Bad Thoughts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-01-08 06:39 PM
Original message |
|
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 06:40 PM by Bad Thoughts
Let me speculate a little. I'm not a fan of Clinton, but I respect her skills and her ability to work with complex organizations. Though I'm not impressed with her credentials for diplomacy, I think that she brings enough political capital and know-how to reshape the State Department after a decade (perhaps more) of neglect. She has the tools to succeed in the position. But how will she operate?
What is being overlooked is that she won't be in as influential position as some might think. The Sec. of State has been, after Kissinger, the third most influential part of the President's cabinet and staff, following NSA and Sec. of Defense. Defense has greater resources, a greater budget, more manpower, and as many connections to foreign leaders as State. The centrality of Afghanistan and Iraq have enhanced the diplomatic importance of Defense. Changing the balance will take a lot of work for Clinton, with generous support from Obama.
Overall, Obama's nominations are impressive, and in terms of diplomatic knowledge and experience, Clinton could be crowded out (though with difficulty). Gates, Jones and Rice (elevated to cabinet position) could have significant sway over foreign policy matters. If he is made part of the Cabinet as well, Richardson will be able to summon a hefty voice in international relations (even from Commerce). Calling this a "national security team" tends, moreover, to shift the emphasis away from State: it supports the notion that the purpose of foreign policy is to protect the country.
I tend to think that going rogue will be less of a problem. Instead, I wonder whether she will feel constrained in her new position. Can she work with the "team of rivals"?
|
PeaceNikki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-01-08 06:47 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Not only do I think that she can work with a team of rivals, I think she will thrive. |
|
I strongly believe that with these "recycled Clinton era" picks, we'll see a good mix of experience with new leadership fueled by a real chance to make real change.
I'm excited about it all.
|
Bad Thoughts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-01-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Recycling is the future |
|
Edited on Mon Dec-01-08 06:54 PM by Bad Thoughts
I don't understand this critique either. Clinton-era people are not clones of the Clintons, and many are talented and experienced. It's so much better than the "intellectuals" George appointed.
|
ProSense
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-01-08 06:51 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Here is one person to watch: |
lamp_shade
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-01-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:29 AM
Response to Original message |