Gregg to Commerce

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard already, Obama has tapped Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to be commerce secretary. (If you remember, Obama's first choice, Bill Richardson, withdrew his nomination amid swirls of scandal.) It's a fine choice for a relatively impotent Cabinet post, and it helps that Gregg has spoken favourably of Obama's economic stimulus plan. As part of the deal, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, will replace Gregg with another Republican. (Gregg had said he wouldn't take the job if it meant a Democrat taking his place in the Senate.) That Republican is reported to be Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff. The good news is that Newman may not run in 2010, when Gregg's current term is up, meaning that, in a state that is turning ever more blue, the Democrats have a good shot at picking up the seat.

**********

On an ironic note, Gregg twice voted to abolish the Commerce Department -- both times in 1995, first on the Budget Committee, then on the Senate floor.

You're gonna have to let Tom go

By Edward Copeland

UPDATED BELOW.

Supporters of Barack Obama had to go ahead and buy the excuses to let Timothy Geithner slide by as treasury secretary. I mean, if you are self-employed, it could be easy to forget to pay your Social Security taxes. It's not as if he forgot to pay his income taxes altogether. We just agreed to ignore that he conveniently forgot to pay the back taxes on the years he wasn't audited for until he was nominated by Obama, let alone his role in turning a blind eye to Wall Street's malfeasance in his role as the head of the New York Fed. Besides, we couldn't wait much longer to get a treasury secretary in place.

Then there was additional nervousness brought about by the speed in which the administration issued its first waiver to its first-day proclamation that no one would be placed in a post when they had lobbied that department in the past two years since William Lynn was supposedly so essential to the post they want him in at the Pentagon. On top of that comes reports of more lobbyists filling administration positions. Granted, it might have proved harder than they anticipated to fill all the jobs they have to fill without touching people who had to make a living that way, but still.

Now, a funny thing has happened to Tom Daschle on his way to being approved as secretary of health and human services. He also failed to pay back taxes. Again, it wasn't income taxes altogether, but instead more than $128,000 worth of compensation in the form of a car and driver provided him by a longtime friend and supporter. Obama still has high approval and the GOP remains in the toilet, but he can't risk the beginning of a loss of credibility and the image that the change he promised was just talk and his Washington culture isn't that far removed from the excesses of the robber barons of Wall Street. People hurting in this economy can relate to some extent to forgetting to pay Social Security taxes. They won't relate to even having someone giving you a car and driver, let alone forgetting to pay taxes on it.

Tom Daschle, may have been a loyal and faithful adviser to you during the campaign, Mr. President, but if he doesn't fall on his own sword as Bill Richardson did, you are going to have to throw him under the bus for your own sake.

**********

UPDATE: The WSJ is reporting that Daschle "paid about $140,000 in back taxes and interest after questions surfaced during the vetting of his nomination." That is, he paid them back only after he was found out, although he is claiming that he didn't even think to report the car and driver on his taxes -- a credible excuse, I suppose, though I agree with Hilzoy that it suggests an appalling sense of entitlement. Whatever the case, it doesn't look good for Daschle, though it would be a real shame to lose him given his support for comprehensive health care reform. -- MJWS

Dumb and dumberer

By Carl

I had a feeling this might happen:

Weeks before President-elect Barack Obama chose New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson to head the Commerce Department, a small group of volunteers with ethics, tax and investigative expertise -- most of them lawyers -- scoured his background looking for embarrassing facts or political problems.

[...]Sources within the transition and the Justice Department said that Richardson had played down the importance of the probe and did not reveal that his office and staff could be at risk. The seriousness of the matter became apparent after the FBI began its own background check on Dec. 2. But Richardson's longtime aides defended his disclosures, noting that subjects under examination by a grand jury are rarely aware of its secret deliberations.

[...]But a source with the Obama transition said Richardson's disclosures to the team were incomplete.

My first reaction when I heard the BillR was considering taking the Commerce job was "WTF?"

Not that he's a bad choice, but as career moves go, this was a no-brainer: stay governor of New Mexico or go be a minor Cabinet official in the Obama administration, when you had already been UN ambassador and energy secretary?

I'd pick governor in a heartbeat, screw the "pleasure of the president" service stuff.

As well, he would have had to deal with Hillary, whom he knifed in the back at the earliest opportunity. Imagine trying to keep her in front of you for two or four years.

If you're going to accept a plum for beating up your old boss' wife, I would think an assignment as ambassador to a nice tropical island nation that has no extradition treaty with the US would be in order. You're 60. You deserve it. You've earned it.

But Commerce Secretary?

And to think, I gave this moron a contribution for governor!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Barack and Hillary: Team of Allies?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(A follow-up on my Hillary-to-State post from earlier today.)

Obama and Hillary met in Chicago yesterday and apparently discussed what role she might play in Obama's administration. Secretary of State remains at the top of the rumour mill, and, as I put it earlier today, although I would prefer Kerry for the job, strictly in terms of policy considerations, I am certainly intrigued by the idea of Hillary and Obama working together, if that is possible (and if she wouldn't overshadow him), to chart a new course for U.S. foreign policy.

Steve Clemons has been following this rumour for some time and now thinks it's a serious possibility. And he presents an interesting theory as to what Obama might be up to: "[T]his is EXACTLY what George W. Bush did to his most serious rival in 2000, Colin Powell. He gave Powell Secretary of State and then began to box him up. Barack Obama may be on the same track with Hillary Clinton who is and was his chief rival in the Democratic Party today."

That may very well be the case, but I think Obama is in a much stronger position than Bush was in back in 2000. He also seems to be incredibly confident and sure of himself and what he is doing -- more so now in victory than every before. I doubt he's all that worried about Hillary mounting some sort of challenge to him. True, it is wise to keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but is Hillary really an enemy? And does Obama really think he needs to "box" her in?

Again, maybe. If Obama stumbles, she could indeed emerge as a formidable rival after the 2010 midterms. The case would be made, after all, that it should have been Hillary all along, that things would be different, and better, if only she had won the nomination. And, yes, Obama is certainly a shrewd political operator who knows how to prepare well for future political battles. (Consider that he is set to meet with McCain on Monday, a shrewd move not just to reach out to his recent opponent but to shore up possible support down the road.) But I simply do not think that the motivation for appointing Hillary to State are so entirely self-serving (and, to be fair, Steve may not think so either). Maybe I'm not being cynical enough today, but it could be that Obama thinks that Hillary would actually be a positive addition to his administration, that they actually could work well together, that she would be an excellent secretary of state at this extremely challenging time.

We tend to think of them, coming out of that long and at times bitter and nasty primary season, as rivals, and as the two of them as a possible "Team of Rivals," but what if, with the election over, they are actually, or could actually be, allies -- that is, a Team of Allies?

Possible, no?

**********

UPDATE 1: Of course, it could all be a Clintonite-driven media "freak show." But I suspect there's a bit more to it than that.

**********

UPDATE 2: CNN is reporting that Obama and Hillary did in fact discuss the secretary of state job. Apparently, Obama wanted "to gauge Clinton's interest in the post of Secretary of State, if she were offered it. Senator Clinton's response is unknown, although multiple sources agree that Hillary Clinton was left with the impression that if she were interested in the post, it would be hers."

Note, however, that the CNN piece relies on anonymous "Democratic sources." They could well be pro-Hillary sources.

**********

UPDATE 3: ABC News has more on the meeting: "A source with knowledge of the transition process describes the meeting as not a hard offer. Obama is more cautious than that... Obama does not want to be seen as being rejected by her, but it is 'hers to turn down,' one source put it. They have an agreement to have another meeting or phone conversation about this very soon." Again, we're dealing with anonymous sources here.

Obama also met with Bill Richardson about the secretary of state job.

**********

UPDATE 4: The WaPo is reporting that Hillary and Richardson are on the SoS short list. The source? Once again, anonymous "Democratic sources."

**********

UPDATE 5: The NYT has more: "The prospect of Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state, perhaps the most prestigious cabinet position in any administration, sent people buzzing. But associates to both Democrats cautioned that their conversation included other cabinet possibilities and that no job was offered."

Hillary to Foggy Bottom?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The latest juicy morsel of speculation coming out of The Transition, or at least making its way around Transition watchers, has to do with Hillary being a candidate for Secretary of State. Here's WaPo:

There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There's talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

Well, okay, though I'd prefer to have Hillary in the Senate working on, say, health care reform.

I still think it'll be Kerry, who clearly wants the job, who would provide progressive leadership on U.S. foreign policy, and who would be an effective counterweight to the more hawkish, Republican-lite Democratic foreign policy establishment with which Obama has surrounded himself (Richard Holbrooke, another possibility for the job, et al.). I don't mind Richardson, but there's just too much of the bumbling fool about him, and Hagel... well, as much as I admire him for his tough stand against the Iraq War, he's still a conservative Republican.

At MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell reports that Tom Daschle could be a "compromise choice." I didn't think much of him when he was Senate majority leader, but his support for Obama, from early on, was impressive, and I think he'd be an asset to the Obama Administration. I just don't think he's right for State.

As for Hillary, I just wonder how effectively she and Obama would be able to work together. At Politico, Mike Allen reports that she may be "the favorite," and that appointing her to State "would create the ultimate 'Team of Rivals' cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions." Fair enough, and, indeed, there is certainly a lot to recommend her -- not least her foreign and military policy experience, her engagement in world affairs, and her undeniable stature and credibility. And it would certainly be a news-dominating pick, overshadowing the rest of the Transition and Obama's other Cabinet appointments. (For more, see Taylor Marsh, who makes a good case for her.)

I'd be happy with either Kerry or Hillary. I've been leaning towards Kerry, given that I'm closer to him on policy, but the thought of an Obama-Hillary foreign policy team, if it is at all workable, is rather appealing.

Richardson endorses Obama

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Clinton campaign (in the form of Mark Penn, among others) is trying to downplay it, and understandably so, but make no mistake about it, Richardson's endorsement of Obama (see video below) is big. Indeed, Clinton wanted it, badly, and it does matter -- The Trail's Dan Balz says there are five ways it boosts Obama:

1) Good timing: "Richardson has ridden to Obama's rescue during what has been the roughest stretch of his candidacy."

2) Message to superdelegates: "Richardson sends a signal to superdelegates that they too should back Obama."

3) Support from a Clinton friend: "Richardson is close to both Clintons."

4) Foreign policy credibility: "Richardson implicitly helps Obama answer questions about his readiness to be commander in chief."

5) The Hispanic vote: "Richardson's support could help Obama improve his standing with Hispanic voters."

All good points.

To which I would add this: While many superdelegates remain uncommitted, that is, have yet to announce their support for either Obama or Clinton, many of the top Democrats have taken sides, including Bill Clinton (of course), John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy. Prior to his endorsement, Richardson was one of the leading uncommitted Democrats, along with Al Gore and John Edwards. Gore likely won't endorse and Edwards seems to continue to be unsure of what to do. After Edwards, who was third behind Obama and Clinton when he dropped out of the race, the contenders for the nomination were Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich. Dodd has endorsed Obama, and Biden and Kucinich are uncommitted (though Kucinich may be leaning to Obama). Richardson's endorsement is far more significant than Dodd's, given points 1-5 above, and would be far more significant than a Biden endorsement, also given points 1-5 above, including foreign policy credibility (Richardson's is, I would argue, more significant than Biden's).

All of which is to say that, if Gore and Edwards remain uncommitted, Richardson's was pretty much the biggest endorsement left. So, if I may:

6) A big name.

7) Positive media coverage.

It has indeed been a difficult week -- a difficult few weeks -- for Obama. But his brilliant speech on Tuesday was well-received, Clinton was unable to score any major points, and now, with Richardson's key endorsement, Obama could be getting just the sort of boost he needs. He has been in the lead all along, of course, but he needs a boost to get out of this period of difficulty, much of it driven by Clinton's dirty campaign, the Republican smear machine, and generally negative media coverage. (It helps to have accurate reports like this new one, from The Politico: "One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.")

John Dickerson: "The Democratic race is like a CD stuck on a scratch, just waiting for the superdelegates to give it a kick and put it back on track. Bill Richardson took his shot. Now Obama has to hope that the other superdelegates hear the music and join in."

Yes, let's hope so.

Democrats on the TV: The New Hampshire Debate

By Creature

[Updated with blog reactions below.]

Holy cow, the stage is empty. I'm going to miss Joe Biden. Waiting for punches... still waiting... Chelsea's in the audience, she did not get a good seat. Hillary left herself open by saying we were distracted from Osama. Will Obama pounce? He does: Iraq is the reason we were distracted. And who voted for Iraq? Say it... say it... nope. He's playing the front-runner role. Bill Richardson needs to fix his tie. Hillary's making a play for the independent vote. Hillary: Obama could debate himself. Does he have hairy palms too? Hillary's game plan: attack Obama as a flip-flopper. Interesting. Edwards' game plan: Barack and I are change, Hillary's the status quo. He's going after her hard. Hillary's getting way too loud about change. Yikes. Richardson's game plan: experience should count, hey, look at me. Love Edwards on the war: It's an occupation, stupid. Commercial break. Moving on...

Yes, Hillary, finally: a women president would be a huge change. If only you hadn't tried to be so manly over war. Obama: we know the GOP playbook, ignore the politicians and attract their disillusioned voters. Richardson, dude, stop tapping on the table. Edwards, dude, lay off on the liver girl story. Just noticed the seating. Barack and Edwards together on one side working against Hillary. Richardson with Hillary on the other trying to be her VP. Hillary, we get it, 35 years of change. Jeez, let up. You will never be the agent of change. Obama: words do matter, words do motivate. Edwards' fire works for me. Did I mention Chelsea's in audience? I may have a crush on her. Hillary does well when she acts girlie.

Whew, it's over. They all did well. If I had to pick a winner I give it to Edwards. Hillary takes second place, though she did go a bit overboard with the change. Policy-wise, they all speak my language. Night and day from the GOP.

Update: Nedra Pickler, writing for AP, picks up on Hillary's paint-Obama-as-a-flip-flopper strategy.

Update II: Marshall reacts. So does Marsh, Cilliza, and Gandelman.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

A debatable presidential primary turning point

By Creature

The Dems take the stage to debate tonight in Philly. If my numbers are right this is debate number 712 and with 65 days to go before the public gets to cast their first vote tonight's Democratic battle is shaping up to be a do-or-die event for Obama and Edwards in their quest to bump Hillary off her inevitable throne.

Obama, grasping for an issue that will stick, will go after Hillary on Social Security--much to the chagrin of progressives everywhere since this was an issue the Dems had successfully put to bed years ago.

Edwards, who has not been lacking the will to attack Hillary directly, will continue beating his special-interest drum, with, hopefully, a bit of free trade thrown in to boot--a winning issue for Edwards.

Personally, my Constitution-loving sights will be set on Senator Dodd. After a strong few weeks fighting against telcom retroactive immunity and now standing tall against the Constitutionally-confused attorney general nomination, Mukasey, Dodd is poised to make a move from the basement to hopefully Richardson territory--and, yes, how irrelevant has Richardson become lately.

Overall, for the first debate in a while, I'm looking forward to seeing the Dems together on stage tonight. Not only for the punches I hope they throw at each other, but, as TPM reader KB astutely suggests, for the punches they should all begin to throw at the war-mongering GOPers on the other side of the ticket.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Afghanistan and 2008 US presidential politics

By AviShalom

Six more Canadian soldiers were killed yesterday in Afghanistan while riding in a "mine-resistant vehicle." (See also Michael's post from last night.)

Meanwhile, BBC World Service ran a radio documentary this morning about rampant corruption in Afghanistan. Police jobs are auctioned, because people are willing to pay to get in for the graft opportunities. The corruption may be driving more people to support Taliban insurgents. For all their brutality, the Taliban is remembered for being relatively clean, the BBC reported.*

With the ever-present possibility of an early election given Canada's parliamentary system and current minority government, the question of when to bring an end to the Afghanistan commitment is very much a matter of debate between the parties in that country. Yet the operation is almost totally noncontroversial in the US.

Even Bill Richardson, the only candidate among those with some realistic chance of getting the Democratic nomination who is calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq--"no residual bases left behind" --calls for increasing the US role in Afghanistan:

We must redeploy some of our troops to Afghanistan to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11.

That was a defensible position in 2004. Is it still in 2007?

Will any contender for the leadership of the USA dare suggest moving towards closure to the open-ended commitment in Afghanistan? Don't count on it. Not even Dennis Kucinich mentions it prominently on his issues page. Mike Gravel at least mentions it, sort of in passing, in the context of opposing military action against Iran (which he makes his second issue after Iraq). There appears to be almost total consensus that the commitment is worth continuing. Maybe it is, but it might be nice to debate the question.

_____
* Sorry; I could not locate a link to the program; I heard it at around 7:00 a.m. Pacific Time today on the XM BBC channel.

(Cross-posted at Fruits & Votes.)

The essence of spin: When fewer boos are a 'victory'

By Edward Copeland


Clinton greeted by fewer boos on Iraq war
That was the headline the Los Angeles Times used for its coverage of Democratic presidential contenders at the Take Back America forum. The Washington Post had a more subdued headline: Antiwar Democrats Are Less Critical as Clinton Takes New Tack on Iraq. I know the MSM lusts for Hillary to get the nomination, but this is ridiculous. The New York Times didn't cover the event at all, as far as I could tell.

One thing though that most of the MSM seems to have downplayed, which is even more unfavorable to Hillary Nothing-But-Ambition Clinton, are the results of Politico's straw poll of attendees at the same conference which named Barack Obama as the choice of 29% of the 720 votes cast and John Edwards as the pick of 26%. Hillary lagged far behind at 17%. Even more fascinating, the poll asked the participants whom their second choices would be if their first choice didn't make the cut. In that one, Obama got 30%, Edwards 28% and Hillary only 16%. Bill Richardson, who only garnered 9% among first choice voters, ticked up to 11% here. Obama in particular got high marks for an unusually (for him) confrontational speech at the forum that impressed the activists such as conference organizer Roger Hickey.

Obama clearly did himself well with a red-meat speech, showing he knows how to appeal to the activists.

The Los Angeles Times buried the straw poll results deep in their story and The Washington Post saved a brief mention of it for the very last paragraph.