Shortly before Hillary Clinton took office as the nation’s sixty-seventh Secretary of State, I asked, “Could Hillary be a great Secretary of State?”
It seems, however, that the man who appointed her is doing everything possible to make sure we answer that question in the negative. He has marginalized her as few (if any) of his predecessors have marginalized the highest ranking non-elected official in the Cabinet.
As John Fund notes in today’s Political Diary, “she has kept a low profile not entirely of her own choosing” becoming “invisible.” Having designated special envoys to trouble spots around the world, the president doesn’t appear interested in soliciting her opinion on how to respond to foreign crises. It doesn’t seem the President turns to her for advice as his predecessor looked to hers or as other successful foreign policy Presidents like Reagan, Eisenhower and Truman looked to theirs (George Shultz, John Foster Dulles and Dean Acheson respectively).
Watching the two of the them together, one doesn’t have the feeling that they respect one another, rather that he is being gracious to allow her into his august presence while her eyes shoot daggers at him. I couldn’t find any video online of Tonya Reiman, the body language expert (who appears regularly on O’Reilly) analyzing the joint appearances of the President and Secretary of State. It would be fascinating to hear what she has to say.
The White House scheduled a Rose Garden appearance for the President at the same time she had planned a speech to assert herself. Guess they don’t want this woman getting much media attention.
So, I’m just wondering how long can this ambitious woman stand to be marginalized?
I had hoped Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel would be the first major Administration official to step down, but now I’m wondering if it’s going to be Mrs. Clinton.