Experts are re-evaluating Hillary Clinton's effectiveness as secretary of state, saying she left little evidence of a lasting legacy and was notable for her unwillingness to take risks.
Though Clinton was widely praised in the media in the days and weeks immediately after she stepped down, comparisons with current Secretary of State John Kerry have prompted growing questions about her leadership,
reports Politico Magazine.
"Hillary was risk-averse; Kerry isn't. He's risk-ready," Aaron David Miller, former Middle East peace negotiator for five presidents and scholar at the Wilson Center, told Politico. He suggests that political maneuvering for the 2016 presidential election "explains partly why she didn't own a single issue of consequence."
"She was a fine secstate but not consequential," Miller said.
Republicans continue to criticize the former first lady for her handling of the 2012 Benghazi attacks, but overall, experts from both parties agree her service was of little consequence, according to the magazine.
"Certainly, even many of her most ardent defenders recognize Hillary Clinton had no single accomplishment at the State Department to her name, no indelible peace sealed with her handshake, no war averted, no nuclear crisis defused," writes Susan Glasser, editor of Politico Magazine.
American Enterprise Institute's vice president of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, Danielle Pletka, reinforces that view.
"The Washington consensus is that she was enormously ineffective… [though] no one was quite sure whether she was ineffective because she wanted to avoid controversy or because she wasn't trusted by the president to do anything," Pletka told Politico.
Related stories:
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.