Read other letters about this article

• Thursday, November 20, 2008 02:06 PM

  Klytus

  I have to quibble that McNamara was SecDef, not SoS, but I agree with your point that we need to pay far more attention to who makes up a President's Cabinet, particularly the major positions, and what qualifications for the office they hold. Like you, I think it's a mistake to say "trust Obama" blindly, though I have a lot of respect for his judgement, as its been exercised thus far. I wouldn't have constructed my argument in the way that Joan has here.

  My rationale for being open to the choice of Hillary for the position is that I think she has the necessary level of respect on the international stage, sufficient experience dealing with foriegn leaders in diplomatic settings, and command of foriegn policy issues to be a useful advisor to the President. I am as weary of the constant drama that comes with the Clintons as anyone, but I do not think any Presidential ambitions that she personally holds would negatively impact her ability to be an effective representative for Obama, as helping him be successful is in her personal interest if she does still want to be President. I think she is overly hawkish on Iran, but I think we as a nation are. I cant hold her to a standard that I wouldnt hold any other candidate for the position to.

  Would she be my first choice? Personally, no, I'd prefer Richardson or Holbrooke, but ultimately, it's up to the President to set the foriegn policy agenda, not the SoS, and I have enough faith in my own judgement in voting for Obama to respect his confidence that he can work with her. It's not about trusting him so much as trusting that I didnt waste my dadgum vote :).

  I think we disagree slightly on this one, but you know you're still my bro!

  —FaulknerJr Read FaulknerJr's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel