|Author||Rating: 0 Topic: Response to "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton" (Read 758 times)|
« Reply #0: Mar 30, 2008, 8:13 AM »
Yesterday my fellow blogger, jwilkes, posted a well written argument in favor of making Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State in a Barack Obama Administration. I have a great deal of respect for jwilkes's writing ability and opinions. In fact, jwilkes is one of the writers here at eyesonobama.com who I have tried to emulate.
That being said, I completely disagree with yesterday's post titled "Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton."
Jwilkes begins the article with a point I 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."
This is specifically the reason we should not make Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, particularly after eights years of the hard-headed lack of negotiating skills possessed by the Bush Administration. The last thing this country needs is a Secretary of State perceived by the rest of the world as cold, rigid and unwilling to bend on anything.
Someone like Bill Richardson is far better suited to be Secretary of State. I have stated in the past that I would like to see
In fact, he seems be boning up on his excellent diplomatic skills already.
Jwilkes goes on to say of
Again, I agree with Jwilkes in that department, but disagree with where he goes from there when he argues that making
Not too many people would disagree that Hillary Clinton first ran for Senate in 2000 as a stepping stone to the Presidency. That has been her goal for quite some time. However, every day 100
Was Howard Dean a failure? Can we say that Ted Kennedy has been a failure? How about Shirley Chisholm's run for President?
Failing to win the highest office in the nation was a political setback for all three of these candidates, but by no means have they all failed at the true aims of their careers.
As for the feasibility of making
Just this week, as reported by the Reno Gazette-Journal, a well known Nevada physician named Robin Titus halted her effort to have Sen. Reid recalled when her campaign learned that federal impeachment is the only way to remove him from office.
Reid is up for re-election in 2010 and his current polls in
Say what you want about uniformed voters or any unfair characterization of Reid's tenure as Majority Leader, but when he has the support of 1/5 of the country and less than 40% of his constituents, he is not going to remain the Majority Leader for long.
Furthermore, in the eyes of many in The Democratic Party, Reid has been largely ineffective. If there was any indication that
For Reid's part he would be handed an opportunity to save his legacy. Instead of being remembered as a wildly unpopular Majority Leader who suffered an embarrassing electoral defeat in 2010 he would have the chance to be remembered as the man who brought the Democrats back together. It might even boost his chances of re-election two years from now.
On top of all this it is going to be tough for Sen. Clinton to take any cabinet position in an Obama Administration, let alone a position of such high profile as the Secretary of State. For starters
With all due respect to jwilkes, I am curious to know what the readers here at eyesonobama.com think. And jwilkes, I look forward to your response as well. I hope we've sparked a good debate here at eyesonobama.com.
Link to Content
« Reply #1: Mar 30, 2008, 1:41 PM »
I agree, Hillary doesn't really have a place in an Obama administration. But Nancy Pelosi? I don't think she'll leave her job either. She's got it pretty good where she, is, and the Dems need all the seats they can hold on to.
« Reply #2: Mar 30, 2008, 7:33 PM »
Ok, so Pelosi most likely won't leave...just a little wishful thinking on my part. That being said there is ZERO chance of the Dems losing Pelosi's seat here in San Francisco.
« Reply #3: Mar 31, 2008, 11:49 AM »
If possible, I think Bill Clinton would be the bigger problem for Obama if Hillary were given any position within his babinet. I believe Hillary would be so busy butting heads with Obama, with the Washington pull and clout of Bill nudging her on, She'd be trying to outshine him, making it more difficult for him to implement his policy ideas. They would obsessively be trying to prove why Hilary should have been made president.
for the Iraq invasion.
And I don't even like her.
the bar has been set so low that Clinton can only go up.
would love to see Hillary be part of Obama's administration I just don't think she's the right person. For one, he needs to be able to trust the Sec of State implicitly and have a good relationship with that person. They need to see eye to eye on Obama's willingness to talk to leaders of Iran, Syria, and any other country with whom there is a fragile relationship. And of course, there's Bill. That's the trouble - they do come as a pair.
Plus see this article from Michael Tomasky in The Guardian:
I'm leaning toward the "NO" column on this one.
of merely restoring the entire Clinton regime. We already have Rahm and Madeline Albright and Podesta etc.. do we want Hillary in a top spot?
It also makes Obama look weak - Clinton would be trying to steal power and attention; it is a recipe for disaster. Clinton would not be loyal to Obama as C. Powell was to Bush.
approaching former adversaries makes Obama look stronger -- especially after an administration of yes men who gave lip service to uniting a country then did anything but.
He campaigned and won election with a consistent campaign message of unity. Should we be surprised that Obama means to to what he said he would?
Would she be as bad as Madeline Albright?