Altered State

The notion of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state brings up all kids of nuances. To begin with, it may reflect a very clever strategy on Obama's part. It is said, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Who is closer to the president than the secretary of state? Most of the time, no one. So he can keep an eye on her, which could defuse the fact that she remains his single biggest potential rival and challenger within the party. A related benefit is that, whereas in the Senate she would have sat there for his entire term, resentful, underemployed (in her own mind), plotting and scheming, this job will constitute a position that she feels she is entitled to, and it will keep her very busy. Then, making her secretary of state gets her out of the way of whatever he may want to do on the domestic side. What if he'd made her secretary of health and human services? She would have taken to the job with enthusiasm (just like she did the first time around, albeit without portfolio) and, I'm sure, dominated the proceedings regardless of what he had in mind.

To all of this I should add that making her secretary of state gets her out of the country a good deal of the time, which I'm sure no one could possibly object to. And who knows, it might even wake up the diplomatic corps, which is notoriously filled with political supporters and hacks, and is chronically infected with the diplomatic ailment of not rocking the boat at all costs. Hillary lives to rock boats -- and she is a holy terror when it comes to her subordinates, or to people she considers her subordinates, i.e. everyone. So maybe this is just the sort of kick in the striped pants the diplomatic corps needs.

It's funny, though, how concerns have arisen as to potential "conflicts of interest" between her as secretary of state and her husband's "charitable work". Gee, I wonder if those are the same conflicts of interest that arose when Bill Clinton received campaign contributions from China. That didn't seem to bother anybody -- at least not on the Democratic side. Besides, if he's really and truly engaged in charity work, and not just further bolstering his titanic ego, isn't that generally consistent with what the State Department is trying to do with things like "foreign aid", and "supporting democracy", and so forth? (Just kidding!) The truth is, anyone who hands Bill Clinton money for any reason clearly expects to get something in exchange -- after all, he is still the spiritual (if that is the word) head of the Democratic Party, with Hillary as the co-head. Personally, I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton with fifty cents to go feed a parking meter. But apparently a lot of people do, and I admit to being skeptical as to their motives. So the idea of Hillary somehow influencing State Department policies and activities to favor Bill's "charities" strikes me as... well, as something that is well-nigh inevitable. How can the two most self-seeking people in America fail to work out deals of mutual benefit every chance they get?

But I don't think this is even the main question, which is would Hillary as secretary of state be good for the country, or at least less bad for it than, e.g. Condi Rice or Madeleine Albright? Would she, for example, advise against further wars, invasions, and occupations? Unlikely. Don't forget, she has already demonstrated false memory of being "under fire" in Bosnia. I'm sure that, not unlike Dick Cheney, she fancies herself one of those 1950s war comic characters, like G.I. Joe or Sgt. Rock. Well then, would she do anything about our insane and tyrannical "drug policy" as it impacts foreign governments and peoples? Ixnay. If her husband did nothing about these issues during his time in office, she won't either. Well then, will she be under the hypnotic influence of the Neocons and Evangelicals, as Rice seems to be? This seems a bit less likely, and that could be a good thing. Even though she is imbued with the warrior spirit, she might be slightly less inclined toward saber-rattling than the Bush crew. And she is certainly not personally interested in any sort of religious crusade. But let's not forget that another reason for Obama making her secretary of state is precisely to counterbalance (for public consumption) his lack of experience, and possible naivete, in these matters. So now they can play "good cop, bad cop" with other countries and maybe deflect criticism from all sides on the home front.

So yeah -- I think he made a good choice, from the perspective of the health of his administration. From the perpective of the citizenry (of this country and others) it's likely to be more of the same, i.e. America as intimidating bully and the guest that never leaves.