|
I've been reading a lot over the past few days here about whether or not Hillary would be a good choice for SOS and a lot of people keep bringing up her past statements, votes, etc. as some of the reasons for why she might not be a good choice for the position.
My question is, if Obama is going to offer and Hillary is willing to take the position of SOS (if formally offered), can we not presume that she will faithfully represent Obama's positions/policies irregardless of some of her past statements, votes, etc.
While I am certain that she may express legitimate differences with Obama occasionally (after all, Obama does NOT appear to want a lot of "yes-men" and "yes-women" in his administration), it will be OBAMA, in concert with the rest of his administration (of which Clinton would, of course be a part) making the actual substantive policy decisions NOT Hillary, so why do some people seem so concerned about what she might have said in the primaries for example?
I highly doubt that Obama would seriously be thinking about offering Clinton the position of SOS unless he feels that she is capable of being enough of a "team player" in advancing his administration's agenda and likewise, I don't think that Clinton would be seriously thinking about accepting the position unless she feels like Obama's policy positions are something that she'd be able to not only support but to promote as SOS.
Having said all this, I do confess to being somewhat uneasy about Clinton being nominated for SOS mostly because of Bill (God love him) and his occasionally unwelcome and unhelpful influence. However, there is certainly nobody else Obama could choose for the post of SOS IMHO that would carry with it the same gravitas and professionalism as Clinton most assuredly would and I do think that she is more than capable of handling the job.
|