Confirmed: Clinton In Chicago To Be Nominated for Secretary of State
by Taylor Marsh
I've confirmed with a person close to Clinton that she will indeed be in Chicago tomorrow to be nominated for Secretary of State.
We've come a long way from the primaries, haven't we? Yes we have.
What this nomination says about President-elect Obama is loud and clear. He's not only confident and someone who does not fear strong viewpoints on national security matters and foreign policy, but he's inviting them, sure in his own place as president as well. But as you can see from the CNN video above, Obama's entire national security team, including Joe Biden, is a "water's edge" powerhouse.
Obama once again proving ideology will not be his guidepost.
What HRC can bring to the world stage is monumental and something only she can do, especially given her work across many years on women's rights alone. As Laura Bush mentioned on "Meet the Press," women are taking a leading role in countries like Afghanistan, with the chance of sealing their influence historic. Clinton can add to this immeasurably, as well as confront the atrocious human rights abuses in countries like Pakistan and the continent of Africa. The opportunities facing Clinton in an Obama administration are wide and deep, as are their challenges. Obama obviously knows this and has nominated his national security team accordingly.
"What we are going to do is combine experience with fresh thinking. But understand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from me." -- President-elect Obama
President-elect Obama stands out even brighter with the announcement of his national security team, which reveals continuity, steadiness and that he has no intention of letting one minute go by once he's inaugurated. As for the change promised, Obama will have a seasoned team to deliver on his vision. It foreshadows a presidency in which he will be well served.
"...We don't intend to stumble into the next administration." - President-elect Barack Obama
Obama's choices on national security prove his point.
Follow Taylor Marsh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/taylormarsh
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
I think just like Carly Fiorina exposed, to her regret, the utter unsuitability of McCain and Palin as top executives of US, someone of Fiorina's stature from within the foreign relations establishment will have to make a gaffe in exposing the true unfitness of Hillary Clinton for the SOS job. I am completely underwhelmed by her qualifications for the job. What exactly makes her a great SOS? The only thing that is being touted as her great international strength is that she knows many leaders around the world by first name (I would like to see that list by the way. Any current leaders in office right now?). Big deal! Bono does too.
Hillary Clinton's appointment, along with many other Obama appointments so far, has a huge banner on it: "Political". Convenience, not qualification, seems to be the driving criterion in his appointments. Obama has a great Machiavellian political sense. I am not so sure about his "greatness" anymore.
You mistake the obama appointments. While you may see it as bad, Obama is stepping into several very serious crisis and needs their attention all at the same time. By absolute neccessity he needs to appoint experienced people.
I am sure the man has vetted his picks and they are on board with his agenda. He is, afterall, the boss.
While I am no fan of Hillary and have skepticism about her appointment, she does have recognition around the world and can help to advance Obama's message and agenda easier with her recognition by foreign leaders.
I also would advise you to listen again to Obama's speeches as he states quite emphatically that he is not ideology driven. He rejects the idea of right vs left vs center and is at most a very pragmatic man who is cautious and commons sense driven.
What we needed was not experience but judgment. Was it all a dream when Obama countered Hillary's accusation of him being inexperienced that it was not about experience but about judgment? Am I hallucinating to think that the entire two-year campaign was fought along the lines of change vs. experience and Obama (thanks to the voters who supported him) beat experience in both the primaries and the general election? Was this all a bait-and-switch tactic? This is truly disgusting. I am sorry to tell you but what Obama has shown so far is that he has no respect for the promises he made to the American public. So, at the end of the day, was it all words? Apparently so!
I don't think Mrs. Clinton is the best choice for SoS. My reasons relate mainly to the fact the our top foreign policy concerns are in successfully concluding the conflict with the Muslim world which groups like Al Qaida attempt to exploit to create a greater conflagration in the Middle East. In many Islamic, Arab, and Persian societies, women do not have equal civil rights because they are viewed as having a different role (some would say inferiority). That being the case, I believe a man would do a better job at negotiating with Middle East/African leaders.
Cabinet positions should not be about affirmative action or rewarding political supporters but in the end, Hillary will do O.K.
If Pakistan could elect Benazir Bhutto to the presidency over 10 years ago, then I would think other Islamic countries could certainly deal with a woman as SoS. Actually, I can't help but relish the prospect, the soon to become a reality, of HRC interfacing with patriarchal Islamic leaders. I see her role in the Middle East enhanced by being a woman. She would serve as both a conduit of hope and role model for millions of women in oppressed regions. Men, both Middle Eastern and American (as I see from the blog), need to just get over it!
Most of us can discern Obama had the interests of the country at heart when he put together his cabinet, instead of political correctness or rewards.
Benazir Bhutto was running on her father's legacy (check for Zulfikar Ali Bhutto) and sadly enough her husband is now running on hers. She, as a woman, or any other woman, couldn't even dream of coming anywhere close to Palistan's office of the prime minister, on her own. Not then, not today. The logic of dynastic government trumps all other theocratic/medieval logics and creates the false apperance of progress and equality. This is true for the US too. GHB to GWB, Bill Clinton to Hillary Clinton. The US is not going to elect another "can have beer with, know nothing" president unless it is the son of another president. Likewise, it is not going to elevate another woman with little-to-no foreign relations experience or expertise to become the SOS unless it is the wife of a former president. It's the same all over the world. Don't let appearances fool you.
I doubt the idea that the middle eastern countries will not deal with a woman as SofS. We've had two other women in the job already without problem by the leaders.
I personally and as woman, reject identity politics as it is exactly what weakened the democratic party for so long.
And I am not looking to advance any one group. women or otherwise anywhere. I want a human agenda where all groups are seen equally. Not just one. All people deserve to be seen a valuable.
I would hope that Hillary would advance the agenda of individuals and human rights and not just one group.
Taylor we had a heck of a primary for President, Hillary will make a great SOS just as I think Obama will be a great President just IMHO...
Although I am not happy with his choice, I will support him. He knows better than we do who is capable of what in his cabinet and how he will work with them.
I voted for this man because I trust his judgement and I will continue to do so until he gives me reason not to.
Wrong choice for SoS. Clinton lacks the international policy or foreign affairs experience. She will talk a good game but will not get a lot accomplished---not even for women. The Clintons (Bill and Hillary) need to open markets for their corporate friends and clients and cronies. What a better position to be for these favors.
A political decision. No fresh ideas, no experience.
Hillary Clinton has never sat on a senate foreign relations committee; no advanced degrees in political science or international relations like (Drs. Rice and Albright); no foreign language skills; no international policy initatives; no NGO experience; no experience running a Cabinet level position; no UN experience.
First blunder by President elect Obama.
You are uninformed. Have you read "living History"?
Wrong. It's carefully thought out for all concerned.
Richardson was my first choice, but I support HRC as Obama has picked her. She seems genuinely happy for the first time in a long time. I think she will do a good job and represent us well.
Hopefully Obama has given her "drama rules' so that she can be substantive and not the noise levels around her confound the message.
I look forward to the day that she resigns in order to spend more time with her family.
I think I'm going to run for office so I can spend less time with my family.
I will get used to the idea of HRC as SOS as long as she remembers who's the boss. I really did not think she would be the best person for the job. But I trust our new President-Elect.
Just remember that it was President elect Obama who appointed Clinton not the other way around.
Just remember that it was Hillary Clinton who set HER conditions and it was Obama that AGREED
to those conditions BEFORE she decided to take the position.
She will choose HER staff .. I know it just ki.lls you but the truth is the truth.
I have a lot of respect for Senator Clinton, but since she is not the only person around who could that job, I think PE Obama had the upper hand. Sure she could've declined his offer, but I don't think he would've lost any sleep over it. He agreed to the things he was comfortable with. Given his style I'm sure it was an amicable negotiation.
Just remember he can fire her too.
See Taylor Marsh's Profile
You need to pay closer attention to the facts. WJC's people had intense talks with team Obama on his global work, including making incredible compromises to make sure there would be no conflicts if Obama nominated Clinton. This was a team effort to get this done. Obama had to have assurances, because HRC at State with her husband doing speeches and other work across the globe could have been trouble for all of them if they all didn't all understand what is expected and the complexities involved. Those are the facts. HRC obviously needed assurances that she'd have Obama's ear, because she's earned it. But Obama is the one who made the final decision on HRC. It's an incredible choice, which deserves credit on all sides.
See Taylor Marsh's Profile
The comment below is for you, CalliDem. Don't know why it posted so low.
The truth is the truth. Bummer eh?
Would you please state Ms. Clinton's qualifications to be SOS. She was wrong on the Iraqi War, lied concerning her worldly experiences and certainly is too biased to broker a just settlement between Israel and the Pasitinians. I hope that I am wrong, but I don't see an upside in the appointments of either Hillary or Gates.
As far as I can judge, Gates singlehandedly prevented the crazies from attacking Iran. That's something, in fact if it's true it's big. He's also critical of the militarization of US society, and I like him for that. Apparently Obama also needs someone to keep the seat warm for a year, so Gates will be transitional in any case.
Regarding Hillary, I share your bewilderment. She's competent on many things but foreign policy is not one of them. And she's progressive in most domains except foreign policy. Plus foreign policy is the one field where her husband's connections can be embarrassing. So why, of all cabinet posts she could fill, State? Perhaps Obama is just keeping a promise made during the primaries.
Well I believe her qualification stem back to her time as the 1st Lady. She has visited 82 countries and probably has built more relationships with foreign leaders than any Democrat (Aside from maybe her husband) in the country today. Yes she was not making split second decision's on emergencies like her Husband was, but her experience on the World Stage is unequaled. Also she served on the Senate Armed Services Committee which gives her foreign policy credentials. So if the goal is to hit the ground running, then having someone who literally knows all the world leaders is crucial. Add to that her senate committees and what I think was a tremendous showing of her knowledge of foreign policy in the presidential debates, I think Obama picked a great person.
Now your main issue seems to be her vote for the war. Yes she voted for it, yes she has since changed her position and really Obama and Hillary differ very little on actual foreign policies. But Hillary will not be acting on her own agenda. She must (or else she will be fired) follow the agenda of the President. If Obama wants to attack a country and gain allies then he sends Hillary to do so, if he wants to pursue peace in a country he sends Hillary to do so. It is not If Hillary wants to attack or pursue peace than she sends herself. See the difference?
Hillary Clinton has never sat on a senate foreign relations committee; no advanced degrees in political science or international relations like (Drs. Rice and Albright); no foreign language skills; no international policy initatives; no NGO experience; no experience running a Cabinet level position; no UN experience, no NSA experience; No fresh ideas on the Middle East, just parrots President Bush; no fresh ideas on world trade; Russia? Nope. Latin America? Forget about it. Asia/China? Hahaha. No foreign relations or diplomatic experience, period.
She may have met many of the world leaders but that was, what, 8+ years ago?
It was a political appointment by the Clintons for support during the campaign. It's the perfect position for the Clintons to maneuver for their international friends and cronies. Now, they can do it legally. If Bill's payola, er contributo
What's better than having an SoS in the family? Having an ex-president be her husband.
I wonder how valid the assumption is that HRC knows many foreign leaders. Like her husband, aren't most of the foreign leaders she undoubtedly knows, no longer in office due to term limits or changes in parlimentary power?
THANK YOU, FOR YOUR EXCELLENT ARTICLE ABOUT HILLARY. As an Anvid Hillary supporter, I want to say, FINALLY SOME ONE HAS WRITTEN A PIECE ABOUT HILLARY THAT IS WORTHY OF HILLARY. CONGRATULATIONS ON A JOB WELL DONE. HILLARY IS THE GREATEST, she would've made an EXCELLENT PRESIDENT.
Hillary will do an excellent job. She cares about progress,for this country and the world.
It is yet to be seen whether her concern for progress, this country and the world outranks concern for her own self interest.
I can't imagine why this nomination is supposed to make me feel more confident in Obama's ability to run a country. But then, I dislike that woman immensely, so I can't see that she'll be any good as a manager of the state department.
If he can manage the Clintons, it will prove he can manage anything.
Say it with me now as we all know we can use the practice here:
Secretary Of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Makes ya feel good, doesn't it? Does me. Nice article by the way.
"Madame Secretary.
Great article Taylor. The more that Obama is seen and watched , more people, even Republicans are very impressed with him. As usual, his picks have been just the best. It shows how self assured he is.
As usual your articles are very informed. That's why I enjoy your blog.
I am glad she will be named SOS. I am still waiting to see what Obama does and how he governs. Taylor may be euphoric but I am cautious. We shall see. As for Hillary as SOS - she is wonderful and will be a terrific SOS. She would have been a GREAT PRESIDENT AS WELL!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
