It was a bit of an eye-roller last week when we told you Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates had described Hillary Clinton as some sort of invaluable ally, given what he had also said about her admission that her opposition to the 2007 Iraq surge was baldly political (as if that surprised anyone).
But the context is starting to make a little more sense now. Economic Times tells us that Gates mainly valued Hillary as an ally when she agreed with him on issues that had become internal controversies. That makes sense because we all know Hillary can talk. She just can't actually accomplish anything.
Between those gushing adjectives, though, Gates paints a less flattering picture of Clinton as secretary of state - and not just because of his well-publicized claim that she confessed to opposing the Iraq troop surge for political reasons during the 2008 Democratic primaries.
That disclosure is less interesting than his descriptions of how the White House kept Clinton on a short leash throughout her years at the State Department. From foisting an unwanted deputy on her, and then granting that person enhanced status in administration debates, to shielding an ambassador she regarded as insubordinate, the White House, in Gates' telling, all but put Clinton into a gilded cage.
"The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the people in the cabinet departments - in the trenches - who had actually done the work, offended Hillary Clinton as much as it did me," Gates wrote, summing up their shared frustrations.
At a time when Clinton's tenure as secretary of state has come under sharper scrutiny - held up against the hyperactive, risk-taking style of her successor, John Kerry - Gates' memoir will reinforce the narrative that Clinton was a respected but cautious figure, with a diplomatic record that now seems oddly evanescent.
Gates, for example, says nothing about Clinton's role in the Middle East peace process, where Kerry is now engaged in a high-stakes effort to broker a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians. He says little about her influence in stiffening policy toward Iran, after Obama's offer of engagement, made early in his first term, was rebuffed (although he credits himself with advocating the sanctions that finally brought Iran to the bargaining table).
To the extent that Gates praises his fellow midwesterner, it is usually for agreeing with him.
You know, it occurs to me that the idea Hillary could be kept on a short leash, and would put up with it and not say anything, is rather at odds with her image of being "tough" or whatever it is we're supposed to believe she is. Sounds more like the behavior of a woman who was only occupying the position for the line it would add to her resume pre-presidential run. The last thing she needed was publicity about an internal controversy. The truth is she didn't want much coverage of any kind concerning the substance of her performance on the job - unless it was something that would make her look good, but what were the chances of that?
All she wanted you to know was that she logged a lot of air travel miles, met with a lot of people, and was "living history" whatever that's supposed to mean.
She's been First Lady! She's been a Senator! She's been Secretary of State? How dare you deny her the presidency, and don't you dare demand to know what she accomplished because it's irrelevant. She stood by her man like Tammy Wynette and now we owe her. All of us.
