Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Yes!
Ever since Barack Obama won the primary the question has been asked, "What will Hillary do?"
The assumption has been that President-elect Barack Obama would offer her some significant position for several reasons:
- He respects her intelligence and grit.
- It is better to have her on the inside than on the outside, in keeping with Doris Kearns Goodwin's portrait of Lincoln in "A Team of Rivals."
- She deserves it, having been the good soldier and campaigned for him vigorously in the last two months.
- Her supporters continue to care passionately about her and expect her to be elevated to top position
There are only two jobs that he could actually offer her that she could accept. One would be the Supreme Court, but she has already made it clear that she is not interested and it is easy to understand why. If she accepted a seat on the court she would have to become a political nun, removed from the politics that she relishes. She is a public person who wants to remain engaged in the hurly burly of politics.
The other would be Secretary of State, one of the top three cabinet posts. She could not accept anything less, like Secretary of Health and Human Services or Ambassador to the UN. She has moved far beyond those more circumscribed roles.
Moving from the Senate to the State Department would not likely entail the loss of a Senate seat because New York Governor David Paterson would name a Democrat to fill the vacancy.
As a former Hillary supporter I would be delighted to see Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State. And, I know that thousands of women, not only those who voted for her, would agree. In just a short period of time, the position of Secretary of State has been filled by two capable women: Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. It seems only fitting for President-elect Obama to follow this tradition, but not only because she's a woman, but because she is the best person for the job. She has traveled widely as First Lady, established good relationships with world leaders, and gained universal respect. And unlike Sarah Palin, throughout her primary campaign, no one questioned whether she was qualified to be President. Surely, then she is qualified to be Secretary of State.
This was originally posted at Chelsea Green.
Madeleine M. Kunin is the former Governor of Vermont and was the state's first woman governor. She served as Ambassador to Switzerland for President Clinton, and was on the three-person panel that chose Al Gore to be Clinton's VP. She is the author of Pearls, Politics, and Power: How Women Can Win and Lead from Chelsea Green Publishing.
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
You did not state any real qualifications for the job, much less why she was more qualified than others in contention. Traveling widely is not really a qualification nor is knowing a lot of world leaders. Many people qualify on that basis. You have mentioned no foreign policy issues for which she could lend her expertise. What management skills does she contribute? Two former women as SOS, does not a tradition make. In fact, considering the importance of the Mideast in foreign policy, coupled with the sexist traditions of the region, a woman might present problems with diplomacy. Perhaps you have a case for her appointment, but you haven't made it in this article.
On the negative side, she does not share Obama's foreign policy vision. Although she is tough, I don't see the soft side of diplomacy in her. Bill could present a conflict of interest and together they could undermine Obama's policies.
If there are only two or three posts she'd take, perhaps she would be better off staying in the Senate.
The question is do WE deserve it? As a first lady, she was a pretty lousy diplomat.
People do like Hillary Clinton. Count me in. We do need a reality check. Tallying up responses from HuffPo blogs more people prefer Bill Richardson with Hillary Clinton down a bit in second. The others are well back.
That other guy, Bill Richardson, is really good too. Bill R. has been a gentleman defending Hillary Clinton in debates. He has negotiated the release of hostages many times and it brings him Nobel Prize nominations time and again. He has been UN ambassador, and is also known and respected broadly around the world. He has been reelected to his post as New Mexico governor with 70% of the vote.
Richardson wins by perseverance and persuasion. Richardson doesn't rely on charm and charisma, but is gifted in the art of jawboning. He will wear opposition down simply with power, persistence and finesse. Richardson demonstrates how to bring back hostages and has documented his talents in the books he has written. Between Worlds is a great book that I would recommend to anyone. Finally, Bill Richardson loves working with people. You will see that he holds the Guinness book of Records for shaking hands.
Don't go thinking HRC is being shafted if she is not chosen. The guy she is being compared with is plenty good too, and he deserves a chance.
It's not just the Hillary supporters who like her, I was a Kucinich supporter, who recognized that he wouldn't win, and so became an Edwards supporter, but he dropped out before Super Tuesday, so I voted for Obama and then became an Obama supporter.
I would still rather Bill Richardson as Sec State.. but Hillary is not a bad choice either. "Keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer"
Hillary is not an enemy! Hillary is, politically speaking, the SAME as Obama!
How is she not an enemy considering the way she carried on during the primaries. I lost a lot of respect for her because of her underhanded tactics. She doesn't deserve nor is she qualified for the position. Bill Richardson would be better, plus he isn't a senator, so the dems don't lose out on the position when he resigns as governor. Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, or the Senate. The problem is that none of these are rock star rolls, in that they don't garner the same type of attention or prestige as Secretary of State. I don't trust that she will be fully behind Obama. I'm sure that I am not alone in this thought.
"Obliterate Iran" rather than negotiate with Iran is NOT the same as Obama.
The idea that Hillary "deserves" something is preposterous. For what ? Because she is a woman ? Give that a rest. Nobody ever says what exactly her qualifications are. She totally disagrees with Obama's foreign policy and she has said that many times. This is a job where you have to represent views that are not YOURS ... but the POTUS. Hillary is NOT that person.
I can tell you if she would be chosen, Obama will give up a large part of his base. Back to the drama of the Clintons is hardly change. It is a nightmare.
She deserves it because she EARNED it! Not by the votes she got, or by the campaign she ran, but by her QUALIFICATIONS!!!
Appointing Hillary to be the Secretary of State would be a GREAT step in the right direction!!
What exactly are her qualifications? Please don't answer being First Lady and visiting 80 countries.
Yes ,exactly what are her FOREIGN POLICY qualifications?? HOW many countries has she been in negotiations with( 0)? Richardson has negotiated w/ Saddam, Milosovich, and Kim Il Sung. Richardson secured the release of hostages/ detainees, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize THREE times. I'd say that if anybody has EARNED IT, it's Richardson.
She has too much negative baggage( Bill), too little actual experience( excapt fo that airport in Bosnia - lol) , and waaay too right wing(AIPAC,AUMF, "obliterate Iran) for the most sensitive and important foreign policy position in the world! ...better at HHS , if at all in the administration.
No.
As a white woman of Clinton's generation, Latino Bill Richardson is the more qualified candiditae.
Why NOT Senator Clinton?
The role and task of "Secretary" of any Department is to design and execute policies that reflect and enable the execution of the expressed views of the person who was elected President.
She has made it clear by her words and her votes that she doesn't.
Dennis Kucinich?
Mario Cuomo?
The Cltions have made mega millions from Bill's shady international business dealtings,. Even his "philanthropic" efforts are murky, because he refuses to reveal a list of donors. The Cltions also loaned Hillary's campaign major millions. Have they repaid that loan? If not, what was the source of those millions? Was it's Bill's huge "speaking and consulting fees" from foreign donors?
In truth, the Clintons are deeply conflicted on international issues. If the Cltions are not willing to make their international dealings, past present and future, tranparent, how can the nation and the world trust Hillary's role as SoS, and the avoidance of undue influence from Bill
Unfortunately, it does not appear possible for the Ctlntons to meet Obama's high standards of vetting and ethics. If they do "meet the test," those standards will immediately be suspect, and Obama could be stigmatized as playing Washignton insider politics as usual.
Best to leave the Bush-Clinton years behind, and move the nation forward.
Hillary would make a GREAT Sec. of State. Only the Hillary haters disagree, but they are irrelevant.
Well I disagree and I'm not a Hillary hater, in fact I hoped she'd be chosen for the Veep spot, or failing that AG. I disagree that she'd be good at State because I disagree with her foreign policy positions. Do you know her foreign policy positions? Do you agree with them? That is the question I haven't seen a single Hillary supporter answer. It's not about the person. It's about the policies. And even if Obama is the boss, she'd never be effective at implementing a policy she fundamentally disagrees with (such as talking to Iran, or being less biased against the Palestinians, or withdrawing from Iraq, or easing the Cuba embargo - to name just a few).
Actually, nuance and a general understanding of all components of thought suggests there are numerous reasons many of us don't want Hillary to be SoS. I like her just fine, but in dealing with the patriarchal Mid-East, women are not simply "barely tolerated"within negotiations, but lied to openly. That's just for starters.
Concentrate the intense distrust already generated by BushCo and fronted with the unbelievably ineffective advances repeated attempted by Condi Rice . . . and from a diplomacy point of view, we start out on our heels. Dumb move. Really dumb move.
Conversely, Hillary would likely have much more power (we all know she's really big into that) by advancing into Harry Reid's SML role and would be most effective there. I believe old white guys would drop like flies under that scenario. The Senate needs leadership with cajones . . . and Hillary appears to be packing.
Just as a side . . . regarding jug-head assertions that Hillary "haters" (incendiary term used by those lacking any ability to communicate as an adult) are "irrelevant"? Perhaps you've forgotten who will be hiring whom should Obama actually be serious about using Hillary for anything. Last we looked, Obama ain't the one having to submit a resume, sunshine.
It is very unlikely that Hillary would ever become Senate Majority Leader. By all inside accounts, she has very little influence in the Senate, and what she had will be diminished by the fact she lost the nomination. She will also be challenged to keep her Senate seat from NY, having used it unsuccessfully as a stepping stone to the presidency. She used her constituents and they know it.
Those who disliked Senator Clinton were irrelevant enough to managed to wrest the nomination away from the "inevitable" candidate.
What's striking is that this article, and every single other blogpost, article or comment in favor of Clinton's appointment I've read (and I've read hundreds), doesn't mention any issues. It's all about gender and competence, and how prestigious the State post is, and how much she deserves it. Don't the issues matter?
Let's gloss over her vote for the Iraq war - but perhaps not over her lack of remorse. She also voted for Kyl-Lieberman. She's opposed to lifting the embargo on Cuba, she's threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation, she's opposed to banning cluster bombs, she's generally credited (and already was during her husband's presidency) with a stance so pro-Israel and anti-Arab that it places her not only to the right of her party but also to the right of many Republican
By contrast she's progressive on domestic issues, notably health care. So her appointment would mean losing a progressive senator and gaining a hawkish SoS. I call that a lurch to the right. It would mean that Obama abandons his progressive stance of foreign policy and moves not just to the center, but to the right of the center. That's more important than whether or not Clinton is "rewarded" with a plum position. And it explains why Kissinger is in favor, and many progressives are aghast.
Nobody can ever say why she is qualified. The fact the Kissinger supports this should scare the hell out of Democrats or any sane person.
Good points, Hans.
I think it's a crazy idea, for a number of reasons :
1) SOS is not supposed to be a politician. You do not want a SOS who is trying to boost their own profile or curry favor with groups who can be politically useful down the line.
2) As John Bolton said - "never hire someone you can't fire". See Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
3) Bill Clinton's activities will be scrutinized in the confirmation process. (Kazakhstan?)
4) She has proven weaknesses in her management style - healthcare, the 2008 campaign.
5) Democrats lose a senate seat when they are very close to 60
6) She was in the wrong side of the Iraq and Iran debates
7) She is in any case much more a domestic policy person ie health care
8) Do you really want to send a feminist crusader in to negotiate with the Taliban?
Kennedy has already removed her from health care. HE IS DOING IT. He refused to give her a sub committee.
I think she will be severely challenged for her Senate seat as many NY'rs are not happy with her. Obama would have had the same issue in Illinois if he lost. He did nothing for Illinois, just using this to become president. Since he won, he does not have this issue now .
I'd let Hillary stay in the senate and see what happens. I don't think he "owes" her anything. She campaigned for lots of Democrats not just Obama.
"He did nothing for Illinois, just using this to become president. "
He got a bill passed (unamimously) which required murder suspect interviews to be recorded on video. This drastically reduced the number of police brutality complaints (and the number of lawsuits against the state) and helped reduce the number of innocent people being given the death penalty. Please don't say he "did nothing" for Illinois without first doing research.
I think Clinton as SOS is a very good idea and she will instantly put a spotlight on State and the philosophy of negotiations first and foremost, before any thought of military action and risk of life.
I realize that State is probably the best cabinet position, although one could argue that Defense or the Treasury have more power and are more important. But this is a quibble. However, I don't buy the notion that HHS is beneath Clinton, in fact given her long term commitment to health care and other social issues, she could bring the spotlight to HHS and stand a terrific chance of changing for the better the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans.
she will instantly put a spotlight on State and the philosophy of negotiations first and foremost, before any thought of military action and risk of life.
Right this is the woman who threatened to "obliterate Iran". Let's send her there and hope she never comes back
You have a good point SF13, but I think that was her talking tough for the electorate and she will not be in a position to make those decisions.
Great Point. How I hope this is just speculation and that Obama choses Richardson and substance over style
If Obama wants a truly capable individual as his Secretary of State, he has to choose between Clinton or Chris Dodd. Richardson is ok, but has a long way to go, still. I don't find him a mature enough politician for such an important position.
As for Condolezza Rice, she doesn't measure up one bit to Mrs Albright, and has been an embarrassment, just as her boss, the soon-to-be former(!) President! ;o) Only recently, has she begun to show some character, trying to make up for almost 8 years of disastrous decisions, but alas, that isn't enough.
I have to say that I'm looking forward with hope and excitement, as it seems that Obama, just as President Clinton, will bring to the White House, a highly capable administration that has all the qualities, capabilities and possibilities of turning things around!
Hillary anad Dodd are the only people in the United States of America truly capable of being SoS? That is absurd. If you are interested in politics as usual, and Washington insiders, they may be viable candidates, but Obama promised CHANGE and the best qualified, not the most politically connected.
No, they're not the ONLY people who are capable, but I was referring to the ones that have been mentioned so far.
And as far as change goes, I believe he was thinking primarily of changing the disastrous policies of George W Bush and the damage that has come out of them. I've seen quite a few of your comments, and you truly seem to be... less than objective when it comes to the Clintons(or as you call it, Clinton Inc.), but truth be told, if you disregard the Lewinsky scandal(which by European standards was ridiculous to begin with!), his(Bill's) was one of the best presidencies to date. Certainly he made some errors, no doubt, but if you look at the bigger picture, EVERYTHING was better compared to today!
(And let me state for the record, that I was not Hillary's biggest fan, when the primaries started. I was rooting for Biden or Kucinich, to be honest, although Kucinich is a bit too radical for most Americans, why I knew he didn't stand a chance to being with.)
First of all this is not a she needs this position because she's a woman, if indeed she gets the position it needs to be because she's the best one qualified for that position. Second whether we like it or not we still have to contend with her husband who is a huge liablitiy to her, I don't want him wandering the halls again. Third the women who supported her (I did not) have absolutely no obligation to promote her for the position, she has a job and she's good at what she does. Fourth compared to Palin she needs to be put on a pedistal for just being able to compete with the "boys" on their level, but should she be put in that position because she's a woman. No, that's almost an insult to all women...af
This Hillary assumption was obviously foisted on Obama by Clinton surrogates. It has not been Obama's style to leak his plans, and it is inane to believe Obama suggested that He wanted Hillary in his cabinet.
Hillary has a felony case coming up within weeks that would automaticlly illiminate her qualifications. However \, if she could pressure Obama to appoint her before the case comes up, then Hillary will automatically have diplomatic immunity to be be trtied while she is in Obama's cabinet.
Furthermore, Obama needs the Clintons hanging around the Oval Office like he needs Bush advising him.
Chirstopher Hitchens is on point when he throws out the question 'Why would a conservative like Kissinger advocate that Hillary would be an excellent SOS?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
