by hilzoy
I’m quite impressed by the way Barack Obama’s cabinet is shaking out. Eric Holder seems to be a superb choice for Attorney General, as is Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security. I’m really happy about Daschle at HHS — both because I think it raises the chances that we’ll actually get a serious health care plan through Congress, and because Daschle’s appointment indicates that that’s a serious priority for Obama. I’m still reading up on Timothy Geithner, but so far I’m quite impressed by him as well.
Bob Gates seems to be a serious possibility for Secretary of Defense. As I wrote a few weeks ago, I think this would also be a good move, for reasons Spencer Ackerman explained here. Scott Horton wrote a good post about Gates a few days ago, giving additional reasons why Gates might be a good pick. Basically, I think that there are two main reasons for keeping Gates. The first is that it’s very important to get bipartisan cover for the withdrawal from Iraq if we want to avoid some future conservative “if only the Democrats had let us win” story. (Likewise, bipartisan cover would be very useful if Obama decides to cut some weapons systems.) The second is that by all accounts the military have a lot of respect for Gates; keeping him on, therefore, would allow Obama to bypass the need to establish his own credibility and that of his Secretary of Defense with them. (Yes, I know: this shouldn’t be necessary. But it is.)
Neither of these reasons would cut any ice with me if Gates had been a bad Secretary of Defense. But he hasn’t. He’s been very good, under difficult conditions. Moreover, he seems like the sort of person who would either try to implement Obama’s policies rather than working to undermine them or turn the job down. It would be especially good if Obama were to reach an understanding that he would leave after a few years, allowing Obama to appoint a different Secretary of Defense after the withdrawal from Iraq is complete.
I’m less thrilled with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and watching the daily leaks apparently designed to keep us all on tenterhooks about her decision-making process does not make me like the idea any better. On the other hand, what worried me about her as President was the idea that she would be making the final decisions about whether or not to go to war. Since she made that call wrong the last time around, and has never seemed to regret it, I saw no reason to think I should trust her to get it right in the future. As Secretary of State, however, she will not make that decision. She will be able to use her dedication, command of detail, and star power, but she will not be able to decide whether or not we should invade another country. That sounds OK to me.
But all in all, Obama has chosen some very, very impressive people. Isn’t it great to have a grownup in charge?
***
PS: articles about Geithner:
Bob Kuttner in TAP
Noam Scheiber in TNR
Justin Fox
WSJ, and another
Felix Salmon, and an earlier piece, and one on his role in rescuing Bear Stearns
NYT profile from early 2007
Portfolio.com
Geithner’s speeches. This one, from 2006, is quite interesting: it contains the sentence: “The changes that have reduced the vulnerability of the system to smaller shocks may have increased the severity of the large ones.” Indeed.
The first is that it’s very important to get bipartisan cover for the withdrawal from Iraq if we want to avoid some future conservative “if only the Democrats had let us win” story.
Yeah cause the whole having a republican actually be the one to withdraw from vietnam worked so well to avoid the future conservative “if only the Democrats had let us win” story.
Doomed. If that’s the way you want to play it – doomed.
There is no need for bipartisan cover. We need not share blame here. One political party is responsible for the idiocy in Iraq – the entrance, the exit, the carnage, the stupidity. Republicans did this. Period, full stop, end of discussion.
The second is that by all accounts the military have a lot of respect for Gates; keeping him on, therefore, would allow Obama to bypass the need to establish his own credibility and that of his Secretary of Defense with them.
I’m not sure it makes any sense to talk about “the military” as a unitary entity that either does or does not have respect for Gates. There are a lot of people in the military. They disagree about most things. From a political perspective, what the average soldier on the ground in Iraq thinks is much less of a problem for Obama than what the high powered brass at the Pentagon think. Even if you had polling data that indicated most soldiers thought well of Gates (which you don’t), that wouldn’t tell us anything about how the power players at the pentagon feel about him because the average soldier is not representative. The power players can strategically leak information (or disinformation) and they have the ability to stall and obstruct the President’s agenda.
Happy talk about how “the military” respects Gates obscures the fact that Gates has pissed off some very powerful people. He’s been brutal with the Air Force, and while I think they deserve everything he’s thrown at them, every action has reactions. As a result, those players are going to want to neutralize him and Obama. They’re going to rally their defense contractor buddies and their favorite congressfolk. Now that we’re in a recession, I guarantee you that when Boeing whines to their congressfolk about cuts in the F22 procurement budget and potential factory layoffs in their district, those congressmen will listen VERY attentively. If you want to perform a serious analysis of how the military establishment relates to Gates and what the political implications of that relationship are, these are the sorts of things you have to consider. Simply asserting — with zero evidence — that “the military” likes Gates and therefore it will be smooth sailing is not very convincing.
Agree with now_what. If your enemies will cry wolf every time you come around no matter how you shapeshift, you might as well eat their sheep.
So far, this is a big shiv for the left. Another stupid banker, to try to reëstablish the financialisation of our economy. So far, no labour or production people. But who cares about people in unions who make actual stuff.
And hillary, who has no qualifications other than inability to successfully manage anything, and who totally loves the empire.
Then we have a drug warrior and the only person from congress with less spine than Reid.
What a crew.
Napolitano, though, seems like good pick. Expecpt it mean one less senator two year from now. Hey who cares, i’m sure Joementum will round up his friends to vote for labour.
I’ve spent the last hour or so looking at dates of birth, just to see if Obama’s emphasis on experience meant that his administration didn’t represent generational change in the same way that Clinton’s did.
The most common year of birth in Bill Clinton’s cabinets: 1947 (Richardson, Pena, Cisneros, Herman). Gore was 48, Clinton and Reubin were 46.
The most common year of birth in Barack Obama’s cabinet: 1947 (Daschle, Clinton and Richardson).
Probably don’t want to read too much into that, though.
Bob Gates doesn’t do much for bipartisanship, because he isn’t a Republican. That said, he has done a good job, and there is a lot in terms of general sanity to be said for not making someone who’s served under the other party ipso facto radioactive. (I still get annoyed every time I see career diplomat Joe Wilson referred to as a “Democratic operative”.)
“The first is that it’s very important to get bipartisan cover for the withdrawal from Iraq if we want to avoid some future conservative “if only the Democrats had let us win” story.”
That’ll happen no matter what. It wasn’t a Democratic President, or Secretary of State, who led us out of Vietnam, and only wanted a “decent interval” before South Vietnam collapsed, knowing it couldn’t survive.
Didn’t stop the Democrats from being blamed.
(And, really, I emphatically suggest people read my link.)
How very Machiavellian, keeping your friends close and your enemies closer still.
Shrewd move.
Bob Gates seems to be a serious possibility for Secretary of Defense. As I wrote a few weeks ago, I think this would also be a good move, for reasons Spencer Ackerman explained here.
And you really don’t want the rest of the world thinking that when Obama claimed he represented “change” he meant it.
Another step on the way of thinking that there’ll be no prosecutions for torture, too – after all, you would hardly offer a Cabinet post to someone who was going to be implicated in a far-reaching political/military scandal.
So the message is: the torture might stop, but no one’s going to be penalized for involvement in the US’s breach of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture. What the President says, goes: the US can torture prisoners again.
PS: A set of political values that can be more disturbed by having Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State than Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is… peculiar, to say the least. Though this blog was not known for any substantive criticisms of Clinton while she was running against Obama in the primaries, there are substantive criticisms to be made against her, just as there are against Obama – who I bet is still counting as a blessing that he was not in the US Senate between 2000 and 2004, given that while he can be forgiven for that infamous vote to award himself the power of warrantless wiretapping once he is President, Clinton can not be forgiven for that infamous vote to award Bush the power to decide to take the US to war with Iraq.
But there’s “substantive criticisms” and there’s “outside the moral pale”. Torture is, or ought to be, outside the moral pale. Except, if Obama plans to keep on the old regime to run the Pentagon, it evidently isn’t for anyone who supports Gates as Secretary of Defense.
Well, in hindsight the Clinton years were actually pretty good for me personally. What the heck – I’m up for another go around.
Picking Clinton might well turn out to be Obama’s first major mistake. Whatever it’s merits, it certainly impossible to think of any justification of the choice based on policy rather than politics. For all her talents, foreign policy is simply not her thing. She has never shown great interest in it, has never said anything particular insightful on the subject, and has consistently swam with the tide since being elected in an obvious effort to avoid going out on a limb on what she felt was her weak spot in a presidential bid. Moreover, many of the first important defections from the Clinton camp to Obama (before the primaries, when it counted most), were from the foreign policy gang, which gives an indication of how insiders see their respective talents.
So the pick certainly seems like an indication that Obama intends to run FP tightly from the White House, which admittedly is what we probably expected from him, and which has usually been the case for the last forty years in any case. Yet, as this insightful article in the Economist points out, she’s a very big political beast to have taken on board, and virtually unsackable. Certainly it’s hard to imagine what National Security Advisor might be able to stand up to her. Outsiders like Samantha Power (who I think was out of the running for this reason anyway, certainly after her gaffe during the primary) would end up being Condi Rice-style punching bags. Insiders, like the oft-cited Susan Rice, might possible have divided loyalties from their time in the Clinton administration.
On the plus side, in reality Obama and Clinton probably agree on foreign policy almost 100%, despite the hullaballoo over Iraq now past its sell-by date. That was mostly attributable to posturing on each of their parts anyway. I’m actually concerned by the possible drift of Obama’s foreign policy: it’s basically a uninspiring combo of liberalism and realism, the latter a reflection of how far the Bush administration actually successfully shifted the center of the foreign policy debate far to the right. Think about Obama’s gung-ho approach on Afhganistan for example — something that’s possibly even dumber than the invasion of Iraq ever was.
For the record, I think the Clinton administration’s foreign policy was pretty disastrous, even if it seems like a panacea compared to the past eight years. I really wanted to see Obama put a lot of distance between him and Bill in that regard.
Rumors are former SACEUR Marine General James Jones (ret) for NSA, if that’s helpful.
Great, I’m angry before it has even started, as I find the possible appointments of Clinton and Gates totally unacceptable.
And I’m not even a hardcore lefty, I’m a bourgeois-bohemian center-left european social democrat. I am also to a great extent a pragmatist and have no interest in seeing Obama fail and thereby discredit centrist politics.
But there are limits and appointing these two (an Iraq war enabler who publicly discredited diplomacy as such and a member of the Bush administration) is a strong indication that they will be disregarded, that policy will be sacrificed in favour of politics. I really wish things were different, but it seems they are not.
But there are limits and appointing these two (an Iraq war enabler who publicly discredited diplomacy as such and a member of the Bush administration) is a strong indication that they will be disregarded, that policy will be sacrificed in favour of politics.
Is it your contention that Obama should not hire anyone who worked for the Bush Administration? Would you criticize him if he appointed Patrick Fitzgerald or James Comey on that basis? If not, where do you draw the bright line?
I have the feeling that because Obama talked about “change” and making things “different”, there’s a large group of people who are going to look at him on inaugeration day and say “My God! He’s wearing pants! That’s not change we can believe in. For over two centuries, American Presidents have always worn pants and this jackass is continuing the tradition, refusing to bare his naked bum for us. What a phony.”
For myself, I’m going to wait until Obama has actually been inaugerated and enacted policy before I complain too much. If Obama cuts a deal with Iran, I won’t care less if he has Clinton doing to the legwork. If he fails to cut a deal with Iran, that failure would not be any more palatable if Jesus himself was Secretary of State.
it’s basically a uninspiring combo of liberalism and realism, the latter a reflection of how far the Bush administration actually successfully shifted the center of the foreign policy debate far to the right.
I agree about the liberalism and realism combination, but I’m curious as to how this demonstrates a shift in the center of the foreign policy debate to the right at all, much less far to the right.
Which past Democratic administration was noticeably more left on foreign policy than what we are extrapolating (from Obama’s cabinet positions thus far):
Clinton admin – Somalia, Bosnia & Kosovo, rendition, Operation Desert Fox, DADT.
Carter admin – began the “Reagan” defense spending ramp up.
Johnson admin – Vietnam, Cold warriors, etc.
Kennedy admin – Vietnam, Cold warriors, etc.
Truman admin – Cold warriors, etc.
anybody?
About the only possible candidate I can see in this list for a post-WW2 administration that wasn’t at least as beligerant and militaristic as what we are expecting from Obama was the Carter admin (and even that is highly questionable), and hooboy that sure worked out well. If you want Obama to govern from the left side of the Carter admin., I wonder how much you are going to enjoy the Rommney/Huckabee administration in 2012?
I mean I realise that a competant centrist government is pretty weak tea, but not all of that 53% who voted for Obama this year are progressives, and personally I’m kinda happy that we aren’t spending the holidays tearing our hair out over who McCain is picking to fill out the cabinet and wondering how much luck Joe Lieberman is having explaining that whole Shia – Sunni thing to Vice President Elect Palin.
“My God! He’s wearing pants! That’s not change we can believe in. For over two centuries, American Presidents have always worn pants and this jackass is continuing the tradition, refusing to bare his naked bum for us.
Well he could wear a kilt. That’s Tartan you can believe in!
I think Obama would *rock* a kilt, personally.
“I think Obama would *rock* a kilt, personally.”
Well, there are Irish kilts, and he is (see addendum) O’Bama.
“anybody?”
The lost Henry Wallace administration that never was….
😉
“About the only possible candidate I can see in this list for a post-WW2 administration that wasn’t at least as beligerant and militaristic as what we are expecting from Obama was the Carter admin (and even that is highly questionable)”
Indeed. Because Zbigniew Brzezinski remains such a beloved leftist figure. 🙂
“…and personally I’m kinda happy….”
Me, too.
“About the only possible candidate I can see in this list for a post-WW2 administration that wasn’t at least as beligerant and militaristic as what we are expecting from Obama was the Carter admin (and even that is highly questionable), and hooboy that sure worked out well. If you want Obama to govern from the left side of the Carter admin., I wonder how much you are going to enjoy the Rommney/Huckabee administration in 2012?”
But as you imply, Carter wasn’t actually that far to the left, except sometimes rhetorically. He spoke a lot about human rights (though often betraying his professed principles) and about an “inordinate fear of communism”, while again supporting horrifically brutal regimes because they were anti-communist. He said he was surprised by the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and was rightly pilloried for this, because it sounded so naive, and in fact it was a remarkably stupid thing to say when according to Brzezinski we were trying to provoke that invasion. On the progressive side of the ledger there was Camp David (which everyone saw as a great success) and the Panama Canal treaty, which was admittedly unpopular with some, but the right thing to do, and in Argentina he actually did support human rights, to the disgust of people like Reagan and Jeanne Kirkpatrick. But in the latter part of his term he was using increasingly tough rhetoric.
Carter lost to Reagan for various reasons–the hostage crisis, the incredibly high inflation rate, the malaise speech which seemed un-American to many, and his naive reaction to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. You seem to be saying that Obama had better run a centrist Clintonite foreign policy or he will suffer the same fate in 2012? Is it because you think a genuinely progressive foreign policy will inevitably bring about disasters that will guarantee a Republican victory in 2012?
Brzezinski is supposedly cock-a-hoop. My fear is that Obama will be Carter 2. Actually, scratch that, my fear is that Obama will be JFK, missile crisis notwithstanding (although I also think Korea might give him his shot at that before his first year is up).
I think discourse has shifted to the right in the post-Vietnam context, by 1968 liberals realised that containment extended to the developing world was dumb. Iraq has given us a fresh reminder of that, and yet even so Obama is trumpeting Afghanistan, I find that odd. To be honest, I always saw that as a pretty cynical ploy on his part not to be pigeonholed as the anti-war candidate, but whatever his real feelings on the issue, he’s publicly committed to it now.
I think Clinton’s foreign policy was quite liberal – those interventions were of a fundamentally different nature than Iraq, for example. I have no problem with the Clinton administration’s general inclinations, but I think the implementation was very poor, and I think they missed too many important opportunities (Russia and Al Qaeda come to mind).
Is it your contention that Obama should not hire anyone who worked for the Bush Administration?
We can easily clear up this little misunderstanding if I replace “administration” with “cabinet”.
That said, while I don’t know where exactly to draw the line, I am not happy about anyone who worked in a leading role for the Bush administration being carried over into the Obama administration, unless they resigned in protest. I also don’t want to see any leading Republicans in the Obama administration. Quite apart from somebody’s individual actions there is such a thing as guilt by virtue of membership in an organization.
“Quite apart from somebody’s individual actions there is such a thing as guilt by virtue of membership in an organization.”
Unlike British parties, which have rolls and dues, American political parties don’t actually have “members.” Just voters. You may or may not be registered to vote in a given primary in your state, but it’s still not really a “membership.” I’d tend to reserve such standards for someone who actually participated in the Party in some active way, such as appearing at fundraisers, or campaigning, etc. Not whether or not someone was an appointee in the Executive branch, per se. And Robert Gates reportedly isn’t even a registered Republican.
Joe Wilson worked for Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Does that mean he should never have been allowed, and never should be allowed, to work for a Democratic administration?
I’m also not entirely clear how Robert Gates is implicated in torture, unlike the OLC of the Justice Department, or certain parts of the CIA. Abu Ghraib and other scandals were under Rumsfeld.
What exactly is Gates’s great sin that makes him so unacceptable? Opposition to him seems to be completely knee jerk. “But he’s Bush’s defense secretary.”
For instance:
That said, while I don’t know where exactly to draw the line, I am not happy about anyone who worked in a leading role for the Bush administration being carried over into the Obama administration, unless they resigned in protest.
What, exactly, has been done which would make Gates having resigned in protest a sensible position? What was he supposed to be protesting, exactly? The Bush administration’s defense policy has been considerably less obnoxious in the last two years than it was before. What specific actions has Gates taken that make him unacceptable?
As to Clinton, it’s a weird thing. What I think is fairly clear is that this is an entirely political pick. If Obama wanted the best qualified person to run a hawkish, Clintonesque foreign policy, the obvious choice was not Clinton, but Richard Holbrooke, who’d clearly love to have the job (and wouldn’t have given us this ridiculous weak of “will she or won’t she” nonsense). Picking Clinton, though, has nothing to do with policy – it’s entirely about politics. As such, it makes sense for Obama to do it, but it still seems too cynical by half to me.
As to Clinton, I don’t understand why she wants it. Foggy Bottom is a trap. The key to foreign policy decision-making is in the White House, and the only way for a Secretary of State to really be influential in policy-making is to have a really good personal relationship with the president. Clinton obviously doesn’t have that. She’s about a textbook example of someone who will be a marginalized Secretary of State. I just can’t imagine why she wants to give up a safe Senate seat to put herself in that situation.
You seem to be saying that Obama had better run a centrist Clintonite foreign policy or he will suffer the same fate in 2012? Is it because you think a genuinely progressive foreign policy will inevitably bring about disasters that will guarantee a Republican victory in 2012?
No I don’t think a progressive f.p. will cause disasters to happen. What I think is that a more centrist f.p will provide better political cover for things that inevitably go haywire that are beyond Obama’s control.
And I think that will make the difference in an election which I except to be very close – because I expect a very long and slow recovery from the Great Recession. I’m guessing that it will be at least 4-6 years before we experience economic growth again, both because we still have a good long ways to go before we hit bottom and because while I think Obama and his team have good ideas about how to respond they are ideas with a much longer lag time before they will produce results than just juicing up the economy with loose monetary policy like we did under Greenspan.
So I expect that Obama will have to carry a declining or flat economy through the 2010 and 2012 elections, and in those circumstances any setbacks which can be narrated (by the GOP) as being a product of a liberal foreign policy will be enough to make 2012 a repeat of 1980, IMHO.
In other words, I’ve seen this movie before. Obama shows every sign of putting together an administration that is smarter and politically tougher than Carter’s, but there are very strong resemblences to the late 1970s and in many respects I think Obama faces a greater set of challenges than Carter did.
So the message is: the torture might stop, but no one’s going to be penalized for involvement in the US’s breach of the Geneva Conventions and the convention against torture.
I hate to say it, but that was a given. Americans don’t punish their government for committing crimes against foreigners. Particularly not for things like torture or war crimes. In that respect, at least, we’re a perfectly lawless nation.
“Bob Gates doesn’t do much for bipartisanship, because he isn’t a Republican.”
Technically, it’s considered ‘bipartisan’ when Democrats hire Democrats who’ve worked for Republicans. It’s only Republicans who have to hire actual members of the other party to be “bipartisan”. 😉
“I also don’t want to see any leading Republicans in the Obama administration. “
Fair enough; Republicans were ticked enough about Bush keeping on Norm Minetta. You won the election, you’re entitled to have your guys running the government.
Besides, it makes for clearer assignment of blame with things go south. 😉
“As such, it makes sense for Obama to do it, but it still seems too cynical by half to me.”
I have my doubts about it, primarily because of there being little to no evidence of Senator ever running a large enterprise well (health care reform and her presidential campaign being large arguments in the opposite direction), but I don’t think it’s “cynical” to note that the Secretary of State is a political position, and has a history from the beginning (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren, etc.) of being well-suited (and sometimes not so much; see James Byrnes) to top American politicians, whose prestige was well-turned towards representing, and speaking for, the United States of America to the rest of the world.
It remains to be seen whether Hillary Clinton is well suited, but I don’t see anything dubious about appointing a powerful and famous politician to the job. There’s as long a precedent as the job has existed for doing that, and for (often) good reason.
“Clinton obviously doesn’t have that.”
Relationships change when they change; having been opponents in a presidential campaign need not lock people into the same relationship forever thereafter.
“I just can’t imagine why she wants to give up a safe Senate seat to put herself in that situation.”
She’d be the junior Senator from NY, and little more, for decades to come, is why. For all her fame, it’s not a very powerful position, and there’s little likelihood she’d get any significant committee chairs for decades. It’s a long time to go to rubber chicken dinners.
“Technically, it’s considered ‘bipartisan’ when Democrats hire Democrats who’ve worked for Republicans. It’s only Republicans who have to hire actual members of the other party to be “bipartisan”. ;)”
So who is William Cohen, again? Was Alan Greenspan actually a Democrat when Clinton reappointed him head of the Federal Reserve? James Schlesinger, when Carter made him Secretary of Energy? Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., when he worked as Ambassdor to Vietnam and Germany and At Large for JFK? C. Douglas Dillon as Secretary of the Treasury for JFK? (Nobody has commented on 45 years ago today, btw.) Robert McNamara?
So, haha, you’re right, except that, you know, you’re wrong.
About Gates: as I said, I think he has been a good SecDef. Nothing I’m about to say would hold if I didn’t. That said:
I am really — scared? awed? — by the number of huge, huge things Obama seems to be about to try to do, and do quickly. A big stimulus program and whatever else has to happen to deal with the worst economy in 50 years; health care; energy. Those are three big, big, big fights. I want to win them all.
For that reason I want Obama to do everything in his power to make the rest of his life as easy as possible. Would appointing Gates make withdrawing from Iraq go more smoothly? And would it help with Obama’s relationship to the military? I think so. Do I want him to say: no, no, I will not appoint him because good or no good, he was in the Bush administration, and so I’d rather spend some of my attention and political capital doing stuff I don’t need to do to make withdrawing from Iraq go smoothly and have good civ/mil relations, rather than appoint him? No. I want to win health care, energy, and the economy. That matters, to me, more than making some point about no holdovers.
Again, I wouldn’t say this if we were talking (e.g.) Rumsfeld. But Gates is not responsible for the Iraq war; he has always seemed to be above-board; he has won the respect of the military while standing up to them, which is not easy; and he’s been, in general, quite good.
If he allows Obama to avoid needless problems so he can focus on his already incredibly difficult agenda, I say great.
Let me echo Gary’s question to Jes: What is Gates’ particular implication in torture and detainee abuse (as compared to Rumsfeld, Haynes, Cambone, and Feith)? No political appointees in the Bush term are free of responsibility for U.S. crimes and misconduct, but I’m not getting what Gates’ special responsibility is.
However, I do oppose Gates’ appointment, and if it’s inevitable, am hoping that his term is short, by pre-arrangement. I’m skeptical that retaining Gates will be effective in providing political cover from Republicans in general or the hawkish sector of the brass in particular.
Even if I thought it would do so, I’d still hate the pathetic learned-helplessness overtones of continuing to cement the approach of ceding all credibility in military matters to Republican operatives. (And Gates has been an operative of the G.H.W.Bush-Snowcroft wing of things for decades.)
Hilzoy: he has always seemed to be above-board
If by ‘always’ you mean ‘since taking over as Secretary of Defense in 2007’.
If ‘always’ goes back to the 1980s, not so much. See the link in my comment above.
I’m a fervent supporter of prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Rumsfeld, Haynes, Yoo, Addington, Gonzales, and Cheney and Bush should be in the dock.
But I’ve lived long enough to see how long justice takes in matters of this kind. It never happens without relentless and prolonged campaigns for justice. I’m prepared to be one of those campaigners.
I’d be stunned if Obama began even in the smallest way the process that could lead to legal accountability for officials in the Bush-Cheney regime during his first term. (As distinct from actions to begin reversing the substance and lawless nature of the torture and detention policies, which I expect him to undertake immediately on entering office.)
That doesn’t mean I won’t press the demand, and it doesn’t mean I accept criticisms of such demands as “unfair” and “unrealistic, therefore wrong”.
Hilzoy: What do you think about the rumors of having Jim Brennan, an enabler of U.S. torture policies, as head of the CIA?
watching the daily leaks apparently designed to keep us all on tenterhooks about her decision-making process
I’m not a fan of Sen. Clinton’s foreign policy stances or an admirer of hers generally, but this passage irritates me.
It seems to imply that Sen. Clinton is responsible for the daily leaks. If you didn’t mean to imply that, Hilzoy, perhaps you’d like to rephrase it (rather than just deny that you meant to).
It’s been noted elsewhere that the “team of rivals” so far contains no one to Obama’s left. National Security Adviser is the last position in which I’d expect such a person. But even my most pessimistic predictions didn’t include someone like Jim Jones.
More efforts to keep the boys at the Pentagon happy in the event of a Clinton at State, I’d guess. Blech all around.
“If ‘always’ goes back to the 1980s, not so much.”
Agree.
Allow me the self-gratification abuse of linking to myself about Robert Gates in 2006.
However, I also agree with Hilzoy’s points at 02:59 PM; you have to pick your fights, and Obama has a huge number, and letting Gates stay on for a year or two doesn’t seem to me to be a crucial thing. If Obama finds someone better, fine, but if he stays, absent something recent coming to light, or some future evil-doing, I won’t complain.
“It’s been noted elsewhere that the ‘team of rivals’ so far contains no one to Obama’s left.”
Er, who were his “rivals” to his left in the presidential campaign? Dennis Kucinich? Mike Gravel?
Richardson might wind up somewhere, but isn’t noticeably more left. Edwards ain’t coming back soon. Who, specifically, was in his “team of rivals” to his left?
If you’re just saying you want more leftish folks, dropping the Lincoln’s cabinet analogy, fine, no argument.
Hmm, Ted Sorenson is only eighty…. 😉
I’m heartily sick of hearing the phrase. I happily retract the analogy.
I’ll take Obama as serious about governing on behalf of the whole population if his close advisers end up including a few substantial people substantially to his left.
An Economics Policy Institute economist like Jared Berstein for chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, say.
s/b Bernstein.
he has won the respect of the military while standing up to them, which is not easy….And would it help with Obama’s relationship to the military? I think so.
I understand that you think so. But what evidence do you have for thinking so? If you believe this purely as a matter of faith, divorced from evidence, that’s fine, but it would be nice if you said that explicitly. Otherwise, I’ll continue to ask: where is the evidence for this belief?
I understand that you think so. But what evidence do you have for thinking so? If you believe this purely as a matter of faith, divorced from evidence, that’s fine, but it would be nice if you said that explicitly. Otherwise, I’ll continue to ask: where is the evidence for this belief?
Fred Kaplan has reported about the leading role played by Gates in reforming the system used within the US Army for officer promotion (now headed by Gen. Petreaus) with an eye on promoting small-war and COIN oriented candidates (vs. more traditional tank and artillery enthusiasts).
If this is accurate then starting this year and increasingly so going forward the upper/middle ranks of the US Army officer corps (e.g. Colonels, 1 and 2 star Generals) will be stocked with brass who at least in part owe their career advancement success to Gates.
I don’t know what relationship Gates has with the other service branches apart from the Air Force, with whom he is known to have had clashes.
I share John’s sentiment: “What exactly is Gates’s great sin that makes him so unacceptable? Opposition to him seems to be completely knee jerk.”
We are closing up here at work, so I only had time to glance Nell’s link and will look at it more closely when I get a chance. But while, obviously, it’s important to judge a whole body of work, are we going to do the Republican thing of going all the way back to the 1980s?
And I don’t see the need, like Turbulence, to parse hilzoy’s statement: “The second is that by all accounts the military have a lot of respect for Gates; keeping him on, therefore, would allow Obama to bypass the need to establish his own credibility and that of his Secretary of Defense with them.”
He certainly doesn’t seem to have a lack of respect. And she’s right keeping him on certainly does keep a Secretary of Defense with established credibility — or to his detractors, a track record.
We’ve all criticized the Bush Administration until being blue in the face. Gates seems to be above-board and the exception to Bush’s administration of bumblers, he inherited a quagmire in Iraq, and seemingly turned it around to some degree. Should he be given a chance to finish the job? President-Elect Obama must think so.
Obama’s cabinet appointments signals he is going to govern from the center, what with Gates and lots of folks who got their sea legs in the Clinton Administration. After eight years of being governed from the right — far right? — I am fine with that.
I voted for a Democratic president. Those who voted for a lefty president could be in for a disappointment.
Right now, Obama needs to be a president who focuses on getting the economy back on track because — sorry, hilzoy — while I am impressed, I am not in awe. I’d love to see him implement some of his Big Ideas but that chance won’t come until the economy is fixed.
Two final thoughts:
It’s weird seeing Obama being criticized upthread for striking a bipartisan note. Bipartisan is now a bad thing?
And I’ve never gotten the notion that he could wind up being another Carter. I see Obama being many things, but not another Jimmy Carter.
Tried to get a lot in before we lock up for the weekend, so I hope there’s some sense in there.
Nell: Let me echo Gary’s question to Jes: What is Gates’ particular implication in torture and detainee abuse (as compared to Rumsfeld, Haynes, Cambone, and Feith)? No political appointees in the Bush term are free of responsibility for U.S. crimes and misconduct, but I’m not getting what Gates’ special responsibility is.
I honestly do not understand this question. Is it your contention that the US military’s practice of torturing prisoners just stopped on 18th December 2006? If so, on what do you base this contention? If not, then yes, of course Gates is implicated directly he’s been secretary of defense while the US military is torturing prisoners.
Even if you could show (as I do not think you can) that the US military did in fact completely quit torturing prisoners on or before 18th December 2006, Gates is indirectly implicated: he made no attempt to investigate and prosecute all soldiers and all officers responsible for acts of torture, ordering people to commit acts of torture, and declining to hear (as Joseph Darby reported) when soldiers attempted to report torture to their superior officers in the belief that this would stop it.
In any case: The US Military is now known throughout the world as a military force that does not follow the Geneva Conventions and that does not keep to the international laws against torture.
If Obama wants anyone to believe that the US has changed in that respect, and he does not intend to prosecute the criminals responsible to show that the lawless Bush regime was temporary and has ended, he can afford to do only one thing: ensure that no one senior in the Bush administration holds power under him. Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.
That even that is too much to ask: what change is this? Obama’s said he’ll close Guantanamo Bay; what about the other gulags? Will he end US torture of prisoners? Can he, if he feels himself so incapable of controlling the US military himself that he needs Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense to hold his hand?
The US military is, theoretically at least, supposed to be under civilian control. If the motivation ascribed to Obama is accurate, that he feels he’s got to have Robert Gates because the military won’t trust someone Obama appoints, then that’s clearly not true.
If this is accurate then starting this year and increasingly so going forward the upper/middle ranks of the US Army officer corps (e.g. Colonels, 1 and 2 star Generals) will be stocked with brass who at least in part owe their career advancement success to Gates.
In the long term, that might help bolster Gates’ position in the Army, but it also hurts him. He’s effectively disenfranchised a group of very powerful officers. He has transferred power from the guys who spend a lot on expensive items like tanks to the guys who spend a lot on people. There are winners and losers here, but the losers are going to be pissed and they have power.
he inherited a quagmire in Iraq, and seemingly turned it around to some degree. Should he be given a chance to finish the job? President-Elect Obama must think so.
I wonder who has done more to improve the security situation in Iraq: Gates or Moqtada al-Sadr? My guess is al-Sadr. Maybe we should make him SecDef.
He certainly doesn’t seem to have a lack of respect.
How do you know? And even if you could demonstrate that he has “respect” (talk about vague claims), what makes you think that he is respected by the powerful brass at the Pentagon? You know, the guys who can anonymously pass a rumor that “Obama is planning to make huge concessions to Iran” to their favorite media contacts and have it printed on page one the next day because of how high ranking they are. After all, what do these guys have to lose? The press never ever turns against anonymous sources even when they consistently lie.
btfb,
The analogy I made between Carter and Obama has nothing to do with their respective personalities or leadership styles. It is because both of them were elected during periods when the GOP brand was in a terrible state of disrepute owing to scandalously bad GOP Presidents (Nixon, W) but the incoming Democratic administration inherited really bad economic conditions.
In Carter’s case he was not able to turn the US economy around in time for the 1980 election and that amongst other problems was enough for him to lose the election. Ironically the economic growth which picked up in the latter half of Reagan’s 1st term just in time to help him decisively win the 1984 election was made possible in part by the very tough anti-inflationary monetary policy used by Carter appointee Paul Volker at the Fed – so in that sense Reagan benefited politically from Carter’s economic policy, and the GOP continue to derive political capital from that event thru the 1988 election as well.
I forsee the possibility of a very similar dynamic happening again – an Obama administration which makes tough decisions and puts the economy on the right track for future growth, but that expansion not arriving until well after the 2012 election. If this proves to be the case then Obama will need some notable successes, or at least to run a mistake free administration in all other areas, in order to gain re-election in the face of a still sour economy 4 years from now.
If this proves to be the case then Obama will need some notable successes, or at least to run a mistake free administration in all other areas, in order to gain re-election in the face of a still sour economy 4 years from now.
Especially if Obama doesn’t do anything with regard to electoral reform…
Since this seems to be the most active thread right now, here’s a link to another must read Yves Smith piece, pointing out that while currently there is much talk about analogies between our economy today and that of the 1930s, the country today which most closely resembles the USA of the 30s is not in fact us, but rather China.
That is the good news.
The bad news is that the Chinese are currently discussing the possible implementation of economic policies which would be structurally similar to Smoot-Hawley in their effects on the global balance of production and consumption. Also, the purely structural role occupied by the US in this analogy is that of the European countries (e.g. Germany) which defaulted on their debt in the 1930s.
In order to avoid this scenario, the Chinese will need to stimulate their domestic demand as a substitute for an unsustainable export imbalance which is likely to trigger a trade barrier war and a collapse in international trade. So the really important internal infrastructure projects designed to drive up domestic demand may be on the other side of the Pacific, not here in the US.
“Fred Kaplan has reported about the leading role played by Gates in reforming the system used within the US Army for officer promotion (now headed by Gen. Petreaus) with an eye on promoting small-war and COIN oriented candidates (vs. more traditional tank and artillery enthusiasts).”
Cough.
“Bipartisan is now a bad thing?”
It’s neither good nor bad in a vacuum. If you’re reaching out to reasonable people, it can be fine (and what the times and context are matter). If you’re trying to be bipartisan with, say, John Boehner, good luck with that. Trying with, say, Rumsfeld, or Tom DeLay, would have been laughable, to use clear examples. Trying with Dick Lugar, or Susan Collins, on the other hand, may be reasonable.
So: It Depends.
“Is it your contention that the US military’s practice of torturing prisoners just stopped on 18th December 2006?”
I’m not aware that there’s been a practice of the military torturing prisoners since the passage of the DTA. CIA treatment of prisoners may be another matter. Do you have any cites about torture by the U.S. military as a practice since then? If so, giving them would seem useful.
Incidentally, folks might want to check out Torturing Democracy, the documentary.
If you have in mind Guantanamo, treatment there certainly might constitute torture, but the responsibility for that is Bush’s, not Gates’.
“…and declining to hear (as Joseph Darby reported) when soldiers attempted to report torture to their superior officers in the belief that this would stop it.”
Joe Darby reported what he did in January, 2004. Do you have any cites about Gates declining to hear reports of torture?
You’re attempting to support your assertion that Gates is responsible for torture, and that Obama shouldn’t keep him on. Asserting that the reason he shouldn’t be kept on is that he shouldn’t be kept on is simply circular reasoning. It doesn’t answer Nell’s query: “What is Gates’ particular implication in torture and detainee abuse (as compared to Rumsfeld, Haynes, Cambone, and Feith)? No political appointees in the Bush term are free of responsibility for U.S. crimes and misconduct, but I’m not getting what Gates’ special responsibility is.”
Your argument seems to be summarizable as “Gates has George W. Bush cooties.” In a vacuum, that’s not unreasonable, but we don’t live in a vacuum.
“I see Obama being many things, but not another Jimmy Carter.”
Being Jimmy Carter was a pretty good thing compared to Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush, imho. The crisis of confidence speech holds up pretty damn well.
And the hostages all came out alive.
I don’t know what Sec. Gates has done to close his prison at GTMO. Maybe he’s been massively and consistently overruled. I can’t agree with his re-appointment, though, unless he’s presented the transition with a realistic and detailed plan to have the thing completely shut down in 60 days — a plan that can be announced on day 1.
“…the country today which most closely resembles the USA of the 30s is not in fact us, but rather China.”
20s? Your link says “I’ve mentioned in passing that China is in the position that the US occupied in the late 1920s….”
New to Job, Gates Argued for Closing Guantánamo.
Oh, and:
“Gates has George W. Bush cooties.”
Judging from the video of the G20 meeting posted here and elsewhere, it appears that “George W. Bush cooties” is a communicable disease which nobody wants to catch.
Maybe Gates should get himself tested for that. I wonder if the Obama transition team is offering confidential screening and counselling.
re: late 1920s instead of 1930s – yup, sorry about that. I mentally swapped the chronological eras of causes vs. effects.
“re: late 1920s instead of 1930s – yup, sorry about that. I mentally swapped the chronological eras of causes vs. effects.”
The piece did go on to compare what China is now doing to what the U.S. was doing in the 30s, so I was a little hasty there, myself.
“It seems to imply that Sen. Clinton is responsible for the daily leaks. If you didn’t mean to imply that, Hilzoy, perhaps you’d like to rephrase it (rather than just deny that you meant to).”
Well, I think that when your entire entourage, reportedly including your spouse, is known for massive strategic leaking, it is something you can legitimately be held accountable.
As to why I think Gates has the respect of the military: basically, because every reporter I trust on these issues (e.g., Kaplan, Spencer Ackerman) says so.
Some background/analysis on the Clinton appointment. (Which is held by all reporting to be a Done Deal, though not to be officially announced until after Thanksgiving.)
Oh please stop kidding yourselves. There are hundreds of equally qualified candidates for the job Clinton/Gates are about to get, who have not been tainted by having been members of the Bush cabinet or having voted for the biggest FP disaster since Vietnam and publicly derided diplomacy.
Why are many here so willing to swallow these bitter pills dished up in the name of bipartisanship or whatever, when there is no need whatsoever to do so? Whatever happened to accountability? Why not make a clean break?
Sorry, but I find this hurrying obedience utterly depressing.
Why are many here so willing to swallow these bitter pills dished up in the name of bipartisanship or whatever, when there is no need whatsoever to do so?
Because if Obama’s not “bipartisan enough”, the Republicans will throw a hissy fit, and their hissy fits can destroy the world.
|? 7Lre are hundreds of equally qualified candidates for the job Clinton/Gates are about to get
Then perhaps you would care to suggest a few names from amongst that group so we can debate their merits and qualifications. I rather suspect that your chosen candidates would get a reasonably fair hearing on this blog at least.
If that isn’t too much trouble to ask, that is.
The lead sentence in that last comment should have been an italicized quote from novakant’s comment at 8:17pm, but obviously I did something really screwy to mess up the tags instead. Sorry about that.
Why are many here so willing to swallow these bitter pills dished up in the name of bipartisanship or whatever
The cossacks work for the czar.
“Why are many here so willing to swallow these bitter pills dished up in the name of bipartisanship or whatever, when there is no need whatsoever to do so?”
How about we all get to have our own opinions, regardless of whether you agree or not?
I’m not rooting for Gates, nor am I rooting for Clinton, but I’ll wait for an appointment that genuinely appalls me before saying it appalls me, rather than merely leaving me unenthused or somewhat doubtful. I have no objection to your having a wildly different opinion.
I’m a lot more disappointed in Lieberman being left as chair of Governmental Affairs, but that was the Democratic caucus’ call, so I blame them.
TLTiA: The point you make about the Obama-Carter “comparison” is well-taken. That’s one clear area where I see Carter-like trouble — Obama inheriting a truly rotten economy — and have all along.
But I think Obama will be a more forceful leader in his attempt to bring us out of this mess.
That said, I agree with Gary that Carter gets dumped on a lot (and I don’t want to sound as if I am gleefully joining in). Still, I don’t see Obama being Carter — two clearly different men, two clearly different leaders.
BTW, LeftTurn, I wasn’t addressing you directly about the Carter-Obama thing. It’s a comparison I have heard going back to the GE.
—
Turb: I’ll go with hilzoy here on the Gates respect thing when she said, “As to why I think Gates has the respect of the military: basically, because every reporter I trust on these issues (e.g., Kaplan, Spencer Ackerman) says so.” Sometimes a man (or woman) has trust to his sources.
—
hilzoy: There’s been leaking on all of these appointments. Plenty to blame the Clinton on over the years, but I don’t think we need to overdo it.
Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary? CNN reported that last night. Was that a Clinton leak?
Summers or Geitner to lead Treasury? Was that Bill or Hill? Besides, some leaks serve a purpose — the old trial-balloon thing, so it’s possible Obama forces could have been behind some of them (and then there’s good, old-fashioned reporting).
I don’t think any of these leaks have hurt anybody or anything. In fact, Wall Street probably liked the idea of knowing it would be one of two names it is said to respect — yesterday’s run-up on the Dow being largely attributed to the word we were getting Geitner.
Just sayin’ . . .
—
Gary wrote: “I’m a lot more disappointed in Lieberman being left as chair of Governmental Affairs . . .”
I second that.
Joe Lieberman, Mr. Phony Bipartisanship.
One last thing before I head upstairs.
I don’t believe I have seen anyone here wonder/question/state why they think Hillary wants the Secretary of State position.
Yes, I know it is the glamour job in the cabinet. But “Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York” was pretty high-profile all ready. Besides, any way you cut it, President Obama will be her boss — whereas she did not have one as senator (other than her constituents). Some people like not having to answer to a boss, and Hillary always struck me as one of those people.
Just wondering if anyone has any interesting theories or opinions.
btfb: why they think Hillary wants the Secretary of State position.
Because she would like to be elected President in the future.
Secretary of State is the highest-ranking cabinet office. Holding the position with any degree of competence = unquestionable foreign policy experience and national security credentials (through participation on the NSC).
@Hilzoy: On the leaking, what bedtime said. There is so much in the way of assertions by unnamed sources, floating of names, policy pre-emption/trial ballooning, and the like that it seems impossible to assign responsibility.
Might your unhappiness / disagreement with the Clinton choice be coloring your reaction to the media’s obsessive coverage of it? (For myself, I blame that on… the Clinton-obsessed media. See ‘Democratic National Convention, Days 1-3’.)
btfb: why they think Hillary wants the Secretary of State position.
Because she would like to be elected President in the future.
That doesn’t make sense. There’s a precedent for going from the senate to the presidency. There’s a precedent for going from being governor of a state to the presidency. When, if ever, did someone go from secretary of state to the presidency?
I don’t understand why she wants the job. No idea. I can understand why she would be offered it, I’m sure the president elect is glad to have her out of the senate, why would she would accept it?
Anyone got any plausible reasons?
“Just wondering if anyone has any interesting theories or opinions.”
I already gave my answer here at 2:48 p.m. yesterday.
“Might your unhappiness / disagreement with the Clinton choice be coloring your reaction to the media’s obsessive coverage of it? (For myself, I blame that on… the Clinton-obsessed media. See ‘Democratic National Convention, Days 1-3’.)”
I don’t think so. The leaking about the Clinton appointment went on over a week, with endless back and forths about everything from the meetings (probably not her fault) to the possible conditions (yes, the fault of her side), to What Would Bill Do? (the fault of his existing and being him), to his settling (about as good as could be expected) to all the other aspects (Clintons for being Clintons, and no other appointments for being like this).
Some of it is due to the unique aspect of being former President and First Lady. But it is unique, and not hardly the invention of the media, nor the invention of a perceiver. They had unique needs and bargaining, and it became prolonged, and it was what it was.
I don’t particularly scold the Clintons for this, but they’re a unique couple, and noting this and the resulting circumstances, and the lack of their perfection is not some sort of, IMO, harsh faulting of them, or anyone, really.
“There’s a precedent for going from the senate to the presidency.”
I’m repeating myself now, but 8 years is a long time to wait as a junior senator who doesn’t get to do much. Why is this hard to understand?
“Anyone got any plausible reasons?”
Did you bother to read what I wrote? (November 22, 2008 at 02:47 PM) If so, why not reply? If not, why ask again?
It gets tiresome responding to people asking questions that were already answered days ago. Or are you just saying I wasn’t plausible, in which case, why not respond to the comment?
There have been a series of rather targeted leaks, I think about one per day, about the other cabinet appointments, culminating in the announcement, at 3pm on a Friday, just at the very time when the stock market normally goes into a nose dive, of Geithner. The name comes out, voila.
As Gary said, the leaks about Clinton have been going on for a week now, all about all the ins and outs, the will she or won’t she, etc., etc. I think it’s a different thing. YMMV, and probably does, of course.
Gary, assuming that people are questioning the plausibility of your suggestions is probably a mistake as paged comments raise a barrier so that comments made earlier can be effectively invisible.
@Jes: Your point about the continued torture and mistreatment of persons held by the U.S. military is important. The force feeding, solitary confinement, and deprivations imposed on prisoners at Guantanamo constitute torture in my book, but have to be understood as abusive mistreatment even by those who resist applying the term ‘torture’ to anything but the most obvious physical violence.
Tom Hayden wrote a piece today about the under-discussed human rights dimension of the tens of thousands of mostly Sunni Iraqis held in U.S. military prison camps and the even greater number of prisoners held under more opaque conditions in Afghanistan. He also touches on the military’s Phoenix-like assassination program in Iraq launched in May 2006 — something else for which Gates is distinctly responsible, unless he ended it immediately on taking office. I assume it’s going on today.
The signal that Obama sends by reappointing Gates is pernicious on several levels. To the world, that there will only be partial and highly symbolic changes to our lawless and abuse-ridden detention policies in the near term, and that deeper reform and true accountability will not be undertaken until we’re “out of Iraq”, if they’re going to be undertaken at all.
To the military, that they are at a minimum co-directors of our policy, rather than being fully under civilian control. To U.S. voters and citizens, that the Bush policy of doubling down on the occupation “worked” and that the man who oversaw its execution is being kept on to “finish the job”. (See btfb’s comment for confirmation.) And that still, no Democrat is considered quite up to the job.
“Gary, assuming that people are questioning the plausibility of your suggestions is probably a mistake as paged comments raise a barrier so that comments made earlier can be effectively invisible.”
If someone who runs the blog doesn’t read the comments because of the software, it’s incumbent upon them to change the broken software, and not to mention keep track of the requests of the readers to do so. If they’re not doing that, they’re just coasting and not being responsible.
What the actual excuse is for ObWi being on Typepad these days is, as it happens, I have no idea. It suggests contempt and indifference for the readers and users, or at the least incompetence at runing a blog. (For the bazillionith time: Blogger free and works fine: reason for not switching is what?)
We have broken paged comments, and all the other brokenness, because year after year after year, requests to switch elsewhere have been ignored. There could stop being the ignoring.
Nell: Your point about the continued torture and mistreatment of persons held by the U.S. military is important. The force feeding, solitary confinement, and deprivations imposed on prisoners at Guantanamo constitute torture in my book, but have to be understood as abusive mistreatment even by those who resist applying the term ‘torture’ to anything but the most obvious physical violence.
Yeah.
What disturbs me – what really disturbs me – is that Gates’ is being discussed seriously as someone who should be kept on without reference to the ugly fact of the US military’s practice of torture and the military guards in the gulags – in Cuba, Afghanistan, and Iraq.
If the contention is that he’s so uniquely wonderful he has to be kept on, even though he’s at least indirectly implicated in the criminal torture carried out by the US military, then make that contention: he’s special, he’s a genius, he must be allowed to do his job because no one else can do it! – but still: the reference to “Bush cooties” really trivialises this. The US military tortures prisoners and Gates is Secretary of Defense. The only possible excuse for keeping him on (other than “he’s a super hyper unique genius and we cannot replace him!”) would be that he has ready and waiting a plan he’s been dying to implement to clean out the torturers and close up all the gulags, prosecutions to follow.
But that he can be seriously discussed without reference to the issue of torture is bad. It suggests that no one actually cares about the issue of cleaning up the US military, or sees it as all that important. So US soldiers are torturers? Who cares, so long as they only torture foreigners!
Oh, and for those who feel that merely being implicated in the US military’s torture of prisoners is not enough to disqualify a person from being Secretary of Defense, Ray McGovern has a more reasoned objection to him than simple disgust: Robert Gates, as Bad as Rumsfeld? .
If someone who runs the blog doesn’t read the comments because of the software,
So, just to be clear, since now_what and bedtimeforbonzo are not people who run this blog, accusing them of not paying sufficient attention to your comments is passive aggressive behavior designed to get the people who run this blog (i.e. hilzoy) to change. Novel strategy. Best of luck with that.
Then perhaps you would care to suggest a few names from amongst that group so we can debate their merits and qualifications. (…)
If that isn’t too much trouble to ask, that is.
How about you telling me what qualifications a Sec of State should have and why exactly Clinton, of all people, is so unique in meeting these criteria – because that’s the question here. I have already indicated why I think Clinton is a bad choice, but I’m happy to repeat and elaborate:
– she voted for the Iraq war, the biggest FP disaster since Vietnam, it took her a very long time to acknowledge this mistake and even when she did, she was equivocating
– she didn’t even bother to read the whole Iraq NIE, but instead relied on being briefed by others
– she pounded Obama for wanting to meet with leaders of countries adversarial to the US, called him “naive and irresponsible”
– she publicly speculated about the possibility of “obliterating” Iran using nuclear weapons
– trying to talk up her meager FP experience she felt the need to make up stories about coming under “sniper fire” in Kosovo and suggested that shaking hands with leaders as first lady counts as FP experience
These are some of the reasons why I find her badly suited for the job, and anyone making the case for Clinton has to show that these things don’t matter much and that Clinton has unique qualities not matched by any other candidate. Have at it.
Gates might be more suited as an individual, but to me his being a member of the Bush cabinet disqualifies him on a different level and, again, proponents of keeping him on would have to show why there is nobody else around who could do the job equally well or better.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ: Judging from the video of the G20 meeting posted here and elsewhere, it appears that “George W. Bush cooties” is a communicable disease which nobody wants to catch.
That’s been debunked. Even CNN couldn’t stand by such blatantly biased reporting.
Gary: I’m a lot more disappointed in Lieberman being left as chair of Governmental Affairs, but that was the Democratic caucus’ call, so I blame them.
And somewhat ironically, they got to vote by secret ballot so that no one could know who voted to keep him as chair. Pity that they don’t want to let the average worker keep that same option…
Gary, I was aware of the leaks re: Gates’ early stance. I don’t know what he’s been saying in 2008.
Or obviously, what he’ll say to the transition.
For those who are wondering where the progressive is in the Obama administration:
“High Country News has an interesting profile on Grijalva from 2006:
Grijalva is a lonely figure in Congress. Democrats like him are few — he is a champion of unions, the environment, immigrant rights and strong social programs — and even moderate Republicans are far to his right.
Nonetheless, the two-term congressman can point to significant victories. “I’m most proud that we’ve been able to return some land that was stolen from the Colorado Indian Tribe,” he says. A 1915 executive order by President Woodrow Wilson took more than 15,000 acres away from the tribe, whose reservation lies about 200 miles west of Phoenix, and put it in the hands of mining companies. In 2003, Grijalva took up the cause, finally prevailing last year. In 2005, he was instrumental in restoring environmental justice funding to the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget. ”
There’s a lot more about Mr. Grijalva in a recommended diary at Kos called “Morning reaction”
He’s the pick for Dept of Interior and he is exactly what I washoping for: very fierce on environmental issues, very determined to restore our (the public’s) stake in our public lannds.
“And somewhat ironically, they got to vote by secret ballot so that no one could know who voted to keep him as chair. Pity that they don’t want to let the average worker keep that same option…”
If there were some similarity in situations, such as a management that threatened to fire all the Senators if they voted The Wrong Way, your response might make some kind of sense. But since the situations have nothing in common — do they? Why do you keep ignoring the fact of massive management intimidation of workers to prevent unions? — it doesn’t, I’m afraid. No offense intended.
To cover a couple of quick bits, LJ, you’re right that I was being intemperate and a bit inappropriate with my comment about the blog last night; I got into a bad mood momentarily; apologies.
And Nell and Jes have both made good and fair points about Gates above.
no worries, Gary and my apologies for my sarcasm in the reply post.
@novakant:
How about you telling me what qualifications a Sec of State should have and why exactly Clinton, of all people, is so unique in meeting these criteria – because that’s the question here.
Off the top of my head, in no particular order:
– Have a strong familiarity with US foreign policy issues, including a good background not only in the history of US f.p (i.e. legacy issues) but also the history, culture and politics of other nations, especially those which are key to US interests and initiatives around the world.
– Have a strong sense of personal ethics. Be somebody who will if necessary resign to protest a disasterous policy, but only in a way which best serves the interests of the country, not as a self-serving prima donna grab for attention.
– Be able to run the State Dept. well, both administratively (including the choosing of staff) and by appropriately interpolating policy where ambiguities or gaps in policy directives from the POTUS and Congress and the Courts may exist.
– Serve as an advisor to the POTUS and other cabinet members regarding foreign policy issues, supervising the provision of both data and analysis.
– Work well with Congress regarding oversight and consultative issues, and in providing advisory information.
– Be able to negotiate effectively with foreign leaders.
– Be able to react with an appropriate balance of speed and deliberation in the event of a crisis, including coordinating appropriately with other branches of the govt.
– Be able to coordinate well with other Cabinet depts on issues that are not purely State. Dept. functions. Defense/Intelligence are obvious here but I suspect economic/finance issues will come to the fore in the next 4 years, so the SOS also needs to be able to work well with Treasury, Commerce, etc.
– Be able to stand ground in bureaucratic turf wars but without being a bull in a china shop (i.e. don’t be another Colin Powell, but don’t go too far in the other direction and be another Cheney either).
– Be able to speak well so as to articulate US policy well to publics both domestic and international. The SOS is to some extent a travelling salesperson for the US “brand”, they need to be good at selling that brand.
That’s a pretty steep set of requirements, which I suspect just about anybody is going to come up short in somewhere.
I’m not really a defender of Hillary Clinton as the best possible choice for SOS – I’m more agnostic on that score. When I asked who else you’d suggest, I was being both sincere and open minded. So, who would you prefer? I don’t think just saying “not Hillary” is really a very good answer – how can you judge her qualifications except in relation to the pool of alternatives? And if so, who are the alternatives who are clearly better? You stated that there must be hundreds of such people. OK, I’ll settle for just one or two.
Excellent summary, TLTIA, but may I add one more? “Successfully represent America’s ambassadors and Foreign Service personnel in accurately reporting what they observe, and their recommendations, from the ground, to the rest of the American government and to the Republican, without shading such reporting and recommendations for political or other reasons.”
“and to the Republican”
That was a weird braino; I don’t know how that happened. I meant “to the President.” No, I don’t know how I wound up with that, either.
So, who would you prefer? I don’t think just saying “not Hillary” is really a very good answer – how can you judge her qualifications except in relation to the pool of alternatives?
Well, there i going to be some uncertainty about any candidate, but because I assume that Obama’ team is vetting the candidate that are not well connected politically (i.e., Clinton), I assume basic competence in most areas for politically powerless candidates. In contrast, with Clinton, I have evidence that she is remarkably incompetent in many areas. There is no uncertainty. She’s probably more competent than the average person on the street, but the candidate pool consists of people a lot more qualified than the average person the street. So I do think it makes perfect sense to say that Clinton is simply not up to the job on the merits, absent any political calculations. Where I part ways with novakent is the suspicion that even though Clinton is not up to the job, giving it to her might be best option available because of her ability to create problems in the Senate. She can’t acquire real power there (unless she’s willing wait a LONG time), so her only option for substantiative power in the Senate may involve becoming Lieberman 2.0: i.e., gaining media control through willingness to trash Dem iniatives.
Still, you asked for alternative candidates, so: hilzoy. I think hilzoy beats Clinton on every axis you enumerated. Now, I honestly don’t know if hilzoy would be very good at adminitrating a large organization, but I know for a fact that Clinton is not. The worst case scenario is that hilzoy is as inept as Clinton in that regard, and frankly, I doubt that would hold. Hey, maybe I’m wrong: what areas do you think Clinton is superior to hilzoy?
“Hey, maybe I’m wrong: what areas do you think Clinton is superior to hilzoy?”
Being well-known around the world, holding great political prestige, having vastly more experience in world travel, experience in meeting world leaders, knowledge of politics, knowledge of the U.S. government and Senate.
For starters. No offense to Hilzoy, and agreeing that I have my own doubts about Senator Clinton, but also some faith that Obama isn’t going to make an idiotic choice for bad reasons.
Being well-known around the world
How exactly does that help? Putting aside the fact that much of what foreign leaders will “know” about Clinton consists of a tapestry of lies put out by the media, in what sense does mere name recognition help?
holding great political prestige
Huh? What does “political prestige” mean? We all agree that she has minimal political power as a Senator. I thought there was a consensus that Clinton had no real shot at running for President in 2012. So what are you talking about?
having vastly more experience in world travel
A SoS needs to have a lot of frequent flier miles? I don’t understand this at all. I’ve travelled extensively around the world. It…is not hard. How specifically do you think this would help a SoS?
experience in meeting world leaders
This cuts both ways. To the extent that world leaders are familiar with Clinton, they’ll be inclined to see her as she was during the 90s: a politically powerless first lady who had zero authority. That perception tends to undermine negotiations. In any event, Clinton had no authority during her first lady years, so while she no doubt made many ceremonial visits, I’m not aware of a great number of serious negotiations she participated in.
knowledge of politics, knowledge of the U.S. government and Senate.
Indeed, her knowledge is most impressive: she knows for example that CA’s Democratic primary is not winner take all. I’m sorry, but I don’t see any reason to believe that Clinton knows such a great deal about politics. I also don’t see why such knowledge would be relevant. Can you explain? Clinton certainly demonstrated remarkable ignorance of how the government works when she worked on healthcare. Why should we assume that she’s learned more since then?
I’ll let my comment speak to those who take meaning from it. That you don’t, Turb, is your privilege.
Apart from maybe some qualms on the “experience running very large organizations with huge numbers of people” front, I’d being doing cartwheels down the driveway in celebration if hilzoy was picked to run just about anything in the next Administration.
But I think maybe that is for hilzoy to say and not us. If she wants that much grief and stress in her life, and has already said so publically, I must have missed it.
Come to think of it, a contest to propose how to staff the Cabinet with your favorite bloggers would be kind of fun, in a goofy sort of way.
ThatLeftTurn, my point wasn’t that hilzoy is a real candidate for consideration. My point was that if you feel the need to have someone to compare Clinton against, well, hilzoy seems like a decent foil. As good as hilzoy is, there are a lot of people in the country that are about as good on the relevant criteria.
Gary, I’m trying to understand what you’re saying and I’m just not getting it. As far as I can tell, you’ve uncovered different ways of reciting airy platitudes that don’t actually translate into anything meaningful to the SoS role. Forgive me if I’m missing something, but I really am trying to understand what you’re saying. Now, if you are unable or unwilling to explain your points, well, that’s you call to make.
“Now, if you are unable or unwilling to explain your points, well, that’s you call to make.”
Indeed. I feel I’ve explained enough. YMMV.
there are a lot of people in the country that are about as good on the relevant criteria.
Yes, but do they have prior experience with being in public office, at a high enough level that they have the administrative experience dealing with a large staff, a complex organization, and the consequential burdens that come with that level of responsibility?
The reason I ask this is that our public life is more often than not a story of mistakes and missed oportunities for the people involved. I think it is very hard for a public servant to spend much time in govt. without becoming damaged in the eyes of some portion of the public because of something they screwed up or overlooked, or unwise choices that they made. The enormous diversity of opinion on matters of policy in this country just about gurantees that. To adapt an old Lincoln saying, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time…
It is easier for someone who has not spent much (or any) time in the cockpit of govt. to look good by comparison. Nobody comes out of the sausage factory smelling like roses.
So if we are going to narrow the circle to people on the basis of judgement and policy, then the number of canidates who have solid experience at that level will shrink. And conversely if we narrow the circle to those with experience, the ranks of the pure will also be rather thin.
It seems to me that we need something of both – but I don’t think the entire universe of people who might be very good at the position if given the chance to work their way up the ladder (and assuming that they don’t get dirty while doing so) is a very good baseline for making comparisons. I’d rather see comparisons made between candidate X and the wider circle of other people who also have some substantial experience in the Federal govt. (or something similar). Given that such a circle is finite but (I am being told by novakant) reasonably large, I would think it would not be that hard for critics of Hillary to just come up with a few names from that circle.
Is that really so hard? Just one or two little names? [holds up hand with thumb and forefinger just an inch apart]
Because if nobody can come up with any names of other candidates who in somebody’s opinion would be better at the job, then I’m having a hard time taking the “Oh NOES! Not Hillary!!!” chorus of voices very seriously.
Just to keep the conversation moving forward, and without – let me stress this – knowing anything of significance about the case, what about Bill Richardson (now mooted for Congress)?
I’m not saying he’s the perfect candidate by any means, but when it comes to the office of SoS, it strikes me that his main disadvantage vis-a-vis Hillary C is that, as the primaries showed, he has much less domestic political clout. Should that matter so much?
For “Congress” read “Commerce,” above.
All this “captcha” nonsense, and spellcheck and everything, and no one tells you at the time of posting when you’ve stupidly written the wrong word.
Sheesh.
“I honestly don’t know if hilzoy would be very good at adminitrating a large organization”
I wouldn’t. I would, in fact, be really, really bad. But thanks. 😉
ThatLeftTurnInIraq:
I have already mentioned why I think Clinton is totally unacceptable – it’s not a case of “oh noes, not Clinton”, thank you very much. To recap once more: her Iraq decision, her dismissive stance towards diplomacy and her belligerent rhetoric towards Iran. If you cannot take these reasons seriously, then I’m afraid you’re not taking foreign policy (and by extension war) very seriously. And the secondary argument: “oh she didn’t really mean it, it was all political calculation” is rather self-defeating.
As for alternatives, there are plenty as I don’t think name recognition is very important at all. Not many knew David Miliband apart from close followers of British politics, Joschka Fischer was virtually unknown internationally when he started, as was his successor Walter Steinmeier – as far as I’m concerned they all did/do a fine job, because they know how to run things. Colin Powell on the other hand was really well known, but when push came to shove, he caved in to to the Iraq debacle to save his @ss, and thus was a failure in my book.
@dr ngo 11:45pm
I was hoping for Bill Richardson as Sec. of State. I’m disappointed he wasn’t chosen, but I wish him them best at Commerce if that is where he ends up serving. Perhaps his experience as Sec. of DOE and UN Ambassador will prove valuable in dealing with aspect of the job at Commerce that involve energy issues and international trade. We will see.
@novakant 2:50am
If you cannot take these reasons seriously, then I’m afraid you’re not taking foreign policy (and by extension war) very seriously.
I’m afraid you are wrong – I do take foreign policy very seriously, albeit from a centrist viewpoint which is evidently completely unacceptable to you.
On most topics I try to be pretty tolerant of other points of view which I do not agree with. In this specific case I think your concerns about Hillary Clinton’s possible performance as Sec. of State are reasonable ones but not so compelling that I feel they force me to jump to the conclusion that she will do a bad job – I’m inclined to wait and see, given that the person who has asked her to serve in that capacity has a better track record of making politically astute choices than I do.
I had hoped that you and I might be able to create a more constructive dialog than this, using your suggestion(s) as to a better candidate as a starting point. Please note that I asked you politely (or so I thought) three times for you to supply something very simple, just a single name of somebody you think would be better suited for the job. I also replied in detail to your request for a set of qualifications for the job.
You have chosen to repay my attempt at dialog with flat out refusal and at the end a childish insult based on the name I use on this blog. I’m sorry this happened. With benefit of hindsight I wish that I had never attempted to engage you. If you wish it to be so, I will never engage you again.
Thanks and good luck.
Yes, but do they have prior experience with being in public office, at a high enough level that they have the administrative experience dealing with a large staff, a complex organization, and the consequential burdens that come with that level of responsibility?
Well, some of them do but most of them don’t. Consider those that don’t, like hilzoy. Would she be able to learn those things on the job? Maybe. She’s pretty sharp and she’s smart enough to rely on trusted subordinates. So I’d say she has a 50-50 shot: there is some uncertainty and it could go either way. What about Clinton? We know she cannot do this. That is, we know that Clinton is incapable of the most basic management tasks. For example, we know that as an executive, she had no notion of how much money her campaign was bringing in and how much money it was spending. Moreover, we know that she failed to choose staff that would monitor finances and notify her as needed. She failed. There is no uncertainty here: Clinton has demonstrated her inability to manage large organizations.
Now, some might say that even if she failed during the campaign, she has since learned her lesson. I don’t buy that. If you haven’t learned by the time you’re 61 years old that managers need to have some passing awareness of cashflow, then you’re never going to learn it. If you made it through your first 61 years without ever having absorbed that most basic lesson of management, then God only knows what other gaps exist in your knowledge.
I think it is very hard for a public servant to spend much time in govt. without becoming damaged in the eyes of some portion of the public because of something they screwed up or overlooked, or unwise choices that they made.
I’m sympathetic to your point here, but I think you’re glossing over differences. Getting a minor policy issue wrong is one thing. Failing to understand the concept that your budget is finite is not a minor policy dispute. These things differ in kind, not just degree. Beyond that, I’m not sure I buy your point. The public seems willing to accept all kinds of policy positions. Have you heard Obama’s promises that Iran will not be permitted to get nukes no matter what? Do you think most of his voters really think that keeping Iran nuke free is so important that the US should launch a vast new war killing thousands of its own troops? I doubt it, but there’s all kinds of stuff that politicians can say without suffering any real penalty, even when lots of people don’t agree. I mean, Clinton consistently backed ridiculous wrong headed policies on Iraq during the 90s, but does anyone remember that? Of course not.
Is that really so hard? Just one or two little names? [holds up hand with thumb and forefinger just an inch apart]
I don’t really see why this is necessary. You haven’t convinced me that Clinton would be a better SoS than hilzoy. And the notion that Clinton is so perfectly suited for the role that there is literally no one in Washington who could do the job just as well strikes me as…silly. Nevertheless, since it is so important to you, here’s a list of names: Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Bruce Riedel, Ivo Daalder, Lawrence Korb, and Robert Malley.
I am genuinely curious how you evaluate Clinton’s failures to manage her campaign’s finances. You don’t seem to consider it a dealbreaker, so do you think the whole thing was overblown? Or what?
Ah, an of course I forgot to add to the list: Richardson and Kerry.
I’m agnostic on the choice, but I don’t think that management of the campaign should be taken as a strike against Hillary. All of the names Turb mentions are interesting, but star power seems to be an essential part of the SecState job and while there are any number of people who could act just as well as, say, Tom Cruise, there is a difference between having him and someone else. In fact, the comparison to Tom Cruise might be particularly apt given that in some sense because Cruise is considered a bit of damaged goods.
As I said, this is not a full throated defense of HRC as SecState, but HRC brings some peculiar strengths to an Obama presidency that have been commented on by any number of blog posts, but I also like it because it, in a very real sense, is a poke in the eye to rabid Clinton hating Republicans in a way that is not obtained by putting Kerry in the job.
I forgot to explain why I don’t think the campaign is necessarily a strike. While there are some points of similarity between running a campaign and running State, I think that the more defined lines of hierarchy in State will prevent HRC’s weaknesses demonstrated in the campaign from being a factor. Unless Mark Penn becomes an under-secretary…
I am genuinely curious how you evaluate Clinton’s failures to manage her campaign’s finances. You don’t seem to consider it a dealbreaker, so do you think the whole thing was overblown? Or what?
It is a problem. On the one hand I don’t see the Sec. of State position as having primary CFO responsibilities for the State Dept. budget, I expect that close attention to the Dept. budget is at a lower level except for overall setting of priorities. On the other hand the way the HRC campaign mismanaged money strikes me as failure of delegation and supervision on Hillary’s part, and reflecting a poor choice of who she picked to run the campaign. I think it is a problem and I’m granting a considerable amount of trust to Obama on this pick, thinking that if it isn’t a dealbreaker for him then I may be wrong to be too critical in my evaluation.
I’m taking that with a grain of salt for a couple of reasons:
(1) I don’t expect that Obama and his inner circle will stand idly by watching Hillary staff the State Dept. with the equivalent of Mark Penn and Patty Solis Doyle, so I expect better personel decisions at State than in the campaign.
(2) It is not all that unusual for political campaigns to have money problems. Obama’s money machine this year was the exception to that rule, but if you look closely at most political campaigns, you’ll see that mismanaging finances (in the sense of having difficulty balancing expenditures and income) is pretty common when the campaign is raising its own funds (a highly unstable and momentum driven activity).
Two of the candidates for Sec. of State whom I’d rather see (Richardson and Kerry) didn’t do a particularly stellar job of managing their own campaigns either (in 2008 and 2004 respectively), either strategically or in terms of money management.
So it really is all relative (which is why I keep harping on the question of: Who else would be better? So we have some basis for comparison) – Hillary looked bad with regard to how she ran her campaign partly because her campaign was badly run, but also because she was up against possibly the best run campaign (in purely administrative terms) that I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. Almost anybody looks bad when compared with what Obama did this year.
lj: star power seems to be an essential part of the SecState job and while there are any number of people who could act just as well as, say, Tom Cruise, there is a difference between having him and someone else.
I just don’t understand this. In my limited experience, adding celebraty star power to a challenging problem makes things worse not better, if only because the things one needs to do in order to become a celebrity are anti-correlated with the things that one needs to do in order to be really good at, well, anything. George Bush was just such a celebrity, a man whose star power vastly eclipsed his qualifications. I don’t understand how specifically you think star power would help. I mean, let’s say that SoS Clinton is negotiating with the EU to get more soldiers in Afghanistan. Do you really think the fact that her name is well known is going to materially advance the negotiations? Do you think that foreign ministers from France and Germany are going to be so star struck that in their rush to secure autographs and photographs with Clinton, they’ll happily acede to her demands?
If star power is so important, then was Bill Clinton negligent in selecting Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher? I mean, neither of them projects star power, right? And, regardless of what their flaws were in office, I think it is fair to say that their flaws did not stem from a lack of star power, nor would extra star power have meaningfully alleviated any of those flaws.
While there are some points of similarity between running a campaign and running State, I think that the more defined lines of hierarchy in State will prevent HRC’s weaknesses demonstrated in the campaign from being a factor. Unless Mark Penn becomes an under-secretary…
The campaign had well defined lines as well; Clinton chose staff poorly. And while Mark Penn won’t be at State, there will be plenty of people like him: people who tell Clinton what she wants to hear instead of what she needs to know. Since she’s already adopted a position on Israel-Palestine that is far to the right of both George Bush’s position as well as the current Israeli government’s, I shudder to think of what she might achieve.
ThatLeftTurn: On the other hand the way the HRC campaign mismanaged money strikes me as failure of delegation and supervision on Hillary’s part, and reflecting a poor choice of who she picked to run the campaign.
Sure, and in that sense we agree: I don’t expect Clinton to be scrutinizing State’s budget line by line on a daily basis.
Two of the candidates for Sec. of State whom I’d rather see (Richardson and Kerry) didn’t do a particularly stellar job of managing their own campaigns either (in 2008 and 2004 respectively), either strategically or in terms of money management.
I don’t follow you here. There is a difference IMO between failing to generate enough cash (which all non-Obama campaigns suffered from) and catastrophically failing to remain appraised as to the status of the campaign’s cashflow. Have you seen any articles suggesting that the later was a problem for Richardson or Kerry? I’m not aware of any but you’re no doubt better read than I am in this regard. I would not fault Clinton for merely failing to raise as much money as Obama.
OCSteve: [Democratic Senators] got to vote by secret ballot so that no one could know who voted to keep [Lieberman] as chair. Pity that they don’t want to let the average worker keep that same option…
More uninformed snark about the Employee Free Choice Act. For those sincerely concerned about workers’ access to the secret ballot, rather than simply being opposed to unionization: EFCA provides for a secret ballot if 30% of the workers want one.
The Secretary of Labor had better be someone who is an experienced, committed, and skilled-at-governmental-combat friend of labor. Capital’s side if things is more than adequately represented with Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and Carolyn Romer having Obama’s ear. In fact, I’m not liking the signal sent by the characterization of the appointments announced today as constituting the Obama “economic team”, given that the Secretary of Labor was not among them.
Here’s a best-case scenario in which Sen. Clinton’s “star power” might be useful: a negotiated agreement that materially reduces the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I’m not really expecting such a thing, primarily because of the sick state of U.S. politics with respect to the issue, but there are signs here and there that make it a conceivable initiative.
If star power is so important, then was Bill Clinton negligent in selecting Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher?
I think you would agree that not quite so much hinged on Bill Clinton’s choice of SecState as hinges on Obama’s choice now. Nell’s example of getting a jump on the I/P conflict is one example of star power, if you view Obama’s task as one that must be helped by the media, appointing HRC to the post gives the media a hook to hang its ‘wow, isn’t Obama different’ story on.
You also didn’t address the Tom Cruise aspect. While there are any number of people who could act as well as Cruise, his presence brings something. The same would be true with HRC as SecState. And you don’t seem to acknowledge that the choice of a Clinton can be seen as way of routing, in advance, the revivication of those (like Newt Gingrich) who made their bread and butter as anti-Clintonites and who might try and revive the Republican party. Sadly, the notion that politics ends at the water’s edge is no longer operative, so the choice of SecState is as much driven (or more) by how the choice is viewed by a domestic audience as it is by how the choice is viewed by those foreigners whose job it is to interact with the US on a diplomatic level.
Nell, what are you talking about? During the nomination struggle, Clinton announced policy positions to the right of both Bush and the Israeli government. Why on earth do you think she’d be a uniquely credible broker given that history? I mean, maybe her statements are something she can overecome, but surely that raises rather than lowers the buren she faces. In general, voicing support for the most extreme elements of one side makes it difficult to negotiate even handedly; it is the sort of thing that saps credibility.
Beyond that, I’m still not getting how specifically star power would help. Bill Clinton had star power. It didn’t help him. In what specific ways do you expect Israeli and Palastinian leaders will behave differently due to star power? Do you think they’ll be overwhelmed by the opportunity to talk with a real live star? That the crush for autographs will be so intense that they’ll happily agree to whatever Clinton is proposing?
if you view Obama’s task as one that must be helped by the media, appointing HRC to the post gives the media a hook to hang its ‘wow, isn’t Obama different’ story on.
Do you seriously expect that the media will still be saying, two years from now, ‘wow, isn’t Obama different’ because he picked Clinton as SoS? I see this as at best a very short term effect, after which the media will promptly forget all about it. I also don’t understand why this is so very important. There are a lot of ways Obama can demonstrate difference.
You also didn’t address the Tom Cruise aspect. While there are any number of people who could act as well as Cruise, his presence brings something.
Um, when last I checked, acting in a motion picture required a dramatically different skill set than running the State Dept. Film actors do not negotiate complex deals with heads of state. They do not manage large organizations with thousands of employees spread across the globe. So while having a film star be nutty or incompetent need not significantly affect their career (provided they can still act), having a SoS who is nutty or incompetent seems disastrous.
The same would be true with HRC as SecState. And you don’t seem to acknowledge that the choice of a Clinton can be seen as way of routing, in advance, the revivication of those (like Newt Gingrich) who made their bread and butter as anti-Clintonites and who might try and revive the Republican party.
My apologies LJ. I thought you were making a joke. I don’t think we should select officials for major offices based on how well such appointments will piss off losers like Gingrich. I don’t see how such an appointment would rout any anti-Clintonites. Can you make the case? I mean, regardless of whether Clinton is SoS, Gingrich is going to try to get media appearances and is going to slime Democrats. Clinton’s position will not change that. And no matter what happens to Clinton, some people will try and revive the Republican party. Making Clinton SoS isn’t going to hinder their efforts in any way.
@Turb:
Bearing in mind the disclaimers in my earlier comment (that I don’t consider this likely but possible/conceivable), what I’m talking about is the Nixon-to-China effect.
Domestic political resistance, primarily in Congress but also from Democratic donors, is the single greatest obstacle to a genuine push for an I/P agreement. Sen. Clinton is well positioned to disarm and quell such resistance, and to sell a deal if one should be within reach. So is chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.
Such tiny glints of hope as I might have on this subject come from the relationship that Pres.-elect Obama appears to have with Brent Scowcroft (which also has something to do with the likelihood that Gates will stay on at Defense). It’s with grim irony that I could even describe my perspective as hope: This is one of many issue areas in which I’m far outside the boundaries of discussion of the foreign policy elite. But maybe for that reason I have a fairly keen sense of where those boundaries are. In that constricted universe, Scowcroft is at one end (the “progressive” end), and Joe Lieberman is at the other.
Nell makes a good point about the Secretary of Labor being left out in the cold.
President-Elect Obama has represented Wall Street well in his cabinet — what about Main Street. What about labor?
I’ve always like Robert Reich, but that would be going back to the Clinton future yet again.
Or, since Reich broke with the Clintons, maybe he isn’t qualified to be on the Change You Can Believe In Cabinet.
All of the Hillary backlash about her going to State is puzzling in that the man who is going to appoint her gets less critcism for doing so than she.
I figure all of those months going toe-to-toe against Hillary in the primaries must have earned her a heaping load of respect from Obama, who I give more credit for appointing her for reasons not based soley on getting her out of the Senate, where, by the way, she has been a team player (not that she couldn’t make trouble in the future).
Obama must see more in Hillary than he does in John Kerry, who looks like he will be Secretary of Nothing. Obama is indeed a wise man.
So Obama’s administration looks a bit like Clinton II. So what? Those eight years worked for me. Hopefully, Obama can improve on them.
I’ve always like Robert Reich, but that would be going back to the Clinton future yet again.
He fought the Rubin, and the Rubin won.
In other words, I like Robert Reich too, but he wasn’t very effective at fighting for influence in the Clinon admin. We need somebody at Labor who can throw his or her weight around, not a bureaucratic pushover. Reich is too much of a nice guy to play that role.
Too bad John Edwards is persona non-grata. We need a fighter in the Labor spot. What about Ed Rendell?
Ed Rendell’s lieutenant governor just died, and was succeded by the president pro tem of the state senate, who is a Republican. (Why yes, we do have a screwed-up state consitution; why do you ask?) He’s probably off the board for a couple of years, much as he’d love to be out of Harrisburg.
Good points, TLTiA.
Reich — too nice, too intellectual.
Edwards — too toxic.
Rendell — too invested as governor of Pennsylvania. I think he was sincere about not wanting to be chosen as veep, so Labor would be a no-go. Rendell would be the complete opposite of a pushover, though.
Jesurgislac:
“Even if you could show (as I do not think you can) that the US military did in fact completely quit torturing prisoners on or before 18th December 2006…”
— that’s a hard one. it’s the old “disprove a negative” technique, eh?
“If Obama wants anyone to believe that the US has changed in that respect, and he does not intend to prosecute the criminals responsible to show that the lawless Bush regime was temporary and has ended, he can afford to do only one thing: ensure that no one senior in the Bush administration holds power under him. Meet the new boss – same as the old boss.”
— you’re a hard one. it’s the old “i’m a perfectionist, negative curmudgeon” technique, eh?
😉
As I said, Turbulence, I am agnostic on HRC as SecState, but I do think that the ability to make SecState a bully pulpit by virtue of the HRC’s own personal biography is a plus. You keep saying that you don’t see that, and I’m at the limit of my explanatory abilities so I guess we just have to leave it at that.
LJ, let’s try a different track. Clinton has been in the Senate for several years now. Which issues has she gone to the bully pulpit and hammered? Which issues has she used her personal biography to publicize and propel through the media? I mean, she’s a Senator and she has the ability to request hearings, right?
I think the fact that Clinton has some celebrity is not politically useful to her. She can’t use to to call attention to important but underserved topics — at the very least, she has not done that yet. Her celebrity is a reflection of the media’s bizarre obsession with her. Being stalked by a lunatic is certainly interesting, but it is rarely beneficial.
It would certainly be very cool for the Secretary of State of the US to be someone who believes that women’s rights are human rights. In a country where men can pass a law to deny women a lifesaving operation because they don’t like the idea of it, you really need that…
Great speech, Jes — not bad for a celebrity.
BTW, what’s worse: A stage full of men legislating women’s issues. Or looking so happy and full of themselves as President Dickhead signs it into law?
Turb, all of the things I’ve read about Hillary’s time in the Senate have been complementary pieces about how she has deferred to others, worked to figure out the culture of the Senate. Here is a link discussing it. I think people who are wholeheartedly supporting this are those see reflections of Senator Clinton and not candidate Clinton. You are free to choose, but I don’t think the person she is is written in stone.
A stage full of men legislating women’s issues. Or looking so happy and full of themselves as President Dickhead signs it into law?
I have problems looking at that photo very long without throwing up in my mouth. The happy smug smiles on their faces, the look of men who are doing right to women whether the women like it or not… yeah, that’s definitely a part of it.
With benefit of hindsight I wish that I had never attempted to engage you. If you wish it to be so, I will never engage you again.
I say we meet at the crack of dawn at the old oak down by the river to settle this real like gentlemen. The choice of weapons is yours.
Come on, TLTIA (I’m still having trouble remembering your alias, but rest assured that my previous effort to do so was an error without malign intent) we got off to a rocky start and it went downhill from there. I frankly didn’t like your tone and felt that you weren’t really responding to my arguments, but just pretending to be. It seems that feeling was mutual and it’s obvious that on that basis a fruitful discussion was impossible. I’m hereby extending an olive branch and suggest we move on.
“I’d rather see comparisons made between candidate X and the wider circle of other people who also have some substantial experience in the Federal govt. (or something similar). Given that such a circle is finite but (I am being told by novakant) reasonably large, I would think it would not be that hard for critics of Hillary to just come up with a few names from that circle.
Is that really so hard? Just one or two little names? [holds up hand with thumb and forefinger just an inch apart]”
ThatLeftTurn–You usually strike me as very polite, but you weren’t polite in your responses to novakant, IMO. I post the above as an example.
Also, I don’t think it’s necessary for a Clinton critic to have a list of alternatives on hand. I don’t have a list, because I don’t know the foreign policy community well at all. It ought to be someone who opposed the Iraq War. You know more about this than me–aren’t there any people with the appropriate credentials who could fill that position who opposed the war, or is every qualified person an idiot?
So as to prevent any further irritation, I’ll rephrase that last question. Is there no person in the United States who has the credentials background necessary to be Secretary of State who didn’t oppose the Iraq War? It would be a remarkably depressing state of affairs if there isn’t.
I say we meet at the crack of dawn at the old oak down by the river to settle this real like gentlemen. The choice of weapons is yours.
Styrofoam “Pool Noodles” and “Silly String” it is then…
Come on, TLTIA (I’m still having trouble remembering your alias, but rest assured that my previous effort to do so was an error without malign intent) we got off to a rocky start and it went downhill from there. I frankly didn’t like your tone and felt that you weren’t really responding to my arguments, but just pretending to be. It seems that feeling was mutual and it’s obvious that on that basis a fruitful discussion was impossible. I’m hereby extending an olive branch and suggest we move on.
Thanks – that is a much happier result. I apologise for getting the conversation off to a bad start.
@Donald Johnson 10:28am
I thought that comment of mine you just quoted “I’d rather see comparisons…” was written in direct response to an immediately preceding comment by Turbulence, with whom I’ve shared numerous friendly if occasionally sharp-elbowed exchanges in the past. It was on the same topic as the one that novakant and I were at loggerheads over, but not directed at him. I would have used a more formal and less teasing tone if I had been addressing novakant directly.
This is something which I’ve observed in a number of sharp exchanges here and on other blogs – speakers naturally tend to adjust their tone as a function of the person spoken to (and the context provided by the prior relationship that has been established between them), but in a multi-person conversation there can be confusing and misleading shifts in tone because it is ambiguous as to exactly who is being addressed by whom. Thus sometimes people take offence at remarks which were not directed at them and would have been phrased differently if they had been.
On the other hand your general point that I could have started my exchange with novakant in a more conciliatory fashion is well put and well taken and I will try to do better in the future.
So as to prevent any further irritation, I’ll rephrase that last question. Is there no person in the United States who has the credentials background necessary to be Secretary of State who didn’t oppose the Iraq War? It would be a remarkably depressing state of affairs if there isn’t.
I think there are people who would be better qualified, although I don’t rate policy choices as high on the list of criteria as I think some others here (who object to the choce of Hillary) are doing, because I think the job of SoS is less to set policy than it is to competently and faithfully execute policy as decided upon by the POTUS and Congress.
I’m guessing that the number of people who might be better qualified to be SoS than Hillary is somewhere on the high side of dozen people or so, but much smaller than the “hundreds” estimate which was what set me off in novakant’s original comment. And of that group, I think those who were against the AUMF are a distinct minority but not zero. Several of the senators who voted against the AUMF would be good choices.
Personally I’d prefer Bill Richardson from amongst the names of those who have received media mention thus far, but it didn’t work out that way. That leaves me in the position of trying to decide if I have enough confidence in my own judgment to say that I think I know better than Obama who would be a good choice. I can’t say that at this point.
Thanks, TLTIA. I think some Obama supporters are disconcerted by the choice of HRC because the primary battle last spring was seen in part by some Obama supporters as an attempt to move away from that sort of foreign policy expertise that saw the Iraq War as justified. It would have come as a surprise to such supporters if they’d known HRC would be the new SOS.
There are also progressive Obama voters who think (for some reason not clear to me) that Obama shares their view of the I/P conflict and how it should be resolved. If HRC’s choice factored into that, it could only be in support of the theory that Nell mentioned, that only Nixon can go to China. HRC has been firmly in the camp of rightwing Israel supporters in recent years.
//”It ought to be someone who opposed the Iraq War.”//
Given President-Elect Obama’s strong opposition to the war and the vital part it was of his campaign, this makes sense.
As a big Hillary fan, I will forgive him this inconsistency. But I can see where diehard Obama backers would be upset by the Clinton choice on these grounds alone.
That said, it’s time to move on.
—
Before coming to work for my 1-9 shift, I saw P-E Obama’s press conference naming the latest members of his economic team. This makes back-to-back, carried-by-all-the-cables pressers.
The president-elect had seemed to want to stick to his one-president-at-a-time stance. But with President Bush relinquishing his leadership duites and the economic crisis continuing to worsen, P-E Obama wisely stepped up to the plate. He has (seemingly) calmed the markets and, hopefully, will do the same to consumers.
The next step is to go from calming to inspiring confidence. From what I’ve seen, he’s up to the task.
btfb — the cable talking heads seem to think Obama’s drip-drip-drip strategy is deliberate; that each day he can stand in front of the cameras and answer questions is a day that people feel like there is some leadership in the country.
For whoever expressed a concern above that the Labor Secretary hadn’t been named with the rest of the economic team, this is probably why. (Also, they may not have finalized that yet.)
farmgirl — Every day Obama is at the microphone (and not Bush) I feel more secure.
I thought the juxtoposition yesterday was telling. Obama had the podium, surrounded by his cabinet, talking to the regular White House media corps. Bush — with only the gangly, ghostly-looking Pauslon at his side — marched down the steps, presumably, of the Treasury and talked (to an unseen press crew) with his trademark blank stare, outside on a gray, downcast day.
“As a big Hillary fan, I will forgive him this inconsistency. But I can see where diehard Obama backers would be upset by the Clinton choice on these grounds alone.”
Perhaps so, bedtime, but I’m not an Obama fan or a Clinton fan. I voted for Obama twice (primary and then general), as lesser of two evils. Fandom doesn’t belong in politics, IMO.
And the Iraq War is a reasonable sort of litmus test–if you (meaning people who do this for a living, not you bedtime) didn’t get that one right then maybe foreign policy isn’t your thing. That’s even aside from moral issues.
Another centrist / Rubin-ista annoucement from Obama today:
Peter Orszag for OMB Director.
Leaving the politics aside for a moment, this paragraph illustrates why I am so hopeful regarding what the Obama admin. can acomplish:
[emphasis mine]
How refreshing it is to have a President who knows how to qualify information based on how reliable and/or unsubstantiated it is (and that this is something which is subject to revision over time) and is not afraid to do so in public.
“How refreshing it is to have a President who knows how to qualify information based on how reliable and/or unsubstantiated it is (and that this is something which is subject to revision over time) and is not afraid to do so in public.”
Well, yeah, compared to what we’ve had for the past eight years, where bullheadedness and dead certainty (justified or not) were the order of the day. But this isn’t a remarkably high standard. I’m happier about stuff like this.
It’s not good that Brennan has Obama’s ear, but it is good that Obama can feel pressure from liberal bloggers, if that’s what happened.
DJ,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can’t recall any President using such explicit it’s “just a report” sort of language in connection with a policy initiative he is looking to push. So that struck as a little bit more than just better than Bush.
In more appointment news, Politico is reporting that Gates staying on as SecDef is a done deal (with some haggling over subordinates) and Retired Marine Gen. James Jones will be the National Security Advisor.
So far this looks very much like a center-right team in the Scowcroft lineage, who are focused on Small Wars and while they won’t go looking to start wars we don’t need, will be very tough and aggressive about doing everything they can to win the ones we do get involved in.
None of this should be much of a surprise given the tough on Afghanistan talk that Obama used during the campaign.
There isn’t much to like thus far in Obama’s Cabinet from a progressive standpoint, but on the other hand if 4 years ago you’d told me the next administration would most closely resemble that of GHB (41) on foreign policy and Bill Clinton (42) on economic policy, I’d have respectfully suggested that whatever you were smoking, it wasn’t fair not to share.
Donald: I suppose you can be a fan of someone without incorporating fandom, but that’s semantics.
It sounds like you are not happy with President-Elect Obama.
You have a more-than legitimate point about the Iraq War being a litmus test for foreign-policy appointments — especially since Obama’s opposition to it was a centerpiece of his campaign. (Of course, opposition to the war, as proven by Congressional voting record, would eliminate a host of candidates.)
Seems to me Obama is more comprising than most suspected; not a bad thing after George Bush’s rigid eight years.
Also, I’m with Left Turn on praising Obama’s engaging and refreshing turn at his news conferences as President-Elect.
You’re obviously right about the standard of the eight years being so low: Did George Bush even read about the kind of thing Obama quoted today?
But going back to Bill Clinton’s eight years, he became less and less engaged in his news conferences and less and less flexible.
I like the way Obama has been inclusive and, while taking the podium with an obvious message, has shown the ability to think on his feet where every last little thing doesn’t seem staged.
An aside: Realizing how unhappy the Hillary appointment-to-come has made so many people, I was amazed to hear some pundits last week talk about how she might prefer to hold out for the Supreme Court.
I’d think there would be even more outrage if he gave her that and never saw him doing so.
Then again, from what we have seen in his diverse, from-all-angles cabinet appointments, I don’t think anyone could come close to predicting what kind of Supreme Court nominee he would select.
Tltia–The language might be better than I gave him credit for.
Bedtime–I’m expecting Obama to be good on some issues–on the economy, for instance. Though whether his Wall Street advisors will favor regulating their friends I don’t know. But the more immediate problem is the recession, and Obama wants a massive stimulus package, which most economists (AFAIK) seem to agree is the way to go.
On foreign policy, I don’t know which way he will go. As TLTIA says, his picks seem to be center-right, which does not make me happy. Conceivably it’s a Machiavellian plan to favor more diplomacy while surrounding himself with hawks for political cover, but it could also just be that this is who Obama is.
I’m a bit more optimistic than DJ is, which has usually meant that I am wrong, but I was heartened to see this post by Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com. My only complaint is this line
There is also a heavy overlap, however, with what might be called libertarian paternalism: “smart” policies which incent good behavior through tax credits or choice architecture
‘incent’???