Clinton

A picture of Barack Obama's cabinet is starting to emerge, and it is not pleasing his more left-wing supporters. Some of them were already unhappy about the appointment of Clintonites like Rahm Emmanuel. Now, the New York Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton will almost certainly become Secretary of State. That is disturbing for some Obama supporters, who were told during the primaries that her foreign policy views disqualified her from the nomination.How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.

The significance of the transition period for an incoming presidential administration cannot be overstated: not only does it offer the opportunity for the President-elect to identify the priorities within his or her legislative and policy agenda for the forthcoming term, but it also represents the first true test of managerial acumen at the highest governmental level; just ask Bill Clinton, who endured a number of early and largely self-inflicted blows to his executive authority as a result of tardy mobilization and ill-judged selections for his supporting cast (cf. Zoe Baird).

As such, the actions of the Obama transition team in the coming weeks should not be observered merely for the sake of palace intrigue. Instead, like a candidate's general election campaign, transition offers a fleeting glimpse as to how well prepared a future Obama administration is to meet the challenges ahead, while at the same time acting as a rough indicator as to what the President-elect's advisers believe are the key issues that need to be addressed internally between now and January 20th 2009. Over the brief but fervent period of time that has elapsed since Obama's electoral victory, I would suggest that the following has rung true:

Bill Clinton's much anticipated speech yesterday at the Democratic National Convention went far in banishing the memory of his dismal behaviour during the primary contest. For all his growing faults, the former president remains a superb speaker. Clinton found the right balance of hard and soft, comfortably quoting the statistical evidence of the damage wrought by the Bush administration while lifting the crowd with brighter sentiment and memorable lines. Most soundbyte-able was this turn of phrase: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example, than by the example of our power." Clinton insisted that Obama was the right kind of leader to set a proper example in an increasingly multicultural, globalised world, and that he was "ready" to be president. Perhaps Clinton spoke through gritted teeth, but whatever; this is politics, and words matter.

Full speech in video below.

In Britain's Sunday papers, two of Washington's leading journalists pen very different obituaries for the Clintons. Michael Crowley, an editor at The New Republic and frequent blogger, fills the Observer with a long, intimate portrait of Bill and Hillary's rise and fall. The emphasis is on their resilience, and though Crowley says that the nomination may have slipped out of Hillary's hands, he concedes that the "impossible" will never be far beyond the reach of the Clintons.

In stark contrast, Andrew Sullivan sweeps the Clintons aside in his Sunday Times column. The Atlantic editor and blogger can't wait to move on to the upcoming clash between Barack Obama and John McCain:

As the Clintons fade ungraciously away, the emergence of these two from the dust of an astonishingly vivid and endless primary campaign comes to me, at least, as a massive relief. These two men are easily the best each party has to offer, the two most capable of talking to the other side: serious, decent, principled figures with, of course, their fair share of political shading.

Which is to say, "out with the old and in with the new." Hillary Clinton's downfall lies not her first name - her gender - but her last, laden with history - alternately triumphant and thorny perhaps, but history nonetheless. Her critics suggest she is not as equipped to remake the US in the 21st century as Obama is. The skulking tactics of much of her campaign reaffirm the impression that she is a politician as familiar with the mud as with the sun. Efforts to tar Obama by association (to Wright, Ayers, etc) will probably prove futile. Most Democrats want to look forward to a less blemished America of Obama rather than remember the America, and the politics, of the Clintons.

Following our posts in recent days on race in the Appalachian primary contests, this al-Jazeera video offers a glimpse of the kind of obstacles that lie before a politics that seeks to transcend race.

Is this selective demonisation? How easy is it to exaggerate the pitch of racist passions in the impoverished corners of Appalachia?

The Jack and Jill Politics blog takes issue with Hillary Clinton's tactics in Florida, whose delegates she's trying to sneak into the convention. She equates her efforts in the state to those of "abolitionists, suffragists and civil rights activists" and she likens the electoral situation there to that in Zimbabwe.

Politico.com breaks down the key factors that will shape today's primary in Kentucky. Will John Edwards' endorsement swing working-class white voters towards Barack Obama? Or will racism once again rear its ugly head?

Obama is likely to win in more liberal-minded Oregon, buttressing his unassailable mathematic march to the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton is hoping for a lop-sided victory in Kentucky - a week after her 41 point triumph in West Virginia - that would further strengthen the case against Obama's "electability". But even if Obama were to fall staggeringly short once more in an Appalachian state, it is hardly a guarantee that Clinton - much maligned amongst Republican voters - would fare any better when facing McCain in November.

Yesterday evening, in the dark and faintly musty basement of the Kensington Library in west London, openUSA attended a fascinating lecture on "anomalistic psychology" - the psychology of belief in the unreal - hosted by the Society for Psychical Research.

We learned, amongst other fun facts, that one out of four Americans believes in ghosts. This quarter of the population presumably doesn't include the pro-Clinton group American Leadership Project, whose new TV spot in Oregon makes no mention of Obama, suggesting that the ALP doesn't want to cause any further Democratic disunity. Even many of Clinton's supporters don't think her campaign can return from the grave.

We also learned that one out of ten Americans believes they have spoken with the devil. Obama may aspire to join this sizable ten percent as he continues to insist on negotiating with Iran's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But god-fearing George W Bush and his anointed Republican successor John McCain won't have anything to do with fiendish interlocutors. Speaking in the Knesset yesterday, Bush equated Obama to Neville Chamberlain, Iran to Nazi Germany, and diplomacy and statecraft to that object of neo-con disdain: "appeasement". McCain piggy-backed on the president's craven fear-mongering, prompting sharp retorts from both the Obama camp and Hillary Clinton.

Bush comes out of this looking particularly foolish. Never mind that Iran's nuclear threat is grossly exaggerated (a fact supported by the latest national intelligence estimate). Never mind that evidence of Iran's aggression in Iraq and the Persian Gulf is highly dodgy (indeed, the UK Foreign Office has even conceded it was in the wrong over the detention of British sailors last year). Never mind that the White House's clueless policy of trying to isolate Iran has only made Tehran stronger and more important in the region. It turns out that only the day before, Bush's own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates talked up talking with Iran.

Republican Iran policy is bound to fail when inconsistencies and reality-checks keep eroding its stubborn facade. The devil, after all, is in the details.

Late update: For those readers with a sadistic streak, watch Chris Matthews tear apart the witless right-wing radio pundit Kevin James (particularly after 4.10). When one forsakes argument for analogy, at least try to get your history right.

Keith Moss has set up a new openDemocracy predictive market on "How long will Hillary Clinton continue her campaign?". Market information below. Sign up and start trading!

The US Democratic Primaries continue apace, with only five states left to vote and Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton in the pledged delegate count 52% to 47%. With her recent loss in North Carolina, and narrow win in Indiana, the going wisdom has shifted rather sharply against Hillary with most seeing no hope of her getting the eventual nomination and the only question now being whether she’ll bow out on her own or hang on until the convention in August.

The Clinton campaign faces difficulties raising the money it needs to continue day-to-day operations. Hillary was forced to loan her own campaign $6.4m of the Clinton's own money last month and called for supporters to donate more funds to continue the fight. The Kentucky, Oregon and Puerto Rico contests are the only big three states left to contest, comprising 73% of the remaining pledged delegates among them. Puerto Rico and Kentucky are expected to go to her while she is tipped to lose Oregon.

I have to agree with the BBC’s Kevin Connolly that Hillary Clinton’s ‘die-hard battling’ in West Virginia is something you can’t help but admire. However, I disagree with his speculations on the source of Clinton’s determination to stay in a race she is apparently losing. He offers three reasons for this hardcore campaigning where many would have given up long ago. A quick comment on each of these suggests there must be something more to it.

Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, writes an open letter to Hillary Clinton in response to her promise to "obliterate" Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
US Presidential Candidate
c/o MSNBC.com

Your Excellency,

In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them" (Interview with ABC).

This is not different from President Bush's stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the "right of power", not the "power of the right".

As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening "the Iranians"? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?

I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel's capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.

With respect

Ebrahim Yazdi,
Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and
Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran

Interesting findings in a recent Gallup poll: it seems Obama enjoys as much white support as John Kerry did in 2004.

It's obviously early days yet in the Obama-McCain battle, but such statistics encourage the view that Obama has in fact succeeded in building a wide coalition of support, making mince meat of the Clinton campaign's desperate suggestions on Thursday that Obama's push for the nomination rested on the backs of black voters. The following months should provide Obama the opportunity to broaden his base of support even more.

We produced perhaps one-too-many grisly undead analogies yesterday, but it's tough not to when the Clinton campaign insists on providing us with so much material. Today seems no different. With one foot in the grave, Clinton's people scheduled an event in West Virginia - up for grabs in the next round of primaries - at McMurran Hall in Shepherd's University, a place made legendary in 1862 when it sheltered the bloody wounded from the carnage of the Battle of Antietam. Historical portents bode ill for Clinton, as Dana Milbank sketches in the Washington Post.

While many analysts pronounced Hillary Clinton dead-and-buried after her underwhelming performance last night, some Democrats hope to keep her corpse fresh. VoteBoth.com launched yesterday, urging Democrats to unite behind a joint Obama-Clinton (or Clinton-Obama) ticket.

The motivation behind the project is obvious; at a time when the Bush administration and the aspiring McCain presidency should be susceptible to attacks on all fronts, the Democratic candidates chip away at each other in front of a hungry public. The party of the donkey needs to stop chasing its own tail.

Of course, it's rather difficult to envision a single ticket that can contain such swollen personalities.

The race for the democratic nomination continued today after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seemingly stumbled to yet another bloody draw. However, upon closer inspection the result significantly favoured Obama. A much greater margin of victory in North Carolina means that his lead over Clinton increases. With the finish line fast approaching and the candidates likely to halve the six states that are yet to go to the polls, Clinton needs something approaching a miracle, or at least an Obama slip-up that dwarfs the controversy provoked by the comments of his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

Clinton is still likely to notch up massive wins in Kentucky, West Virginia and Puerto Rico. But Obama should be able to minimise the damage by gaining slightly smaller victories in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Clinton will likely need to win more than 80% of the delegates still in play to regain the lead. In the meantime, Obama will continue to unleash newly pledged super-delegates, demonstrating he has momentum within the party as well as the electorate.

From a faux Moorish castle in Indianapolis, Clinton still declared victory and referenced her one remaining real hope for the nomination - that delegations from Michigan and Florida be seated at the Democratic convention. Elections in these states have been declared void and Obama did not contest them, so such an outcome would seem more than a little undemocratic. Gaining the nomination like this would also damage the chances of Clinton actually being elected president.

So, advantage Obama, but this never-ending election will continue.

In a searching piece in the left-of-centre weekly The Nation, Betsy Reed parses through the debate amongst feminists prompted by the ongoing contest between Clinton and Obama. Many "progressive feminists" reject out of hand the assumption - as posited by a number of their older brethren - that women should vote in terms of gender interests before racial ones. Clear fault-lines in American feminism are emerging as a result of the campaign.

In some sense, this is a clarifying moment as well as a wrenching one. For so many years, feminists have been engaged in a pushback against the right that has obscured some of the real and important differences among them. "Today you see things you might not have seen. It's clearer now about where the lines are between corporate feminism and more grassroots, global feminism," says [law professor Kimberlé] Crenshaw. Women who identify with the latter movement are saying, as she puts it, "'Wait a minute, that's not the banner we are marching under!'"

Feminist Obama supporters of all ages and hues, meanwhile, are hoping that he comes out of this bruising primary with his style of politics intact. While he calls it "a new kind of politics," Clinton and Obama are actually very similar in their records and agendas (which is perhaps why this contest has fixated so obsessively on their gender and race). But in his rhetoric and his stance toward the world outside our borders, Obama does appear to offer a way out of the testosterone-addled GOP framework. As he said after losing Pennsylvania, "We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush and John McCain. We can use fear as a tactic and the threat of terrorism to scare up votes. Or we can decide that real strength is asking the tough questions before we send our troops to fight."