• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Hillary Myth

Don't think she's been great. Don't think she has been awful. The OP makes some solid points. There really is no solid accomplishment she can point to during her tenure as SOS. Some of it is due to the times, and some of it due to her boss being a lightweight and not commanding respect internationally (and much of that is due to the geopolitical realities that rule the day-- where the US is viewed with more skepticism than it used to be as a result of being a lone superpower).
 
It's really easy to look back on historical secretaries of state with the benefit of hindsight. I don't think we'll know the impact of anything until after she's done. Also, all of those Secretaries of State were also operating in a vastly different world. The bulk of our foreign problems comes from an enemy that has no defined border or sovereign government with which to negotiate.

I'll hold my judgment on this one.

She's been a solid secretary of state. Not a great one. She doesn't have major accomplishments, but in reality, the situation that the country was in from a foreign policy perspective really gave her a bunch of no-win situations.

Good posts.

A substantive Palestinian settlement, Iran ending its nuclear program, her leading a reform of Europe's monetary system, etc.

So you're either looking for a telepathy or a miracle worker. You're talking about three things that most people doubt would be possible for any Secretary of State to do.
 
Good posts.



So you're either looking for a telepathy or a miracle worker. You're talking about three things that most people doubt would be possible for any Secretary of State to do.

Uh, yeah. To be considered great? Absolutely.
 
A substantive Palestinian settlement, Iran ending its nuclear program, her leading a reform of Europe's monetary system, etc.

Given our past successes (snicker) in this area, that seems like a lot to ask.

That said, I don't know enough about Hillary's record to weigh in on this one. RJ's flippant dismissal of the article has been hilarious though.
 
I don't like Bill or really care for Obama, but Hillary has been a solid SOS. I don't think you can really say otherwise tbh.
 
A substantive Palestinian settlement, Iran ending its nuclear program, her leading a reform of Europe's monetary system, etc.

If any SOS could accomplish even one of those benchmarks, they would be at the top of the list of best SOS.
 
If any SOS could accomplish even one of those benchmarks, they would be at the top of the list of best SOS.

Meh. Acheson, Marshall, Kissinger, Hughes, Seward, and JQA are the gold standard. It would be real tough to break into that group.
 
Last edited:
The article makes some solid points, but in typical WSJ editorial fashion, it overreaches with Dem bashing.
 
Keep thinking that......they didn't land a punch.....you guys are like the judges in the Bradley/Manny fight.
 
A substantive Palestinian settlement, Iran ending its nuclear program, her leading a reform of Europe's monetary system, etc.

if she fixed all those problems she would be the greatest politician ever.

i'm not here to defend hillary but if those are your expectations then good luck finding anyone who even does a decent job as SoS.
 
If she did any of those she'd be an historic figure.

By the way considering Jim Baker a decent SOS is ludicrous. It was his position to tell Saddam "going into Kuwait was a Middle Eastern problem". He and Bush 41 understood this would lead Iraq to invade Kuwait.
 
if she fixed all those problems she would be the greatest politician ever.

i'm not here to defend hillary but if those are your expectations then good luck finding anyone who even does a decent job as SoS.

Good God. Read the thread, people. I was asked for achievements that would be on par with Kissinger's diplomatic revolution, the Marshall Plan, etc. Those were my answers. I wasn't asked for what would make Hillary a good Secretary of State. Just accomplishing one of those would vault her into the upper echelon of the greats.

She'll never be considered a great because Obama hasn't delegated enough power to her and there hasn't been a real opportunity to make great things happen. Whether or not she'd be capable of pulling one of those off, we'll never know. But it's a moot point.
 
So do you think she's been a good SoS or do you agree with everything in the article and rate her subpar?
 
When was the last truly GREAT Sec of State? Like I said in another thread, its a lose-lose job.
 
So do you think she's been a good SoS or do you agree with everything in the article and rate her subpar?

I wouldn't take it as far as Bret Stephens does, but let me put it this way. The Obama administration has no coherent strategy for dealing with the Middle East. The Arab Spring caught them completely with their pants down, and they had no idea how to react. At first they stuck with the tried and true strategy of supporting the Arab nationalist dictators. Once they started falling, they went with the momentum and they supported those revolting. But they were rightly horrified by the idea of Islamists coming to power again, so they tempered their support and largely stood by the sidelines. Going with popular opinion doesn't take any foresight or skill. The result of their Middle East "policy" has been that all sides have been alienated. Our allies in countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain look at us with supreme distrust, seeing how their counterparts were treated. Mubarak was a key U.S. ally. He was instrumental in negotiations in Gaza, and he stuck by us in 1990 by leading a coalition of Arab countries against Iraq. That was not by any means a popular decision in his country. The Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II administrations worked tirelessly to build a relationship with him, and we threw it away at a whim. Bush senior had his family over for dinner regularly and took him to baseball games at Yankee Stadium. Was the decision not to back him wrong? Not necessarily, but the manner in which they played it was horrific. Half-measures all around. If you are going to shift U.S. policy in the Middle East, you actually have to do it. You will burn some bridges along the way, but that's the price you pay. The Obama administration was not willing to pay the price, and now we have alienated all sides. The evidence of this failure is clear cut. We are just as disliked in the Middle East as we were under the Bush administration, and now we've lost the trust of the leaders as well. So yes, Obama and Clinton's Middle East policy has been a disaster. On the other hand, there have been promising developments in Burma, Africa, and elsewhere. Small steps, but important steps. And the overall pivot of our geostrategic focus to the Far East has been encouraging, although the foreign policy community has been calling for that for years now.

I don't know how much power Obama has actually given Clinton, but on the whole, looking at the results, yes, she has been sub-par. I don't loathe her like Bret Stephens does, but I certainly don't think she has done a good job.
 
Last edited:
When was the last truly GREAT Sec of State? Like I said in another thread, its a lose-lose job.

It's absolutely not a lose-lose job. There are opportunities to do great things, and the American public almost always views you favorably. The last GREAT secretary of state was Henry Kissinger. The last really good one was James Baker.
 
James Baker is responsible for the Gulf War ever happening. Had he instructed Amb. April Gallespie to tell Saddam if he went 1MM inside Kuwait the US would drive his ass out, there would not have been a Gulf War.

It's also very likely there wouldn't have been 9/11 as OBL repeatedly stated his prime motivation was having infidels in the Holy Land.

Also without the Gulf War, we wouldn't have gone into Iraq the second time.
 
Back
Top