Richardson vs. Clinton...who is better suited to SOS

[dkf]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXB_8No7-o&eurl=http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/04/go-read-it-hill.html

vs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08n4bj1Mz4A&feature=related

[gordianot]

1. I am so glad I am not Mr. Obama.

Guess I will have to trust his judgment.

[gateley]

2. I'll venture that those who are favoring Richardson will think this supports

their decision, and those who are favoring Hillary will think this supports their decision, too.

Neither of them would be my first choice (it would be Clark, but that's impossible, I know), but either of them would be an excellent choice.

Obama will choose wisely.

[dkf]

3. I think you would agree though, that those are two opposing styles

[gateley]

8. Yes -- I understand the distinction.

Although I'm not sure Hillary's tough talk wasn't in part because of her candidacy -- not wanting to look 'weak'. I'm not disputing that's how she feels, I just wonder if she made it sound a little more strong than she would if asked today.

I have my preferred approach, but since I don't know anything about foreign policy diplomacy, I'll feel good knowing that Obama will choose someone who will is qualified and serve well.

[KittyWampus]

9. You can objectively look at Richardson's record and deduce logically he's a better choice

You can pick any number of people for SoS who would have a record more appropriate and helpful than Hillary Clinton.

To say she is an excellent pick is your right.... but it certainly can't be based on any real experience she has as compared to a lot of other potential picks.

[Hawkowl]

11. Why is Clark impossible?

He would be my first choice as well. Perhaps for another cabinet position?

[JVS]

4. ummm, nuclear obliteration is bad, m'kay

[TexasObserver]

5. I can be happy with either of them. They're both solid for SOS.

[emilyg]

7. Like your sig.

[TexasObserver]

13. They earned it!

[KittyWampus]

10. There is nothing "solid" about picking someone as under-qualified as Clinton

[TexasObserver]

14. I'll file that under "angry"partisan

[KittyWampus]

15. a simple summary of Hillary's record compared to a number of other MORE qualified people

proves my first post as not partisan at all. Simply logical.

[TexasObserver]

16. At what point do you realize I have rejected your opinion on this?

[KittyWampus]

21. objective facts aren't subject to personal opinion

[jesus_of_suburbia]

18. Get over your Primary hatred. n/t

[seasat]

6. I'd definitely prefer Richardson.

He's got the experience and has considerable success in negotiations with other countries. He has a degree in international relations and served as UN ambassador. When Bush pulled out of negotiations over nukes in N. Korea, representatives from both countries came to the US and met with Richardson. Most importantly, he favors Obama's policy of negotiation with any country. He made that a part of his platform in the primary even before Obama expressed his view. Richardson will also change his view if the evidence shows that the current policy is not working. Despite being a lukewarm supporter of the Iraq war he quickly started called for pulling out US troops back in 2004 once it became clear the occupation was causing more harm than helping. Here's an article he wrote on on foreign policy for the Harvard Review.

I'd love to see Clinton in a position either in the senate or in a cabinet post where she will focus on domestic policy. Even though I supported Obama over her during the primary, I liked her health care plan better. It would be fantastic if she were in a position where she could promote health care reform.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

12. Kerry n/t

[ashling]

17. Richardson

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Honestly, I don't like Richardson for SOS

I like Richardson as a person, but I really don't think he'd make a good secretary of state.

The man has decent skills as a negotiator, but a SoS needs to have expertise in foreign policy and Richardson does not. He routinely makes misstatements about other countries and regions (i.e., getting Sierra Leone and Liberia mixed up, saying there was a civil war and forgetting that Charles Taylor was being tried at the ICC). Nor do people at the State Dept. particularly want Richardson.

He has served before as Energy Secretary and as UN Ambassador, but he didn't receive very stellar reviews in either capacity. As Energy Secretary, he was responsible for the Wen Ho Lee fiasco and the management of the agency was generally criticized.

I'd like Kerry for Secretary of State, but if not him, then Hillary, Susan Rice, Greg Craig, Chuck Hagel or Dick Lugar all seem like much more solid choices.

[crimsonblue]

20. I've been hoping for Richardson for SoS since April...

but I think the position is Hillary's to lose.

[AtomicKitten]

22. John Kerry.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

23. I just hope that Richardson can hide his *issues* as well as B Clinton did.

And we all know how poorly President Clinton hid his issues.

[Mass]

24. Between the two, Richardson. Now, I would prefer Kerry or Susan Rice.

[adoraz]

25. richardson was my original pick

[democrattotheend]

26. They'd both be good. So would Kerry

I'm really torn about it. I'm ok with Hillary for SOS but don't love the idea...I'd rather see her at HHS, since she's so passionate about healthcare. But it's probably not high profile enough for her to be interested in, and I don't mean that as a criticism. I just mean that I think some of her supporters would consider it insulting if he offered it to her, though I'm not sure why.