Clinton at State, Gates to Stay Put

I haven’t really had a whole lot to say about politics in the last couple of weeks. I’ve never heard of the vast majority of the people the Obama administration will be made up of. It seemed kind of silly to pretend like I had much of an opinion on exactly what’s going into the new government. I voted for Obama, he got elected: it only seems fair that he should get a chance to actually start governing before I begin complaining too much.

Of course, the big news of the last couple weeks is the slow motion dance that Obama and Hillary Clinton have been engaged in. I’m glad that particular story has finally come to its conclusion. I don’t have any real strong feelings about this, either, although it puzzles me on Clinton’s part: giving up a Senate seat she could have held for life to take up a cabinet post that will last only a presidential term, if that, seems like an odd decision. But I don’t make her choices for her. While Clinton and Obama had their disagreements about foreign policy during the campaign, there really wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two – and I doubt that Clinton is going to be running her own show. Obama is still going to call the shots. Still: eh. I can’t really summon much enthusiasm for the pick, one way or the other.

Keeping on Gates, though, is I think a thornier issue. I’ve heard the argument that the military is comfortable with Gates, that it’s a tiny bit of compromise towards Republicans and might allow some of the more realistically-minded Republicans to reach across the aisle and work with Obama instead of just obstructing until they get another chance to reduce the Democratic majorities in the Congress.

Fair enough, I suppose, and I won’t say the argument doesn’t have a certain internal logic to it. What bothers me is the idea this reinforces, that the military is more comfortable with Republican figures than Democrats. That meme, whether it’s real or exists purely in the media imagination, is a dangerous one. Obama, and progressives more broadly, need to make sure that we move the country away from that idea. If Gates can act as a transitional figure to a progressive voice that’s acceptable with the military establishment, that’s great. We need to see an end to the idea of conservatives as the big, tough warriors who will keep us pony-tailed, Volvo-driving, NPR-listening liberals safe while we go on and on about domestic issues.

Meanwhile, speaking of NPR, where’s my canvas tote? I need to get down to the farmer’s market to grab some arugula.

Picking the Team

So Hillary Rodham Clinton will join the line of women to hold the office of Secretary of State- at least, we are left to assume this. The NYT broke that story like 2 days ago, and we've yet to hear a tornado of denials. It therefore must be so.

With this news, we are greeted with another round of Doris Kearns Goodwin-inspired stories, like this one in the NYT, extolling the virtues of a "team of rivals" in the White House.

Goodwin has sold a bunch of copies of her book about the Lincoln cabinet, and rather given some of the commentariat the vapors with regard to this style of government. At the risk of going far, far outside my area of competence here, wasn't the Lincoln model seen as a sign of weakness when he did it? A desperate move by an executive whose administrative unit was literally tearing itself apart?

And obviously, in a broader sense, putting Clinton at State (leaving aside for a moment questions about why_on_Earth she'd leave a senate seat for life to take the job) nods toward the idea that Obama is also a fan of this model. John Kennedy also appears to have used a modified version of this, thus ensuring that the concept appears historically with an aura of hallowed tradition.

However, probably far more presidents have attempted to use this model and failed than have managed to use it successfully. Think of examples of cabinet officers installed to inform policy debates with their "opposition" perspectives, who have subsequently been marginalized by presidents who might or might not appreciate hearing their perspective at moments of crisis but didn't actually want to make policy with them, and who as a result might have been better served by someone who could make policy suggestions that actually reflected the president's views. Think of George Ball, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and most recently, Colin Powell. The "team of rivals" is appealing for its elegance and what it says about the person capable of using it well, but many fine presidents have found it unworkable, if they ever attempted to use it at all. The "team of rivals" is the governing equivalent of a racing yacht- magnificent if handled skillfully, but delicate even then, and ruinous in the hands of those temperamentally unsuited to it. Remember what happened to LBJ with JFK's advisers?

And anyway, considering Hillary has her own national following and the marital equivalent of a loose cannon smashing around below deck, aren't ya just asking for unnecessary headaches with this? Is there any reason to believe she can play well with others? Hillary might turn out to be a fantastic part of an Obama governing team. But she might just as easily turn out to be a constant reminder of the tragi-drama of the '90's.

DNC Recap: Day 2

I know tonight's speeches are just hours away, so I'll try to keep this belated recap brief. I obviously didn't catch all of the speeches, but I'll briefly report on the ones I did. Also, thank you for the scoring suggestions. I thought all of them were solid, but I'm going to go ahead and go with "lucid spells" in honor of John McCain.

Barbara Boxer: Whew. Just be glad I couldn't find a link to the actual speech. At least it was short. Looking at my notes from last night all I have written is, "Cliche, cliche, cliche." and "Yawn." That pretty much sums it up.
Rating: 0.5 LSs of 5

Ed Rendell:
I thought Ed was really strong. He's got this way of earnestly throwing shit in your face while having a big smile on his that just works. His attacks on McCain's lack of an energy policy were effective. Favorite line: "The only thing that will be recycled are the tired old policies of George Bush". Second Favorite line: "The only thing green about McCain's policy is the $4 billion in tax breaks to the oil companies."
Rating: 4 LSs of 5

Mark Warner:
Sure hope you win that Virginia senate seat Mark! If he puts that same level of dedication into getting Obama elected, well...maybe the Democratic chances of turning Virginia really aren't that good. I'm being overly critical. It was a decent speech with some nuance, but what's all this hucky-dory, reaching across party lines, post-partisan crap? This is electoral politics my friend, and as Rachell Maddow said, that might be ok for governing, but not an election.

Hillary Clinton:
I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree with Aaron, and quite a few commentators and say I thought her speech was weak overall. My notes for the speech were as follows:
-"me me me" (is that absolutely necessary?)
-better turn this around right now
-they shouldn't have let her on
-now it's "we we we"
-does she realize she lost?
-"twin cities" bit was funny
-"were you in it for me or.." is really great
-meh

I know what you're thinking. It's surprising I didn't make a career out of academia with that notetaking ability huh?

Anyway...The beginning -- not just the very beginning, but the entire first 1/3 to 1/2 was all about her. There were so many more mentions of "me" than "him" or "Barack". I understand that a lot of people are still interested in her, but there was way too much of this. The unequivocal bulk of this speech should have been focused on two things. The first is telling every one of her supporters that they have to vote for Obama. I'm talking mother of guilt trips here. If you vote for McCain you're spitting in my face and in everything I believe in. If you vote for McCain you're literally showing that you don't care about women and women's issues.

The only bit like this was with the, "were you in it for me or for that mom with cancer" etc. part, which was fantastic. The speech should have been filled with stuff like that. The other thing she should have done was absolutely eviscerate John McCain. She should have directly addressed her role in his television spots, and portrayed him as a crazy old man. She should have talked about how his recent sabre rattling on the Georgia/Russia conflict revoked her commander-in-cheif "threshold" comment. Again, she did very little of this.

I know this is beyond cliched, and I hate putting people I've never met on the metaphorical couch, but I'm not buying it. I'm not totally convinced she wants Obama to win. I think she sees a 2012 Clinton inauguration as assured in the incident of a McCain victory -- and I don't think that's a miscalculation on her part. I think that feeling of entitlement has turned into resentment. It's not that simple of course, and I think any intelligent, ambitious, adult in her situation would have conflicted feelings, but I simply can't shake the feeling that she's not on board.
Rating: 2.5 LSs of 5

Clinton's Speech

Hillary Clinton’s speech last night was very impressive. She hit all the notes she had to: linking Bush and McCain (I liked the Twin Cities line), saying unequivocally that Obama was the nominee and it was more important to make sure that a Democrat was in the White House next year, not McCain, and that Democrat was going to be Barack Obama.

The nonsense about PUMA and the Clinton dead-enders has largely been pushed along by the media: the idea of a party being pulled apart by a contest as long as the Democratic primary is a compelling narrative. Funny, then, that they aren’t mentioning the real issues that are currently dividing the Republican Party. The religious fundamentalists are not comfortable with McCain, and his courtship of them has been among the more distasteful things in an extremely distasteful campaign (Georgia was one of the first countries to convert to Christianity? What does that matter?). The two front runners for McCain’s vice presidential pick, Mitt Romney and Joe Lieberman, are obviously divisive choices for the Republicans. Their coalition is falling apart around their ears, but all the media can talk about is how Obama hasn’t courted Clinton supporters enough? Hopefully this speech can put paid to that notion.

The Clintons in the Popular Imagination

Below, DP wonders about what the perceived hatred of Hillary Clinton means for an election and if it even exists. I agree that conservatives by and large won’t vote for a Democrat. That’s why they’re conservatives – they disagree with what the Democratic Party wants to accomplish. They’d vote against Clinton just as they’d vote against Obama. What’s more interesting is that there’s this idea out there that Clinton goes beyond that general dislike into a new realm for conservatives.

However, there’s a hardcore 28% of the population that would vote Republican no matter what happened (incidentally, I would be very interested to know what this group consists of, demographically). I think this is a group that does have a frothing, irrational hatred for all things Clinton which runs deeper than their hatred for the Democratic Party per se. They would never actually vote for a Democrat, but the Clintons themselves really seem to get under their skin.

I always found it strange that the media hasn’t put the whole “Bush Derangement Syndrome” that was such a popular canard during the run-up to the Iraq War into more context. Rush Limbaugh started each show during the Clinton Presidency as “America Held Hostage: Day Whatever.” The 28 Percenter’s level of derangement isn’t even comparable.

I think there’s also a block of voters who generally vote Republican but are willing to say they disagree with what Bush has done. I think these people don’t dislike Clinton any more than they dislike any other Democrat. When it comes down to it, they’re going to vote Republican, but they’re willing to tell pollsters that they would consider voting for Obama (when he’s not the frontrunner). Once he’s the nominee, though, they start saying things like “less oratory, more details.” There has to be something wrong with Obama, or else they’d have to vote for him.

Electorally, I think this results in a couple of things. There’s a slightly larger group of people who vote Democratic on a regular basis, but I think there’s a higher percentage of Republicans who would never consider voting for a Democrat. Look at what happened with McCain: you had Rush Limbaugh talking about how McCain’s nomination would destroy the Republican Party. Well, now they’re all lined up behind McCain. But you don’t have the media talking about whether or not the Republican base will turn out in November the way you have them talking about the Clinton supporters!

Beyond that, I think it’s more important that the media is stuck with the idea that “people hate the Clintons,” despite Bill being very popular as an ex-president and Hillary being a very popular senator in her state. The media as a group was so scarred by the Republican gains in the early nineties, and especially the explosive rise of conservative media (especially in talk radio, but also Fox News) that they’ve gotten the anti-Clinton meme burrowed deep into their collective psyche. They don’t hate Clinton, but they love the idea of people hating Clinton. It’s an easy narrative to convey.

I think this is why Democrats are usually labeled “the most liberal X.” The media loves the idea of “bi-partisanship,” even if that usually presents itself as “Democrats giving in to Republicans,” which results in a further solidification of the perception of Democrats as being weak. The media classes have bent over backwards to not be perceived as being biased, so much so that it's created a negative perception of Democrats. They won’t call out Republicans for not being “bi-partisan,” (i.e., giving in) because that would imply that Republicans are wrong, which is a value judgment. But when Democrats are unwilling to “reach across the aisle,” they’re being strident, too liberal and, worst of all, partisan.

Clinton as Antichrist

A comment that reader 'pw' made in this post made me consider a falsehood that's been repeated so often it's become assumed. He talked about the right's unique hated of Hillary Clinton. Though I've heard it espoused from many different people, both liberals and conservatives, I think it's worth noting what exactly this means in an electoral context.

Conservatives hate all Democratic candidates, at least enough to come out and vote against them. Though they may carry a special dislike for Hillary, I'd imagine you'd have a hard time finding anyone who was drawn to the polls by their dislike for Hillary Clinton, vs. any other Democratic candidate. My point is, I don't think she motivates the base at all, at least not more than Obama is, or Edwards and Richardson would have. Ever notice how every single Democratic national candidate is suddenly the "most liberal X" in the Senate, House, etc? That's the reaction of a movement that's not particularly interested in denoting differences, subtle or not, between Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

But What Does McCain Think?

John McCain, Bill Kristol, and Rudy Giuliani all agree, Obama shouldn’t have picked Biden – instead, they should have gone with Hillary Clinton. As McCain and Rudy Giuliani are both well known and long term Clinton supporters, it’s unsurprising the media would turn to him for an opinion on the race.

At least Kristol came around to his new-found support of Sen. Clinton in his own magazine. I find it strange that the Washington Post would open a 1,000 word article on reactions to Obama’s pick with a quote from a Republican. Of course McCain and Giuliani think Obama picked the wrong person. They’d hardly be likely to say, “Man, what a great pick. We might as well pull up stakes, ‘cause this one’s all over.” It would be like asking a vegetarian what they think of your Steak Roquefort. The only reason they’d offer a comment is if they thought they could cause Obama some damage – in this case, of course, trying to stir up disaffected Clinton supporters. It’s absurd that the media would give a forum to such obviously prejudiced voices.

It’s also quite interesting that they spend so much time on whether or not Clinton supporters will be upset with Obama’s decision without mentioning Clinton’s support of Biden.

Son of Inside the Clinton Campaign

The Atlantic’s big story on the Clinton campaign has dropped, and it’s a fascinating read. If you followed the campaign with any interest at all, I highly suggest that you hop over there and read the whole thing. There really aren’t any huge revelations. Mark Penn seems very unpleasant, and they couldn’t make up their mind on what to do with Michigan and Florida. The campaign was beset from the beginning with an inability to question the received notions it operated in. By the time that it occurred to them that the race wasn’t going to be how they’d assumed, it was almost too late. The main idea that I walked away from the article with is amazement that the Clinton campaign remained viable for so long after the math had shifted decisively against them.

The irony of the whole thing is that, despite Clinton’s “ready on day one” rhetoric, she never took a firm executive hand in her own campaign. Instead of making hard decisions when they needed to be made (and would have made a difference), she waited until any benefit that the hard choices would have incurred had already evaporated. While Obama’s campaign seems to have been run in a very tight fashion, with Obama firmly at the head, Clinton’s was beset with all sorts of internal rivalries and factions.

Inside the Clinton Campaign

Politico seems to have broken the embargo on the Atlantic’s big Clinton story for next week. It’s an interesting read, and seems to confirm the rumors that were floating around at the time about how disorganized and divided the Clinton campaign machine was. It also seems to confirm that they gave no real thought about what to do if Clinton didn’t walk away with the nomination out of Iowa, and that by the time they realized the size of their mistake, it was too late to regain their footing.

One thing that does surprise me though, is the extent to which the worst impressions of the Clinton campaign that I had during the primary are confirmed: the sense of entitlement, the internal instability and the half-hearted, incoherent response to the Obama campaign. According to the article, Mark Penn continually advocated the kind of “other” attacks on Obama that he was said to favor at the time. One of the impressions I get reading it is that Clinton and her advisers were torn – they couldn’t decide if they wanted to run with the kind of nasty, base attacks that would drive Obama’s favorability down and allow Clinton to sneak into a victory after they had almost completely wrecked their chances.

Of course, they didn’t do that – at least not to the extent that they could have done. In a lot of ways, the whole thing is amazing for watching how the Clinton campaign went from being the inevitable nominee to losing it almost exclusively through unforced errors. Obama ran a magnificent campaign. He and his advisers seemed to get everything right, to meet every crisis with a well thought out response. Clinton, it seemed, bumbled from one mistake to the next, and even when they saw one possible way to still win – attacking Obama as un-American – screwed it up by not committing.

At the start of the campaign, I felt like Clinton would make for an excellent president, although she certainly wasn’t my first choice. But as the campaign went along, like a lot of Obama supporters, I began to like her and how she was conducting her presidential bid less and less. This article confirms my impressions of her and her campaign, but it also improves my view of her. She saw one path to victory, by going wholly negative against Obama in more conservative states, but didn’t follow through with it (I still think the “3AM” ad and their response to Wright was pretty sleazy). There has to be something positive said about someone who sees the worst possible path, and even if they take a few hesitant steps down it, are still unable to walk down it boldly. Clinton’s performances on Obama’s behalf have been great so far, and I can see no effort on her part to undermine Obama to set herself up for 2012. While I think that Clinton’s campaign deserved to lose, if for no other reason than their clear internal incompetence, I’m pleased with the impression I’ve gotten of her since then.