- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"...she had an international portfolio as first lady."
This statement as presentational evidence of Clinton as qualified to be SoS lies at the heart of dissent coming from what Ms. Walsh labels "Clinton haters." This is a weak argument as there is nothing in that "portfolio" that supports strength of diplomacy. If there were, the Clinton campaign would have pounded it over Obama's head during the primary.
Ms. Walsh's premise of trusting Obama in his judgment of selection of Clinton is flawed because it assumes Obama's judgment is flawless. While true he ran a tight-ship campaign, he was not without error (who amongst us would argue he should have held onto Rev. Wright longer)?
Obama's judgment, ironically, might similarly be called into question should he name Clinton SoS, given the lack of managerial skills exhibited during her primary campaign.
A question Ms. Walsh lets slide is: just why are there so many "Clinton haters?" First, I would rephrase that into the more accurate and less inflammatory "Clinton detractors."
Ms. Walsh had demonstrated an unyielding support for Clinton throughout the primary, not exclusively on her candidate's strengths but also on her opponent's weaknesses. For her to now support Clinton based on Obama's strength of judgment is disingenuously slanted to support her bias.
