I wish there were not the need on the part of reporters to constantly compare Kerry to Clinton. To me, it is clear that Clinton's strength never was in foreign policy and she took the job because there she had no power base in the Senate and was thus not going to lead on healthcare.
I think she did a very good job in those things that are her strength. She did speak out on women's issues and children's issues -- which will be used as a basis of her likely 2016 run. I think they are wrong that 2008 was a harder environment than when Kerry took over. Any Democrat coming in in 2009 was going to immediately benefit from not being Bush - thus Obama's Nobel prize. Though the roots of the current problems are pretty deep- much of the Middle East went into chaos. Nor do they note that Hillary had a part in making Syria the mess it is.
Hillary also had a rather chilly relationship with Lavrov - in spite of her "resetting" - http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/06/idUSN06402140. That Kerry and Lavrov already had a good personal relationship helped when they negotiated first for Geneva 2 and recently for the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/15/syria-crisis-kerry-lavrov-idUSL2N0H91BW20130915
As to the last paragraph, I suspect it is the media seeing what the media wants to see. I panicked at the start of the UN when the NYT wrote a Samantha Powers puff piece - that argued her potential greatness in writing the UN resolution. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/23/world/a-new-us-player-put-on-world-stage-by-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 This then led to many articles suggesting the US was demanding something beyond the Kerry/Lavrov agreement. However, it was Kerry and Lavrov who worked the final deal -- and not surprisingly - it was very much their agreement from Geneva. Neither fact making the NYT article on the resolution passing! ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/world/middleeast/security-council-agrees-on-resolution-to-rid-syria-of-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all )
To me, it seems that the media wants their favorite characters to be the ones who succeed - at this point Powers and Rice are the more interesting media people. However, it seems clear that Obama put Kerry out as the lead on Syria - on the news, in the Congress, internationally and diplomatically. He also could have sent Biden or Rice to the Asian conferences, he sent Kerry. He also is clearly having Kerry lead on Iran. On Israel/Palestine - Kerry has already surpassed what people thought possible. If there is no 2 state solution, it will be because either Israel or Palestine - or both - think they win with a single state. I was watching MSNBC when Obama spoke to the UN. A woman talking head commented that Obama saying his two biggest foreign policy goals were Iran and Israel - and Kerry is leading both.
It is not likely that either Powers or Rice likely could have negotiated that deal with Russia. Russia made their preference PUBLICLY known that they did not want Rice to be chosen SoS - the only time I ever saw that happen. More important, Obama and Kerry made this an issue of chemical weapons use - not helping the rebels - which is where Powers was. What will be interesting is if Obama backs Kerry in any negotiations with Lavrov on Geneva 2.
= new reply since forum marked as read