View From Europe: Hillary Would Be Great As Madame Secretary

Berlin--Choosing Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State would be a great move by our president-elect for several reasons, starting with how the selection would go over here in Europe.

The simple fact is, in Europe as in the U.S., Obama cannot afford to overlook the potential problem of not being able to meet the sky-high expectations that have been built up for him - the bold, self-confident choice of Hillary Clinton to restore the office of Secretary of State to its past standing would send the message far and wide that a) Obama has read his Doris Kearns Goodwin and knows the value of putting the talent of past rivals to work for you, and b) the American diplomatic presence in the world will be conducted from top to bottom with professionalism and seriousness and a strong presence at the top.

(Please, would foreign policy commentators stop pretending that Rice's garbage-time posturing on behalf of multilateralism meant anything -- it was too little, too late, and with no credibility or strong relationships to tap, such efforts as her would-be-legacy-bolstering try at Middle East peace were in the end utterly empty exercises doomed from the start.)

The economic meltdown in the U.S. -- and the emergence of what Paul Krugman calls "depression economics" -- will in many ways pin President Obama down over the coming months. When I watched Obama speak to the crowd of 200,000 in Berlin's Tiergarten last summer, I assumed that once he was elected, he would probably make a return trip to Europe early in his administration to address more exuberant crowds, including quite possibly giving a speech at the Brandenburg Gate, his first choice before the Bush administration intervened behind the scenes to pressure the German government not to allow it. Obama still may -- but it seems hard to imagine, with the need to face such grim problems as what to do about Detroit.

As I wrote at the time, Obama backed off of a clear, specific demand for more European troops in Afghanistan in that speech -- a tactical retreat from what his aides had indicated he would say, and a smart one at that. He told the Berliners only that on Afghanistan, the U.S. and Europe must "renew our resolve" and that the "Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda." That was vague enough to leave plenty of wiggle room.

Nevertheless, the right has drawn a line in the sand on this issue, ready to pounce. Earlier this week, a Wall Street Journal editorial made the wild claim that "Mr. Obama has promised a multilateral surge of troops into the Afghanistan-Pakistan front."

It's true Obama wants more troops for Afghanistan, but he's been careful on what he has promised -- having a strong figure as Secretary of State, one who is held in great respect around the world, including in Europe, where public opinion polls have shown her doing almost as well as Obama himself, would be a huge asset for an administration looking to make progress in Afghanistan without distracting from President Obama's focus on the economy and jobs.

For the Clinton-haters, and I know there are some of you out there here at HuffPost, first off: Can't we try to stop hating? Isn't that one of the messages of Obama as the kind of potentially transformative leader who only comes along once in a great while? That we can turn to hope for a better future and not let everything curdle into recitations of rancid resentment, carefully preserved, long after the original grounds -- often based on falsehood -- are no longer relevant?

Second, can we review some of the more unfortunate reasoning cited in recent months for distrusting the Clintons as partners for Obama? We were told by smart people that Obama's campaign had been ruined because Hillary Clinton continued to campaign. How does that call look from the perspective of now? The long campaign season helped turn Obama from a good candidate into a great one; it built interest and boosted registration and turned more states competitive, as the Obama team has explained in post-election interviews with CBS and the New Yorker and elsewhere.

Hillary Clinton did more for the Obama presidential campaign than any defeated candidate in history, by whatever measure -- appearances on the stump, money raised, you name it. And yes, her husband was also a major asset, and that great moment on stage in Florida when the former president and the future president stood side by side probably made a difference in that state. If Obama were to choose her for Secretary of State, Hillary would throw herself into it the new role as a team player and she'd have instant respect abroad.

The same cannot be said for Bill Richardson, for example, who seems to believe he's entitled to a plum post in the new administration because the Latino vote supported Obama in large numbers. They supported Obama in large numbers because he was the best candidate. As for John Kerry, it's not really fair, given his command of foreign policy, but he carries the taint of his too-passive defeat at the hands of the fear-mongering Bush 2004 campaign, and it's hard to believe Obama would really make that call.

So is it possible? Absolutely. Would Senator Clinton give up her seat to take the job? Very possibly. Will it happen? Let's hope so.

Back to that recent WSJ editorial, Same Old Berlin Wall" -- it includes the delusional claim: "When Europeans talk about 'multilateralism,' they typically don't mean agreeing on a common policy to carry out together. They mean defaulting global security to the United Nations, where Russian and Chinese vetoes curtail effective action. At best, multilateralism a la Paris and Berlin is short for European approval for where and how Americans may intervene around the world."

This is claptrap, part of a pretty lame effort to fight the "myth" that Bush administration unilateralism and blundering is to blame for the severe plunge in international perceptions of the United States. It says a lot that the WSJ, like the Bush administration, has no idea what it actually means to have respectful relations with allies that involve listening -- and stopping and thinking. President-elect Obama clearly does understand that. His choice of Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State would represent a great show of respect to our allies that he wants the best available person to handle the job of being his top diplomat.

Related:

Confirmed: Clinton Met With Obama About Role In New Administration

Comments

[ponderingmuch]

The worst thing about the Clintons was that they always seemed to want the biggest validation, to leave the biggest legacy, and sometimes stooped to underhanded things to get that.

Secretary of State is important enough for that ego need to be satisfied.

Nothing could be a better Clinton legacy than Hillary doing a brilliant job as Secretary of State.

Therefore both she and Bill would be passionate about making that happen. They can't do that if they are undermining Obama, so they won't undermine him.

Win-win, in my book.

[ReaganDem]

Funny to see some people in the press trying to play UP the alleged foreign policy differences between Hillary Clinton and Obama when those were obviously exaggerated - by both campaigns - during the long campaign.

[Drew257]

I think Hillary would do a tremendous job, but I also think she could help with domestic issues. I like John Kerry for SOS, but would be happy w/ Hillary, too.

[jillsie529]

Dear Santa, Here's my Christmas List -- Bill Clinton for SOS and HIlary for SOF. Hugs and Kisses, Jillsie.

While news reports appear to report as if the deal is all but signed, headlines read "Hilary hsa been asked to become SOS," I am going to offer another Clinton for the post. I can't believe no one, other than Shashi Tharoor, the former United Nations Under Secretary for Communications and Public Information in Nov/Dec 08 Foreign Policy magazine article's entitled "The Dream Team." Ms. Tharoor contends that William Jefferson Clinton would be the ideal choice for the position as "there is no more popular American in the world than the former president." In addition, she remarks on his boundless engery, expertise and first hand knowledge and experience in foreign affairs. Let's face it the guy could benefit from a govt job. Really, folks love him or hate him, who better than Bill Clinton fully understands the world stage. And, who better than he has learned from any past mistakes? Sorry Hilary (I loved you in another cabinet post) but Bill gets my vote for SOS. In the same article Christopher Bertram, former head of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, opts for Hilary as Secretary of the Treasurer stating, she's "the one, precisely because the senator is not a Wall Street product but a highly skilled politicatian with political clout and a sense of the economic needs of the oridinary Americans."

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

I like the way you're thinking!

[gisellestwocents]

Great analysis and commentary except for the part casting aspersions upon Gov. Richardson who deserves recognition and appreciation as both a highly qualified public servant and an avid supporter of BO early in his campaign.

I think that Hillary would be great for the job from a world relations perspective. I don't know who would be best to tackle the middle east problems...

I just want the best person for the job to be selected -- no disrespect to anyone. They are all highly qualified and deserving people. I just hope that there's someone among them who can actually help to move things forward.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you so much for this comment - really. You make a good point. I did cast aspersions on Gov. Richardson; I was annoyed by what I saw (and, actually, still see) as blatant log-rolling. Nevertheless, the larger point is Richardson has a varied and interesting background and he's certainly worthy of respect. My view as someone who follows U.S.-European relations pretty closely from my perch in Berlin is that he would not make nearly the international impact as SOS that HRC would.

[snapshot1940]

We are going to need some Supreme Court Justices before Obama is out of office and I think Hillary Clinton would be excellent for that job.

Richardson has the experience and the tact to be a great SOS.

[closetodemfection]

HRC as said numerous times on record she has zero interest in being on the Supreme Court. She prefers to make an impact from a policy and/or diplomatic standpoint. Personally, I am mixed on her accepting SoS because she will lose her NY seat and her political future will be entirely dependent on a successful Obama administration. On a selfish level, I live in NY and was feeling comforted with her pulling the state through this this difficult economic time. Whoever fills her seat will have far less power to get things done for NY.

[karela]

The last months of Hillary's campaign, how many times did she use the word "fight"? And how much drama seems to always surround her and her staff? She could do an outstanding job, but it's far from a sure thing. Also, will she and Bill finally release the information about foreign donations to his library. And if they do, will congress approve her? I think that this is still very much up in the air. I like John Kerry and he has a wealth of foreign credentials. I was a little put off however by his going after the post in the press instead of privately with Obama. I certainly don't think that Kerry's baggage is as great as the Clinton baggage, but it also seems to be true that his star does not shine as brightly either. I like Bill Richardson, though I think he does lack a certain polish that many nations would expect in a Secretary of State. But it is also true that the Spanish vote came out big for Obama and they're expecting (demanding?) that they have representation in Obama's government. He'll need them in 2012 and they should be represented, though as always, in these times it's essential to choose the best people available for the job. Obama has a lot to consider. We'd be wise to set back and just observe as he sorts it all out and uses that great judgment of his to decide what will serve America best.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

True, Obama and his team are very much on top of their game right now and I trust them to make the right call on this. On your first point: based on what other Senators are saying, and based on the respect Hillary has from her fellow senators, in both parties, my own sense is that confirmation would not be a problem (though certainly would not be without some media stories trying to create controversy).

[exhale09]

I agree Hillary would make a good SOS, however, I also believe Hillary is a great Senator, and she is very needed in the Senate.

I believe with the Presidency out of the way, Hillary could be a real force in the Senate...no longer having to be causous because she's anticipating being the Presidential Candidate, and making decisions based on that possibilty. I'd love watching that happen.

Either way, it's a win/win.

[MetryJen]

I totally agree.

[ozamerican]

On the other hand, Hillary has Health Care Czar, I would support that. She must have learned a helluva a lot the first go-round.

[LordKelvin]

Comrade, you wrote

"On the other hand, Hillary HAS Health Care Czar, I would support that. "

And may I ask, just what would be the context for her exaltation as Tsarina Hillary?

Would she derive the title, for which she was condemn during the campaign, from Tsar Bubba?

COGITO, ERGO SUM.

[ozamerican]

P.S. I'd want Colin Powell in that position.

[ozamerican]

are you all forgetting the time Hillary had to "dodge sniper fire" to get into Bosnia? As an American abroad, let me tell you, Hillary doesn't play as well internationally as so many people thinks she does...

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

I guarantee this: People in the United States are MUCH more likely to base their impressions of someone on one gaffe than are people in other countries. I don't know what evidence you're citing, but if you like, I can post some previously unreported Pew numbers on Hillary's regard abroad that back up my point that she's highly respected in other countries. If you're interested in this topic, I hope to be following up early next week with a post on how Hillary as SOS might be seen by Palestinians.

[ToonMoene]

> It's true Obama wants more troops for Afghanistan,

It might be worth noting that Obama *mentioned* that he wanted more troops for Afghanistan in his Berlin speech (despite the fact that Angela Merkel had told him that morning that, as an elected official, she couldn't promise anything not accepted by the people).

In spite of his mentioning this as a necessary ingredient of improved multilateral relations, there were no boos from the audience or negative placards. It's not a stretch to conclude that the 200,000 crowd in Berlin accepted this as a necessity for improving cross-atlantic relations.

[Steve Kettmann - Huffpost Blogger]

Definitely not a stretch. But as someone standing in the middle of that crowd in Berlin during the speech, looking around at the way people were reacting, and listening to their comments to each other, I had the sense that that part of the speech mostly slid right by people - because it was as general as it was. The overriding interest was in sizing up Obama more generally, appreciating his uniqueness and eloquence.

[willad1]

This was a great article for selling Hillary for the position. Her strengths were laid out in a convincing manner. I agree but with some caveats. She has a tendency to be hawkish and she expresses some ideas that appear to be designed to burnish her political image. As Secretary of State I think she would be smart enough to segue into a role where she will have to be ever vigilant that her positions on various issues could have worldwide implications, not merely for personal persona.

Sure, she has some baggage but who doesn't? She wouldn't have to go very far to improve on the performance of the last Secretary of State. At least she wouldn't have to wave her finger constantly in admonishing other nations for their behavior.

[jno510]

While she certainly deserves a major post, I'm not sure it should be secretary of state. Part of her failing in trying to overhaul healthcare was her inability to work well with others. Above all else the SOS must be diplomatic and hopefully worldly as well. I recall over a decade ago Hillary traveled about the middle east and argued for greater women's rights. While I don't disagree with her message at all, I don't believe it should be the role of the SOS to force our cultural norms and values on other countries. It's that kind of exporting of "democracy" that has contributed to the mess in Iraq. I'd actually like to see Colin Powell take up the role again without Bush and the neocons pulling the strings

[ReaganDem]

The No. 1 job of the new Secretary of State will be to listen. To listen and show respect and help repair the damage the Bush years have done to U.S. standing in the world. My money's on Hillary nailing that part of her duties. But I agree that as SOS, she had better not try to force our cultural norms and values on other countries. I guess we'll see!

[ReaganDem]

Candy Crowley just made an interesting point at CNN, pointing out that the Obama campaign has not denied any of the reporting on Hillary being sounded out on the job. Sure looks like this really might happen ...