The Good Soldier: Hillary Clinton As Secretary of State

[Beacool]

By: Peter Keating
6/14/09



How is Hillary Clinton doing as secretary of State? Two recent quotes tell you all you need to know.

On May 27, frustrated by unusually thoroughgoing U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Benjamin Netanyahu complained, “What the hell do they want from me?” They: Clinton and Barack Obama.

A couple of months earlier, Colin Powell, asked to comment on Clinton’s attempt to redirect American foreign policy toward diplomacy and foreign aid, said: “We all know we ought to be moving in this direction, but it takes money.” We: Clinton, Powell, and the foreign-policy establishment.

Just over a year ago, Clinton was bottoming out in her doomed presidential race, telling reporters she was soldiering on against Obama because, after all, "we all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." Now, she has turned herself into Obama’s greatest asset, on Capitol Hill as much as around the world, in fashioning a national-security policy that has closed off all policy differences between the former Democratic rivals, co-opted many Republicans, and left the rest of the administration’s opponents astoundingly marginalized.

On the inside, Clinton has steadily accumulated power while expending hardly any political capital. For one thing, she has stirred an effective mix of politicos and diplomats into the top tiers of the State Department. Hillary has Cheryl Mills, a lawyer best known for defending Bill Clinton during impeachment, running her staff. And she has divided the position of Deputy Secretary of State into two jobs: supersmart Jim Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser under Bill Clinton but supported Obama in 2008, is her policy maven, while Jack Lew is her management chief. Lew helped Hillary secure a 10 percent increase in the State Department’s budget from Obama while Tim Geithner was still figuring out how to turn the lights on in his office.

Further, Clinton hasn’t made mistakes. There have been no Joe Biden–like gaffes, Tom Daschle–like embarrassments, or Judd Gregg–like turnarounds coming from Hillary. Or from her husband — these days, Bill Clinton would have us believe he spends his time shopping for trinkets, unable even to get Hillary on her cell phone.

Meanwhile, nobody else has developed an alternative foreign-policy power center within the administration. Obama likes Biden, but the vice-president is no match for Hillary in mano-a-mano bureaucratic combat. For example, Clinton favored sending 21,000 more troops to Afghanistan, while Biden opposed the move. The result: “She crushed him,” according to Republican Mark Kirk of Ilinois. At the same time, National Security Adviser Jim Jones has been an utter cipher; when Time’s Mark Halperin graded the Obama administration, he gave Hillary an A- (“significant, powerful, worldly, respected”), but had to give Jones an “incomplete.” And Obama’s presidential envoys, such as Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan and Dennis Ross in Iran, are mostly old Clinton hands who aren’t about to usurp any authority from Hillary.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/06/hillary_clinton_as_secretary_o.html

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's a little early for this article to be written. But her 'plays well with others' quotient has

always been grossly under-estimated and that this article points that out makes it good.

[MADem]

3. Well, there's a crowd that loves real-time assessments--they love to "grade"

the President and the cabinet, and anyone in the Executive Branch, and assign people to the Winners or Losers column.

Clinton doesn't make many mistakes, though, does she? She did very well in the Senate precisely due to her "works/plays well" persona!

[Captain Hilts]

4. My firm's clients on The Hill were VERY surprised at how much they enjoyed working with her

and how unlike their expectations she was.

I heard that from a lot of folks in both parties. This is why all Chris Matthews' nasty comparisons to Lady MacBeth, Nurse Ratchet upset me so. I've met too many doubters that dramatically changed their minds after meeting and working with her.

[Beacool]

6. Anybody who knew Hillary could have told them that.

The Repug meme, later on taken by the media and the LW, that she was so "polarizing" was just plain B.S.

:shrug:

As for Matthews, that sexist creep is an ASSHOLE!!! I would rather eat nails than watch his lisping nasty self.

:puke:

[ronnykmarshall]

10. The reception she got when she arrived to work at State was amazing.

I think they are pretty glad to see Condi take her boots and leave.

[Captain Hilts]

11. Well, as is the case with Prez O at times, I think folks are thrilled to see GWB and Condi gone.

The agencies were completely disheartened, so MObama's tour of the agencies was a great idea.

It's ALL good.

[ronnykmarshall]

12. Hey you call him Prez O too?

I like that nickname.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Now that the dog is BO, 'BO and MO' doesn't work as well as it used to.

I guess Prez 'Oh' could be cool too.

But President Obama is a mouthful, like President Roosevelt and President Kennedy. They got initials. Actually ALL the Roosevelts used initials in their correspondence with one another going back to TR.

I like the NYDNews' use of 'Bam' also.

[MadMaddie]

66. It was fantastic wasn't it? I think they were all sighing with

relief!!

[ronnykmarshall]

87. Just for fun ..... let's watch it again!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z6Im1vKGXk&feature=related

[MADem]

13. She got some great committee assignments, and she got those by being nice to, and

deferring to the Senatorial wisdom of, Robert Byrd (who could screw ya if he didn't like ya).

She has such an undeserved rep. It's to do with the "woman thing," I think. Women are a majority in this country, but when they're not treated like a downtrodden minority, they're regarded as inferior, second-class, and worthy of scorn. I don't think that will change until we see a woman in the White House. Then, everything will change--the floodgates will open.

When I was very young I always thought that government in the far-distant 21st Century would have a few more women in it than it does today.

[Beacool]

16. Hear, hear!!!

She has such an undeserved rep. It's to do with the "woman thing," I think. Women are a majority in this country, but when they're not treated like a downtrodden minority, they're regarded as inferior, second-class, and worthy of scorn. I don't think that will change until we see a woman in the White House. Then, everything will change--the floodgates will open.

:applause:

[YOY]

2. The right said that Obama/Hillary would be tested internationally within the first 6 month.

They were right but not in the way they ever intended to be.

I anxiously look to how she is handling the situation in Iran. Preferably as publically hands-off with vocal support for the reformists...

This is getting interesting. It would be moreso if they're weren't innocent lives at stake.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. I'm always smiling when I read how SHOCKED people are that Obama and Clinton could act like adults

rather than petulant children--that they could work together to achieve a common goal rather than let the bitterness of the primaries sully that.

It's refreshing to say the least.

Clinton is doing an amazing job and I am very happy that because of her professionalism, at our family gatherings there isn't even a hint of the animosity from the primaries.

[Beacool]

7. It speaks volumes of both of them.

Obama for considering her for SOS even before the primaries were over, and Hillary for putting aside her disappointment and agreeing to work for her former rival.

Two very smart people who are alike in some respects. Hillary is also very analytical. Her discussions with Al Gore when they were in the WH were legendary for being uber wonkish. Even Bill would walk off on occasion.

:-)

[ronnykmarshall]

8. Starting the countdown now .....

:hide:

[Beacool]

9. Hopefully not, Ronny.

Let's see if we can have one positive thread without casting aspersions on others.

:hi:

[ErinBerin84]

15. I loved the

clip that Jon Stewart showed (of Hillary entering the state department to applause) with "THAT'S what being greeted as a liberator is like!"

[Beacool]

17. Missed that, but a good quip from Stewart.

:7

[Captain Hilts]

18. Trust me. In DC the fed folks all feel that way. nt

[Beacool]

26. That's what I heard too from people at State.

She's a hard worker, but finds time to visit the other floors and commend people on their hard work. She also endeared herself to them when she spoke about the diplomat killed in Ethiopia and her voice cracked. The father of this young man's best friend mentioned that when his class took the oath of office Condi was in the building and couldn't be bothered to come down and congratulate them. What a difference from Hillary!!!

;-)

[Mass]

19. The positive writing on Clinton is warranted, but why bash Biden and Jones in order to do so?

More of the same inside the Beltway thinking.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Agree. They're both good guys in jobs suited to them. The whole zero-sum approach

to everything relating to DC is very tiring, isn't it.

And it's not accurate.

[ErinBerin84]

21. true

[Beacool]

23. Yeah, I agree.

That part was unnecessary.

:(

[rvablue]

28. I agree. The Biden gaffe thing is getting so, so stale.

It's almost like no one is even listening to anything else he says because they are so preoccupied if they're going to be able to nab him in a "gaffe."

You know what I think a gaffe is: when asked about Americans low opinion of the war in Iraq, a VP has the gall to say, "So?"

[Captain Hilts]

40. I agree. I don't think they're a big deal at all. Enuff! nt

[blm]

35. because that was part of someone's intent with this ridiculous opinion piece...

anyone paying attention knows this article was written in response to recent stories that noted how some key players OTHER THAN the SoS have been doing the heavy lifting on the problem regions like Pakistan and Syria.

[wyldwolf]

37. contrary to your second point

anyone paying attention knows this article was written to set the record straight on those other fictional pieces you referred to.

[ieoeja]

38. I missed those articles. Were they about the special envoys?

Months ago two special envoys were appointed to bypass the State Department and report directly to the President on Middle Eastern and Pakistani affairs. That certainly is not fiction.

But as stated, I have not seen the articles the two of you reference. So maybe the two of you are talking about something different.

[wyldwolf]

39. I dunno

blm just shits on anything Clinton-related so many here just give it back to her.

[blm]

50. I tell the truth and your only recourse is to play your game of pretend.

.

[wyldwolf]

54. LOL! I was expecting you to say "baloney!"

[blm]

48. here....read this recent DU thread..... I highly doubt the Pres. of Syria trusts either Clinton

as honest brokers. Especially after Bill's rant.

The whole thread contains a fuller picture.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8447790

[blm]

47. Fictional? Kerry's work developing a dialogue with Syria has gone on for 4yrs. Clintons sided w/Bush

and the neocons. Did you convenientky forget about both Clinton's bellicose rhetoric on Syria, especially Bill's rant?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8447790

David Ignatius in the Washington Post wrote:


The long-stalled U.S. diplomatic engagement with Syria is moving forward -- thanks to an unusual bit of mediation by Sen. John Kerry.

<snip>

Kerry reportedly played a key role in breaking the logjam between the two countries, which had worsened after the Obama administration announced last month that it was renewing sanctions against Damascus under the Syria Accountability Act. The Syrians had been expecting that move, but they were upset by a presidential statement accompanying the renewal, which repeated harsh Bush administration language that said Syria posed an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States.” The Syrians said that unless this sharp language was withdrawn and the bilateral relationship improved, they wouldn’t provide the security assistance that Centcom wanted.

A mini-breakthrough in U.S.-Syria relations came Sunday in a telephone conversation between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, according to U.S. and Syrian sources. Moallem said that Syria would welcome a visit by U.S. Central Command officers to Damascus this month to discuss joint efforts to stabilize Iraq. In return, Clinton promised to develop a joint “road map” for improving bilateral relations between the two countries.

<snip>
Kerry’s role in all this is intriguing for two reasons: First, it shows that the former Democratic presidential candidate is carving out a role for himself as a foreign-policy player -- courageously taking on issues that are sensitive in political and policy terms. Second, it shows a fluid and creative foreign-policy process in the Obama administration, in which people outside the White House inner circle are able to get the president’s attention and push the envelope.
>>>>>>>

[beachmom]

71. Pardon? What fictional pieces do you refer to?

This NY mag article was very short with little information. So I am unsure of what you are talking about.

[blm]

75. He's claiming recently posted piece about Kerry's heavylifting on Syria is fiction, plus the other

articles recently posted about the special envoys for the hotspots that shines the light on THEIR efforts.

The silly Biden slap makes it it even more obvious the article came from someone in the Clinton camp pissed off about the behind the scenes tasks others took the lead. She should be embarrassed by the amateurish political posturing that was done on her behalf, and probably without even her knowledge.

[karynnj]

80. BLM, you know I usually agree with you - but I am not certain that Clinton

had anything to do with that story. It seems based on the USAtoday story that quoted Biden. I found that story weird because I realy don't think Biden would want to be on record as so against a major Obama foreign policy. It also paints HRC as leading the hawks - a position I doubt she wants.

[blm]

81. That's why I said it sounds like someone from her camp is the source, but, likely on their own

without her knowledge. The source of this ridiculous article is someone looking to glorify Clinton's role while underplaying the roles of others, including Biden.

Smells like a heyjohn.com type job, but, even more amateurish.

[JohnnyLib2]

22. Nice article.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

[Beacool]

25. You're welcome!!

:hi:

[Vidar]

24. Hillary is easily the most impressive cabinet member.

[nichomachus]

27. I think she will give Obama a run for his money in the 2012 primary

Obama is squandering his political capital faster than George Bush after 9-11 -- and Hillary is looking better and better.

Don't think that Bill and the mullahs of the Clinton machine aren't drawing up plans for 2012 right now.

[Beacool]

29. I don't think so.

Hillary is no Teddy, she wouldn't do that to Obama and the party. It's not her style.

[nichomachus]

30. It may be the only way

to keep the White House in Democratic hands. Obama is pissing off one core constituency after the other. He was a novelty last time. He will be less so the next time. The economy will probably still be very sour. A lot of people will have been out of a good job for years.

There's also a good chance the Dems could lose one house of Congress in 2010. A lot of the voters who came out in 2008 did so solely because Obama was on the ballot. Many of those won't be there in 2010. Also, Obama is shitting all over a lot of people who donated big and worked hard for Dems in 2008. I know that unless the party makes some dramatic changes -- and soon -- my wallet is off the table in 2010.

Put all of that into the mix for 2012 and he could be very vulnerable.

And, for the record, the Clintons would do it. I didn't see any concern on their part for "the party" when she and Bill dragged the last primary out long after it was impossible for her to win.

[Beacool]

31. Well...............

I think that it's still too soon to tell how Obama will fare by 2011. Anything can happen to the economy and international affairs between now and then. Either way, rarely does your scenario work. Look what happened in 1980, Reagan won.

Edited for typo.

[SteppingRazor]

34. Oh, come now.

The chances of the Dems losing a house in Congress in 2010 are about the same as me winning the lottery tonight. In the Senate, five retiring Republicans -- plus vulnerable Republican incumbents in Kentucky, North Carolina and Louisiana -- translates to yet another cycle of the Dems picking up a couple seats and in the House, the Dems so severely outnumber the GOP that it would take at least two or three incredibly damaging cycles (as the GOP had in 08 and 06, for example) to fall from power. I'll allow that the Dems could lose some seats in the House in 2010, given that Democrats occupy seats in some fairly red districts after the last two elections cycles, but I don't think you can be a serious observer of congressional elections and, at this point in the game, say that there's "a good chance" the Dems will lose a house in 2010.

Which house did you mean? Or do you think both are vulnerable?

As to Obama's own alleged vulnerability, continued high approval ratings make that claim seem tenuous at best. There's simply nothing, at this point, to back up the idea that Obama will be vulnerable in 2012.

Moreover, there's even less to suggest that Clinton would force a Democratic primary in any case, vulnerability or no. What evidence is there for even one of the claims you're making here, much less all of them?

[nsd]

49. What the hell are you talking about?

Obama's approval in every recent survey stands at or above 60%. Among Democrats, he's at +80%. (http://www.dailykos.com/weeklytrends).

It's only on DU that anybody is pissed off. This message board isn't the real world.

Also: A novelty?! You think that's why Obama won? That's stupid.

[StevieM]

67. The voters could have ended the primary any time they wanted. They wanted to keep it going

and so they kept giving her wins. A poll taken before the final primary showed that most Democrats did not think Hillary should drop out. And your claim that "it was impossible for her to win" is based soley on your unilateral declaration by fiat that the PD-winner was the rightful nominee, a claim contradicted by both the rules and past precedent. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine that if the votes were reversed Obama would not still have gotten the nomination.

Steve

[sarah553807]

85. a "novelty"

[cali]

32. not a chance in the world that Hillary will run against her boss in the primary in 2012

sometimes the naivete of DUers still surprises me.

[Captain Hilts]

42. They just don't know how politics - and people - work. Stunning at times. nt

[nichomachus]

44. Actually, it's the Clinton worshippers who don't know how politics and people work n/t

[Captain Hilts]

45. DC ain't Palm Springs. nt

[nichomachus]

79. Yeah, I know, I used to work in DC n/t

[Metric System]

53. WTF? You're the one who made the post that everyone is reacting negatively to! None of the Hillary

supporters that I see here are advocating that she take on President Obama in 2012. Your posts are contradictory. What a shit-stirrer.

[Beacool]

55. I didn't see any response to your post stating that she would run in 2012.

Quite the contrary. The Hillary supporters, including myself, said that she wouldn't.

:shrug:

[quickesst]

65. If there is any doubt.....

...that had HRC won the nomination, the Hillary-haters would have made groups like PUMA look like the local PTA, that doubt should be gone. Some of the crap is so far out there it's more humane to attribute it to Clinton Fever, which no cure has been found yet, not that anyone's really working on it. Thanks.
quickesst

[Uzybone]

60. its not naivete. Its hate/intense stupidity

no one with a brain would come up with such rubbish.

[mkultra]

33. I think she knows better than to challenge an incumbent

Even if his presidency goes down in flames, he would probably still secure the nomination due to incumbency draw.

[Captain Hilts]

41. No. Not going to happen. nt

[Metric System]

51. Oh, good grief.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

62. Hillary isn't a traitor to her party like Ted Kennedy.. she won't run against Pres Obama.

Jimmy Carter had many flaws... so I can understand why Ted wanted him out.... but I think it was a terrible thing to do. How much better would we have been if Jimmy had a second term rather than Reagan winning? Lots better I'm sure.

But Hillary would never betray the party like Ted did.


I love Ted, but it seems like Ted often holds his finger to the wind and decides what to do based on that. Sure politicians have to suck it up sometimes to win.... but why would he betray a sitting President? I KNOW Hillary won't do that.

Mark my words.

[rvablue]

64. There isn't a .000000000000000000000000001% chance Secretary Clinton will run in 2012. n/t

[saltpoint]

70. I don't think so.

[LisaM]

36. So this (briefly) degenerated into a Yay for Hillary into making it part of The Plan?

Anyone seriously believing she is positioning herself for a 2012 run is missing the point of this article.

The only way she would do that would be if Obama chose not to run himself in 2012.

[Captain Hilts]

43. Stop being logical LisaM!

Sorry about the Wings. But, really, the league wants Crosby as their face and his team got all the breaks.

[LisaM]

56. Thanks - the city needed the win more than I did.

I suppose it would have been too much to ask that they didn't take the Cup to a Pirates game the next day when they were playing Detroit. But being gracious doesn't seem to be their style apparently!

I wish we could have been healthier. But, that's the breaks.

[MoonRiver]

46. K&R!

She's been doing a great job! I totally trust President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to safeguard this country against terrorists here and abroad. Sleeping better than I have in 8 long, horrible years! :)

[tammywammy]

52. I've been very pleased with Clinton as SoS

She's doing a good job, not that I expected anything less.

[WonderGrunion]

57. I did not support Hillary in 2008

But I think she's making a damned fine case for herself in 2016. If that is her intention, I would suggest that Obama replace Biden with Hillary during his second term so we don't have the same problem the Republicans had with Cheney clutching to power but not running for president.

[comsymp]

61. 2016? Doubt it

After all, she'll be 69 then. Same age Raygun (the oldest incoming Prez in US history) was at his first inauguration, and coincidentally, only 3 years younger than McCain would have been had he won in '08... and we all remember the brouhaha about his age last year.

[blue_onyx]

68. Age is not necessarily an issue

Age effects people differently. For example, I have a great aunt who is almost 80 and is physically and mentally agile. She could easily pass for a much younger age. In McCain's case, it seemed age was catching up with him. Hillary may be 69 in 2016 but that doesn't mean she won't be physically and mentally up to the challenge of running again.

My guess is Hillary will not run. I think she's come to terms with the loss and is ready to move forward.

[comsymp]

69. Age isn't necessarily an issue to an individual's abilty, but

it's certainly an issue in people's perceptions / Conventional Wisdom - call it what it is: ageism. McCain isn't the only example of a pol's age being used against him - Dole, Mondale, Byrd - hell, even Raygun to a lesser degree (ok, bad example). And who's to say how the demands of her job / life will have caught up to Hillary in 7-8 years? I think the ageist crap would be a pretty safe bet under any circumstances.

I agree that she won't run, and (noting the interesting exchange upthread) definitely not in '12.

It would require a perfect storm of events to occur for any high-ranking Admin official to successfully challenge The Boss for his job: Obama's popularity would need to be near Bushian levels; she'd have to have already resigned as SOS - preferably over principle differences w/in the Administration - in order to separate herself from the O Admin in the public's perceptions (there's that word again); her own popularity would have to be polling pretty high; she'd need heavy hitters backing her on the Hill and at the DNC, and she'd have to manage to get the talking heads into her corner... basically where Powell was in '04.

So President Hillary isn't in our future. A pity - even with her hawkish centrism she'd have done a pretty good job in the Big Chair, IMO.


:edited for (an attempt at) clarity:
:and spelling:

[Beacool]

74. None of the men you mentioned, other than Reagan.,

had the support of the base. Hillary did and does. She's not your average politician. There are 3 star politicians in this party: Obama and the Clintons (maybe Michelle too if down the line she chooses to run for something). No one has a crystal ball, therefore I wouldn't count her out just yet.

[comsymp]

76. I'd like to agree, believe me, but

I'm not so confident of her level of base support - maybe last year is still too fresh in my memory, but I remember her - and Bill - being trashed repeatedly by a large segment of "the base." Hell, it's still going on. Granted, many of their positions / actions have pissed me off over the years so I'm not a blind loyalist, but it's always seemed to me that they have, and have had for years, much more than their share of "haters" among the base, the Powers and the Mainstream Liberal Media^TM.

She was my preferred candidate last year, and I believe she'd be/have been an excellent POTUS, but I just think that - timing-wise - '08 was her only/best shot. As you said, no one has a crystal ball, and she's off to an impressive start as SOS, so she could, theoretically, have time to solidify and build her base of support.

Also, minor quibble, but I'd argue that Mondale definitely had the base - was referring to '02 Senate, so not National, but still.... Intended point was just that the old -ism dog still hunts.

This is a pretty good thread.

[Beacool]

77. She did have most of the base.

Obama's base were the the yuppies, AAs and the youth. She had the rest of the base during the primaries. The MSM were absolutely disgusting to her and so was the left wing of the party leadership, which can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. The DNC will never get another penny from me.

I agree that 2008 was her best opportunity, but in politics anything can happen. We'll just have to wait and see.

:shrug:

[comsymp]

78. Maybe it's just our respective definitions of "have"

In terms of broad support indicators like polling numbers, name recognition, general positives, etc., you're absolutely right - she was / is *very* popular. I was thinking more of a depth of commitment that would outweigh the perceived negative of age in 2016. The kind of slams we referenced above generally don't seem to matter to her 18MM (and counting?) base but would be heard by the undecideds and, in conjunction with the age issue, would pose a formidable, if not insurmountable obstacle for her. Of course, we haven't even acknowledged the role misogyny played, and undoubtedly would again, against her campaign. Y'know, that (the blatant sexism) was probably the biggest surprise of Campaign '08 for me.

Beyond that, I think we're in pretty close agreement... except, maybe, for our definitions of Left Wing Party Leadership (i would argue that the Party barely has a left wing), but that's another discussion for another day :)

Agreed, too - we'll just have to wait and see.


:Edited for fine tuning:

[Beacool]

86. Oh, I think the commitment is still there.

There are plenty of people who consider this election unfinished business and are biding their time. If she's still interested in running in the future the machinery, which is now dormant, will come alive again. The sexism was quite depressing, but not entirely shocking. There was a clear double standard and race trumped gender.

;-)

[blm]

84. Sure....Iowa caucus was chock full of yuppies, AA, and youth. No working class or union folk, eh?

Iowa, the official headquarters of the DLC and limousine Democrats everywhere.

Yeah...that's the ticket.

[blm]

82. You would have to believe this story is completely true in its attacks on Biden while exalting HRC.

Last week there were a number of articles posted at DU that told a different story about the high level of negotiating going on in the hotspot regions, and it was others doing the heavy lifting, some who have been involved for years.

[AtomicKitten]

83. Biden hasn't ruled out running in 2016 and he's got his foot in the door. n/t

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/vp-biden-keeping-the-door-open-for-2016-.html

[karynnj]

58. Typical NY magazine writing - very gossipy - Their 2007/2008 stuff was awful in terms of accuracy

The fact is that there are many people who will contribute input into the Obama foreign policy. Hillary Clinton is one of them. I seriously do not remember there ever having been articles that come close to saying that Madeline Albright created the foreign policy of Bill Clinton, who had less foreign policy experience when he became President than Obama does. Obama is the person who has to make the final decisions - he is the one who will get (and deserve) the credit if things go right and he is the one who will get(and deserve) the blame if things go wrong.

I think a USAtoday article was the basis for the claim that Hillary "beat" Biden on the Afghanistan policy. Both here - and there, many other people are ignored. Most glaringly, Obama, who had his own POV before he listened to the pros and cons of the entire group. He did not come to this decision with no earlier position. He was one of the first after Feingold and Kerry, to speak of the need for more troops in Afghanistan. He ran on this. (Feingold and Kerry introduced legislation in late 2006 - Kerry spoke of it in his Sept 9 Faneuil Hall speech) When Obama spoke of Afghanistan, he was less specific on what the troops would do than Kerry and Feingold, who felt they could provide more security with less violence if the numbers increased. Kerry and Feingold also have stressed that the "footprint" must be as light as possible and seen to be temporary. In 2008, I thought Obama's position was close to those of Feingold and Kerry. (This might be because Kerry was so often the surrogate on this.)

His position actually now seems closer to that of many military people, who long claimed more forces were needed - but they did NOT speak of the same role as Kerry and Feingold. It sounds like HRC agreed with Gates and others. (Judging from Kerry's comments at HRC's hearing and a recent hearing, it sounds like he is concerned that they do not have the role right. Feingold, if anything, is more concerned about this than Kerry.) From the quote, it sounds like Biden disagreed not with the role, but with the numbers themselves.

The only thing that surprises me is that Biden appears to be the root of the story. That is surprising as it is not good when inner administration discussions are put into the open at the start of a new policy. If Biden was correctly quoted, I do not understand his motives - unless it was to get on record that he was against the escalation. (Remember Biden entered the Senate in 1972 - and although he is not as associated with Vietnam as John Kerry, it colors his perspective. That could explain letting slip out that he was leery of the policy, but why "credit" HRC for a policy that you are claimingnot to have been for? ) It makes so little sense, I suspect it was taken out of context or completely untrue.

While I think this is written by people who deep down are still a bit disappointed that HRC is not President and is almost speaking of her as a co-President, handling the foreign policy, it is also silly to say that HRC has not been very involved in an important way on many issues. Just listen to the hearing on NK - http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=286971-1&highlight= You will hear the envoy referring to HRC being involved in calls to various other leaders. I mention this because the hearing was not PR for anyone and there are no motives for anyone to exaggerate here. She is, of course, not the only person involved. Given the UN role, Susan Rice was also a key player.

A big thing to take into consideration is that this story quotes the opinion of Mark Halpern. As he praised Matt Drudge as "our times Edwards R Murrow" and seemed pretty biased at least since 2004, I find his opinion suspect and question his motives. As to the article in the OP, it really diminishes Biden and, to a lesser degree, Obama. Doing this while praising HRC, covers the fact that many may come away less impressed with the Democratic ticket, which most likely will run in 2012.

[Beacool]

59. This is a great pic

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks in the center of the Rainbow Bridge which connects the USA with Canada at Niagara Falls, N.Y. on Saturday June 13, 2009.

[Beacool]

63. I love Juanes!!!

In this image released by the U.S. State Dept. , Colombia singer Juanes, left, poses with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at her office in Washington, Wednesday, June 10, 2009.

Hillary you sly one, I'm so jealous!!!

:evilgrin:

[Colobo]

72. Hillary is a wonderful SOS and we should all be proud of her.

[Arkana]

73. She was a good pick for this post.