PRESIDENT-ELECT Barack Obama’s Cabinet appointments have been overwhelmingly Clintonian, a move that has made many Republicans very nervous in Washington and has them saying “I told you so” when asked about the apparent lack of bipartisanship that he has exhibited in the appointment process so far. The truth is that Obama has made it easy for Republicans to make their case. As of Nov. 20, more than half the people named so far to Obama’s transition or staff posts have ties to former President Bill Clinton’s administrations. In consideration of such a high number of Democratic appointments and because of Hillary Clinton’s incompatibility with the position, Hillary Clinton should not be the 67th Secretary of State.
Obama has appointed Clintonian Democrats to very high cabinet level positions. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was the first significant appointment Obama made. Not only was Emanuel a close advisor to Clinton, but his hard-nosed approach to politics has led some Republicans to state openly that he represents the complete opposite of bipartisanship. Obama’s nomination of Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno in Clinton’s second term, hopes to place yet another Clintonian Democrat in a major Cabinet position. Peter Orszag, appointed by Obama to head the Office of Management and Budget, worked for Clinton as a special assistant at the National Economic Council and served on Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors as well. Democrat Tom Daschle, Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, negotiated a deal whereby he will also serve as the White House health “czar,” which means that Daschle (not White House staffers) will be writing Obama’s much anticipated health care plan.
As a result of these high level selections, conservative news anchors have had a field day talking about how such a plethora of Democratic appointments has made a mockery out of the grand promise of change that Obama reiterated so vigorously during his presidential campaign. The issue of whether these aforementioned individuals have the capacity to promote bipartisanship and initiate change is of course debatable, but the political and individual unsuitability of Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State is not.
The first issue to address is her lack of legitimate experience in diplomatic relations. Because the Secretary of State is widely recognized as the most prestigious job in the Cabinet, I find it extremely hard to justify why it should be held by a woman whose foreign policy experience was once dismissed by Obama as consisting of having tea with ambassadors. While I anticipate that Hillary fans will insist that she harbors a unique potential that renders her inexperience irrelevant, being Secretary of the State requires much more than her acknowledged political savviness and is not something an individual should learn on the fly.
Aside from her inexperience, Obama and Clinton lack the capacity for the intensely strong personal partnership that is invaluable to the effectiveness of a President-Secretary of State relationship. Although swept under the rug for the sake of uniting against John McCain, the extreme and often awkwardly harsh tension between Obama and Hillary during the Democratic primaries strongly suggests that their relationship in the Cabinet has the potential for significant discordance. In fact. on no other issue were Obama and Clinton more critical of each other during the primaries than on how best to direct America through an increasingly dangerous world. At one point Clinton said that Obama’s understanding of international relations began and ended “with a speech he gave in 2002.” Such discordance would be regrettably inimical to the ambitious foreign policy agenda that Obama has laid out for his administration. History has shown us that the strength of a Secretary of State rests primarily in his or her ability to be recognized globally as someone who is speaking with the direct and undisputed authority of the President. It is very difficult to explain how two individuals who have opposed each other so virulently on the issue of foreign policy will achieve the level of concurrence necessary to execute effective and productive diplomatic teamwork.
Lastly, her appointment would be a particularly harsh slap in the face to all Republicans who have heard Obama promise repeatedly that he would be moderate in his Cabinet selections. Any Democrat but Hillary Clinton will be received much more warmly by a very disappointed and increasingly intransigent Republican Party. Although Obama will most likely appoint Republican Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, this gesture is far too weak and sends the message to his counterparts across the aisle that he thinks that they are good for only one thing: defending the country. Not only is Hillary personally unqualified for and incompatible with the demands of the position of Secretary of State, but her induction will alienate Republicans in a way that is destined to undermine Obama’s grand plans for future bipartisanship.
Jed Crumbo’s column usually appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at j.crumbo@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
