Well, maybe here is the case to be made for Hillary:
The authors describe her State Department leadership as strong but not dazzling: a “workmanlike enhancement of diplomacy and development” with “deliverables” that were real but not high-profile — no “marquee peace deal,” for example. But she elevated the stature of State, which lost influence to the CIA and Pentagon during the years when two wars dominated the foreign policy landscape. She worked to win over her employees, fighting for budget increases and going to bat for Foggy Bottom bike commuters. As a member of the Cabinet, she brought star power and a venerable understanding of Washington’s “levers of power.”
MichiKak puts it this way:
“To the disappointment of even some of her most ardent supporters,” Ms. Parnes and Mr. Allen write, “Hillary’s legacy is not one of negotiating marquee peace deals or a new doctrine defining American foreign policy. Instead, it is in the workmanlike enhancement of diplomacy and development, alongside defense, in the exertion of American power, and it is in competent leadership of a massive government bureaucracy.”
That’s the pitch: competent leadership of the federal government, unrivaled work ethic, and experience in the ways of Washington. That’s how she both represents a continuation of Obama’s legacy, but with more schmoozing/bullshitting/politicking experience. Plus Bill.