A number of news outlets are reporting that Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama's Secretary of State, though the official announcement apparently won't come until after Thanksgiving.
This is a difficult question. As Josh Marshall over TPM has pointed out, Clinton's a good Senator. She does good work in that body. Her voice would be of great use on issues like health care reform, issues on which she couldn't really weigh in if she was Secretary of State. There's no guarantee that her appointed replacement from New York would be anything but a non-entity.
A lot of the chattering has centered on a possible personality conflict between Obama and Clinton, or issues surrounding Bill's charitable foundation or any of a dozen other problems originating in the bruising primary fight between these two. I won't pretend those concerns are completely baseless, but I can't picture Clinton turning the State Department into a partisan camp or using the position to fight an insurgency against Obama. It's popular to caricature Clinton as some kind of devil beast out of Greek mythology, and too many Democrats joined the conservative fringe in that pastime during the primary. But this is human being, not the Whore of Babylon. And this is a serious woman who's going to have a serious job. If I expect her to use that position to undermine the President of the United States then I have to think that she is a truly awful human being with no regard for the well-being of her country. And I refuse to believe that.
No, my biggest concern is that I don't know whether she'll be very good at the job. That's not a question of talent or intelligence or toughness. She has all three of those in spades, and I guarantee you that in the back of his mind, Obama's thinking, "If she treats Putin like she treated me in Pennsylvania, he'll beg me to put a missile defense shield in Poland."
But there are a lot of smart, talented, tough people who wouldn't do this job very well. The Obama campaign took great pains to point out during the primary that Clinton's supposed foreign policy experience was rather unimpressive, and I don't think they were wrong. It's fair to ask whether she has enough experience with the kind of high stakes, high wire diplomacy the job requires. And if the answer is no, than this isn't the right place for her. Secretary of State is not the kind of job you hand out for political purposes. It's too important to give to anyone but an individual you feel is qualified for it.
Others have pointed out that Clinton's two largest areas of executive experience are the early-90's health care task force and her presidential campaign, both of which spun into the sea like they were off-screen plot twists in a MASH season finale. I won't belabor the point.
On the other hand, she is smart, tough and talented, and I has told people who asked me about my fondness for Obama, after the past eight years, I'm willing to take a leap of faith for talent. I'm not going to castigate Obama for this choice, assuming he makes it. I can see his rationale. But color me wary.
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government. Show all posts
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Lieberman to Keep Chairmanship, Receive Large Ice Cream Cone
Even when Democrats win they act like losers.
The Democratic Senatorial caucus voted 42-13 today to let Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. They did kick him off the Environment and Public Works Committee, at which Lieberman has barely had the good grace to avoid laughing. Lieberman will stay in the Democratic caucus, though he keeps that nifty (I) next to his name.
Really, it's nice that Harry Reid and Evan Bayh are going around reminding their fellow Senators that the quality of mercy is not strained. Very literary. But the Democratic Party is not a religious order. Forgiveness is not a part of the founding charter; the Senators aren't under any obligation to extend a hand of friendship to the man memorably dubbed "Senator Sanctimony." Lieberman has to earn forgiveness. He has to do some penitence for his sins.
And oh, his political sins were certainly cardinal. It's one thing to decide against endorsing and vigorously campaigning for your party's presidential nominee, even though that nominee campaigned for you in 2006 when you were fighting for your political life. It's a far different thing to endorse and vigorously campaign for he opposition party's presidential nominee. It's a far, far different thing to viciously attack your party's nominee, as Lieberman did. He wasn't content with supporting McCain. He participated in some of the GOP's most odious assaults on President-Elect Obama's patriotism by saying Obama didn't always put country first and accusing him of trying to cut off funding for American troops in Iraq. As if all that wasn't enough, he campaigned for several Republican Congressional candidates.
Oh, and he's been the loudest cheerleader for the Iraq disaster and President Bush's evisceration of civil liberties. He has also demonized those who disagree with either of those things. Heck of a guy, Joe.
Democrats have always patted themselves on the back for being the "big tent party." It's generally a positive trait. But there have to be lines you can't cross, and Lieberman's crossed about 13 of them. He's spent the last two years vigorously working against the interests of the Democratic Party. At this point he is simply not a Democrat. The Democratic Party should not be handing him a reward for his actions.
I have no doubt that all (or at least most) of Lieberman's actions have been motivated by conscience. He clearly thinks the Iraq war is a grand idea. He obviously thinks poorly of Barack Obama and deeply respects John McCain. He did the right thing by his convictions when he campaigned for McCain.
But as the Republicans are quick to point out, actions have consequences, and Lieberman's convictions are not those held by the Democratic Party. Mercy is admirable. But from time-to-time, a leader has to break out an iron fist. The Democrats have decided instead to lay down a red carpet.
The Democratic Senatorial caucus voted 42-13 today to let Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. They did kick him off the Environment and Public Works Committee, at which Lieberman has barely had the good grace to avoid laughing. Lieberman will stay in the Democratic caucus, though he keeps that nifty (I) next to his name.
Really, it's nice that Harry Reid and Evan Bayh are going around reminding their fellow Senators that the quality of mercy is not strained. Very literary. But the Democratic Party is not a religious order. Forgiveness is not a part of the founding charter; the Senators aren't under any obligation to extend a hand of friendship to the man memorably dubbed "Senator Sanctimony." Lieberman has to earn forgiveness. He has to do some penitence for his sins.
And oh, his political sins were certainly cardinal. It's one thing to decide against endorsing and vigorously campaigning for your party's presidential nominee, even though that nominee campaigned for you in 2006 when you were fighting for your political life. It's a far different thing to endorse and vigorously campaign for he opposition party's presidential nominee. It's a far, far different thing to viciously attack your party's nominee, as Lieberman did. He wasn't content with supporting McCain. He participated in some of the GOP's most odious assaults on President-Elect Obama's patriotism by saying Obama didn't always put country first and accusing him of trying to cut off funding for American troops in Iraq. As if all that wasn't enough, he campaigned for several Republican Congressional candidates.
Oh, and he's been the loudest cheerleader for the Iraq disaster and President Bush's evisceration of civil liberties. He has also demonized those who disagree with either of those things. Heck of a guy, Joe.
Democrats have always patted themselves on the back for being the "big tent party." It's generally a positive trait. But there have to be lines you can't cross, and Lieberman's crossed about 13 of them. He's spent the last two years vigorously working against the interests of the Democratic Party. At this point he is simply not a Democrat. The Democratic Party should not be handing him a reward for his actions.
I have no doubt that all (or at least most) of Lieberman's actions have been motivated by conscience. He clearly thinks the Iraq war is a grand idea. He obviously thinks poorly of Barack Obama and deeply respects John McCain. He did the right thing by his convictions when he campaigned for McCain.
But as the Republicans are quick to point out, actions have consequences, and Lieberman's convictions are not those held by the Democratic Party. Mercy is admirable. But from time-to-time, a leader has to break out an iron fist. The Democrats have decided instead to lay down a red carpet.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I Hate Agreeing With David Brooks
But unfortunately, I think he's largely correct with this column.
It wouldn't be a David Brooks column if it didn't include some questionable, sweeping generalizations. But I've spent enough attacking Brooks over the last several months, so I'll instead emphasize that I too am wary of the proposed bailout of the Big Three US automakers.
Unlike Brooks, I haven't made up my mind. He acknowledges that this is "an excruciatingly hard call." Millions of Americans make their living off the auto industry, from the UAW employees in Detroit to that annoying jackass who runs the local Ford dealership and invades your TV with poorly shot commercials where he hunts and kills large prices like he's in a Discovery Channel documentary.
And considering the state of the economy, the last thing this country needs are millions of unemployed auto workers, many of whom are older and don't have the kind of educational background and skillset that would allow them to find better jobs. It's easy to look down from on high, shrug your shoulders and say, "This is how capitalism works, kiddies. Bad companies fail, employees get fired. Sucks to be you. Have some unemployment compensation."
But, well, this kind of is how capitalism works. Ford, GM and Chrysler have been getting their asses kicked by Honda and Toyota for as long as I've been alive. The Japanese have continued to churn out better, cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars, while the American companies have been content to engage in an SUV arms race to see who can build the ungainliest manhood replacement. The market has spoken, and it's punishing the Big Three for their arrogance and willful ignorance.
The day those companies officially die (or, perhaps, file for bankruptcy) will certainly be a sad one, and there will be a lot of black crepe paper strewn about the capital to mourn the end of an era. But that is, I suppose, the downside of a free market. Previously good companies are mercilessly destroyed when competitors evolve. Good men are thrown out of work through no fault of their own. A city suffers. A national mythos long nurtured is rendered quaint.
I don't envy President-Elect Obama this decision, and I understand the inclination to help America's automakers. But I just can't get behind the idea of throwing billions at companies that are suffering because of their own mistakes.
It wouldn't be a David Brooks column if it didn't include some questionable, sweeping generalizations. But I've spent enough attacking Brooks over the last several months, so I'll instead emphasize that I too am wary of the proposed bailout of the Big Three US automakers.
Unlike Brooks, I haven't made up my mind. He acknowledges that this is "an excruciatingly hard call." Millions of Americans make their living off the auto industry, from the UAW employees in Detroit to that annoying jackass who runs the local Ford dealership and invades your TV with poorly shot commercials where he hunts and kills large prices like he's in a Discovery Channel documentary.
And considering the state of the economy, the last thing this country needs are millions of unemployed auto workers, many of whom are older and don't have the kind of educational background and skillset that would allow them to find better jobs. It's easy to look down from on high, shrug your shoulders and say, "This is how capitalism works, kiddies. Bad companies fail, employees get fired. Sucks to be you. Have some unemployment compensation."
But, well, this kind of is how capitalism works. Ford, GM and Chrysler have been getting their asses kicked by Honda and Toyota for as long as I've been alive. The Japanese have continued to churn out better, cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars, while the American companies have been content to engage in an SUV arms race to see who can build the ungainliest manhood replacement. The market has spoken, and it's punishing the Big Three for their arrogance and willful ignorance.
The day those companies officially die (or, perhaps, file for bankruptcy) will certainly be a sad one, and there will be a lot of black crepe paper strewn about the capital to mourn the end of an era. But that is, I suppose, the downside of a free market. Previously good companies are mercilessly destroyed when competitors evolve. Good men are thrown out of work through no fault of their own. A city suffers. A national mythos long nurtured is rendered quaint.
I don't envy President-Elect Obama this decision, and I understand the inclination to help America's automakers. But I just can't get behind the idea of throwing billions at companies that are suffering because of their own mistakes.
Friday, July 11, 2008
A Banner Day For the Environment
Court Rejects Clean Air Rules
EPA Refuses to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
I'm not an environmental scientist or a lawyer, so I can't speak intelligently in any great depth about these stories. I can guess, however, that the conservative, pro-business Supreme Court we have now is unlikely the overturn the DC Court of Appeals' decision. And I can guess that the EPA decision covered in the second story had little to do with rigorous scientific analysis by the non-political appointees in the EPA.
I make sure to read stories like these when I find myself upset and demoralized by Obama's various policy shifts. There's no danger I'll vote for John McCain, to be sure, but it would be nice to have a little energy and excitement about my candidate come November. And it's these behind-the-scenes issues, appointees to regulatory agencies, appeals court nominees, that can really define a president's legacy.
The last 28 years have seen 20 years of Republican presidential control. That's 20 years worth of conservative court nominees, 20 years worth of regulatory agents who don't like to, you know, regulate business and 20 years worth of entrenched power. Eight years of an Obama administration would be a nice start in seeding Washington with regulators who regulate.
EPA Refuses to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
I'm not an environmental scientist or a lawyer, so I can't speak intelligently in any great depth about these stories. I can guess, however, that the conservative, pro-business Supreme Court we have now is unlikely the overturn the DC Court of Appeals' decision. And I can guess that the EPA decision covered in the second story had little to do with rigorous scientific analysis by the non-political appointees in the EPA.
I make sure to read stories like these when I find myself upset and demoralized by Obama's various policy shifts. There's no danger I'll vote for John McCain, to be sure, but it would be nice to have a little energy and excitement about my candidate come November. And it's these behind-the-scenes issues, appointees to regulatory agencies, appeals court nominees, that can really define a president's legacy.
The last 28 years have seen 20 years of Republican presidential control. That's 20 years worth of conservative court nominees, 20 years worth of regulatory agents who don't like to, you know, regulate business and 20 years worth of entrenched power. Eight years of an Obama administration would be a nice start in seeding Washington with regulators who regulate.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Democrats cave on FISA
Senate Backs Wiretap Bill
Well done, Barack Obama. Well done, Democratic Party. Well done, United States Senate. The Times has the important details, beyond the well-documented immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with President Bush in the illegal wiretap fiasco after 9/11:
The legislation also expands the government’s power to invoke emergency wiretapping procedures. While the National Security Agency would be allowed to seek court orders for broad groups of foreign targets, the law creates a new, 7-day period for targeting foreigners without a court order in “exigent” circumstances if government officials assert that important national security information would be lost otherwise. The law also expands from three to seven days the period in which the government can conduct emergency wiretaps without a court on Americans if the attorney general certifies that there is probable cause to believe the target is linked to terrorism.
Oh, well, if government officials "assert" or "certify" that...government officials really, truly need the information, it's all good. I can't possibly foresee a situation where those officials would lie, manipulate evidence or even be blinded by a well-meaning patriotic zeal.
The Democrats caved. Period. It was an election year surrender, designed to promote the idea that the Democratic Party is as desperate to protect Americans as the GOP. That's a great message to promote, and this is absolutely the right way to do it, unless you're hung up on the fact that it won't work.
Kudos to, among others, Hillary Clinton for doing the right thing. Her statement on the issue is spot on.
It's necessary to single out Obama for opprobrium, and not just because of his blatant flip-flip on the issue. He's not simply the Democrats' presidential candidate and standard bearer. He is a man with a unique ability to articulate a national security message that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy espoused by the Republican Party. With his intellectual and oratorical gifts, Obama should, at least, endeavor to convince voters that America's safety is secured by the rule of law and a reverence for the dictates of our Constitution.
Instead, he decided to fight on the GOP's terms. That simply doesn't work for Democrats.
Well done, Barack Obama. Well done, Democratic Party. Well done, United States Senate. The Times has the important details, beyond the well-documented immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with President Bush in the illegal wiretap fiasco after 9/11:
The legislation also expands the government’s power to invoke emergency wiretapping procedures. While the National Security Agency would be allowed to seek court orders for broad groups of foreign targets, the law creates a new, 7-day period for targeting foreigners without a court order in “exigent” circumstances if government officials assert that important national security information would be lost otherwise. The law also expands from three to seven days the period in which the government can conduct emergency wiretaps without a court on Americans if the attorney general certifies that there is probable cause to believe the target is linked to terrorism.
Oh, well, if government officials "assert" or "certify" that...government officials really, truly need the information, it's all good. I can't possibly foresee a situation where those officials would lie, manipulate evidence or even be blinded by a well-meaning patriotic zeal.
The Democrats caved. Period. It was an election year surrender, designed to promote the idea that the Democratic Party is as desperate to protect Americans as the GOP. That's a great message to promote, and this is absolutely the right way to do it, unless you're hung up on the fact that it won't work.
Kudos to, among others, Hillary Clinton for doing the right thing. Her statement on the issue is spot on.
It's necessary to single out Obama for opprobrium, and not just because of his blatant flip-flip on the issue. He's not simply the Democrats' presidential candidate and standard bearer. He is a man with a unique ability to articulate a national security message that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy espoused by the Republican Party. With his intellectual and oratorical gifts, Obama should, at least, endeavor to convince voters that America's safety is secured by the rule of law and a reverence for the dictates of our Constitution.
Instead, he decided to fight on the GOP's terms. That simply doesn't work for Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png)
Posts
