I like David Broder, sometimes, the columnist from the Washington Post. He recently had a piece questioning, actually not question, offer judgement would actually be a better about Obama's Hillary pick. " It may be moot and it certainly is presumptuous, but I would be less than honest with readers if I did not say what I believe: Making Hillary Rodham Clinton the secretary of state in Barack Obama's administration would be a mistake."
Evan though I may not agree with all of Mr. Broder's views, I resepect his opinion. and after all he's been around for like ever and understands the way Washington thinks. Which is exactly were my differences with his opinion starts. When he writes " He does not need someone who will tell him how to approach the world or be his mentor in international relations." The first part in that needing "someone to tell him how to approach the world", Why not? I think if we just look over our shoulders we can see where maybe if George Bush had listen to some competing voices we might be in a better place.. The second half about being "his mentor in international relations" After 2 years debating Hillary, during the primaries, I'm sure Obama has great respect for Hillary and I'm sure 99% of times they have the same hopes and dreams of a new American presences on the world stage. Their differences Iraq and Iran may sound like big differences but are they really? The start of the war. Obama didn't have a vote but he spoke out forcefully against when it wasn't exactly popular to do so. Hillary voted for it. Was she wrong? Yes. Does she regret it? I'll bet she does. And many good people had different views at the time and all will have to reconcile their actions with in their own consciences.
The Iraq question is pretty much moot at this point. The Iraqis want us out, the American People have wanted us out for a while. The only question when? On Iran, Obama wants to talk. Hillary not so much but maybe. Now if I was going to enter into intense negotiations with Iran I would want Hillary Clinton as the bad cop to my good cop.
Broder goes on to say "The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author." I disagree here too. What Obama needs is strong global presences represented by an Internationally respected figure. He needs someone to start the work to build and repair our international relations and image while he turns his attention to a domestic economic crisis.
The another area that Mr. Broder gets wrong because of his pre-Bama mind set is the Bill Clinton thing. he writes " It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife's responsibilities" My question would be why would he have to? Why does Bill Clinton have to curtail his efforts or activities to help the most vulnerable and why must they suffer to maintain some politically correct rules about appearances?
Finally Mr. Broder gets one thing right but still manages to get in a final wrong " Her influence, which is vast, does not rest on seniority. It rests on the respect she has won from colleagues in both parties for her hard work, her preparation and her mastery of the substance of policy. Senators want her support for their efforts, and both Republicans and Democrats are eager to join hers, because they know she commands a unique audience both in the Capitol and across the country. That was true in the past, and it is even more true after the impressive campaign she ran for the presidential nomination." He's wrong because that exactly why Hillary Clinton is a great choice for Secretary of State.
