After running a presidential campaign that Lois Romano today called a “notoriously insular and unhappy, managing a group of egos and backstabbers whose dysfunction may have cost her the White House,” many wondered what would be the reviews on Sect. Hillary Clinton as steward of the State Department.
The haters now love her, because she’s off the political stage, ensconced over at State, though you can be sure every time a syllable gets uttered that makes news the usual suspects rear their heads. But even the agnostics have been won over. The work horse Clinton has, by all accounts written in the last year, enlivened a building filled with dedicated foreign service officers that were demoralized under George W. Bush, listened to her people without exception, and shown real purpose for diplomacy. Clinton’s demand to have 100% hiring control something for which Pres. Obama deserves a lot of credit, as this was not a customary demand. The “Obama guy” reference in Romano’s article humorous. There are some questions still out, however, but elitist timidity and “circling the wagons” driven strictly by Clintonites isn’t one of them. From Romano:
[...] Several career employees said they were caught off guard initially by Clinton’s level of engagement in internal management, particularly coming on the heels of her more reserved predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. On her first tour of the building, before she was sworn in, Clinton requested a budget briefing. Kennedy said it soon became clear what she meant: not an overview, but a line-by-line review that took three sessions to complete.
Shamila Chaudary — a self-described “backbencher” — had toiled for years as a faceless expert on the Pakistan desk when one day she found herself invited to brief Clinton. Chaudary, 32, said the two sparred over whether it was prudent to engage non-governmental power centers in Pakistan, with Clinton expressing skepticism.
Chaudary held her ground, making the point that “we’ve been seen as not engaging with them, and it’s hurt us a lot.” She said that although she and Clinton “didn’t necessarily agree . . . she said that it’s very important for us to debate like this. . . . This is how she said she wants to do business.”
Within 48 hours of their meeting, Chaudary was promoted to a front-line job in the office of policy planning.
However, what’s Sect. Clinton’s signature on State, her “grand strategic vision,” as Stewart M. Patrick, a former Powell aide and “senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations” asks?
To be sure, Clinton has her share of critics who take aim at her operating style, complaining that she has ceded too much of her power to special envoys and that she has been in a global campaign mode of relentless image-building, intense travel and international media cultivation. Her job-approval ratings top President Obama’s.
One loyalist inside the agency, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid, suggested that Clinton is stretched too thin and has not narrowed her goals or developed signature issues that will define her tenure. “What bothers me is that we’re planting zillions of seeds . . . speeches on every issue, but where’s the thematic coherence?” this aide said.
My own personal experience with the State Hillaryland has been positive. Though I have to say that ambassador-at-large in the Office of Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer, in a position that Sect. Clinton created for her friend, runs an office that is unresponsive and impossible to engage successfully. Back in November, I began to reach out, as I wanted to accompany Ms. Verveer on one of her trips in January 2010. Ruth Bennett, Senior Public Affairs Advisor for GWI quickly returned my emails, after Philippe Reines connected me with her. But once I got to Ms. Verveer’s office… nothing. Waiting, emailing again, no schedule from Ms. Verveer, then radio silence. I simply gave up, having no further interest in trying to get in touch with the “Office of Global Women’s Issues” who didn’t have the time of day to be covered. Mind you, the trip I was going to take had been given a quick nod, which I would have to pay for myself. It’s not like I was asking for anything from them except to watch Sect. Clinton’s OGW in action through Verveer. She has a title and a big fancy “Office of Global Women’s Issues,” but Ms. Verveer seems dense to the notion that the United States is part of the globe, with many women inside this country interested in what she’s doing. Color me unimpressed. Melanne Verveer might be globetrotting, but other than that seems to hold a vanity post. If that’s an incorrect review, well, it’s not for lack of trying to find out what exactly she does.
Needless to say, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s reviews at State are good to hear. But I cannot but feel a little Obamaism in her statecraft and an inability to manifest a wider message and mission through her post. The “planting zillions of seeds . . . speeches on every issue, but where’s the thematic coherence?” rings true to me. That’s particularly true on women’s issues. The trip to war ravaged Congo a first for a secretary of state, but what has been the result? In Afghanistan, Obama and Clinton both talked out against Karzai’s rape law, but women continue to suffer abominable second-class lives in Afghanistan, with no pressure coming from the Obama administration or from State. Nothing on Darfur. I’m not sure I’ve heard of any concrete accomplishments towards women’s self-determination around the globe from Clinton that can be hailed as making a difference in the lives of women going forward. Follow through policy with clout and pressure in a manner that tries to change a situation through muscular diplomatic coercion that comes with teeth. On Iran, the Obama White House and State Department has been muted at best (dipnote blog not mentioning once what was going on in Iran during the uprising, which I noted at length throughout their silence) where support for the Iranian people rising up were concerned.
During Clinton’s tenure at State, there has not been anything close to what First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her earthquake speech in China in 1995, which challenged the Chinese government directly on their treatment and views of women. That’s because as our country’s chief diplomat she can’t. So whereas Sect. Clinton is a powerful voice, at State it’s diversified, uncolored by passion to impact a change, and muted on mission.
To add by example, Dr. Condoleezza Rice was basically a ceremonial secretary of state, given a jet, but having no clout whatsoever. As State continues to be handed to women, the seriousness of the position is becoming more and more muted. It’s not good. Clinton’s given great speeches, but she’s not a player on foreign policy. She’s become a ceremonial SoS not unlike Dr. Rice. Though it’s clear on managerial issues Clinton is making her mark, which after the failures of her own presidential campaign is a positive. However, there has been no diplomatic muscle illustrated under Sect. Clinton whatsoever, including on women’s international issues and interests.
In the days of Henry Kissinger, secretary of state was once a very powerful office. As it’s been passed to women I’m not sure it has remained that way. Perhaps it’s because when Sect. Clinton utters what is interpreted as a controversial word it’s seen as popping off, being shrill again, her inner Hillary sneaking through. Whenever Sect. Kissinger uttered a single syllable it was seen as sober words from Mount Serious; James Baker, the same. It’s a new development and challenge for any woman that now heads State, if the position is going to be anything but ceremonial.
After all, it wasn’t Sect. Clinton that Obama sent to Israel this week. It was Vice President Joe Biden.
This essay has been updated.
You know the old saying, “Never send a woman to do a man’s job.” I’m kidding for Christ’s sake.
But, Obama did send Biden and not Hillary to try and get the Peace talks restarted. So maybe he doesn’t trust her not to make some stupid comment. She is certainly prone to doing that as her performance this past 14 months has shown. Peace
I knew you would be the first to comment Imhotep.
Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Israeli bonafides are as strong as Biden’s. Additionally, Biden’s a gaffe machine, much more so than Clinton has ever been.
Taking this issue seriously, Imhotep, it’s an alarming situation for women at State, which includes Condoleezza Rice, who was basically a ceremonial secretary of state, given a jet, but having no clout whatsoever.
As State continues to be handed to women, the seriousness of the position is becoming more and more muted. It’s not good.
Clinton’s given great speeches, but she’s not a player on foreign policy. She’s become a ceremonial SoS not unlike Dr. Rice. Though it’s clear on managerial issues Clinton is making her mark. However, there has been no diplomatic muscle under Sect. Clinton whatsoever, including on women’s international issues and interests.
It’s a reflection of the Obama Administration, not Clinton.
After all, it wasn’t Sect. Clinton that Obama sent to Israel this week. It was Vice President Joe Biden.
I was wondering about that, myself.
That’s because you’re smart, Lynnette.
Clinton enthusiasts and women who want real power for leaders like Hillary must not sidetracked by noise. People must focus on what matters and what is, not allowing die hard support for Clinton confuse and divert you into a mind numbing cheerleading pattern so that you don’t look at the larger issue.
Hillary is now basically a bureaucrat in her SoS position, with her outreach needed at State after Bush, but with her immense knowledge and power marginalized through busy work that could be delegated.
State department manager, US travel secretary and international hostess is *not* the job Henry Kissinger or James Baker had.
Can also be explained by the mad schedule of her Latin American trip last week.
http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/category/clinton-in-latam/
All kidding aside. Biden carries more clout than does Hillary. After all Biden is second in command and is perceived to have the presidents ear. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is, and has long been, the greatest foreign policy challange facing the United States. It could be argued that the world would not have experienced the acts of terrorism that it has endured over the past 62 years except for Israel’s existence. No Six-Day war, no Entebbe, no Sadat assassination, no Munich Olympic massacre, no Red Brigades, no exploding airliners in the desert, no bin Laden, and so on. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict must end and end very soon. If you’d like to talk about the lack of respect that any woman SOS is going to recieve in any Muslim country or in most of African and South America we can certainly do that. The world has changed quite a bit, but it has not changed nearly enough to take seriously any American woman who happens to be the SOS. No matter whose administartion she happens to work for. That’s regrettable, but it is the reality. Peace Peace
The world has changed quite a bit, but it has not changed nearly enough to take seriously any American woman who happens to be the SOS. No matter whose administartion she happens to work for. That’s regrettable, but it is the reality.
Agreed. And you don’t change this pattern that we’re now deeply ingraining by having Hillary Rodham Clinton become a manager not a mover and shaker.
I understand Biden’s clout aspect being veep, but it’s still the mentality from the men at the top who foster more ceremonial power spots for women, without honoring the serious thinking that made them choose a person like Hillary in the first place.
Thanks for that serious response, Imhotep, I really appreciate it, as I know you’re not a Clinton fan, but are a devoted foreign policy follower, which I respect. I value sober input on these matters from dissenting people where Clinton is concerned, as well as those who support her, but can still be independent thinkers.
Also, full remarks of Biden at Tel Aviv University are up for those interested.
First of all, I thought the article, which I read prior to coming here, was a very good article, and showed some of the traits about Clinton which I admire so much–she’s a detail and policy wonk. She wants to KNOW the bottom line, before she’s even sworn in, and disagrees with the briefer, Chaudry, on some Pakistan policies, but then promotes Chaudry. She is a seeker of information, a workhorse not just a showhorse. Again, traits I admire in Clinton.
I actually hadn’t considered the issue of Secretary of State becoming a pale version of its former self since women have begun to take over that cabinet position—i.e., the *feminization* of the State Department.
Is there a reason that James Baker and Henry Kissinger’s “muscular” position in previous administrations strikes you as the definition of a good thing, because I wouldn’t define their legacy as good, although I’ll certainly agree it was muscular. I’d call it corrupt, myself, flagrantly so.
So, in the event that women have begun to make the State Department less flagrantly corrupt, I can only applaud their efforts, pale though they may appear. At least the Secretary of State is no longer just a pseudonym for the “War Ministry” as it was under previous administrations. Kissinger’s legacy in Indonesia is not something I want to repeat certainly, and Baker’s legacy in Iraq, well, it speaks for itself.
“Imhotep says:
11 March 2010 at 11:23 am
You know the old saying, “Never send a woman to do a man’s job.” I’m kidding for Christ’s sake. But, Obama did send Biden and not Hillary to try and get the Peace talks restarted. So maybe he doesn’t trust her not to make some stupid comment. She is certainly prone to doing that as her performance this past 14 months has shown. Peace”
You know the old saying. People may think you a fool. Don’t open your mouth and confirm it.
Thanks for that confirmation imhopless!!
Taylor Marsh says:
11 March 2010 at 12:15 pm
True power is the issue, I think. Imhotep’s words are, unfortunately true. I would like to see Hillary be more of a mover and shaker than a manager, too.
Part of just one email I received in response to this post:
…sadly, I share your view and it is very disappointing. However, I do think that there may be reluctance to ‘overshadow’ Obama – which would be easy to do, and he doesn’t want to be ‘overshadowed’ by Sect. Clinton. (I cling to my belief that he is a real narcissist.) And that in some way, she has been neutered.
I am of the opinion that Sect. Clinton should resign from State and find another niche for herself where she can be independent of government. The likelihood of that – not much…
Biden’s lost cause
The fact that due to Obama’s low approval ratings among Israeli Jews (at the time they stood at 6% and they later plunged to 4%), it would be hard for him to convince the Israeli public to abandon its support for Netanyahu in favor of Obama’s.
As the Left sees it, Clinton retained his reputation as the greatest friend Israel ever had in the White House, despite the fact that his policies were the most hostile policies the US had ever adopted towards Israel, because he knew how to charm the Israeli electorate. His frequent visits to Israel and his saccharine, lip-biting declarations of love for Yitzhak Rabin and Israel were all it took in their view to convince the public to reject the Right. If Obama would just repeat Clinton’s practices, he, too, could bring down Netanyahu and convince the Israeli public to trust him.
Obama’s credibility problems redounded not to his policies, which the Left supports. Instead they owed to his failure to dazzle the Israeli people with the same rhetorical magic he used on the Arabs and the Europeans. It was Obama’s tone, not his programs, that needed to be improved.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=170266
I cling to my belief that he is a real narcissist.) And that in some way, she has been neutered.
Hillary to SOS was a political move
No argument on the poltical, JimK. It’s also a political issue when someone as smart as Clinton allows her role at State to be rendered to managerial only.
The article from which you quoted renders Israel as petulant child for having their feelings hurt, because their egos weren’t sufficiently massaged.
But I do want to rebut the approval talking point of JPost, which weighs in from the right, but that’s also parroted by Joe Scarborough. Obama’s approval among the Israeli elite and the press in Israel is *very* low. But the overall approval is not at 4%, which has become a talking point.
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/12/10/reporting-from-naf-on-israel-palestinian-hopes-for-peace/
A quote from the actual poll results. I was at the event and the above link is notes from the event.
Israelis express a mixture of emotions and assessments toward President Obama. A majority of 52 percent believe that his election is good for addressing the world’s problems (including 63 percent of Israelis under 30 years of age), and more Israelis give him a favorable rating than an unfavorable rating (41 percent favorable / 37 percent unfavorable). In fact, Obama is better-liked than Israel’s current Defense and Foreign Ministers, and his unfavorable rating is only four points higher than the unfavorable rating for George W. Bush, who is routinely characterized as very popular among Israelis. But there are also a lot of doubts centered on whether the President understands the threats facing Israelis, with large numbers believing he is weak on terrorism (50 percent) and naïve (43 percent). Overall, 42 percent of Israelis believe Obama supports Israel, compared to 55 percent who do not. This is certainly not a high level of confidence for an American President, but it is much stronger than the abysmal and frequently (but incorrectly) reported 4 percent approval rating that has driven conventional wisdom on Obama’s support in Israel.1
Perhaps if H. Clinton were president, Israel would take the U.S. more seriously. They could hardly have been more flippant than they have been with Mr. Biden. I think H. Clinton and the U.S. would receive due respect or she would ensure they did.
I think it is Obama, not Clinton, who is seen as weak.
Hey Pilgrim. Sorry, there is simply no evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton as president would be received any differently than Pres. Obama in the Middle East.
Would a “Pres Clinton” have drawn the settlement line? I seriously doubt it.
On that, Pres. Obama deserves a lot of credit; it’s just that he didn’t follow through, which was the problem with making the statement in the first place.
Perhaps one is entitled to hazard the possibility that “perhaps” Clinton would be taken seriously…
I’m not up on the settlement line business, don’t know about that.
Yep, best not to always be making statements not followed through on.
Settlements are *the* thing, Pilgrim, with even people “up on” it continually driven mad by it. Here’s the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11thu1.html
I just appreciate you wading in to the subject. I enjoy hearing everyone’s opinion.
Yes, announcing 16,000 new homes the day Biden arrives is quite unpleasant.
I registered to comment because this article may be off base. There are conventional assumptions here which may not be true.
1. It is assumed that a SoS should set a policy vision and trumpet. Okay, says who? Hillary should not be legislating from the State Department like Kissinger and Baker who abusively used used the post as an end-around Congress to stage coups. They proved loud does not equal right. I absolutely do not think she should take her cues from them or work to be remembered as a war criminal.
2. It is assumed that “mangerial” is a dirty word. Why? This reminds me of when Hillary dismissed housewives who “stayed home and baked cookies.” In the furor, she learned there’s something to be said about being a nurturer: it might be civilization’s most quietly crucial role. I reject completely the notion that getting the State Department in working order after decades of shambles is anything but vital. It may be a turning point. A dysfunctional mess has no business trying to export any vision (the CIA might take note).
3. It is implied that Hillary is not active, but ceremonial. How do we know things are not going exactly as carefully planned by her or the President, or both? She an executive officer, not Chief Executive. Her job is to advance his vision, not her own (coughDICKCHENEYcough). With cabinet officers, if your name is on people’s lips more than twenty-five years later, you probably did something wrong. Sec. Haig is remembered for declaring “I’m in charge here.” Secs. Kissinger and Baker for controversy. Hillary’s profile is arguably too high for a cabinet officer already; it may be very wise (or even necessary) of her to keep her head down.
Hillary called her diplomatic process “smart power,” not loud power or muscle power. The notion that what is going on at State is not “serious” is hyperbole.
The reality is the SOS is there to facilitate the PRESIDENTS foriegn policy, NOT their’s. Advise of course, but this notion that somehow SOS Clinton is supposed to be instituting HER vision for the world is out of touch nonsense.
PostPartisan says:
12 March 2010 at 2:11 am
_____________
Wow. Well said. Kudos for a very thoughtful and well-written post. I hope you comment more.