It's official: Hillary Clinton's been offered the SoS gig.
Among the myriad immediate reactions comes the utterly expected, from USA Today:
The question for Hillary Rodham Clinton, slated to be named secretary of State on Monday by President-elect Barack Obama, is whether she can forge the sort of close relationship with a former rival that is crucial to giving the nation's top diplomat the credibility to get things done.
Er, can't we put this meme to rest, that Hillary Clinton is an active enemy of Obama? That was the storyline of the DNC for days, whether Clinton and her supporters would derail the process and pull some stunt to steal the nomination. And after that, it was how Clinton might not help Obama get elected, and her supporters might flock to McCain. How did that all turn out?
Sure, Clinton is ambitious and will likely fight to have her ideas and influence prevail in the administration...but...well...isn't that what every cabinet member does?
And here's another thing: Mary Ann Akers points out that John Kerry must be feeling a little disappointed at missing out on the SoS job, but staying in the Senate shouldn't be seen as just a consolation price. Folks, the Senate is where the action over the next four years is going to take place. It's the Senate that's the lynchpin for Obama's agenda. Any senior member in that body is going to put his or her stamp on legislation that decides where we're headed as a nation from here out.
Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.
And, as without skipping a beat, the press is there with drama:
Former President Bill Clinton's international business dealings, global foundation and penchant for going off script could present a significant obstacle to Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, observers say.
Can you image what the media feeding frenzy would have been like had Senator Clinton won the Democratic nomination? And wouldn't these same liabilities against Clinton for the SoS job have also been a problem in the Oval office?
Still, I believe it when it's announced. It makes perfect sense for Obama...but I don't understand why Clinton would want the job. Is it that she dislikes the Senate? Or did she burn some bridges during the election, and now faces only a supporting role there? Or maybe she just wants to be Secretary of State.
Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of state, a move that would create the ultimate "Team of Rivals" Cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions
...I'm also a little surprised Hillary Clinton would even want the job (if she wants the job). Right now, she has one of the safest seats in the Senate, and I expected her to have a leading role in the upcoming healthcare debate. Indeed, were she to give up her seat, it's unlikely she'd get it back.
Here's another grim reality to consider: Clinton's odds of ever becoming president are grim. There are cases of candidates that lost primaries went on to become president -- Reagan's failed 1976 bid springs to mind -- but unless Obama's presidency is a disaster, Clinton won't compete for the job until 2016, when the entire political spectrum likely will have changed.
Right now, Clinton has the chance to become a mainstay in the Senate, and a powerful lawmaker for as long as she wants. Does she give that up to serve in the Obama administration? With bleak job prospects afterwards? Then again, she might just want to be Secretary of State.
Max Baucus is at the center of the news today from Washington DC: he's unveiling his health-care proposal. It's a mish-mash of solutions that closely resembles Obama's campaign promises:
Expanded Medicaid and S-CHIP for the poor; a pooling mechanism that allows individuals and the uninsured to buy coverage at group rates; a new public insurance plan, modeled vaguely on Medicare, that would be available to people buying coverage through the new pool; subsidies to offset the cost of insurance coupled with efforts to restrain the cost of medicine in the long term; and regulations that force insurers to sell to everybody, regardless of pre-existing condition.
The big difference between Baucus' plan and Obama's is that it's mandatory -- that is, closer to Hillary Clinton's proposals for health care reform. And, while Clinton's imprint on this plan is faint because of her presidential campaigning, she is apparently gearing up to ensure that the reform goes through.
Naturally, with anything this big, there are concerns. For me, it isn't health insurance we necessarily need, but health care. There's talk of creating a "Health Insurance Exchange" -- is this a glossy version of McCain's proposal that would essentially handicap the states' ability to regulate the insurance industry? If there's a mandate for coverage for all Americans, does the plan "leave consumers at the mercy of the private insurers"?
Whatever. The plan's not released yet. And when it is, a lot people a helluva lot smarter than me will be scrutinizing this thing. Still, this is the first serve: the ball's in play. And we'll be talking a lot in the coming days and weeks and months about this proposal and others.
So last week, as I was negotiating the bowels of the Convention, drifting in and out of panels and mixers, conventioneering, and parties, I missed a lot of the news stories being generated about the Convention by the talking heads on their cable shows.
The biggest story of the DNC was the supposed Obama-Clinton rift. What would happen during the roll call? gleefully mulled the punditocracy, would there be a split Convention, a power play by disgruntled Clinton backers? Of course, no such rift was manifestly evident if you were actually at the Convention. Yes, Hillary Clinton supporters thought the best candidate was speaking on Tuesday night. Yes, tears were shed, applause bittersweet from many quarters. And certainly after Clinton's speech, maybe the best of her career, with her strong endorsement of Obama and passionate advocacy for women's issues, maybe a few of us had some mild regrets. But there was no rebellion manifest. Nobody was going to cause trouble. And there was no trouble.
On Thursday night, I got a peek into why the traditional media talking heads were so removed from the real stories of the Convention -- like Sirota's take on the Convention setting possible "building blocks for change," say -- and focused on wild speculative nonexistent plots. That was the night Obama spoke in Invesco field, and, because of my credentials, I was pretty much allowed to roam free. I ended up meeting New West's Jill Kuraitis in the elevator, and we rode up to the Press Box to find a place to plug in and file our stories.
We found the biggest media celebrities from the most influential media corporations enclosed in a quiet glass box litterally hundreds of feet above the spectacle.
I can imagine them, chatting with each other on what they think the biggest stories of the politics and the Convention are, free from the noise and distraction of the actual Convention. And those media folks who did wander down went as celebrities, not journalists. There was Ted Koppel in the basement snapping pics with his admirers. There was Joe Scarborough on the floor of Invesco field, one blonde woman under each arm, grinning foolishly for cameras.
I was a Clinton delegate at Montana's state convention
How is this possible, you ask? Aren't I an Obama supporter? Haven't I written posts attacking Clinton's record on labor issues, her attachment to the DLC? Didn't Left in the West host some of the worst examples of sexist trash-talking found in progressive circles?
Well, yes.
It started out simply enough, an outing to the Missoula county convention last Thursday, where I thought it would be fun to hang out with a bunch of local leftys, cheer Obama's primary win, and send some people to Helena to elect state delegates to go to the National Convention in August. And while plenty of folks showed up to fill Missoula's 19 delegate spots representing - which required speeches and a vote on butcher-paper ballots, and resulted in 19 delegates and at least one alternate in tears - too few Clinton supporters showed up to fill the county's 10 delegate spots reserved for Senator Clinton.
So offered myself up, was duly elected, and sent to Helena on Sunday as a Missoula county representative of Hillary Clinton.
Montanans went to the polls in droves for Tuesday's primary, and predictions about an "energized" Democratic party were realized, surpassed even. Unofficial results show 181,336 Democratic ballots were cast, compared to 93,543 in the 2004 presidential primary, a jump of 87,792 Democratic voters and a 94 percent increase.
173,710: Number of votes cast in the 2004 general election for Kerry/Edwards.
108,198: Number of votes cast in the 2006 Democratic primary
181,906: Number of votes cast in yesterday's primary for Democratic presidential candidates.
21,147: Number of votes cast in Missoula county during the 2006 primary election.
24,852: Number of votes cast in Missoula county during the 2008 primary for Democratic presidential candidates
30,360: Number of votes cast in Missoula county during the 2008 primary for all presidential candidates
112,747: Number of votes cast in the 2004 Republican primary
97,473: Number of votes cast in the 2006 Republican primary
95,232: Number of votes cast in the 2008 Republican primary
Dear Lord Jesus, I do not often speak with you and ask for things, but now, I really must insist that you help me win the election tomorrow because I deserve it and Paul Metzler doesn't, as you well know. I realize that it was your divine hand that disqualified Tammy Metzler and now I'm asking that you go that one last mile and make sure to put me in office where I belong so that I may carry out your will on earth as it is in heaven. Amen.
Oh, and some endorsements - these are going to be quick because I have a full day ahead of me tomorrow working for the first candidate I'll endorse - Hillary Clinton! Shocking, I know. Health care, health care, health care, health care.
I voted absentee a few hours before attending a Missoula County Democrats meeting where Claudette Morton and the AG candidates spoke.
After attending the meeting, I was pleased that I voted for Steve Bullock for AG.
I wished I had voted for Claudette Morton, however. I was really impressed with the breadth and depth of her experience. I think I have a little vote-swapping action going on with a Juneau supporter, though, so I don't feel as bad about this anymore.
As Tuesday approaches, I thought I'd write my own primer on some early numbers to watch as a guide for how the evening could go. If people can think of something I'm missing, please throw it in to the comments:
108,198 people voted in the 2006 Democratic U.S. Senate primary. 97,473 people voted in the 2006 Republican U.S. Senate primary. 93,543 people voted in the 2004 Democratic U.S. President primary. 112,747 people voted in the 2004 Republican U.S. Senate primary.
Big question for Tuesday night: What will the big totals be for overall participation in the two party's primaries?
Yellowstone and Missoula Counties should be among the first counties to report. Missoula is expected to be one of Obama's stronger counties. Yellowstone is expected to be one of Clinton's stronger.
It's not just statewide totals. Delegates in Montana are apportioned by the old U.S. House district lines. Could Clinton win the Eastern District 3-2? Can Obama win the 70% necessary to pull off a 4-1 victory in the West? The former is more likely than the latter, at least according to polling.
Does John Parker have a home town advantage in Great Falls? Does Mike Wheat have one in Bozeman? Both of these candidates should run strong in their home counties. If they aren't, the likely explanation is that a surge in turnout from the contested Presidential has brought in a bunch of people who are "low-information" voters down-ballot.
The Republican U.S. Senate primary will be among the more interesting races to watch. Conventional wisdom, to the extent it exists, is that Patty Lovaas is running a bit stronger in Western Montana and Kirk Bushman is running stronger in Eastern Montana.
What percentage of the vote does Ron Paul earn? The Republican primary has few draws, but Rep. Paul is likely to be a big one for his dedicated followers. Remember, Paul outright won the caucus in 10 counties (and tied for first in an 11th), taking second statewide (to Mitt Romney). Is it possible a combination of apathy, conservative backlash against McCain, and the Ron Paul Revolution could serve up a pretty huge portion of the vote? I think it is.
The Republican Attorney General's race. Tim Fox seems to be the insider candidate. Does he win the primary -- or does this end up being the Todd O'Hair/Brad Johnson race of '08 where the inside favorite gets defeated by the underdog?
What portion of the primary electorate throws their vote to one of the two tickets running against Schweitzer/Bohlinger? A handful of bloggers? Or more protest votes?
Legislative primaries are contested all over the place. In Missoula, the Ron Erickson/Rosie Buzzas race is probably the highest profile, but the HD 91 contest between Dustin Hankinson and Tim Furey is worth checking in on. The Paul Clark/Judith Stang primary is worth watching -- will the Republicans buy their way into a Democratic primary with some slick mailings? Christine Kaufmann faces a challenge in Helena -- does Hal Jacobson pull it off? And what happens in the 3-way primary in Missoula County?
Feel free to throw in predictions -- what are some other races to watch?
Great article on the HuffPo about WomenCount, a PAC dedicated to "supporting progressive ideas for women," a group that's going to demonstrate in favor of counting all of the Michigan and Florida delegates, outside the hotel where the DNC committee will be deciding those state's fate:
"You're not going to write that we're a bunch of hysterical women trying to create havoc, are you?"
The tone is part weary, part sarcastic, and a little bit plaintive. The words themselves -- spoken by one organizer of this weekend's planned demonstration outside the hotel where the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is set to (maybe) decide the fate of Michigan and Florida's much-disputed delegates -- reflect the widespread sense of persecution that is currently felt among some prominent Democratic activists and fundraisers.
Largely female and supportive of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, these political actors look upon a contest they view as essentially tied and are dumbfounded by the vitriol being directed not only Clinton's way, but at their own efforts to "count every vote" in all the Democratic primaries.
It's fair to say that these women believe they're doing the right thing. They don't believe they're gaming the system to hand Hillary Clinton the nomination - although that's what it looks like to the rest of us. (In fact, my opinion is that that's exactly what it would be: party bigwigs handing the nomination to the candidate that lost the election.)
The point here is that these Clinton supporters - and the ones that we know - are sincere in their beliefs. They're not shallow, superficial, inauthentic, devious, ruthless, hysterical, or faux anything. They have an argument they believe to have merit.
I haven't seen a lot of discussion locally or nationally about the other primary being held June 3 in South Dakota. However, while we Montana types discuss our primary races and the national media focuses on the Florida/Michigan controversy or the general election, Hillary Clinton is making a strong play for South Dakota. I have started to think it's possible that she might win.
Details are available regarding Hillary Clinton's return to Montana. From NewWest.Net:
Pablo, MT
"Solutions for America" Town Hall
Salish Kootenai College
In front of Darcy McNickle Library, at the intersection of Division Street and Hwy 93
5200 Highway 93
Pablo, MT
Doors Open: 1:30 p.m. MDT
Event Begins: 3:30 p.m. MDT
Billings, MT
"Solutions for America" Rally
Heritage Building
Metra Park Fairgrounds
308 6th Ave North
Billings, MT
Doors Open: 6:00 p.m. MDT
Event Begins: 8:00 p.m. MDT
Anna already took a look at the new numbers from Maxon-Dixon, but I wanted to highlight a few other things.
There's some worth in keeping an assumed frontrunner below 50%. Against Obama, McCain is below 50. Against Clinton, he is over. That alone is of interest.
Clinton actually is outperforming expectations in this poll. Fair expectations for Clinton in Montana range from losing by 15 (538's baseline number) to a 25-point whomping a la 2000. In this poll, she is down 11, a huge improvement over John Kerry's 20 point loss in 2004 -- and more evidence that Republicans may need to be worried for the long-term about the state's voting trends.
Gender-wise, the Clinton and Obama general election coalitions are virtually identical. There is no evidence of a gender advantage for Clinton among women or of a gender disadvantage for Clinton among men. That's interesting to know.
Partisan-wise, Clinton's and Obama's coalitions are very different. Clinton runs a net 16 points stronger among Dems than Obama. Obama meanwhile runs a net 7 points stronger among Republicans and a net 19 points stronger among independents.
Quick Excel math reveals that Lee Newspapers found a partisan environment slightly less favorable to Republicans than exit polls in the state from 2004 and 2006 reveal. Two possibilities -- partisan identification is trending away from the Republicans or it is statistical noise and the GOP was undersampled in this survey (note: these explanations are not mutually exclusive).
There are some other things worth noting from this polling data. For example, Lee did not find the Republican primary for U.S. Senate worth polling -- they only oversampled the Democratic primary electorate (no indication yet of whether they saw the Democratic U.S. House primary worth polling).
Economic concerns weigh heavily on the minds of Montanans. The top concerns named were as follows:
Concern
%
Economy and Jobs
28
National Security and Terrorism
14
Iraq
13
Energy
12
Health Care
11
Moral and Family Values
10
Immigration
5
Global Warming
3
No indication of whether this was an open response or if options were given.
Update -- One more thought. Montana's delegates are not awarded statewide. Many are awarded by Congressional District. Five to the Western half. Five to the Eastern half. If Hillary can maintain her lead in the old Eastern District, it may mean a net swing of two delegates in her favor from the Conventional Wisdom. Although Obama may run strong enough in Western Montana to win the district 4-1.
(Call this post, "A bunch of crap, part 3." These jerks aren't representative of the vast majority of Obama supporters, but they're sure making us all look bad.
And if you don't think there's sexism in this race, you need to read this post.
For those Clinton backers still plugging away out there: nice work. My appreciation for you folks has trebled. You don't deserve this sh*t. - promoted by Jay Stevens)
This evening, I met with the Clinton staff in Missoula and other volunteers to watch results come in from Kentucky. Most of the time, when I attend a Hillary function, I wear a Hillary t-shirt, button, or sticker. Most of the time, when I'm walking to or from the office, I'm shouted at and harassed from cars, porches, on the street, whatever. Today was no different.
As I was walking home, in downtown Missoula, in broad daylight, someone wearing three Obama buttons on their shirt followed me to an intersection and shouted at me while I was waiting for the light to change. I was wearing headphones, so I turned them up and clearly ignored the person shouting at me. Luckily, the light changed before he got too heated up, and he didn't follow me across the street. It was still very weird - he was shouting, waving his arms, very aggressive. Each of these experiences has been terrifying - I never know if the person targeting me is going to become physical, if they're going to follow me, or if they'll be satisfied with shouting something nasty and leaving it at that.
When I talk to other volunteers, I hear similar stories from nearly all of them. Many of the stories involve signs - some volunteers are afraid to put signs in their yards, after hearing about signs being defaced, torn apart, and actually burned down. Others bring their signs in every evening and put them out again in the morning.
That's all I have to say about the response to Anna's post yesterday about the misogyny that dogged Hillary Clinton's campaign even before there was an official campaign.
See, the thing is, I think Anna was dead-on. There's a language out there reserved for Hillary Clinton that's unmistakably gender-based, destructive and sexist, it's generally -- and wrongly so, IMHO -- accepted in society, and it's also coming from progressive corners.
Bill Moyers did a segment on this very topic, wa-a-a-a-y back in the Dark Ages of December 2007 when he interviewed Kathleen Hall Jamieson, a professor at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. The stuff about Clinton starts at the 6:50 mark.
It's a fantastic interview, one that discusses the language and treatment of the presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, outside the realm of politics.
That's the key, isn't it? It's hard to distinguish hostility driven by negative imagery of Clinton as a woman, from her and President Clinton's involvement and actions, say, in the DLC. This conversation does a very good job of separating Clinton from politics, and simply examines the discourse that has grown around Clinton, and what that means for the state of discourse on the Internet in general.
(Anna surveys the wreckage as the end of the primary draws near... - promoted by Jay Stevens)
I attended the Missoula County Democrats meeting this week, in order to show my support for the Clinton campaign representatives who spoke briefly before the Attorney General candidates debated. Carol Williams, the chair of the campaign in Montana, mentioned something during her remarks with which I agreed completely, and she really made me think. Williams said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that America will not have moved into the 21st century with regard to gender issues until we take a hard look at the way Hillary Clinton has been treated in this presidential race. I've been talking about this for about as long as I've been posting here, so I don't probably need to go through it again, but both the media and a lot of allegedly progressive Democrats have shown a pretty gross side of themselves when it comes to gender in this campaign.
As my thoughts about this developed further, I read a couple of interesting op-eds that helped to crystallize a lot of the reasons why I agreed so strongly with Williams' comment.
And before I go futher, I want to say two things that I hope will clarify where I'm coming from: 1. I don't think Hillary Clinton is losing the primary because of sexism. I do, however, think that sexism is playing a huge, huge, huge role in the way that people talk about her. Those are two different things. 2. I don't think sexism is a worse problem than racism, and arguing that one is worse than the other is a pretty ugly thing to do.
I just got a forwarded email from a fellow Zoolian.
A Hillary yard sign was burned down in someone's yard last night, but the rest of the signs in the yard, Erickson, Buzzas and Obama were not. I'm putting a call out to please let me know if something is done to your sign or let me know if you hear of anything like this.
I don't know if this was an Obama supporter or not, but sign wars really are among the silliest things of all time.
Both Obama supporters and Clinton supporters will need to be friends in the general election. Burning down signs is a weird way to establish friendship.
Some of my co-workers and I were out hitting people up for mail voting at the Bill Clinton speech this morning. With all the rain, it was like a scene from a Hemingway novel.
But mixing farce with whatever plotline we were in were two guys with giant signs telling people the Presidential nomination race is over and that Obama is the nominee -- in less polite terms.
I heard one Clinton supporter converse with them and it sounded to me like one of them said that they were actually Nader supporters when the woman told them that they weren't doing their candidate any favors.
There is something about operating in fundamentally bad faith in politics that really chaps my ass. And I know that probably makes me a hypocrite in some way that one of my conservative friends will be able to point out in no small time.
But, honestly -- how childish. And that goes for whether they're Nader or Obama supporters.
There are times where John McCain appears genuinely vulnerable in the Rocky Mountain West, including Montana. When he spends time saying things like this, it seems even more likely:
The 9/11 Commission recommended that the federal government set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses. Consistent with these recommendations, the Real ID act established federal guidelines to prevent fraud in the issuance and acquisition of identity documents. I support full implementation of Real ID but understand that states need to be given enough time and funding to implement the requirements. (Emphasis mine.)
There's some other mediocre stuff in that interview, like McCain's belief that a broadband infrastructure will just emerge without government help (I wonder where we'd be if Eisenhower took that approach with the Interstate system), but defense of Real ID is just clearly out of step here in the West.
Also -- I think McCain has voted for the Patriot Act repeatedly and opposed reforms. Yargh.
