New York Times Article Profiles the Working Relationship Between Secretary Clinton & President Obama
This is largely a positive article but at the same time, there is something about the tone that rubs me the wrong way. I think it’s the underlying assumption that so many in the media made when it was announced that Hillary Clinton would join the administration as Secretary of State- they seemed to assume that she (and not Obama) was too power-hungry, too resentful, too antagonistic to work well with the President after the 2008 election. The media also assumed that Bill Clinton would be a big distraction and that he would be a problem. To me, those assumptions were based in the media’s long-held negative view of Hillary Clinton rather than being based on reality. Naturally, the Team of Rivals scenario didn’t play itself out – Hillary Clinton is a professional and she obviously cares deeply for her country.
As I said, the article is quite positive but it almost seems like the media continues to be surprised that Obama and Clinton work so well together. Anyway, here is an excerpt:
…But the fact that she first spent 45 minutes plotting Iran strategy with the man who beat her in a divisive primary campaign shows just how far Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have come since the bitter spring of 2008, when he sniped that her foreign-policy credentials consisted of sipping tea with world leaders, and she scoffed that his consisted of living in Indonesia when he was 10.
Sixteen months after Mr. Obama surprised nearly everyone by picking her as secretary of state, the two have again surprised nearly everyone by forging a credible partnership. Mrs. Clinton has proved to be an eager team player, a tireless defender of the administration, ever deferential to Mr. Obama and careful to ensure that her husband, the former president, does not upstage her boss.
Mr. Obama has been solicitous of Mrs. Clinton, yielding to her at times in internal debates, even showing signs of adopting some of her more hawkish world views.
They now joke about their “frenemies” status and have made gestures toward each other’s families. When Mr. Obama learned that Chelsea Clinton had become engaged, he turned to Mrs. Clinton and asked, “Does she want a White House wedding?” a senior official recalled. (Mrs. Clinton declined, saying the offer was “sweet” but would be “inappropriate.”) And when Mrs. Clinton traveled to Honolulu in January, she paid tribute to Mr. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in a speech she gave while looking over a garden dedicated to Ms. Dunham.
Still, there is none of the deep familiarity or the tight bonds — the round-the-clock, back-channel access — of their predecessors, Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush, or going further back, James A. Baker and the first President Bush or Henry A. Kissinger and Richard M. Nixon.
“Hillary Clinton is the secretary of state,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written about the shaping of foreign policy. “The question now is whether she becomes a real adviser, and whether he trusts her.”
Mr. Obama has jealously guarded his prerogatives as the architect of American foreign policy, concentrating decision-making on crucial issues like Iran, Iraq and the Middle East in the White House. And Mrs. Clinton has yet to stake a claim to a core foreign-policy issue, the kind of signature role that would allow her nascent partnership with Mr. Obama to become a truly historic alliance.
Of course, they would have to make history first. So far, the administration’s foreign-policy ambitions have been marked more by frustration than fulfillment, from a stubborn Russia and a defiant China to the standoff with Iran over its nuclear program and a deepening conflict with Israel, where Mrs. Clinton has loudly given voice to the president’s dissatisfaction. Mr. Obama’s dominant foreign policy concern — the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan — is still a work in progress.
Interviews with more than a dozen senior White House and State Department officials, and friends of Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton, suggest that the president and his top diplomat are still easing into their alliance. Most of those interviewed spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, but their accounts have been matched against those of other participants whenever possible. The officials and associates tell a story of painstaking cultivation and sublimated ambition, seat-of-the-pants diplomacy and ritualized White House meetings (she sips water; he munches an apple)…
[snip]
To make sure Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton talked to each other, White House officials scheduled a standing 45-minute meeting on Thursday afternoons. A handful of senior aides sit in, though Mr. Obama often clears the room at the end to talk to her privately. At last week’s session, for example, the two discussed rebuking Israel for its plan to build Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem, and Mrs. Clinton followed up with a stern phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meetings are sacrosanct for the secretary: after her plane broke down in Saudi Arabia last month, a frantic Mrs. Clinton ditched her traveling press corps to flag down Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command who had been meeting with the Saudi king, for a ride home so that she would not miss her session with the president the next day.
But a weekly one-on-one in the Oval Office is a far cry from the access that some of her predecessors enjoyed. In a joint Newsweek interview with Mrs. Clinton in December, Mr. Kissinger said he made a point of seeing Mr. Nixon every day when they were both in town.
“I see the president when I need to see him; I talk to the president when I need to talk to him,” Mrs. Clinton countered in her later interview with The New York Times.
…
What I also find interesting is now that the media has been forced to accept that they won’t have weekly cat-fights to report on, they seem intent on pushing the idea that while Clinton and Obama work very well together, they aren’t the bestest friends ever and that that somehow signifies her diminished authority. In other words, the media is never satisfied.
The story brings up the Bush and Nixon administrations- interesting examples given how dysfunctional they both were. Why on earth would anyone want to function like the uber-competitive Bush White House where the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and Vice President were constantly at war with each other and fighting for control of the President’s message? And who cares if Henry Kissinger saw Nixon every day? What, were they dating? Why is that the standard by which this administration has to be judged? And you can damn well be sure if Hillary Clinton met every single day with Barack Obama the media would be spinning that and saying that the constant contact must mean he doesn’t trust her and thus he is trying to control every aspect of what she does at the State Department.
Ok, rant over. Now back to regularly scheduled programming 
…
To view this animated banner you need to have Flash Player 9 or newer installed and JavaScript enabled. This 
I agree with what you say but I have something to add:
….(just suggestions)
I don’t believe that Hillary has been “frantic” when she hitched a ride with Gen. Petraeus – she never is frantic.
And somehow I can’t believe that the only reason why she wanted to be back in the states was her meeting with the president as there are various other reasons I could think of – like her schedule, paperwork, Chelsea, Bill
I find it ironic, that some of the morning shows were trying to hint at something that she didnt cancel her appointment with obama to run off to bill, even though she probably already knew he was ok and it was a huge storm, of course when Harry reid’s wife suffered a broken neck and other injuries and he rushed back to dc to continue working on health care he was deemed dedicated. Glad white house wedding was turned down besides beign inappropriate somehow the media would have turned Chelsea’s wedding into something about the Obama’s.
I’ve always thought this was the secret “deal” they made at Dianne Feinsteins’ house in 2008 before just days before she dropped out of the race.
I thought the same Nancy. He offered her SOS or VP deal at Feinstein’s house. She campaigned for him all throurgh the summer into the fall. The others who ran in the primary’s did not do that much.
Stacy, I’m with you on the tone thing. It’s complimentary, but grudgingly so – as if there is a need for someone to confirm her loyalty to the administration even though nothing she’s done would cast doubt upon it… except continuing to be Hillary Rodham Clinton and remaining married to Bill Clinton.
I’m not surprised to hear that President Obama’s adopted some of her views. Let’s be honest here – there weren’t any big irreconcilable differences between their positions during the campaign in terms of policy, so all that would be left to deal with is personal what-have-you. It would be nothing but unprofessional and even childish of Secretary Clinton not to do exactly what she’s done – become a vigorous supporter of those that hired her and keep any further political ambitions, if she has any left, well hidden under layer upon layer of administration loyalty, patriotic duty, and job satisfaction. I don’t know why people are surprised by the fact that she is, in fact, capable of doing this? She is not an emotional person in the least, so hurt pride and hurt feelings aren’t going to be held onto because, rationally speaking, there’s no point – she has work to do. I mean, she handled herself rather well in the senate among those that made life for her and her husband quite unpleasant. If I remember correctly, everyone was surprised about that too.
I don’t see a need for her to meet with the President every day. They just need to both be well-informed and on the same page regarding various issues on the diplomatic radar. Besides, if they did meet every day, they’d probably be accused of sleeping together or something.
As a side note, cute picture. I never realized she was that short.
Actually, James Jones is that tall, lol. I think Hillary’s 5-7 or something.
I also agree with your post wholeheartedly, discourse, and stacy’s, too. Anyone who thought Hillary wouldn’t be a team player wasn’t paying attention to how she’s conducted herself as a public servant. It still amazes me how the media has turned her into a caricature that has no connection to who she actually is.
As for Hillary not leaving the meeting with Obama to go to Bill in NY, I’m sure Bill told her to stay. Besides, Chelsea was there with him the whole time.
BTW, they act as if Hillary is responsible for keeping Bill from upstaging Obama. He’s not a child, for goodness sake.
I think the reality is that there are just some people who want to stir up trouble and when there is none that exists, they will make it up- like all the clap-trap about Hillary having no power at the State Department. And of course the people with Clinton Derangement Syndrome, who will just. never. stop.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think there are some trouble-makers on all sides- some in the media obviously don’t like the Clintons and they will stop at nothing to try to dig up (or make up) dirt. I also think there are some Hillary supporters that are so angry with her for joining the Obama admin. that they will go out of their way to try to create the impression that somehow HRC is being victimized by him at the State Department and I just don’t buy that- first of all, she’s no victim and second, she would never let herself become window dressing and third, Obama has *nothing* to gain by alienating her in that way. I would hope that those people realize that creating the appearance of her as powerless and “invisible” within the administration, is doing her no favors whatsoever. In fact, it’s a bit condescending.
Well said, stacy, as usual.
There are also some for whom sniping at the Clintons – particularly Hillary Clinton – is good for business. I don’t think that many in the media hate her at all because. every time there’s news from Clintonland, people what to know what they’re up to and covering them (or perhaps writing a book about them) theoretically gets ratings. Also, I don’t know of too many commentators who would pass up the chance to fling a barb or two Secretary Clinton’s way because she’s an excellent media punching bag. She rarely complains other than to say that one thing or another was “inappropriate” and requesting that everyone “focus on the issues”, but she is never upset/hurt/angered by anything – the Mr. Miyagi of finding one’s zen place under media scrutiny, in my opinion. It’s a good quality to have in politics, but it also makes her a great target because, unless they’ve gone too far – like Cleavage-gate – the comments will go unchallenged because she, rightly, pays them no mind. She doesn’t care, but the public tends to love it.
“And Mrs. Clinton has yet to stake her claim to a core foreign policy issue…”
Oh please, that tired old meme again? Maybe if you covered a few of her speeches, you’d have a clue (I’m ranting at the NY Times, stacy!). How about elevating development as a core pillar of American power? How about having our foreign policy reflect our deep commitment to women’s rights in every country on every continent? These aren’t just the core issues of Hillary as our SOS — these have been her signature issues for 35 years.
Carolyn- that phrase you highlighted has been recycled by the media so many times and it all started with that Ben Smith article in Politico which tried to claim she had no power due to all the Special Envoys. The person who seems willing to toss out that soundbite for any media organization willing to listen is Aaron David Miller, who worked in the State Dept. under several administrations(including the Clinton admin.). For some reason, he seems to be the primary person pushing the idea that she has no “signature” foreign policy issue and I can’t help but wonder what Mr. Miller’s agenda is. Is he disgruntled that he was not asked to serve in HRC’s State Department?
I don’t remember people saying this about Condi Rice despite the fact that she basically ignored a large portion of the planet while she helped sell Bush’s illegal, dishonest war. In fact, it was no secret that Rice was being undermined by the Secy of Defense and Dick Cheney, yet I don’t recall the NYT and others lamenting that the State Department had essentially become an arm of the DoD and that Condi was relegated to figure-head status.
Just a question- if Joe Biden were the SOS and the exact same set-up of envoys was in place, would the media be portraying him as powerless or not really “staking a claim” on a key foreign policy issue? Hmmm, I wonder.
And I think the reason many in the media and the foreign policy community don’t consider her work on behalf of women’s rights a key foreign policy issue is because they don’t consider women’s rights important, quite frankly. There is still a very paternalistic mindset that pervades beltway foreign policy circles (and defense too). When was the last time you heard the Council on Foreign Relations talk about the destabilization of societies being directly linked to the status of women? N.E.V.E.R.
Also, why are the Special Envoys such a sticking point with so many people? How are they that much different than Assistant Secretaries of State or high level advisers? She can’t be everywhere at once. She can’t split herself into seven pieces and spend every week in the Middle East trying to get peace talks jump started while also dealing with Afghanistan, Haiti, USAID, Turkey and on and on.
Well said Carolyn, They have no clue really. They do not follow her like we do and read her remarks and statements. They just gossip for the headlines.