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

[SACVET]

Patricia DeGennaro observed that appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be
"business as usual." My interpretation of that is more of the same in foreign policy, i.e.,
do as we say or we'll bomb you. She would be itching to pick a fight somewhere with someone
to prove she can be just as tough as, say, John McCain. Testosterone poisoning has frequently
lead to foreign policy disasters of late. I thought my vote for Obama would result in our moving
away from serving the interests of the military/idustrial complex. I've heard the Clintons are
heavily invested with corporations that are at the front of the line when it comes to getting
Pentagon contracts. Please President Elect Obama take a look at that quaint notion known as
conflict of interest when considering your appointments. Remember that old Jeffersonian
maxim: Government should never exist to serve the few at the expense of the many.

[jmk65]

how do you any of which you speak?

[MagisterLudi]

Appointing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be "business as usual."
But appointing A REPUBLICAN IS NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL????
What is Alice in Wonderland logic.

Make no mistake this IS personal.

Hagel record:

Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
# Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Rated 0% by SANE, because of hawkish pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
90% conservative voting record; 95% support of Pres. Bush. (Dec 2006)

[MagisterLudi]

Clinton is considered smart and competent enough to be a President, and she doubly so to be a Sec. of State.
I despised the right wingers who indulged in personal attacks on Clintons during the Presidency. How is this tripe any different?
It is only a question of time before Lewinsky and Whitewater comes into play.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

"tripe?"

is your post meant to be a joke? the author makes great points, and in case you didn't notice, she is "a professor of global affairs and an international security advisor to both the U.S. military and President of Afghanistan." what are your qualifications? devotion to a political idol doesn't count.

[BonoX]

"devotion to a political idol doesn't count."... hmm as opposed to ur devotion of political idol that is barack obama... never throw stones from inside the glass house...and.... lets face it... like the devotion to a political idol doesn't count, hatred of political opponent doesn't count either.

[Fabienne]

I never considered Senator Clinton competent enough to be President. She voted for the worst foreign policy mistake in a generation and continued to support it for years. She ran a disorganized and financially-incompetent campaign and she had neocon hawkish statements during the primaries. One does have a right to criticize her ideas without being branded as an irrational Clintonhater. Believing that her foreign policy ideas are wrong is a valid stance and has nothing to do with disliking her personality.

[profounddogs]

Right on!

[MsMeryMac]

Clinton's politics are center to right-of-center. NOT the change people are asking for. The article explicitly states how hawkish she is. You think that's left wing/liberal/Democratic policies? That's status quo.

[profounddogs]

Right on. Maybe she believes and thinks liberal, but she sure don't act like it!

[ChrisO]

The article uses mischaracterizations and innuendo to distort her positions. Don't you find it curious that the author couldn't seem to find a single quote from Hillary to back up anything she was saying?

[MagisterLudi]

So Pat's suggestion to appoint a REPUBLICAN is the change you support... because a fellow Democrat seems somehow unacceptable.
Rabbit hole is getting smaller and smaller.

[Querent]

How can anybody respect the opinion of someone who would write a sentence like this:

"Hagel also understands that the US is in danger of putting too much focus on the pentagon and loosing America's prided civilian leadership in the foreign policy."

?

[Cynth]

Grammatical errors on blogs are par for the course, given the nature of the medium; and DeGennaro isn't throwing around sloppy ideas, which would be troubling.

(And Lord knows, I've made some and I hope they don't negate my ideas.)

[devildog21]

I would always question the wisdom of having a woman as SecState just because of how women are viewed by the powers that be in the Middle East. They simply don't respect them as much as they would a man. We may not like it (I don't), but we won't change that attitude by naming a woman as SecState, regardless of who it is.

Just reality and the Middle East is the most dangerous part of the world right now. Richardson has experience in internationa affairs and Hagle would also be a good choice.

Ms. Clinton (and the US) would be better served if she stayed in the senate.

[live by the golden rule]

What, are you saying that if some nations don't respect blacks we shouldn't have one as President???
As a woman who has negotiated in a country where the only other women in the room were pouring tea , I can say from experience that I was treated with the respect my role deserved, perhaps even a little extra. I do hope that my being there helped the men around the table to consider that the women pouring tea might be suited for other roles too, and perhaps inspired the women to consider that they, or at least their daughters, might aspire to such a role.
There may be other reasons to debate this appointment, but the fact that Sen. Clinton is [an accomplished and talented] woman should under no circumstances be one of them.

[devildog21]

I'm not saying Ms. Clinton would not be an effective SecState in most of the world; but, she would be less effective than a man in middle eastern dealings. I appreciate your desire to improve standards for women in other countries, but our examples will change nothing in these countries.

We're talking about places where women were stoned to death for having the temerity to drive a car because they saw American service women driving during the first Gulf War.

I don't like it either, but that is what life is like in these countries.

Assuming she were selected and accepted the post, how does NY select her replacement? Governor's appointment or new election? Who would be her likely successor and would they be as effective in the senate as she has been?

I'm not trying to put Ms. Clinton down, just pointing out what should be concerns.

[Grulg]

DO hire Hillary. Here are a few reasons why:

1: She is a realist.

2: She is immensely well-known around the world.

3: She is respected.

4: She will do what she is told for the better of the country at large.

5: Brother Bill will see to it no one messes w/ her.

6: She's a better choice than Richardson.

7: She's a better choice than FrankenKerry

8: She can kick your collective Butts.

9: Putin is scared of her.

10: It makes Mssrs Maddow, Matthews and Olbermann collectively froth at the mouth. This, above all, is WAY far and above the other resons here, and surely to be enjoyed.

[Fabienne]

If she is a "realist", why was she unable to understand the rules of the primary and why was she unable to understand that she lost until some of her supporters forced her to see this? Please cite facts to prove that Putin is afraid of her. I've seen no indication of that. Please cite facts to prove that she is respected in the Middle East, which is now a hotspot in need of an expert negotiator to mend our relationships there. If she needs Bill to protect her rather than being able to stand on her own, how is she competent to be Secretary of State. Obama is not appointing Bill as Secretary of State. And she certainly CANNOT kick my butt, and if she were interested in doing so, she would border on the absurd. As for doing what she is told for the welfare of the country at large, I have it from the best sources (longtiime friends) that both she and Bill did NOT want a Democrat to win the election in 2004 so she could run in 2008, which is why they encouraged their DLC surrogates to sabotage the Dean campaign, and if you think this is for the "better of the country at large", I respectfully disagree with you.

[flydoghead]

11: Adept at dodging sniper fire

[profounddogs]

And can throw the same lingo out there that Rove uses! SOMETHING TO BE SURELY PROUD OF!

[ignorantwillyharper]

I don't know what corner you've been hanging out on, but Hillary has no, nada, none when it come to respect around this world. She and Bill have been for she and Bill from day one, even in Arkansas.
The one good thing, no make that great thing about putting her Sec. of State is to fire her after two weeks in office. Then she would no longer be a senator, and no longer be in his administration...exit left the political stage. Now this would be great !!! No more Clinton's, no more Bush !

[castlerider]

Earth to Patricia:
Obama makes the decisions, Hillary just brings 'em and compromises the issues down to results. For which she is relentlessly capable.
Hillary is not the decider. Will not be the decider.

I agree Hagel would be a great pick, too, I'm sure Obama has plans to work with the man in some very effective capacity.
I'm convinced Hillary will get excellent, much needed experience for joining his ticket as VP in 2012. Biden, who will then be 72 then will quite possibly be ready to retire. This could well set Hillary up for 2016.

[deconcoder]

Yeah when she will be 68. Oh joy. Maybe we can cryogenically figure out a way that the boomers can just rule for the rest of time. Wouldn't that be great?...

[bamilt0]

Right on, Patricia. And honestly, I'd be happy if we could keep her out of the Senate too.

And I couldn't disagree more with the Goldberg post. This was the whole argument against McCain: the point is not experience if all your experience is doing the wrong thing. Clinton has done the wrong thing over and over and over. I challenge anyone in these comments to identify one thing Clinton has done RIGHT on foreign policy--Iraq? Iran? Afghanistan? Hell, Yugoslavia?! I mean, if you want a hawkish, aggressive militaristic response to every foreign situation, then Clinton's your woman. You probably voted for her in the primary and were rooting for her to get the nomination.

But for those of us who voted for Obama because he represented the highest potential for change--not just because he was the Democrat, or simply because he wasn't a Republican--who believe in holding our elected officials accountable (remember, "The Decider"? how we didn't like that?), then Clinton as SoS is scary as hell.

[SurrealPumpkin]

I second this comment. SoS is not a consolation prize or entitlement.

There's also that little Constitutional problem of emoluments.

[HLL]

Suggest this article from The Atlantic.

"One Reason Hillary Could be Extraordinary at State"

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/one_reason_hillary_could_be_ex.php

It's incredible to me that people are still so polarized about this woman. She is brilliant. She is caring. She is tenacious. She is experienced. She has many friends among Heads of State around the world. Lord. I can't think of another person as qualified as Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.

I voted for Obama. I have faith in his choices. And I have faith in her.

[bubbuh]

Well said.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

yeah america needs a secretary of state who favors the continued use of cluster bombs. that's very caring, isn't it. good for women and children.

[curiousdwk]

I agree that she has the background to do a good job. But what change would she bring to our international relations as seen through her run for Presidency? What change to Iran? And most importantly, what change to Israel and Palestine?

[jmk65]

here here.

and who is creating the drama surrounding this? the MSM. not the clintons.
the leaks are coming from the hill. and that is just how it is.

[Woodmist]

Oh please, stop the hand wringing. I don't see Obama nominating you. I think at this point I'll trust his judgment more than the blogging hand wringers. Half the garbage printed on line is just that--- garbage. Intended to stir a story where there is none. Let's see, an OPINION from someone not selected by Obama is worth more than his? I think not. Thanks but no thanks.

[Patricia84]

And what would the other half be?

[Emmory]

Now it's obvious Obama wants to BE Bill Clinton. Some "change" indeed.
I think this points directly to him not having a clue what he's doing.

[PalmG]

I have to agree. My confidence in him has severely waned. I don't think he has a clue what he's doing at all...

[OkieIntellectual]

Please explain to the class what qualities, decisions, or actions make it so obvious to you that Obama wants to be bill clinton. Precisely how does considering Hillary for SoS point directly to Obama not having a clue. Pray, tell us oh wise and learned one.

[Emmory]

How on earth can you think otherwise?
Just look at who he's picking for his nearest and dearest.

I don't think he wanted to get elected this time around in the first place and if the economy hadn't tanked he wouldn't have.
NOW he has to be President...
And he doesn't know what to do.

[BeltwayBette]

"one that can work together." .

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

[coollbreezz]

The only good thing that could come out of Hillary being SOS is that she will be able to convince Israel and the Zionist worldwide to accept a Palestinian State. In 1948 the UN drew up plans for an Israel and Palestine State.. As of 2008, only half of the UN resolution was implemented. Hillary could provide Obama cover and Hillary will negotiate with Syria and Iran. If this is Obama's goal than he will achieve a goal which no other president has achieve in the last 60 yrs. If Obama continue to carry out the Truman Doctrine, than the Middle East Conflict will continue with no end. Jimmy Carter is correct that a Palestinian should be a priority with the Obama Administration.

[curiousdwk]

I agree with you that this is what's needed. But the problem I see is that Hillary is beholden to the Fundamentalist Jews and so would not try to create a Palestinian State just as no one has tried in the past. There would be no change. And there needs to be a change.

[lthuedk 1]

Pallin' around with militant corporatists and globalists is the Clinton's downside. As long as the multinational corporations receive ultra-rights over individuals, we cannot have a democracy. The Constitution is individual-centered and the corporation had better deal with it.

http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html

I hope PE Obama has a solid scheme for handling the Clintons' built-in corporate favoritism. Their friends are deeply embedded in right wing corporate extremism and I doubt very much there will be any changes in this crowd.

Imagine a Secretary of State at arm's length, at all times.

[fayemac]

First,Obama said he wanted the troops out in 6 mths she said 16 mths (2 brigades a mth) now Obama has changed his stance and wants out in 16 mths. Second, on Iran she said that she would bomb them if they bombed Isreal, and she took a stand on the Iranians killing our troops in Iraq. Third Obama said he would bomb Pakistan if they didnt get Osama Bin Laden. She said that wasnt a good idea because we are already in two wars and Pakistan is becomming more democratic with the new president there. Forth, he said that he would talk to them unconditionaly in the first year, she said that was a bad idea because conditions must be met or he will look stupid in a picture with Castro when nothing was acomplished for the Cubans.He has changed his stance on that too. You are a Prof of Global Afairs you didnt know these things? You advised the Afgan military & Prez. and you didnt know these things? I think somebody is pulling our leg here.

[BeltwayBette]

Thank you Patricia for voicing what DC insiders who are not Hillary supporters well know.
Her appointment to this very sensitive position is a disaster. It is not Change that anyone can believe in. I si not change our nation and the world needs right now.;

This Clinton shadow government Mr.Obama is building with all the confidence of a political star will one day bite him in the butt.

Send her flowers. Help her pay her debt.

Than nominate a partner who is not a rival.

Merriam Webster Dictionary: Rival is when two or more want what only one can have. And the Clintons always get what they want. No matter how.