Obama and Clinton's remarks at the introduction of his "National Security Team"

Here are the comments of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the introduction today of his "National Security Team." I will have more to say about all of them collectively and as individuals and its portent for Obama's presidency. But just for now does it bother anyone else that these appointments (Sec'y of State, Representative to the UN and Attorney General, etc.) are collectively labeled by Obama and the media as his "national security team." Many words got short shrift today, but the one that was very rarely mentioned was "Peace."



(If you are seeing this on FaceBook, please click here to see video)

Clinton for Sec'y of State? Politics still makes strange bed-fellows

Questions about Sen. Clinton as Sec'y of State may be academic at this point, if Nico Pitney, National Editor of the Huffington Post, is correct:

President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

But here are some thoughts anyway about Sen. Clinton for Sec'y of State. Rob Kall on OpEd News says:

Sorry. I don't trust her. She still wants the presidency. She is not someone who will take orders well and that's what is needed in a Secretary of state. I've said it before. The nation was offered and voted for CHANGE, not recycled Clinton people.

Alternatively, The NYT quotes one of Obama's people:

he's self-confident enough to want to send a message to the world about America and all that it can be - and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state would do that.

Some other people say that it would be good for Obama to get her out of the Senate, where, otherwise, she could play the role of gadfly. The NYT puts it this way: Both Obama and Clinton advisers say [their relationship]

is much more complex than one simply inspired by a keep-your-friends-close-and-your-enemies-closer philosophy.

Kall is correct. I too do not trust her. In 2003, she voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. In 2007, she voted to declare the Iranian Kutz Force a terrorist organization. I believe both votes were related to domestic U.S. politics not Middle Eastern reality. She is a neo-liberal interventionist. That's not "the change we need." Obama is the first 21st century leader, the first politician with a 21st century consciousness. Clinton's thinking - much like McCain and Palin - is still embedded in the 20th century. They are still fighting the Cold War.

I don't see how Obama's seeming infatuation with Clintonistas facilitates "the change we need." What is called for are new ideas not a rehash of Clinton ideas.

If Pitney is right and it was offered and she says No that might work out well. Obama will get credit for the offer and he can go on to select New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. Or he could offer it to one of my favorites Jimmy Carter, Bono or Al Gore (that's the change we need).

McClone not only echoes Bush but also Sen. Clinton

For the last few weeks I have been telling anyone who would listen that for some bizarre reason the McClone campaign was aping Hillary Clinton's hardly winning tactics. Suddenly some corporate-owned media right-wing columnists are noticing this odd phenomenon as well. On Friday in the New York Daily News two columnists linked the McClone and Clinton campaign strategies. In a piece titled "McCain's Mess: Campaign Chaos," Kirsten Powers wrote:

While Obama hobnobbed with world leaders, the McCain campaign settled on a relentless whine about media bias, interspersed with flailing attacks.

She continued:

In many ways, the McCain campaign has turned into a less functional version of Hillary Clinton's: complaining about the press, making crazy accusations about Obama, showing disarray, harping on 'experience," ridiculing "hope" and making dishonest claims about gas prices.

On the other hand, longtime-right-wing columnist, National Review editor, Rich Lowry took another tack in trying to right McClone's flailing campaign. He commented:

A McCain comeback has to begin in a deconstruction of Obama as too risky to be president.... The playbook is partly provided by Hillary Clinton, who found her voice in lunch-bucket appeals to working-class white and Hispanic voters.

He notices:

Of course, she didn't defeat Obama -- but McCain ought to be encouraged by how close she came.

Coming close ain't however winning. He didn't, of course, notice the inherent racism of appealing to "white and Hispanic voters." But he wouldn't after all. He went on to write:

For a contemporary Democrat, she ran a center-right campaign; she talked of blowing Iran to smithereens, downed shots of Crown Royal and appealed frankly to blue-collar whites. These gestures conveyed a sense of toughness that endeared Hillary to her working-class voters and highlighted a vulnerability of the polished but aloof Obama.

This is all, remember, coming from right-wing McClone supporters, who are hoping he can turn things around. Some of us have very different ideas. I would, however, make one suggestion to McClone: get Lorne Michaels to schedule a special mid-Summer edition of Saturday Night Live, so that they can all commiserate and moan about how McClone is being mistreated by the mainstream media.

Hillary pisses on history

Last night was one of the most significant moments in U.S. history - a person of color was nominated by a major political party as its presidential candidate. Remember it's been a little over 100 years since, when the Constitution was ratified in 1787 most Black men were slaves and slaves were counted as only 3/5 of a person. From ratification until the adoption of the Black Citizenship Amendment Black males were allowed to vote in only seven states (Black women,of course, couldn't vote because at the time of ratification no women could vote). Despite the 1868 amendment Black male voting didn't become a reality until Black people and some sympathetic whites fought and died for civil rights. That struggle culminated in a number of voting rights laws and the possibility of what happened yesterday, when the Democrats came one significant step closer to officially nominating Barack Obama.

I spent alot of time last night listening to the pundits pontificate on yesterday's events. Most of the discussion was, unfortunately, not about this historic moment but about "What does Hillary want?" In other words, Hillary Clinton pissed on Obama's moment, in fact she pissed on American history. That, of course, shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who has paid even slight attention to the Clinton's history. In their world everything revolves around them (currently the Senator), no one and nothing else counts unless it works for them. All those predictions that Clinton would withdraw from the nomination race with grace were based on the assumption that she is a classy human being. That's obviously not true and never has been. As always, it's all about Hillary and what she wants.

Instead of the question, "what does Hillary want?" I would ask: "what's wrong with Hillary?" It continues to be fascinating to watch the Senator and the former President blame everyone else for their mistakes. She also seems to be trying to strong arm her way on to the ticket. But, from what I've heard, many of her supporters including some people in her campaign are backing away as fast as they can from her mean-spirited speech last night.

It hasn't escaped my thoughts that her blatant attempt to force Obama to offer her the vice-presidential nomination and that if he doesn't and it undermines his campaign, she expects to benefit from his loss. I think that like most of her strategies the opposite will be the case. She will be blamed for undermining the Party.

The main thing, however, is to look forward to the next historic event: Nov. 4th and the election of the first person of color as President of the U.S.

A Black POTUS, imagine that!

Bill Clinton needs to shut up and let Hillary run her own campaign

From ABC News:

Sarah Amos reports: Former President Bill Clinton in South Dakota today delivered a harsh critique of how his wife has been treated during her presidential bid, telling the crowd that he has "never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running," and that, "she will win the general election if you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."

Clinton spent more than six minutes calmly discussing what he called a "frantic effort to push her out" of this race, saying that no one asked Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson or Gary Hart to end their presidential campaigns early. Clinton also spoke against bullying superdelegates to make up their minds, saying, "I cant believe it. It is just frantic the way they are trying to push and pressure and bully all these superdelegates to come out. 'Oh, this is so terrible: The people they want her. Oh, this is so terrible: She is winning the general election, and he is not. Oh my goodness, we have to cover this up.'"

If the former president would shut up, for a change, Sen. Clinton would get a lot more respect as a candidate in her own right. It's also interesting how easy it is to attack when you don't have to identify who the "they" are.

McSame follows Clinton's losing strategy

I have thought for a long time that McSame is following the Hillary Clinton losing strategy. Today's (Sun) New York Times reports Steve Schmidt, a senior McSame advisor, said

Mr. McCain would take tough action, part of a contrast he said they would draw with Mr. Obama for "giving great speeches" but having no record of accomplishment.

Does that sound familiar? Remember this from Clinton:

Tonight I want to talk to you about the choice you have in this election and why that choice matters. It is about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work, on hard work, to get America back to work, The best words in the world aren't enough unless you match them with action.

More thoughts on Hillary's unfortunate comment

From Andrew re: Thoughts on Hillary Clinton's assassination remark

I agree that the technicalities of Bill Clinton and Bobby Kennedy's campaigns argue against Hillary's claim, Keith Olbermann's diatribe seemed overboard. He claimed one word, though tragic, is a word that implies she is waiting for someone to assassinate this black guy. That is blatantly not true, or at least I hope it is not. She seems to really only be attempting to invoke the only democratic party's campaigns that lasted until June. The fact that one of those is one of the most tragic moments in our nation's history is not something that can be held against Hillary. She could not have said assassination, but it is a fact that Bobby was assassinated. Words are words, Bobby Kennedy was on his way to being one our country's most inspiring leaders before he was assassinated or killed or his campaign "ended"...She was trying to make a point. A thin and wishful point, but a point using facts nonetheless. To say she is invoking tragedy...is taking it a bit too far...Olbermann invoked more tragedy by going on in his report than she did.

From Dan:

Of course Olbermann's "comment" is over the top. That's Keith Olbermann. But I think much of what he has to say is worthwhile.

I don't pretend to know what's in Hillary Clinton's heart of hearts, but I do believe that as you said "words are words" and using the word "assassination" was a stupid mistake and people have to take responsibility for what they say, tired or not tired, mistake or intentional. Words once spoken have consequences. Remember that Clinton commercial about the mythical 3AM phone call? I think that we need a president who won't misuse words when it counts.

Will Clinton carry her fight to the the convention floor?

It seems more and more that Hillary Clinton is not going to stop anytime soon. In fact she may take her fight for the nomination to the Democratic convention. Here's how AirAmerica's Rachel Maddow sees it:

After the primary calendar has ended, Clinton's campaign can only justify or explain her staying in the race if she makes the case that the Democratic Party still has not chosen a nominee conclusively. Clinton needs an argument that the game should go into extra innings. Overtime. Bonus round. Detention. Whatever. Clinton has now found that argument -- she says she will not stop campaigning until the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates is settled to her satisfaction.

The Florida/Michigan issue get settled, of course, by the Democrats' Rules and Bylaws Committee... unless of course that committee's decision gets appealed to the Credentials Committee... unless of course that decision, too, gets appealed... to the floor of the convention.

As I have said before, it is her right to do exactly that. That is after all what democracy We have gotten used to the conventions being little more than an extended commercial for the party's candidate. But in the past, many conventions have actually chosen the final candidate. Of course in most of these instances there were real differences between the contenders, usually in some form of the moderate v. right-wing positions. This doesn't seem to be the case between Sens. Clinton and Obama. It seems to me that Clinton just can't give up, even though her chances are virtually non-existent. She seems more and more like Sheridan Whiteside in The Man Who Came To Dinner. She came to the party and refuses to leave, even though it's over and everyone else has gone home.

Many people are arguing that Clinton is losing the nomination because she is a woman and is being defeated by a man. Although there have certainly been instances of sexism. Perhaps the best known instance was the person, at a McSame rally who said, "How do we beat the bitch?" McSame, of course, laughed. But few reporters mention that the question was asked by a woman. The real cause of Clinton's downfall has been a terrible campaign strategy. It began with the assumption that the campaign would be a coronation rather than a nomination. In other words, she didn't have to worry about the nomination and could go right to the general election. So in 2003 she voted to give the presidential Bush the power to invade Iraq in order to show, in the words of one of her key supporters, her "testicular fortitude." This kind of decision making has brought her to the present unhappy situation.

There also seems to be quite a bit of hypocracy in her arguments. She wants to stay in the race to give everyone a chance to express their opinion. She wants to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, not because it would enhance her delegate count, but because she is the champion of democracy. Then she tells the Super Delegates: forget the delegates who were elected through the primaries, pick me because I am more electable.

One of the key questions we need to ask is: If Clinton can't even manage a political campaign, how will she run the country (from day 1)?

Anyway we can derive some solace from the fact that even Sheridan Whiteside eventually decides to leave.

Steve Sack Clinton/Obama cartoon

Steve Sack, Minnesota, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune



I thought this might amuse you.

The side-view mirror says, "Object in mirror is not as close as she thinks."

What the cartoonist doesn't say is that Clinton is staying in the race just in case the car gets into an accident.

West Virginia changes nothing for Clinton

Joe Raedle / Getty; Mark Wilson / Getty
Hillary Clinton won the West Virginia primary today by a margin of 67% to 26% with approxi- mately 97% of the vote reported. But fundamentally it changes nothing. During the next week there should be a continuing movement of Super Delegates to Obama. There are probably a number of pundit explanations as to why Clinton is continuing this farce of the primaries. But it seems to me it's primarily (pun intended) pique.

How many times have you seen a parent and child on the street, the parent wants the child to come along, and the child stands there, crying and stamping its feet? That's how I picture Hillary Clinton staying in the race. She expected an inevitable coronation from the Democratic Party and through a number of miscalculations on her campaign's part it ain't gonna happen. Now she's pissed and stamping her feet and refusing to budge.

Does that maniacal laugh that erupts from her whenever she's asked a question mean she's really lost it?

Clinton rattles her sabers at Iran

It may, at this point be beating a dead horse. The Clinton campaign may be history, but I still think it's important to check out this Keith Olbermann interview with Hillary Clinton, particularly the section on "obliterating" Iran. After all how much different is Clinton's attitude toward Iran from Bush's "axis of evil"? And we know how far that has gotten us. Do you really want someone who echoes the politics of Conn's Sen. Joseph Lieberman answering that mythical 3AM phone call? Someone who has already been rattling her sabers at countries who are only an enemy in her (and McSame/Lieberman's) mind. Also remember this was all said just before the Pennsylvania primary. Was it primarily (no pun intended, well maybe) intended to influence the Jewish vote?


(For more on Clinton and Iran, see Robert Weitzel "Hillary Clinton's 'final solution' to the Persian Problem")

Obama is today's story, Clinton is yesterday's

Ever since Tuesday's (May 6) primary results may have changed the U.S. political playing field forever most of the corporate-owned media commentators have focused on Hillary Clinton's loss. Will she or won't she? What will it take to get her out of the race? All this is important but it's not the story. The real story is much more important. It's about the first person of color to very likely become one of the two mainstream parties' presidential candidates. Now that's a hell of a story. How did a virtually unknown (outside Illinois) one-term Senator beat today's (or I guess yesterday's) most powerful political machine. But the trials and tribulations of Hillary Clinton ("The Perils of Hillary") have been getting all the press attention.

But in the middle of all this one of the two best political commentators Mike Lupica (the other is Keith Olbermann, both interestingly enough with backgrounds in sports journalism) has written something that captures an aspect of the 2008 campaign that everyone else has missed. In today's New York Daily News (May 8), he writes:

.... and it all goes on while Obama runs the closest possible thing we have seen in 40 years to the campaign Robert F. Kennedy was never allowed to finish in 1968.

Of course, before this amazing insight, he does talk about Clinton, but even then with greater truth than most of his colleagues:

She stays in the race now for the worst possible reasons, hoping that there is some new bogeyman like Wright around the corner and Obama will somehow break down in the stretch like a fragile racehorse.

It is the Clinton version of the politics of hope....

I don't think that's the person we want answering the mythical 3AM phone calls, or at any other time for that matter. All the stories about Obama not being able to win the match fell by the wayside last Tuesday night.

(Also see the Kos on the Lupica piece)

Media buoys Clinton chances

I think this brief discussion on the Democratic race, which took place before the results of yesterday's Pennsylvania primary were known, highlights the negative role the media has played. It's between Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann. Although they don't actually say it, I think that the media has played this role because they need a good story to get ratings, they really don't care about democracy. (video first posted on YouTube)

Media makes much of little in PA

From America Blog
Hillary gets only small delegate bump from PA
by John Aravosis (DC)

As predicted, Pennsylvania changed nothing. Obama still leads Hillary by 131 delegates overall,and 156 pledged (not "super") delegates:
NBC News has allocated so far a 75-65 split for Clinton out of Pennsylvania;
18 delegates are not allocated yet.

With that, Obama now leads by 156 pledged delegates: 1,482-1,326.

Our superdelegate total is Clinton 262, Obama 237.

In all, Obama now leads by 131 overall: 1,719-1,588.

Super Tuesday. What Now?

Although I would much rather talk about Super Sunday, it seems clear that we have to shift our gaze to the aftermath of that other media-hyped super day: super Tuesday.

As we watch the Republican candidates (almost surely at this point John "I don't know much about the economy" McCain) move further and further to the right to please the Limbaugh wing of the party. Watch them cowtow to the Conservative Political Action Committee this weekend. I think McCain will probably pick extreme right-wing Huckelberry (as my friend Bert calls him) as his running mate. Although it's interesting to watch McCain hold a live press conference with right-wing independent(?) Joe Lieberman (possibly the perennial vice-presidential candidate) peering over his shoulder. Is Romney taking today off to talk to his family (about how much of their inheretance he should spend to tilt at windmills) a portent of dropping out? We now have to figure out how progressives (Democrat or independent) should relate to the two Democratic candidates left standing - Clinton and Obama.

The first thing we have to understand is that they are both politicians and therefore will do whatever they have to do to get elected. Try this on for size: Sam Stein reports on The Huffington Post:

Risking the ire of progressive activists, Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign announced that it has accepted a debate to air on Fox News on February 11, according to her chief strategist Mark Penn. (for more on this)

We have to make it clear that they have to attend to progressive issues if they want our votes. It seems to me that the big mistake progressives often make is to tie our movement to a particular candidate - in other words, to reify electoral politics at the expense of the progressive movemement, to commit ourselves without getting what we need for our support.

A very good friend and comrade has said in an e-mail he sent out explaining his decision to vote for Clinton, even at the expense of angering his Obama-supporting family: "I remain deeply skeptical about Obama and voted for Clinton," he writes. Although I share his skepticism about Obama's tendency to paper over deep and abiding divisions (class conflicts?) within this society. But I don't quite follow the conclusion that voting for Clinton better speaks to these differences. Is she more sensetive to these real differences than is Obama? I think not.

In the same e-mail he questions some progressives who are

very happy that Obama's campaign is bringing young people into electoral politics. I too applaud this altho I do not think that the core issues our society faces can be basically addressed in the electoral or legislative arena. I am only slightly overstating the case when I say that a pre-occupation with electoral politics can draw attention away from more substantive, core, socio-economic issues. I realize that there is some overlap between the two. Participation in electoral politics is by no means an error in and of itself.

The real question it seems to me is why should we applaud young people being brought into electoral politics as individuals rather than as part of a movement that can confront the candidates and say, "if you don't share our values, why should we vote for you?" Drawing young people into electoral politics is exactly what, I think, legitimates a Nader or other small party candidacy.

Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America put it this way this morning on Democracy Now:

the challenge for the progressive movement and the peace and justice movement is to come off the sidelines and continue in this effort to hold the Clinton machine back, to hold back this election to make sure that we get a full accounting of all of the primaries and caucuses, and to try to make Barack Obama a better candidate.

The key, I think, is that we need to do this as a movement not as a bunch of individuals relating to different candidates.

Tom Hayden says about the participation of the peace movement in the electoral process:

hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of voters will make up their minds on which of the candidates is best on ending the Iraq war with little involvement by peace activists in the debate.
There are differences that matter between Clinton and Obama, not as great as between the Democrats and McCain, but significant nonetheless. They are these:

1.Obama favors a 16-18 month timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops. Clinton favors “immediately” convening the Joint Chiefs to draft a plan to “begin” drawing down U.S. troops, but with no timetable for completing the withdrawal.
2.Obama opposed the measure authorizing Bush to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, widely regarded as an escalating step towards another war. Clinton voted for the authorization.
3.Obama opposed the 2002 authorization for war that Clinton voted for. Clinton still calls that decision a “close call” and refuses to say it was a mistaken vote.

It’s true that both candidates support leaving thousands of 'residual' American troops behind for a likely counterinsurgency conflict that we should all oppose. Peace activists should demand a shift to peace diplomacy beginning with a U.S. commitment to end the occupation and withdraw all troops.

This is, of course, the point: do we applaude bringing people into electoral politics as individuals or as part of a larger and thereby stronger movement?

Bill Fletcher of The Black Commentator also said on this morning's Democracy Now:

while it’s true that many younger people have been inspired and motivated to the Obama campaign and have been prepared to put race aside in certain respects, we should keep in mind that the Obama campaign has not exactly made racial justice central programmatically to its campaign. So while people may have—or may be prepared to ignore the fact or accept the fact that Obama is black and they’re prepared to vote for him, that’s very different than having a discussion about race.

That's it for now. We could say much the same about the environmental movement, health care, the economy, but ultimately the question is about the dialectic between the progressive movement and the political process. If we jump on a bandwagon too soon we will have no effect on the outcome, but if we stay out of the process we will slso have no effect. You know, they say you gotta be in it to win it, but if you jump in too soon with too much, soon you'll be gambling away the rent.