Leading article: An unadvisable choice
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.So far, Barack Obama has been admirably decisive in his appointments in the run-up to taking over as President on 20 January. Compared to Bill Clinton's desultory attempts to appoint a team in the same period in 1991, the President-elect this time around has acted with speed and purpose. Within a week of his election victory, Obama had chosen his chief of staff and main adviser. Since then, he has started to make his main cabinet appointments, filling – according to well-sourced reports – key roles in Homeland Security, Commerce and Health and Human Services with a mixture of old Clintonites and close colleagues from his Chicago days.
The great uncertainty, and the greatest debate, lies over his apparent interest in picking Hillary Clinton as his new Secretary of State. That he has tried to bring her on to his team is not in doubt. It has also become apparent since the Senator for New York flew to Chicago a week ago that the lady herself has doubts and that many of Obama's supporters would be deeply unhappy at the choice.
The attractions of bringing her in are obvious. She would bring immediate name recognition and weight to a role which is crucial if Obama is to restore America's standing in the world.
The drawbacks are equally clear. From her point of view, it would take her away from the Senate, where she has her own power base, and tie her to a job where she cannot act as her own mistress. For the doubters in Obama's camp, it could saddle the new President with a figure who disagreed with him on many of the fundamentals of foreign policy – the war in Iraq, talking to Iran – and who would be very difficult to sack if it came to an open dispute.
Although the politics are undoubtedly attractive (this would be an appointment that would undoubtedly make a splash), the fundamentals would suggest both parties draw back from the move. In the end, Presidents work best on foreign policy if they have a Secretary of State who is of one mind with them. If Obama is really to make the changes from his predecessor's policies and present a new face to an expectant world, he would be best eschewing the choice and using Hillary in a different capacity – just as she would be best keeping her independence.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments