.jpg)
Hillary: From Foggy Bottom to the White House?
By now, everyone’s heard about Hillary’s quiet little tete a tete with Barack as SUV caravans careened through the streets of Chicago yesterday, and the speculation that he’s considering offering her a senior cabinet post such as secretary of state.
There are two interesting issues that arise for me. First, this is a woman who wants to be president. While secretary of state IS the most senior cabinet post it almost never is a path to the presidency. In fact, there hasn’t been anyone in the 20th century (or perhaps ever) who followed that route to becoming president. I just don’t see the American electorate warming to the idea of her as their president based on four or six years as secretary of state. However, if she racked up some significant foreign policy achievements like negotiating an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and negotiated a peaceful resolution of Iran nuclear imbroglio, then her stock WOULD be highly priced.
Second, with Hillary in the cabinet that’s a whole lot of ego to fill a cabinet room. Joe Biden is no slouch in that department either, plus his forte has been foreign policy. So either Joe shuffles quietly off to Buffalo or there could be some pretty hot heads in the Obama cabinet. I never thought I’d find anything John Bolton said to be worthy of attention. But the Times does quote him saying something quite apt about this matter:
John Bolton…who forecasted as early as this past July that Mrs. Clinton could wind up at the State Department, laughed as he offered the incoming president this piece of advice: “Obama should remember the rule that you never hire anybody you can’t fire, especially as secretary of state.”
If he names her to this post, Hillary could be Obama’s Janet Reno, the high profile female cabinet officer he simply couldn’t fire no matter what she did or said. She’d be bulletproof. If they get along well and she succeeds in the job then this isn’t an issue. But if not…
Bob said:
Richard,
I believe that James Buchanan was the last US Secretary of State who went on to become President.
Cheers!
Bob
John Dickerson said:
FROM HABER:
Please puncture this trial baloon
The Washington Post and other media outlets suggest that the Obama transition team is considering Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. The Chicago Tribune reports that the Obama transition team will not confirm this.
If Hillary became Secretary of State, it would be a disaster for the Palestinians, hence, for the Israelis.
Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton is virtually a Jewish senator; ever since moving to New York she has kow-towed entirely to her Jewish constituency. Actually, she already distanced herself from the Palestinians after the negative reaction to her embrace of Suha Arafat. Her husband Bill is completely in the liberal Zionist camp. A Clinton as the Secretary of State, even with the likes of Dan Kurtzer serving underneath her, would send the peace process back to the nineties, God forbid.
Why would she give up real power in the Senate for a nebulous job that would neither advance her career, or her country’s foreign policy. I admire Hillary greatly. But let her stay in the Senate and do what she does best.
SOURCE - http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/11/please-puncture-this-trial-baloon.html#links
Richard Silverstein said:
@Bob: That takes you back a ways…to around 1850! Not to mention that Buchanan was not one of our more memorable presidents–in fact, one of our worst. He fiddled while the Republic burned.
Zhu Bajie said:
Make Mrs. Clinton ambassador to Burkina Faso, where she can host the Ouagadougou Film Festival and the like but cannot make trouble for Mr. Obama or the USA.
Bill and George Clinton could be in charge of R&R for the troops trapped in Afghanistan.
Zhu Bajie
Neil said:
Hilary Clinton Secretary of State will be bad for Israel and for the Palestinians.Can you picture Hilary working hard for the occupied peoples of Gaza Richard?
Regards
Neil
Suzanne said:
My first reaction, gut, was negative to such an appointment. I was not thinking of the Israel-Palestine conflict, but several other reasons, including her apparent inability to manage as well as doubts if she would be a team player. That is not even getting to the Bill possible problem (interference, conflict of interest).
There was a memorable story on dKos ( a diary), when she was running in the primaries, about how she took a lot of credit for work others actually did which boiled down to being more of a self-promoter in order to get ahead. That story stuck with me and I suppose it adds to the team player doubts that I have.
Trudy Rubin wrote a good article in the Philadelphia Inquirer last Sunday.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20081116_Worldview__Secretary_of_State_deck_has_wild_card.html
I went to that article after I heard an interesting discussion which included Rubin, Bob Kuttner and Peter Galbraith on WBUR’s “On Point” this week- which confirmed my gut feelings again.
Now I read that the latest poll in Israel has Likud leading by a large margin. That means Netanyahu and you know what that means. So imagine a peace process with H. Clinton and Netanyahu. Obama could make a difference if only if he could focus on that which is doubtful given what other urgent matters he has on his plate. I also have to say that the Israeli’s have said they do not want our involvement.
So if the Palestinians feel discouraged if all of this comes to pass, we cannot blame them. But this may be conventional wisdom, or not even wisdom. Anything can happen, especially if the violence picks up ( and I think it will). You’d think the Israeli’s would be sick enough of all of this- but I think they live in a bubble and the bubble will be puntured yet again.
So I am against HClinton becoming Sect’y of State even before thinking it would also make it harder for Obama to convince many that he means to change things with so many Clinton appointees. I think Hilary would be good in many other positions including working in the Senate.