I know my opinion does not count for anything, but I am not a big fan of Sen. Clinton's appointment to the post of Secretary of State. As Jon Stuart pointed out on the Daily Show last week, Obama and Clinton agreed on many issues, but one of their few arenas of disagreement was foreign policy. To offer her the Secretary of State position, then, seems rather calculating.
Furthermore, Clinton campaigned on domestic policy, not foreign policy. Her spare attempt to demonstrate foreign policy experience badly backfired as it was shown that she had not in fact entered Bosnia under fire. I don't see that Sen. Clinton has any coherent vision of foreign policy. She really should have taken HHS, but such is life. I was rooting for Richardson. I wonder if Dennis Ross will get his old job back. I know he reeeeally wants it.
My only hope is that she will resign from the position in 2012 in order to be able to begin campaigning in 2014.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
12 years ago
2 comments:
I'll be honest - almost everything you wrote I've been thinking myself. I'm not a huge fan of hers in general, but I would have thought her a much better fit for HHS (especially given her healthcare experience) than SoS. SoS could be detrimental given the past friction between her and Obama - a SoS needs to represent the president in all ways when meeting with foreign delegations. (Thomas Friedman write about this last week).
As for her running in 2016, she will be 69. While it's not impossible to run at 69 (McCain was 72), it is harder, and that's assuming her health holds up. There's also the issue of what she'll do in the interim period if she doesn't last at least 6 years. Looking back at the last few presidents, most did not have SoS' that lasted as long as they did. Gerald Ford was the last president to not have to appoint a second SoS during his presidency.
i wonder if the public/media/etc will take into account women's generally-longer life expectancies when evaluating an "old" hilary...
miriam
Post a Comment