Is Hillary Clinton’s star power fading?
[Note: Thanks for bearing with FP while we get our Web site properly functioning again. Because the site goes down intermittently, Madam Secretary posts may be delayed and/or sparse until the problem is solved.] Politico has a provocative article on Secretary Clinton today, "Clinton Toils in the Shadows." The article states that many assumed Clinton ...
[Note: Thanks for bearing with FP while we get our Web site properly functioning again. Because the site goes down intermittently, Madam Secretary posts may be delayed and/or sparse until the problem is solved.]
[Note: Thanks for bearing with FP while we get our Web site properly functioning again. Because the site goes down intermittently, Madam Secretary posts may be delayed and/or sparse until the problem is solved.]
Politico has a provocative article on Secretary Clinton today, "Clinton Toils in the Shadows."
The article states that many assumed Clinton would be the "brightest star" in the U.S. cabinet, but instead, "she has about as low a news-making profile as is possible for someone who is arguably the most famous woman on the planet." (A bar chart accompanying the article shows that media mentions of Clinton have plunged since February.)
One touchy topic has been her delegation of some responsibilities to regional envoys — Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and George Mitchell for the Israel-Palestine conflict. The article states, "the unprecedented reliance on high-profile envoys … will perhaps be the key to her success or failure."
Some observers think Clinton’s use of envoys diminishes the influence of the State Department. "You’ve got the empire of envoys that she acquiesced in, which sent into motion these little fiefdoms. … The general proposition is that in diplomacy and strategy, all power seems to be flowing away from the State Department," former Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller told Politico.
Meanwhile, Holbrooke told Politico that bringing in high-profile, experienced people such as himself broadens the State Department’s reach. "There’s a real difference between subcontracting foreign [policy] to people — which can cannibalize you — and having strong people who you direct."
Sounds like this use of envoys is really costing Clinton in terms of her image right now. What do you all think? Is Secretary Clinton a "disciplined loyalist" providing "grindstone leadership" as she "toils in the shadows"?
More from Foreign Policy

Saudi-Iranian Détente Is a Wake-Up Call for America
The peace plan is a big deal—and it’s no accident that China brokered it.

The U.S.-Israel Relationship No Longer Makes Sense
If Israel and its supporters want the country to continue receiving U.S. largesse, they will need to come up with a new narrative.

Putin Is Trapped in the Sunk-Cost Fallacy of War
Moscow is grasping for meaning in a meaningless invasion.

How China’s Saudi-Iran Deal Can Serve U.S. Interests
And why there’s less to Beijing’s diplomatic breakthrough than meets the eye.