The single most compelling argument against Clinton as Sec of State is that the Clinton clebrity and the independent prominence of her own past pronouncements could in a single stroke reverse some of the Foreign Policy gains already achieved just by his election. It would make quick resolution of some conflicts using quiet leverage of the goodwill towards Obama himself almost impossible.Appointing the popular, brilliant and determined Hillary as SoS would be a domestic political coup, but could become a foreign policy nightmare.
Foreign affairs specialist and commentator David Ignatius makes the case in Washington Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/11/the_case_against_hillary.htmlBut she’s an unwise choice for secretary of state, and here’s why:
The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper “Le Monde” carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: “Happy New Century!” You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.
Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options.
. . . .
And I haven’t even mentioned here the biggest elephant of all, former President William Jefferson Clinton. I am a big fan of the ex-prez; he’s one of the wisest and most effective thinkers on foreign policy that I know. But it’s even harder to imagine him fitting in as the spouse of the secretary of state than as spouse of the president or vice president. I’ll leave to the transition’s team legal vetters the question of Bill Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest, after having been a “buckraker” speaker and door opener for wealthy business and political leaders around the world. But those leaders would surround almost everything Hillary Clinton tried to do in Foggy Bottom.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
