The rest of the world knows that Kerry was the essential American on the Iran deal, why does HRC

[karynnj]

give herself almost the entire credit. Taking credit for the sanctions is one thing - claiming that she strated the negotiations which were "finished by Onbama and John Kerry". Fact: she personally was barely involved - two people working for her in 2012 were involved in back channel negotiations. They continued in 2013 - obviously not reporting to her. This led to Obama calling Rouhgani - which started the US engaging in very extensive negotiations led by Kerry, with Wendy Sherman. At the end of 2013, they had the interim agreement - and Clinton (and Jake Sullivan her person involved early on ) were mostly negative and gave little hope first that there would be an interim agreement, that the Iranians would keep it, and then that there would be a final agreement.

Bonus point - she claimed that when her healthcare plan failed, she worked with Democrats and Republicans to get health care for millions of children.

Just blowing off steam! This "town hall" is a set up"

[YvonneCa]

1. I've heard her do that several times. I know...

... she is strengthening her 'Commander in Chief' credentials by taking credit for all of it, but it irks me, too.
The sad thing is that it works. Most people don't follow diplomacy that closely and won't know any different.

[karynnj]

2. It bothers me because it is something she constantly does

What does it say of her own integrity and her own self assurance that she regularly takes credit for far more than her share of anything. Just considering John Kerry, here is a list of her overstated claims

1) schip - where Kennedy was clearly the main guy, but Kerry and Hatch would clearly be the number two and three - in either order.

2) Afghanistan - in her book, it was HRC on the phone who persuaded Kharzi using her own experiences - JK was simply there.

3) Iran - already said

4) Syria's chemical weapons - where she calls Kerry's comment a gaffe, no credit, she told Obama to work with Putin after he responded to Kerry's gaffe.

5) Less clear, but she tried to morph the Copenhagen agreement into what pushed things fore=ward on climate change - where in fact, after Copenhagen, Obama thought things unlikely to happen in Paris - Kerry was behind the US/China pact that actually did lead to first Lima - then to Paris.

I seriously doubt that John Kerry is the only one she takes credit from.

[MBS]

3. Thanks!

Last edited Tue Jan 26, 2016, 10:10 AM - Edit history (2)

Nice to know that someone out there felt the same way.

I listened to the Town Hall, too. . .and when she took credit for kick-starting the Iran deal (then, as you said, crediting Kerry only for what sounded, by her description, as minor last-minute clean-up work), I said to myself, Oh, God. She Really Went There. I was just fuming.

Yeah, the health care thing too. Teddy Kennedy played no role in this? Really?
And climate change. To be blunt, she deserves no credit for our progress in this area. The climate change talks, the initiatives to have US embassies across the world "walk the walk" on sustainability in their own practices, the connecting the dots at every turn between environmental and national security issues, this all happened on Kerry's watch, and because he has made these issues a priority not just at State, but during his entire career.

Yes (as you said down-thread), it is really a pattern. And running for President does not excuse her from giving credit where credit is due, or from claiming credit that one does not deserve.

And such a contrast to Sec. Kerry, who lavishly praises his team at State - by individual name- at every significant public moment, at every announcement of progress on the many, many courageous initiatives he's undertaken with persistence and creativity.

Real leaders, the best leaders, the most confident leaders, do not feel the need to claim credit that is not deserved. They are secure enough to be generous to others, and to acknowledge the good work of others. And they acknowledge that they have not achieved their success on their own.

Also, the question that directly asked her about a perceived weakness --and I personally agree that this is a weakness of hers-- that she's slow to acknowledge and apologize for missteps . In her answer, I didn't appreciate her once again blowing off the email thing with a practiced patter, and refusing to acknowledge even that it was an error in judgment, and just kept saying that it wasn't illegal. Hey, setting up a private email server to handle all SoS email was an error in judgment (to say the least), and she would have done herself a big favor by recognizing that before she set up her email that way in the first place, or at least admitting it as soon as the first problems arose. I keep ending up with a suspicion that, in fact, she does not understand to this day what was ethically questionable (and strategically stupid) about setting up her email this way. And that disturbs me most of all.

On that same note, she keeps saying how great it is that she's released all her email - not mentioning the unbelievable amount of extra work her missteps have caused the State Dept, which has been forced to dedicate special staff to collect, review and filter these emails. The number of man-hours involved must be staggering. No thank yous for this, but instead complaints that they're not working fast enough?

OK, I'm letting off steam, too.

I really, really want Sec. Kerry to get the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, he deserves it. Second, I want to see him formally and publicly praised by the world for all that he has done. And, no, Sec. Clinton does not get to share that one.

[karynnj]

5. completely agreed

There was a funny contrast yesterday with Bernie. He was asked about his brother's comment that he was quite the athlete. His answer that families exaggerate, then saying he was good, not great was wonderful. If Hillary had ben captain of any team, I doubt that would be how she phrased it.

I have worked for people who monopolize all credit for any work done out of their group and I worked for people who were supportive, and shared credit. Beyond the fact that it was so much less stressful and more rewarding to work for the latter, they set the tone for the group. They encouraged collaboration and building on each other's work.

Here, she is taking credit for things that she clearly did not do and everyone in the know knows this. However, no one will say anything because it is still very likely this flawed person will be our nominee.


I have the same response to her email dance. I can well understand why the SD has had trouble filling all the extra positions they created. I do not think I ever saw a more lose/lose situation. The best they ever could have done was to get everything out with no slips that put classified stuff out on time. Has that happened, still no praise and the story would revert to the lack of security and the fact that years after the fact, her team did the first split between work and personal. In fact, the entire gigantic effort was designed by HRC just to distract from the real problem - that she did this in the first plsce.

[MBS]

9. I also loved Bernie's description of his family

. . his real-life description of his athletic "career". . and especially his discussion of his family, what his father would say if he could see him as a US Senator. . very moving, very genuine.

Agree, as usual, with everything you said.

[Mass]

4. Same reaction, but this is her normal her

Everything that works is because of her. She bears no responsibility for failure.

I guess this is par for the course in a political campaign, but she seems to bring that to new heights.

Thanks for posting that because I noticed, but I am supporting O'Malley, so I did not want to sound like sour grapes.

[karynnj]

6. I think O'Malley was very good in his part

I really had thought and hoped earlier for a replay of Dean/Gephardt with HRC being seen as too unlikable after reacting to her second noncoronation.

Though I know Bernie did an excellent job as mayor, congressman and Senator, he really still seems an incredible long shot.

[MBS]

7. Frustrating that the Talking Heads keep ignoring O'Malley

If I'm honest with myself, I probably agree with more of what O'Malley says than the two other candidates. In some indefinable way, though, unfortunately, he does not radiate "presidential" in obvious ways. I may well end up voting for him (I am truly undecided at this point ), but he is a long shot

[MBS]

8. . . or depths.

Yes, a genuine character flaw. Nervous about how that will play out in GE and/or White House.

[karynnj]

10. This article about what happens post Kerry and post Zarif really addresses this question

If it really was all Clinton's work - that Kerry and Obama merely finalized and then stole all the credit - there would be no article like this. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iran-us-relations-after-kerry-zarif_us_56a6a018e4b0b87beec5d157

Note that they worry EVEN if HRC becomes President - and her role and her public positions make it pretty clear why she could not have played the role Kerry did.

Here is why one expert though Kerry had a good relationship:

Yet even if a future Republican president decides to abide by the terms of the nuclear deal for practical reasons, it’s unlikely that any of the current GOP candidates would appoint a secretary of state who has Kerry’s ability and inclination to work closely with his or her Iranian counterpart.

Parsi, who is in contact with Iranian diplomats, said they have complained that Kerry is too tough a negotiator, but have always spoken about him with respect. “For the simple reason that he always spoke to them with respect,” Parsi said.

That level of mutual respect is not guaranteed to continue even if a Democrat takes office in 2017. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate, supports the nuclear deal but often describes it as an arrangement imposed by the U.S. on Iran, rather than as a deal unanimously agreed to by all parties.

“I don’t see Iran as our partner in implementing the agreement. I believe that Iran is the subject of the agreement,” she told the Brookings Institution in September.

When it is clear you have no real respect - like the comments here show or the comments of "hunting down the Chinese" - how can you manage to find common ground. If she wins, she needs to avoid a mimi me as Secretary of State.