Blogs and Stories
Don’t Do It, Hillary!
The job of secretary of state is full of political hazards for the junior senator of New York.
Hillary Clinton has a pretty good life. Sure, she’s not president, but neither are most people. What she is is New York Senator for Life, heir to an illustrious tradition that runs from Aaron Burr to Robert Wagner to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. She’s already just about the most powerful person in the senate, and if she wants to formalize that status and become majority leader one of these years, she has an excellent chance. Who knows: She might even make it back to the White House. After all, Barack Obama’s meteoric rise is the exception: Most politicians—Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I—need to lose a presidential bid or two before they finally win. Hillary still has time. In eight years, she’ll be younger than Reagan was when he entered the White House, and younger than McCain is now. (Something that can’t be said for, say, Joe Biden).
Solving the Kashmir crisis might win you the Nobel Prize. But it won’t win many votes in Portsmouth.
All of which raises a question: Why on earth would she want to be secretary of state? First of all, the job is an awful launching pad for the White House. It’s true: long-serving senators don’t have a great track record of winning the presidency, but they’re practically shoo-ins compared to secretaries of state. The last former secretary of state to even seek the presidency was Alexander Haig in 1988, and his candidacy was a joke. To find a former secretary of state who actually won you have to go back 150 years, to James Buchanan. There are reasons for this. The job of secretary of state offers little opportunity to till the fields of American politics: to go to Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners in Sioux City or slip a little campaign money to the guy running for state senate in New Hampshire. It forces you to turn your energies away from domestic issues, which is what Americans usually vote on, and towards international questions that many find exotic and obscure. Solving the Kashmir crisis might win you the Nobel Prize. But it won’t win many votes in Portsmouth.
Besides, secretaries of state aren’t meant to be politically popular. They’re not supposed to burnish their approval ratings; they’re supposed to take bullets so presidents can burnish theirs (See Powell, Colin). A stint at Foggy Bottom isn’t likely to boost Hillary’s image, and once she left the position—probably after four years, if tradition is any guide—she would be politically homeless, without a job that keeps her in the national eye, and from which to launch a presidential bid.
Fine, you say, she doesn’t want to be president. Running the foreign policy of the world’s lone superpower is exciting enough. Except that secretaries of state don’t generally run American foreign policy anymore. They used to, in the first half of the last century, when giants with names like Root, Stimson, Hughes, Hull, Marshall, Acheson and Dulles roamed the executive branch. But since about 1960, a newer, feistier breed—the National Security Advisor—has changed all that. Located in the White House, and unencumbered by a big, slow bureaucracy, the need to regularly testify before Congress and the burdens of frequent foreign travel, NSC advisors often eat secretaries of state for breakfast: McGeorge Bundy vs. Dean Rusk; Henry Kissinger vs. William Rogers (that one was downright painful); Zbigniew Brzezinski vs. Cyrus Vance; Anthony Lake (and his influential deputy Sandy Berger) vs. Warren Christopher; Condoleezza Rice vs. Colin Powell. There are exceptions, of course, powerful secretaries of state like George Schultz or James Baker or Rice today. But it’s usually because the National Security Advisor isn’t in the job long enough to develop real clout (as under Reagan, who went through them like Kleenex) or because the secretary of state has an unusually intimate relationship with the prez, which isn’t the case here. Hillary is tough, smart and incredibly hard working, but as secretary of state, the bureaucratic deck would be stacked against her.
And it gets worse. Secretaries of state were struggling even before the vice presidency—historically a dish rag of a job—got a steroid injection. With Al Gore and Dick Cheney and now, almost certainly, Joseph Biden wielding real foreign policy muscle, decision-making is becoming even more centralized at the White House. NSC advisors pop into the Oval Office all day, often alone. Vice presidents, if they have the president’s trust, have tons of opportunities to whisper in his ear when no one else is around. Secretaries of state, by contrast, often only see the president in big, scripted meetings, where they have to compete for time with the director of CIA.
So forget whether Obama should want her. Hillary shouldn’t want it. If Barack pops the question, Hillary should suggest Colin Powell instead. He knows what a great gig secretary of state is.
Peter Beinart is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
China's Upper Hand
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
The Dems' Smart Abortion Move
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
The Myth of the Wall's Fall
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
When has Hillary Clinton ever let a potential political hazard stop her from doing the right thing for the country? Go, Hillary, go!
Another point to add to this well-argued piece: As SoS, you serve at the President's pleasure. Yes, there'd be a fuss if she got fired, having failed to solve the impossible Hamas-Hezbollah squeeze on Israel on way home from running Mugabe out of Zimbabwe, etc. But that would die away, as did the protests from her supporters threatening to vote for John McCain in numbers enough to make a difference.
Seems it's a false premise to say she has "an excellent chance" to become Senate Majority Leader unless by "one of these years" the author means "around 2016." "Change" is a foreign language in the Senate, even in the Obama era. But she could really change the Secretary's office, using that bully pulpit to explain the challenges of the world to American audiences. It's not hard to think out of the box and see that she could both support Obama's policies and position herself for 2016 from Foggy Bottom.
The previous experience of potential presidents in the past is not much of a guide to whether or not someone could be elected president today. Rapid changes in our 24 hour media culture make many different backgrounds possible for future presidents.
As Sec'y of State, Hillary will be a major international figure and well poised for a White House bid in 2016. It would be great to have someone so respected all over the world as our S of S. Sure she's got a good job in the Senate, but she's a mover and shaker and is ready to play on the world stage.
It would be better for Obama to have Hillary in his cabinet
rather than in the senate positioning herself for 2012.
Hill and Bill Secretaries of State !
From this article it seems like Obama is baiting Clinton's ambition for power and putting her in a position where she would make a somehow less-viable candidate for office in 2012? This doesn't make sense.
this is a smokescreen : HC is not fit for secretary of state,Obama's techinque. he probably met with HC to discuss gov.richardson's resume : candidate for secretary of state and I think we can count on her saying ' no way '...get ready for a surprise!!!
For this country, we need Hillary! What's so bad about having a smart diligent woman working for this country as secretary of state? And, Hillary has been around for a long time with her own experience, and being Bill's wife, there will have to be a definite deference toward her. For Barrack to want someone so high profile as her in his cabinet, there is a reason. He wouldn't be stupid enough to have her come into his cabinet to do busy work(because he can't), he wants her in the cabinet because he knows what her worth is. He knows he can definitely use her adcvice. And I don't think being a secretary of state will hurt her chances if she decides to run again for president. She's been around a long time so we know what she stands for. Her and Bill have been championing for the working and middle class their whole working career. We know her well.
"From this article it seems like Obama is baiting Clinton's ambition for power and putting her in a position where she would make a somehow less-viable candidate for office in 2012? This doesn't make sense." Yes, it makes clear political sense, and thus she should be wary. I hope she rejects the offer, reforms our health care, and runs for president again.
Hillary, I love you, but....NO! I want her in the Senate. I think she has too much of her own political power to be a good Sec. of State. Bill Richardson, OTOH, has actual foreign policy credentials and isn't going to a rival to the President for political power.
Our country, and for thar matter, the rest of the planet can't wait to be recussitated. We need the best at all positions and levels of government now! Both here and abroad. If Hilary can do more to help repair the disaster, we all face, as SOS then she should do it. Believe me, she knows where she can be the most effective and that's where you're going to find her.(other than as current Pres.)
It is argued that a Secretary of State has not been elected since Buchanan, but can anyone tell me the last time a mixed mutt (like myself) was elected President? Maybe my history is failing me but I'm pretty sure that hasn't happened. Hillary Clinton Sec State wouldn't be a death knell for her, hell if anything it will boost her even more.
Alright, first off, who cares about Hillary Clinton's political agenda for the future? Why is there this obsession with the far flung future? Right NOW is what matters. If Obama wants Hillary to be his foreign policy bulldog then so be it. The next few years is going to be a very real shit storm, our team on top should be as strong as it can be.
When Mr. Beinart & The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman for President in 2004, he pretty much lost his credibility. That was a really crazy thing to do, but now I can see he has found his bearings. The only thing wrong with this article is that it doesn't go far enough. There is no concieveable reason Senator Clinton should have the job. She is a great Senator and a fromidable Presidential candidate, but she has no qualifications or gravitas to be Sec. of State. I would really hate to see the Obama Presidency get of on the wrong foot by a silly and inappropriate appointment to a serious post.
Maybe were looking at 4 years Secretary of State, followed by a job swap with Biden for four years as the VP launching her into her presidential bid in 2012.
Go Beinart, go. I knew Elihu was right. Great piece.
To judge wether being SoS diminish your chances of becoming Pres you should include in your calculation that there are 100 Senators at a time but only 1 SoS - so it is just a matter of statistics that you don't have a lot of SoS becoming POTUS . With this in mind, I would argue that the probability for a SoS to get the top job is better then for a Senator.
Hillary should definitely NOT accept the job of Secretary of State, where Barack Obama becomes her boss, and places her in a position where she shoulders the blame for his policy mistakes. She's far better off as New York's senator. Who cares about Obama's personal agenda anyway?
The Clintons bother me on a human level. There is something sinister or other-worldly in their psych,in their souls,if you will.
Bill molested a handicapped intern with a cigar on the living room couch. Hillary didn't kick him to the curb, codependency is a serious mental illness. I voted for OBAMA not Clinton 2.0
I not sure why Hillary as SOS makes more sense than say Bill Richardson who actually has some experience in that area with his stint as U.N. Ambassodor and pretty good record dealing with foreign countries. Why not Hillary as Secretary of Denfense instead? She is a member of the Senate Comittee on Armed Services and everything I have heard is that she has done a good job there and actually has command of the issues on defense. That would make much more sense in my opinion.
I say, "Don't do it, OBAMA!" Enough with the Clinton retreads and their ideas. This cabinet of rivals is nonsense. You want somebody who will be gungho for you, not a half-hearted worker. Obama don't forget..you're for CHANGE! The Clintonites are Bush Lite.
All fine except for one thing: There's never been a political figure quite like this before. HC has proven she can do just about anything. She proved she was ready to be president - showing her vast knowledge of both foreign and domestic issues - and some still say she won the popular vote in the primaries. That aside, here's a scenario which might suit her just fine. Make her Secretary of State for four years. Knock Biden off the ticket in 2012 (he'll be too old to run in 2016, and who wants another two year primary season with 16 candidates?) and replace him with Hillary. Guess who's right there for 2016 with the world's best resume?
For pity sake, I am so tired of the Clinton drama and all of their sycophants in the media insisting that President-elect Obama must offer her job, as if somehow this owed to her. It is not. John Kerry and Bill Richardson were also quite instrumental in helping him get elected. They just are not given to the drama queen level of entitlement associated with the Clintons.
As for qualifications, again many other people in Washington are imminently more qualified, Richard Holbrooke, Kerry and Richardson have pretty impressive resumes. I have yet to hear any Clinton supporter specify her actual qualifications. They just insist that she is and that anyone who disagrees is sexist. Nonsense. Frankly, just to avoid drama, I would not offer her the job.
Don't do it SENATOR !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of all the jobs you should let him and his team take care of on their own it's this one. POTUS elect Obama's campaign spent many long months trashing you about bad judgment when it comes to foreign policy. Why should you give up the chance to make history as the first woman Majority Leader of the Senate for a thankless job that others can and should do. Biden can be SOS behind the scenes for pity's sake. Please, DON'T LET THEM SUCK YOU INTO THIS SENATOR.
If Hilary is looking to trade up from her senatorial position, Secretary of State is NOT the way to go. She should be holding out for a position on the Supreme Court. A lifetime appointment versus serving at the pleasure of the President? If she has any interest in either position, it's not a difficult choice to make.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.