Last Chance: Richardson, not Hillary, for SoS.
Well, I did it. I interfered. I fired off an email today to the Obama Transition office. When Hillary was first proposed I was neutral. I believed Richardson was and is the most qualified. However, it was "the" Hillary Clinton and I could see why on the surface the choice made sense. Then, after digging further and after further thought, I decided that "no" having Hillary was not a good idea.
I then decided to write the Transition office because: 1) In a democracy offering your opinion is never a bad thing. 2) Obama has invited people's opinions and even their dissent. 3) I believe that the thing that will make Obama's presidency truly great will be people offering there opinions and getting truly involved 4) I thought it would make me feel better.
The following is my letter to the Obama transition team:
Dear President Elect Obama and the Transition Team,
I am writing to you to please consider not offering the position of Secretary of State to Senator Hillary Clinton. I have several reasons for this. However, for me it comes down to two issues. One, Hillary Clinton has a disasterous record of ignoring her constituents in New York on human rights issues. In particular, she has been particularily neglectful of Latin American issues. I firmly believe that as our national economic crisis continues that our neighbors in Latin America and throughout this hemisphere will be key players in diplomacy, trade, economics, and energy. I believe with further diplomatic relations with these countries we can find a mutually beneficial relationship with our closest neighbors. As energy and cost become one, having good relations with those closest to us will be tantamount. Senator Clinton has shown little interest or concern in Latin America through her early sponsorship of NAFTA and the like. The human rights issues she has ignored in Latin America, as well as the constiutuents who have been ignored who tried to bring it to her attention, are even more distressing.
Second, I believe Senator Clinton's hawkish rhetoric on the primary campaign trail this year has damaged her, and the U.S.'s, standing in the world. Her comment that we would "obliterate Iran" if Israel was attacked was particularily distressing for me as an American. I can only guess at how much that statement has already damaged her standing in Iran and throughout the Middle East and Europe.
I would like to conclude by stating that I voted for Hillary Clinton in Minnesota's caucus on Super Tuesday. I admire her skills as a poltician. I particularily liked her stances on universal healthcare on the trail. Indeed, it was the issue of healthcare that won my intial vote in the caucus. However, I do no believe she has shown the necessary extensive travels or worldwide reputation as a negotiator and diplomat that are necessary for this role. When her comments about "obliterating Iran" where made I was embarrassed I had ever caucused for her.
Please consider my arguments. I would also ask you to please take a hard look at Governor Bill Richardson's record. I believe with my entire rational mind that he is the person best qualified for Secretary of State. While George W. Bush was the chief executive in a government controlled by Republicans it was Governor Bill Richardson that negotiated a cease-fire in Darfur, while the rest of the U.S. largely ignored the horrific genocide occuring there. Governor Bill Richardson was the one North Korea turned to for negotiations during this same period. Richardson's involvement with North Korea bodes well for him at State and for dealing with nuclear threats like Iran and, of course, the continuing threat of North Korea as well. He has experience. The international community has already turned to him for negotiations. Governor Bill Richardson is the diplomat and skilled negotiator we need heading up your administration as Secretary of State.
Let me add that I do not agree with Governor Richardson on several issues, most prominently his stance on NAFTA. However, it is his enormous gravitas in diplomacy, negotiations, and the fact that during the time when the world's trust in the U.S. had fallen the farthest that the world, turned to one Democrat, Governor Bill Richardson- that I feel so strongly that he would make a great Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. I also believe that coming from a border state with Mexico, that he will have some great ideas in negotiating immigration, human rights, and other issues with that country and Latin America as a whole. Ambitious ideas such as allowing a Latin American country a vote in the National Security Council were announced during his run for President in 2008.
Also, he has been in favor of negotiating with our enemies. A platform of your campaign as well. I do not find that same assurance from the campaign of Hillary Clinton this year, rather she was one of your biggest oponents when it came to dealing with negotiations and pre-conditions. Particularily, encouraging was Richardson's willingness to have talks with Cuba. Yet another example of where you, President Elect Obama, and Richardson meet on your foreign policy vision for this country.
I hope you will consider my two cents worth. Do know that I have enormous confidence in the leadership that I believe you will offer this nation in our troubled times. I believe, ultimately, you will make the best decisions when you have heard America's voice. Thus, while it may be a small, singular voice, I offer mine to you today.
I would also like to remind everyone of this wonderful post Deanie Mills wrote a while back. Do we really want this POS as SOS?
November 24, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my goodness - 197 comments on that one. That seems so long ago.
November 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Beautifully written, JoeC. Thanks for doing that. I also wrote through the transition site and called, as well.
As I've read the discussion of this issue on various sites, I've been struck by the intensity of some who are unwilling to question Obama's decisions at this point. I am a firm believer that, if Obama's term in leading this country is to be all that it can and should be, his policies and decisions must be held up for critical examination and discussion at every step.
November 24, 2008 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have the number? I have been unable to find it.
November 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here you go: (202) 540-3000
You can talk to a real person and they are very nice, they have an actual conversation with you. It's cathartic, you will leave with a sense that at least your perspective was heard.
November 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely right, CarolBG. One of the first things the Obama transition team did was set up the change.gov website to solicit citizen input. Obamanian democracy is supposed to be participatory, and one does no honor to the principles he has enunciated by falling back into the habits of the imperial presidency and the cult of personality it promotes.
I have also been struck by the emotional vehemence of some of the people arguing we should not second-guess and criticize Obama's decisions.
November 24, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Dan,
I've been reminded of the discussion around the FISA debate during the primaries. At that time, many were saying that it wasn't the right time to challenge Obama on his positions on these issues, that he was only a Senator, that we had to get him in office first, and then hold him accountable.
Well, okay. He's in office now. Time to hold him accountable.
It's strange to me that many of his supporters are so protective of him. I fought very hard for his election. I think that because I did, I am inclined to fight just as hard to ensure that we get good government out of that investment.
November 24, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it seems like a lot of people are hoping for some sort of Era of Good Feelings where Democrats don't argue any more about any of the important issues that sometimes divide them.
I'm with you, CarolBG. I feel like I put in a lot of effort arguing the Obama case in the nomination battle, and then did the same thing all over again in the general election. But that was just the beginning. The battles don't ever end.
If anything, I think the left needs to step it up. Obama obviously has to give something to every group that help put him in power. I understand that. But so far, what has he given to the left? Are we going to get even one foreign policy maverick from the left in Obama's Team of Rivals? Or will no boats be rocked?
November 25, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
For more on Hillary (and Bill's) track record on Latin America, please read Al Giordiano here:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/al-giordano/2008/11/us-secretary-state-cautionary-tale
Please note, while the post starts out talking about the 90's this goes all the way up to Senator Clinton in October of 2008.
November 24, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
JayDiatribe also had an interesting article laying out the pros and cons of Hillary in the SOS position (http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-meritocracy.html#links)
Among the arguments against the appointment, he notes the following:
November 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what are the chances that Hillary will "go rogue" on Obama's foreign policies and do her own thing? Effectively undermining every policy Obama would try to implement?
November 24, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey MD,
I don't imagine that HRC would go rogue so much - as in, doing a Palin. I do think that she has her own mind, however, and that she will proceed as she thinks best. Is Hillary a team player? She can appear to be, but only if doing so is in her best interests. And there may certainly be times when she may conclude that it's in her best interests to push her agenda. And Obama will have his hands full.
There are those who argue that Hillary and Obama are pretty much on the same page when it comes to foreign policy. Perhaps that's true. I hope not, because I don't like what Hillary stands for - certainly not the positions that she advocated during the primaries. And yes - it may be that Obama's own positions may drift right once he's in office. I sure hope not.
We'll see. Of course, as Al Giordano continues to point out, this appointment has not even been made yet. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to make Obama's transition people aware of where you stand on the issue, if you have strong feelings about it.
November 24, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another interesting point was made by Charlie Brown over at undiplomatic.net (http://www.undiplomatic.net/2008/11/23/transition-watch-anger-in-the-ranks/) posing the possibility of competing fiefdoms between the State Dept w/Hillary at the helm and the NSC and Defense headed by Obama supporters.
Brown begins by referring to Sundays story in the NYT suggesting that Hillary had negotiated the ability to select her own staff at State. Here's the concerns Brown raised:
November 24, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Article!
November 24, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good info. Thanks, CarolBG!
November 24, 2008 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this... I have been trying to accept the decision but really can't reconcile Hillary as SOS... I know it's retro Abe Lincoln and all but that doesn't make it good.
I hope that there is still a chance to shift this choice... or maybe Hillary will change her mind and run for Governor of NY against Mr. 911.
November 24, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto on thanks for the links, CarolBG.
Clicking through @ the "undiplomatic" site, I found an article; "A Memo For President Obama," by the brilliant Anatol Lieven who sketches out US FP directions and misdirections around the world, excluding the ME. His concluding paragraph encapsulates the depressing reality facing those who see the need for drastic changes:
"Eight years in Washington left me with considerable pessimism about the capability of the U.S. policy elites—Democrat as well as Republican—to carry out radical changes in policy if these required real civic courage and challenges to powerful domestic constituencies or dominant national myths.
"http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20244
That's the meta.
Back to the micro. For whatever reasons, Obama has apparently agreed to sideline supporters who the Clinton camp has tagged, Greg Craig and Richardson among them. If Susan Rice ends up in some backwater job, it certainly won't look good, either.
Supposedly, Richardson was asked to list 4 positions he would like; head of the WB, State, Commerce and amb to China were his picks. Did Obama ask Hillary to make a similiar list?
Those who are alarmed at the possibility of separate warring camps forming within the administration, ie State vs the DOD and NSC, have a point. We won't know whether or not those fears are justified for months.
If James Jones is appointed as NSA, both he and Hillary will have direct access to Obama. Hillary may be a virtual prisoner of Lieven's "powerful domestic constituencies or dominant national myths" but General Jones presumably, will no longer be constrained as he is at present by powerful interests within the current administration.
The fact that Jones makes the Israelis nervous gives me hope. If Hillary were to present the boilerplate picture of the WB from the Israeli security pov as per usual, Jones knows the reality of the situation. Whose word would Obama take in this instance? If Joe Biden keeps insisting that his friend Misha Saakashvili was attacked by Russia, will Jones tell Obama the truth?
My sense is that he will and that Obama will trust Jone's perspectives.
The personal relationship between Hillary and Barack does seem to be one of genuine respect and mutual appreciation; she really does appreciate his sly humor. That's a plus, even to this "Hillary hater" who will not hesitate to call 'em as I see 'em if she surrounds herself with AIPAC-approved advisors and deputies.
As politicians, both of them have practised political expediency as required. It remains to be seen how much room they and a first term Obama administration would have to manuever given the circumstances as cited by Lieven.
November 24, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice analysis, Lally.
This is a complex issue and I understand that there are some pros to choosing Hillary for this position. I just see that the arguments against it outweigh any advantages that Obama might possibly gain from the appointment. No drama, indeed...I foresee this spinning out of control. I understand the idea of not wanting to surround himself with those who think as he does, but it appears that he is stacking the deck against himself here - he's already facing huge odds, it just appears to me that he is setting his administration up for a huge fall here.
November 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really admire Lieven's work. Any chance he might get a spot in the administration?
November 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan.
I'm also a big fan of Lieven but know he has expressed unacceptable views on the ME in the past that would make him a dubious candidate for an administration post.
OTOH, Lieven's "Memo" completely ignored the region.
Is he an American citizen now? I suppose he could be granted emergency American citizenship a la the Aussie Martin Indyk example that facilitated Indyk's appointment to a post within the Clinton adminstration.....
November 25, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is the only part of your letter to Obama I would have advised you to change. (It leads one to question what the "irrational" mind might think.) But I understand what you were trying to convey.
I have tried to make light of the Hillary pick -- I've posted on the downside of it -- and I've tried to see my way to a positive aspect of it. Unfortunately, I can't. The Hillary pick is a mistake. Even if it gets her out of the line-up for another run at POTUS in 2012 temporarily, one still has to consider the strong possibility she would undermine and/or sabotage Obama's foreign policy. And what about Bill C.?
I was struck by some of the reporting in the NYT that said Hillary was disenchanted with the Senate because she has no power there. She believes her "stature" as a former First Lady should allow her to buck the long-standing seniority rules and move to the head of the class. Nevermind the 34 or 35 other Senators who have been there longer, worked hard for their constituents and were re-elected multiple times, and have, well, earned the chairmanships they hold. Will be SoS be big enough for her ego?
I think Bill Richardson is the right person for Sec'y of State.
November 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following article:
http://www.slate.com/id/84864/
indicates why Richardson may be a great negotiator but not a good SoS - lack of interest in policy: "showing why political savvy alone is limited as a governing strategy".
Regarding your specifics on Hillary, well, they're not that specific. Obama had to back off the idea that he'd just cowboy in to meet foreign leaders with anything-goes card games, and Obama came up with unilaterally crossing into Pakistan for compliance, as well as joined in on labelling Iran's Guard a terrorist force. These are the weeds of foreign policy that Obama got tripped up in, but fortunately for him, no one really cares about foreign policy come election time.
Would Al Gore tolerate the nuking of Israel or not propose a reasonable deterrent to it happening? Would Al Gore be good at going mano-a-mano with Slobodan Milosevic, doing shots of slivovice and quoting Emir Kustarice films? Doubtful in both cases. But he'd make a good Secretary of State in part because the in-the-weeds negotiations is just one part of the equation, and often there are special negotiators for this - Richard Holbrooke, for example, who negotiated the Dayton Accords, has as good of credentials as Richardson, and is already part of Hillary's team.
November 25, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ironically, that 2000 Slate article cites some of Richardson's attributes which have served him well in negotiations and would serve him well as SoS. The author, understandably, leaves out the other part of Bill's NM reputation for playing real hardball behind closed doors. He, like most observers, has been taken by Richardson's public persona and makes the mistake of thinking that's all there is.
I was one of Rep Richardson's constituents at the time he served in the House. As an Anglo newbie, I was initially impressed by Bill's reaching out in the district via his townhall meetings. When I brought it up to locals who were politically tuned in, they'd roll their eyes and call him a cabron. NM politics was viscious and cheerfully corrupt. The fact that a carpetbagger could come in, take on the entrenched Dem Hispanic party machine and wrest away such a plum seat is not due to his affable ways.
The gladhanding is for public consumption and of course, votes.
As governor, Richardson has coninued to twist arms behind the scenes; including those of his own party.
Richardson's success with foreign badasses has much to do with the fact that they recognize one of their own when they see one.
November 25, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read "He Schmoozes, He Loses" from Slate about why Richardson was dropped from the VEEP list in 2000 for Al Gore. His "diplomacy" is mostly that of a bag man. He was sent to places run by thugs who took cash. He himself admits he showed the bottom of his shoes to Saddam which is an insult and Saddam left the room.
The guy puts his foot in his mouth and was embarrassingly dim in the debates. His tenure at Energy was tinged with scandal. He's a putz not a statesman.
http://www.slate.com/id/84864/
November 25, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You linked to the same article as Desi did earlier.
BTW. There have been rumors and mumbles that Richardson had a "zipper problem" .
November 25, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink