Why can’t we give Secretary of State to someone that actually knows something about the Middle East?

There are a lot of intelligent people out there that have actually made it their life’s work to understand issues in the Middle East. Maybe we could get someone in there that even speaks arabic.

Career politicians are fail.

IMO, the ones who are fretting over Obama’s choice of HRC as SoS are the one’s creating all the drama.

Obama’s a very smart guy, obviously. He knows what he’s doing.

Why so many are ready to pounce on Hillary for BOs choice of her position is another example of his followers refusing to make him responsible for his actions
Who says she even wants it?
His motives are most likely to surround himself with people he can easily pass blame onto
He also wants any and all who just might oppose his decisions to be under his wing where they cant voice their opinions
BO has planned this for a very very long time no doubt he has planned all of his picks for a very long time as well
For as much as he degraded the Clinton Administration all year he now wants them on his team doesnt make much sense!
But lets be real he doesnt have a clue what to do and as I said he needs scape goats when something goes wrong
Hillary should walk away and let him be a big boy and float his own boat

A couple of things:

1) Henry makes a good point about Obama knowing what he’s doing. Because…he does. If you voted for him and celebrated his election victory, you should trust him enough to make decisions he feels will be best for the country. Before proclaiming that this is the Worst Obama Move Ever, let’s see how she actually does when (if) she gets the job.

2) Should our next Secretary of State be knowledgeable of the nuances of the Middle East? Of course. He or she should have studied the region so that they ready to apply what they’ve learned to current conflicts. But fact–there are other parts of the world! Like, a lot of other parts! Does Clinton know the most about the Middle East? No, she does not. But picking someone who spent a lifetime studying the Middle East runs the risk of having someone not quite as learned about other parts of the world. Who’s to say not being a Middle East expert (yet–I’d assume our next SoS will quickly come up to speed if they’re not already) precludes someone from having any foreign policy knowledge or skill at all? If you think Clinton doesn’t have ANY foreign policy experience, or if she in general would not be best suited for this position, that’s fine. But “she is not as big a Middle East expert as ,” to me, seems a little like tunnel-vision. The Middle East is our biggest, but not only, problem.

3) Every politician, to some extent, is a career politician. Especially ones who run for president.

Okay oops, in my above comment, it should read “she is not as big a Middle East expert as *this person*”…silly html confusion.

And, quite frankly, after reading all the arguments for and against, IMO, the pros outweigh the cons.

(One more.)

“But fact–there are other parts of the world! Like, a lot of other parts!” was a really dick way for me to make that point. I apologize for that.

But one other point I’d like to make in support of Clinton is that part of Obama’s core message is that you don’t need years and years of experience in a certain field to do a job well, and that Washington is in dire need of change. So along these lines, I think picking Clinton makes sense.

To be clear, my problem with Clinton isn’t experience, it’s judgment. This is a woman who supported the Iraq War, supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and spent much of the primary hammering Obama for his completely sensible policy towards Pakistan and Iran. If she were involved in domestic policy I would be happy, but in regards to foreign policy she’s proven herself to be myopic and needlessly aggressive.

@ Josh: How is putting Clinton in as SoS “bringing change to Washington”? I’m not saying that his choice needs to, but I also don’t see how you rationalize out that one either. (and please don’t respond, “but he is picking someone ideologically different LOL” )

You can’t just “come up to speed” with the history and culture of the Middle East. And yes, I realize there are other parts of the world, but no, I do not think any other area is nearly as important. I’m willing to bet any PhD in Middle Eastern culture is just as knowledgeable about the Far East as Clinton is.

And yes, anyone who runs for President is probably a career politician. Fortunately, Secretary of State does not need to be one of those people. If Obama were smart he would pick someone who actually knows what they are talking about, not someone who listens to other “experts” and makes general ideological decisions (wrong ones, as Ned pointed out).

Like I said before, Obama is a VERY smart guy, and either his pick of Hillary is because he believes in Hillary’s potential as SoS (which I tend to believe is the case), or he picked Hillary because of another nefarious political scheme he’s concocting (which also might be the case).

In any case, it’s probably a mixture of his trust in Clinton and his need to keep Clinton under control that motivated his decision.

And I agree with Josh, before we declare this as Obama’s Worst Move Ever, let’s wait to see how Hillary does. I, personally, trust that she would do a good job. Again, if you voted for Obama, trust that he too is doing a good job. Don’t jump ship as soon as he does something you disagree with. You’ve been campaigning tirelessly for him since his entrance into the presidential race. Have you no faith?

I didn’t vote for Obama. And I have no faith. >.<

And I don’t think he is any smarter than I am. (which is pretty damn smart anyways!)

@ Henry: Who called this the Worst Move Ever? I said I thought it was a bad idea, not that it was a total catastrophe. And I take serious issue with you claiming that I’m “jumping ship” and was previously “campaigning tirelessly” for him.

Did my writing have a pro-Obama slant? Yes. I endorsed him. But I’m not a paid Obama staffer, and it’s not my job to blindly cheerlead for him. My job is to inform as best I can and give my honest assessment of current events. In this particular case, my honest assessment is that this was a bad decision. I still think Obama will be a good president, and it’s not impossible that Clinton could be a perfectly fine Secretary of State–though I doubt it.

The takeaway point here is that Obama is a good man, maybe a great man, but he’s a human being. Even Lincoln fucked up sometimes. And for me to blithely approve of everything he does, even if it doesn’t sound right, because he’s super-awesome and knows things, would not just be a disservice to my readers; it would be a disservice to Obama, and a serious ethical breach.

If you want to have faith, that’s fine. But it’s not my job to have faith. It’s my job to be a skeptic.

I wasn’t necessarily referring to you, Ned (or Chris). Just Obama’ers in general.

But, okay. Point taken.

I still think Hillary is a good choice, and I don’t mean to impede on your skepticism. Apologies.

[...] first blush, this might seem like even worse idea than making Clinton Secretary of State, but I think it’s actually a slightly better one. For [...]