Scholars: Clinton diplomacy plan too swift

— -- Hillary Clinton has ignited Democratic audiences on the presidential campaign trail with a promise to send envoys to foreign capitals before she takes office, should she be elected next year.

"I won't even wait until I'm inaugurated," the New York senator told a crowd of about 500 on a recent campaign stop in New Hampton, Iowa.

"The day after I'm elected, I'm going to be asking distinguished Americans of both political parties to travel around the world on my behalf with a very simple message to the governments and the people alike: The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."

The idea that Clinton would assert her foreign policy before being sworn in could weaken the sitting president's authority at a critical time, some leading scholars and former presidential advisers say.

A president-elect setting her own diplomatic agenda during the White House transition also departs from recent administrations and would put her in league more with President Reagan, the experts note.

But Hillary Clinton says dramatic measures are warranted by the state of U.S. relations with the rest of the world, which she says is worse than at any time in history.

"Obviously, these are somewhat unusual times," Clinton said in a Des Moines Register interview. "The country is ready to turn the page on the failed policies of the Bush administration."

Should Clinton win and launch a diplomatic mission before taking office, critics say she could weaken the sitting president's moral authority to act in the closing months of his administration.

"Under the American constitutional system, we elect presidents for four years — no more, but also no less," said James Lindsay, director of the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas at Austin. "Presidents-elect should not exercise their authority before they have it."

The plan could prompt ongoing negotiations, often unseen to the new president, to stall while foreign parties wait for the new administration to take office.

The mission Clinton has discussed could hurt cooperation between the outgoing and incoming administrations during a transition, and leave the new president at a disadvantage, said Ivo Daalder, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

"This is a very tricky period of time, and a smart president-elect realizes you have to be very, very careful, because whatever happens in those 2 months you become responsible the day after," said Daalder, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Daalder was director of European Affairs on the National Security Council during the Clinton administration.

Clinton argued President Bush is guilty of damaging the presidency himself for departing from recent Democratic and Republican administrations' more collaborative foreign policy styles.

"That's why I believe it is very important to send the world a strong message that we are returning to diplomacy," she said. The broader implication of what Clinton is suggesting would set a precedent for future presidents, Lindsay said.

What she is proposing is similar to what Reagan, a Republican, did upon defeating President Carter in 1980.

Reagan said he would defer to Carter on foreign policy as long as the Democrat was in office but promptly formed a committee of 120 foreign policy advisers after the election, many of whom began meeting with leaders of foreign governments.

The political impact of Clinton's proposal more likely would come during the general election campaign although it will be difficult for Republicans to explain, presidential scholar Charles Jones said.

"It probably will be part of a message about the arrogance of power," said Jones, formerly with Brookings. "But it's not easy to put into a sound bite."

The Des Moines Register is owned by Gannett, USA TODAY's parent company.