Via the Guardian: Hillary Clinton to accept Barack Obama’s offer of secretary of state job
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
I find this an odd choice, as I am not sure what it is about Clinton’s resume that suggests Secretary of State as an obvious job to offer her. If we had a parliamentary system and Obama needed to build a governing coalition, then I could understand the political usefulness of such a move, but it isn’t as if Obama is in need of a political move to solidify power, either in terms of the election nor in terms of being able to govern. She is hardly the best foreign policy mind available to him to select within the party.
Sphere: Related ContentFiled under: US Politics | |
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
November 18th, 2008 at 9:05 am
He definitely seems to be in that “Team of Rivals” mode…
November 18th, 2008 at 9:54 am
This is a bad move for so many reasons I don’t even know where to start. It’s bad for Barack Obama personally (which is the part that I really don’t understand) but it’s even worse for America.
Apart from being a former first lady, what is her foreign policy experience?
I have to assume she’ll make decisions that are a lot like Hubby’s.
I wonder, will the Clintons’ disdain and hatred of the military follow her into the Obama administration?
I shudder at the thought.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I have to agree that this seems an odd choice. She is not even a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Clearly there are more experienced and more capable individuals who would be willing to serve at State. That makes this all the more troubling because it seems to indicate that he is trying to build a coalition cabinet when he has no need to do so, and is likely inviting more problems at a time when clarity and focus are really needed.
November 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Reply to Captain D: “I wonder, will the Clintons’ disdain and hatred of the military follow her into the Obama administration?
I shudder at the thought. ”
Captain D, I have CD’s titled ‘Best of the 90’s’, or ‘Pure 90’s’, but recycled 1990’s GOP lies are not worth listening to again, so please can it. Especially after a taste of George ‘f*ck the troops’ Bush and Dick ‘Hah! I double f*ck the troops’ Cheney, topped with a dollop of Donald ‘If I *were* senile, I’d have done a better job’ Rumsfeld.
To others - it *is* puzzling, especially since Clinton would presumably profit from being part of a Democratic majority Senate under Obama; I’d have expected her to angle for a more powerful Senate position. That could carry power and influence lasting long beyond Obama’s administration, whereas being Secretary of State isn’t necesarily good for the length of Obama’s administration.
The problem is that this is inside baseball; it could be that she is blocked by Reid & Co.; it could be simply that she wants even a bit of more independent action than she could get as a Senator.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
[...] The Guardian’s report that Hillary Clinton has accepted the job of Secretary of State, there have been no other confirmations of the [...]
November 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
If we had a parliamentary system…
Yes, if only.
And if we did, we probably would have neither a Prime Minister who had only 4 years of experience in the legislature, nor a possible Foreign Minister who had never served in any parliamentary or “shadow cabinet” role with specialization in foreign affairs.
Of course, we also likely would have few ex-governors (or state premiers, rather) who would become PM.
Ah, yes, if only…
November 18th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
If I hadn’t served in the military as an officer under both the Clinton administration and Bush administration, you might be able to influence me with your crude language and childish antics. The problem is that I was there for both administrations, and can personally attest to the impacts that both had on the armed forces.
Bill Clinton single-handedly took the most powerful, capable military in the world, gutted it, and left it a shadow of what it once was. It was called, very politely, the “drawdown” but it was much more of an evisceration. No thought was given to what parts of the military should be changed in the post- cold war world; the whole military was axed uniformly, leaving us terribly ill-equipped to deal with the problems of the future.
Beyond that, the Clintons’ disdain for the military has been well demonstrated in other ways - in the people Bill appointed to oversee the military in particular.
Say what you want about Bush. He may have been a bad president; history will be the judge. But the facts are the facts - he made great progress in re-building the military and getting it up to fighting strength after 8 years of total neglect and a near 50% reduction in fighting strength.
Our armed forces are larger and more capable now than they were 8 years ago. God, I can’t even begin to describe the difference. Clinton leadership had us training for a war in Columubia against the FARC, when we should have been looking at Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. He wasn’t even in the right hemisphere, Bill Clinton.
If you think our military was stronger under Bill Clinton, you know nothing of military science, and we’ve got nothing else to say to each other.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“If you think our military was stronger under Bill Clinton, you know nothing of military science, and we’ve got nothing else to say to each other.”
Reply to Captain D
Yup - ‘greatest hits, vol deuce’.