I’m sure we have all heard the news that Hillary Clinton will be appointed as President-elect Obama’s Secretary of State. Personally, I am definitely a supporter of this decision – not only because I think she is more than qualified and deserves the position, but also because her commitment to fostering human rights around the globe is a perfect compliment to Obama’s campaign platform. A recent article outlines how Hillary will work with the new administration, noting that “she’ll bring global star power, a long-standing commitment to improving the status of women and children around the world and muscular promises of military action when U.S. interests are crossed.”
Based off the fierce competition during the Democratic primaries, it is clear that Clinton has a slew of supporters. After reading the news however, I did observe (not surprisingly) some skeptic views from the media and bloggers – some who question whether she will be protected, how she will handle issues surrounding the war, even whether the appointment is constitutional.
I thought I would open the discussion on Obama’s decision. She is obviously great on paper though many have not overlooked the perceived hypocrisy of her appointment. If Obama is supposed to be the paragon of Change for America, why appoint someone who, for months of her campaign, butt heads with the [now] president-elect? Also, is change really going to happen from someone who was affiliated with a previous administration?
I think it is important to consider the skeptic views – I guess it keeps us honest. What are your thoughts? Will Hillary inspire the Change that Obama promised us during the campaign?
