Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
HRC AS SOS?
There's a lot to consider when it comes to whether Hillary Clinton would make a good secretary of state. First of all, to those who are saying Clinton's support for the Iraq war should disqualify her, I'd urge them to take a deep breath. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and almost everybody else being considered for the job also initially supported the war. And while they have taken the step Hillary never did and called that vote a mistake, it's important to remember that by the time of the 2008 primary, Hillary and Obama were running on essentially the same Iraq platform -- a phased withdrawal and renewed focus on fighting terrorist groups on the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Inside, Hillary will always be that good girl, straight A student. And I say this as one good girl to another -- if given a formal role in the Obama administration, Hillary would rise to the occasion as a team player. She has a detailed understanding of global conflicts and has met many of the players involved. She'd be greeted enthusiastically around the world, where the only American political phenom who could have possibly overtaken affection for the Clintons was Obama. I'll never forget living in France during 2004 and seeing women on the Paris Metro reading Hillary's memoir in translation, absolutely engrossed. Their feelings about her were always less complicated than American women's.
Which brings us to another point in Hillary's favor -- her long record of speaking out on international women's rights, dating back to her 1995 address to the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women, where she famously declared, "Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights."
The downside to Hillary as secretary of state is losing her strong voice for women's issues and health care reform in the Senate, where she has the potential to grow into a kind of Teddy Kennedy figure on domestic policy. But I don't think anybody outside of Hillary's inner circle really knows what level of interest she has in being a "senator for life." There's also the question of whether she could effectively manage a large bureaucracy, considering her messy campaign. Secretary of state is more a figurehead than day-to-day manager, though, and with the right people working for her, I think Hillary could do an admirable job.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (4)
I just can't imagine why she'd want it-- she seems to actually like being a hands-on, wonkish senator. The Newsweek piece had its problems, but the bit about her saying she loved her house & current life rang pretty true. Plus, the vetting of Bill's activities would be at least as rigorous as for VP, with his connections to shady international characters and huge donations.
Maybe she's interested enough in the higher profile-- although she wouldn't be much of a historic first after Albright & Rice-- to take it, but I don't see her being as interested in globetrotting & diplomacy as Bill is & was.
Posted by: latts | November 14, 2008 11:00 AM
It can take a decade, more likely two, for a senator to get to the power and influence Hillary would like to have. Remember Ted Kennedy was 30 when he became a senator; he was still well in his prime when he got major clout. Hillary started too late; she may be pushing 80 by the time she is in a similar position.
The major problem with a SecState appointment is one Dana did not mention but an earlier commenter did--the question of Bill. Not only the need for vetting but the question of what he will be doing while his wife is at State, and whether whatever he says or does will reflect on her position and that of the Administration.
Posted by: Steven J. Berke | November 14, 2008 11:28 AM
It can take a decade, more likely two, for a senator to get to the power and influence Hillary would like to have.
Under normal circumstances. HRC was a star when she went into the Senate, now she's a star with a fund-raising list 18 million strong, half of them borderline fanatical, and a good many Obama supporters (like me) who have always favored her domestic agenda. Besides which, she has access to media, and has become good at it, in ways that far surpass Daschle or Reid.
I don't know if she can swing a Senate election, but she can certainly make one much easier, or much more difficult, in some keys states.
Posted by: Jim | November 14, 2008 12:55 PM
Dana says: "First of all, to those who are saying Clinton's support for the Iraq war should disqualify her, I'd urge them to take a deep breath. John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and almost everybody else being considered for the job also initially supported the war."
But why doesn't this mean that there are serious questions about all of these candidates. Someone who didn't recognize the preemptive or preventive war was wrong--not just impolitic or foolish, but wrong--in 2003 lacks the judgment to be Secretary of State (as does someone who refused to take the use--especially the first use--of nuclear weapons off the table). Hillary is immensely capable, but she ought to occupy a position that gives her no direct influence over foreign of military policy (AG, for instance).
Posted by: Gary Chartier | November 16, 2008 11:05 AM