whyroots

 
 

OK, I just want to put this on the record before any announcement is made, as it seems that if it's the one the media is expecting, it's bound to be made very, very soon.

Those of you who read my old blog know that throughout the Democratic primaries, I was not a fan of Hillary Clinton's campaign. That being said, ever since Obama clinched the nomination, I've warmed to her a little more. Let bygones be bygones, as they say. After all, despite the fact that she let Mark Penn drive her presidential bid into the gutter, I would rather have her on our side than on the GOP's. She is driven, smart, and I genuinely believe she wants the best for the country, even if I don't agree with her on a number of issues.

That being said, then, I have no problem with her playing a role in the Obama Administration—be it as a senior adviser, or even a member of the Cabinet. But there's one position I was always so sure she would never really be a serious contender for, it's the spot as Obama's top diplomat—the Secretary of State—given how antiquated her stance on speaking to Iran (and others) with no preconditions was. And, of course, how she ridiculed Obama for saying he would be open to that kind of diplomatic conversation.

If speculation is right and Obama is considering her over other candidates, there is hardly a doubt in my mind that she'll say no to the offer. Hillary is nothing if not incredibly sure of power in her own hands. If she is offered and accepts the position, she has some serious public explaining to do. For one: Does she now see the value of speaking to Iran without preconditions? Does she see the diplomatic value of speaking to "rogue" leaders like Ahmadinejad even if she doesn't get to set the exact, stringent terms?

You know, now that I think of it, Obama himself would need to very deliberately explain the decision because it seems to me that despite the fact that HRC and Obama are very similar on most policy issues and approaches to governance, diplomatic relations was the one where the ideological difference between them was most stark.

(Oh, and before you ask: Who if not Hillary? Because I still believe that Hillary has been self-aggrandizing regarding her foreign policy experience (as if First Lady visits count), I figure someone who actually has genuine diplomatic and foreign policy experience should get the nod. Among viable, establishment candidates, I am a fan of Bill Richardson, who in addition to being Secretary of Energy under Bubba, was also the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., where he negotiated meetings between Israel and the PLO.)

-- Daniela Perdomo

 


Comments

Nathan Huttner

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:01:10

Am I the only one who sees the potential for some seriously powerful dark arts politics at work here? Offer Hillary the one cabinet post where Bill's sketchy connections to foreign leaders are going to be most scrutinized, get her disqualified on that basis, and then shrug your shoulders and say, "Sorry, Senator Clinton, guess it didn't work out the way we wanted it to." It's not like Obama's team hasn't read the news -- they know what's out there about Bill. I dunno. This is a nasty piece of jujitsu I'm theorizing, and I'm probably wrong.

 

Daniela Perdomo

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:29:15

Hmm, if anything my guess would be that the Obama campaign isn't considering her at all but is allowing the media to speculate and let her enjoy the PR, etc. They already dissed her as VP, why bother making a farce of considering her for SoS unless they really want her?

 

Walter Lamberson

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:33:50

Until the media suspicion was so seriously played up, I was on board with Daniela, and remain optimistic that this is elaborate lip-service to party unity. If you are Obama, why do you want such a big personality as SoS, especially one who does not share very many of your key views on foreign policy. More importantly, why don't you want someone who is fucking awesome at the Job. I might think he an incompetent manager with poor judgment, but Bill Richardson is easily more qualified. It pains me to see that Obama may have abandoned his ideals on these things already. Holbrooke would be fine; some creative, qualified personality like Zakaria--while a certain long-shot, would be refreshing. But the discussion of Clinton and Kerry is distressing. I further would think that a president concerned about doing something about health care would want to keep Clinton in the Senate--as the only lion of social causes after Ted Kennedy. Unless, of course, the goal is to keep her out of the Senate.

 



Leave a Reply