The political world has been roiling with news that Senator Hillary Clinton [D-NY] is likely to be offered the plum job of Secretary of State in an Obama administration and the further news that she is almost certain to accept the offer. Apart from setting off what is likely to be an unseemly scramble for her Senate seat, what does this mean, if it happens? There is quite a debate going on right now, with many on the left, particularly in the blogosphere, dismayed by the possibility of HRC in the cabinet. However, others within the party, including a large stable of Clinton loyalists who are getting older, but not going away, think the appointment is a great idea. Who is right?

Well, it is no secret I was an early supporter of Senator Barack Obama’s candidacy. Though I refrained from attacking Senator Clinton during the primaries [I did take a few shots at Carville & Begala, who I think need to take their show elsewhere -- anywhere elsewhere], I was always an Obama loyalist. I made my first donation to Obama’s campaign the day after he announced his candidacy and made many more donations after that. So that’s my bias. I like Obama. Always have. Wanted him to beat Clinton for the nomination. Was pleased when he did. 

So I’m probably opposed to the possibility of HRC becoming Secretary of State, right? Wrong. Actually, I like a lot about it, though I’m not sold on all the details just yet. First, let’s run down the reasons the appointment would make sense for the country and the Obama administration.

Firstly, Clinton would work her ass off in the job. She works her ass off in any job she does and this one would be no exception. Nobody outworks Hillary Clinton. Ever. She’s been defeated before and will be defeated again, no doubt, but it won’t ever be because someone worked harder. That doesn’t happen. Her ferocious dedication to the job will be a nice change from Colin Powell, who avoided travel and seemed to think he could do the entire job from his office desk. [A Secretary of State who doesn't like to travel? Might think about another job, hombre.]

Secondly, Clinton can do the job. She’s sharp as a tack and learns the nuances of every job quickly because she studies as hard as she works. She’ll travel as far and as long as she must — and she probably won’t have to duck incoming shrapnel in Tuzla! Clinton knows many foreign leaders and the rest will obviously know her by reputation. When she comes to town, the locals will understand that President Obama has sent a heavy hitter to bat for him. People will pay attention. 

Thirdly, Clinton doesn’t have any hard and fast beliefs that will cause her to clash with President Obama or Vice President Joe Biden. Much has been made of the so-called disagreement between Clinton and Obama over willingness to meet with foreign leaders of rogue regimes like Iran. Certainly, Clinton and Republican presidential candidate John McCain made much of those differences. But how vast is that difference? It was always a mischaracterization of Obama’s position by Clinton and McCain that he’d meet with anyone, anywhere, with no preconditions. Obama prefers diplomacy to war ["Jaw-jaw to war-war" in Churchillian parlance] and so does Clinton. It could be that Clinton is more hawkish on some issues than Obama, though I’m not convinced of that. Clinton took stands on Iraq and Iran that I think were foolish and have been shown to be so by the passage of time. Nevertheless, that doesn’t make her more hawkish, it just made her [in my mind, at least] less qualified to be president than Barack Obama. Both Obama and Clinton will favor tough talk with Iran over its support for international terror and its illegal nuclear weapons program. If something drastic has to be done about it, Obama and Clinton will probably agree on Obama’s final decision.

Fourthly, putting Clinton in the cabinet gets her out of the Senate, where it is possible she would have been a thorn in Obama’s side. Ted Kennedy was a pest for Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson would have been a pest for John Kennedy had Kennedy not had the wisdom to co-opt the Texas lion by making him his Vice President. With Clinton at Foggy Bottom, she becomes an Obama ally because she has no choice. As a New York Senator with a vast fundraising network, she has her own power base, independent of President Obama. As Secretary of State, she serves at his pleasure. While she will no doubt press her points aggressively [which is a good thing], in the end she must obey President Obama or resign in protest. Resigning in protest may impress people in Westminster political systems, but in the U.S., those who resign in protest almost always disappear into obscurity. While it is hard to imagine Hillary Clinton ever becoming obscure, she would certainly end her political career if she resigned in protest. So she won’t do that.

Fifthly, Hillary Clinton would be a strong voice at Foggy Bottom, one not afraid to deliver bad news to President Obama. That’s a good thing. We don’t need any more sycophants in the executive branch; the current president destroyed his administration by surrounding himself with such creatures. But while HRC would be a strong voice in the cabinet, she wouldn’t be too strong. No doubt many Clintonistas are thrilled with the possibility of Hillary becoming Secretary of State because they think she can dominate President Obama and the Clintonites can remain in control of the Democratic party despite the party’s rejection of Clinton’s candidacy in the primaries. That’s wishful thinking on their part. Obama proved more than a match for Clinton in the primaries and he would prove more than a match for Clinton in government. While Clinton held every advantage in the primaries and still lost, Obama would be holding all the cards in his own administration. In the end, presidential advisers and cabinet officers have no power, only influence. And that influence is derived entirely from their relationship to the President. What made Condoleeza Rice so powerful the last 8 years is not her position as National Security Advisor or Secretary of State, but her close personal relationship with President Bush. The President likes and trusts Rice, so he listens to her. That makes her influential. But the moment Bush stops listening to her — or listens to someone else more — Rice’s influence declines or disappears. That’s because she has no power of her own. Clinton would be in much the same position. 

Of course, there are problems. Or, more accurately, there is ONE problem. One very big problem. His name is William Jefferson Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s even-more-famous husband.

Why is Bill Clinton a problem? Oh, let me count the ways. Clinton has done good work since leaving office with his Clinton Global Initiative, which has raised billions of dollars to address world problems, particularly in the developing world. But that’s not all he’s been up to. Clinton has been involved in lobbying and business dealings that are not technically illegal, but are, in some cases, absolutely immoral. Clinton sacrificed a lot of money during the first 60 years of his life so he could be a public servant and I admire that. So I don’t hold it against him that he’s chased dollars during his post-White House years. However, he’s chased too many dollars too far around the globe and cosied up to too many black hats for my taste. His relationships with people doing business with some of the more unsavory governments in the world is problematic. 

Also problematic is Bill Clinton’s extremely ill-advised relationships with people like billionaire Ron Burkle and billioniare playboy Steven Bing. Clinton is known to accompany these “gentlemen” on their trips around the world in search of tail one-half or one-third their age. The inner workings or dysfunction of the Clinton marriage is no concern of mine; if Hillary doesn’t object, neither do I. However, that’s not the point. Bill’s business and personal dalliances are one thing if he’s merely a very famous private citizen. They are quite another if he is the high-profile spouse of the Secretary of State of the United States of America. 

Furthermore, Bill Clinton is the sort of person who might be jetting around the world, talking to power players and spouting off in ways he should not. Does anyone put it past him to be telling world leaders that he can speak for his wife and, therefore, for the entire U.S. government? If that happened, the consequence would be the United States having two foreign policies at the same time — a complete disaster. 

Now, you might be thinking: Yeah, but Hillary will control him. She won’t let him screw this up for her.

Hmmm. That’s a great theory. But ask yourself this: How well has Hillary controlled Bill during the last 30 years of their marriage? Based on her track record, Hillary can’t control Bill at all. For all we know, she may have given up trying. 

You may also be thinking: But Bill wouldn’t do that! He wouldn’t damage Obama’s presidency like that!

Oh, really? This is a man who almost destroyed his own presidency because he couldn’t control himself. Does any serious person really doubt he’d hesitate to destroy someone else’s presidency? Get real. He wouldn’t think twice about it. 

There is alo the issue of the transparency of the Clinton Global Initiative. We need to know everything about it. We need to know who is giving it money, how much they are giving, where the money is going, and what they want, if anything, in return. Clinton has kept the inner workings of his CGI as secret as possible. That’s got to end. Entirely. No ifs ands or butts. And no trusting either. We need real verification of everything the Clinton Global Initiative is doing at all times. No exceptions.

For me, it comes down to this: Hillary would be great in Foggy Bottom if her husband can be controlled. Not controlled by Hillary because we know she is incapable or unwilling to control him. The Obama people must have control of Bill Clinton. They must know what he is doing. They must have assurances that he’s not doing anything that will show up on the front page of the NY Times and embarrass the entire administration. This could be the first real progressive administration this country has had since Lyndon Johnson. We can’t have it screwed up by a man who, however brilliant he may be, hasn’t matured beyond the level of a 9th grader. 

The bottom line: If you can control and monitor Bill, give Hillary the job. If not, not.

Social Traffic Stats

Top 5 referring pages:

1. democraticunderground.com: 40
2. newstrust.net: 21, 16, 5
3. : 3