http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304388004577530831334228966.html
AND CONDOLEEZA RICE AND COLIN POWELL AND JMAES BAKER AND MADELEINE ALBRIGHT WERE NO BETTER…IT’S BEEN SO AT STATE SINCE JOHN FOSTER DULLES….ONLY GEORGE SHULTZ WAS A FINE MAN AND A FINE SEC. OF STATE…TO THINK THAT THE OFFICE WAS ONCE HELD BY PEOPLE OF THE STATURE OF DANIEL WEBSTER….RSK
Suddenly we’re supposed to believe that Hillary Clinton is a great secretary of state.
Eric Schmidt of Google calls her “the most significant secretary of state since Dean Acheson.” A profile in the New York Times runs under the headline “Hillary Clinton’s Last Tour as a Rock-Star Diplomat.” Another profile in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine is titled, wishfully, “Head of State.” The two articles are so similar in theme, tone, choice of anecdote and the absence of even token criticism that you’re almost tempted to suspect one was cribbed from the other.
The Hillary boomlet isn’t a mystery. She never lost her political constituency. In the cabinet she looks good next to Janet Napolitano and bright next to Joe Biden. She looks even better next to her boss. Democrats belong to the party of hope, and Barack Obama is hope’s keenest disappointment.
So Mrs. Clinton is back, resisting appeals for her to run in 2016 the way Caesar rejects the thrice-offered crown. No doubt she would have made a better president than Mr. Obama. But is that saying much? No doubt she’s been a hard-working and well-briefed secretary. But that isn’t saying much, either.