NYT behind the scenes on Obama's shift on Libya

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&adxnnl=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1300539729-PwmQE7W2JHo6iVIJ12GzMw

Short story, he moved after Hillary Clinton shifted from being with Gates to being with Samantha Powers and Susan Rice. (While the NYT always puffs up Clinton, this appears to explain the change from Gates/Clinton and Obama all being against interaction for three weeks. She is credited with "getting" the Arab League buy in - something Kerry had called for over three weeks ago.)

I suspect that both Clinton and Obama shifted, because France, Britain and Italy were behind it. I wonder if Power's knowledge of Rwanda had a major impact on the former First Lady - as her husband has spoken of wishing he intervened there.

This actually is less obnoxious than the other Clinton allies sourced article, but it is hyping Clinton's role here - rather than saying that Powers/Rice convinced both Clinton and Obama - which seems more likely given the time line. (Not to mention both of these are not directly sourced - so if things go wrong, there are no HRC fingerprints on this.)

This NYT piece is the 3rd one I have read that gives Clinton most of the credit and this is my big beef with her, she can't make a move without her fan club and PR machine puffing her up. In one of the pieces they were suggesting that her comments about not serving again are what made the President change his mind. Frankly, no matter who Pres. Obama choses to replace her, I will be glad to see her go.
And, whether you agree with this move or not,I think we can agree that Senator Kerry has been pushing for this course for weeks without getting any recognition.

I agree completely with all your comments here. I think Kerry has gotten a lot of notice on his stand - even by the media. It was important that one prominent Democrat was calling for it.

I also think that Obama shifted for the same reason that Clinton - that the Arab nations called for it, which Kerry has said is a very big thing. (I assume that Kerry actually has more credibility behind the scenes in the Arab world than any American, excepting George Mitchell.) Whether Clinton was a day earlier - which is about as long as it seems, does not mean her changing mattered.

As to the Arab League, it is more likely that they see Libya as a source of trouble for them - especially if Qaddafi survives. This was not done as a "favor" to the US - almost the opposite. Crediting Clinton, who really does not have any known credibility with most of those countries with "persuading them is silly.

Not to mention - if it turns South, Clinton's allies would be the first to point fingers at Powers, Rice and Kerry. The fact is Kerry was asking for it when it could have genuinely worked as a diplomatic tool - with Qaddafi cutting the violence and starting reforms - and Clinton wasn't.

(It does suggest that the President is more likely to listen to Clinton/Gates et al - which might mean it is better for Kerry to stay where he is with the freedom to speak. I have long thought that his ability to influence Obama is independent of his role - and if - as it seems - there is often a wide difference, being a loyal (which he would be - without stab in the back stories) SoS would sometimes mean not speaking out -- unless it is important enough to resign over.

SFRC, and a chance to have a voice BROADER issues (domestic as well as national) in the Senate, than he would have as SoS.
I hope he stays there. If we can work to keep Senate in Democratic hands, he can continue to have that megaphone on SFRC as well as as individual senator.

the Democrats will be able to keep the Senate in Democratic hands. I really hope I am wrong, because if Obama wins a second term, and I think he will, it will be very difficult for him to lead with Repubs controlling both chambers. And, if and when we do lose leadership in the Senate, Senator Kerry's will again be limited to a lesser role. Although, I do think he will continue to make his trips and do what he can behind the scenes. We will have to wait and see. As an end to a wonderful career of service to the US, I would love to see Senator Kerry become SOS, he deserves it, and he deserved it more than Clinton. But, it may not happen. Obama's choices in many leadership roles border on being very political.I would be disappointed if he didn't get this position, but I know that there are few people who have served our country as honorably as Senator Kerry and can truly be called a statesman.

he has just - in the last few weeks - introduced a huge amount of important legislation.
- the infrastructure bill (with Hutchinson)
- the foreign aid bill for Egypt and Tunisia (with McCain and Leiberman)
- the internet privacy bill (with McCain)
- the broadband expansion and use of white spaces in spectrum (with Snowe)
- the START- UP VISA bill (with Lugar)
- the BEER Act (with Crapo and 20 other Senators)

Note that on all of these he has a strong Republican co-sponsor - in a polarized Congress! Most of these create jobs and expand the economy. Many of these have significant chances of passing - and most are very important.

In addition, he is a very strong voice in saving the social services programs - enough that even Vennoci actually noticed.

On foreign policy, he has been a force. It could not have been pleasant to go to Pakistan under the circumstances he did, but you wonder if they could have made the deal they did had Senator Kerry not met with the families to express his condolences. Though I think Davis a murderer, the important thing was to not let the relationship with Pakistan go over the cliff - which is what it was doing. Could Obama have sent the Secretary of State? She blew up when she was there with the pleasant task of announcing projects (like dams) we were funding.

But, it is in the Middle East, where he is one of the few who responded well. He got credit for setting an excellent tone on Egypt - in every thing he did - including covering for the diplomat sent by HRC. On Libya, for two weeks many "pundits" said the WH was unhappy that he got out in front. However, they ended up EXACTLY where he was three weeks before. (One example of Kerry IS heard in that region - look at this Turkish account of his comment on Turkey in his speech this week - http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/112888/u-s-senator-says-turkey-is-a-stunning-example-of-progress.html - It can't hurt how we are viewed in Turkey to have this printed! I had not thought of the distribution this would have - and to useone of the Senator's favorite words it is "stunning")

Additionally, if anything works between Israel/Palestine, Kerry will already have earned a footnote by re-engaging Syria - and being the only one close to Obama to speak of Gaza as he did.

(In fact, looking at all this - what I see is that it is a complete shame that the Democratic party fought against this man running again in 2008 - he could have selected Obama as VP.)

foreign policy. Senator Kerry has been on target most of the time when he voices his concerns and opinions on what we should and should not been doing on the foreign policy front. You would think that this fact would lead our President to listen more closely to what Sen. Kerry says. Yet, he follows the lead of a woman who also does not have much more foreign policy experience than him. And, I think they both take their cues from Gates-who seems to have cold feet about everything now a days. Personally, I think all this change in the Middle East is too much for him to handle, or accept, so he recommends doing nothing. President Obama's slow response to matters of foreign policy frustrate me and I think this damages our credibility over seas.