Secretary Clinton

Hillary Clinton will be among the first Obama Cabinet nominations before the Senate. Her confirmation is assured since Democrats will hold the largest majority in the upper chamber in decades, however Senators should ask the tough questions out of duty to their offices.

The confirmation of Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, was the most contentious Secretary of State conformation in US history, with 13 nay votes. This, despite her qualifications in terms of education, ability, and experience (having served as a National Security Adviser). Furthermore, her combined race and gender were a first for the position, something Democrats usually celebrate above all else.

Sen. Boxer wondered aloud at Rice’s confirmation whether she had any “respect for the truth” after serving President Bush. More than a powerful insult, especially for someone with an academic background, her question was baseless compared to Clinton’s brushes with dishonesty. Sen. Boxer should ask Clinton these questions, given her passion for honesty:

• What of Clinton’s astronomical profits trading cattle futures? Analysts have concluded that such profits were not only preposterously unlikely, they were impossible without waiving market mandated margin requirements.
• What of Clinton’s lucrative book deal? Clinton took an $8 million advance from Simon and Schuster in the brief window between her 2000 Senate victory and taking that office. While the technical structure of the advance was legal due to its careful timing, it was a serious conflict of interest. Numerous groups called on her to return the money, to no avail.
• What of Marc Rich and the hundreds of thousands of dollars his ex-wife donated to Clinton prior to his inexcusable pardon? What was the role of Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham? Did he lobby Pres. Clinton for pardons in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars (which he later returned).

Jon Stewart, part comedian and part pundit, claimed that because Rice was childless, she could not understand the nature of the Iraq war. Aside from violating the Democratic dogma that a woman’s choice to remain single is a badge of honor, Stewart impugned Rice’s qualifications based on her experiences. Stewart might pass along these questions for Clinton:

• Has Clinton actually ever flown in an airplane under gunfire? An understanding of the nature of war should include the distinction between being shot at and not.
  Does she still believe in the “vast right wing conspiracy?” Democrats like to pretend that international terrorist conspiracies either don’t exist or are misunderstood. Will Clinton address these terrorist groups or only right wing conspirators gunning for her political career?
• Is crying at the opportune moment a diplomatic skill, or just for domestic politics?

Aside from Clinton’s questionable character, Senators should question her judgment. Clinton, as well as her husband, is famous for straddling the fence on important issues. In the years before the invasion of Iraq, even before Pres. Bush’s election, Clinton was an advocate of the removal of Sadam Husein. When the war turned ugly, she changed her tune, turned defeatist, and blamed everyone but herself for her support of the war. In 2006, Clinton advocated stronger sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program, contrary to Obama’s open door policy for rogue nations. Except when a war is going badly, Clinton is a hawk. Democrats might ask her how her consistently interventionist policies jibe with the role of Secretary of State, whose job is diplomacy.

Indeed, Clinton is no diplomat. She is combative, vindictive, and aggressively ambitious to a fault. She has little aptitude or qualification to run the foreign service, especially compared to Rice. Why, then did Obama nominate her at all?

Clinton’s nomination is Obama’s political master stroke and a canny admission of defeat from both Clintons. The Clintons know that, barring the assassination Sen. Clinton pined for during her campaign, she cannot run again for President for eight years. Furthermore, a Democrat has not succeeded a Democrat to the Presidency by election since James Buchanan in 1857. In other words, Clinton’s best shot at the White House is spent, but her defeat would not stop her husband from agitating and kibitzing, as is his wont. Obama, by nominating Clinton, has silenced a nettlesome magpie or two, and given the Hillary wing of his party a sop.

Will the mainstream media comment on Sen. Clinton’s weak credentials? Will her fellow Senators grill her like they did Dr. Rice? Will as many as 13 Senators vote against her confirmation? Most unlikely. Clinton will sail through her confirmation with the fawning breeze of self serving praise from her colleagues. Still, here’s hoping that a few Senators ask the tough, but appropriate questions to expose this marriage of convenience and burst the Clinton mystique.