Today, I posted a blog entry that recounts some of the harshest progressive criticism of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Since that time, I have scanned the Internet and collected some of the initial responses by progressives to the official nomination of Clinton as Secretary of State. Here are some of the items I have found.
AlterNet
(Stephen Zunes)
With the selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State . . . it is no longer possible to make any more excuses [for Obama's cabinet choices]. It is getting harder to deny that Barack Obama intends to tilt his foreign policy to the right.
This is not simply a situation where Obama desires an opportunity to listen to alternative perspectives from hawks as a means of strengthening his dovish proclivities. These hawkish perspectives have long been dominant in Washington and in the mainstream media, so even without these appointments, Obama would be getting plenty of this kind of feedback anyway. It appears that he has appointed Clinton and these other hawks because he does not have any principled objections to their disdain for human right and international law.
[Editor: Zunes is consistently extreme in his critique of Clinton. Now, he offers similarly melodramtic statements about Obama.]
The Nation
(Katrina Vanden Heuvel)
Barack Obama not only had the good judgment to oppose the war in Iraq but, as he told us earlier this year, "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." So it is troubling that a man of such good judgment has asked Robert Gates to stay on as Secretary of Defense -- and assembled a national security team of such narrow bandwidth. It is true that President Obama will set the policy. But this team makes it more difficult to seize the extraordinary opportunity Obama's election has offered to reengage the world and reset America's priorities. Maybe being right about the greatest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history doesn't mean much inside the Beltway? How else to explain that not a single top member of Obama's foreign policy/national security team opposed the war -- or the dubious claims leading up to it?
(John Nichols)
Obama is not assembling a team of rivals -- at least not with the Clinton pick. He is selecting a fellow senator who he came to respect and even to regard somewhat fondly during the course of a difficult but not particularly destructive primary campaign. More importantly, he is selected someone who agrees with him on almost every significant global issues and who he is certain will be able Secretary of State.
No, the man who spent the past several days consulting by phone with outgoing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, is not staking out bold new turf with his selection of a replacement for Rice. This is not fundamental change. But no one who paid serious attention to Obama's campaigning, even in the early stages of the race, thought he was about fundamental change.
Huffington Post
[Editor: Apparently, today's theme at Huffington Post is: "it's all good." The pro-Obama blog features several essays that praise Obama's foreign policy team, even though it was a major player in the construction of Clinton as a worthless hawk and the portrayal Obama as a Leftist dove. Although Arianna Huffington criticized Obama's choice of Clinton before it became official, Huffington Post bloggers have seemingly moved fully behind the new team. One essay even offers a "progressive" take on Robert Gates.]
(James Warren)
As the season's first snow hit, Barack Obama on Monday took a shovel to the chilliest element of Bush administration national security policy: moral certitude. Rather than look to the heavens, a skillful president-elect seemed distinctly focused on the ground for inspiration.
With Sen. Hillary Clinton and six other new colleagues aligned in front of their very own American flags, Obama left little doubt that we're shifting the political center of gravity. For all Monday's talk of power, and successfully ending the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, the significance was less the obvious signals of being "muscular" than of an attempt to be flexible and, yes, multilateralist.
(Max Bergmann)
[Editor: Here's the progressive take on Gates.]
While many progressives acknowledge that Gates has said some reasonable things . . . and has been a positive influence within the Bush administration, many argue that this does not justify keeping someone on who was simply not as bad as the rest - especially when you have an opportunity to bring in someone more progressive.
But in keeping Gates, Obama, is actually indicating that he is very serious about instituting significant reform of the Pentagon.
Gates has advocated some very bold progressive reforms during the last couple of years. He has broken with the Rumsfeld emphasis on military transformation and has repeatedly talked about the need for the Pentagon to move away from procuring unnecessary weapons that are hugely expensive and have little strategic role (italics added).
[Editor: "Very bold progressive reforms"? Apparently, I missed an issue of my subscription to Bold Progressive Reforms Magazine. Also, it is pretty sad for lefties when simply disagreeing with "shock and awe" Rumsfeld gives someone progressive credentials.]
Cecile Richards
The selection of Senator Clinton [as Secretary of State] represents an important first step down a new path for American foreign policy -- an enormous shift represented by the selection of a champion of women's health and rights to be in charge of America foreign policy. . . .
Senator Clinton understands that improving the status of women is not simply a moral imperative; it is necessary to building democracies around the globe. Improving the status of women is key to creating stable families, stable communities, and stable countries. Women's ability to control the size of their families, regardless of economics, nationality, or culture, has a direct impact on their economic well-being and that of their children. Senator Clinton understands that women's quality of life directly affects the major issues confronting the globe: national security, environmental sustainability, and global poverty.
[Editor: During the Democratic primaries, Huffington Post published a number of "open letters" from feminists "for Obama" (or simply "against Clinton"). I do not recall seeing much pro-Clinton feminist commentary, except from solid Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh.]
Concluding Thoughts: As I stated at the beginning of this entry, I have always believed that Obama and Clinton are both centrist Democrats. My view of the candidates' shared political ideology has placed me in constant opposition with other progressives.
But I do not believe that having a centrist president precludes progressive change. Accordingly, I am not writing about Obama's moderate politics in order to denounce his administration. Instead, I hope to remind the Left that dissent is a critical component of progressive politics. Because many progressives abdicated critical analysis of Obama, they are now becoming disaffected or searching for ways to reconcile their earlier praise of Obama and hatred of Clinton with the reality that he is a centrist and that she is the "fresh face" of U.S. foreign policy.
Showing posts with label alternet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label alternet. Show all posts
Monday, December 1, 2008
Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet
Now that Clinton has officially received her offer to serve as Secretary of State, I thought readers might find it interesting to ponder with me how the Left will react. During the Democratic primaries, I found both leading candidates highly attractive. When it became clear that the race would go to the wire, I even favored a "Dream Team," but that never materialized.
The Left Bashed Clinton as a Conservative Hawk
By contrast, my liberal and progressive colleagues (many of whom are other academics) had the utmost disdain for Clinton. While I viewed the two candidates as fairly mainstream or guardedly liberal on most issues, other progressives passionately supported Obama as the most radical choice and dismissed Clinton as a self-interested, conservative (or valueless), inexperienced, racist, demagogue who would govern as a centrist (at best), continue Bush's hawkish foreign policy, and fail to offer any fundamental change in society.
Progressives' disgust with Clinton stemmed, in part, from their lingering dissatisfaction with Bill Clinton's presidency, which they viewed as betraying the Left. Hillary Clinton became a punching bag for Leftist discontent with centrist politics of the Democratic Party. Disclaimer: I (a self-proclaimed progressive) also disagreed with many of President Clinton's compromises with the right. I was 20-something at the time, and I now appreciate the value of compromise much more than I did at the time. Furthermore, and more importantly, I refused to conflate the Clintons and view them as a pathological "Billary," as many liberals shamefully did. That term has an unmistakeably sexist connotation.
Progressive Bloggers Helped Portray Clinton as Bush III
Some of the loudest "progressive" criticism of Hillary Clinton came from popular liberal and progressive blogs. In particular Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet (among many others) frequently posted vitriolic essays warning readers of the awful nature of Clinton's politics. Now that Clinton has received the highest position on foreign policy in Obama's Cabinet, I assume that the Left will soon express dismay -- if they actually believed the harsh criticism they lodged against Clinton and the effusive praise they reserved for Obama during the Democratic primaries.
Because people have very short memories, I have posted some material from several liberal and progressive blogs below. As you read them, consider how the writers could possibly reconcile their earlier positions on Clinton and Obama with Obama's decision to make Clinton Secretary of State.
Examples of Progressive Critiques of Clinton from Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet
Daily Kos
This is a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. Will it be the party of corporate insiders and the Democratic Leadership Council’s centrist, triangulating approach to politics? Or will it be the party of a new generation shaping the future of the Democratic Party in a progressive direction.
We face a turning point for this country and for the Democratic Party. We have the potential to launch a progressive revolution in America. That’s why we cannot risk everything on a centrist, unpopular candidate, and why progressives must unite behind the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary race.
Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton has made the completely wrong and incompetent judgements in Foreign Policy, on both Iraq and Iran. Even far worse than any one particular vote, she attached her own credibility to public promotion and parroting of the plainly fraudulent White House talking-points, and a bizarre faith-based loyalty to their bogus intelligence (White House manipulated) -- even after the inconvenient truth was reported both Nationally and Internationally, and revealed before the whole World. . . .
The errors are even larger, and something that is permanent and institutionalized by her own choice of trusted advisors, and that incompetence will never change either now or in the future. You can learn a whole lot about a candidate by who their trusted advisors are.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary have hired advisors that at one time served within the former Clinton administration. Yet, the similarity ends there. . . .
The more I see Hillary Clinton on TV and think about her, the more I realize that she doesn't care in the least bit about the Democratic party. She cares about herself and her husbands legacy and nothing else. Frankly, I am sick of it, and I will be even sicker if she somehow manages to get this nomination. People who are nominated for President by a party have usually worked in the past to show that they actually care about the party, not just themselves. Hillary Clinton has done nothing to show ths [sic]. . . .
Huffington Post
A major difference stands out among those they are likely to appoint to key posts in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs: Almost everyone in Senator Obama's foreign policy team opposed the U.S. invasion. By contrast, most of Senator Clinton's foreign policy team, which largely comprises veterans of her husband's administration, strongly supported George W. Bush's call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. . . .
Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she's surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush's, would be more likely to embrace exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.
The problem of Clinton's poor instincts on foreign policy is compounded by the hawkish foreign policy advisors she has surrounded herself with, the most important of which are Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrooke, Lee Feinstein and Sandy Berger.
Hillary's triangulating against Obama is true to form for the Clintons. That's all they ever do: cozy up to the Republicans, cut off the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, and help push along the Republican agenda on trade, welfare, taxes, and corporate power. The Democratic Party has still not recovered from the Clinton failures to stand up to the GOP. Hillary was on the board of directors of Wal-Mart, one of the most anti-labor companies in the world. That's not much different than being CEO of Halliburton.
Now she, in effect, endorsed John McCain over Barack Obama in the 2008 election. It was both a shortsighted attempt at tactical advantage and a snub to Obama stating that he can forget about sharing a ticket with Hillary. How can Hillary ever join a ticket with Obama now that she has ranked him below the GOP's choice? . . . .[I] will vote for Ralph Nader before I'll vote for Hillary Clinton.
Let's face it: No matter how much many of us who oppose the war in Iraq would also love to elect a female president, Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate. She is an unrepentant hawk, à la Joe Lieberman. She believed invading Iraq was a good idea, all available evidence to the contrary, and she has, once again, made it clear that she still does. . . .
[The record] shows a fondness in Clinton for war and bullying adventurism that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on many domestic issues. As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking off the Republican revolution, what we need is a choice, not an echo.
AlterNet
What in the world was Sen. Hillary Clinton thinking when she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in going after Osama bin Laden? And why aren't her supporters more concerned about yet another egregious example of Clinton's consistent backing for the mindless militarism that is dragging this nation to ruin?
So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be commander in chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?
In July 2002, at the first Senate hearing on Iraq, then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Joe Biden pledged his allegiance to Bush's war. Ever since, the blunt-spoken Biden has seized every opportunity to dismiss antiwar critics within his own party, vocally denouncing Bush's handling of the war while doggedly supporting the war effort itself. . . .
The Democrats' speculative front-runner for '08, Hillary Clinton, has offered similarly hawkish rhetoric. Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it . . . .
Why is [Clinton] even a Democrat? As we all know, Democratic presidents are almost as likely to wage war as Republican. Then what's with her reputation as a liberal?
It's almost as if the cover of arch-liberal with which conservatives have conveniently provided Hillary allows her inner hawk to fly free. . . .Thanks to the efforts of people like Stephen Zunes, more and more of us understand that, with Hillary and her militaristic proclivities, what you see is what you get.
Would you have not paid serious money to watch the Anointed One's composure disintegrate before your very eyes as the ground receded from beneath her feet? Can you imagine her sheer fury at having sold-out everything and everyone to be president, only to be left holding the bag, her butt good and well kicked by a funny-named nobody from nowhere? . . . Could you have hoped even in your wildest dreams that Bad Bill's true colors would finally be exposed to his idiotic supporters who never saw him for the Republican he always was? . . . .
The public is ready for a turn to the left, and Obama wants to give it them. Young people have abandoned the GOP in droves. As importantly, conservative policies and politics have been discredited for a generation or more, especially if some Democrat could unplug their brain from life-support long enough to just say so. Obama is saying so.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Governing In Prose: Obama's Cabinet Picks Defy Campaign Narrative That Emphasized "Hope," "Change," and "Washington-Outsider" Status
During the Democratic primaries, whenever individuals who worked in the Clinton administration announced their support for Obama, the media and Obama supporters would gleefully report their endorsements. Now, as Obama has turned almost exclusively to Clinton-era professionals to complete his staff, the media's reaction has turned less jovial. Some progressives, in fact, feel betrayed by Obama's cabinet choices. Their reaction is justifiable in many ways, but it is also politically immature to some extent.
It is hardly novel for presidents to turn to prior administrations to pick advisers. Experience in Washington is just as valuable for politicians as experience practicing medicine is helpful for doctors. Standing alone, Obama's cabinet choices should not trigger any criticism simply because they worked for Bill Clinton.
But Obama's Campaign Demonized Career Washingtonians
During the primaries, however, many of Obama's most ardent supporters, including his own promoters, depicted him as a "Washington outsider." Furthermore, Obama gained tactical advantages when he denounced his rivals as Washington politicians. For example, when Clinton and McCain proposed a "gas tax holiday," Obama described the idea as a "gimmick" and derided his opponents as "Washington candidates." Unlike Clinton and McCain, Obama offered a better answer for voters (even though he did not outline a plan to reduce short-term fuel prices) because he was not a part of the Washington establishment. Instead, he only wanted to become its most powerful leader.
Obama's Cabinet Not Ideologically Left
Obama's picks also raise eyebrows because they do not mesh with the wildly enthusiastic praise that progressives gave his candidacy. Obama won overwhelming support from MoveOn, Daily Kos, HuffingtonPost, National Journal, and their followers. Progressives viewed Obama as being in the flock; Clinton, on the other hand, was a conservative in liberal attire (at least until Obama defeated her, and re-casting her as a liberal could help persuade/shame PUMAs to vote for him).
Obama himself often lumped Clinton-era policy with Bush's failed administration. For example, Obama said that working class people cling to guns, religion, homophobia, and xenophobia because "they fell through the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. . . ." Compared with Obama, Bush and both Clintons were simply more of the same. Obama, by contrast, offered a progressive voice that would create fundamental change for working-class Americans.
The leftist depiction of Obama became most pronounced in the area of foreign affairs. Obama grabbed attention during the primaries by running as an anti-war candidate. Although the economy ultimately mattered more to voters in the general election, during the primaries, Obama's opposition to the war gave him a tremendous amount of credibility among progressives. The Left contrasted Obama (a dove) from Clinton, whom they described as a dangerous hawk.
Guy Saperstein (a former president of the Sierra Club) wrote a polemical essay for AlterNet that typifies progressive disagreement with Clinton in the context of foreign policy. Saperstein characterizes Clinton as "one of the most hawkish of Democrats" in the Senate. He also accuses her foreign policy advisors of being equally enthusiastic about militarism. By contrast, Saperstein argues that Obama's speech opposing the war (prior to his run for the Senate) makes him a "case study of good judgment trumping a resume." Based on his comparison of the candidates, Saperstein concludes that: "For those voters who want American foreign policy to continue to trend in the direction of muscularity and intervention, they have their candidate -- Hillary Clinton. For those who want change in American foreign policy, who think American militarism and interventionism need to be scaled back, Obama, and his foreign policy advisors, appear ready to begin those changes." Well, now it appears that a hawk will promulgate foreign policy for the next four years.
Obama also assailed Clinton on foreign policy, making arguments that resemble those that Saperstein advances. Obama argued, for example, that even if Clinton has experience, her vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq shows that she lacks judgment. Today, Clinton's suddenly-good judgment makes her the leading candidate to serve as the nation's highest diplomat. Now that's change! I wonder if this is what Saperstein had in mind with his endorsement.
Experience Actually Matters
A final area in which Obama's personnel choices deviate from his campaign message surrounds the issue of "experience." Obama's remarkable ability to rebut Clinton's experience narrative impressed me during the primaries. Obama blunted the experience argument by turning the issue into one of judgment. Even if Clinton has more "experience" (which she might not actually have), it does not mean much if she also lacks judgment (demonstrated, for example, by her vote in favor of the Iraq War).
Many progressives and liberals embraced the judgment-over-experience argument (see Saperstein's essay). Others, however, discounted experience altogether. Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne used his weekly column to espouse liberal and progressive perspectives on Obama. In one column, Dionne rejects Clinton's arguments that experience and knowledge concerning policy matter more than messages of "hope" and "change." Dionne concedes that"[i]f we chose a president by examination rather than election, [Clinton] would win . . . .But voters right now are not thinking about intricate puzzles." Dionne asserts that "[t]ransformation is not about policy details but about altering the political and social calculus."
Well, apparently, Obama does not see things this way. In picking members of his cabinet and high-level staff, Obama has selected candidates with long and deep resumes in Washington and who have a high degree of knowledge concerning public policy. Experience and knowledge now drive his message more than "change" and "hope." Even writers for the Obama-endorsing San Francisco Chronicle have reported on the contradictions between Obama's staff and his campaign rhetoric. A recent article in the paper observes that: "[T]he Obama administration is shaping up as a collection of experienced and powerful Washington hands. It is a far cry from the change mantra of Obama's campaign, during which he routinely attacked Washington as a captive of old politics and special interests."
Concluding Thoughts
Although I have chosen to highlight the differences between Obama's campaign rhetoric and his personnel choices, I do not disagree with his decision to hire experienced, Clinton-era politicos or even ideological moderates. In fact, I always suspected Obama would do this, and all of the individuals he has selected have already demonstrated that they are talented and capable. Moreover, experience has always been relevant in picking a president, and, contrary to anti-Clinton campaign rhetoric, there are stark differences between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Obama's decision to hire many Clinton-era politicians, especially Hillary Clinton, vindicates the idea that experience matters, and it also helps legitimize the Clinton administration for younger Democrats who often fell for the assertion that Bush and the Clintons are indistinguishable.
Even though I do not have a problem with Obama's cabinet picks or his policies, I continue to focus on the issues discussed on this blog because, as an educator, I feel compelled to use the election as a "teaching moment" for demonstrating the problems that can occur when seasoned political commentators, voters, and analysts uncritically accept campaign rhetoric. I also want younger voters, who may have participated in politics for the first time, to realize that even candidates they passionately support can and will behave like politicians. They need to do this in order to win and get re-elected. In other words, I write to teach. That's my mission. And my teaching is nonpartisan. I hope you enjoy it!
Related reading on Dissenting Justice:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)