While it's being billed as a "reward" for her work at the State Department, one wonders if it isn't because moving Hillary Clinton's get-it-done attitude wouldn't be helpful on the Senate floor.
Michael Hirsh, writing obnoxiously for Newsweek, thinks that Obama is going about foreign policy all wrong, and that only Secretary Clinton can fix the problem. Well, she could, if only she could let go of one certain pet issue (emphasis mine):
The one hope for forward movement on all these issues may be to rethink them entirely-not just the strategy but the personnel, too. That's not to say Holbrooke, Mitchell, and Co. should go, but their efforts should be subordinated to higher-level engagement, especially from Clinton. The secretary of state must play a much more active role on a regular basis; only Clinton, apart from Obama himself, has the necessary political star power, acumen, and gravitas to make a difference. It's clear that she can no longer afford to allow herself to remain at a strategic distance or to be sidetracked on women's issues, only occasionally parachuting in for ill-briefed appearances as she did in the Mideast.
Silly ladies! Don't we know that the real work of stabilizing a country by empowering a disenfranchised segment of the population will have to wait until we've sufficiently rattled sabres and swung dicks around?
Of course, Hirsh has a recommendation on exactly how to accomplish said dick-swinging:
For example, with additional troops likely to be deployed to Afghanistan soon, it may be wise to seek to negotiate with the Taliban, which we are not doing. At the same time it may be better policy not to negotiate with Tehran, as we are now doing. The West should consider new ways to isolate the discredited regime in Iran and find fresh methods of encouraging the still-insurgent election dissidents.
On the Mideast, perhaps we should drop all pretense of addressing final-status issues that are clearly irresolvable at present and look instead for a long-term interim arrangement[.]
However, Hillary Clinton will not be so easily dissuaded from looking at a different way to promote international peace ad equality.
"Women are key to our being able to resolve all of those difficult conflicts," Mrs. Clinton said in a speech in August. Since then, she has pursued initiatives to help women gain political power, personal safety and enough money to help their communities and countries improve economically and transition to democracy.
"There is nothing that has been more important to me over the course of my lifetime than advancing the rights of women and girls," she said in a Washington speech Nov. 6. "And it is now a cornerstone of American foreign policy."
By elevating the plight of women so publicly, Mrs. Clinton has breathed new life into women's issues on Capitol Hill. Senator John Kerry and Representative William Delahunt, Massachusetts Democrats, are expected soon to introduce legislation to make permanent the ambassadorship Ms. Verveer now holds.
Their measure would also direct the administration to create a five-year strategy that reduces assaults against women and girls in at least 10 nations and creates ways to judge the effectiveness of U.S. aid in advancing the goal.
Clinton would be an asset in either position, so the question is clear: where does she want to be in 2016?
Could Hillary Clinton Replace Biden As Obama's VP? [US News and World Report]
Out With The Envoys [Newsweek]
Advancing Women A Top Clinton Goal [NY Times]