in the progressive circles). I think her campaign during the general for Obama, showed that she can take a message and direction and make it her own. As a party, we have to stop this bickering about a person being connected to the successful Clinton campaign or having a vote or two we did not like. Remember, Biden also voted for the Iraq war authorization. Obama voted for FISA. The key is looking to make sure the pick fits with Obama's ideals and is COMPETENT. That is why Rahm Emanuel was a great pick, If he picks her and it blows up, then don't vote for him in 2012. The problems we are facing are dangerous. We need to grow up and have a little pragmatism.

[Bonobo]

These are not minor disagreements, or ideological purism. Because of Clinton's steadfast support of the Bush doctrine, and her reckless statements during the campaign, her selection would undercut Obama's international goodwill in much the same way that McCain's pick of Palin destroyed his experience argument. She brings no unique talents to the job, and antagonizes as least as many people as she mollifies. Plus there's Bill.

[cheforacle]

You believe then that everyone in his cabinet should think just as he does? I see no other conclusion that one can infer from your post.

[ronjdomer]

I don't have a problem with Hillary being Secretary of
state because I know that Barack Obama will control our foreign policy and Hillary will be required to carry it out. Now if the President Elect were George W. Bush I would be scared. Hillary being Secretary of State will in fact make Obama's foreign policy plans easier to carry out because Hillary, in fact, has been to the right of Obama on the war with Iraq and a potential war with Iran. One of the things we got when we got Barack Obama is a man of brillance. Don't underestiamate him.

[who38]

No one is underestimating Obama, but aren't you overestimating Hillary?

[word2thewyz]

On one hand, I'm intrigued by Obama's willingness to experiment with the "team of rivals" concept. If it's intended to marry Hillary to the Obama administration, and in the process remove her as a potential 2012 rival, it will require that she become a true member of the team.

On the other hand, I am reminded that Jimmy Carter tried something along those lines (think Joe Califano), and ended up learning the hard way that you should not hire someone you can't fire.

[Regats]

Dear President-elect Obama

Please think outside the political box.

Look for a brilliant scholar and author with an extensive knowledge of Islamic culture, one who can speak fluent Arabic and maybe Hebrew. First and foremost is the need to find peace in the middle east.
This person would also have the skills to speak to leaders of other nations, impressing them with American intelligence, fairness and reason - not stupidity and arrogance, which devastated America's
position in world opinion, the tragic legacy of eight years of the George W. Bush administration.

Think statesman, not politician, and maybe your hopes (and mine) will bear fruit.

[TRIATHLON]

DITTO!

[Honour]

I wholeheartedly agree; Wes Clark fits the position perfectly. He is a good and honest man with the highest integrity, courage and intelligence. But how do we influence the Obama camp?

[bobilore]

Yes, a statesman not a politician. I'm so tired of the limited thinking that is manifest in the bulk of commentary on this subject. Sec'y of State is THE most important Cabinet position for the early going Obama Administration. Wanna fix the economy? Can't really do anything till we get control of the out-of-control war adventures of Cheney & Bush Inc. A complete and disastrous drain on our National Treasury.
This is why I advocate for the selection of Gen. Wes Clark to this critical position.
Bill Richardson and Richard Holbrook, the only other people often mentioned that have even the slightest merit, simply do not have that rare combination of skills, temperament, intelligence,
experience, and political orientation. In particular is his diplomacy before force attitude that is especially potent coming from a four-star general. As Supreme Allied Commander of NATO he engaged world leaders in highly effective coallition building and directly helped resolve the genocidal mess in the Balkans. He is very well respected around the world, has a very progressive approach to conflict resolution, and would make an ideal top foreign policy advisor to President Obama.
I can only hope that more people start looking into this great American and that those who already know of his many abilities start speaking up. Loudly!!! AND FAST!!! I'm getting nervous.
C'mon people, I challenge you to widen your view and please comment on Wesley Clark as my choice for Seretary of State.

[Bonobo]

Oh, ick, no. He pandering shamelessly to Clinton during the primaries. Also, he's not really that well known outside of Europe. Better than Clinton, but too closely associated with them. NATO SAC not really a plus in the world right now with the civilian air bombings in Afghanistan and Russian paranoia reemerging. I haven't seen any evidence that he would do anything to reign in military spending, either. I would agree that Holbrooke is just a tool.

[brynn6]

Looks like Gates may stay for a while. I think Clark should take his place in two years.

[arethusa]

Someone fluent in Chinese? We have had a specialist in Russian studies. I'm not sure that has worked exceptionally well, but her actual depth in the field is open to question. Someone who speaks at least one foreign language well--Spanish?--would be valuable in this position, but this individual would also need diplomatic skills and experience to use the knowledge appropriately. Many of the scholars whose work I most admire would not necessarily make good diplomats, though they might be valuable advisers. Still, it's good to think creatively and openly. I still think Hillary Clinton could be most helpful as a leader in the Senate. I think she could be a good Secretary of State. She learns quickly.

[NationalTreasure]

the Clinton administration made a slew of foreign policy mistakes from the bombing of the Chinese embassy to denying the timeframe of the Rwanda genocide, delaying action in Kosovo/Bosnia, the disasterous NAFTA trade agreements, and weak trade agreements with China and South Korea, Iraq, allowing the Saudis and OPEC to screw us over oil production, failing to address illegal immigration from our border with Mexico and failing to address the scores of illegal immigrants bing shipped in containers through seaports in Washington or coming across the border in Canada,