Obama's early stumbles
The errors are not serious, though the Hillary Clinton conflicts with Bill's donors could make problems at State. These blips underscore how difficult it is to shift from campaigning smartly to governing well.
The country badly wants and needs to turn a page when President-elect Barack Obama is sworn into office on January 20, and I remain highly optimistic that his temperament and intelligence will lead to successful governance. Small blips are beginning to turn up, however, which should remind us that he is relatively inexperienced and that it is one thing to pursue a consistent, successful campaign strategy and another to pursue consistent, successful governing.
I noted earlier this week the Clinton-like Obama response to inquiries about his or his staff's contacts regarding his successor as U.S. Senator from Illinois with embattled Gov. Rod Blagojovich. Rather than simply stating, right away, that neither he nor his staff had engaged in hanky panky with the governor, Obama promised an exhaustive survey of his staff's contacts, to be followed by a report. Still no report (though it is expected early this coming week). In the meantime, it turns out that his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel may have had multiple, unspecified contacts with Blagojovich or his staff. Not a good portent.
The release Thursday of the list of foreign and other contributors to former President Bill Clinton's foundation reaffirmed what experienced politicos expected — namely, that Clinton not only was pulling down big honoraria and fees from such sources but, additionally, was shaking the tree for foundation contributions. Will Secretary of State-designee Hillary Clinton be compromised by these contributions?
It can be argued that the donations took place in the past (though dates for the gifts were not supplied by Clinton) and need not affect her now. On the other hand, imagine that your spouse or partner had pulled down millions from such sources — and might still be pulling them down — and that your job entailed making decisions which involved their interests. It is hard to argue that Hillary has not already been compromised. It still remains to be seen, moreover, if Obama is insisting that he have personal approval of her principal appointees at State. In the past, Hillary has carried with her a claque. If she does so at State, their first impulse will be to pursue her interests rather than the President's.
Also, Obama appears not to fully appreciate the land mines that await his Attorney General nominee, Eric Holder, in his confirmation hearings. Holder, as Deputy AG in the Clinton administration, managed the last-minute pardons and commutations in the outgoing President's final hours in office. These included the one for fugitive financier Marc Rich. None were cleared with the FBI or the prosecutors involved in the cases. Many, including the one for Rich, just plain stank. The Democratic Senate majority is sufficient to confirm Holder, but the confirmation process will put at center stage some questionable activity by the man Obama is putting in place as the country's principal law enforcement official. Holder's position will have been compromised before he begins.
Obama's financial/economic policy appointees have been strong. His appointments of Bob Gates and General Jim Jones at Defense and the National Security Council also are excellent. The remainder of his Cabinet, it turns out, is being appointed mainly for political, regional, ethnic, and other balance. There is no surprise in this: second-tier Cabinet appointments traditionally are made this way. "Change" might have dictated appointments based more greatly on demonstrated competence in the policy areas in question. But there are no obvious losers or incompetents on the list. One commentator remarked that no gays had yet been given Cabinet appointments. Homeland Security Secretary-designee Janet Napolitano, however, has lived with her gay partner in Arizona for several years and is presumed by her home-staters to be gay. But she was appointed for her competence and not her sexual orientation which, in any case, should be considered irrelevant.
I was jolted as much as anyone else Thursday when Obama announced that evangelist Rick Warren would deliver a prayer at the inaugural. Obama explained the choice of Warren, who opposes abortion and gay marriage, as an example of reaching out. (Another prayer will be delivered by the Rev. Joseph Lowry of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a major figure for years in the country's spiritual and political life). Warren, who presided over a Obama-McCain televised debate during the campaign season, has a huge following among voters Obama would like to secure. Yet Warren has a background common to many populist evangelists: no actual divinity degree, false claims of involvement in Third World charity, and so on. If "reaching out" were sought, why not offer the role to a Catholic, Jewish, or mainstream Protestant religious figure?
None of these things constitutes a fatal stumble. But they do underscore the fact that our promising new President is still finding his way and, additionally, is not getting the kind of objective, professional advice from his White House staff that he received from his campaign staff.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Dec 19, 5:26 p.m. inappropriate
Good analysis as always. I've listened to and read about Holder's involvement - unclear how deeply he vetted the pardons being pusshed out the door as Clinton departed the Oval office.
If Holder doesn't put the DOJ back on a sound footing after Ashcroft and Gonzales, then we are in for an unfortunate ride - though perhaps with different consequences.
It's hard to imagine that Obama would sanction the liberties taken by Bush's appointees in the areas of torture, civil liberties and tying employment to loyalty-before-ethics/justice. So, we will have to keep our fingers crossed.
Posted Fri, Dec 19, 5:31 p.m. inappropriate
My goodness, how silly this piece is. I think you come under the thrird category in the title of your book. Looks like you reached your appropriate skill level a while ago and now you look rather silly swimming with others in your speedo in a pool your talents do not support.
Posted Fri, Dec 19, 5:55 p.m. inappropriate
I don't argue with your analysis, Ted, but I think it's valuable to try to keep things in perspective.
Here's a tool I try to apply, when confronted with an assertion that someone is not doing as well as he or she should: "Compared to what?" or alternatively, "Compared to whom?"
We do not live in a perfect world. Granted, Obama's campaign and his pre-inauguration decisions have set a high standard, but expecting perfection, 100% of the time, is both foolish and presumptuous. For one thing, it discourages decisions that are courageous and controversial (when that may well be exactly what is needed).
But it's also self-aggrandizing, because the critic sets himself up as the ultimate arbiter (based, one assumes, on his own perfection) - which is truly absurd.
I say, let the proof be in the pudding.
You don't like Obama choosing Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama's inaugural; I think it shows Obama's courage, and a commitment to walking the talk of his commitment to inclusion, rather than exclusion.
You mention Bill Clinton's donors, implying Hillary's inability to separate what's best for her country from what's best for Bill library - equally absurd; I think it shows Hillary's understanding, and Obama's insistence, that such matters be open for discussion, not hidden behind a wall of anonymity.
You criticize Obama's response to the Blagojavitch scandal. I say, let him release his report next week, before condemning his response.
Strong people will always draw criticism, and that's as it should be, because our leaders must be accountable to those who elected them. Fortunately, the truly strong don't mind; they know it goes with the territory, and they aren't threatened by hearing strong opinions that may not jibe 100% with their own - they, in fact, welcome them (unlike, say, our current president - there's a prime example of using the "compared to whom?" tool I mentioned.
We can all afford to step back for a moment when we're tempted to point out shortcomings, ask ourselves, "Compared to what?" "Compared to whom?
Try it. Like me, I think you'll find it enlightening.
Posted Fri, Dec 19, 7:41 p.m. inappropriate
Thanks for your comments. As you may know, I strongly supported Obama's nomination and election. But it does no one service to suspend critical faculties---especially when it is all too easy in the White House to be
insulated from objective views.
It is not a matter of someone being strong or weak. It is a matter of
continuing Obama's effort toward a more ethical and open governance.
Bill and Hillary Clinton did not readily volunteer to release the financial data in question. It happened only after long negotiation and pressure and a drawing up by Obama's counsel of precisely those things
Bill Clinton would and would not do in the event Hillary became Secy of State.
I do not set myself up as ultimate arbiter of anything. I do, however,
express informed opinions about matters with which I am familiar. I have served in a couple Democratic administrations and in several Democratic national campaigns and transitions. I also know personally many of the people about whom I write. So I am not making 3,000-mile-away judgments on horseback. What I try to do, always, is provide information and, possibly, insights which will help readers better understand what is going on and why. Readers need not agree with my observations or conclusions.
But they are offered in good faith, for the taking or leaving.
Posted Fri, Dec 19, 9:13 p.m. inappropriate
Given your continual negative coverage of the Clintons in this space and ongoing suggestions that her nomination should be derailed, it is difficult to take anything you say about them seriously. If Hillary is so compromised (and apparently unable to made decisions independent of her husband), why did she speak out against the Dubai Ports deal while Bill was advising the United Arab Emirates side?
Posted Sat, Dec 20, 6:34 a.m. inappropriate
A response to Lloth8's comment: I was pleased that Hillary spoke out against the Dubai Ports deal while her husband was advising the UAE side.
But why, as a former President with a wife who was a Senator and Presidential candidate, was he advising the UAE side in the first place?
Was he a registered foreign agent for the UAE, as required by law in such instances? No.
I believe Obama was nominated in the first place because, in large part, a huge percentage of the people participating in Democatic primaries and caucuses wanted change not only from the Bush but the Clinton years.
I have known and observed Bill Clinton for many years. I helped him get started on a political career in 1971. He is an immensely talented politician who had great potential for achievement. But his tenures as an Arkansas governor, President and ex-President all have been tarnished by repeated crossings of ethical boundaries.
Hillary Clinton is another person. She lacks Bill's political instincts but has an intense work ethic and a desire to attack big problems. From the time of their marriage, however---and until her emergence as an independent Presidential candidate in her own right---she lived within her husband's political context, which often was gamey. I found myself rooting for her often in the 2008 campaign season, although I supported Obama for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as she was forced to pull her campaign out of problems Bill's actions had created.
As I have written in Crosscut and elsewhere, I believe both Obama's and her own interests would have been best served by her continuing service as a Senator from New York and independent national figure. Foreign policy issues, in particular, require a sense of nuance and ambiguity that
Hillary has not often exhibited. Now she has locked herself into a role
for which she is less suited than that of a powerful legislative leader, working across a full range of foreign and domestic issues. Obama, still relatively new to foreign policy, now has a principal foreign-policy appointee who also is not deeply experienced in the field.
No matter what written understandings may have been required in advance, Bill Clinton will remain Bill Clinton---which means he will continue to conduct himself in a free-wheeling manner while seeking the limelight.
That is who he is and he will not change after a lifetime of being himself. This is baggage which Hillary Clinton, and Obama, should not be forced to carry. Even if conflicts of interest to do not arise, they will be perceived as arising and motives for decisions questioned. This is baggage which neither the President nor Secy of State should have to carry.
I also mentioned the fact that Hillary's instinct will be to establish an independent power base at State. This should not be shocking. It happens all the time in national government...and often results in one or more Cabinet members battling each other and even, at times, acting in a way which does not serve the President well.
My estimation of Hillary Clinton rose during her 2008 campaign. I will be pleased if she proves to be a successful Secy of State. But her appointment may have been a mistake both for her and Obama.
Posted Sat, Dec 20, 9:15 a.m. inappropriate
Would Rick Warren be my choice at my (gods forbid) inauguration? No. But I think it makes sense for Obama. I think he's trying to walk the walk of changing political discourse.
The new paradigm assumes that political allies can differ, and that common ground can be found with people with whom you fundamentally disagree. Purity litmus tests are out. I think the Warren choice advances this in two ways. One, Obama's giving prime time to someone with whom he disagrees on gay/civil rights. Two, he's reaching out to a large evangelical community that has been a huge part of the political discourse melt-down with their hellfire and damnation approach to liberals. He's attempting to encourage a transformation of their political engagement--a post-Robertson, post-Falwell view.
If evangelicals can engage with liberals on issues of poverty and the environment, for example, they can be important allies in these areas. So turn this on its head a bit: the question isn't why did Obama pick Warren, but why is Warren accepting the invitation? It's a powerful statement about his desire to lead evangelical Christians in a new direction by not demonizing liberals. And it's a part of an important, generational transformation within the evangelical community itself.
Posted Sat, Dec 20, 10:26 a.m. inappropriate
I think Obama will have a very long honeymoon. After all the rancour of the last eight years all but the most partisan Republicans want Obama to succeed. There may continue to be scandal seepage from Chicago, but unless it gets really serious and directly tied to Obama himself, people just don't want to hear it. They are sick of hyperpartisan gotcha politics.
The problem, however,is how do you define success? Conservatives will never support Obama. If Obama continues along his current moderate DLC path how long will liberals remain patient?
For the middle, it will be all about events. If the economy gets better, and international events don't get worse, Obama will be judged a success by non-ideological voters and he will be easy re-elected.
Most importantly, how do I get one of those cool keyboards next to my posts?
Posted Sat, Dec 20, 2:24 p.m. inappropriate
My last and final comment in this exchange, which has been useful.
Obama's most successful appeal, in the nominating and general-election races, was the one to put aside partisan and ideological rancor in order to address big problems together. Thus "reaching out" is very important for him and for the country.
I mentioned the Hillary and Holder appointments as being questionable because, in part, they carry with them baggage from a former administration which operated in a highly-partisan, sometimes polarizing way. I questioned the Rick Warren selection because it seemed to me not the right kind of reaching out. What if Obama had selected Al Sharpton rather than the Rev. Joseph Lowry to make the other prayer? Or the Rev. Wright? Lowry is serious and respected and his message resonates with all Americans. Warren could be compared to Sharpton and Wright because his
bona fides are in question. Background research indicates some of his claims about himself are false. He has taken positions which are just plain offensive to millions of Americans; some of them were expressed in a cable-news interview Friday night. That is why I suggested a respected
religious leader from the Jewish, Catholic or mainstream Protestant communities might be a better way to reach out. It is important to reach out. It also is important not to legitimize would-be leaders who do not deserve it. Anyway, long live reaching out and an end to polarization.
Posted Sun, Dec 21, 1:47 a.m. inappropriate
Ted,
You are a great writer when you are lambasting light rail at every opportunity.