by Ferguson Foont » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:55 am
I'm a little bit disappointed in Obama's choice of Hillary to be Secretary of State. I don't really need to wait to disapprove. I think this was a very bad pick. There were literally dozens of people, better qualified Democrats, and even a couple of Republicans, preferable to Hillary Clinton for this important post (not least among whom was her husband). Just to name a very few others among many:
Jimmy Carter
George Mitchell
Bill Richardson
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Andrew Young
Jesse Jackson
Fareed Zakaria
Dick Lugar
Colin Powell
Foreign diplomacy will be one of the most treacherous areas facing the new administration. Hillary's ego may not serve her well in this post. But there's another thing, a rather nasty thing that I'm reluctant to discuss, that makes Hillary an almost uniquely poor choice.
See, most of the most difficult issues we will face in the diplomatic world involve our relations with Islamic nations. We may not like it or approve of it, but most Islamic nations treat women deliberately and pointedly dismissively, and Hillary will have this TREMENDOUS impediment to overcome. Madeleine Albright could not overcome it. Condi Rice couldn't overcome it (well, she'd have sucked anyway even if she had male body parts, but...).
A second difficulty she will have when dealing with the Islamic world is the exaggerated devotion to Israel that she has had to exhibit to win her current job as a Senator from New York. She has had to be unusually strident on this point.
I had hoped that Obama would behave out of political motives (not to be confused with partisan motives, of which I DEEPLY approve) when pragmatism -- regarding the actual achievement of America's goals, not to follow the path of least resistance in petty intraparty affairs -- dictated that he do so. I believe that the choice of Hillary Clinton here is horribly counterproductive to America's long-term success on the world stage. In this case, it almost appears as if Obama was outmaneuvered by Hillary, who lusted after this post. Her people, not Obama's people, released the information that she would be the pick, and the press picked it up to such an extent that, had Obama named anyone else, it would have been reported so widely and provocatively as a snub -- of HIllary, of Bill, of women -- that this would have become the public's unassailable perception. We don't want to face the situation in 2012 that we faced in 1980, when Ted Kennedy's opposition to Carter significantly aided Reagan's efforts, possibly enough to get him elected. Hillary might have been tempted to play Teddy's role.
It's a shame, really. I don't view Hillary Clinton as much of a peacemaker or conciliator, which is what we need at State. Her foreign policy credentials are almost comically thin. She might have been better at HHS despite her failures in 1991-1992 with health care reform. She got it for only one reason -- she wanted it, and she made it clear that she would make trouble if she didn't get it.
Republicans whine and Republicans bitch: "Our rich are too poor, and our poor are too rich."