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.

Clinton Backs Romanoff in Colorado Senate Primary

Bill Clinton has parted ways with the White House and has announced his support for Andrew Romanoff in Colorado's US Senate primary. President Obama has endorsed incumbent Michael Bennett, who was appointed to the seat after Ken Salazar resigned to become Secretary of the Interior. Romanoff says that President Obama offerred him a job in order to keep him out of the primary.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama Tell Tiger Woods to Hang in There!

According to several sources, Bill Clinton and President Obama have both called Tiger Woods to offer words of encouragement. Clinton clearly knows what it feels like to have his sexuality on the evening news. The Obama call is a little less expected.

Query: Why can't presidents and former presidents call people who are not rich and famous in order to lift their spirits? They probably need it more than Woods. Plus, they face even more daunting issues with fewer resources.

Update: Golf Digest has printed a correction which says that Obama did not call Woods, but that he offered encouragement. The article does not state how Obama conveyed his encouragement.

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.

Bill Clinton "Schools" the Senate on Health Care Reform

Bill Clinton held a caucus with Senate Democrats to lecture them on the importance of passing healthcare reform. Apparently, the "twofer" president concept does not sound as bad to people as it did last year.

Bill's take on his talk:

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.

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

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).

"Private" Diplomacy: Following Clinton Visit, North Korea Pardons U.S. Journalists

Today, Bill Clinton met with Kim Jong Il and other North Korean officials during what the White House has described as a "private" mission. Hours after their meeting, North Korea has reportedly pardoned two United States journalists that were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for allegedly committing "hostile acts" against the country (thanks to The Common Room for the tip).

Earlier today, I argued that describing Clinton's visit a "private" mission is less than honest. Given Clinton's status as a former president and Hillary Clinton's status as the current Secretary of State (not to mention the strained relations between the United States and North Korea), his visit definitely has diplomatic overtones, and it was possibly designed for that purpose. John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations, agrees, but he concludes that the mission was "unwise." In a Washington Post op-ed, Bolton argues that:

[T]he Clinton trip is a significant propaganda victory for North Korea, whether
or not he carried an official message from President Obama. Despite decades of
bipartisan U.S. rhetoric about not negotiating with terrorists for the release
of hostages, it seems that the Obama administration not only chose to negotiate,
but to send a former president to do so.

I certainly lack the ability to predict the impact that Clinton's visit will have on United States national security, and Bolton seems to concede his inability to do so as well. And while I am reluctant to embrace Bolton's gloomy forecast, I agree with his observation that billing the mission as a private venture does not separate it from United States foreign affairs.

No Longer In or Seeking Public Office, Bill Clinton Endorses Same-Sex Marriage

Former President Bill Clinton has "basically" embraced same-sex marriage. Although Clinton once opposed same-sex marriage, during a recent speech in Washington, DC, he said that he is now "basically in support" of it. Nevertheless, while Clinton applauded states that have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, he asserted that same-sex marriage does not present a "federal question."

My Thoughts
First, I find it odd that Clinton says that same-sex marriage does not involve any federal issues when he signed the infamous Defense of Marriage Act into law! DOMA permits states to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in and recognized by other states, and it creates a heterosexual definition of marriage for federal regulatory purposes. I would love to hear Clinton wiggle out of his contradictory stances. For the record, the denial of same-sex marriage raises serious equal protection and due process concerns -- which are indisputably "federal" issues.

Second, Clinton is the biggest political star who has endorsed same-sex marriage. Recently, several Democrats and (less prominent) Republicans have voiced support for same-sex marriage. The growing list includes: Howard Dean, Charles Schumer, John Corzine, Christopher Dodd, Dick Cheney, Meghan McCain (daughter of John), Steve Schmidt (John McCain's top strategist), and Jerry Sanders (San Diego Mayor).

Finally, although Clinton, Cheney, and Dean have endorsed same-sex marriage, neither 9f the three will likely seek elected office again. Also, while Schumer, Corzine and Dodd still hold office, they represent states that have already legalized same-sex marriage (Connecticut) or that will likely do so in the near future (New York and New Jersey).

Question: Will President Obama change course and support same-sex marriage once he is comfortably beyond the control of voters?

A Harry Reid Flip-Flop? Comparing His Views on Bill Clinton and Rod Blagojevich

With all of the discourse about "taint" and governance flying around, I decided to take a trip down memory lane and examine the political drama during the failed Republican effort to remove Bill Clinton from office.

Democrats Are to Blagojevich as Republicans Were to Bill Clinton
Ironically, many Democrats are making arguments today with respect to Blagojevich that they rejected during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Republicans demanded that Clinton resign, and Special Prosecutor Ken Starr leaked information to the media in an effort to shame him out of office.

While Republicans claimed that the controversy surrounding Clinton made it impossible for him to govern effectively, Democrats argued that the partisan impeachment disrupted the country instead and that Clinton should remain in office. Today, however, many Democrats -- particularly Senate Democrats who oppose the seating of Roland Burris -- believe Blagojevich should resign; their arguments mirror the assertions of Republicans who pressured Clinton to leave office.

Harry Reid: Flip-Flopper?
Because Harry Reid is a central voice in the present controversy, I focus on his comments alone. Reid voted against removing Clinton from office. Contrary to his rigid (at least until recently) position on Burris and Blagojevich, Reid urges flexibility and compassion for Clinton because everyone is flawed:

Great dreams are dreamed by people with human flaws. Great policies and actions are sometimes set in motion by those with broken souls. Great deeds are not always done by good men. Recent history gives us many examples. . . . Each of us, each one of us in this Chamber, every human being, is flawed. Each of us needs all the forgiveness and forbearing we can be granted by the charity of others.

Reid did not believe that the allegations against Clinton, even if true, warranted removal from office, even though he said that Clinton violated the "public trust."

Reid also criticized Starr for trying to force Clinton out of office. After comparing Starr with McCarthy, Reid reflected on his own career as a trial lawyer as a way of advocating the need for fairness:

I tried criminal cases, lots of them . . . .I know something about the impact that a criminal charge has on any man or woman, about how they agonize over telling their children, how they struggle to face the community.

Every American is entitled to equal justice, no matter their rank in society; equal justice but not equally unfair justice. . . .

A fairminded prosecutor would not have leaked salacious details to the press in an effort to force the target to resign from office.

Skip forward to the present, and Reid takes a very different tone. He does not point out the inherent flaws of humanity. He also does not urge flexibility. Instead, he argues inflexibly that no one appointed by Blagojevich can escape "taint," and he uses the controversy surrounding the governor to pressure him out of office. Reid's response to the appointment of Burris illustrates the contrast between his differing approaches:

[Rejecting Blagojevich's appointments] is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus. . . .

We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat.

But Reid began demanding that Blagojevich resign immediately after he was arrested. The entire Democratic Senate Caucus signed Reid's letter to Blagojevich, which states that:

The arrest of and complaint against Gov. Blagojevich raises serious concerns about his ability to effectively represent the people of Illinois. The conduct alleged represents a disgraceful abuse of the public trust. In the interest of the people of Illinois and all Americans, he should resign immediately. If he does not, I hope the Illinois legislature will take action.

By contrast, during the Clinton impeachment effort, Reid urged flexibility, forgiveness and equal justice. Reid, however, has basically found Blagojevich guilty in advance of any factfinding. During an interview on Meet the Press, for example, Reid said that "Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that's pretty clear."

This does not sound like "equal justice." Instead, it sounds like "Kangaroo Justice." Do Democrats remember that Clinton continued to serve, spend governmental money, order military strikes, sign legislation and perform his presidential duties after he was charged by the House impeachment committee and even during his trial in the Senate? Here's a better question: Do Democrats realize that their positions have shifted dramatically?


Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Feinstein Smacks Down Reid and Fellow Democrats Regarding Burris

Joe Lieberman and Rick Warren In, Roland Burris Out: No "Place at the Table" for Senior, Loyal Democrat

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Will Bill Richardson's Case Lead to a Softening of the Rhetoric of "Taint"?

Patrick Buchanan Shows Greater Commitment to Liberal Values Than Senate Democrats, Defends Roland Burris

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

Pick Me! Caroline Kennedy Officially on the Job Market

Happy New Year From DISSENTING JUSTICE: My Not-So-Humble Year-End Review

2008 has been an exciting year for legal and political analysis. I started this blog because I believed that progressives and the media were absolutely uncritical in their analysis of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination. Although I officially launched the site in April, I did not pay sustained attention to developing it until October. Since that time, I have been pleasantly surprised by the engagement of readers. I truly appreciate your comments, emails and readership.

A Few of My Favorite Things

I have enjoyed sharing my ideas with you, but I am particularly fond of the following essays. Overall, I like this essay, which criticizes the Left for being uncritical about Obama, the most: Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State. On the same theme, are close runners-up: 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama, Governing In Prose: Obama's Cabinet Picks Defy Campaign Narrative That Emphasized "Hope," "Change," and "Washington-Outsider" Status and Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic.

Sexism, Racism, and Homophobia

I have analyzed a lot of civil rights issues on Dissenting Justice. My personal choice on sexism examines the treatment of Hillary Clinton by the media: On Low Roads and Hypocrisy: The Media, Sexism and Hillary Clinton. This was my very first and probably angriest blog post, and it ranks as one of the most read items on the site. At the time, I had written similar pieces under pseudonyms on various other blogs, and I received a lot of positive feedback. So, I started my own blog after friends and students suggest that I do. I would later write the following zingers on "liberal sexism": Is Liberal Sexism Against Palin OK? No! and Raining on My Party's Parade? An Election-Day Analysis of Hillary Clinton and Liberal Sexism by a Progressive Law Professor.

On race, I have written several essays that attempt to provide some realism around the euphoric analysis concerning what Obama's success means about the state of U.S. race relations. This article crunches election data and analyzes it from an honest perspective that I have yet to see in mainstream media outlets: Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died. I provide a historical context for understanding the relationship between race and presidential politics in: Race and Presidential Politics: Pre- and Post-Obama. I was able to have fun writing on race when Alec Baldwin proclaimed that Obama's election would slay racism and the need for a civil rights movement. Here's my response to his "interesting" claims: An Obama Presidency Would Cause the Death of Racism and the Civil Rights Movement, Says Alec Baldwin.

I have written several essays on gay rights, which, along with gender and race, is one of my areas of academic expertise. My favorite piece on the subject ends up being my most prophetic one -- predicting the racial divide around Proposition 8: Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry. I also analyzed the conflict over race and sexual orientation in the following two essays, which discusses how these issues place gay and black communities in deep conflict: Would Obama Have Won If He Were Black...and Gay? and Black Californians and Proposition 8: Is White Gay Anger Justifiable?. Finally, on the question of gay rights, I have tried to capture the essence of GLBT anger over Rick Warren's participation in the inauguration, and this essay presents a comprehensive analysis: Embracing Uncle Good-But-Homophobic: Why "Reaching Across the Aisle" to Rick Warren Does Not Feel Safe to Everyone.

Republic Windows and Doors

With respect to the economic crisis, my personal favorites all emerge out of the Republic Windows and Doors sit-in. I have analyzed the shady dealings of the company that evaded liberal and media scrutiny: MADE IN IOWA: Did Company in Chicago Sit-In Illegally Discard Its Workers and Quietly Relocate While Liberals Forced BOA to Pay for the Shady Scheme? I have also examined the exploitation of the laid-off workers by politicians and the media: Laid-Off Republic Windows and Doors Workers: Pawns in Political Football. And I have offered an alternative to the way liberals responded: What (I Think) Progressives Should Have Done for Workers of Republic Windows and Doors.

Wall Street Bailout and Crisis

I also analyzed the financial crisis. These two essays stand out to me: Bah Humbug: Both Parties Are Guilty With Respect to the Economy, But Neither Offers Concrete Solutions and Bringing Back Welfare As We Knew It: My Indignant Take on the Wall Street Bail-Out.

Media Bias
This blog has also given the issue of bias in the media a substantial amount of scrutiny. Other than the sexist bias against Clinton, which essays posted above analyze, the following essays on the media stand out to me -- and to readers: Oy Vey: Liberals Dominate Media Because They Want to "Change the World," Says WaPo Ombudsman, Poll: 55% of Voters Believe Media More Biased Than in Past Elections, and the most-read article on here (thanks to RealClearPolitics for putting this on your front page), CNN and CBS Release Highly Misleading Polls Regarding VP Debate.

Cynicism
Finally, because my core identity includes a healthy dose of raw cynicism, I feel obligated to point out my most cynical work. During the primaries, Obama's supporters and surrogates demonized the Clintons as divisive and as unabashed racists, but Obama campaigned with both of them before the general election, and he has picked Hillary Clinton to serve as Secretary of State.

As a scholar of race relations and civil rights, that was just too much for me to understand as anything other than naked politics! So this pair of articles express that view: Obama Allows Two "Racists" to Campaign for Him: Why? and the sequel, Will Wonders Ever Cease! Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on the Campaign Circuit. Remarkably, the mainstream media, which helped spread the Clintons-as-racists narrative, have not expressed any sense of irony in the joining of "racists" and the nation's real first black president. But if they actually engaged in critical analysis, I guess I would not have felt the need to start my own blog.

During the short time that I have made daily postings, the blog has logged the following statistics:

25,000 page views

10,000 unique visitors

15,648 visits

105 countries

48 languages.

Top Countries

Readers came from 105 countries. The top country is, unsurprisingly, the United States. The top 5 countries include: the United States, Canada, the UK, Germany and New Zealand. The bottom of the list includes countries such as East Timor, Ethopia, Lebanon, Cuba, and Iceland. That they even made the list surprises me. The country with the most engaged readers, on average, was Jamaica -- where readers read an average of five different essays per visit.

Cities and States

Within the US, every state is represented. The top states are: California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois. The top cities are: New York, DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Readers in 2,212 cities visited the blog. The most engaged readers were from Walpole, Massachusetts, who read an average of 27 essays per visit! Thanks, Walpole.

Sources

I also want to thank the many bloggers who sent readers to Dissenting Justice. While most readers came from Google searches and from links on RealClearPolitics, the following blogs (listed by descending rank) sent a huge percentage of my readership: The Confluence, Heidi Li's Potpourri, Political Wire, Taylor Marsh, Daily Puma, and Pollster.Com.

Keep Coming and Spreading the Word
Again, thanks for being such passionate and kind supporters. Have a safe holiday and new year, and I hope to see you back on Dissenting Justice soon.

Chicken Little Politics: Moderate Obama Causes Progressive Panic

Reality Check for the Left: Obama Is a Moderate
With every new Cabinet appointment, guarded and nuanced statement about the prospect of reform, and "shocking" embrace of policies that progressives vehemently oppose, the Left continues to discover what it refused to see earlier: Obama is a moderate politician (which I do not view as an inherently negative quality). If Obama is not a moderate, he has strongly indicated that he will likely govern from the middle nevertheless, probably in order to maximize his political support and ensure reelection.

In a normal year, this rather standard assessment of a president governing a politically divided, yet moderate, country would not warrant extended debate. But progressives have formed high expectations of Obama's presidency. Progressives have heralded Obama's victory as a triumph of the righteous Left over the corrupt Right. The Democratic primaries provided the initial stage in this battle of good versus evil, and Obama's victory over Clinton supposedly renewed the Left's influence in Democratic Party politics. According to progressives, it also dethroned the Clintons and reduced them to useless relics of a nightmarish political past filled with selfishness, immorality, and triangulation.

Although Obama's campaign focused broadly on "change," liberals and Leftists largely interpreted this mantra as progressive change. His presidency would rid the country and world of the worst elements of the Clinton and Bush legacies: free trade, deregulation, wealth inequality, and foreign policy marred by hawkishness and unilateralism. Obama would also strengthen labor unions, enforce and augment civil and individual rights, protect the environment, appoint liberal judges, bring about world peace, and generally restore the "dignity" of the United States. Although the Left is usually skeptical of establishment politicians, progressives truly believed Obama could deliver this enormous basket of liberal reforms.

Obama's general election victory has only heightened the dramatic claims of liberals and progressives. Now, many of them have argued that the nation has become center-left and that a new generation of political and social dominance by liberals has finally arrived. Liberal commentators have begun eulogizing the GOP and declaring the death of "old white wealthy male heterosexual" power (see 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama).

But now that Obama has hired several individuals most despised by the Left, including Clinton, many progressives have shifted gears and now argue that Obama has betrayed them. Their anger, however, is misplaced. Progressives must blame themselves for believing that Obama was anything other than a moderate politician in the mold of Bill Clinton. They have only recently discovered his true political ideology because their irrational hatred of the Clintons and desperate desire for a progressive president caused them to accept Obama uncritically and project their own desires upon him. He became "their" candidate, even though he designed his campaign to appeal to the broadest audience possible. Now that Obama has signaled that he will not transform the White House into a leftist space, progressives are experiencing collective shock, dismay and a sense of betrayal.

How and Why Progressives Constructed Obama as a Progressive

Anti-"Clinton" Hatred
During the Democratic primaries, progressives exhibited an extreme level of animosity towards Hillary Clinton. Much of their disgust with Clinton stemmed from lingering disappointment with Bill Clinton's presidency. Progressives hate former President Clinton's compromises with conservatives, his failure to fight for some progressive causes, and his embrace of the center. They refuse to acknowledge or diminish the significance of his liberal accomplishments (e.g., protecting abortion rights, making liberal judicial appointments, reducing black unemployment, and negotiating the Irish peace accords). Leftists unleashed their pent up anger with Clinton's administration upon his wife. Progressives helped construct the two Clintons as a pathological "Billary" and refused to take Hillary Clinton on her own terms. Although Clinton contributed to this by claiming "experience" related to her husband's presidency, she never said that she was simply his political clone. Progressives, however, refused to distinguish the two. Both represented unmitigated evil.

Liberal Sexism
Many progressives also harbored deeply sexist hostility (explicit and unconscious) towards Clinton. To these individuals, Clinton was a dangerous (b/w)itch, Tanya Harding, shrill, nagging, dominatrix, etc. Prejudice prevents a realistic assessment of its victims. If, as I argue, Clinton experienced sexism from progressives, this could explain their distorted and negative view of her and their unrealistically positive understanding of Obama.

Naive View of Race Relations
In addition, a large number of white progressives and liberals supported Obama in part because his success could prove to them that the United States had finally become a post-racist society, despite the fact that people of color lag severely behind whites in every significant indicator of social well being. One liberal white academic told me that he was content campaigning for Obama because as he "knocked on each door, he realized that we were finally putting this race thing behind us."

Even before Obama secured the Democratic nomination, political commentators opined warmly about the tremendous progress his successful candidacy symbolized. Many said that it proved that race no longer mattered in American society. Obama represented a younger generation of black politicians for whom race politics (thankfully) did not play a significant role. Obama became the treasured antidote to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Linking him with either of these men constituted racism; Bill Clinton discovered this when he compared Obama's South Carolina victory with Jackson's.

Obama's success in the general election has led to even more sweeping claims about American post-racialism. A close examination of exit polls, however, demonstrate that Obama only won the election due to an increased presence of black and Latino voters in key states and to his greater level of support among these demographics relative to Democrats in the recent past. Despite media commentary that suggests a fundamental transformation in race-based voting, Obama failed to win a majority of white voters in eleven "blue states," and he only won a slight majority (51-52%) in five others, including his home state of Illinois, where he received just over 1/2 of votes cast by whites. Furthermore, Obama, like all other Democratic presidential candidates since 1964, failed to win a nationwide majority of white voters. Without a surge of black and Latino voters, Obama would have lost the election (see Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died ).

Obama as Rorschach
Progressives so desperately wanted a left-leaning president -- without Clinton as a surname -- that they projected their own political fantasies upon Obama. Progressives constructed Obama, with his tacit acceptance, as the progressive leader they "had been waiting for." They also reacted swiftly to any dissenting voice that offered a complicated appraisal of Obama. For example, progressives responded with hostility when liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman began criticizing Obama's economic and healthcare proposals and statements he made on the campaign trail. Often, the popular media along with progressives would imply that people who preferred Clinton or McCain over Obama were racists. This racist lot included Latinos who voted for Clinton during the primaries, but who later fueled Obama's general election victories in Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Regardless of the merits of Obama as a candidate and president, an atmosphere that rejects dissent cannot sustain progress. Because the Left helped to silence inquiry regarding the details of Obama's political commitments, while lauding him effusively and bashing his opponents, they must blame themselves for not discovering his moderate political status earlier.

No, Chicken Little, the Sky Is not Falling

Progressive Social Movements Can Create Change With Moderate Presidents
Being a moderate does not make Obama (or any other candidate) unfit for office, nor does it preclude progressive change. Many progressives who are angry that Obama is a political moderate seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the history of social progress in the United States. Advancements in terms of race, gender, class, and other liberal causes did not occur because a progressive president governed the nation. Instead, these changes occurred because of progressive domestic social movement activity, international scrutiny and criticism, extreme factors like economic depression and warfare shifting voter attitudes, and a convergence of interests between dominant forces and minority groups.

Great Historical Changes With Moderate Presidents
Obama's supporters have likened him to President Lincoln in order to portray his presidency as potentially generating tremendous change. But Lincoln was not a radical. He would have preferred to maintain slavery or to end it gradually. Exigencies of the war led him to a more dramatic path, however. And while he personally opposed slavery, Lincoln embraced many of the prevailing racial prejudices of his generation and devised a plan to send blacks "back to Africa." He was not a card-carrying member of the Radical wing of the Republican Party. Lincoln was not Charles Sumner. But abolitionists and Radical Republicans used him to help create change.

Liberals have also made very warm comparisons of Obama and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But labor and other liberal groups pressured Roosevelt to design and implement his New Deal legislation. Furthermore, despite his commitment to forward looking economic legislation, Roosevelt had a shaky to horrific record on civil rights and is responsible for the racist internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Progressives also frequently compare Obama to John F. Kennedy. Progressives have long overstated Kennedy's contribution to racial equality movements. Although he was prepared to sign comprehensive civil rights legislation before his death, civil rights leaders constantly pushed him into this direction, and it took witnessing state-sponsored and private violence against blacks in the South before he finally endorsed the legislation. Johnson, by contrast, whom progressives despise due to his role in the Vietnam War, actually did far more than Kennedy had indicated he would do in terms of advancing racial and economic justice. Clinton was right in saying that it "took a president to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964," but it took a politically active village to make sure that he did so.

What Today's Progressives Must Do to Create Liberal Change with Obama
Historically, nongovernmental actors have pushed moderate, though sympathetic, politicians to implement progressive reforms. In order to make sure that Obama's presidency delivers progressive change, the Left needs to take inventory of and admit to its own responsibility in misreading him. Progressives also need to acknowledge that sexism, Clinton-hatred, and an understandable but naive desire to move beyond race politics combined to create a situation where they idealized Obama and assigned to him values that he did not specifically espouse. Finally, progressives need to begin articulating specific political agendas that they want to see accomplished in the next four years and to design strategies to bring these goals to fruition.

Bickering over Obama's moderate status -- something many others knew or suspected a long time ago -- will not do the work necessary to generate progressive change. If the Left actually believes in the ideas it espouses, then its members will quickly begin the task of constructing a new progressive agenda. If they simply continue to whine, then maybe "more of the same" satisfies them well enough.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

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

* The "Left" Responds to Obama's "Centrist" Foreign Policy Team

* Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

* 2008 Is Not 1964: Why Liberal Mania and Conservative Panic Are Nothing But Melodrama

* Reality Check: Obama's Election Victory Does Not Mean That Era of Race-Based Identity Politics Has Died

* Head Explosion at The Nation: Left "Duped" by Its "Own Wishful Thinking"

* Warning to Progressives: NYT Proclaims Obama Will Govern From Center-Right

* Back Down Memory Lane: A Review of Anti-Clinton Rhetoric by "Progressives" on Daily Kos, Huffington Post, and AlterNet

Obama to Nominate Clinton and Name Foreign Policy Team Tomorrow

According to several media reports, Barack Obama will name his entire foreign policy team Monday, and Hillary Clinton will officially receive an offer to serve as Secretary of State. I have expressed my cynicism over this rumored nomination a few times (see, e.g., If Clinton Becomes Sec. of State for Obama, My Cynicism Will Max Out! ). Nonetheless, political idealists apparently still exist. According to CBS News, for example, Obama's decision to pick Clinton does not stem from cold political calculation but instead represents "an extraordinary gesture of goodwill after a year in which Clinton and Obama competed for the Democratic nomination in a long, bitter primary battle" (boldface added). And perhaps McCain really did pick Sarah Palin because he is an old-school feminist.

Clinton's nomination likely results from a carefully negotiated deal between the Obama and Clinton camps and DNC leadership. The agreement kept Clinton off the ticket altogether, in return for a very high-level position within the Senate or in Obama's administration. In exchange for the deal, Clinton needed to keep the PUMAs in the party by campaigning for Obama's. The gritty "No Way, No How, No McCain" speech set things into motion, followed by the cute emails to supporters urging them to canvass for Obama to tell prospective voters that "Hillary sent me."

In exchange for her work, Clinton gets the highest cabinet position, and she forces Obama to contradict his campaign message and declare that she has credible experience and good judgment in foreign affairs. Furthermore, Clinton's nomination would, by implication, help neutralize racism charges that surrounded both Clintons for about a year. As a race relations scholar, I tend to see race more than the average person, but I doubted many of the accusations of racism during the Democratic primaries. Because Obama has campaigned with both Clintons and has picked Hillary to hold his highest cabinet position, perhaps he views these accusations with a similar level of skepticism.

Query: What do readers think? Is my analysis too cynical? Should I celebrate Clinton's nomination tomorrow as a rare "feel-good" political moment? Am I "stuck in the past"?

Senator Clinton. . . Bill?

Karl E. Meyer and Shareen Blair Brysac have an Op-Ed in today's Washington Post in which they advocate replacing Hillary Clinton with husband Bill in the Senate, should she take a highly speculated offer to serve as Secretary of State for Obama. I am not sure what to make of this. Are the authors seeking attention through a "stunt"? Does the Washington Post desperately need to shift papers and generate web traffic? Or, is this a brilliant idea, assuming that Bill could suppress his ego and accept the position if Governor Patterson decided (or was forced) to appoint him? I think I will not touch this beyond simply raising questions. Doing more requires too much thought for a holiday!

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:

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

If Clinton Becomes Sec. of State for Obama, My Cynicism Will Max Out!

More "Change": Tom Daschle to Lead Dept. of Health and Human Services

Warning to Progressives: NYT Proclaims Obama Will Govern From Center-Right

More "Change": Tom Daschle to Lead Dept. of Health and Human Services

The rumor mill continues to grind. CNN reports that Tom Daschle, a former Senator and Obama endorser, will head the Department of Health and Human Services in the new administration. Reportedly, Daschle will have the important task of pushing through Obama's health care reform agenda.

My take: I am waiting for a cabinet appointment who is not a "Washington insider" or who has not served in the Clinton administration. Actually, I am not. I just felt the need to say that, since the media will not. Honestly, I think Obama has made very wise selections. Clinton, Holder, Daschle, and the others are very capable individuals. Their selection (especially Clinton's), however, contradicts many elements of Obama's campaign message -- elements that I have always viewed with skepticism (see this article and others linked below). For the record, I typically view campaign messages with skepticism -- even when they come from candidates I support (including Obama).

My primary "beef" lies with liberals who have chosen to live in denial by refusing to acknowledge the contradictions between Obama's campaign and his early personnel decisions. So, in order to create a nuanced and more accurate historical record, I respectfully dissent from uncritical acceptance of reality.

Related readings on Dissenting Justice:

Governing In Prose: Obama's Cabinet Picks Defy Campaign Narrative That Emphasized "Hope," "Change," and "Washington-Outsider" Status

Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State

Robert Gates as Obama's Secretary of Defense: "More of the Same" for Gay Rights?

Attorney General: Eric Holder, Clinton-Era DOJ Official

Newsweek reports that President-Elect Barack Obama has selected Eric Holder, a partner at Covington and Burling, a prestigious law firm in Washington, D.C., as Attorney General. Holder was Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration. If chosen, Holder would become the first black Attorney General. According to reports, Obama will make the announcement after he names other cabinet picks (but secrets are difficult to maintain in DC). So far, Clinton officials have done pretty well for themselves in the new administration!

Will Wonders Ever Cease! Bill Clinton and Barack Obama on the Campaign Circuit

ABC News is reporting that a Democratic presidential campaign event featuring Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will take place tonight in Florida (see this link). Apparently, I am the only person (or irreverent liberal lawyer in DC who does not want to work in a newly ensconced Democratic regime) in the blog world who wants to poke fun at the pure politics behind Obama campaigning with the Clintons after his supporters, surrogates and the media lambasted them as racist, divisive, wanting Obama assassinated, blah, blah -- and the Clintons campaigning with someone they deemed an inexperienced upstart. I wrote a sarcastic blog entry on this earlier. Check it out if you like.

Look Who's "Divisive" Now: The Anti-Obama Attacks Similar to Republican Smearing of the Clintons

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.

I absolutely agree that the Clintons incite rage among Republicans and that this probably means they are "divisive." But the 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. People who believed Obama would be immune from divisive partisan politics lacked an understanding of American politics or knowledge of American political history. I use the past tense because I cannot imagine rational people still holding the view that Obama can can seduce Republicans into nonpartisan bliss.

As the reality of a possible Obama victory sets in, conservatives are morphing into Paul Revere and warning all who will listen that the "Democrats are coming" to Washington with their leftist, socialist, and communist agenda (I devoted a previous blog entry to this issue). Furthermore, McCain, Palin, other GOP members, and conservative bloggers and commentators have turned up the heat and are making accusations about Obama that remind me of the almost psychotic conservative portrayals the Clintons during the 1990s. According to the lore, Barack Hussein Obama hangs with terrorists. Both Obamas are products of '60s radicalism. Obama is in bed with ACORN, which is a fraudulent, extremist and felonious entity. He has racist, American-hating friends and ministers. He is a socialist. He wants to take your money. He wants the government to run health care. He believes in infanticide. He tried to prevent troop reductions in Iraq. He is Muslim. He is not a U.S. citizen. He had an affair with a campaign staffer. He is a chronic smoker, who might have cancer. He hates the United States. He has engaged in campaign finance violations. He engaged in a shady land transaction with Rezko. Michelle hates the United States and is a black nationalist. Obama has ties to Kenya, Nigeria, and Indonesia (which presumably is wrong "just because"). Some of this stuff makes the whole flap over the flagpin look really tame.

Compare the growing list of charges against the Obamas with the Clinton-era smears, and you will find some interesting parallels. Here are some of the anti-Clinton zingers. Bill and/or Hillary murdered Vince Foster. Bill and/or Hillary murdered Ron Brown. Bill raped several women. Bill was a drug dealer. The Clintons were party to the shady Whitewater land transaction. Hillary Clinton wants socialized medicine. Hillary Clinton does not fit the image of a "First Lady" because she does not want to bake cookies. Hillary Rodam should be Hillary Clinton. Hillary Rodam Clinton will change her name to get her husband elected. Hillary Clinton committed a crime during "travelgate." Bill and Hillary are felons. Hillary Clinton does not deserve to be president because her husband cheated on her and she did not divorce him. Hillary Clinton is ambitious (I always want my presidents to aim low). The Clintons only lie. The Clintons represent all that is evil of the '60s.

Add to this of old dirt "the Clinton's are racist" and "Hillary wanted Obama assassinated" and you end up having the most despised political couple in American history. Well, a funny thing happened in Denver. "More of the Same" conceded to "Fresh Face." The Democratic Party offered political redemption to Bill and Hillary and possibly a bailout of Clinton's campaign debt (details forthcoming?). In exchange, the Clintons promised to campaign for Obama, deliver disgruntled Clinton supporters to party, and make unity speeches at the convention. Media now proudly report that the Clintons are campaigning for and with Biden and Obama and that they are headlining fundraisers for the ticket as well. Not too long ago, these same media compared Hillary with Tonya Harding and claimed that she she was a deranged pathological liar.

Many of Obama's supporters are voting and paying attention to politics for the very first time. This is a great advancement for the Democrats. But I wonder whether these young and excited O-voters are making the type of connections that this essay attempts to do. I wonder if they know that division is 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? If not, consider this a free introductory course.