Comments on: Hillary as Secretary of State

By: Carlos Navarro

Carlos Navarro — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:19:48 +0000

Barack Obama’s decision to offer Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State post could well turn out to be his first major blunder, for these obvious reasons:

First, there’s the inseparable bond with her husband Bill. Given the duo’s unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be content to play second fiddle. From day one they would be scheming to usurp control of the White House. Once they get a foothold, Obama would be hard-pressed to rein them in.

Then, there’s the Clintons’ long history of corruption, deception and sleaze—Whitewatergate, Pardongate, Cattle-futuresgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fellatiogate, the impeachment and near conviction, the punitive IRS audits, the violent deaths of potentially incriminating witness. This alone would provide Obama’s enemies with all the grime they needed to smear his presidency.

Consider further that unlike a Condoleezza Rice or a Madelaine Albright—not to mention bona fide statesmen like Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk and John Foster Dulles–Hillary Clinton lacks the educational and cultural gravitas to represent our nation abroad. Her lawyering in Arkansas and stint in Congress doesn’t quite cut it. She did get 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, probably more than Obama, but a large proportion of those votes were cast by diehard feminists and the less educated, hardly the constituency whose support lends credibility to a Secretary of State.

Barack Obama should recall the reasons why he didn’t choose Hillary as his VP running mate. For his and the nation’s sake, let us hope that she doesn’t accept his Secretary of State offer.

By: movie fan

movie fan — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:02:38 +0000

if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or career plans, etc.

By: Michael Merritt

Michael Merritt — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:40:30 +0000

Claudia: He’s thinking about keeping Gates, who has at least some differences in views on foreign policy than him. In light of that, I don’t think Clinton is a stretch if you’re talking about views alone.

By: c3

c3 — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:20:15 +0000

Hellp me understand how Hillary Clinton is qualified for Sec. of State. Clearly she has many skills but I haven’t seen them as extraordinary in foreign policy. There are many more qualified folks in the Democratic Party for Sec. of State.

By: Claudia, Assistant Editor

Claudia, Assistant Editor — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:38:42 +0000

Hmmm Clinton is most certainly qualified, and is certainly tough enough to carry on such a role, but I’ll admit to some issues with this. From a political standpoint you’re absolutely right; the best way to ensure Clinton does not try to undermine you is to tie her success to yours. From the policy standpoint I see it as more iffy. One of the main differences between Clinton and Obama in the primaries was foreign policy (domestically they were almost identical) and Clinton’s favorite subject when she became the harshest on Obama was foreign policy. I can’t help but wonder about the ability of a woman of Clinton’s character to enact the philosophy of her boss instead of her own.

I think I could see it both ways. Richardson appeals to me. He is much more in line with Obama on matters of foreign policy and is also very qualified. On the other hand he strikes me more of a yes-man. I do like the “team of rivals” Lincoln philosophy that seems to attract Obama so much. In that sense Clinton is better, the ultimate rival.

Hagel would also be acceptable, and it would be a great bipartisan gesture. Kerry….I just can’t see it.