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

[ProudLiberalDan]

I think the move is politically brilliant.

From a policy standpoint, I would have preferred someone who did not support the Iraq War.

I also think Clinton as Senate Majority Leader could have balls where Reid has none.

But, this is not a perfect world. She's an inspired choice if not one I would have made.

Considering how bad foreign policy has been over the last eight years, I'm willing to at least give this the benefit of the doubt.

Secretary of State is a BIG deal. It's not a minor appointment he's offering her. And if it unites the party even more, that is good too.

[UNCLEJOE]

Senetor Dodd is much more qualified than Hillary for SOS. And he is a core Democrat.
Hillary = Lieberman = McCain = Bush Jr..

The race for the Presidency was over on November 5th. Let's get real: The Clintons are no longer necessary for Obama's prestige as a Commander-in-Chief.

Just imagine Bill Clinton hanging around the Oval office where he spilled some of his DNA? I can't stand to see her or his face after their acrimonious characterizations of Obama during the past 18 months.

If Obama made a deal with Bill Clinton to gave Hillary the SOS for their campaigning support under duress, then let's cancel this debt on moral grounds for the good of our country.

Senator Dodd is the best man for SOS; just look up his profile in Google and be convinced.

[truthmachine]

No Senators! Can't you people count?

[XME]

"And he is a core Democrat"

One of the things I like about is that this is not one of Obama's concerns. I'm an Independent, and I voted for him BECAUSE he doesn't focus on party lines, but on pulling dueling folks together and in getting the best, regarldes of party.

[paixa3]

Sorry, he caved to FISA, therefore, NOT strong enough of a leader and HE should have been involved watching over the 770 billion gift to corporations. No thanks, he has become a loser, like most of congress. Is there rating now about 1 % or 2%?

[FaceYourFears]

Sorry, he caved to FISA


So did Barack!

[shel3364]

He made all the right decisions during his campaign..­... I'm gonna have to trust his judgment on this one.

[IndyReader]

This Hillary as SoS is just another attempt for the Clintons to be in the spotlight, a way to eclipse Obama. Why can't they withdraw with grace? Like Sarah Palin, Clinton just can't believe that she is a loser.

[hudsuckerproxy]

If there is a genuine offer (which remains to be seen), Obama will be the one making it. Clinton can't offer the position to herself.

[PackyJ]

As a pragmatic idealist, I think Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be a bad idea, for a couple of reasons.

1. Her foreign policy views are starkly different than Obama's. Based on her campaign attacks on Obama for his foreign policy views, I have a very hard time believing that she would "stay on point" in carrying out foreign policy directives from President Obama if she disagrees with his policies. Unlike Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton would not be a "good soldier," with an ability to put her personal ambitions and beliefs aside.

2. Even more importantly, she is far more valuable to NY, the Democratic Party, and America as a US Senator from New York.

Bill Richardson is my pick for Secretary of State. He has the credentials, the experience, the courage, and is in alignment with Obama on his approach.

[arvay]

I agree, Richardson has actually conducted negotiations and dealt with the North Koreans, for example. He's much more qualified. Plus he doesn't have the baggage you describe. Imagine Hillary meeting with Palestinian or Iranian leadership, with those remarks about "obliterating" them on the record.

My fear is that these kinds of appointments are a price Obama had to pay to keep the AIPAC machine off his back. If so, we can forget about peace in the mideast, and we'll face more and more serious foreign policy disasters.

[Cautious]

I wonder if BHO is actually offering it to Hillary and Bubba. The world loves Bubba, and he could help with the strategizing but not make any public statements.

Is that naive?

Richardson does not quite have the creds that Hillary and Bubba could bring to this. She could also gracefully turn it down and then we could have Billermo.

[ciccocenta]

I'm all for togetherness but I hope Obama dosent take this love-fest too far. Joe "Judas" Leiberman gets a free pass, Hillary Clinton comes on board, chit-chatting w/ McCain about heaven only knows--what next, Joe The Plumber heading The Dept. of Education?

[Rule Of Law]

Hillary's record on the war, torture and Iran rule her out for this post!

Let her work in Health if Obama thinks she has anything to offer.

If Obama has read his History, then he knows that much of what Jefferson said about avoiding foreign entanglements has never been so important as it is now.

[mcantwell]

Somehow I get the sense that Obama is asking Hillary to be SOS, yet knowing she would more than likely turn the position down.

[cynara]

You captured perfectly my own concerns about Hillary as Secratary of State. I didn't vote for her in the primary because of her hawkish foreign policy, especially regarding the Iraq War. I voted for Obama because he seemed to be on the right side of these issues. Ironically, now he seems to want HIllary's hawkish viewpoint to lead his foreign policy...

I think Hillary is great on domestic issues, but more than quarter of a million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of our botched invasion. This is a crime against humanity. The people that supported that invasion should not be rewarded with further influence on foreign policy during the new administra­tion...

[antaeus]

So you opposed Biden as VP?

[cynara]

Not particularly, VP is not, by definition, a foreign policy role. Dick Cheney has certainly used it as one, (he also used it as a role to promote snowmobiles in yellowstone, and role back environmental regulations and checks and balances..­.)

So hopefully the VP under Obama will revert to its more traditional role - that of a well rounded advisor/president in waiting for all areas of American policy, foreign and domestic.

Secretary of State is a foreign policy making role, that is its principle function. If Biden were under considerations for Secretary of State, I would want to look very carefully at his record as well, since his record on foreign policy would be the best indicator of the direction of the state department for the next four years.

I think Hillary is a very able person, and I agree and support many of her domestic policy standpoints, but I strongly disagree with her hawkishness - won't talk to our enemies without pre-conditions, willing to declare the Iranian army a terrorist group, supported the invasion of Iraq. This is not the direction I wish for the state department to persue.

[jobecky20]

Don't forget that PE Obama was briefed the other day on security affairs. Perhaps he knows something now that he didn't know during the campaign. In other words, don't be too shocked if we don't extricate ourselves from Iraq as soon as many of us would like.

[cynara]

There is nothing that he could have learned yesterday, that justifies the invasion of Iraq, and the tragic consequences that sprung from that invasion. There is nothing he could have learned yesterday that justifies Hillary Clinton not reading the national security briefing before supporting such a tragic wrong invasion.

If he learned something yesterday that informs him about a graver state of foreign affairs than the US public is aware, all of the more reason to pick someone who will way their actions carefully, preferably someone who does not have a huge foreign policy mistake on their record. Someone who is willing to talk to our enemies as well as our friends. Carefull planning and examination of all options (especially diplomacy) is even more important in graver circumstances than in peace, and Hillary Clinton has a record of rash, hawkish foreign policy decisions.

[Rule Of Law]

Yes. And this notion bothers me too--

"...that the United States needs to push for democracy and human rights abroad..."

That is a neo-con party plank--somehow it is our responsibility to "Spread Democracy" around the world. Usually at the point of a gun. So, the question is; How's that working for us so far?

[ChelseaC]

Cynara,
Very well stated. Let's hope Obama reads the Huff!

[antaeus]

What strategic partner region has been most alienated by the Bush years? Europe. She is widely admired and respected in Europe.

[dizmo4]

Exactly. A Hillary pick at SoS is more about consolidating our allies and bringing a more support to areas like Iran and Afghanistan. The US is too unpopular in the middle east to be effective so Europe needs to get involved.

Bush alienated Europe so there was real resistance to any major partnership on the big issues. Hillary could change that, mend fences and get an increased commitment of NATO troops for Afghanistan and probably use Europe to open real talks with Iran.

[Bonobo]

Europeans are useless with regard to military matters. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Bosnia, and that was in their own backyard. On the other hand, the good that they do with renewable energy, and the evil they do with their agricultural subsidies (us too), are vital to the world. Al Gore would be a much better Statesman.

[angelique2008]

Dag on it - Our President Elect is GOOD!!!

[Kerris]

Well, I agree. Ensconced in the Sec'y of State position, she sure wouldn't be a viable position to run against him come 2012, now would she?

[qofdisks]

Hillary Clinton is a Lieberman Democrat. That is why she lost the nomination, she was AIPAC all the way. I think the secretary of state should be person with a more objective view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We need a more objective view with no obvious pro Likud radical agenda. She is a war hawk.

[LizM]

Chuck Hagel would be an ideal candidate for Special Envoy for moving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict toward the endgame - he would be a real honest broker on this file.

[naschkatze]

If Obama were to make one big across the aisle move, I think this should be it.

[Kirby]

And we do need an honest broker for a change as surely as we do need to move to a comprehensive settlement in this mess. Hagel would be believable. It doesn't seem to be a sure thing where Hillary is concerned, with the background of AJC individuals who have been constant donors to the Clintons, and who have been extremists in their Likudnik support, stout supporters of AIPAC in pushing for every plank of far.....fa­r out positions of Israeli expansionists - who cry for expansion as a means of security for the State of Israel.

[johnsopinion]

Once Obama was declared the winner of the Democrats bid for the White House, I've
thought Hillary would be an excellent representative of the United States in the United
Nations. Either that or wait for a spot on the Supreme Court. She would shine at either
post.
But......s­uppose, suppose, suppose.
Let's wait and see, shall we?

[jsgaetano]

Pushing human rights abroad is a good thing. Democracy.­.. well... regime change doesn't seem to be a very successful policy. Just ask the Theocons who were trying to forcefeed their brand of faux free market Duh-Mocracy on other countries.

[lost sheep]

There would be nothing wrong with the move! It's brilliant.

Obama has already proven that he likes to hear differing points of view and he will still be in charge. In other words, he will be nothing like "W". Having such a voice in his administration would make it so much easier to accept positions he would take, because everyone would know that those positions have thoroughly been discussed.