Clinton Moves to Widen Role of State Dept.

[Thrill]

WASHINGTON — Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis.

Mrs. Clinton is recruiting Jacob J. Lew, the budget director under President Bill Clinton, as one of two deputies, according to people close to the Obama transition team. Mr. Lew’s focus, they said, will be on increasing the share of financing that goes to the diplomatic corps. He and James B. Steinberg, a deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, are to be Mrs. Clinton’s chief lieutenants.

Nominations of deputy secretaries, like Mrs. Clinton’s, would be subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The incoming administration is also likely to name several envoys, officials said, reviving a practice of the Clinton administration, when Richard C. Holbrooke, Dennis Ross and other diplomats played a central role in mediating disputes in the Balkans and the Middle East.

As Mrs. Clinton puts together her senior team, officials said, she is also trying to carve out a bigger role for the State Department in economic affairs, where the Treasury has dominated during the Bush years. She has sought advice from Laura D’Andrea Tyson, an economist who headed Mr. Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers.

The steps seem intended to strengthen the role of diplomacy after a long stretch, particularly under Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in which the Pentagon, the vice president’s office and even the intelligence agencies held considerable sway over American foreign policy.

Given Mrs. Clinton’s prominence, expanding the department’s portfolio could bring on conflict with other powerful cabinet members.

Mrs. Clinton and President-elect Barack Obama have not settled on specific envoys or missions, although Mr. Ross’s name has been mentioned as a possible Middle East envoy, as have those of Mr. Holbrooke and Martin Indyk, a former United States ambassador to Israel.

The Bush administration has made relatively little use of special envoys. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has personally handled most peacemaking initiatives, which has meant a punishing schedule of Middle East missions, often with meager results.

“There’s no question that there is a reinvention of the wheel here,” said Aaron David Miller, a public policy analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “But it’s geared not so much as a reaction to Bush as to a fairly astute analysis of what’s going to work in foreign policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/us/politics/23diplo.html?hp

[tyne]

1. Just an fyi

"Even before taking office, Hillary Rodham Clinton is seeking to build a more powerful State Department, with a bigger budget, high-profile special envoys to trouble spots and an expanded role in dealing with global economic issues at a time of crisis."

This move was made on the direction of Obama. Reread his words when he nominated her SOS. Let's be clear.

[dkf]

4. He WANTED the state depart to expand its economic reach?

Are you crazy?

Hillary as SOS is a much much huger mistake than Rick Warren. I KNEW IT. Power grubbing blech.

[mtnsnake]

11. "Hillary as SOS is a much much huger mistake than Rick Warren"

Here, let me help you out, WahWah...

[Beacool]

28. I hope that you're very young.

Otherwise, there's no excuse for the nonsensical responses or the ignorance of the role of the State Department and its Secretary. Your blathering is embarrassing.

:eyes:

[snake in the grass]

35. And so it begins again from anew...

[AllentownJake]

2. YAY Hillary

If anyone can save DU from Rick Warren you surely can!

[ErinBerin84]

6. or Sarah Palin, heh.

Talking about her on MSNBC now...am I supposed to care now that she opposes the auto bailout? She didn't have anything to say on it a month ago when asked by Wolf Blitzer. And I really don't care about Bristol's future mother in law being arrested either.

[AllentownJake]

12. No Sarah just has a universal dump on

Hillary gets people fighting.

[ErinBerin84]

13. true.

Though, I have seen fights over "Why do we keep talking about her?", "Is the treatment of Sarah Palin sexist?", and "Stop the conspiracy theories". But I agree, Hillary seems to be more of a lightning rod. And as someone who didn't support Hillary in the primaries (and she wasn't my first choice for SOS), I could care less what her plans are for the state department...she probably has some good ones. Also, Caroline Kennedy is becoming another one of these DU figures it seems.

[AllentownJake]

14. Some people are just angry at things that were said 8 months ago

and use this as the opportunity to continue the fight :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

21. Gee, what do Caroline Kennedy, Sara Palin and HillaryClinton have in common...

falopian tubes!

It's like a past Ombudsman for the Washington Post pointed out, people feel more comfortable criticizing women and are more angry when they do it.

[ErinBerin84]

22. true. I thought about that.

But I still don't think that it's the underlying reason. I've seen people who defend some of the people in that group of three attack another person from that group for reasons that probably have nothing to do with gender. One thing I would say though is that I think it's really lazy for people in the media (and DU) to examine these women only in the frame of each other. Do you know what I mean? Like, is Caroline being Palin-ized? How similar is Caroline Kennedy to Hillary Clinton? How similar is Hillary Clinton to Sarah Palin? Hopefully there will be enough women in leadership positions in the future that everyone won't have to use the safe lazy frameworks, though it happens for men too (with everyone Republican with "potential" being compared to Reagan, etc. Or how Pat ALWAYS compares everyone to Nixon in his framework, even though a lot of his references are out of date and not as relevent anymore).

[Captain Hilts]

24. Interesting questions.

I had an experience...I used to ride my bike to work from Bethesda to Capitol Hill. I did it for two years. Sometimes I'd meet up and ride with a male buddy of mine. On those hot, miserable days in summer, heading up the hill at a slow pace, we'd remove our helmets, which were very hot to wear.

On occasions I rode by myself and removed my helmet, inevitably, male cyclists would shout at me to put it back on. I asked my buddy if this ever happened to him when he rode without a helmet and he said it had not. Another biking study showed that motorists give female cyclists a wider berth on the road. No one knows why, unless they think women are less stable on a bike. It's weird.

We feel much of this pre-reflectively.

All of the women above have done things worthy of criticism, still, it continues to surprise me the anger and name-calling they generate.

[ErinBerin84]

26. interesting

Another thing....Condoleeza Rice, according to the last WSJ poll (definitely not a "scientific" or definitive measure, but you know) was named the most popular Republican, among both parties. How come she is not getting the same amount of vitriol towards her as Bush and Cheney (except for places like DU, which I think pretty much hates her like they hate them). How come, when Sarah Palin was announced, the media immediately started calling upon Joe Biden to "go easy on her", for fear of looking sexist, when they would not have done that to Hillary Clinton. Was it really because of raw feelings about sexism left over from the primary, or does the media have different attitudes about women according to how "feminine", etc they look....would Sarah Palin be as successful if she wasn't attractive? I don't know. At the same time, can we ever have an attractive, more "feminine dressed" (I hate that term, but you know what I'm getting at) woman succeed in a high political office without her looks being a major story of note (Pat Buchanan, etc, noting how "attractive" she is almost in the second sentence when describing her?) Is emasculation, which seems to happen to the Dem male candidate every time as well, a form of sexism? I'm not sure if that's the right word. And though I don't like Sarah Palin, is even having the public get used to the idea of a female politician in power a victory, or is it negated by the fact that she was perceived as a token?

[moriah]

37. I have to say that I resented Palin from the moment....

... that I heard her say that she was going to break the glass ceiling that Hillary cracked.

Since I was a Hillary supporter in the primaries, even though I had long since gotten behind the Democratic nominee by the time Palin was announced, I think I did perceive it as tokenism. It seemed like she was saying that being chosen by one man to be his vice-president was more momentous than being chosen by millions of men and women to be their president. I heard her say the line about the glass ceiling as I was going to work the day she was picked (I work nights, so I had missed the daytime news) before I'd seen her picture, and I wanted to slap her silly. I immediately perceived it as an attempt to exploit the very untrue notion that women will vote for a person just because of their fallopian tubes.

I also have to say that in my opinion it was far more sexist for anyone to tell Joe Biden to "go easy on her" than any treatment Biden could have given her. I think our VP-Elect knew that if he sounded patronizing with any of McCain's possible picks, it would be bad no matter what the gender of the contender happened to be, and I honestly think he treated Palin like he would have any male candidate and would have without any hints. He was an excellent pick and will make an excellent Vice-President.

I'm not a New Yorker so my opinion on Caroline Kennedy is moot. I think she'd be a great pick, but I'd prefer to see her run instead of be chosen unless it will be a very short appointment until a special election could be held. And Edit to Add: I feel the same about any appointee -- I don't think appointed instead of elected officials should serve very long at all, and there should be an effort for a special election very quickly.

[JVS]

36. lol

[onehandle]

3. I knew it! She's setting up a second Presidency!! ...or some other equally stupid...

...comment will be left in this thread.

[dkf]

5. Pah, its not a second Presidency, its an inability to

keep within boundaries. She takes and takes power. Obama better slap this down or she'll run all over him. Pathetic!!!

[Thrill]

7. run over him? She can be fired at any time

[SIMPLYB1980]

10. LoL! Must be hot under all that tinfoil.

:rofl:

[leftynyc]

16. You should really see someone

about your paranoia. It will keep you up nights if you're not careful.

[Mass]

20. How do you know it is not what Obama asked her to do?\nt

[SuperTrouper]

8. Oh no, here we go again. The prostitute MSM again highlighting a possible conflict

between Clinton vs. Cabinet and we are falling for it. The whores in the MSM always look to fatten their $$$$ at any cost. Let the Inauguration begin and let Sen. Clinton express her plans.

[Balderdash]

15. Yep. And the usual suspects will pounce

and this will become another excuse to crap on a Clinton.

[leftynyc]

17. And the ususal suspects

will fall for it hook, line and sinker. Like the sun rising in the east.

[merh]

9. edit

sorry, incorrect reading of information from another post.

[HamdenRice]

18. Great News! Now I understand Obama's choice

Given the reporting about Obama's team discovering the militarization of diplomacy, Obama needed a real rock star with mega power to put the State and DOD back in proper balance, and Hillary is the person to do it.

[Mass]

19. And I would assume she does not do that without Obama's approval and consent.

She also will not do that without the Congress advise and consent.

So, what's the big deal (as in potential disagreement beeing beefed up) and why does the Times attribute it to Clinton alone and not to an Obama presidency.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Given that the Congress writes the State Department budget and the President signs it

She really can't do it without their approval and consent.

[Lucky 13]

23. Everything she is doing is with Obama's approval...

So this is a nontroversy.

[mtnsnake]

25. This is further proof that Hillary needs to be impeached ASAP!!!

Seconds anyone?

[dionysus]

29. you know who wants seconds?

Brewer and Shipley!
one toke over the line sweet mtnsnake, one toke over the line...
have a good christmas at the railway station one toke over the line.
:hi:

[Danger Mouse]

27. Uhm, that sounds like a good idea actually.

:shrug:
i don't know what 'shurg' means. :P

[Number23]

30. "she is also trying to carve out a bigger role for the State Department in economic affairs"

I find this to be a bit strange. Why would State want a bigger role in the mess that is the U.S. economy??

[Hippo_Tron]

32. This is good, I read in Albright's book that State's budget is a tiny fraction of Defense's

We need to put more resources into diplomacy and less into the military.

[AJH032]

33. good point

[Undercurrent]

34. My take as I read the article

was that this is exactly what Obama said he wanted all along. More emphasis on diplomacy, our embassies, and special envoys, while moving away from the counterproductive intertwining of State Department functions, and DoD functions as is was under Bush. This added emphasis also includes more funding for State.

Hillary is a great person for this job.

[eridani]

38. I'd like it if she grabbed some turf back from the Pentagon n/t