The Case Against Hillary

Yes, I know the "Team of Rivals" argument for Hillary Clinton as the ideal secretary of state for the Obama administration. But before it’s a done deal, let’s consider the counter-argument that this crew could prove to be a “Ship of Fools.”

In questioning whether Clinton is the right person for Foggy Bottom, I am not in any way disagreeing that she should have a big voice in the administration and in the nation’s future. She would have made an outstanding vice president (or president, for that matter), and she would be a sublime Senate majority leader. It’s easy to imagine her as the legislative architect for Obama’s domestic agenda. That’s a role she has been preparing to play her whole life.

But she’s an unwise choice for secretary of state, and here’s why:

The game changer in foreign policy is Barack Obama himself. Traveling in Europe earlier this month, I was stunned by the excitement he has aroused. The day after the election, the French newspaper “Le Monde” carried a cartoon atop its front page that showed Obama surfing a red, white and blue wave. Above him, it said: “Happy New Century!” You can sense the same enthusiasm around the world -- in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Even among the followers of radical groups, such as Hamas and the Taliban, Obama has inspired a sense of change and opportunity.

Given this ferment, the idea of subcontracting foreign policy to Clinton -- a big, hungry, needy ego surrounded by a team that’s hungrier and needier still -- strikes me as a mistake of potentially enormous proportions. It would, at a stroke, undercut much of the advantage Obama brings to foreign policy. And because Clinton is such a high-visibility figure, it would make almost impossible (at least through the State Department) the kind of quiet diplomacy that will be needed to explore options.

The foreign policy landscape already has too many big elephants wandering out from the Senate, with Sen. Joe Biden becoming vice president and former presidential candidate John Kerry taking over as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. With this many big talkers on the loose, it’s terrifying to imagine what life will be like in a few months for the booker on “Meet the Press.”

And I haven’t even mentioned here the biggest elephant of all, former President William Jefferson Clinton. I am a big fan of the ex-prez; he’s one of the wisest and most effective thinkers on foreign policy that I know. But it’s even harder to imagine him fitting in as the spouse of the secretary of state than as spouse of the president or vice president. I’ll leave to the transition’s team legal vetters the question of Bill Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest, after having been a “buckraker” speaker and door opener for wealthy business and political leaders around the world. But those leaders would surround almost everything Hillary Clinton tried to do in Foggy Bottom.

The most effective secretary of state I’ve covered in 30 years of writing about foreign policy was George Shultz. He was also the most apolitical. The least effective I can remember was Sen. Ed Muskie, another failed presidential candidate. Someone in Jimmy Carter’s entourage must have had a “team of rivals” idea when they named Muskie to succeed Cyrus Vance. But it was a bad idea then. And I’m sorry to say, it’s a bad idea now.