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

[rainbowwarrior]

It is interesting to watch Democrats bashing Clintons. Remember it was during Bill's time that there ever was a workable middle East peace deal and Bill Clinton remains a very popular figure internationally. Remember Democrats used to say he was the "first Black President", He was the one who brought the "largest expansion in economic history" during modern times? But now he is caricatured as a Monster good for nothing philanderer/ racist .
Those who were against Iraq war sure hates Hillary for her vote Iraq vote. But I wonder how Obama would have voted if he were in Senate during that time. (Remember the Obama vote for immunity for telecoms). How many Democrat Senators voted against Iraq war in the Senate?
Despite the mantra of change, and a naive hope, at the end of the day, under Obama, United States' International policies will not undergo significant changes except for some cosmetic changes.Su­re it would be far better than Bush's. But that record can hardly be the standard of excellence. Sure there will be change in the bullying posture. International military interventions will continue in the name of fighting terrorism. Embargo against Cuba and Iran will remain. Military Aid and support for Egypt and Israelis will continue.
Obama and Hillary will be lucky to bring Israelis and Palastenians back to where they were during Bill Clinton's time .
Perhaps Obama knows this better than anyone and Hillary would be perfect for the job.

[fayemac]

Right on rainbow warrior. Excelent points. Where were these people when the first Bush came into office and Bill cleaned up everything then? They just dont seem to care about what Obama thinks either.Oba­ma should watch his back from these suposed supporters of his because they did the same thing to the Clintons. The Repubs start a bunch of crap(Vince Foster) and suddenly the Clintons are a bunch of murderers and his own party starts believing it. Obama is going to have his hands full just from his own people. Good luck Dude cuz the knives are comming out.

[POTUS2008]

exactly!

[meede]

Just reading the first paragraph, I agree. I am a Dem. To add to it, I think back when Bill was in office and Hillary got involved by working on the healthcare. You would have thought she had caused the biggest crime of the century in that a First Lady that actually tried to do something other than change the dishes and drapes out and play up some charities. How dare a First Lady think she was smarter than those in the House & Senate. Well -- she was and is.

I admit I was for Hillary. When she lost, I didn't have to give it a second thought about Obama. My support flipped to him faster than a pancake.

[emmanuels]

There lies HOPE and CHANGE In the trash along with my OBAMA '08 Bumper sticker

[rbe]

I learned a number of years ago not to put much stock in what comes out of an academician's mouth. After 8 years of noecon academics, I say, give us a rest from 8 years of liberal academics.

[POTUS2008]

So if things don't go exactly the way you want you just give up?

[ArchAngel]

As SoS, Hillary will readily manipulate priorities, emergencies, meetings, speeches, contacts, agendas, interpretations, messages, timings, delays, responses, appointments, promotions, etc. to get the outcomes that she and her constituency want.

Obama will be left scratching his head wondering why he cannot get even simple results.

[POTUS2008]

her constituency will be the American people, and her boss is president Obama

[BeltwayBette]

Dream on.

ArchAngel has it right. Except that President Obama WILL know what's happening, will try to block it and will not be able to control the Clintons and followers -- and not be able to fire her.

As for her not being able to run for Pres in 2012< of course she will. A Constitutional block? hahaha

[Blidkin]

At last, someone with credentials making a point-by-point case why Hillary as Secretary of State is so highly problematic (and an absurd contradiction of Obama's supposed foreign policy goals). I don't get it. He won the primary. He won the election. He can appoint whomever he pleases to his cabinet -- why go with a Hawk for Secretary of State? Her positions on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and Israel are almost identical to those of Bush and company. Not exactly change to believe in. I'm glad I didn't give any money to the Obama campaign.

[POTUS2008]

Obama likes to be challenged and he is in charge, he doesn't want a ideologically pure cabinet, he wants a motivated one that can work together, challenge each other and get things done.

[24hourrifle]

what exactly makes you think hillary would hinder the efforts to repair the middle east?hillary(as well as bill,lets face it theyre a package deal,at least to some extent) is respected AND admired around the world.can you say with a straight face that john kerry or bill richardson have as much clout as hillary clinton?
im really getting tired of the endless cynisism-most of which is coming from the left.we voted for obama with the belief that he would govern differentl­y.differen­t from bush specifically.so lets just give him a chance.let­s assume for the time being that he chose her because he honestly believes she will do the best job.
yes,she voted for the war.so did biden as well as many other politicians who i greatly admire.
every time i questioned something obama has done along the way,he ended up being right.so how about we all just chill and give him a chance to get sh** done without hammering him along the way.

[POTUS2008]

hear hear!

[KSMullins]

He should definitely leave the Clintons out of his cabinet. The country made its choice and it was for Obama. The Clintons are partisans plain and simple. Obama's message and roadmap lead to very different places than the direction the Clintons would like to head.

Our Foreign Policy needs to open more market for American goods. Cuba is a captive markert absolutely hungering for American products..­.oh and CARS...let­'s get over ourselves already and start selling stuff to these folks.

[POTUS2008]

why do people bash china but praise cuba?

[Soulsurfer]

I agree with all of her points against Hil being appointed, but Hagel? Couldn't we find a qualified Democratic or independent candidate? Chuck's a good man, but he still wears that "R" on his jersey.

[POTUS2008]

I think he would be a good pick, although i prefer Hillary i would be perfectly happy with a number of people that are qualified for the position. i think Hagel would offer many of the same things as Hillary, and their differences with obama make the presidency stronger .

[americanalien]

If the Hillary supporters who came out for Obama on election day held as much bitterness in their hearts towards Obama as you guys still do towards Hillary, Obama would never be elected President. He could have easily lost Pennsylvania; Florida would be absolutely out of the question as would Indiana and McCain could just as easily siphon off Ohio. We'd be in a very sorry state today kicking ourselves yet again asking how we managed to lose this one. Even more horrifying, we'd be referring to Sarah Palin as our Vice President Elect. Fortunately that was avoided because most of these Hillary voters were reasonable enough to look beyond their bitterness from the Primaries and give Obama a chance. They saw the state of the economy decided to put petty in-party differences behind. Now my fellow Obama supporters, are you willing to put petty in-party differences behind for the sake of your country? or are you more interested in letting the Clintons have it? The choice is yours. As for me, I am willing to put America first.

[jp5472]

"petty in-party differences"? Did you even read the article? It lists valid reasons why, from a respected expert, HRC should not serve in this position. Bitterness? Please! I want HRC to be a part of the big picture and a leader in these times ahead, but SoS is an area where she had way too many differences and her policies adamantly supported the status quo. We voted against the status quo.

[meede]

On Nov 4th voted against status quo but too many forget the primaries. Definite split.

[meede]

BRAVO!!!

[NightAdder]

The other thing HRC's appointment does is ends any chance of lifting the Cuban embargo. O supported it on numerous occasions, HRC is adamantly against it, so yes, now I get the feeling that things will remain business as usual. Forever wars, forever sanctions, forever marginalizing and not negotiating with countries who are hostile toward us.

[lwfky]

I don't understand why people think that Hillary will be in charge of all foreign policy. Obama is the President and he gets to make policy decisions. His SOS is there to make them happen. Mr. Obama is intelligent enough to want people who will argue and give other points of view, but ultimately, he is in charge and Senator Clinton knows this.
I believe that she will be a brilliant Secretary of State, and as President-elect Obama continues to shape his cabinet, I get more and more excited about America's prospects for the future!

[POTUS2008]

cuba isnt on the agenda in the foreseeable future no matter who is SOS, (its possibly unsolvable at the moment and a possible political land mine with little upside for the president) and it is the president who decides policy not the SOS, the SOS works for the president.

[meede]

Hillary as SOS together with Joe Biden as VP will have dialogue and opinions with Barack -- but when will you backseat quarterbacks and I am talking to Dems, get it that it is Obama's agenda in office -- not Hillary's. Hillary knows that. If it had not been for Hillary, there would have been some states that would not be blue.

[BigMike75]

He is the future President right? Because according the all the "not Hillary" people, it seems like President-Elect Obama will be taking his marching orders from Hillary.

[WilliePilgrim]

I have to admit I thought your opinion was going to be largely a diatribe against HRC but I have to admit, Hagel would be an excellent selection, and HRC's baggage is a bit of a problem even though her obvious political talents are considerable. I've long thought that a proper balance among the branches of governement would do much to alleviate the problems of the rising power of the executive branch. Right now it's as if winning the White House is the Super Bowl of political achievements, the brass ring that every power hungry type A egomaniac wants to grasp and wield. I'd much prefer that Senators wield their own considerable power without designs on consolidation of more power.

[FloaterBall]

Hmmmm, I think this lady might be right. Good points, good post.

[mikep007]

Hagel is my pick too! I think Hillary has greater power in the senate. Secretary of State might be the end of the line for her.

[cgoodie]

I think Hillary is the "hammer" in the State Department, just like Rahm is the "hammer" in the WH...IF he needs them. World leaders will know that, on one hand, Obama wants peace in our time, but by sending Hillary, we are ready to fight when warranted. Good Choice!

[PalmG]

I can't agree with this article more. I'm beginning to really lose fait in Obama. Maybe he took us all for a ride...