Clinton For SOS
I've been getting a number of emails wondering what I think about the prospect of Hillary Clinton serving as Secretary of State. The short answer is that I think, on balance, it's a good idea.
First, the pros. She's intelligent, she's competent, and she has extensive diplomatic connections. She'd be a valuable voice in the cabinet. And perhaps more importantly from a diplomatic perspective, she's a celebrity in her own right, a figure with a lot of clout. As a result, she'll be able to stand in for Obama in a way that other people might not. Foreign leaders won't view it as a slight that they're only meeting with the Secretary of State and not Obama personally, which will allow Obama to cover more ground.
Also, giving Clinton such a prominent cabinet position ensures that she's personally invested in the success of the Obama administration. That's far better than having her be a free agent in the Senate, trying to find ways to keep her name in the headlines. As Secretary of State, she'll be able to maintain a constant high visibility without stepping on Obama's toes. Moreover, pulling Clinton into the administration ensures that there is no alienated faction of the Democratic party. In addition to Clinton's millions of supporters, there are a larger number of people in the party establishment and on Capitol Hill who are very loyal to the Clintons. Getting all of these folks invested in an Obama administration can only be a good thing.
As for the cons, I've seen two basic arguments. The first is that it's potentially problematic to bring someone of Clinton's profile and ambition into the cabinet, that it might lead to discord or unnecessary drama. I think this concern overlooks Clinton's proven ability to be a team player and doesn't give Obama enough credit. It's certainly true that if Obama mismanages his relationship with Clinton and freezes her out of decision-making in the way Bush did with Colin Powell, things could get ugly. But I think Obama understands that. He has to know that Clinton doesn't want to be a mere figurehead, that she'll want to be in the loop with regard to key decision-making. Everything Obama has said so far indicates not only that he expects that, but that it's exactly what he's looking for.
Second, people point to the substantive differences Clinton and Obama have had on foreign policy issues (such as Iraq, Iran, meeting with foreign leaders, etc.) and wonder whether this will lead to conflict or whether Clinton's presence at State will hamper Obama's ability to chart a new course on foreign policy. Again, I think these concerns are overstated. First, Obama and Clinton's substantive views are not that far apart. As is always the case with primary battles, small differences get magnified and end up seeming larger than they are. Moreover, Clinton has to know going in that there will be times when she and Obama disagree and that ultimately he's the decision-maker. If that's really a problem for her, she won't take the job. And finally, Clinton's previous hawkish pronouncements may prove helpful in a sort of 'Nixon goes to China' kind of way. It may give her more cover in dealing with countries like Iran than others would have.
Over all, the decision to consider Clinton for Secretary of State strikes me as shrewd. It's not without political and policy risk, but it has a big upside potential.
First, the pros. She's intelligent, she's competent, and she has extensive diplomatic connections. She'd be a valuable voice in the cabinet. And perhaps more importantly from a diplomatic perspective, she's a celebrity in her own right, a figure with a lot of clout. As a result, she'll be able to stand in for Obama in a way that other people might not. Foreign leaders won't view it as a slight that they're only meeting with the Secretary of State and not Obama personally, which will allow Obama to cover more ground.
Also, giving Clinton such a prominent cabinet position ensures that she's personally invested in the success of the Obama administration. That's far better than having her be a free agent in the Senate, trying to find ways to keep her name in the headlines. As Secretary of State, she'll be able to maintain a constant high visibility without stepping on Obama's toes. Moreover, pulling Clinton into the administration ensures that there is no alienated faction of the Democratic party. In addition to Clinton's millions of supporters, there are a larger number of people in the party establishment and on Capitol Hill who are very loyal to the Clintons. Getting all of these folks invested in an Obama administration can only be a good thing.
As for the cons, I've seen two basic arguments. The first is that it's potentially problematic to bring someone of Clinton's profile and ambition into the cabinet, that it might lead to discord or unnecessary drama. I think this concern overlooks Clinton's proven ability to be a team player and doesn't give Obama enough credit. It's certainly true that if Obama mismanages his relationship with Clinton and freezes her out of decision-making in the way Bush did with Colin Powell, things could get ugly. But I think Obama understands that. He has to know that Clinton doesn't want to be a mere figurehead, that she'll want to be in the loop with regard to key decision-making. Everything Obama has said so far indicates not only that he expects that, but that it's exactly what he's looking for.
Second, people point to the substantive differences Clinton and Obama have had on foreign policy issues (such as Iraq, Iran, meeting with foreign leaders, etc.) and wonder whether this will lead to conflict or whether Clinton's presence at State will hamper Obama's ability to chart a new course on foreign policy. Again, I think these concerns are overstated. First, Obama and Clinton's substantive views are not that far apart. As is always the case with primary battles, small differences get magnified and end up seeming larger than they are. Moreover, Clinton has to know going in that there will be times when she and Obama disagree and that ultimately he's the decision-maker. If that's really a problem for her, she won't take the job. And finally, Clinton's previous hawkish pronouncements may prove helpful in a sort of 'Nixon goes to China' kind of way. It may give her more cover in dealing with countries like Iran than others would have.
Over all, the decision to consider Clinton for Secretary of State strikes me as shrewd. It's not without political and policy risk, but it has a big upside potential.
posted by A.L. at 3:21 PM
10 Comments:
I have no strong feelings, one way or the other, about this appointment, but there is something you neglected to mention. Clinton voted for the Iraq War. Biden voted for the Iraq War. Rahm Emanuel supported the Iraq War. Obama is apparently considering keeping Gates at DOD. He apparently has John Brennan on the short list for DCI. And Jane Harman has also been mentioned as a potential appointee.
None of this suggests that Obama is planning a "new course" on foreign policy, at least any new course that might provoke criticism from the Democratic foreign policy establishment (which, when you come down to it, is not all that different from the Republican foreign policy establishment).
A.L. - I agree with your reasoning, but what about Bill? How do you deal with his extensive undisclosed financial ties?
The Beltway is clamoring for a deBushed imperialism, one managed with style and panache, if not necessarily with a lighter touch. President-elect Obama, smart as he is, may just be ego-driven enough to believe that he can deliver it.
I have no more idea what he's thinking than anyone else does, of course, but his fondness for retreads is not, in my opinion, a good sign. As for Hillary, no doubt appointing her has all the virtues AL claims, but I still have to wonder what she might offer as SOS which couldn't be acquired more cheaply by reappointing Madeleine Albright.
I think your take on Hillary (and Spitzer, below) are very well taken. Wall street badly needs a Spitzer, and State Dept. needs someone of Clinton's stature to regain some prestige.
AL, have you seen today's Risen article in NYT? It will be very telling to see how Obama comes down on that critical issue, and it will be interesting to see how the netroots respond, if the decision is to maintain expanded presidential power.
First, appoint a cabinet full of establishment figures doesn not exactly enhance his message of change and appointing a cabinet full of war hawks does not enhance his message of a more peaceful America.
Second, appointing Hillary places her clown of a husband on the stage. The galloping playboy slurping up money worldwide while she tries to play statesman?
Jayhawk,
Bill Clinton is going to be on the national stage anyway.
My guess is that Obama is pretty confident that he himself can bring change as long as he's surrounded by the most capable people. This won't be like the Bush administration where the subordinates run the show. Obama is smart enough and confident enough to set the tone for everyone else.
AL, you give Clinton more credit than she arguably deserves. She's certainly highly intelligent but competent? I'm not sure what in her experience screwing up the staffing of her husband's administration, running her husband's health care reform initiative into the ditch, voting for the Iraq war, or allowing her campaign to be run by people like Mark Penn who didn't understand the delegate selection process makes you see her as competent.
AL- I guess that praising Obama’s personal qualities is supposed to end the argument, but this is not a question of his intelligence or confidence. Nor is it a question of “tone.” The issue is whether Obama has any fundamental disagreement with the foreign policy establishment, or whether he simply wants to continue “more of the same” in foreign affairs (I am not talking about domestic policy) but without Bush’s personal baggage. The appointments so far suggest the latter.
If you want to address this in the context of a specific foreign policy issue, you might turn your attention to the status of forces agreement that has been negotiated between the US and Iraq. Is this something that Obama should or will support?
Two more points in favor of Clinton as Sec of State:
Getting her out of the senate and away from health care reform is a great PR move. The last thing we want as we debate a potential health care bill is constant reminders of 1994, triggering memories of a GOP comeback and HillaryCare. Not a huge benefit, but potentially significant.
Also, Hillary's foreign policy hawkishness sets up a constructive good cop/bad cop dynamic that Hillary/Obama can use to their advantage. The great thing about the Bush disaster is that the vast middle of the foreign policy is on the same page: Try talks with Iran. Pull out of Iraq. Go in to Afghanistan (I would like to see a rethink of that one, but its always been Obama's signature issue). But the perception is that Hillary is more hawkish, and that is something that Obama can use to his advantage when negotiating with Iran, Syria, Hamas, etc. He has HUGE star power as a good cop, he needs the bad cop just like Rahm will be for domestic policy. Every Dude needs a Walter.
It seems to me that what almost everyone is ignoring about Senator Clinton (and this is also true of her husband) is that she is not a Liberal.
Hate Radio gave her the image of being a Liberal, but few of her stands have been made defending a Liberal position.
The biggest, on health care, was obviously a good one, and she accurately identified the vast right-wing conspiracy, and there are a few more topics like that. But many stands have been made for positions much closer to middle-right beliefs.
A Southerner in Yankeeland
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home