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