Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State Review of Reviews

David Broder's 19 November Op-Ed in the Washington Post pays respect to Clinton, but decides Foggy Bottom is not the appropriate venue for her. Broder foresees potential freelancing by both Hillary and Bill, who have stronger foreign policy credentials than the President-Elect. In this respect, Clinton would tussle with the White House, rather than carry out the foreign policy formulated by Obama and Biden.

Underlying Broder's argument is a belief that Hillary Clinton is overqualified for the Secretary of State post, and that her immense talents would be better put to work in the Senate, regardless of the power she is or is not granted among committees.


On 18 November, Tom Friedman came down against Clinton as Secretary of State in the New York Times for reasons other than Bill Clinton's freelancing. Friedman argues that the single most important quality for a Secretary of State, at least in regard to convincing allies and coercing enemies, is the perception by those interlocutors of the Secretary of State's relationship with the President.

Friedman holds up James Baker as the quintessential representative of his President (Bush '41). Friedman fears that foreign leaders, knowing the chasm that opened between teams Obama and Clinton during the Democratic primary, will be on the offensive to manipulate and circumvent a Secretary Clinton, knowing that she is not a direct extension of the Oval Office.


In a 17 November Washington Post blog entry, David Ignatius cautioned against selecting Clinton as Secretary of State because of the damage such an appointment would do to Obama's image abroad. Ignatius identifies the "turn the page" image of Obama as the President-Elect's greatest foreign policy strength. Clinton's baggage, or her "big, hungry, needy ego," to be more precise, would cancel out Obama's fresh image.

Ignatius also identifies what he believes the most important quality for the Secretary of State post: being apolitical. Based on this criteria, his favorite Secretary of State is George Schultz, and his least favorite is Ed Muskie. Ignatius echoes Friedman's sentiment that Clinton's selection in the pursuit of the "team of rivals" ideal is a mistake.


Maureen Dowd's 18 November New York Times Op-Ed offers lukewarm support for Clinton at State. Dowd's rationale? It would give Bill Clinton a reason not to be angry, she's better than Sen. John Kerry, and she's preferable to any of the old Clinton foreign policy hands such as Albright and Holbrooke.


A 17 November Investor's Business Daily editorial takes note of the potential conflicts of interest arising from Bill Clinton's activities since leaving office and the potential for Hillary to undermine President Obama in the pursuit of her own political agenda, but comes down in favor of her appointment. The IBD editorial board believes that Hillary Clinton's fluency in international affairs puts her among the most qualified candidates and her more hawkish views, compared to those of Obama, will allow for a smoother transition from the Bush administration. This assessment sharply contrasts with those commentators who have argued that a sharp shift in foreign policy is precisely what makes the Obama brand so valuable abroad.