Posted By Daniel W. Drezner Share

Scott Helman quotes me going against the grain in his Boston Globe story today.  Here's his lead: 
If President-elect Barack Obama taps Senator Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state, he would be giving her oversight of an area where the two former rivals diverged sharply during their prolonged primary battle: foreign policy. From their first clashes in the summer of 2007 through spring this year, Obama and Clinton fought bitterly over who had a deeper understanding of the world, exchanging sharp words over their international experience and their views on diplomacy, military strikes against terrorists, the right approach toward Iran, and the genesis of the Iraq war. It is the one arena in which Obama and Clinton articulated significantly different visions. On a host of other issues - taxes, healthcare, jobs, free trade, investments in renewable energy - their positions were often indistinguishable.
And here's my quote: 
Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, however, disputes the notion that Obama and Clinton differed significantly during the primary race on foreign affairs, arguing that on issues such as diplomacy, their heated rhetoric belied a broad similarity in approach. "A lot of the foreign policy skirmishes between the two were more about style than anything else," he said.
Looking over Helman's evidence, I stand by my quote.  In my memory, Obama and Clinton bickered more over health care than foreign policy (though they clearly bickered about both), and their sharpest disagreement was about the Iraq decision in 2002/3.  They had to disagree on something because it was a primary and they needed to differentiate themselves.  That does not mean there is a lot of daylight between them on substantive policy questions.  Readers are encouraged to tell me if they think my assessment is wrong.  I have two additional thoughts abut Hillary as SoS:
  1. Because of her rock star quality, I suspect she would be a diplomatic force multiplier.  Countries will be more appreciative of a visit by Hillary Clinton than they would if Richard Holbrooke, Bill Richardson or John Kerry were coming to town. 
  2. Based on her management abilities to date, I fear for the denizens of Foggy Bottom.  The State Department is a whopper of a bureaucracy, and I don't know how well she'll do at managing it. 
UPDATE:  Politico's Ben Smith has a good story on the nausea a Clinton appointment is creating among some Obama supporters.  He quotes this Matt Yglesias post claiming that, "the specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren’t all that well-aligned," but, again, the biggest difference is over a decision made six years ago.  Smith also quotes Robert Kuttner saying it's a bad idea -- and since Kuttner is one of my anti-predictors, I'm now warming to the idea.  In a follow-up blog post, Smith adds, " there was ever a campaign that took the complaints of liberal bloggers seriously, it was ... well, not Obama's."  Heh. 
 
Facebook|Twitter|Reddit

DAN NEXON

4:13 PM ET

November 18, 2008

Drezner 1, Helman 0. Dude,

Drezner 1, Helman 0.

Dude, there were millimeters, at most, between their substantive positions.

 

ROD HOFFMAN

7:10 PM ET

November 18, 2008

Thanks, Dan. I made the same

Thanks, Dan.

I made the same point yesterday to an email group I'm part of (where I am the extreme left wing, to my great amusement). I woke up to the Globe story and thought, "OMG, I'm going to have to defend myself on this one." But then I saw your quote and thought, "No problem. I'll just drop the DD-bomb on them."

 

KWO

7:58 PM ET

November 18, 2008

Countries will be more

Countries will be more appreciative of a visit by Hillary Clinton than they would if Bill Richardson of John Kerry were coming to town.

John Kerry? Isn't that setting the bar pretty low?

 

ZATHRAS

11:48 PM ET

November 18, 2008

Sen. Clinton's "rock star

Sen. Clinton's "rock star quality" as a "diplomatic force multiplier"? What does that even mean? If President-elect Obama is looking for a Secretary of State with rock star quality, he'd save himself a lot of trouble by appointing an actual rock star to the job.

Bruce Springsteen would be ideal. He tours the world anyway, at least I think he does, to begin with. He's widely known overseas, and as widely popular. He is a reliable liberal Democrat, and his entourage of roadies, personal retainers and various hangers-on can't possibly be as large or as troublesome as Hillary Clinton's.

Barack Obama may have allowed the idea of inflicting Hillary Clinton on his defenseless new administration to gain so much momentum that he'd have difficulty changing his mind about it even if he wanted to. If he doesn't, he'll regret it. We know the qualities that have distinguished the most successful modern Secretaries of State -- experience and skill with the art of diplomacy, a strong preexisting relationship with the President, clear ideas about what the State Department ought to do and how it ought to do it, freedom from the need to service a domesic political constituency. Clinton doesn't have any of that.

What she has is celebrity. Politically, she has punched her ticket adequately by winning a Senate seat in a Democratic state prone to enthusiasm for celebrity candidates, but Clinton is mostly famous for the office her husband held and she campaigned for. None of the most successful modern Secretaries of State came from a background remotely similar to hers, and all of them had one very large asset that Clinton does not: they could be fired.

OK, it is difficult to imagine President Truman firing George Marshall. The point is that should Secretary of State Clinton not work out for some reason -- say, for example, her passion for loyalty from her subordinates or her contempt for her critics get out of hand as they have in the past -- President Obama could not get rid of her without sending an important segment of his party into a spasm of outrage. What is the payoff that justifies taking that risk?

It would be one thing if Obama just wanted to delegate foreign policy to his Secretary of State, the way George W. Bush delegated so many policy areas to Vice President Cheney; in that case, Obama's policy would become whatever Clinton decided it should be. No one thinks Obama wants to be that kind of President, though. I'm frankly surprised that he even appears to be considering this loopy idea.

 

GREENEYESHADE

3:56 AM ET

November 19, 2008

the worst of it for this

the worst of it for this obama voter is that clinton (i won't call her hillary), whose relative hawkishness was her biggest selling point for me, may be the least bad of the choices floated so far. kerry? albright, who chased after yasser arafraud when he walked out of whichever peace talk it was? ugh.

 

NANCY PALMER

8:58 PM ET

November 19, 2008

Oh please, the supposed

Oh please, the supposed differences in foreign policy between these two liberal illuminati were mere stagecraft for effect. Yes, I can well imagine how nauseating each must be to the other during this intrigue of whether or not Hillary will actually take the post and whether it is genuinely being offered or if this is more stagecraft.

 

TEMOC94

12:34 AM ET

November 21, 2008

The schadenfreude at watching

The schadenfreude at watching the original members of the ObamaNation squirm at the prospect of Hillary as Secretary of State is nothing short of delightful.

 

WILLIAM

12:37 AM ET

December 2, 2008

"clinton (i won’t call her

"clinton (i won’t call her hillary)"
You just did. If you want to emphasize her last name, use H. Clinton.

 

Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

Read More