Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
harper’s has a brief piece today on why hillary clinton should not be barack obama’s secretary of state. add these reasons to my earlier post articulating why she should not be awarded this post: (thanks Rania)
1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
4. The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
5. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.
of particular concern is point 5: who else endorses her? none other than the war criminal henry kissinger. to understand what i mean read christopher hitchens piece in harper’s called “the case against henry kissinger.”
or watch this film “the trials of henry kissinger”
i think that obama should change his website from change.gov to same.gov.