President-elect Donald Trump has yet to announce his nominee for secretary of state, but he appears to have narrowed the field of candidates down to three: Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Gen. David Petraeus.
The search for America’s next top diplomat is already causing some drama within the ranks of Trump’s transition team. The president-elect was reportedly ready to offer the job to Romney last week, as long as the former Massachusetts governor apologized for criticizing Trump during the Republican primary.
Some Trump loyalists, however, are clearly upset that Romney is even being considered for the post, and would prefer an anti-establishment choice such as Giuliani, whose support for Trump never wavered during the campaign. Petraeus, meanwhile, is a recent addition to the field of candidates, but seems to have made a good impression during a meeting with Trump on Monday.
Just met with General Petraeus–was very impressed!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2016
There is a compelling case to be made for each of the three finalists for secretary of state, but perhaps there is a fourth option, a candidate who is essentially a composite version of the other three, who could satisfy the competing factions within the party, and the country as a whole. That candidate is Hillary Clinton.
Clinton may not be “chief executive material,” given her track record in presidential campaigns, but that puts her in the same league as presidential losers Romney and Giuliani. She has a leg up in terms of experience, though, having already served four years as secretary of state in the Obama administration.
Trump had nothing but praise for Hillary’s job performance during a 2012 interview with Fox News. “I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job,” he said. Clinton may not have much to show in terms of actual accomplishments, but she probably knows her way around the state department complex.
If Trump is leaning towards Mitt Romney because he is a wealthy establishment type with ties to the financial industry, why not consider Hillary instead? She is almost as rich, backed by Wall Street, and presumably more willing to endure public humiliation to stay in a position of power and relevance. She attended Trump’s wedding because he donated to her campaign; of course she would apologize if he offered her a job.
If Trump’s goal in picking Romney is to united a divided political party, why take it one step further and unite a divided nation by nominating his former political rival from the opposition party? Choosing Hillary would promote national healing, big league.
Those who prefer Rudy Giuliani, a New Yorker with ties to shady foreign governments, will find a lot to like in Hillary, who moved to New York to run for Senate in 2000, and who recently purchased a second mansion in Chappaqua. Giuliani’s portfolio in terms of business dealings with state-owned firms in Venezuela, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, is put to shame by the Clinton Foundation’s rolodex of foreign donors.
Finally, it’s difficult to see what Gen. Petraeus could offer that Hillary could not. Both have experience dealing with mistresses, and both have been chastised for playing fast and loose with classified information. Only Petraeus was charged with a crime, however, and Hillary will probably get away with it. Her savvy when it comes to avoiding jail time (thus far) and blatantly lying to the public should come in handy as a member of the Trump administration.
Petraeus advocates will probably cite his military experience as a plus, but they’d be ignoring the fact that Hillary also has a considerable track record of dodging sniper fire in a war zone.
For these reasons, and many more, Hillary Clinton is the perfect consensus choice for secretary of state. Believe me.
TAKE THE POLL