From the Associated Press this morning:

SOCHI, Russia — Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday praised President Barack Obama's decision to scrap plans for a missile defense system in Europe and urged the U.S. to also cancel Cold War-era restrictions on trade with Russia.

So... Vlad got what he wanted and now, sensing weakness, wants more. And this time his desire is nice and vague.

Nicely played.

You're wrong. As your #1 fan Spencer Ackerman points out, the Secretary of State addressed this this morning. Did you check with a State spokersperson or even use the Google before writing this Dick Morris-esque question about Sec. Clinton? That's rather cruel hyperbole, but still...

"President Obama remains a novice in foreign affairs..." Unlike that rocket scientist who had the job before him...

Honesty, integrity, curiosity, and a good mind are a splendid start in that game. The lack of these basic qualities yields debacles like the previous eight years.

I'm sure the merchants of death are very upset over this move.

I realize i'm probably thinking too 'old' here. What did we get for this. When we moved the outdated missiles out of Turkey, I felt the face saving move was kind of obvious. What now? There had to be some gain in this someplace....

I was very annoyed by how poorly Obama framed this, that the media took the "abandoning allies/backing down to the Russians" frame, and for the Secretary of State to be out of sight. Ultimately, the blame must go to Obama for this, but since this issue is so tangential to electoral politics I'm not too surprised that it was given little effort.

How's this: Secretary Clinton talks to the press the day before this is announced and articulates a policy of disarmament and non-proliferation as safer than an arms race, especially when strategic nuclear weapons are far less relevant and loose nukes are much more dangerous and likely. Obama announces that he has decided to side with the people of Eastern Europe and, in the interests of peace, to avoid an arms race in a region where NATO forces are clearly dominant. He reassures the world that United States maintains a credible deterrent against Iranian nuclear ambitions and will aggressively pursue a diplomatic settlement in order to keep the Middle East from further destabilizing. The press run the headline "Obama takes giant step toward nuclear disarmament and relaxed tensions."

Sound better?

I've already asked what I thought was the relevant question about the missile defense thing -- granted that strategic missile defense is a fiscal rathole that should have been closed long ago and should be closed now, were we not able to get something from the Russians in exchange for what, to them, would seem a significant concession?

Opinions about Sec. Clinton seem to vary. Steve Clemons detects her "hidden hand" in Obama administration policy decisions; David Rothkopf is enthusiastic about what her remarks to the effect that corruption in other countries is now an American national security issue. Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/18/AR2009091803739.html)had a story the other day about the importation of Hillaryland into the State Department, and Hillaryland seems to be spinning almost as furiously as it did during the campaign. Kessler's story has all of the highlights we've seen in stories about Clinton since she was First Lady -- how well-informed she is, how thoughtful, how sensitive yet tough, complete with quotes from well-placed people.

Kessler also included an odd couple of paragraphs having to do with the head of the State Department's Policy Planning Office having devoted months of her time to listening to the Secretary and helping her put her remarks in the context of a new foreign policy paradigm. It isn't hard to think of earlier Secretaries of State who might have benefitted from such a service, but I struggle to think of any successful ones who would have.

Here's what I think: President Obama hasn't worked out how he wants to make foreign policy decisions yet. I'm not talking about individual decisions, but decisions about policy generally. Anyone on his team knows that they may or may not become central to the process of making any one decision, and knows also that this is true of a large number of other people. Obama also has on his large team a number of advisors held over from the campaign, whose interest and expertise in protecting Obama's image is valued by a President strongly influenced by his experience as a candidate. Their interest, reflecting Obama's, is that the President always be seen as the origin of any significant administration policy -- significant being defined as likely to attract media attention. Sec. Clinton is, as one might expect, aware of and sensitive to this and conducts herself accordingly.

Clinton is also the kind of person one advises, not the kind one turns to for advice in a field with which she is not intimately familiar. Obama probably values her opinion lightly on a number of urgent foreign policy problems; despite this, he probably feels obliged to consult with her -- and because she heads a major department, what she communicates to him may be influential. This fact gives others in Obama's administration a strong incentive to stay on her good side. I say this without intending to derogate in any way Clinton's very real industry and keen political sense, qualities that made her many friends during her time in the Senate.

Clinton's record of accomplishment in the Senate, though, was less impressive. That's what concerns me about her tenure at the State Department. A lot of effort in Obama's administration appears to go toward making sure everyone is on the same page and is getting along with one another. Worthy though this objective is, the amount of effort being devoted to it concerns me.

I would have preferred someone like Richard Holbrooke, or even Dennis Ross, as Secretary of State; if you want a bigger role in foreign policy for the State Department, appoint someone who has made foreign policy his life's work to run it. It isn't just a question of expertise or experience, important as those are. It's just that it remains true that a Secretary of State's ability to direct foreign policy depends on the quality of his (or her) relationship with the President. Dean Acheson, an expert on this subject, said that a big part of this relationship had to do with the President not trying to be Secretary of State and the Secretary never deluding himself that he was President. For Obama, who does sometimes see himself as a super-Secretary of State, getting that part of the relationship right requires confidence in his Secretary of State's judgement far greater than any he has shown, or is likely to show, in Clinton's.

Kessler noted one other thing I thought interesting in his Post article. Clinton, coming from politics, has a very different background than other Secretaries of State in the last sixty years (the exceptions were Christian Herter, Secretary in Eisenhower's administration after Dulles died, and Edmund Muskie in Jimmy Carter's). If we go back a little farther, though, we find a very long serving Secretary who, like Clinton, had a strong political base, many friends on Capitol Hill, and deep interests in what we would today call his own foreign policy agenda, usually not opposed to but distinct from that of the President he served. This was Cordell Hull, Franklin Roosevelt's Secretary of State. Hull had some successes -- in particular, the longtime American promotion of trade liberalization is his legacy as much as anyone's -- but with respect to the issues most important to Roosevelt, Hull was regularly bypassed and often ignored. I wonder if, at the end of the Obama administration, we will look on Hull as the Secretary of State with whom Hillary Clinton has the most in common.