The New Republic

Hey Peretz what do you make of this: Hillary's Home Run of a Speech by Tunku Varadarajan September 8, 2010 | 12:16pm Varadarajan Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton speaks at the Council on Foreign Relations September 8, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Mark Wilson / Getty Images) The secretary of State delivered the best speech of the Obama administration this morning. Tunku Varadarajan on her “new American moment”—and why she’s better than her boss. Behold the Hillary Doctrine. And heap abundant gratitude—and rose petals if you have them on hand—on the firm, unfussy, deeply reassuring woman who has just offered it up to the world. In the 20 months since this administration began administering (a verb I use only in the loosest sense), the speech Wednesday morning by Hillary Clinton, delivered at the Council on Foreign Relations, was the first time we have been given an unreserved lift of the heart by any of its members. It was, by far, the best speech of this administration. Whereas her president has frequently wrung his elegant hands, doing the rounds of the world to reassure foreign leaders that America is a cuddly bunny at heart, the secretary of State declared Wednesday that we are all living “a new American moment—a moment when our global leadership is essential.” There was no bowing from her to potentates in robes; there was, instead, a promise that “we will do everything we can to exercise the traditions of American leadership at home and abroad.” What is so piquant here is not the fact that Hillary understands that Obama is president. It is the growing sense that Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama. Try this for size: “The United States can, must and will lead in the new century.” In order to do that, Clinton promised “a new global architecture,” “built to last and withstand stress.” And in a muscular departure from the way in which this administration—for fear of seeming Bush-like—has been shrinking from the unembarrassed propagation of American values, she uttered these plainspoken, unadorned words: “Democracy needs defending.” Human rights, too, came in for a robust airing: China was scolded, and exhorted to follow “the rules of the road” in its aspiration to be a great power; as was Russia, for its invasion of Georgia. The message: We may live in a multipolar world, but we have higher standards by far than those who would style themselves as our equals. Clinton used phrases like “American might,” words that we are more accustomed to hearing from Republicans—words that we’ve come to believe that many Democrats can’t bear to voice. How refreshing, therefore, that she should reach into a vocabulary of pride that most American citizens would applaud. Hillary Clinton invoked the name of Dean Acheson in her reference to the need for “good, old-fashioned diplomacy,” and there certainly was an air of the Achesonian, of the statesman, about her speech. Good, old-fashioned diplomacy, it should be noted, is in contrast to Obama’s apparent preference for seeing America as a nation like any other, only a bit bigger, richer, and better-armed. Clinton’s “old-fashioned” diplomacy is based, by contrast, on the unquestionable premise that America is the world’s leader. Not primus inter pares; just primus. • Heather Hurlburt: Hillary Explains HerselfIn her speech, Clinton referred to the sources of “American might.” The first, of course, is “economic power.” But it is her hailing of the second—America’s “moral authority”—that was so invigorating. It was Acheson who said: “The most important aspect of the relationship between the president and the secretary of state is that they both understand who is president.” What is so piquant here, in this administration, is not the fact, plain to behold, that Hillary understands that Obama is president. It is the growing sense that Hillary would have made a much, much better president than Obama. Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Fellow in Journalism at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU's Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor a

- basman

September 8, 2010 at 5:53pm

The Administration can't go directly to an appellate court or the Supreme Court, so it would probably have to start in the District Court where this nutcase is located and then probably go to the 11th Circuit, which may or may not be "civilized." (It might be possible to seek permission to bypass the appellate court, but someone has to make a record.) In any case, there is no law against being disgusting--obscene, yes, but not disgusting. It always amazes me when people think (see the revisionist story as well as this blog) that the Consitution exists solely to enact their own personal likes and dislikes. The best thing to do with the Koran-burner is to ignore him, which of course will not happen, and perhaps for President Obama to renounce and repudiate the act if it does occur. He doesn't have to apologize, but he does need to be briefer and less equivocal than he was on the Ground Zero mosque issue. And of course the next best thing we can do in amelioration is just shut up and let people build their houses of worship anywhere they are legally permitted, because that is the law and the proper way to show that we are not like "them." Otherwise, the terrorists win.

- mlottman

September 8, 2010 at 9:13pm

Eric Holder with Robert Gates should get the injunction. This is not free speech or a freedom of religion, this is fighting words designed to provoke. The Sec of Defense has a strong argument against this action. Even if you lose in court at least you fought the battle.

- CRS9TNR

September 8, 2010 at 9:27pm

Well of course Hillary should have been the nominee. IMO. Not that I don't like Obama. Still... But I digress. The problem is, disgusting and horrible as the Koran burning is do we have a Constitutional right to prevent it? I think it could be proven to be hate speech then maybe? Anyhow I hope this disgusting, barbaric fools will "pray on it" and decide to act like Americans, not Nazis.

- Sophia

September 9, 2010 at 1:07am

I don't see how one could constitutional stop it. It's a horrible, stupid idea, but the world is full of such. So, I'm with you, Sophia, although I suspect that this creep doesn't understand the distinction you make.

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 9:01am

"Anyhow I hope this disgusting, barbaric fools will "pray on it" and decide to act like Americans, not Nazis." "Several diplomats familiar with the selection process for director-general of the U.N. Education Scientific and Cultural Organization said yesterday that Farouk Hosni's candidacy could now be doomed, after he told the Egyptian parliament that if any Israeli books were found in Egyptian libraries, he would burn them. Such a statement is "couched in the language and actions of Nazi 'Minister of Culture' Josef Goebbels," the director for international relations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Shimon Samuels, said in a letter to the current Unesco director-general, Koïchiro Matsuura of Japan. "An aspirant book-burner, who threatens to wield culture as a weapon, cannot head the intellectual arm of the United Nations." http://www.nysun.com/foreign/egyptians-bid-for-un-post-in-doubt-over-burn-quip/78844/ "Egypt's culture minister says a Western conspiracy "cooked up in New York" prevented him from becoming the next head of the U.N.'s agency for culture and education. Farouk Hosny says "European countries and the world's Jews" wanted him to lose." http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archive/2009/09/book-burning-anti-semite-farouk-hosni-ac/index.shtml

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 10:11am

Oh man. This fool was seriously being considered for an important UN position? L'shana tova noga!

- Sophia

September 9, 2010 at 12:13pm

You know what? I was wondering if one of those water-bombing planes that they use to fight forest fires could "accidentally" head off-course, find itself flying low over Gainesville, and mistake the flames on the lawn for a raging forest blaze.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 1:39pm

I denounced US newspapers who sided with the censors and the goons in the Danish cartoon case, but publicized Qur'an-burning is qualitatively different -- mere "fighting words" with no intellectual or innocent content. Getting an injunction might be problematic, however. As Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes once put it, "there are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge." (1) Perhaps the local fire department could be standing by with a fire hose, ready to douse the fire (as well as the minister and accomplices) before it could get stared. If the fire department were reluctant, perhaps some veterans could commandeer a fire truck on their own. (2) Perhaps the Obama Administration could summon up an impromptu secret military exercise in the area, and prohibit all photo-taking. (It is the photos, after all, that render Qur'an-burning dangerous.) But cameras are much easier to obtain and conceal nowadays.

- hcunn

September 9, 2010 at 10:49pm

Mlottman- fwiw, amen. Dhurtado

- NR143296

September 10, 2010 at 9:05pm