And This Is What Her Friends Are Saying...

Former President Fidel Castro of Cuba suggested recently in the pages of Granma Internacional Digital that Mrs. Clinton might be trying to put off her resignation until someone proposes to nominate her for a Nobel prize.

After all, didn't Oscar Arias get one of those?

 As a  (U.S.) Secretary of State one can't help wondering  if (former) Governor Palin of Alaska might not have been a better prospect for the Obama Administration----at this point. 

 In my humble opinion (IMHO) she might make a more effective consular secretary in Northern Greenland-or Guam (should she prefer the climate there.)

I read the article as a guy trying to shill for a certain policy. But the issue is so nuanced and the article so shallow that it's hard to take the article seriously as an actual policy critque. I see why you are approaching the article from a different angle. Really though, he's just seems to be a guy with a neocon's understanding of the word (Chang's entire critique doesn't depend on strategy, just on the fact he doesn't like Russia and China's politics) that's working on his own to drive a wedge between America and Russia/China (although Biden's dumbass seems to be doing a good enough job of that himself).

The analysis in the Forbes article that Obama is sucking up to Russia as a way of checking China is totally ridiculous.  The trip to Moscow had one top purpose for Obama:  The Russians have the second largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world and, reportedly, one of the least secure systems for controlling nuclear materials.  No new global anti-proliferation effort, one of Obama's top priorities, will succeed without the Russian government firmly on board. A secondary purpose of his Russia policy is to try to line up Russian support for extraordinarily tough new sanctions on Iran, as a necessary alternative to military action should the Iranians refuse to get serious about negotiations on its nuclear program.

But the best proof of this absurd analysis can be found in a photograph taken at one of Obama's meetings with Putin.  Surf over to the Huffington Post and look at the photo album of his Moscow trip:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/25/behind-the-scenes-with-th_n_244913.html  Flip to the picture of Obama, Putin and aides talking outside on a terrace, with Putin sipping tea while listening to Obama.  The third person to Obama's left is Michael McFaul, his National Security Council director for Russia.  McFaul was unforgiving during the Bush years in sizing up Putin as an autocrat and Russia as backsliding from democracy.  McFaul would quit before supporting a policy of cozying up to Russia as some sort of counterweight to China. The Forbes author's analysis is ludicrous. 

Let's also not forget that the editors of Forbes -- longtime bashers of "big government liberals" -- doubtless enjoy criticizing Obama any way they can, even at the expense of printing some fulsome praise of Hillary and the venting of supposed -- but far from proved -- criticism of Obama by her.  Remember how in the fall campaign the Republicans quoted Hillary's lines from the primaries?  That's what this is about, I suspect:  Yet more trashing of Obama from the conservative media.

It gets only worse. Not only has she given a blanket check to the golpistas, she has now given the human rights abuses in Mexico a pass, certifying Mexico on the matter. That means Calderon can continue his riduculous war on drugs destroying anyone who disagrees with him. Just look at the state of Michoacan right now. Living in Mexico, THAT scares the hell out of me. Thanks Hillary! NOT!!!!!

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/615125.html

Off-topic:  I thought this was an interesting mini-article on the front page of the L.A. Times' home page: Provocative U.S. sign goes dark in Havana

@NeonBlack: Well, "Chang the neo-con" isn't the only one advancing the troubled-waters meme — even if his article is myopic and slanted, which I think Al set up clearly in his think tease.

The French news service AFP is picking up on some prickly waves on this side of the pond as well, it seems, enough to devote some ink to it.

Clinton insists ties with Obama are strong

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton sought once again Sunday to dispel speculation she has a rocky relationship with President Barack Obama, her adversary in last year's White House race who picked her as secretary of state.

Media speculation has persisted about tensions between the two former rivals, with suggestions she has been a disgruntled chief diplomat in her boss's shadow, but Clinton insisted they have "a great relationship."

"We have an incredibly candid and open exchange," Clinton said on the NBC network's "Meet the Press."

"I see him usually several times a week, at least once one-on-one. And I'm ready to offer my advice."

Clinton stressed she understood "that the election is over" and she has no designs on the White House.

Now, if you believe that last claim, "no designs on the White House," I'd advise that you stay clear of televangelists and snake-oil salesmen until you come to your senses.

And, as evidence of the soundness of that advice, bear in mind some words uttered by Hillary in the past.

When as a Senator and asked about her presidential aspirations:

I have said that I'm not running and I'm having a great time being pres — being a first-term senator.

And a hint as to her lust for the power of the presidency:

I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.

Obama picked her as Secretary of State because she is smart, capable and good in the trenches. If she chooses to become greedy and childish in the pursuit of her own self-interests and turns those skills against him, or his agenda, Obama also — being smart, capable and good in the trenches — has her right where he needs her [under his thumb].

And I think he's capable of moving with her or against her as needed.

What Washington needs is adult supervision. — Barack Obama

He can be very observant about some details but as he shifts his focus from one detail to the next, he seems to synthesize a result that is a bit off.  Partly one thinks because he has some strong beliefs of his own that distort his observations.  Or he doesn't understand the full context of the discussion topic.  Or maybe shocking predictions sell more books.  For example, he was sure in 2001 that China was going to collapse by 2006. (Details about the stresses on China economy and society are interesting but they don't add up to his conclusions.)

When Chang hears from this intermediary of Clinton's, he makes a conclusion that doesn't stand up without more support:

This week, for instance, one of her State Department aides has argued in off-the-record conversations that Obama has been making a series of foreign policy blunders, among them letting the Chinese do whatever they want and giving them more than they ask for. The trip to India and Thailand, in one sense, is Clinton's way of literally and figuratively distancing herself from Obama, her way of letting us know she has better policies for dealing with Beijing.

Given the history of many of Clinton's current and previous associates (see Penn or Davis) I'm not a bit surprised one of her own would want to make Obama's foreign policy appear to be naive and dangerous (TM).  I have no doubt some of her closest associates already hunger for a rematch even as Clinton stresses her loyalty to the administration.

In a couple of his recent articles Chang erroneously makes foreign policy look like a series of binary decisions.  Earlier this month he writes Which is a Better Ally, Russia or China? In the article Al cites above Chang basically states that Obama chose to make Russia an ally against China while Clinton chose India.  I find that conclusion and this language simply bizarre:

Clinton's concept of siding with another large democracy seems much more attractive--and sustainable.

It's Clinton's concept?

First of all we have to maintain relationships with a multitude of counties.  Obama, who clearly sees the need for multitasking is capable of directing visits by senior US officials among many different countries.  It may not be an accident that Clinton got to go to India and not Russia though.  India is a country where even I think she could do OK.  (I never wanted her for Sec. of State)  Hillary and Bill have built warm relationships with India and many Indian-American immigrants (I'm biting my tongue for now on some of those relationships.)

Many of those quotes were from Hillary on Meet the Press on Sunday, and I saw the entire show and she was great.  At one point, Gregory kept going on and on about another bid for the White House, and although she spoke like a politician, she was clearer than I expected, in saying she has no plans to run again.   

Put it this way, her answer was much more definitive than Biden's, who said he hasn't ruled out another run.

I think this Obama vs. Hillary is an obvious meme that the media has decided to create, yet I don't see the proof.  I think there is money in the Obama vs. Hillary battle, and I think because things have been surprisingly seamless, they are trying to create the illusion of disunity based on very little evidence.

I am no intense Hillary fan, but so far, I don't see a problem between her and Obama. 

I am a strong supporter of the President, and I think it must be acknowledged that when it comes to this coup, the President has decided to take a hands off approach.  I don't think this situation is high on his list, and I have a hunch that he just wants it resolved with little bloodshed, and with very little U.S. involvement.  Right or wrong, that appears to be what's going on.

Thank you Al for all your updates. 

The Honduran Congress on Monday avoided a vote on whether ousted President Manuel Zelaya can return to power after a coup last month, saying it was a matter for the Supreme Court to decide.

No need to bite your tongue. It's neo-liberal greed. 

@IVA

You may be right on both Honduras and the Clinton/Obama vibe, but I'm inclined to think there's a more dynamic relationship at play — that is, the vibe is affected by the performance of Clinton with the Honduras situation [and other State domain issues] in relation to Obama's objectives. And Obama has stated, "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras."

So, he either means that or he doesn't [a separate matter from Clinton] but to the extent he is made to look weak or not credible by an ineffective, even if sincere, Secretary of State, well, politics is not a game that allows for mercy. In this case, the world, at least Latin America, is likely to judge Obama by his words, and if the coup stands, Obama's credibility will take a hit, and his ability to wield power effectively will be questioned — setting him up for some serious blowback. 

The more dissonance between Clinton's performance and Obama's objectives, in that sense, the more the vibe between the two goes off key. And the president, in this case, has the power to issue the pink slips.

It's just a performance thing; not inside baseball.

Time will tell, and that's what journalism does — keeps the beat over time.

"The Forbes author's analysis is ludicrous."

Not entirely, the author does throw in this nugget that has some truth to it -

Yet the president needs to think about why we have to be wary about Beijing in the first place. It is not because China is large, rising or has the potential to become a peer competitor. It is because the nature of China's government--an insecure one-party regime--makes it an unreliable partner.

This month, for instance, the Communist Party has tried to deflect criticism by blaming foreigners for the nation's ills--from the ethnic disturbances in Xinjiang to corruption at the nation's steel mills. In these circumstances, it is hard to see how Beijing can maintain stable relations with the international community.

On the other hand, Chang does not factor in the visits to China by Paulson (under the Bush admin.) and the recent visit by Treasury Sec. Tim Geithner. Not all diplomacy happens through the State Dept., there are always other channels at a president's disposal.

who only lasted a year as Reagan's Secretary of State, having gone off the proverbial reservation one too many times.

And then he ran for president in 1988.

@IVA -- I couldn't agree with your assessment more. And further, the coup in Honduras is not foremost on the minds of average Americans struggling in the worst economy in decades -- that may not be what some folks want to hear but it is the truth.

@Bill Conroy -- I believe that you are taking liberties with interpreting the president's cautious public statements and imbuing the words with grander meaning than actually afforded by them regarding his "objectives" -- his only objective, in my view, has been to publicly support the constitution of Honduras.

Having heard those same words from Secretary Clinton, there is no apparent dissonance between President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.

Whatever happens in Honduras will not be a defining event for President Obama unless he does something stupid like send in troops to interfere ala GW Bush and Iraq. If there's one thing we all know, it's that Barack Obama is not stupid. And neither is his Secretary of State.

Pat, you say:

;@Bill Conroy -- I believe that you are taking liberties with interpreting the president's cautious public statements and imbuing the words with grander meaning than actually afforded by them regarding his "objectives" -- his only objective, in my view, has been to publicly support the constitution of Honduras.

Well, imbue, as in color, tint or dye, seems to describe what you have done to my words.

I simply reprinted a quote from the president: We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras."

Those words seem pretty clear cut to me. If Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, then how would you describe the person who has usurped that position?

And in so doing, it would seem that person and the horses he rode in on [Roberto Micheletti and his compadres] by definition have violated Honduras' constitution. So it seems we're in agreement on that.

But the part you fail to address are these words by the president: "the coup was not legal."

Logic would seem to indicate, at least to me, unless I've imbued [or is that imbibed] too much, that if the coup was not legal, either Obama believes that needs to be actively addressed as an "objective" of U.S. foreign policy, or he is content to point out that illegal activity yet perfectly fine with allowing it to continue absent any consequence.

The latter interpretation would seem to be not only an inconsistent international policy, but a recipe for opening the door to further illegal activity, specifically coups and all the hemispheric destabilization that entails, since there would be no foreign policy objective in place to redress such lawless behavior. 

So I think Obama's words have been very clear and consistent in this matter, absent any imbuement on my part. There seems to be no other convincing way to read them other than Obama views the current coup government of Honduras to be an illegal regime in violation of that nation's constitution.

As a consequence, it would seem a rational option for Obama, in a foreign policy objective sense, to pursue a strategy to correct that fault [through a variety of means none of which need entail military force on the part of the U.S.]. The alternative would be to take a course of irrational contradiction by publicly decrying the corruption yet allowing it to stand and possibly spread.

If it is considered imbuement to assume Obama is rational, then so be it.

Now, when it comes to Secretary Clinton's pronouncements on the Honduran matter, clarity and consistency, at least in my view, are not apt descriptors to date. Perhaps the Secretary of State is really on the same page with Obama's objectives, yet perceives some advantage to embracing linguistic ambiguity in addressing the illegality of the coup regime as clearly defined by Obama.

I don't know, but that lack of articulated veracity on the part of the Secretary, for whatever reason, would be a source of the dissonance I referenced, however you might want to imbue that statement.