-
Isn't it time for Hillary Clinton to get a quickie divorce from Bill (it can be done; it took about 20 minutes for Madonna to dissolve her marriage) before her confirmation hearings start? The New York Times reports that over the last few weeks of negotiations between Obama's representatives and Bill, he has agreed to various restrictions on his business and philanthropic dealings to keep Hillary from getting mired in a bunch of scandals and conflicts. He promises to "submit his future personal speeches and business activities for review by State Department ethics officials and, if necessary, by the White House counsel’s office." Yeah, that should work, because if we know anything about Bill Clinton it's that a) He responds well to being on a short leash, and b) He's really good at filing timely paperwork.
Surely Hillary will not have trouble getting confirmed, but her hearings will be all about Bill—Sen. Richard Lugar virtually promises that. As her presidential campaign made clear, not only does Hillary not need Bill anymore, he has turned into a liability (except financially, and she would come away with a big settlement). And just think, if she divorced him, it would be the first time that their relationship made sense.
-
My fellow Emily, as usual I read your acerbic post and find myself about to disavow my own previously held views. Why did I find myself aflutter over the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again? Oh right: She could ace this job! You are right that she has not proved herself as an administrator. But here are three quick retorts: That is only part of the state job, three's the charm, and she is too smart not to figure out (finally) how to successfully delegate the management of this. Plus the bonus: She must be through with some of her worst campaign managers. On the soap opera front, for once I don't want Bill drama to disqualify her. I hated the idea of the retread of the two of them back in the White House. But this would be her work, her office, and I can't believe the Obama people haven't made it clear that Bill's role should be limited to the cheery star-power glad-handing he is so good at. If they think that they can work with her, then like Hanna says, I'm ready to trust them. Also, I want the Democrats' rival houses to come together this way. This president is taking over with all the world in economic shambles. It's the right time for putting aside past differences, for our most prominent politicians to act like their biggest and best selves. That's what Secretary Hillary would signify to me, on both sides of the détente.
Also, while I resist the idea that Hillary Clinton deserves this, in the sense that no one deserves any incredibly prestigious plum of an office, the Tracy Flick fan in me wants her to have it. And wants her to shine. Yes, she could also just go on being a good senator. But this gives her the opportunity for a grander next act. I want her to keep the pantsuits and the toughness but lose the brittle edge of her image that the campaign left us with. She should be the bitch who gets stuff done, as Tina Fey put it, but less bitchy.
-
Dana, I second Hanna's welcome, but I can't agree with either of you on Hillary. There's a lot to admire about her, but can't we just all admire Sen. Clinton? The two times she has run large organizations—health care reform and her campaign—she has shown herself to be a execrable administrator. And I can't see how having the Clintons back (How do you separate out his foreign activities from hers?) will do anything but create drama and distraction. Talk about As the World Turns! I agree with both of you about Obama making international women's rights a priority, but he doesn't need Hillary to do that. I listened to the campaign interview you linked to Dana, in which Hillary goes on and on about her unfair treatment. You quote her remark, "Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal." It sounded more to me like what she really meant was, "Oppression of woman and discrimination against woman is universal." What a bunch of Clintonian self-pity for her to compare her experience in what I think was a surprisingly unsexist presidential campaign to the lives of women who in some parts of the world can't show their faces or choose who they marry.
-
Dana, welcome. I accept your scolding. In every way it is petty to want to deny Hillary this opportunity. It's right-minded, in a feminist way, not just because of her fabulous speech in Beijing but also because Hillary could rewrite the job to her own qualifications. For long it's been a job that, if not quite symbolic, was awarded to women who would be loyal seconds (Condi, Madeline Albright). Hillary is a person with stronger, surer instincts on foreign policy than her boss (see Jeff Goldberg's analysis in The New Yorker). And Obama is a person who, one imagines, would allow her to shine. Rethinking my earlier complaint: The Clintonites would do the most damage on domestic policy, where the country has moved far past 1992. So let's just feed the beast and give them this one, and then maybe they'll stop angling for everything else.
-
Yes, the Bill factor is irritating. But this story about forced abortion in China reminds me why it might be pretty neat to have Hillary as secretary of state—despite Emily, Hanna, and Melinda's convincing articulations of Clinton fatigue. Arzigul Tursun is a Muslim Uighur woman living in rural western China. A mother of two, Arzigul and her husband fled their village after learning she was again pregnant, in violation of Chinese law. When government officials threatened to seize their home unless Arzigul submitted to an abortion, the Tursuns returned. Due to international outcry, the situation is now in deadlock, with the 26-week pregnant Arzigul currently under watch at a municipal hospital.
So what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton? In short, with sexual and gender oppression at the root of so many global conflicts, I'd welcome a secretary of state not only aware of these problems, but with a history of speaking out on them. One of Hillary's most famous speeches as first lady was at the United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she declared "human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights." On the campaign trail in July 2007, Clinton said, "When I traveled to China in 1995 ... I thought it was absolutely essential that I speak out against the practice in China of one child per one family. Because what that meant for women's lives was often forced sterilization and forced abortion."
Of course, we have a female secretary of state currently, and we've had one in the past. But Condi Rice has hardly pursued a feminist agenda, and Madeleine Albright, though she had a history of working on women's issues, didn't come with the platform and celebrity Hillary would bring to the job. If anything, Hillary became more comfortable with playing the role of feminist icon over the course of the long 2008 campaign. Partly, that was a purely political choice; she learned after that choked-up moment in New Hampshire that appealing to women delivered more votes than some of her more hawkish advisers had assumed. But only her fiercest critics could accuse Clinton of not having real feminist convictions. In a Washington Post interview as her primary campaign faltered, Clinton said, "Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal."
As secretary of state, Hillary would be Obama's chief diplomat. And indeed, it would be strange to see her directing negotiations with Iran, for example, after harshly attacking Obama for wanting to speak directly to that nation's leaders. But if Obama gave Hillary some latitude to develop a platform on international women's issues, it would send a powerful message. Maybe that doesn't outweigh all that Clinton fatigue—but it's at least something to consider.
-
Melinda and Emily, you're probably right that somebody should have whispered to Obama, "Wait, you'll be sorry," before he summoned Clinton for a Chicago chat about the State department slot. But either no one did, or he didn't listen, so now what's he going to do? Offer her secretary of Defense. The cons are all the same (and who knows, he may be counting on her to consider the prospect of filling out all those forms, and decline). But here are some fresh pros. For him: It wouldn't hurt to have someone who voted for the Iraq war in charge of handling the withdrawal, and she's been a member of the Armed Services Committee for years. He wouldn't be unleashing another globe-trotting Clinton when Bill is already out there, and it would ratchet down her hobnobbing with world leaders. Pros for her: Here's Clinton's chance to be a first and break the brass ceiling. State would be so been-there-done-that.
-
Melinda, I wonder if the Obama administration would waive the 63-item questionnaire all potential administration officials are required to fill out before naming Hillary secretary of state. There are so many questions that might be troublesome, from No. 6, concerning "whether you or your spouse" ever received money from any foreign entities (See Bill's amazing Kazakhstan adventure), to No. 8, asking for a description of the "most controversial matters you have ever been involved in," to No. 12, "Please identify all speeches you have given" to my favorite, No. 13, in which the candidate is asked to describe any electronic communication they have ever sent that might be "a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect." There isn't enough bandwith in the world for Hillary to attach all the documents that answer these questions. The larger issue is that it would be kind of nutty for Obama to appoint her. He surely doesn't need her sucking away attention and power. He surely would like to avoid the daily conflicts of interest inherent in Bill's international business and philanthropic activies. And wouldn't Hillary be happier and more effective building her own power base in the Senate?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?