This piece fits perfectly into a series of Hillary-praising articles on your blog. What is that great obsession with her, Mr. Rothkopf? For a foreign minister who assists her country in three wars and piles blunder after blunder, she gets remarkably good press.

- Greece. The US supported the Greek recovery plan last year. Did it work? No. Did you bail them out? No. Where is the real triumph?

- Pakistan. So you quote a Kansas City Star article, that refers to (without any link to the actual article!) an English-language newspaper stating Pakistanis love Hillary. Nevermind that US-Pakistani relations are on an all-time low. The Secretary of State has let US relations plummet with one of the most important strategic partners (the Afghan war is here to stay!). Where is the real triumph?

- China. She acknowledged that China is the most important counterpart of the US. Wow, this is quite a development. Did she declare that the sky is blue, too?
With regard to the Hong-Kong speech, I was unlucky enough to read it, it was plainly awful. She basically told the Chinese how to behave, like a self-righteous kindergarten-teacher. Pretty much like her declarations with regard to investment in Africa. She has quite a knack for diplomatic discussions with the "most important counterpart", doesn't she?

Please, name one area where she did a good job, i.e. one part of the world where she improved American image or relations. She alienated China, disregarded Brazil, angered Pakistan, abandoned the Arab Spring, supported dictators (Egypt, SA), failed to reach accommodation with Iran, showed weakness in Japan (fishing boat incident) and supported a new war. Even the traditional allies like Europe and India are viewing the developments with distrust. To paraphrase Mussolini:
"Hillary belongs to the category of Americans who are a disaster for their country. She talks about making war right and left, without naming an enemy or defining an objective". Yes, that was originally said about Ribbentrop.

Great points Nicolas19. After seeing the headline of the post I thought I was in for something interesting, but instead, rothie praises clinton who is about as establishment as one can get. And it is the current establishment that is has gotten America in the current mess.

i'd like to take the drugs the writer must be on. Socialist filth will always only be socialist fitlh.

"The focus on the U.S.-India relationship is, as the trip also revealed, part of an even broader reorientation of U.S. foreign policy under President Obama."

Really. As I recall, President Bush made India a centerpiece of his foreign policy and relations between the two countries improved considerably during his tenure. The Indians were quite fond of Bush and a majority were among the few peoples of the world who viewed his foreign policy favorably. He was the first president to attend an ASEAN Summit and the first to appoint a US ambassador to ASEAN. The bilateral civilian nuclear agreement was considered a triumph by many in both countries. Even the freaking NY Times gave him kudos for our improved relations with India proclaiming it a foreign policy success, perhaps his greatest foreign policy success.

And I recall that there was no little trepidation about Bush's successor and it was generally agreed among Indians that the best thing Obama could do would be to continue Bush's policies. I also recall that on her first trip to Asia as Secretary, Hillary Clinton snubbed the Indian sub-continent.

So, spit polish Hillary's pumps if you must, but don't pretend she's blazing new trails in India. Or that the focus on US-India relations represents a reorientation of US policy.

sukietawdry beat me to it. I noticed too the contention that "a central legacy of [HRC's] efforts at State ... is the elevation of the U.S.-India relationship to being a centerpiece of America's 21st century foreign policy." So she's resurrecting Bush43 policy, and this makes her a "political leader with a vision of tomorrow." Does her "vision of tomorrow" include a primary challenge?

The American People will have to forget a lot to tolerate Clinton running for public office again.

First item that comes to mind is the debacle in Libya. I remember it was the "three women" that pushed into a war in Libya, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. I remember the optimism and smiles and promises of a campaign of "days, not weeks" and the bragging that the operations were not US, but NATO, even if there were fewer involved countries than the Iraq war, and no AUMF to back up the use of military force.

Second item that comes to mind is the precarious relationship with Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. It is not clear that Ms. Clinton's efforts have improved our relationship. Instead, it seems that Pakistan harbored Taliban forces, effectively ignored Osama Bin Laden in their midst, and I have not been assured that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal are secure or that the terrorists that have attacked Mumbai are even noticed by Pakistan or the ISI. I fear, in fact, that the ISI is helping those terrorists.

Third, it seems to me that our relations with Russia and China have not been on the mend since Ms. Clinton took the reins from Ms. Rice. Did pressing the "reset" button improve the situation for fledgling Democracy in Georgia? Has she eased the tensions between the PRC and ROC? No, instead her husband gets called in for high profile photo ops like rescuing "journalists" and "hikers" in North Korea and Iran, and tarnishing his hands with some dirty cash scheme in the Haiti rescue.

I'm not impressed with Hillary Clinton, it's obvious. What I believe is that most of the voters in the US will not need much urging to not be impressed either.

Good grief, my expectations for insight and trenchant commentary at FP.com are not particularly high, but this post is a dropfall from even that low threshhold.

Pathetic to think anyone doesn't or cannot admit Bush established the standard for US/Indian relations.

I do not really know what Hillary Clinton's ambitions for her legacy on foreign policy might be, but so far, it's pretty thin gruel. Time is running out. Perhaps she should engineer a coup in Damascus -that might actually save her in the history books.

The scales of heedlessness have fallen from my eyes and it was revealed how the world is really run.

A “politician has been on the other side of the world … advancing American interests and the policies of the president with meaningful results and exceptional skill. That politician is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is just completing an around-the-world mission that has taken her from the economic frontlines of the jenna jameson crisis to the markets of tomorrow in Asia. The trip, obscured in the noise around the debt ceiling debate, has been a real triumph for the Obama administration and has revealed that many of its policies over the past two years are now bearing significant fruit.” “Democrats … are increasingly restive as they balance loyalty to Obama and their own commitment to preserving entitlement programs and tax equity, core principles which they see as being chucked overboard in the interest of appeasing tea party Republicans... ‘Every policy outcome for liberals is a loss at this point,’ said a senior party operative … A Washington Post survey released last week found that the percentage of self-described liberals who ‘strongly’ support the president’s performance on jobs has fallen 22 points [since last year], from 53 percent to 31 percent now. The percentage of African-American Democrats … who think he’s doing a good job on the economy has plummeted from 77 percent last year to a little over 50 percent now... Most liberals have nonetheless always closed ranks around Obama, and he remains the most popular leader of their party in a generation.... The White House, led by Stephanie Cutter, … keeps in regular contact with progressive leaders. Shortly before Obama’s Monday night speech to the nation Cutter checked in with the group, which pressed her politely on the Medicare proposal; Cutter reportedly assured them that the deal was off the table.”

One would think it would be, but I think not. "The national interest" is the interest of the nation's PEOPLE, not the interest of political expediency, but the latter seems to be what is perceived(or, claimed to be perceived) to be in the national interest these days. Many people claimed the war in Iraq was in the national interest, but what specific interest did it serve? Mostly Dubya's Daddy issues. Also, I bet Saddam's hanging, while deserved, had someone in the USA behind it somehow. Saddam knew Iraq had dealings with the US years ago and Bush Jr. couldn't just let that knowledge stay out in the open. So to answer your question no, often the government could care less about the national interest, e.g. RIO the interests of the people, in forming policy..