Come together across the great divide

I've been a bit cynical about the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I wasn't sure that it made sense for her - why take a short-term position that isn't a stepping stone to another office when she now effectively has a position for life, and isn't Senator a better position to be in for a 2016 run at the presidency (assuming age and health don't make that impossible)? And weren't Obama and Clinton farthest apart on foreign policy issues, so of all Cabinet posts, doesn't Secretary of State make the least sense? Not to mention that I still have not completely overcome my resentment for the way Hillary conducted the later part of her campaign.

But, all that being said, the more I think about the possibilities with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, the more sense the idea makes.

First, the Secretary of State doesn't make policy, she implements policy. The President makes the policy - I seem to recall someone saying that the president is the "Decider" - and Hillary has shown that she is a good soldier. Her intellect and knowledge of world events is unparalleled among the set of credible candidates for the job, and she knows essentially all of the international players personally. She has a level of respect on the world stage that is an incomparable asset to a young, new president who, while admired greatly abroad, does not have a long history of dealing with world leaders.

Second, if a major initiative of the Obama Administration is going to be to make progress (and possibly succeed) in an overall plan for Middle East peace, which must involve - must lead with - a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I cannot think of anyone who brings more to that initiative than Hillary Clinton. She is possibly the one person in an Obama Administration who would be able to walk into a meeting with the Israelis without inciting the fear (within Israel, but just as importantly, in AIPAC and the synagogues) that the Americans are sacrificing Israel's security. The value of the credibility that Hillary brings to the issue, the respect that she carries in the Jewish community, and the re-boot of America's image brought by Barack Obama, offers the unique possibility of genuine achievement in the Middle East. Just as important, as the campaign (both her own and her campaign for Barack) showed, Hillary is as tough a fighter and as motivated as anyone imaginable when she puts her mind to something.

The great irony of this is that much of Hillary's credibility as a candidate for Secretary of State, and what makes her potential selection appealing across the aisle, is due to the cynical hyping of Clinton by the right wing beginning with the early primaries, first in order to attempt to make her the Democratic choice because they believed she was too polarizing and would hand the election to the Republicans - see Rush Limbaugh's campaign to get his dittoheads to vote for Clinton in the Democratic primaries; then in order to try to get the Republicans to vote against John McCain by pretending that Hillary was more appealing to conservatives than McCain - see Ann Coulter's claim that she would vote for Hillary over McCain; and finally the attempt to undermine Obama through the bogus PUMA movement. All of those cynical attempts failed, of course, but served to bolster Clinton's bipartisan credentials.

Nevertheless, I'm not naive and unrealistic about the potential for a Mid-East peace settlement under a Clinton-run State Department - there are huge obstacles that make any solution incredibly difficult, even with the best of all scenarios. And Hillary is nothing close to perfect. But Hillary Clinton would have to be the franchise player on a team with a goal of really, really make things happen in the Middle East.

And from Hillary's standpoint, what better crowning achievement for a lifetime of service?

Moreover, it shows tremendous wisdom and leadership for Obama to take advantage of those skills, regardless of whether he is accused of failing to make "change," as surely the media and the Republicans will spin the selection. The reality is, appointing Hillary as Secretary of State does constitute change - not necessarily of people, but of presidential attitude and behavior, of evaluating and understanding the particular needs and relevant skills to address a particular issue, and then choosing the person best qualified to succeed in achieving a particular goal, regardless of appearances, in order to cause the greatest good. In short, for an Obama Administration, only the best will do, regardless of petty differences and spin about a team of rivals, rather than the reality of a team of the most skilled players.

Look, I recognize that Rumsfeld and Cheney and Powell were supposed to herald an era of smart foreign policy, and we know how that turned out. And Obama's "change" could turn out to be more of the same. But, it seems to me, the key difference here is the man in charge, someone who is interested in differing viewpoints, is not intellectually incurious, does not believe he is never wrong, whose entire perspective on the world does not come from his inner circle, who is negotiating to keep his blackberry so he can keep up with the world real time and on his own terms. Barack Obama may have made some mistakes in his cabinet choices so far. I concede that those whom I described as "only the best" may, in fact, turn out to be horrible choices whose personal failings undermine the best intentions.

But I continue to believe in Barack Obama's message and his leadership. As a result, it doesn't appear to be in Obama's nature to surround himself with starry-eyed yes-men, fawning hangers-on, Arabian horse judge hacks, pretentious fools and megalomanics, in order to boost his sense of self.

Change comes from the top.

After the politics we have suffered through for so long, that kind of change is essential.