Colleen O’Connor, San Diego News Network, penned a fun article: King Obama v. Queen Clinton — Check or Checkmate? Her thesis is that the patient “Queen” is slowly but surely vanquishing the foes who betrayed her for Obama last year. I have another theory. Political operatives who backed Obama, turning their backs on the more qualified Clinton, are winding up under Obama’s big bus because they were not motivated by his qualifications, but a quest for power and influence they thought they would have in his new “kingdom.” One by one, they are finding out that their loyalty is not reciprocated by the master they chose to serve. As my father used to say “lies have short legs.”

O’Connor’s need to speculate proves two things, Hillary’s actions and career are endlessly fascinating and as in the primary, Obama was far more exciting when contrasted with her. When it was down to Obama and McCain, pundits complained of boredom. This harkens back to John King of CNN saying that reporters did not vet Obama because they were “obsessed with Hillary.” Guess they never heard of multitasking. That very obsession still fuels all manner of speculation about palace intrigue, true or not. O’Connor posits:

The Queen has the greatest maneuverability of all the chess pieces. She can be the most lethal. The King, by contrast, is often barricaded behind a wall of defenders, with little room to escape-save in a bold and risky fashion. The King is dying. Long live the Queen.

Quietly, and under almost everyone’s radar, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been vanquishing her foes, while President Barack Obama has been multiplying his.

Furthermore, she has been paying off her debts, while Obama has been multiplying his (and the country’s) I.O.U.s.

Obama is down in the polls. Clinton is up. He is losing his liberal base and taking heat on health care, the wars, broken promises, gate crashers, the bailouts, and a grand design that leaves his base behind.

As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote Sunday, “The Obama White House is morphing into the Bush White House with frightening speed. Its transparency is already fogged up.”

No one can say we didn’t warn them. O’Connor recites the litany of failed foes, i.e. Obama backers who have seen their popularity slip, legal troubles ensue, lose lucrative posts and otherwise have an awful time capitalizing on their betrayal of the “Queen.” Let’s not forget the disappearance of Howard Dean and Tom Daschle. She also discusses AG Martha Coakley as another potential victory for Hillary:

If Clinton supporter and Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley wins that will make the ninth score that Clinton has settled. And it will have happened in the state that the Kennedy family once ruled.

And so this prediction came to pass as Martha Coakley won the Dem Primary for Teddy Kennedy’s senate seat. Bill Clinton’s last minute endorsement and his 500,000 robocalls were nice touches. And instead of Caroline Kennedy getting Hillary’s Senate seat … “the Governor of New York appointed Kirstin Gillibrand — a Clinton, not an Obama ally — and it is no secret that the Clintons made it happen.”

Many have tried to write Hillary Clinton’s political obituary. Even after she was appointed Secretary of State, the press pointed to special envoys Holbrooke and Mitchell as signs that Hillary was being “marginalized” not remembering she had campaigned on appointing them herself.

The King’s chess move, thought to be “brilliant,” underestimated the patience of the Queen.

The more likely truth is that these envoys were warming up her seat, functioning as a buffer zone while she was hunkering down, figuring out the terrain and her colleagues, just as she did when she first became the junior senator of New York. The work horse did not feel the need to show off before having accomplished something.

Obama’s lifelong habit of being cautious, voting “present” and splitting everything down the middle, may not get him re-elected.

If as the Clintons might already sense, that Obama is in trouble, his biggest threat remains Clinton.

O’Connor lists the disgraced philanderer John Edwards, Bill Richardson, now in “political purgatory,” John Kerry, coveting the SoS spot and being left in the cold, Chris Dodd, with approval ratings “on life support” “…saddled with financial scandals galore-involving all those marquee companies that all Americans have come to hate-Countrywide Financial, AIG-as well as sweetheart real estate deals, with convicted inside-traders; the very people and firms Dodd was supposed to regulate.”

Joe Biden is a particular under bus dweller, his wife lately mentioning he would have preferred the spot Hillary now occupies.

He is on the losing side of the debate over sending additional troops to Afghanistan. … Unflattering pieces about his gaffes and his “standing in the Administration” have begun to circulate in the liberal press — like in a recent column by Sam Stein of The Huffington Post.

Add to this his less than competent role on overseeing the stimulus package and detailing its success (with exaggerated numbers and made up Congressional Districts) and you see where his “standing” is headed. The latest poll showed Biden’s approval rating lower than Dick Cheney’s in the same period!

But offering political cover and spin is the price Biden paid for pushing a candidate who even he noted was not yet ready for the job. Here is the sweetest payback according to O’Connor:

However, the most stealth-like, damaging, and perhaps satisfactory capture, came from the inelegant dismissal of former Clinton White House counsel, turned Obama-supporter and Clinton basher, Greg Craig.

Craig, who turned on Clinton during the primaries, did so in a rather nasty, but effective email arguing that she failed the test as commander-in-chief, that her claims of involvement in foreign affairs were bogus, and that she “never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue-not at 3 a.m. or at any other time of day.”

Currently, Craig is out of the White House-dismissed in a manner that brought howls, from the liberal activists, and have accelerated the disbelief, doubt, and defections among the Obama “believers”.

As Elizabeth Drew wrote in Politico, the firing was “the shabbiest episode of his presidency.”

Craig did damage Clinton as he was a deeply respected operative in Washington. I cannot imagine Mr. Craig saw that payback coming. Even huge Obama allies were mortified at this episode. But it was his own President who threw him under the bus, not Hillary. O’Connor even mentions Sen. Max Baucus…

Baucus has admitted — after repeatedly denying — that he was intimately involved with his state director, when he nominated her for the position of U.S. Attorney from Montana on “her merits.”

Currently under possible ethics violation for the nomination — not the lying, or the tryst, as both parties were separated at the time — Baucus’ political capital has eroded. He, too, competes with Tiger Woods for late night comedy jibes. Baucus’ year is ending badly.

It is fine to magically attribute these “paybacks” to the “Queen” but these guys are just being themselves – they don’t need anyone to show their true nature. They are doing a fine job all by themselves. The press doesn’t have its Hillary-obsession to buffer these guys from the spotlight any longer. In fact, the press tries everything it can to cover her as little as humanly possible. She has won huge awards and accolades this year, barely any of which have received more than a cursory mention.

On other fronts, it was reported many Norwegians were incensed that President Obama collected his Nobel Prize and snubbed them by not attending certain traditional events including lunch with King Harald of Norway. This is but another example of what happens when you become a notch on the bedpost. King Harald is just one of many on the list. I wonder how happy the Nobel committee is that they offered the prize to Obama now, particularly since his acceptance of the peace prize came hard on the heels of authorizing an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, however late his action was taken.

To top it all off, the members of the press corps are sad that the Obamas have done away with the traditional receiving line at many of the WH parties, so reporters will not be able to greet and pose with the President. Politico reports:

…for the White House to do away with the formal line is no small matter to those who work this beat every day: many guests feel it’s the main reason to attend, no matter who’s in office.

“It’s always been a big deal,” said [Dee Dee] Myers, who served as press secretary to former President Bill Clinton. “It’s exhausting [for the president] but it’s the one time when reporters feel like they’re treated like human beings and not just some guy behind the rope line. It’s the one time they can actually say hello.”

“Under the Bush administration, invites went out before Thanksgiving, reporters said. “I’m wondering if they just don’t have their act together on the social stuff,” one print reporter said…

“This year’s process seems so screwed up. It’s one big horrible mess,” said one veteran White House reporter. “The White House knows who covers the beat and they also know who should be attending. A lot of people have their feelings hurt.”

Hurt feelings? Hardly on top of anyone’s list of concerns, yet the press corps has also been hoist by their own petard, sensing the ingratitude of the White House after these guys functioned as the President’s own personal PR firm lo these many months.

In contrast, however, O’Connor points out that it was a “good year for the queen”, Hillary:

• The last minute save of the Turkish-Armenian accords opening the borders between these two longtime enemies.

• Bill Clinton’s dramatic feel-good rescue of the two female reporters held hostage in North Korea

• Clinton being named No. 4 of the 25 “smartest people” of the decade by the political blog The Daily Beast: “If anyone has a more intellectually rigorous resume for the decade, we have yet to see it.” High praise.

• A flattering article about Clinton in the December issue of Vogue magazine, complete with photos by the legendary Annie Liebowitz.

• Clinton’s approval rating in the high 60-percentile while Obama’s flirts under 50.

• The near “irrelevance” of those special envoys Mitchell and Holbrooke. They have been sidelined or mired in diplomatic quicksand.

• The success in adoption of her preferred Afghan strategy — and in securing NATO troop support over the expected 5,000 offered. (Something Clinton lectured Obama about in a primary debate: never get on the plane unless the deal has already been done.)

I think the crème is rising to the top. But while O’Connor’s article is entertaining, I don’t see vengeance here, unless stepping up and doing one’s job can be seen as vengeful. I suppose one could make an argument that by continuing to work diligently and faithfully, Hillary is “plotting” to show up her boss. I think one of the few adults in the room has better things to do. But I can’t say I’m not enjoying watching the dominoes fall – all those who badmouthed her are now finding themselves on the receiving end of a big dose of their own medicine.

The list is growing.

Naturally, it’s about Secretary Hillary Clinton. For once, there was a GOOD article, calling out some of the sexism with which she has had to deal, while highlighting the incredible work she has been doing on behalf of the State4 Department, and our country. David Rothkopf had this article, “It’s 3:00 a.m. Do you Know Where Hillary Clinton Is?” I admit, when I first saw the title, I thought he was being snarky, and it was going to be yet another hatchet job on this amazing woman, this bright star. Imagine my delight when I read it, and discovered, far from snark, this was a serious article, about a serious role, and a serious person. All I can say is, it’s about damn time:

When it comes to Hillary Rodham Clinton, we’re missing the forest for the pantsuits.

Clinton is not the first celebrity to become the nation’s top diplomat — that honor goes to her most distant predecessor, Thomas Jefferson, who by the time he took office was one of the most famous and gossiped-about men in America — but she may be the biggest. And during her first seven months in office, the former first lady, erstwhile presidential candidate and eternal lightning rod has drawn more attention for her moods, looks, outtakes and (of course) relationship with her husband than for, well, her work revamping the nation’s foreign policy.

Even venerable publications — such as one to which I regularly contribute, Foreign Policy — have woven into their all-Hillary-all-the-time coverage odd discussions of Clinton’s handbag and scarf choices. Daily Beast editor Tina Brown, while depicting herself as a Clinton supporter, has been scathing and small-minded in discussing such things as Clinton’s weight and hair, while her “defense” of Hillary in her essay “Obama’s Other Wife” was as sexist as the title suggests.

Indeed, sexism has followed Clinton from the campaign trail to Foggy Bottom, as seen most recently in the posturing outrage surrounding the exchange in Congo when Clinton reacted with understandable frustration to the now-infamous question regarding her husband’s views. Major media outlets have joined the gossipfest, whether the New York Times, which covered Clinton’s first big policy speech by discussing whether she was in or out with the White House, or The Washington Post, where a couple of reporters mused about whether a brew called Mad Bitch would be the beer of choice for the secretary of state.

May I just pause here to say, THANK YOU for calling these “news” sources out for these sexist depictions/attacks on Clinton. Thank you.

As to the work of Secretary Clinton, the article continues:

Amid all the distractions, what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades — a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department, one that approaches U.S. allies and rivals in ways that challenge long-held traditions. And despite the pessimists who invoked the “team of rivals” cliche to predict that President Obama and Clinton would not get along, Hillary has defined a role for herself in the Obamaverse: often bad cop to his good cop, spine stiffener when it comes to tough adversaries and nurturer of new strategies. Recognizing that the 3 a.m. phone calls are going to the White House, she is instead tackling the tough questions that, since the end of the Cold War, have kept America’s leaders awake all night.

In these early days of the new administration, it has been easy to focus on what Clinton has not achieved or on ways in which her power has been supposedly constrained. Indeed, some of her efforts have been frustrated by difficult personnel approvals or disputes with the White House about who should get what jobs. But this is the way of all administrations. More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy — more assertively than either George W. Bush or Bill Clinton before him. Obama’s centrality amplifies the importance of his closest White House staffers, while his penchant for appointing special envoys such as Richard Holbrooke (on Afghanistan and Pakistan) and George Mitchell (on the Middle East) has been interpreted by some as limiting Clinton’s role.

Given the challenges involved, it was perhaps natural that the White House would have a bigger day-to-day hand in some of the nation’s most urgent foreign policy issues. But with Obama, national security adviser Jim Jones, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates absorbed by Iraq, Afghanistan and other inherited problems of the recent past, Clinton’s State Department can take on a bigger role in tackling the problems of the future — in particular, how America will lead the world in the century ahead. This approach is both necessary and canny: It recognizes that U.S. policy must change to fulfill Obama’s vision and that many high-profile issues such as those of the Middle East have often swamped the careers and aspirations of secretaries of state past.

Which nations will be our key partners? What do you do when many vital partners — China, for example, and Russia — are rivals as well? How must America’s alliances change as NATO is stretched to the limit? How do we engage with rogue states and old enemies in ways that do not strengthen them and preserve our prerogative to challenge threats? How do we move beyond the diplomacy of men in striped pants speaking only for governments and embrace potent nonstate players and once-disenfranchised peoples?

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels. She outlined her new thinking in a recent speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, where she revealed stark differences between the new administration’s worldview and those of its predecessors: The recurring themes include “partnership” and “engagement” and “common interests.” Clearly, Madeleine Albright’s “indispensable nation” has recognized the indispensability of collaborating with others.

Who those “others” are is the area in which change has been greatest and most rapid. “We will put,” Clinton said, “special emphasis on encouraging major and emerging global powers — China, India, Russia and Brazil, as well as Turkey, Indonesia and South Africa — to be full partners in tackling the global agenda.” This is the death knell for the G-8 as the head table of the global community; the administration has an effort underway to determine whether the successor to the G-8 will be the G-20, or perhaps some other grouping. Though the move away from the G-8 began in the waning days of the Bush era, that administration viewed the world through a different lens, a perception that evolved from a traditional great-power view to a pre-Galilean notion that everything revolved around the world’s sole superpower.

Obama and Clinton have both made engaging with emerging powers a priority. Obama visited Russia earlier this year and will host Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in his first state dinner in November. Clinton has made trips to China and India, and she would have been with Obama in Russia had she not injured her elbow. Both have visited Africa and the Middle East, reaching out to women and the Islamic world.

To anyone who has been following Clinton throughout her career, the manner in which she has been pursuing her position should come as no surprise. You may recall a book she wrote some time ago, It Takes A Village, in which these kinds of concepts have been discussed. She works in a collegial manner, holding the bigger picture firmly in hand as she goes about her work. It isn’t about her. It is about the world, the country, and the citizens here and abroad. It is about pulling women and children up out of poverty, having people be educated, allowing people to live their lives, and not just fight to survive. That’s her deal, and it has been for a long, long time. And it is that commitment that leads to this:

On many critical agenda items — from a rollback of nuclear weapons to the climate or trade talks — such emerging powers will be essential to achieving U.S. goals. As a result, we’ve seen a new American willingness to play down old differences, whether with Russia on a missile shield or, as Clinton showed on her China trip, with Beijing on human rights.

At the center of Clinton’s brain trust is Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former dean of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Now head of policy planning at the State Department, Slaughter elaborated on the ideas in Clinton’s speech. “We envision getting not just a new group of states around a table, but also building networks, coalitions and partnerships of states and nonstate actors to tackle specific problems,” she told me.

“To do that,” Slaughter continued, “our diplomats are going to need to have skills that are closer to community organizing than traditional reporting and analysis. New connecting technologies will be vital tools in this kind of diplomacy.”

A new team has been brought in to make these changes real. Clinton recruited Alec Ross, one of the leaders of Obama’s technology policy team, to the seventh floor of the State Department as her senior adviser for innovation. His mission is to harness new information tools to advance U.S. interests — a task made easier as the Internet and mobile networks have played starring roles in recent incidents, from Iran to the Uighur uprising in western China to Moldova. Whether through a telecommunications program in Congo to protect women from violence or text messaging to raise money for Pakistani refugees in the Swat Valley, technology has been deployed to reach new audiences.

Of course, you need more than new ideas to revitalize the State Department; you need resources, too. The secretary has brought in former Bill Clinton-era budget chief Jack Lew to help her claw back money for statecraft that many in Foggy Bottom feel has been sucked off toward the Pentagon. She has also created special positions to back new priorities, such as Melanne Verveer as ambassador at large for women’s issues, Elizabeth Bagley to handle public-private outreach worldwide and Todd Stern as the chief negotiator on climate.

Even just a few months in, it’s clear that these appointments are far from window dressing. Lew, Slaughter and the acting head of the U.S. Agency for International Development are leading an effort to rethink foreign aid with the new Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, an initiative modeled on the Pentagon’s strategic assessments and designed to review State’s priorities. Stern has conducted high-level discussions on climate change around the world, notably with China. Clinton made women’s issues a centerpiece of her recent 11-day trip to Africa, where she stressed that “the social, political and economic marginalization of women across Africa has left a void in this continent that undermines progress and prosperity.”

Unlike other politicians, I don’t think Clinton appoints people to be “window dressing,” but to get the job done. That is further evidenced with the following appointment:

Clinton has also signaled the importance of private-sector experience by naming former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman Robert Hormats, a respected veteran of four administrations, to handle economic issues at the State Department, as well as Judith McHale, former chief executive of Discovery Communications, to run public diplomacy. In the same vein, she has opened up Cuba to American telecommunications companies and reached out to India’s private sector on energy cooperation — showing that this administration will seek to advance national interests by tapping the self-interests of the business community. As with any new administration, there have been inevitable problems. The old campaign teams — Clinton’s and Obama’s — still eye each other warily, but this feeling is gradually fading. And by most accounts, the administration’s national security team has come together successfully, with Clinton developing strong relationships with national security adviser Jones and Defense Secretary Gates. Her policy deputy, Jim Steinberg, has renewed an old collaboration with deputy national security adviser Tom Donilon; the two of them, working with Obama campaign foreign policy advisers Denis McDonough and Mark Lippert, have formed what one State Department seventh-floor dweller called “a powerful quartet at the heart of real interagency policymaking.” Henry Kissinger may have overstated matters when he said this is the best White House-State relationship in recent memory, but it’s not bad, while the State-Pentagon relationship is in its best shape in decades.

Huh. Well, I’ll be. Who could have seen THAT coming? Oh, I know – the 18 million people who voted for her!

But Clinton is not looking back to what was. Rather, she is looking ahead to see how best she can fulfill her work, As such, again, she looks at the big picture, and how best to accomplish what needs doing, including:

At the heart of things, though, is the relationship between Clinton and Obama. For all the administration’s talk of international partnerships, that may be the most critical partnership of all.

So far, according to multiple high-level officials at State and the White House, the two seem aligned in their views. In addition, they are gradually defining complementary roles. Obama has assumed the role of principal spokesperson on foreign policy, as international audiences welcome his new and improved American brand. Clinton thus far has echoed his points but has also delivered tougher ones. Whether on a missile shield against Iran or North Korean saber-rattling, the continued imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma or rape and corruption in Congo, the secretary of state has spoken bluntly on the world stage — even if it triggered snide comments from North Korea.

It is still early, and a president’s foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory “smart power” already does to me.

Nevertheless, there is evidence that, seven months into the job, Obama’s unlikely secretary of state is supporting and augmenting his agenda effectively. Not as Obama’s “other wife,” not as Bill Clinton’s wife, not even as a celebrity or as a former presidential candidate — but in a new role of her own making. (drothkopf@carnegieendowment.org

David Rothkopf is a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the author of “Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Making” and “Running the World: The Inside Story of the NSC and the Architects of American Power.” He will be online to chat with readers Monday at 11 a.m. Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.)

Indeed – she is embracing a “role of her own making.” It is hard not to consider what could have been had she been President instead of Secretary of State. Don’t get me wrong – as I have said a number of times, I am glad that Clinton is in such a crucial role for our country. Clearly, we need her. But the same intelligence; the ability, and vision, to hold the big picture in her grasp while determining the best course to achieve those goals, while finding the people who can affect those goals; the nation-building, yes, the community-building; are all the ingredients necessary for a good presidency. And I am pretty sure that a President Hillary Clinton would not have made any “wee-wee” remarks about the press corp, either. It’s a matter of decorum, the ability to hold things, events, people, in tension. It’s a matter of vision, and the ability to effect change in a real, meaningful way. That’s our Hillary. Thank heavens she is finally starting to get the recognition she so richly deserves.

Here is Reuters’ video report on the press conference:

Carolyn O’Hara, a senior editor of Foreign Policy, at her interesting new blog, “Madame Secretary” notes, in her story, “Clinton and Mitchell’s remarks after their pow wow on his trip to the Middle East“:

No real details were provided, and they only took a single question with regard to any shift in policy toward Hamas:

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Andrea, you know, we have a very clear policy toward Hamas, and Hamas knows the conditions that have been set forth. They must renounce violence. They must recognize Israel. And they must agree to abide by prior agreements that were entered into by the Palestinian Authority.

We are just at the beginning of this deep and consistent engagement that we are part of, that Senator Mitchell is leading for our Administration, but our conditions with respect to Hamas have not and will not change. It is our hope that the work that needs to be done to move the parties toward an effort to settle many of the disputes that they currently confront will be effective. But Hamas knows that it must stop the rocket fire into Israel. There were rockets yesterday, there were rockets this morning. And it is very difficult to ask any nation to do anything other than defend itself in the wake of that kind of consistent attack. So that’s not new news.

That said, here is the full interview on video and, below the fold, the full text:

Remarks by Secretary Clinton and Special Envoy Mitchell After Their Meeting

From the arch-conservative Weekly Standard, we get concerns unique to that one publication. (Nowhere else, in any press or blog account on last night’s interview, did I read concerns that Obama’s remarks about Iran might infer a more lax attitude towards its building of nuclear weapons, which both Obama and Secretary Clinton have said is unacceptable.) In “Obama on a Nuclear Iran: Yes They Can?,” the commentary hits on a theme that we who have questioned Obama intensely have worried about (that he’ll say whatever he thinks people want to hear, rather than conceiving his own independent judgment, hence our frequent use of terms like “backtrack” or “flip-flop”):

Wouldn’t a simple ‘no, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable to the United States and our allies’ have sufficed? Instead Obama says that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is “unhelpful,” that it’s “not conducive to peace.” When Obama was in Israel, he said that “a nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He added that he would “take no options off the table in dealing with this potential Iranian threat.” In the first debate of the general election, Obama reiterated that the United States “cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.” But when Obama has the chance to speak directly to the Muslim world, he can only muster retread rhetoric from his inaugural address about clenched fists and open hands.

President Bush was incapable of engaging the Muslim world with his own words, but neither was it possible for the Muslim world to confuse his view of American interests in that region. President Obama has the potential to secure real progress through his skill as a communicator, but there’s always been a fear that some portion of his success in negotiating difficult issues was the result of a willingness, or perhaps a compulsion, to tell his audience whatever it is he thinks they want to hear.

It is encouraging that President Obama has chosen highly seasoned experts on foreign policy such as Secretary Clinton and envoys like George Mitchell, now on a lengthy tour of the Middle East and Europe. Especially since, as Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey notes, Obama has a “charming and dangerous naivete.” Hillary would have given a very different interview, wouldn’t she. (That’s not a question, since it’s a fact.)

Hillary, by the way, is expected to give an address shortly, which we’ll get to you as soon as possible.

Since we often don’t get much insight or reflection in our own newspapers and television/radio outlets, I decided to check out foreign media outlets. Most don’t have anything written up yet, but I did manage to find the following:

While the New York Times’s laudatory title was “Obama Signals New Tone in Relations With Islamic World,” The Guardian, a liberal UK newspaper, adopted a more critical, objective approach:

Little of substance, but Obama’s tone was striking

Al-Arabiya’s exclusive with the president was an important moment, though he failed to mention Gaza

[...] Obama’s main message to al-Arabiya, the Dubai-based, Saudi-owned rival to the more popular but far more strident al-Jazeera, was that Americans are not the “enemy” of the Muslim world – a perception that has taken hold in the years since the 9/11 attacks and George Bush’s declaration of a “war on terror”. (continued below)

No matter that this was a reprise of a much-discussed theme in his inaugural address last week. It certainly bears repeating as a high-profile exercise in public diplomacy. But there was no news at all about changes to specific policies that would demonstrate the dawn of a genuinely new approach. The interviewer, Hisham Melhem, got an enviable exclusive – but not a smidgeon of a scoop.

Obama’s best line was his call for the “language of respect” in dealings with the Muslim world – though he also readily agreed with his interviewer that there had been a “demonisation” of America.

The president’s call for the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks will be welcomed as another signal of his determination to play an active role from the start – in stark contrast to Bush. That has already been underlined by the dispatch of the Northern Ireland veteran George Mitchell, his special Middle East envoy, for his first talks in the region. [...]

If the al-Arabiya interview contained little or no substance, Obama’s emollient, intelligent tone was still striking. … Read all.

New York Magazine writes:

Obama’s tack was to make a conciliatory attitude toward the Muslim world seem the most deadly threat to terrorists and their efforts to draw followers. He said men like Osama bin Laden “seem nervous” because in the face of a new attitude toward America, “their ideas are bankrupt.” …

As always, Memeorandum.com has a large collection of stories and opinion pieces (both blog and MSM) on the story. But, for some reason, they missed Ed Morrissey’s essay at Hot Air, which is very informative:

[Obama's remarks about Israel and Gaza]

I included the entire question and answer to give the entire context of this exchange, in which Obama faltered badly. The main driver of Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn’t settlements, and hasn’t been for some time. It’s the rocket launches coming from Hamas in Gaza, and to a lesser extent from Islamic Jihad there as well. How can we know this? Israel hasn’t had to conduct a military exercise in the West Bank for years, where the settlements are located. On the other hand, they’ve had to conduct several military operations in Gaza in the few years since Ariel Sharon dismantled the settlements there.

Obama should have reminded his interviewer of those facts. That’s a big failure, and a missed opportunity to get the record straight in the Arab world. And there’s more, as Scott Johnson points out:

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, “war on terror,” and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people — Islamic fascism. You’ve always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of –

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations — whether Muslim or any other faith in the past — that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda — that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it — and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Again, the naiveté comes through clearly in this exchange. The terrorist organizations themselves have a wide base of support among Muslims in the Arab world, as well as with the Iranian government, if we include Hamas and Hezbollah. Obama makes al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah sound like the Baader-Meinhofs or the tax-resister militias here in the US. They’re not. They’re well-funded and strongly supported, at least until that support starts costing people more than they’d like. Terrorism doesn’t begin and end with AQ at all, and if Obama doesn’t understand that, then he’s extremely ill-prepared for his task in the next four years of stopping terrorists, a task at which Bush succeeded after 9/11.

Unlike some others, I didn’t mind Obama’s decision to grant al-Arabiya this honor. Obama has a great deal of popularity in the Muslim world, and that can be a great asset to the US if used properly. Obama could have taken the opportunity to explain some hard truths while extending the hand of friendship. Instead, he took the opportunity to pander.

This last section, on the extremist groups, is particularly important for us to discuss. I’d especially like to get Larry Johnson’s reaction to Morrissey’s POV.

Jake Tapper has the lead print story on-line, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is covering the breaking story as well as showing snippets of Obama’s first interview as president, made to the MidEast popular television outlet. Updates:

(1) This ties in, of course, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s naming of George Mitchell as special envoy for the Middle East, and her immediate order that Mitchell depart immediately on an extensive tour of the region — which signals, to me, that Secretary Clinton and President Obama have decided to immediately target the region’s plethora of problems and extremist influences; and

(2) The Washington Post story, “Obama Voices Hope for Mideast Peace in Talk With Al-Arabiya TV” emphasizes Obama’s “expressed optimism yesterday about the prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but he said a peace accord will take time and require new thinking about the problems of the Middle East as a whole.” From the WaPo:

“All too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues — and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved,” Obama told al-Arabiya. “So let’s listen. [Mitchell is] going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.”

Mitchell will be on the road until Feb. 3, according to the State Department. He will travel to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France and England. He also hopes to go to Istanbul, the site of talks between Israel and Syria. …

[..]

[Obama's] comments were a stark departure from those of former president George W. Bush, who often described the Middle East conflict in terms that drew criticism from Palestinians.

By contrast, Obama went out of his way to say that if America is “ready to initiate a new partnership [with the Muslim world] based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.”

The president declined to reveal where he plans to give his first major speech in a foreign country. In the past he had said he would speak in a Muslim capital sometime within the first 100 days of his administration.

And he reiterated a point from his inaugural address: He plans to reach out to Muslims around the world who are willing to “unclench your fist” but will go after terrorists who continue to be bent on destruction. …

“Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries,” Obama said in the interview.

He said that the United States must be “willing to talk to Iran” and that he would lay out a “framework” for those discussions over the next several months.

Wood said Mitchell will not have contact with Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, but he did not rule out the possibility that Mitchell would also visit Syria or travel to Gaza. … READ ALL.

I tuned in just as Cooper was referring to the pleas of Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, former head of intelligencce in Saudi Arabia and briefly Ambassador to the U.S., telling President Obama that the Arab countries couldn’t sustain their relationships with the U.S. as long as there was so much bloodshed and violence pouring out of the Gaza area. The heavy onslaught by Israeli military forces has enraged Muslims across the entire MidEast and Asian regions. [IMAGE: The photo of a Palestinian whose face has been gravely disfigured by shrapnel. The man's legs were also crushed. It is critical to understand that the peoples of the Middle East are seeing far too many of these photos and videos, including those of dead children which Larry Johnson posted last week. These images have a profound effect and it is natural for people in the region to assume that the U.S. is as responsible as Israel for these maimings and killings.]

As Cooper pointed out, it is highly signficant that in this interview, Obama mentioned that many members of his famiy are Muslims and that he spent part of his youth in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country. He is certainly the first U.S. president to be able to make that claim, and — who knows — it may help.

It is notable that, during the election cycles, Obama never brought up his familial ties to the Muslim faith because he knew that that would alienate voters. Perhaps now that he is president, and he is also worried that his standing in the Middle East is that he won’t be any different than George Bush, he feels compelled to risk discussing his background more frankly. (With the immediate dispatch of George Mitchell and this TV interview tonight, it sounds as if there is a lot of intelligence “rumblings” being heard, and that the administration feels it must act, and act quickly to change the mindset of ME and European Muslims.

Here is Jake Tapper‘s initial report:

As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.

The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.

Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.

I remember Prince Turki vividly from the great book and winner of the Pulitzer non-fiction prize, The Looming Tower. (I can’t recommend this book enough; there are sections of the book that describe in detail how Turki handled grave crises within Saudi Arabia, including the near destruction of Mecca by a group of extremists.] Turki is portrayed in such a way in that book that I would regard his warnings as critical for the U.S. to heed, particularly if he issued a stern warning to the U.S. I am hopeful that both President Obama and Secretary Clinton have heeded his admonitions that something must be done to change the course of events, and the reactions of the Israelis.

By the way, I checked Al-Arabayi’s Web site but don’t see any reports or video yet.

I must say that, from what I’m hearing, Obama is doing a great job.

Here are some more actions taken by Hillary in the short time — only since Thursday — when she was able to go up to the seventh floor of the State Department and take charge officially of her office as Secretary of State:

• “Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton Meets Afghan Women Lawyers.” (Ani is writing this story up in detail.)

• Obama’s Mideast envoy to hold talks in Ankara
  

  ANKARA – US President Obama plans to dispatch his Middle East envoy to the region in an effort to revive Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. George Mitchell is also expected to meet Foreign Minister Babacan in Ankara next week.

  George Mitchell, the special envoy of the U.S. administration, will hold talks in Ankara next week to discuss ways to ensure a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza after Israel’s deadly offensive.

  “I talked with Hillary Clinton (U.S. Secretary of State) late Saturday. She said she had ordered Mitchell to visit Turkey during his regional tour and expressed the importance she gave to a meeting between myself and Mitchell,” Turkey’s foreign minister, Ali Babacan, told reporters yesterday before his departure to Brussels where he will meet European Union ministers to discuss the Gaza peace. …

This is not the first time that Secretary Clinton has worked with George Mitchell, the exceptional diplomat. There was Ireland in the late 1990s.

Also below: Beijing issued a warning to Secretary Clinton as soon as she took office:

CAPTION: Former Sen. George Mitchell, right, is applauded by then first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Prime Minister of Ireland Bertie Ahern, left, after receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House for his work in the Northern Ireland peace process in this March 17, 1999 file photo.

ALSO of note from the UK’s The Scotsman newspaper, “Obama unveils details of $825bn plan to ease crisis“:

[...]

Ties between the US, the world’s biggest economy, and China, with bulging exports and foreign exchange reserves, showed signs of strain yesterday. China’s central bank said US accusations that it was manipulating the yuan currency were misleading, a day after Beijing cautioned incoming secretary of state Hillary Clinton to tread carefully. …

Hillary’s involvement with the Chinese, on all subjects, will definitely be an aspect of her top-tier and position above all other the departments and agencies of government: Her oversight and influence will touch on the policies of Treasury, Defense, Energy, Agriculture, and on and on.

And we all remember Hillary’s accusations that China was manipulating the yen. I wonder what she can do, as Secretary of State, to influence the modus operandi of the Chinese who, let’s be frank here, are doing it to squeeze the U.S. every way they can.

I just wish more Americans made more of an effort to buy U.S.-made products. It takes extra time to find those products, and sometimes they’re a bit more expensive, but they’re also usually much better products.

When I think that almost all garlic and apple juice (YES, apple juice!) is imported from China, it makes me sick. I grew up in a rural area, and vividly recall the manufacturing plants nearby that made fruit juices –I suppose almost all of those are gone these days.

What company in the U.S. can compete when China is making and exporting 80% of all apple juice sold in the U.S.? (And I hope to god that nobody drinks or gives apple juice to their children, unless you buy it from a local farmer who makes his own. That locally-made juice is so much tastier anyway.)

It’s also true of garlic and ginger. My favorite local grocery store has a very difficult time finding ginger not from China. They’ve found outlets of ginger grown in Hawaii, and sell that. Their customers, several employees have told me, ask them constantly if certain products come from China, and they told me that their customers are demanding U.S.-grown produce! Luckily, I can buy garlic grown by local farmers, and garlic is easy to grow one’s self.

::::::::::::::::

UPDATE:

This video composite of CNN’s reports on Hillary was put up yesterday:

NOTE: I’ve gotten some reports from State, and am scanning the site for more information to share asap.