So...I'm Thinking About Next U.S. Presidential Election

[Aeson]

I thought you renounced your citizenship.

I thought about it before cutting the check to Uncle Sam last week ... but then I'd have to change all my bank and direct deposit accounts and I'm rather too lazy for that sort of thing.

[kentonio]

Sounds quite mundane.

Think of who she was following. Safe and mundane was pretty much perfect wasn't it, after the 'excitement' of the previous 8 years?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sounds quite mundane.

You mean she wasn't Dean Acheson, George Marshall, or Henry Kissenger?!

Think of the era those SecState's presided over.

[rah]

But the discussions is what are her accomplishments.
You guys are supporting that her greatest accomplishments are that she wasn't great and she wasn't as exciting as her predecessors.

To me, that's the definition of mundane.

[kentonio]

But the discussions is what are her accomplishments.
You guys are supporting that her greatest accomplishments are that she wasn't great and she wasn't as exciting as her predecessors.

To me, that's the definition of mundane.

I remember expecting her to come in and try and make some bg splash and cause waves, and instead she came in, supported her President and did a good job. It definitely did her approvals the world of good.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But the discussions is what are her accomplishments.
You guys are supporting that her greatest accomplishments are that she wasn't great and she wasn't as exciting as her predecessors.

To me, that's the definition of mundane.

Interesting spin from someone already inclined to dislike her .

Another way to read it is that she advocated more soft power strategies (and yes, a lot of it did focus on women equality in 3rd world countries) rather than big bold endeavors which inevitably get us into trouble. She was effective by not trying to hog the spotlight and make huge waves. Ie, a good Secretary of State in these times. Very similar tact that Madeline Albright undertook.

[rah]

I'll agree that she supported the President (which was not the surprise to me that it seems to have been for you) but again have not seen the evidence that she did a good job. She had no real impact. All pretty mundane.

[Lorizael]

I can't give her credit on the Universal health care besides the fact that she favored it. It was her main priority decades ago, and couldn't get it off of ground zero. Whatever excuses doesn't change the fact that it went nowhere. To me that was a lack of leadership and focus.

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but I think this is kind of silly. The president's spouse isn't really supposed to be able to lead major policy initiatives.

[rah]

Interesting spin from someone already inclined to dislike her .

Another way to read it is that she advocated more soft power strategies (and yes, a lot of it did focus on women equality in 3rd world countries) rather than big bold endeavors which inevitably get us into trouble. She was effective by not trying to hog the spotlight and make huge waves. Ie, a good Secretary of State in these times. Very similar tact that Madeline Albright undertook.

No different than the spin from someone already inclined to worship her;

And yes, while it's always fun to try to mock the other side, those defending her have been quite vague. I'll give you credit for trying to quantify it, but if you read back your own posts, even you have to admit that nothing she has done stands out. You seem to say she was good simply because she didn't screw anything up. I will concede that there has been progress in spotlighting women's rights but that doesn't qualify her as a good SOS.

[rah]

I'm not really a Hillary fan, but I think this is kind of silly. The president's spouse isn't really supposed to be able to lead major policy initiatives.

Yes most thought that back then but (to her credit) she asked for that role. And he gave it to her.

[DinoDoc]

Yes most thought that back then but (to her credit) she asked for that role. And he gave it to her.

And she failed quite spectacularly at it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You seem to say she was good simply because she didn't screw anything up.

No, I didn't say that. Nice spin.

However, even if that was the extent, compared to the previous 8 years that's quite a feat.

[rah]

DD

Even I'll admit that it probably wasn't the right time and that she probably didn't have the weight to succeed, but she still has to own that she accomplished zero.

[rah]

No, I didn't say that. Nice spin.

However, even if that was the extent, compared to the previous 8 years that's quite a feat.

You've set the bar so low that anyone could have cleared it. Still not the standard for greatness. For mediocrity yes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A balanced view of Clinton's successes and failures as a SecState:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state/2014/05/30/16daf9c0-e5d4-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html

As to her place in history:

Clinton was an influential secretary of state and a savvy manager with a clear agenda that, at least in part, she translated into policy. So how did it all work out?

The answer: Historians will probably consider Clinton significantly more successful than run-of-the-mill secretaries of state such as James G. Blaine or the long-serving Cordell Hull, but don’t expect to see her on a pedestal with Dean Acheson or John Quincy Adams anytime soon.

The verdict? Clinton brought a clear vision of U.S. interests and power to the job, and future presidents and secretaries of state will find many of her ideas essential. Yet she struggled to bring together the different elements of her vision into a coherent set of policies. The tension between America’s role as a revolutionary power and its role as a status quo power predates Clinton; the struggle to reconcile those two opposed but equally indispensable aspects of American foreign policy has survived her tenure at the State Department.

And, of course, the point Ken and I were trying to make:

So how does one rate the performance of Madame Secretary? The conventional indicators — landmark treaties, a new doctrine, signature deals — are actually poor guides to assessing the caliber of American diplomats. Just as the best lawyers aren’t the ones with the most famous courthouse victories but those who quietly keep their clients out of trouble and litigation, belt-notching in diplomacy has led presidents and secretaries of state into trouble. When American diplomats restlessly roam land and sea, desperate for that Nobel-worthy moment, the national interest is rarely served.