- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"She's smart and tough, has a lot of respect worldwide, she had an international portfolio as first lady, and she's strengthened that experience as a senator and on the Armed Services Committee. She'd also be a strong voice for women's rights globally."
OK. Here is where you lose me. The last sentence. Why does gender have to be a factor? And how can it be a positive factor when H. Clinton would be dealing with dignitaries in foreign countries that have no use or acknowledgement of women? Condi Rice did little to ease conflicts with those Middle Eastern nations. And of course H. Clinton, we can expect, would be much more aggressive enforcing her (and hopefully Obama's) platform on "diplomacy." I just don't see this as a wise choice. She'll be dealing with her husband's past reputation in dealing with them as well.
In my opinion, waving the "I am Woman" flag is...well, just wrong! We have few decent examples of successful women in politics, and many (like Pelosi) who should never have been elected to a position of such power. She is just not capable.
I agree, I trust Obama to do the right thing. But I also think he may feel an obligation to give her a post in his Cabinet. I don't think Secretary of State is the appropriate one.
