Senator Clinton has, for very good reason, remained at the top of everyone's short lists for the highest ranking position in Obama's cabinet: Secretary of State.She is a good pick; but not a great one, and ultimately I would prefer someone else.
Here's why:
First of all, she is by no means unqualified. She is more than qualified; perhaps even the best qualified on paper of any candidate in the running. She has travelled to over 80 countries and has conferred and negotiated with countless heads of state and diplomats. She has a very high favorability rating, especially oversees; particularly in Europe.
* Note * Much of her husband's (and subsequently her experience in) foreign policy centered around Europe: NATO, Ireland, Bosnia, etc. While she is far from unknown in other parts of the world, Europe no longer represents the future of our world's trade or foreign policies. Rising nations like China, India and Brazil are closer to the center of the future. Thus, much of her foreign policy experience could be of less consequence than we assume.
Her husband is both a strength and liability; William Clinton is among the most respected Americans among both working people abroad and international circles of power ever. However, Senator Clinton is inevitably not working with a clean slate. She cannot engage with a new world in the way other candidates could; she comes to them instead after a long pause, and with the history of her husband's administration; this is both good and bad on a case-by-case basis. And Obama has consistently strived for a mantra of change - something Americans and international communities are very hungry for.
It is important to note as well that while her husband's administration provided an enormous short-term gain for our economy, it did not provide sustainability. It did more to set up our current economic situation than many Democrats will admit. (And for the record, infinitely less than the disaster of President Bush)
Still, on too many critical economic issues in the past decade or so, Hillary has been wrong.
The Secretary of State, of course, does not deal directly with economic issues. So much of this criticism is not of much consequence. But it is not irrelevant to consider: NAFTA is seen by many on both sides as overdue for referendum; it was Alan Greenspan in 1999 that unlocked the Pandora's box of our current mortgage and credit crisis. Her votes on China trade deals and credit interest / bankruptcy laws are regrettable.
And Obama simply cannot get it wrong on the economy. Bush shit the bead on economic policy, and this cannot be overstated. Obama is walking into a tougher situation than any President since FDR, but complaining about his predecessor isn’t going to make stock indexes rise, or the unemployment rate shrivel.
While there are true some reservations on Clinton's resume, the truth is that her experience is overwhelmingly positive. She would make a tremendous Secretary of State based on her past; it is, instead, the future that makes me suggest she is the wrong choice for this position.
Hillary does jeopardize the notion of a "new day" in American politics as Secretary of State. It is such a huge position; she would essentially be the foreign policy envoy and point person for every major international issue. And while Obama and Clinton agreed almost unanimously on domestic policy, it was their foreign policies that clashed.
He was for talks without preconditions; she wasn't and hounded him on it.
She was for the Iraq war and would not admit her mistake; he wasn't, and hounded her on it.
She declared the Iranian guard a terrorist group; he didn't. This was another point of tension.
Secondly, and even more importantly perhaps, Obama misses a huge opportunity to accomplish a second tenet of his campaign that America is very hungry for: an end to partisanship.
The Secretary of State position is one of the only positions void of the partisan attacks that consume American politics. All the hot, often times petty issues that divide "red" and "blue" America most violently, (abortion, gay marriage, immigration, stem cell research, the second amendment) are essentially absent in the Secretary of State post.
Thus, the biggest olive branch he could offer disenchanted Republicans without budging an inch on health care, energy or education, etc. is this position: Dick Lugar, for example, could be a seismic symbol of American unity if offered the position.
After all, neither of Bush's Secretary of States endorsed McCain; one endorsed Obama. But both carried out Bush's foreign policy, and would have under McCain.
Remember: foreign policy is the only major issue of 2008 that McCain and Republicans fared better on than Obama. Thus, a conservative Secretary of State makes incredible sense both pragmatically for Obama's approval; he bolsters his credentials with a conservative on foreign policy both as a political hack, and as a practical politician, understanding Americans trust the conservative ideology on many issues.
And remember: Barack has the last word. And his judgment hasn’t failed him (yet). He ran the most successful campaign in a sea of candidates, even with his name, his skin color, his father’s religion, beating both the the most inevitable candidate in memory for the primary and a terrifically funded Republican National Committee in the general.
He knows how to call the shots.
There is, of course, the suggestion that Clinton deserves the Secretary of State nod. In a way, many are right: she has outperformed any nomination rival in her support of Senator Obama. She has worked tirelessly and (even better!) successfully. It was her - not John McCain - that was closest to the White House besides Obama; she ran a more inspiring, more historic, more successful campaign than McCain, and one history will remember with more pages and more vitality.
No one will ever question her capacity for the highest office in the land, and subsequently she truly has broken that glass ceiling: for who among us questions a woman's ability to run, or the notion that it will happen?
Can Hillary inspire a nation?
Yes she can.
Could America's daughters ever be president?
Yes they can.
Senator Clinton has achieved all that any candidate, male or female, could have and more without the nomination and election itself.
And simply, I do not see Senator Clinton's legacy being found abroad. Hers, instead, is in health care policy. And she has a second window to do what she intended to 16 years ago: write, move forward and pass affordable health care for all. This would be a far more appropriate legacy for Senator Clinton, and truly more meaningful for Americans.
Thus, I would propose three positions instead to offer to Senator Clinton:
1. Secretary of Health
This puts her essentially in a similar position she was in under her husband's administration: health care policy and the entire federal budget under the Health umbrella falls with her signature.
2. Majority leader in the Senate.
We know she is a policy genius; then giver her the sceptor. She is connected, she is a fighter, and she knows (I believe) what is best for our domestic policy in the most important issues of our time.
3. Supreme Court Justice
She has already denied any interest in such a position. However, Senator Clinton would put a lock maintaining our civil liberties for the next generation. As Wellstone once said, we should measure the greatness of our societies by how we care for those in the shadows; the young, the elderly. I can think of really no one better fit to sit on the bench of the highest court in the land, making sure our civil liberties survive the culture wars of the extreme right; ensuring a Defense of Marriage Act never passes in this country; saying never again to back-alley abortionists. Clinton may not want this position, but America's progressive movement should love to see her in it.
Besides the Supreme Court position, the two are certainly below her potential pay grade. But as I said before, Senator Clinton – love her or hate her – will be remembered second to Obama as the most dynamic politician of her time. Most likely, she will be remembered beyond her husband; far more positively than Bush; far more vividly than McCain.
Hillary has nothing to prove to anyone. She should be brought further into the Democratic leadership without a doubt. But the Secretary of State position, in my mind, is simply not the best fit.
