I know we’ve visited Hillary’s qualifications a lot, but I figured a new thread in the light of her Senate confirmation hearing was warranted.
She was talking about the role of the State Department and the Defense Department, that there is a perception that the DoD can move faster than the State Department. One of my biggest problems with the Bush administration was their poor use of the State Department. She said that this has lead to the DoD replicating State Department roles.
Listening to her here, I have a much more positive view of her in this role than I had in the past. Every question that has been asked she was at least aware that it was an issue, and had a few details regarding it to add. She’s definitely inspiring more confidence in me here.
She seems to have a pretty high and positive profile abroad, which is probably the most important thing. Rice specialized in foreign studies before being picked up, but it was all about the Soviet Union. Then the Middle East “suddenly” became the big issue, and she was like a dear caught in the headlights. In her desperation to become president (and serve as a senator), Clinton made a lot of effort to inform herself. She’s quick on picking up the nuts and bolts of an issue.
The real question: Is she willing to completely defer to Obama?
The only concern I have is the donations made to her husband’s foundation. I am NOT concerned that the donors have “bought” her, but that there will be a PERCEPTION of bias towards donors.
I think she will be able to overcome that - but it might be an issue at times.
She appears to VERY smart, and just the right type of Machiavellian master (mistress?) for State.
I was baffled by the Clinton pick but I have never doubted she has the competence to handle the job. The issue is whether she was the best possible person and of that I am skeptical. A bit like the Panetta pick really.
I’m interested to find out if with Raul’s death we’ll accept a capitalistic autocratic regime like China, or will we go whole hog and demand liberal democracy in Cuba.
Is anyone qualified? Really. I guess she is as good as we are going to get. Condeleeza seemed eminently qualified, but was totally useless. She should have insisted or resigned. She had to have known that encouraging Georgia to bait the bear was folly, but it didn’t make any difference.
Actually I think that we CAN judge a person’s qualifications, and Rice wasn’t necessarily so qualified for it. Powell would’ve seemed highly qualified, and I think he was, his problem generally I think was that he was MORE qualified for his job than anyone else in the administration, but not enough with the program.
The name Castro has become Pavlovian for US pols over the years. As soon as the place is run by somebody not named Castro, up comes the embargo and in comes McDonald’s. The rest follows.
Essentailly not, at least for the big picture. A SecState who does not have the close confidence of the President is typically marginalized (Rogers, Vance, Haig, Powell).
I thought so, too. But I read gonzomax’s “defer to her” question as “Will Hillary be allowed to use her own judgement?” instead of “Will Barrack seek her input?”.
And I was basically asking “Wait a minute… who works for who, here?”.
To hear some posters tell it, you’d think Clinton was likely to declare some wars or sign some peace treaties without telling Obama. I don’t think that’s how it is going to play out. She’s been a star in her own right for years, but isn’t going to gum up the works that way. I think she and Obama agree on a lot of points and even if you think she’s purely selfish, she isn’t going to want to be thought of as the Secretary of State who got fired for repeatedly going off the reservation.
She’s been a star in her own right for years, but isn’t going to gum up the works that way. I think she and Obama agree on a lot of points and even if you think she’s purely selfish, she isn’t going to want to be thought of as the Secretary of State who got fired for repeatedly going off the reservation.