Jan
21
A Breakdown In The Coalition
Filed Under American Politics | 15 Comments
The Daily Kos notes a similarity between the areas of Massachusetts that voted for Scott Brown and those that voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary.
For Scott Brown
For Hillary
The red represents both Scott brown and Hillary. I wonder if this is does represent a breakdown between the young college educated and ethnic Obama base with the more conservative orientated blue collar Hillary base. If so, it would be instructive for future races, and should Democratic fortunes continue to decline, raise the possibility of a primary challenge for Obama (I don’t think that will happen but I’ve already seen a couple of mentions in the blogosphere about it post-Massachusetts).
Jan
8
From Big Government.com:
But we still don’t know why the State Department didn’t revoke the visa of a man they knew had ties to al-qaeda.
Secretary Clinton said that the State Department “fully complied with the requirements set forth in the interagency process” about sharing threat information.
What?
Fully complied? The State Department not only failed to share the threat information with a variety of agencies but those who had the information didn’t even act upon it themselves. In fact, Several State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington, DC didn’t even do the basic tasks expected of public servants working to protect Americans.
Not only did the State Department not comply with all the requirements Secretary Clinton had said, but the State Department also violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1735 by not providing the new information they received on an al-qaeda suspect to the UN. We know that State Department officials in Nigeria and Washington had the information because someone wrote a top secret cable dated November 20, 2009 explaining that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had ties to al-qaeda. This means that the State Department had 35 days to revoke Adbulmutallab’s visa and share the information with the UN – it failed to do either.
Had the State Department shared the cable with other U.S. agencies or given the information to the UN, as required under the Chapter 7 Resolution, all Nations would have been obligated to deny entry and freeze the assets of anyone officially on the UN’s Terrorist List.
The smoking gun is the November 20 State Department cable that wasn’t acted upon. No one shared it with the Embassy visa section, other U.S. agencies or the UN. How could a top secret cable be written but not acted upon by the same Embassy that wrote it? Questions remain as to who approved the cable, where was it sent and why wasn’t a visa revoked because of the cable?
U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Robin Sanders and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Johnnie Carson need to answer some questions about what they did with the November 20, 2009 top secret cable containing crucial national security information. Did they ignore the fact that their Embassy identified an al-qaeda operative? Did they not check to see if a visa was already granted to this al-qaeda operative? Who all approved the visa? Who read the cable? At the very minimum, Ambassador Robin Sanders needs to tell the American people why she didn’t revoke the visa of Abdulmutallab after her team originally approved it.
Hillary has larged stayed out of the post 12/25 kerfuffle, but this seems to be a pretty damning indictment of the State Department. I’m not a “sack ‘em” person, I think we sack (or ask for their resignation) politicians far too quickly. I’d rather efforts were made to fix problems rather than scape-goating people. Hillary seems to have avoided questions over the systemic failures that have been all too apparent. I hope that the State Department is examined as thoroughly as the intelligence agencies if this report is true.
Nov
5
(Un)Smart Power
Filed Under American Politics, Foreign Policy | 3 Comments
In terms of silly little mistakes, this administration is seriously incompetent when it comes to foreign policy (and incompetent on the big stuff too although that is by capitulative design.
First there was the cock-up over the gifts to Gordon Brown. The mis-translated “reset” button to Russia, which was not only incompetent but juvenile too. There was the informing of Poland of the abandonment of the missile shield on the anniversary of their invasion by Russia and his classic letter to ex-President Chirac in which he hoped “that we will be able to work together, in the coming four years, in a spirit of peace and friendship to build a safer world”.
And now Hillary Clinton doesn’t even know the details of Israeli-Palestinian relations, hoping that the new Israeli capital will be in East Jerusalem (ie the bit with all the Palestinians in it):
And in a new twist Tuesday, Clinton made what appeared to be an inadvertent slip of the tongue in a television interview with the al-Jazeera network, referring to the goal of “an Israeli capital in east Jerusalem.”
It has not been U.S. policy to favor including east Jerusalem in an Israeli capital; the Palestinians claim it as their capital, and the issue is one of the most important and delicate points that would have to be settled in any final peace deal between the two parties.
Two Clinton aides monitoring the interview alerted her to the mistake and that portion of the interview was retaped so she could correct herself.
Nicolas Sarkozy thinks Obama is naive. To be frank, that’s putting it mildly. his whole administration naive, indecisive and lacking in basic diplomatic competence.
Oct
31
The GOP Civil War
Filed Under Uncategorized | 9 Comments
With recent events in upstate New York and the contest between the conservative Doug Hoffman and the republican candidate Dede Scozzafava, there has been sensationalist headlines and reporting (from both sides of the blogosphere) about a “civil war” within the Republican Party. I think it’s important to put that in context.
Certainly, there is potential the mother of all battles, although considering how the relative endorsements have panned out, that’s unlikely. After all, almost anyone who is anyone within the Republican and Conservative tradition have endorsed Hoffman whilst only Gingrich and the the NRCC have endorsed Scozzafava. But recent history also tells us that a political party can comfortably survive a traumatic and divisive electoral campaign and come out the other side smiling. I’m talking about the recent Democratic primary between Hillary Clinton and Obama.
Let’s take a moment to remember just how potentially nasty that very tight campaign became. Obama surrogates called Bill Clinton a racist (there’s a stuck record), Clinton partisans coalesced as P.U.M.A.’s (Party Unity My Ass), there was a lot of speculation that Hillary would contest the Democratic convention, and let us not forget that the controversy over Obama’s supposed Kenyan birth started with a Hillary supporter. And at the end of the day, despite over 36 million votes cast in the Democratic primary, Obama only won by just over 50,000 votes. Things don’t get more divided than that.
Bt here we are just over a year later, and there is no sign of that divisiveness. Clinton is serving in the administration, the Democratic party are almost universally united behind Obama and although there are some tensions between moderate and liberal Democrats, there are no competing parties trying to grab hold of power within the party.
So the point is, that temporary differing points of view does not necessarily translate into irreversible rifts, and particularly so for the GOP, a party that has many different ‘ideologies’ competing within, because the GOP has shown a remarkable ability over the last twenty or thirty years to show a united front despite the seemingly divergent opinions within.
Oct
18
Hypothetical Question Time
Filed Under American Politics | 8 Comments
Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton by a mere 0.1% of the total vote in the Democratic Primaries.
What would have happened if those positions were reversed and Hillary had won the primary?
Would she have won the Presidency is the obvious first question? I remember seeing a poll which suggested that she would have beaten McCain by an even greater margin than Obama did. I’m not sure about that; I don’t see the youth turning out for Hillary in the same way they did for Obama. But nevertheless, the American public weren’t ready to re-elect a Republican again so I think it almost certain Hillary would have won.
So assuming that to be the case, would she have done anything differently? Would the debate be any different?
I think the obvious difference would be in the tone of political rhetoric. Hillary ran to the right of Obama during the primary, and whilst her presence in the White House under Bill’s Presidency was a divisive one, much of the right’s animosity towards her had diminished, in part because of her stance on Iraq and the War on Terror. Barack Obama has never intended to run on a bi-partisan basis and doesn’t have the skills or track record to do so. Hillary on the other hand is more respected by Republicans in Congress. Obama was a member of the socialist New Party whilst Hillary was negotiating with Republicans on the hill, an example of his comparative lack of political experience. Hillary would have been much more able to get bi-partisan support on efforts to combat the recession and on health care reform. Rather than push through a partisan ideological agenda, she would have looked for a right/left compromise to effect reform. And she would have found more support on the right. And I doubt we would be seeing the tea-party phenomenon that we are witnessing right now.
So those are my thoughts, pure speculation. Anyone else?
Aug
10
How dare she want to speak out against an administration. Quick, someone report her to the government.
And now she serves in an administration where dissent is discouraged. Just not her luck I suppose.
Jul
3
Hillary Vs Barack Round Two
Filed Under American Politics | 1 Comment
Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com has a piece up (citing Jim Geraghty at NRO’s Campaign Spot about the possibility of a falling out between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It all stems from a couple of unsubstantiated rumours.
Firstly, Hillary Clinton is not accompanying President Obama on his trip to Moscow. It’s perfectly possible that this is related to her elbow injury (although she is travelling later in the month). Whilst Russia/America relations aren’t as important as they once were, it is a little surprising that the Secretary of State isn’t accompanying the President on a visit of this magnitude.
Secondly, leaks suggest that Hillary Clinton was encouraging Obama to take a tougher line with Iran.
Neither of these stories are strong enough to suggest a split between the two, but there is increasing evidence that Hillary is being marginalised. From Jim Geraghty again:
We saw some foreign-policy disagreements during the primary, and now the secretary’s traditional role as the point person on all events, crises, and issues beyond our borders is being hemmed in by various special envoys and czars. Yesterday, the White House announced Vice President Biden would be overseeing progress in Iraq.
But the main reason for writing this post to get some discussion on Ed Morrissey’s final point:
Obama needs Hillary more than the other way around, especially as his economic policies start to tank. He needs a strong connection back to the DLC Democrats, which Hillary provides. He also needs a fall person on foreign affairs when things get bad. If there’s a split, it will damage Obama much more than Hillary, and it would set her up for a run at him in a 2012 primary, which may be her goal if Obama falls apart at the midterms.
Is Ed Morrissey right? Does Obama need Hillary more than the other way round? Will Hillary benefit from a split?
Personally I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point. Obama has shown that he can function fairly nicely with his liberal activist supporters and any Hillary resignation will most likely be portrayed as sour grapes on her part. Obama still has the political capital within the party to survive a Hillary departure.
However, I do think that changes if Hillary does run against Obama in a primary. A lot of Obama’s success in the 2008 election was to campaign on his promise of change. His absence of any real track record helped him portray himself as a political outsider, a new direction. But a primary against Hillary will lengthen the process of examining Obama’s record of allowing lobbyists access to the White House, of being a bit more pragmatic on Guantanamo, of reinforcing executive secrecy and his new policy of spying on private computer networks.
So get your hypothetical thinking caps on. Who comes out better in a Hillary v Barack fight?
Jun
26
Have You Seen Hillary Recently?
Filed Under American Politics | 4 Comments
Probably not.
Politico notes that Hillary has gone missing in terms of the news cycle since becoming Secretary Of State.
I wrote earlier this week about how Hillary Clinton’s cabinet appointment has come with a dramatic reduction in her public profile, at least at home, as President Obama has asserted himself clearly as the face of American foreign policy.
They even kindly came up with a chart to show how much she has disappeared off the political news radar screen:
So her appearances in the media have been at the lowest level since 2007. This is a current Secretary of State, who is high profile not only as the wife of an ex-President, but as a serious politician in her own right. America is facing possible nuclear missiles being lobbed at them from North Korea, a serious commitment to engagement in the Middle East centered around Israel and Iran and a war in Afghanistan in which America is hoping for further engagement from her allies and yet Hillary has become ever so low profile. There are a number of interesting things going on here:
- I think this demonstrates how focused on domestic policy the Obama Administration is
- It shows that the White House is to a large degree running foreign policy
- It is evidence towards the much quoted belief that Obama’s appointment of Hillary was to keep her from becoming an in-party critic of the administration.
Perhaps she’s very contented in her new role, but a politician without the oxygen of publicity is like an impotent man in Argentina – very frustrated.
May
19
Palin/Clinton – A Strange Coalition.
Filed Under American Politics | 6 Comments
Politico’s are running a story on their site by Jonathan Martin that Greta Van Susteren’s husband John Coale tried to persuade Sarah Palin to use her political action committees (Sarahpac) funds to help pay down Hillary Clinton’s campaign debts.
Coale, a wealthy trial attorney and the husband of Fox News talk show host Greta Van Susteren, approached Palin with the improbable plan in February while in Alaska with his wife, who was taping an interview with the former Republican vice presidential nominee.
The report goes on to say:
Palin was amenable to getting acquainted with the Clintons but was sceptical of using her PAC to help the former First Lady.
My first response to this was that it was a dumb idea. The two politicians are worlds apart politically and a Palin courting of Hillary would be particularly dangerous to the way she is perceived within the party. But the more I think about it, the more I think that there is some synchronicity.
- Both appeal to blue collar Americans.
- Both have been or were abandoned by their respective party elites.
- Hillary is no longer the most anathematized Democrat for Republicans. Barack Obama has seen to that.
- Hillary is a foreign policy hawk which would sit easier with Sarah Palin’s America First meme.
Obviously there would be no alliance between the two most prominent female politicians in America, but it would have been a fun story to follow.
Two other lines amused me from the story though:
Former President Bill Clinton placed a friendly call to Palin after the election
He was probably trying to chat her up knowing Bill Clinton.
In an email rejecting Coale’s idea, Meg Stapleton, a Sarah Palin campaign aide commented:
“Contributors who chose between heating their homes and sending in a contribution because they believe in Sarah would be crushed.”
I have an image of Sarah Palin supporters huddled together in their overcoats for warmth but happy in the knowledge that they’ve supported Sarah. If she is able to persuade people to eschew heating in a state like Alaska in order to donate to her then Sarah Palin really is popular.