Almost everything else showed how little, Ms. Secretary, you understand agriculture and the greed that fuels agribusiness.  To wit:

Secretary Clinton:  (1) We will seek to increase agricultural productivity, by expanding access to quality seeds, fertilizers, irrigation tools, and the credit to purchase them and training to use them.

Wrong:  The problem is not overall productivity, but generalized poverty.  Did those proposing a new Green Revolution say otherwise?  The poorest and therefore hungriest rural producers cannot afford “quality seeds, chemical fertilizers, irrigation tools” and have almost no access to credit and training. 

Secretary Clinton:  (2) We will work to stimulate the private sector, by improving the storage and processing of food and improving roads and transportation so small farmers can sell the fruits of their labor at local markets.

Wrong:  The private sector has too much power already, and subsists on profit taking, unlike government that can and has shown itself to provide support for small farmers in countries with a political commitment to the marginalized.  Private agribusiness, with near monopolies in seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and processing, has been responsible for the loss of lands for millions of farmers.

Secretary Clinton:  (3) We are committed to maintaining natural resources, so the land can be farmed well into the future. That includes helping developing communities adapt to climate change, which has had a major effect on the world's farms.

Illogical:  Agribusiness does not "maintain natural resources" but exploits them, mining soil fertility like any other subsoil "resource". The only form of agriculture that can conserve resources and improve soil fertility in the long term is small-scale agro-ecological, low input, community-oriented agriculture. Please see the World Bank funded IAASTD report for evidence of this. http://www.agassessment.org

Secretary Clinton:  (4) We will expand knowledge and training by supporting R&D and cultivating the next generation of plant scientists.

Naive:  Plant scientists, more and more dependent on funding from agrochemical transnational corporations, do research aimed at garnering higher margins of profit and greater market share.  Short of a dramatic turnaround, plant scientists will by and large be following lines of research most likely to please corporate shareholders and not marginalized smallholder family farmers.

Secretary Clinton:  (5) We will seek to increase trade so small-scale farmers can sell their crops far and wide.

Off base:  Increased trade, (i.e., export oriented production), will only take more land out of staple crop production destined for local markets and consumption, enlarge the scale of production to favor more industrial, capital-intensive practices, and further concentrate control of the global food system into fewer hands, increasing hunger and making more farmers landless.

Secretary Clinton:  (6) We will support policy reform and good governance, because sustainable agriculture flourishes in a clear and predictable policy and regulatory environment.

Not specific enough:  What do you mean, Madame Secretary, by good governance, predictable policy and regulatory environment?  This could mean anything.

Secretary Clinton:  (7) We will support women and families. 70% of the world's farmers are women, but most programs that offer farmers credit and training target men. This is unfair and impractical. An effective agricultural system must have incentives for those who do the work. And it must take into account the particular needs of those whose futures will shape our world: our children.

Hooray!  Here is something we can agree with!  Women absolutely need to have a place at the table, but not just as recipients of incentives.  What farmers (especially small-scale women farmers) need are decent crop prices kept up by price floors, low interest credit, agricultural extension that is relevant to their scale of production for local consumption, cooperative marketing supported by local and national governments, and an end to subsidies for transnational corporations that routinely flood their markets with cheap, dumped staple foods.

So let's correct course before we set the sail, Hillary!!  Come and visit a small-scale woman farmer in Bungoma, Kenya, unable to get land tenure. Or visit a woman farmer in Oaxaca, Mexico, trying to grow enough beans for the children and elders, and whose mate sends home remittances from a roofing job in the U.S.--a family casualty of NAFTA.  Or a woman farmer from Iowa pushed to the limits of endurance to hold onto the family farm with volatile markets, little government support for vegetable and fruit production for local markets, and a high-input, costly model of agriculture likely to put the family deeply into debt.

Let's set sail toward 'Food Sovereignty', which puts the food system back under democratic control. Food sovereignty respects the dignity and wisdom of the people who do the actual work on the farms of this world, rather than turning over policy making to self-proclaimed experts (corporation-financed scientists, seed and chemical promoters, and corporate lobbyists).  Let's get real and see who actually feeds most of humanity:  small-scale women farmers growing crops that feed their families and communities.  What's to gain by trading their products far and wide, if the hunger is as close as their children's stomachs?<