HRC for SOS

Might we have just witnessed the dawning of a new era of politics in America in the last 24 hours? I will admit that I was taken aback by speculation that President-elect Barack Obama was considering none other than his former rival-in-chief, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for arguably the most important post in his upcoming administration, Secretary of State. The two candidates debated endlessly during the primary season on the finer points of their proposed foreign policy initiatives, and their disagreements on diplomacy made for some of the most potent points of contrast between the candidates.

President-elect Obama has made no secret of his affection for Doris Kearns Goodwin's marvelous book "Team of Rivals," which chronicles how President Lincoln invited his vanquished political opponents into his administration in order to negotiate centrist, consensus solutions to the dire problems facing our nation during her darkest hour. If President Obama does indeed select Senator Clinton as his Secretary of State, he will be invoking Lincoln's legacy in a profound way; and in the opinion of this Congressman, there could be no wiser choice for the post.

During his first year in office, President Obama will likely need to keep a laser's focus on domestic issues as we try to climb out of the economic hole dug under eight years of President Bush's financial policies. Therefore, it is absolutely vital to select someone with the experience, toughness, and depth of knowledge to handle increased authority in foreign policy and deliver on President Obama's promise to the world; and who could be more qualified to manage the duties of the nation's top diplomat than the internationally revered junior Senator from New York? She brings two decades worth of foreign policy experience, much of it on the front lines as First Lady during one of the most peaceful eras in U.S. history. Furthermore, she brings instant prestige and credibility to the position; no foreign leader would ever feel diminished sitting in the presence of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I have had the privilege to know the Clintons since their days in neighboring Arkansas, and I know of no one more intelligent and capable of tackling the enormous challenges we face abroad than Hillary Rodham Clinton. During the Bush Administration, the country watched with horror the consequences of rewarding campaign benefactors with important positions within the executive branch (see: Brown, Michael), and President-elect Obama's selection of Senator Clinton would signify a remarkable step in the right (and opposite) direction by rewarding accomplishment, intelligence and talent rather than patronage.

I was an ardent supporter of Barack Obama during the heated primary season - in part because I agreed with his positions on the War in Iraq and on more aggressive diplomacy - but I whole-heartedly believe that Senator Clinton would make an exceptional Secretary of State. Senator Clinton's vast knowledge, experience representing our country and her finely honed skills of negotiation would serve this country well, and her presence within an Obama Administration would have an immediate, positive impact.

Comments

[gallatin]

I'm surprised at the congressman's reference to Lincoln. Lincoln did indeed appoint members of the oppositon to his cabinet much to his grief. They blocked him and stonewalled at every turn and even completerly ignored his wishes. In spite of the need to build coalitions the President-elect needs all the loyalty he can get in order to succeed in his monumental challenge.

[hudsuckerproxy]

Lincoln appointed his former rival William Seward SOS and by all accounts the partnership was a great success.

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=93&subjectID=2

[gallatin]

Seward was reluctantly supportive of Lincoln, he and Lincoln's other rivals turned cabinet members Chase and Bates conducted a degree of infighting that hamstrung the president.

[Camarosc35]

Agreed, I can't wait for the formal announcement.

[GatoPreto]

Woo-hoo! More DLC influence for more 'change'! I wonder when they will wheel out Janet Reno, no Clinton sequel would be complete without her.

HRC voted for the war. That's why she didn't get the Democratic nomination. Plain and simple. Now the DLC is trying to push the same product under a different brand name and it's not going unnoticed.

What happened to the GOP will have to happen to the Democrats.

[Pupadup4oBama]

http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/your_weekly_address_from_the_president_elect/

This is why I trust just about everything this man does.

Keep the faith and hope ALIVE!!!

[Pupadup4oBama]

I think it's a great move on Obama's part, and it's not just to appease her supporters, or win people over, because as we've seen - a lot of his "supporters" say they don't approve.
I have been an Obama supporter since he announced his candidacy and I have trusted him every step of the way....I trust he is making an excellent decision and one that will most likely carry a lot of weight around the world.

[HalBrown]

For all the reasons you say, Rep, Cohen, yes.

This summer I was undecided about who I'd support for president between Obama and Clinton. Then Hillary went negative, suggesting that only she and McCain were qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, and Obama revealed himself to be a steady sober statesman with ideas I believed in. I wrote some damning columns on another website where I'm the "resident shirnk", about how Hillary conducted her campaign. I once wrote about the "stench" of her campaign. While not engaged in throwing brickbats at her, back in June I did take the time to write a more analytic column, "For Hillary Clinton the ultimate psychological challenge: fast tracking the five stages of grief" which I based on the psychology of grief as applied to Hillary's dealing with losing the nomination.

I believe she tried to stave off accepting that she was losing and put off working through the grief prossess - getting stuck in denial for too long - and going through the anger stage by attacking Obama - she dealt with drepression in part by surrounding herself with supportive staff and adoring fans, and that she has reached the last stage which is acceptance.
I give her a clean bill of health.

I haven't forgotten about Bill, who went through his own even more complex stages of grief, and the Clinton marriage. Suffice to say I think Hillary is now able to handle both the State Department and the State of Bill.

[Nonamnesiac]

Clinton for Secretary of State is a particularly disappointing selection on Obama's part. Although Hillary demonstrated heroic loyalty to Obama after she lost the nomination and I am not at all hostile to Hillary serving in an important position in the Obama Administration, Hillary lost the nomination because she lacked the judgment in international relations to wholly reject the warmongering policies of the neocons. To this day she has not apologized for putting the lives and limbs of my military family members, and millions of other military family members like mine, in harm's way against the interests of the United States. She supported labeling a part of the Iranian government a terrorist organization, in effect giving Bush authority to attack Iran according to Senator Jim Webb. She continually articulated a close-to-neocon predisposition and demonstrated an incredibly narrow world view -- exactly the opposite of what she needs to perform as a competent Secretary of State.

It is even more disappointing because the most qualified person for Secretary of State in a generation, Bill Richardson, is there for the asking. Richardson has the exact perspective necessary to supplement Obama's stated goals of switching from cowboy militarism as our foreign policy to effective negotiations. Hillary doesn't have those talents based on her record, although she has many talents.

The choice means that Obama may have decided to adapt to many of W's instincts -- all of which were wrong.

[lizzwill]

I've been thinking this was the post for Hillary all along and the reason she was passed up for VP. Hope it comes to pass.

[Martskers]

If the Obama presidency is to be the "meritocracy" everyone's been claiming it will be, then the choice for SOS is simple: Richardson. He has paid his foreign policy dues on the front lines of diplomacy, and is a known quantity to the international community. HRC is a celebrity, when it comes to diplomacy, and would not have much credibility internationally beyond her rock star credentials. Also, I wouldn't put it past Bill to use his wife's position to advance his own international interests.

[rockne]

Obama ran on the premise of CHANGE. He already has proved he will change nothing by making Clintonista Emmanuel his Chief of Staff, asking Hillary to be his SOS and bring out Clinton retread Madeline Albright to be his representative at the Summit. In fact, his involving anyone from the Clinton era, one of the most morally bankrupt Administrations in history, is a mistake.

[Lajla]

Senator Clinton supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

That is more than enough.

She is utterly unqualified for the job.

[Pupadup4oBama]

Biden supported it at first too. The war is one of the reasons why she lost to Obama, however, I think with her new found strength she has "found her voice" I think it would be an excellent fit.
Please try to keep an open mind until the actual announcement comes - i'm SURE Obama will say something as to why he chose her.

[Lajla]

My mind is open in many matters. But not with regard to wars of aggression.

[HansB]

The one single reason I preferred Obama to Clinton was his correct foreign policy views, and her hawkish ones. She's not just well to the right of her husband - she's to the right of George Bush Senior.

Against lifting the Cuba embargo.
For the Iraq war and not a bit sorry for the millions of Iraqis who lost their homes or their lives.
Atrocious standpoint on Lebanon.
On Israel-Palestine, count on her to always approve of Israeli actions even when (as the present Gaza blocade) they are clear violations of international law, and to always disapprove of the Palestinians, no matter what the circumstances - that's how she's always voted, it's what she believes. Arabs bad, Israelis good.
On Iran, the vote to consider the Revolutionary Guards - all of that sprawling entity - a terrorist organization, which resolution Bush could have used to go to war if Gates hadn't been opposed.
On global warming, if she's interested I haven't noticed. The one person I do not see shuttling to China and Russia and India to get the world on board for fast and drastic action, is Hillary Clinton.

If this is Obama's definition of the "center" - somewhere between the right wing of the Democratic Party and the wingnut neocon wing of the Republicans - then my personal honeymoon with him is over. This is not Lincoln politics. This is reactionary politics at a time the world can't use that.

As for the vast respect the world has

[akryan]

We have to remember that this election made Hillary almost as much of a international star as Obama. I I think foreign relations are going to be daunting over the next ten years. If Obama can get Hillary and Biden on the same page he could cover twice as much ground. Of course it could totally backfire if there turns out to be too many cooks in the kitchen. At this point I think it's impossible to predict. Which exactly why all of us are. I swear, all of us blog dorks need to take a breath, go to a movie, anything to get away from the computer for a few hours. Obviously I'm not taking my own advice.

[dubster]

I vociferously disagree. You said you can't think of anyone more capable. Really? Not even Bill Richardson. In fact, I believe Richardson is a far more seasoned and tested diplomat since he still does that on the side you know. He's a roving diplomat and globe trotting trouble shooter. He's brought back hostages, American servicemen, and political prisoners in Iraq, Cuba, and N. Korea.. His foreign policy credentials are boffo. He's negotiated with some of the most hostile nations and their diplomats and secured a seize fire in Darfur. In addition, he's been nominated five times for the noble peace prize. Also, he's been adjunct professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. The litany of his positions in the upper-echelons of Government and the Corporate World are staggering. This man is the only choice for the position.

[priorato]

I could not agree with you more! Richardson has PROVEN foreign policy credentials, unlike Hillary who did not broker Irish peace; did not arrive in Bosnia under a hail of bullets and all of her travel as First Lady was ceremonial -- not substantive.

I thought we covered all of this in the Primary. She is not qualified and I hope Obama does not give in to the mounting public pressure to give Clinton the Sec. of State job. This is too much of an important position to use as a reward for the Clintons.

Hilary would make a good Secretary of Health so she could implement the new health care plan, but making her SOS would be an unmitigated disaster.

[bjobotts]

Look, have you forgotten that Hillary is a hawk. I can't see how she would be much different than our current SoS. I've yet to see any great "diplomacy" coming from her and the staff for that cabinet post needs a firm demonstration of diplomacy...Obama style...not more saber rattling. I am not confident about Hillary in that post though she may be brilliant at it..;.but that could also go in the opposite direction. I would rather see her as Senate Majority leader where I believe she is better suited and would be more effective.