Empowered or Powerless? Hillary in the Box…

~~By kenosha Marge

Being a Hillary Clinton supporter I was not happy about Senator Clinton taking the position as Secretary of State. It wasn’t that I didn’t believe she would do the job well. Hillary Clinton is a competent and smart woman who works hard and would do any job well. But this was a position where she would be subordinate to a man I dislike and distrust. I thought she should stay in the Senate where she would be a free agent and able to pursue the things she found important.

An article in the New York Times on January 31^st entitled “And Now Let the Jockeying Begin” confirmed all my worst fears. I expected any NYT article to portray Hillary Clinton as a power grasping harridan. What I didn’t expect was for it to point out quite so clearly how she has been boxed in.

She is Secretary of State. And for all the silliness of some of her supporters suggesting that she will do all the work and Obama will take all the credit that isn’t how it works. High-profile Secretary’s of State, especially those hyped by the media as successful,  get credit for what they do. They also take the blame for what goes wrong. That will be especially true for Secretary of State Clinton because the media hates her and never holds Obama to account for anything.

However, before she has done much of anything other than settle in and get her staff ready she’s had much of her turf taken away to re-sod someone else’s place.

“In her first days as America’s top diplomat, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton found the Middle East portfolio handed off to a special envoy.”

Is not the most important issue the Secretary of State expected to deal with the Middle East? Isn’t this diluting her power a great deal before she’s even begun? But wait, that’s not all.

Afghanistan and Pakistan were assigned to a special representative. And administration officials expect another special envoy to be tapped soon to deal with Iran.

When I was uneasy with Hillary Clinton giving up her Senate seat and becoming a part of the Obama Administration I was told by some of her supporters that I was wrong. She was smart enough and knew politics well enough not to get bamboozled by Obama. She knew what she was doing and that meant that she would have more power as Secretary of State. Some even suggested that she taking the position to protect the world from Obama’s lack of experience. “Drivel,” I said, “She’s making the best career choice for herself she can at this point in time. And, I repeated, I think she’s wrong! So there”

However I thought that she must have had some kind of assurances before she swung her support to his Oliness. “She’s too canny a politician not to do that,”  I told myself. Hillary Clinton has been around politics most of her life and thus knows that it’s about as smart to pet a cobra as it is to trust another politician. She’s got the knife scars in her back to prove it.

The NYT acticle continues with more good news. Good news if you have CDS (Clinton Derangement Syndrome) or are a member of our Misogynistic Media.

So with much of her turf already parceled off, Mrs. Clinton made a bid to take over the China file, which in recent years has been primarily the responsibility of the Treasury Department since the major issues with Beijing tend to be economic. Mrs. Clinton said the administration needed “a more comprehensive approach.” The only trick is Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner has no intention of giving that up.

So where, I am asking myself, does that leave Secretary of State Clinton? Who will deal with all the problems around the world? Will she have to be content with just being a high-profile “figure head? The Secretary of State to Europe?

I confess that I don’t know. All I know is that her “job” is suddenly much smaller than her predecessor’s. Special this and special that jobs are being created faster than you can say “gotcha.”

Obama seems to have a fondness for creating “Czar” positions to take over the jobs of people who would normally be doing the job (See the full article for the details on all the “czars” now in D.C.)

More than any president in years, Mr. Obama came into office creating new White House czars and special envoys to supervise various hot-button issues at home and abroad, overlaying an additional set of actors upon a bureaucracy already scratchy about “who’s in charge”.

Mr. Obama concluded that new high-powered figures were needed to force change but they pose a delicate management challenge for a president with no real management experience beyond his presidential campaign.

Personally I was always for shrinking the bureaucracy not expanding it. I think too many cooks do spoil the broth.

I also believe that maybe, just maybe, in this instance, Hillary Clinton, for all her intelligence was hoodwinked. Even smart people get deceived if they allow themselves to believe that the deceiver will negotiate in good faith.

We don’t know, and probably never will know exactly what the Clinton/Obama deal was. We don’t know if he kept his word while playing her for a sucker with an intent to handcuff her to an empty position.

Politics is a dirty, nasty game to these folks. That’s why they can call each other names, impugn each other’s character, intellect and intent and then hug each other and work together. Some say it’s necessary to get the country’s work done that they be that type. Some people who certainly have a lack of character themselves excuse this behavior as politicians being politicians as if having people with a lack of integrity running our country is an acceptable thing.

What is acceptable to these people, this subset of humanity,  is not always tolerable to the rest of us. Those of us that think that integrity and honesty are kinda good things to have in our leaders. Not pie-in-the-sky phony-baloney rhetoric like most of them treat us to so often. The kind of rock-bottom honesty we once honored and respected in this country. The kind of rock-bottom honesty we now only give lip-service.

I think Hillary Clinton got duped. Or she deluded herself into believing that either A. She could trust Obama. Or B. That she could handle Obama. Either way, to me it looks as if she was wrong.

I think she’s been effectively boxed in and will have very little power or say in what does on. That’s a loss for all of us. A smart man would have used her considerable talents for the benefit of all. A petty little man like Obama boxes her in and makes her powerless.

I really hope I’m wrong. I really hope I’m only reading the situation through my dislike and distrust of his Oliness.

***

Related post from December 6, 2008 by IA-GRL discussing MESH — Middle East Study at Harvard:

Will Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State Be Undermined by the Appointment of a Middle East Envoy? See What MESH Thinks…

Will Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State Be Undermined by the Appointment of a Middle East Envoy? See What MESH Thinks…

Reverend Amy from Rabble Rouser Ruminations posted a piece yesterday (12/5/08) (cross-posted at No Quarter)  in which she expressed her concerns about the way things are going with regard to the nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. I agree completely with her comment and it piqued my interest.  Here’s what Reverend Amy wrote:

Well, you know I am not all that crazy about Hillary Clinton being the Secretary of State for Barack Obama because I do not trust him. As it is, he is already complicating her job by appointing a special Middle East Envoy who will report directly to HIM as opposed to the Secretary of State, as well as by elevating the position of UN Ambassador, to which he appointed Dr. Susan Rice, to a Cabinet Level position, already makes Clinton’s job more difficult. Oh, and Dr. Rice’s position is particularly galling because she claimed Colin Powell proved Iraq had WMD.

According to the Haaretz article Reverend Amy links to, the name being floated by Israeli sources for the envoy slot is one Daniel Kurtzer, a former American Ambassador to Egypt (1997-2001) and Israel (2001-2005)–a diplomat who worked under both Bill Clinton and George Bush.

Obama’s decision to appoint a special envoy reporting to him directly, rather than to the secretary of state, indicates that the president-elect attaches special importance to the regional peace process. Reportedly, several of Obama’s advisers recommended the appointment.

The special envoy job could infringe on the prestige of Hillary Clinton, who was appointed secretary of state on Monday. On the other hand, it could ease any apparent conflict because of Bill Clinton’s close ties with the Gulf States.

Kurtzer, 59, joined Obama’s primary and presidential campaigns as a senior member of the president-elect’s foreign advisers. He also helped prepare Obama’s visit to the region and was among the main writers of Obama’s address on the Middle East to AIPAC in June 2008, which was seen as one the candidate’s most important speeches on international affairs.

What’s really interesting is that back on November 20, the topic of whether or not a Middle East envoy should even be appointed was discussed at MESH–Middle East Strategy at Harvard.  According to the MESH site:

Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. The Olin Institute is part of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

MESH is a community of scholars and practitioners who are interested in the formulation of U.S. strategic options for the Middle East. Since 9/11 and the Iraq war, the Middle East has occupied a place of primacy in debates over U.S. global aims and strategies. MESH brings together some of the most original thinkers in academe, research centers, and government, in a web-based forum for exchanging and disseminating ideas.

In the post entitled  A Middle East Envoy? the results of a poll conducted among MESH members were reported.  On the list, but near the bottom,  was the name of Hillary Clinton.

From MESH Admin

Over the past week, MESHNet, the closed-forum companion to MESH, conducted a poll of MESHNet members, asking them who would make the best Middle East envoy of the Obama administration (if it is decided to appoint one). The structure of the poll emulated an earlier poll administered to a panel of Israeli experts, taking the same nine candidates and the same scoring system. MESHNet members (persons with a professional interest in the Middle East, 179 in number) were asked to rate the candidates, from “most suitable” for the job (a score of 5) to “least suitable” (a score of 1). Sixty-three MESHNet members responded to the poll question. Here are the results, comprised of the average score for each candidate:

Dennis Ross	3.350
Bill Clinton	2.904
Richard Holbrooke...	2.904
Colin Powell	2.747
Daniel Kurtzer	2.619
Condoleezza Rice	2.458
Bill Richardson	2.394
Hillary Clinton	2.336
James Baker	2.222

In parallel, MESH asked a number of its members to assess whether the appointment of a special envoy is advisable. Their nine responses appear below. (Respondents did not have prior knowledge of the poll results.)

I went through the comments to this latter question and found that there was a wide range of opinion on the subject. One of the experts noted that Bill Clinton did have a special envoy (Dennis Ross, who topped the poll) while Bush did not.  But the most interesting aspects of the discussion were some of the observations about how an envoy would “mesh” with the Secretary of State and the President…the concerns that were expressed by Reverend Amy. It’s clear that there are a lot of “ifs” about how Clinton’s role will actually play out, but here are a few possible scenarios/considerations to mull over from the following experts (I’ve highlighted sections that were of particular interest):

Mark N. Katz (Mark N. Katz is a professor of government and politics at George Mason University. He writes on Russian foreign policy, the international relations of the Middle East, and transnational revolutionary movements.)

“Because of the time commitment needed for seriously trying to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, neither the president nor the secretary of state should get immersed in the nitty-gritty negotiations that will be required. There is simply too much other important business for both of them that will not receive sufficient attention if either (or even more unfortunately, both) become overly involved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Nor is this a task that the assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs should undertake either, as this would leave precious little time for him or her to deal with America’s many other important relationships in, as well as the other problems of, this region.

In short, for there to be any hope of an American-brokered Israeli-Palestinian settlement, it will have to be undertaken by someone whose sole task it is to try to achieve one. If this effort is successful, the president can—rightly—take the credit. But if it is unsuccessful, the blame can be assigned not so much to the president as to (yes, you guessed it) the Middle East envoy.”

Robert Satloff (Robert Satloff is executive director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a post he assumed in January 1993.)

“Candidate Obama promised he would appoint a special Middle East envoy. President Obama’s decision whether to fulfill that promise depends a) on the purpose of the appointment and b) on the personality of the envoy…the personality of a proposed envoy is important. The particular choice should be someone endowed with patience, persistence, and a willingness to pass the baton to someone else – perhaps the president, perhaps the secretary of state, perhaps another envoy – depending on circumstances. This is not the job for someone who believes that the end of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be achieved on his/her watch or someone who views this responsibility as the path to a Nobel Prize.”

Tamara Cofman Wittes (Tamara Cofman Wittes is Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution, where she focuses on U.S. efforts to promote democracy and the Arab-Israeli peace process.)

” Obama stated repeatedly during the campaign his intention to devote early and focused attention to the Middle East peace process. Since the transition period is mostly about structure and personnel, observers are naturally focused on the question of whether to appoint a special envoy for the peace process. But to my mind the question is misplaced.

In a bureaucracy, structure is power—but appointing an envoy does not necessarily convey much power or many resources to a diplomatic effort on behalf of Arab-Israeli peace. A special envoy without many staff, or one who is not situated at a senior level within (or above) the State Department bureaucracy, will not have the authority or capacity to mobilize efforts across the department, and will therefore not have as much impact as an envoy with his/her own office and a reporting line direct to the president or the secretary of state. So structure matters, and appointing an envoy does not alone produce the required structure.”

Raymond Tanter (Raymond Tanter is adjunct professor of political science at Georgetown University and an adjunct scholar of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, researching U.S. policy options toward Iran. He is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Michigan. From 1981 to 1982, Dr. Tanter served on the National Security Council staff and was personal representative of the secretary of defense to the 1983-1984 arms control talks held in Madrid, Helsinki, Stockholm, and Vienna. Currently, he is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.)

” Whether it is wise to appoint an envoy for the Middle East depends on the president-elect’s planned focus of attention, whether he intends to have a White House-driven or cabinet-driven administration, and whether he would like to encourage or suppress differences in recommendations to the White House within and from the State Department.

If the president-elect wishes to focus on the economy from the White House, he should have a strong secretary of state, which would argue against having an envoy for the Middle East. However, if the secretary of state were to be given a substantial part of the action on international economy, a Middle East envoy would be desirable. Likewise, if it looks as if policy-driving national security events from the region merit an overarching strategy developed within the White House, he may wish to have a less prominent secretary of state, a strong national security advisor, and an envoy who reports to the White House and State. And if the president-elect wishes to encourage a process of  ‘multiple advocacy’ at State, then an envoy with direct reporting to the White House and to the secretary of state would be warranted.”

So, we’ll have to watch to see if Hillary Clinton becomes what Tanter calls a “strong” Secretary of State or a “less prominent” head of the State Department. Stay tuned…