Hillary Clinton: A 21st Century Choice for Secretary of State

If we shift the angle of vision from the habits we formed during the campaign, Hillary Clinton emerges into view as an inspired choice for secretary of state and a potential agent of transformational change -- exactly what President-elect Barack Obama is seeking.

Obama has a distinctly 21st century view of international relations. As explained by Nicholas Lemann in The New Yorker last month:

The Obama campaign started with a big idea about foreign policy: that the great issues of the future, like climate change, terrorism, and pandemic disease, cannot be solved through traditional means of nation-to-nation military and diplomatic dealings.

In other words, a wholesale redefinition of America's national interest and what forces influence Americans' prosperity, health, safety, and security in the 21st century is in the works.

Obama will not choose Hillary to make party peace, nor to bring warmed-over Clintonism into the inner sanctums of the new administration. He will not choose her because she is a woman. If Hillary is the one, she will have been chosen because she has shown visionary leadership on two of the critical international (and moral) questions of our age: climate change and the human rights of women.

Anyone who followed the campaign and the policy debates realizes that Clinton was stellar on climate change and energy independence. (Barring the one foolish gas-tax holiday delusion.) Obama and Clinton share views on the subject, and if anything, Clinton has rightly shown more skepticism than Obama on nuclear power and "clean coal."

Less well known is the fact that Hillary Clinton was one of the pioneers of the principle that women's rights are human rights and that women's status in the world is one of the critical international issues. This feminist principle challenged the once prevailing notion that women's inequality was just women's issue, not something universal. Under that conception of the problem, particular local and national customs -- genital mutilation, the burning of widows, forced marriage of youth, etc. -- denying women's rights were allowed to stand unchallenged.

The change occurred at the 1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing China. The official Platform of Action enshrined the principle of women's rights as human rights. The victory was a large one, and thousands of women internationally contributed to making it happen. Nevertheless, Clinton's speech at the conference has been widely credited as being instrumental in the movement. (Text and audio here.)

I believe that now, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break the silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and for the world to hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights.

These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. But the voices of this conference . . . must be heard loudly and clearly.

Reporting on the speech, the New York Times observed that Clinton spoke "more forcefully on human rights than any American dignitary has on Chinese soil."

There are many supremely qualified candidates for secretary of state who could carry out Obama's foreign policy vision. The Democratic party suffers from an embarrassment of riches. I do not mean to suggest that Clinton is the only acceptable choice. Others legitimately call attention to her record in the campaign (bad), her record and rhetoric on classic international issues (mixed), the experience and prestige she would bring to the position (mixed). We should recall, though, that just a week ago the rumored front-runners for secretary of state were two anti-abortion politicians, one of whom (Charles Hagel) was an influential opponent of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. To those worried about some of Hillary's tendencies I say, perhaps this compromise is less compromising than others Obama could make.

Coincidentally, this week the 2008 Global Gender Gap Report was released, reporting a widening health gap internationally between women and men, and warning of the danger the financial crisis poses to women in particular. What region of the world has the largest gender gap? The Middle East and North Africa. What region poses the biggest challenge to the new administration? As feminists know and have been insisting for over three decades, there is no coincidence here.

By offering Senator Clinton the position of secretary of state, the message President-elect Obama could send to the world about how he views the significance of women's rights would be powerful indeed. It would also -- as strictly icing on the cake -- be a giant step forward in negotiating the peace in the Democratic party's own gender wars.

Comments

[rebelrebel]

I can't say I'm thrilled about HRC as Secretary of State, in part because I think she could be more effective in the Senate. My main concern is whether she will be able to serve as a loyal employee of the President. When foreign leaders meet with her, they should have confidence that she speaks for the President and is not pursuing a different agenda.

Although there are things about H. Clinton I don't like, she is whip smart and extremely gifted. If she is truly willing to subordinate her own views to serve under Obama (and we might as well put it that way, to be clear), she can be effective.

It's much more difficult for a Secretary of State to pursue a separate agenda than it is for a Vice President.

As for Iraq, if the Iraqi parliament approves the new security agreement then we're on the way to withdrawing. Clinton certainly isn't going to oppose that.

The odds are good that she will leave after one term, in any case. To be effective, she and Obama will need a good working relationship, and that seems doubtful.

[mater]

I wish Mrs. Clinton would wind up protecting gener wars and women's issues from inside the Supreme Court. She would bring toughness and balance to a judicial body about to tip over at the expense of all Americans concerned with fair and equal human rights.

[SF13]

If you really do NOT want HRC for SOS please write to change.gov ... that is the new website to contact the transition team ...

This is a suicidal move for Obama. He is playing Russian Roulette with this country by choosing a neocon HRC.

[SF13]

The lawyers doing the vetting on the Clintons are CLINTON'S LAWYERS ..Well with one decision he has destroyed my faith in him and I will never believe anything he says again.

[SF13]

If Obama wants to destroy his presidency before he even takes office, choosing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, will guarantee that.

What happened to turn the page and change? This is not what I voted for and I will never vote for Obama again (or Ms. Clinton should she run again) I will start voting Republican in the 2010 to take away their majority in Congress.

I feel like Obama lied if she is his choice and have no further interest in supporting him or anything he stands for.

[JimR]

Gonna take your ball and go home, huh?

[emncaity]

Oh, yes, definitely. Let's pick a Secretary of State based on what "message" she's going to "send," not on the most experienced and qualified person who's demonstrated the longest and best record of working with sometimes dangerous elements in a way that occasionally pisses off both sides, but seems clearly guided by a sense of duty and a moral compass that's outside partisan interests (Kerry and Richardson, for two).

Progressives are ALREADY showing they're more interested in "sending messages" than in governing as well as they can. For the moment, I'm ashamed to be one.

[nibblybits]

You're "ashamed to be [a progressive]"? Well, that didn't take long. Less than two weeks since the election.

Why are some on the left always looking for something to complain about? We still don't know who the SOS is going to be.

[screamngdissent]

The is nothing wrong with complaining. The problem is when the left doesn't complain. That is when we get the Clinton years. I can't believe there are people on the left who still defend Bill Clinton. It is sad...

[RadhaColalurver]

So would you say Obama was the most experienced person? Geez. Experience isn't everything, nor should it be. Leadership is not only about experience, nor should it be. I understand arguments that she is a bad manager or that Bill's business dealings cause conflicts of interests. But the experience argument against Clinton for SoS just sounds like an empty, hypocritical argument.

[nibblybits]

I'm troubled by the fact that Hillary has yet to apologize or back off from her Iraq vote. Someone who can't compromise or admit their mistakes is a bad quality in a Sec of State.

That said, I'm not going to second guess Obama.

[britethere]

Visionary myazz: War vote, "obliterate Iran," Kyle / Lieberman. And then there is the unabashed love for Mccain while bashing Obama "who had that speech he made in 2002".Let's toss in some questionable $$$$ from Kazakhstan, Dubai, and China. No way no how

[Rokgoo]

I am not sure if Hillary is a good choice or not. But I know when the Rights applause you, it is a BAD sign.

[windypaperboy]

The "human rights of women"? How about the human rights of humans? Palestinians for instance.

[johninbigd]

Amen, windy. HRC is a neo-con shill for Israel. She doesn't really have that much foreign policy experience. The bulk of her experience is with domestic issues. I really, really don't want to see her anywhere near this administration. What sort of signal does that send to the world, especially countries in the Middle East, if Obama selects Emmanuel as his chief of staff and then selects HRC as his Secretary of State?

[mulegino]

The "human rights of women"? How about the human rights of humans? There are a lot of men in the world who suffer the degradation of their own rights, along with their wives, mothers, sisters and daughters. I daresay that the overwhelming majority of the suffering masses in the underdeveloped nations would simply wish to have a roof over their heads, access to running water, a steady food supply, basic health care, and rudimentary educational opportunities, as well as to be free from the vicious cycle of famine, and tribal and sectarian violence. Gender identity politics are something that would be way, way down on their list of priorities.
The secretary of state's job, by the way, is to be the nation's chief diplomat and executor of the foreign policy goals set by the President, not agitate for social change throughout the world. A humane foreign policy would look to aiding sovereign nations, via bilateral agreements, improve their infrastructures and raise their standard of living, not dictate social policy which is an internal matter. Until the concept of national sovereignty is once again elevated to its rightful place as an indivisible and indispensable element of international diplomacy, there can be no lasting progress or peace among nations-.

[rbenjamin]

Uhh, repecftully no. Obama offered the job to a well qualified Hillary Clinton primarily because beyond meeting the core requirement of competence (so lacking over the last 8 yrs) it would promote party unity and because he likes his enemies close. I mean the latter in a positive way, Obama seems to value divergent opinions, so long as everybody is reigned in at the end of the day. The Lincoln approach. Speaking of reined in, what about Bill? Is there a secret deal to chain him in the basement (big, case hardened steel links) and feed him fish heads? "Why the look Bill, you said you wanted to live for two more terms in the White House, didn't you?"

[MontereyJack]

thank u mrs. benjamin. hil needs to fill our all the forms, tho, and disclose bill's contributors and investments. no cutting corners.

[emncaity]

So "divergent opinions" would be, for instance, a Secretary of State whose very presence undermines either Obama himself or her own truthfulness--that is, if she meant all that stuff about who should get the 3 a.m. phone call, that Obama was naive, unskilled, and too inexperienced in foreign policy and national security, etc.

Again: More evidence that progressives (and I am one) tend to be more concerned about what "message" a choice sends than whether that choice presents an irresolvable conflict of truth and logic (as it does here), or whether that person is actually more qualified than others who don't send the same "message." Anybody, including Obama himself, who has read the resumes of Clinton, Kerry, and Richardson--just to name two others--cannot reach any credible conclusion that she is the most qualified for the job.

[SF13]

I will never vote for Obama again if he does this

[wayoutleft]

secretary of state always sounds real august and prestigious until you can't get phone calls returned because the president's staff advisor who is the REAL foreign policy decisionmaker is more interesting. then it dawns on the secretary of state that his/her main purpose is to babysit the pals and israelis.
what barack is trying to do is take her out of the deal he will cut with private health insurers. he, congress, and big insurance don't want hillary to interject herself into their deal- even though they will co-opt her plan and claim it's their own.

[FilthyHarry]

Here are two issues that should disqualify her from an admin based on hope: She introduces an anti-flag burning amendment and is against gay marriage.

[bluemike]

Picking Hillary would be a sloppy move. She and her hubby should have no important future on the national scene. The choice would also be divisive. How can you trust a liar and slanderer in such an important a job?