- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
There are three great reasons why Hillary should not be Secretary of State.
The first is simple. More than ever before, in the next eight years we will lead a liberal leader in the senate to advocate for government programs in health, welfare and family support (domestic violence, child care, paid family leave). While Obama is good on these issues, he is government lite, as are most of his advisors from the Bill Clinton years. Even if Ted Kennedy were likely to remain active, which it is not, Hillary is the only left of center leader we have. And we need her there.
The second reason is that Hillary will make a great President in 2016 and is far and away the only potential liberal leader who would do so. No Secretary of State has become President in almost 200 years. And, because the position requires continual travel and obedience to party line, there is almost no chance Hillary would emerge from this process in a position to run.
The third reason is that Hillary would make a lousy Secretary of State compared to alternatives such as Bill Richardson with real foreign policy expertise. Hillary is a great spokesperson. She is a forceful and principled negotiator. But she does not have either the knowledge base of a Rice or a Kissinger or the diplomacy skills of Hull or Marshall. Secretaries of State need to be quiet, eternally patient, strategic and able to suffer fools with apparent grace-- Hillary has none of these characteristics.
I can think of few political mistakes that would be greater than for Hillary to take this step.
