Reply #88: The "Experience" Issue...

[qwlauren35]

I was looking through the Wikipedia at the "resumes" of several past Secretaries (Rice, Powell, Albright, Baker, Christopher, Haig, Kissinger, Schultz) in an effort to express my feelings about Clinton's qualifications as Secretary of State. Looking back, I should simply say, that she doesn't share the qualifications of several of our previous Secretaries... but she's more qualified than others.

For example, several of our recent Secretaries of State have previously served as either Undersecretaries, UN Ambassadors, National Security Advisors, or some combination of the above. Some of them know multiple languages. Many have lived abroad or spent time abroad in political or diplomatic negotiations prior to taking the role. Several had degrees (M.A. or PhD) in International Policy.

These are the types of qualifications that Clinton does not have in any way, shape or form. I would add that no Senator has EVER become a Secretary of State previously. Now, there's a first time for everything. But my personal opinion is that Clinton falls way short on diplomatic qualifications.

However, I would add that these "qualified" people haven't necessarily been outstanding. And we've had people who were LESS qualified than Clinton, who clearly seemed to be taking the role as a favor to the President... or had it bestowed upon them as a favor.

So, I guess a politically motivated appointment isn't without precedent. But I REALLY wish they would pick a diplomat, experienced negotiator or foreign policy EXPERT instead of Clinton. In my mind, if Obama chooses her for political reasons, his credibility with me will drop several notches.