Archive for December 2, 2008

Fox News: Reinventing the Transition as a Middle School Dance

Fox News is desperate. For relevance, for catchy primetime dramas, for attention, for any good news in a new Democratic era. And it shows. Per Fox News:

Obama’s Cabinet Selections Leave Kerry Out in the Cold

If John Kerry was hoping to be part of President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet, he’ll almost certainly have to settle for the consolation prize: a powerful chairmanship in the U.S. Senate.

[. . .] But there is reason to suspect that Kerry might have preferred a high-profile position within the Obama administration.

To say nothing of similar narratives about Hillary’s appointment, media attempts to over-dramatize the transition are beginning to verge on the ridiculous. Washington D.C., in several important ways, is not Dawson’s Creek. Can someone cut Fox a good drama so their news writers can have a meaningful outlet for their talents, other than the news ticker?

The Big Dig and Two Women with the Shovels: Susan Rice and Samantha Power

Help is on the way.

As long as we continue to be perceived as miserly (which comparatively we are), hypocritical, protectionist, or arrogant in many parts of the world, we will fail to sustain the partnerships that are so critical to combating the transnational threats we face. … We need leadership guided by enlightened self-interest—the understanding that we win when others win and lose when others lose. … New American leadership should aim to maximize global public goods—global peace and stability, global economic opportunity and growth, public health, democracy, and respect for human rights. In turn, we would enhance our own security and secure our own leadership.

Susan Rice wrote these words in late 2003. In the same piece, she also wrote:

Are we on the right track? No, I am afraid, quite the opposite. I think the state of our national security policy can be summed up in three words: the big dig. It is a huge—and seemingly endless—mess of enormous expense. The United States and our national security policy are in a massive hole.

Yesterday, Obama introduced Rice as his intended nominee for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. America has scored a major victory with Rice. I make no secret of the fact I am distrustful, disdainful, and downright horrified by neoconservative foreign-policy ideals. Reading several of Rice’s published articles and speeches, I can safely say she shares some of my misgivings. Rice played a major role during Obama’s campaign as a foreign-policy adviser, and in Rice’s work, I can see the development of Obama’s platform, informed by the keen insight and special diplomatic experience Rice uses to form coherent arguments in support of multilateralism and the pragmatic use of force.

She is plain spoken and fair in her analysis, but she is also not afraid to forcefully call out mistakes and to clearly state her viewpoint. To call her biography impressive is laughably insufficient, yet she presents herself as accessible, capable of amiable self deprecation and, again, not afraid to be critical of policy with which she disagrees. She published occasional blog entries on The Huffington Post before and during the presidential campaign in which she proverbially is able to let down her hair, with post titles like “Bush’s Speech: Is He for Real?”

Rice is critically important for her expertise on Africa and failed/failing states. Because sub-Saharan-African nations are mostly either failed or failing, they are magnificent staging areas for terrorist organizations. With the enormous interest China has taken in the region, the U.S. needs an informed, experienced diplomatic voice in the United Nations to build a strategic alliance in the Security Council to foster stability and development throughout Africa.

I am excited for the turn U.S. foreign relations is destined to soon take. Rice is going to be a major force, re-establishing the U.S. as a moral leader. Rice provides perspective on the U.N. post in her assessment of John Bolton’s nomination to same in 2005.

Samantha Power, a member of the Obama transition team, is a passionate, courageous journalist who was in the middle of the Bosnian War and who has worked extensively with refugees in Darfur. While Bill Kristol, with zero authority, advises Republicans on foreign policy, Samantha Power has risked her life to learn, to understand, and to advocate. She has been called fiery and blunt. (She is the Obama adviser who called Hillary Clinton a “monster.”) That Obama called Power back to consult on State Department affairs reinforces his position that the problems facing our country are far greater than any one ego. We must work together, within and abroad, to build global stability.

Georgians: Vote for Martin. Everyone Else: CHILL, and Don’t Read Too Much Into the Results

Today, Jim Martin goes head-to-head with sitting GOP Senator Saxby Chambliss, to reclaim the honor of Georgia’s congressional delegation from the man who ran one of the Senate’s nastiest campaigns – ever. As the good people at Daily Kos point out, even FOX NEWS is willing to criticize him on a gaffe that, in any other state, would be a campaign-ender:

For a Republican politician, after all, the greatest insult that Fox News can hand you is to not cover up for your little accidents.

But let’s be honest. I don’t expect Jim Martin to win tomorrow. If you’re a Georgian, though, for the love of God, his only hope is high turnout, so stop reading this post and hop in your goddamn car!

If Martin does eventually lose, though, we can expect the Republican spin to be immediate, withering, and traditionally dishonest. Here’s preview: “Obama’s first defeat.” “A referendum on the President-Elect.” “Proof of Palin’s campaign prowess.” “Voters Put the Brakes on the Democratic Juggernaut.” Please: don’t believe it.

For one, let’s remember what Georgia is. It’s a deep-South state that’s long been regarded as one of the bulwarks of Republican power. I grew up in Atlanta, and even in “the big city,” the state’s conservative bona fides were quite obvious: from rampant gay-bashing to thousands of reminders about “Fellowship of Christian Athletes” meetings, let’s just say, it ain’t Virginia. ((Don’t get me wrong. I LOVE Atlanta. Its political climate, though, leaves much to be desired.)) Keeping that in mind, quite apart from a “defeat” or a brake on growing Democratic power, the mere fact that there’s a runoff in this state is testament to what could – we hope – be a nascent Democratic realignment. If Martin loses, that loss won’t be able to hide the fact that Martin got closer than any Democrat since Max Cleland’s last re-election, in 1992.

Second, if Chambliss wins, the media will try to hand Sarah Palin the Civic Crown, and credit her with singlehandedly averting Republican disaster in Georgia (she’s already the focus of mainstream media coverage of the Georgia runoff). This, too, would be an error. Polls have shown Martin down in this election for a long time. Giving Palin the credit for a Chambliss victory would rather be like giving Pompey a Triumph for “defeating” Spartacus’ rebels, when all he did was “mop up” after Crassus’ important victories. No matter who wins tomorrow, Palin will still be a loser. SO – if Martin loses – CHILL.

The possibility that the media or Republican strategists, desperate for good news, could read too much into a Martin defeat is, I expect, what prompted Obama to stay out of this election in the first place. The last thing the new administration needs is a perception that somehow Obama loses if Martin loses, despite the uneven playing field and warped game of expectations.

Of course, let’s hope it doesn’t come to pushing back against agenda-driven “Why Martin Lost” narratives. Chambliss – I’ve got my eye on you.