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.
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
AMEN
I think it is Hilary's differences with Obama that make her important to his leadership. Change does me mean "do what I say and do what I think." Change means listening to other voices with his eyes and his ears in the leadership role. Obama is not afraid to listen....that is part of his intellect. HIlary will not be calling the shots but she will be sure to make her case so that he can make the decisions he needs to make. If she was a "kiss ass", he would have no balance. I am glad for his choice. And I am anxious to see her finally use HER brains and abilities, not her husband's (who I kike, by the way.) It's simply not his job. It will be for her and her President to work together for the common good...BIll has his own life...
Whatever happened to the idea of appointing Hillary to the Supreme Court?
Obama would have to wait for a vacancy, and at the earliest that would not occur until the end of the current Supreme Court term when there may be one or two. And what makes anyone think that Senator Clinton even wants to be on the Supreme Court? She is an attorney but has never served as a judge at any level. She is also a very public person, and SC justices are usually very reserved as far as public appearances and statements are concerned. Why don't we leave her in the senate where the leadership is trying to create a new leadership position specifically for her. She may be a globe trotter, but I think is less of a diplomat than most people who have recently been Secretary of State. I think this cabinet position buzz has more to do with galvanizing her base among women voters than with her qualifications.
What? Because he OWES her something. HRC was the one who railed and ranted nonsense about Obama during the primary - right along the Karl Rove line of attack.
I cant' stand her anymore. She got desparate and spewed these hateful attacks. Joe Liberman Light.
As diplomatic as Hillary is she would likely chew up the flowers and spit them in Obama's face.
The greatest challenge with Hillary as SecState will be to keep her from coming under another imaginary attack as she did while visiting troops on one of her discouragement tours.
I assure you the troops were never happy to see her. That is one reason her support helicopter on one visit was called "Broom One."
this sexist crap is out of line.
One main reason for not appointing Hillary is that Obama is already surrounded by appointees
from the prior Clinton administration. One more appointment ( Hillary in particular) will really "Clintonize" the White House. I recall how the Clinton gang made every effort to derail Obama from getting his party nomination.
Knowing that "Hillary is for Hillary first,now and forever" regardless of the consequences
having her in the cabinet will be the end of Obama's "dream for the country"
Using thoroughbred racing phrases: The Favorite horse was "boxed-in" by the other horses and never raced its race. With Hillary in the WH he won't even finish "in-the-money".
President Elect Obama is still the one that decides policy and Clinton no matter what issues of hers differ from his, he still makes the rules and she must follow them.
I agree that it is a big mistake to hire Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. She clearly has her own agenda, and she sees herself as presidential not as secretarial. My choice for Secretary of State would be Bill Richardson of New Mexico, because he understands he is not going to be president and he thinks that Secretary of State constitutes a proper use of his talent, his experience, and perhaps most importantly, his interests.
I believe Hillary Clinton would be quite uncomfortable in a cabinet post when she feels that the proper place for her to be sitting is in the president's chair. We can have only one president. We elected the man we want to be president. Clinton very likely would have made a fairly good president, but we didn't elect her. We elected Obama.
Clinton is needed in the Senate. She can be very effective there. Let her stay there and be effective.
I am conflicted. On one hand, HRC voted for the worst foreign policy disaster known to mankind. On the other hand, why not keep a close eye on your enemies.
my god she is not an enemy. i think about (and don't quote me exactly) 95% of their policies were in step during the primaries. yes she voted for the war and yes it was a mistake. and it is water under the bridge -- she wants troops out now.
Thank you Patricia, I agree with you 100%! I also would like Obama to pick some Hispanics on his cabinet, he has disappointed me so far!
i'm so interested in how many people seem to "know" hillary clinton. they seem to be able to state what she will or will not do if appointed secretary of state.
first of all if anyone trusts barack obama you should trust his choice. he is trying to assemble the best minds in the country to solve what may be an insurmountable problem.
second of all lay off hillary. she is a smart and capable woman who is more than qualified for the position. she is not some rogue who isn't going to listen to her boss and go off half cocked around the world. and if she does then she will be fired or forced to resign. HRC wants what is best for this country.
she made some errors in her career and campaign but she has been clear NOW that she is against the war and wants to withdraw troops.
there are many great choices for this position and hillary is one of them and if obama feels she is the best choice for what he wants to do with his administration then she is. he wouldn't be doing this to placate.
as for bringing about change -- firstly anything new will be change. it is obama's job to be a leader here and create a cabinet that is on board with his vision.
yes it takes a village but truly it will take a leader in this instance.
so if things don't work blame obama not hillary.
I picked Barack Obama because he speaks for me. I don't care what controversial choices he might make to help himself in running the government. As long as Barack Obama does right by the people and the nation, then he's my man! Let's not be children at this critical time. Pragmatism rules the day. These are serious times indeed.
We also, as Americans, have the right to speak out when we see something "wrong" and HRC is a bad choice in my opinion. She's part of the old establishment, she spoke dirty against Obama in the primary (Karl-Rove-Style) and I lost respect right then and there ... She couldn't actually run on the issues with individualism -- she had to do the same-ol-same-ol and ATTACK Obama. Come on!
She needs to retire.
One of the president's most important duties is his appointments. Look at how Bush's cronyism got us into trouble perhaps Obama's appeasement may endanger us too.
IMHO, I'm tired of hearing what academia would do. I'd much rather hear what people who have been in the trenches would do, e.g. Colin Powell, Madeline Albright, etc. It seems to be these academics are exactly who got us into this financial mess and I'm not buying that they know better than Obama about who to pick for his Cabinet, or anything else for that matter. I voted for the man because I trusted his judgment. Second-guessing him is not beneficial to the country or to the man himself.
All of his appointments SO FAR are exceptional, EXCEPT for HRC. I couldn't disagree more with his decision to pick her. She comes with baggage, hateful rhetoric against Obama in the pimary -used the same old tactics as the Repubs or anybody else out there who didn't have an original argument on their own! How SO MANY people still supported her throughout that primary is BEYOND me.
I met her briefly. She's a nice lady, but a political robot.
Second guessing is what we're supposed to do. You sound like a Bush sheep. We don't just let a president do whatever without questioning. we are a democracy and it is our duty not to just trust and go along with. That's what marched us into Iraq. Just because your guy go in doesn't mean you can stop paying attention with a critical eye. Same stuff different side. Wow everyone is the same they just believe in different things huh?
People in the trenches? Powell, remember Iraq and the UN. Academics got us into this mess, wow overlooking the American people's wanting to live way above their means and corporate greed in conjunction with corrupt politics.
Please don't shut your minds off we still need to be conscious aware and critical. That is what democracy is about, regardless of who is in power. Please remember that. And this article makes very good, sensible points.
Colin Powell, for one, would help the Bush administration lie to the United Nations about its evidence for Iraq's possession of WMDs, so I'm not sure that his opinion's all that great.
It's also necessary to recognize that the term "academic" is pretty broad. Sure, you've got economic professors and advisers to the Bush administration who screwed us over, and then you've got advisers in other capacities who had little to nothing to do with the matter. Likewise, you've got economic professors (like one whose name escapes me) who were warning about the housing bubble since 2003 and ought to have been listened to. Go ahead and automatically discredit their opinions based simply upon their jobs, though; that's worked pretty well in the past eight years, right?
And finally, I voted for Obama too, but that doesn't mean he gets a free pass on every decision he makes for the next four years. If we learned one thing from Bush, it's that government requires the people's constant oversight and criticism. If you don't agree with something he does, you need to voice your opinion on that, not follow blindly cuz he's your dude.
One more point. The author has raised some good points as to why Hillary would not be the Change that we seek. However, there is one more point, an elephant point, that the author missed. And that is the Israel/Palestinian debacle. We will always be fighting terrorists as long as we continue our laissez-faire attitude in the Mideast as will always be perceived as anti-Muslum. We need change in that direction. And Hillary would not bring about that change. She would continue the current path as that is the easiest path to take rather than upsetting the fundamentalists. (Fundamentalist Christians and Jews.)
You really don't give Hillary Clinton much credit for being adaptable do you !! Boy, what an indictment in your op/ed I sure wouldn't want to be on your s--t list.
Sorry, but for all your credentials I think you are wrong on this one. Mr O will make his decision based on where HE is coming from and if he chooses Hillary she will go into it with her eyes WIDE open.
:-) have a good day...
"You really don't give Hillary Clinton much credit for being adaptable do you !!" --Pisces Princess
I think that when Hillary's own campaign was failing we saw that she was not able to adapt, she
kept going forward with more of yesterdays strategies. same old , same old
I think she should stay in the Senate where she could be very productive.
that is because the people who ran her campaign were idiots.
i'm thinking obama will do a much better job leading than mark penn.
her campaign has nothing to do with how she will be SoS.
This is a silly comment. She basically kicked Obama's butt in the primaries from March 1 on. How is that not adapting?
You make valid points, but much of Clinton's hawkishness undoubtedly resulted from her posturing in the primaries. It's probably not her instinctive stance. But the fact that she was so skeptical about talking to Iran makes her in fact the ideal person to do it -- just the way Nixon was the last person one would have imagined going to China. Both Hagel and Biden voted for the Iraq War. I don't get Hagel as Secretary of State. Defense surely, but not State. He's not a statesman and has no track record in international affairs. Luger certainly, but why not put a rock star out there so the world really pays attention? Hillary could really be a historically great Secretary of State. Now what I'd like to see go along with this is Samantha Power (she who called Hillary a monster) as National Security Advisor, but that will probably go to Donna Rice. But I'd put Rice in the UN spot and put Power where she could do the most good, and give her strong advice. She'd be a check to Clinton going too far off the reservation. This will be a fun administration to root for. Keep up your good work Professor!
You make good arguments for HRC, but HRC has so much negative standing with a lot of the country, I think, personally, Obama's potential choice of her as SOS is unattractive to say the least.
I disagree with his decision -- agree with all except this one. I have met HRC. She is a genuinely NICE lady, but a political robot.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
