Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Five Ways that Obama Should NOT Emulate Lincoln

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s identification with Abraham Lincoln.  Obama choose a line from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address – “A New Birth of Freedom” — as the theme for his own inauguration speech.  He took his oath of office on Lincoln’s personal bible.

And like Lincoln, Obama has attempted to create a “team of rivals,” placing former opponents from within his party, such as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as well as Republicans, at the center of power in his administration.

lincoln-obama1

Of course, Lincoln makes a powerful role model for any president, especially in troubled times.

But there are at least five ways in which Obama should not follow Lincoln’s example, and five corresponding ways in which Lincoln should serve Obama as an example of what not to do.

First, do not believe that you can succeed by compromising with those who are set to destroy you.

Like most moderates on the issue of slavery, and unlike the radicals and abolitionists, Lincoln believed that his enemies in the slave-holding South were reasonable men and that he could hold the Union together by compromise.  Although he abhorred slavery, he promised not to emancipate the slaves by force.

Instead, Lincoln held to a policy of gradually ending slavery by containing it within the slave states (and prohibiting it within the new federal territories) and by offering compensated emancipation (along with the removal of freed slaves to Africa) over a period of many years.

The South didn’t buy it – they saw Lincoln as a far more radical and dangerous opponent of slavery than he was – and were unwilling to engage in any compromise themselves.  They had prepared for war and attacked the Union as soon as Lincoln was elected.

Second,  do not fail to prepare for all-out war with your opponents.

Because Lincoln believed that he could win over the slave-holders with a policy of gradualism and compromise, he failed to prepare, as his enemies had, for all-out war  As a result, the first years of the Civil War were a near disaster for Lincoln and the Union.

Third, do not allow yourself to be pressured into making a bad appointment to the Supreme Court.

Lincoln’s first appointment to the Court was Noah Haynes Swayne.  Swayne was a close friend of Supreme Court justice John McLean, who had issued a stirring dissent in the Dred Scott case and was a powerful force in the new Republican Party.  McLean had tried twice for the party’s presidential nomination and was probably instrumental in rallying Republican support for Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election.  When McLean died in April 1861, Lincoln appointed Swayne to take his place, largely on McLean’s recommendation, as well as intense lobbying by Republican members of Congress, railroads, and banks. Swanye wrote little for the Court and is remembered today mostly for his support for the broad expansion of legal privileges for corporations.

Fourth, don’t change vice-presidents.

Lincoln’s first vice-president was Hannibal Hamlin, a senator from Maine.  Hamlin was a staunch opponent of slavery and was supported by the more radical Republicans and abolitionists. For his second presidential election campaign, Lincoln picked a new running mate, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee.  While little is known for certain about the reason Lincoln decided to replace Hamlin with Johnson, the decision was probably made with the hope that a Southern vice-president would help unify the nation at the conclusion of the war.  Johnson, of course, went on to allow the slave-holders and racists in the defeated South to regain power and effectively re-enslave Black people for another hundred years.

Fifth, do not grow a beard.

It worked for Lincoln.  It won’t work for Barack Obama.

My Vote for Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

It appears that New York Governor David Paterson is going to select Kirsten Gillibrand, a second term member of Congress from the 20th Congressional District, to take Hillary Clinton’s place in the U.S. Senate.

gillibrand

If he does so, it’ll be a great choice.

Gillibrand is young (born in December 1966), smart (she graduated magna cum laude from Dartmouth, went to UCLA Law School, and clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit), and a powerful campaigner (she is the first Democrat to represent her overwhelmingly Republican district in thirty years).

She is also from upstate New York, which currently has no representation in either the U.S. Senate or the executive branch of New York state government.

And she is only the sixth Member of Congress to have a baby while in office (she received a standing ovation on the floor of the House from her colleagues for working right up to the day she gave birth).

Gillibrand’s initial election to Congress in 2006 was somewhat of a fluke.  Her Republican opponent was four-term Congressman John Sweeney, a rising Republican star with a seat on the Appropriations Committee, who had never had a serious reelection challenge.  But during the campaign, Sweeney was linked to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and forced to admit to domestic violence against his wife.  Gillibrand won the election with 53 percent of the vote.

Immediately following her improbable election, Republican challengers appeared, including Richard Wagner, an aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg with financial backing from Wall Street, and Alexander (“Sandy”) Treadwell, a former chair of the state Republican Party.  Gillibrand eventually defeated Treadwell in a landslide, 69 percent to 31 percent.

As would be expected from a representative from a Republican and rural district, Gillibrand is more conservative on some issues, such as gun control, than many of her Democratic colleagues.  But she has never voted contrary to the Democratic majority and is a strong supporter of middle class tax cuts, ending the spying abuses of the Bush adminstration, ending the war in Iraq, repealing tax cuts to oil companies, reducing the interest rate on student loans, and reforming health care.

Kirsten Gillibrand would make a great senator — and be a powerful addition to the Democratic Party’s arsenal of smart, young, and tremendously appealling advocates in future national campaigns.

UPDATE

The New York Times reports that Governor Paterson has, in fact, selected Kirsten Gillibrand as the new United States Senator from New York.

Winners and Losers 2008

Here is a list of winners and losers for 2008.

palin-fail

As befits a year in which the economy collapsed and wars dragged on, the list of losers is longer than the list of winners.

Two names made the list of both winners and losers.

Feel free to add or subtract names and to add commentary.

The year isn’t over, so the list may change.

Winners

Barack Obama
Michelle Obama
Hillary Clinton
Rachel Maddow
Pixar
Bankruptcy lawyers
Facebook
Robert Gates
Jonas Brothers
Bill Ayers
Heather Mills
Sarah Palin
Democrats
Beyoncé
Harrison Ford
Joe Biden
Robert Downey, Jr.
The Taliban
Mexican drug cartels
Prisons
AIG
Lawrence Summers
David Axelrod
Rahm Emanuel
Paul Volker
Vladimir Putin
Tom Daschle
John Podesta
Britney Spears
Keith Olbermann
C.C. Sabbathia
Philadelphia Phillies
Brett Farve
will.i.am
Eli Manning
Bank of America
Christopher Buckley
Walmart
Mark Begich
Muntadhar al-Zaidi
Somali pirates
Guy Ritchie
Emo vampires
Carla Bruni
Google
Tom Udall
Mark Udall
John Kerry
Al Gore
Kay Hagan
Mickey Rourke
Mike Huckabee
Jeff Merkley
Michael Phelps
Jason Lezak
Heath Ledger
Rafael Nadal
Repo Men
Global warming
Handguns

Losers

OJ Simpson
Bernard L. Madoff
Anthony Pellicano
George W. Bush
John McCain
Republicans
Alan Greenspan
Realtors
Iraq
Paul McCartney
Newspapers
Local television
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
William J. Jefferson
Circuit City
Lehman Brothers
Detroit
John Edwards
Myspace
Steve Schmidt
Chinese milk
Star Wars
Yahoo
Wachovia Corp.
Washington Mutual
Karl Rove
Sam Zell
Richard H. Davis
U.S. Automakers
The South
Mortgage brokers
Ben Bernanke
Henry Paulson
Same Sex Marriage
Merrill Lynch
Book publishers
Airlines
Homeland Security
Rush Limbaugh
The Fed
Britney Spears
Rod Blagojevich
Scooter Libby
Bill Clinton
Jeremiah Wright
Mitt Romney
Jesse Jackson
Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Las Vegas
California
Arnold Schwartzeneggar
Eliot Spitzer
Gordon Smith
Raffaello Follieri
Workers
Sarah Palin
Ted Stevens
Washington Mutual
Yeshiva University
Africa
India
Bill O’Reilly
New York Mets
Plaxico Burress
Broadway
Phil Gramm
Museum of Modern Art (MOCA) Los Angeles
Mikheil Saakashvili
Christopher Cox
Joe Lieberman
Jewish charities
Public schools
Community colleges
John E. Sununu
Elizabeth Dole
Miley Cyrus
Countrywide
Angelo Mozilo
Max Mosley
Kwame Kilpatrick
Heath Ledger
Roger Clemens
Baytown, Texas
Galveston Island, Texas
Missouri
The Bill of Rights

Rush Limbaugh Offers New Hope for Progressives Nervous about Obama’s Cabinet

Rush Limbaugh, of all people, has offered renewed hope to progressives, such as Frank Rich, Tim Carpenter and others, who are nervous about the centrism of Barack Obama’s cabinet picks.

limbaughpig

According to Limbaugh, Obama’s centrist cabinet selections are merely a smoke screen for his plans to radically reconstruct America along progressive economic and social lines and finish the job that Franklin D. Roosevelt started in his New Deal.

Forget about the middle-of-the-roaders, recycled Clintonistas and (even) Republicans in Obama’s cabinet, Limbaugh says.  What Obama means to do is lead America to a new, bigger and more sweeping New Deal that will embrace and revitalize the progressive governmental activism of the early years of the Roosevelt administration.

To this end, Limbaugh insists that Obama actually wants the economic crisis to get worse before he takes office.  That’s why, and not because of an abstract belief that America has only one president at a time, Limbaugh says, Obama has not moved more forcefully to influence economic policy prior to his inauguration.  Limbaugh claims that Obama figures that the more desperate the country’s economic crisis, the easier it will be for him to achieve his goal of transforming the government into an engine of progressive economic and social activism.

What Limbaugh suggests is that Obama is planning on a progressive version of Naomi Klein’s “shock doctrine” of disaster capitalism, in which “‘only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change’.  When that crisis occurs, the actions taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. Some people stockpile canned goods and water in preparation for major disasters; [Milton] Friedmanites stockpile free-market ideas. And once a crisis has struck, the University of Chicago professor was convinced that it was crucial to act swiftly, to impose rapid and irreversible change before the crisis-racked society slipped back into the ‘tyranny of the status quo’. ”

Except that in this instance, it won’t be conservatives and Friedmanites who are employing the disaster capitalism shock doctrine, but progressives.

The irony, of course, is that it was the use of the shock doctrine of disaster capitalism (in the Reagan years and beyond) — in which corporations systematically exploited the state of fear and disorientation that accompanies shock and crisis to remove regulations and government oversight of their activities — that produced the economic mess were in now.

Another way to look at Limbaugh’s argument it is that Obama is using the current economic crisis as his own 9-11, hoping that the fear generated by economic disaster will force his opponents to capitulate to fundamental changes that in other, safer times they would have obdurately refused to accept.

Thanks, Rush.

I hope you’re right.

Hillary Clinton Isn’t a Foreign Policy Issue — What We Should Really Care About

Does it matter whether Hillary Clinton is Barack Obama’s secretary of state?

Who is the secretary of state is far less important than the question of Obama’s foreign policy — and I’m not sure that I know what that is, even in general, at this point.

As far I as I can figure, Obama isn’t very far from Bush on most foreign policy issues (without, hopefully, the stupidity) and that concerns me far more than whether Hillary Clinton should be secretary of state.

During the course of the campaign, as the economy became the focus of debate, questions about foreign policy receded.  Even so, Obama seemed to me to move closer to Bush on a wide range of foreign policy issues, from the war in Afghanistan to support for the territorial claims of the current regime in Georgia. 

Overall, Obama maintained a fuzzy “feel good” foreign policy stand with vague bromides such as “secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists” (who is in favor of loose nukes?), “direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran” (who doesn’t want to end the threat from Iran?) “rebuild our alliances” (anyone against that?) and “renew American diplomacy” (okay, but how?).

Aside from the still unresolved question of what Obama will do to end the war in Iraq, these questions concern me:

Will Obama continue the Bush policy of deploying missiles in Eastern Europe despite the threat such missiles pose to the Russians?

Will Obama put teeth in the U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory?

How will Obama work with Mexico and other countries to reduce illegal immigration and reduce drug traffic into the U.S.?

How will Obama seek to change NAFTA and CAFTA?

What countries should be admitted in NATO?

What should the U.S. or the U.N. do about the ongoing genocide in Darfur?

What should the U.S. do about the many other disasters now taking place in Africa (Somalia, Congo, Zimbabwe)?

The list, of course, could (and should) be expanded.

The fact is that we don’t know the answers to these questions.

When we’re talking about Obama’s foreign policy, these are the questions we should be discussing, not whether Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) should get the corner office in the state department.