Two journalists differ on Obama’s choice for Secretary of State

Selecting his former opponent is tactically smart

By Sabine Muscat

Not every man can tolerate a strong woman at his side. Apparently, Obama can. He had the courage to marry Michelle Robinson, a self-confident Harvard-trained lawyer who is his equal in intelligent conversation. Now he has the courage to pick Hillary Clinton. The newly elected U.S. President will select his most severe critic during the primaries to be his Secretary of State. That decision demands respect.

With that announcement, Obama fulfills his promise to select his cabinet without regard to political bent or personal considerations. Republican Robert Gates remains Secretary of Defense, and Obama has also concluded a party truce with his campaign opponent, John McCain. But the reconciliation with Hillary Clinton is the strongest signal of them all.

Clinton was no pushover during the primary campaign, nor was she a good loser. The one-time favorite for the nomination fought such a tough and dogged battle against Obama’s rise that it created a lot of bad blood between the two political camps. And Clinton had some good arguments: in the final analysis, nearly 18 million voters cast their ballots for her.

Many theorized that Obama would be forced to seriously consider Clinton as his running mate. He took a real gamble by not offering her the position. But in the end, he made it on his own and can now tender an offer from a position of strength. It’s now seen as a gesture of respect for a woman able to finish a strong second in the primaries. But the decision is also smart from a tactical viewpoint: rather than risk Senator Clinton possibly building a competitive center of power against him, he now makes her jointly responsible for his own project.

She does what’s expected of her

There are a lot of indicators that Hillary Clinton will accept that responsibility. Since the convention in August, the former First Lady has done exactly what she is known for: she gritted her teeth and remained silent. After a hesitant start, she became an enthusiastic supporter of Obama’s campaign. Why not, then, of his administration as well? She’s known in the Senate for her loyalty and willingness to cooperate, and her foreign policies are generally in accord with Obama’s.

One more plus: Clinton’s charisma. Although the argument that she visited over 80 nations as First Lady isn’t really relevant, it does play a symbolic role. She will be an impressive ambassador for her country. Developmental aid could take on a completely new tone under Secretary Clinton. If she wants to combine public with private aid, she need only ask her husband, whose financially powerful foundation was often pushed into the background by the Bush administration. Obama’s greatest coup could well be harnessing ex-President Bill Clinton’s bustling energy.

Clinton is the wrong woman in the wrong job

By Herbert Wetzel

Hillary Clinton is admittedly an intelligent woman with an impressive list of career accomplishments already behind her. She only missed being the Democratic presidential candidate by a hair. Now she is to be Secretary of State in her one-time rival’s cabinet. Not a bad consolation prize.

Barack Obama is by no means an unintelligent guy. We can assume he had other reasons for offering her the State Department. But whatever his reasons, Obama made a mistake. As Secretary of State, Clinton is the wrong woman in the wrong job.

That’s already apparent in the most popular explanation of why Obama made the decision he did; not because of foreign policy experience, but because of power politics. According to the “Team of Rivals” theory, Obama did the right thing by including his former – and perhaps future – rival in his cabinet, the better to control her. At the same time, Obama ensures the support of the hovering and occasionally peripatetic political giant, Bill Clinton. At least, that’s the theory. Loyalty by appointment – an age-old political deal.

But the State Department is probably the worst possible venue for that. Nothing damages foreign policy credibility and effectiveness more than tension between a head of state and a foreign minister. If the conclusion that Obama is pulling Clinton into his inner circle in order to avoid possible future disagreements is correct, that only confirms that he doesn’t trust her. And to a world that is placing so much hope in Obama’s future foreign policy, that’s a damaging assessment.

A pompous office for a woman with an enormous ego

There’s another consideration that speaks against Clinton: the position of U.S. Secretary of State is a pretentious office to begin with. The job is in the top five or ten most important in the world. To appoint a woman who – in the words of Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius – is driven by a “a big, hungry, needy ego,” is absurd. Obama doesn’t need a Secretary of State to explain world conditions to him; he already has a Vice-President and a whole team of experts capable of doing that. And he also doesn’t need a Secretary of State to repair America’s world image or to be America’s new face. He, himself, will take on that task.

What Obama needs is an unpretentious chief diplomat in whom he can place blind trust and who will, in the coming years, deal with the hundreds of details inherent in the un-sexy, day-to-day world of foreign policy. Someone who will transform foreign policy to reflect Obama’s vision and isn’t driven by the ambition to determine the course alone. Or to think she might even be a better President.

Whoever might fit that job description, it isn’t Hillary Clinton.