On Demand
Question Of The Day: Hillary as Secretary of State?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Tell us what you think: Do you want to see Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Comment below!
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
Mixed feelings. She would probably do a great job, but I selfishly want to keep her as a senator from NY. I hope Obama is serious about this. An awful lot of people are going to feel jerked around if it doesn't work out in a good way, whatever that way is.
She's an asset either way, so my question is which position would benefit more from her presence, at home or abroad?
She's too big a personality. Obama needs to assert his own foreign policy, and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State will obscure that.
I don't like her one bit. She's the one that said she would "obliterate Iran" if Iran dared to retaliate against an Israeli attack on Iran. Rahm Emanuel is enough; do we really need a sixth column?
Absolutely not!! What are her foreign policy qualifications? Her campaign was disorganized and badly managed. Does that have to continue at State? And finally, Bill should be held very far from the white House. Keep Hillary in the Senate or put her on the Supreme Court.
Yes Please!
I'd be happy with Hilary as Secretary of State, but the BEST scenario would be to have Hilary in the Supreme Court. She would be there longer than 4-8 years as Secretary of State and we need her in the Supreme Court!
NO! We elected Obama because we want CHANGE. I understand the importance of experience, but HRC's foreign "policy" experience consists of posing for photo ops & drinking tea. New blood is needed, not Clinton II.
All I can say is no!
Ever since the early 90's, when I began to realize what a brilliant and inciteful politician Hillary Clinton was, I have thought that the most perfect fit for her would be Secretary of State! I see her as a protoge of Madeline Albright.
Ridiculous idea. Bubba has taken too much money from the Saudis, from Qatar, from Morocco, etc (just like the Bush family) so that the whiff of influence peddling will always be there. It also dimishes Obama....what you'll have is another Clinton administration with Obama as the silver-tongued front man...some change!
Yes. If she accepts, and can pass a vetting process, she would be a very strong and resourceful Secretary of State.
Yes. She would be one of the gems of the new administration.
Yes, she would be one of the gems in the new administration
This is a terrible idea, and most likely will not happen. Let the tabloid portion of the political press obsess about her in the Senate and keep them as far away as possible from the White House; not the mention the fact that she's manifestly unqualified to serve.
Any job function that gets Hillary Clinton closer to the White House is a good thing in my book. Kudos to Obama for (potentially) including this brilliant woman in his sure-to-be powerhouse cabinet.
NO! Trust her and her husband after that disgraceful primary campaign? And what happens if she has to duck gunfire on the tarmac again?
I love Hillary, and I really appreciate Obama's gesture (assuming he makes it), but what exactly are her credentials for the position? And moreover, I heard that Kerry is another possibility. Is Secretary of State now a fallback position for Democratic presidential wannabes? I thought it was too important for that.
Yes! A resounding yes!
Hillary Clinton is smart, determined and compassionate. She is also human and espouses a world view. What better person for the job?
Stop beating her over the head with Bill, who was a great president in so many respects. He was just "way too human".
No, I don't feel Hillary is the right choice. 1) A large part of the Obama platform was the idea of ushering a new era, and the Clinton's represent the past. 2) She spent 18 months trying to tear Obama down; it was an ugly fight and there are still some remnants of that, plus their converging philosophies esp. on foreign policy. 3) Bill Clinton will be part of the equation and will be nothing but a burden to Obama because of his personality and conflict of interest.
Let's choose Bill Richardson instead.
Might not be so bad. We would have Hillary and Bill out doing diplomatic work. It could work to our favor, they know alot of the leaders of foreign countries. You just have to find a way to make sure the Clintons know Obama is the boss.
No. I honestly don't think she has the management skills, the specific expertise in foreign affairs or the essential interpersonal skills --- and there is no way that Bill's conflicts of interest can truly be eliminated, not just covered up.
I assume that there are other factors I'm not aware of if Obama is going to do this. I just hope he hasn't been boxed into a political corner by the powers that be, who are the Clinton loyalists at this point.
Absolutely not. We need someone in this position who has substantial and relevant foreign policy experience, and certainly not someone who couldn't envision an alternative to the Iraq war or who's FP experience involves being around when we failed Rwanda.
I prefer Bill Richardson. Hillary will only push her own agenda.
NO!!!
Claiming foreign policy expertise, and having it are two very different things. During the election campaign she clearly overstated and lied about her experience!
No. But not because she wouldn't be effective in that post; she would be awesome.
Obama needs her voice in the Senate. Her dogged determination to get things done will be essential to combat a bitter Republican minority that still has the ability to filibuster.
I would love her as Secretary of State although I am not sure if she is the most qualified. But definitely better than John Kerry and Bill Richardson.
Yes, of course, she should have been president.
Depending on how the Obama administration orchestrates the roles of Biden and the DOD leadership, it would be a great move. Providing that the mix of autonomy between the State Department, DOD and other pertinent offices are balanced this would be a strong appointment decision for Obama - both politically and strategically an intelligent decision.
Very much agreed with Barney, although she may have picked up some foreign policy bona fides during her tenure as a US senator. But both her inept, mean-spirited primary campaign and her disastrous attempt at reforming the health care system prove Clinton is a poor executive with an abysmal sense of diplomacy. And then there's her husband, who is a) severely compromised by his business dealings and b) a compulsive meddler. The Clintons are just bad news, absolutely toxic individuals, and I hope they stay as far from this admininstration as possible. They would be an albatross on Obama's already overburdened neck.
I was never much of a Hillary fan, but came to admire her during her bid for the Democratic nomination -- how can you not admire such tenaciousness and ambition? That said, having Hillary as Secretary of State in the Obama administration would be like the War of the Roses. These two people -- HRC and BHO -- don't like each other. I fear there would always be an undercurrent of sabotage coming from both directions. Now maybe they're both bigger than that, but I don't believe it. They're human. And then there's Bill...
What part of "obliterate Iran" or voting for the Iraq War (and unlike most or all other Dems, refusing ever to admit it was a mistake) seems to have eluded enlightened feminists who support the senator from NY for any position? What part of "incompetently managed campaign" suggests she is capable of doing much more than communicating that she is number one... and the people with whom she is working are not?
Is personality everything and substance is irrelevant? What does this say about the thought processes of the large number of women supporting her?
Yes
No. Too much power for her in an Obama administration. Too much Bill.
YES-YES-YES-YES!!!!!
I really don't get why she's even being considered. It seems so messy just to get her vetted w/o conflict of interest with Bill Clinton's initiatives and money flows from abroad. It brings so much drama to Obama and US foreign policy. She's a hawk hiding as a 'moderate'. Finally, how could any foreign leader dealing with her not have the expectation that they are dealing with Bill Clinton?
Why would he or she even want to go there?
Maybe she would be an asset as a distraction from Obama doing real work and reform with the Treasury and with the Pentagon, but that's about it.
I think she would be more effective in reforming health care.
Why not? Both she and Bill Richardson are good choices but Hillary brings a little more star power to the position. Appointing Hillary allows Obama to leverage the Clinton's popularity abroad, and it gives Obama cover to use Bill Clinton on occassional foreign policy missions.
No, no, no!
Do folks have amnesia or what?
Obama's new approach to foreign policy was precisely what drew many of his early supporters to him -- and away from Clinton. I'm talking more broadly than Iraq policy. I mean actually using diplomacy, soft power, etc. How did Clinton respond? She called Obama's interest in meeting with US foes like Cuba and Iran "irresponsible and frankly naive."
Aside from the distinct divergence in positions, there is also Clinton's lack of foreign policy experience. Or are we counting riding elephants with Chelsea in Africa?
I am enormously uneasy at the prospect of Clinton as Secretary of State. At this moment in history, we need skilled diplomats representing the US in the world and refashioning this country's image as a respected member of a community of nations, not an exceptionalist, crusading, terrifying hyperpower. We need people with much more subtlety than ruthlessness, much more tact than nastiness, a rather neutral persona rather than a partisan persona. If Hillary cares as much as she says she does about health care and about the day-to-day well-being of "middle-class families," then perhaps she should be the Secretary of Health and Human Services -- a post at which she could be brilliant.
I so much want Hillary in the Senate, as the most liberal senator a senator from NYState can be. I want her to honor her promise to all her presidential nomination supporters, to Americnas, to stay and FIGHT for us.
I want her as the Lioness of the Senate, working as hard as she can (which is very hard indeed) to accomplish national healthcare (not some sops to the parasitic private for-profit insurers). I want her fighting for privacy rights, our rights under the Bill of Rights. I want her nudging Obama out of his (possible) centrist crouch.
I do not want her at State, a creature of the administration, unable to give voice to the needs and hopes of her followers.
I will be deeply disappointed to see her hemmed in domestically as Secty of State. Yes, she may do some good, but she can only do what Obama will permit her to do.
To be cont'd.
No! She was for the Iraq war for a long time, and backed down only when it became very obviously unpopular! She is very close to the Israelis yet tight with the Saudis, just a recipe for things to go on in their disfunctional way as before!
NO !
I remember the days when a president sought the best and the brightest for his cabinet and advisors (unlike recent years, when we've had the biggest contributors and the best brown-nosers). Clinton is clearly one of the best and the brightest we have to lead us. While she is a force in the Senate, she is just one of 100 there. As Secretary of State, I think she would focus her undeniable talents in a way that could really make a difference in the world.
You have to be kidding me. I thought the whole point of Obama was change, not more Clinton myth. What happened to paving a new path? Bill Richardson by far is the best choice. He's already been an Ambassador (to the UN, no less), a Cabinet Secretary (energy, eventhough it was under Clinton), a Governor, Congressman, and he used to teach at Kennedy School of Gov't. He was an emmissary to the Israel/Palestine peace process. And to top it off, he's been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize FOUR times. He has world respect, solid diplomatic and negotiating skills. What does Hillary have? Polarization, has never written any legislation in her life an absolutely no executive experience. Her claim to fame was being hand picked by Sam Walton himself to serve on the board of Wal-Mart and defend oil companies and bank fraud. Anybody who doesn't think Richardson should be passed over for Hillary
Hillary Clinton would make a great Secretary of State!
Part 2--
I fear the loss of both Hillary's and Bill's voices for the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Since Obama is loathe to identify himself as a Democrat, I fear the loss of party building his administration may bring about. Recall this is the Democratic candidate who did not mention the words "Democrat" or "Democratic Party" during his national debates! And seldom otherwise.
Oh, yes--he did use the words at a private fundraiser in PA toward the end of October, to tell the attendees that he would have to fight against Democrats in his own party, as he would have to put off big expensive programs like healthcare and education programs.
We need Hillary in the Senate. I see this as a move to marginalize her and her followers, many of whom are the base of the Democratic Party. The ones Donna Brazille said the Party no longer needed....
Both Bill and Hillary are extraordinary fundraisers for downticket Democratic candidates. Hillary campaigned actively for Al Franken--Obama? Did he get to MN and work at all for Franken? Or is Al to far to the left for Obama's image (and what does Obama really believe, btw???)?
Hillary is even now fundraising for Franken and for the Dem senate candidate in AL. Where is Obama?
With the restrictions on a Secty of State re: campaigning, we lose Hillary. We may also lose Bill. Whassup with that??
Hell no.
Hillary mocked Obama when he said he'd meet with unpopular leaders. How could Hillary represent Obama's new diplomacy with her attitude? She represents the old way that doesn't work. Let's have someone for State who shares Obama's vision.
whomever obama picks will do a GREAT job!
45
Couldn't have said it better.
If she belongs in the cabinet -- and I do not agree that she does, but I understand why Pres. elect Obama might want her there -- I think she could do more good in a domestic position, such as HUD or HHS.
I do not want her on the Supreme Court.
I would actually prefer Sec. Powell to return as SoC.
Woops, I screwed up my last part at #45. Anybody who doesn't think Bill Richardson should get it over Hillary has not thought this through. How could anyone think world leaders would take Hillary seriously? What qulaifications does she have, besides ambition for 2016?
NO! He does not need the Clinton and their political and personal baggage weighing down his administration.
Although as LBJ said: "Better to have them in the tent pissing out, than out of the tent pissing in."
If he does it, it would be to follow the Lincoln method of appointing your political enemies to your cabinet. Disallows them from blaming you from afar.
Absolutely not. Barack needs to recognize this is a change election that he ran on.
He is absolutely boring us with his selections. The Republicans were right when they said change is a vague word.
Since foreign policy weighs so heavily on our future, Hillary is not the right person at all.
Barack is in danger of looking like he lacks leadership by selecting her and all the other Clinton White House appointees.
My desire to have Hillary in the US Senate has nothing to do with her not being highly capable of being Secty of State, altho' it is not her area of greatest expertise.
No, I want her as a counterweight to Obama's tendency to laud Reagan and adopt Republican talking points. I want her representing Democratic ideals and principles in the Senate. I want her working to avoid a Cass Sunstein Supreme Court nomination by Obama, among other things.
And, if she is Secty of State, the MCM* will be going crazy with their Clinton Derangement Syndrome. CDS was in full evidence on Hardball last night, with Tweety inviting Christopher Hitchens, Clinton hater extraordinaire, on air. She will get the blame and the flames from the MCM.
Just Say NO, Hillary!
*MCM--Mainstream Corporate Media
[[[10] Peg Roberts from Mt. Tabor, NJ November 18, 2008 - 10:13AM Ever since the early 90's, when I began to realize what a brilliant and inciteful politician Hillary Clinton was...]]
"inciteful" is just about the right word for her. i'm done with the clintons. she couldn't possibly put away her own agenda and fully support the president. i don't trust her. i admire obama's desire to build a cabinet of rivals. it's almost certainly better than what bush constructed. but isn't there anyone else who can do this job?
47,
I can see the point of not supporting Al Franken. AF has made a career of being divisive in a very personal way, not attempting to find common ground with the other side.
Trying to be the Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh doesn't help the Dems, and that's what Franken was doing.
Franken's heart is in the right place, but I think a lot of Dems wanted to distance themselves from that brand of partisanship.
We have an opportunity to move forward, bringing many different kinds of people along. Even Republicans, who are now completely in the wilderness. The fact that the Franken race was so close in this particular election... tells you something about Franken.
She would be a dynamic diplomat mending some fences in a hurry with countries that are unhappy with us (thanks to Bush). I think she could do incredible things...she is sooo smart and knowledgeable re foreign policy. And the best part would be her coming home to discuss problems with Bill!!!
If Hillary is offered the job it will be as a compromise olive branch because Obama beat her in the primaries, and not for her qualifications as it should be. She has much good experience in other areas but not in foreign policy, diplomacy, or persuasion, or even managerial skills. The two of them (Bill and Hillary) will always be media magnets to the detriment of an Obama administration. Bill definitely has business conflicts of interest and the only way they can select her is if they look the other way. It will be quite a grilling on Capitol Hill during her confirmation hearings, after what Obama said about Hillary's lack of foreign policy experience during the campaign.
#42, Peri--Biden was even more hawkish on the Iraq Invasion, and he's Obama's chosen VP. Go figure.
Politics.
No! She has shown through the chaos of her campaign that she cannot manage a big group with different interests/approaches; she would not be able to bring State Dept. back to health after being demoralized by Bush/Cheney; she mocked Obama for wanting to talk with Iran; she never read the report on Iraq before voting to go to war; you can't trust that she and Bill will not try to sabotage Obama so she can run in 2012.
I think it bears remembering that when she made the "obliterate" comment about Iran it was a response to a question about what the US would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Whether or not I agree with the stance, I think it's fair to say it would be the policy of any US administration to attack Iran under those circumstances. The "obliterate" comment was "We could obliterate them" not "we would." That is, of course a statement of the obvious.
The country would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. President Obama would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. Only Hillary would be better served with Hillary as Secretary of State. Do we really need the drama, the conflict of interest, and all that follows Hillary? Isn't her resume impressive enough? She would not have the honor of being the first or second, for that matter. I like Hillary as the doyen of the Senate. I am a staunch Democrat suffering from Clinton fatigue.
The country would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. President Obama would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. Only Hillary would be better served with Hillary as Secretary of State. Do we really need the drama, the conflict of interest, and all that follows Hillary? Isn't her resume impressive enough? She would not have the honor of being the first or second, for that matter. I like Hillary as the doyen of the Senate. I am a staunch Democrat suffering from Clinton fatigue.
The country would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. President Obama would be better served with Hillary in the Senate. Only Hillary would be better served with Hillary as Secretary of State. Do we really need the drama, the conflict of interest, and all that follows Hillary? Isn't her resume impressive enough? She would not have the honor of being the first or second, for that matter. I like Hillary as the doyen of the Senate. I am a staunch Democrat suffering from Clinton fatigue.
No. I did not volunteer for Obama during the primaries to see Hillary become Sec. of State. One of my early reasons for supporting Obama over Clinton was because of his views on foreign policy. She ridiculed Barack's stance that we should talk to our enemies. She ridiculed the fact that he had lived abroad (for someone who has spent many years living abroad, believe me, it makes a difference). Lots of luck sending Hillary to Iran where she voted for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist" organization. Barack voted against that. Kerry, Richardson, even Holbrooke would be better choices. The Clinton years were better by far than the Bush years but many of the problems we are dealing with now began or were ignored when Clinton was president. We want Change!
Yes for Secretary of State. She would be a good embassador and her experienced in politics would be highly utilized.
She is qualified. If she's not picked it will appear that a game was played.
Not for supreme court. Why is that even an idea? Has she ever been a judge? There are so many judges out there with a lot of experience. Having, said that, she would probably vote in ways I would like.
jawbone,
As Brian Lehrer said, "it's not the vote for the Iraq War, it's the refusal to acknowledge that it was problematic."
I'm paraphrasing.
People had a lot of questions about a "W"-like refusal to cop to mistakes. As you can see (to a degree) in the primary and election results... The inability to handle criticism is something many of us can relate to, but it's dangerous in a leader.
Every other Dem who was running for Pres who had voted for the Iraq War copped to the mistake. And made some sort of apology.
You know, like the Fonz: I'm sorry, I was Wr-w-wr-wr-wr
(He could never quite say the word wrong in connection with himself.)
As a Senator, Clinton can do a lot of good for the State of New York, and the USA. As Secretary of State, she will be little more than a mouthpiece for Obama. Not that the position is unimportant; it requires skill and diplomacy, but it's not a creative, proactive job. Give the job to somebody who wants to clearly and politely articulate Obama's message, and keep Clinton at home where she can grow her leadership in the Democratic Party.
#52--OMG! Powell of the lies to the UN?
Powell may have redeemed himself among Obama followers by coming out in support of Obama, but have you so soon forgotten his pernicious presence in the Bush Maladministration?
If Powell had spoken out, perhaps we would not have invaded Iraq. But he was a good Republican and fully supported his Republican president. And that has worked out sooooo well, right?
I, for one, would find a Powell nomination to any cabinet position and loathsome and just plain wrong. Powell worked to undermine Bill Clinton when he had the power to do so early in the Clinton administration. He might do better by Obama, but Powell has completely lose my trust.
No way!! I think many people who voted for Obama in the primary thought they were making a choice between a proponent of giving the President the leeway he needed to invade Iraq - (who didn't even read the full briefing before casting such an important vote!)- and who is viewed by many as a hawk ...........or someone who did not favor invading Iraq - who might favor negotiating with "enemies" in place of always using threat - and who might have a different approach.
The selection of Hilary Clinton for this key position (while providing a chance for Obama to show he can be "inclusive") - would be felt as a slap in the face to some of us who opted for him - (not her) - from the outset!
I would most like him to choose Richardson.
Hillary's ability to pursue a newly formulated foreign policy vision may be incumbered by Pres. WJC's endeavors since leaving office. The Obama transition team's openness to make the offer public, and vetting process transparency is so encouraging. I do believe that the transition team's process will ultimately yeld the best result for our nation. I would welcome Hillary as our SoS. Pres. WJC has so admirably turned his political capital to solve key worldwide issues. It is the 2-for-1 that may be the gotcha.
45:
You want change? Like a president who opposes gay marriage because of his religious beliefs? Is that change? No, that is Obama. Just like Bush, Obama is bigoted and homophobic and makes human rights decisions based on the bible. Obama = gender apartheid, just like Bush.
Obama has disrespected gays and lesbians and now he risks disrespecting women with his treatment of H. Clinton. Will Obama have any base left?
Clinton is a good choice for Secretary of State. She has more backbone then Obama, more experience and won’t say things like she will negotiate with Iran anywhere, any time.
NO.
she is a great senator and should stay in the Senate.
The choice, if it is hers, must be a very hard one to make, as she would give up her senate seat. Her permanent presence on the Supreme Court would also be most welcome.
Nonetheless this is a good, fence-mending choice. I worry about her reluctance to negotiate with such powers as Iran and about her hawkishness, but believe Obama is strong enough to remain in charge.
She is well-known and well-liked abroad. Her intelligence, training, and experience make highly qualified. If she can distance herself from some of
her husband's foreign policies which have brought financial disaster to our workers, she could be as great as Madeline Allbright.
Absolutely. Hilary Clinton is a huge asset not only to the Democratic party but to the country. The fear that her husband is some sort of albatross around her neck seems odd to me; isn't it clear by now that she is her own woman? For disgruntled Democrats and churlish Republicans to hang on to the notion that wives should reflect the image of their spouses or be held accountable for their shortcomings is at once patronizing and insulting. This country is a dire need of a major readjustment if it wishes to re-establish its credibility overseas; to accomplish this it needs the 'best man for the job' it just so happens that in this case that man is a woman.
Yes, I think Hillary would be an extremely effective Secretary of State. She is brilliant, has excellent people skills, understands foreign policy, whether or not she has had direct experience. She had established very positive relationships with the heads of state with whom she met as first lady.
The two main ingredients for this job, it seems to me, are foreign policy knowledge and diplomatic skills, in which she excells. And we should trust that Obama wouldn't select her if she were not fully capable. I disagree with those people who don't believe she can maintain boundaries. She will give her full respect to President Obama while asserting her own point of view.
Yes! I think Hillary is a strong person with experience. I was Obama all the way for pres, and that being said I think Hillary has a lot to offer as Sec of State. I feel she will help women across the world and she understands international politics.
I thought during her primary campaign that her argument about her "experience" in foreign policy was bogus, and nothing is changed now.
I grant that she's had "face time" with international heads of state, but, I think we'd want someone in this job who has not only had dinner with people, but had a commanding, detailed, deep understanding of the issues of international diplomacy and security. Someone who has worked day-to-day in this area for a number of years at an advanced level.
Who that might be, I leave to more knowledgeable people to decide. Personally, I like Richardson.
Nick
Obama is a fool is he is going to select her. She undercuts Obama's message, just as Rahm does.
Note to Brian: Can you change your intro guitar riff? It is old material and it is tiresome to hear in my office - almost to the point of embarrassing. I have started to listen to NPR Boston at your 2 hour slot.
#58--Al Franken a Rush wannebee? Uh, Rush eschews facts--Franken relished in using facts to undermine Rush's catapulting of the propaganda. Very firmly reality-based, which I find a good thing. Sheesh.
#69--BIDEN has taken back his hawkish stance? He was pushing going after Saddam even before 9/11. And now he wants to get all militant against Iran. Sorry, you can't claim ideological purity for Obama; he's just as much as pol as any other, which is fairly normal given he is one.
Now, he argued during the primary that Hillary only did teas and things like that. Now? Apparently her take on her having foreign policy experience has merit.
So, no, Obama is not consistent. Just like most pols, he uses arguments which he feels will help him win.
Now he is going to be the president and we will finally begin to see what he will actually take action on, work to implement.
Ought to be very interesting--I've never felt so completely that I had so little idea of how a candidate of my party would actually govern.
Yes. Her and Bill did a LOT for Obama on the trail. Part of good Government is diversity, and experience, Hillary may not please all the Obama hard core fans but she has been around and Bill did have the respect of the world. I think this gives Obama a jump start on the international scene.
No. Never. Gov Bill Richard should get this job hands down. He has proven himself over and over again. He has real relationships with world leaders and understands the issues.
Yes, when Obama was picking a VP candidate a lot people thought that Hillary made the most sense but I thought she'd make a better Secretary of State. This way she knows who she answers to and she doesn't think she is Oabama's partner. She'll do a great job b/c she can work within the confines of her job in his administration. I think any lingering bad feelings would also fade, as well. Moreover, she doesn't want to be on the supreme court - she wants to be in politics.
Yes! I think Hillary is a strong person with experience. I was Obama all the way for pres, and that being said I think Hillary has a lot to offer as Sec of State. I feel she will help women across the world and she understands international politics.
I don't undertand why people say Hillary has experience. Please, explain it to me. What has she done? One term as a minor member of a Senate committee? She went to China with other government wives to "view conditions"?
#75, I'm not talking about Obama. I'm talking about Hillary. I have my own problems with barak as well, but that has no bearing on Hillary's qualifications.
I still have not heard anyone tell me WHY Hillary is better qualified then Richardson, and how we are talking about her over one of the most respected world dignitaries. Name one European ally who gives Hillary more respect over Richardson and does not see her as the low blow campaigner she was during the primary.
#69--I was angry at Clinton for not voting against the AUMF. I didn't want her to run for president. However, she did give a very complete explanation of why she voted as she did. She stated she was not voting for war, but felt Bush needed the support of the Senate to force Saddam to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq. To the embarrassment of BushCo, the inspectors were allowed to do their work--until Bush ordered them out in order to invade.
And, had Bush based his decisions on facts -- instead of whatever was motivating his desire to get his war on -- the inspectors would have found absolutely no evidence of WMD and we would not have invaded. Her mistake, which I believe she did "cop to," was that she trusted Bush to be rational. He was not, is not--and he has done great and lasting damage to our nation.
But Biden supported the AUMF even more vociferously than Clinton. And now he's Obama's VP. Square that circle if you can.
Or, an alternative view ...
"keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer"
Perhaps it's a strategic move, to keep her in O's camp, rather than in what could become an oppositional role in the Senate (especially if she continues to hold 2012 ambitions).
If that's the case, he should choose a less dangerous place to offer her.
I agree with the comments above that Obama should hang on to one of his strongest assets, which is "not doing business as usual" - he should be looking for fresh, innovative faces and people that can think in new ways.
And, lest I be taken for a Hilary hater, I think that she's done a fine job as a NY Senator.
... sour and self-serving???
we need someone with integrity - not another manufactured crying jag.
No! Absolutely not. Her so-called qualifications do not impress me. I cannot believe there are no other qualified people available that can offer a new vision and a different way of thinking. I am very upset that she never apologized or questioned her vote on Iraq. How can someone who is so inflexible offer a new outlook on foreign affairs. My vote for Obama was a leap of faith in the belief that he had the courage to initiate real change. I am beginning to regret my vote for Obama with his appointments of Rahm Emanuel and others from the Clinton Klan.
NO way, she's just another war monger!
I think Hilary would be GREAT as Secretary of State! But what's the big deal as far as Bill's connections with world leaders (b/c of his foundations...) If there was a conflict of interest, wouldn't it be even more of a conflict if she were the President-elect? I don't get it!
Glenn
(ex-pat living in S. America)
NO!!!
Bill Richardson is far more qualified to be Secy of State than Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton has rock star status, but Bill Richardson has far more relevant work experience for this job.
AWFUL. Hilary has no official international experience(outside of first lady teas), a socialist wonk mentality and carries Bill's huge ego and $ millions in foreign pay-offs to their family.
Can't the genius Obama find and hire good talent, not 1990s retreads?
She could be Secretary of State, no doubt. But Hillary could best serve this country by taking a seat on the Supreme Court. In my ideal scenario she will stay in the Senate for now, and be appointed to the Court at some point during Obama's first term.
Hope I'm not dreaming too big, here!!!
No. During the campaign she vigorously fought Obama's approach to international relations and I don't think she would really change her thinking if she were Secretary of State. She has a whole different view of the rest of the world, and Obama's international understanding is a good part of the reason I have been so enthusiastic about him.
I, for one, suffer from "Clinton fatigue." Maybe we can find someone else for State.
NO. SHE IS NOT A FRIEND OF HIS. SHE DID EVERYTHING BUT PULL A SHIV ON HIM. SHE WAS ALSO HOLDING OUT FOR A LAST MINUTE MIRACLE,LIKE WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR J.F.K. SHE IS ALSO AN ADMITTED LIAR. IS THIS WHO WE WANT AT THE HEAD OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORE? MORE IMPORTANTLY, SHE VOTED FOR IRAQ, WILLING TO BOMB IRAN [SHOOT FIRST AND ASK QUESTIONS LATER MENTALITY], WAS AGAINST A CEASE FIRE IN LEBANON, WILL BE ANOTHER DISHONEST BROKER IN THE M.E. JUST WHAT NONE OF THE PARTIES OR THE REST OF THE WORLD NEEDS . A BETTER CHOICE, IN MY OPINION WOULD LEON PANETTA. 18 YEARS IN CONGRESS, CHIEF OF STAFF UNDER PRES. CLINTON, A MEMBER OF THE ''IRAQ STUDY GROUP, CURRENTLY A PROFFESOR IN SEASIDE,CA. A MAN OF GREAT WISDOM, INTEGRITY AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, A MAN OF PEACE. GEORGE MITCHELL HAS THE SAME QUALITIES.
No. The primary reason I did not vote for HRC, my Senator in NY, is that I believe her vote for use of force in Iraq was a political calculation that she thought would win her the white house. She never said she was wrong. BO won because he represents a change in direction in foreign policy. HRC is more of the same.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
1 | 2 | 3 | Next | Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.