It is somehow fitting, even if disturbing, that Hillary Clinton is being considered as the next Secretary of State. Should it come to pass, that Clinton is appointed Secretary of State, it would consummate the full vision of her mentor, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. As political junkies know, the now deceased former Senator from New York, vetted and groomed Hillary to be his successor as New York's Senator. In no small measure, this transmission of Moynihan to Clinton was based on deep ideological affinities. Like Moynihan, Senator Clinton is a liberal on social issues and a conservative on foreign policy issues. Like, Moynihan (and Senator Lieberman), she is an unquestioning champion for Israel. And lest we forget, she has never disavowed her vote in favor of the Iraq war.
If Obama goes through with selecting Clinton as his Secretary of State it will be a clear signal that in foreign policy, his administration is going to hew to a moderate and even a conservative line. Any hopes that the new administration would actually challenge Israel, to do anything, let alone actually take constructive steps towards a rational policy towards the Palestinians and others in the Middle East, will sadly be for naught. Although one could probably have divined that on this issue there would be no change from the Bush administration given that Obama's Chief of Staff is Rahm Emanuel, an ardent supporter of Israel. Clinton's appointment would seal the deal on Israel.
What of Iraq? Events already in motion, namely the Iraqi government showing us the door, may force the Obama/Clinton hand and make the new administration live up to its campaign promises to withdraw from Iraq. There's very little to be milked out of occupying Iraq if you don't intend to invade Iran, which is what really kept the Bushies quagmired in that godforsaken Iraq war. After all, who the hell were we fighting in Iraq? Only those who would deny us the use of their country as a staging platform for actions against Iran (and Syria).
But what of Hillary's Moynihansian views? I think it's safe to characterize Moynihan, and by extension Clinton, as basically neoconservative. In matters of race, Israel, the cold war and the third world, Moynihan was the original neocon. And except for social issues, Clinton's foreign policy views will almost certainly not deviate from that of her mentor. In that regard, Clinton will be to Obama what Zbigniew Brzezinski was to President Jimmy Carter, a constant drag to the right. With her "forceful" personality and base of support, it's difficult to see how her neocon views would be reined in. Who knows, maybe Obama wants to show the world that, contrary to his critics, he is no softie on foreign affairs. And then we might have a redux of Jimmy Carter: nice talk about multi-lateralism but unilateralist actions ultimately setting the table for the next Reagan. Sarah, are you listening?
UPDATE: Apparently, I am not the only one who fears that Clinton will bring a right wing perspective to the job of SoS. (See david mizner's post on the REC list) As for the snark about a "Jew" I think it is uncalled for. It is fair to call Emanuel out as an ardent supporter of Israel and as a former Clintonista, one who would not mind having Clinton setting foreign policy. As for the argument that the POTUS sets the policy, that is indeed the case for every agency of the Federal Government. In almost every instance he will rely on the heads of the various agencies for policy guidance and administration. When it comes to foreign policy, the Secretary of State has considerably more input than other agencies. Colin Powell did not prevent the Iraq War because he backed it and advocated for it. If he has any regrets on that issue he has yet to voice them.