Will Obama and Clinton work as a team?
| Washington
Hillary Rodham Clinton is likely to be watched by foreign leaders and domestic observers alike for signs of adhering to 鈥� or straying from 鈥� the daylight rule.
No, not the time-honored rule of school dances, where chaperones want to see daylight between dancing partners. Rather, it鈥檚 the diplomatic rule that says there should be no daylight between the president and his secretary of State.
President-elect Obama was expected to announce Monday that Senator Clinton 鈥� his top rival in the Democratic primaries 鈥� was his choice for secretary of State. It presages a period of intense scrutiny for the two strong leaders鈥� relationship.
鈥淧eople, and it goes for both friends and foes, are always questioning, 鈥業s there any light between the two?鈥� 鈥� says George Shultz, who was secretary of State to President Reagan. 鈥淧eople used to ask me, 鈥榃hat鈥檚 your foreign policy?鈥� and I鈥檇 say, 鈥業 don鈥檛 have one: The president has one. My job is to formulate that foreign policy and help him carry it out.鈥� 鈥�
Few foreign-policy experts and policy颅makers question Clinton鈥檚 fitness for the job. They point to the stamina and intellectual capacity she demonstrated over a grueling presidential campaign, plus her years of experience dealing with foreign leaders and addressing international issues as first lady.
But where question marks do arise is over how Mr. Obama and Clinton will overcome the foreign-policy differences that arose over the course of a long, heated primary campaign. Those differences 鈥� sometimes sharp 鈥� ranged from the decision to go to war in Iraq to the wisdom of speaking to America鈥檚 enemies without preconditions.
Clinton鈥檚 doubts about Obama鈥檚 preparedness to take on the job of commander in chief were captured in the so-called 3 a.m. ad, in which a grave male voice asked who Americans wanted to answer the White House telephone while their children and the nation slept.
Differences magnified by rhetoric?
Yet as stark as those differences may have been portrayed by both camps during the primaries, they were never really that pronounced, many foreign-policy experts say.
鈥淚 do think the differences between them on some of these foreign-policy issues were magnified by the heat of campaign rhetoric,鈥� says George Herring, a historian and professor emeritus at the University of Kentucky. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 buy into the whole idea that Obama is, more than anything else, viewing Clinton as a rival.鈥�
Perhaps more important for Obama was how Clinton emerged in the general campaign as one of Obama鈥檚 more tireless advocates.
She proved particularly effective at articulating her former competitor鈥檚 foreign-policy goals and his vision of America鈥檚 role in the world, and her work caught the candidate鈥檚 eye, Obama advisers say. That led to Obama鈥檚 growing sense of wanting that strength on his team.
Some students of US foreign policy add that Clinton is intelligent enough to know that as secretary of State, she will be implementing the president鈥檚 foreign policy.
鈥淪ome people are saying this is unprecedented, that no personality as strong or opinionated as Hillary Clinton has taken this job. But what about Henry Kissinger or James Baker?鈥� says Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund in Washington and a foreign-policy specialist. 鈥淭hose are two recent examples of very strong secretaries, but each was in sync with and implemented the policies of the president, and surely Hillary understands that.鈥�
A successful president-secretary relationship is not necessarily one where no differences exist, but where any differences are aired in frequent meetings 鈥� and behind closed doors, says Mr. Shultz, now at the Hoover Institution in Palo Alto, Calif. 鈥淵ou talk them through,鈥� Shultz says of any differences. 鈥淚 had private meetings twice a week with President Reagan, so that in time I had a very good idea of how he approached issues.鈥�
A sign that Clinton understands this dynamic came from leaked information that she demanded 鈥� and was assured she would have 鈥� direct access to the president.
That鈥檚 important because the president and secretary of State鈥檚 ability to work together can determine a successful foreign policy, says Professor Herring, who recently published 鈥淔rom Colony to Superpower,鈥� an expansive study of US foreign relations since the Revolution.
鈥淣ixon and Kissinger had a close but very weird relationship, suspicious of each other and each demeaning the other when he wasn鈥檛 around. But they respected each other鈥檚 views and capabilities, and they worked together,鈥� he says.
Rice, the current secretary of State
The case of Condoleezza Rice exemplifies both how a secretary of State may subjugate her own views to those of the president and how she may end up coaxing the president down a new direction.
Secretary Rice was known as a foreign-policy realist before entering the George W. Bush White House (as national security adviser). But she adopted many of the president鈥檚 more idealistic and neoconservative positions, particularly after 9/11. On the other hand, Rice is credited with bringing Mr. Bush back to a more pragmatic and traditional foreign policy 鈥� for example, repairing ties to America鈥檚 allies after the Iraq invasion. 鈥淭he term is ending with a foreign policy that looks a lot more like Condoleezza Rice鈥檚 original vision,鈥� Mr. Cirincione says.
Indeed, some foreign-policy experts wonder if Clinton 鈥� and, more broadly, the national-security team Obama is assembling 鈥� won鈥檛 influence the new president in a direction that is not the one he suggested during the campaign.
鈥淚n the tension between careful and quick, between incremental and transformational in foreign policy, the careful and incremental seems to have won out,鈥� says Cirincione.
After a long campaign and a shared Senate experience with Clinton, Obama knows he鈥檚 getting a strong personality with defined foreign-policy views in Hillary Clinton, observers say.
鈥淐linton could be very effective, but it does have to be clear that she and the president are on the same wavelength,鈥� Shultz says. 鈥淚t can鈥檛 be that she鈥檚 thinking one thing and he another 鈥� that won鈥檛 work.鈥�
