As far back as the 1960s, friends and acquaintances of Clinton's had speculated that she might one day be the first female President of the United States of America. Certainly she always had the intelligence to hold an office that has frequently been described as the most powerful on Earth, and her years of experience on the frontline of American politics and proven track record as a campaigner had, by the early 2000s, made her begin to seriously consider the possibility of running for President.
When she announced her candidacy, she was immediately seen as a frontrunner. Despite this early lead in the campaign, Clinton began to lose ground to Barack Obama following some underwhelming debate performances. The Iowa primary, in which Clinton came third, seemed to shake her position as the 'inevitable' candidate. What followed was a rollercoaster of an election, with results frequently at odds with opinion polls and both sides claiming they were winning the popular vote but using differing calculations to reach their result. Furthermore, the shortcomings of having two 'identity' candidates running against each other, with both sides frequently levelling and receiving accusations of using insensitive language regarding race or gender. Many voters were vocal about how they felt torn between supporting one 'historic' candidate or the other, leading to a frequently bitter race.
From outside the Democratic Party, most commentators now agree that Clinton was the subject of more critical coverage than was Obama. While it's possible that this greater criticism was more a result of her years on the frontline of American politics than her gender, attacks on her were frequently framed in exactly that context, with denunciations of her as 'shrill' and frequent use of the word 'bitch'. This is an unfortunate harbinger of things to come as she competes for the Democratic nomination – and perhaps the presidency itself – once again. Perhaps this time, though, a more united Democratic Party will be able to stand wholly behind her.
Although Clinton's aides believed that playing up her experience as part of the establishment of US politics would help her chances, this tactic failed for two reasons. First, it undermined her claim to a 'historic' candidacy as the first woman to – she hoped – win the nomination of a major party, allowing Obama to paint himself as a genuine 'historic' first: An outsider not just because of his race and social background, but because he was coming from outside the establishment.
Second, much of Clinton's experience inside the establishment had been controversial: She wound up, perhaps unfairly, taking much of the blame for the loss of Congress to the Republicans for the first time in forty years after the Clinton administration failed to pass its healthcare reforms; she was the first First Lady to be subpoenaed; and she had voted for the restrictions of civil liberties in the Patriot Act and for the Iraq War. The latter issue, in particular, was used by the Obama campaign to attack her, and forced her to repeatedly clarify her position on Iraq, coming to a somewhat unsatisfactory position on troop withdrawal which neither satisfied liberals desperate for an end to the war nor convinced conservatives that she was sufficiently tough on terror.
Some of this controversy can be dismissed as unfair, her husband's fault, or simply the result of a historic upheaval in America's politics and its notion of itself in the world. Unfortunately for Hillary's presidential bid, far too much of it seemed to come down to her own (mis)judgment. Her status as an insider may even have contributed to an air of complacency about her campaign, which she must avoid this time around if she is to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency. Her work as Secretary of State may help her there.
Obama's refusal to play identity politics with his vice-presidential nomination did him credit and made John McCain's mad appropriation of the equally mad Sarah Palin look opportunistic. That Palin was virtually impossible to take seriously even before Tina Fey's devastating impression of her on
Saturday Night Live
only added to the feeling that McCain had misunderstood support for Clinton as based in identity politics, not in her personality and genuinely-held beliefs about the rights of women.
In any case, it never seemed likely that someone as fiercely independently-minded as Clinton would accept a vice-presidential nomination – a second go round the White House in the shadow of another politician? No thanks. But the role of Secretary of State was perfect: Already the most-travelled First Lady and with a strong track record on domestic policy from her years as a Senator, being Secretary of State would allow Clinton to add serious foreign policy experience to her already hugely impressive career, shoring up a future presidential bid which no-one ever doubted was on the cards. It would also allow her to keep a bit of distance between her and the Oval Office, so that she wouldn't constantly be under the shadow of the President and would be able to make her own mark.
Nevertheless, it's fairly unusual for presidential rivals to end up working together. In agreeing to do so, Clinton again demonstrated her crossover appeal to conservative America, explaining that a sense of duty made her accept: When the President asks you to serve your country, you do it.
Obama was wise enough to allow Clinton considerable leeway in appointing her own staff, so she was able to take many of her trusted advisors with her in her new role. She quickly began to make an impression, travelling some 70,000 miles in her first 100 days in the job. As usual, she focused on women's issues, appointing more female ambassadors than any previous Secretary of State and encouraging the UN to adopt policies to help women and girls worldwide. She also continued her advocacy for the power of technology, particularly communications technology: She was successful in persuading Twitter to postpone a scheduled maintenance shutdown so that Twitter users could continue to communicate during the 2009 crisis over perceived electoral fraud in Iran.
This is an example of the soft power or 'smart power' that Hillary now advocates. Having renounced her support for the Iraq War, whether for political reasons or out of genuine conviction, she has since argued for a new way of making America's influence felt throughout the world, using other methods than simply military power and publicly acknowledging that the world is increasingly multipolar. However, this use of 'smart power' contradicts the notion that the world is multipolar, replacing it with a continuation of the idea that the US can and should remain the dominant force in the world even when domestic and international opinion has turned against the use of military action and regime change.
Indeed, despite Clinton's use of 'smart power' in Syria (she persuaded the US to lift sanctions specifically for Skype so that it could operate in Syria, connecting dissidents who aimed to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad), she nonetheless advocated for military action, something that was only prevented by, of all things, a vote in the UK's Parliament, where Ed Miliband, the leader of the opposition Labour Party, successfully defeated the Government's motion on sending troops to Syria, prompting an international rethink. Ultimately, Clinton's dedication to smart power lasts only as far as it is effective. If she thinks the military needs to get involved to advance US interests, she'll involve the military. She remains, in essence, as hawkish as she was in her first senatorial term. This may be reassuring for those who always viewed her hawkish side as genuine, but will be worrying for some.
Clinton's record on diplomacy is not always as good as her positive rhetoric on issues such as climate change and the rights of women suggests. Of course, no one would blame a Secretary of State for failing to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict – virtually all of them make some gestures in this general direction but the issue remains as intractable as ever. However, Clinton's callous disregard for the sovereignty of Pakistan during the special ops mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, for all the good publicity the mission generated in the West, caused a souring of relations with Pakistan which undermined her previous good track record in the area. That concerns about alienating a nominal ally of the US, an ally fighting a proxy war on America's behalf her own borders, no less, were so carelessly brushed to one side in pursuit of what, by this stage in the 'War on Terror', amounted to a personal vendetta, should give pause for thought for allies of Obama and Clinton, and for those who hope or believe that US smart power will come to define Clinton's own foreign policy should she become President.
Prior to this, Clinton had impressed the Pakistani government by her willingness to discuss issues with people other than government officials and generals. That side of Clinton, the one willing to listen to ordinary concerns and to take up issues, like climate change and the rights of women, that are frequently ignored, marginalised and ridiculed in mainstream politics, is the one most of her allies want to see in the Oval Office.
Incidentally, both of the issues she has championed on the international stage came together at one point, when she persuaded the UN to spend a large chunk of money on ensuring that women in the developing world had access to clean, safe, and environmentally friendly cooking stoves at home. This is a perfect example of an issue that seems too small to justify much attention, but to which Clinton, with her eye for the ordinary person, was able to bring international funding. This is a concrete example of the positive effects of having women in positions of power, drawing attention to women's issues as
human
issues, not as an awkward subset of a broader struggle.
While Clinton's critics are keen to point out that American-enforced global hegemony is controversial, to say the least, on the international stage, her remarks concerning American defence of the rights of women and girls show a definite change in rhetoric: Rather than sweeping and often ill-defined themes or values, such as 'freedom' or 'democracy', Clinton focuses on the specific plight of women, publicly denouncing the practice of forced marriage or the exclusion of women from the democratic and political process, and making this a cornerstone of her vision of American values, at home and abroad.
Clinton made attempts to patch up the historically tense relationship between the US and Latin America, particularly during a spate of anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislation from many in America. During the 2009 coup in Honduras, she persuaded the ousted president Manuel Zelaya to agree to talks with the insurrectionists. Unfortunately, talks broke down, and the subsequent Honduran elections were denounced by several other Latin American countries.
Nonetheless, the willingness of the US to make moves for peace in Latin America in this case without direct interference was clearly different from the historic tendency of the US to use its military power to crush opposition to US hegemony in Latin America. The decision to engage with both sides to try to reach a peaceful accommodation may even have presaged the opening up of diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba, and the emancipation of the Cuban people from both internally and externally imposed economic deprivation that the ending of those hostilities may promise. However, in other areas, she has been more successful at patching up relations, helping to save a historic agreement between Turkey and Armenia which, among other things, opened the border between those nations.
She also pushed forward UN resolutions on climate change in the teeth of often vigorous opposition from climate-change deniers in the United States. She was able to persuade the Copenhagen summit to give far more money to developing countries to help them cope with the consequences of climate change themselves.
Overall, her tenure as Secretary of State did not feature any major policy breakthroughs. Rather, it set a benchmark for hard work and for a US foreign policy that would involve more smart power and fewer boots on the ground, while not ceding the US' role as the 'indispensable nation' (to advocates) or as 'world policeman' (to critics). This another, clear example of Clinton's slow-but-steady approach to things, a welcome difference from the macho posturing of many of her rivals.
No policy will satisfy everybody and in a post-9/11 world the battle over American foreign policy is as fierce as it has ever been. With regard to Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, one will hear dovish liberals denouncing the attacks on Libya and hawkish conservatives pointing to failures leading up to the deaths of four Americans in the attacks in Benghazi. However, the general public continued to enormously approve of Hillary during her tenure: Her approval ratings were as high as at any time since the Lewinsky scandal and she was repeatedly voted America's most admired woman – thirteen times in a row, at one point – and, with her husband, one half of America's most admired couple.
As one might expect, Clinton didn't exactly go on holiday for a couple of years following the fulfilment of her plan to step down as Secretary of State after Obama's first term. Despite a serious illness following a concussion which caused a blood clot, she finished out her time as Secretary of State by still taking an active role, and then joined her husband and daughter at the Clinton Foundation (now the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation), where she continued to advocate for the rights of women and girls, commissioning major studies into that area with Bill and Melinda Gates. She also took advantage of the international contacts she had made as Secretary of State, working with then Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard on a global initiative to get more girls into school, particularly secondary school.
The Foundation had had to stop taking international donations during her tenure as Secretary of State. However, with that barrier now removed, Clinton was able to draw on her experience as the most well-travelled Secretary of State in history to get new donations to the Foundation from foreign governments, putting that money to use in various campaigns on health, education and – of course – the empowerment of women worldwide.
During this time, Clinton also became a grandmother (as her Twitter bio proudly tells us) and began doing paid speaking engagements at the fairly astonishing price of $200,000 a speech. She also does some unpaid speeches on behalf of the foundation.
During this time, she weathered yet another scandal (she may have been involved in more -gate suffix events than any other human being in history) when it emerged that she had used her private email address to send emails while working as Secretary of State. Having advocated for a strong and open web for years and been at the centre of the WikiLeaks scandal, it's somewhat surprising that Clinton wasn't better briefed on the need for strong internet security in the modern age. There was the additional problem that it would make it difficult for the department to fulfil Freedom of Information requests pertaining to her time as Secretary of State.