Hillary Clinton leaves quick stamp on US State Department

by Sylvie Lanteaume Sylvie Lanteaume – Wed Jan 28, 2009

?
AFP – US President Barack Obama listens as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks at the State Department


WASHINGTON (AFP) – Less than a week after taking over the reins of US foreign policy, Hillary Clinton has left her mark on the State Department with a politician-style charm offensive.

Since she arrived Thursday at the austere hub of US diplomacy, the former first lady set the tone for a "new era for America" marked by openness and dialogue.

Greeted with cheers from employees, she immediately thrust herself into a crowd worthy of the intense presidential election campaign she waged for more than a year before yielding to her Democratic rival Barack Obama.

In order to break clearly with former president George W. Bush's administration, which was accused of resorting too readily to military force, she retooled US foreign policy along three lines: diplomacy, development and defense.

In her first news briefing on Tuesday Clinton admitted Washington has "a lot of damage to repair" to its global standing, and said the world is relieved Obama has replaced Bush.

However, there would not be a total "repudiation" of the past eight years, she said, and noted that the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear disarmament pursued under Bush are "essential".

Matching words with deeds to break with the previous administration, in one of her first acts Clinton visited the US Agency for International Development where she promised employees extra funds and political will before plunging into the crowds to shake hands.

In a further show of the new lead on global development, the State Department announced Tuesday it has made an initial contribution of 125 million dollars toward the 2009 operations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Within days of her arrival Clinton outlined the new US priorities with the naming of three envoys: former senator George Mitchell for the Middle East; diplomat Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Todd Stern, a former advisor of her husband and ex-president Bill Clinton, to deal with climate change.

Unlike her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, who was courteous but brief and formal at similar appointments ceremonies, Clinton has given such events the air of a campaign rally.

When the talking was over, she plunged into the audience to greet as many people as possible.

She has been careful to make sure that her former rivalry with Obama is over for good by insisting that the new administration forms a "team".

On Monday she took part in a meeting with the new president and Mitchell at the White House, just before the peace envoy left to the region on his maiden trip.

In her first direct contact with the media, Clinton avoided a formal televised news conference and chose instead to meet in person with more than a dozen journalists in their office space at the State Department.

Showered with questions on the new administration's plans, she avoided all the traps and abstained from commenting on potentially controversial subjects.

Asked about civilian victims blamed on US military strikes in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan, she said: "I am not prepared to talk about that."

Dialogue with US arch-foe Iran? "There is just a lot that we are considering that I am not prepared to discuss," she said.

She adopted a diplomatic tone on China when she called for "comprehensive" dialogue in line with its "important role" in the region and world.

In one week, the secretary of state has telephoned 37 presidents, prime ministers or foreign ministers, according to the State Department media officers.

She said she sensed from such calls a sigh of relief that the Obama administration had replaced Bush's team.

"There is a great exhalation of breath going on around the world as people express their appreciation for the new direction that is being set and the team that is being put together by the president," said the chief US diplomat.
However, there would not be a total "repudiation" of the past eight years, she said, and noted that the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear disarmament pursued under Bush are "essential".

Matching words with deeds to break with the previous administration, in one of her first acts Clinton visited the US Agency for International Development where she promised employees extra funds and political will before plunging into the crowds to shake hands.

In a further show of the new lead on global development, the State Department announced Tuesday it has made an initial contribution of 125 million dollars toward the 2009 operations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Within days of her arrival Clinton outlined the new US priorities with the naming of three envoys: former senator George Mitchell for the Middle East; diplomat Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Todd Stern, a former advisor of her husband and ex-president Bill Clinton, to deal with climate change.

Unlike her predecessor Condoleezza Rice, who was courteous but brief and formal at similar appointments ceremonies, Clinton has given such events the air of a campaign rally.

When the talking was over, she plunged into the audience to greet as many people as possible.

She has been careful to make sure that her former rivalry with Obama is over for good by insisting that the new administration forms a "team".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090128/pl_afp/usdiplomacy_20090128085937

A nice positive thread about our Secretary of State extolling team Obama gets nary a response, but a thread about a made up story about Hillary supposedly threating Cornyn gets 219 responses and counting.

:(

give us time to digest; it's a long piece

plus

i encourage DU'ers take advantage of ANY opportunity to take a long slow piss on john cornyn, seriously

anyway

i read the WHOLE article (i didn't just skim it, i promise) and i thought it was great

she's being an excellent example to all of us that still feel the need to fight the primaries- she's obviously moving on, and so should we

i, for one, am excited to see what this dream team will do, especially as it applies to the middle east (the iraq war is one of my "issues")

the world is most definitely watching...

thx for posting this tho

I think that the world IS breathing a sigh of relief at the way US foreign policy is now being handled by Obama, Hillary and their team. After the abysmal 8 years we all went though, it's as if a breath of fresh air was allowed in a dank room.

Go team!!!!!!!

:bounce:

:hi:

thanks again.
I ignored that Cornyn story as nonproductive and hateful gossip.

Cornyn's office denied the story, but the bashers kept posting anyway as if the story was true.

:(

if you stop calling people names, they'll be nicer. Just a thought. When you start calling people you disagree with "bashers" and "haters," they tend to get a little testy.

What else would you call people who wrote such vitriol, even after they knew that the article was pure B.S.?

:(

hoping to see a positive story -- and the second thing I saw was your snarky comment. This is why I didn't rec the story.

Some things just fall through the cracks.

I post lots of good stories, that just drop off the Latest page without getting any recs. Someone posts the same story with the same headline an hour later and it shoots to the top of the charts.

It happens. It's the nature of the beast here on DU. A lot of really good stories just go unnoticed and a lot of drek gets onto the Greatest page. It's a design flaw. Maybe you need to stop seeing it as some personal conspiracy against you and Hillary.

It's sickening by now to continue to read the virulent attacks on a Democratic site over our only twice elected president since FDR and his wife. The thread I mentioned has received many responses, even though it's premise is not true, they continued to bash Hillary. But start a positive thread and it gets ignored.

Sorry, I was just upset, that's all.........

:hi:

I am glad she (might-who knows, it was Politico) have told off Cornyn. She is tough but I don't think uneasily so. She has been attacked by the Rethugs for years. She knows the deal. I voted for Barack in the primaries but have come to really respect and admire Hillary and I think she will make a great SoS.

In spite of my vast political difference with Hillary, I admire her tough grrl image, and how it sends dittohead types into screaming fits.

The fact that there are some of those types here just makes it all the sweeter. The pain they suffer from their cognitive dissonance, their writhing and twisting, brings a song of joy to that which used to be my heart.

Thank you for posting that! :toast:

but at the hateful response of several people even though Cronyn himself denied Politico's take of their conversation. It was used as an excuse to dump on Hillary once more and by the same crowd.

:(

Hillary hate. I see it every time her name is mentioned. And it's always the same people. I don't say anything anymore, though. It takes a certain kind of person to carry so much hatred around and they're just not worth my time.

Your article was wonderful. I think most people, including the MSM, seem to have figured out how good she is for our country. I expect great things from her AND Obama/Biden. The three together make a truly amazing team!

in this entire thread...

I don't think it would be incorrect or shocking to say that there are some people who like one politician more than another, who are disturbed by one politician and respect another, who support one politician and dislike another...

If nothing else, the Clinton's truly bring out the passion in people - which I think is equally a great asset as well as a negative.

But whatever people's opinions are - they're just as valid as someone else's... that someone believes the opposite or dislikes what another likes - doesn't make one wrong.

There are things I do not like about Clinton, there are things I find concerning about Clinton. It's not just something I randomly came up with because I thought it'd be cool to bash her... There are things I like about Clinton, but she's not perfect. No one is.

Rather than just label people why not offer your viewpoint on whatever criticism it is (and they might just find your argument reasonable and change their minds!) Would that make any sense?

I responded to the first comment, agreeing with the sentiment. Although it would have been more accurate to have said "Clinton Hate", it does show up in the Hillary/Bill/Clinton threads. It's too bad. Kind of takes some of the joy out of our current wonderful administration.

Here are some of posts I'm referring to - from the past day or so:

Hillary a suck up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8146863&mesg_id=8147488

Hillary's marriage. Trashing Bill:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8147651&mesg_id=8148910

Clinton thugs:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8140552&mesg_id=8142015

linked in this thread - Hillary, Obama's enemy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8140552&mesg_id=8145789


Yes, the hate happens, a lot. It's just fact.

People do say mean, inaccurate even hateful things, and I don't like it either. But I don't necessarily think that entitles someone else to label them a hater. I'm not even sure any of us if asked to define "hater", one could find any two descriptions that were exactly alike. It's a pretty significant term (however vague), and I think such things carry some responsibility in those who chose to use them - especially if they do so to label someone else.

Someone who dislikes the Clintons and always has doesn't make them a hater. Being extremely opposed to their politics, (even their personalities or characters - as that person perceives them - for goodness sake!) STILL doesn't make someone a hater simply because a passionate supporter finds that unacceptable. Its not! You may not like it, you may think it's superficial or dumb, and it may very well be all those things. Even having a superficial reason to dislike something doesn't make it wrong and doesn't entitle someone else to declare theirs as the only appropriate view or start name-calling.

Is there nothing or no one in your experience that you dislike for reasons that are personal or emotional? Should you be called a hater if you strongly dislike this person or thing for reasons someone else might consider sort of insignificant or petty? No it doesn't. If you spewed vicious hateful things non-stop in an attempt to cause injury or harm... then, maybe the hater label might spring into people's minds. I don't see a lot of that going on, even though I do see lots of very passionate opposition and vehement dislike for this that and the other, sometimes it's directed at the Clintons, sometimes not. That mean these people are haters? Does it really?

I don't want to be categorized when however critical I might be, because I participate here with honorable intentions only, as most of us do. And even those of us with honorable intentions can go off on a tear sometime and say things we don't mean in the heat of the moment. It happens, and such things will likely get challenged. That's cool. But this hater thing gets us nowhere, in my view. The Clinton's are - if nothing else - fascinating... love 'em or "hate" 'em. I wish we could discuss things about them and even disagree without having this big iron door slam the conversation shut and people turn away disgruntled and divided.

If the idea is that this is a mission to eliminate the "haters", I'm pretty sure that what's been done so far doesn't work. Except to perpetuate it, perhaps.

These people are tiresome with their constant bashing, but who cares anymore.

Ditto for the MSM. They are a bunch of vultures who did their best to eviscerate her. There are few real journalists left, most of them are just pundits bloviating their personal opinions. Therefore, there are some channels that I don't watch and I do just fine without them.

;)

:crazy:

:7

... as that post also suggested she was/would want to do.

I voted for Hillary in the primary, but I knew I would vote for our nominee. I am very proud of the work I did to help get him there, of the work we all did to get him there.

When discussions came up about VP, I did not think that was enough for her. That may seem like a criticism or a compliment depending on how you read it, so I'll qualify it. The Vice-President's job is to help work with the Senate, advise the President, and be ready to take over at a moment's notice should something happen. The First Lady, while having no official role, does play sounding board and adviser as well -- Hillary's already been there and done that. Hillary has a lot of energy, and while she would do well at the job if it were given, there's a reason that both a spouse and a VP have to have a level of personal chemistry with each other -- it makes them better, more trusted advisers and sounding-boards. Hillary and Barack respect each other, but I think he and Joe Biden have a better relationship, the kind that is needed there.

Part of the reason I voted for her in the primaries was her knowledge of foreign affairs. She may not be able to remember things about her own past, but she has a very good grasp of the international situation. While I felt that Bill Richardson should have been given right of first refusal for Secretary of State because of his diplomatic experience, it's possible that he was and we just don't know it.

In this position she can focus her energy on the goals that President Obama asks her to accomplish, and her role as an adviser to the President will be more of a specialist role, one that I think is more fitting of the mutual respect that Hillary and President Obama have for each other. I expect more good things of her and of the State Department under this new Administration.

I think that the world will be thrilled by our SOS and this administration's handling of foreign affairs.

No more "mission accomplished" statements unless they refer to ending the war in Iraq and bringing peace to the Middle East.

:toast:

.. sez it all.

I will no longer have to apologize for having Bush as president when I travel overseas.

:woohoo:

Thanks for posting it.

:hi:

Now she can show how right she was. And Dobbs can compliment her on every step of the way while he shows everyone how much he ignores deserving compliments for Obama.

Now she can inject the word "diplomacy" back into the foreign service.

;-)

I am so glad that we finally have a competent and capable SoS.

As a young woman I always wanted to be a diplomat. I haven't felt this way in a few decades.

nice to see something positive!

I wasn't for Hillary in the primary, because I didn't want another dynastic President. However, I've always felt that Fate (or whatever you choose to call it) had a different role in mind for Hillary. When I saw her greeted like a liberator at the State Department, I *knew* that this was her path. I think that she will be a great SecState. She's already started off with a bang.

She will represent us well there is no doubt of that ....

:kick:

:hi:

I did it from work and was in a hurry.

:blush:

I was not a Hillary supporter during the primaries but I am thrilled to see her as SOS. I think she'll be an amazing SOS and obviously, so does the rest of the state department. Things happen for a reason and I think Hillary ended up in a place where she is really going to shine. I'm very grateful. :)

But then again, I think that she would have shined in the White House too.

;-)