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
Hillary is "part of the establishm
Obama has shown that Democrats can win when info and truth reach the masses (i.e.inter
How about giving CHANGE a chance by letting President Obama govern for a period of time (say a year), before the punditry starts.
I agree. I think it's a mistake. Hagel would be a better choice IMO.
I agree with deGennaro. This is my first and, I hope, my last disappointment with Obama. There's just too much Clintonian baggage that comes with Hillary. And WILL SHE actually follows Obama's orders? For a woman who is as independent as she is, I find it difficult to believe that she would.
On the other hand, this would keep her off the slate for Prez in 2012. When has an SOS ever run against his/her own boss in an election? This will essentially keep her off the ballot for the next 12 years. No doubt!
And if she's been vetted (as well as Bill) and Obama has definitely asked her, why the 'yes, I will, no, I won't' games.
the long and short of if for those of us who don't 100% support Obama's SOS pick is
T R U S T. Some of us here may still vividly remember her "performance" during her campaign. I admire HRC, want her to do well, but without trust.....
Before finishing reading Patricia's article, I saw where the backseat quarterback was going. I have two things. Firstly -- it's not Hilary's agenda that would be front and centre. All these backseat quarterbacks believe themselves smarter than Hillary. Wrong babies. You underestimate. Hillary is a person who wants to help the citizens of the country she loves. She's a team player and will work with Obama -- not against him. Secondly, people seem to have quickly forgotten a major point from the primaries -- should Hillary have actually campaigned in the causus states -- it is a good chance it would be the administration being set by PE Clinton.
I find it funny to watch the media play the tapes from debates where Hillary has painted Barack as incompetent, which is what they do in the primaries as they are members of the same party running for the same prize. This drama the media & pundits creates of "How can he forgive her after what she said", etc. Did I miss something or were the media & pundits not present for the last how many elections where the same thing happens every time. But, I do notice no one mentions now re the caucus states where Barack did win but Hillary was wrong in not campaigning in them. I think the outcome would have been different had she paid attention to those states.
Shoulda coulda woulda. Hillary didn't compete in the caucus states. Her campaign manager thought the California primary was winner take all. She made lots of mistakes. Yeah, had she not not made those mistakes, maybe she would have won. And maybe that hot cheerleader really would have gone out with you in high school if you had gotten up the nerve to ask her.
Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking!
The fact is, Hillary did lose the primary and Obama did win the election. Whether or not she could have won it had she not made some of the mistakes she made is irrelevent. She made them and she lost.
I can not believe he would do a dumb thing like that .
Com'on folks - we elected O president, not Hillary. She will implement _his_ policies, not her own.
Do you really believe that the same man who managed such a stunning upset of Hillary will leave her to be a loose cannon? Give the man credit - he can manage people in ways we cannot imagine.
Add to that the enormous amount of contacts, favors, good-will, etc etc that Bill accumulated as POTUS over 8 years, and you have a real powerplant waiting to be hooked up.
Sure, O won't micromanage Hill and she can slip in a few things - gonna happen.
BUT overall the goals and policies will be Obama's - NOT Hillary's - so let's move on.
The Clinton's have had media control for a long time . Every piece of news (?) is about Hill . If he wants to screw up his presidency then this is the right move . Why is the GOP so much in favor of this move ? What about his criterion for that job ? The MSM will laugh him off the stage if he makes this move .
Hillary is the best candidate as far as i am concerned. Obama wants people that challenge him, and Hillary will do that. she is also going to be working for the president the same as any other person in her position.
It is interesting, many who voted for Obama now do not trust his judgment. They of course know far more than he does. I am sure his is thankful for these experts vote of confidence> by the way there is a lot more to foriegn policy besides the war and Iran.
I agree. Seems Bush left us in position of 'on our own' for everything. So many can't seem to see past the borders of America in that there is respect worldwide of the Clintons. I'd rather know we have these countries on our side, helping us, picking up some of the costs when needed. Hillary is wise enough to know how to work this. It was because of Bll travelling to many of the countries giving speeches or doing his charitable work that has kept that respect alive as Bush trashed it. Hillary will be able to open doors that others would have to work at.
The vast interpretations of the word "change" are as numerous as interpretations of the bible. The only change I was looking for was changing the white house control from republican to democrat. That's all we need! The difference between US world popularity during a Clinton administration vs. a Bush administration are tantamount to God vs. Satan comparisons. What did you expect, a group of total unknowns and Washington outsiders were going to suddenly appear from some secret Obama list and take over his new cabinet? Get real. The job of secretary of state is to make deals, show quiet strength in negotiations and promote a positive American image as a roving good will ambassador. Hillary Clinton is qualified and will continue to strengthen Obama's push for "change." I voted for Obama and donated to his campaign. Please don't insult him by reading any weakness into his choice of Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. He unquestionably knows exactly what he's doing and has proved it time and time again.
Obama "unquestionably" knows "exactly" what he is doing? Look...I voted for the man and believe he is brilliant. But I'm pretty sure he is still human and capable of making mistakes and/or decisions that I disagree with. Therefore, I think I will do with him what I do with all our elected officials.
Saying Hillary's nomination is "baffling" speaks volumes about your prejudice.
I agree with your first paragraph.
I don't think SOS is best suited for Hillary. And Chuck, whatever. I think she woud be a great Head of Health and Human Services. But apparently thats going to go to Daschle, the lobbyist. I think Hill will do fine wherever she lands. I'm glad Obama won, proud, relieved, jubilant!
And now I rant....
It's funny, when Hillary made the Convention speech and headed out onto the campaign trail and raised millions for O....every
How about giving our man Obama some credit, maybe he see's some value in Hillary. Let him make his decisions, choose HIS cabinet. It hurts NO ONE if he surround himself with smart people. Mulptiple opinions and viewpoints are a good thing for a president to have, ultimately President Obama makes his own informed decisions. Obama isnt Bush, fear not people. Weve proven were not afraid of a smart biracial man. Are we really this afraid of giving a smart woman a cabinet in America? ( Condie anyone?) Or have you not enough faith in your good leader?
Call me what you will, but the way Senator Clinton is continually treated serves to remind me that sexism is alive and well in America. I'm grateful that Barrack Obama is our President. He has a strong woman at his side, and I know he has my back.
It's time to move on from the Clinton years. Hillary in a top cabinet post is a step backward. It also strengthens the Republicans' hand for the 2010 congressional elections, as it will undercut the foreign policy initiatives outlined by the Obama team during the campaign and give the Republicans a lightningrod for their opposition.
Hillary Clinton has made it clear she answers to noone other than herself, and I don't expect that to change if appointed by Obama.
JFK didn't reach back to the Truman administration to fill his cabinet (the preceding Democratic administration); there's no reason Obama should be acting like Clinton II now.
nonsense Hillary will answer to the president and be a valuable member of the obama team.
The Clintons will answer to their own desires and ambitions. Why? it;s what they do.
Somebody please sent DeGennaro's excellent blog to Obama!
When we voted for Obama we voted for CHANGE. Is Obama too young to remember White Water, Travelgate, FBI Filegate, Vince Foster, her brother's little "drug problem" etc., etc.) We voted for change from Bush agenda as well AGAINST the 8 years of Clinton scandals -- both Bill's and Hillary's!
Obama is bringing those two back into power. Ouch! NO CHANGE! Worse, he is NOT listening to all the experts and his own supporters saying NO to the Clintons!
this Obama supporter and volunteer is saying yes to Hillary and you will to once you see that she is going to be the best SOS in memory.
I can not remember one (1) successful venture Hill can lay claim to . The road she and her spouse has passed over is clogged up with one debauchery after another . This is not a person of success but one with great media control as can be seen even on this web page . Count the pictures and articles .
FREE...its interesting to note that all of the supposed "scandals" you listed had virtually nothing to do with actual policy.tak
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.
-----
Which consituency is that? Is there a politician in New York state who goes against the hard line AIPAC line? I completely agree that getting Hagel on-board would be much better for policy & politicall
I think the reason Obama is looking at Hillary as a candidate is because of the old adadge: Keep your enemies closer! She would be a threat to him as leader in the Senate so he feels that the best way to keep track of her activity is to have her on his team! What do you think?
I think you're right. And it will also keep her off the presidential slate in 2012.
The writer has said it all. I did not vote for the Restoration of the ;Clintons. I did not vote to have them set up a new fiefddom in my Department of State. I do not want them back. I want her to finish up with her Health Care Initative, even if she is not the central star. She owes all of us that. and Bill, can just go about his business. He should not have to cut back on his good works, and he will never quit lipping off and partying no matter what he says or even tries to do. That's who he is.
Hagel would be an interesting choice. Richardson, although sometimes too talky, would allow Obama to mount a new "Western Hemisphere Iniative" in which fair trade, energy, immigration and host of other issues might be addressed. It could rival the Monroe Doctrine. Dick Holbrooke is the only real professional on the list---and let's face it---the only one who has really done the toughest kind of stuff and done it well.
I was hoping for a real Foreign Service at last, filled with multilingual discreet professionals all moving in the same direction, not Club Clinton for the rich and famous and devoted to the past.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
