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.
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
Wow... what a bunch of "transformational" crap!
I absolutely support the rights of women to control their bodies, get equal wages and equal rights... but I, for one, would appreciate a SecState who has a record for making the right calls when it comes to U.S. foriegn policy, as opposed to one who is an expert on women's studies.
Perhaps she's thinking about her suitability for a completely different cabinet position?!
You make a fairly convincing argument for Senator Clinton but my impression of her, and her husband for that matter, is that they will say and do whatever they think is necessary to help advance their agendas. With one exception, and that would be revealing exactly what those agendas are.
Don’t get me wrong here. I’m well aware that each and every one of us has certain agendas and ulterior motives that drive them. This is particularly true of high profile politicians. The problem I have with Hillary is that in the same manner her campaign signs put her first name first, in an apparent attempt to distance herself from the former president, she thinks of herself before all else.
It is my firm belief that had she managed to pull off the nomination in the primary’s, and lord knows she did her level best by embellishing her record while thoroughly trashing her opponent, Senator Obama, in an eerily Rovian manner, we would be discussing President elect McCain’s cabinet selections. That we came one or two personal attacks away from staring down the barrel of four more years of republican intolerance and mismanagement is not a very comforting thought for many of us.
In other words, she is basically an elephant cleverly disguised as a donkey and, in spite of all her favorable attributes on the surface, she does not represent anyone whose last name is not that which she tried to conceal, Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is nowhere near as capable as Bill Richardson or John Kerry. However, if both of them turn the job down and they can't find anyone else to step in, sure, go for it.
To pick Hillary as SoS, would not be putting the most qualified person available in that position. Just as Gov. Bill Richardson was the most qualified candidate to run for president in the primaries, on both the Democrat and Republican ticket, so is he the most qualified for the SoS position. As it's been said, if Obama is truly picking the best for his cabinet, it will be Secretary of State Bill Richardson.
Bill Richardson's approach to negotiating focuses on goals, not locale. These are his rules:
* Know where you can settle. Identify eight essential goals and achieve five.
* Learn as much as possible about your adversary.
* Give up the locale. Don't insist on neutral ground, but go to his or her turf. It's the substance that counts, not the place where you negotiate.
* Give up the little things. The other guy wants to hold a press conference? Fine.
* Don't be intimidated.
* Don't concede absolutely everything the other side is requesting. Get something in return, even if it's minor.
* Find common ground and establish a personal connection.
* You can walk out, but only if you're prepared to walk back in later.
* Take advantage of the goals you share. Agree on them and move on from there.
* Carry a bunch of nice pens. When your opponent admires one, give it to him.
* If you are negotiating an endgame, allow a dignified way out.
* Talk about it. It is always better to have a conversation than not to talk.
Source: Between Worlds, by Bill Richardson, p.363-4 Nov 3, 2005
I hope he picks Bill Richardson, Hispanic, bi-lingual with hands-on diplomatic experience and doesn't carry all the baggage that Hillary does. Of course, HIllary is fully qualified for the job as well.
bilingual means nada in any place than south america, and that is not where our most pressing problems are. he is a good guy, tho.
Kerry also speaks multiple languages.
I guess I have to be in politics to understand these decisions. I wonder how Richardson and Kerry feels?
Hillary is a take charge kind of person. It will be like choosing an Al Haig or a Maddie Albright as opposed to a Schultz or Christopher.
This will show us what Obama's view is of how things get done and what statement he wants to make to the world on day one.
Pity she never demonstrated that "take charge" characteristic in running her campaign. When things got tough and she had to make a decision .. she COULD NOT ..
There would be a certain symmetry in picking her for Atty Gen. The wingnuts would go ballistic, and with any luck, vaporize themselves. (Hey, I was just kiddin'.)
Since you mentioned the Attorney General position, I think David Yglesias, the former United States Attorney for New Mexico who was fired for refusing to prosecute Democrats in trumped-up cases of voter fraud, would make an excellent Attorney General.
Clinton for Secretary of State is a particularly disappointing selection on Obama's part. Although Hillary demonstrated heroic loyalty to Obama after she lost the nomination and I am not at all hostile to Hillary serving in an important position in the Obama Administration, Hillary lost the nomination because she lacked the judgment in international relations to wholly reject the warmongering policies of the neocons. To this day she has not apologized for putting the lives and limbs of my military family members, and millions of other military family members like mine, in harm's way against the interests of the United States. She supported labeling a part of the Iranian government a terrorist organization, in effect giving Bush authority to attack Iran according to Senator Jim Webb. She continually articulated a close-to-neocon predisposition and demonstrated an incredibly narrow world view -- exactly the opposite of what she needs to perform as a competent Secretary of State. It is even more disappointing because the most qualified person for Secretary of State in a generation, Bill Richardson, is there for the asking. Richardson has the exact perspective necessary to supplement Obama's stated goals of switching from cowboy militarism as our foreign policy to effective negotiations. Hillary doesn't have those talents based on her record, although she has many talents. The choice means that Obama may have decided to adapt to many of W's instincts -- all of which were wrong.
Hopefully Hillary is self-honest, recognizes her limitations and rejects the offer.
No decision has been made yet - I'm hoping she doesn't get it. The media hype does not have to be self fullfilling
Bill Richardson's modest demeanor is what we need for the kind of diplomacy that will usher in an era of being a good neighbor, rather than a big brother, to rest of the world. HRC's flagrant l'amour propre is more appropriate to a press conference she has called — to call attention to herself.
Obama will pick Hillary because of AIPAC. Just like Rahm Emanuel... AIPAC. And why he wants Lieberman to stay in his post in Homeland Security..
FAIR interpretion.
Nobody seems to escape AIPAC.....
C-span caller last sunday said .........T
so, ordinary folks realize what President Carter wrote is true.
Hillary would be a great anything she chooses to be. The woman is phenomenal. The more you know her, the more you love her.
Do you personally know her? Too bad this phenomenal lady wasn't able to bring some good jobs to NY, halting the exodus from the state.
Where was this phenomenal person during the campaign? Are there two HRCs?
Strange - it worked in the opposite direction for me during her incompetent campaign.
She's phenomenal all right. she's very good at making up stories.
I'd like to follow that up with .... I CAN'T BELIEVE I ATE THE WHOLE THING....
At the conclusion of the First World War Italy had played an important part in keeping the Austrian front from advancing and Prime Minister Orlando of Italy wanted territorial concessions for reparations. Woodrow Wilson recognized Italy and Orlando's achievement but he realized that the territorial concessions Orlando wanted would not allow for a lasting peace. It wasn't easy confronting his ally for hours and hours of talks but Wilson was the person to do it. The peace of the day was won through perseverance, not charm or charisma. Orlando relented and agreed not to move territorial lines.
I've read both of Bill Richardson's books and I am convinced that Richardson wins by perseverance in the same way as Wilson. Richardson would make an outstanding statesmen and Secretary of State. If you haven't read his books and don't know why he wins negotiations then shame (well no, but do go read them).
Titles please.
Oh, oh, thanks.
Between Worlds: The Making of an American Life
http://www
Leading by Example: How We Can Inspire an Energy and Security Revolution
http://www
(Yes, you'll notice my review is the one voted most helpful here)
For me it's all about smart. I'm a Obama supporter, but not a Hillary hater. Change means different things to many people. For me it's about a government with intellect, will, and ideals. I was 14 when JFK died. 19 when RFK died. Gave up on the idea of a pragmatic, ideals driven White House. Got a little solace from watching "The West Wing" and the Bartlett administration. But not in real life.
The Secretary of State no matter how much he or she may disagree, ultimately does what the President wants, or resigns. We saw that with Colin Powell and Dubya. I don't know how things are going to work out under an Obama administration, but I know it will be an intelligent, pragmatic, and humanistic one--whomever he choses to work with him on his agenda. That alone would be a great and positive change.
Whatever I thought of Senator Clinton's campaign, I didn't doubt her, and her husband's sincere desire to improve the lives of working people. Bill almost pulled off a peace agreement between Israel and the PLO, and is immensely popular in all the global capitals. That's an invaluable foreign policy resource. Senator Clinton is a giant intellect, committed public servant, and has been drama free in the Senate. I'm sure a lot of thought has gone into this, and President-elect Obama wouldn't even be considering her if he hadn't weighed her total usefulness as a resource. If he chooses her, I'm cool.
i so agree with you, jazzcomedi
HRC will not take Secretary of State. She is more likely to use her expertise from Armed Services and take SecDef. Bill Richardson is the pick for SecState. HRC was given the cover of being offered SecState so as to not appear slighted. A good result all around.
There's talk (and hopefully nothing more than talk) of Robert Gates staying on in Defense:
http://new
.
There's talk (and hopefully nothing more than talk) of Robert Gates staying on in Defense:
http://new
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
