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

[loper2008]

Clinton would be doing what President Obama wanted her to, first of all.

I think she was such a hawk because she always knew she would run for president. I was very disturbed by her "obliterate Iran" comment, but I think it was all for show. She was losing and desperate. Sad to say, but most of our politicians don't actually vote their conscious. Picking Hillary makes sense if Obama needs a big name representative for the US abroad. It'll allow Obama to focus on domestic issues.

[lawyerfan]

You seem to be confused about the meaning of "change." Bringing new faces into the white house and the Obama administration doesn't necessarily guarantee good governance. The change that people have been clamoring for is change from the way the Bush administration ran the government. Hillary would be such a dramatic change from Condi Rice and the neocon nutjobs. Nothing will be accomplished if Obama simply brings a bunch of new faces to Washington and they spend four years trying to learn how to get things done. Some aspects of Washington politics never change and won't ever change. Hillary's experience in the White House and in Congress has prepared her to speed through the orientation process that any new cabinet member would have to go through.

[23000Days]

Agreed.

[RDSOregon]

I'm really, really tired of the Clintons. This isn't change, it's simply changing seats. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to suspect that's what we're going to get with most everything.

It looks like the DLC had a stranglehold on everything. So much for Progressivism....

[lawyerfan]

See above.

[ConcernedCanadain]

Appoint Clinton SoS would be Obama's first huge mistake. I don't accept this silliness that she has sufficent international experience to be given the most important post in the cabinet!! What experience?? Meeting foreing heads of state as First Lady?? Please. And then there is the question of hubby Bill. Leave her in the senate.

[Ksisay]

I agree! She made fun of hope, now she wants in on the franchise. Hillary is my senator and I can tell you people don't realize just how overrated she is.

[FaceYourFears]

I realize it!

[who38]

Someone, somewhere pointed out that Hillary has as much international experience as Laura Bush. Perspective, folks.

[BenMurphyNYC]

She seems to be more dedicated to the cause than to her self (which is the impression many of us had before). She was very helpful during the campaign, not just for Obama, but for house and senate candidates as well.

[nazcalito]

Obama shouldn't stick Hillary with a dull job like Secretary of State. He should reward her by giving her something fun to do, like being Ambassador to Australia.

[tydicea]

But would it be good for American foreign policy? Would it be consistent with the kind of change Obama promised on the campaign trail?

If Hilary is tapped as SOS, she will serve at the pleasure of the president. She will advance his vision and agenda, not orchestrate some kind of rogue, unilateral foreign policy.

[SarahZim]

Exactly, and BO and HRC both understand political reality. Clinton hawkish position was part of the ready on day one/safest choice in time of war strategy, and not necessarily an exact representation of her own personal world view.

[who38]

She made her decision on the war without even reading the report re/ its need. You can do that when your position depends on a phone call. But I agree that her decision may not have been "an exact representation of her own personal world view."

[debrouillard]

I just think the Clintons shouldnt be involve with Foreign policy.Too much conflict of interest. Bill has all these deals with Columbia,Iran and u name them.

[who38]

Hear, hear.

[Geoffo]

And would that be one Clinton or two Clintons roaming the world? It would be one hell of a gamble for Obama to let the Clintons loose on the global stage again!

[roselaw]

Clinton wasn't faking it with her neo-con lite foreign policy. She was surrounded by true believers in the invasion of Iraq, like Richard Holbrooke, who is equally hysterical about the "threat" posed by Iran--and he was going to be HER secretary of state, if she won.

NO WAY HILLARY FOR THE STATE POST--OBAMA PROMISED NOT ONLY CHANGE IN IRAQ, BUT A CHANGE IN THE FOREIGN POLICY MIND-SET THAT GOT US INTO IRAQ-HILLARY WILL NEVER GET US THERE

[SarahZim]

The secretary of state does not set policy.

[ChelseaC]

Roselaw,
I agree with you 100%!

[who38]

LIe down with dogs; get up with fleas. Hope Obama doesn't make that mistake.

[neve]

I'm no PUMA but I do like the idea. Except... Bill. I would think that he would need to cease and desist in his private foreign business dealings.

[indc]

Although State and DoD are arguably the most prestigious cabinet posts, Clinton has repeatedly sold herself as someone focused and dedicated to health care coverage, so wouldn't HHS be more suited to her decades long ambitions and commitments.... she could be a real hero is she was to achieve universal coverage.

[Petunia39]

Based on her past positions Hillary would not signal the Change We Need on foreign policy. That is the number one reason why I support Obama in the primaries. It would be a mistake. Richard Holbrooke, which has at times also been discussed in terms of a cabinet post, perhaps as Sec of State, is another Democratic Neocon.

[BlueBoomer]

I have mixed feelings re Hillary as SofS.

My main concern is one that, as a woman, I don't like expressing, but reality bites, and in this case it is the reality that most of our most delicate negotiations are going to be with Islamic countries...countries that do not give a whole lot of credence/credit to women...In this kind of environment at this time is a women the best choice for this job?... Might we make more substantive headway with a man?...Or, does Obama's ethnicity "buy us creds" among the Islamic nations' leaders, such that a woman SofS wouldn't get in the way?

Then there's the question of do we want to lose our best, most effective legislators/Senators to the cabinet, where their contributions will be much narrower?

For these reasons, perhaps Bill Richardson or Tom Daschle or Chuck Hagel would be better choices for SofS...Maybe for just the first term, with Hillary being first-up for the job in the second term...In the meantime, she could be given Lieberman's committee chairmanship!

[Bitsko]

Why in the world would Senator Clinton give up a cushy seat in Congress for one of the most thankless jobs in politics? I'm not buying it. (But I wouldn't be surprised if she took it.)

[hudsuckerproxy]

I wonder the same thing. From Marc Ambinder:

The CW in Washington is that Obama wants Clinton in his cabinet more than Clinton wants to be in the cabinet, the theory being that the moment she steps into the administration, she loses her power base, she loses her Senate seat forever, and she loses her voice on domestic policy. She concedes her political identity.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/1_it_was_a_private.php

[who38]

Now Obama's position makes sense. But Hillary will certainly turn it down.

[emcd]

Didn't Clinton refuse to be vetted during the VP selection process? Would she submit her (and Bill's) connections and financial details to this process?

If I'm recalling this correctly then it seems this either precludes her selection or tells us an exception will be made in her case.

And what exactly would be her qualifications again? If she met world leaders 8+ years ago, how many of them are still in positions that the SOS would be dealing with?

ON ANY LEVEL, I don't like the number of Clintonites on the lists already and I certainly don't like HRC as SOS! No matter where a Clinton lands it seems it is always first and foremost about them and not the country.

[hudsuckerproxy]

Clinton didn't refuse to be vetted for VP. She was never asked.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/hillary-clinton-obamas-vi_n_115435.html

[emcd]

So was it merely speculation then that IF she was asked she would willingly offer up all the details that she had held back when she was a candidate??? and would she provide them now to become SOS???

[debrouillard]

She wasnt vetted,but she was asked to be vetted only she wanted "pre-conditions" which was to guarantee her the position before she could submit.

And Obama doesnt do pre-conditions.

[ntmessage]

Linking Clinton to PNAC, suggesting that being tough means you are a hawk and limiting analysis of the qualifications of a SOS to a vote is unfair. She is the best candidate on many levels, respected and loved all over the world for a record spanning over a dozen years and even if she is a little more center left than far left, that is a good thing. Look at Madeline Albright for example. SOS is a very serious job.