What the Clinton nomination tells me......
With the word being very intentionally put out that Hillary Clinton is expected to accept the nomination for Sec State (NYTimes, Politico) I thought it would be a good moment to revisit the case for her appointment (to counter all the chattering class's twittering about "how will he control her?")
What the Clinton nomination tells me is that Barack Obama intends to begin substantial foreign policy shifts from day one. There is no other figure on the table besides Hillary Clinton (backed softly by Bill) that could walk into the capitols of the world and begin serious negotiations from the very first day. Any other choice, any other choice would have to go through a several months feeling out process by world leaders as they tested the trustworthiness of the individual and their influence within Barack Obama's sphere.
Because of the Clinton presidential and post presidential history, because of Hillary Clinton's outsized role in relation to American politics, she can begin speaking with authority from the very first day.
Barack Obama appears likely to get something of a honeymoon from world leaders, partly from his election and partly from the welcome change from the Bush administration. However, that honeymoon will not be endless, maybe two to four months, and if the plan is to remake the world, that tight little window cannot be wasted while foreign leaders try to feel out a Bill Richardson or John Kerry to determine their level of influence.
This time calls for change, and there's really only one person who has the ability to make that happen quickly.
Now, I recognize that there may be problems down the line, I recognize the arguments against, but I ask you to take a moment to recognize the arguments for. See the upside here. Compared to negatives, the potential upside is huge.
And, If you're going to keep Robert Gates as Sec Def, you need an institutionally/bureaucratically strong Sec State to manage the balance in the State/Defense struggle.
Related, It looks like Gen. Jim Jones will likely be the National Security adviser, the fulcrum between Defense and State. He's military, but he was also supreme NATO commander, so he likely prone towards diplomacy and multilateral approach.
Later: (WaPo) "Some in Arab World Wary of Clinton"
What the Clinton nomination tells me is that Barack Obama intends to begin substantial foreign policy shifts from day one. There is no other figure on the table besides Hillary Clinton (backed softly by Bill) that could walk into the capitols of the world and begin serious negotiations from the very first day. Any other choice, any other choice would have to go through a several months feeling out process by world leaders as they tested the trustworthiness of the individual and their influence within Barack Obama's sphere.
Because of the Clinton presidential and post presidential history, because of Hillary Clinton's outsized role in relation to American politics, she can begin speaking with authority from the very first day.
Barack Obama appears likely to get something of a honeymoon from world leaders, partly from his election and partly from the welcome change from the Bush administration. However, that honeymoon will not be endless, maybe two to four months, and if the plan is to remake the world, that tight little window cannot be wasted while foreign leaders try to feel out a Bill Richardson or John Kerry to determine their level of influence.
This time calls for change, and there's really only one person who has the ability to make that happen quickly.
Now, I recognize that there may be problems down the line, I recognize the arguments against, but I ask you to take a moment to recognize the arguments for. See the upside here. Compared to negatives, the potential upside is huge.
And, If you're going to keep Robert Gates as Sec Def, you need an institutionally/bureaucratically strong Sec State to manage the balance in the State/Defense struggle.
Related, It looks like Gen. Jim Jones will likely be the National Security adviser, the fulcrum between Defense and State. He's military, but he was also supreme NATO commander, so he likely prone towards diplomacy and multilateral approach.
Later: (WaPo) "Some in Arab World Wary of Clinton"
posted by mikevotes at
7:10 AM
4 Comments:
I just don't believe that out of a nation of 300 million, no one is as good as Clinton for the job, or better.
Hillary (and Bill - if you get one, you get the other) doesn't represent change - especially in an area where she and Obama most differ.
And as my fellow chattering classmember, Bob Woodward, put it:
"I think people are fantasizing or smoking something if they think Joe Biden's going to call Hillary Clinton up and say, 'This is what we want you to do.' "
By
Anonymous, at 1:43 PM
No, not at all. Biden is a voice in Obama's ear, a consiglieri.
And, to answer your other point, Name another person of those 300 million who could walk into Olmert's office or Abbas' office and have credibility from the get go.
Find me someone acceptable to a Dem administration that is more or less ready to be accepted from the beginning from Russia to Europe to South Asia to South America.
That list is really short. Maybe Madeline Albright? There just isn't that deep of a bench on the Dem side.
By
mikevotes, at 2:30 PM
I guess I'm having trouble with the media telling me that Clinton is THE most qualified for the job. I'm not impressed with either her resume for the job or her judgment - for example, on Iraq and Iran.
It doesn't have to be a Democrat necessarily. In fact, I'd rather it be someone known primarily not as a politician, but as a foreign affairs expert.
What about Richard Clark?
By
Anonymous, at 7:35 PM
I get your point.
Mine is that her qualifications aren't the technical qualifications, she's not necessarily the deepest versed in some of the issues, but her unique position and history and closer relationship with a President that was respected around the world.
I agree with your technical analysis of her resume, but my point is that if you're going to go big early, she's the best choice.
And you can put that ubertechnical expert below her as deputy to do the policy lifting and use her for her credibility.
As for Richard Clarke, he's kind of known as overfocusing on one issue and losing something of the bigger picture. Good if he's right, but he can also drag the wrong way. He'd probably be best as an area expert, terrorism, cyber security which he so wants to do.
By
mikevotes, at 9:29 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home