Times columnist Bronwen Maddox has stated that she does not think Hillary Clinton would be Obama's best option for the US Secretary of State, as he would never be able to get rid of her.

Clinton's knowledge of foreign policy and her ability to perform in the position are not what is being called into question in this case, rather the problem is that the pair have very different views and although her experience as a Senator in New York makes her more than capable, she would not actually assist Obama as president.

Maddox offers examples of a conflict of interests between the two former rivals, such as their position on Iraq and Former president Bill Clinton's presidency. It is suggested that because only a short while ago Mrs Clinton thought she would soon be running the country, Secretary of State is a less than flattering runner-up prize.

Ultimately she contends that Clinton would resent president elect Obama for his offer rather than be happy to be included in his team. Overall it makes an interesting read and leaves us wondering who will be the next leaders of the United States. Further speculation about who will take up Secretary of State is available on The Washington Post's website for anyone who is interested.

 

Comments

I think she would be a good choice just in terms of ability, but when you look at the wider picture it starts to look potentially risky.

Obama continually cited 'Change' in his campaign and so far he has appointed a number of people who were high up in the Clinton administration (e.g. Rahm Emanuel). Plus, many members of his transition team worked under Clinton. Appointing Clinton as Secretary State might win some people over, but it will undermine the idea that Obama is bringing 'change' to Washington.

Just saw a headline on the BBC late news that she has accepted the position.

Is she right for the job?