U.S. President-elect Barack Obama invited Hillary Clinton to Chicago last week for a talk. Inevitably, it was leaked that she was being considered for the post of Secretary of State.
Most pundits have emphasized the positives of this possible appointment for the Obama administration. It would finally seal the deal with the small but persistent percentage of Clinton supporters who have not recovered from the disappointment of the primaries. It would enhance Obama's leadership credentials as he seeks to model himself as a XXI century Lincoln capable of bringing together a “team of rivals” that would work to further the nation's advancement. It would also diminish the concerns of those voters still worried about Obama's lack of experience. More pragmatically, Obama would not have to worry about a cumbersome high-profile female Senator who would retain the right to criticize or oppose his policies when they deserve to be criticized or opposed.
In her New York Times column, Gail Collins writes optimistically about the prospect of a Secretary Clinton, advising Obama supporters to let go of the image of Clinton as an adversary and to focus on the benefits of having Clinton–the recipient of 18 million votes during the hotly contested primaries–as a full-fledged member of the new administration. I agree with Collins, Clinton as Secretary of State is excellent politics…as far as Obama is concerned.
What is good for Obama, however, is not automatically good for Clinton. As a Senator, Clinton stands a far better chance of building a career independent from the successes or failures of the future Obama administration while working on an extensive agenda of both domestic and international issues. She would be able to voice her own opinions and push her ideas as opposed to limiting herself to echoing Obama's. Furthermore, her acceptance of the yet to be made offer would certainly limit her chances of being elected to another position in the future. Clinton should stay in the Senate and bolster her political capital by making good on the promises she made to the millions who supported her presidential bid.
3 Comments So Far»
I think that she’ll take if it is offered. NYT on why Bill might be a problem:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/us/politics/18clintons.html?_r=1
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, is inconceivable. She carries too much baggage, not just her own but that of her husband as well. His nefarious financial dealings abroad ,including Frank Guistra in Canada, are very suspect but he claims he will disclose his donors to his Foundation I believe he will seriously vet his list. The Clintons cannot be trusted, for anything. Her “sniper fire in Bosnia” comments, labelled as” misspeaking” instead of outright lying is legion.How can anyone trust what she has to say about anything. Will she exaggerate, continue to “misspeak” about very crucial foreign affairs? Bill Clinton's assertion that he will disclose all of his donors is a direct lobbying tactic to embarass Obama into appointing his wife. Does anyone really believe he will divest himself of his conflicts of interest viv a vis his Foundation , foreign speaking engagements or foreign ties to suspect countries?I don't believe Americans have ever encountered such a power-hungry man and wife team that is prepared to do anything for power. How extremely sad and discomforting.
Definitely, accepting this post is a risky move by Sen. Clinton, but remaining in her seat without being chair of any important committee (she tried to replace Ted Kennedy, but his answer was no, he is still alive and in a hurry to make an important move to reinforce his legacy -in the health care sector, btw-) is even more risky. She will be independent with no significant power in the Senate.
As Gonzalez mentioned, as a SS Clinton would tie herself to the 'successes and failures’ of the Obama administration. Besides getting executive experience, she will receive all the media attention and if Obama ends up putting the country back on track, she will have enormous chances of becoming the next president of the United States. Otherwise she will be seen as unpatriotic for not supporting her president and given the circumstances and her critical voice will sound like a revenge, for what? just to be aging out of the spot light 'till 68 when she can run for prez again? She won't do that, it will burn her bridges to future voters.
I prefer her to take the challenge and age with power to create an eternal political persona (in the sense of Margaret Thatcher that carries a timeless strong lady-like appearance).
We don't know if Obama will be successful or not but we know that not moving is not choice.
Leave Comments Below»