Obama: Don't Hire Hillary

Anyone who has not heard that Senator Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State is definitely living under a rock. Every media station and pundit is weighing in on this decision. They say it is "restorative." It is a "gesture" from the Obama camp "healing" campaign wounds. "Everybody" agrees she should be chosen. I say if Obama wants to mend scars he should send her flowers.

As a professor of global affairs and an international security advisor to both the U.S. military and President of Afghanistan, I do not agree with the masses - again. Appointing Senator Clinton is a bad idea. If the President-elect is truly for change he needs someone who supports that and so far Clinton has held true to business as usual.

This is not a discussion about Clinton's experience. She has plenty. It is about the differences between these two individuals, the differences between their stated foreign policy and Obama's promise for change.

Clinton is a member of the establishment. She has transformed herself into one of the best politicians in recent memory. The result was a very formidable bid for the Presidency, but let's face it: she did not win. America elected Obama and change.

The repeated debates between these two candidates clearly showed one area where she and Obama differed tremendously. That area is foreign policy.

She supported the Iraq war, he is against it. Clinton was unapologetic about voting for the war despite pleas from her own constituency to admit it was a mistake. Alternatively, she took a hard stance and further disagreed with Obama's idea of withdrawal.

Under no circumstances does Clinton want to speak with Iran. Obama, on the other hand, stated that he felt speaking to Iran was a requirement for getting them past their nuclear weapons ambitions. Her policy ironically is to use ours on them if they did not submit to US demands.

Further, Clinton has said nothing of changing policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan, two issues that were central to Obama's foreign policy platform. Nor has she commented on how to move beyond either war toward a more sustainable peace.

She has shown through her own statements that she is definitely more hawkish than he is. I wonder if she can stand down when he says so.

Appointing Clinton Secretary of State is not what the US needs especially when it is trying to repair its relationships in the world, end two wars and get the Middle East peace process back on track.

With Clinton America will be back to implementing the same international policies we see today. A policy that is pentagon heavy and diplomatically light. A policy that is internally fractured and divisive instead of comprehensive and cohesive. A policy that has not learned to look beyond dominance and war.

If Obama is serious about turning America around, he should not be considering another Clintonite at all. He should be considering others. Someone like Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel would be my pick and a much wiser choice.

Hagel has spoken out against the war, supported many of Obama's initiatives in the Senate, as well as during his campaign, and, as a Republican, would help bridge between party lines.

Hagel also understands that the US is in danger of putting too much focus on the pentagon and losing America's prided civilian leadership in the foreign policy. Moreover, he understands our self-interest is tied to the rest of the world and the US can no longer afford to ignore this. Hagel will work to improve the reputation of this country throughout the world. He would represent the change that Obama has promised.

The New York Times said Clinton is unsure about taking the job of Secretary of State because she "likes being her own boss." As a New Yorker, I would have to agree. Clinton would serve everyone better by staying in the Senate. More importantly, if Obama is really serious about change, he too would be much better off if he left her there.

Comments

[tonysmith]

Perhaps Obama has duped you. No one surrounds himself with so many opponents without agreeing with them. The Lincoln analogy does not work because he never ran as a radical.

[Bonobo]

An additional problem with Clinton as SecState is that when talking to foreign leaders, they can never be certain whether she is speaking for the current president, or a future president (her), or a past president (Bill). They won't trust anything she says. At least, not if they're smarter than Shakashvilli.

[msblkwidow]

That is your opinion. This is my opinion. I don't think anything will bridge the partyline- Chuck Nagel or no Chuck Nagel. The cut is too deep. Have you heard some of the racist rhetoric lately. Those people are Republicans. Americans are sick and tired of hearing all these expert opinions. If these experts are so smart, then why is our country in such a horrific shape?

And, why is it that some people, all of a sudden, believe Obama has become suddenly stupid? The man is a brilliant thinker. THAT can't be taken away from him. He probably has had this cabinet in mind from the onset of the race. Bush changed appointed cabinet members as much as a baby changes diapers.
I am also sick of people talking about the word "CHANGE' like it means we've got to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Check out Merriam Webster's dictionary definition of "Change". "I thought Obama ran on "Change". "To make radically different" is only one definition of change. Maybe school districts use this same definition of "Change". This is why school districts choose to throw out all of their Master veteran teachers (good with the bad) to hire Neophyte teachers. Boy, our schools are in deep trouble. We MUST have people on board who have been around the block a couple of times. WE (the people) must keep the appointees in line -that's including Hillary and Bill.
I think Hillary Clinton is an excellent choice.

[LightningJoe]

I would be sorely disappointed, if Obama's cabinet and appointments were to bring back the Clinton era.

More than a few good things happened, in that era, but we ought to know its limitations by heart, by now.

Far too much cronyism -- though not, by parsecs, as bad as it got under Dubya. Far too much profitism; the rich getting their way on so-called "free trade" agreements. Far too much America-first Imperialism -- though again, not in Dubya's league.

Clinton, even with an environmentalist VP, never did make progress on global warming, and his idea of fiscal responsibility -- outside of laudably cutting the debt -- was to deregulate the people who put him into office. Whether it was cronyism or outright buy-off, we don't need this sort of focus, with so much to do.

[oldgeek1]

The way for a reporter to gain interest from readers, cover a fire, a good sex scandal or invoke the name of Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton.

Hilary is smart, knowledgeable about the issues of this country, its politics and when she speaks foreign leaders will listen. That will be a change from Bush and Condi who if nothing else got a giggle from the diplomatic set. Obama will set the agenda and Hillary will find a way to make that work.

The Bush Administration was about as inept across the board as I have seen in my life time. The only thing they have excelled at is sticking up their middle finger.

Hillary is a class act and if she could not be in the Whitehouse having her as SEC of State is a good choice.

[nypoet22]

I voted for Obama in the primary, but I still like Clinton, and on this matter I disagree with you completely. For a Secretary of State to be effective, one major qualification is that the person can effectively communicate with other countries and their leaders. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, could accomplish this better than Senator Clinton. She has the status worldwide to bring every foreign leader to the table, and the recognition to exert pressure through foreign media if any leader should be recalcitrant toward Obama's agenda. She may not be the perfect choice politically, but she is a proven team player and will get the job done better than Hagel could, or anyone else for that matter.

[americanalien]

well said.

[JacqueItch]

I agree with you. Hillary is a militarist, and a corporatist, and definitely not the agent of change we are seeking in foreign policy. Her heart is in the right places on some things, but then she reverts to status quo defense, and her truer sentiments reveal themselves: rich get rich, poor stay poor, US continues military hegemony, arms manufacturers get the fat contracts, the US continues to erode.

Obama is nowhere near as reformational as he initially sounded. His choices for economic advisors also reflect a bias toward corporatism, and government-underwritten ("free") markets.

But as has been said before-----putting his main political rival out to pasture is his assurance that she will not challenge him in '12. It is a very clever means of keeping one's enemies close, the better to control the outcome.

[darker]

Hillary Clinton's job will be to represent Obama's administration, not her own.
It's in the JOB DESCRIPTION.

[Bonobo]

And we're talking about someone with a reputation for putting her job above her own self interest?

[americanalien]

Hillary is the BEST CHOICE. Argument closed.

[BelGazou]

Hilary is a bit of a chameleon. After having supported the war in Iraq initially, she came out against it, as did most Democratic legislators, when the truth finally hit the fan. It makes no sense for Secretary of State NOT to be a team player. If she tries to chart her own course independently of the administration, Joe Biden can always be sent instead; his foreign policy expertise is far more extensive than is Hilary's.

[Greensleeves]

If you eat HOPE for the main course expect disappointment for dessert.

[24hourrifle]

hey pam,which part of clintons eight years was so problematic for you?was it the peace or the prosperity?and would john kerry really inspire hop in the international community?
i hear a ton of griping about how horrible a choice hillary is,yet i havent heard a better option.

[idest]

Bill Richardson is a far better option.

[TankerRat]

For heavens sake NO NO NO to HRC. This is supposed to be an Obama administration and it's starting to look more and more like Clinton III every day. You voted for change so WHY this forward to the PAST scenario. WHY just another set of BOZO'S.

I told you all this is what would happen. So much for "CHANGE." Now LIVE with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lane]

Heavans sake TankerRat!!!! Everytime you blog about HRC you sound like a sexist. Your side lost, YOU live with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get over your hatred of Hilary, will ya?

[geezer68]

I don't see the problem with Clinton. I think she knows that Obama is the president and will give him his due. The time she's taking looking it over tells me she doesn't want to step in anything. I also have noticed Obama is playing his cards close to his vest but I think he is forceful enough to handle any palace revolt. I think we need to give him time. Instead of talking about this we should be worrying about what the Neandercons are planning. For all I know the questions about Clinton could have been put in here by Rush Limburger.

[gigimn]

I remember the Clinton Years with prosperity and respect around the world.
Hillary Clinton is the best choice for SoS and if it brings Bills intellect along with her
maybe we can survive the destruction Bush has done to this country.
It's time for the Clinton haters to shut up..they got Obama now they should trust his judgement