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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

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

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

Linda Tripp, Kato Kaelin, and Jesse White: Illinois Secretary of State Should Savor Next Four Minutes

The year has only begun, but Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White will undoubtedly reach the finals in year-end reviews that rank the most desperate fame seekers of 2009. White has refused to "certify" Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill a Senate vacancy, citing the controversy surrounding the governor.

There is a major wrinkle in White's decision, however: The Constitution and Illinois law give the governor exclusive authority to fill the vacancy. In fact, state law mandates that the governor make the appointment: "When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy . . . ."

Illinois law does not give White any independent authority to deny the appointment. White's own "spokesperson," David Druker, conceded that White's refusal would not affect the governor's ability to make the appointment and present it to the Senate.

Not only does Illinois law exclusively authorize the governor to fill Senate seats, it also mandates that the Secretary of State certify all commissions that state law compels the governor to issue. Because state law requires the governor to fill the Senate vacancy, which he has done, White must certify the appointment of Burris. Shamelessly, Harry Reid has used White's illegal refusal to certify the appointment (which some commentators doubt is even necessary) as a basis for excluding Burris from the Senate.

Despite the clarity of state and constitutional law on this matter, White has nevertheless staked out a microscopic place in history. Although White will not become as vaulted or infamous as Florida's Katherine Harris -- who probably ranks among the most known state elections officials in U.S. history, White has made somewhat of a name for himself recently, judging by the number of web pages on which his name has suddenly appeared.

But White will soon fade away like Linda Tripp (double-crossing friend of Monica Lewinsky), Kato Kaelin (houseguest to O.J Simpson) and all of the other movie extras who have made fleeting appearances in U.S. political thrillers. But White's run will not last as long as Tripp's or Kaelin's. By my count, he has about four minutes left. I hope he savors the moment.

[Editor's Note: Burris has sued seeking a writ of mandamus compelling White to, well, obey the law. You can read his motion here.]

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

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

Ruben Navarrette's Flip-Flop: Wrong to Criticize Obama on Warren, Fine to Criticize Obama on Clinton

I became familiar with Ruben Navarrette during the Democratic primaries. He was one of the few Latinos (among the few Latinos who are leading journalists at major papers) who clearly did not like Hillary Clinton.

Navarrette wrote several articles praising Obama and criticizing Clinton. During the general election coverage, however, he wrote about McCain with a somewhat sympathetic eye, even encouraging Latinos to consider voting for him in one article.

After the election ended and Obama began selecting members of his Cabinet, Navarrette wrote a scathing critique of Obama's decision to choose Clinton as Secretary of State. Navarrette believed that Bill Richardson should have received the position instead.

Navarrette challenged Obama's decision to appoint Clinton, arguing that she "doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in foreign affairs . . . [and] she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary. . . ." Navarrette also asserts that because Latino support for Obama was critical for his victory, "they deserve better" than the "parting gift" of Secretary of Commerce -- the position Richardson has accepted.

Although Navarrette passionately criticized Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, he has taken a noticeably different approach towards GLBT and pro-choice advocates who criticize the inclusion of Rick Warren in Obama's inauguration ceremony. Navarrette argues on CNN.Com that these groups should step back and accept Obama's wishes:

This is about a president-elect, who just came off a bruising 21-month campaign, exercising his prerogative to choose whoever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

It's about those on the left knowing how to win and how to savor victory without giving into the impulse to attack each other. And, finally, it's about recognizing that -- for those who feel like protesting Warren's appearance -- there is an ocean's worth of bigger fish to fry.

It's interesting. Many of those raising a fuss are talking about respect, demanding respect, insisting they're not given respect, etc. Well, that works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.

Interesting. Navarrette's assertion that Warren's protestors should respect Obama's wishes could have even more force regarding whom he selects for his Cabinet. Because presidents works very closely with Cabinet members, they should have a high degree of discretion to choose candidates they prefer. Also, had Latinos protested Obama's "snub" of Bill Richardson as Navarrette argues they could have legitimately done, this would have constituted the very in-fighting among the Left that Navarrette now condemns. I do not see these situations as materially distinct. Am I missing something?

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

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.

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

(1/2/2008)

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.

(3/8/2008)

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. . . .

(4/10/2008)

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

(2/9/2008)

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.

(2/25/2008)

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.

(3/7/2008)

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.

(2/21/2007)

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

(8/15/2007)

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?

(8/19/2005)

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 . . . .

(12/24/2007)

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.

(2/17/2008)

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.

Is Ted Kennedy "Bitter" Towards Hillary Clinton?

The New York Daily News dropped a doosey today, reporting that Clinton declined an offer to chair the Senate Appropriations Committee in order to pursue the position of Secretary of State (which she will reportedly receive tomorrow). The same article reports that Ted Kennedy declined a request by some Democrats that he create a Senate subcommittee to deal with health care legislation; under the "deal," Clinton could have chaired the subcommittee. The New York Daily News article says that Kennedy rejected this arrangement due to lingering anger over Clinton's presidential campaign.

When I first read the article, I viewed Kennedy's "behavior" as a throwback to the way he reacted after losing the Democratic primaries to Carter in 1980. After Carter won, instead of helping to unify the Democrats as Clinton did, Kennedy remained as bitter as a gun-toting, Bible-clinging, homo-/xenophobic disempowered American. But then sanity overtook me, and I conducted some research on the issue and discovered that the New York Daily News article likely presents a distorted view concerning an alleged Kennedy grudge. Well, the New York Daily News is a tabloid. Why let facts or nuance get in the way of reporting?

Apparently, even though Kennedy refused to create a subcommittee on health care for Clinton to lead, he offered her a position on his new Senate health care task force, which has three working groups. Clinton would have headed the section studying insurance coverage. The Los Angeles Times, Newsday, an official press release from Senator Tom Harkin (who also has an offer to sit on the task force), and many other sources (found with a simple Google News search) confirm that Kennedy picked Clinton.

Also, his refusal to form the subcommittee to deal with the health care legislation could result, as the Associated Press reports, from his own desire to monopolize the issue (at least in the Senate), rather than from a political grudge with Clinton. As Chair of the Senate Committee on Healthcare, Kennedy probably intends to conduct Senate hearings on health-care issues himself. Having Clinton leading a subcommittee on healthcare could diminish his own voice on the subject.

Furthermore, because Obama has appointed Daschle to head the Department of Health and Human Services and to serve as a Healthcare Czar, any role in Congress on this issue would probably have been too limiting for Clinton. Her expertise on healthcare dwarfs Daschle's, but Daschle and Kennedy endorsed Obama at critical moments during the primaries. As payment, they get to play leading roles on healthcare reform. Clinton did not land too lightly, however; as "compensation" for her general-election support of Obama, Clinton will become Secretary of State.

Wicked Irony Alert: Did Obama Snub Richardson to Pick Clinton as Secretary of State?

When Bill Richardson snubbed Hillary Clinton and endorsed Barack Obama, some Clinton supporters said he betrayed her. James Carville, in his classic Cajun style, called Richardson a "Judas."

Now, Ruben Navarrette, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, complains that Obama has betrayed Richardson by picking Clinton to serve as Secretary of State. For those of you who do not follow Navarrette's writings, he passionately opposed Clinton during the primaries. Afterwards, however, he seemed to develop a softness for McCain. I am not sure what to make of this, but Navarrette's recent anger towards Obama and his disappointment that Clinton will probably head the Department of State do not surprise me.

With respect to Clinton's likely nomination, Navarette argues that:

Now I wonder what message it sends that President-elect Obama has apparently
passed over Richardson and seems ready to offer the post at state to their
former rival, Hillary Clinton. While known the world over from her days as first
lady, Clinton doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in
foreign affairs. Besides, she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary.
Does anyone really think that if Hillary had been elected president that she
would be vetting Barack Obama for secretary of state?

After the snub, Richardson turned the other cheek and got slapped again. He is reportedly about to be offered, as a parting gift, a job — secretary of commerce — that someone else turned down. That someone else was Penny Pritzker, the president-elect's chief fundraiser who reportedly was Obama's choice for the post. A billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, Pritzker withdrew her name from
consideration.

Navarrette concludes his essay with some harsh words for Obama:

This isn't about Richardson, who might be very happy heading for ribbon cuttings
in Toledo while Clinton heads for blue-ribbon summits in Tel Aviv. . . .

America's largest minority took a chance on Obama despite the fact that
the president-elect had no track record in reaching out to them and didn't break
a sweat trying to win their votes. They deserve better.

I am not sure whether Obama ever considered Richardson for the position of Secretary of State. If Richardson ever had a serious chance at receiving the post, then Secretary of Commerce would certainly represent a sharp tumble in terms of prestige.

But Richardson must certainly understand that nothing is certain in politics. Clinton, for example, believed Richardson would endorse her over Obama because he worked in her husband's administration and gained national prominence as a result. But that experience did not secure Richardson's support for Clinton. Instead, Richardson made a decision that seemed most politically favorable to him. All politicians do this. By the time Richardson endorsed Obama it appeared that he had an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. By supporting Obama's candidacy, Richardson bet on Obama eventually winning the Democratic nomination and possibly the general election. By siding with the likely nominee, Richardson sought to maximize his own opportunities for political prominence and access to the White House. These types of calculations animate all political endorsements, although the carefully tailored statements that accompany most endorsements deceptively imply altruistic motives.

Now, Obama has made a similarly self-interested political decision. Ironically, Richardson loses, while Clinton gains. Because of the strong level of support for Clinton among Democrats and the divisiveness of the primaries, Obama probably cut a deal that reserved a high-level appointment for Clinton in his administration. Because Daschle, whose ideas on healthcare are more in line with Obama than Clinton, won the spot to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the only remaining natural fit for Clinton was Secretary of State. Apparently, her campaigning for Obama paid off with this very important cabinet position.

Because politicians, including Richardson himself, constantly make decisions that advance their own political opportunities, Navarrette's anger is misplaced. The very same type of self-interested political calculation that led Richardson to endorse Obama instead of Clinton, has now caused Obama to prefer Clinton over Richardson. Politics is not for the faint of heart.

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"?

Late (But Thoughtful) AP Article on Irony of Clinton as Secretary of State

The news may have come late in the day, but the Associated Press has finally chimed in on the irony of Obama nominating Clinton as Secretary of State after he ridiculed her foreign policy credentials during the Democratic primaries. Here is a snippet:

It wasn't too long ago that Barack Obama and his advisers were tripping
over one another to tear down Hillary Rodham Clinton's foreign policy
credentials. She was dismissed as a commander in chief wanna-be who did little
more than sip tea and make small talk with foreign leaders during her days as
first lady.

"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly
of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises?
The answer is no."

The article also reports that some of Clinton's harshest critics will serve with her in the Obama administration:

Greg Craig, selected to serve as White House counsel in the Obama
administration, delivered a withering attack during the primaries on Clinton's
claims that she could rightfully share in the credit for some of the foreign
policy successes of her husband's presidency.

"She did not sit in on any National Security Council meetings when she
was first lady," Craig insisted in one conference call. He went on to knock down
Clinton's claims to influence in the Northern Ireland peace process, opening
borders for refugees during the war in Kosovo, and making a dangerous visit to
Bosnia.

"There is no reason to believe . . . that she was a key player in
foreign policy at any time during the Clinton administration," Craig wrote in a
campaign memo.

Susan Rice, an Obama adviser who could land a spot in the new
administration, mocked the idea that Clinton could lay claim to foreign policy
credentials by marriage.

"There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are first lady,"
Rice sniffed last March. "You don't get that kind of experience by being married
to a commander in chief."

My thoughts: A political commentator cited in the article rightfully observes that political campaigns often involve hyperbole. But this type of politicking conflicts with Obama's campaign narrative. He was depicted as a righteous politician, while Clinton represented "dirty" politics. Indeed when Clinton resorted to hyperbole (e.g., the 3am commercial), critics accused her of waging a "kitchen sink" campaign and destroying the potential for a Democratic victory.

It becomes clearer everyday how skillfully Obama out-maneuvered his opponents. Often, the best politicians wage political battle without appearing as if they are. It also becomes abundantly clear how little critique the media offered in response to the anti-Clinton rhetoric during the primaries and how very few of them seem willing to examine the contradictions between that rhetoric and Obama's decision to nominate Clinton as Secretary of State. It is a lot easier for a candidate to play politics if the media fail to scrutinize his or her claims. Accordingly, AP writer Nancy Benac deserves kudos for writing this article. Although I have analyzed these issues many times on Dissenting Justice, I am just a lowly blogger (for the literalists out there, this was a crude attempt at self-deprecating humor).

Related Reading on Dissenting Justice:

* Progressives Awaken from Obama-Vegetative State
* Governing In Prose: Obama's Cabinet Picks Defy Campaign Narrative That Emphasized * "Hope," "Change," and "Washington-Outsider" Status
* More "Change": Tom Daschle to Lead Dept. of Health and Human Services
* If Clinton Becomes Sec. of State for Obama, My Cynicism Will Max Out!

You can read the full article here: Obama Team Repackaging Clinton After Campaign Digs.

Frum Is Dumb: Former Bush Speechwriter's "Interesting" Analysis of Hillary Clinton

The American political landscape is surreal at the moment, which makes me open to a lot of unusual things. But my flexibility has some limits. Today, David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, offered his analysis regarding Obama's decision to select Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Frum has tested my limits.

Obama Engaging in "Tough Politics" and Now in "Control" of Clinton
During an interview with CNN, Frum provided this interesting perspective on Obama's decision to pick Clinton:

[She] has just moved from having an independent power base in the Senate to being in effect an employee of Barack Obama. And not just any employee, but one who has had to open her files to Barack Obama.

Just imagine the scene of the Obama people going through the Clinton files and saying, "Wow, this could be embarrassing if anybody ever found out about it. Don't worry, it's safe with us."

He has just cemented his enormous power over her, and the sentimental idea out there that he's reaching for a rival and padding the dust off her and bringing her into a Cabinet to be his rival -- no, he's putting her into his Cabinet in order to control her. It's a pretty impressive display of tough politics.

Response: Certainly Clinton, like any other cabinet member, will serves at the will of the President. But anyone with a knowledge of politics knows that cabinet members typically have a lot of say in formulating policy. The Bush administration, however, operated like a dictatorship; perhaps this clouds Frum's analysis. Clinton will clearly implement Obama's policy perspectives, but it is becoming abundantly clear that Obama and Clinton probably do not differ too much in terms of policy (certainly not to the degree advanced by Obama's supporters during the primaries). Besides, if Obama simply wanted to "control" Clinton, he could have picked her as his running mate or appointed her to a less powerful cabinet position.

Also, Clinton is not just any other staffer. She won 18 million votes in the Democratic primaries, and has a large following. That, in fact, explains why people (including Frum) continue to debate her. The pro-Hilary crowd will not vanish simply because she now occupies a high-level position in Obama's cabinet. Having Clinton in the cabinet will keep her from publicly criticizing Obama, but this does not mute her fanbase. Besides, if I am correct, and the two share a similar vision on foreign policy, then they will probably see eye-to-eye on most issues anyway.

Finally, I am not sure whether too many damaging documents concerning Clinton still exist. But even if they do, once she becomes part of Obama's administration, the two politicians' destinies become more united. Her embarrassments become his, and vice versa. Neither has an interest in slamming the other once they begin working together.

Clinton Was "Trapped" Into Accepting the Job By Press Leaks
When asked why Clinton would take a job that requires her to cede her independence, Frum says: "Well, I think part of it, she was trapped. The series of leaks that happened over the past week; they leaked the news of the offer. Barack Obama looks of course very magnanimous, making such an offer. . . Could she afford to say no and look like she was keeping some kind of grudge? And that might put her on the outs for a lot of Democrats for whom Barack Obama is the leader" (italics added).

Response: Leaks happen for a reason. One explanation: people hold on to juicy news items about as well as newborn babies control their bladders. DC is a leak machine, and Obama's decision to nominate his former rival is about as sensational as it gets. Beyond this reality, I imagine that both sides were playing the media in order to get leverage. Obama probably wanted Clinton to make a quick decision, but he benefited from the leak because it allows him to demonstrate that he has no "hard feelings" towards Clinton.

But once the press got hold of the story, Clinton benefited from stretching out the decision. The longer it bounced around, the more it looked like she controlled his transition process. A media circus could have occurred. Behind the scenes, the two were negotiating a lot of things, including Clinton's authority over hiring her own staff and the release of Bill Clinton's financial dealings. Apparently both sides won. Clinton has secured a "purge" of Obama's aides who said the most vicious things about her during the campaign, and Obama gets husband Bill to turn over documents. Joy.

Frum's assertion that Clinton needed to accept the position in order to demonstrate that she did not hold a grudge against Obama is disconnected from political reality. There are many Democrats who do not like Clinton and believe that she is the antithesis to Obama. If she turned down the job, this crowd would have cheered. Right now, the crowd is crying over Obama picking Clinton and many others from the Clinton administration.

Biden Might Eclipse Clinton on Foreign Policy
Frum also argues that Biden might become as strong Vice President as Dick Cheney and eclipse Clinton. Frum wonders whether Clinton will simply "take orders from the vice president, Joe Biden, who also has a lot of strong policy ideas, and who may end up having a role not unlike that of Dick Cheney. . . And maybe not as powerful quite as Dick Cheney, but he's got a big institutional base, a lot of strong foreign policy ideas. There will be some rivalry there."

Response: This is probably Frum's strongest argument, but I imagine Obama and Clinton have worked out the details of "power" during the long delay. And if reports which say that Clinton has secured a purge of her enemies from Obama's foreign policy team are accurate, then I imagine they have worked out the potential Biden-Clinton conflict. Also, Clinton and Biden are even closer on foreign policy than she and Obama. Accordingly, Frum's analysis probably exaggerates potential conflicts between Clinton and Biden.

But Obama has not announced a project for Biden yet. If Biden's role centers more on foreign policy, then he and Clinton could clash. I predict that Biden will play a greater role ushering Obama's legislative agenda through Congress. Domestic matters are subject to legislation far more than foreign policy initiatives. Accordingly, Biden's experience in the Senate could prove highly useful for Obama as he seeks to implement his policy vision.

Concluding Thoughts: I cannot pretend to know how this will evolve. But Frum's analysis does not sit well with me. What do you think?

Will Wonders Ever Cease: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Clinton will become the third woman to serve as Secretary of State. Earlier, I said that if she became SOS in the Obama administration that my level of cynicism would max out. I guess I will need to raise the limit because all media outlets now report that Obama and Clinton have basically reached a deal.

Source: CBSNews.Com

Rumor Mill: Hillary Clinton Unsure About State Post

"Sources close to Hillary Clinton" (yes, those people) report that she is torn over her unofficial offer to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration. According to the anonymous sources, Clinton's reluctance stems from the fact that she likes to "be her own boss," but would answer to the president as Secretary of State. Obama's transition team declined to comment, which makes sense given the fact that Obama has not even confirmed whether or not Clinton has an offer. So we are dealing with rumors on top of rumors.

I do not recall ever seeing an prospective cabinet member struggle publicly with a decision. So, what could explain this? Does this really mean that the "offer" is just "song and dance" and that neither Obama nor Clinton ever expected her to become Secretary of State? Or, is Clinton footdragging publicly because this gives her some type of leverage in the process? I am not sure how to answer these questions, but I do know that in politics reality often differs from how it appears to the public. Stay tuned!

Source: New York Times

"Obamaland" Divided Over Likely Clinton Nomination

According to Politico.Com, the likely selection of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has divided Obamaland (whatever that is). Particularly, Politico reports that some of the most ardent supporters view his victory as a repudiation of the Clinton-era politics:

An overlooked theme in Obama's primary victory was his belief that the Clinton
legacy was not, as the Clintons imagined, a pure political positive. The Obama
campaign had no compunctions about poking holes in that legacy and even sent out
mailings stressing the downside of the last "8 years of the Clintons" – enraging
the former president in particular.

And the clearest opposition to the Clinton appointment comes from Obama's backers on the left of his own party, whose initial support for him was motivated in part by a distaste for the Clinton dynasty, and who now view her reemergence with some dismay.

Related article on Dissenting Justice: If Clinton Becomes Sec. of State for Obama, My Cynicism Will Max Out!

You can view the full Politico article here: Cabinet Post for Clinton Roils Obamaland.

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

The buzz in DC still has Senator Clinton becoming Secretary of State in the Obama administration. As much as I respect Clinton, if this happens, my cynicism about politics will completely max out. Obama said that Clinton's war vote showed a "lack of judgment." His constant retort to her argument that he lacked experience was that she lacked judgment. I would never want someone who lacked judgment on foreign affairs to run the State Department!

Of course, Obama already undercut that judgment issue when he picked Joe Biden as a running mate. Biden, like Clinton, voted for the war. And like Clinton, Biden voted for the Bush administration's bankruptcy legislation and NAFTA (Clinton only "supported" it). Today, the Obama transition team announced that two veteran lawyers from the Clinton administration would serve as White House Counsel and as counsel to the Vice President. This does not look much different than the 1990s to me. If Clinton actually serves in the administration, it will certainly end up being "more of the same." I'm not saying "more of the same" is bad. Obama and his loudest cheerleaders made those arguments, not I.

I have not even mentioned that Obama's team said or suggested that Clinton was deceitful, racist, divisive, stuck in the past, had a dumptruck of dirt on her, wanted Obama assassinated, and that all she knew how to do was fight. Only a "politician" could pick someone like this to work with him. Only a politician would work with someone who called her things things. But no one ever doubted Clinton was a politician. She never advanced a narrative of political "innocence" or piety, and she never received the benefit of the doubt on any of these matters. Will Obama's cabinet choices demostrate for the dreamy eyed people that he is just as political and more of the same as any other Democrat or Republican?

PS: Alternative Title for this entry--Why I Am Not on the Transition Team Like All Other Liberal Lawyers in DC, Part 145,452,424,902,879,807,924,387,098,702,878!

Silencing the Opposition? Obama Set to Meet With Clinton and McCain

Rumors have floated around for a day which suggest that Obama's team is considering Hillary Clinton for the role Secretary of State. Now, Obama is set to meet Clinton and McCain next week. Perhaps Obama is set to give Bush III a cabinet position too! Is this bipartisanship or cooing away the opposition -- or both? Whatever it is, the meetings have cause a lot of political speculation; they could also serve as elements of a brilliant strategy.

If Clinton is tapped to head the Department of State, she would become the third woman in the position -- almost consecutively (Rice came aboard after Powell resigned). Do the old boys now consider this "women's work"?

Sources:

McCain and Obama Meeting

Clinton and Obama Meeting

From Strange to Surreal: Sec. of State Clinton

It's just DC buzz at the moment, but Obama is supposedly considering another Iraq-War supporter for the post of Sec. of State. Last week, news emerged that Kerry "wanted" the post and was being considered. Well, I spilled my coffee this morning when I read that Hillary "More of the Same/Divisive/Racist/Deceitful" Clinton is supposedly on the list of contenders as well. Change sure looks darn familiar to me. Of course, we cannot trust any madness in the media these days. The news that the Palin-Africa-confusion mess was a total hoax pretty much places the media next to Bin Laden my most disfavored list!

Warning: This blog post is based on unverified Washington rumors.