Hillary takes State

Even without eight years of George W. Bush to decimate America's global standing, it would still be one of the toughest jobs in the world. Now it belongs to Sen. Hillary Clinton. After days of speculation, President-elect Barack Obama this morning named Clinton his secretary of state.

Few would question whether Clinton is qualified for the job. But is it the best career move for her? Think about Colin Powell, the seemingly Teflon-coated leader who was floated several times as a vice-presidential candidate (by both parties -- he was a Democrat, then changed his affiliation) until he let himself get dragged down in the morass of America's war on Iraq. It really depends on Obama's leadership -- whether he will be an Abraham Lincoln who truly respected his great "cabinet of rivals," or a Jimmy Carter, who assembled a similarly top-notch team only to resent, then ignore, their advice with which he disagreed. What do you think about Hillary's move? Take our poll.      

(Image courtesy Getty Images)

Online Surveys & Market Research

Comments

[M81]

Hilary, the Clintons, are a bunch of sleazy snakes. I don't trust that woman as far as I could throw her. And it baffles me how so many other gay people adore her. I'd like to know why? What has she done EVER that has been a success? What has she EVER done for the gay community? The answers are nothing and nothing. Her and her husband are a shady pair and they are in the positions they have had and have because of their corrupted rise to power. Embezzlement, fraud, death threats to former business associates this is how the Clintons operate.

Oh yeah look at the "change" we have going on in the Obama cabinet. Most of the selected people are from the Clinton administration, yup that's solid change alright.

[jeremy]

it's unclear to me whether the comments by m81 are the ravings of a right- or left-wing lunatic. it could be either. that said, i'm of a mind that things in the US and indeed around the world were far better 8 years ago than they are now. if putting some Clintonites into cabinet positions returns some of the sanity of those days and times, i would encourage Pres-elect Obama to keep perusing the employment roles of the federal government at that time. i would also hope, however, that reasonable gays, lesbians, bisexuals and others would understand that not everything need be nor should be seen through some sort of glbtetcetc set of glasses. yes, there are international issues arising that affect us as has been pointed out in this column (particularly related to African countries that are moving to more condemnatory positions against gayness). yes, someone like Clinton needs to understand those issues and the destruction and despair that such moves by foreign governments can cause. but the tasks of secretary of state, and the state department as a whole, are far more encompassing than anything that can be lassoed with a glbt rope. that being the case, Hilary Clinton's stance on issues affecting gays and gayness, while unfortunately not notably strong in active support, has not been notably strong in its opposition, either. Clinton's past positions on such issues alone should not be a reason for supporting or opposing her for the job. as gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people, we need to get a grip on the fact that life is far broader than our sexual orientation and that many foreign affairs issues that train the attention of the state department simply do not translate--for plain and obvious reasons--into whether a person has or has not been as fully supportive as one might wish them to be of gay rights. in getting such a grip, we all might come to an understanding that is far more reasonable and less burdened by the sort of unfounded, and rather silly, accusations that apparently continue to float around, as witnessed by m81's comments.