Stories that make you go hmmmm .....

[beachmom]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071002936.html

White House Fault Lines


By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, July 12, 2009

Surprised to see the news the other day that the Obama administration is sending an ambassador back to Syria? So were officials in Hillary Clinton's State Department. They were still hoping to win more movement from Damascus on Middle East issues when President Obama's decision was leaked.

The diplomatic consequences of a rare crossed wire within this controlled administration are difficult to measure. Syria was being asked to help stop terrorist acts such as the bombings that hit northwestern Iraq last week, diplomatic sources tell me. But Syrian promises on terrorism are notoriously unreliable. Little of substance may have been lost by the poorly timed disclosure.

A lapse on message control is nonetheless a significant event in Team Obama's foreign policy. As a candidate, Obama honed communications management to a high art, and his closest advisers have instilled it at the top of their hierarchy of values.

[MBS]

1. hmmm..

and here is one case where I find myself siding with State/Clinton more than the White House/Emmanuel:

Case in point: Resentment is already stirring at State over Emanuel's systematic, successful effort to reserve nearly all of the administration's major ambassadorships as rewards for big campaign fundraisers. Clinton had pressed for a number of highly qualified experts -- such as Harvard professor Joseph Nye, who was ticketed for Japan -- but was blown off by the White House.

[karynnj]

3. It depends what you call major ambassadorships

I think the countries where who the ambassador is are those never given to anyone but career diplomats. Those would be countries, like Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia etc. The capitals of our friendliest allies seem always to have gone to respected partisans liked by the President. I do think that there are too many given to friends - but I think it disingenuous of Clinton, who hired loyalists both for her campaign and for her closest contacts in her Senate and State Department job to be cited as "pure" on this.

I don't know the case of Nye at all, but it is possible that the men, who were big fund raisers, also have links to the countries they are being sent to and have business expertise that could be important on some issues they could face. Rivkin, who was given France grew up the son of a father, who was a diplomat in French speaking countries. We also know that Thorne's parents lived in Italy for years when his father was posted there.

[karynnj]

2. Fascinating - after reading, my conclusion is HRC is being controlled and marginalized

The article is written in a pretty weird way - I was trying to figure out the source - and I suspect that the writer was likely approached by state department people on Syria. It is strange that this is portrayed as "crossed wires". What it seems more like is that "state" is leaking that she did not want this. But, this was something announced by Obama, after there were discussions that it was likely. This is not crossed wires, but the President overruling state. (and we know who started that dialogue.) If that information is coming from HRC or one of the cronies she hired, I wonder how Obama will react to someone undermining him - which this does, implying that it was a mistake that hurt their effort to halt terrorism. That is a serious breach.

On the ambassadors, it was interesting. I watched the hearing for the ambassadors to the UK, France, Denmark, and Romania. Shaheen chaired - but Kerry came and spoke for Rivkin and Sussman (who introduced him to Obama, who impressed him enough he got the 2004 speech). The ambassador to Denmark is the former wife of Daschle. Durbin, Mcaskill, and Dodd spoke as well. We know Thorne is the choice for Italy. From the hearing, these are all serious people, with links to those countries. Their comment of HRC wanting experienced diplomats suggests that she was complaining about this off the record. The fact is that these are the types of people who get these plum positions. (That so many are Kerry friends reflects that the Kerry allies were important to Obama's run.) The Clintons seem to not be getting the plum goodies to give out - even with her at state. Link - http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2009/hrg090707p.html ( Kerry seems to have a cold.)

The comment on how tightly they control who speaks is interesting. It is interesting that she has been on only one talk show - and that 5 months after she was appointed. Not said is that she hasn't, to my knowledge, given a serious foreign policy speech. It was Biden who spoke at the Nato meeting and at AIPAC - one dealing with defining the administration's foreign policy to Europe, the other the most critical foreign policy speech to Americans on the middle east. It was interesting that Kerry was the one defnding and explaining Obama's actions on Iran - although Biden was the first to speak.

Obama clearly wants to be the visionary voice on foreign policy, with Biden and the military people also having some profile. Obama seems to be using state to coordinate his initiatives and run the state department. In fairness, she did meet with the ex (?)-President of Hondouras and was involved in negotiations on that and other issues. She was supposed to go to Russia with Obama, but didn't because of her elbow. (Does anyone here think Kerry would have stayed home for that reason?)

[MBS]

4. I thought the telling part was the statement (paraphrased)

that the White House uses the cabinet heads to IMPLEMENT policy, not to decide it.. one more reason why JK is much better off in the Senate.
Nye is at the Kennedy School. . don't know his full expertise vis a vis Japan (though he has written a chapter on Japan: see http://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/joseph-nye) -- nor -- ahem-- do I know his relationship to HRC, but I do hold to the idea that ambassadors of major countries should, at minimum, speak the language of the country, and know the country's politics and culture very well.(And, ideally, this would be true for ALL ambassadorships). If a political appointee fits that bill, great. If not, well, sigh, business as usual, alas. I'd go with JK's opinions as to who's qualified, so if JK is for the Obama-favored nominees in question, I feel OK.

I agree that this article is inside-the-Beltway stuff, with nuances directed to, and best understood by Beltway denizens but --yeah-- there's some sort of power play going on here, for sure.

[karynnj]

5. Kerry spoke of Rivkin knowing French

and I would guess that if Julia was fluent in Italian from her time there, David Thorne likely is too.

I agree that given their view of the role of the cabinet, JK would be wasted. If he were silenced, it would be a real loss.

[wisteria]

6. No, I have thought the "elbow" to be a poor excuse. n/t

[Luftmensch067]

7. Interesting analysis!

Why do I have a feeling that there is a (self-serving) tell-all memoir in HRC's future?

It really does seem like they purposely took the campaign battle internal by making her SoS and keeping their enemy closer and I, too, am forever grateful that Kerry is where and who he is.

[Inuca]

11. I think remember seeing somewhere

(could have been the ticker on some cable news channel) that she is supposed to give a "major foreign policy" speech this Wednesday. Unless it was last Wednesday? I have been a bit under the weather and paying attention only marginally. Anybody knows abything about this or did I imagine it in my feverish dreams? In any case, both articles are defnitely in the "hmmm" category. I know I should be well behaved and wish only for the best in their professional relationship, it's too damn important for pettiness, but... I have always had problems being too well behaved :-). In any case, frictions or not, I am very happy Kerry is exactly where he is and I was not in the very enthusiastic about the prospect camp to start with. But I still do not like the choice of HRC.

[karynnj]

14. Pardon the source, but it was the first I found on google

The secretary of state plans to make what is being called a major policy speech next week at the Council on Foreign Relations to mark, more officially, her first six months in office.

She seemed to give a preview Friday, crediting the administration with making strides toward restoring ties with countries around the world.

"We are repairing strained alliances. We're cultivating new partnerships. We're working to engage and change the behavior of adversaries. And we are prioritizing development along with diplomacy as part of our global agenda," she said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/10/nursing-injury-clinton-hails-foreign-policy-progress-month-mark/

This is where Kerry gave an outstanding speech on climate, prefaced with comments on Iran which had just had their elections. I have no doubt that Hillary will have a well written speech - very likely vetted by others - and she can of course read a speech competently. What will interest me is whether she like Kerry will have an extensive Q&A. This was where Kerry is always unbelievably impressive.

[karynnj]

8. Here's another interesting story

What interests me here is the "them" vs "us" in the finger pointing. That impression comes from the direct quotes. It is reasonable that anyone could be frustrated that the process takes so long, but she could have spoken about how "we" really need to find a way that is adequate but faster and less burdensome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/clinton-chafes-at-white-h_n_230699.html

[wisteria]

9. Well, it does seem to appear from her comments that they are not necessarily working together as a

team. Why complain and air this type of internal stuff in public?
Obviously, the Obama administration has good reason to pursue a strict vetting policy- they have been burned a couple of times already. And, judging from her comments it seems she didn't go through this type of vetting.

[beachmom]

10. Saw it. She is out of line IMO. Definitely passing the buck there.

[sandnsea]

12. Saw that, thought of this thread

I think there might be a little confusion about the "mean what you say" part of that little saying, that most politicians aren't acquainted with at all. Seems like she thinks she can get him to come around to the conventional way of doing things and he just isn't going to. So she does what she knows best, takes it to the gutter. That goes all the way back to the 80s in Arkansas. That's her style.

[karynnj]

13. That was certainly what I saw her do 2004 - 2008

From your long ago DU posts, which were excellent, you were watching everything closely even earlier. She really does move pretty easily to speaking behind people's backs. I can't imagine it is a good idea when you are in the administration. I would imagine a purple faced fury from the President and equal wrath from the first lady had someone in the administration spoken behind the scenes on issues like these and saying diplomacy is unlike to work in Iran weeks before the election (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Iran%20Hillary%20Mann&st=cse

[karynnj]

15. The potential nominee mentioned for the AID position is a Heinz Award winner

The Heinz Award for the Human Condition goes to Paul E. Farmer for his work in treating deadly infectious diseases among the world's poorest people.

Dr. Farmer is a medical doctor and a professor of anthropology at Harvard's Medical School who shuttles between Harvard and Haiti, where he maintains a practice at Clinique Bon Saveur, a charity hospital he helped found in the central plateau of Haiti.

Research in anthropology took him to Haiti in 1983; the medical needs of the poorest people in the western hemisphere keep taking him back. Infectious disease is endemic to the developing world because poverty breeds conditions hostile to good health. Haiti was challenged by an HIV/AIDS epidemic that began ravaging the island nation in the 1980s. International health experts firmly believed effective treatment of the virus and disease was impossible in the developing world.

Paul Farmer disagreed. He believes access to quality health care is a basic human right. He successfully challenged the conventional wisdom that AIDS drug treatment was too complicated to use in treating the poor in developing countries.

http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients/paul-farmer

[MBS]

17. He's an outstanding choice for this position. n/t

[wisteria]

16. There is a post in DU that suggests that she is going to reassert herself.

I hope it isn't in this way-undermining the President and not being a team player.

[beachmom]

18. Was that the Tina Brown article in The Daily Beast? Um, I think Tina

is hyping her POV (she is a big Hillary admirer). I hope it isn't true, because foreign policy is way too important for things to break down.

[karynnj]

19. It was a sugary sweet Ben Smith/Politico article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24893.html

She is going to India soon.

[MBS]

20. " ' " " " " n/t

[wisteria]

21. I agree. n/t

[Inuca]

22. Related AP story from today

Clinton aims to regain foreign policy clout http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31917680/ns/politics-more_politics/

[karynnj]

25. It is amazing how many articles are willing to hint at her not having that much influence

The title of this article is not good for her and this paragraph is devastating.

""Her role so far has been more in the field of public relations than in policy formation," said Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "She is seen as glamorous and in many countries as a valuable symbol of the United States, but it is not at all clear that she has an in-depth influence on foreign policy.

"She needs to decide if she wants to be the administration's mascot or have an impact on actual policy," he said. "If she wants to have an impact, the speech may be a way of claiming her stake."

The idea that a speech, written by her team (and several articles even listed who is working on it) could change her position really seems weak. It would have to be a truly great speech showing overall vision on foreign policy. That does not seem to be what it was. The words that she is more "PR" and a mascot are devastating.

[karynnj]

23. Here 's another from the WP - so much for the Clinton people talking of Biden's

or even Kerry's gaffes (all of his are trivial). This is really troubling.

"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton kicks off her worldwide "I'm Ba-aack" tour today, starting with what's being billed as a "major policy address" at the Council on Foreign Relations here. She's then off tomorrow on a week-long trip to India and Thailand.

This will give her a chance to, um, reset her image following a month on the sidelines after breaking her elbow and then some embarrassment this week over a comment she made in May: "The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua. And you can only imagine what that's for."

Turns out, as this paper reported Monday, that no one in Nicaragua has been able to find any super-embassy, and they've been looking hard. "We don't have an Iranian mega-embassy," a Nicaraguan official told The Post. "We have an ambassador in a rented house with his wife."

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was obliged to tell reporters Monday that "right now, there is no major Iranian presence in Nicaragua." That jibed with the view of one U.S. diplomat in Nicaragua, who told The Post, "There is no huge Iranian Embassy being built, as far as we can tell." (And this is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran. Things in Nicaragua are pretty findable.) "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071403292.html?hpid=news-col-blog

[Luftmensch067]

24. OMG!

That's really pretty bad!

[Inuca]

26. And one more from the NYT

with a not very encouraging title (not to mention the sad looking picture at the top) For Clinton, ’09 Campaign Is for Her Turf http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/politics/16clinton.html?em. Does not add anything new of substance I think, but still worth a click.

[karynnj]

27. it is a very balanced article from a newspaper that was a HRC cheerleader

for more than a decade. The NYT, as much as any paper, created the mythology of HRC meekly taking on the role of a freshman Senator, rising to someone, who got along with everyone, Democrat and Republican and who, without a title, became a Senate leader. They also were among the leading sources of the "inevitable" designation for her "flawless" campaign. Seriously, there were many times in 2007 and 2008, that I was reading Kerry 2004 articles to get links, while reading then current HRC links. In his case, they gave only what praise could not be avoided; in hers, there was a lot of vague, unsupported praise for her time in the Senate and inflated praise of her role as First Lady. Given that background, the fact that what a careful reader pulls from this is that Obama is the foreign policy decision maker and HRC is not in his innermost cirle, is that one of the remaining sources that had always inflated her importance is backing away from that.

That is not to say they are saying she is unimportant - she isn't. What they are not doing is continuing the new myth that she is a super SoS, with more status than the average SoS. I suspect that part of the reason that she really is not more powerful is that Obama himself was interested enough in foreign policy that he chose the SFRC and Joe Biden is President. This may be the first time I truly agree that Kerry is far better off where he is. He is more expert on Foreign policy than HRC, but he would likely have faced something similar - with a media far more eager to declare that either Obama was his own SoS or Biden was the de facto SoS. Not to mention, he has influenced some foreign policy positions.

I hadn't noticed the picture at first, then looked at it because of your comment. That choice is extremely symbolic - you hardly see her. The description also emphasizes the point - she is alone watching Obama meet with the SK leader, from a distance where she is likely unseen by most and clearly not part of the engagement. How better to say that she is in the background?

[Luftmensch067]

28. And on that note

(your last point) look at the hearing that starts today at 9:30, presided over by Chairman Kerry:

$150 OIL:
INSTABILITY, TERRORISM
AND ECONOMIC DISRUPTION

HEARING
before the

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Time: 9:30 A.M.
Place: 419 Dirksen Senate Building
Presiding: Senator Kerry

Witnesses:
+Ambassador Richard L. Morningstar
Special Envoy for Eurasian Energy
Department of State
Washington, DC
+William Hudson
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs
Department of State
Washington, DC
+The Honorable Richard J. Schmierer
Ambassador to Oman
Department of State
Washington, DC
+The Honorable Phillip Carter III
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bureau of African Affairs
Department of State
Washington, DC

[karynnj]

29. Sounds interesting

I'll have to catch it later because my middle daughter, a friend of hers and I are taking buses with 377 other Democrats from my county to see Obama stump for Corzine. (Per our county leader, the event is oversubscribed - but they will supposedly give some precedence to people coming in with their county organizations. We were warned that we could be on the field rather than in the seats.)

I like that he gets to set his own agenda and has the powerful SFRC committee as his domain. He can investigate every issue he things should be investigated that is in the committee's jurisdiction. He already has made a very strong start to being a very important Chair of that committee. I remember that the month that he opted not to run, he also spoke in the Senate about the work of an aide who had worked for the SFRC for over 20 years. There was a long list of major accomplishments she contributed to, but he also spoke of her college thesis. She wrote about Scoop Jackson and how important a Senator, who doesn't become President could be. Ignoring that Jackson's achievements were not necessarily good, this was from before he knew her and is likely not something that ordinarily would not be mentioned.

Here's what he said on that:
"As a young and idealistic doctoral student, Nancy first came to Washington to work on her thesis and to ask the question whether a single legislator could make a difference in the shaping of American foreign policy. Her subject was Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson and the long record that he amassed in the Cold War through the legislation that to this day bears his name, the Jackson-Vanik waiver.

Nancy found that on Capitol Hill, despite the Historians' fixation on the rise and fall of the imperial Presidency, one Senator can make a lasting impact on America's role in the world. But it has really been for her role to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to me personally that I want to pay her tribute today."
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=7523118

(After mentioning it, I realized that I had never seen it, just read it and read comments here. So, I went to see it. His entire statement shows the impact a SFRC staffer could have on the world. Then, he could not have contemplated being chair of the SFRC 2 years later - with a President, he did as much to make President as any other person. )


It also gives him the freedom to do the grassroots work - which I think is part of why he responded to Palin via the Huffington Post and through the Daily Kos. He clearly could have gotten a rebuttal in the NYT, the Boston Globe etc. Although it would be better than Palin's, like hers it would be an old media static op-ed. Going to the 2 blogs, Kerry is interacting with partisans and is giving us concise counters to every RW talking point in "her" op-ed. Those talking points have been out there for a long time - repeated by all the usual suspects - so there is the risk of them becoming common wisdom. (I've heard parts of them on cap and trade on GDP). One interesting thing is that the Boston Globe covered this response - including his posts. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/07/kerry_keeps_aft.html - I like their lead sentence - "Senator John F. Kerry is taking it upon himself to be Democrats' truth-squad leader against Sarah Palin. "

[Luftmensch067]

30. How exciting!!!

And how great of Obama to stump for Corzine! Hope you get seats and then tell us all about it!

I just called CSPAN to ask if they were covering this morning's SFRC hearing and they're not even recording it. I left a comment on the comments line asking them to at least record more SFRC hearings and roundtables even if they don't have room in their schedule to air them live. I specifically referenced not only this morning's hearing on oil and terrorism (kind of relevant issues, don't you think?!) but also the recent roundtable on Iran, which I said I'd watched on the tiny committee viewer and that it was excellent and important and more people needed to see it.

I think we should all bombard CSPAN with comments saying they should be recording and broadcasting more important SFRC hearings and roundtables. I spoke to someone on JK's staff after the Iran roundtable and bemoaned the fact that CSPAN hadn't recorded it and she said "We tried!" So it's not that they don't want more coverage. That really spurred me to start pestering CSPAN every time there's going to be an SFRC event. OK, I'll confess -- I'd like them to record them all, but I only make a fuss when Kerry is presiding. :-)

[karynnj]

31. It really is great that he is stumping for Corzine who is more than 10 points behind

Over the last decade, Democrats have always done substantially better than they do in the polls. I really don't have a clue why the polls are usually off - always in the same direction.

I really don't get why CSPAN is not covering this one - as you said oil and terrorism are very important issues and no one in government is more qualified to ask the questions on terrorism than Kerry.

[wisteria]

32. Could this downgrading of the role of SOS be due to the inexperience of Clinton?

And, would the position be similar if Kerry had it? I am not ready as you are to accept that Obama had this downgrading in mind all along. But, I will say this, that as this position stands now, I would not like Senator Kerry, with all his superior experience, have to take a back seat to Obama or foreign policy.

[karynnj]

36. Consider that Joe Biden very much takes a backseat to Obama on Foreign policy

Obama is clearly a President very interested in foreign policy and the impact he can have. My guess is that even with just Obama and Biden there is already competion - a competition always won by Obama, because he is the President.

Now consider Kerry. He may have fewer views on the SFRC than Biden, but he has a coherent foreign policy vision that informs his policies. He is also extremely eloquent and both pragmatic and idealistic - an unusual combination. Kerry, being Kerry, as SoS would likely have to be kept in the background or run the risk of it looking like he was the one leading foreign policy.

[Luftmensch067]

37. Well said

Especially your last point.

[wisteria]

38. So you are saying Obama wants all the accolades on all foreign policy successes?

And, you think this is how he had it planned?
I agree, that if Obama wants or needs to be the lead on foreign policy,than he would definitely have had to keep Kerry in the background because of his credentials and unique skills. But, is this as he wanted or planned for it before he became president?
The SOS's in the past, have had a much more prominent and vocal role. Obama is no expert on foreign policy, why would he not allow a more seasoned and experienced person to have more control?

[Inuca]

40. Do we really know who has the actual control?

Who decides on the strategy and its implementation? All we know is who is at the forefront in terms of speeches, meetings, activity. Given Obama's incredible oratoric talents and overall charisma and likability (not to mention that tiny fact of being president and the associated hge bullhorn), I am not at all surprised that he is the front page figure. I am not saying he is not actually the main "decider" (sorry!), all I am saying is that we do not really know. For instance, Biden may have a greater role than can be seen from the outside. My feeling is that there is mutual trust and respect there, also that Biden may love the limelight, but he is also a smart and knowledgeable man who actually wants to do good, and therefore, seeing that the front page does not seem to be in the stars for him, is happy enough to do his best from the relative shadows of the vicepresidency. As to HRC... I don't know, I cannot completely get rid of my bias (not that I try particularly hard :-)), but I doubt there is real trust and selfless cooperation. I see her nomination as one the famous complex and partially unfathomable "chess moves".

[karynnj]

41. I think the NORM is that the President gets all the credit and blame for foreign policy

George W Bush, Clinton, Carter and Reagan all came in with very little, if any, foreign policy credentials, yet all of them are credited with what was done. In W's case, Cheney is often blamed as well. No one suggests the policies were set by Colin Powell or Condi Rice. How often was Madeline Albright or Holbrooke credited (or blamed) for Bill Clinton's foreign policy? Obama has more foreign policy experience coming in than all 4 of these men. He also has at least equal interest in foreign policy.

All Presidents will rely on their advisers for opinions in their area of expertise, but they have to make the final decisions. That is their job. In the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency, foreign policy is where the President has the greatest power. I can't imagine any President wanting to delegate that power. That is why I really really hated the articles that suggested almost a co-Presidency for super star HRC and Obama, that seemed a second coming of the May/June 2008 "HRC as VP, but really co-President because it was a tie" nonsense. Either of these things would minimize the power and prestige of the President.

I believe Kerry was completely sincere when he spoke in 2008 many many times about the game changer Obama, uniquely could be, on the world stage. This would be lost, if Obama were not seen as leading foreign policy - even if the someone leading it were John Kerry. Obama earned the right to be in this position and if his ideas, likely influenced by John Kerry among others, succeed, he will be the person who gets the accolades and glory.

So, what does Kerry get? I posted the link to the speech he gave praising the staffer. That speech spoke of all the things she (and her boss) did that made a real difference in the world. I would imagine that speech meant a huge amount to her, but likely far far less than her internal knowledge that what she did mattered and made the world better. Now, I admit the situation is not completely similar - as a staffer, unlike Kerry, she never had any likelihood of being in the public eye. He also can make huge contributions - and already has. As to the question of whether a Senator can change foreign policy as much as a secretary of state, look at the example in the staffer's thesis - Scoop Jackson. (She could not have seen how much his influence would grow.)

Unlike Kerry, he never had a President as ideologically close to him as Obama is to Kerry and he never came close to winning his party's nomination. (I had forgotten that he and other conservative Democrats started the "acid, amnesty and abortion" lies against McGovern) He was less prominent (thankfully) then than Kerry is now. But, there is no question that Jackson, not Baker, Haig, Shultz was the person whose ideas had the most powerful impact on foreign policy of this new century. He was the ideological father of the neo-cons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson
Kerry has fought his lifetime for a change in foreign policy. Obama is the first President that Kerry has served under who is remotely close to the same place. It has to be very rewarding to be out there defending Obama's policies.

[Inuca]

45. Great post, thanks! n/t

[wisteria]

49. I understand the responsibilities of being the President. However,

it is still unusual, IMO for a SOS to be so much in the shadows at least as far as perceptions goes. Perhaps, she does have a larger roll behind the scenes. But, whether by choice or by revised job description- Clinton has not been covered in the media as the usual SOS- so far. And, if she is in fact influencing policy behind the scenes, why the "big coming out speech?" Regarding Senator Kerry, you seem to be trying to convenience me that the "place" where Kerry is at now, as an influential player in foreign policy is the right place. Honestly, that is a matter of opinion and really is irrelevant to me at this point. He is where he is perhaps for the best, but I am -as I stated earlier, not ready to say for the better. He is the only person who can answer that question, and he has said that he is happy where he is, so I accept that. That does however, not stop me from feeling he was used by Obama and screwed by Clinton. But, there again, that's politics. From your comments I surmise that you feel the senator would have been relegated to the same place as Clinton and that knowledge and experience would not have made the difference with this cabinet position in the Obama White House-Obama never intended his SOS to take on the "usual diplomatic" SOS role.

[karynnj]

52. Actually, I think the right place would have been as President

I think Kerry is by far the best person of his generation, war babies, and the one after it, early babyboomers, in terms of character, brilliance, gravitas and personality to be President. I also think that Obama did lead Kerry to think that he was very likely going to be SoS. This was a betrayal, especially because Obama had to know that Kerry could have really gained some political capital in MA by unequivically ruling out a cabinet position at the point that they were likely to lose Kennedy.

I agree that Clinton stabbed him in the back - not when she accepted the SoS role, but when they weakly supported him in the critical 2004 election and when she agreed with the RW assessment that he dissed the troops, which she had to know that he would never do. Both of those things are not politics, but totally for personal gain. (Had she knocked him for misspeaking, that would be politics and I wouldn't mention it.)

From Wolfe's account, Obama did decide on Clinton in early fall 2008. I would guess that, as part of thinking of it, he thought out the role she would play. It might be that with Biden, who I don't think is anywhere near as deep a foreign policy thinker as Kerry, as VP and Obama himself, the role of SoS became what it is. That might be that Obama did not consider Kerry, because he first wanted to structure the job as he did. That is not a job Kerry would have wanted to take. I assume that for Kerry to take SoS, it would have been with assurances of what his portfolio would be - and it would have to be meaty. Unlike HRC, he had a good alternative, that became better when he became SFRC chair.

[wisteria]

53. I agree with mostly everything you have covered here.

And, I think, given the way this SOS position has been structured now, Kerry would not have wanted it. I would not have wanted to see his talents wasted in this way. As for Clinton, I think she not only stabbed him in the back back in 2006, but she grabbed the SOS position with a gleam in her eyes, knowing Obama's choice was going to play in her favor in the media and against Kerry. That way, she would get back at him for not backing her in the primaries. Now, this is just an assumption on my part. But, the way he was treated by the Clinton supporters lends a bit of credibility to my thoughts on this.

Anyway, thank you for the discussion. It is therapeutic for me to work through some things that trouble me and to hear differing opinions regarding Kerry, Obama and Clinton.

[karynnj]

54. Not to mention - I think our opinions are pretty similar on them

I think Clinton was just happy she was spared going back to the Senate for the first time as a junior Senator with no real Presidential hopes. (From the moment she arrived in 2000, it was clear that it was a stepping stone, which might be why there is no issue she quietly made hers.) She would be returning to a group, where most of her peers rejected her -even though for all the early ones there was a risk they would pay a real price for doing so. Remember it took her a month after she lost to return - even though the Senate was in session.

[wisteria]

55. Yes, I remember that and thought it was a very telling moment. n/t

[TayTay]

43. I think it has to do with a good division of labor

This is what Senator Kerry said when he endorsed Barack Obama for President on Jan. 10, 2008:

But I believe that more than anyone else, Barack Obama can help our country turn the page and get America moving by uniting us and ending the division that we have faced. He has a superb talent, as all of you know, to communicate the best of our hopes and aspirations for America and for the world and that is why Barack Obama has the greatest potential to lead a transformation not just a transition.

Further in the endorsement speech, Sen Kerry said:

On the Foreign Relations Committee where Barack and I serve together, I have seen his special talent, a leader who knows how to listen. Just think about the difference it will make after eight years of bluster and ideology to have a president who reaches out to other nations, a president who wants America to lead by example, and a statesman who recognizes that even the most powerful nation on earth needs to make some friends on this planet.

Like Barack, I lived abroad as a young man and I share with him a healthy respect for knowing and understanding other cultures and countries – not from a book or a briefing – but by personal experience – by gut – by instinct. Good statescraft has always relied on leadership that sees other nations and leaders not just through American eyes and expectations, but sees them as they see and hope for themselves. Barack will be a president who marshals all our resources – military, diplomatic, economic, and moral – and first and foremost will always tell the truth to the American people. After years of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, with Barack Obama in the White House, we will have a President who treats our moral authority as a precious national asset that does not limit our power, but magnifies our global leadership.

Now President Obama is such a transformational person. The world sees him as such.

Who is going to possibly overshadow that? Who in their right mind would even want to try?

This President is and was always going to be his own best Secretary of State. He is a visible symbol of change having come, at last, to America. Obama's speech in Cairo could only have been given by him. It was his unique standing as an African-American, the son of a Muslim father from Kenya and so forth that gave him a lot of the power to be able to stand on that stage in Cairo and be believed as an agent of change not just in America but for America across the world. He has the cache to speak harshly in that speech in a way that others could not. This is a special person at this moment in American history and that should be noted and respected.

That doesn't mean the President does everything by himself. (Or would even want to.) There is also a big, big downside to being such a heavyweight presence on the world stage. Obama will own the war in Afghanistan as his own now. He will own relations with the Islamic world in a way that another person might not have. His failures will be his much more strongly that they might have been for others. Obama carries a great deal of risk because he is such a huge figure in his own right. He casts a huge shadow that allows everyone else to hide, should they choose to do so.

Of course there are roles for everyone else. All powerful people, including Barack Obama, have to have checks on their power and people who monitor their actions and behaviors. This is not some after thought handed out as a sloppy consolation prize. This is an essential component of a real working democratic state. Power corrupts. Therefore, it MUST have meaningful oversight from people of courage who are not afraid to take on the powerful and the popular. We won't have a democracy unless we have these critical checks on power. This is Senator Kerry's role. I continually am surprised that it somehow is deemed to be a consolation prize of no meaning to so many. It is decidely not. We got into a "war of choice" and ruined our standing internationally and our fiscal house at home because not enough people of courage stood up to Bush and demanded oversight.

Of course Senator Clinton has a strong role to play. For one thing, she can help define the role and importance of women in emerging democracies and show that the US understands that without advancing the role of women that a lot of countries are doomed to perpetual poverty. That well may be her time and her gift, if we don't force her into a male role, excoriate her for not being "tough enough" to push others around and denigrate the substantial role she can play for women that deeply compliments what Obama is doing on the world stage.

These working parts all need to be there. The people decided who is "getting the credit" when they elected Barack Obama President last November. But it doesn't end there. Senator Kerry's proposed hearings on Afghanistan this fall could be a critical check on what is going on in that country and how the US proceeds. Will we get another endless commitment to a war that we cannot ultimately win or can we somehow figure out a way to reduce our role in that beleaguered country and still help it out of poverty and a dependence on tyrannical and repressive fear-driven warlords?

There are things that no one can take away from Senator Kerry. They are part of his unique signature and presence on the national stage. He was a nominee of the Democratic Party and nearly defeated George Bush. He was a courageous veteran who stepped up to criticize power and challenge the morality of two wars and paid a steep price for these acts of conscience. He is an expert with deep knowledge of foreign affairs and deep relationships with world leaders and commands their respect. He was able to help move US relations with Syria, which is a part of the puzzle to helping settle the Middle East. The Senator's trip to Gaza made a difference for people there AND made a difference as to how Obama would deal with that crisis and it's repercussions. Senator Kerry has the mysterious "gravitas" on the world stage in foreign relations, climate change issues, human rights advocacy and a host of other things. He intends on using this "gravitas" as Chair of the SFRC. He is playing his role and doing so with grace, energy and intelligence. The results are there to see and there is, most certainly, more to come.

[Luftmensch067]

44. Eloquent and sensible

And true, I have no doubt of it. I am fine with HRC using her skills to be part of the picture you outline here. I just can't seem to lose my suspicion of what I personally see as her endless ambition and gameplaying. But I do think the current administration is doing its best to prevent forest fires. And I definitely agree with your assessment of the potential we have in our President, SoS and especially JK as Chairman of the SFRC. I think those Afghanistan hearings are going to be incredibly important.

[karynnj]

46. Well said - as usual

[beachmom]

47. Excellent comment!!! I would though give an example of a Republican

who did dare become a slight check on George Bush's power: Senator John Warner. Everyone complained that he didn't go far enough. But ... if I recall he criticized what was happening in Iraq (going sideways was what he said) on the EVE of the 2006 midterm elections. That had a profound effect. I think John Kerry, who now occupies Senator Warner's office, knows what happened there, and also can see a bit of an example in Warner. After all, Warner did not come across as a turncoat. He simply stood up and expressed his concern in a very respectful manner, and made coverage on every newscast and newspaper in the process. Many have dissed John Kerry over the years; but everyone knows Kerry is a major Obama supporter. If he chose to spoke out some time about Afghanistan, even in nice language, it would be a big deal.

It is a bit early for that now. But we shall see ....

[karynnj]

48. I think Warner's comments were extrememly important - and the timing can't be ignored

I remember the footage of his comments made when he returned from a visit to Iraq. His comment was before the conservative wing of the Democratic party, including Hillary Clinton, moved to anything like Kerry/Feingold. It was also his offer of a debate that got out many explanations and details of Kerry/Feingold. I could see Kerry having the same grace and respect if there is ever a mirror image situation.

I didn't know that Kerry got Warner's old office.

[wisteria]

51. I would be interested in the White House response if he did. n/t

[wisteria]

50. I appreciate your very well written comments,but most of what you relay is based on perception.

Of course, President Obama is a welcome change from the eight years of the boorish Bush, but I am not as enamored by him as some others are. And, I do not see him as the ultimate diplomat for our times. He is charming and likable and he can make a difference in some areas of the world, but I still have my doubts about his abilities, and worry about our security,regardless of what Senator Kerry had to say during the heat of an election, and how pleased the senator is that he has a president he can work with and who shares many of the same ideals. This really isn't about Kerry though, it is about Clinton. And, if she has the opportunity to make changes in women's lives across the globe-that would be a wonderful thing. I have to wonder however, why she did not hit the ground running with an initiative like this one? Women's rights abuses are nothing new, and she certainly would have a lot of incidents to work with. Nice try Tay, but I do not see Clinton as a game changer for women's rights issues around the world. If I turn out to be wrong, dinner is on me.

[YvonneCa]

57. Agreed. All hands on deck...

...is required. :)

[Inuca]

33. And even more - HuffPo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/hillarys-back-or-not_b_234811.html

[Luftmensch067]

34. LOL! That guy sees more conspiracies than I do even!

The thing about how Obama was making a major speech in the Rose Garden at the same time as HRC's major foreign policy speech and the text was sent out by email suspiciously closely in proximity to her speech text, especially. I thought my paranoid assumptions were bad. :-)

But hey, based on this article, I'll blithely add one of my own! If Obama and his people are seen as so diabolically clever as they are in this HuffPo piece, I'm going to say that if Biden did indeed want to be SoS but settled for VP as asserted here, maybe chessmaster Obama decided to move Joe into that spot so JK could have the Chair of the SFRC (after neatly reading Chris Dodd's mind and knowing he would step aside...) That way, he could have the charming Biden as a reassuringly mature VP with gravitas to burn and keep JK in the forefront of foreign relations. Since Obama didn't really need an SoS, having decided to multitask, he moved the Queen over there to avoid checkmate.

OK, I'll go take my pill now. :-)

[MBS]

35. sounds like a sound analysis to me! : ) n/t

[Inuca]

39. LOL

you never know...

[karynnj]

42. He doesn't mince words there!

It is interesting that there are so many Clinton article now - which seem equally split between ones like this and others arguing that she is really a powerful person in the administration. The latter ones ring less true, because if she truly was a powerful player, there would be no need for articles arguing it. (How many is Rahm really a power in Obama's administration articles have you seen?)

Think back a year ago and compare where the Clintons are now versus then. I am pleased that Bill Clinton has been quieter than anyone could have hoped he would be. Think back even to when HRC was first nominated and the Clinton media allies spoke of how she would be an unusually powerful SoS - some going as far as to say that she would be the one leading foreign policy. Even among their media allies, the tone in these recent articles has changed. The reality seems to have set in. I hope, for Obama's sake, that she becomes less gaffe prone as I think, given the trend, that future gaffes will not be dismissed as quickly by the media.

[wisteria]

56. There does seem to be a change in media perception of her. n/t