GOP Senators are opposing Obama's presumptive nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. Their rationale is that he is weak on support for Israel and on sanctions against Iran.
That's plausible, but I'm not buying it. Republican senators are opposing Hagel's nomination for the same reason that they opposed Susan Rice's nomination for Secretary of State: they think they can take out the nominee, and thereby win a minor skirmish with Obama, and make him look weak. Susan Rice was a decent candidate for Secretary of State, but not great. There are generally 3 kinds of nominees for that job: career diplomats, prominent figures within the president's party, and people close to the president. Susan Rice is a career diplomat who is close to the president, but she's not a prominent figure within the party. As Republicans were opposing her, there were some other rumblings that she wasn't eminently qualified. So the GOP smelled blood in the water, and wanted a scalp. Fortunately for Obama, Rice figured out what was going on, and saved herself and the president a lot of grief.
They're doing the same thing with Hagel. This time there is some opposition to the nomination from the left, which isn't thrilled about the idea of another Democrat president choosing a Republican Secretary of Defense just to look tough on national security. So the GOP is betting that, if they gang up on Hagel, their opposition, combined with the qualms on the left, will sink the nomination, making Obama look weak on national security. They don't really care about whether or not Hagel is qualified or not to be Secretary of Defense; they just want to beat Obama somehow.
Showing posts with label Secretary of State. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Secretary of State. Show all posts
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Monday, November 24, 2008
Hillary as Secretary of State - the rationale
Any day now, we should hear confirmation that Hillary Clinton has accepted Barack Obama's offer to be his Secretary of State. Unless she decides against it, which is looking pretty doubtful at this point.
This raises the simple question of why would she give up her Senate seat, which she could easily hold on to for another 20 or 30 years, for a position which she will probably give up in 4 years, if not sooner? If she's still interested in running for president in eight years, she would go from having merely a very good resume to having an incredible one, even better than George H. W. Bush's.
But I don't think she's going to be running for President in 2016. She would be 69, and it would be her 4th presidential campaign. I also think she'll have plenty of competition from younger candidates by that time. She can retire, spend time with Chelsea and Bill, sit on panels, give speeches, and change the world at a leisurely (and lucrative) pace. Hillary does not need to be in the Senate to change the world.
I think Hillary will accept Obama's offer because she can have a profound impact on the world in a relatively short period of time. There are 100 Senators, but there is only one Secretary of State. This is a dangerous time on the world stage, but it is also a time of incredible opportunity. The challenges are many, not least of which is rebuilding America's relationship with the rest of the world. In the Senate, she represents the people of New York in an American legislative body; the scope of her purview is between Buffalo and Montauk. As Secretary of State, she represents the United States of America to the entire world; her purview is between the North and South Poles.
That's why I think Hillary will accept: repairing America's relationship with the rest of the world is a massive challenge. And Hillary, just like Bill, loves a challenge.
Update: It occurs to me that an additional rationale for Hillary to take this job is that she performs a weird sort of political alchemy when she does so. For just about anyone else, becoming Secretary of State would be a promotion; it certainly was for the current occupant. For Hillary, it's almost a lateral move. She enhances the prestige of the position just by the fact of her taking it, if that's possible for a job first held by Thomas Jefferson.
For Obama, appointing Hillary does a couple of things. First, he gets a potentially great Secretary of State. Second, he takes advantage of Bill Clinton's expertise and contacts, but he does so in a way that is not directly tied into domestic politics. Obama gets "two for one," and the Clintons used to describe themselves. Second, he demonstrates that he has the strength to trust people he has not only had disagreements with, but has strenuously competed with. He has demonstrated that he is willing to be challenged by people in his cabinet, which is, of course, a powerful contrast to the last eight years.
This raises the simple question of why would she give up her Senate seat, which she could easily hold on to for another 20 or 30 years, for a position which she will probably give up in 4 years, if not sooner? If she's still interested in running for president in eight years, she would go from having merely a very good resume to having an incredible one, even better than George H. W. Bush's.
But I don't think she's going to be running for President in 2016. She would be 69, and it would be her 4th presidential campaign. I also think she'll have plenty of competition from younger candidates by that time. She can retire, spend time with Chelsea and Bill, sit on panels, give speeches, and change the world at a leisurely (and lucrative) pace. Hillary does not need to be in the Senate to change the world.
I think Hillary will accept Obama's offer because she can have a profound impact on the world in a relatively short period of time. There are 100 Senators, but there is only one Secretary of State. This is a dangerous time on the world stage, but it is also a time of incredible opportunity. The challenges are many, not least of which is rebuilding America's relationship with the rest of the world. In the Senate, she represents the people of New York in an American legislative body; the scope of her purview is between Buffalo and Montauk. As Secretary of State, she represents the United States of America to the entire world; her purview is between the North and South Poles.
That's why I think Hillary will accept: repairing America's relationship with the rest of the world is a massive challenge. And Hillary, just like Bill, loves a challenge.
Update: It occurs to me that an additional rationale for Hillary to take this job is that she performs a weird sort of political alchemy when she does so. For just about anyone else, becoming Secretary of State would be a promotion; it certainly was for the current occupant. For Hillary, it's almost a lateral move. She enhances the prestige of the position just by the fact of her taking it, if that's possible for a job first held by Thomas Jefferson.
For Obama, appointing Hillary does a couple of things. First, he gets a potentially great Secretary of State. Second, he takes advantage of Bill Clinton's expertise and contacts, but he does so in a way that is not directly tied into domestic politics. Obama gets "two for one," and the Clintons used to describe themselves. Second, he demonstrates that he has the strength to trust people he has not only had disagreements with, but has strenuously competed with. He has demonstrated that he is willing to be challenged by people in his cabinet, which is, of course, a powerful contrast to the last eight years.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Hillary for Sec of State - looking like a done deal
Intrade is offering a contract for Hillary to be offered the Secretary of State position. As of this writing, it's at 96.5%. Looks like a lock. I wasn't a fan of this idea, but I think she could do a great job. Andrew Sullivan likes it, and god knows he's not a Hillary fan.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Hillary as Secretary of State?
I've been dismissing the rumors that Hillary might be named Secretary of State as more Hillary fans fantasizing about seeing her come just a smidgen closer to president. But apparently there might be a bit of fire behind the smoke.
There are pros and cons to Hillary as SoS. The cons are obvious: she's still a polarizing figure in the country at large. As chief diplomat, that might not matter all that much, because she will be spending a lot of time outside of the country, and her decisions won't have much of a clear, direct impact on the lives of people in this country. Also, many of her critics are on the right, and one of the Clinton administration's signature foreign policy accomplishments is Nafta, which many Republicans would be in favor of. In many respects, she's not a classic liberal on foreign policy - she did vote for the Iraq war. That would be a pro and a con; the left still isn't happy about that, but the right would see it as a positive. All in all, this is probably the least-polarizing job she could have in an Obama administration. It would certainly be less polarizing than putting her in charge of health care.
On the plus side, she's highly qualified. She certainly has met more foreign leaders than almost anyone else who is even in the running, possibly even more than Bill Richardson, who was ambassador to the UN. Even her most vocal critics respect her work ethic. Apart from policy issues, I think we can assume that she would do a good job. Given how she ran her campaign, I am not as much of a fan of her management abilities as I once was, but I'm sure she could actually manage Foggy Bottom.
The big question is, of course, the Big Dog, but I think Bill brings slightly more positives than negatives. Slightly. He already spends a huge amount of time traveling the world, so this would mesh well with his personal agenda. As to his personal personal agenda, there's always the risk of an "international incident." He is a private citizen these days, but his presence would also make many people nervous. Including me.
In the grandest sense, there are two issues. One, how well would she actually work with Obama? Would she be a good soldier, taking orders from someone much younger than her, or is there a risk of freelancing? She would clearly bring many of her own people, so State could be her own power base. That's a real risk, but, at the same time, as SoS, she ties her fate to Obama's. That one's hard to call. I don't think she is seriously thinking about running in 2016; it's possible, but she would be 77 at the end of a second term, and I think at some point she's going to be happy with what she has accomplished so far in life.
I think she would be a good soldier. I think Bill could be put to good use; he understands how closely tied his fate is with Obama's. And I think both Clintons are starting to respect Obama. I think they realize that they were beat by a great opponent. That may be wishful thinking on my part, but as great game players themselves, they recognize talent. Of course, it helps that Obama has been recruiting many Clinton people, so he has been paying them a certain degree of respect. It also helps that Obama is, in some respects, a better politician than Bill. He's just as smart as Bill, but more disciplined. I think Bill and Hillary enjoy the simple fact that Obama and his people like policy discussions. They can have geek fun in an Obama administration.
The second defining issue is that it would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that Obama is taking foreign policy very seriously, that he wants a strong presence representing him on the world stage. She would command attention, which could be useful in and of itself when visiting other countries.
At the end of the day, I come down against giving Hillary the post of Secretary of State. Apart from the baggage that she brings, and the potential for her own agenda, she does not represent change. Obama has hired many old Clinton hands, which is understandable simply because they tend to be the most experienced. The other names being considered are Sam Nunn, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson. Nunn would be a good choice, not least because he brings some geographic diversity, and he's eminently qualified, but he is somewhat conservative. John Kerry would be a safe choice, but not an inspired one. I'm leaning towards Richardson. He's extraordinarly qualified, he would bring some diversity, and he clearly has a passion for diplomacy. And he doesn't have a lot of baggage. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't like drama within his circle of advisors. Choosing Hillary as Secretary of State would be a serious challenge to that most excellent principle of governance.
There are pros and cons to Hillary as SoS. The cons are obvious: she's still a polarizing figure in the country at large. As chief diplomat, that might not matter all that much, because she will be spending a lot of time outside of the country, and her decisions won't have much of a clear, direct impact on the lives of people in this country. Also, many of her critics are on the right, and one of the Clinton administration's signature foreign policy accomplishments is Nafta, which many Republicans would be in favor of. In many respects, she's not a classic liberal on foreign policy - she did vote for the Iraq war. That would be a pro and a con; the left still isn't happy about that, but the right would see it as a positive. All in all, this is probably the least-polarizing job she could have in an Obama administration. It would certainly be less polarizing than putting her in charge of health care.
On the plus side, she's highly qualified. She certainly has met more foreign leaders than almost anyone else who is even in the running, possibly even more than Bill Richardson, who was ambassador to the UN. Even her most vocal critics respect her work ethic. Apart from policy issues, I think we can assume that she would do a good job. Given how she ran her campaign, I am not as much of a fan of her management abilities as I once was, but I'm sure she could actually manage Foggy Bottom.
The big question is, of course, the Big Dog, but I think Bill brings slightly more positives than negatives. Slightly. He already spends a huge amount of time traveling the world, so this would mesh well with his personal agenda. As to his personal personal agenda, there's always the risk of an "international incident." He is a private citizen these days, but his presence would also make many people nervous. Including me.
In the grandest sense, there are two issues. One, how well would she actually work with Obama? Would she be a good soldier, taking orders from someone much younger than her, or is there a risk of freelancing? She would clearly bring many of her own people, so State could be her own power base. That's a real risk, but, at the same time, as SoS, she ties her fate to Obama's. That one's hard to call. I don't think she is seriously thinking about running in 2016; it's possible, but she would be 77 at the end of a second term, and I think at some point she's going to be happy with what she has accomplished so far in life.
I think she would be a good soldier. I think Bill could be put to good use; he understands how closely tied his fate is with Obama's. And I think both Clintons are starting to respect Obama. I think they realize that they were beat by a great opponent. That may be wishful thinking on my part, but as great game players themselves, they recognize talent. Of course, it helps that Obama has been recruiting many Clinton people, so he has been paying them a certain degree of respect. It also helps that Obama is, in some respects, a better politician than Bill. He's just as smart as Bill, but more disciplined. I think Bill and Hillary enjoy the simple fact that Obama and his people like policy discussions. They can have geek fun in an Obama administration.
The second defining issue is that it would send a strong signal to the rest of the world that Obama is taking foreign policy very seriously, that he wants a strong presence representing him on the world stage. She would command attention, which could be useful in and of itself when visiting other countries.
At the end of the day, I come down against giving Hillary the post of Secretary of State. Apart from the baggage that she brings, and the potential for her own agenda, she does not represent change. Obama has hired many old Clinton hands, which is understandable simply because they tend to be the most experienced. The other names being considered are Sam Nunn, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson. Nunn would be a good choice, not least because he brings some geographic diversity, and he's eminently qualified, but he is somewhat conservative. John Kerry would be a safe choice, but not an inspired one. I'm leaning towards Richardson. He's extraordinarly qualified, he would bring some diversity, and he clearly has a passion for diplomacy. And he doesn't have a lot of baggage. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't like drama within his circle of advisors. Choosing Hillary as Secretary of State would be a serious challenge to that most excellent principle of governance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)