President-elect Barack Obama nominated former rival Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state during a news conference today in Chicago.
Throughout his run for the White House, Obama frequently invoked the legacy of another Illinois lawmaker, Abraham Lincoln, who famously created a team of rivals by including political adversaries in his cabinet to ensure a strong presidency. Obama has clearly decided to follow that model.
For many, Clinton is a curious choice for the nation’s top diplomat job since foreign policy was one of the issues on which Obama and Clinton most bitterly disagreed. Interestingly, Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war from the start helped him win the nomination and he often criticized Clinton for her vote in support of it. On the campaign trail, Clinton, who is considered to be much more hawkish than the president-elect, charged that he was naïve and inexperienced on matters of foreign policy and was very critical of him for stating that he would meet with leaders of rogue nations without preconditions. She, in turn, often overstated her own experience, which sometimes backfired.
“It’s an interesting pick and says that Obama is perfectly comfortable with selecting people with whom he might have had in the past and may still have some disagreements and that it will be an open administration where policy choices will be debated,†says Calvin Mackenzie, a Colby College political scientist. He believes that Clinton’s personal reputation and following on the world stage will be pluses. But will the risks outweigh the benefits?
Since the news first leaked that Clinton was being considered for the job, there have been questions about whether she will be a team player or chart her own course. Obama, however, may have calculated that it’s better to have Clinton working with him at State rather than against him in the Senate. Michael Tanner, a Cato Institute fellow, says there was concern that she could have potentially become a disruptive force in the senate on issues like healthcare. “Obama is putting a major effort on that and he wants it to be his, not hers. If Clinton were in the Senate, she’d certainly try to shape [healthcare reform] in her own image and it would clearly be a legacy issue for her,†says Tanner.
Stephen Wayne, an American government professor at Georgetown University, believes that nominating Clinton is a wise move for other reasons. “She’s smart, articulate, knows a lot of world leaders and won’t make policy on her own. There’s going to be a triumvirate that will make foreign policy–the president, vice president and secretary of state–but she will be an articulate spokesperson for the administration and a tough negotiator for the United States.â€
There was also the “Bill Problem.†First, a number of terms regarding the former president’s global charity, had to be met before Clinton could accept the secretary of state nomination. In addition to releasing the names of 208,000 donors, President Clinton can no longer accept donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative or manage the charity’s day-to-day operations. He also must submit his speaking schedule and speeches for review by the State Department and the White House. And there is some debate about how he might influence his wife in her role as secretary of state.
“Obviously Obama can’t disconnect himself from the foreign policy of the Clinton administration, partly because many of the people who are working for him had a role in [that]. Consequently, there’s going to be some continuity there,†explains David Lewis, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University. He senses the potential for conflict because the Clintons have such strong views about how foreign policy should be handled and the fact that the former president, through his charity, continues to be a player of sort in that arena. But, Lewis adds, “To some extent, having Bill Clinton close by can be an asset. He’s obviously someone who knows a lot about foreign policy and has a lot of expertise. It’s difficult to tell at this point how different [the Clintons’] and Obama’s foreign policies are likely to be. That’s going to have to be worked out in practice and it’s a risk Obama is taking.â€
Throughout the campaign, Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco, was a strong advocate of Obama, in
large part because of his differences with Clinton on Iraq, Iran, and other issues. He considers Clinton’s nomination to be “the ultimate betrayal†of those who supported Obama and that her voting record on foreign policy matters will make it difficult to repair America’s image in the world.“Even though the Bush administration alienated the U.S. throughout the world to an unprecedented degree, we forget that the Clinton administration, albeit to a lesser extent, alienated much of the international community, as well,†says Zunes, citing opposition to a treaty banning landmines and policies on Iraq, Iran, and Israel as examples. “In many ways [Clinton’s nomination] is just a return to the status quo ante and not the change we can believe in.â€
At his news conference, Obama also announced other members of his foreign policy team. Former NATO commander General James Jones is slated to become national security advisor; current Defense Secretary Robert Gates will continue in his role; and Susan Rice, a Clinton alum who was a chief foreign policy adviser to Obama throughout his presidential campaign will be named United Nations ambassador.