Around the Horn: The new secretary of state

To the surprise of no one whose been reading the leaks over the past few days, President-elect Barack Obama Monday named New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state.

Pundits and editorializers had a few days to prepare. Here's some of the first instant analysis:
- On The Daily Beast, Peter Beinart says: Hillary is a handful, but that’s exactly what the State Department—and America—needs. Obama’s taking a gamble, but it just might pay off.
- The Wall Street Journal, which has never had any use for the Clintons other than as a favored punching bag, says: Barack Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State is either a political master stroke, or a classic illustration of the signature self-confidence that will come back to haunt him. We're inclined toward the latter view, but then Mr. Obama is the one who has to live with her -- and her husband.
- The New York Times, reliably, disagrees: Declaring that he prizes “strong personalities and strong opinions,” Mr. Obama, who has limited foreign-policy experience, showed that he wants advisers with real authority who will not be afraid to disagree with him — two traits disastrously lacking in President Bush’s team.
- The Chicago Tribune: For those who feared Obama would favor an excessively dovish approach to foreign affairs, the selection of Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates alone should put their minds at ease.
- The New York Post: The team the president-elect tapped yesterday to protect the nation and represent it on the world stage seems competent enough. But make no mistake: America's national-security and foreign-policy agenda will be set by just one man - Barack Obama.
-  The New York Daily News: She has a sound grasp of international relations, and, as the country learned in her losing presidential bid, she ain't no pushover.
- The Los Angeles Times focuses instead on Obama's pick for the United Nations, Susan Rice: It's hard to imagine anyone who would represent a clearer break with the Bush administration's foreign policy strategies.

And that's a good thing.

- George Pyle/Editorial Writer

Comments

[Barton Keyes]

"For those who feared Obama would favor an excessively dovish approach to foreign affairs, the selection of... Clinton and...Gates alone should put their minds at ease."
That belief rests on the unproven assumption that both Clinton and Gates will have an important impact on foreign policy as opposed to an important role in only implementing that policy. We shall have to wait and see who will gain Obama's ear. Will it be the National Security adviser? The Vice President? Or the Secretary of State or Defense?
Or perhaps some unheralded White House aide.
Or it may be events that determine Obama's approach. Several more Mumbai's or an increase in casualties in Iraq or Afghanistan may help determine policy more than who is in which job.

[BobbyCat]

I think Inspector Keyes raises the more interesting question - who will gain the President's ear?

Judging from Obama's oratory style, that person will be the one who constructs the best crafted argument. Obama's arguments are well crafted sylogisms' His logic is always close to the mark. He relies on reason for the best answers. An obvious oversimplification? No, not after eight years of stumbling about relying on W's gut.

Obama reminds me of Mario Cuomo who said something like: 'I use logic and it drives
[my critics] crazy because they can't argue against it'.
Obama also relies on reason and when your argument is tight, it's hard to argue against. That's why he surrounds himself with smart people with sound reason, regardless of party affiliation. Bulletproof arguments are nonpartisan.

Obama has more affinity with intellect than party. That's why his quote - 'a new type of politics' rings true.

Oh, I almost forgot, this post is about Hillary. Yeah, I like her at State.