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

Professor Tony Sebok: Do Not Look to Obama or Senate for Civil Justice Reform

Professor Tony Sebok (Cardozo Law School) does not expect that Obama or the Senate will do much to implement liberal reforms in the area of civil justice litigation. In an essay on FindLaw, Sebok makes the following observation:

[W]hat do we know about Barack Obama's views of the civil justice system? He did not say very much on the campaign trail or in the debates, but then again, with the economy crashing and two wars, the issue did not come up very much. His campaign issued a brief one-and-a-half-page fact sheet on his views, which revealed very little.

What little Obama did say suggests that he thinks of himself as different from traditional Democrats (like John Edwards) in that he has broken with the trial lawyers' lobby. For instance, in the debates and in interviews, he proudly referred to his support of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), which he voted for early in his Senate career, as evidence of his independence from the trial lawyers' lobby. CAFA moves class actions from state courts to federal courts, where, it is hoped, important questions like class certification will be treated more skeptically by federal judges than by state judges, who are often elected and beholden to "special interests. . . ."

Let us leave to one side the fact that many of the assumptions behind CAFA were false, and that there is no evidence that the law really has helped suppress "junk" lawsuits. The point is that, when it was proposed, the trial lawyers opposed it and Obama voted for it anyway. The problem is, so did a lot of other Democrats. In fact, by the time Obama voted for it, it was a done deal. His support was not courageous, and he took no heat for joining 71 other senators on the final vote.

For the full article, see: The Obama Administration's Likely Effect on Tort Law and the Civil Justice System Generally.

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!

Update on Lieberman: Judas Remains a Disciple

Senate Democrats have voted to allow Joe Lieberman to remain in the party's caucus and effectively retain his leadership positions. The decision will not surprise most Congressional observers, particularly because Obama himself urged senators to give Lieberman a break.

Source: CBSNews.Com.

No Torture Prosecutions in Obama Administration, According to Anonymous Aides

Aides to Obama (speaking anonymously, of course) have said that the Justice Department under President-Elect Obama will probably not prosecute individuals who committed torture using controversial tactics such as waterboarding. Although Obama opposes torture (it feels funny typing something that seems so basic - but that's how deeply wrong Bush and Cheney are), the aides say that prosecution of any interrogators is highly unlikely. If this leaked information reflects forthcoming policy by the Obama administration, then human rights experts who have pushed Democrats to punish wrongdoers might not succeed in bringing alleged torturers to justice.

Some commentators believe that Bush could offer "pre-emptive pardons" to interrogators, thus negating the issue of any prospective prosecutions. I am not sure whether the notion of a pre-emptive pardon exists from a constitutional perspective. Even if it is an open question, this does not seem like an issue a federal court would decide. A court would likely define the matter as presenting a "political question" (for laypersons, this means an issue that is unfit for judicial resolution) or dismiss any litigation for lack of standing.

Source: CBSNews.Com

"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.

Obama to Joe: No Need to Go! Turn-Coat Lieberman Will Likely Retain His Powerful Senate Chair

It is a great time for political dissenters. While my liberal buddies are running around proclaiming that our party has slain the awful Bush-Cheney-Rove-GOP-Rightwing-Socially Conservative-Multi-Headed dragon, it appears that the Democrats are too timid to dispose of their own Judas Iscariot. Although Joe Lieberman delivered a speech at the Republican National Convention urging voters to pick John McCain (affectionately known as Bush III and McSame among Democrats), he will likely remain Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security. Lieberman will, however, lose control over a less powerful and more obscure Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works ("who"?).

A story on CNN.Com confirms earlier rumors that President-Elect Obama stopped efforts to remove Lieberman from his Senate leadership positions. After Lieberman betrayed the party and campaigned for McCain, it seemed certain that the party would remove him from his leadership positions. The media ominously reported a meeting between Lieberman and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But things changed when insiders revealed that Obama wanted Lieberman to stay on board. According to CNN: "Several lawmakers involved in the discussions over Lieberman's fate credited President-elect Barack Obama's desire to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and let bygones be bygones as being a key reason Democratic leaders have agreed to support allowing Lieberman to keep his committee chair." I imagine that if Senate Democrats actually want to oust Lieberman, only Obama could stop this from happening. So, perhaps the article is on to something.

Other than proving that campaigning and governing involve a lot of political song and dance, perhaps a bright spot can emerge from this situation. If Obama is willing to keep Lieberman in a leadership role despite his ultimate betrayal of the party, perhaps Democrats can learn to accept constructive dissent from people who are not acting as de facto Republicans (as Lieberman did). A lot of people, myself included, began blogging because they believed that other liberals and progressives lacked the ability to support Obama passionately but offer constructive and critical insights at the same time. If Obama can accept Lieberman despite his very public betrayal (not just dissent), then perhaps Democrats can embrace constructive dialogue as an enduring principle. I could appreciate that kind of change.