Secretary Clinton’s Visibility

Much has been made of the recent claims in the media that Secretary Clinton’s visibility is so low that her political influence in the administration is waning. While she may not have been as high-profile recently, until there is more information available I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that she has little power when it comes to foreign policy. However, due to multiple stories essentially repeating the same information over and over again, this theme has taken off in the blogosphere with some arguing it’s true while some argue it’s not.

It goes without saying that I think that President Obama should look to Hillary Clinton for input/advice on all foreign policy issues and of course with respect to issues involving the State Dept and it’s diplomacy initiatives, she should have the final say. I’ll admit that I find it frustrating that the media don’t cover more of what Secretary Clinton is doing day to day because the lack of coverage seems to create an impression that if she’s not on some high profile trip or if she’s not making a statement that could be construed as controversial by *someone*, then somehow she’s not really doing all that much, leading some people to conclude her power has diminished significantly. That certainly seems to be the recent theme in the media for the past two weeks. Of course, her recent injury and surgery has to be taken into consideration when looking at a decrease in very recent media coverage.

Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the media can’t help but compare Hillary the Secretary of State with Hillary the Presidential candidate and those are two very different roles. Naturally, when running for President, she was constantly all over the news, taking strong, very vocal stands on any and all issues- that’s what a candidate does. As SOS, her role is a bit different and diplomacy is a more subtle art than campaigning for public office. Hillary may have much more power than people assume but because that power is often wielded behind closed doors and off the record, we (and the media) may not be as aware of it. For example, it has been claimed that when deliberating with the President over sending more troops to Afghanistan, Hillary’s position (she thought we should send more) won out over Joe Biden’s opposing viewpoint. And of course when the Taliban were heading towards Islamabad, Secretary Clinton took Pakistan to task for not moving quickly enough to deal with the security threat that the Taliban posed in that region- and while some criticized her outspokenness (ie. Pakistan), guess what happened- Pakistan doubled their efforts and rose to the challenge.

That said, while I acknowledge that some of the important work the Secretary of State does is necessarily not very public, I would like to see her visibility increased and in particular, I’d like to see her on the Sunday talk shows, interviews etc. on a regular basis because quite frankly, I don’t care what Obama’s political strategist/adviser, David Axelrod thinks about Pakistan, China and Israel (just to name a few)- I’d rather hear that directly from the nation’s top diplomat- the Secretary of State. And while the President obviously has the final say in matters relating to his administrations foreign policy and he certainly has a major role articulating his own message, we all know the President of the US doesn’t go around to all the talk shows every Sunday (for example) because he simply doesn’t have the time or ability to be the sole person articulating his message on every single issue he deals with. And that’s why it seems very inappropriate to me for Axelrod to be the one articulating the administrations foreign policy and diplomacy goals on talk shows, news programs, etc. because that generally falls under the purview of the State Department- it’s part of the reason we have a Secretary of State. And I’ll be absolutely honest here- I don’t trust David Axelrod and at times I wonder if he is purposely trying to encroach on Secretary Clinton’s territory- I hope not but if so, we’ve got Hillary Clinton’s back!

I have to admit that I can’t help but wonder what Hillary Clinton [and her advisers/staff] think of all these recent claims by the media of diminished visibility and influence? Does she believe her power has been diminished? Does she believe someone is trying to start trouble for her, via the media, for their own political benefit? Or is she frustrated with all this recent media coverage alleging her visibility and power have diminished because in fact, neither claim is true?

Amidst all the negative stories telling of an Obama-Clinton rift, I found this article over at The Economist, and it makes some good points:

Mischief-makers have been trying to discover tensions between the two former rivals ever since Mrs Clinton moved to Foggy Bottom in January. So far they have been frustrated, despite the fact that the issues that once divided them have been at the heart of foreign policy, and many of the same egos are still at work (Ms Power is now ensconced in the National Security Council and Mr Holbrooke is “special representative” for Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have hewed to the same line over the current uproar in Iran—expressing worries about the violence but avoiding raising the spectre of “American interference”. Mrs Clinton has followed Mr Obama’s lead in holding out a welcoming hand to assorted anti-American strongmen. “President Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary in which he put forth a different approach,” was her sharp response to a Republican congressman who reminded her of her former hawkishness when Mr Obama shook Hugo Chávez’s hand. Mrs Clinton now enjoys the highest popularity rating of any of Mr Obama’s cabinet; she also enjoys the admiration of some Republicans, such as Mark Kirk, a member of the congressional subcommittee that overseas the State Department, who calls her “the superstar of the cabinet”.

[snip]

But she has won more battles than she has lost—notably with Mr Biden, over whether America should send 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. And America’s foreign-policy machinery is now working as well as it has in years. One of her shrewdest moves was to divide the job of deputy secretary into two, with James Steinberg focusing on policy and Jack Lew on management. Mr Steinberg is respected on both sides of the former Clinton-Obama divide. Mr Lew, a former White House budget director, helped Mrs Clinton win a 10% budget increase for the department.
[snip]

But in general Mrs Clinton has disentangled herself enough from the daily demands of these regions to focus on strategic questions that are too often given short shrift: overhauling the management of foreign aid, improving the United States’ relations with Latin America and managing the rise of Asia, which is arguably the most important strategic issue facing the country. Mrs Clinton’s new-found collegial style and managerial competence is a godsend for the Obama administration at a momentous time for American foreign policy—and a principal reason why the country has been spared from one of the “difficult transitions” that Mr Steinberg once wrote a book about.

Finally, it should be obvious that Hillary Clinton is a huge asset to Obama due to her in-depth knowledge of foreign policy, long-standing [positive] relationships with foreign leaders and the rare gift of being a very good public speaker. And as anyone who has followed her foreign travel thus far, it is undeniable that she is extremely popular in most parts of the world and she is generally welcomed like a rock star when she travels-the reception she gets from average, everyday people is incredible and she clearly makes a point of creating a dialogue not only with foreign leaders and diplomats, but with ordinary people- something which can only *help* the administration not only get it’s policy message out to the world, but make it more likely that it will be well-received.