News section
(below is a separate editorial section, which can be skipped by those readers who prefer to see less criticism of Hillary):
In August 2014, Hillary commented on Obama-Kerry foreign policy:
"Great nations need organizing principles ...
'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle.
... 'Failure' to Help Syrian Rebels Led to the Rise of ISIS..."
...She softened the blow by noting that Obama was “trying to communicate to the American people that he’s not going to do something crazy,” but she repeatedly suggested that the U.S. sometimes appears to be withdrawing from the world stage.
Recently, Hillary
responded to question on Keystone XL pipeline expansion, as follows:
"I am not going to second guess [President Barack Obama] because I was in a position to set this in motion," Clinton said, referencing environmental reviews conducted by the State Department that began when she was secretary of state.
Editorial section:
Why do these two different postures on different issues differ? Of course she may zealously believe in both of these two policy perspectives, but today I want to focus on:
the procedural/ethical question, raised by Hillary, of what topics should be off-limits in public comments by a recently stepped-down Secretary of State, who is (at the time of the pipeline statement, although not yet formally at the time of the foreign policy statement), running for President.
To me, the key difference appears to be in their different role in Hillary's election strategy, which I believe includes:
1. On foreign policy: appearing more bellicose than Obama.
2. On Keystone XL pipeline:
(a) Not betraying some of her donors, and other donors' perception of her as a "very serious person",
while simultaneously
(b) preserving deniability for tar sands haters who want to allowed to believe, and to argue, that Hillary as President can be a big part of the solution to climate change.