I had occasion to read an article in Foreign Policy magazine about Hillary Clinton (HERE). It was no encomium. However, it painted a picture of a smart, reasonable and principled Secretary of State. The article is an education on recent international history but, since the article is long, I offer these few excerpts for your edification.
"'The test of a strategic dialogue,' Burns notes, 'is how it can weather unexpected events.' The fact that the Chinese chose not to blow up the talks was itself a vindication of Clinton's tactics.'
"'Clintonism properly understood, he asserts, is 'nesting a hard-power approach into a broader smart-power strategy — development, diplomacy, public-private partnerships, rule of law.'
"''Dennis Ross observes, 'President Obama's view was that we had to work with our adversaries and seek to change their behavior by looking at their grievances. I think that Hillary looks at adversaries through the lens of how they define their interests. A focus on interests means recognizing the reality of power relationships, and the need to use power in defense of your interests.'
"'[Regarding Libya] Gates, Biden, and others opposed American military involvement, since even a mass killing would not seriously impinge on national interests. Clinton, like Obama himself, was in the middle. She was coming under great pressure from France and Britain, both of which favored an aerial campaign to stop Qaddafi from taking Benghazi. Only when she won agreement from the Arab League to support and engage in such an effort, which would include Arab as well as European fighter planes, did Clinton join the advocates.
"But America is no longer in recovery from George W. Bush, and it is no longer in urgent need of a new face. What it needs is a fresh source of inspiration, a sense that the world matters and that American leadership matters, a recognition that power is not a bad thing so long as it is accompanied by humility and restraint."
Really, though. Read the article. It's very interesting. You can find it HERE.