November 17, 2008

11/17: Chairman Lieberman? Secretary Clinton?

With less than 24 hours before Senate Dems decide by secret ballot whether or not to take away ex-John McCain surrogate/CT Sen. Joe Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security committee, the netroots are making their final lobbying push. Senators who spoke out against Lieberman (such as VT Sen. Pat Leahy, VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, and ND Sen. Byron Dorgan) were on the receiving end of considerable netroots praise this past weekend. Meanwhile, lefty bloggers are restating their various arguments for why Lieberman should lose his chairmanship.

In other political news, bloggers are buzzing about the rumors that Pres.-elect Barack Obama has offered NY Sen. Hillary Clinton the Sec/State position. Most liberal bloggers (including some of Clinton's former critics) are comfortable with the prospect of Clinton serving as Obama's Sec/State, while some are enthusiastic. However, other liberal bloggers are concerned about what they perceive to be Clinton's hawkish foreign policy views. For this same reason, several neoconservative bloggers prefer Clinton to the other candidates rumored to be on Obama's short list (namely, MA Sen. John Kerry and NM Gov. Bill Richardson).

LIEBERMAN: The Netroots Want His Gavel

Liberal bloggers have a variety of reasons for wanting to remove Lieberman as chairman of the Homeland Security committee, as the following posts illustrate:

• Open Left's David Sirota: "The removal of Joe Lieberman from his committee post isn't about revenge -- it's about political pragmatism. In specific, it's about making sure a guy who has repeatedly displayed his deep personal and irrational hatred for Barack Obama doesn't have the subpoena power to embark on witch hunts against President Obama."
• Daily Kos' Jed L: "Just for the record, Joe Lieberman not only worked for John McCain's election as president, but he also supported [MN Sen.] Norm Coleman's campaign and endorsed [ME Sen.] Susan Collins' re-election. Keep in mind that Lieberman did this while serving as chairman of the homeland security committee, and there's no reason to expect that he won't continue to support Iraq war supporting Republicans. [...] To reward Lieberman's behavior with another term as chairman of the homeland security committee would not only strengthen Lieberman's hand and validate his campaign against the Democratic Party and for the Iraq war, it would be the height of weakness on the part of senate Democrats. It would be a sign that they don't really care about ending the war."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "To my mind, the crucial issue here is whether or not Lieberman has done a good job as chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. If a good chair had done what he did -- if, say, [House Gov't Reform committee chairman] Henry Waxman had unaccountably spent the summer and fall campaigning against Democratic nominees for President and the Senate -- I'd be torn. But Lieberman has not been a good chair. [...] Lieberman, whose committee is responsible for investigating government, declined to hold hearings on the response to Katrina, saying he didn't want to 'play gotcha'. Likewise, he didn't want to investigate Blackwater or other Iraq contractors. As far as the oversight part of his committee chairmanship, he was missing in action. Oversight matters. It mattered during the Bush administration, and it will matter during an Obama administration."

Firedoglake's Swopa: "Holy Joe's defenders have tried to grab the high moral ground against criticisms that Lieberman hasn't been a loyal enough Democrat or might misuse his continued chairmanship of the Homeland Security commission by saying that ousting him would 'hurt the message of bipartisanship and unity' that president-elect Barack Obama wants to send. But that's exactly the principle Lieberman violated with his insinuations that Obama consciously betrayed the best interests of the U.S. and American troops in Iraq for the sake of his political career. And it's that principle which Democrats should explicitly stand behind as they strip him of his power."

LIEBERMAN II: Vermont Represents

Liberal bloggers are praising Sen. Leahy after he said that Lieberman should lose his committee chairmanship:

• Atrios: "I appreciate that newly minted Senators might be a bit reticent on the whole Lieberman situation, but kudos to Senator Leahy for acknowledging that Joe has been a very bad boy indeed."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "A big step: Leahy, chair of the powerful Judiciary Committee, has come out against Lieberman keeping his gavel atop Homeland Security. [...] Leahy nails it: in any normal world, it makes perfect sense for Lieberman to lose his chairmanship of such a powerful committee. But this is Lieberworld, where comity always comes first, and bad faith is ignored willfully."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "Kudos to Leahy. We'll learn on Tuesday how many other members of the caucus agree."
• Firedoglake's Jame Hamsher: "Imagine that, someone leading -- instead of acting like a spineless mush-mouth."

Balloon Juice's John Cole jokingly suggests that Leahy's statement means that Lieberman's chairmanship is probably safe: "If recent history is any guide, I think we can safely say that this issue has been settled and that Joe Lieberman's chairmanship is...safe. Every time Leahy and [WI Sen. Russ] Feingold get in a vulcan mindmeld with the progressive wing, we can almost bet that the beltway wing/GOP lite/business as usual crowd of the Democratic caucus are about to send them down the river."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are also praising the other senators who publicly criticized Lieberman's behavior:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas praises Sen. Sanders: "Vermont represents. [...] When the other independent who caucuses with Democrats says you're an idiot unworthy of holding a committee chairmanship, it says something. This isn't a 'partisan' Democrat speaking."
• Hamsher praises Sen. Dorgan: "Dorgan has been tireless in his efforts to root out government waste. The waste, graft and taxpayer looting that Lieberman has protected from investigation as Chair of the Homeland Security Committee no doubt scalds him."

CLINTON: The Right Choice

Several liberal bloggers who supported Clinton in the primary are enthusiastic about the prospect of Clinton serving as Obama's Sec/State:

• Ex-VT Gov. Madeleine M. Kunin: "As a former Hillary supporter I would be delighted to see Hillary Clinton as the next Secretary of State. And, I know that thousands of women, not only those who voted for her, would agree. In just a short period of time, the position of Secretary of State has been filled by two capable women: Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice. It seems only fitting for President-elect Obama to follow this tradition, but not only because she's a woman, but because she is the best person for the job. She has traveled widely as First Lady, established good relationships with world leaders, and gained universal respect."
• MyDD's Natasha Chart: "It may come up in a discussion near you that Hillary Clinton is being offered the position of Secretary of State, and that you should be particularly alarmed about this because she voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In a standalone resolution. I didn't like that vote at all and was angry about it at the time, but it isn't clear to me that this is a policy difference between Clinton and Obama. [...] Considering that [Obama] sponsored a similar bill and didn't show up to vote on the standalone amendment, I don't understand the assumption that Obama would have voted differently than she did. [...] As far as having Clinton as SoS, I figure she'd do a good job. I also believe that she'd be willing to do what she was asked to do or she wouldn't accept it, because that's how these positions go. She should do what she feels is best for her career as a public servant, which I hope will be long. [...] Lastly, as a point massively in her favor, she's a strong advocate for women's rights."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "I am really intrigued by Clinton ascending to Secretary of State. I think on many levels it's a perfect role for her, as she ran partly on rebuilding our image abroad and she and Bill [Clinton] are beloved around the world. It also just sort of feels right in a certain way. I do understand people's reservations about her more hawkish tendencies and the attacks she levied against him in the primary over diplomacy, but I think their differences are actually much less stark than they seemed during a contest that was about making distinctions with your opponent. And I think at the very least, Clinton has proven to be a team player and I have no doubt that as Secretary of State she would advance the policies of Barack Obama's around the world, not her own."

CLINTON II: Secretary Clinton? Fine By Me.

Several liberal bloggers who supported Obama in the primary are also fine with the prospect of Clinton becoming Sec/State:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Some progressives are worried that Clinton voted for a resolution that declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, thus making it difficult for her to hold the job. However, given that the other names most commonly floated are Kerry and [IN Sen. Dick] Lugar, I fail to see how Clinton is inferior to either option. [...] I don't care about the Clinton vs. Obama battle anymore. I can't even believe some people are still living through it. I care about the progressive vs. centrist struggle, and that is not, and never has been, the same thing as Obama vs. Clinton."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "As for the [idea] that Hillary would be opposed by the Netroots because of her position on Iraq, I'm not so sure. I'd have no problem with her as Secretary of State, but then again, I wasn't really looking for an apology for her Iraq vote (I did, however, wish she'd have acknowledged that in retrospect the vote was a bad idea). And more generally, Hillary as Secretary of State would do whatever her boss, the president, asked her to do -- so she wouldn't be freelancing on Iraq policy, she'd be implementing Obama's Iraq policy. And to some degree, who better than a Democrat who has been hawkish on Iraq to lead the way out of Iraq[?]"

digby just wants Obama's Sec/State to be a Dem: "I don't care if Hillary becomes Secretary of State. I assume Obama will run his foreign policy the same no matter who it is. I do think it's preferable for members of his administration to be beholden at least in part to the Democratic side of the aisle if only to show that it's not only Republicans who have credibility, especially in foreign affairs. If Obama keeps [Def. Sec. Robert] Gates at defense (which I sincerely hope he does not) then I think he has to pick a Democrat for State and pull from the more progressive ranks for the national security posts at CIA and elsewhere. The same is true for the economic jobs. Otherwise, he's just reinforcing the GOP's main argument that only Republicans can be trusted in such positions."

CLINTON III: Are You Sure About This?

Several liberal bloggers have reservations about the prospect of Clinton becoming Sec/State:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "...Surely I wouldn't be the first to observe that this would seem like an odd pairing. Clinton and Obama are both formidable political leaders and, as we saw during the primaries, they have very similar ideas about the vast majority of public policy areas. But Obama thinks Clinton's support for invading Iraq in 2002-2003 showed bad judgment and Clinton thinks Obama's stated willingness to hold direct, high-level talks with Iran without preconditions is 'naive and irresponsible.' That's not to say it's a bad idea -- what matters is ideas moving forward, not things that have been said in the past. But the specific policy area at issue seems to be one in which the two of them aren't all that well-aligned."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "In late December of last year The New York Times wrote a lengthy article about the various donors to the Clinton Foundation, and the conflicts of interest (real or apparent) they might create for Sen. Clinton should she become president. [...] The Foundation's contributors include not only a number of heads of state but also a lot of high-flying businessmen who play the game so high in the stratosphere that what we normally consider foreign policy questions routinely play into their business interests. Now, Secretary of State is not president. But in the foreign policy realm, it is as close as you get. So how does this all play out if she's nominated to serve as Secretary of State? Does the same going-forward disclosure policy apply?"
• The Reality-Based Community's Steven M. Teles: "Frankly, I just don't trust Hillary. There is no evidence based on the historical record that she is a competent manager (and plenty of evidence to the contrary -- her campaign and the Clinton health care process are only two examples), or has the best interest of our chief executive at heart."

Firedoglake's Ian Welsh sees pros and cons: "It seems Obama has offered Clinton State. It's an interesting choice, and there are a lot of Progressives who won't like it much, given Clinton's record of supporting the Iraq war and voting for the stand alone resolution making Iran's Republican Guards a terrorist organization, which made a part of the Iranian military 'terrorists'. Clinton was definitely more hawkish than Obama was during the primary season, and during her career. [...] Clinton does offer one big advantage as Secretary of State: the Clinton name. The Clintons are loved overseas, and there is no one else in America (other than her husband, who will presumably be by her side in any case) who would demonstrate more clout than having Hillary Clinton arrive in your country. Likewise she already has relationships with many world leaders and doesn't have to build up that trust from scratch. Clinton can hit the ground running, and assuming Obama makes it clear that he's backing her, she can speak with more authority than perhaps anyone else could, on his behalf."

CLINTON IV: The Least Bad Choice

In what is probably a testament to the widespread perception that Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, several neoconservative bloggers think she's the best Sec/State candidate on Obama's short list:

• Commentary's Max Boot: "I would nevertheless like to add my voice to the general chorus acclaiming this -- if it happens -- as a smart move. I have gotten to know New York's junior senator a bit over the years, from serving with her on an advisory panel at the U.S. Joint Forces Command, and I have found her to be serious, incisive, and nonpartisan in her approach to some of the most thorny issues confronting the U.S. military. [...] I was a bit dismayed during the Democratic primaries to see her moving to the left on a host of issues after having established a generally centrist reputation in the Senate. But I am ready to write that off as an election-year aberration. Even Joe Lieberman, after all, lurched left in 2000, when he was in the thick of national politics. And it is to Hillary's credit that she never went nearly as far left as the most rabid Democratic partisans wanted her to do. She refused, for instance, to call for an immediate pullout from Iraq (as did another possible secretary of state and onetime presidential candidate: Bill Richardson). If Obama settles on her, it will confirm the moderate tenor of his other rumored appointments. The appointment of a John Kerry or Bill Richardson would signal a disquieting move to the left."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Her selection would offer one clear advantage: she would be a clear signal that all that happy talk about wooing the world through personal charm and empathy for the world's bad actors was just fodder for the campaign. Picking her would be a vote in favor of hard-headed realism. Clinton didn't buy for a moment that tea with Raul Castro was a peachy idea, and she wasn't about to lose sleep if the U.N. didn't look favorably upon the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. And that's why many conservatives are hoping that she's the pick. Frankly, all the other likely picks are infinitely worse."

RNC: Man Of Steele, Impervious To Race Cards

Ex-MD LG Michael Steele held a conference call with conservative bloggers on Friday to discuss his bid for RNC Chairman. Steele reportedly argued that his skin color would make it more difficult for Obama to "play the race card" against him, which (according to Steele) Obama had done while competing against Clinton and McCain:

• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "Steele held himself up as an effective conservative messenger, someone who would stand up for the party's core values but be able to communicate them in non-threatening ways to audiences that have traditionally been unreceptive to Republicans. Steele criticized the McCain campaign and the GOP more generally for letting the Obama campaign 'play the race card' with impunity. Steele pointed to Obama's effectiveness against the Clintons in the primaries and also McCain's fear of raising the Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright issue in the general election. Steel argued that it would be difficult to play the race card against him. Yet he also disavowed the idea that his color (Steele, like Obama, is black) was a reason to elect him chairman of the RNC."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "Regarding bloggers, Steele said, 'we have under-utilized a tremendously valuable resource.' He also added that he's usually awake and on the internet as late as 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. [...] Steele also warned that Republicans shouldn't 'soft-pedal' our attacks on Barack Obama, 'just because the President of the United States is a Black man.' This, of course, presents the argument that Steele -- an African-American -- could be a more effective critic of Obama than could his white Republican colleagues. Responding to a follow-up question I asked him, Steele responded that 'the Obama campaign played the race card, and it worked beautifully.' He said it hurt Bill Clinton, 'tripped up Hillary Clinton,' and that it also 'stymied' John McCain because he wouldn't mention Reverend Wright. Steele argued that in taking Rev. Wright off the table, McCain surrendered the one issue that might have helped him win because 'it went to the core' of Obama's character."

Hot Air's Allahpundit doesn't buy Steele's argument: "Having him up top could reduce the Absolute Moral Authority deficit superficially, but will it really 'avoid the tedious race-card ploy'? Remember, this is a guy whom the nutroots have been known to photoshop as Sambo for the crime of being black while conservative. If anything, I suspect, electing him will feed racial politics by leading the left to frame The One as 'authentically black' vis-a-vis the Republican 'house slave' or whatever progressive witticism they've coined for him this month. Which isn't a reason to vote against Steele, needless to say: On the contrary, maybe that's the point -- to bait them and let them show off how 'enlightened' they really are. They won't be able to resist."

Meanwhile, Allahpundit's co-blogger Ed Morrissey thinks Steele has gotten off to a good start in his bid for RNC chairman: "Republicans need someone with national name recognition who can do all of that as well as reorganize the RNC, modernize its communications, and find effective candidates for Congress. The chair has to be ubiquitous, appearing everywhere and every day, making himself heard on every single issue. Only a few people already have that kind of personality, and Steele is already busily proving that he qualifies."

OBAMA: Hypocrisy We Can Believe In

Conservative bloggers are accusing Obama of hypocrisy after the Washington Post reported that "more than a dozen members of President-elect Obama's fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years":

• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "Change We Can Believe In, eh? Tell me another one. Oh, and by the way: Barack Obama is not the Messiah. He's just another politician."
• Rubin: "Welcome to reality. For some of us, the whole 'New Politics' pitch was always a canard, a cynical sales pitch. Barack Obama didn't eschew misleading ads. He didn't keep to his word on public financing. And he hasn't chased those dreaded lobbyists out of Washington. This should come as no surprise. This is how politics is done."
• Morrissey: "There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying. There is plenty wrong with hypocrisy, especially on the grand scale committed by Barack Obama during this campaign. He regularly indulged in the populist demonization of lobbyists and claimed to lead a new movement to purify Washington of their eeeeevil influences. Now that he has the power, Obama has no problem working with lobbyists for fraudulently run mortgage giants and drug makers, smear artists, and asbestos-lawsuit defenders. That's change that 63 million suckers believed in."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Does Ideology Matter?

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"American elections are by and large not referendums on ideologies. They are contests of personality, optics, and performance in office. This goes the same for when they win or we win -- whether it's 1980, 1994, or 2006/2008. The Democrats did not have to change their ideology to win; they needed to change the charisma level of their standardbearer and needed an economic crisis and a prolonged unpopular war.

Because ideology doesn't matter in elections, and so much of politics depends on ephemeral characteristics like personality and who was in when the economy cycled south, the parties paradoxically have relatively wide latitude to govern ideologically without fear of public backlash once they get in. This is why cries of 'socialism' were so ineffective during the campaign, and likewise why Bush got most of what he wanted in his early Presidency, even before 9/11. If Barack Obama is able to adopt far-left policies and make it look like he's making the trains run on time, the country will enter a new liberal era not by virtue of public opinion, but by acquiesence to what appears to be competent governance. In 1993-94, the Clintons tried to move the country to the left and looked incompetent in the process. It was the latter more than the former that opened a door for conservatives in 1994."

LEST WE FORGET: In Hindsight, It's Easy To See Where Things Started To Unravel...

From Overheard in the Office:

Event planner: Don't you think we should have background music?
Manager: That would be too expensive.
Event planner: What about just one person playing a harp?
Manager: Do you know someone?
Event planner: Yeah. I know a harpoonist.

Posted by Ian Faerstein at November 17, 2008 12:16 PM