Brennan Blinks (and a Thanksgiving Message to the Big Guy)

Al, what do you make of this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/report-clinton-camp-fabri_n_146...

Come on....someone start leaking some names off that donor list!  BTW, Bill only gave them foundation donors, right?  Nothing on Global Initiative or the library?

What did you think of Barack's press conference today?

And, in light of Hillary, how's his economic presence looking - both domestically and internationally?

Further, considering how it might impact Hillary, what are your thoughts about the cooperation between outgoing Bush and incoming Obama.

In addition, in terms of Hillary, what do you think about the PE's statements on farm subsidies?

Finally, returning to, you know... Hillary ... what about the big jobs program?

The world wants to know! (And btw, a sincere happy Thanksgiving right back at ya).

Hmm.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5233376.ece

One of Barack Obama’s longtime mentors and oldest friends said today he believes Bill Clinton will be a complicating factor for the new president and that his list of foreign donors could prove embarrassing.

Laying the groundwork for the way out?

This notion that rumor and emotion naturally triumph over the credentials of candidates for positions in the government stinks.

It stinks to high heaven.

Yes, some folks are having a fit about him. In fact, some are accusing him of supporting past policies. Nowhere in your celebration of this removal of a candidate did you seem to care if the accusations were based in fact. With Senator Clinton, the evidence for various accusations is as readily available as a youtube search. (Did she really say that? Did that really not happen?  Why, I can see with my own two eyes right here...) Where's the substantiation? More importantly, where's the concern that the accusations are substantiated?

I don't believe in karma.  However, I do believe that a mix of entropy and limited prudential reasoning can do one hell of an impression of karma.

If a candidate shouldn't be selected, the reasons for turning them away should be based in fact. I don't see how you can claim the moral high ground if this isn't the case. Cynical "that's the way of the world" BS logic rhymes with Turd Blossom.

Report: Clinton Camp Fabricated Initial Obama "Offer"

In the New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Drew sheds some more light on the behind-the-scenes wrangling between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama over the Secretary of State post: Obama's meetings with Hillary Clinton and John McCain about playing important roles in his presidency indicated his imagination and his shrewdness, although sources close to Obama say he did not offer her the job of secretary of state when they met. [...]

Mrs. Clinton's and her closest advisers' turning a suggestion by the President-elect that she might, among other things, head the State Department into an "offer" and reports that she was agonizing over whether to accept it, did not please officials in Chicago, some of whom hoped that issues over disclosure of Bill Clinton's post-presidential record might block the appointment. But the former president's camp blocked that by promising to cooperate with requests for information and to accept limits on his activities, including clearance of speaking engagements abroad. Statements by the Hilary camp on November 21 saying that "she's ready" for the position but then backtracking, saying that some matters were "under discussion," typified the whole mess, the only snag thus far in an otherwise unusually smooth transition involving impressive choices--an object lesson to Obama (which he had reason to know already) that getting involved with the Clintons is rarely uncomplicated.

according to the Elizabeth Drew story.  She doesn't say what her sources are and I don't know of her previous writings but it all makes more sense than anything else to date on how/why The Inevitable storyline was out there.  Hillary Clinton drama is so predictable it's sick. From this report, it looks like Obama does have to consider where she would be least dangerous to his administration's success as the deciding factor - not where she would be most helpful.

The best outcome is that she gets offered the job, loses her Senate seat and then gets fired by March.  Then she and her husband can go on a Hill and Bill Speaking and Circus tour.

And to stay on topic, Brennan seems like your typical bureaucrat -saying whatever he needs to say to please the powers in office. Adios Brennan.

I have fallen off the wagon and become addicted to this site again.  I thought once the primaries and election were over, I could kick this habit at least a bit, but with the Circus back in town, it's just too much.  Keep coming back looking for your reassuring perspective.  Really thankful for the oasis that is The Field.  Should be an interesting week.

Happy Thanksgiving all.

Josselyn, Interesting article!

to Deputy Secretary of State shed any light on the likelyhood of Clinton being named?

I've read up a little about the guy but I'm not sure if this piece of information tells us anything.

Paul - I don't read anything to it other than, if it's true, it means that the next Secretary of State, whomever it will be, will have to live with undersecretaries not necessarily chosen by her or him.

Some reports have said that choosing her own staff was a "condition" placed by one of the possible candidates.

Wednesday before Thanksgiving is even better than most Fridays for "news dumps," when officials announce something they want everyone to calm down about by the end of the weekend. Tomorrow could be an interesting day.

John N - We live in a media age. It was unfair to them, for example, that Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers found themselves at the center of presidential campaign controversy, but that's the reality. One of them, Wright, handled it very badly by increasing his visibility and talking to the press (even the National Press Club). The other handled it very well, by holding his tongue until after the election. It wasn't fair that either would have to do that, but that's the reality. And there are choices we all make in the face of unfair realities. I've made them. I'm sure everybody here has made them.

If through no fault of his own Brennan at CIA would cause a media circus of diversion and distrust, then his other qualities don't matter because the drama would make it impossible for him or anybody to do the job with the discretion required and in a way that builds trust rather than exacerbates distrust and fear. This is not about him. It's about whether things function smoothly and without drama. 

Nobody, but nobody, is entitled to any government position he or she hasn't been directly elected to serve in. Another example is that an elected official might have a son or a daughter, or a mother or a father that would be, otherwise, the most qualified person for an important position. It's not that person's fault who he or she is related to, but the controversy over nepotism might impede the otherwise qualified person from being able to do the job. Not fair, true. But still a legitimate impediment to the person holding that position.

"Not causing a media circus" is now the first requirement for anyone in public life. (It's why people like me would be bad choices even for positions that we're most qualified to do. I accept that. Brennan clearly does too.)

Your response to John N answers my question as well. This is my view as well, and is the way we know Obama works.

If Obama changed course whenever the netroots mobilized against him, he would have voted against the FISA bill so I don't think it is just the netroots outrage this time (which I am well aware of but that I do not think has reached the level of prominence that FISA or other controversies did). As the FISA example shows, Obama will do what he has decided to do if he thinks it is best, even at the cost of creating netroots opposition against him.

All of which leads me to believe Brennan's withdrawal is something Obama may already have wanted to do for his own reasons and he is just using the netroots campaign as justification.

This further suggests that if he really wants Clinton to be his Secretary of State, he will do it, even if the netroots also organizes against it.

To answer my own question, I guess that foundation list does include library and GI donors, per that piece Mary linked to re: Abner Mikva.

"Although the former president last week gave Obama’s team of vetters the largely secret names of 208,000 donors to the William J Clinton Foundation, which covers his presidential library and the charitable Clinton Global Initiative, they may turn out to include some ticking timebombs."

EDIT - my bad, actually the above info was in another UK Times piece: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article52133...

Which, btw, Mary, I thought you'd just missed Al's prior post about this, but it looks like Abner is CONTINUING to talk in public about all the badness re: Clinton[s] at SoS.  And don't get mad, Tom W. but you made me laugh.  Nice for a change.  :-)  Laura, I agree, but it certainly can't hurt to express our opinions to give Obama similar cover should he want or need it.

Always happy to be of service in the humor department...

No, I knew that the Abner Times UK piece was from today.  Which was why I thought it was worth knowing about. 

PBS is airing a Frontline documentary on Hugo Chavez tonight (it's starting now on my local PBS station, eastern time). Looks interesting.

Well, so nobody feels too badly for Mr. Brennan. Once an Agency man, always an Agency man -- you never really leave.

So he may not be at the top in the limelight, but you can be sure he will be in the thick of it behind the scenes -- and likely in a much more effective role for his employer than if he were blinded by the spotlight.

In a way, he is now the spy who came in from the cold. 

And as for the silly notion that it should be fair in that world, well I suspect Mr. Brennan is all too familiar with the Big Game -- and the rules in force. 

The only difference between our current outrage over waterboarding and the brutal reality of the House of Mirrors that has existed since antiquity is that Bush put in place a written policy authorizing paid agents to torture folks, so we have more than shadows to put into focus. 

In the old days, which never really went away, here and abroad, it was all done at arms-length — by assets and a hidden trail of quid pro quos with a subtle wink and nod from the top of the bureaucracies -- ie., El Salvador, Guatamala, Chile and Vietnam.

We have to be honest about that, as most of us live protected lives. The liberal [or conservative] outrage is always easy to express from the safety of a suburban home. When you get down to the street, where the game is played, the rules tend to break down. That's where character is tested, usually in moments none of us ever hear about -- where the pen meets the bullet.

Just want to keep it real while we live in this world -- for those who have faced such choices, or will in the future, with more than their own skin to consider. If we really want to change reality, we have to find the courage to go down to the streets where it's happening — and take a stand, work to reduce the harm, and accept all the consequent risks that come with that choice.

Short of that, we're fooling ourselves if we think outrage alone changes anything, or that preventing one player from ascending to higher office amounts to more than a dump-off pass in this game -- but it is easier to believe it matters.

I don't hold myself above anyone on this front, but it does weigh on my mind.

Britta - Patrick Irelan reports in Counterpunch that he saw an interview with the documentary's producer and it sounds like a typical US media hit job. 

Some years back Frontline did an intensely negative profile of Chavez co-produced by then NY Timesman (now at the Washington Post) Juan Forero. That one definitely did suck. But I'll be interested in hearing your take on it (I don't get PBS where I am).

By offering her the senior cabinet office, Obama has effectively neutralized his main intra-party rival.

Or consider the question of money. As a Senator, Hillary could raise money to pay off her 2008 campaign debt; as a cabinet officer, she can't.

Then, look at the fate of Secretaries of State going back to Reagan: they get replaced after a single term. Bill Clinton, for example, replaced Warren Christopher with Madeline Albright.

If Hillary takes the job, she's going to wake up one morning in 2013 with no Senate seat, no power base, a big pile of debt, no Secretaryship, in short, nothing at all. Her big issue of healthcare reform, which she could have shaped from the Senate? Somebody else is going to take care of that.

You have to wonder if that's the point.

http://dailygotham.com/blog/bouldin/how_obama_punked_hillary

Will it matter to her that she has $8-$10 million of unpaid campaign debt hanging over her head?

KD

Al,  Looks like some folks in Thailand are demostrating the power of organizing, just as you always preach.  They're literally shutting down the airports and other transportation while demanding the Prime Minister step down.  Takes the stopping foreclosure protest ideas of Howard Zinn to a whole new level:

http://socialistworker.org/2008/08/28/behind-thailand-protests

Seems like most of us here wouldn't agree with the reason these people are doing this, but it is instructive as to what kind of influence we can have if we're smart about it.

@Karen Desmond --Thanks for posting that link. And I enjoy reading all your comments!

So that blue dress might have ultimately cost Bill $10 million as he pays that debt with past/future speaking fees. Sorry to bring that up but the ultimate power hungry couple invites this commentary by then and now placing wealth accumulation and pursuit of power ahead of all other considerations in their so-called life of public service. 

I was just thinking tonight while watching some of the shows about the Obama press conferences, with his announcements of a 2 million jobs/national infrastructure program, etc., how a similar press conference would have looked if a President-elect Clinton was at the microphone.  Can you imagine how worried the public and the markets would be about the immediate and long term future of the U.S. with her lack of message and budget discipline?  I doubt that any economic plans would have been about infrastructure.  Maybe she would have been proposing a second  gimmick like an airline tax holiday to get "Americans flying again"?  And probably toss in a "shame on you - you Big Three CEOs" moment just to get everyone riled up but predictably achieving nothing of substance. 

For sure we would not have been reading in The Economist "Ah, glorious, glorious competence. How we've missed you."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2008/11/meet_mr_geithner.cfm

Britta - Chavez's weekly TV program is called "Alo Presidente" ("Hello, President") and regarding your observation:

He puts his ministers on the spot in an uncomfortable manner during his TV show

I was in the studio audience for one of those programs, as a reporter in Caracas, back in 2002, a month after the attempted coup against him, and, yes, he makes all his cabinet members sit in the audience, too. And then he takes random phone calls from the public.

And if the citizen has a housing problem, he calls up his secretary of housing and tells him or her to fix the problem and come back to the show next week to tell the public how it was fixed. Same with any other area of policy.

I was super impressed by that. It wouldn't be a bad idea for Obama, frankly. "Secretary Geithner, this lady lost everything she had from the predatory lender. Fix it! And come back next week and tell us how you did it."

As for how Chavez will respond to Obama, he will test him, verbally but not in any truly threatening way, just with words and symbols. This week he criticized Obama for not responding to the Iranian prime minister's congratulations letter (as an oil producing nation, Venezuela is knee deep in OPEC, and a key member in organizing its unity). And of course he's testing him with these Russian ships sailing into port, but again it's symbolism, those ships threaten no one. It's a test that I think Obama is well suited to defuse. But that kinda depends on who is secretary of state, because I can imagine one candidate for that post who would think it was about her, and blow it before there was even a chance of normalizing relations.

that this move would give cover for Obama for the troop pull-out, does it not perpetuate the myth the dems are weak on military/defense matters ?

amk

amk - I don't see any freak show and traveling circus following Gates around, and therefore I think he'll follow orders.

And I don't care about the suggestion of which party is weak or strong on military matters. Secretary of Defense doesn't make policy. The only three cabinet posts that make policy are Attorney General and (newly) Sec. of Treasury and Secretary of State.

I would concur with Britta's overall summary and opinion of the Frontline program; but I would not count South American politics as my area of greatest understanding.

So Al... the program did seem to leave the viewer with the ominous message that Chavez will not just leave last year's vote against an indefinite term of office where it is. How do you feel about his seeking a possible "lifelong" appointment? More importantly, is this something the vast majority of Venezuelan people could approve in the future?

Btw...you can see the whole program online in english or spanish at: 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/

I was inclined to be open-minded about HRC as SOS until following the link to Elizabeth Drew's claims that HRC has been manipulating the media to aggrandize her and make her look gracious and capable. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22170).

For those who thought that the idea was to remove Hillary Clinton from the Senate to stop her meddling in an Obama domestic agenda, here's an idea that will make your heads explode:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/25/AR200811...

KD

Yes, I saw that this a.m. and, as a NYer, immediately started rubbing my eyeballs.  So much for Obama removing a thorn or two by appointing HRC SoS and neutering Bill's overseas activities.  Honestly, the only name I've seen floated as a potential replacement that doesn't make me want to gack is RFK, Jr.  His unwavering support of HRC during the primaries [even after she invoked the assassination of his dad!] tells me maybe he would accept the seat.... again, if she actually goes to SoS, which I still have hope will not happen.

[p.s. Anonymous, FYI, that piece re: HRC fabricating the offer has been the top story over at Huffington's Politics page since last night & still there this a.m.  That link at top of thread.]

As an aside...and I apologize if this question has been asked and answered in a previous thread, but does anyone know anything about an Organizing for Change Legacy Conference being held by the Obama people in Chicago the weekend of Dec 6th?

Wow!  Bill to fill the Senate seat?  That scenario had never even entered my mind (and I'm a New Yorker).  The Circus is most definately back in town.  This press conference, whenever it finally happens, calls for popcorn and cracker jack and soda.

And then he can give it back to her when she's done :)

They can just keep passing it back and forth until they're ready to give it to Chelsea.

KD

expectation for the SoS, it's nice to be able to smile.

"They can just keep passing it back and forth until they're ready to give it to Chelsea."

Thanks Karen!

when I saw the post in Huffpo that others have linked here citing Elizabeth Drew's revelation about the fabricated 'offer' to Hillary.  What I want to know, Al, is - how do you do that?  There are a lot of inhabitants of the Great Orange Satan biting their tongues now after criticizing you for calling it.  But like so many things you called this one right too!  I hope this means there's a chance he's going to give it to Kerry or Richardson now.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to the absence of a Labor or Commerce announcement today--not that one was expected? There appears to be angst that this means that both cabinet positions are relegated to (or will stay in) a second tier status. Then there is still the silence from Richardson's camp if he is the presumptive Commerce nominee. Of course, you now have "Obama aides" talking to the NYT about Biden's purportedly reduced role as far as foreign policy is concerned. Once more, all these "aides" continually assume that HRC is the de facto SoS. These same aides suggest that if Biden had strong reservations about HRC, his views would carry weight. At any rate, there's no sign yet of the news dump Al suggests might be a possibility. Here's hoping that Biden gets it somehow that the Clintons' mockery of the very tact, subtlety, and nuance required to implement the President's foreign policy agenda (as opposed to their own), all the while managing a fractious State Department, disqualifies them from jobs requiring... well, tact, subtlety, nuance--and self-control. The Bill-to-the-Senate psycho-drama is just another in the perverted sequence of stories that put the well-being of the planet or nation behind the career paths of these megalomaniacs. 

= full  fledged  "Three Ring Circus" 

that I've assumed Hillary SoS is a foregone conclusion and found skeptics to be wishfully thinking/kidding themselves. But... after watching Obama in the press conference today, I wondered if I wasn't the one misreading it.  Here's the relevant transcript:

Q But sir, you talked about John McCain was going to come back to Washington if he won, and it would just move people into different chairs. You've got Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, Bob Gates --

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on! Hold on!

Q -- we hear, anyway. We hear. So --

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: You hear that.

Q Right.

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA: So the -- first of all, that's not the topic. We're not talking about my Cabinet, because I haven't made those appointments yet. And I'm happy --

Brendan - So far the president-elect has named many White House staffers but only one cabinet member: Treasury Secretary.

Recall that Podesta made a point of saying, at the first transition press conference, that with the exception of George H.W. Bush (41) no other recent president-elect had announced any cabinet members at all until December.

Treasury is obviously a more urgent one now during an hour of crisis in markets.

He has all of December and most of January to roll out the rest.

And Labor and Commerce, indeed, will be part of the economic cabinet, and might well be rolled out together. That would make sense. But what if he hasn't decided on one or both of them yet? Or, more to the point: What if one of his cabinet choices is still a candidate for two posts and it will depend on how the other post is resolved? That would prohibit him being rolled out this week, right? I mean, I'm not mentioning any names, or whether any cabinet candidates recently shaved their beards or not...

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1300994,Obama-food-pantry-112608.article

A certain person from a certain state that happens to be a "recent" version of a certain country (this country where a certain reporter happens to reside). Whatever happens, there is little doubt that our formerly bearded official will be leaving the state for a certain president-elect's cabinet.

But seriously, our local papers haven't really said anything new past the whole speculation about Richardson getting commerce, though I wonder if Obama might be thinking that a certain well-qualified candidate of latino heritage in the lucrative Secretary of State position might further cement latino support for a certain president-elect who could be looking at two southwest states to turn blue (Arizona, Texas).

...and not only to gather support in the southwest states that used to belong to the older version of his state, but to commune intelligently in brotherly fashion with the leaders of all the people in a country called América.