NYT, Gail Collins: Hillary for Secretary?

[DeepModem Mom]

Hillary for Secretary?
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 15, 2008

....On Friday, a speaker at the City University of New York Women’s Leadership Conference mentioned the story about Hillary’s possible appointment and several hundred women burst into applause. All around the country, the news reminded old Hillary supporters of a nagging pang of disappointment, the feeling that the great election bandwagon had left something behind.

Good luck telling them that it’s actually going to be John Kerry.

While there are many excellent arguments for offering Clinton the job, one of the best is that until now, Senator Kerry was supposed to be the front-runner for State. Does that sound right, people? When one is out searching for the nation’s top diplomat, does it make sense to pick a guy who gets low scores in sociability? Although Kerry has many excellent qualities and his children appear to be very fond of him, if there was a contest for Senator You Would Least Want to Have a Cup of Coffee With, he would be a good bet for top 10. Politicians often brag that they never forget a name, but Kerry is one of those guys who can’t even remember a face.

Clinton is the exact opposite. Plunk her down anywhere and she’ll catch sight of somebody who she met at the Conference of Concerned Problem-Solvers and engage them in a spirited dialogue on what’s going on with that muskrat preservation project in East Engorvia. And she can do that abroad, too, since — as was mentioned a time or two during her campaign — she has already visited 82 countries. True, there’s 112 countries to go before she runs the table. All the more incentive for her to make sure Obama gets a second term. And on a slightly more elevated level, there’s the fact that the rest of the world would be thrilled with her appointment. She would give our diplomatic outreach a power and gravitas that it hasn’t had for years.

I know, my little Obama hyperpartisans. You spent a year of your lives trying to keep Hillary out of the White House because she voted to let the Bush administration invade Iraq. And now, your man is talking about letting her be the point person on foreign policy. What happened to the transformative change?

We have been through all this before. Candidates who promise to bring everybody together are talking about meeting in the middle. The only people who think Barack Obama is a radical are you and Joe the Plumber....

***

Here are four good reasons why Hillary Clinton would be a great pick for secretary of state:

1. She would not let the vice president run our foreign policy. Joe Biden is no Dick Cheney, but we just do not want to go there again. We have scars.

2. Obama could live out his fantasy of following the Abraham Lincoln model and filling his cabinet with a team of rivals without having to make Sarah Palin secretary of commerce.

3. Clinton already has a supply of pantsuits sufficient to get her through six months of peace negotiations in the Middle East without coming home for a change of clothes.

4. She might do a terrific job.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/opinion/15collins.html?hp

[JoFerret]

1. This line was amusing

<Plunk her down anywhere and she’ll catch sight of somebody who she met at the Conference of Concerned Problem-Solvers and engage them in a spirited dialogue on what’s going on with that muskrat preservation project in East Engorvia.>

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yeah, she's a details person. She ran for prime minister, Obama ran for president. nt

[JoFerret]

3. Congratulations

You have been spared the effort to run as wooden spoon.

[lapfog_1]

4. So much like the primary season

belittling and condescending.

"my little Obama hyperpartisans"...

She LOST. Obama won the nomination, beating your "gal", and he won the Presidency. In a landslide.

So STFU already. If Obama chooses to let her serve as Sec State, it's his choice... but I think cooler heads will prevail and it won't happen. And to blame the last eight years of failure (even partially) on the OFFICE that Dick Cheney held is simply naive. Does she believe than if Cheney had been, say, SecDef that he wouldn't have done all the shit that he did? How does the author KNOW that Joe Biden won't weigh in on foreign policy matters? Joe has more experience in foreign policy than either Obama or Hillary. Joe would be my first pick to chair a foreign policy meeting. But that's Obama's call now, isn't it? He already telegraphed how much he thinks of Biden v. Clinton, no?

Besides, how would the SecState "not let" Biden run foreign policy, if Obama wishes otherwise?

She might do a terrible job. The middle east will not trust her, not because she is a woman, but because of her public support for AIPAC and Israel for all these last 8 years. Her public statements on this subject will come back to haunt her.

BTW, this is aimed at the author, not the OP. But the author is every bit as much the "hyper partisan" that she accuses something like the 3 million Americans that donated to the Obama campaign of being.

This is so much like the "Hillary for VP" crap that happened between the primaries and the convention. It's stupid and divisive. What happens if she doesn't get the job, will it then be "Hillary for Undersecretary of the Interior! She sure won't run the Rural Development Department like Thomas Dorr did! Take THAT OBamabots!"

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Gail Collins was actually quite critical of Hillary throughout the campaign....

and leaned much more toward Obama. I think here, like Dowd so much of the time, she's trying to be clever.

[lapfog_1]

13. She lost me at "little".

Not very clever to alienate a significant portion of the readership.

BTW, can someone explain to me... now that the Presidential runs are over and we have elected a new President, can someone please explain why Hillary? Why not Barbara Boxer? She has done more in her career than Hillary has, served our country longer, has a much more progressive stance on almost any issue than Hillary, and is as strong a defender of Women's Rights as anyone. Why the reaction now for Hillary instead of Boxer (or pick another candidate of your choice)?

I don't see the logic. I really don't.

[rvablue]

11. Every single politician in the United States has their lips firmly planted on AIPAC's ass

I'm not saying it is right, I'm saying it is a political reality.

John Kerry is no different: http://www.njdc.org/media/entry/john_kerry_and_israel_the_record

If Hillary's policy stances are going "come back to haunt her" are Kerry's policy stances -- more or less identical -- going to come back to "haunt" him, too?

And do you happen to remember when Hillary took major flack for merely kissing Arafat's wife on the cheek.

[lapfog_1]

16. I'm not a fan of Kerry for SecState.

Though it wouldn't bother me as much as it seem to bother the author.

I understand he speaks something like 7 languages.

He would seem to be a match for the stiff, formal world of the diplomatic corp. But he does not match what I imagine an Obama Presidency would seem like. Approachable, friendly, down to earth without being artificial.

I think a Bill Richardson would be a better pick. Would improve our relations with Latin America by a significant margin, and something tells me we are going to be needing them to be on our side even more than they have been.

I don't think Bill is a big AIPAC supporter, but he might be. I'm pretty sure he hasn't threatened Iran with nuclear annihilation as Hillary has. In fact, his ideas on Iran closely match what Obama said about Iran in the campaign.

[rvablue]

17. Yep, Richardson has his lips planted firmly on AIPAC's ass too:

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/articles?id=0083

Sorry....on this issue they are all the same.

[lapfog_1]

19. I think you need to watch a few videos.

they certainly are NOT all the same.

Start with this thread and watch the videos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7874261

If after watching, you think Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson share the same view regarding Iran, then there is nothing I or anyone can say to convince you.

[rvablue]

20. I didn't say they had the same view on Iran....but what AIPAC wants AIPAC will get

It's just a political rally.

Any politician that has gone against there wishes has been ruined.

[ProSense]

18. How preposterous.

What the hell is wrong with supporting Irael? There is a difference between supporting Israel with reasoned thinking and supporting it via pandering. Did Kerry vote for cluster bombs? Did he vote for Kyl-Lieberman? Does he go around threatening to obliterate Iran?

[rvablue]

21. I didn't say there was anything wrong wtih supporting Israel, I merely was pointing

out that there is nothing unusual about Hillary's relationship with AIPAC and Kerry's and Richardson's relationship with AIPAC, which was the idea being forwarded in the post I was commenting on.

If you look at my post there isn't one mention of cluster bombs, Kyl-Leiberman or Iran.

[TexasObserver]

6. I agree with most of the author's opinions.

I've never liked Hillary, but she showed this year that she is much more than Bill's wife, more than an ambitious junior senator. She proved that she is a force to be reckoned with, a tireless politician with a populist touch, well versed in the foreign policy of the USA.

Obama is a star around the world, but so is Hillary Clinton. In their wildest dreams, foreign countries do not have a Hillary Clinton showing up as the US SoS. She would put a public face on American foreign policy the likes of which we haven't seen in 30 years.

I like her for this job and think she will exceed all expectations. I think she was born for the job.

[KittyWampus]

10. She proved she is incompetent in management. Her campaign was an utter disaster.

Being SoS has nothing to do with being a "star".

[TexasObserver]

12. Who's talking about her campaign except you?

your dissenting opinion is noted

thanks for sharing

[KittyWampus]

14. Her campaign is part of her RECORD OF EXPERIENCE- what one uses to determine whether someone

is qualified for a job. Their record of experience.

See how simple that was?

I could then go on to point out her relative LACK of experience when it comes to international diplomacy as well as compared to any number of more qualified individuals.

Saying she's visited over 80 countries is akin to saying you know foreign policy because you can see Russia from your house.

[Sensitivity]

7. Kerry is THOUGHTFUL, MEASURED AND PRINCIPLED -- bad qualities for Nations Diplomat??

Author's comments on Kerry reveals nasty irrational bias.

[ProSense]

8. Lies too:

...Kerry is one of those guys who can’t even remember a face.

The author is willing to stretch the truth to make a point. Funny, she didn't mention this truth: most of Hillary's statements on foreign policy have been proven to be exaggerations.

[KittyWampus]

9. What delusional bullshit. Hillary Clinton is so UNDER-qualified for the job of SoS it's insane to

contemplate seriously.

Note- I said UNDER qualified and not UN qualified.

There are so many other people MORE qualified than Hillary it just adds to the stupidity of discussing her potentially holding the position.

Secretary of State isn't a job you give to someone as a political plum or to make a constituency feel good.

Especially since things are so screwed up globally.

Furthermore,

The job isn't about being warm and cuddly and handing out cookies. It involves a huge Department with Budgets. Hillary couldn't manage her own POTUS campaign.

And then there's the elephant in the room being Bill Clinton's massive conflicts of interest.

[galaxy21]

15. I think Hillary will take it

I don't think she's interested in spending the rest of her life in the senate anyway, and it keeps her in the public eye, which might help with a possible 2016 run for president.