open Democracy News Analysis - Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?, Thomas Ash - Comments

Wang on "Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?"

Wang — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:08:14 +0000

Speaking of Hillary Clinton:

There is bad news about her husband.

It is opined that Bill Clinton committed racist hate crimes, and I am not free to say anything further about it.

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Y. Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are probably thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post.)
_________________
“If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Off the top of my head—it came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

Tribunus Plebis on "Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?"

Tribunus Plebis — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:27:17 +0000

Hillary Clinton at State does not represent a shift to the right for Barack Obama, because with some politicians, the past of what they've said is not a prologue for what they will do. Watching Hillary morph in her presidential campaign from Ms. Establishment Experience to Ms. Champion of the Working Class was enough to recognize that she's a politician less wedded to particular substantive stands than to political exigencies. When she voted for the Iraq war, the mainstream media were predicting that muscular position-taking on foreign conflicts would be a necessity for future election as president. In short, she's a situationalist. And her new situation will be -- if she becomes Secretary of State -- promoting Barack Obama's rebranding of American involvement in the world. The direction will come from him, the delivery from her. No Secretaries of State who have made history have done so while pulling the presidents they served away from their own ideals. She'll want to make history. He will not be pulled away from his ideals.

Thomas Ash on "Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?"

Thomas Ash — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:09:08 +0000

Yes, millions of people around the world did oppose the war before it started, but many seemed to do so for the wrong reasons, and were in no position to "sense it was a fraud". Plenty of liberals disagreed with them, e.g. most of the writers at the New Republic. But it's probably true that they didn't do their due diligence.

robertjb on "Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?"

robertjb — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:55:44 +0000

robertjb

I don't see how any liberal or anybody else could support that war as it was plainly a fraud long before it was started. Millions of people around the world also sensed this as there were the largest peace demonstrations ever prior to the war. I have concerns about Obama's appointments but what will be necessary is rigorous social activism at the grassroots level for those who want real change.

Hillary Clinton: a good Secretary of State?, Thomas Ash

Thomas Ash — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 11:16:12 +0000

A picture of Barack Obama's cabinet is starting to emerge, and it is not pleasing his more left-wing supporters. Some of them were already unhappy about the appointment of Clintonites like Rahm Emmanuel. Now, the New York Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton will almost certainly become Secretary of State. That is disturbing for some Obama supporters, who were told during the primaries that her foreign policy views disqualified her from the nomination.

How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.

Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.

However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.