Hillary for State? Give her fair play, and hands off

[bigtree]

Although I supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries against Barack Obama, I have to admit that I've found myself questioning the wisdom of the new president's reported choice of the former First Lady and senator to become his Secretary of State. I find Hillary Clinton supremely qualified in her experience, temperament, and foreign policy intentions.

What gave me pause upon hearing of the pick is the almost certain prospect that this incredibly strong and purposeful woman would be required to subordinate her own views and intentions to the agenda and direction of this extremely capable and earnest man. However, I haven't found any significant measure of difference in how they would structure and manage our nation's foreign policy if their roles (and fortunes) were reversed, so I'm left with the faith that I've already invested in Barack Obama with my vote that he knows best how to manage this potentially groundbreaking relationship into success and progress on his agenda of change, reconciliation, and a return to comity and cooperation with our international neighbors.

What I envision from this talented pair, if the nomination proceeds as reported, is a partnership which will challenge both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton to produce their very best performance on the world stage in a very public effort to validate their own individual, resolute notions of how to conduct our nation's foreign affairs.

On Iraq, both have pledged to execute a speedy, but prudent withdrawal in which they will need unanimity from our party's legislators in order to challenge the republican opposition and whatever number of 'moderates' in their number to stand with the majority and act in support of the people's will that the occupation end without undue delay. In that effort, both the president and his secretary of state should each feel free to employ their own unique diplomatic and forceful approaches to advancing the agenda of the president.

In much the same way that our new president has sparked waves of support and enthusiasm surrounding his candidacy and his election, it's fair to say that the 18 million or so votes Hillary Clinton received in the primary represented a movement of sorts for those who rallied behind her until the end. Both the President-elect and the prospective Secretary of State have to feel a deep obligation to those who put their faith in them with their votes and support to make good on their promises, and they've said as much.

I'm reminded of the challenging relationship between Frederick Douglass and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who worked together on the abolition of slavery, yet disagreed on suffrage and women's rights. Although they differed violently at times, they, nonetheless, came to respect and appreciate the others' tenacity and commitment to the causes they both represented.

I'm struck by the sentiments that each gave the other in their later years; especially remarks by Douglass in April 1888, in a speech before the International Council of Women, in Washington, D.C., where he expresses his view that women should define their movement, not men, and I gratuitously apply his remarks to the most able Mrs. Clinton:

"I do not mean to exalt the intellect of woman above man’s;" Douglass said, "but I have heard many men speak on this subject, some of them the most eloquent to be found anywhere in the country; and I believe no man, however gifted with thought and speech, can voice the wrongs and present the demands of women with the skill and effect, with the power and authority of woman herself. The man struck is the man to cry out. Woman knows and feels her wrongs as man cannot know and feel them, and she also knows as well as he can know, what measures are needed to redress them. I grant all the claims at this point. She is her own best representative. We can neither speak for her, nor vote for her, nor act for her, nor be responsible for her; and the thing for men to do in the premises is just to get out of her way and give her the fullest opportunity to exercise all the powers inherent in her individual personality, and allow her to do it as she herself shall elect to exercise them. Her right to be and to do is as full, complete and perfect as the right of any man on earth. I say of her . . . “Give her fair play, and hands off.”

Indeed.

[babylonsister]

1. I'm cutting her some slack. If PE Obama thinks she'll be a

positive influence on his team, I'll support that until proven otherwise.

I do wish all the drama would go away, but I'm not sure that's doable with the Clintons. We'll see.

Rec'd, too.

[bigtree]

2. I have faith in both of them

They're putting it all on the line . . . everything they both campaigned on.

The drama continues . . .

[Truth Teller]

6. People do seem to forget Barack chose her, don't they?

I agree with your take - let the man have his choice and see how it plays out.

OP recommended.

[Glorfindel]

3. I think it's a stroke of genius

The only regret I have is that we'll lose Senator Clinton's voice and influence in the US Senate. She will (I predict) be spectacularly successful in the role of Secretary of State. Who knows? Maybe Secretary General of the U.N. is next!

[rhett o rick]

5. What the hell, with all the powers Bushy set up for the Presidency, we no longer need the Senate.

JK

[bigtree]

21. the only 'power' he actually had was in the Congress' refusal to hold him accountable

. . . and most of his assumed authority is contained in the 'signing statements and executive orders that Pres. elect Obama had promised to review and reverse.

[Politicalboi]

4. I wish Obama would have picked

John Kerry. I'm sorry but after that Bosnia and sniper fire bullshit how can she be taken seriously anymore. It was no mistake, it was a lie. And she told it 3 times.

[Genevieve]

7. me too. really. . eom

[AtomicKitten]

18. ditto

[bigtree]

20. that was a just political kerflufle that most folks don't take seriously outside of a campaign

At any rate, she's certainly likely to encounter those types of risks in her travel if she's chosen and approved as Secretary of State.

[Buzz Clik]

8. I vow here and now to extend no criticism of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Senator Clinton needs to grow into the role of Secretary of State. It's within her talent, and we need strong and savvy the moment she assumes the role.

[arcadian]

9. Fair play? I assure you Mrs. Clinton will set up her own little fiefdom in Foggy Bottom.

I guess a lot of people have no problem with political machines. I personally think they are undemocratic.

[Divernan]

10. My concern is the behind-the-scenes influence and 2nd guessing by her husband

Whether he will pump her for info, or she will turn to him for his opinion (which many of her supporters said she did constantly during the campaign, and that he was the only one she would listen to), I see him as a shadow SOS. She was not able to control his inappropriate comments during the campaign, and he did not see fit to keep his views to himself. I believe they're both too old, too strong willed and set in their ways to change. Hope I'm wrong about that, but we shall see how this all works out.

I personally would like to see Obama use Biden as his point man on sensitive international issues, and keep HRC busy running the day-to-day bureaucracy of the State Dept. Obama can give her some leeway and see how she handles herself and her husband. Biden will always be available.

[arcadian]

11. She clearly sees State as a fast track to glory.

As a junior Senator she really only had the influence that her name and experience as First Lady afforded her. At State she will be a diplomat in the style of George Marshall, which is scary.

[bigtree]

19. I think the Obama administration will have much more dimension than we've become accustomed to

. . . under Bush and Cheney. They really had no use for State except as a hammer in support of the Defense Dept.'s international meddling. I expect the State Dept. under Pres. Obama to be a dynamic hub which will work to restore the diplomatic functions which used to work to form cooperative relationships with other nations rather than just pave the way for militarism and expansionism.

Sen. Clinton should be excellent in that role, advantaging the Executive branch of her own initiative and the relationships she has already established and nurtured from her tenure as First Lady to her work as Senator.

[Cobalt-60]

12. Lets assume Mr Obama knows what he's doing

No longer will appointments be given to corporate criminals.
That sh*t is all over.
Nazis won't be appointing anyone else for at least 4 years.
Much stress had been eliminated.
I'm sure Hillary can do the job.

[Taverner]

13. The only thing that bothers me is that her strengths are not Foreign but Domestic

[bigtree]

15. Mrs. Clinton stressed her experience in foreign affairs throughout the campaign

Now she'll be challenged to deliver. I think they both have shortcomings in that area, but she should make a good diplomat in the diplomatic position which has been regarded by the Bush administration as nothing more than a PR unit in advance of their expansionism and militarism abroad.

[Taverner]

16. She does - but as good as her FP experience is, her domestic is BETTER

I'm just hoping its not a waste of her talents

[Johnboi70]

14. Hillary will make a better SoS than President...

As far as the "drama-thing" goes, it all boils down to Barack as a leader. If he is the type of guy who listens to his advisors to their satisfaction and then makes his own decisions, if he has a good, healthy ego and real confidence, then he can afford to surround himself with big personalities. They key will be for him to avoid doing what Bush does... i.e. getting his advisors to fight for his attention and then listening to the ones that "win" (a.k.a. the Hitler technique... no, seriously).

[DailyGrind51]

17. Hillary becomes part of an impressive team of independent thinkers,

not the Bush team of neo-con yes-men/women.

[JDPriestly]

22. I expect Clinton and Obama to disagree on many things.

But I also expect them to be able to work it out. Obama does not seem to want people around him who just say yes. He is looking for a little trouble.

Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of the War In Iraq. I've posted the YouTube video so many times here on DU that I'm sick of looking for it, but if you haven't seen it, please watch the YouTube video of Clinton with Code Pink. Clinton was disrespectful and mean to the Code Pink women. The women were right and warning her about going into Iraq and she insulted them and was rude in my view. As we know, Obama had a different view on the Iraq invasion.

Clinton would be taking a huge risk by accepting the Secretary of State position. If she leaves the Senate someone else will take her seat, and she will not get it back. If things do not work out between her and Obama, she will be pretty much out of politics unless she runs for governor of New York or some other state post, which is also an alternative.

[bigtree]

23. on Iraq, both Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have similar plans for withdrawal

Her dynamic, if elected, would have been an onus on her, because of her vote in favor of the IWR, to demonstrate her commitment to ending the occupation. Not so much that for Mr. Obama, as his onus is on demonstrating the other side of his opposition which is whether he intends to temper his withdrawal plan to effect some sort of 'stability' that Gates and Petraeus have stressed as important.

Both principals will be challenged to prove their mettle and demonstrate the effectiveness of the positions they took during the campaign. I like the fact that Mr. Obama appears to be creating an atmosphere to do just that.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. If Colin Powell had been more like Clinton, we would not be in Iraq.

Powell was too military. When Bush told him "Get before the UN and make our case for Saddam's WMDs"---Powell did it. If Powell had had Hillary Clinton's independence, her outspokenness, he would have refused to have made a case that was concocted of lies.

In the primary, some Dems acted as if Hillary was solely responsible for the war with her "yes" vote but all she did was vote according to the wishes of her terrorism shy New York State constituency by giving W. authority to invade if he could convince the country that 9-11 could happen again. She and Schumer were the 2 Dems who had to vote yes given the rawness of the wounds on NYC and the fear.

W. convinced the country mostly because people like Tenet and Powell were willing to lie for him. So, Powell is much more responsible than Clinton. I have long suspected that Powell's military training made him a "yes, sir" kind of SOS. He was used to taking orders from his commander in chief.

Maybe the commander in chief needs a SOS who is willing to tell him something different from what Wachovia or GM or Archer Daniel Midlands are telling him about their foreign policy needs. Maybe he needs someone devoted to foreign policy.

As for experience, she has plenty. She helped bring peace to Northern Ireland. She helped save refugees from genocide in the Balkans. The American people give her high ratings on foreign policy. She knows plenty of world leaders. And she will have Bill Clinton at her side. I think the two of them have a better chance of bringing peace to Israel/Palestine than anyone else.