Hillary For Secretary of Health and Human Services
Giving some thought to her recent interview for Secretary of State, I think that her being married to Bill raises a multitude of issues that could interfere with her being the best person for the job. I see Hillary as wanting a more independent role that would not involve her husband. I don't see how as secretary of state her ex-president husband would not be much more involved than appropriate. It creates a sticky mess.
I think Bill Richardson would be the best person for the job of Secretary of State.
"Richardson has met face-to-face with some of the world's most intimidating leaders. He negotiated the release of prisoners from Saddam Hussein, convinced corrupt foreign heads of state to step down, and oversaw and reformed one of the most challenging and unmanageable agencies in government, the Department of Energy. In recognition of his concern for human rights abuses and his diplomatic work throughout the world, Richardson was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize." - from the Governor's website
The world is experiencing the issues of global warming, energy crisis, economic crisis, abd food/water shortage. He might not be perfect but I think he has the natural skills for this position and has already taken actions based on his natural tendencies and that is the same reasoning that made me feel that Senator Obama would be a great president.
I think having Hillary in the cabinet is very valuable. She does not have the seniority in the senate to lead on Healthcare etc. but if she were the Secretary of Health and Human Services she would have the format to be a leader on Healthcare reform in her own right working with congressional leaders. This would give her a seat at the table and a chance to deliver on something very important to her. This position also gives her a role where her husband will not really factor into anything. She would have her completely independent role.
I agree with you in preferring Richardson over HRC for SOS. I am wary of selecting Clinton for this position as it is the most plum Cabinet position as well as the huge conflict of interest it clearly presents based on Bill's 'foreign country deals'. I suspect that Obama's philosophy is keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but I do not see how it helps in 2012 should she decide to run against him for Presidency again. Which is a likely probablity.
I am not supportive of HRC as HHS Sec because she has not demonstrated the executive skills to get anything done when it requires managing massive projects. The country was ready for healthcare changes in 92 but her lack of management skills and inflexiblity on the issues caused it to fail and fail big time. HRC could not get along with the Congressional players essential for passing the legislation. While most folks could be expected to learn from their mistake, the way HRC ran her political campaign is unequivocable proof that she is simply a policy wonk and an extremely poor executive. Lacking in leadership and consensus building skills resulting in disastrous last minute decisions.
I would put her up as the global warming czar since it is a policy wonk's dream, waiting to be explained and she MIGHT do better there without having such a high profile position in the Obama administration.
With HRC as SOS it is very conceivable that she would become the face of the administration due to her shrewd political skills.
November 15, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree. Well said!
November 15, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that she has not demonstrated an ability to manage massive projects. However, I think that regardless of what position she is in, even staying in the senate she is determined to take a bigger role. I am fine with her staying in the senate but if president elect Obama is determined to have her in his cabinet I much prefer HHS to SOS. I don't think she has a real interest in global warming. I do think she has a passion for more than one area of HHS.
November 15, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what I have been saying all along. SecHHS is a natural fit for her. She can redeem herself from her healthcare debacle under Bill, have a seat in the Cabinet of Rivals and advance her domestic agenda.
Richardson is a MUCH better fit for SecState.
November 16, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weirdness. Bill has a life, in Harlem and in promoting solutions for Africa. He hasn't been showing up in Washington to bother Hillary at work, and he won't. Remember any Bill Clinton stories from 2006? So much concern, so little sense.
I'd have to agree that running the bureaucracy of HHS is quite different from pushing a Universal Health Care policy.
November 15, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her role in the senate is an independent role. As president she was planning to send him around as an ambassador. I think he is far more known by leaders around the world and has many more associations that you realize.
November 15, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Bill has all these connections. The question was whether he'd be butting in everywhere that he wasn't asked.
November 16, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because of his previous relationships, it would not just be a matter of butting in from his side... and his relationships would affect where and when that showed up but also the reverse... especially in those cultures where women are less respected and there is a previous relationship with the ex-president. I think it's a very sticky situation.
November 16, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
" I see Hillary as wanting a more independent role that would not involve her husband." -- I hope this is true and it's what I would want for her. And I agree that if she were Sec of State, his image (if not Bill himself) would hover over her work just as it would have hovered over the White House if she were VP. (Personally, I think John Kerry would be the best Sec. of State, but don't see how they could lose him, and his seniority, in the Senate - esp as he would be Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee.) ---- Hillary is a very able person and she would probably have more independence to run HHS than she had to run her campaign. It's hard to believe she wouldn't put together a good management team even if she didn't want to do a lot of hands-on management. ------- The Senate would be the best place for her IMO although the seniority barrier there is a huge problem, so she may not wish to stay. If she doesn't, I'm confident Obama will have a place for her, a good place, just not convinced yet that Sec. of State is it.
I trust that as he talks to people like Clinton and Richardson, he's exploring several options for them, not just the one getting all the news coverage.
Madeline Albright's book - Memo to the President - is fascinating to read right now as the cabinet is being assembled.
November 16, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
My first reaction on hearing that President-Elect Obama is supposedly considering Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was, “you’ve got to be kidding!” Here are seven reasons why she should not be, and probably won’t be, appointed to that or any other similarly visible Cabinet post:
1. Hillary Clinton is no diplomat. She’s a self-proclaimed “fighter,” a skilled legal advocate, and a superb self-promoter. Decorum, understatement, and subtlety—the traits of diplomats—are not her thing.
2. Hillary Clinton has no experience in diplomacy. Nothing but phantom “experience” emerged from her extended primary campaign, including her supposed landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. The closest she got to real diplomacy was some ceremonial work with women’s groups in Northern Ireland.
3. Hillary Clinton has terrible judgment on matters of foreign policy. She supported the War in Iraq without ever reading the key pre-war intelligence report. She failed to recognize the need for skepticism toward Musharraf’s military rule in Pakistan, or the desirability of pursuing Al Qaeda into Pakistan. Like John McCain, she failed to recall that negotiating with our enemies has been a feature of our diplomacy for half a century.
4. Hillary Clinton is not a team player. In her campaign and stump speeches, she used the first-person singular more than any politician I can remember. Both she and her husband have super-sized egos ill-suited to teamwork, let alone teamwork in diplomacy. Diplomats have to be willing to work for months in secrecy and obscurity, caring only about getting the job done, not who gets credit.
5. Hillary Clinton’s positions on foreign policy have been risky and dangerous. Remember her threatening to “obliterate” Iran during the presidential debates? Having her leading State would make us less secure. Among other things, it would risk squandering the extended honeymoon that global admiration for President-Elect Obama now promises.
6. Neither Hillary nor Bill ever had much interest in foreign policy. Domestic policy was their thing. Bill (like Dubya) missed a chance to get bin Laden, resolved too late to fight the genocide in Bosnia, and failed (despite valiant effort) to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. This is far from a stellar record. Hillary may cite it as vicarious “experience” (as she did during the campaign), but it is nothing to brag about.
7. Millions of voters, like me, supported Barack Obama because he has so much more to offer than either of the Clintons. We are overjoyed to have a true adult in charge of our nation—someone quiet, thoughtful, dignified, circumspect, self-effacing and self-restrained.
We have no doubt of Obama’s toughness, but toughness doesn’t require trash talk. We are tired of hucksters and self-promoters running and representing our country. We wanted to see the Clintons’ backs and still do. We want a fresh start, especially in foreign policy.
In his running mate, President-Elect Obama has one of the most experienced hands in foreign policy in all our national leadership. He doesn’t need the advice of someone who never negotiated with any foreign leader for real, i.e., while bearing responsibility for results
http://jaydiatribe.blogspot.com/2008/11/hillary-clinton-bad-idea-then-bad-idea.html
November 16, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said and my sentiments exactly.
November 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink