Weekend open thread

Sat, 11/22/2008 - 8:30am

What do you think of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

Blake Hounshell | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Consolation prize

by jgarzik on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 11:05am

The technocrat in me simply wonders how there could be such a dearth of imminent statesmen that Hillary got the nod.

The US Secretary of State can be a leader or simply the public international face of the US. Hillary will be the latter.

My cynical read on the situation is that Obama wanted to be magnanimous, and give Hillary a high profile position because he felt she deserved "something".

Overall: thumbs down, for both Obama and Hillary.

Hillary has become a PR flack. It is a step down, for her. She is not the stuff of foreign policy leaders.

I recently read a book about

by durf on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 4:19pm

I recently read a book about Henry Kissinger where he lamented Israel's foreign policy as being totally determined by their domestic politics. All the talk about "Team of Rivals" makes me wonder.

Thomas Friedman had an interesting article about how the most effective Secretaries had full support of the Presidents they served. I wonder how much support Clinton will get. This certainly will affect her confidence and ability to serve.

All that said, I would argue that the potential is there. She was a leader in the Senate and provides a known quality. And I'm sure she feels like she has something to prove.

every country's foreign policy...

by papicek on Sat, 11/22/2008 - 6:43pm

is either determined by its domestic politics, or never gets too far ahead of its domestic consensus. The United States is no exception, though the US is sometimes lobbied successfully by groups like AIPAC and Miami Cubans. (On the other hand, the Taiwan lobby was ultimately unsuccessful; cold war concerns sent Kissinger to China anyway.)

Frankly, Senator Clinton and President-elect Obama's foreign policy statements seem taken out of the same playbook (they're only election documents), and so we're unable to predict the tone of an Obama/Clinton foreign policy.

I expect the multilateral diplomatic effort regarding North Korea to continue, for awhile anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if great attention was paid to Japan as well as India, a continuation of Bush administration policies. Let's wait to see what happens with Iran. An attempt, and its success, or lack of, will tell us alot.

Qualifications?

by kidzib on Sun, 11/23/2008 - 3:12pm

I'm kinda wondering what makes her qualified for this job - or any job, for that matter. Obama was a risk because he doesn't have any huge accomplishments under his belt, foreign policy or otherwise. But Clinton is an even bigger risk in that she has no accomplishments and a whole lot of failures to add. Why should we believe that she is going to deliver healthcare reform when she failed so miserably before? Why should we trust her on foreign policy when she blinked on Bosnia, rammed a bad agreement down the collective throat of the Bosnians, and now pretends that Holbrooke is some kind of hero and heavyweight? I'm a bit confused by her. Then there's this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YR361GePNI

Really diplomatic, no?