Hillary Clinton should in no way be nominated to such a position after she said she would “obliterate” Iran, a nation of nearly 60 million people. Her views are dangerous and her promotion to such an important position would do further damage to America’s already tarnished image abroad.

I don’t trust Hillary Clinton. I would always be worried that she’d have her own agenda working in the background and would compete with Obama for the limelight.

There are so many other, highly qualified people for this job who don’t bring Clinton’s baggage… I fail to understand what’s in it for Obama except fence mending. But, this is a big job and it seems reckless to give it to Clinton just to mend fences.

I’m a huge fan of Zbigniew Brzezinski and I’m at a loss for why he’s not playing a bigger role here.

The United States needs to select the very best possible person for this vital position. Is Hillary Clinton really the best candidate for the job? Does she really have as much knowledge and experience in diplomacy, geopolitics, and managing international relations as a career diplomat? Or is she just a political payoff by Obama?

The notion that Hillary Clinton needs to be a career diplomat to be Secretary of State is absurd. James Baker, who is widely considered to have had a successful tenure in the role, was far from a career diplomat. I’m sure that there are other examples that can be cited.

I think she has the intelligence, work ethic, interpersonal skills to make an excellent Sec. of State. I hope that Obama offers her the job and, more importantly, that she accepts.

I don’t think there should be any doubt that Senator Clinton is not the right person. She has too much baggage and does not have the experience needed for this job.

It seems Obama is doing this just to appease the die-hard Clinton supporters. This is certainly a political payoff but there may be other motives for Obama’s decision.

While there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is an intelligent and capable woman, I would prefer to see someone like Samantha Power brought in as Secretary of State, someone whose policy perspectives will be informed by her dedication to human rights, not politics.

Obama seems to be catering very much to the Jewish lobby. He nominated Emmanuel Rahm, whose father was a Jewish terrorist. He has supported Joe Lieberman, a Democrat who supported the Republicans and John McCain. Now he wants Hillary Clinton, a hawk when it comes to “Israel.”

Everybody seems to be forgetting that “Israel” is illegally occupying Palestinian land, and not only that but it is currently blocking off Gaza which is causing a famine. Obama – by picking Clinton – is being consistent with his pro-Israeli policy.

Appointing to Secretary of State the same woman who threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran hardly seems to comport with Obama’s stated emphasis on diplomacy and soft power.

What will be the balance in foreign policy, particularly regarding Iraq, with Vice President-elect Biden if Senator Clinton is named Secretary of State?

Ambassador Galbraith has written about how Kurdistan is effectively a mini-state within Iraq — not just from symbols like what flag can fly, but also with limitations on deployments of the Iraqi military, passport checks from the rest of Iraq into Kurdistan, primacy of Kurdistan constitution on key issues, etc.

Biden has talked in the past about how the country might be better structured as a federal-state system, rather than a strong, centralized government. Will appointing Clinton to State minimize Biden’s knowledge, expertise, and influence on issues like Iraq?

Go trudy! You speak for me.

Diplomacy requires nuance, sublety,and and extremely good set of communication skills. Senator Clinton is a politician but has not demonstrated skill as a diplomat. It is a mistake to assume a politician has the skills to be an effective diplomat.

She has also demonstrated a high level of ego and that is necessary to be a good President. But ego is hard to hide and it is proable that, as Sec of State, she would be very tempted to “make policy”, and not simply deliver the message.

I don’t doubt that Clinton is an extremely capable woman, but I don’t think that putting her in a subordinate position to Obama would be the best idea.

The best line would be to take a strong party role in the Congress, and make herself a leader.

Also, though the Democratic Party has a majority in the Congress, they still need strong leaders, people who can work across the isle and work with this new administration.

I favor Hillary Clinton as the face of the State Department, but I wonder about her ability to manage the department on the inside. By all accounts, she did not manage her campaign team well, and the State Department is huge, with even more entrenched interests. Is she up to that aspect of the job?

yes on Hillary for Sec’y of State, & then — Supreme Court justice.

‘Nuff said.

HUZZAH FOR AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL! And a President we can again be proud of …

“…every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature…”
AMEN.

Beannacht,
Maggi Smith-Dalton

Understanding History Thru Music ™
Website: http://singingstring.org

Hillary is tougher and MUCH more experienced with Obama with foreign policy. As a conservative, who is afraid of the soft policies of the Clinton administration I’m in favor of Hillary as Sec of State. I think she knows enough to be tough and careful where she needs to be. She can take the hard line and allow Obama to viewed as the ‘good guy’ throughout the world.

With Joe Liebermann keeping his position and Hillary as S of S, I don’t see a progressive team in place. Remember that Hillary supported expanding the presidential power that led to the war in Iraq. Obama’s speech in Berlin was characteristic of the backward-looking interpretation of history to which this country clings. The world doesn’t need platitudes abot freedom.

With Joe Liebermann keeping his position and Hillary as S of S, I don’t see a progressive team in place. Remember that Hillary supported expanding the presidential power that led to the war in Iraq. Obama’s speech in Berlin was characteristic of the backward-looking interpretation of history to which this country clings. The world doesn’t need platitudes about freedom.

Hassan Basri: “Everybody seems to be forgetting that “Israel” is illegally occupying Palestinian land, and not only that but it is currently blocking off Gaza which is causing a famine”

They sure seem to have money to buy guns and rockets to send into Israel .You seem to ignore that israel is being attacked constantly . With all the lies coming out of the BBC (google : “BBC Watch”) and the Palestinians , I understand your misinformation about Israel . Repeat a lie often enough and it will be believed. It was Joseph Goebbels who said it . If you have not yet seen the famous Pallywood (youtube pallywood ) .The Al Dura fiasco which went to court in Paris and was one of the excuses for the killing of journalist Daniel pearl , the beach libel , the fake funerals . Jenin . etc…etc….enough lies ….Anything to demonise Israel . Meanwhile the media ignores the rockets falling into Israel , the suicide bombings ,the arab media hatred etc…etc….Why are jews not allowed in Saudi Arabia ?. Enough demonising of Jews and Israel ….More than 50% of Jews in Israel are of Sephardic / Misrahi decent ,why isn’t there a conversation about the 1 millions Jews kicked out of Arab countries ,billions of all their possessions confiscated ,and made refugees in tents ? If the Jews have control, how come they were never able to convince the United Nation to have one single resolution about these refugees ? The world accuses Israel of Genocide against the Arabs . If there is a genocide . How come the Arab population in Israel has grown to 20% and growing ?. Is it political correctness to keep quiet ?

Joe B., mentions Hillary Clinton’s statement that if President she would “obliterate” Iran. Let’s please not take comments out of context. Imprecise commenting doesn’t help further the debate. I read her point as being standard U.S. deterrence policy (mutually assured destruction).

see H. Clinton’s comments excerpted from http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2224332720080422

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel),” Clinton said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

“In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,” she said.

“That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic,” Clinton said.

Bob, this might be standard U.S. deterrence policy, but after eight years of cowboy diplomacy I’d prefer a Secretary of State who doesn’t tend make public statements threatening to obliterate other countries.

I thought we were trying to initiate CHANGE? Hillary Clinton is a Rumsfeld in a skirt.

Her choice would plunge Middle East diplomacy back into a freezer. Her bias towards the hardline Israeli positions are not beneficial to Israel, the Palestinians, or the US. Toether with Rahm Emmanuel, that would send a wrong message to world.

She has a role in the Obama administration but Secretary of State is the second worst position for her. (The worst would be Defense Secretary.) Hillary should be put into a Health and Human Services position and raise the profile of that position. She can help re-engineer US Health Care in that role.

How can anyone doubt Hillary’s foreign policy experience? Those who note that her foreign travels consisted of photo-ops with foreign leaders’ wives forget her sniper fire adventure in the Bosnia.

Also they forget when she was released from prison and was flown to Thailand, and was given clemency due to her agreement to go into Vietnam and search for American POWs. Hillary, with the assistance of a local woman, Co Bao, finds American POWs in Vietnam and tries to escape with one of them.

However, during the extraction, Marshall Murdock orders that Hillary be abandoned, and all documentation of POWs be destroyed. She was taken into captivity by soldiers from the Vietnamese army, and was tortured by Soviet military personnel. With the help of Co she escapes, annihilates the Vietnamese and Soviet forces pursuing her, and flies back to Thailand with the POWs.
As she walks away into the unknown, a reporter asked, “How will you live?” Hillary responded, “Day by day”. We should all be so philosophical.

I’ve heard Peter Galbraith before on NPR. As I remember, he was on the wrong side of the issue then and he’s wrong on this one also. It’s Ms. Rubin and Mr. Kuttner that, when you combine their arguments, you come up with the real answer–Senator Clinton is a walking political time bomb almost everywhere she goes.

But there’s more. Why, Tom, did no one on the panel–not even you–light the real fuse under the issue? . . .the now famous “talks without preconditions,” remember?

Oh, my goodness, how Sen. Clinton tried to rake Barack Obama over the coals with it. The problem is that Sen. Clinton poisoned that particular well “for all time” during the primary campaign. She could NEVER–with any credibility–go back and carry the President-Elect’s position on that one, and for several reasons. The most important reason is also the most basic–Sen. Clinton doesn’t understand the simple fact that the known preconditions (like no nukes in Iran) ARE THE CONDITIONS, NOT PREconditions. How naive can one be?

If a set of preconditions (which are actually the conditions) must be met before talks can proceed, then WHY BOTHER WITH THE CONDITIONS? Senator McCain fell right in line behind Hillary on this issue, which really says something. It says to me that Hillary should consider switching parties. She’d make an excellent Republican, just as Bill did even though he got elected as a Democrat.

Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as Secretary of State.

There is no way that anyone will take her seriously after she lied on television several times about her harrowing trip in Bosnia (ducking her head to as the bullets flew overhead).

The Secretary of State must be TRUSTED above all to be viable in this office. I can just see the sly snickers in the back of the room as she makes a statement and someone whispers “Is this another ‘tarmac’ story?”

Hey, we elected a man who had very little experience at national matters, but he sure could talk a good talk. Hurray! four more years of Clinton style government. Maybe Obama can convince America into believing that change has finally come. I hope we don’t get the tax increase bombshell that Clinton gave us when he took office.

Hi Tom,

I really like your way of hosting and interviewing the show. You have a great way of asking questions (short, poignant, relevant) of your guests and moving the conversation along. Keep up the good work!

Please, not Hillary!!
Gov. Bill Richardson is the obvious pick for Sec. of State. He has the experience in international diplomacy, executive leadership, and the kind of personality that will get us off the hate list in most countries of the world. He has spoken highly of Mr. Obama during the campaign and I think he’ll be aligned with the ideals of the Obama presidency. Not a “yes-man” —but Gov. Richardson seems to know how to work with people. (And, we can keep all the Dem. senators in their current roles)

I believe that Hillary Clinton would be an excellent candidate for Secretary of State. In fact, I believe that it fits into his overall scheme to solve the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and the solution to the Middle East. Remember that Bill Clinton worked tirelessly to solve the peace crisis before he left office. After Monica he needed to change his legacy. Under Oslo II accords and subsequent meetings after at Camp David, Bill Clinton was able to get the closest to arranging an agreement. Being his wife, Hillary has an insider’s point of view on what to do. I believe that the hosts were wrong to demonize Hillary as overshadowing Barack or wouldn’t take orders. She would do it because solving the Middle East crisis is full of merit. In the broader scheme of things, Obama has Muslim heritage. To counter act his heritage, he appointed Rahm Emanuel to chief of staff. So, what we have here is Hillary a reputable person with insider information, Rahm Emanuel who is qualifed for Chief of Staff and Jewish, and Obama the agent of change who happens to have Muslim heritage. To me, it seems that to reach a peace agreement all sides need to be represented and they are with his appointments. Furthermore, by closing Guantanamo we will be able to restore our image and appeal to moderate Muslims. Moderate Islamic nations will then be able to help us in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the supposed War on Terror. Bush policies have made it self evident that we can not do it alone. yes we can; but, only if it is inclusive.

And pulling Lieberman into the picture will allow Obama to gain even more Israeli support. Remember it is the Israelis who are occupiers. We have to get the Israelis to change, not the Palestinians. People only change because they have to. Embarassing the Israelis in the Global Arena by making an offer they can’t refuse, meaning that they make concessions or lose face can only be achieved with a strong broad based coalition. Lieberman, Emanuel, Clinton, and Obama seem to be a good start at building a coalition. The only negative I can say is that Barack preaches change; but, appoints Clinton who was on the board of Directors at Walmart. People are struggling and Walmart is profiting. That is a continuation of Bush policies which is wealth in the hands of the few. I guess it is also the legacy of her husband. He helped the Republicans with welfare rollbacks increasing need for homeless shelters, organizations like Catholic Social Services, food banks, and many other social service entities. He also worked to pass Nafta which has exported jobs in the name of profits for the few. That is my biggest fear that Obama will not conduct class warfare. But, who knows, only time will tell. Besides they won’t let him accomplish to much. They will give him time to see if he will make systemic change like two years and when he does they will take him out just like the others. Lincoln..JFK…RFK….or incidents like BP in Iran, or the United Fruit Growers(Chiquita)…etc…etc…etc…

With Joe Liebermann keeping his position and Hillary as S of S, I don’t see a progressive team in place.

Amy, what made you think that Obama was or is a progressive, in the first place? His voting record and stance on issues is so-so and he’ll be a President along the same lines as Clinton.

Before the elections, when I discussed Obama’s voting record and stance on issues with my progressive friends, they freely admitted that they were voting for the “lesser evil.” So only the most deluded ones thought that Obama is a true progressive, or would implement progressive policies.

Besides, even Joe Lieberman would’ve come across a progressive after 8 years of Bush. It’s the classic bad-cop/good-cop routine that we’re stuck with, with the corrupt duopoly.

Including Israel, an undeclared nuclear power in its own right, under the United States’ nuclear umbrella is anything but ’standard’ American deterrence policy. It is a highly controversial proposition that should be constantly debated. Hillary Clinton’s campaign position on the question was purely that: a bellicose statement intended to solidify her support among American Jews, and to accentuate her differences with Obama on many Israel-supporters’ number-one concern: the threat from Iran, and continued and maximized American security guarantees thereabout. We will not be hearing any such comments from Secretary Clinton (I devoutly hope); or if we do, her tenure will not be long.

if Hillary becomes the Sec. State, hopefully she will not be excessively distracted by outside drama or career plans, etc.

I was going home from Canton the other night, about an hour’s drive, and tuned in a little late, so I wasn’t sure who the (very excellent) guests were (topic: HRClinton as SoS). As the time went by, I heard the host repeatedly address the guests by name as he solicited their comments on the points being made. The way he did this was completely consistent for nearly the entire program: “Robert Kuttner, what do you say to ….” “Ambassador Peter Galbraith, what’s your take on….” and “Trudy, tell us …” Try as I might, it was not until almost the end of the program that I heard who “Trudy” was, so I could have no idea of where her perspective came from, which was a pity because she was, of course, pithy and informative. But for most of the program I had no idea whether she was Tom’s sister Trudy, or woman-in-the-street Trudy, or what. It was never “Robert, tell us…” or “Peter, …” but NEVER “Trudy Whatshername, of…, what is your understanding of…”

Now, maybe Tom and Trudy are best friends and have always spoken on a first-name basis, and this was just the way they chat together all the time. Maybe not. However, in the context of a radio interview and opinion show I found this discrepancy in address totally irksome, strikingly careless, and the most blatant example of mindless sexism I’ve heard on NPR for a good long time. I am sure that it wasn’t meant that way, but it just shows ta go ya, as my dad used to say, that you have to be more attentive to your routines. Do try.

As an Obama supporter I really do hope that Hillary Clinton is NOT confirmed as Secretary of State. There are many other far more qualified people to consider (should have been Biden) before naming such a divisive and controversial person to an extremely sensitive and important post.

Senator Clinton is a talented and effective leader for whom there must be some other position available that is more suitable to her specific skillset. Her tapping for the State dept. position smacks of quid pro quo.