Hillary For Secretary Of State? Please No!

New Republic: President-Elect Obama Would Make His First Big Mistake If He Picks The N.Y. Senator For State Department Post

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Martin Peretz.

---

I confess: Hillary Clinton has never appealed to me. There have been so many Hillary Clintons that I suspect that none was authentic. In any case, the young Hillary was a fashionable leftie. No, she wasn't Bill Ayers. But her Wellesley commencement address was especially trite when trite was the rule. She worked for a communist law firm. She was faddish when independent thinking was what the country needed.

Hillary then went to Little Rock, armed with a Yale Law School diploma, and worked for another law firm, this one positively sleazy. She was the haughty wife of the coy governor and got herself mired in small time corruptions. Not big-time, it is true, and thank God for that. From the state capitol to the White House, her ambitions grew along with Bill's. No special fault here either. But her ambitions were not just careerism or even avarice but greater and greater pretension: "the politics of meaning," "it takes a village." Her husband bestowed on her the project to remake in its entirety the American health care system, a subject about which she knew virtually nothing and which, after its defeat in Congress, became a task that would linger unattended for the better part of two decades.

So the fact is that she is not a committed leftist at all. She is something worse: like Bill, a committed situationalist. Hillary is not a person of principle. She is a person of shifting position. The best you can say of her, then, is that she is flexible, endlessly flexible.

Now, if Barack Obama has actually offered Hillary the post of secretary of state, he has reversed what most Americans thought was one of the much sought-after consequences of his nomination and his electoral victory. That is, sought after by the voters. And this was to end the Clinton dominion in American politics. That's certainly what the primaries were about. Once Obama freed himself and the party from the vice presidential blackmail almost everyone assumed that, with Joe Biden as their candidate's running-mate, the Democratic nominee did not need the experience of someone who'd visited 81 capitals for a day or two or who'd been to Bosnia "under fire" or who kissed Suha Arafat right only moments after the pampered lady had accused Israel of spreading cancer in the West Bank.

It is a fact that in the weeks after the Denver convention she conducted herself as a party loyalist which, of course, her irritable and clinically self-obsessed husband did not. Hillary is an OK senator. But, then, we don't have many titans these days. So there would be nothing wrong with her hanging around Capitol Hill for as long as Senator Byrd has, gaining dollars for New York as Byrd did for West Virginia.

Now, if truth be told, I believe my views on matters of foreign policy -both specific (Russia, China, Iran, Israel, Venezuela) and more general (human rights, international organizations, and that fictional construct "soft power")- are closer to Hillary's than to Bill Richardson, very much a light-weight, or Chuck Hagel or Richard Lugar's. Heaven help us, if one of them was Obama's selection. Still, the fact is that Mrs. Clinton, for all her practice in greeting foreign visitors and hosts, does not know much about international affairs. Certainly not as deeply or as texturally as the vice president-elect who has made it his Senate specialty. Yes, Biden may, in some people's view, talk too much. But these are matters that can't be dealt with in sound-bites. We should be grateful for complicated explanations: simple ones are lies.

There is not, after all, a dearth of qualified men and women for secretary of state: Richard Holbrooke, for example, who has had more experience in American foreign policy than anyone else mentioned for the post. This intimacy with grave issues includes Bosnia to which the solution was made from his architecture and handiwork. This kind of seasoning is rare. Were Hillary actually to be at State the post of National Security Adviser becomes infinitely more important. You dare not have anyone less bright and less knowledgeable than Holbrooke. And there aren't many people brighter or more knowledgeable.

Now, my readers know that I've had my personal differences with John Kerry although, as I was saying to friends last night, they go back 35 or 40 years and had just festered. Nonetheless, if you want clarity of purpose as we had clarity of purpose with Dean Acheson and a real bond with our distanced allies, Kerry should be the choice. Does he have too much faith in the United Nations? Yes. But you don't see Hillary fashioning a foreign policy of which the U.N. is not the core.

There are others lower down the celebrity line. Dennis Ross, for example, has risen through the Foggy Bottom ranks which is not a liability, given the chaos at State. He also knows that there are moral issues that diplomats don't want to consider, and he would insist that they do: his peers in other foreign ministries and his own American foreign service staff.

So the question is why would Obama choose -if, indeed, he has- someone who brings high drama, virtually hysterical drama to any scene she's in. Her purpose has been self-evident: she wants to be president. Her husband's? To be where the action is. His foundation is now widely viewed as a public relations sham. Since he is now washed up (in contrast to Al Gore who has made a brilliant new life for himself) he now has to rely on the missus.

If Obama designates Hillary she will be ready for another run at the White House in 2016, when she is 70 and almost the age of John McCain. Like John Nance Garner, FDR's vice president, who ran against the sitting president in the Democratic primaries in 1940.

I believe Barack is playing with fire.

[ladyesq1]

Wow...this guy is a real ***.

Go crawl back under your rock. Hillary is the best of the best of the best.

Hillary #45

[magicwolf1]

Hey TNR - Hey Martin - I''m getting pretty tired of the Clinton-bashing! You want to name me a more successful modern presidency than that of Bill Clinton? I''m throwing you in with the rest of the witch-hunters (mostly repulicans - ugh!)who just simply hate the Clintons. I supported Hillary for 2008, and gladly voted for Obama. Hillary and Bill have both been champions for the Democratic party. Hillary would be quite well suited as Sec of State. So, Martin, bite the Big One! Barack doesn''t need your petty, inferior second-guessing!

[jjmurray9889]

"Now, if Barack Obama has actually offered Hillary the post of secretary of state, he has reversed what most Americans thought was one of the much sought-after consequences of his nomination and his electoral victory. That is, sought after by the voters. And this was to end the Clinton dominion in American politics.".....1) I never sought this kind of change, 2) Obama is packing his team with former Clinton officials which I guess is his version of a new and different way to run things, i.e. using the same old faces, 3) Those who voted for Obama are now getting the change they wanted but that was never clearly explained, 4) You didn''t know which Hillary was the real one? Perhaps someday we''ll find out which the real Obama is, he''s like a chameleon...oh, but as reporters I guess you somehow missed that during the primaries and the election. Good job folks!

[fralene-2009]

I''m no major Hillary fan, but feel she deserves this chance as much as anybody. She has steel in her spine. This will be her one opportunity to shine and show up all of the naysayers. If she fails, it will be of her own doing and we can all move on. Somehow I do not think she will fail.

[gmancubfan]

Thank you Mr. Peretz for putting forth the reasons why a Hillary appointment for Sec. of State would be a very serious mistake. Udoubtedly, Richard Holbrook has more experienced and qualifications than anyone currently interested in the job. To be effective, a Sec. of State must, among other things, be able to deal with world leaders and foreign ministers not only firmly but diplomatically as well. Hillary is about as diplomatic as that self-admiring clown O''Reilly. How can anyone avoid cringing when encountering her everpresent fake smile and propped up lying eyes. Foreign dignitaries, who when confronted with a sharp clawed alley cat obsessed with advancing her own personal agenda at the expense of others (remember travelgate?, will recoil at the prospect of what they will perceive as another pompous and arrogant government. Hillary''s tactless and untrusty demeanor will foster legitimate doubt in the world regarding Obama''s pledge of a new era of meaningful dialogue and trust with other countries. With Hillary, our friends abroad will experience much of the same arrogance and lack of trust they endured under Bush.

[draftfareed]

I am not doubting that Hillary Clinton is a formidable political operative, but what exactly makes her the best choice for Secretary of State? This role serves as the primary face of US foreign policy to the rest of the world and, internationally, Hillary Clinton is best known as Bill Clinton''s husband and a former opponent of Barack Obama.

US foreign policy would best be served by appointing someone with a deep and demonstrated understanding of the issues most important to the rest of the world and someone who knows how to be diplomatic with foreign leaders. Personally, I think someone like Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International and prolific foreign policy expert would be a far better choice. The site DraftFareed.org does a great job of making the case for Sec Zakaria!

[draftfareed]

*Bill Clinton''s wife, no offense intended!

[hitoyou1]

Hillary For Secretary Of State? Please No!
***************************************************
PLEASE YES. I don''t know who this Martin Peretz is. But I know he is an IDIOT, and he sure don''t know what he is taklking about.

[eewrites]

Well said magicwolf1.
I''m always amazed at how people can look back on the years of peace and prosperity under the Clinton administration and still manage to make it sound like it was a bad time in our history!
My God, people like this sound absurd!
Knowing there are Clintons in charge makes me feel better.

[paris1969]

I am surprised the New Republic is still in business ... what a waste of good paper!
Hillary Clinton Secretary of State!

[sjbj2322]

Read the following and then tell me why anyone should give a rip what ole Marty has to say on any subject but especially who assumes the role of Secretary of State. What Marty....is Hillary close to your ex-wife or does she not happen to share your vision of war, war, war when it comes to solving problems in the middle east between Isreal and the rest of the Arab world.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=my_marty_peretz_problem_and_ours

[rpalmer61]

President Clinton''s term in office did not foster "peace and prosperity." You may have felt secure, but while everyone stood in awe over his relaxed demeanor, Clinton bombed Iraq repeatedly, dismembered Yugoslavia with the help of NATO (killing over 4,000 citizens in massive bombings), ignored serious al qaeda threats, and set us up for the enormous financial crisis we are facing now. CLINTON WAS THE DE-REGULATOR, not Bush. I myself am not a supporter of Bush; I think he''s made some horrible choices and refuses to acknowledge mistakes. However, the Clinton years deserve some fresh criticism. Bush has been playing clean-up with eight years worth of 90''s trash in Washington. Obama used to criticize the Clintons, but unfortunately, he has now decided to play the political game in order to come out on top.

[rpalmer61]

President Clinton''s term in office did not foster "peace and prosperity." You may have felt secure, but while everyone stood in awe over his relaxed demeanor, Clinton bombed Iraq repeatedly, dismembered Yugoslavia with the help of NATO (killing over 4,000 citizens in massive bombings), ignored serious al qaeda threats, and set us up for the enormous financial crisis we are facing now. CLINTON WAS THE DE-REGULATOR, not Bush. I myself am not a supporter of Bush; I think he''s made some horrible choices and refuses to acknowledge mistakes. However, the Clinton years deserve some fresh criticism. Bush has been playing clean-up with eight years worth of 90''s trash in Washington. Obama used to criticize the Clintons, but unfortunately, he has now decided to play the political game in order to come out on top.

[rpalmer61]

President Clinton''s term in office did not foster "peace and prosperity." You may have felt secure, but while everyone stood in awe over his relaxed demeanor, Clinton bombed Iraq repeatedly, dismembered Yugoslavia with the help of NATO (killing over 4,000 citizens in massive bombings), ignored serious al qaeda threats, and set us up for the enormous financial crisis we are facing now. CLINTON WAS THE DE-REGULATOR, not Bush. I myself am not a supporter of Bush; I think he''s made some horrible choices and refuses to acknowledge mistakes. However, the Clinton years deserve some fresh criticism. Bush has been playing clean-up with eight years worth of 90''s trash in Washington. Obama used to criticize the Clintons, but unfortunately, he has now decided to play the political game in order to come out on top.

[eewrites]

rpalmer61:
Again, it''s amazing to me that Bush could be in office for 8 years, with a Republican congress for 6 of those years, and you still blame Clinton for the mess we''re in. Really - that''s quite a stretch. It''s just like the Republicans to take no responsiblity and blame whoever doesn''t agree with them. Bush is leaving office with the country in the middle of a financial disaster, tens of thousands dead in Iraq, thousands of our soldiers dead - and you''re criticizing Bill Clinton? This is why Republicans no longer have any credibility.

[timothyone-2009]

It''s odd how rightwingnuts start talking about what BILL Clinton did when others bring up Hillary! It is absolutely ridiculous to think that a Hillary Presidency would be the same as was Bill''s. I personally believe Hillary would have been better focused on the job and done much better.

And all that BS about Hillary being involved in small-time corruption is nonsense. You rightwingscum tell lies until people are confused about the truth, and then refer to your own lies for reference in future BS stories. Ken Starr was not able to bring Hillary to court over a single charge. Not even a completely biased 40 million dollar investigation could produce a single charge. Cbs now needs to stop pushing your propaganda on it''s website.

[liberty4you]

I am delighted with Mr. Peretz'' fine article with ample alternatives to the "Hildabeast."

John Kerry took on the Bank of Credit and Commerce International in the 80''s during Iran-Contra.

However, the Bank of England holds a document with names of corrupt Senators and Congressmen who have taken bribes during this fiasco. They won''t cooperate with the Department of Justice...and disclose it.

Are our government''s officials (Daschle) merely following orders from the crown of England? I really would love to know.

Kerry is not on the list, as far as I know....

[liberty4you]

P.S.

"Let Justice Be Done, Or Let the Heavens Fall"

My vote for Attorney General would be Patrick Fitzgerald

He prosecuted Scooter Libby for lying to the FBI about disclosing Valerie Plame''s identity to the press...remember Iraqi intelligence came from Downing Street in England... Jack Straw and

a PhD student''s thesis that Straw replied to the British public as "Sorry ''bout that" and we didn''t even hit one, not one Iraqi military target during operation ''shock ''n awe'' Not one. %100 failure.

Americans can thank the Straw, Can everyone say
"Thanks Straw" ... "Thanks Straw" -Good.

[berchesgaden]

Over 65% of Democrats favor Hillary Clinton as
Secretary of State. You lose!!!

[hennighg]

Hillary Clinton makes Condoleezza Rice look like an appeaser. She''d make one HECK of a good Secretary of State. In fact, her tenacity and ability to hit hard would make her perhaps the best of all-time. Give me a break with whether or not she appeals to you. If she doesn''t, that''s a quality that you want in a Secretary of State in a conflict.

[sincity_q]

The politics are getting so old.

There''s not going to be a happy unanimity on anyone for any office ever! We are a nation of individuals... and we do not subscribe to the hive mind theory. But the truth here is that Obama was elected president and should he survive the pending SCOTUS challenge to his citizenshp, he will pick whomever he wants to in filling his cabinet. That''s just the way it works so... all the griping and whining is not only futile, it is a fairly poor use for the cyber ink.

For those who do not like Hillary or Obama, your best bet now is to get in touch with your representatives and senators to let them know just exactly what you do and do not want. Agaian, that''s the way the great machine works.

Or... on the other hand, you can follow the example of one sub-cummunity out on the west coast and take to the streets, rioting and raging and sue because your ideology and lifestyle isn''t floating on top of the bureaucratic cesspool.

That would be typical, no?

[sanfelz]

Bash the Clintons, bash Gore and you get eight years of Bush lies and incompetence. Stick to facts and not gut feelings based on the author''s biases. Hillary is clever, hard working and competent. That much cannot be said of the current resident of The White House.

[Scooter68]

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. (Sun-tzu)

Obama apparently is carefully considering this advice.

I agree that what this country needs is an experienced hand in the SecState slot and Hillary/Billary just doesn''t cut it. Bill doesn''t have the same appeal as Prez and Hillary... well we all know how abrasive she can be and her history with "It takes a village to raise a child."

Most of all we need a SecState and Prez who won''t go along for the ride with the UN. The UN has become so corrupt that even it''s own investigative teams can''t/won''t change things.

No Obama would only choose Hillary to keep an eye on her or to set her up to fail and therefore attempt to crush her political aspirations.

[texanforlogi]

I''d rather see her on the Supreme Court.

[rru2s]

The author sprinkles this article with his blatant political and personal biases so overwhelmingly, that the adjectives and insults overshadow any possible message of potential substance worth considering.

According to him, it''s all about how much he hates the previous democratic president and how much he hates his wife, giving her credit for zero, nada accomplishments in her years in the senate.

"Hillary was a fashionable leftie..."
"She worked for a communist law firm..."
one dimensional brain: democratic=left=communist, republican=everything patriotic and good
"haughty wife of the coy governor..."
more bill bashing and prejudice against women
"mired in small time corruptions..."
and was convicted of what, you say?
"it takes a village..."
No aid for preschools and children, Scrooge
"person of shifting position..."
and what about McCain, talk about shifting!
"end the Clinton dominion in American politics..."
obvious sore loser way back from 1990

[deathofusa]

I supported Hillary for 2008, and gladly voted for Obama. Posted by magicwolf1 at 02:37 PM : Nov 19, 2008


So you support one candidate and vote for another? How bazaar.

[deathofusa]

I supported Hillary for 2008, and gladly voted for Obama. Posted by magicwolf1 at 02:37 PM : Nov 19, 2008


So you support one candidate and vote for another? How bazaar.

[oleander8]

The New Republic needs to crawl back into the hole from which it came. Keep your mouth shut and give this fairly elected President-elect and his policies a chance. Suck it up! We did, for 8 very long years.

[noloyalisti]

I have a problem with Hillary who is a war hawk and corporatist being in that position. In fact, we should not have anyone who is even close to the failed Republican foreign or financial policies, they are a complete disaster.

[usagator]

Clinton seemed to prefer throwing a few missiles at our enemies rather than really dealing with the problem. Didn''t really accomplish much! Once she is Secretary of State maybe we could attach a few missiles underneath her plane just to make a statement. Why not I always thought a woman would get US into WWIII. She could raise some more money on her travels for old BillyBoy and his library. Does his library have a humidor with a young female assistant?

[harbinger09]

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. (Sun-tzu)

Obama apparently is carefully considering this advice.

If you keep your enemies closer than arms length--they can easily stab you in the back AND twist the knife.

Keep your eyes on Lieberman, and the Clintons-neither group has any scruples and Obama has bought into the hype about his own Messiah complex (replete with the subconscious desire to set up the situation to be a Martyr)

[harbinger09]

So you support one candidate and vote for another? How bazaar.

Posted by deathofusa at 01:17 PM : Nov 20, 2008


You mean bizarre. A bazaar is usually an open air marketplace where a sundry of goods are on offer.

[sunnyinca]

All this complaining about bringing back the Clinton''s and the other Dems from when they were in the white house.....

How come no one is mentioning that was the last time this country was in better shape financially, an unmatched world leader, and not losing two wars.

I say give them a chance and then when they mess up let''s ALL join together to use our voice to express that.

[sunnyinca]

All this complaining about bringing back the Clinton''s and the other Dems from when they were in the white house.....

How come no one is mentioning that was the last time this country was in better shape financially, an unmatched world leader, and not losing two wars.

I say give them a chance and then when they mess up let''s ALL join together to use our voice to express that.

[sunnyinca]

All this complaining about bringing back the Clinton''s and the other Dems from when they were in the white house.....

How come no one is mentioning that was the last time this country was in better shape financially, an unmatched world leader, and not losing two wars.

I say give them a chance and then when they mess up let''s ALL join together to use our voice to express that.

[sunnyinca]

All this complaining about bringing back the Clinton''s and the other Dems from when they were in the white house.....

How come no one is mentioning that was the last time this country was in better shape financially, an unmatched world leader, and not losing two wars.

I say give them a chance and then when they mess up let''s ALL join together to use our voice to express that.

[sunnyinca]

All this complaining about bringing back the Clinton''s and the other Dems from when they were in the white house.....

How come no one is mentioning that was the last time this country was in better shape financially, an unmatched world leader, and not losing two wars.

I say give them a chance and then when they mess up let''s ALL join together to use our voice to express that.

[sunnyinca]

All this complaining about bringing back the Clinton''s and the other Dems from when they were in the white house.....

How come no one is mentioning that was the last time this country was in better shape financially, an unmatched world leader, and not losing two wars.

I say give them a chance and then when they mess up let''s ALL join together to use our voice to express that.

[bjcone8559]

How did this hack, Peretz, ever get a writiing job? He sounds like a lot of the childish and illiterate people who post on these forums. Making outrageous statements with no attempt at backing them up with sources. This article would get an ''F'' in English-Lit 101.