Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrapped up her tour of Asia with a visit to China last week. But some have criticized the envoy for what they view as a reckless kickoff of Chinese-American relations under the Obama administration.Raising eyebrows, she spoke openly about failed American policies in Burma, the possible outcomes of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il’s death and her low expectations for China’s progress on human rights.While it’s likely too early to begin judging Clinton’s success as Secretary of State, we’ve had quite a while to get a feel for her background and personality, including a two-year public job interview for another position (she didn’t get it).Her claims of foreign policy experience are rooted in her former role as first lady. Though she certainly got to see a lot of the world, it’s unclear how that translates into foreign policy experience.In fact, it sounds a lot like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s logic about her purported understanding of all that is Russia.Sure the first lady’s visit is important for symbolic reasons, but ultimately her visit lacks any substance.And it’s not like she’s a foreign policy geek who just lacks the “street smarts.” Her life has been devoted to politics. No, she doesn’t have a doctorate in Russian Studies — like Condoleeza Rice — and she isn’t a decorated military official and security wonk — like Colin Powell.In addition, it seems what little she does bring to the table could be trouble. As the spouse of the founder of the Clinton Global Initiative — which has received millions of dollars from countries including Saudi Arabia — there is no measure that can wipe clean her bill of conflicts of interest.It seems the classless and despicable acts of her campaign — the 3 a.m. phone call ad, her vague position about the relevance of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, her belittling Obama’s inspiring messages and her on-camera cry fest — had no bearing on Obama’s decision to appoint her.These aren’t just personal reasons why Obama should have given her the cold shoulder. They also demonstrate a moral bankruptcy that should not be present in America’s chief diplomat.There is no doubt Clinton is “due” for a high office in the political game of Washington. As the former first lady, she expected it would be the Oval Office.But part of the essence of Obama’s campaign was supposed to be change from this mentality. Besides being an ideological problem of political prid pro quo, the position Clinton bought with her political capital should be insulated from such methods. The secretary of State is far too important, powerful and influential a position for someone to muscle their way in to.While I certainly believe Obama has and will continue to depart markedly from the political system of old, it appears with Clinton’s appointment he may have been a little too ambitious.But the real blame lies with Clinton and her supporters. They created the situation where the new leader of the party was forced to reign in one of his central campaign promises to avoid fissures in his party. Clinton should have respected the mandate of the voters and abstained from using any of her political pressure.Mark Macmurdo is a 22-year-old economics and history major from Baton Rouge.
—-Contact Mark Macmurdo at [email protected]