Is Hillary Clinton too outspoken?

Mon, 05/18/2009 - 10:02am

Hillary Clinton, Jan. 13, 2009 

The Chicago Tribune reports today that Secretary Clinton's outspoken style is "raising eyebrows," a subject I touched upon in my post "Was Clinton too verbally hard on Pakistan?"

Some comments of hers that have stirred debate:

  • In April 22, she said the Pakistani government was "abdicating" to the Taliban. (At the time, the Taliban was 60 miles from Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.) Her comments on Pakistan "really went over the top," Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress told the Tribune.
  • On April 30, she said North Korea's return to talks seems "implausible if not impossible."
  • On May 1, she said that China, like Iran, has made "quite disturbing" gains in Latin America.

Basically, Clinton has been boldly telling it like it is when normally in the diplomacy world unpleasant facts aren't addressed with such candor. "She's saying the emperor has no clothes," L. Gordon Flake of the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation told the Tribune. "She's saying the things that nobody else would say, but that 99 percent of the people in Washington agree with."

Clinton might be stating her views "undiplomatically," but perhaps such tough talk gets results. Regarding her comments on the Pakistani government, an unnamed State Department official told the Tribune "They weren't doing anything before she said that. Then after she said it, they suddenly were taking it pretty seriously, and met with greater success. … I think she got their attention."

So far, President Obama hasn't told Clinton to tone it down, but Condoleezza Rice's former speechwriter thinks the current secretary of state should hold her tongue.

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Preeti Aroon | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Welcome back, Preeti! Yes,

by Still4Hill on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 3:40pm

Welcome back, Preeti!

Yes, you have brought up this issue before, and then as now, it crossed my mind that "smart diplomacy" might consist, at least in part, of telling the truth. Using diplomacy in place of military action depends on an honest assessment of issues and circumstances as well as of the positions of the principals involved.

Is Hillary a "smart mouth?" Yes. In that her mouth is related to her brain, what comes out tends to be smart and considered. I don't think we are seeing someone speaking before she thinks. She has already thought these answers out by the time she is asked the questions. She does have a way with terminology (that I love - she makes up terms -and they are always right on target).

Frankly, every time she does this, I think, "Wow! She said that?" Maybe it's about time we start talking tough and laying down some rules. As for Condi's speechwriter, well we all saw how diplomatically effective THAT administration was.

Clinton is playing the

by Roseann on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 5:28pm

Clinton is playing the straight shooter, great with the soundbites the media loves (e.g. her comment in Mexico regarding the USA's "insatiable" demand for illegal drugs) that grabs headlines. The Tribune's article looks like a hit piece on Clinton. Seriously, who finds Condi Rice's former SPEECHWRITER a credible, authoritative voice? This individual should take his own advice and "hold his tongue" and any other loose and available bodyparts when it comes to lecturing Hillary Clinton. Her most recent testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was masterful..clear, strong, and forthright. She speaks with empathy, intelligence and focus. Get used to it.

Glad you're back, Preeti!

Yeah, she really should stop

by anne on Mon, 05/18/2009 - 9:00pm

Yeah, she really should stop speaking, what a bad woman. Gimme a break. Oh yes, the world waits with baited breath as to what Rice's speechwriter thinks. Am i in the f'g twilight zone?

This article raises serious

by wbboei on Tue, 05/19/2009 - 4:02pm

This article raises serious doubts about the writer and the content of his article.

1. first, the author himself is not objective. He attacked Hillary in the campaign. He continues to do so now, through stupid articles like this. He forgets the fact that she supported his man Obama at the convention, in the general election and in the administration.

2. second, his premise is faulty. He contends that she should speak obliquely to a government which has failed to act when action is required. Abdication is the right word. Given the urgency of the situation, i.e. the Taliban within 60 miles of the capital, and 60 nuclear weapons in the surrounding area, and the Pakistani army far away on the Indian border, direct talk is required. Yet Richter worries not about that but whether she is too outspoken. Amazing.

3. third, here are some questions for the benighted Richter:

a. is this not a crisis? (nukes, capital, etc.)

b. does inaction in these circumstances not equate to abdication? (military failure to respond to this threat)

c. is it wrong to call it what it is, if prior warnings were not heeded? (political reality vs results)

d. has the declaration not spurred the government into action?

e. have they not re-deployed troops in response to same?

f. has the march of enemy troops to the capital not been halted?

g. has Mr. Obama not acknowleded that he approved the statement? (all the author says is he has not objected)

h. was Condi an effective Secretary of State?

i. if not, what gives her the wisdom and stature to criticize?

j. is it customary for former sos to publicly criticize her successor?

h. why should we listen Brian Katulis-- a think tank staffie? (he is a little over the top himself)

i. has he served in a line foreign relations capacity or is he merely a man with an opinion?

j. does he understand that the new doctrine of smart power requires stating blunt truths, so that there is no room for misinterpetation?

h. or does he prefer soft words and gunboat diplomacy as we saw under Condi?

i. if this is the best he can do, then with all the layoffs at Chicago Tribune, why is Richter still employed?

"Smart (Mouth) Policy" works!

by Still4Hill on Thu, 05/21/2009 - 1:59pm

Clinton told lawmakers on the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee that there had been dramatic changes in Pakistan since she testified in a hearing last month about the the inability or unwillingness of the Pakistani government to take on the Taliban.

"That has turned around," Clinton said. "What we see now is an all-out effort by the Pakistani military to take back territory that had been seized by the Taliban."

As the Taliban advanced, coming within 60 miles of the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, global concerns increased that the country's nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/20/clinton-says-u-s-aid-wont-fund-pakistani-nuclear-expansion/

And WHY?

I believe this turn-around is the direct result of her "over the top" remarks.

If they had wanted a wimp at State, they should have hired somebody else. This is the same lady who refused to drop out of the primaries, insisted on telling the truth in China 1996, and refuses to back down on conditions for talking to rogue states.

This is her style, her strategy, her method - seems to me it works!