The editors of National Review argue that, under the circumstances, Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state isn't so bad:
"Throughout the Democratic primary campaign, Hillary Clinton showed that she had a more realistic view of the world than Obama. She recognized immediately the folly of his pledge to meet “without precondition” the tyrants of Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. She never apologized for her vote to authorize the war, even under intense pressure from her party’s left wing. And that famous “3 A.M.” campaign ad? We thought that was right on the money. We didn’t want either Clinton or Obama to become president, but now that Obama has won, and that 3 A.M. phone call is on the way, Clinton is as good a pick as could have been expected for the nation’s top foreign-policy position."
I understand where they're coming from. But I disagree. Both of the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, have always impressed me as not being so concerned with the country or with big issues. Rather, they have always been concerned with themselves--with getting elected to offices, gaining power, and doing whatever had to be done to accomplish those two goals. I'm just not sure Mrs. Clinton believes very strongly in any issue. Yes, she voted for the war in Iraq--but as many have argued, it seems likely she did so simply to protect her conservative, national-security flank, to appear to be "tough" enough to be elected president. Lord knows she's flip-flopped on any number of issues in the past. Where was she on the surge? Has she really shown that she understands the depths of the challenge that the terrorists pose to us? Much of her history has been one of sympathy with the antiwar left and the kind of positions you find there.
I think the notion that she'll be a voice of toughness and reason in the foreign policy councils of the Obama administration is wishful thinking.
