David S. Broder - David S. Broder — Clinton for Secretary of State? - washingtonpost.com
What Obama needs in the person running the State Department is a diplomat who will carry out his foreign policy. He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations.
Further, he especially doesn’t someone in that role who herself has limited real foreign policy expertise and who has her own political agenda that may be contrary to his.
And, of course, there’s the ongoing kicker:
the presence of Bill Clinton makes that a doubly difficult assignment. The former president has, through the Clinton Global Initiative and his own extensive foreign travels and worldwide contacts, made himself a force in international affairs. It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife’s responsibilities. But foreign leaders would inevitably see Bill Clinton as an alternative route toward influencing American policy. And he would be unlikely to remain silent.
Forget jokes about chasing interns and the like, the main problem with having Bill Clinton around is exactly what Broder describes: he will be seen an alternative conduit for access to US foreign policy. He would be seen as a clear alternative route to a Secretary Clinton as well as to a President Obama by many foreign leaders. Even if Bill steps down, as he apparently has offered to do, from the work of his foundation for the duration of Hillary’s time at State, having him around will complicate US foreign policy. Beyond the work of the foundation, just the fact that he is an ex-president creates a very odd circumstance wherein he would be viewed by many around the world as representative of the United States government no matter what he does, even if, in fact, he has no such role. Further, as Broder notes, I can’t imagine that he would stay silent under such circumstances. The chance to be actively involved in the process, even if unofficially, will, no doubt, be difficult to resist. At a minimum is hardly a leap to consider Bill Clinton as someone with self-control issues, so the idea that he would fully recuse himself is hard to accept.
Sphere: Related Content
November 19th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I have it in my mind that the difficult vetting process that the Obama transition team has in place will make it difficult for the Clintons to actually get through. Bills actions in the past would cause Hillary trouble with questions 6, 8, 11 (in which he lied to Congress), and many others which are too numerous to list. If Hillary does make it through the process and is confirmed as the SOS, then it would show that the vetting process is a sham and was only a front to show the world how “ethical” the administration is.
I do not believe the President-elect is fool enough to have her on his Cabinet in what is to be one of the most important, if not most important positions. If the U.S. has truly damaged its relationships with the world community and we as a state need to repair those relationships, would it be a good idea to appoint someone who might possibly have their own agenda? Also, does anyone think Bill will take a backseat to his wife when he does enjoy a tremendous amount of popularity and influence around the world?
I think it is possible that this was just a tactic designed for political appeasement, and that the Clintons will politely decline citing her responsibility to New York and his desire to continue on with his Foundation.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Nothing from the democratic party surprises me anymore.
As far as I am concerned, appointing Hillary as SOS would be proof positive that Barack Obama is, indeed, as naive and foolish as a lot of us think him to be.
I hope he’s not, and that he passes her up. I really do hope that he’s better and smarter than that.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I am surprised; I’d have thought that she’d be better in the Senate (as I’ve said in earlier posts).
Howver, Professor Taylor - how often in the past couple of decades has Broder been correct? How often has he been the corrupt spokesperson for corrupt elite factions.
John Cole, at Balloon Juice, put it best:
“At any rate, all of this is a long way of me saying the following- now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection, and look forward to four and hopefully eight years of her at the State Department. I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing.”
November 19th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Bill Clinton might have self-control issues?
No!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Why doesn’t Obama give Bill Clinton a job to keep him busy? I know that he is an ex-president and all, but we need to get past the idea that ex-presidents do nothing useful with their lives after they leave office. Obama will be in his early 50’s when he leaves office. George W. Bush will be around 60. Bill Clinton is in his early 60’s. We are electing presidents younger and younger all the time and are telling them to get out of the way once they leave office. It is really a waste of a natural resource, in my opinion.
It seems like Secretary of State would be a great role for an ex-president. I now that ego is an issue, but if it could ever work, it would be great. That seemed to be the idea of the Founders as well since we are not really supposed to have Imperial Presidencies.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Undoubtedly, Bill Clinton would be a complicating factor; but that’s downplaying how much of a complicating factor Hillary herself is for a new Democratic President.
I can’t shake the feeling, however, that Hillary first “vetted” Obama when, after winning the primaries, she and Bill finally gave their (slow, reluctant) endorsements. The liberal illuminati no doubt have had many machinations underway behind the scenes.