The Case Against Hillary
David Ignatius
WashPost
Yes, I know the "Team of Rivals" argument for Hillary Clinton as the ideal secretary of state for the Obama administration. But before it’s a done deal, let’s consider the counter-argument that this crew could prove to be a “Ship of Fools.”
In questioning whether Clinton is the right person for Foggy Bottom, I am not in any way disagreeing that she should have a big voice in the administration and in the nation’s future. She would have made an outstanding vice president (or president, for that matter), and she would be a sublime Senate majority leader. It’s easy to imagine her as the legislative architect for Obama’s domestic agenda. That’s a role she has been preparing to play her whole life.
But she’s an unwise choice for secretary of state, and here’s why:
The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper “Le Monde” carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: “Happy New Century!” You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.
Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options.
(More here.)
WashPost
Yes, I know the "Team of Rivals" argument for Hillary Clinton as the ideal secretary of state for the Obama administration. But before it’s a done deal, let’s consider the counter-argument that this crew could prove to be a “Ship of Fools.”
In questioning whether Clinton is the right person for Foggy Bottom, I am not in any way disagreeing that she should have a big voice in the administration and in the nation’s future. She would have made an outstanding vice president (or president, for that matter), and she would be a sublime Senate majority leader. It’s easy to imagine her as the legislative architect for Obama’s domestic agenda. That’s a role she has been preparing to play her whole life.
But she’s an unwise choice for secretary of state, and here’s why:
The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper “Le Monde” carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: “Happy New Century!” You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.
Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home