dagblog - Comments for "Thomas Friedman, Teacher's Unions and Vladimir Putin"

I would argue that "I was

Elusive Trope — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:54:55 +0000

In reply to in possession of authority To

I would argue that "I was just using CIA talking points" is describing her behavior while she a UN ambassador and being used by the administration as a front person to give the talking points. In the same way, there were plenty of times Hillary Clinton the presidential nominee candidate behaved in ways I wouldn't say were very SoSish. But she was a candidate, not the SoS at that moment.

Moreover, I think the defending of her has to do with the fact she was operating as spokesperson, saying what others were saying, as opposed to stating her own views or beliefs on the matter. If it was the latter, then she should be the one defending herself and justifying what she said. But what else can she say except "I said what I was told to say."

I would also argue that McCain and Company were going to say what they were going to say after the meeting because of their political agenda. I don't think Clinton or anyone else could have done a better job in a similar situation. To use your logic, the way the Republican leadership would bad mouth Obama after meetings in his first four years would indicate that he would be lousy on the diplomatic stage.

in possession of authority To

artappraiser — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:27:15 +0000

In reply to I think of gravitas in part

in possession of authority

To me, that's it.

Whether it's her own personality faults or not (granted, she may have her hands tied by administration,) if she can't manipulate John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Susan Collins diplomatically in a one-on-one, I don't have a lot of hope for her doing it with bigger nasty fish on this planet. Not to mention managing a large arm of our government scattered allover the world.

I would like to add that although I don't agree with everything in the op-ed I linked to in the previous paragraph, as a feminist it does strike me that Susan Rice is being defended like a little lady who needs protection and for some reason has not been enabled, or does not have the abilities, to defend herself well. No authority capabilities apparent there.

(The excuse of "I was just using CIA talking points" is not comforting to me in this regard, this is not what you want in a Sec.. of State, though it is certainly fine for a UN ambassador. The point: she is still being painted as a talking points receiver, not a talking points creator. A dutiful employee, not a boss or even a ruthless go-getter. The type of woman who can't break that glass ceiling. And no one, including her, seems to trying to make an adjustment on this front. Just not coming from a good place to start out as an authoritative Sec. of State.)

I think of gravitas in part

Elusive Trope — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:10:13 +0000

In reply to Is gravitas important? I

I think of gravitas in part being the impression on others that derives from being perceived by those others as brilliant, talented, and in possession of authority. One may be have all of those qualities but not exude a presence to others that reflects this reality.

I thought she was Deputy

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:17:13 +0000

In reply to Was she? There were no big

I thought she was Deputy Secretary of State to Netanyahu, but for a Deputy she did pretty well. Actually, I can't think of much that would have changed had someone else been SoS - perhaps Burma would have been different. Did she push the invasion of Libya harder? In Egypt Mubarak would have resigned anyway. I think she sent Putin a couple nastygrams, and then I guess she handled the blind Chinese protester pretty well. Other than that, it's been pretty boring. We could have been much stronger supporting the Arab Spring, but I don't think the administration wanted to.

We'll see if we ever have time to discuss India & China & other non-Mideast countries, but Bibi threw a tantrum that we weren't paying attention to him 24x7, so we scampered back to prop up his ego.

I thought it was pretty well

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 19:05:40 +0000

In reply to Hillary was pretty remarkably

I thought it was pretty well concluded there were no protests at the Benghazi consulate, that it was a militant attack on both the consulate and then 1 or 2 safe houses, meaning someone on the inside likely leaked info.

Was she? There were no big

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:58:20 +0000

In reply to Hillary was pretty remarkably

Was she? There were no big screw-ups, which is a measure of competence I suppose, but I don't think there were many major accomplishments either. I would describe her as steady at the helm but not noteworthy.

If Roman virtues are to be a

EmmaZahn — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:26:37 +0000

In reply to While Chris Matthews didn't

If Roman virtues are to be a factor in choosing SoS, dignitas, personal clout and influence, would definitely trump gravitas, substance and depth of personality. From a completely removed perspective, Kerry and Rice appear about equal in gravitas while Kerry's dignitas may have a slight edge over Rice. Hard to say really but his would be personal while hers would be derived from her close association with Obama.

My 2 cents fwiw.

Hillary was pretty remarkably

Michael Maiello — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:16:02 +0000

In reply to Is gravitas important? I

Hillary was pretty remarkably effective though. I don't know if she was able to jiu jitsu the perceived difference into an advantage (whatever distance there was, a foreign leader couldn't quite tell) or if it's just that when dealing with her, other diplomats and leaders knew that they might well be dealing with a future president down the line.

As for Rice, there's not much doubt that she informs Obama's foreign policy view, so they'll have to listen to her. The other thing that bothers me about Benghazi, aside from its irrelevance to whether or not Rice would make a good SoC, is that what Rice said, immediately after the attack, wasn't so far off from what we know now. Absent the spontaneous protests, the organized attack might not have happened that day. We don't know.

Is gravitas important? I

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:02:02 +0000

In reply to While Chris Matthews didn't

Is gravitas important? I really don't know. It seems to me that we judge these folks by what we see of them on TV, where gravitas is emphasized, but it may be less significant in one-on-one meetings.

Based on my extensive experience as a high-level foreign diplomat, I reckon that the most important attribute in those one-on-one meetings is not so much gravitas as authority. A foreign leader or minister needs to know that the Secretary of State's word is backed by the President. To that end, I think that Clinton may have been hampered by perceived distance between Obama and her.

But let's think about history's great secretaries of state, such as Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, Seward, Marshall, Acheson, Kissinger. What made them great? First and foremost, I would world events. It's much easier to be a great SoS in a time of turmoil. Second, I dunno. The best of them seem to brilliant visionaries and strong leaders--capable of both devising and executing a vision for American foreign policy. Maybe gravitas is part of that, but it's more what's behind the gravitas, I think, the brilliance and talent that engenders respect.

That's why this Benghazi crap seems like such a joke to me. What does it have to do with anything important?

I'm sure she would do this -

Elusive Trope — Thu, 29 Nov 2012 17:12:05 +0000

In reply to This is my take as well. Or,

I'm sure she would do this - esp since I've already seen those on left, her supporters through the confirmation process, raise concerns about it.

And I also see Keystone being a reality. They kicked the can down the road so they could approve it after the election. When I have seen fracking come up in the MSM it is always said in the context of the US becoming one of the biggest producers in the world, and our means to energy independence.