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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
When considering Hillary for State, the question we should ask is: Will she do a good job of representing us abroad, while following the president's orders and ideals. I think she has every qualification and would be very good excellent at it.
She clearly has the right of first refusal, but I don't think she'll take it.
Richardson is most likely.
Hope that you are right.
What's the difference, it's not like we have or have had a foreign policy for decades now? Our so called Mid East policy is nothing more than the British colonialist campaign except our bankers, who work for British bankers, and who totally control our "Democracy", have managed to put our troops, also known as people, in harms way while the British Establishment makes a fortune.
As long as regular Americans continue to turn a blind eye to this reality, America will continue to be a tool of the Commonwealth.
Yes, and just a reminder, the British were most certainly the players in the establishment of Israel.
With friends like the British Aristocracy, who needs enemies? Apparently we do, as the way it's set up now, the British call all the shots and we take all the heat.
Right on...the British with the nudge from the Rothschild banking empire representing the Zionists.
When did you write this post? 1938? who is the British establishment and who is making a fortune these days?
I love Israel. You seem to suggest there is something wrong with the country. It is an amazing country that has developed tremendously in 60 years. I disagree with their treatment of Palestinians but I agreed with Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza. Its ashame its gottene even worse there since Hamas took control there.
Answer- NO! But then what to hell? From what I appear to be seeing Obama's will be a rehash of the Clinton years anyway. Time will tell. Bozo's Out Bozo's In. This was not the "Change" so many were looking for now is it?
Choosing Hillary would be a total disaster. Remember, Bill comes along with the package! Having traveled a lot during his administrations does not qualify her for this position. It would also contribute to the medias' expectations that an Obama administration will be one consisting of the Chicago "Mob" or "Mafia". Many commentators have already suggested that his team will be like that. And, that's because he chose Rahm Emanuel. Maybe HHS would suit her, but my opinion is that she would be better staying in the Senate. In fact, they should get rid of Harry Reid and elect her as Majority Leader. She would shine in that position. has Obama and company forgotten how much the public views her, rightfully, as a polarizing figure? I fear, however, that she will be selected. Moreover, contrary to some who have written, Bill Richardson would be the perfect choice. His experience, temperament and success in diplomacy and negotiations globally, plus the fact that he is Latino, and is respected worldwide would be the wisest choice short of someone from the Foreign Service.
Most foreign leaders love Bill Clinton. Being able to trot him out on trips would be a benefit.
I don't see how Hillary adds to the "Chicago Mob" thing, seeing as she has nothing to do with Chicago.
But Bill Richardson would also be good. So would John Kerry. The Dem's bench is deep.
Foreign leaders might love Bill; that doesn't mean that they want to do business with him. Bill is over in government. He needs to find another way to feed his ego and interests. Carter did. Gore did. But that would mean that Bill would need to develop a cause.....
The mob, that is not the media, unless you watch fox.
It would be loads of fun to see what havoc a fabulist like HRC could wreak in the position.
Good one.
I enthusiastically support putting Clinton in the role! Absolutely. She has the experience, she has the connections, she knows how to communicate, she can see both sides of the coin, and she is human. Oh yes, absolutely!
Her experience is make-believe, her connections are creepy, she communicates like a pit bull, she panders to both sides of the coin, and you really lost me on that last point.
Thanks, I needed that.
Hillary would be a good choice for secretary of state. Unfortunately she would have go be and clean up the mess left by the inept condoleezza rice. While it would be a feather in her cap to undo all the screw-ups from the bushies, the enormity of the task could wear her out.
What's with this "team of rivals", I don't remember seeing Lincoln's name on the ballot....
But he clearly stated this is what he would do, so you can't complain :)
Since when? It's only Stepford Wives that don't complain.
Have you never heard the old gangster phrase: "Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies even closer." I think part of this applies here.
Yes, we hear this on every other post on every other thread. Why does that apply here? It is a comment made by a Chinese soldier years ago and appropriated by James Careville as an answer to why the DLC should be accepted with open arms. But thanks for pointing out another descripter for James.
yes for Hillary and also include Daschle, Richardson somewhere.
the, Caroline Kennedy in the Senate, and Rober Jr. in Senate when Teddy retires.
i love being a Democrat !
YEsssssss Definitely Caroline Kennedy in the Senate even if she has to run against HRC to get there. Caroline has integrity and HRC has NONE. !!!!!
I think the move would be brilliant. If she represents the "hawkish" wing of the Democratic party, who better could negotiate in the middle East? Remember the old adage, "Only Nixon could go to China." After years of hammering the Red Chinese, no other politician at the time could make the diplomatic transition required.
Heal the base and drive the Mullahs crazy, perfect.
Well, guess we know how you want that ME situation solved. You have just provided a very good reason why Hillary should not be chosen as SOS.
Choosing her would be good for the Democratic Party and the country but before agreeing to take the position she would have to also agree with the new President's foreign policy goals and the new way of reaching those goals, talking not fighting.
What we hope to get in CHANGE is not a secretary of state who goes abroad to tell other nations we can OBLITERATE them. We want a Secretary of state who makes PEACE DEALS. Give us Kerry or Richardson. I like men who dont fight or intimidate but instead debate their position.
In some ways, I like Hillary Clinton, but I don't feel she is qualified to be Sec. of State for the aforementioned reasons stated above. Also, add the "snipper fire" lies during the campaign and the FACT that she supported GW Bush and the Iraq war. THIS IS NOT CHANGE!!!
I let my feelings be known in an e-mail to the Obama team--please do the same by blogging on his site and filling out
comments on the "contact us" area of the web site.
Another Hawk is what we don't need. Clinton behaved as a republican.
Gov. Bill Richardson is a far BETTER CHOICE. He's a good man too.
If Obama feels inclined to give Hillary a position, fine, consider Sec. of Health and Human Services or have her head up health care reform--I am OK with that!
I am pretty sure Clinton has said if it weren't for the bad intelligence she would have voted against authorizing the war. I think that translates into believing Iraq was a mistake without admitting she personally made a mistake with her vote.
She admitted that she never read the NIE report....
Hear, hear. Act before thinking much?
Speaking if Cabinet positions.
http://www
Thank you for the link but I prefer the plan of Rep.Dennis Kucinich. Of course we're too broke now to consider it and all the Repugs and some Dems would fight it tooth and nail anyway.
Sounds like more of the same is on the horizon...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
