| 25.11.2008 |
|
||||||||
| Although it hasn't been confirmed yet, the U.S. and international media are convinced that Hillary Clinton will in fact become Barack Obama's Secretary of State. One has to be careful with political guesswork, but I also think that it is a done deal. Since it became public that President-elect Obama has pretty much offered the job to Clinton and details of the vetting process have been reported, it is hard to imagine how Senator Clinton could not get the top foreign policy position. It would be a servere blow for Hillary supporters, Democratic party unity and Senator Clinton herself, if she didn't get the job after all. The only imaginable scenario, in my opinion, is some kind of serious ethical issue that would compromise her ability to function as America's top diplomat. With Senator Clinton's ascent to the State Department considered to be a shoo-in, many outlets are already commenting what a Secretary of State Clinton would mean for the Obama administration, the U.S., and the world. Never shy to make his case, Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate why a Clinton in charge of foreign policy is the last thing we need. In a nutshell: "In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own." As far as Hitchens is concerned, to pick Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is not magnanimous and wound-healing, but foolhardy and masochistic. Not impressed as well with Hillary Clinton as Obama's choice for secretary of state is the Financial Times. Not so much for the reason Hitchens' mentions, but for what the paper interestingly calls her lack of foreign policy experience. According to the FT, there are far more qualified candidates, so the question is why President-elect Obama wants her for the job. Why did Obama pick Clinton is also the question David Corn poses. Unfortunately, he doesn't come up with an answer. Steve Clemons, a couple of days ago, took a pretty useful stab at answering the question, arguing that Clinton could play the role of bad cop while Obama portrays the good cop. For Clemons, Clinton as secretary of state is a brilliant, but also a risky choice. Meanwhile from a more global perspective, the Jerusalem Post asks what's to worry about a Secretary of State Clinton that is decidedly pro-Israel, which is exactly why, according to the Washington Post, some in the Arab world are not enthused about that possibility. And finally, Germany's daily Die Welt in an editorial already predicts the return of Hillaryland. Secretary of State Clinton, according to the paper, will serve President Obama until a point of her own choosing. This time frame, writes Die Welt, could last until before the next presidential election in 2012. Then, offers the paper, the slogan in Hillaryland could be that one term for Obama is good enough. |
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 7 Comments |
| Wow Carlos had the nerve top say Condeleeza Rice has more experience then Hillary and Hilllary lacks educational experience. I would like to see the educational experience you have. Are you still working on that high school diploma; is that why you do not read the news paper? Did you even read any of Hillary's in depth proposals In fact she had the best exit strategy for Iraq compared with any other candidate ranked by retired US Generals. Did you even hear Clinton's speech on human rights in China. But why should we listen to the facts Carlos when you are apparently are the expert on foreign policy!!!! | ||
| christopher | Homepage | E-Mail | 26.12.2008, 19:10 | ||
| Dear Carlos Navarro, your a twit and must be a republican. Senator Clinton, excuse me, Madam Secretary Clinton will be a fabulous Secretary-of-State. You will be eating, excuse me, choking on your workds shortly. So the 18 million voters were just "feminists and less educated" who voted for her? Your a snob and your wrong. Take your republican junk and go to another site. You bore us. Go Hillary | ||
| JackieWoman | Homepage | E-Mail | 01.12.2008, 13:06 | ||
| Horrible article. Obviously nothing in depth here. The economy did much better in the nineties than today. Hillary has shown she is a loyal and dedicated worker. With the exception of hard core republicans, most people would invite an intelligent person to represent their country. |
||
| kg | Homepage | E-Mail | 01.12.2008, 11:17 | ||
| Hillary is a good choice for this position as the first lady I am sure that she would have come to understand a lot about foreign policy | ||
| Katherine Sparkes | Homepage | E-Mail | 01.12.2008, 06:32 | ||
| Barack Obama’s decision to name Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State post could well turn out to be his first major blunder, for these obvious reasons: First, there’s the inseparable bond with her husband Bill. Given the duo’s unquenchable thirst for power, they would not be content to play second fiddle. From day one they would be scheming to usurp control of the White House. Once they get a foothold, Obama would be hard-pressed to rein them in. Then, there’s the Clintons’ long history of corruption, deception and sleaze—Whitewatergate, Pardongate, Cattle-futuresgate, Chinagate, Filegate, Fellatiogate, the using of uniformed marines as waiters, the plundering of White House property, the Impeachment and near conviction, the punitive IRS audits, the violent deaths of potentially incriminating witness. This alone would provide Obama’s enemies with all the grime they needed to smear his presidency. Consider further that unlike a Condoleezza Rice or a Madelaine Albright—not to mention bona fide statesmen like Henry Kissinger, Dean Rusk and John Foster Dulles--Hillary Clinton lacks the educational and cultural gravitas to represent our nation abroad. Her lawyering in Arkansas and stint in Congress doesn’t quite cut it. She did get 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, probably more than Obama, but a large proportion of those votes were cast by diehard feminists and the less educated, hardly the constituency whose support lends credibility to a Secretary of State. Barack Obama should recall the reasons why he didn’t choose Hillary as his VP running mate. For his and the nation’s sake, let us hope that she changes her mind and spurns the Secretary of State offer. Her coyness in reaching her decision--making Obama beg, in effect--is already an ominous sign. |
||
| Carlos Navarro | Homepage | E-Mail | 01.12.2008, 05:59 | ||
| wow bad article, maybe you should stick to writing about german politics. This article is nothing but opinion written by an ally of someone like newt gingrich or pat buchannan. If fails to mention that most americans republican and democrat believes she will make an excellent secretary of state and fails to mention all her accomplishments at yale law, serving on various comittees in washingto dc, then in arkansas, as first lady, and being one of the most successful junior senators ever in the history of the us senate. I cant stand when people bash hillary based on opinion or hate if you are going to be serious talk facts and the truth otherwise you are just another dick morris. |
||
| Christopher | Homepage | E-Mail | 30.11.2008, 17:41 | ||
| Great article!!!!! I linked to it. All the best, Elvis |
||
| elvis | Homepage | E-Mail | 27.11.2008, 00:51 | ||