I hadn't thought of this option till I got into a conversation with a friend about Gov. Richardson and how we both thought he would be very good for Sec. of State.
The conversation turned to Hilary Clinton and how it seemed she was getting that position.
I argued that she will be good at that job, but still thought Richardson was a better and more natural fit....
So, if we put the best person for each job, what job would we give Senator Clinton??
My friend mentioned Sec of Defense........
I hadn't thought of that at all and yet it seems like a brilliant move.
One...it stops the continual giving of this position to a Republican. Why we do this is beyond me...it furthers the perception that Reps are better at security.
Two...it puts a woman in this position...breaking down preconceived stereotypes...
Three...it puts a very smart and very focused person at this position...and this job needs somebody like that. Strong, focused, smart, won't take shit from anybody.
Four...it will drive the right wingers nuts, but they will actually have a really hard time arguing why this is a bad decision.
The only down side could be that some on the left will be angry saying she is too hawkish...but you have to ask yourself three things: one, do you really think Clinton will start unnecessary wars? two, the position does need somebody who, while not a crazed neo-con, is a bit hawkish...and three, don't you think Obama will always make the last desicion...basically Clinton can be hawkish, but Obama isn't going into any war lightly, easily...
For me, personally I don't mind Senator Clinton as Sec of State, but I prefer Richardson for that position. He has proven that he will go to any country, will talk to any person, and that he can not only get in the door, but that he can get things done. I think Hilary can do that too, but he is a proven commodity.
But I do think Hilary has the mind and the will to be a very good Sec of Defense.
It would be both a good and a surprising move...
g