Brad Warthen's Blog

Well, at least he was civil about it...

South Carolina's senators split -- again -- today on the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Guess which one voted against? (Hint: It was NOT the guy Obama's going to be looking to for foreign policy advice.) But he managed to be quite civil about it, saying:

    The memorandum of understanding signed by the foundation leaves a lot of discretion to Senator Clinton.  During her confirmation hearing, Sen. Lugar presented a request for more acceptable disclosures, and Sen. Kerry, as chairman, supported these recommendations. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton has not agreed to follow even these modest recommendations.    
    For these reasons, I will be voting against the nomination, but I will do so with nothing but sincere hope and goodwill toward our new Secretary of State, and pray for her success as she takes the helm of the State Department.

Meanwhile Lindsey Graham put out this statement:

Graham Supports Clinton for Secretary of State
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State.  The vote in the Senate was 94-2.
    “Hillary Clinton will serve our nation well as Secretary of State.  She understands the enormous domestic and international challenges facing our nation.  In choosing Hillary Clinton, President Obama has selected a person of great substance, skill, and intellect. 
     “President Obama won the election and has earned the right to put his team in place.  The presidential campaign is over but the wars our nation is engaged in are not.  Our young men and women around the world in harms way need an advocate on the world stage.”
            ####

Of course, he and Hillary have always gotten along pretty cordially.

How would I have voted? Well, as you know, I didn't think this was the best call Obama has made. Some other job, yes, but I don't think secretary of state is the best place to put your chief rival. The SecState should be understood as completely subordinate to the president, and that seems a tough role for her.

But in the end, Graham says it well: This is the president's call. If this is who he wants, barring some really compelling reason to reject her, I say get her in place as soon as possible. Yeah, I think the Clinton foundation thing is a problem. But then Bill is always a problem for Hillary. No matter how much disclosure, there would be a problem. Not enough to vote "no" for me, though.

Hillary at State: Bad call, Barack

You know the thing we talked about earlier in the week, the thing that David Broder and Tom Friedman and I all said was a bad idea?

Well, apparently it's happened:

WASHINGTON  —  Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday....

That's bad news for the simple fact that Barack Obama needs to be "the public face" of U.S. foreign policy, because he starts off with most of the world having such a great impression of him. Why squander that by putting Hillary Clinton between him and the world?

His secretary of state needs to be someone who is HIS agent and seen as no more than that, not a larger-than-life rival. The office of secretary of state is far too important to be anyone's plum or concession prize.

This is Obama's first significant mistake.

Find a better job for Hillary

This advisory just came in:

{bc-broder-column advisory}<
{DAVID BRODER COLUMN}<
{(ADVISORY FOR BRODER CLIENTS: David Broder has written a column for} Wednesday publication on the potential selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Expect the column by noon Eastern.)<
{(For Broder clients only)}<
   <
   (c) 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Mr. Broder is reflecting the huge buzz inside the Beltway about appointing Sen. Hillary Clinton to State, which I think would be a mistake, for this reason:

Given the reaction his election has gained from around the world, Barack Obama's best international ambassador is Barack Obama. His policies are more likely to gain acceptance among friends and foes because they are his policies. You put somebody as Bigger Than Life as his erstwhile opponent in the top job at State, and suddenly the State Department becomes the Hillary Department. Everyone, from the U.S. media to foreign potentates, would look at the actions of the State Department in terms of "What Hillary Clinton is doing," rather than what is being done in the name of Barack Obama.

I just can't see her effacing herself enough not to get between Obama and the rest of the world -- even if she wants to.

Sure, one doesn't have to be a nonentity to be SecState -- look at Colin Powell. But Gen. Powell was known as the Good Soldier, a man who serves something greater than himself. That's not something I can see Hillary Clinton (or her husband; in that they are a matched pair) pulling off successfully.

Anyway, it doesn't seem the right job for her. What would be the right job? You mean, aside from U.S. senator from New York, which is not too shabby in itself? Something special. Economy Czarina or some such. Something ad hoc, something geared specifically to her. Sure, she failed when she was given the health care thing, but that was a long time ago; I think her political skills have improved since then.

I don't know; I just don't see her as the right person for Secretary of State.

As for the other two who have stirred the most comment:

• I don't know whether Larry Summers is the best person to be SecTreas or not, but he certainly shouldn't be given the job because of that Harvard nonsense. Whomever the president-elect chooses, he needs to make it clear he's not kowtowing to the absurd prating of the sillier feminists. I don't know whether boys are better than girls at math or not; I do know it's offensive to this boy's intelligence to say it just can't be so, because I don't want it to be so, which is what I heard from those who ran him out of Cambridge.
• There seems to be a lot of bipartisan murmuring that Robert Gates should stay on at Defense. I don't know whether he's a great secretary of defense or just seems like one because he followed Rumsfeld, but I've always liked the guy. So it would be fine by me if he stayed. At the same time, the president needs to know he's got his own person in that job, so I wouldn't think it would be horrible if another highly qualified candidate were nominated. Gates sets the bar pretty high, though.

Obama should back single-payer again, and do it NOW

Assuming we're all agreed that Barack Obama is going to be the president, there's one thing I wish he'd go ahead and do right now: Return to his onetime support for a single-payer health care system.

As you know, I came to two conclusions awhile back:

1. That only a single-payer plan would solve our country's problems paying for health care. Anything short of that just further complicates the problem. We miss the mark by talking all the time about the "uninsured." It's the majority of us who ARE covered, but increasingly can't afford our health care bills anyway, who are the much greater problem. We need to eliminate the for-profit middlemen in the equation.
2. The only way we'll get single-payer is for someone to RUN for president on that platform and win convincingly. If Obama (or, to stretch a point, McCain) announced AFTER getting elected that he wanted a single-payer system, Congress would tell him to go fly a kite. The private insurance industry -- folks like my old friend Joel Wood -- have WAY too much juice on the Hill for a president to make than happen unless he has a clear electoral mandate to do it.

As I wrote in December of last year:

    And the operative word is “bold.” Why? Because unless we start the conversation there, all we might hope for is that a few more of the one out of seven Americans who don’t have insurance will be in the “system” with the rest of us — if that, after the inevitable watering-down by Congress. And that’s not “reform.” Actual reform would rescue all of us from a “system” that neither American workers nor American employers can afford to keep propping up.

A lot of people have high hopes for Obama changing this country for the better. There is no more dramatic way he could do so than to win after coming out for a REAL health care solution.

No, he's not going to do that. He's way too cautious, far too deliberate. He sticks to his game plan. He's not going to rock that boat now. If I thought I could convince him -- and thought he could win -- I'd urge McCain to do it. As we know, he's far more willing to throw the dice (can you say, "Sarah Palin"?). But he's never shown any interest in single-payer. But as Hillary Clinton pointed out back before the S.C. primary, Obama used to be for it, before he was against it.

But I wish he would. I think he'd still win, and then he could do some real good on this, our most important domestic issue.

Bill Clinton explains why Palin is 'hot' (and praises McCain, too)

Consider this post to be a taste of sorbet to cleanse the palate between courses of history-making political/economic news.

Katherine Q. Seelye on the NYT's Caucus blog says "Barack Obama might be forgiven for wondering which side Bill Clinton is on," since the former president has taken advantage of several opportunities to praise John McCain this week. Finally he DID say some good stuff about Obama, but still...

This reminds me of a tidbit I read in the WSJ this morning, in which Bill had some nice stuff to say about Sarah, too:

"I come from Arkansas. I get why she's hot out there, why she's doing well. People look at her, and they say: 'All those kids. Something that happens in everybody's family. I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. Glad that girl's going around with her boyfriend. Glad they're going to get married. . . .' [Voters will think] I like that little Down syndrome kid. One of them lives down the street. They're wonderful children. They're wonderful people. And I like the idea that this guy does those long-distance races. Stayed in the race for 500 miles with a broken arm. My kind of guy."

Seems to me Bill had best hush before he gets himself into some more trouble with Mamanem.

Hilarious SNL sketch about Hillary, Sarah

Not very often these days am I able to say this, but the skit that started SNL last night, with Tina Fey as Sarah Palin and Amy Poehler as Hillary Clinton, was easily up to the standards of the show back when it was funny.

You're got to watch this. It's hilarious.

The NYT's very, very cool video/text software

Have you had occasion to check out the way The New York Times has been posting the major speeches from the conventions? It's about the coolest -- and to me, most useful -- software I've ever seen. Certainly the coolest since Google Maps came up with the "street level" view, and without the Big Brother overtones.

Here's what it does: First, there's a high-quality video window. Then, there's a transcript of the speech posted next to the video, but that's not the cool part. The cool part is that if you click on the paragraph you want, the video jumps to the beginning of that paragraph. Then, on top of that, there's a topical outline to the right of the transcript. Click on the subject you want, and it jumps to that part of the transcript and video. It's amazing.

Not only that, but the paper's site search engine -- which unfortunately often frustrates me; it doesn't read my mind as well as, say, Google does -- will take you straight to these miraculous pages with the simplest, most intuitive input, such as "Barack Obama's speech."

Since I subscribe to the NYT, I don't know whether these are accessible just to subscribers, or to everyone. But in the hope that you can go check them out and groove on them, here are a few of the top speeches from the two conventions:

• Hillary Clinton
• Joe Biden
• Barack Obama
• Joe Lieberman
• Sarah Palin
• John McCain

Did it work for you? I hope so. This is too cool not to be able to share.

What the other candidates look like

Well, I certainly got some reactions on that last one, some quite condemnatory. It makes me wonder -- would these folks have reacted so vehemently if they had heard me share that cultural association with regard to Gov. Palin, face-to-face? Probably not. Even as she was speaking -- I had flipped on the little TV outside my office to listen while going back and forth getting work done -- I had given her a glance and shared that observation with Cindi. Cindi paused in what she was doing only long enough to glance at the tube, and correct my facts -- I had described her hair as looking as though she had quickly pinned it up atop her head to get it out of her way while getting work done, and Cindi informed me that she had paid good money to get her hair done that way.

Which of course changes nothing. The point in the end is that Sarah Palin apparently puts her hair up in a way that looks pragmatic and businesslike to ME, and wears Serious Eyeglasses rather than contacts, as a deliberate statement meant to balance her beauty. It's a way of being taken seriously. And for those of you so deeply offended on gender grounds, men do the same thing -- they wear suits.

Would it make y'all feel better if I describe some of the other figures in terms of snap judgments based on their appearances? OK, I will. It won't be quite the same, of course, because a beautiful woman evokes a response that's unlike any you get with a man or a less-attractive woman -- something that I believe Sarah Palin understands well enough to hide some of that light under a bushel. OK, here we go:

• Let's start with Joe Biden. Joe's a nice-looking guy, don't you think? He's got a smile that could light up a stadium (what does he use on those teeth?). Joe sort of radiates "politician" -- more specifically, Irish politician. Loads of Blarney, but I mean that in a good way -- I enjoy hearing Joe talk, up to a point (the point is when -- and I've had this happen a couple of times -- I speak to him more than once in a week, and he starts telling me the same anecdote that he told me the other time). Beyond that, he projects something else that apparently is inconsistent with his working-class background: He looks Patrician. If he's Irish, you think, he's certainly not shanty Irish. Lace-curtain all the way. Shows how looks can deceive.
• John McCain looks like what he is -- the aging fighter jock. He's got the build, the bantam-rooster feistiness, however wracked by old wounds. He has a pretty bright grin of his own, but it's of a different quality from Biden's. Biden's grin is of the master salesman about to close a deal. McCain's is about cockiness, the cockiness of the Naval Aviator. That cockiness seems to have gone into his pick of his Veep candidate. He's saying, I don't particularly need a vice president; I plan on sticking around, so experience and qualifications didn't matter. Might as well pick somebody who pleases all those whiners in my base and maybe peels off some of the more emotional HIllary supporters, the ones for whom it was all about her being a woman. This is a quality that strikes his supporters as reassuring confidence, and his detractors as obnoxiousness.
• Barack Obama... well, my first reaction is that he does not fit a type at all. He's unique. He, too, has a winning grin, but he doesn't use it all that much; his stock persona is deeply serious. But then I remember that there is ONE sort of character that he does sometimes remind me of, and it's completely in tune with that seriousness. I mentioned it to my wife the other night: He looks like something out of the early 60s, particularly one of the young Best and Brightest of the Kennedy Administration. I had trouble saying WHY he looked that way -- was it the cut of his suits? Were his ties that narrow? Was it the way he rolls up the sleeves of his white dress shirts? My wife said it was his thinness -- people are bulkier than that these days. His thinness makes him look like he's from another era. Maybe. Of course, if you wanted to play on the race thing, you could say he's like Sidney Poitier (60s again) in either "To Sir With Love" or "In the Heat of the Night." The "black" guy who comes across as whiter, as more Establishment, more conservatively attired and carefully spoken, than any white guy you ever saw.
• If you want to go farther afield, you could say Hillary Clinton is the "Smartest Kid in the Class (Just Ask Her; She'll Tell You)," the one who absolutely has to get the best grades -- also the one who takes names of those who misbehave if the teacher leaves the room, and gives a full report when the teacher returns. BILL Clinton is the clever wastrel who is probably at the top of the list of defaulters she gives the teacher -- the kid who's just as smart, but wastes it on trying to be the class clown, or the most popular kid in the school. Funny thing about Bill -- I had seen him around for years. I first saw him in person back in 1978, and he had this manner about him that caused me to read him all wrong. I would have pegged him as the child of privilege, the fair-haired one who could do no wrong and loved life because everything went his way. It really shocked me to learn that he didn't come up that way, because he projects that kind of guy. That's one thing he and Joe sort of have in common.

So there you go -- shallow, quick-impression assessments of all the major characters. None of them are exactly sitcom characters, but I worked with what I had.

Yelling at the television

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THE DEMOCRATIC convention forced me to an unpleasant realization: I’ve become one of those crotchety old guys who yell at the television in helpless frustration: “Lies! How can they say such things? How can anyone sit still for this stuff?”
    And this week, I’m in for more of the same with the Republicans.
    What sets me off? Oh, take your pick — the hyperbole, the self-importance, the us-against-them talk, the stuff that Huck Finn called “tears and flapdoodle.”
    Take, for instance, this typical bit from Hillary Clinton’s speech:

    My friends, it is time to take back the country we love. And whether you voted for me or you voted for Barack, the time is now to unite as a single party with a single purpose. We are on the same team. And none of us can afford to sit on the sidelines. This is a fight for the future. And it's a fight we must win together. I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches... to see another Republican in the White House squander our promise...

    Let’s deconstruct that a bit.
    Take back the country? From whom? Did I miss something? Did the Russians roll right on through Gori and into Washington? No? You say Americans are still in charge, just the “wrong” Americans, of the wrong party? But your party controls Congress! Take it back from whom?
    ... a single party with a single purpose. Now there you’ve hit on the biggest lie propagated by each of the major parties, the conceit that there is something coherent and consistent about such loose confederations of often-incompatible interest groups. Did you not just spend the last few months playing with all the force you could muster upon those very differences, those very tensions — between feminists and black voters, between the working class and the wine and cheese set? What single purpose, aside from winning an election?
    This is a fight... No, it isn’t, however much you love to say that. Again, I refer you to what the Russians are doing in Georgia — that’s a fight, albeit a one-sided one.
    ... that we must win together. Actually, that raises a particularly pertinent point, which is that the only “fights” that “must” be won are the ones in which “together” is defined as all Americans, or all freedom-loving peoples, whereas such divisive factions as your party and that other one that will meet in St. Paul militate against our being able to win such fights together.
    I haven’t spent the past 35 years in the trenches... You’re absolutely right; you haven’t. So spare us the war metaphors.
    ... to see another Republican in the White House squander our promise... Like that’s what matters, the stupid party label. Like there isn’t more difference between you and Barack Obama in terms of philosophy and goals and experience and what you would bring to office than there is between John McCain and Joe Biden. Come on! Please!...
    Sigh. Fume. Mutter.
    This stuff wouldn’t upset me quite so much if not for the fact that this was to be the year that we rose above this stuff. That’s why I so happily supported both John McCain and Barack Obama in their parallel bids for the White House. Both men offered themselves as alternatives from the incessant, bitter, destructive partisan warfare of the Clinton-Bush years.
    John McCain is the man the GOP’s partisans love to hate, the guy they call a “Republican In Name Only,” the man they stooped to new lows to destroy in 2000, the senator who’d just as soon work with Democrats as Republicans, the candidate who, coincidentally, has been giving Sen. Clinton a lot of love in his latest campaign ads.
    Barack Obama was the Democrat who made it abundantly, eloquently clear that he was not running in order to “fight” against his fellow Americans. So all week, I looked forward to his acceptance speech, and when it came I was... disappointed.
    Maybe I had built it up too much in my mind, depended too much on it to wash away the bad taste of all those boilerplate party speeches I had heard. He said many of the right things. He said “Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past,” but as for most of it — well, read David Broder’s column on the facing page.
    When he said “part of what has been lost these past eight years... is our sense of common purpose,” I thought, yes, but it’s been happening a lot more than eight years, and you know that. But he said it that way because of his audience. That’s what made the speech flat, by Obama standards. He had to avoid offending the kind of people who love the bitter politics that he had been running against.
    What I had wanted to hear was the kind of thing that caused me, while blogging on live TV the night of his South Carolina primary victory, to write “What a TREMENDOUS victory speech!” A sample of what impressed me so that night:

    “We are looking for more than just a change of party in the White House.... We are up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents... That kind of politics is bad for our party, it’s bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.”

    That sort of anti-partisan vehemence would not have played well in Mile-High Stadium. Maybe, as he escapes the gravitational pull of Denver, the Obama of January will come out to inspire us again. I hope so. In the meantime, on to the Republicans....
    Just moments ago as I write this, as he announced he’d chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, Sen. McCain promised the GOP crowd that he’d “fight for you.”
    Lord help us.

Go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Robert's 'sexist' cartoon

Robert's in trouble now! He mentioned to me a few minutes ago the negative attention his cartoon from yesterday about Hillary and Barack has garnered, particularly on a blog called "Feminist Law Professors."

That blog took time out from considering "Which Wine Should I Bring To A Party At My Dean’s House?," a post that demonstrates at least a sense of humor of a sort, to bristle over "Political 'Humor' in the South Carolina MSM," which features Robert's cartoon. It was filed under the category, "Sexism in the Media."

Key commentary from that blog:

That’s the same cartoonist that produced this and this and this and this.

Now I invite your commentary...