| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| HillaryÂ’s incredible, shrinking role |
| 2009-02-11 |
| By Dick Morris Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is finding that her job description is dissolving under her feet, leaving her with only a vestige of the power she must have thought she acquired when she signed on to be President Obama’s chief Cabinet officer. Since her designation: • Vice President Biden has moved vigorously to stake out foreign policy as his turf. His visit to Afghanistan, right before the Inauguration, could not but send a signal to Hillary that he would conduct foreign policy in the new administration, leaving Hillary in the role of backup. • Richard Holbrooke, the former Balkan negotiator and U.N. ambassador, has been named special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. He insisted on direct access to the president, a privilege he was denied during much of the Clinton years. • Former Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine), negotiator of the Irish Peace Accords, was appointed to be the administration’s point man on Arab-Israeli negotiations. • Samantha Powers, Obama’s former campaign aide, who once called Hillary a “monster,” has been appointed to the National Security Council (NSC) as director of “multilateral affairs.” • Gen. James L. Jones, Obama’s new national security adviser, has announced an expansion of the membership and role of the NSC. He pledges to eliminate “back channels” to the president and wants to grow the NSC’s role to accommodate the “dramatically different” challenges of the current world situation. • Susan Rice, Obama’s new United Nations ambassador, insisted upon and got Cabinet rank for her portfolio, and she will presumably also have the same kind of access to Obama that she had as his chief foreign policy adviser during the campaign. So where does all this leave Secretary of State Clinton? While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, one cannot help but feel that she is surrounded by people who are, at best, strangers and, at worst, enemies. The competition that has historically occupied secretaries of State and national security advisers seems poised to ratchet up to a new level in the current administration. Hillary’s essential problem is that she is an outsider in the current mix. She was the adversary in the campaign, and Rice and Powers — at the very least — know it well, having helped to run the campaign that dethroned her. Can they — and she — be devoid of bitterness or at least of normal human trepidation? Not very likely. The fact is that the power of the secretary of State is not statutory, nor does it flow from the prestige of the post’s occupant. Former Gen. Al Haig, once supreme commander of NATO and chief of staff to President Nixon, found that out when he was undercut as secretary by the White House troika of Mike Deaver, James Baker and Ed Meese. Bill Rogers, Eisenhower’s attorney general and Nixon’s California confidant, found himself on the outs from the moment he became secretary of State, with Henry Kissinger soaking up all the power through his direct access to Nixon as national security adviser. The power of the secretary of State flows directly from the president. But Hillary does not have the inside track with Obama. Rice and Powers, close advisers in the campaign, and Gen. Jones — whose office is in the White House — all may have superior access. Holbrooke and Mitchell will have more immediate information about the world’s trouble spots. So what is Hillary’s mandate? Of what is she secretary of State? If you take the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan out of the equation, what is left? One would have to assume that the old North Korea hands in the government would monopolize that theater of action. What, precisely, is it that Hillary is to do? The question lingers. And for this she gave up a Senate seat? |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #8 ARE CONVINCED YET THE BAM-MAN WILL STILL BE POTUS AFTER 2010 or 2012??? Unless he is impeached, which I judge highly unlikely, President Obama's term will end in 21012, JosephM. I doubt he will manage to get himself re-elected, and may choose not to run after the experiences of these next four years. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-02-11 16:41 |
| #7 Biden's role seems to be court jester. Every sitcom (even a dark one) needs a senile old guy. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-02-11 16:01 |
| #6 Obama has created many new positions, created new committees, expanded the size of existing ones (ala NSC in the article), and has not clearly defined roles, responsibilities or authority. This is going to be an extraordinarily chaotic administration. Biden's role seems to be court jester. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2009-02-11 11:06 |
| #5 Lets see what happens to these special envois (I understand India already told Holbrooke to FOAD, and I don't expect much more enthusiasm in Israel for George O'Ahmad.). |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-02-11 09:14 |
| #4 She's had no problem at all being a "notional" wife. I think she'll be perfectly happy with the title, travel, and perks alone. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-02-11 08:31 |
| #3 While sympathy for Mrs. Clinton is outside the normal fare of these columns, That made me smile... |
| Posted by: Raj 2009-02-11 08:08 |
| #2 I think Hussein will still be Prez in 2010, but I do think he will be a direct cause of the Dems losing the House then. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2009-02-11 06:00 |
| #1 Lest we fergit, NOT EVEN FOREIGN GOVTS WHOM HATED DUBYA = USA ARE CONVINCED YET THE BAM-MAN WILL STILL BE POTUS AFTER 2010 or 2012??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-02-11 01:35 |