CNN and AP: Obama to Nominate Hillary as Secretary of State after Thanksgiving

BY TAYLOR MARSH

President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, an aide to his transition said Thursday. - AP

This is what I've been waiting for today. President-elect Obama stepping up through his transition team to announce the news on the day WJC handed over 200,000 names, but also agreed to substantial compromises on his global work, which obviously went a long way to letting the Obama-Biden team feel more confident about the arrangement, assuring that no conflicts of interest between WJC and the woman President-elect Obama wants as his secretary of state would occur going forward.

CNN reported this story earlier tonight. Jessica Yellen and Ed Henry confirmed the story.

President-elect Obama is on track to nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state after Thanksgiving, three aides on Obama's transition team told CNN Thursday.

As has been the case all along, Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines repeated a statement that "any and all speculation about Cabinet or other administration appointments is for President-Elect Obama's transition team to address."

The cacophony around the bogus stories, the leaking from people with a "predilection for leaking things" likely pushed this announcement and details of when forward. Traditional and new media regurgitating whatever they're told from anonymous sources, sucking anything coming their way up through a straw. I'll let Digby say the rest for me this time.

Whether or not you love or hate the Clintons this behavior should be upsetting. (I will remind everyone that there was a time when the media loved them some Clinton too --- until they turned.) But there is something truly sick about a political system in which the press plays a key role as insiders while pretending to be innocent bystanders --- and uses its power to create scandals and gin up controversies about politicians it doesn't like and then blames the politicians for the terrible coverage.

Letting everyone know that this will come after Thanksgiving was important, because the roar right before the holiday if Obama and Clinton hadn't come forward would have caused the press to go into a collective seisure. Uncertainty causing a problem, with so many important appointments still to come.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will finally get the job I believe not only suits her talents, intellectual prowess and political star power, but will also give President-elect Obama the best person at State he could possibly have in these very troubled times. It's as official as it's going to get until after Thanksgiving.

Drink Up

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Topic free for all. Have at it.

...and here's to all the wine lovers out there.

Fairness, Shmairness

BY TAYLOR MARSH

It's interesting that all the people opining about the Fairness Doctrine are not or never have been, as far as I know, talk radio hosts. Not that you have to be to opine or write about it. Marin Cogan does a decent job of making the case why the right-wing is paranoid about it. But do any of these progressives have any professional experience trying to get or keep a show on the air?

Anybody?

Two good reasons all liberals should be tweaking the wingnuts on this issue: Rush Limbaugh. He bloviates for 3 hours every day without one guest or opposing view.

No four. Sean Hannity, who goes on for 3 hours, though since right-wing hosts started this kerfuffle he's actually started having on more Democrats.

Come to think of it, six. Mark Levin, who rumors have it Hannity helped get a block a time after him through threats that stations take Levin or not get Hannity. Now, that isn't to say that Mark Levin isn't a good broadcaster, that is if sponsors are the judge, but...

Most bloggers don't understand what has happened to the radio airwaves across the board and down to the community level, which is the pressing issue. It also takes me out of this equation, because I don't do local radio. Media consolidation is the issue, in my mind. But the people opining and their knee jerk negative defensiveness over the Fairness Doctrine are not only mostly uninformed on the subject, but play right into the wingnuts' hands.

I'm not an expert on the Fairness Doctrine, but I've been dealing in the radio world since back into the early 1990s. I've had my own show, which we had to buy time to get because no station would even offer the time if I could get sponsorship and I worked for free. It's opened up some with Air America, but also the terrific talent of Schultz, Miller and others who have been monetarily successful. But even Schultz has had trouble in the past breaking through in some markets. Why is that?

I have no problem with people being against the Fairness Doctrine, as long as they want to address the issue plaguing liberal talk radio hosts across the country, including those being taken off the air or kept away from a chance to prove they've got what it takes to stay on the air. But some of these people opining think radio is like blogging. It's not. The airwaves belong to the public, including the local community, so conglomerates supporting mostly wingnut radio hosts, not giving locals a chance to break through, is against the spirit of this reality. Doing research on the Fairness Doctrine doesn't tell the tale either. Asking Democrats on Capitol Hill if they support the Fairness Doctrine? Democrats have never understood the importance of local terrestrial radio at the community level, with progressives today just as dense. It's about a lot more than fairness. That's where Republicans begin their outreach.

But one thing the wingnuts have done is get liberals opining that the Fairness Doctrine is wrong and nobody is for it without admitting that airwaves are monopolized by the right. Guess what, folks. Democrats have been played, because either way it gives Republicans the win. Shuts everyone up about the Fairness Doctrine, while no one takes it a step further discussing that media consolidation is a real issue.

The way liberals are talking about the Fairness Doctrine, they seem to be implying it's something to be ashamed of supporting, with liberals opining about it never once using the Fairness argument to bring up media consolidation and that the monopoly on the airwaves is an issue worth fighting against. In a political fight you don't yield ground. You find a way to push the fight forward on your terms.

The right may be paranoid about the Fairness Doctrine, but the left is playing into their plan through their reactions that there's nothing on the radio dial worth fighting for. Wingnuts win either way.

Iran Produces Low-enriched Uranium Bombette

BY TAYLOR MARSH

The New York Times article reports Iran has a single atom bomb of low-enriched uranium. So I'm not impressed. An analogy is that it's like making dough for bread, waiting for it to rise, but it doesn't.

[...]The report concluded that as of early this month, Iran had made 630 kilograms, or about 1,390 pounds, of low-enriched uranium. Several experts said that was enough for a bomb, but they cautioned that the milestone was mostly symbolic, because Iran would have to take additional steps. Not only would it have to breach its international agreements and kick out the inspectors, but it would also have to further purify the fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that Western experts are unsure Iran has yet achieved. “They clearly have enough material for a bomb,” said Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades. “They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that’s another matter.”

Andy Grotto calls it a "crude nucelar bomb." Grotto's also got the details for math geeks.

Iran will also need more than one crude nuke to survive after they do whatever it is they want to do with the first one they finally produce. Nobody seems to think they are near the highly-enriched uranium needed for a real bomb. They also need to develop a delivery system.

But this is the world Obama will inherit. One in which Bush has made Iran stronger than they ever were before.

From the summary of the new IAEA:

19. Regrettably, as a result of the lack of cooperation by Iran in connection with the alleged studies and other associated key remaining issues of serious concern, the Agency has not been able to make substantive progress on these issues. For the Agency to make progress, an important first step, in connection with the alleged studies, is for Iran to clarify the extent to which information contained in the relevant documentation is factually correct and where, in its view, such information may have been modified or relates to non-nuclear purposes. Iran needs to provide the Agency with substantive information to support its statements and provide access to relevant documentation and individuals in this regard. Unless Iran provides such transparency, and implements the Additional Protocol, the Agency will not be able to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. 20. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, having continued the operation of PFEP and FEP and the installation of new cascades and the operation of new generation centrifuges for test purposes. Iran has not provided access to the IR-40, and, therefore, the Agency is not able to verify the current status of its construction.

Hey, but it's great PR.

The World's Most Unpopular Leader... not exactly

BY TAYLOR MARSH
--updated--

Via Huffington Post, the video above is truly stunning.

George W. Bush is making no effort whatsoever to reach out. But the other leaders certainly aren't either. They don't even look at him.

As Bush walks across the platform, he looks down. CNN's Rick Sanchez called it correctly. George W. Bush looks like "the most unpopular kid in high school that nobody liked."

To add... It turns out that Bush already greeted the group. According to MSNBC, he even got a fist bump from Sarkozy. But if there was a vote?

Clinton Haters in Minority

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Most Americans are all for Clinton to head State. Well, the Republicans aren't crazy about it, so that means the progressive Clinton haters belong in that pile. There you have it. (To add.. People can have legitimate reasons not to support Clinton for State, but the opposing arguments by the usual culprits are not based on logical reasoning, but instead on derangement of the Clinton variety.)

According to latest Gallup poll:

A new Gallup Poll finds a majority of Americans (57%) in favor of Barack Obama appointing Hillary Clinton as the secretary of state in his administration. Thirty percent oppose it.

Busy, busy today doing some research. So consider this a mid-day free for all. You pick the topics.

NY Times Once Again Gets it Wrong on Clintons

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Here we go again. The Times has gotten it wrong so many times lately it's turning into a journalistic parody. Two days in a row the Times misreported WJC's transparency on his speaking fees. Today, WJC gave over 200,000 names to Obama-Biden today, according to Lisa Meyers of NBC news (see video above), as well as agreed to quite a few compromises, including restricting his future activities. He's also promising more transparency regarding his charitable donations. WJC is doing all he can to make sure Obama-Biden have full assurances that there will be absolutely no conflict of interest going forward if Clinton is officially nominated for State.

But again, the Times channels the best of the haters on the Clintons' intent, complete with no sourcing whatsoever.

In their public signals, the Clintons are trying to take the former president’s activities off the table as an issue, in their view eliminating any excuses for Mr. Obama not to give Mrs. Clinton the job. Some in the Obama camp are bristling at what they see as strategic leaks by the Clintons aimed at boxing in the president-elect and forcing him to offer the post.

"Some in the Obama camp are bristling"... at "strategic leaks by the Clintons," which aren't actually coming from the Clintons. The Times' proof the leakers are "from the Clintons?" There isn't any. None. Nada. Zippo.

Have you read any direct sourcing from the official Clinton camp? They're not saying a word.

These so called "strategic leaks" are coming from, as Politico's Tim Vogel accidentally opined yesterday, people with a "predilection for leaking things."

Memo to all the Clinton obsessed blamers and haters. Hillary and Bill cannot control their fans and supporters on the outside who have sloppy speech control. The Obama drama is coming from outlets like the Times, which is allowing the other Clinton obsessed writers a day off, as they swiftboat the Clintons who are cooperating quietly while the media stirs up the storm.

Progressives Expect Obama to Recast Terrorism Fight

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Eight years of the Bush administration’s approach to counterterrorism have yielded two open-ended and bloody wars; a massively expanded security apparatus, and spending on defense far outpacing outlays on domestic programs, even during a crisis-plagued economy. Yet while liberals have spent much of this time opposing the Bush administration’s agenda, many of their proposals for Obama go beyond merely rolling back President George W. Bush’s policies — withdrawing from Iraq, shuttering the Guantanamo Bay detention complex, abolishing torture — to offer new areas of emphasis, like stabilizing Afghanistan, an Arab-Israeli peace and a re-envisioned balance between security and liberty.

Spencer Ackerman has a terrific piece up today that brings together the opinion of an informal coalition of progressive national-security and civil-liberties experts are urging the president-elect to redefine the war on terrorism. The piece at Washington Independent is important, getting some of us on the record on what's important going forward in fighting terrorism, long before President-elect Obama and his administration are sworn in.

“Not just his rhetoric,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch, “but in the promises he’s kept — his vote against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, [which] was quite important — Obama has made clear he has a very different approach in mind to counterterrorism than the [Bush] administration has taken.” ... read more

Eric Holder, Obama's pick for A.G.:

“Let me be clear,” Holder told the lawyers’ association. “I firmly believe that there is evil in the world, and that we still face grave dangers to our security. But our ability to lead the world in combating these dangers depends not only on the strength of our military leadership but our moral leadership as well. … To recapture it, we can no longer allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. We must evaluate our policies and our practices in the harsh light of day and steel ourselves to face the world’s dangers in accord with the rule of law.”

One important issue, was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

“A successful counterterrorism agenda for the new administration needs to place a high priority on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli conflicts,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, a senior White House policy aide in the Clinton administration who is now executive director of the progressive American Jewish organization, J Street. ... .. read more

Richard Smith, an Army veteran of Afghanistan with VoteVets, urged more agricultural involvement in Afghanistan. His take is very interesting.

Matt Stoller, progressive activist and blogger at OpenLeft, wants an end to the idea of a “security theater,” which was coined by cybersecurity expert Bruce Schneier. The short hand definition from Ackerman is "ostentatious but ineffective displays of increased security." Schneier, however, doesn't believe that will happen and explains why.

Lastly, my take from the piece:

Taylor Marsh, a progressive political analyst and former radio host, also urged a renewed counterterrorism focus in South Asia. “Counterterrorism in the Obama administration has to begin with the Af-Pak region immediately,” she said, referring the to Pashtun areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. “First, we need limited additional deployment of forces into Afghanistan. Afghan cities must be made more stable, through working with NATO countries, or we’re going to have more problems not fewer with regard to terrorism. Because focusing on Pakistan alone, the jihadists will simply cross the border where we’re not building security. The Af-Pak region deals with two countries of varying complexities and unique challenges for Obama — but neither country can be dealt with in a vacuum.”

The piece offers much more than I've posted above and more will be added over at The Streak blog throughout the day.

When a Confession Needs a Laugh Track

BY TAYLOR MARSH

A certain blogger admits "[he] needs some help" understanding Hillary Clinton for State. That's for sure.

As my friend Joan Walsh said so brilliantly on "Hardball" today, trust Barack Obama. Everyone gladly did up until he actually won the presidency.

Many of the people running around in circles trying to quickly scuttle Clinton for State are the same people who could say nothing critical about Obama during the election season, and nothing positive about Clinton. Now, just because he's thinking about appointing Clinton as secretary of state, Obama blew it? The delusion from some border on swiftboating Hillary in order to derail what's obviously moving forward to finale.

Evening free for all. I'm hungry for potatoes tonight. How 'bout you? If justlen is around, he's cooking the snacks.

Bill 'Helping' Hillary to Become the Next Secretary of State

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Well no kidding.

Reporters have to write something, especially when facing the biggest story of the post-election season. But in their rush, most are stumbling over themselves, as are talking head hosts and their guests on cable. But it was Ken Vogel of Politico who really nailed it today, saying something I've already warned about. Vogel said on MSNBC that it's the same people who have a "predilection for leaking things" who are talking. Bingo. (Politico should be thankful someone over there is getting something right on this one.) If you're known as a leaker, you likely don't really know anything anymore. But no doubt news outlets are grateful.

Credit to the people over at Salon's "War Room" for the most accurate headline of the day.

As for "Obama's first drama," David Corn needs to look in the mirror. The Clintons haven't said one word about the nomination or the process, apart from original statements referring questions to the Obama-Biden transition team. It's people like Corn, Chris Matthews, and Christopher Hitchens and the hack pack press who are doing the writing, relying on people with a "predilection for leaking things." What do these guys expect? That Hillary should be content to live with her senate and first lady resume, as good as it is, because the boys can't handle her prowess? The "Obama drama" isn't HRC's fault. It's Corn, et al.

Clinton to help Hillary get State job, says an AP headline by Beth Fouhy. Details of the report do make for an interesting read.

"Bill Clinton will not be the obstacle to whether Hillary gets this job or not," said one Democrat familiar with the situation. Another person added: "He's willing to be as transparent as the Obama world wants." - The Wall Street Journal

Nothing of note there either.

Politico's Mike Allen and Glenn Thrush, the two men responsible for "exasperation," as well as one "Clinton insider" said HRC may turn down the SoS position, respectively, both stories absolute rubbish, with one proven unequivocally so, have a post up with both their names in the byline.

The Times parrots Thrush today, so there's two reporters talking to one or two Clinton fans who seem to simply want HRC to have options, leaving Hillary and Obama an out if it doesn't work out. Lame at best. Same message on Bill, which is the only consistent, however obvious, narrative out there.

“Issues around W.J.C. won’t be the stumbling block,” the adviser to Mrs. Clinton said in the e-mail message to The Times. “She hasn’t decided whether she wants to leave the Senate.”

But let me add this. No one should ever question that WJC will do whatever he can to make the path for Hillary to take the SoS nomination easier, as well as for President-elect Obama to feel comfortable with the relationship going forward. There is nothing about Bill Clinton's commitment to his wife's career that says otherwise. That Hillary is also not only qualified, but SoS will give her the stature and respect she's earned, is fully appreciated by WJC.

Bottom line to all the swirling anonymously sourced stories: No one from Obama-Biden is rushing to the press offering statements of denial. Everything is moving Clinton forward to the cabinet post fitting her intellect and strengths, which President-elect Obama will need as he faces putting our country's reputation back together after Bush-Cheney.

We're getting close to Thanksgiving. Do the math. We'll know soon enough.

Kathleen Parker Takes on Reagan

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Let's all hope the Republican intelligentsia continues to ignore Kathleen Parker's wisdom.

Many see Parker as taking on the religious right. No doubt she is. But for those of us old enough to remember the politics of the 1980s, she's doing something much more fundamentally earth shattering. She's treading on hallowed political ground. Because it was Ronald Reagan who invited them in.

As Republicans sort out the reasons for their defeat, they likely will overlook or dismiss the gorilla in the pulpit. Three little letters, great big problem: G-O-D. I'm bathing in holy water as I type. To be more specific, the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP is what ails the erstwhile conservative party and will continue to afflict and marginalize its constituents if reckoning doesn't soon cometh. ... Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party. ... So it has been for the Grand Old Party since the 1980s or so, as it has become increasingly beholden to an element that used to be relegated to wooden crates on street corners. [...]

See wingnut radio hosts heads exploding here. The 1980s or so is certainly a nice way to hide behind her real target, because no one in Republican politics can survive attacking the Gipper. Good news for us.

Along with the southern strategy, which Reagan utilized to win, the religious right has brought the Grand OLD Party to a point of apocalypse. But Parker's continued good counsel, she was the first to lower the boom on Miss Alaska, is being greeted with gasps. Thank goodness.

Jonah Goldberg:

To my friend Kathleen Parker — This act is getting really old. [...] Me: I don't know what's more grating, the quasi-bigotry that has you calling religious Christians low brows, gorillas and oogedy-boogedy types or the bravery-on-the-cheap as you salute — in that winsome way — your own courage for saying what (according to you) needs to be said. Please stop bragging about how courageous you are for weathering a storm of nasty email you invite on yourself by dancing to a liberal tune. You aren't special for getting nasty email, from the right or the left. You aren't a martyr smoking your last cigarette. You're just another columnist, talented and charming to be sure, but just another columnist. You are not Joan of the Op-Ed Page. Perhaps the typical Washington Post reader (or editor) doesn't understand that. But you should, and most conservatives familiar with these issues can see through what you're doing.

Obviously, sans Reagan, the Republican Party has nothing to offer, which has Goldberg scared down to his skivvies.

That's their problem, especially when they see Sarah Palin carrying the torch. Reaganism in a dress, circa 21st century, is frightening. It's something many of them aren't willing to face. Kathleen Parker, to her credit, is. She actually believes conservatism and the Republican Party can offer Americans something in the 21st century. What is it?

Nobody on their side knows. But considering the financial collapse, due in great part to Reagan's deregulation, they better regroup completely, because "smaller government" amidst bailouts galore isn't going to float.

Time to let the Gipper go. It's the 21st century and he's done all that he can do.

Obama-Biden Policy Working Groups

BY TAYLOR MARSH

Just announced policy working groups. The one of greatest interest around here is good news, something I've already written about before:

National Security James B. Steinberg is dean of the LBJ School of Public Affairs (2006-present) and is a former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton (1996-2000). His previous positions include vice president and director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution (2001-2005), director of the Policy Planning Staff (1994-1996) and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Analysis in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (1993-1994) at the U.S. Department of State. He is the author of and contributor to many books on foreign policy and national security topics, including, most recently, with Kurt Campbell, Difficult Transitions: Foreign Policy Troubles at the Outset of Power. Dr. Susan E. Rice served most recently as a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor to the Obama for America campaign while on leave from the Brookings Institution where she is a Senior Fellow in the Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development Programs. Rice currently serves on the Obama-Biden Transition Project Advisory Board. From 1997-2001, she was U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Prior to that, Rice served in the White House at the National Security Council as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African Affairs and as Director for International Organizations and Peacekeeping. Rice was previously a management consultant at McKinsey and Company. She received her B.A. in History with Honors from Stanford University and her M.Phil. and D.Phil. (Ph.D.) degrees in International Relations from Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes Scholar.

Take a look at the other working groups on economy, immigration, technology, and education. I'd enjoy hearing your thoughts.