My first reaction to news that Obama had offered the Secretary of State position to Hillary Clinton was negative. He's already surrounding himself with more people from the Clinton administration than seems consistent with "change." And then there's the over-riding problem of Bill -- his larger than life presence, his foundation contributors, and most troubling of all some of his financial dealings with important figures in other countries that might prove to be conflicts of interest with his wife as SoS (like the Khazakhstan uranium deal, or one with a Chinese internet company, and contributions to his library from several middle east Arab governments).
On the other hand, choosing Hillary suggests that Obama is not afraid of strong opposing voices in his cabinet -- in fact, he is embracing Lincoln's idea of a "team of rivals," in which he brought his political enemies into the cabinet. The Clinton name would definitely be an asset internationally, and Hillary would probably do a great job rebuilding our reputation.
On yet another hand, the messy, barely competent way her campaign was run does not bode well for Hillary as the administrator of the huge State Department organization, which is said to be rather demoralized after eight years of political ideology trumping career service.
Then there is the matter of Hillary's hawkish stance on the Iraq war. How well would that mesh with Obama's diplomacy and withdrawal stance?
Aside from the merits of the appointment (Kissinger has called it "outstanding"), how does it play out politically? Hillary supporters would be delighted. But what about Obama's netroot supporters, for whom Hillary is still something of a pariah after her negative campaign against him?
And what's in it for Hillary? She's still too junior in the Senate for a major committee chairmanship, and she's not likely to become majority leader in the foreseeable future. Ted Kennedy turned down her request for a new subcommittee on health care, which would have shifted the leadership on that issue from him to her. Although she's said she just wants to be the best senator for the people of NY, will she be satisfied to end her political career there? If she has any idea of another run for president, might SoS be a better launching platform for 2016 than the Senate? Obama may not be thinking this way, but if things don't go well for him in the next 4 years, it would make it more difficult for her to run against him in 2012 if she has a major cabinet position.
I'm puzzled by the undenied reports that Obama has offered it to her and that she asked for time to consider it -- alongside reports that he's also interviewing Bill Richardson. Now I read online that Richardson was interviewed on Friday, which is definitely after the leaks that Obama had offered it to Hillary. That seems strange. Either he didn't offer it yet but just discussed it, or maybe they both know she can't take it (because of Bill) and the offer is a gesture.
I'm eager to see how this plays out. I'm ambivalent about it myself, seeing both positive and negative factors.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Last week there seemed to be jousting between the Richardson and Kerry camps about who deserved to be Secretary of State. I think the offer to Hillary was a brilliant strategic move to shut them both up. Neither one of them could claim to be a better choice than Hillary.
For Obama, her appointment would put someone familiar with the federal bureacracy in a key role. That balances Biden, who knows the Senate, and Emmanuel, who can work the House. Covering his bases.
There are problems -as there have always been - with her administrative abilities. And there is some question about her loyalty. For all her puffery, Hillary has extremely limited foreign policy experience, so this position would give her that. But would she use those contacts to support Obama's plans, or to undercut him and build her own power base so she could run in 4 years?
It's a move that could be brilliant, or could be his downfall.
As for change, I think Obama believes in his ability to foment a message of change. He seems to be surrounding himself with people capable of bringing change about.
It looks like the only obstacle is Bill's involvement with foreign governments and wealthy individuals that could prove a conflict of interest. No one is saying there has been anything illegal or even improper. But there are some gray areas we just don't know enough about -- like the Kazakhstan uranium deal for a wealthy supporter that Bill facilitated -- and collected a small fortune for his foundation.
But leaks coming out suggest that it's not so much past deals they're worried about as figuring out a way to build a fire wall for the future. No one wants him to stop his foundation's work, but his connections could pose a problem for her role as SoS.
Ken Silverstein at Harper's gives 5 reasons Hillary should not be SoS:
1. She will have her own agenda, bring in her own team who will be loyal to her rather than Obama, and she will create a new "Clinton Doctrine."
2. It would be impossible to fire her, no matter what she did.
3. Bill is a "walking conflict of interest."
4. Her management style is pitting one faction of her staff against another. "Look how well that worked in the campaign."
5. And look at who endorses her: Henry Kissinger who promotes the "real politick" that Obama wants to leave behind.
Post a Comment