Clinton at State...Does It Make Sense?

For any incoming President, building a Cabinet team can be a bit like piecing together a puzzle.

Even if you don't begin with a nod to identity politics, pledging as Bill Clinton did during his transition to the presidency, to have a Cabinet that "looks like America," presidents want to have teams that bring not only competence, but also allow them to placate various groups and interests.

Yet, there's more at play in putting together a Cabinet than completing a checklist.

As a leader myself for much of the past three decades, whether in church, charitable, education, or community groups, I've also subscribed to the notion in whatever effort I lead, I would much rather have strong-willed people who differ with me on some things as part of my leadership group, rather than leaving them on the outside. People who feel that they're out of the loop or denied some of the facts, even when they are not, are motivated to positively influence their own constituencies when they're part of "the team" of decision-makers. This was also the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln, who put together what Doris Kearns Goodwin called his "team of rivals." Goodwin's book of that name has apparently had a huge impact on President-elect Obama. Like Lincoln, who brought in the New York senator who had been his chief opponent for their party's nomination for president to be his Secretary of State, Obama is evidently weighing the possibility of making Hillary Clinton his top diplomat, too.

Does it make sense?

At one level, it makes little sense. Clinton, after all, has never been a diplomat nor a prominent thinker in the realm of foreign policy. These have become the usually expected credentials for Secretary of State in recent decades. One thinks of John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, Madeleine Albright, Cyrus Vance, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice. All spent substantial time either in diplomacy, in academia, or in both before being named Secretary of State.

But these weren't always the credentials associated with secretaries of State. In the early history of the country, the position fell to those deemed be "next in line" for presidential consideration. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and John Quincy Adams all served as secretary of State before becoming president.

For much of our history, the position went to the President's chief rival or, when obscure compromise candidates deemed more electable were sent to the White House, it went to the most powerful pol in the party. Daniel Webster, James Buchanan, Henry Clay, and William Jennings Bryan have all gone to Foggy Bottom under these circumstances. It's a lot easier for a president to control a rival, keeping the secretary on a short leash, when they serve at "the pleasure of the President" than it is when the rival is in the Senate or the House, serving at the pleasure of voting constituents. Secretaries of State have also felt that they could better control presidents this way, although William Seward, charmed and impressed by Lincoln, learned that he could not control the sixteenth president and that, in fact, his tenure was more enjoyable and fulfilling than it would have been had he treated Lincoln like the backwoodsman he initially thought him to be.

Obama may have a bit of both the Lincoln and the short leash models in mind in considering Hillary Clinton for the State Department. Having her at State is more attractive for Obama than the prospect of having her--and her husband--in the White House, with her serving as Vice President. The role of Secretary of State is more proscribed, less open-ended than that of Vice President, particularly in an era which, since the days of Fritz Mondale, has seen an expanded policy role for veeps, with an accompanying encouragement to mischief-making.

But one wonders why Clinton would want to be Secretary of State. By all accounts, both Republicans and Democrats say that she's an effective US Senator and whether sooner or later, is likely to become leader of the Senate Democrats. As a senator, she can control what issues in which she wants to specialize and make an impact. At State, she would serve at the behest of the President.

From Obama's standpoint too, it would appear to be better to cultivate a relationship with a Senator Clinton, knowing that she can be a powerful ally in the Congress and the Democratic Party. He can use her vote and her influence there.

But even if the President-elect and his team believe that they must bring Clinton into the Cabinet, is State the best spot for her?

Granted, State is both historically and legally the highest-ranking of Cabinet positions and so, commensurate with Clinton's apparent status within the Democratic Party. But of the Big Four Cabinet departments--State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice, she's clearly most qualified for the latter slot. Yet, her past legal problems would, at the least, create perception problems that a new administration would just as soon forgo.

If Defense is going, as has been widely reported, to the incumbent secretary, Robert Gates, Obama can't really appoint another Republican to any of the other Big Four positions. Clinton, with her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, would be an interesting choice for Defense. But keeping Gates is sensible to me. One person I met who works in the Pentagon told me recently that Gates has had a tremendously positive impact on DoD morale, that people in the Pentagon trust him and appreciate that he is no prima donna.

Retaining Gates leaves out maybe the most well-qualified of the political candidates for Secretary of State, Indiana's senior senator, Richard Lugar, who would have been a great choice if Obama is truly intent on employing foreign policy realism and working cooperatively with the Republican Party in the post-Bush environment. That in turn, means that a Democrat must be Secretary of State.

(I do expect Obama to appoint at least one other Republican Cabinet secretary among the other posts. And while Clinton would be an interesting choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services, that would be a comedown for her. Besides, Howard Dean is the obvious choice there.)

At this time of financial crisis, it would make little sense for Clinton to go to Treasury. So, State, at least politically, if she wants the job, is the most sensible place for her to go.

If I were Clinton, I would say no were the job offered. An independent political future can be hers indefinitely in the Senate.

And what happens if she is offered the job and turns it down? Apparently, the short list for the slot includes Senator John Kerry and Governor Bill Richardson. Vice President-elect Joe Biden would likely lobby for Kerry if Clinton excuses herself from the running: Kerry had tapped Biden to serve at State back when Kerry ran for president four years ago. Biden may feel obliged to return the favor. And speaking of favors, Kerry did a big one for an obscure Illinois state senator four years ago when the Massachusetts senator picked Obama to be the Democratic National Convention keynote speaker. That effectively began Obama's successful run for the presidency. Richardson, despite his impressive foreign policy chops, simply doesn't have that kind of pull with Team Obama-Biden. Yet, given his substantive diplomatic and administrative experience, he might be a better Secretary of State than Kerry.

So, will Clinton go to State. She may find the role irresistible. If I were a betting person, I would say yes, making the rest of the Cabinet puzzling all the more interesting.