Would Obama Have Voted to Invade Iraq? Probably

During the Democratic primaries, then-Senator Obama made opposition to the Iraq War a centerpiece of his campaign. He repeatedly condemned the invasion and even said that the use of military force under those circumstances violated the Constitution. As Jacob Sullum of Reason observes:

In a December 2007 survey of presidential candidates, Obama told The Boston Globe, "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Today, however, President Obama has nuanced his position:

The White House said the president's actions don't contradict his earlier views, noting that the president met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers regarding Libya before any action took place.

A senior administration official said that the 2007 comment envisioned "an invasion like we saw in Iraq. A mission of this kind, which is time-limited, well-defined, and discrete, clearly falls within the President's constitutional authority."

During the Democratic Primaries Bill Clinton said that Obama's antiwar stance was a "fairytale." Many media outlets distorted that comment and suggested that Clinton described Obama's entire campaign as a fairytale. This distortion then sparked accusations that Clinton was a racist. The furor of Clinton's alleged racism deflected attention from the actual substance of the former president's observation -- that Obama is not as dovish as he portrayed himself.

Recently, the New York Times reported that several of Obama's senior staff, namely, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, convinced him to use military force against Libya. When Bush pressed Congress to approve the use of military force against Iraq, 29 Senate Democrats voted to approve the measure. The list of Senators includes many close advisers to Obama, such as Hillary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State; Joe Biden, Obama's Vice President; Tom Daschle, Obama's initial choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services; and John Kerry, an early Obama supporter and adviser. If three of President Obama's advisers could convince him to use military force against Libya in the absence of an imminent threat to the United States, it is also likely that influential Senate Democrats could have motivated him to support the use of force against Iraq. Obama has also escalated the war in Afghanistan -- a mission he has always admitted to supporting.

Obama made an astute political calculation to portray himself as an antiwar candidate during the Democratic Primaries. At the time, most of the country -- especially liberal Democrats -- opposed the invasion of Iraq. Because Obama and Clinton had virtually identical positions on most issues, he needed to distinguish himself from her in order to gain attention. His so-called opposition to the invasion of Iraq gave him the perfect narrative to win the nomination. In sum, Obama was a smart politician. Reverend Wright was absolutely correct when he described candidate Obama as a "politician." Nonetheless, Wright was vigorously condemned for this observation. Today, however, his words on this subject are unassailable.

DC Rumor Mill Alert: Hillary Clinton to Become Sec. of Defense

In his latest Politico blog post, Ben Smith suggests that Hillary Clinton might replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. It was already ironic enough that Obama picked Clinton as Secretary of State, given his campaign stance on her foreign policy. This rumor, if true, would simply add to the irony.

WaPo's E.J. Dionne Says Obama Needs to Learn From Clinton

Washington Post columnist is happy that former President Bill Clinton has received a good prognosis from his doctor. Dionne believes that President Obama needs a healthy Clinton to advise him because, according to Dionne, the two have a lot in common and Obama could use some good advice.

Dionne observes that both men ran as "unifiers" but faced attacks from Republicans. Dionne also contends that both Obama and Clinton believe that they can use logic to convince their adversaries to shift positions.

Dionne argues that Clinton can help Obama navigate the challenges he now faces as president and to produce a winning "script" for his presidency:

I am pleased that after the scary tidings, Bill Clinton is doing well. And it may turn out to be providential that he burst into the news at precisely this point. It's hard to escape the sense that a young and promising Democratic president is too closely replaying the opening act of another young and promising Democratic president -- and that Republicans need only recite the same lines they came up with 16 years ago.
Obama needs to rewrite the script. And as a script doctor, Bill Clinton has no equal.

The substance of Dionne's essay is not groundbreaking. I have long argued that Obama shares a lot with the Clintons (both Hillary and Bill). What makes the essay extraordinary, however, is that many people in the media, including Dionne, parroted Obama's campaign rhetoric and portrayed him as the antithesis of the Clintons. The Clintons were divisive and insincere; Obama was the honest unifier.

Remember too that when Obama said that voters carry guns and cling to religion because they are "bitter," he singled out Bush and Clinton as the causes of voter frustration. Because he was running against Hillary Clinton, Obama avoided saying anything positive about the Clinton-era, and he marketed himself as an anti-Clinton Democrat.

During the presidential campaign, Dionne never challenged this script in his many articles on Obama, and in many ways he affirmed it. As Obama has moved from candidate to president, however, Dionne has begun portraying him in more complicated terms. In other words, he has approached Obama with the distance one would expect from a journalist.

Hey, Democrats: So "Experience" and Willingness to "Fight" Actually Matter in a President

During the Democratic primaries, I often felt that I was on Jupiter. My fellow Democrats rejected qualities in Hillary Clinton that are essential to a successful presidency.

When Clinton claimed she had more experience than Obama, Democrats either denied this reality or said that experience does not matter. They insisted that "ideas matter more" or that "Lincoln did not have experience either." Instead of experience, they preferred a "fresh face."

When Clinton said she was a fighter (explicitly embracing a "Rocky" theme), Democrats turned this into a bad thing, accusing Clinton of negative campaigning. Obama said that Clinton only knew how to fight, but that he would bring together the American people. Democrats wanted a "unifier" rather than a "fighter."

Well, I think it is time for people to evaluate their choices. From where I sit, I believe we could use a healthy dose of fighting and experience in the White House. What do you think?

On issues ranging from healthcare, anti-terrorism tactics, war, and crime, President Obama seems committed to making deals with moderates and conservatives, rather than fighting for the values of the Democratic Party. Or, is the failure to fight an official value of the Democratic Party?

Democrats Offer Scathing Criticism of Obama's Senior Staff

Career Democrats (not just "outsider" liberal critics) are beginning to criticize President Obama's senior staff. The Hill, for example, reports that liberal and moderate Democrats in Congress blame Rahm Emanuel for the Obama administration's poor performance on healthcare reform.

Although both sides point to Emanuel, they do so for different reasons. Moderates fault Emanuel for only seeking the support of a narrow band of politicians, like Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Liberals, on the other hand, argue that Emanuel gave Senator Max Bachus too much time to negotiate with Republicans, like Senator Charles Grassley (who shamelessly joined Sarah Palin to condemn the bill for promoting "death panels").

On some level the criticisms sound contradictory (too much outreach versus not enough outreach to Republicans). Nevertheless, they all single out Emanuel as a problem for Obama. They also attribute Emanuel's shortcomings to his lack of Senate experience (which raises the question: Where is Joe Biden?).

In addition to The Hill article, former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder has written a scathing critique of Obama's senior staff in Politico. Wilder, who supported Obama over Hillary Clinton, argued that Obama needs to shake up his senior staff and remove Tim Kaine as Chair of the Democratic National Committee:

I am an admirer of Tim Kaine, whom I backed in his current position and as one of my successors as Virginia governor and even recommended for the vice presidency. But a spate of recent losses in races that Democrats should have won underscores what has been obvious to me for a long time: The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is the wrong job for him.

The changes must go much deeper. Obama’s West Wing is filled with people who are in their jobs because of their Chicago connections or because they signed on with Obama early during his presidential campaign.

One problem is that they do not have sufficient experience at governing at the executive branch level. The deeper problem is that they are not listening to the people.

Hearing is one thing; listening is another.

Although these recent critiques focus on Obama's staff, they implicitly raise questions regarding the extent to which Obama himself is responsible for his shortcomings. Admittedly, while Obama filled many policy positions with experienced individuals, a lot of his senior advisers in the White House are Chicago pals or people who endorsed him at critical stages of his campaign. Accordingly, Wilder's critique seems legitimate.

Nevertheless, some of the qualities that Democrats now demand -- experience and toughness -- are things they explicitly rejected in Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries. Democrats said that they wanted a "fresh face," rather than "experience," and that they wanted a "unifier," rather than a "fighter."

Now, hearing Democrats demand that Obama become tougher or that he replace his staff with veteran Washington politicians reminds me of Clinton's famous campaign statement: "You campaign in poetry and govern in prose." At this point, no one can honestly debate these words.

What Will Hillary Clinton Do Next?

Politico reports that during a recent interview with Tavis Smiley, Hillary Clinton indicated that she would probably decline to serve as Secretary of State for a second term:

TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, there’s already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first time, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I mean, it is just…

TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?

HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don't wanna make any predictions sitting here, I’m honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but it’s a, it’s a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to LAUGHS pass it on to someone else.

Clinton also reiterated her lack of interest in running for president in 2012:

TAVIS SMILEY: And finally, just for the record, you have said before, emphatically, in fact, that you are not interested in running again for President of the United States, I’m taking your answer now to mean that that’s still the same?

HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely not interested.

We shall see what the future brings for HRC. I have learned not to make any predictions with the Clintons. They love to surprise us.

What Happened to the Thunderous Liberal Opposition to Free Trade?

According to MSNBC, President Obama has indicated that the United States will seek to join a trade agreement with a small group of nations that would eventually expand into a larger Pacific Rim free trade pact. This development represents a dramatic shift from the rhetoric that colored the Democratic presidential primaries.

During the Democratic primaries, opposition to free trade became a standard line of the Left. The issue became extremely heated as the close political contest between Obama and Hillary Clinton moved into rustbelt states, like Ohio. Obama's campaign blamed Clinton for helping to pass NAFTA, while Clinton rebuked Obama in her infamous "shame on you" speech.

The anti-trade rhetoric reached a fever pitch after a Canadian governmental official said that one of Obama's economic advisers told him during a policy meeting that Obama's dramatic opposition to NAFTA was simply political posturing and that Obama would not disturb the free trade agreement. The Obama campaign cried foul play.

Nevertheless, after he secured the Democratic nomination, Obama began to abandon his anti-trade rhetoric. He said he would not seek to renegotiate NAFTA "unilaterally," and he attributed some of his earlier comments denouncing the agreement to "overheated and amplified" campaigning. The announcement of a new trade agreement -- rather than the reform of existing ones -- suggests that the anti-trade campaign rhetoric among Democrats was indeed political posturing and that they employed it to exploit economic vulnerability among middle-class and poor voters. Finally, the MSNBC article does not mention the recent primaries at all.

Being Right About the Right

Glenn Greenwald's latest column places some perspective around the latest clashes between liberals and conservatives. Although Greenwald acknowledges that "some people react with particular animus towards the first black president," he contends that "there is nothing new about the character of the American Right or their concerted efforts to destroy the legitimacy of Obama's presidency."

To support his claim, Greenwald chronicles some of the nasty, partisan attacks on Bill Clinton. The Monica Lewinsky drama is obvious, but some people may not remember many of the other unsubstantiated and totally lunatic allegations against Clinton. Visit Greenwald's page on Salon.Com (or see Dissenting Justice) for a list of some of these outrageous assertions.

Being Right About the Right
I completely agree with Greenwald. In fact, back in October 2008, I saw this happening already with respect to Obama. I used the moment to "school" some of the younger voters who mistakenly believed that Obama would unify the nation, the world, the parties, etc., but that Hillary Clinton was too divisive for the Democratic Party. I am probably understating things by saying that I found this argument utterly annoying, naive, and misguided.

Although I am modest, I love being right. Here's a snip from Dissenting Justice, 10/18/2008:

One of the things that perplexed me the most during the Democratic primaries was the portrayal of the Clintons as "divisive," a charge that made Hillary Clinton unfit for the presidency. Many of Obama's younger supporters, following his lead, said that Clinton represented "failed politics" of the past, that she would just bring "more of the same" and that all she knew how to do was fight. Obama, they said, offered a "fresh face" and practiced a new form of politics that would unify the country and the world. Recently, Obama himself said he would, in fact, change the world. . . .

[T]he notion that Obama could somehow escape Republican attacks and bring unity to the two parties seemed like a dubious claim. Some of my closest friends labeled me "too cynical" for making that argument, but in political analysis, I take the cynicism charge as a compliment rather than a slur. . . .

Many of Obama's supporters are voting and paying attention to politics for the very first time. . . .But I wonder whether these young and excited O-voters. . .know that division is a natural part of our two-party system? Have they come to grips with the reality that if Obama wins, the smearing will only get louder and the digging deeper? Do they now realize that political work is often messy -- even dirty -- and that meaningful, large scale change only comes through contestation and battle?

For the full read, check out: Look Who's "Divisive" Now: The Anti-Obama Attacks Similar to Republican Smearing of the Clintons.

Many People Said Hillary Was a "Bitch," But Change Requires Combat!

As I watch the angry right spew distortions regarding healthcare reform, I am reminded of two things from 2008.

First, I remember the battles I had with other liberals who tried unsuccessfully to convince me that Obama's victory signaled a monumental shift in national politics. It has not. And before people accuse me of being too cynical, I love to approach the world with eyes wide open. Sobriety is a good thing.

Second, I remember other liberals saying that Clinton was being "negative" (i.e., a bitch) when she belittled the almost religious embrace of change among many Obama supporters. This article from Huffington Post is a good example. At times, many of them argued that all we needed to do was elect Obama. His gentle style would persuade the electorate to accept his positions. But today, Obama's positions remain unclear on some very important issues, and conservatives, predictably, are in full opposition mode (just as liberals were during the Bush administration).

Since Obama is not inspiring liberals on healthcare reform at the moment (maybe things will change on Wednesday), enjoy the following video footage:

Clinton, Edwards and Obama Talk Healthcare (Clinton does major smackdown starting at 9:04)



Clinton Healthcare Townhall



Clinton on Fighting

What Liberal Media?

The media's coverage healthcare reform has been atrocious. Most of the reporting has focused on sideshows -- like scuffles at public meetings held to discuss the issue. Reporters pay attention to spectacle because they would rather create and exploit controversy than educate and inform the public.

Creating drama is a quick and easy way to generate traffic, which, in turn, fuels revenue. Engaging in sustained and helpful dialogue, however, takes time and may not lead to short-term spikes in traffic. Our legal system, however, gives extraordinary protection to news sources because they supposedly comment on matters of great public importance. Much of the contemporary reporting, however, falls short of this lofty ideal.

What Liberal Media?
Although conservatives often describe the media as "liberal," this label is inaccurate. Mainstream news sources are opportunistic, rather than liberal. Politically, they are most likely centrists, but they could lean right or left, depending on what is popular at the moment. The same "embedded" media personalities that salivated as shock and awe erupted, gushed with enthusiasm and emotion in response to Obama and his anti-war narrative.

During the wave of patriotism surrounding the Iraq War and the silencing of critical speech, Peter Jennings was the only major United States news anchor who raised serious questions about the appropriateness of the war. By the end of Bush's second term, when public support for the war had plummeted, no self-respecting reporter had anything decent to say about Bush or "his" war.

Now, the so-called liberal media is proving once again that it only operates to generate profits and to remain close to power (which are related goals). Throughout 2008, the media adored Barack Obama. He could do nothing wrong. Media figures moved swiftly and vigorously to rebuke Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Latino voters, poor white and uneducated voters, racism, anti-elitism, and any other perceived obstacle to Obama's election victory.

Although I am a progressive, I was stunned that my liberal colleagues embraced such a clear lack of criticism among mainstream news sources. They seemed unable to recall that an uncritical media stood idle during John Kerry's "swiftboating." The mainstream media almost universally failed to contextualize statements by Al Gore, which became fodder for late-night television and conservative commentary (he never said he "invented" the Internet).

Hillary Clinton became evil incarnate during the Democratic primaries. Now, conservatives are complaining because she has pretty much escaped criticism as Secretary of State. Bill is now the media darling because of his "diplomacy" in North Korea. Just a few months ago, the Clintons were awful racists destroying their legacy, the Democratic Party, the first "serious" black presidential candidate, and the possibility of "change" in the United States.

And the "Dean Scream" was a gross distortion that only a few networks conceded weeks later. The media, however, was comfortable using it to knock out Dean to boost the limping campaign of more mainstream Kerry.

During the Democratic primaries, the media often described criticism of Obama as rooted in racism. Although some criticism directed towards Obama was indeed racist and xenophobic, the media engaged in absolute overreach on this issue. Keith Olbermann, who at times seemed like he longed to become First Lady, launched into a nearly 30-minute tirade criticizing Hillary Clinton for supposedly saying during an interview that she remained in the race just in case someone killed Obama. Olbermann intentionally twisted and distorted Clinton's words. The newspaper that conducted the interview agreed. But this side of the story received very little attention.

Times have definitely changed. When Obama delivered his "race" speech in Philadelphia, some media commentators described it as surpassing any racial discourse ever uttered in the United States. When Obama said that the police acted "stupidly" when they arrested Henry Louis Gates, the reviews were mixed.

With respect to healthcare debates, the media never really gave the Democrats' reform agenda competent analysis by honestly discussing public opinion (the public actually wants a public plan) and discussing the merits and drawbacks of the legislation (as opposed to the theatrical politics surrounding it). Walter Cronkite is definitely dead.

One other point: Some "liberal" media commentators continue to take their cues from Obama, going as far as contradicting their prior arguments and isolating liberals for criticism and describing the center as "pragmatic" and smart. But I cannot bring nearly as much to this subject as Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.

Check out Greenwald's recent commentary on this and other aspects of the media:

The Beltway Consensus: The Left Is to Blame for Health Care Battle

Bush Critics: Still Evil, Crazy Extremists

Fringe Leftist Losers: Wrong Even When They're Right


For criticism of the media on Dissenting Justice, see:

Excuse Me Dana Milbank, Your Sexism Is Showing (Again)

Isn't It Ironic: E.J. Dionne's Column on Politics, the Media and Obama

Reader Challenge: How Has Obama Changed DC?

LA Times Joins the Hillary Media Makeover

"Scratching and Surviving" Less Newsworthy Than Politicians at Labor Protests: Scant Media Coverage of Republic Windows Workers After Sit-In

"Change" Has Arrived: NYT's Frank Rich Criticizes Obama For the First Time!

2008's Biggest Losers: The Media

Absolutely Shocking News Alert!

Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman

Why I Don't Trust the Media, Part 1000: Palin-Africa Story a Hoax

After the Obamercial: A Hint of Criticism Amidst Effusive Praise

2 Politico.Com Reporters Concede Media Biased, Blame McCain

ABC News Takes on Issue of Media Bias and Concludes: It Exists

Another Study Proves That 1+1=2, Or That the Media Love Obama, Hate McCain/Palin, and Who's Biden?

On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton

Would President Hillary Clinton Have Run Away From Healthcare Reform Like President Obama Is Reportedly Going to Do?

Would President Hillary Clinton have run away from healthcare reform like President Obama is reportedly going to do? Yes, I went there, but someone needed to say it. Unfortunately, I only have time to pose the question and to offer a few comments at the moment. I will provide more analysis tomorrow.

What provokes this question? Well, for starters, the White House has been a lot less than passionate about healthcare reform. The blatantly wrong and deceitful Sarah Palin has a louder voice on the issue than President Obama.

Also, Obama campaigned on "unity," while Clinton campaigned as a "fighter." I always thought true reform required a fighter. That is certainly how it has occurred historically. But people without knowledge of history do not understand or appreciate this reality. Change does not come from chanting, and an election is not a social movement.

During the presidential campaign, many of Obama's most ardent supporters were young Web users, who enthusiastically spread his positions across the Internet and smacked down those who stood in their way. Where are they now? Hint: Summer break. Another question: Where are all of those "guy" Senators who endorsed Obama and called for Clinton to end her "divisive" campaign?

Today, the wires are reporting that Obama is prepared to drop a public plan option -- with hardly any public debate on the issue. Yet, Obama was supposed to bring us the "better-than-Clinton healthcare reform process. Say what you like about Clinton (and most people have strong opinions either way), but no one can honestly assert that she lacks passion on healthcare reform and a true drive regarding the subject.

Obama is apparently retreating because a "Gang of Six" members of the Senate Finance Committee decided to vote against it, and one of them, Sen. Kent Conrad -- a North Dakota Democrat -- has said that the Democrats lack the votes to get over a likely Republican filibuster. Conrad's "no" vote virtually guarantees this result.

It is unclear, however, why the public should give six members of one Senate committee -- not even the full committee -- so much power over this important issue. Healthcare is not in the committee's general area of expertise. Also, the Gang of Six includes the wretched Senator Charles Grassley, who along with Palin, has repeatedly described the medically sound "end-of-life counseling" provision as a death panel. The Gang of Six deleted the measure from the committee's proposed legislation. Medical professionals, however, back the provision. The six Senators did not act in good faith when they dropped this provision, which raises questions about their judgment and their honesty.

Obama has apparently ceded what he described as one of his primary policy goals to six conservatives (3 Democrats and 3 Republicans) without public debate and without much advocacy from the White House. Where I am sitting, unity looks like capitulation -- or a clever way of letting six men on one Senate committee take responsibility for killing a measure that Obama really did not want in the first place. Neither option looks that good.

PS: I had planned to offer only a "few" comments, but they turned into "several."

Hillary Clinton Dismisses Bolton's Concerns Regarding Bill's North Korea Trip

In a couple of prior blog posts (see here and here), I analyzed Bill Clinton's successful mission to secure the release of two United States journalists who were imprisoned in North Korea. Although the White House has repeatedly stated that the mission lacked any diplomatic dimensions, it is rather difficult to extricate the trip from United States foreign relations, given Bill Clinton's status as former president and Hillary Clinton's role as Secretary of State.

The exact impact of the trip -- if any -- on strained United States-North Korea relations remains uncertain. Nevertheless, John Bolton, the conservative former United States Ambassador to the United Nations, believes that the visit will damage United States national security because it will invite other bad actors to try and negotiate favors from the United States.

Hillary Clinton disagrees -- basically dismissing with laughter Bolton's concerns during an interview on CNN. Here is the video footage (thanks to Tennessee Guerilla Women - like the title).

Healthcare "Debates": Ugly, Non-Substantive

During the Democratic primaries and after the presidential election, many commentators argued that President Obama would do a much better job advancing healthcare reform than Hillary Clinton, whose efforts failed miserably in the early 1990s. Many political observers argued that Obama's graceful style and "unifying" approach would guarantee favorable results. Today, with all of the emotional divisions over this issue, that discussion seems very dated.

While Clinton certainly made missteps during her healthcare initiative, I have always believed that if Obama had an easier time, this would happen because nearly two decades after Clinton's failure, the political landscape has changed significantly. Healthcare costs have continued to rise sharply, which has created the incentive for change among businesses and voters. Also, even though Clinton "failed," government sponsored healthcare expanded, in the form of new programs like SCHIP and the expansion of Medicare. Furthermore, even John McCain included healthcare reform in his political platform. Accordingly, passage of some type of reform seemed inevitable.

Nevertheless, I have also doubted much of the hoopla surrounding the supposed "new left" movement in the United States -- purportedly demonstrated by the election of Obama. On many important social issues, the country remains solidly centrist or center-right. Apparently, voters are divided on healthcare. Although many voters want reform, they are have different ideas about how these changes should look.

In Search of Real Debate
The public desperately needs real debate over these issues. The mainstream media, adhering to its obsession with sensationalism -- has offered utterly weak coverage. For some time now, most of the media coverage has primarily monitored public opinion and discord, rather than discussing the implications of various proposals. As usual, theatrics supplant substance.

I believe (and it seems rather obvious) that many members of the corporate media do not want a public plan option (and certainly not a single-payer provision). Their inability to get beyond this disagreement and engage in actual reporting on this subject has been tremendously disappointing. During the Democratic primaries, members of the media bashed Clinton as a policy wonk -- someone with immense knowledge and intellect but who was boring and uninspiring. Being an academic, I actually find facts, knowledge and intelligence inspiring, but apparently, that makes me an oddball.

The healthcare debates could really use a generous dose of facts and analysis. Instead, the nation's leaders are playing games with each other, and many people are engaging in loud and theatrical protests. I certainly believe in freedom of expression, but passionately expressing an idea does not guarantee that the idea has merit or that it contributes to a debate. It is time for real discussion.

Excuse Me Dana Milbank, Your Sexism Is Showing (Again)

In an apparent effort at humor, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank has suggested that if Hillary Clinton had attended the recent Gates/Crowley "summit" at the White House, she would have ordered "Mad Bitch" beer. Milbank and Chris Cillizza, another Washington Post writer, lampooned the summit in their video "Mouthpiece Theatre," which jokingly described the meeting as the "Ménage à Stella Artois."

The Washington Post placed the video on its website but took it down following criticism from liberal bloggers (e.g., TPM) and from media watchdogs (e.g., Megan Garber's essay in the Columbia Journalism Review). Several blogs linked to a Youtube source for the video, but the user who submitted the file subsequently removed it. Dissenting Justice, however, has located the video from another source (see below).

Milbank, Sexism, Hillary Clinton and the Media
Normally, outlandish -- even sexist and racist -- "humor" does not exercise me. I have turned off my television, radio and exited many websites to escape humor that taps into gutter instincts. I even argued that the heated reaction to Don Imus and his racist and sexist commentary was overblown. But Milbank and Cillizza occupy a different position than Imus. They are not shock jocks. Instead, they are writers for one of the world's most esteemed newspapers, and people rely upon them and the Washington Post for political analysis. Accordingly, their sexist humor means a lot more than the rants of Don Imus.

Moreover, this recent flap seems to confirm observations of many commentators (myself included) who argued that the media, particularly male journalists, portrayed Clinton in sexist terms during her unsuccessful presidential campaign. In a May 2008 column, Milbank himself portrayed Clinton as a demented and masochistic individual because she remained a candidate in the extremely tight race -- even though the odds of her winning were evaporating. Male candidates, by contrast, have remained in presidential primaries without winning any states whatsoever, but their continued candidacy never resulted in such hysteria and criticism as Clinton's decision to keep going.

Recently, Milbank employed the "dumb Latina" stereotype that became pervasive in the analysis of many male commentators regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Milbank says that by choosing Sotomayor, President Obama "opted for biography over brain," and he concludes that she could not compete intellectually with other candidates. Milbank, however, offers no evidence for his conclusion.

Despite his harsh criticism of Clinton and almost unwavering support for Obama during the Democratic primaries, Milbank wrote Clinton "A Thank-You for 18 Million Cracks in the Glass Ceiling," a reference to a famed statement from her concession speech. Ironically, Milbank (and other liberal male media figures, like Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews) benefits from this glass ceiling, and his sexist commentary certainly does not help to dismantle it.

Media Matters has the video footage, which I have embedded.

[Note: The video condemns a slew of other individuals, including many Republicans.]

Trying to "Get" Hillary Clinton, Mona Charen Contradicts Her Statistics

Conservative writer Mona Charen tries to pull a "gotcha" on Hillary Clinton, saying that Clinton could not "defend" Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who advocated abortion, in part, on racist grounds (i.e., it could prevent more undesirables from being born). Some conservatives believe that Sanger's bigotry delegitimizes abortion rights, apparently because: Sanger = abortion = racism. I have debunked a similar argument elsewhere: Pro-Life Race Card: Anti-Choice Activists Blow a Gasket Over Lifting of "Global Gag Rule"

Well, that's "truly ludicrious" (to borrow a phrase from Charen). By that logic, celebrating Washington's birthday should offend blacks because he owned slaves. Or perhaps I should not visit the Jefferson Memorial because he owned people too. And what self-respecting black person would live in Florida, Texas or Washington, DC, when all of these places had thriving slave industries? Neither the University of Pennsylvania, Yale Law School, nor American University's law school admitted blacks when they first opened, but I attended two of these schools and teach at the third. In short: Sanger, like Penn, Yale, and Jefferson, reflected the bigotry of her era. Move on!

Anyway. . . Charen says that Clinton first dodged a question concerning Sanger and then attacked former President George Bush:

Clinton then, in good Obamanista fashion, offered a gratuitous swipe at the Bush administration. "During my time as First Lady I helped to create the Campaign against Teenage Pregnancy ... and ... the rate of teen pregnancy went down. I'm sad to report that after an administration of eight years that undid so much of the good work, the rate of teenage pregnancy is going up."

Politicians always simplify, but this is truly ludicrous. Teen pregnancy down under the Clintons but then up under Bush? Sorry, the statistics do not reflect that. According to the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood), teen pregnancy reached an all-time high in 1988 and 1989 and began trending down thereafter, reaching its lowest recent point in 2005 — past the midpoint of the Bush years. It has been going up since then.

Earth to Charen: Clinton took office in 1993, when according to your own statistics, teen pregnancy was trending downward. You also say teen pregnancy has been trending upward since 2005, the midpoint of Bush's two terms -- which means, teen pregnancy increased during the Bush years.

I think it would be hard to link either pattern to a president, but I'll leave that to social scientists. But since Charen thinks the statistics are meaningful, they support Clinton's statement.

You Won't Believe Your Eyes: Despite Anti-Earmark Fervor and Economic Crisis, Proposed Budget Would Fund Thousands of Pork Projects

Last Year: Earmarks = The Bubonic Plague
Last year, the major presidential candidates each made very moralistic arguments condemning "earmarks." Earmarks are provisions in federal budget legislation which direct agencies to spend allocated money on specific projects.

Obama made opposition to earmarks a centerpiece of his campaign. He even pledged not to request any earmarks for fiscal year 2009. And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Obama proudly announced that the stimulus was "free of earmarks." Furthermore, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all co-sponsored an unsuccessful legislative provision that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Boy have things changed!

This Year: Earmarks = "What We Do"
Although Obama fought off efforts by lawmakers who wanted to insert earmarks into the stimulus package, it seems that he might have capitulated this time around. According to an article on Bloomberg.Com, the House will soon approve a budget that contains $7.7 billion in funding for 8,570 special projects (roughly 2% of the budget).

Legislation which passed during the Fall of 2008 contains an additional $6.6 billion in earmarks. Despite all of the anti-earmark rhetoric during the presidential campaign, the nonpartisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates that the total amount of earmarks for 2009 (if the earmarks are not slashed from the final bill) is only $500 million less than last year's total.
The top Senators from both parties have responded to the earmark issue. Senator Harry Reid defends earmarks as allowing Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over spending. Directing spending is "what we do," Reid says. His argument is not without merit. In the absence of a specific allocation, the executive agencies have wide latitude over the use of budgetary authority. But this certainly contradicts the message that the candidates advanced during the presidential campaign. Reid has a response for this too: Congress is "a separate branch of government."

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, who once bragged about his ability to bring bacon to his home state of Kentucky, says that he worries less about the "content" of the budget than its overall size. In other words, the inclusion of earmarks in the budget does not bother McConnell. Because both parties have padded the bill with earmarks, the position by Reid and McConnell should not surprise readers.

Examining the Pork
The Bloomberg article provides details of some of the pork in the proposed budget. Also, the Taxpayers for Common Sense website has a very extensive description of earmarks in the proposed budget, which the organization continues to update (here is the link).

Below, I have summarized some of the proposed earmarks. Do you consider these expenditures "reasonable," given the current economic crisis?

* 400,000, to combat bullying in Montana (huh?)

* 1.8 million, "swine odor and manure management in Iowa" (I suspect this might be a fairly important environmental issue in an agricultural state like Iowa)

* 900,000, Chicago's Adler Planetarium (requested by Rahm Emanuel before he left the House)

* 190,000, Chicago's Children's Memorial Research Center (Emanuel)

* 238,000, Academy for Urban School Leadership (Emanuel)

* 190,000, Advocate Health Care (Emanuel)

* 95,000, Kohl Children Museum of Greater Chicago (Emanuel)

* 95,000, Peoria Riverfront Museum (requested by Ray LaHood before he became Transportation Secretary)

* 381,000, University of Illinois College of Medicine (LaHood)

* 951,500, Sustainable Las Vegas (Shelley Berkeley and Harry Reid)

* 143,000, Las Vegas Natural History Museum (Reid)

* 190,000, Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody Wyoming (Barbara Cubin)

* 381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York City (Jerrold Nadler)

LA Times Joins the Hillary Media Makeover

The media are covering Hillary Clinton in an all new light. She has gone from evil to brilliant and balanced overnight! I already covered this in a prior post. But now, the Editors of the LA Times (who endorsed Obama over Clinton) have joined the rebuilding effort:

Rather than lecturing China about greenhouse gas emissions, Clinton urged the government not to make the mistakes the United States and Europe had made, effectively taking partial responsibility for the problem. She said that lecturing China has never been productive and that it was time to give the country some of the respect due the world's third-largest economy. It was a successful first foray by the secretary of State. She'll have other opportunities to use the moral and political force of a superpower -- once this country has regained its standing -- to address human rights abuses in China.

Beat 'em up, build 'em up.

Hillary's Media Makeover Continues: Secretary of State Clinton Scores High Marks for Her Asia Tour

The reporting on Hillary Clinton's first diplomatic tour sound remarkably different from the days when the media relentlessly portrayed her as a selfish, unstable, deceitful, club-wielding, kitchen-sink throwing, evil politician. Now, she earns high marks for bringing a warm face, fame, honesty, and deep intelligence to U.S. diplomacy.

Here's a clip from an Associated Press article that assesses her visit to Asia:

"A lot of international diplomacy is a head game," she told reporters in Seoul, South Korea, bluntly describing the administration's outreach to governments in North Korea and Iran and explaining her willingness to dive into crowds to make personal connections with foreigners. . . .

Her comments. . .came after she had enthralled young audiences in Tokyo, Seoul and Jakarta, Indonesia, with anecdotes about her childhood, her husband and her daughter, and charmed leaders in each capital with her ebullience.

"It's glorious to meet you," a Tokyo University student told Clinton at her first town hall meeting. It turned out to be a preview of the joyous receptions she would get in both public and private settings.

In Indonesia and South Korea, crowds seemed enraptured by her presence. Audiences asked questions well outside the realm of foreign policy - about motherhood, romance, career choices, beauty tips and her musical tastes.

"Such a great honor for me to be here," one Indonesian journalist gushed. "My question is you are probably the most popular U.S. secretary of state here in Indonesia. How do you deal with this and how do you think this would affect Indonesia-U.S. bilateral relationship?"

One of several female South Korean journalists asked how Clinton managed to look "very young and energetic" given her grueling schedule.

"I look very young? Oh my goodness, I hope somebody is recording this!" the 61-year-old Clinton said.

In addition to these comments, media outlets have largely ignored human rights groups' complaints about Clinton's view that the U.S. should not condemn China for its human rights record at this time. Isn't redemption wonderful?

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

Huffington's Hillary Makeover Continues: Pro-Clinton Essays A Dramatic Switch from Prior Coverage

Leftists Finally Realize Obama Is a Moderate; Huffington Post Suddenly Embraces Clinton and Political Center

Panhandling in China: Hillary Clinton Urges the Chinese to Keep Investing in Distressed U.S. Financial Markets

Continuing her tour of China, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has urged the Chinese to continue investing in the United States. In a move that could make a used car salesman blush, Clinton portrayed the United States as a "safe investment" and said that the two countries share a common fate because the United States is the most popular destination for China's exports. Translation: If you want us to continuing buying your widgets, give us the money to do so!

Here's a clip from the article, which appears on MSNBC.Com:

[Clinton] said during an interview with the show "One on One" during her stop in China Sunday that she thinks the Chinese are making a smart decision by continuing to invest in U.S. financial instruments. "It's a safe investment. The United States has a well-deserved financial reputation."

In order to boost the economy, the U.S has to incur more debt, she said. "It would not be in China's interest if we were unable to get our economy moving," Clinton said. "So by continuing to support American Treasury instruments, the Chinese are recognizing our interconnection. We are truly going to rise or fall together. We are in the same boat.

Last week, Clinton provoked anger among some human rights activists when she said that now was not the right time for the United States to highlight China's human rights abuses. Well, she's probably correct on that issue. The old saying that warns against "biting the hand that feeds you" seems relevant.

Don't Blame the Current Economic Conditions: Obama's Softer Position on NAFTA Emerged Almost a Year Ago

As the Democratic primaries reached the nation's Rust Belt, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began making harsh critiques of NAFTA, and they vowed to renegotiate the trade pact, even if this required pulling out of the agreement. Today, however, during a joint-press conference with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama took a much softer tone regarding NAFTA and stated that he wanted to expand rather than reduce trade activity between the U.S. and Canada.

President Obama attributed his markedly different stance towards NAFTA to the global economic crisis. Specifically, he said that in the wake of the global recession, he needed "to be very careful about any signals of protectionism." He made similar statements earlier this week. Obama's softer stance on NAFTA, however, began as almost a year ago.

Obama's March 2008 NAFTA "Wink"
In March 2008, during the heat of the Democratic candidates' assault on NAFTA, a leaked memorandum of notes describing a meeting between Canadian Consul General Georges Rioux and Obama's economic policy advisor Austan Goolsbee created created a political firestorm. The leaked notes stated that Goolsbee tried to reassure Canadians that Obama's tough position on NAFTA was merely "political positioning" and that he was fully committed to free trade with Canada.

The leak of the memorandum triggered a response from Obama's campaign, which said that the notes distorted discussions between Goolsbee and Rioux. Although Goolsbee denied using the words "political positioning," he did not deny saying something similar.

Full Retreat on NAFTA By June 2008
As soon as Obama obtained the Democratic nomination, his rhetoric on NAFTA dramatically shifted. And just as the leaked memorandum indicated, he began to pull away from the harsh anti-trade rhetoric that defined the Democratic primaries in the Midwest.

During a June 2008 interview with Fortune magazine, for example, Obama said that he would not seek a unilateral renegotiation of NAFTA, even though both he and Clinton had vowed to do so earlier. When asked by Fortune to reconcile his softer position with his forceful campaign rhetoric, Obama stated that "[s]ometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. . . . Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."

Last Word: I agree that protectionism will not solve the country's economic problems, and it could even exacerbate them. And I never really expected Clinton or Obama to modify substantially the terms of NAFTA. But Obama's current pro-NAFTA position did not recently take hold. Instead, as soon as he secured the Democratic nomination, he began moving to the center on free trade, which confirms the content of the leaked memorandum.