Special Classifieds Feature
Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more
RSS
Required Reading | RSS
Top Video | RSS
Trench Warfare | RSS
Blunder Box | RSS
Reader Picks | RSS
Staff Picks | RSS
Best of The Post | RSS
Punchlines | RSS
Down-Ballot | RSS
8 a.m. ET: For the first time in recent memory, Hillary Clinton was a prominent figure in the headlines yesterday. She appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, warning that the Pakistani government now faces an "existential threat" from Islamic militants. (At the same hearing, Howard Berman, the panel chairman, passed on the opinion of experts that "Pakistan could collapse in as little as six months." How comforting.)
But more than anything Clinton said about Pakistan, it was her defense of President Obama that drew the most attention. When Clinton was asked about Dick Cheney's assertion that the Bush administration's interrogation policies helped make America safer, Clinton responded, "It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information." And when asked about Obama's much-discussed handshake with Hugo Chavez, Clinton said she found the contoversy "somewhat amusing, to be honest," and reminded the committee that Obama had won the election -- and beaten her -- by promising "a different approach" on foreign policy.
It wasn't the most stirring defense, but a defense it was, and served as a reminder of Clinton's relatively low-profile in the first months of her tenure. To an extent, that makes sense; it's not the job of any Cabinet secretary to overshadow her boss, Obama has generally preferred to make major public announcements himself, and the White House is surely relieved that the Obama vs. Clinton storyline has been largely dormant since the Inauguration. But Clinton is a bona fide celebrity, the only one in the administration -- apologies to Hilda Solis and Shaun Donovan -- other than Obama. So when the president needs a surrogate to step up and help deliver his message, and rebut the criticism of a major figure like Cheney, Clinton is the obvious choice.
The administration could use some message help right now. It took a day, but Ellen Moran's departure from the White House communications director post after just three months on the job is now getting the scrutiny it merits. The Fix notes that Moran probably should never have been handed the job in the first place, given her background and the difficulty of penetrating Obama's tight, loyal circle of advisers. The New York Times made a similar point, which Alex Conant interpreted to mean that she did not fit in well with David Axelrod.
Conant's larger argument is that Moran's departure, combined with the White House's perceived missteps this week, particularly the muddled message on terror, mean the administration has a communications problem. "It’s notable that almost all of Obama’s accomplishments so far have been rhetorical, rather than policy-based," he writes, so if the "message machine starts to sputter," the White House is in real trouble. Is that true? Obama has, after all, signed the massive stimulus package and ordered key policy changes on issues like stem cell research, while also handling the ongoing financial crisis. Polling suggests Americans are much more optimistic about the country's direction now than they were when Obama was sworn in. At the same time, it is true that a lot of what Obama has done is announce his intention to do things -- like close Guantanamo Bay or fix health care -- rather than actually doing them yet.
On that latter priority, health care, Obama and his fellow Democrats now face a choice: Should they work with Republicans, or roll them? If Democrats use expedited procedures to get a bill through the Senate, how would that be perceived by the public? We already know how the GOP would perceive it -- as a "declaration of war." And Republicans would likely respond by retaliating against Obama's other priorities, using Senate rules to slow everything to a crawl.
How would Senate Republicans handle a proposal to launch a new investigation of Bush-era interrogation policies? The idea drew a mixed response on Capitol Hill yesterday. Republicans are inclined to oppose any probe, and Democrats seem split on how to proceed. The Senate did agree yesterday to consider creating a select panel to study the roots and causes of the financial crisis.
Both the financial meltdown and the interrogation controversy may be better suited for investigation by independent commissions rather than members of Congress. If both probes get underway at the same time, we may suffer from an acute shortage of statesmanlike figures to run them. Has anyone booked John Danforth yet? Where's Lee Hamilton?
By
Ben Pershing
|
April 23, 2009; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Posted by: StephenRose | April 23, 2009 10:44 AM
..............................................
When Clinton was asked about Dick Cheney's assertion that the Bush administration's interrogation policies helped make America safer, Clinton responded, "It won't surprise you that I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information."
.........................................
Ben, you left out the other part of this. The questioner responded that he "did not care" what Clinton's opinion of the former Vice President was and that if she would not answer his question, Congress might stop considering her as "not a reliable source of information." (I do not mind you having a personal bias here, but please do not leave out the news.)
.......................................
And when asked about Obama's much-discussed handshake with Hugo Chavez, Clinton said she found the contoversy "somewhat amusing, to be honest,"
........................................
"Signature" Hillary Clinton is to smugly dismiss rather than use some reasoned response (maybe she hasn't any) to counter what she does not agree with. This is a large part of why people did not like her and why she lost the Primary to Obama; Americans do not like smug dishonest people. And she will lose if she runs for president again.
.........................................
If Democrats use expedited procedures to get a bill through the Senate, how would that be perceived by the public? We already know how the GOP would perceive it -- as a "declaration of war."
.......................................
Well the Democrats just about have, have they not? Had the KGB infiltrated the Whitehouse and Congress, they could not dream up more ways to damage this nation than the Democrats have.
Bottom line: the entire nation cannot afford 21st century healthcare at its best for every person unless we are all or mostly all productive (and that sure is not the case). So what we might end up with is a costly and ineffective program of government-run healthcare. Imagine waiting in line for four hours at a doctor's office, knowing that the tuberculoid indigent in front of you and coughing his germs in your face is there because you paid for him or her to be. Or imagine having a malignant form of cancer and dying months later on a waiting list because the cancer drugs are being rationed (and paying for this!). This happens in Europe and Canada all the time.
On another topic, we have a disaster of an administration and Democrat Congress, yet we worry about persecuting the very interrogators who saved us from two 9/11-style attacks on the Brooklyn Bridge and L.A. This is just silly.
Posted by: RealTexan1 | April 23, 2009 10:48 AM
It is a fact; the USA doesn't even rank within the top 25 countries in the world for education.
When we appointed/elected a ‘C’ student for our president- we got a ‘C’ nation.
Fox # 1 Cable---Rush # 1 Radio; can we do better?
However, you reporters, allowed Dick Cheney's statement to stand:
"Al Qaeda was 'relatively' unknown on 9-11."
Is this correct?
His opinion should mean what?
We have our great miltary soldiers sitting in jail for orders they followed.
Is this how we 'HONOR' our soldiers?
Posted by: sasha2008 | April 23, 2009 11:04 AM
TEAM OBAMA: How about the Bush-Era HOMELAND TORTURE?
Bush-Cheney- spawned torture is NOT just a foreign affair.
The "Extrajudicial Punishment Network" it created or expanded enables citizen vigilantes affiliated with federally-funded volunteer community policing and public safety groups to stalk, harass, terrorize -- and YES, torture. With microwave radiation "directed energy weapons" -- like the ones apparently used at Gitmo.
This "American Gestapo" has co-opted and corrupted local law enforcement nationwide -- a grassroots-based authoritarian apparatus "hiding in plain sight."
Please, White House staff, read this. Your Bush holdovers already know all about it.
What have they told YOU?
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america
http://nowpublic.com/world/bush-torture-memos-oked-radiation-weapon-use-americans-too
OR (if links are corrupted / disabled):
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener
Posted by: scrivener50 | April 23, 2009 11:19 AM
Hey RealTexan, your criticism exposes your personal bias more than anything. It's obvious that you did not watch Clinton's testimony or even her responses to the acrimony of the Republican members you cited. She was clear and truthful and testified for 4 hours with a smile on her face. You seem to have preferred the misleading and obscurantism of the Bush administration.
Posted by: ohjamboree | April 23, 2009 12:59 PM
Hey, RealTexan1, come out of your right-wing nut hole. There's a thing called reality out here.
By the way, why is a Texan commenting on national politics at all? Isn't your state seceding anyway?
Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out of the union!
Posted by: uh_huhh | April 23, 2009 1:35 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Your downplaying of the Pakistan threat is a typical example of the head in the sand approach of American journalism recently. This is the biggest threat out there as I am glad to know she is flagging it even if you minimize it and make light of it.