Clinton’s experience is an asset and a liability

• 20 November 2015
• From the section US & Canada

Hillary Clinton tried to make up for a scattered performance on foreign policy during this weekend’s Democratic debate by laying out her vision to tackle the so-called Islamic State.

The Democratic front-runner for US president took a forceful position, calling for no-fly zones over Syria, more sustained airstrikes and ground troops from allies to push back against IS. In her words, she would “defeat the organization”.

“This is a time for American leadership. No other country can rally the world to defeat [IS]. Only the United States can mobilize common action on a global scale,” she said on Thursday. “The entire world must be part of this fight, but we must lead it.”

Ms Clinton’s experience as secretary of state, her detailed knowledge of the issues and her views on US leadership were on display on Thursday. However they are both an asset and a liability.

Her command of the subject matter sets her apart from many of the Republican candidates who still struggle to speak with confidence about foreign policy issues.

But having served in President Barack Obama’s cabinet makes her time as secretary of state an easy line of attack for Republicans. They describe her as part and parcel of a failed foreign policy that has weakened the US on the global stage and is responsible for letting IS grow out of control in Syria.

That said, Ms Clinton is much more assertive than Mr Obama on the need to project US power and was often frustrated with the president’s reluctant style of leadership on the global stage.

Her views could appeal to centrist voters and independents who care more about national security more than the average Democratic voter.

Ms Clinton’s performance on Saturday, a day after the Paris attacks, reflected her struggle balancing between her instincts about foreign policy and the need to stay aligned with the president. It ended up putting her in the odd position of sometimes sounding more reluctant on world affairs than her more dovish democratic rivals with no foreign policy experience.

Ms Clinton opened herself up to criticism, saying that battling IS was not an American fight during the debate. Though she had added in follow up answers that the US had to lead the fight in a coalition, Republican candidates have seized on the sound bite.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley replied to Ms Clinton’s comment by saying “this actually is America’s fight” and self-described socialist and Vietnam War objector Senator Bernie Sanders was at his most animated when he said “this world, with American leadership, can and must come together to destroy [IS]. We can do that”.

Immediately after the debate, Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton’s campaign communications director, pushed back against the suggestion that Ms Clinton was struggling with the balancing act.

“I don’t think she has to prove her bona fides or her principles when it comes to national security. There are times when has disagreed with the president and she has been very upfront about those,” Palmieri told the BBC.

Ms Palmieri said that Clinton disagreed with those who thought there was a strategic advantage to distancing herself from the president.

Ms Clinton’s cautious comments on stage at the Democratic debate, viewed by eight million people, reflected the mood of Democratic primary voters who are more focused on the economy. These voters express no appetite for a more forceful US role in conflicts such as Syria.

In the 2008 campaign, Ms Clinton’s vote in support of the 2003 Iraq war was a key factor in losing the nomination contest to Mr Obama. While it’s unlikely she could lose the nomination this time, she still needs to make sure she doesn’t alienate a Democratic base that she will need to come out in force on Election Day in November 2016.

On Thursday, Ms Clinton refused to take the bait when she was asked whether Mr Obama had underestimated IS.

She said “it was not useful to go back and re-plough old ground”. When asked whether the Paris attacks complicated her alignment with the president, she dismissed the question saying they had had their differences but that they had made a good team.

But her speech and comments were rife with examples of where she differed with her former boss, from having advocated arming the Syrian rebels early on in the conflict to calling today for a no-fly zone in Syria on Friday.

There’s no doubt that after the Paris attacks, national security is back in focus in the presidential race. But what’s unclear is for how long — much depends on whether there are more attacks against Western capitals. Republicans will likely do everything they can to keep that discussion alive and lay the responsibility of the unfolding chaos in the Middle East at both her and the president’s door.

In September, a Gallup poll showed that 52% of Americans think that the Republican Party does a better job at protecting the country from “international terrorism and military threats” compared with 36% support for the Democratic Party. The two parties are almost tied when it comes to the question of who does a “better job keeping the US prosperous”.

Ms Clinton aides are banking on that a year from now the economy will still be voters’ primary concern. In the frenzied aftermath of the Paris attacks, it’s easy to overestimate the impact of the attacks on the presidential race in the US. But Democrats, and Ms Clinton, could also end up underestimating it.