Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state
November 20, 2008
I think choosing Hillary would be a mistake. Not because of Bill. The new administration can choose to use him or not, regardless. The “two for the price of one” stuff is ridiculous: they are not exactly chained together. Equally, if Hillary were the best candidate for secretary of state, it would be absurd to deny her the offer because of Bill’s post-presidential connections. Scrutiny in future is really all that is required there.
No, the problem is that she is not a well-qualified candidate. She is not by any stretch of the imagination a foreign-policy expert. I don’t think I would call her a born diplomat. And her loyalties, to put it mildly, might be divided. Her first priority would be to advance her own presidential ambitions, not to help make the Obama presidency such a success that those hopes die. The “team of rivals” idea is wonderful so long as the rivals are fully invested in the success of the enterprise. In this case, it seems doubtful. Could Hillary defer to Obama, and carry out his instructions to the best of her ability? I doubt it. And it would not help that everyone would be watching for the first sign of friction or insubordination. The soap-opera dimension would be highly counter-productive.
I find Tom Friedman persuasive on this:
Foreign leaders can spot daylight between a president and a secretary of state from 1,000 miles away. They know when they’re talking to the secretary of state alone and when they are talking through the secretary of state to the president. And when they think they are talking to the president, they sit up straight; and when they think they are talking only to the secretary of state, they slouch in their chairs. When they think they are talking to the president’s “special envoy,” they doze off in midconversation.
What is Obama thinking, I wonder? That the party would be delighted? Yes it would, but so what: the election is already won. Or is it something to do with keeping your friends close and your enemies closer? (LBJ put it less delicately of course, but the metaphor does not really work in this instance.)
Tom Friedman’s disapproval is enough to make me think it a great idea.
Friedman always makes me slouch in my chair because he’s not a genuine journalist,just a mouthpiece for big-money special interests.
Friedman is a full-time aluminum-siding salesman for the Pentagon, doing odd after-hours jobs for Israel.
He has no idea of the best long-term interests of the United States or of the world.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | November 20th, 2008 at 12:33 am | Report this commentOr is it, as I suggested in a post on GR’s blog, part of a deal made with Hillary to buy her loyalty? Remember that during the primary, Hillary often sounded as if she thought McCain would make a better president than Obama, and not only at 3:00 am. Without an implied promise to offer Hillary this position, Lieberman might not have been the only Democrat (or crypto - Democrat) to defect, and Hillary’s support for Obama toward November 4 might have more resembled the support that Julius Caesar received from Brutus and Cassius on March 15 (figuratively speaking only, of course).
Posted by: algasema | November 20th, 2008 at 1:07 am | Report this commentI agree with John Chuckman regarding Tom Friedman. His book on his experience in the Middle East is good. I have not read his other books, but I find his NYTimes columns to be so superficial that I no longer read them.
I do not even understand the point of the quotation cited by Mr. Crook which has popped up in various venues in the media.
The Clintons simply refuse to leave the stage. Both have talent and still have something to offer, but their egos and apparent need to be in the limelight continually crowd out too many other talented people who have expertise in relevant areas, notably foreign affairs in this case.
Competence, independent thinking, ideally experience living in other countries, language skills, detailed knowledge of differing cultures and societies, integrity, courage, interpersonal skills and so on are of value, not political “star power”.
In addition, healthcare reform could use the talent of Senator Clinton who is clearly knowledgeable in the area as well as in a key position to influence legislation.
From the gossip communicated in the media, the Clinton “camp” seems to think that unless Senator Clinton is queen of all matters having to do with healthcare reform the task is not worthy of her. It is that kind of arrogance that turns people off to Senator Clinton, if not to former President Clinton.
President Clinton’s business activities, in addition to the shameless and endless speechifying for fees totalling hundreds of thousands of dollars each, in oil and gas enterprises, “consulting” and so on in Central Asia and who knows where else are likely to match President Clinton’s personal behavior in immorality, if they are ever revealed in full.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | November 20th, 2008 at 3:05 am | Report this commentIf I was Macduff would I send Lady Macbeth to London and Paris on my behalf?
Posted by: tim | November 20th, 2008 at 5:26 am | Report this commentLincoln filled his cabinet with rivals and he made it work.
Posted by: Billy Gillespie | November 20th, 2008 at 4:35 pm | Report this commentAbe Lincolin had a cabinet filled with rivals and he made it work.
Posted by: Billy Gillespie | November 20th, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Report this comment“Her first priority would be to advance her own presidential ambitions, not to help make the Obama presidency such a success that those hopes die.”
I’m inclined to agree with that. But I recognize that I might be wrong in this instance—though, really, the evidence is on Crook’s side in this assessment of H.C.
It shows that Obama–who may be attempting a calculated risk with such an idea—can also make serious mistakes (something which at this point should not come as a complete surprise even to those of us who recognize that his election, however it disappoints us, is and practically has to be far, far preferable to having seen McCain/Palin elected) and sometimes Mr. Crook can actually get something right.
A marvel!
Posted by: GRB | November 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm | Report this comment“Lincoln filled his cabinet with rivals and he made it work.”
Civil war is your idea of “making it work”?!?
Be patient, you may see “it work” again, then. By my reckoning though, that would not represent “making it work”.
Posted by: GRB | November 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm | Report this commentI gained a lot of respect for Clinton in the primaries and gave her my vote. But, I think her talents are better suited to the Senate than as Secretary of State and I hope she will consider where she can do her best work in making her decision.
I’m sure that it’s flattering to be asked to fill the Secretary of State role, but it’s wiser I think to stay where she can contribute and where her policy knowledge, negotiation skills, and influence will help pass legislation to benefit the country.
Posted by: annetta | November 20th, 2008 at 6:51 pm | Report this commentPut in charge of fighting all them pirates off Somalia.
Posted by: derek | November 21st, 2008 at 2:52 pm | Report this commentI am surprised that a substantive point has been ignored in the debate over HC’s competence.
How can she direct–much less take an interest–in the vast diplomatic workforce of the State Department if she displays the organizational ineptness of her campaign?
Posted by: Frederick Willman | November 21st, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Report this commentI agree completely with Clive that Hillary C is not well qualified to serve as secretary of state.
Posted by: James Canning | November 21st, 2008 at 9:52 pm | Report this commentShe seems to lack and understanding of the basic dynamics at work in the Middle East. I also agree with John Chuckman’s comments regarding Friedman of the NYT.
John Chuckman’s comment on Friedman is absurd. So a well-traveled American journalist/author (Friedman) has little idea of long-term US interests, but a Canadian resident in Toronto has superior perspective? What a terrifically foolish and irrational comment, thanks John!
Friedman has written extensively about the need to transform domestic US energy policy and Middle East policy. In other words, little of what Friedman has written is favorable to the status quo interests of powerful oil or defense lobbies. Friedman has also pointed out that American lobbying negatively impacts Israeli policy (as Israelis are more pragmatic and more willing to compromise than the US lobby).
So, John Chuckman strikes out again! Great work, John, better get back to the books, pal. If you want to get a graduate degree in idiocy, I won’t stop you (thanks to Berlusconi for this line), but your comments are a tremendous waste of space and time.
Posted by: Joseph | November 21st, 2008 at 11:46 pm | Report this commentSpeaking of not being equipped for the job. We have a president who was elected by the media controling the minds of the uninformed, the idealists who want a better world ( college students)but don’t yet have enough of life’s experience to know what that takes to achieve. A junior senator who barely made it through the first year before leaping to running for the presidency, come now, this country is in a whole mess of trouble. On the other hand if Mrs. Clinton gets to feisty, the (president) could always send her into the middle of a war torn mess where she could be kidnapped or worse. view www.howobamagotelected.com, it’s very interesting.
Posted by: Maurice manning | November 21st, 2008 at 11:56 pm | Report this commentThe thing about making Hillary Secretary of State is that in this position she would not be free to fundraise or keep finding reasons to be in early states like New Hampshire and Iowa, the things one has to do to lay the foundations of a presidential campaign. That’s why Secretaries of State don’t become presidential candidates.
Posted by: dfs | November 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 am | Report this commentI think both Thomas Friedman and you miss the point, Clive.
By selecting Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the premier cabinet role in his administration, he is telling everyone here and abroad that he trusts his abilities to define and articulate his own foreign policy - and, further, that he trusts that Senator Clinton will be loyal and effective in implementing his policy. Clinton is, after all, an experienced leader in her own right and knows that President Obama will value her contributions on the world stage.
This is, I think, the mark of a confident leader who does not need to surround himself with “yes-men,” unlike the current occupant of the White House.
As to “that’s why Secretaries of State don’t become presidential candidates,” Clive: you need to review your history books. Thomas Jefferson comes to mind.
Posted by: Dennis Berry | November 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 am | Report this commentI agree with the comments on Tom Friedman - the world is flat - a paragraph idea made into a novel not a work of political prose. However, I do think that Clinton will trump Obama with her self interests versus the interests of the country, and administration- he may be reading the book but this is not the team of rivals era..
the real question is who then should be on that short-list? would be good to see the top five rather than who should not be it..
Posted by: mitch | November 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 am | Report this commentAs Mr. Crook appears to be on the “I hate Hillary” bandwagon, it is probably difficult for him to make an effort to delve more deeply into Clinton’s qualifications for the job. He states that “to him, she is not a born diplomat”. And yet Ms. Clinton is well known for her diplomatic skills and ability to work successfully with people from opposing political views. Who knows what Mr. Crook means by Clinton not being a “foreign policy expert”. Given the depth and breadth of modern day U.S. foreign affairs, there’s not a human being alive on the planet who is an expert. She’ll do well.
Posted by: betty | November 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 am | Report this commentKeep your friends close and enemies closer. That is why such things are done.
Posted by: Dennis Kennedy | November 22nd, 2008 at 2:39 am | Report this commentFirstly, Let’s not be distracted by Friedman or anyone elses opinion. Most of us who have led can see this clearly for ourselves. Check your gut, just listen to the truth within. Does Hillary or Bill earn your respect, can they put Nation, Allegiance to a Leader, before themselves. Mine says never. Obama was a great campaigner, we know very little else about him, because his experience is limited. We sometimes assessed him by the company he kept, Ayers, Rezko, and well you know, but that has to be balanced by his superb campaign team. So his appointments speak more about his judgement. Maybe he got carried away by the fact that Axelrod helped the West Wing profile the ideal leader (Jimmy Smits character Matt Santos), remember he appointed his adversary (played by Alan Alda) to a senior position after he was the first ever Hispanic President elect. I think idealism won - the theme that Obama is big enough to build a tent that is above politics and can include former enemies.
Posted by: Tom Horgan | November 22nd, 2008 at 8:29 am | Report this commentIt would feel good if one could respect Hillary’s ability, but she can lie about serbian snipers with aplomb, and boast of was it 80 visits abroad but rarely in an official capacity. The world has gotten too used to liars in high places. Obama in playing the “I’m bigger than normal politics hollywood narrative” has shown him in my opinion to be naive. Hillary is not qualified, shows no real affinity for people, and will be nothing but awful to watch in foreign places. Bill would have been a better choice if only because he has the blarney and street smart intelligence. Perhaps the deal is that Bill has to always travel with her. Now that is true revenge. But what it does to further World relationships is hard to fathom. Obama you screwed up. Notch down your Messiah factor by a point please. BTW I am one who places my hope in you - be bold and be free of the past. Hillary still desires your job.
I agree Friedman is as flat as his book. I agree Clinton is not a loyal labrador. However she is forceful, a tough and respectable opponent, albeit power-hungry politician.
However, similar to bringing McCain onboard on 4 or 5 issues Obama has in common with his adversary (ethics reform, climate change, etc) to get things done, who is to say he has not done the same with Hillary when he proposed the job to her? It’s a matter of sitting down and going over the major issues, plans of action, strategy, and then letting her loose. At the same time he is able to bring his greatest political enemy close to him.
While I find this move somewhat risky I do not think it is as reckless or naive as some observe, given the caveats above. While he may state he could sit down “with America’s enemies” without preconditions I am sure he would list a few to Hillary. She wants the job, he wants her close, but nothing is for free.
Posted by: Joe the Plumber | November 22nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm | Report this commentVery good comments here.
“a well-traveled American journalist/author (Friedman)”
When I have occasionally heard Mr. Friedman speak on a television broadcast or when I last read his NYTimes column it seemed evident to me that he has spread himself too thin in regard to writing on topics which he cannot hope to have a firm understanding of. In addition his tone is inappropriately authoritative, i.e. “everything I write about has earth-shattering implications”.
Not credible. The quotation cited is to be an example of that in my humble opinion.
Regarding Senator Clinton, it looks like we will see within a few months how well she performs as Secretary of State. I find all the commentary regarding “keeping enemies closer” or “creating a team of rivals” unconvincing.
In any managerial/executive role, one wants unquestioned honesty, competence and knowledge in any of one’s colleagues/subordinates. Hard enough to find that without purposely appointing individuals who may lack those qualities.
I agree with the commenter above regarding former President Clinton who might offer more in that role for the reasons the person mentions. He is clearly a superb “networker” and politician, apparently also possessing remarkably detailed knowledge of most policy issues. Moot issue however.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | November 22nd, 2008 at 5:56 pm | Report this commentSpot on…I campaigned/raised $$$ for Bill in his first run for Pres—saw them upclose and personal…They can never put any agenda above thier own! She is a foul mouthed, guiltless liar! We know what he is!
This is either very brave of Obama in hopes of defusing them or niave. Either way we are screwed in foreign policy…MAYBE THE ECONONY IS THE MAJOR FOCUS….And the deviants slipped through!
Posted by: reagan | November 22nd, 2008 at 6:04 pm | Report this commentPr. Obama needs a non-neocon in the State Dpt.,and Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton, IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO,can energize that Dpt. , Diplomacy and the Intelligence Community, they could make it work:
a) a Conference with Pakistan,Afghanistan, the Tribes and all the Taliban factions,and if Bill Clinton goes, most if not all of these groups would show up, with a plan to build roads, plants,electric and mobile phone grid, hospitals and schools and trade,If P.Barak wants too, we could have a Peace and Trade deal in 12-18 months.
b) a new approach and dialog , with Commerce Sec.Richardson, on Fair and Honest Trade with Latin America , all of it, including Cuba, to break the absurd nonsense that we got now.
c) a new deal with Russia without neocon warmongering , and here we need a non- neocon like Hillary and Bill etal, to make a massive deal with oil and gas, the nuclear clean-up program, peace in Europe-Asia on energy and a new team work on the Arctic, where there are lots of natural resources that demand group work, it’s time !!!
d) Africa is waiting for another serious deal, they need security in all their roads and rails, ports and production sites,P.Barak and VP Biden can use the good works of Hillary, she knows how to do it, if she wants to!
e) the Middle East needs a strong hand, the spoiled extreme neocons stealing the land of the farmers in Palestine must end,we need the 2 State solution, Hillary could push the honest Israelis ready for Peace,who else can do this ?
Hillary Clinton is strong enough, with Bill on her side, to balance the neocons in the White House, like Emanuel,Geithner,Summers,Volcker, Axelrod,Lew,Barofsky, etc., etc., and find a way to push for real Energy Independence, these neocons dont really want this because that would mean the end of our national interest and constant worries and preocupation in the Middle East, if we become Energy Independent we can kiss the Middle East good bye, and these neocons are terrified of this, they make billions a year while we need their energy and with only one ally in the region, they have made a huge business out of this.
Hillary Clinton, and Bill, can be a great asset for America at State, Pr.Obama is a cut above.
Posted by: finacialtools@gmail.com | November 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm | Report this commentHillary Clinton as secretary of state will be all too likely to subscribe to right-wing Israeli militarist propaganda regarding the supposed “threat” Iran represents, when there is no evidence that Iran even harbors the desire to have a nuclear weapons program. Iran has a right to nuclear power to generate electricity.
Posted by: James Canning | November 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 pm | Report this commentI agree with Wendell Murray. Barack Obama was elected president, not Hillary. Let him choose his own secretary of state. Not that Hillary would be all that bad. She is a very talented, intelligent and accomplished woman. But would she be the best person to run the State Department? And can she really “decouple” herself from Bill (politically speaking, of course)? My vote would go to Bill Richardson, who has experience negotiating with North Korea, about the toughest assignment anyone can get.
On the other had, Richardson, because of his Latino background, would have been a much better choice to head the Department of Homeland Security, instead of Janet Napolitano, who as governor of Arizona, signed the harshest anti-immigrant law of any state in the US.
Our new president had better pay less attention to appeasing the Clintons and more attention to addressing the concerns of Latinos and other victims of the current anti-immigrant reign of terror being carried out by the Immigration and Customs Enforcemnt (”ICE”) arm of the DHS if he hopes to have a second term.
Posted by: algasema | November 23rd, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this comment[…] Clive Crook, the Financial Times’ Washington correspondent agrees with Friedman. Crook also says that that Hillary will not make a good Secretary of State because of the lack of trust between Obama and her. ‘Will Hillary defer to Obama, and carry out his instructions to the best of her ability?’ Crook asks and answers in the negative. Crook adds that he does not think Hillary is a well-qualified candidate or a foreign-policy expert or a born diplomat. […]
Posted by: 1990: Pastor Hossein Soodmand, apostate | bhutto | December 22nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm | Report this commentSome how Mrs. Bill Clinton has figured out a way to not go to jail in Arkansas, somehow come from New York to become a senator, and has now wormed her way into trying to become secretary of state. Will this woman stop at nothing to further her career, she could care less about our country, just about herself. As a person who was born and raised in New York, I am ashamed to have her as a senator, I lived in Arkansas when Bill Clinton was the Governor and have to say it was the most backwards state I have ever lived in and she was never even heard about, except for the scandal after wards. Health reform, never happened until her husband was president, I guess the people who lived in Arkansas were not good enough for her until it fit her needs to be known. She is like an infection that you take antibiotics for but just can’t get rid of. She just keeps coming back to fulfill her own self indulgent need to be someone. On my end of the stick, I still can’t find a job, my property taxes have gone up and the woman who screamed that Obama was going to pay her bills is gone. Please tell me what in the heck the democrats are doing for us, I thought they could fix what was wrong with the country in like 2 days, as far as I can see, it is still getting worse, but I guess Mrs. Bill Clinton will fix everything (Since apparently we didn’t vote for her). Nothing like spit, superglue and duct tape to fix any issue of the country. If we want the country to be stagnate, by all means throw her more money and a better job when no one else can get that in the country, break the constitution, go against the will of the entire country. This will make the presidency legitimate to all of us. Break whatever rules you need to in order to get what you want, sends a great message to our young people. The perfect way for our first black president to be. I am ashamed!
Posted by: Kimberly | January 1st, 2009 at 10:48 pm | Report this comment