The real top three in foreign policy: definitely not Kerry, maybe not Hillary

Listening to Hillary Clinton at her confirmation hearing, I was reminded again of my belief that the Deity has ADD. Too many crises. Would it be too much to ask that He (or She) offered them up one at a time, or at least in more manageable clusters? Clinton seemed calm (who wouldn't? the hearings at least in their first hour, have been a love fest) and I am reminded that I think she's going to do very well on the job. But people will make mischief with tracking donations to the Clinton Global Initiative and Senator Lugar had it right when he said the only way to really avoid questions about a conflict of interest was to get the CGI to renounce foreign donations. It won't happen. But mark my words, there will come a time in the next few years when all involved wish they had.

Meantime, today's Washington Post talks about the new top three in foreign affairs. They mean President Obama, Clinton and new Senate Foreign Relations chairman John Kerry. My guess is Kerry doesn't make it into the top 10 in terms of practical policy-making reality.

Ahead of him: Obama, VP Joe Biden, Hillary, Defense Secretary Gates, National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Treasury Secretary Geithner, National Economic Advisor Larry Summers and probably UN Amb. Susan Rice, Gen. Petraeus, Clinton deputy Jim Steinberg...oh and probably Bill Clinton. And Tom Friedman.

In fact, even Hillary is no shoo-in to stay in the top three. Dems don't do strong Secretaries of State very well. Who was the last strong Democrat Secretary of State? Dean Acheson? No, probably Marshall. I think she has a shot, but events could unfold in such a way that the defense folks take the lead (as during the Bush years) or the econ folks take the lead (as during the Clinton years).

A very smart take on this is in today's Wall Street Journal, Gerald Seib's column "Obama Will Be Hands-On Chief." My money is on a very strong White House, White House-centric policy making, and periodically frustrated cabinet secretaries, departments...and of course, all those many, many czars out there. It's not just because of who's where. It's also because the historical trend in the world of the 24-hour news cycle is toward keeping decisions close to the president.

And yes, there is a world of non-Hillary news today:

Prince Harry behaves like an idiot. This is a big story? The Brits may look down on American culture but they are spending more on reality TV than we would ever dream of. The monarchy is their equivalent of "The Girls Next Door" or "Rock of Love" and makes precisely the same contribution to society. I think the Kardashians actually make a greater contribution, since they actually run a small clothing shop and Bruce Jenner manages to promote both physical fitness and plastic surgery, so this may be an unfair comparison.

I understand Davos is going to have quite a turnout this year. What are these people thinking? If I were a shareholder and I found out my ceo was flying off in the corporate jet to this earnest but more or less useless for business Bloviatapalooza, I would be pretty cranky. Save $50,000 and read about it in the FT. It's just not justifiable. (Same for U.S. government officials, of course.)

Check out: "As China's Jobless Numbers Mount, Protests Grow Bolder" in the Washington Post and "Trade Losses Rise in China, Threatening More Jobs" in The New York Times. They suggest several key conclusions: this isn't just our recession, the crisis is not just economic, it's going to be increasingly political, and keep your eye on China, if there's another dip globally later this year, it could well be that the contagion starts there. (No guarantees. The Chinese are very pragmatic and often very smart about how to manage the challenges they face. But, the odds and stakes are high enough to keep our eye on this particular risk set.)