Joe Klein wrote a great piece a few days ago about how Obama intends to model his Administration and his Cabinet after Abraham Lincoln's "Team of Rivals":
Obama has said he admires Doris Kearns Goodwin's wonderful Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals. "He talks about it all the time," says a top aide. He is particularly intrigued by the notion that Lincoln assembled all the Republicans who had run against him for President in his war Cabinet, some of whom disagreed with him vehemently and persistently. "The lesson is to not let your ego or grudges get in the way of hiring absolutely the best people," Obama told me. "I don't think the American people are fundamentally ideological. They're pragmatic ... and so I have an interest in casting a wide net, seeking out people with a wide range of expertise, including Republicans," for the highest positions in his government. ... "I don't want to have people who just agree with me," he said. "I want people who are continually pushing me out of my comfort zone." Obama said he'd be particularly interested in having high-ranking Republicans advising him on defense and national security. "I really admire the way the elder Bush negotiated the end of the Cold War -- with discipline, tough diplomacy and restraint ... and I'd be very interested in having those sorts of Republicans in my Administration, especially people who can expedite a responsible and orderly conclusion to the Iraq war -- and who know how to keep the hammer down on al-Qaeda."
What a contrast from the Bush Administration! It should be noted that it's virtually certain Obama will make good on this philosophy by retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. However, the philosophy also applies to his rivals within the Democratic tent. The best example is his selection of Joe Biden for Vice-president, who differed with Obama about the Iraq war. During the selection process, Obama noted that he was looking for a Veep who would disagree with him and force him to think "outside the box" and in Biden he has found exactly that.
Just like Biden (only far more successfully so), Hillary is literally a rival to Obama, and it was the strength of her challenge that readied Obama to face McCain in the general election. Likewise, the challenge of having her as Secretary of State will be an asset in and of itself for Obama - this is something that the progressive left doesn't seem to understand.
It is true that Clinton had been critical during the primary of Obama's willingness to engage in diplomacy with "rogue nations", but then she herself acknowledged she's engage in much the same thing. Neither Obama not Clinton were talking about personal sit-downs with Ahmadinejad, but rather engaging Iran using high-level diplmats and envoys (including, perhaps, the Secreary of State). It is also true that Clinton talked of "obliterating" Iran, but the context of that was in the hypothetical scenario of Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel (something that Iran lacks the capability to do, and which Iran would be deterred from doing even if it had that capability, partly because of strong and obvious-to-everyone statements of truth like Clinton's was). Clinton and Obama sparred on these controversies during the primary, but neither was as significant as those with an instinctual aversion to Clinton (or Obama, for that matter) claim.
All in all, Hillary is an inspired choice for Secretary of State, and there's a lot of arenas sorely neglected by the current Administration - most notably the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - where she stands to be able to bring a fresh approach and face to the diplomatic challenge ahead. It's good for the country and the world for her to be SecState, and it shows that Obama is serious about putting his Country First.

Add to Newsvine
I fully concur w/Dr. MacLeod's analysis about Sen. Hillary Clinton.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson would be, by far, a more wiser political choice. There are too many unanswered question marks in Sen. Clinton's background. Combining that along with former President Bill Clinton's lobbying and fundraising connections in the middle east, I believe this would be a serious conflict of interest.
I think Obama's commitment to assemble a team of rivals is admirable. However
Why are people so happy about HRC bashing? Could everyone please remember that there were millions who also clamored that she would be a good presidential candidate. I want her not for the SOS post. I believe she would be effective in galvanizing a bipartisan cooperation on legislative measures. I wish she would be a point person for the health care, climate change, and other issues within. SHE IS URGENTLY NEEDED not in foreign relations but for DOMESTIC CONCERNS.
I still fail to see why Hillary Clinton is "supremely qualified" for this position. She has no foreign affairs experience. This is like saying I would be supremely qualified to do my husband's job simply because I sleep next to him and listen when he answers the phone. With our reputation in the world so shattered and our global relationships needing to be rebuilt, I would much prefer someone with actual foreign affairs experience. I am not bashing Mrs. Clinton and I am certain there is a place for her in the Obama Admininstration, but this is not it. (In fact, I personally think she would be a fabulous Supreme Court Justice!)
if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or personal career plans, etc.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.