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

[ozamerican]

And I'm getting really sick of Bill Clinton continually saying that Chelsea is the best policitian in the family. How did these big Democrats start to buy into the idea of dynasty? Do they think they OWN us?

[TankerRat]

YES THEY DO think they OWN you and by doing what you do you prove them correct every time. NOW LIVE WITH IT!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!

[idest]

Settle down spaz.

[ozamerican]

I have a feeling we'll all be reading in some book down the road, by one of the insiders or by Obama himself, about how the Clintons totally orchestrated this thing and that no one could do anything about it because to do so would alienate her large bloc of supporters­...

Of course, Obama (Hope! Change!) will have to come up with some excuses, but they'll be fairly well polished by then.

[Janelynne]

Why won't you give the new President a chance to be the President?

[billw8017]

We like Hagel because he criticized President Bush, but his experience is as a Nebraska businessman who sold some vote counting machines and became a come from behind Senator. Leaving aside the issue of the machines, for the Democrat Obama to appoint a Republican Senator to the plum post of SecState would be a great change and a surprise to anybody of discretion­..

Hillary Clinton is, of course, a Clinton and a survivor of that much maligned administration which just happens to have been the most successful in the past hundred years. She brings not only her experience and popularity both at home and abroad but a following. She can be trusted to handle America's diplomacy with vigor and intelligence while her President brings his attention to bear on our domestic problems. She has been vetted by years of Republican pursuit during her husband's Presidency. (And her husband has been vetted similarly since after an investigation lasting seven years and costing a million dollars a year, his Republican enemies decided that the worst thing they had on him was that he was a practicing heterosexu­al.)

[piedro19]

"and loosing America's prided civilian leadership­..." Loosing? It is hard to take seriously someone who makes up words.

[delysia]

I seriously doubt that mending fences has anything to do with Obama's likely choice of Hillary as SOS. He doesn't do things that way. I'm sure his reasons are much more complicated then that. He's a very smart man; he's knows what he's doing. Let him do it and stop picking apart his decisions before he even makes them and without any solid facts.

[beartrap]

Obama picked Hillary to make sure that she will never run against him, say if things remain so bad with the economy and some international incident tarnishes his popularity. Also he realizes that he needs her judgement and experience, and existing good relationships with many world leaders. This article mistates her position on Iran. She is not against talking with them, just against Obama's promise to meet without preconditions. She stressed the need for preparation, diplomacy, and hope of some outcome. If you noticed, Obama said of course that is what he meant and took the same position as she did.

Anyone who advocates Hagel for SOS, can't be taken seriously. The former talk show host who is more conservative than McCain, is only liked by Democrats because he broke with Bush. He is the Republican Lieberman. Giving the top cabinet position to him would play into the Republican line that only they can protect our security and be tough enough to deal with the treat of terrorism.

[Bonobo]

But...Obam­a argued against her judgment and experience. Which leaves, what? Her winning personality?

[Bonobo]

Having hidden reasons for doing things is not particularly democratic. Weren't the Bush and Clinton years bad enough? Besides, I doubt it's all that complicated. Man with exclusion issues picks up historical fantasy about Lincoln cabinet, bingo, picks biggest pain in the butt he can find for second most important job.

[SammyGone]

Hmmmmmmmm, Sure looks like a retread shop to me...same school as Chelesa even. What about all that change? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[OTR6686]

I do not mind a re-tread! The school choice really proves you are grasping at straws. where they do not count and have nothing to do with foreign policy. The only thing the Republicans could say against the Clinton Administration is impeachment for lying about fellatio in the Oval Office. After George Bush destroyed this country from its foundations during the last eight years, you have the nerve to talk about re-tread of the Clinton's personal education of their daughter? It probably is a great school, period, and public schools with their lack of flexibility would make it difficult for Secret Service, etc.

[riverhouse]

Barack Obama as president will set the foreign policy agenda. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will follow his direction. That's the way it works. If the two of them agree that she can do that successfully, then there you go.

[meshach]

I certainly HOPE so -- saying "you're fired" to Hillary will be no piece of cake.

[ozamerican]

I think the question is, what do WE want? Obama is our representative.

[Nivramel]

The last eight years is being repeated, President George Bush was a light weight an en-experienced individual which Vice President Cheney and others call the shots. It is exactly the same thing again, a lightweight, very smart, but without any supervisory experience to any great degree. He can only say what all of their heavy weights around him tell him to say. Just a mouthpiece all eight of the people that ran for president against him had experience. You should face the fact that our new president is only a novelty. When the Cabinet meets the president will be the smallest man in the room.

[rightthinking]

He dominated the experienced people in his campaign staff. This is a guy who wants a group of people around him who really are not yes-men, presumably so that he has his own ideas challenged and made better thereby. Bush was managed by Cheney because he did not understand the issues, was fundamentally incurious about reality, and so could be easily led down the garden path by a trusted advisor. Obama understands the issues about as well as his cabinet picks and is very capable of taking what makes sense to him from their advice, while rejecting that which doesn't.

[meshach]

Obama does not appear to be heeding the advice of Patricia DeGennaro, Al Giordano, Judge Abner Mikva, others in the know, of the possible problems a Hillary appointment could pose. Her tremendous ego and lack of deference alone should have squelched this. Apparently, he is looking at some other qualities -- perhaps a familiar face -- a political favor -- who knows. I pray he is making a sound decision in the long run.

[OTR6686]

"Tremendous ego and lack of deference"? Where are you coming from? She proved she was a team player when she proposed that Obama be nominated by acclamation. Then she and Bill supported him in every way possible during the campaign. Get over the primaries! They are just politics. Primary statements mean nothing. They are just designed to get the lead in front of many others. DeGennaro outlines what Clinton stood for---when all legislators (except Obama) were too afraid to "be soft on terrorism". But she never explained what Obama meant by "change". Neither did he. By change, he did not mean putting inexperienced, unknown and unproven people in his
cabinet.

[MrCommonSense]

I for one question Hillary being Secretary of State and her alleged "experience" which was primarily a wife following her husband around the world. What kind of qualifications is that???? I would much rather Obama leave Rice in that position but then now that I think of it we have a new President with realitively no experience so........

[Emlyn]

NO TO RICE!!!!!

[OTR6686]

Rice!!!! Haven't we had eight years of being a yes person?

[ozamerican]

Agreed... NO RICE!

[marcialosangeles]

I could not possibly disagree with you more. Hillary Clinton is a Superlative pick as Secretary of State.
The history of her vote for the war is just that, history. Biden has the same historical vote.
You also mention she has no policy of Afghanistan and Pakistan--all the more perfect--as she will take Obama's policies as her own. If Obama is strong enough and confident enough to select this outstanding public servent to help him in his efforts as President, that is more important than anything or anyone's dissenting opinion. Obama's attitude is the change he promised--bringing in the most talented people he knows. And Hillary certainly qualifies.
And I am just guessing here, but I doubt that Chuck Hagel, along with Jones (NSA???) and a continuation of Gates, would be reassuring. Aren't they all Republicans????? Putting all our national security advisers in Republican hands is not a good idea to me.

[PhDcommonsense]

I guess no one cares what a few of us say. I also think Hillary is wrong for this position. I was hoping she would not accept. But I see most people are pushing her. There are much more talented people out there that could do this job so much better.

I cannot understand the reasoning behind her pick. I also agree with the writer of this blog.

[GPMango]

I agree, Clinton is not the best choice. I also agree Chuck Hagel is the best choice. As a combat war veteran, he understands the horrors of war, and will do everything in his power to avert war through diplomacy. Just the other day he stated the importance of knowing what the opposition is upset about, and then using that information towards peaceful resolutions. Because ultimately, except for a very small percentage of the world's population, we all want and need the very same things. Let's work together to achieve them.

[TishiJo]

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted in this position. She demonstrated a disturbing lack of integrity running a disorganized, unsuccessful dishonorable campaign wrought with false smears against then Senator Obama. I encourage others to contact the transition at the www.change.gov web site to protest this appointment.

[changeishere08]

I wil do contact change.gov and make my concerns known. Thanks for the link!