Poll: Does Secretary Clinton have too low of a profile?

The voter counter appears to have malfunctioned. It deleted 17 votes and put a -1 vote on the first "yes" response. I'll ask our tech person to fix it tomorrow. Sorry about that.

I voted "other" because my opinion falls somewhere between the 1st 2 options: I believe hers is not an inconsequential voice in the Obama administration on national security issues, especially when it's in sync with that of Sec. Gates. However, I do not believe her position will in itself ever prove decisive in formulating a particular policy.
I also feel that she has accomplished many things, and is continuing to conduct invaluable "behind the scenes" diplomacy (cf. Turkey & Armenia), where her personal name recognition and "celebrity" help cement her status abroad and give her greater weight in dealing with these by nature delicate processes.
However, I still feel that at times she's seeking the limelight on certain issues - for instance, shortly after announcement of the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review didn't garner much media attention outside of foreign-policy circles, she made a trip to Africa that barely mentioned development, but focused instead on women's rights and the issue of rape. I'm not saying that this is an unimportant subject, but just pointing out that such a trip could have been a perfect opportunity to underscore why the QDDR initiative was so important, rather than ignoring it almost altogether.
But my overall opinion is that HRC is proving to be an outstanding Sec. of State, and a very efficient team player, provided she doesn't get caught up in too much inside-the-Beltway politicking -- and if certain Obama advisors can get over their mistrust of her, allowing her perhaps greater direct access to the president and to take the lead on a larger number of high-profile issues to avoid Obama overextending himself as well as his political capital while simultaneously perhaps preserving his record for the 2012 campaign.