Hillary Clinton: Why She is Uniquely Qualified as Secretary of State

Its been a long road for Senator Hillary Clinton. The road has led to her consideration as Secretary of State in a world full of uncertainties. Article after article, pundit after pundit describe why she is not the right choice (see Politico today, NYT, Huffington Post, the cable nets and many other sources.) In the aftermath of the campaign, people have forgotten that Hillary Clinton is more than who she was as a presidential candidate. I realized I was guilty of this too. The most significant thing I had to remember after all that has happened is who Hillary Clinton is to the rest of the world. To the rest of the world, Hillary Clinton is the truest leader of women's rights on earth.

Christie Vilsak, the former First Lady of Iowa and founder of the Iowa Initiative to Reduce Unwanted Pregnancies, says this of Senator Clinton: "She is the woman everyone is looking to. She is a model for women aross the world. All those women out there are looking to see how she reacts. If she doesn't do this, what does it say about the rest of the U.S.?" Mrs. Vilsak went on to say that in Liberia, a Liberian Cabinet Minister said that Hillary Clinton has changed the world women live in and has created and presented an image to the women of this world.

Senator Clinton has led the cause of women's rights since her early days as first lady, when she travelled to the Summit in Tokyo in July of 1993. As Gwen Ifill reported then, "Hillary Clinton Wins Friends in Japan." Ifill observed that,

"in a country where the courtship and wedding of an independent-minded woman to Crown Prince Naruhito held people in thrall for weeks, Hillary Rodham Clinton is also viewed -- favorably -- as an independent sort. At Waseda University today, the very mention of her name drew murmurs of approval. And when she slipped into a meeting hall, most in the otherwise reserved crowd craned for a look at her blond head bobbing in a sea of shiny black hair, and burst into applause."

In 1995, reporter Patrick Tyler wrote of Hillary Clinton,

"Speaking more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil, Hillary Rodham Clinton catalogued a devastating litany of abuse that has afflicted women around the world today and criticized China for seeking to limit free and open discussion of women's issues here.

"'It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights," Mrs. Clinton told the Fourth World Conference on Women assembled here.

"'It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls,' Mrs. Clinton said, or 'when women and girls are sold into slavery or prostitution for human greed.'

"'It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small,' she continued, or 'when thousands of women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.'"

At first, it appeared that President-elect Obama was trying to bring in Senator Clinton as a "team of rivals" Secretary of State. But on deeper reflection, perhaps the Obama transition team is showing the discipline the campaign showed. If global women's rights is an issue, which it most certainly is, Senator Clinton is matched by no one in her past words and deeds in advance of this cause. And she has the bona fides to match any other contender on foreign policy issues not related to human rights. To pick her would send a message indeed: that the U.S. is a leader on women's rights across the world.

Comments

[Mnemanth]

So, umm, being a woman makes her the clear choice?
I don't get it.
She's proven time and again that she's no better than her fellow politician. She rolls with the tide. War is popular this week? Hillary is on it! Pro-life this week? Oh, yeah, Hillary is there! A more liberal agenda presents itself? Oh, look- Hillary agrees with that now.
It's disgusting.
Anyone- man, woman, white, black, pink-purple-pokadot- who cries out for equal rights, then immediately starts throwing around their own "minority" status as a reason that they're the best qualified candidate not only insults the idea of equal rights, but is also playing the pity card.
Knock it off.
Let's put the best candidate in the position. Mrs. Clinton ain't it.

[cjgnew]

Is she intelligent? Yes, she is. Is she well-spoken? Yes, she is. Is she well-informed? Yes, she is. Is she loyal? Yes, she is. Is she shrewd? Yes, she is. Has she travelled practically the whole world? Yes, she has. Has she spent most of her life fighting for the American people? Yes, she has. Has she ever screwed up? Yes, she has. Is she perfect? No, she is not. Does she know BHO will be the president and not her? Yes, she does. Thus, I don't see a problem with her being Secretary of State.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[RobertAndropolis]

Is she the most divisive politician in U.S. history? Arguably, yes she is. Is she well-liked around the world? Yes she is, according to Hillary-supporters who continue to push this meme unsubstantiated.

[chuckvw]

I voted for Obama and against Clinton for a number of reasons. Chief among them were foreign policy - specifically in the Middle East - and trade.

Fooled again.

[cjgnew]

You were not fooled because Obama would still be in charge of foreign policy. That means if and when the President tells her to go to Iran to conduct diplomacy with respect to avoiding a nuclear explosion or a nuclear accident in the Middle East, she will have to do her best to do so. If an ex-first-lady of the United States, who publically disagreed with the president on that subject, goes to Iran to meet with the Iranians, do you think the Iranians will have any doubt as to who is in charge? The Iranians would get the message that BHO is in charge, and he has the power--the power of the United States people who back him up.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[StillIRise]

Thank you Carlos for providing this information. I don't think some people get it. Hillary is not one of my favorite people, but I do respect her political astuteness and I trust that she will be an effective Secretary of State. But what will make her effective is her ability and willingness to adhere to President-Elect Obama's agenda, which she will be serving at his pleasure. If she were to undermine his agenda, she would be undermining herself - her reputation, her legacy, her chances to run for president in 2016 if she still desires to do so, and her base of support. If nothing else, Hillary is about self-preservation, and by making President-Elect Obama shine, she will shine. I think President-Elect Obama understands this about Hillary, and from this perspective, perhaps placing her in the position of SOS will contain the ego that some of us are concerned about, more so than any other position where she would be more independent. As Secretary of State, she will simply be following his orders, so to speak; and if she fails to do so, she will suffer the greater consequences.

[edwarvir]

cignew How will the foreign leader respect Hillary
when so many of us don't She did project
race-baiting, and said a lot of negative things about
President O, do you think the foreign leaders all
around the world don't know that? I hope he will
reconsider his choice. Hillary is a very poor choice.

[editorjuno]

The President determines foreign policy -- the SoS advises and executes. Colin Powell is a negative example of this relationship -- his advice was ignored, and his job was to execute the president's (in this case criminally woeful) policy. The Obama-Clinton m.o. will hopefully be a positive example, but it's certain the President will always have the final say, up to and including firing the SoS if warranted.

[onenvrnos]

Although I am thankful for this article, I think there are far too few of them on Huffpost that directly speak to the positives of the Clintons. Much of the poisonous diatribe directed at the Clintons could be eased if more favorable factual data was respresented. I know the Clintons have made mistakes, especially on the campaign trail, and they should be called on it--but much of the animosity is ill-conceived. Hillary is very qualified for SoS and even the presidency of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Law_schooll)

A house divided can not stand. All who have supported Obama need to unite. We can agree to disagree, but not at the expense of scathing embattlement based in large part on misguided animosity and a lack of depth in understanding the true issues that face our country, historically or in the current arena. Please, more positive articles so that the pot of divisiveness is dismantled. Thank you.

[nkhogan]

I have to agree with you there. I want to read the pros and cons of her being SoS. I have been very ambivalent about this selection because of all the negativity. But there are definite upsides to it and this is definitely one of them.

[Lan2]

Thank you so much for a much needed antidote to the knee jerk anti Hillary responses one reads on the HP.

I am constantly amazed by the vehemence of anti-Clinton rhetoric I read in supposedly liberal sites. One half of Democrats who voted in the primary believed Clinton would have made a great President. The assertion that she ran an underhanded campaign is ludicrous. She ran a tough campaign, but it would have looked tame by any previous campaign's standards.

That Obama is looking for people active during the Clinton Presidential years makes sense. Democrats have been out of power for 8 years. At this critical time, do you want an inexperienced team? Particularly when you have an inexperienced leader in Obama? Or do you want members from the last successful democratic Presidency?

As to the questions of qualifications. We all have faith that Obama will be the transcendant visionary the country and the world needs at this moment. However, the bona fides which support that belief are not there; we entrusted our country to a man who lacks experience. I believe he can do this and so did the majority of Americans. How hypocritical, then, to suggest then that Hillary Clinton's lacks the necessary experience. Moreover, how telling that the naysayers' faith is so easily shaken even before President-elect Obama takes office.

Hillary Clinton is more than qualified for this job, and Barack Obama knows it.

[Fabienne]

If citing Senator Clinton's hawkish votes and sentiments expressed during the primary is considered a kneejerk anti-Hillary response, what about those pro-Hillaryites who never address the issues involved in the Secretary of State position but simply gush over Clinton's experience, much of which is misrepresented or distorted? If you believe she has the necessary experience to be Secretary of State, state how, and explain why her vote for Bush's war and her continued support of it until the primaries began is not relevant. Explain why her hawkish comments during her campaign qualify her to negotiate with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. Explain how her misrepresentation of her landing in Bosnia and her role in the Irish peace process qualifies her to be Secretary of State. If you can't do that, I do believe your support of her is kneejerk.

[cjgnew]

I liked your post, Fabienne! It shows that there's plenty of intelligence there. First, reliance on the intelligence community's view that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs would probably have made me hawkish, too. For if Saddam Hussein had one nuclear weapon, he would not have hesitated to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at the same time. This would have meant that Saddam Hussein would have been in charge of the Middle East. In that situation, a $4.00 price for a gallon of gas would have been a bargain. Do you know how much a gallon of gas is in Great Britain? If Americans had to pay the same price for a gallon of gas as the Brits do, I can practically guarantee to you that there would have been riots in almost every city in America. Colin Powell, who is certainly a wise man, was tricked by the fake intelligence reports, too. Her decision was based on Saddam's possession of WMDs. Few people could have conceived such a failure by the intelligence community, which was manipulated by the person in charge of that department, and was in cohut with Bush/Cheney. I am sure she has learned from her error and will not repeat the same mistake in the future.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[Lan2]

I believe she truly believed, as did nearly the entire Senate, including our Vice President-Elect, that there were weapons of mass destruction.

As I understand it, " the Secretary performs such duties as the President requires. These include negotiating with foreign representatives and instructing U.S. embassies or consulates abroad. The Secretary also serves as a principal adviser to the President in the determination of U.S. foreign policy and, in recent decades, has become responsible for overall direction, coordination, and supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas, excepting certain military activities." Senator Clinton is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has a long history of commitment to global civil rights issues, is very familiar in dealing with foreign dignitaries, was her husband's closest advisor during his Presidential years. Her time in the Senate has proven she is a sharp negotiator and can broker deals with rivals. She is well qualified for this position.

Regarding her misstatements, Senator Clinton has flown into dangerous combat zones on numerous occasions. Yes, she got it wrong, but she was not the only candidate to make misstatements. Such is the nature of campaigning.

I again reiterate, if we could have the faith to elect an inexperienced leader as President, why not have faith that he has faith in his choice for SOS.

[edwarvir]

I don't see where President Obama needs the Clintons
at all. I hope the Republs will bail him out of this
one. Susan Rice would be a much better choice and
she would be loyal.

[Grulg]

Obviously she is a great candidate. You clowns shilling for anyone but her should and need to get a grip. Like it or not-she's in, you're not.

[idabamaho]

Sorry, right now we don't need a "symbol". We need someone with experience in "diplomacy". Hillary is a symbol with baggage, not substance.

[cjgnew]

Is being a top Yale Law School graduate just a symbol to you? Is being a U.S. Senator for eight years just a symbol to you? Is being a top advisor to the presidency of BC just a symbol to you? Are the 18 million votes that she got in the primary just a symbol to you? Was her endorsement of BHO in the general election just symbolic? I think you can't see the forest for the trees.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[dubster]

That's exactly right. Indeed, that's all she is, is a symbol and rhetoric. Nothing more than a shrewd expedient pol with an insatiable desire for power. Zero experience with negotiations and diplomacy. She will only exacerbate our global relations with neutral, friendly, and hostile nation-states with her abrasive personality.

[kirk61]

When Hillary Clinton supported illegally bombing Serbia, none of the bombs fell on women?

When Hillary Clinton supported bombing Iraq during her husband's time in office no women were killed?

When Hillary Clinton supported invading and bombing Afghanistan no women were raped and killed?

When Hillary Clinton supported invading Iraq no women have been killed, or forced from their homes?

When Hillary Clinton says she wants to wipe out Iran does she have a special bomb that only kills men?

Hillary Clinton in the wrong choice because she supports war first, because she made fun of the idea of talking with other governments even if we disagree with them, and because of dozens of other reasons. The notion that she is a supporter of rights for women does not trump her other actions and make her a good choice for this office.

[cjgnew]

This is a post that looks very strong on the surface. But when one looks deeper, one finds that not only women were being mistreated--and dying en masse--prior to the interventions that you mentioned, those same military interventions actually made it better for women in those countries. And, in the long run, that progress might even be sustainable. Therefore, I don't find your point to be as strong as it may seems at first glance.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[kirk61]

There is no way in hell that life is better in Iraq for women now than it was before. It _was_ a secular society with many educated women. Now it's more religious and millions have fled the country and at least a million more are dead. Therefore I don't find your point to be credible at all.

[chuckvw]

I admire your resolute optimism, Carlos. Between your lips and God's ear...

[edwarvir]

cignew that's just what I think about your post
no matter what anyone saids you think Hill/bill is
the right person for the job and she is not.

[dubster]

superbly contrasted with original post. Absolutely masterful.

[zaz33]

Hillary has the support of the ruling class.

Hillary has the support of special interests.

Hillary has the support of the DNC.

Hillary probably has the support of the millitary industrial complex.

I see Hillary as a continuation of a foreign policy based on "free trade" by force and intimidation.

Does Hillary represent "change we can believe in" ?

[cjgnew]

Comes January 20th, 2009, Obama will be in charge of foreign policy, not HRC or anyone else who might be secretary of state. The Secretary of State is just an emissary to the President. The job of secretary of state is to push the President's agenda overseas. If HRC or anyone acting as secretary of state does not follow the President's guideline, then the President can remove such a person at will since the Secretary of State serves at the President's pleasure. As an attorney, who graduated from Yale Law School, HRC knows that very well, and she knows who her client is going to be.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[zaz33]

The article was about Hillary - I could have used Hillary and Obama interchangably in my comments.

I don't see much evidence of change. (appointments and advisers)

I hope the optimists are right and I'm wrong.

[edwarvir]

zaz33 Hell to the no, she does not

[melponeme k]

The people voted AGAINST her because they didn't want her in office.

And yet we get more of her anyway.

So far I'm seeing too much CHANGE from the President Elect. All the same faces.

[editorjuno]

Don't forget how close the popular vote in the primaries was and the extremely high percentage of HRC supporters who turned out to support Obama in the general election -- if they'd stayed home, we'd be looking at a McCain-Palin administration. You can't effectively implement change without people who know how the status quo works -- you need the right balance of experienced hands who know the ropes and fresh blood with new ideas. Remember, the tone is set from the top -- the strict role of cabinet officers (except for the AG, who has a unique portfolio) is to advise the president and execute presidential decisions.

[RallyGrrrl]

THANK YOU!

It's like there is this glossing-over going on, and that somehow HRC is just barely qualified to even be in any elected office, instead of being an international figure and one of the most significant, living or dead, women's rights leader.

I know no one likes talking about sexism anymore, because clearly women are allowed to hold the jobs and offices of men, so sexism is over (insert sarcasm here). Though the strategy may take a more subtle tone ("I've got nothing against a woman, but She's not *qualified*" - "Well, she isn't less qualified..." - "Not good enough!"), it exists in many homes across our nation. Some women are having conversations with their men and discovering they don't see eye-to-eye afterall. We've been resting on our Third Wave laurels, and it's time to dig in our heels again. Whatever happens with Hillary Rodham Clinton next, the supporters around the world of women's rights will be watching.

[idabamaho]

Oh, pluease...

[cjgnew]

Please don't be so dismissive of her. She has a point, and she is entitled to her opinion.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[nkhogan]

I agree with you RallyGrrrl. Sexism is far from dead. I hope this will be a catalyst for the passing on of the torch to the next generation of feminists. It is time to dig our heels in again. I hope HRC will continue in the SoS role to be a strong voice for women's human rights in the international policy arena. It will make the next years at the UN CSW and Council on Human Rights interesting ones indeed!

[emmanuels]

Well According to your argument then she should be qualified for secretary of state for global women's rights. A secretary of state does a lot more than be an be a spokesperson for women's rights. With all the baggage of the Clinton's (Dirty Laundry not included) ; Obama's promises of change in Washington , I don't see how she fits the bill here.

[bighillaryfan]

We love Hillary!! Why did she have to run against the Obama machine?

Obama beat her fair and square, but we thought she would be our next president.

[cjgnew]

Please don't despair. If she accepts the Secretary of State job and does a good job, which she can, she still has a great chance of succeeding BHO in 2016. She would have by then earned her mettles and moved away from her husband's political backlash. If John McCain at seventy-two, burdened by the incumbency of his party and the incompetence of SP, was able to garner forty-six percent of the votes, I am convinced that HRC can win the presidency in 2016 if she plays her cards right and stays healthy. She already has the majority of the women's votes. If she can make headways with progressive men in this country by proving that she has not just been riding BC's coattails all these years, I predict that she can beat any candidate that the Republican Party may nominate to run against her.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[rmm4402]

I think she's a lousy choice.....

If you want the SOS to be a tourch holder for women's issues - there is other talent in the Democratic party who could do the job.... some of her fellow senators for instance....

Sorry but I just can't get by that Bosnian sniper fire thing..... I mean that was an out and out lie.... I hope the Pres-Elect looks elsewhere.

[nkhogan]

Who then? I'd love to see an alternative list. I can't think of other senators who would carry the torch for women's rights as well as HRC. Although that's not what she's being tasked to do. SoS is about a much bigger picture....the added benefit is that HRC is a feminist and champion of women's human rights in addition to the other credentials she brings to the table.

I wasn't crazy about the bosnian sniper thing either and I'm not a wide-eyed naive HRC fan. In fact I opposed her candidacy for President, opposed her being chosen as VP and until very recently have been very ambivalent about her selection as SoS (in fact am still ambivalent, but if BO does choose her this is how I will console myself and reconcile myself to his decision--it's not all doom and gloom in other words. There are some up sides to her being SoS)

[cjgnew]

I concur. The problem was with the article itself, which focused solely on HRC's strength as a women's rights advocate. The author should not have assumed that everyone believes she is qualified, and she should have presented other supporting evidence as to why HRC would make a good secretary of state. By failing to do that, she left her article wide open for criticism on that front.

Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO

[teddyquin]

I am anxiously waiting with baited breath for the big after Thanksgiving annoucement.,,,, such excitement and drama for my Holiday.

[campgranata]

Much of MRS Clinton reputation in the world is the result of well crafted speeches (obviously not written by her) and being associated with Bill Clinton. In order to be considered for the Secretary of State position she is still citing Bill Clinton's experiences as her own. We are in big trouble if she manages the dept of State the way she managed her political campaign. This stubbornness to concede defeat which many viewed as tenacity will hinder her in foreign relations and then someone will have to clean up her mess just as she is asking supporters to pay her campaign debt that resulted by her stubbornness to admit defeat when it was inevitable. Should she have to negotiate with foreign powers her reputation will quickly disintegrate for she has few if any diplomatic skills. that MRS Clinton could have come so far with so little is a sad testament to America's it's not what you know but whom
philosophy.

And for the readers who call everyone who believes MRS Clinton is a liar who is not qualified, a sexist or a Clinton hater, I am neither. I would like Samantha power to be secretary of state.

[RallyGrrrl]

Wow.

1. Have you actually heard SENATOR Clinton give a speech? She's known for her diplomactic skills.

2. I'd rather see a reference to proof that she doesn't write her own speeches, and proof that she is in the minority of politicians who do not, than just read some random assertion that she doesn't.

3. Maybe you didn't catch the part about her being a Rhodes scholar, a lawyer, the most vocal and visible First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt, oh and by the way she was elected to the US Senate - twice. Oh and she's one of the most powerful political figures, let alone women, in the world. How is it that she is a symbol of the "it's who you know" philosophy?

[jrgilbert]

Hillary was not a Rhodes Scholar; Bill was.

[shadm81]

Actually Bill was the Rhoades scholar, not Hillary. And to be honest with you, she failed the D.C. bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. But is besides the point, I have issue with her being S.o.S not because of her experience or lack thereof, its because Obama's view and her view on Iraq are different. I still think she has not said that her vote was a mistake; which pretty much was the reason why Obama was carried through the first half of the primary.

[idabamaho]

and she has zero experience in diplomacy. Check Bill Richardson's record.

[campgranata]

I have to answer this in two parts.
1. Have you actually heard SENATOR Clinton give a speech? She's known for her diplomactic skills.

I was in buffalo NY when she was campaigning for the presidency and giving a speech and was asked by the editor, I believe, of one of the Buffalo papers when she was going to deliver the jobs she promised eight years ago. and she (the quick thinker that she is) said she promised these jobs because she thought Al Gore would have been elected president. And in eight years she could not come up with an alternative plan; yes I have heard her speak and there is quite a different in tone and language between her planned speeches and her extemporaneous answers to questions.

2. I'd rather see a reference to proof that she doesn't write her own speeches, and proof that she is in the minority of politicians who do not, than just read some random assertion that

How about a reference from the Washington post?
DENVER -- The line Hillary in Rodham Clinton's speech "No way, no how, no McCain" was written by ONE of Clinton's most junior writers, Jon Lovett. He joined Lissa Muscatine and Jim Kennedy in crafting her remarks,

[customgreen]

While I would agree that Hillary is qualified to be SOS, I do not agree that she is supremely qualified. As you point out there are many bashing her as the wrong choice or that she is not qualified, these people offer little more than outright rants. No substance, no real eveidence. However on the flip side you have a group (including yourself) that promotes her as the most qualified, or supremely qualified, or the most experienced. All of it is streching the truth. She is qualified, but so are many others. To focus on her womens rights issues is important, but the SOS has to be so much more than that. Hillary has many differences regarding the direction of foreign policy than Obama. Obama must be in control, it must be his vision, not Hillary's. In the end she will probably get the job, and that is good. Like I said she is qualified, and she more than anyone else has shown that she can work with Obama. They seem good together, so I think it will work well.