[Lamplighter]

I do get the feeling this round of talks could actually go somewhere useful.
Both parties have things in their own best interests that they want changed now.
Netanyahu's decision about extending the moratorium on new settlements
will supposedly be the best indicator of serious progress.

But as much as I respect the NYTimes, I feel Mark Landler's heading on this article is somewhat misleading.
There's nothing of substance inside the article relating to his allegation of Clinton having political ambitions.
For once, we are not operating under the Peter Principle in the leadership of the US State Dept.

It's sort of a long article, but a good read...IMHO

NY Times article
By MARK LANDLER
Published: September 4, 2010

The talks could cement the legacy of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton as a diplomat, or pose risks to any political ambitions she may harbor.

In Middle East Peace Talks, Clinton Faces a Crucial Test

Mrs. Clinton will be in the thick of the negotiations between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, when they meet on Sept. 14 in Egypt. Her role, several officials say, will be to take over from the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, when the two sides run into serious obstacles.

It may prove the greatest test yet for Mrs. Clinton, one that could cement her legacy as a diplomat if she solves the riddle that foiled even her husband, former President Bill Clinton. But it could also pose considerable risks to any political ambitions she may harbor.

“One of the best indications that this could succeed is that Hillary Clinton is willing to get involved,” said Stephen J. Hadley, who served as national security adviser to President George W. Bush. “Because that makes me think two things: She thinks it’s possible and, because she is as skilled as she is, it increases the likelihood of success.”