During the Democratic primaries two of our writers had a debate about whether Sen. Hillary Clinton would be a good Secretary of State selection in an Obama Administration. JWilkes had the vision to put this idea forward all the back on March 30th, 2008. Copied below is his post in support of Clinton as America’s next Secretary of State.
There was a voice of dissension, however. Stonecipher, another writer at Eyes On Obama / The Real Right, gave his reasons as to why Clinton would not make a good Secretary of State.
Which do you agree with?
----
If there’s one thing every single American voter should have learned about Hillary Clinton in this election process, it’s that she concedes nothing. She’s going to hang tough and keep fighting- party chances in November be damned- until she either walks out of Denver with the nomination, or exhausta every single solitary option she has in trying to get it done.
Even if the superdelegates do as they’ve been told by DNC Chairman Howard Dean and commit by July 1st, my bet is that Hillary sticks around, waiting for one of two things to happen: first, Barack Obama takes a nose-dive in head-to-head polls against John McCain, giving her the potential to persuade superdelegates that she’d be the more able challenger. Scenario two: Obama becomes so bogged down by controversy (i.e., Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and as-of-yet-unrevealed scandal that he becomes essentially non-viable.
Bottom line: Hillary’s not going anywhere. Democrats will either give her the nomination or drag her out kicking and screaming.
If the Democratic Party really wants this thing to be over, it has to realize that at this point, Hillary Clinton has zero incentive to drop out of the race. She’s right on Obama’s heels, and should the Illinois Senator fall, she’ll be right there to pick up where he left off. In all likelihood, this is her one shot at making history- and not just as a First Lady or Senator, but as President of the United States.
They have got to make quitting and ceding that dream worth her while. That’s a tall order.
Before we get into what can happen, let’s talk about what can’t.
Some have suggested making Mrs. Clinton the Senate Majority Leader. There are a few problems with this. First, Harry Reid is renowned, respected, and revered for his knowledge of Senate Rules. He spent 20 years in the Senate before getting that post in 2007. He’s not going to just step back two years later and give it to Hillary, who has a little more than a fifth of his experience in elective office. Don’t forget, he’s a politician, too, who worked hard to get where he is. The Senate Majority Leader post was the crowning moment of his career. He’s not about to give that up just because Hillary is Hillary and someone else wants him to placate her ego.
But more importantly: Hillary didn’t get into the Senate to spend her career there. Patrick Leahy was right when he said that she would have a fine career there. But the fact is that she ran for that seat in 2000 knowing very well that it was a stepping stone to a larger prize.
Returning to the Senate would be an embarassment to Clinton. Rebuked by her own party after her husband became its only full two-term president since Franklin Roosevelt, she’d be heading back to a body where more of her colleagues, as of right now, have endorsed Obama than her.
That’s not a political setback, that’s failing at the true aim of your career.
Then there’s the "Dream Ticket" idea. The problems with an Obama-Clinton are even more apparent. Neither has any executive leadership experience, and at the time they declared their candidacies, the two had less than a decade of service in federal office combined. That makes for a train-wreck of a ticket. If Obama knows what he’s doing- and he does- he’ll select a veep who bolsters his chances of winning the White House. Hillary weighs it down like a brick on a fishing line.
My proposal: give Hillary Clinton the only logical consolation prize and make her the nation’s top diplomat, the Secretary of State.
Why? She’s done it before. If there is one kind of "experience" that she can legitimately claim to have gotten out of the eight years of Bill’s presidency, it’s as an ambassador. She visited foreign heads of state, familiarizing herself with the problems in their region, and infuenced policy back at the White House. In case you aren’t aware, that- in a nutshell- is what a Secretary of State does.
Additionally, Clinton is internationally respected, and unequivocally well-versed on issues of foreign policy.
It’s the only option that allows Clinton to build on her strengths without sulking back to the Senate in political defeat. It keeps her bruised- but not destroyed- ego intact, rewards her service to party and country, and truly utilizes her assets in a manner that makes her an asset to the Obama White House. Plus, she has the chance to make an impact that can be remembered for generations: with the problems in Iraq and sub-Saharan Africa, the next Secretary of State will face one of the most difficult international climates in American history. It’s a challenge that Clinton is more than up for; it’s a chance for her to shine.
With the possible exception of Attorney General (Clinton was a brilliant lawyer before Bill jumped into the Arkansas political arena), there is no other position that gives Clinton the chance to advance her career and be remembered.
So Governor Dean, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Obama, and all the other policymakers of the Democratic party: give Clinton a real reason to quit this race. Tell her if she doesn’t take this offer, and she proceeds to push the party further into its civil war, she’ll be remembered as the Senator and First Lady who tried. If she takes it, she’ll be the Secretary of State who did. Those are real terms that she- and her Clintonian ego (not that it’s a bad thing!) can understand.
That, my distinguished party leaders, is a deal.
