is a poor fit for the job. No recent SoS has acted as he did and he is getting negative press around the world and in the US. When he was first confirmed and spoke to the State Department people, he got praise for that appearance. However, if you go back to 2009, the media did cover the incredible applause and the excitement of her first meeting with the SD. However, Tillerson might, like his boss, have had an incredibly short "honeymoon" period during which the media would give him a pass as he finds his feet. His trip to Asia was panned, it was well documented that he was out of the room when policy was made and not invited to meet several foreign leaders. Tillerson is rightfully being called possibly the weakest Secretary of State in modern times.
The coverage of her time as Secretary was very positive for the first three and a half years - leading to her very high approval ratings when she stepped down. Coverage of her first trip to Asia, which was mediocre in results, was treated as a tour de force. From there, HRC traveled the globe reaching out to leaders in more than 100 countries, where her visited, given who she was, were almost equivilent to Presidential visits. Almost all coverage was very positive until Benghazi.
As to bias (Democrat/Republican) - compare her coverage to that of Condi Rice, who traveled as much as Clinton for a very unpopular President. Clinton's coverage was both more extensive and far more positive. As to bias (male/female), the foreign policy press was far more willing to be sceptical of John Kerry than of Clinton, more readily crediting her abilities and competence. Even when Kerry had big successes, especially on the environment, he rarely got the type of praise routinely given to Clinton.
I would instead say that because of who she is, Clinton simultaneously got more extremely negative coverage when something was not good AND more extravagent, gushing praise when she did well than other Secretaries of State. To a much lesser degree, this was true of Kerry too. You couldalso say that that had been true when she was First Lady, Senator, and Presidential candidate - both times. Another way of saying this is that she is a polarizing bigger than life figure.
= new reply since forum marked as read
