Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday expressed concern about the case of a Iranian woman sentenced to death for adultery. Only China uses the death penalty more.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday added her voice to the growing international chorus condemning what Iranian human rights activists say is expanding use of execution as almost routine punishment in Iran.

The high-profile case Secretary Clinton cited in a statement is that of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian woman who was handed a sentence of death by stoning after she was found guilty of adultery.

The Iranian government later announced she would not face death by stoning. But Clinton said that other cases where Iranians face execution for “exercising their right to free expression” after the disputed June 2009 elections, or for homosexuality, suggest that many legal cases in Iran are not proceeding “with the transparency or due process enshrined in Iran’s own constitution.”

Both President Obama and Clinton were sharply criticized for remaining tight-lipped during the tumultuous days of public protest following Iran’s presidential election in June 2009. Human rights activists accused the Obama administration of overlooking widely broadcast evidence of rights abuses so as not to jeopardize Obama’s policy of seeking dialogue with the government in Tehran over its nuclear program.

In the president’s defense, administration officials said Obama and other policymakers were concerned that any expression of support for the election protesters could be used by the government against them.

The administration has recently insisted that the offer of dialogue is still open to Tehran, but apparently the lengthening string of showcased executions and imminent executions prompted Clinton to break the administration’s silence.

“The United States urges the Iranian government to halt these executions in accordance with its obligations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and calls for the immediate release of all political prisoners an imprisoned human rights defenders,” Clinton said.

Last month the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, which monitors the Iranian media for death-penalty cases, reported that 135 executions were known to have been carried in Iran so far this year. The foundation listed 399 known executions in Iran in 2009, second in the world behind China (and well ahead of the US, often singled out among Western countries for the use of capital punishment, which carried out 52 last year).

Last month seven Iranians were executed on charges of drug trafficking, although rights advocates say such charges are often leveld against citizens the government is seeking to silence for other reasons.

In addition to Ms. Ashtiani, who has been in prison in Tabriz in northwestern Iran since 2005, Clinton singled out the cases of Jafa Kazemi, Mohammad Haj Aghaei, and Javad Lari, whom she said face “imminent execution” for protesting the 2009 election.

By Howard LaFranchi, The Christian Science Monitor, August 10, 2010

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced new U.S. country specific measures and sanctions against North Korea.

On a recent trip to the Republic of Korea, Robert Einhorn, U.S. Special Advisor for Nonproliferation and Arms Control, discussed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's July 21 announcement of new U.S. country specific measures against North Korea and plans to strengthen current U.S. sanctions against North Korea. "These measures," Mr. Einhorn said, "are not directed at the North Korean people, instead our objective is to put an end to the [North Korean government's] destabilizing proliferation activities, to halt illicit activities that help fund its nuclear and missile programs, and to discourage further provocative actions."

The United States will soon announce and begin implementing new measures to target entities and individuals involved in arms trading, the procurement of luxury goods, and other illicit activities that provide funds for North Korea. This hard currency can be used to support North Korea's nuclear and missile programs and fund luxury goods purchases in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874.

The United States is concerned, said Mr. Einhorn, that North Korea continues to operate a network of trading firms around the world to help facilitate its proliferation-related and other illicit activities.

By publicly naming these entities, these measures have the broader effect of isolating them from the international and commercial system.

United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1718 and 1874 prohibit all countries from purchasing arms, missile technology, and other sensitive items from North Korea. The United States, said Mr. Einhorn, "will urge customers and potential customers to desist from these purchases, and we will actively use Security Council Resolution 1874's provisions for inspecting illicit shipborne and airborne cargoes to deny North Korea hard currency earnings from these illegal activities."

The ultimate goal of sanctions, said Mr. Einhorn, is to increase pressure on the government of North Korea to the point where it recognizes that it is in the country's own best interest to abide by their international obligations, not to pursue provocative activities, and fulfill their commitments to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Voice of America, August 8, 2010

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, arguing that an orchestrated series of global sanctions has brought more economic pain than Iran’s government anticipated, are making a renewed appeal to Iranian leaders to reopen negotiations on the country’s nuclear program.

The administration’s opening to Iran comes as evidence mounts that gasoline shipments to the country have slowed; that at least some banks, from Europe to Pakistan, have cut off dealings with the country for fear that they will lose access to the United States financial system; and that Iranian officials have been unable to get foreign investment for several multibillion-dollar oil and gas projects.

Much of that evidence has been reported by the local news media in the Persian Gulf region and is difficult to confirm, but officials with the United States Treasury Department say they also believe that Iran is having trouble attracting investment for oil and gas projects.

Mrs. Clinton argued that “the scope and reach” of sanctions adopted over the past two months in the United States, Europe and parts of Asia “have had real bite,” and have given the West new leverage.

Still, both Mrs. Clinton, in a 20-minute telephone conversation on Friday, and Mr. Obama, in an unusual assessment to editorial writers and columnists at the White House last week, acknowledged that Iranian leaders might be unwilling to give up the nuclear program — a huge source of national pride — despite the escalating cost.

“It may be that their ideological commitment to nuclear weapons is such that they’re not making a simple cost-benefit analysis on this issue,” Mr. Obama told the journalists.

In a sense, the administration’s latest overtures are testing the theory behind its decision to push for ever tightening sanctions: that the financial punishment would bring Iran to the negotiating table. Critics have questioned the approach from the beginning, and even one of Mr. Obama’s advisers said that while Iran had indicated a willingness to start some kind of talks in September, there was always the chance that the sanctions would backfire, leading the country to “speed up the nuclear program.”

There is also the chance that Iran, which says its nuclear program is for peaceful uses, will figure out ways around the international crackdown, as it has done with past sets of sanctions.

Mr. Obama’s and Mrs. Clinton’s back-to-back public statements appeared to be part of an effort to signal to the Iranian people that the country would continue to suffer if their government did not find what Mrs. Clinton called “a pathway” to negotiations. A senior White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that in coming days, the administration would stress its view that “the economic difficulties experienced by the public” in Iran are being caused by choices the Iranian government is making.

The White House appears to be hoping that continuing economic pressure could drive already disgruntled small business owners in Iran’s influential bazaars to join forces with Iranians who have been agitating for political change since last year’s disputed presidential election.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have long talked about a “two track” system of economic pressure on Iran and continued diplomatic openings, but for a time the focus had been squarely on sanctions. The statements last week, however, indicated a move to re-emphasize opening diplomatic channels, and Mrs. Clinton said that the United States had sent “very clear messages” to the Iranian leadership through European officials in recent weeks.

Mr. Obama said, however, that there had been no direct communications with either President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Neither Mr. Obama nor Mrs. Clinton defined with any precision what steps Iran’s leaders would need to take to build confidence that they were willing to negotiate. Other administration officials, who declined to speak on the record, cited several major demands made by the United Nations Security Council, all of which Iran has rejected for more than four years.

They include a full suspension of all uranium enrichment and providing complete access for international inspectors.

These days, American officials appear to be spending almost as much time trying to assess the impact of economic sanctions as they are to trying to measure Iran’s nuclear progress. So far the reports of the financial effects are largely anecdotal, but taken together they suggest the country is feeling some pain.

The United Nations resolution, for instance, named a company controlled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Khatam al-Anbiya, which has been seeking investors for a key part of the South Pars oil and gas fields.

Iran recently announced that the company was withdrawing from the project, presumably because its involvement was blocking foreign investors.

Another firm, which American officials also suspect of having links to the Revolutionary Guards, appears to have taken over, but so far Treasury Department officials believe there have been no investors.

And while the United Nations resolutions did nothing to block the shipment of refined gasoline into Iran — a step China strongly opposed — the series of sanctions issued by a number of countries in recent weeks appeared to have halted some of those shipments.

According to the White House, eight major companies, including Lukoil, Royal Dutch Shell and Total, have issued public statements that they have halted supplies of gasoline.

The effects of the cutoffs, however, remain unclear since Iran, which imports about 40 percent of its refined petroleum, had stockpiled gasoline in anticipation of the sanctions. It also remains unclear whether the cutoffs could eventually result in shortages, especially if China “backfills” to make up for lost gasoline and investment in Iran’s energy industry as some administration officials fear.

By David Sanger, The New York Times, August 7, 2010

Tuesday’s primaries brought a few surprises. But the voter mandate in Missouri stands out as the One Really Big Thing that might define this fall’s elections.

Seventy-one percent of Missouri voters supported a ballot measure preventing the federal government from forcing anyone to buy health insurance, as dictated by the healthcare law signed by President Obama in March. Missourians aren’t going to stand for the federal government forcing them to purchase health insurance or penalize them if they don’t. In fact, as a result of ObamaCare, Americans seem poised to vote lawmakers out of office who voted for the bill. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) claims she now gets the message, but lucky for her, she is not up for reelection until 2012. Many of her Democratic colleagues are not as fortunate and find themselves in the crosshairs of voter anger over Obama’s healthcare reform folly.

When Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, he and then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton barreled forward with an ambitious healthcare reform agenda that was stunning in the level of control the federal government would have over each and every American. Equally stunning was the public’s rebuke of “HillaryCare” as opposition levels climbed. Like bulls in a china shop, the Clintons kept pushing, and pressured congressional Democrats as well. Public sentiment won.

Republicans took the House in the ’94 midterm elections for the first time in 40 years, due in no small part to the Clintons’ attempt to force government-run healthcare on the nation.

In 2010, it’s deja vu all over again.

After the Clinton debacle in the ’90s, the cavalcade of animated town hall meetings on ObamaCare over the past year and polls indicating anemic support, the message could not have been more clear — yet it was ignored by the White House and Democratic congressional leaders. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher why Obama forced Democrats in Congress to walk the plank and vote for the bill when it was evident he’d not made the sale to voters. Equally mystifying is how Obama failed to foresee the blowback and believed this would fade to gray by the midterms. Perhaps the president knew full well how ObamaCare would decimate his party, but simply didn’t care.

Last summer, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) were frantic to pass ObamaCare before members went home for recess and got an earful from constituents. When Congress didn’t fall into line, Reid and Pelosi again panicked and tried to ram it through before members went home for the holidays to get yet another earful from their constituents. Facing an Easter/Passover break and an election looming in less than eight months, they finally put the screws to their members, even though Americans passionately and vocally opposed the measure. 

When Republicans began openly contemplating repeal of ObamaCare, the Democratic leadership thought such talk was rather silly. Recent polling indicating overwhelming support for repeal has silenced Democrats’ chuckling. The Missouri ballot measure invigorates pro-repeal voters and will undoubtedly spur turnout Nov. 2. With many otherwise “safe” Democrats possibly facing the electoral guillotine solely because of their support for ObamaCare, the president, Pelosi and Reid need look no further than the mirror to know who to blame.

By Cheri Jacobus, The Hill, August 5, 2010

NAIROBI, Kenya — Kenya's president heralded the passage of a new constitution Thursday as a "national renewal," after results showed that close to 70 percent of the country had backed the document replacing a British colonial-era draft that inflated the powers of the presidency.

Opponents of the new constitution conceded defeat gracefully, paving the way for a peaceful transition to the new draft document. Ethnically charged violence had left more than 1,000 people dead following the disputed 2007 presidential election, raising concerns about the aftermath of Wednesday's vote.

"The historic journey that we began over 20 years ago is now coming to a happy end," President Mwai Kibaki told hundreds of supporters in downtown Nairobi, some of whom blew the loud vuvuzela horn made famous during the recent World Cup. "Indeed, may the new constitutional dispensation be our shield and defender."

Kenya's election commission said 67 percent of the 8.6 million voters who cast ballots backed the new constitution, an overwhelming victory that likely helped quash any potential for violence. Voter turnout was 71 percent, the reason that long lines snaked for hours at ballot boxes around the country.

Opponents of the draft had expressed misgivings early Thursday about the results, but William Ruto, Kenya's higher education minister and a top leader of the "No" team, conceded defeat.

"As member of the 'No' team, we respect the verdict of the majority," Ruto said. He then urged the "Yes" side to engage in negotiations over the parts of the constitution the "No" side objected to, items likely to include the constitution's clauses on abortion and land ownership.

Kibaki reached out to the "No" camp in his speech, saying that the "No" voters' voices had been heard. Others in the "Yes" camp took a more celebratory tone.

"Saying that we have won is an understatement. Kenya has been reborn," said Kiraitu Murungi, the minister of energy. "In fact it has been 20 years of painful labor. There is neither winner nor loser, we are all Kenyans, let us embrace each other as we usher the country into a new chapter."

In Washington, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Kenya's new constitution was the centerpiece of the country's reform agenda aimed at addressing underlying causes of violence.

The results are "an indication that a very strong majority of Kenyans have voted for fundamental change," Clinton said. "We urge all Kenyans to reach out to each other to work together after this referendum to support Kenya's democratic institutions and to move Kenya forward into the kind of future that Kenyans themselves deserve."

Voters overwhelmed polling stations in some locations Wednesday. The international community, and particularly the U.S., had urged Kenyans to pass the constitution, even as the draft raised emotions over land rights, abortion and Muslim family courts.

Kenya's current constitution, drawn up in the lead-up to Kenya's 1963 independence from Britain, grants the president sweeping powers. The new constitution would dramatically cut back on those powers by setting up an American-style system of checks and balances, and paving the way for much-needed land reform.

In the Rift Valley — the scene of some of the worst atrocities in 2007-08 — Bishop Cornelius Korir said the church would continue to press the government as it implements the new constitution to take into account the church's view on abortion.

"We are very proud of the people of the North Rift for maintaining peace, and we want peace to continue," Korir said.

A coalition of evangelical churches said in a statement that it was saddened by irregularities in the campaign, balloting and counting phases of the election process, but the Catholic church and the Anglican church did not sign the statement.

An observer group said it had not seen any signs of rigging as had been claimed by some in the "No" camp.

"We are confident that the process and the results reflect the wishes of Kenyans," said Kennedy Masime, chairman of the Elections Observation Group, which had 10,000 observers across the country.

The passing of the new constitution is a major victory for Kibaki, who backed a constitutional referendum in 2005 that was defeated. The push for a new constitution began two decades ago.

The referendum was one of the conditions of the power-sharing agreement between Kibaki and Prime Minster Raila Odinga that ended the 2007-08 violence. Both back the new constitution, and both appealed to Kenyans to vote peacefully.

Kenyan presidents have long favored their own ethnic tribes in the distribution of resources, a tremendous source of tension here.

By TOM ODULA , The Associated Press, August 5, 2010

US effort to help victims of the Pakistan flood is likely to expand beyond the $10 million already pledged, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.

The United States is in a race with militant organizations in Pakistan to respond first and most effectively to the millions of Pakistani people who are the victims of the worst monsoon flooding in nearly a century.

As part of the US campaign, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday spoke not only of the expanding US response to the floods, but of the terrorist actions some groups are carrying out even in the disaster zone.

Calling attention to a suicide bombing Wednesday morning in Peshawar, near the center of the worst flooding in Pakistan’s northwest, Secretary Clinton said, “Violence like this is abhorrent at any time, but especially at this time of crisis for the Pakistani people.”

The bombing killed three people, including a senior police official. Elsewhere in the flood-stricken northwest, reports were emerging of extremist groups, including the Pakistani Taliban and a militant religious organization linked to the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, coming to flood victims' aid.

In a statement made from the reception hall outside her State Department office, Clinton emphasized that the aid the US is providing – from search and rescue equipment and disaster assessment teams to food, water purifiers, and prefabricated bridges – is being closely coordinated with the Pakistani government. The US on Monday pledged $10 million for flood relief, but Clinton suggested Wednesday the figure would climb as more disaster aid is administered.

She also hinted at some degree of independence from the perspective of a government that is not always held in high regard by its own people. The government of President Asif Ali Zardari has come in for criticism over a slow and uncoordinated response to the flooding. Mr. Zardari has been lambasted for leaving the country for visits in European capitals during the worst natural disaster of his fragile presidency.

In describing the crisis, Clinton said an estimated 1,500 people had lost their lives – using a statistic that Pakistani nongovernmental relief organizations are citing, but that surpasses the government toll of 900.

The Pentagon announced Tuesday that four Chinook helicopters would be dispatched to help in the disaster relief. Two smaller Black Hawks were also dispatched. The military equipment is to be deployed at the discretion of the Pakistani government, according to the Pentagon, given the Pakistani government’s sensitivity to any suggestion of a US military presence in the country.

But US officials say the deployment of the Chinooks, giant helicopters that can evacuate large numbers of injured people or deliver substantial supplies, was requested by the government. Chinooks were dispatched to Pakistan in 2005 after a major earthquake.

Clinton referred to the 2005 aid effort and said the current campaign reflects an ongoing “partnership” with the people of Pakistan. At the same time, US officials skirted questions about the strength of such a “partnership” when surveys in Pakistan regularly show extremely low regard for the US.

Appearing with Clinton, USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah sidestepped a question about America’s image in Pakistan, saying the US with its assistance was demonstrating to Pakistanis that “we are in this for the long haul.” The effect of the “large-scale and comprehensive” relief effort by the US would be to demonstrate “a long-term and enduring commitment,” he said.

Some skeptics of the US campaign to reach Pakistani hearts and minds through disaster aid and other assistance note that America’s poor image prevails despite massive aid after the 2005 earthquake and a multibillion-dollar program of development and education assistance approved last year.  

Apparently betting that many Americans favor humanitarian aid in moments of crisis, Clinton noted that individuals can make their own $10 donation to Pakistan flood relief by texting the word “swat” to the number 50555. The money goes to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to provide shelter, food, clothing, and other supplies for Pakistan flood relief.

Clinton demonstrated on her own cellphone. “I just texted a contribution myself,” she said, adding, “I urge Americans to join this effort and send some much-needed help to the people of Pakistan.”

By Howard LaFranchi, The Christian Science Monitor, August 4, 2010

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is stepping up emergency relief for victims of Pakistan's devastating floods, hoping a highly visible dose of goodwill will soften anti-American attitudes in a country seen as vital to defeating al-Qaida.

This comes at the same time a congressman who played a key role in revising the war strategy in Iraq in 2006 on Wednesday proposed an independent review of U.S. strategy and goals in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These separate efforts reflect growing concern about the lack of apparent progress in the nearly nine-year conflict in Afghanistan, which has cost more than $297 billion and the lives of more than 1,100 U.S. troops.

Along with NATO, Pakistan is the key partner of the U.S. in the Afghan conflict. A Pew Foundation poll released last week that found nearly six in 10 Pakistanis view the United States as an enemy and only one in 10 call it a partner. Nearly two-thirds said they want American troops out of Afghanistan.

U.S. officials believe a major humanitarian response to a deadly 2005 earthquake in Pakistan boosted the U.S. image there, at least temporarily.

With the earlier experience in mind, the administration is trumpeting its contributions in the wake of the worst flooding in Pakistan in many years. Floodwaters have killed more than 1,500 people.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared Wednesday before the media to express America's sympathy for the dead and displaced.

The U.S. government is rushing in helicopters to help with search-and-rescue efforts, she said, and is providing emergency medical assistance, ready-made meals and fresh water.

"We've been working hard over the past year to build a partnership with the people of Pakistan, and this is an essential element of partnership reaching out and helping each other in times of need," she said.

Although the U.S. has given billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan since the 9/11 attacks, as part of a campaign to hunt down Osama bin Laden and destroy his al-Qaida network, the Pew poll revealed that many Pakistanis don't realize it.

About a quarter of those questioned said the U.S. provides a lot of financial aid. Nearly a quarter said it provides a little aid, 10 percent said the U.S. gives hardly any, and 16 percent believe the U.S. gives Pakistan no aid.

Clinton's spokesman, P.J. Crowley, said she met later with Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to discuss Pakistan, Afghanistan and other issues. Kerry recently has raised questions about U.S. goals in Afghanistan, as have many lawmakers worried by a stalemated conflict and a growing U.S. death toll.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., wrote a letter Wednesday reminding Obama that an independent review of Iraq strategy in 2006 came at a pivotal moment in that war, when mounting casualties and growing violence suggested to many that the cause was lost.

"I believe our nation is again facing such a moment in the Afghanistan war effort," Wolf wrote.

Wolf proposed creation of an "Afghanistan-Pakistan Study Group" that would evaluate U.S. strategy in those countries and clarify the U.S. mission and goals.

Wolf authored legislation in 2005 that created a similar group to study U.S. strategy in Iraq, headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and former House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Lee Hamilton.

Citing the urgency of the current situation in Afghanistan, Wolf urged Obama not to wait for congressional action but create an Afghanistan-Pakistan group by executive order. Wolf said he has canvassed the views of many senior diplomats, policy experts and military officers.

"Many believe our Afghanistan policy is adrift," Wolf wrote, noting that all agreed on the need for a study group. "We must examine our efforts in the region holistically, given Pakistan's strategic significance to our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban's presence in that country as well, especially in the border areas."

David Abshire, a retired U.S. ambassador who is president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, said in an interview that Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan policy needs help.

"I don't think we have a firm anchor at the end of our policy," Abshire said, adding that Obama's decision last December to send an extra 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan has wide support, but many are uncertain what steps following the troop surge will be needed.

By ROBERT BURNS, The Associated Press, August 4, 2010

Given President Obama's continuing troubles, the 2012 election could feature a Republican such as Sarah Palin going up against a different Democrat – Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Bar Harbor, Maine

When the presidential family – and Bo the dog – spent a summer weekend in Bar Harbor this July, Mainers were delighted.

Despite Maine’s unpredictable weather, the days were sun-splashed and gorgeous. President Obama looked carefree as he and his family hiked, biked, boated, and tasted fresh lobster and ice cream. (He passed on blueberry but thought the coconut flavor was terrific.)

But on the top floor of the waterfront hotel where the president stayed, newly refurbished and carpeted for the visit, with bulletproof windows installed, presidential aides could not have been cheery as they pondered the latest batch of polls and press clippings.

In this summer of voter discontent, these sour signs heralded what has proved to be serious ongoing speculation about the president’s ability in 2012 to win a second term in office. It is a given that the out-of-power Republicans will do well, and the in-power Democrats will lose seats in the midterm elections this November.

Even White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs admitted recently that “there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control” of the House. For what seemed a relatively obvious statement of the facts, he suffered – rather undeservedly – one of those overnight Washington political and media hullabaloos, as anxious Democrats scolded him for “going off message.”

The trend lines support his statement. A slew of recent polls suggest declining confidence in the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

During the president’s weekend retreat, The Sunday New York Times declared that the drop in the president’s approval ratings to almost 40 percent, along with Mr. Gibbs’s comment, “equals trouble for the president in 2012.” It published more than a page of critiques and advice from political figures.

Donna Brazile, a longtime Democratic operative, and an almost daily defender of the president on CNN, suggested he has “created a gap between what his base and swing voters expect of him and what he actually delivers.” Now, she wrote, he must “couple the intensity of his rhetoric with the wonkish policy detail of his administration.”

Former Clinton adviser Mark Penn wrote: “After the midterms, President Obama will likely face the same decision that President Clinton faced in 1994 – to stay the course on the left or return to the center. His choice could be the difference between a one-term presidency and four more years governing with the coalition that elected him.”

Should Mr. Obama stumble further, there will be growing talk in political circles about an alternative Democratic contender for the presidency in 2012.

Despite Hillary Rodham Clinton’s repeated disavowals, her name comes to the forefront. As secretary of State, she has carefully proved her loyalty to Obama. But she has built a solid reputation as an activist adviser in foreign affairs in her own right. Unfounded were fears that she would be a puppet foreign minister, overshadowed by Vice President Joe Biden and his longtime expertise in that area.

In politics Ms. Clinton was a runner-up for the Democratic nomination the last time around and maintains a formidable following with critical female voters. She has proved able to minimize the “Bill problem,” even as her husband has proved helpful in Democratic politics and international affairs.

So what of the Republican presidential candidates in 2012?

Enter Sarah Palin, who topped a recent Gallup poll with a 76 percent favorable rating for possible Republican presidential contenders. Trailing her were former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal – in that order.

Many political observers believe that while Ms. Palin is a significant force in Republican politics, particularly with the women she labels “Mama Grizzlies,” she is unlikely to win the presidency.

But with voters in a restless mood, and current politics in a mercurial phase, who can rule out for certain a 2012 presidential campaign pitting Clinton against Palin?

RHINEBECK, N.Y. — The shroud of secrecy surrounding Chelsea Clinton’s wedding here was due in part to the wedding planner, not the Clintons.

Bryan Rafanelli, a Boston-based event planner who managed the Clinton weekend wedding extravaganza, said in an interview on Sunday that he required confidentiality agreements with his vendors.

“This is how I run my business, protecting the privacy of my clients,” Mr. Rafanelli said, chatting at the Beekman Arms, the stately inn that was a focal point of the weekend before the Saturday night ceremony at the Astor Courts estate on the Hudson River.

He said that while he put a lid on the nearly two dozen vendors involved, there was no similar lockdown on the 450 guests. Guests, he said, simply understood that the Clintons would not be happy if they blabbed publicly.

In the spirit of nondisclosure, Mr. Rafanelli declined to reveal certain details himself — like how much the wedding cost.

“I know Chelsea and Marc wanted to have the highest quality,” he said, referring to the bridegroom, Marc Mezvinsky. “That doesn’t mean the most expensive; it just means really a beautiful wedding.”

Mr. Rafanelli laughed when told the rumored price of the invitations was $150 each (“absolutely not”) and the bank of high-end toilets was $15,000, which he said was not true, either but admitted that they were “appropriate to an event at a Stanford White-designed structure” like Astor Courts.

The invitations, which played off architectural details of the Beaux-Arts-style estate mansion, were mailed 12 weeks ago, Mr. Rafanelli said. The only information they did not contain was the location, which was sent by e-mail last Monday.

He did not disclose any quarrels in the decision-making. “This was Chelsea and Marc’s wedding,” he said. “And this is the wedding her parents wanted her to have.”

Mr. Rafanelli, 48, knows well what the Clintons expect in terms of taste and discretion — and how to keep a low profile in a high-profile undertaking.

He has known Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state and mother of the bride, for a decade, first meeting her through Elaine Schuster, a client and Democratic fund-raiser in Boston. He planned a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton in Boston in 2000, when she first ran for the Senate in New York.

His subsequent events for her include a Palm Beach fund-raiser during her 2008 presidential campaign, to which he was a contributor. He also oversaw the wedding of Mrs. Clinton’s longtime aide Huma Abedin and Representative Anthony D. Weiner of Brooklyn last month. (Former President Bill Clinton performed the ceremony.)

For Ms. Clinton’s wedding, the family entrusted quite a few details to Mr. Rafanelli, who began his planning in December. He said the couple wanted to be married in New York.

Mr. Rafanelli offered them three possibilities, and they picked Astor Courts because it could accommodate an outdoor ceremony and met various security and privacy requirements. And the tennis courts offered a flat surface for tents.

The bride is a vegan, but the still-secret menu offered “everything,” Mr. Rafanelli said. The wedding cake was gluten-free, as was the bread. So were the chocolate-chip cookies in the straw welcome bags in the guests’ hotel rooms.

The ceremony was set for 6 p.m., and Mr. Rafanelli said the Clintons were “pretty close” to being on time — a rare occurrence for many bridal parties but especially for the former president, who runs on “Clinton time,” which is chronically late.

“We’re moving two families to a spectacular property, so there was some precision involved,” Mr. Rafanelli said. He was proud of having herded everyone into position to witness what turned out to be a spectacular sunset at 8:23; they all made it by 8:15.

SEOUL, South Korea — A senior U.S. envoy in charge of implementing sanctions met Monday with South Korean officials to discuss new financial penalties on North Korea.

The trip by Robert Einhorn, the State Department's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, comes two weeks after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that the U.S. would impose new financial sanctions on North Korea.

Clinton said the new penalties would target the sale and purchase of arms and related goods used to fund the communist regime's nuclear activities, and the acquisition of luxury items to reward its elite. The details of how and when the sanctions would be carried out have not been released.

Officials also said the sanctions are part of measures designed to encourage North Korea to stop its pattern of provocations.

Washington and Seoul blame the North for the sinking of a South Korean warship that killed 46 sailors in late March. Pyongyang denies attacking the ship.

"We will apply measured sanctions against North Korea as we have in the past and tailor to help influence the thinking of the government and those who support the government," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters in Washington before Einhorn's departure.

Einhorn was accompanied by Daniel Glaser, the Treasury Department's deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes. They head to Tokyo on Tuesday for talks with senior Japanese officials.

The Associated Press, August 1, 2010