The Case Against Caroline

Let me get this out of the way first of all: I like Caroline Kennedy. I like almost everything about her. I like her smarts, I like her dignity, I like her commitment to unpopular issues (like privacy law) that are important but unglamorous. I was moved by her endorsement of Barack during the primary, and I thought she did a fantastic job on his Vice Presidential selection committee. And of course, since I am after all a human being with human emotions, I can't help but be touched that this little girl has come so far.


Nevertheless, in light of recent reporting that she is actively campaigning for the job, I feel compelled to say this:

I do not think Caroline Kennedy should be appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Here's why...

1) She has never run for office before. In fact, she has always seemed to have a real distaste for the rituals of elected office - understandably so. In this she is wildly unlike her Uncle Ted, who is something of an election junkie. But the candidate who is appointed to this role will need to running for it again in 2010 to hold the rest of the term, and then again in 2012 for re-election. Caroline has broad and deep experience in many areas, but running for office is not one of them. We, and I suspect also she, have no idea how good a candidate she will turn out to be. Better that she find out outside the glare of a Senate re-election campaign. That's what primaries are for.

2) Getting over the family thing. When Hillary ran for the same position she was greeted initially with a lot of scorn for the perception that she was trying to leverage her family connections directly into the Senate. She overcame those perceptions by fighting hard for the seat, and running a widely admired, disciplined campaign. Caroline would face all those same criticisms, but without the opportunity to prove herself to the voters directly. Actual elections are a wonderful proving ground, but this is an appointed position for which she is only one of many equally qualified (on paper) people. Let's be honest, if her name were Caroline Jones she would not be on the list. If she wants to be in Congress, let her run for it. I think she should - I suspect she'd be a terrific legislator - but family connections shouldn't be enough to put you there without a popular mandate.

3) There are other great candidates. The special meaning of Barack's election to me has been this: that you can start from no where and get anywhere with good ideas, hard work and dedication. New York is a strongly Democratic state, and there are countless hard working council members, mayors, and congressional representatives who have been working their tails off for the state for decades now. I'd like to see one of them get this opportunity. For instance, what about Carolyn Maloney? She's a terrific advocate for women's issues, has been doing yeoman's work for New York in the House for the past 16 years, and is not the scion of a political dynasty. All I am saying is, give her a chance.

Caroline, I love ya - really. But if you want to throw your hat into the political arena, I think your first office should be one that you actually run for. I think it would be better for you, I think it would be better for New York and I think it would be better for America.

Oh, and by the way: Ruth Marcus? This is just icky.

Shinseki Tapped by Obama for Veterans Affairs

Today on Meet the Press, Obama indicated that he would appoint retired General Eric Shinseki to serve as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Here's what Obama said about Shinseki's career in his statement:

A graduate of West Point, General Shinseki served two combat tours in Vietnam, here he lost part of his foot, and was awarded two Purple Hearts and three Bronze Stars. Throughout his nearly four decades in the U.S. Army, he won the respect and admiration of our men and women in uniform because they have always been his highest priority. He has always stood on principle - because he has always stood with our troops. And he will bring that same sense of duty and commitment to ensuring that we treat our veterans with the care and dignity they deserve. A decorated soldier who has served at every level in the Army, General Shinseki understands the changing needs of our troops and their families. And he will be a VA Secretary who finally modernizes our VA to meet the challenges of our time.

All of this is undeniably true, and very much to Shinseki's credit. But unspoken in Obama's statement - though surely not far from his mind - were some other important fact about this brave General.

Prior to the Iraq war, General Shinseki was asked by the Senate Armed Forces Committee to estimate the number of troops that would be required to secure Iraq after the initial conflict. He estimated, based on his assessment of what the needs on the ground would be, that something on the order of "several hundred thousand" troops would be required.

Though honest and, as it turned out, painfully accurate, this was not what the Bush administration wanted to hear. The then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz immediately contradicted Shinseki's assessment, calling his estimate "wildly off the mark." Shortly afterwards, the General retired - some claim under pressure from the Bush administration, which had come to consider him disloyal.

Congratulations to General Eric Shinseki on his new appointment (which I predict will sail through the Senate's confirmation hearings), and sincere thanks to him for consistently demonstrating courage on the battlefield and off. And it is heartening to see that following an administration that punishes honesty from it's most qualified advisors, we are soon to enter an administration that rewards precisely that honesty and skill.

Here's Obama's Meet the Press interview in full:

Auto Industry Bailout: One Simple Question

Given that:

1) The American auto industry is in trouble.

2) A large part of that trouble is derived from their massive healthcare commitments to workers.

3) Our competitors in the auto market (mainly Germany and Japan) do not have these massive obligations, allowing them to make cheaper cars while maintaining a healthy workforce.

4) We are thinking of spending massive amounts of money to bail out the auto manufacturers.

5) However, the currently bailout plan would still leave the massive healthcare burden on our auto manufacturers, maintaining their current competitive disadvantage.

THEREFORE:

Q) Is there any practical or legal reason why the government could not take over the health obligations of automotive workers immediately as part of the bailout package?

I'm seriously very interested in this as I don't have enough knowledge to know if there's an obvious reason why this wouldn't or couldn't work. However, it seems to me that this is a market-friendly solution - it focuses on equalising the competitive environment rather than artificially fixing the car market. It also seems to be the compassionate solution - relieving auto workers of the immediate burden of concern about their families health care should the bailout fail to save the manufacturers. And finally, it is a practical solution - looking at the specifics of the problem rather than throwing money in to staunch the bleeding.

So, where am I wrong?

Good Point, Well Made

From a viral e-mail that is making the rounds:


To: The World
From: The USA
Subject: Technical Notice

Dear World,

The United States of America, your quality supplier of ideals of liberty and democracy, would like to apologize for its 2001-2008 service outage.

The technical fault that led to this eight-year service interruption has been located, and the parts responsible for it were replaced Tuesday night, November 4. Early tests of the newly-installed equipment indicate that it is functioning correctly, and we expect it to be fully functional by mid-January.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the outage, and we look forward to resuming full service --- and hopefully even to improving it in years to come.

Thank you for your patience and understanding,

-- USA

How to Be a Democratic Party Activist

As we move into the exciting new world where the Democratic Party is the party of Government and as we absord the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of new activists and supporters generated during the campaing, I realy hope that all of you will continue to stay involved and to push for the policies and candidates that you care about. But as much as I want us to be strong and principled in how we go about our activism, I also want us to think about the STYLE of our activism.

Recently I responded to a complaint on one of the Obama Groups about a local Democrats Abroad chapter's apparent failure to engage fully with their members. Now, I have no way of knowing whether this individual's concerns were valid or not, but I did think it was useful to remind all of us Obamaites that if we are going to live up to Barack's example we need to follow his example by applying the GOlden RUle. Below is my advice written specifically for that group, but applicable to all those who seek to make Change in politics.

1) Empathy. No matter what your disagreements or concerns may be with the leadership - remember that they have their own problems. Democrats Abroad is a 100% volunteer organisation - there is only one paid staffer, and she is based in Washington. As a result, DA officers are often trying to do a full time job in their free time, often for little or no thanks. Yes, there are always ways that they could be working harder, especially to engage and involve their members but sometimes they are simply overwhelmed trying to get through the day. As a result...
2) Present Yourself as the Solution, Not the Problem. Remember, if you walk up to them and say, "you do a terrible job of engaging with your members you should be ashamed of yourself. Why aren't you...." there is no incentive for that person to listen to you - they see you as a problem and instantly their motivation is to get rid of you. But if, instead, you say, "I know that it can be a real struggle to manage our interactions with members so that there is a real consultation process in place. I had some thoughts about how I might be able to help with that..." suddenly you are taking a burden off their shoulders. But make sure you really do follow through on the suggestions you propose. Have practical steps in mind that will help you get there, and be prepared to work with them to be flexible about how that might happen (E.G., "OK, you say we don't have the money to build a website... could we do an e-mail dialog?").
3) Listen as Much as You Talk. Sometimes I've seen 3 or 4 people stand up in a meeting to make the same point or I've seen people totally ignore explanations and clarifications that are offered. This quickly becomes annoying and makes it seem like you are not respecting the other people in the room. If you have a strong view, sometimes it's a good idea not to jump into the discussion right away but rather to hold back until most people have had their say and then demonstrate in your statement that you've heard and understood the others' point of view. (Frankly, this is how I think the leadership ought to be treating their members, so it is only fair that we offer them the same courtesy.)
4) Be Concise. Your point is all the more likely to be heard if it is well thought out, clearly stated, and brief. A 20 minute diatribe will cause people to tune you out (possibly forever) but a 30 second statement of the problem followed by a 1 minute proposal and recommendation will be listened to with attention.
5) Don't Get Personal. Even if you violently disagree with someone's views on an issue, work hard to make sure your comments are directed at the area of disagreement, not the person. Attributing someone's views to their personal circumstances ("That's so typical of a rich lawyer") or to their innate bad qualities ("You don't care about grassroots movements at all") suggests that you oppose them personally, not their position. And strangely enough, no one is going to go out of their way to work with someone they see as fundamentally hostile to them. But if your objection is issue-focussed there is room for them to change their mind or, if you lose the argument anyway, to become your ally on a future issue where you might agree.

I hope that you will continue to try and play a constructive role in Democrats Abroad, or in your local party wherever it may be, because we really do need to continue growing a strong, member-led, ground-up organisation.

Clinton, Holder, Napolitano, Rice, Jones, Gates (and Biden)

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his national security team.



It goes without saying that this is a strong team, with broad and deep knowledge of America's foreign and domestic challenges and robust experience across government in helping to solve, and avert, crises. A few noteworthy points from my perspective:

• Susan Rice, who has been an impressive foreign policy thinker, and who we heard from a lot during the campaign as an early Obama supporter, will not only serve as UN Ambassador but will take over the post as it is returned to its earlier status as a Cabinet level appointment. This is not only a smart personnel decision - Rice is expert on Africa policy, and the UN spends much of its energy on resolving issues in that troubled continent - but also great symbolism since the restoration of respect for key international institutions is going to be key to improving America's relations with the rest of the world.
• Eric Holder, not only is a strong nominee for Attorney General but made it clear in his statement that he sees preserving our civil liberties as PART of a national security mandate and not in conflict with those goals. Hurray for that!
• Janet Napolitano is just an outstanding public servant, full stop.
• Joe Biden, with his appearance amongst this team, clearly sees himself having an important role in our foreign policy and national security efforts. This is great news, as Biden has for years been the most knowledgeable and respecte foreign policy thinkers in the US Senate (aided by his chairmanship of the Foreign Affairs committee). So go, Joe!
• And last but by no means least, I am singularly impressed with the maturity of Hillary Clinton's decision to accept the position of Secretary of State. Her new role is a great honor and responsibility, but also requires her to surrender her hard won seat in the New York Senate, and to absent herself from playing a role in domestic policy issues that she obviously cares about very deeply. It's not surprising that (according to reports) she had mixed feelings about taking the post. That she ultimately accepted is indicative of a truly pulic-spirited leader. She brings to the position existing relationships with world leaders across the globe, a massive political brand that is internationally admired, and or course her legendary intelligence and determination.
  
  Good luck to them all. I'm audaciously hopeful.

Reality Check

This is just a short note to point out that, despite reams of speculation, rumors and reporting about virtually every cabinent position (Richardson for Commerce! Hillary for State!) as far as I can find, the only officially announced Obama Cabinet appointment so far has been Timothy Geithner as Obama's choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

I'm not saying all the speculation is necessarily inaccurate, I'm just saying - in terms of actual announcements about Cabinet level positions from the President Elect himself... That's all that I can find. If anyone else knows a confirmed appointment that I missed out on, please let me know. For example, Tom Daschle is widely spoken of as having accepted a position at Health and Human Services - but I haven't seen any official announcement confirming this.

Meanwhile, the administration has been (rightly in my view) focussed on 2 things:

1) Fleshing out a robust and experience economic policy team to provide confidence to the markets and to begin drafting proposals to be implemented immediately after Obama takes office.

2) Appointing White House staff across all policy areas to provide advice and guidance to the President elect that will help to, among other things, improve the process of selecting Cabinet officers. This strategic understanding of the President-elect's needs during the transition seems to be one of the real strengths that John Podesta has been able to bring to the team as Transition head, and is based no doubt on some hard lessons well learned from Bill Clinton's transition process.

As far as the other rumored and expected appointments - I just think it is important to remember that even if every article posted is true, none of that implies that he person discussed definitely will be appointed. Obama's team has shown from the beginning that they want a thorough and unhurried vetting process for their nominees and their is no telling what the results of that process might be in any case. Also, remember that Cabinet officers all have to go through the Senate approvals process - and though I would be surprised if Obama appointed anyone who would have a serious problem getting through that process (especially with an increased Democratic majority), I'm sure he is going to want to show his former Senate colleagues the respect of taking that process seriously. So it's a one step at a time thing - something to mull over as you chew on your turkey leftovers.

Hope you had a great Thanksgiving.

Who the Heroes Are

I'd like to add a hearty "me too" endorsement of this Matthew Yglesias blog post on the subject of American history. Specifically, the teaching of American history. Specifically, the teaching of American history as a heroic narrative.

It reminded me of something that has been a latent undercurrent in Obama's speeches and public statements for a long time, and that strikes me as a useful way of reclaiming the American legacy. Conservative cultural critics - like Mark Steyn referred to above - like to bemoan the supposed "anti-American" instinct to frequently talk about terrible things that were done in America and to highlight the victims of these atrocities. What they seem single-mindedly incapable of understanding is that it is possible to view these awful deeds - slavery, Native American genocide, Japanese internment, oppression of woman - as things done BY Americans to others, it is in fact appropriate to view them as things done TO Americans by others. That the slave was an American and that the rise from slavery, however tragic the need for it was ultimately a story of success for those Americans. That Rosa Parks was an American and that the bravery to act as one strong woman in those times and in that place is something Americans are right to be proud of. That generations of women lived tough, admirable lives across this country and ultimately fought for their right to vote and to be treated as equals. And that that's an American story.

American history can rightly be taught as a heroic narrative. Here's one example of how that could work:

Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old.

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldnt vote for two reasons - because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

And tonight, I think about all that shes seen throughout her century in America - the heartache and the hope; the struggle and the progress; the times we were told that we cant, and the people who pressed on with that American creed: Yes we can.

At a time when womens voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the dust bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs and a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that We Shall Overcome. Yes we can.

A man touched down on the moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen, and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. Yes we can.

Am I Going Soft on Bush?

OK, am I getting mushy in my old age, or does this video clip actually make you feel a little bit bad for soon-to-be-ex-President Bush?



All right, I know Bush is unpopular with world leaders because of his withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty and subsequent refusal to cooperate on meaningful efforts to curb climate change. I know that many of these people considered the Iraq war a dnagerous and unlawful invasion and that even the allies who cooperated with Bush on the war received little in return but political problems back home. I know that Bush seemed to put the interests of the United States above settled international law on issues including torture, extraordinary rendition and unlawful detention of prisoners...

Wait a minute, where was I going with this. Oh... Sympathy.

Well, maybe not so much.

Music to My Ears

Listen to our new Chief of Staff talk about how this terrifying financial crisis finally affords us a real opportunity to solve the underlying problems that led to it.



The five areas he cites where we need bold action are:

Healthcare - reducing costs and providing more coverage
Energy - independance and alternatives
Taxes - fairness and smplicity
Education - effectively training the workforce
Financial Regulatory Overhaul - transparency and accountability

I think that's about right. And I would add that those (including John McCain) who believe that this crisis should be resolved through a freezing of government spending are quite literally offering NO solution at all to the country's problems. Firstly, we need to claw ourself out of the hole that we are in right now - and that's going to mean staunching the bleeding in the financial sector and restoring investor and consumer confidence. That means we are going to have to spend serious money. But equally importantly, we need to address the systemic weaknesses that have caused this crisis and, in a larger sense, made America less competitive than our first world competitors.

If we had succeeded in delivering universal healthcare when Rahm Emmanuel was first in the White House, GM, Ford and Chrysler would not be threatened with bankrupcy right now - a huge portion of their liability is in worker benefits, which in Germany and Japan are dealt with in a healthcare system that is non-employer linked. (And by the way, their healthcare systems are also NOT "government run".)

Let's not muddle through this crisis without seizing it as an opportunity to put us back on track to global competitiveness. We're going to spend unseemly amounts of money to dig our way out of this ditch - let's invest it in our future rather than just blowing it on the mistakes of the past.

The Times They are A Changin'

As you may recall, one of Obama's central themes throughout the election was about transparency in Government - the notion that the people have a fundamental right to watch their leaders at work. This is more than happy talk and far more than a "nice to have" - meetings that are conducted in secret, committees made up of secret members, late night undercover negotiations, all of these things make it far easier for an administration to put in place policies that benefit the few rather than the many. There was a polic reason why Dick Cheney wanted his energy task force to remain secret - why he even went as far as the Supreme Court to avoid even listing the names that made up this group - and that reason was that they wanted the option of pursuing policies that would benefit a narrow group of oil executives rather than the wider collective of the public.

Now, there will often be cases where our policy discussion requires us to weigh conflicting costs and benefits to teh population at large - for instance, weighing the benefits of job growth from a new factory opening with the cost of its pollution. But it's important that our public discussion be kept at that level: what will achieve the maximum good for the most people. Genuine transparency and openness, combined iwth an informed and active electorate is one way that we can help ensure our politicians have their priorities in order.

All of which is by way of saying that I hope the Obama Administration will continue to You Tube it's meetings - and I further hope that they will make full meeting transcripts available as much as is reasonably possible.



And by the way, cynically, this isn't just a way of keeping the politicians honest - it also goes for the corporate interests and lobbyists. If they want to argue that their commercial interests outweigh the needs of the rest of us, let them do it openly for all to hear. If they want to argue against environmental protections, let them put that on the recortd - not whispering in their Senator's ear about rolling back clean air legislation then running a commercial about their commitment to clean energy. Bring on the change, I say!

Where do we go from here?

So David Plouffe e-mailed me today (hurray! I was getting lonely without you David. Whatever happened to the constant communication we used to share?) to ask for my views on the future of Barack Obama's movement for change. In a detailed questionaire he asked me to tell him how I would like to take forward the Obama campaign's unique organising philosophy to deliver real change under the new administration. I'm sure he'd like to hear from each of you as well....

http://my.barackobama.com/whatsnext

And if you want to put in a good word for your Friendly Neighborhood Field Director while you're at it, I wouldn't object at all.

One of the questions asks your favorite thing about volunteering for Obama - for me that answer was easy: other volunteers. You guys are the greatest. Quite literally.

Pretty Pictures...

Superstar volunteer Liz Armstrong Hall sent over these lovely pictures of The Man Himself from his rally in Prince William County Virginia.

And speaking of Virginia, I got a Facebook message today from my cousin in Norfolk, who this summer was planning on voting for McCain (no surprise - he's a pretty conservative Republican who works on a military base). He said he wanted me to know that since our conversation he had changed his mind and that he was "a part of your Virginia majority."


Now THAT's change I can believe in.

Howard Dean to Step Down As DNC Chair

Someone close to DNC Chair Howard Dean has indicated that he will not be running for a second term.

I hardly know how to respond, so mixed are my emotions about this. On the one hand:

• Howard Dean has become one of my political heroes. His aggressive pushing of a 50-state strategy, his pragmatic work to construct and maintain a genuinely national party - including decision to put party staff in every state (and, by the way, to fund a staffer for Americans Abroad - perhaps an early precursor of the Obama campaign's overseas Regional Field Directors). He has been so RIGHT, and so good for the party but I can't help but feel sad that he won't be staying in that role to carry on his good work.
  
• On the other hand, Dean's strategy and approach has been so broadly successful and so well internalised by the Obama campaign that I can't help but feel his legacy will only grow stronger, and it may be that a new party head who has learned these lessons can further strengthen the DNC in other areas. (The party, in my opinion, still has a long way to go in successfully adopting all the new media tools available - something that the Obama people could certainly help us to improve on...)

Some of the names already being bandied about for a possible day to day management role in the DNC include Obama strategist Steve Hildebrande and Paul Tewes.

As for Howard, I suspect he will have a big role in an Obama administration - or at least, that if these people are smart he SHOULD have a big role. And we know these people are plenty smart. And he's already got just the right tie...

In Which I Allow Myself to Gloat

You know, in all humility I can't claim that I predicted every twist and turn of this race. Certainly there were moments where I was wrong footed and PLENTY of moments when I was nervous, but I always believed in our strategy.

In an early post on this blog, I laid out why I believed the Obama campaign's Expand the Electorate Strategy was beyond smart - was in fact essential.

Winning Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida would guarantee Barack a victory - but there's NOTHING we can do to guarantee that he will win these states. Don't get me wrong, the campaign is going to compete fiercely there, with an unprecedented grassroots, GOTV and advertising presence just for starters. But if the Republicans know that your whole strategy relies on these states, all they need to do is knock us out there. A well placed (metaphorical) stilletto in the final weeks of the campaign and they can spend the next four years counting up their tax cuts for millionaires.
No, what we need is planned redundancy. We're going to compete to win in the three states I named, but also to agressively pursue any one of several very plausible alternative Electoral Vote strategies that would work just as well - either as a failsafe in case something goes wrong or, in a best case scenario, to shore up a landslide.
Let's go to the maps!

Clever old me.

OK, so it's not exactly rocket science - but that's the point. Common sense approaches make sense. It's the hard, gritty work of building the volunteer base, registering the voters, and getting out the vote that is the real magic here. And you don't need pricey pollsters or millionaire strategists to work this out. If little old me can work it out, so can anyone. This party needs to compete EVERYWHERE to be sure of winning in enough places. Let's keep doing that.