What great news.
For some reason, I just can’t stop giggling. I wonder why?
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
Support Dean’s World
Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
What great news.
For some reason, I just can’t stop giggling. I wonder why?
{ 14 comments }
Because a frog in the middle of a river with a scorpion on its back is a funny sight?
Great news about Gates — lukewarm on Hillary. Not that I have Hillary Derangement Syndrome (well maybe a little). I just view her more as a political power grabber than a diplomat.
But, Hey, it could be worse!
HB
Obama gets the "big, rambunctious dog" he wanted.
(via Ann Althouse)
There’s two ways of looking at the Hillary pick. One is that it’s a purely tactical move intended to negate her as a potential source of opposition within the Democratic party by making her part of his administration. The other is that she’s got enough clout within the party and a well-established position to his right on foreign policy that giving her State will give him political cover (she spends her capital to sell the policies, and she takes much of the heat from the anti-war base)Â when he needs to govern to the right of the positions he ran on.
From a policy perspective, option 2 seems likely enough that I’m glad to see her nominated. From a qualifications perspective, I’m lukewarm; she strikes me as someone who could probably do the job competently, but she doesn’t have a diplomatic or managerial backgroud which makes me think she’s particularly likely to excel. But we’ve had purely political secretaries of state before, and they’ve generally done decent jobs.
Eric,
well, almost all of her positions from law partner to first lady to senator all involve some amount of both diplomacy and managerial duty. Â
Other than a former secretary of state, what type of person would you consider most qualified?  Is there someone Obama obviously looked over that makes Clinton’s appointment look obviously political rather than just that Obama thought she’s the best person for the job?  Obviously every political appointment is going to be based in part on politics (both of your guesses at Obama’s motivations are probably part of the whole truth), but it doesn’t strike me as a purely political pick.
There’s lots of ambassadors. I would go with John "the ’stache" Bolton, myself. I bet DKos would meltdown.
A diplomat or an academic foreign policy expert, particularly one who specializes in an area we expect to be a trouble spot. Or a retired general who’s worked well with important allies.
Of course, resume is no guarantee of performance. Rice, Powell, and Albright all had excellent resumes, and all of them were mediocre at best.
Of high-profile Democrats, the first name that leaps to mind as having a better resume to be Secretary of State would be Bill Richardson, who’s been a cabinet secretary before and was our ambassador to the UN for two years and was heavily involved in the Palestinian peace process.
Another strong-resumed candidate would be Wesley Clark, who was supreme allied commander of NATO for four years, although he has significant drawbacks as well (the Kosovo Airfield Incident doesn’t reflect well on him, and he’s been on the bench for eight years).
There are probably several other good candidates Obama could have picked whom I haven’t heard of because they haven’t had big-name political careers on top of their diplomatic experience.
Yes, senators and first ladies do pick up diplomatic experience. That’s why I said Clinton strikes me as someone who could probably do the job competently. She just doesn’t jump out at me as "Wow, that’s a great pick".
Clinton’s confirmation hearings could provide some high drama.  That’s a prime opportunity for Clinton enemies on the right AND the left to fluff the dirty laundry.  It’s kind of a “put up or shut upâ€, or maybe a “speak now or forever hold your peace†moment, and all of it on the record.
My take is that despite the hard left’s feverish hopes, both picks indicate… well, what Obama eventually admitted, which is that he’s not gonna do anything hasty. Which indicates to me he’s got more common sense than many of his supporters. He picked as his two most important foreign policy figures someone who voted for the Iraq liberation, and a key Bush administration figure. Since we were right to go into Iraq and we’re right to be there now, I’m very very happy to see all this.
And yes, I take some glee in the fact that Obama let the netroots think he was 100% on their side on Iraq, and just proved that he really is not and has no plans to be.
Both make me very happy. The second is much more childish than the first, but hey, I’m happy both ways.
I’m of the opinion that it’s Obama’s right to choose whomever he wishes for his cabinet and it’s the Congress’ job to pretty much give it a rubber stamp with little fanfare short of a pick being blatantly unqualified. I mean that with Supreme Court picks as well – even if I disagree with them ideologically.
In short: Obama deserves the kind of leeway and respect his office commands. The kind of respect his predecessor never got.
I quite agree, Kevin, although, I think the "advice and consent of the Senate" requirement of the Constitution means the Senate has the right to scrutinize judges a little more than cabinet secretaries and ambassadors.
I think Hillary has the potential to do a solid job at State. It all depends on where the bodies turn up.
I always thought Hillary would make a good secretary.Â
Ba dum bump, Ching…….
My take is that despite the hard left’s feverish hopes, both picks indicate… well, what Obama eventually admitted, which is that he’s not gonna do anything hasty. Which indicates to me he’s got more common sense than many of his supporters. He picked as his two most important foreign policy figures someone who voted for the Iraq liberation, and a key Bush administration figure. Since we were right to go into Iraq and we’re right to be there now, I’m very very happy to see all this.
I agree with you but not exactly for the same reasons. I believe he is proactively steering his administration away from a configuration that would result in a groupthink phenomenon. His picks show a good amount of prudence to be sure. We are going to be in Iraq when he takes office, and we may go to Afghanistan, Gates is really the only choice unless he declines or resigns, which I doubt will happen. Hilary is a political move I believe. What is interesting is she has to say yes or lose face. The gravy on top is she is probably qualified and will probably do a good job in any case.
Comments on this entry are closed.