Am I the only one surprised at the beating that ‘ol Cankles is taking? Not that she doesn’t deserve it but damn, she might be out of the race before anyone else gets in.
3 reasons Democrats should find someone other than Hillary
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Published: May 6, 2015 11:37 a.m. ET
She’s inept, scandal-prone and an Obama clone
Hillary Clinton’s public career has been marked by a lack of achievement in office.
Republican presidential candidates are declaring their intentions in droves, but so far Hillary Clinton has no serious opponent. It is early in the process, and other candidates may consider getting into the race. They should.
Clinton should not be the Democrat nominee for president for at least three reasons. She fails to articulate an improvement on President Obama’s domestic- and foreign-policy agenda. She did a poor job as a public servant, including as secretary of state. Her Clinton Foundation is facing ethical questions more serious than those that resulted in the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
Here’s the breakdown of the three reasons:
Clinton Would Be Another Obama. While Obama has retained a reservoir of personal popularity, his policies have not. From the environment to health care, from defense to law enforcement, Obama’s policies are not popular with the American public.
To succeed in the general election, the Democratic nominee should be able to articulate how new ideas can improve on unpopular policies of the Obama administration. So far, Clinton has not repudiated any of Obama’s policies. Reasonable voters would conclude that a Clinton presidency would be more of the same.
In the 1950s, many Americans could say: ‘I like Ike.’ The slogan ‘I like Hillary’ has not attracted the American public. It is not that the slogan does not rhyme. The problem is the slogan is rarely truthful.
Obama’s policy failures are not merely matters of public perception, but matters of economic reality as measured by his own administration. President Obama’s policies have resulted in slow economic growth and a chaotic web of foreign policy. We all know the data. The economy is growing at just over 2%. The first quarter of 2015 will likely show a shrinkage in gross domestic product. The unemployment rate is at a low 5.5% because millions of prime-age workers have left the labor force, leaving participation rates at 1978 levels. New employment data will be released on Friday that will indicate how the economy performed in April, the first month of the second quarter.
Young Americans, often known as millennials, are bearing the brunt of the stagnant economy. Youth unemployment, at 10.5%, is more than twice the unemployment rate of those age 25 and up, at 4.4%. If Clinton wants to attract large numbers of millennials, she needs to explain how her policies will be both different from Obama’s and helpful to young people. That explanation has not been forthcoming.
Clinton Failed In Public Service. If she won’t run from Obama’s policies, Clinton should at least explain her own serial failures in the public sphere. Every position she has held over the past 20 years has been in large part the result of her husband. As a supposed champion of women’s rights, few other women in America, or in the world, owe so much of their career to the beneficence of their husband. The message that Clinton sends to young women is alarming: the way for a woman to succeed professionally is to get in your husband’s slipstream.
Clinton’s public career has been marked by a remarkable lack of achievement in office. While her husband occupied the White House, she headed up a failed task force on health care that was rebuked for holding private meetings. As First Lady, she careened from scandal to scandal: Travelgate, Whitewater and the suicide of Vince Foster. President Bill Clinton was tarred by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, impeachment and the series of pardons he gave to the politically well-connected as the Clintons left the White House.
While her husband was still in the White House, Clinton was elected senator from New York, a state where she had never lived or worked. In the U.S. Senate, she had an unmemorable career.
To try to escape the shadow of her husband, she developed the persona of “Hillary.” It was a dubious and transparent ploy for political advancement. Not since Eisenhower had a president been widely known by his first name rather than his last. There, the similarity ends. In the 1950s, many Americans could say: “I like Ike.” In the past 15 years, the slogan “I like Hillary” has not attracted the American public. It is not that the slogan does not rhyme. The problem is the slogan is rarely truthful.
In 2007, Clinton launched a presidential campaign, with her husband a visible force. Despite having practically all the Democratic Party establishment behind the campaign, Clinton lost. Some will say that Obama was a particularly gifted candidate and campaigner. History may yet assess the outcome as much on Clinton’s weaknesses as on Obama’s strengths.
In 2009, President Obama magnanimously nominated Clinton to be secretary of state. Four years later, America’s stature in the world was much diminished. Clinton failed to adequately answer questions about the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012, two months before the presidential election. She did not explain the official White House line on TV that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was caused by a video. Was the terrorist attack disguised in order to achieve victory in November 2012?
Clinton kept her State Department email correspondence on a private server in her home with a personal email address, even though State Department policy was to preserve official records. Although congressional committees requested copies of emails relating to Benghazi, she apparently erased the server without giving them any information.
After she left, a State Department spokesman was asked to list Clinton’s accomplishments. The spokesman could not name one. Almost any other Democratic candidate will have a resume based on personal experience not created by a spouse.
Clinton Is Associated With Unending Scandals. Clinton’s exposure to scandal did not end with her term as secretary of state. It continued afterward.
The Clintons created the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization to do good deeds around the world. The foundation had raised almost $2 billion by the end of 2014, according to foundation officials over the years. But, remarkably, little of that has gone to helping poor people. Much of the fund has been used to pay salaries and the transportation expenses of employees.
According to an analysis of 10 years of foundation donations by McClatchy, 40% of top donors are based overseas. They gave money while Clinton was secretary of state. Canadian mining executives Ian Telfer and Frank Giustra gave millions to the foundation, while the U.S. government was reviewing the sale of a uranium mine to the Russians. With Clinton on the committee, the Russians got their mine.
Other politicians have been indicted and convicted for less. Gov. McDonnell was convicted of accepting smaller gifts from a donor who received no favors from the commonwealth. As Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Mona Charen asked: “Why won’t the media hold Hillary to the same standard they did Bob McDonnell?”
Charity Navigator, an independent charity evaluator, has placed the Clinton Foundation on its watchlist. Charity Navigator says: “We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.”
If the foundation were merely just ineptly managed with high overhead expenses, one might be willing to look the other way. Most important for a presidential candidate, the links between the Clinton Foundation and the campaign are blurred. Earlier this year, the foundation’s chief development officer, Dennis Cheng, left to take part in Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Hillary Clinton has amassed a substantial war chest and many say that she is unbeatable. But if Democrats want to win the White House, they will open up their primary and look for more qualified candidates.
“Hillary Is the Worst Option”: How Moscow Sees American Politics
Interview with one of Russia’s top foreign policy analysts:
Everyone in Moscow tells you that, if you want to understand Russia’s foreign policy and its view of its place the world, the person you need to talk to is Fyodor Lukyanov.
Lukyanov is the chair of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy as well as the editor-in-chief of the journal “Russia in Global Affairs,” which are something like the Russian equivalents of America’s Council on Foreign Relations and “Foreign Affairs” — though the Russian versions are considered much closer to the state and its worldview.
Widely considered both an influential leader and unofficial interpreter of Russia’s foreign policy establishment, Lukyanov is frequently sought out by Western policymakers and journalists who wish to understand Russia’s approach to the world. During a recent trip to Moscow, Amanda Taub and I met Lukyanov around the corner from the looming Foreign Ministry compound (his office is nearby), at a small Bohemian cafe that serves French and Israeli food to a room packed with gray suits.
We discussed Russia’s foreign policy, the country’s role in the world, and how its leaders think about the problems and opportunities facing their nation. Lukyanov, hunched over his coffee, had clearly spent a great deal of time with policymakers in and outside of Moscow, and he peppered his answers with references to political science terminology and wonky policy jargon. But he also reflected the official views of Moscow, which makes his answers a revealing glimpse into how his country sees the world.
What follows is a transcript of the section of our conversation that touched on Russia’s relationship with the United States. Sections on Russia’s approach to the Middle East and on its increasingly dangerous tensions with Europe will be published separately.
This has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Max Fisher: We talked earlier about the disagreements within the Russian foreign policy establishment over the Iran nuclear deal. Given that the United States wants to make the deal happen and that there is so much tension currently between the US and Russia, is this effecting the view within Moscow toward the Iran talks? Maybe some people oppose the Iran deal because it would be seen as beneficial to the US, or they support the Iran deal because it could be an opening to ease tensions with Washington?
Fyodor Lukyanov: It’s not part of the discussion at all, to decrease tensions with the West. It’s not an issue.
Public opinion is pretty mobilized because of Ukraine. A lot of policymakers, even those who used to lean more toward some kind of rapprochement with the West, they are irritated by sanctions and so on, so it’s not part of the discussion.
So if Russia does something, it’s not necessarily to try to explain it as an effort to decrease tensions with the West. It might be a consequence, but it’s not the goal.
Max Fisher: It certainly seems that there’s no political appetite in Moscow for a rapprochement with the West. Is that preference widely held within the foreign policy establishment as well? Or is there a faction that is arguing for rapprochement?
Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a faction, but it’s smaller than it used to be. And even many of those belonging to this faction say that, realistically speaking, they don’t see any options for it in the future. Because on the American side, there’s a very high level of polarization in the political establishment. And with the election campaigns about to start, it’s the worst time to try to launch something.
No American politician will gain anything positive by being softer on Russia. It’s not a central issue, but maybe candidates could use it in swing states, where many eastern Europeans [who are generally skeptical of Russia] live.
So I don’t hear any expectations of this, especially since there’s a good chance that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic candidate. I think there’s a widespread view that with Hillary there would be no chance at all. For her and for her team, since the 1990s, Russia is a failure. One of the biggest failures of Bill Clinton was that he wanted to transform Russia. He was very sincere in his view of how he wanted to transform Russia and to help this transformation, but by the end of his tenure he was terribly disappointed.
Psychologically, for Hillary and for people like [Clinton-era Deputy Secretary of State] Strobe Talbott and many others, Russia is an unfinished job.
Max Fisher: What it is that they want to accomplish?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Many people here believe that they will try to come back to the line of the 1990s to encourage Russia into an internal transformation.
Max Fisher: Does that mean regime change?
Fyodor Lukyanov: As a long-term goal, yes. Not by force, of course, but to encourage some kind of social development that will upend the current system and will promote a new one.
Max Fisher: So it’s expected here that Clinton would take a hostile approach to Russia?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, a very hostile approach. Hillary is the worst option of any president [from the Russian view], maybe worse than any Republican.
Max Fisher: Even though she led the US-Russia reset as secretary of state?
Fyodor Lukyanov: She led the reset, but it was done by Obama. She was a disciplined official and did what the White House decided to do. Formally she was in charge, but in real terms she never dealt with this. It was a direct project of Obama and of [former US Ambassador to Russia] Michael McFaul. Hillary pushed the button but that was just a symbolic move, and then she was never active in this.
By the end of her time as secretary of state, when she’d already announced she would leave, she made a couple of statements without being diplomatic anymore. Statements about Russia, about this re-Sovietization of post-Soviet space, about Putin, that demonstrated her real feelings.
I think that there is a widespread view that she personally hates Putin and she personally dislikes [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov. So in the case of her presidency it will be not very good chemistry between them.
Max Fisher: Some people we’ve spoken to have said something similar about Obama, that Obama dislikes Putin, that he’s motivated by personal animus, and that once he leaves office maybe the sanctions will weaken because they’re driven personally by Obama.
Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a widespread view that Obama dislikes Putin very much. It’s obvious that they don’t like each other.
I think that Obama actually is not at all an emotional person. He looked at first very human and appealing, but he’s not at all. He’s a very calculating and cold guy without a lot of emotions and feelings. I don’t think his personal perception of Putin plays such a big role. He made a big miscalculation because it seemed like he and McFaul really believed [current Russian Prime Minister and former President Dmitry] Medvedev might become president for a second term, which was a wrong expectation. He did not hide disappointment when Medvedev decided to step down.
Obama sees Russia as a big problem that consumes so much of his time that he would like to dedicate to other issues. He mostly would like to keep distance from Russia, to settle the most acute challenges but after that he doesn’t have interest.
The reset was not because he wanted to make Russia the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda but because actually he failed with other issue. Russia was meant to be supportive and became the biggest achievement, with the reset and the New START [2010 nuclear arms reduction] agreement. But the reset was exhausted by New START and by the Russian accession to the World Trade Organization [in 2012]. They did not have any other agenda. They could have developed a new agenda if the situation had remained favorable as it was under Medvedev, but Putin settled that.
For Obama, Russia turned into a permanent headache. And a headache irritates. It’s not such a strong feeling that other [US] politicians have about Russia.
Max Fisher: Let me ask about the flip side of that. How do you think Putin sees the US now?
Fyodor Lukyanov: He’s utterly anti-American, deeply and sincerely. And it’s not about Obama or Bush or Clinton. It’s about his perception of America as a destructive power.
The most interesting foreign policy statement he made was published one week before his third term began in 2012. The article, “Russia and the changing world,” was extremely interesting and substantial. He expressed everything that happened after. His core perception was that the United States is a country that misuses its might and creates even more chaos in the contemporary world, which is anyway very chaotic and unpredictable. Americans, by what they do, just worsen the situation.
The idea was not to challenge America, but to protect Russia. This is how he sees the world, with the United States as a really destructive and destabilizing power.
Max Fisher: Is there anything you believe the Russian leadership misunderstands about the United States, or that you wish they understood better?
Fyodor Lukyanov: The Russian leadership has no clue about how the American system works, how complicated it is.
For example, after Putin’s 2011 decision to exchange with Medvedev [in which the two switched positions of prime minister and president], he said, “Look at the United States. Obama and Hillary both ran for the presidency, but then they sat down and decided who would be president and Obama won that.” How the American system works, it’s not a big interest to our leadership.
I think right now there’s a better understanding of the differences between your president and your Congress. Before, it was the perception that the American president can do anything he wants, and all of these references to a hostile Congress are just bullshit. But now I think there’s a better understanding that Congress can be extremely disruptive whatever the administration is trying to do. This has become another argument that it doesn’t make sense to try with them.
Max Fisher: Is there no effort to play Congress and the president off of one another?
Fyodor Lukyanov: No, because contrary to Europe, where there are all options to use splits, in the United States, Russia has absolutely no influence in Congress. We don’t have a lobby, we don’t have special leverage there.
Great, true post and even greater comments. I can only add that this woman will finish off the Dems if she is nominated. She is widely disliked and distrusted among those who are supposed to be her “core” constituents- i.e. women- who perceive that she’s an oligarch’s shill who is only pandering with her platitudes about “equality” and being one of the “folks”.
Olga
I seriously doubt the MSM will allow the sheeple to know that anyone else is capable of running.
She’s been anointed, selected and none of her “issues” will see the light of day in the MSM.
The Wall Street Journal reports Hillary Clinton met privately in San Francisco on Wednesday with a small group of potential high-dollar donors to the Priorities USA Action super PAC. It was her first donor meeting aimed at supporting the political-action committee that is backing her presidential campaign. The meetings mark an escalation in fundraising by Clinton, who is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, at a time when Republican donors are funding super PACs to back candidates.
Discover more from The Burning Platform
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Am I the only one surprised at the beating that ‘ol Cankles is taking? Not that she doesn’t deserve it but damn, she might be out of the race before anyone else gets in.
I think her true color is starting to show.
3 reasons Democrats should find someone other than Hillary
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth
Published: May 6, 2015 11:37 a.m. ET
She’s inept, scandal-prone and an Obama clone
Hillary Clinton’s public career has been marked by a lack of achievement in office.
Republican presidential candidates are declaring their intentions in droves, but so far Hillary Clinton has no serious opponent. It is early in the process, and other candidates may consider getting into the race. They should.
Clinton should not be the Democrat nominee for president for at least three reasons. She fails to articulate an improvement on President Obama’s domestic- and foreign-policy agenda. She did a poor job as a public servant, including as secretary of state. Her Clinton Foundation is facing ethical questions more serious than those that resulted in the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.
Here’s the breakdown of the three reasons:
Clinton Would Be Another Obama. While Obama has retained a reservoir of personal popularity, his policies have not. From the environment to health care, from defense to law enforcement, Obama’s policies are not popular with the American public.
To succeed in the general election, the Democratic nominee should be able to articulate how new ideas can improve on unpopular policies of the Obama administration. So far, Clinton has not repudiated any of Obama’s policies. Reasonable voters would conclude that a Clinton presidency would be more of the same.
In the 1950s, many Americans could say: ‘I like Ike.’ The slogan ‘I like Hillary’ has not attracted the American public. It is not that the slogan does not rhyme. The problem is the slogan is rarely truthful.
Obama’s policy failures are not merely matters of public perception, but matters of economic reality as measured by his own administration. President Obama’s policies have resulted in slow economic growth and a chaotic web of foreign policy. We all know the data. The economy is growing at just over 2%. The first quarter of 2015 will likely show a shrinkage in gross domestic product. The unemployment rate is at a low 5.5% because millions of prime-age workers have left the labor force, leaving participation rates at 1978 levels. New employment data will be released on Friday that will indicate how the economy performed in April, the first month of the second quarter.
Young Americans, often known as millennials, are bearing the brunt of the stagnant economy. Youth unemployment, at 10.5%, is more than twice the unemployment rate of those age 25 and up, at 4.4%. If Clinton wants to attract large numbers of millennials, she needs to explain how her policies will be both different from Obama’s and helpful to young people. That explanation has not been forthcoming.
Clinton Failed In Public Service. If she won’t run from Obama’s policies, Clinton should at least explain her own serial failures in the public sphere. Every position she has held over the past 20 years has been in large part the result of her husband. As a supposed champion of women’s rights, few other women in America, or in the world, owe so much of their career to the beneficence of their husband. The message that Clinton sends to young women is alarming: the way for a woman to succeed professionally is to get in your husband’s slipstream.
Clinton’s public career has been marked by a remarkable lack of achievement in office. While her husband occupied the White House, she headed up a failed task force on health care that was rebuked for holding private meetings. As First Lady, she careened from scandal to scandal: Travelgate, Whitewater and the suicide of Vince Foster. President Bill Clinton was tarred by his affair with Monica Lewinsky, impeachment and the series of pardons he gave to the politically well-connected as the Clintons left the White House.
While her husband was still in the White House, Clinton was elected senator from New York, a state where she had never lived or worked. In the U.S. Senate, she had an unmemorable career.
To try to escape the shadow of her husband, she developed the persona of “Hillary.” It was a dubious and transparent ploy for political advancement. Not since Eisenhower had a president been widely known by his first name rather than his last. There, the similarity ends. In the 1950s, many Americans could say: “I like Ike.” In the past 15 years, the slogan “I like Hillary” has not attracted the American public. It is not that the slogan does not rhyme. The problem is the slogan is rarely truthful.
In 2007, Clinton launched a presidential campaign, with her husband a visible force. Despite having practically all the Democratic Party establishment behind the campaign, Clinton lost. Some will say that Obama was a particularly gifted candidate and campaigner. History may yet assess the outcome as much on Clinton’s weaknesses as on Obama’s strengths.
In 2009, President Obama magnanimously nominated Clinton to be secretary of state. Four years later, America’s stature in the world was much diminished. Clinton failed to adequately answer questions about the death of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens in Benghazi in September 2012, two months before the presidential election. She did not explain the official White House line on TV that the attack on the Benghazi consulate was caused by a video. Was the terrorist attack disguised in order to achieve victory in November 2012?
Clinton kept her State Department email correspondence on a private server in her home with a personal email address, even though State Department policy was to preserve official records. Although congressional committees requested copies of emails relating to Benghazi, she apparently erased the server without giving them any information.
After she left, a State Department spokesman was asked to list Clinton’s accomplishments. The spokesman could not name one. Almost any other Democratic candidate will have a resume based on personal experience not created by a spouse.
Clinton Is Associated With Unending Scandals. Clinton’s exposure to scandal did not end with her term as secretary of state. It continued afterward.
The Clintons created the Clinton Foundation, a charitable organization to do good deeds around the world. The foundation had raised almost $2 billion by the end of 2014, according to foundation officials over the years. But, remarkably, little of that has gone to helping poor people. Much of the fund has been used to pay salaries and the transportation expenses of employees.
According to an analysis of 10 years of foundation donations by McClatchy, 40% of top donors are based overseas. They gave money while Clinton was secretary of state. Canadian mining executives Ian Telfer and Frank Giustra gave millions to the foundation, while the U.S. government was reviewing the sale of a uranium mine to the Russians. With Clinton on the committee, the Russians got their mine.
Other politicians have been indicted and convicted for less. Gov. McDonnell was convicted of accepting smaller gifts from a donor who received no favors from the commonwealth. As Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow Mona Charen asked: “Why won’t the media hold Hillary to the same standard they did Bob McDonnell?”
Charity Navigator, an independent charity evaluator, has placed the Clinton Foundation on its watchlist. Charity Navigator says: “We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.”
If the foundation were merely just ineptly managed with high overhead expenses, one might be willing to look the other way. Most important for a presidential candidate, the links between the Clinton Foundation and the campaign are blurred. Earlier this year, the foundation’s chief development officer, Dennis Cheng, left to take part in Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Hillary Clinton has amassed a substantial war chest and many say that she is unbeatable. But if Democrats want to win the White House, they will open up their primary and look for more qualified candidates.
“Hillary Is the Worst Option”: How Moscow Sees American Politics
Interview with one of Russia’s top foreign policy analysts:
Everyone in Moscow tells you that, if you want to understand Russia’s foreign policy and its view of its place the world, the person you need to talk to is Fyodor Lukyanov.
Lukyanov is the chair of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy as well as the editor-in-chief of the journal “Russia in Global Affairs,” which are something like the Russian equivalents of America’s Council on Foreign Relations and “Foreign Affairs” — though the Russian versions are considered much closer to the state and its worldview.
Widely considered both an influential leader and unofficial interpreter of Russia’s foreign policy establishment, Lukyanov is frequently sought out by Western policymakers and journalists who wish to understand Russia’s approach to the world. During a recent trip to Moscow, Amanda Taub and I met Lukyanov around the corner from the looming Foreign Ministry compound (his office is nearby), at a small Bohemian cafe that serves French and Israeli food to a room packed with gray suits.
We discussed Russia’s foreign policy, the country’s role in the world, and how its leaders think about the problems and opportunities facing their nation. Lukyanov, hunched over his coffee, had clearly spent a great deal of time with policymakers in and outside of Moscow, and he peppered his answers with references to political science terminology and wonky policy jargon. But he also reflected the official views of Moscow, which makes his answers a revealing glimpse into how his country sees the world.
What follows is a transcript of the section of our conversation that touched on Russia’s relationship with the United States. Sections on Russia’s approach to the Middle East and on its increasingly dangerous tensions with Europe will be published separately.
This has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Max Fisher: We talked earlier about the disagreements within the Russian foreign policy establishment over the Iran nuclear deal. Given that the United States wants to make the deal happen and that there is so much tension currently between the US and Russia, is this effecting the view within Moscow toward the Iran talks? Maybe some people oppose the Iran deal because it would be seen as beneficial to the US, or they support the Iran deal because it could be an opening to ease tensions with Washington?
Fyodor Lukyanov: It’s not part of the discussion at all, to decrease tensions with the West. It’s not an issue.
Public opinion is pretty mobilized because of Ukraine. A lot of policymakers, even those who used to lean more toward some kind of rapprochement with the West, they are irritated by sanctions and so on, so it’s not part of the discussion.
So if Russia does something, it’s not necessarily to try to explain it as an effort to decrease tensions with the West. It might be a consequence, but it’s not the goal.
Max Fisher: It certainly seems that there’s no political appetite in Moscow for a rapprochement with the West. Is that preference widely held within the foreign policy establishment as well? Or is there a faction that is arguing for rapprochement?
Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a faction, but it’s smaller than it used to be. And even many of those belonging to this faction say that, realistically speaking, they don’t see any options for it in the future. Because on the American side, there’s a very high level of polarization in the political establishment. And with the election campaigns about to start, it’s the worst time to try to launch something.
No American politician will gain anything positive by being softer on Russia. It’s not a central issue, but maybe candidates could use it in swing states, where many eastern Europeans [who are generally skeptical of Russia] live.
So I don’t hear any expectations of this, especially since there’s a good chance that Hillary Clinton will become the Democratic candidate. I think there’s a widespread view that with Hillary there would be no chance at all. For her and for her team, since the 1990s, Russia is a failure. One of the biggest failures of Bill Clinton was that he wanted to transform Russia. He was very sincere in his view of how he wanted to transform Russia and to help this transformation, but by the end of his tenure he was terribly disappointed.
Psychologically, for Hillary and for people like [Clinton-era Deputy Secretary of State] Strobe Talbott and many others, Russia is an unfinished job.
Max Fisher: What it is that they want to accomplish?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Many people here believe that they will try to come back to the line of the 1990s to encourage Russia into an internal transformation.
Max Fisher: Does that mean regime change?
Fyodor Lukyanov: As a long-term goal, yes. Not by force, of course, but to encourage some kind of social development that will upend the current system and will promote a new one.
Max Fisher: So it’s expected here that Clinton would take a hostile approach to Russia?
Fyodor Lukyanov: Yes, a very hostile approach. Hillary is the worst option of any president [from the Russian view], maybe worse than any Republican.
Max Fisher: Even though she led the US-Russia reset as secretary of state?
Fyodor Lukyanov: She led the reset, but it was done by Obama. She was a disciplined official and did what the White House decided to do. Formally she was in charge, but in real terms she never dealt with this. It was a direct project of Obama and of [former US Ambassador to Russia] Michael McFaul. Hillary pushed the button but that was just a symbolic move, and then she was never active in this.
By the end of her time as secretary of state, when she’d already announced she would leave, she made a couple of statements without being diplomatic anymore. Statements about Russia, about this re-Sovietization of post-Soviet space, about Putin, that demonstrated her real feelings.
I think that there is a widespread view that she personally hates Putin and she personally dislikes [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov. So in the case of her presidency it will be not very good chemistry between them.
Max Fisher: Some people we’ve spoken to have said something similar about Obama, that Obama dislikes Putin, that he’s motivated by personal animus, and that once he leaves office maybe the sanctions will weaken because they’re driven personally by Obama.
Fyodor Lukyanov: There is a widespread view that Obama dislikes Putin very much. It’s obvious that they don’t like each other.
I think that Obama actually is not at all an emotional person. He looked at first very human and appealing, but he’s not at all. He’s a very calculating and cold guy without a lot of emotions and feelings. I don’t think his personal perception of Putin plays such a big role. He made a big miscalculation because it seemed like he and McFaul really believed [current Russian Prime Minister and former President Dmitry] Medvedev might become president for a second term, which was a wrong expectation. He did not hide disappointment when Medvedev decided to step down.
Obama sees Russia as a big problem that consumes so much of his time that he would like to dedicate to other issues. He mostly would like to keep distance from Russia, to settle the most acute challenges but after that he doesn’t have interest.
The reset was not because he wanted to make Russia the centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda but because actually he failed with other issue. Russia was meant to be supportive and became the biggest achievement, with the reset and the New START [2010 nuclear arms reduction] agreement. But the reset was exhausted by New START and by the Russian accession to the World Trade Organization [in 2012]. They did not have any other agenda. They could have developed a new agenda if the situation had remained favorable as it was under Medvedev, but Putin settled that.
For Obama, Russia turned into a permanent headache. And a headache irritates. It’s not such a strong feeling that other [US] politicians have about Russia.
Max Fisher: Let me ask about the flip side of that. How do you think Putin sees the US now?
Fyodor Lukyanov: He’s utterly anti-American, deeply and sincerely. And it’s not about Obama or Bush or Clinton. It’s about his perception of America as a destructive power.
The most interesting foreign policy statement he made was published one week before his third term began in 2012. The article, “Russia and the changing world,” was extremely interesting and substantial. He expressed everything that happened after. His core perception was that the United States is a country that misuses its might and creates even more chaos in the contemporary world, which is anyway very chaotic and unpredictable. Americans, by what they do, just worsen the situation.
The idea was not to challenge America, but to protect Russia. This is how he sees the world, with the United States as a really destructive and destabilizing power.
Max Fisher: Is there anything you believe the Russian leadership misunderstands about the United States, or that you wish they understood better?
Fyodor Lukyanov: The Russian leadership has no clue about how the American system works, how complicated it is.
For example, after Putin’s 2011 decision to exchange with Medvedev [in which the two switched positions of prime minister and president], he said, “Look at the United States. Obama and Hillary both ran for the presidency, but then they sat down and decided who would be president and Obama won that.” How the American system works, it’s not a big interest to our leadership.
I think right now there’s a better understanding of the differences between your president and your Congress. Before, it was the perception that the American president can do anything he wants, and all of these references to a hostile Congress are just bullshit. But now I think there’s a better understanding that Congress can be extremely disruptive whatever the administration is trying to do. This has become another argument that it doesn’t make sense to try with them.
Max Fisher: Is there no effort to play Congress and the president off of one another?
Fyodor Lukyanov: No, because contrary to Europe, where there are all options to use splits, in the United States, Russia has absolutely no influence in Congress. We don’t have a lobby, we don’t have special leverage there.
http://russia-insider.com/en/hillary-worst-option-how-moscow-sees-american-politics/ri6468
Great, true post and even greater comments. I can only add that this woman will finish off the Dems if she is nominated. She is widely disliked and distrusted among those who are supposed to be her “core” constituents- i.e. women- who perceive that she’s an oligarch’s shill who is only pandering with her platitudes about “equality” and being one of the “folks”.
I seriously doubt the MSM will allow the sheeple to know that anyone else is capable of running.
She’s been anointed, selected and none of her “issues” will see the light of day in the MSM.
The Wall Street Journal reports Hillary Clinton met privately in San Francisco on Wednesday with a small group of potential high-dollar donors to the Priorities USA Action super PAC. It was her first donor meeting aimed at supporting the political-action committee that is backing her presidential campaign. The meetings mark an escalation in fundraising by Clinton, who is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, at a time when Republican donors are funding super PACs to back candidates.