Super-Hillary, Obama surfait

Le chroniqueur Steve Clemons, très écouté à Washington, éventuellement relais d’influence pour les Français, est plutôt de tendance républicaine modérée et réaliste. Son homme politique favori est le sénateur (républicain) Chuck Hagel, qui n’est pas dans la course à la présidence (mais que Clemons aimerait voir à un poste de responsabilité de la prochaine présidence, y compris une présidence Hillary Clinton...). Clemons donne assez peu souvent des avis circonstanciés sur les démocrates. Il le fait cette fois, dans une chronique très intéressante en date du 17 décembre, où il compare les deux favoris démocrates, notamment d’après son expérience et ses rencontres avec eux. Il s’agit plutôt d’un avis de “technicien” du travail politique à Washington, mais aussi d'un avis de spécialiste de politique extérieure, d’un homme (Clemons) qui a été longtemps conseiller de politique extérieure du sénateur républicain Jeff Bingaman.

Verdict sans appel: Hillary est une formidable machine politique certes mais elle a surtout un véritable esprit politique, avec ses idées propres, ses conceptions, ses orientations. On comprend que Clemons juge, toutes opinions de parti mises à part, qu'elle ferait une formidable présidente. Obama, par contre, bien que très intelligent, apparaît bien superficiel à Clemons et sans véritable goût pour les grandes affaires politiques. Clemons donne notamment l’exemple, qui nous intéresse spécialement, du travail d’Obama à la tête de la sous-commission (Europe) de la Commission sénatoriale des Relations Extérieures: quasiment nul, avec aucune audition depuis qu’il en est le président. Clemons estime que Obama est moins bon dans ses discours de politique extérieure inspirés par l’ancien conseiller de sécurité du président Bill Clinton, Antony Lake, que dans ceux qui sont inspirés par l’ancien conseiller de sécurité nationale du président Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski… Le simple fait que Obama puisse, de cette façon, changer d’orientation et de capacité au gré d’“influences” n’est pas encourageant.

«…That said, there is a great deal I do admire in Hillary Clinton – and one of the things that simply can't be disputed is her work ethic. I've met her a number of times, usually at receptions – and each time I decided not to waste the moment with trivial banter but to throw an idea at her or mention a person or issue that would help me understand how real, how informed, or alternatively – how contrived – she was.

»Every single time she jumped on the issue I brought up and expressed two or three dimensions to the issue that showed she was deeply steeped in this or that policy. In my New America Foundation role, I helped build and support programs as diverse as debates about genetic scientific advancements to family work issues, health care, and wireless spectrum – not to mention my own core interests in foreign policy, national security/defense issues, and international economic policy. Hillary Clinton and I have had quick encounters that involved her sharing incredibly diverse and serious policy commentary.

»The last time I had such a discussion with her was after she had won her last Senate race in New York, and she and Bill Clinton were a bit early to a UN Foundation reception honoring Muhammad Yunus. We had a really interesting discussion about what should be on a roster of 21st century threats and how our national security and foreign policy resources should be reorganized to deal with future challenges rather than keeping vested interests tied to old threats well funded. Her quick grasp of what I was trying to get at – and a detailed response that was serious and level-headed – really surprised me as I'm used to politicians who typically have to fake their way through detail.

»I get the sense that Barack Obama is also extremely intelligent, though I've not had the same kind of encounters with him that I have had with Hillary Clinton and thus can't give personal commentary.

»But I am convinced of something about Hillary Clinton's commitment to use every lever and every aspect of government machinery to push her legislative and policy work that I'm disappointed to say that I can't find as strongly in Barack Obama's profile. My concern has to do with the fact that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe, Obama has held zero hearings – at least that is how the record appears to me.

»Compare this to the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe, which is having constant hearings – or to the Senate Subcommittee's work before Obama became Chair – or to a comparative commitment of Hillary Clinton on a Subcommittee she chairs, and the zero hearing detail is disconcerting.

(…)

»Senator Obama has a great team. Some of his staff are friends and former colleagues of mine – though i can say the same about every one of the presidential candidates in both parties.

»But his not calling any hearings in a Senate Subcommittee he chairs ought to raise some questions that he needs to respond to. His Subcommittee deals with Europe, with NATO, with various related political and security matters – and he's got the gavel and can set the agenda.

»Given the stress NATO is experiencing today on many fronts – from the question of Europe's evolving security identity, to NATO's deployments in Afghanistan, to the evolving question of how to deal with Russia, Kosovo, and other common challenges – it seems inconceivable that Senator Obama would not want to highlight important policy concerns by way of hearings.

»I hope Senator Obama looks at this post as something to respond constructively to – as we need to understand how this gap would be fixed or translate into a White House setting.

»But while I want Hillary Clinton to get more creative (and Nixonian, in the good sense) in looking at foreign policy deal-making through a different lens, particularly on Israel/Palestine matters and Cuba – which are important opportunities to telegraph change in America's posture to the rest of the world – I want to commend the fact that she does work every aspect of the legislative machinery and knows these policy issues well.»

Mis en ligne le 20 décembre 2007 à 14H23