Selecting Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State and Obama's Premise of Change

For all the people who have followed the primary presidential elections, and the nasty fight between the two rivals, choosing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is not only scary, but it also seems to be Obama's first move to give up the values and ideals he advocated during the campaign. Yet it could also be interpreted as one of the smartest decision that president-elect has made in regards to his cabinet. How can this be explained?

The scary side of the story is that picking Clinton makes Obama seem a bit unreal. It makes it harder for Americans to believe what he said during the campaign. Millions of people voted Obama not for his experience, which he lacks, but for his vision, integrity, and the new style of leadership that he presented. Now he is picking somebody who one of his most trusted advisors once called a "monster". That "monster" is positioned to lead the administration's key spot. Obama is taking a serious risk.

Foreign policy was the most crucial factor separating Clinton and Obama; otherwise, one cannot find a substantial policy difference between them. Also, picking Clinton as the Sec. of State sends confusing messages to many leaders of the world. The idea that because of her eight years in the White House, she knows world leaders and can work with them is totally absurd. During the primary, Hillary's similar tone to Republican candidates regarding foreign policy resonated with millions of people around the world, who were hoping an Obama victory will end eight years of bully, unilateral, unethical, torturous and intervention-based foreign policy. Also, given the Clinton's connections in Washington and it seems almost impossible for Hillary to just be a messenger and not an architect of US foreign policy.

If things do not go well, firing her would also be costly for Obama. If she stays and does not abide by Obama's agenda, her presence will undermine the president's legitimate authority. This is the main source of concern.

But on the other hand, Obama's pick seems to be the best political move to avoid early criticism, domestic backlash against some of the decisions he will make, and a kind of naïve brand that he has presented himself with since the presidential campaign.

Obama has been criticized for his pro-diplomacy doctrine during the past two years. Once initiated, Obama's use of any kind of talks or negotiations to solve US's problem in the Middle East region, regardless of the process and outcomes, will be targeted by conservatives and republicans as naïve and inconsistent with the U.S. national security guidelines.

But with Hillary at the State Department, given her harsh rhetoric and tone during the primary and the similarity of her foreign policy style to that of John McCain, which was widely welcomed by Republicans, Obama might be able to mitigate inter-party conflict and exercise his new style of leadership and foreign policy doctrine.

Also, given the multiple and diverse foreign policy challenges currently facing the US, from re-structuring its role in the United Nations to managing instability in the Middle East and negotiating with non-Democratic countries like Russia, Obama does not have many options other than trying a new policy.

The United States is not in a position to continue unilateralism and needs to consider a more engaging and responsible role at the United Nations; hence Obama is sending Susan Rice to the organization.

Iraq is the same. Given the latest security pact passed by the Iraqi parliament, the U.S. should follow a firm timetable. There is no other way. Obama is out of options in Afghanistan as well. With Hamid Karzai talking about negotiating with Taliban, Obama cannot entertain the idea of sending more troops to Afghanistan anymore.

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama listen to advisors who believe the United States must talk to Iran and do not see Iran as one of America's strategic threats in the Middle East.

Also, the United States knows the reaction to Russia-Georgia conflict, which was totally manipulated and twisted in the U.S. media in a way Sen. McCain remark of "we are all Georgians", is consistent in many ways with the two countries' long-term strategic relationship. We need Russia as a responsible partner. This does not mean supporting and arming new corrupt democracies.

And as one of the Defense Secretary advisors told me, the U.S. needs to be more serious and focused on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which were largely ignored during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

There might be differences on how to approach all these challenges. But a strong, respected, convinced, more humble and engaged Hillary could fully help Obama to deliver his agenda. Obama has high public approval for his Cabinet picks and the trust he is gaining about being serious about bringing change to Washington will help transform Ms. Clinton from a "high profile foreign policy tourist" to a "foreign policy leader". As the New Yorker once characterized, Obama is "the master of the game" in politics. If you want to bring change do it through somebody who is the closest possible to your enemies and rivals and can shut their mouth up. For Obama, Hillary is exactly that person.

Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m

Comments

[exotic]

thank the universe that Obama has Susan Rice reporting directly to him. I really feel that Hillary has her own agenda and will stir up trouble. Susan will be Obama's "eyes" and will truly have his back.

[standard]

When you refer to " the nasty fight between the two rivals " and to " her [Mrs. Clinton's] harsh rhetoric and tone during the primary " you badly mischaracterize the facts. The nastiness of the fight rested exclusively with Mrs. Clinton, and of far greater significance than her rhetoric being "harsh" was the fact that her speeches embodied a series of bald-faced lies: about his policy positions, his experience (which, in terms of tenure as an elected official, exceeded hers) and her own experience and qualifications (of which the whopper of a lie about Bosnian sniper fire was merely the best-publicized example).

What's critical now, you misstate: "If things do not go well, firing her would also be costly for Obama." Would it, really? I think not. There would be a reason for it: her ineffectiveness or (more likely) her disloyalty. By dismissing her for cause he would only be seen as a competent leader. First, by winning a majority of more than fifty primaries and caucuses, and now, by getting her to place herself in a position in which she cannot campaign and from which he can dismiss her, he's already shown himself to be the superior politician.

She now has a chance to perform brilliantly as a cabinet officer--which she may well do. But if not, she's toast. And President Obama will be unharmed either way.

[charon]

Yes, as someone once said, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer!"

[Jan pumper]

you individuals salivated over Obama, now you have him and his master Brzezinski; i am still shocked that it is 2008 and Americans still think that they elect their presidents. How sad and dumb down this nation have gotten.

[BenMurphyNYC]

Funny how revved up people got during the primary that they see Hillary Clinton as an enemy of the progressive movement. Seems like wasted fire on a friendly target.

[Lisa-G]

Get over it. The election is over. Your guy won. Leave him alone to do his job.

[mcantwell]

Man, HuffPo almost want an entire day without a "CLINTON" article.

[MrPragmatic]

Maybe I am naive, butI think that your position is over thought. The SoS is a key position and a bad apple in that job could really mess things up for Obama and more importantly for our country. I choose to simply believe that Obama selected HRC because he saw value in her to be an effective SoS under his leadership. I assume the best about Obama and by extension that means I assume that he hires people that he thinks will be good for the country period. To think otherwise would mean that I voted for the wrong person.

[charon]

I agree that unilateralism, never an effective method, is over. However, I think you underestimate Sen. Clinton. Though she may use a tough-talk approach to foreign policy, I don't think that is a bad thing. Putin, Chavez, and most other leaders talk tough; how they act is often different, and that is the critical difference. For example, she supports Israel, but I doubt she does so uncritically. Wanting Israel to be recognized and accepted as legitimate isn't a blanket endorsement of Israel's expansionist tendencies or harsh policies.

Furthermore, while an aide to Pres. Obama may have called Clinton a monster, I doubt he thinks in those terms or considers her such. He has openly opposed demonization of those who hold different opinions. And I think Clinton has a record of being a hard worker, dedicated to getting the job done, a necessary characteristic for a Sec'y Of State in these unsettled times.

I don't think Obama will hesitate to ask for Clinton's resignation if she varies from his policy parameters. However, I agree that she is a good choice to molify the center right. Now let's hope he moves to the left in the area of domestic policy, filling cabinet positions with people with the ability to deal with the daunting environmental, economic, and healthcare problems our country faces.