Secretary of State Clinton

I thought that John McCain was trying to dispense with the roll call, but the Senate just confirmed Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State of the United States by a 94-2 vote. Freedom Fighter Jim DeMint and David Vitter voted no. Vitter is up for re-election in 2010, and it seems to me that the PUMAs now have their activism target.

Now, of course, David Paterson has to actually pick a successor. He says he has someone in mind but wants to think it over for a little while longer. Hey, no hurry!

A New Era Of Comity And Bipartisanship

I was half-joking when I said that John Roberts' flubbing of the Presidential oath of office (which he couldn't recite from memory - what a Constitutional literalist) would cause wingnuts to muse about whether Obama's Presidency is illegitimate because he didn't repeat the right words. (Short answer - it doesn't matter)

Well, Chris Wallace apparently put it out there on Fox News a little while ago.

And adding to that...

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s smooth ride to confirmation as secretary of state hit a small bump on Tuesday as one of her Republican colleagues blocked a vote on Mrs. Clinton’s nomination, citing ethical questions arising from donors to her husband’s charitable foundation.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas objected to including Mrs. Clinton’s name in a unanimous consent vote for several Cabinet nominees, scheduled for hours after the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, plans to hold a roll-call vote on Mrs. Clinton’s nomination on Wednesday, which she is expected to win easily.

A spokesman for Mr. Cornyn, Kevin McLaughlin, said, “this is not an effort to scuttle or block the nomination, but a legitimate policy difference. Senator Cornyn’s goal is to create transparency on all levels of government.”

There will be a roll call tomorrow and she'll win. And Cornyn's claims about conflict of interest, given that he pocketed a million dollars from Enron executives before they collapsed, are absurd.

But none of that really matters. Republicans play trench warfare. If they can delay Hillary Clinton a day, they'll do it. They cannot be placated or bargained with.


...deep thought: Should the "Obama isn't President because he didn't say the oath of office exactly" lawsuits be combined with the "Obama isn't President because he isn't a natural born citizen" lawsuits to create an omnibus wingnut cert?

Just Too Many Unanswered Questions

Hillary Clinton was recommended for confirmation as Secretary of State by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today by a 16-1 vote. The one no vote? David Vitter.

Sen. David Vitter , R-La., was the only member to vote against the nomination, and he did so by proxy. In a statement released before the vote, Vitter said, “Sen. Clinton is certainly a smart, capable colleague, and I take no pleasure in voting against her confirmation. But I must do so for one compelling reason. I believe President Clinton’s business and foundation dealings are a multi-million dollar minefield of conflicts of interest. And this could produce explosions at any minute, particularly concerning the Middle East where we least need them.”

Yes, it wouldn't be good to have someone in a position of power with so many unanswered questions. For example, Pampers or Huggies?

Clinton's Confirmation Hearing

I watched a good bit of the Clinton nomination hearings this morning, and I did it on C-SPAN, because I didn't want to hear the gasbags going on and on about all those terrible conflicts of interests between the Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. Um, wasn't Hillary Clinton a SENATOR before all this? If these conflicts with the Clinton Foundation getting cash from foreign governments to influence American foreign policy are a conflict now, wouldn't they have been before? Furthermore, what giant political family DOESN'T have conflict of interest ties like this? It just seems like this manufactured outrage is practically reserved for the Clintons.

The latest high school-level argument that the press is making is that John Kerry wanted the job and now that he's Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair, there are going to be all kinds of petty animosities and grumbling. Have these reporters evolved at all from the time when the key question was who was going to ask who to the prom?

So I'd rather focus on the specifics, at least as I saw them. There's an AP writeup of the hearing here.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that she intends to revitalize the mission of diplomacy in American foreign policy, calling for a "smart power" strategy in the Middle East and implicitly criticizing the Bush administration for having downgraded the role of arms control [...]

"America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America," she said, her daughter Chelsea seated behind her in the audience. "The best way to advance America's interest in reducing global threats and seizing global opportunities is to design and implement global solutions. This isn't a philosophical point. This is our reality." [...]

In discussing the problem of peacemaking in the Middle East, Clinton referred to her husband's extensive, though ultimately unsuccessful, efforts to strike a comprehensive peace deal.

"As intractable as the Middle East's problems may seem and many presidents, including my husband, have spent years trying to help work out a resolution, we cannot give up on peace," she said. She said that she and Obama are "deeply sympathetic to Israel's desire to defend itself" against Hamas rockets fired from the Gaza Strip but also worried about the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

"We must also actively pursue a strategy of smart power in the Middle East that addresses the security needs of Israel and the legitimate political and economic aspirations of the Palestinians; that effectively challenges Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and sponsorship of terror, and persuades both Iran and Syria to abandon their dangerous behavior and become constructive regional actors." she said.

I think you're going to hear "smart power" a lot during Clinton's tenure. It fits the combination of tough-minded diplomacy and global cooperation we can expect from her, and it's certainly a break with the past.

Top dislike: the continued use of "all options are on the table" when it comes to Iran. Our rhetoric is not only overheated, but everyone seems to have forgotten that the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran showed that they stopped their nuclear program four years ago. You don't have to believe that, but you could at least cite it.

Top like: Clinton over and over again suggested that our over-reliance on contractors weakens our national security and is not even fiscally responsible. The multiple abuses by contractors trouble her, and she feels that State Department personnel can better handle the job and would not have to be constantly retrained. However, Clinton neglected to call for a ban on mercenaries, which was a campaign promise of hers. She needs to be pushed on that. Also, Clinton will be dogged in her efforts to secure the proper funding for the department and bring into balance the State/Defense relationship. On more than one occasion she has said that the Pentagon has 10 times the budget of Foggy Bottom, and they have been carrying out functions usually reserved for State. As even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said yesterday, we need less of a reliance on the military in foreign policy, which speaks well of the effort to get someone of such prominence to helm the State Department.

There was also talk of Afghanistan, which I'll get to in a later post.

Obama, Clinton and Israel

I should probably get around to discussing the Obama national security team, and since this is such a big story I'll go one by one. In general terms, I'd agree with many in this story in being OK with the picks, but there are also some associated concerns.

Hillary Clinton is obviously the most formidable choice. Madeleine Albright is someone she practically shadowed while First Lady, so if you liked how Albright handled the job (and I'm not sure I totally did), you'll like Clinton. While both were greatly competent in their duties, both have tendencies to the right of where common perception thought Barack Obama's foreign policy would go. And personnel does have an effect on policy - someone like Hillary Clinton will not be solely an instrument of the President's will, and how she fills out Foggy Bottom will have impacts for progressives well into the future. Because of the media's obsession with the rapprochement of Clinton and Obama - and their rapport doesn't seem to me to be a problem worth thinking about at all - we're not hearing enough about the consequences for foreign policy from this move. But that's the key question for the world.

Clinton is not only more hawkish than Obama – she’s also more politically risk-averse: disinclined to tackle entrenched interest groups or challenge conventional wisdom. Clinton represents a segment of the Democratic party that spent the years after September 11 fretting intensely over whether Democrats seemed sufficiently “tough” – worried about a replay of the 1970s, when Democratic anti-war sentiment scared off the public.

Obama and his younger supporters took a distinctly post-September 11 perspective, in which insufficient backbone in standing up to Bush’s reckless policies was the party’s primary sin. To many, this was the central appeal of Obama’s candidacy. This important distinction between the Clinton and Obama approaches was reflected in their campaigns: Obama staffers spoke explicitly to me and others about their desire to take advantage of the shift in public sentiment in the wake of the Iraq disaster to move beyond the politics of toughness and enact dramatic shifts in America’s relationship to the world.

For all the speculation about Obama’s offer to Clinton, there has been no real account of the rationale or motivations for his decision – at least not beyond vague, and endlessly repeated, references to Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, a profile of the cabinet Abraham Lincoln assembled under wildly different circumstances. The transition team has done very little to outline the substantive agenda it expects a Clinton-led State Department to tackle, and indeed, perhaps the ongoing financial crisis will mean any bold new foreign initiatives will be put on the back-burner.

What is unclear at this point is whether Clinton joining the Obama team means that Clinton has gained faith in Obama’s approach, or that Obama has lost faith in his own. The very fact of Obama’s election would seem to tilt things in his direction: there was a consistent trajectory to their disagreements, and Obama was on the right side – a judgment vindicated by his victories over both Clinton and McCain. It’s not merely that he won, but that winning demonstrates his supposedly “risky” positions were not so risky after all.

That's true of a lot of these picks, and particularly at State. Yesterday Obama said that his team will "help America lead by moral example":

In this uncertain world, the time has come for a new beginning -- a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century, and to seize the opportunities embedded in those challenges. To succeed, we must pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy; our intelligence and law enforcement; our economy and the power of our moral example.

The team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do just that. They share my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world.

It's a nice set of lines, and it outlines a sort of consensus between the realistic strand of Bush 41's foreign policy and the liberal belief in diplomacy, soft power and human rights. But the disconnect between the old thinkers on the right side of that consensus and the bold thinking he proposed during the campaign doesn't make a lot of sense. Risk-averse establishmentarians aren't the best choice to enact risky maneuvers, and I don't buy the argument that this gives Obama "cover" on the right to push forward a bold agenda. In fact, it's far more likely that Obama isn't very bold at all, and will slide into the foreign policy consensus despite it being the one issue where he pulled away from it during the campaign.

There is one region of the world where Clinton and Obama can prove that the foreign policy consensus has indeed changed for the better, and that is in the Middle East. The Israel/Palestine question is fundamental to peace in the region, but at this point the overall belief is that very little will change from the perspective of Arabs, Israelis and Iranians.

“Anyone would be better than the last administration,” said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian political analyst. “But I don’t think there will be real change in the Middle East.”

He said Mr Obama’s entourage contained many pro-Israeli politicians and analysts. Any major policy shift would focus on Iraq and perhaps Iran, not the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

“Obama will try to make a big change in Iraq,” Mr Rashwan said, alluding to the next president’s promise to withdraw troops within 16 months of taking office on Jan 20. “He can’t make two big changes in the same area... It would be suicide.”

Politically, I don't think that's true. The withdrawal is being mandated through an agreement with the Iraqis, basically taking that off the table politically. There is space to deal honestly with the Israelis and Palestinians and broker a lasting peace. The question is whether or not the will is there. Clearly Clinton has the perception of being on the Israeli's side in the conflict, supporting the wall along the West Bank and rejecting negotiations with Gaza, and that perception alone is going to harm her efforts. Nevertheless, she has shown a desire to implement big projects, from the ill-fated health care plan to her Presidential run, and fulfilling the legacy begun by her husband is commensurate with the big contribution she wants to implement. This is a major opportunity and J Street is right to press the Obama Administration to make it a priority. As Matt Stoller says.

My sense of the conflict is that, though there are many obstacles to peace, domestic US politics in the form of AIPAC has always been the elephant in the room. There are signs the group itself is moderating, the political environment has become much more favorable for diplomatic work and the Clinton's have the credibility and gravitas to work on a two state solution without worrying about upsetting right-wing Jews.

Clinton believed in Presidential destiny, and not content to just be a Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton can certainly translate this desire 'go big' into another realm by solving the dominant problem in the Middle East. I hope she does.

I think this gets the domestic politics right - my fear is the politics inside Israel right now. Gaza is currently under siege, as the Palestinian Authority and Israel conspire to marginalize Hamas, and the consequences of that move are unpredictable. Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu may become Prime Minister within a month, and while he's running on a campaign for change (he basically stole Obama's website), it's hard to see how you could keep the peace process going with him in power.

I guess there's always the argument that you need a Nixon to go to China, that you need someone with impeccable security credentials on the Israeli side to make a lasting peace. That's one of abiding tragedies of Ariel Sharon's stroke. (It's ironic that Netanyahu, who's got a thin national security resume by Israeli standards, should be seen in that light since verbal and policy aggression are his only real calling cards. But that's another story ...) But Netanyahu is not only the voice of Israeli territorial maximalism, albeit in its current more limited form, he's also fundamentally unreliable person -- a charlatan.

For those of us who are heartened to finally have an administration that realizes this issue is as critical as it is, it's a very disheartening prospect on the horizon.

Netanyahu is promising rapid economic growth in the occupied territories as a precursor to peace, but it's not a new strategy and without an ideological shift it cannot produce results. Palestinians with "full stomachs" will not moderate their beliefs unless they are no longer occupied. It's irrelevant to the peace process.

I fear that Obama and Clinton, constrained by external events, will take the path of least resistance in the Middle East, focus on issues outside the Arab-Israeli conflict, and do little to improve our standing in the region. On the other hand, if they want to signal a "new dawn" in global leadership, they can go to Jerusalem and fight for peace.

Cabinet Report

Quite a Friday news dump on the Cabinet front.

• Timothy Geithner, a Summers/Rubin acolyte and the current chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, looks to be the next Treasury Secretary. I'm not going to pretend that I know a lot about him. Apparently he was the only member of the current "brain trust" who advocated for saving Lehman Brothers, so at least he showed sound, forward-thinking judgment there. But he's not what I'd totally call a progressive economist.

• Bill Richardson looks to be the favorite for the Commerce Secretary position. This seems like a slightly less powerful job than UN Ambassador or Energy Secretary, Richardson's roles in the Clinton Administration, so I'm not sure why he would want it. Also, I always considered Richardson to be more progressive on foreign policy issues than domestic ones (he wanted a balanced budget amendment), so that bugs me as well. His energy policy was excellent in the primary, however, so hopefully he can bring corporate America along on green issues.

• There are scattered reports that Hillary Clinton will accept the Secretary of State position. I've gone back and forth on this one, and I'll have a much longer post on this later.

• And retired Marine Gen. James Jones is the pick for National Security Advisor. Politically he's an independent, but he supported McCain in the election, and was offered deputy staff positions in the Bush Administration. On the other hand, he didn't TAKE the positions with Bush, and he wrote a very well-regarded report about the Iraqi security forces earlier this year. He has been a critic of the war and of Don Rumsfeld's management style at the Defense Department.

As I said, I'll have more analysis later, but the nickel version is that I think there's some reason for progressives to be concerned.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome

I think the biggest reason why I've eventually come around to the idea that Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is an excellent idea is by watching the traditional media froth at the mouth about it. David Broder is but a symbol of this consensus freak-out.

The last thing Obama needs is a secretary of state carving out an independently based foreign policy. He needs an agent, not an author.

Even if Hillary Clinton were ready to play such a subordinate role, which she might be, in return for a promise that her voice would be heard in the most serious policy debates, the presence of Bill Clinton makes that a doubly difficult assignment. The former president has, through the Clinton Global Initiative and his own extensive foreign travels and worldwide contacts, made himself a force in international affairs. It would be unfair, and unlikely, for him to shut down his own private foreign policy actions because they might conflict with his wife's responsibilities. But foreign leaders would inevitably see Bill Clinton as an alternative route toward influencing American policy. And he would be unlikely to remain silent.

I just don't know where Broder gets the idea that Clinton would be necessarily carving out an independent foreign policy, or that Obama would allow that to happen. As for Bill Clinton, there's a small amount of concern there, but I think it's overblown. Considering the enormous conflicts of interest from this President, who owed his business career to the Saudis, I think that Clinton's involvement with foreign nationals - which is to be expected from a former President - is unlikely to inform his wife's duties at State. Anyway, Bill is willing to make the necessary concessions.

It's amusing that people like Broder are throwing this fit about the return of the Clintons, while bloggers like John Aravosis - perhaps Clinton's biggest critic in the primaries - are willing to make nice:

Hillary's comportment during the primaries, as a primary contender, is a far cry from what Joe Lieberman did in actually endorsing the GOP candidate. When you are running for office you are granted a certain degree of latitude in how nasty you can be against your fellow primary contenders. Yes, we get pissed at you at the time, we strike back just as hard, but then we get over it. But running against, and criticizing, fellow Dems in a primary is not the same thing as joining with the enemy after the primaries are over.

I liked Hillary and Bill before the heat of the primaries, and I'm starting to like them all over again. I really believe Hillary would make a fantastic Secretary of State, and her husband's international ties would only benefit the Obama administration. If anyone can fix America's tattered image in the world, it's President Obama aided by a tag-team of Clintons. And I really am serious. I think this could be an incredible opportunity for America.

Quite a turn of the tide, ay?

Hillary To State?

OK, since this appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is appearing more likely (though not yet a done deal as the Guardian says) I thought I'd write about it. The top-level view of this is that Bill Clinton's business dealings are the major stumbling block, many of which could give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The vetting of Mr. Clinton’s myriad philanthropic and business dealings is “complicated, and it may be the complications that are causing hesitation on both sides,” said Abner J. Mikva, one of Mr. Obama’s closest supporters and a White House counsel during the Clinton administration. “There would have to be full disclosure as to who all were contributors to his library and foundation. I think they’d have to be made public.”

While aides to the president-elect declined Monday to discuss what sort of requirements would make it possible for Mrs. Clinton to serve as secretary of state, they said Mr. Obama would not formally offer her the job unless he was satisfied that there would be no conflicts posed by Mr. Clinton’s activities abroad.

I don't think the husband of the Secretary of State could accept lump sum payments from foreign governments. Even if it had no effect on governance, the appearance of impropriety would drive the cable sharks mad.

Which in many ways you're already seeing. With the serious challenges that we have to face at home an abroad, I don't know why you would risk endless distraction just because of a fetish with Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals" (and like I said, the REAL rivals were seceding from the Union and forming an Army at that time). Hillary Clinton is quite confirmable and wouldn't have a problem there, but the spigot of Clinton gossip would be wide open and unbearable.

That is not a reason not to do it, however. You employ the best men and women for the job. And so the question becomes, is Hillary that person? I know that she accompanied Madeleine Albright abroad often during her run as Secretary of State, and she certainly has a wealth of experience. It is also true that my comfort level with Obama over Clinton in the primaries was mainly cased on foreign policy. Clinton is probably more progressive than Obama on the domestic front, but she called his idea for diplomacy with enemies to be "dangerous and naive." A lot of that is campaign talk, and I'm sure she'd carry out Obama's wishes. At the same time, the leaders of these various departments are not without power and influence. And they are also managers of a large agency, and Clinton didn't do entirely well with that in the primaries.

I'm very torn on the idea, and I see it as high risk with the potential for high reward. Clinton is a pro, but the gossipmongers and Kremlinologists will be out in force to look at every nod and wink and gesture for signs of tension. If the media could be cordoned off with strict limits on Clinton discussion, well then OK.

...It's entirely possible that the gasbag outcry is the desired effect, a misdirection so that Obama can govern and Hillary can take the circus-like atmosphere. I'm not sure it would work out that way, but it's possible.

I Don't Care

The Hillary-Obama spat that consumed everyone during the primaries always left me cold. It's this overblown soap opera that the media is drawn to like flies to a lamppost. Apparently Obama offered her the Secretary of State job. MAYBE. It seems like yet another trial balloon, thrown out there to gauge public opinion and set the media tongues a-waggin'.

Who gives a crap about this? It's idle speculation at best, and besides she's perfectly qualified for the position. Anyway, Obama is confident enough in his abilities that his perspective is going to be what drives the agenda. There are a lot of Clinton-era officials in the transition team so far because the only Democrats with any executive experience are Clinton-era officials. Susan Rice worked in the Clinton Administration but she was against the Iraq war, as have been most of the Obama foreign policy team. Do they deserve to be tarred with the brush of being "Clinton-era officials"? John Podesta is the founder of the Center for American Progress and a very liberal guy. He was Clinton's Chief of Staff at one point. Is he dead to everyone, then? It's ridiculous.

I mean, stuff like this is absurd.

The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries.

What divisions? Obama got 89% of Democrats on Election Day and has a 70% approval rating.

As Eric Boehlert said:

What is clear is that Obama and Clinton are conducting themselves as adults trying to help lead the country, while the portions of the press corps (sadly, it's the so-called 'elite' portions) continue to behave like juveniles.

If something actually happens on this, call me. Until then, I really couldn't care less.