Jump to content

Hillary Clinton might replace Condi Rice

monsoon

By monsoon
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Charlotteman Burg

Charlotteman

Posted
Posted

Currently I see the U.S. Secretary of State as primarily a position of prestige. In past years Sec. of State wielded power and influence.

In recent political history, one of the first signs the Sec. of State was of diminishing power, was the treatment of Sec. Cyrus Vance during the Carter years. Sec. Vance was essentially shut out of Iranian policy when a critical situation developed, a situation Vance was vehemently opposed to. He resigned in protest in April 1980.

Ever since then, it has been the National Security Chief, the president, along with the VP and other close advisors that actually come up with foreign policy. The Sec. of State basically acts as a spokesperson for the White House foreign affairs team. This is the way I see current power structures in the American world of foreign policy. Just my opinion.:)

Would Hillary be satisfied with such a position of limited power and influence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
teshadoh Burg

teshadoh

Posted
Posted

Rice would be the one person from the Bush administration that I would like to stay on the Obama administration. I thought she did an admirable job considering the obstacles she had to deal with.

Clinton on the other hand would be a mistake & would be a liability for Obama. For one, the administration would no longer appear nonpartisan & secondly she would be under attack far more for her to do any good. Not to mention I personally don't trust her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tamias6 Town

tamias6

Posted
Posted
Currently I see the U.S. Secretary of State as primarily a position of prestige. In past years Sec. of State wielded power and influence.

In recent political history, one of the first signs the Sec. of State was of diminishing power, was the treatment of Sec. Cyrus Vance during the Carter years. Sec. Vance was essentially shut out of Iranian policy when a critical situation developed, a situation Vance was vehemently opposed to. He resigned in protest in April 1980.

Ever since then, it has been the National Security Chief, the president, along with the VP and other close advisors that actually come up with foreign policy. The Sec. of State basically acts as a spokesperson for the White House foreign affairs team. This is the way I see current power structures in the American world of foreign policy. Just my opinion.:)

Would Hillary be satisfied with such a position of limited power and influence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kayman Town

kayman

Posted
Posted
Rice would be the one person from the Bush administration that I would like to stay on the Obama administration. I thought she did an admirable job considering the obstacles she had to deal with.

Clinton on the other hand would be a mistake & would be a liability for Obama. For one, the administration would no longer appear nonpartisan & secondly she would be under attack far more for her to do any good. Not to mention I personally don't trust her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlotteman Burg

Charlotteman

Posted
Posted

We mustn't forget the US Sec. of State is very very close to the top of succession to the presidency.

I just wish Sec. of State actually meant something these days. Who was the last Sec. of State to actually wield power and influence? We can remember recent former Secretaries of State Dean Rusk, and Henry Kissinger. But when was the the last time the position ever really meant anything.....

Hillary is way too valuable to put into a position like that. The country needs her in a more meaningful role. (just my 2 cents.:) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gusterfell Burg

Gusterfell

Posted
Posted
We mustn't forget the US Sec. of State is very very close to the top of succession to the presidency.

I just wish Sec. of State actually meant something these days. Who was the last Sec. of State to actually wield power and influence? We can remember recent former Secretaries of State Dean Rusk, and Henry Kissinger. But when was the the last time the position ever really meant anything.....

Hillary is way too valuable to put into a position like that. The country needs her in a more meaningful role. (just my 2 cents.:) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.