More of the Same?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/polit...ml?ref=politics

Obama’s First Decision Has Capital Asking: Politics as Usual, or Fresh Start?
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: November 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — After President-elect Barack Obama ran a nearly flawless 21-month campaign, Democrats are second-guessing one of his first and most important postelection decisions: Why is he asking Representative Rahm Emanuel — “Rahmbo,” one of the capital’s most in-your-face partisan actors — to be his chief of staff?

A second question has the political networks abuzz: Why would Mr. Emanuel, now on a ladder potentially to be speaker of the House someday, take the job?

(snip)

Mr. Emanuel, as a House Democratic leader, already is in a prime position to help Mr. Obama. But in the modern White House, the chief of staff is one of the most powerful posts in all of government, the gatekeeper to the president on every issue, and the person with the last word.

Mr. Obama first broached the idea with Mr. Emanuel weeks ago, say people familiar with their exchanges. "You’d have my back," he is said to have told Mr. Emanuel. Mr. Obama believes, and the skeptics acknowledge, that few people are better suited for the job on paper. Mr. Emanuel, who turns 49 this month, knows the White House, having been a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton. In a brief career as an investment banker after that, he made millions and became familiar with Wall Street; in the House, he helped negotiate the government bailout of the financial system that the next president inherits.

(snip)

To many Democrats, including some who are close to both men, Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Emanuel to run the White House seems at odds with the atmosphere Mr. Obama enforced at his Chicago campaign headquarters. The motto there was “No drama with Obama,” in contrast with the backbiting and shakeups in rivals’ campaigns. Some Democrats say former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is as laid-back as Mr. Emanuel is brusque, would be a better fit. Several have privately expressed or relayed reservations to Mr. Obama about Mr. Emanuel. To one Mr. Obama replied, “Rahm’s grown a lot.”

(snip)

At the start of the Clinton administration, Mr. Emanuel raised eyebrows when, as chairman of the 1993 inaugural committee, he rode in the parade in a car emblazoned with his name. Early on, he was blamed for alienating two Democratic senators, including Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, then the chairman of the committee that handled Mr. Clinton’s major initiatives. He was blamed as being the unnamed leaker quoted as saying the White House would “roll” the chairman.

In the first months, the first lady, Hillary Clinton maneuvered to have Mr. Emanuel fired. Mr. Clinton’s chief of staff, Mack McLarty, instead demoted him from political director to the press office.

(snip)

House Republicans are said to hate Mr. Emanuel for his partisanship, and on Wednesday, the former Florida congressman Joe Scarborough said on his cable television show that Mr. Obama’s enlistment of Mr. Emanuel amounted to “politics as usual” when the president-elect had promised conciliation.

(snip)

It is interesting to read this in The New York Times, which has been putting forward some interesting articles during the past year or so. Why indeed would someone who is potentially in line to be the next Speaker of the House bypass it in favor of being White House Chief of Staff?

Today on Fox News, Karl Rove agreed that Tom Daschle might be a better choice for Chief of Staff, which requires an ability to get along with members of both parties. House Republicans reportedly hate Emanuel for being highly partisan.

Karl Rove received criticism for being "Bush's brains." Might Rahm become well known for being "Obama's brains"?

Emanuel's War Plan
The Book of Rahm
By John Walsh
11-4-8

Last week, in CounterPunch (1), I wrote that the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), Congressman Rahm Emanuel, had worked hard to guarantee that Democratic candidates in key toss-up House races were pro-war. In this he was largely successful, because of the money he commands and the celebrity politicians who reliably respond to his call, ensuring that 20 of the 22 Democratic candidates in these districts are pro-war. So the fix is in for the coming elections.

In 2006, no matter which party controls the House, a majority will be committed to pursuing the war on Iraq--despite the fact that the Democratic rank and file and the general voting public oppose the war by large margins. (I hasten to add that this state of affairs can be reversed even after the sham election between the two War Parties.)

What are Emanuel's views on war and peace? Emanuel has just supplied the answer in the form of a scrawny book co-authored with Bruce Reed, modestly entitled: The Plan: Big Ideas for America. The authors obligingly boil each of the eight parts of "The Plan" down to a single paragraph. The section which embraces all of foreign policy is entitled "A New Strategy to End the War on Terror," a heading revealing in itself since "war on terror" is the way the neocons and the Israeli Lobby currently like to frame the discussion of foreign policy.

Here is the book's summary paragraph with my comments in parentheses:

"A New Strategy to Win the War on Terror" ("War on Terror," as George Soros points out, is a false metaphor used by those who would drag us into military adventures not in our interest or that of humanity.)

"We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe. (He begins by playing on fear.) America must lead the world's fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism, but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. (Messianic imperialism.) We should reform and strengthen multilateral institutions for the twenty-first century, not walk away from them. We need to fortify the military's "thin green line" around the world by adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. army by 100,000 more troops. (An even bigger military for the world's most powerful armed forces, a very militaristic view of the way to handle the conflicts among nations. What uses does Emanuel have in mind for those troops?)

We should give our troops a new GI Bill to come home to. (More material incentives to induce the financially strapped to sign up as cannon fodder.) Finally we must protect our homeland and civil liberties by creating a new domestic counterterrorism force like Britain's MI5. (A new domestic spying operation is an obvious threat to our civil liberties; MI5 holds secret files on one in 160 adults in Britain along with files on 53,000 organizations.)

(snip)

n early June 2008, Obama made a speech before AIPAC, and then Obama was endorsed by Rahm Emanuel. Or is Rahm the one who is running Obama?

Among other items, Obama said, "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

And many of you thought you were voting for change. But will it be a change for the worse?

----------------------

http://www.observer.com/2008/emanuel-endor...er-aipac-speech

Obama's AIPAC Speech, Rahm's Endorsement
by Katharine Jose | June 4, 2008

Right after Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC this morning he was endorsed by Rahm Emanuel, a leading member of the House.

(The Illinois congressman has largely stayed out of the election because he is a friend of Obama's and also has close ties to the Clintons.)

Emanuel, who belongs to an Orthodox Jewish congregation in Chicago, then accompanied Obama to a meeting with AIPAC's executive board, Mark Halperin reports.

Here is full text of Obama's speech, as prepared for delivery:

Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference
Senator Barack Obama
June 4, 2008

(snip)

Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

I have no illusions that this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal. Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process – not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence. That’s what I commit to do as President of the United States.

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don’t end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel’s efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel’s leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria’s support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

There is no greater threat to Israel – or to the peace and stability of the region – than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder in our commitment to Israel’s security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.

(snip)

Will Obama's First Term Really Just be a Hybrid of Clinton III and GW Bush III?






There is a strong chance that Lawrence Summers is going to be returned to the post of Secretary of the Treasury. If so, he's pulling a "Donald Rumsfeld" who served as Secretary of Defense twice -- the first stint under Gerald Ford and then of course under George W. Bush.

Others in the running for the post first held by Alexander Hamilton are New York Fed Chief and Summers protege, Timothy Geithner. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker is on the list. Interestingly, many on the political left are making the case for former Bob Dole staffer and FDIC chief Sheila Bair, who has in the eyes of many performed brilliantly in organizing an FDIC response on the housing crisis. Laura D'Andrea Tyson is not much discussed in the news but has become close to Obama and would be a solid choice. New Jersey Governor and former Goldman Sachs executive Jon Corzine is also on the list and is the enthusiastic preference of the labor community.

I think that there are more and even better choices. Among the frontrunners, I'd prefer Geithner, Tyson, or Corzine.

Tim Geithner who is the smartest, most unassuming financial markets technician among the lot. Geithner is probably the closest thing we have to a modern version of John Maynard Keynes. I also like Laura Tyson who I think could be useful in launching a campaign of "Tysonomics" which values some elements of industrial policy in a national economic plan vs the manic neoliberalism of "Rubinomics." Finally, Corzine -- who understands better than the other contenders that America's social contract at home must be dramatically changed -- would be a fantastic choice. His only blemish is that he worked for Goldman Sachs -- though I think Corzine thinks that was the low point of his working career and wishes he hadn't spent much time there.

Rumor has it (unconfirmed) that Summers recently had dinner with Gloria Steinem as part of an image repair strategy. Summers has also been reaching out to many economists on the left who generally opposed the manic neoliberal vector that former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Summers had put the nation on during Bill Clinton's presidency.

I have been surprised about the quick rehabilitation of Summers in Obama Land -- particulalry given Obama's promises to the labor community and his strident position during the campaign against the kind of trade deals that Summers and Rubin promoted.

If he is appointed over Geithner, Tyson, and others -- we need to quickly get a sense of whether or not the economic views of Summers have changed. Can he embrace a smarter version of globalization than he helped create? Can he help promote an alternative to the winner takes all capitalism that Summers helped to reify and which made people like Robert Rubin mega-wealthy? Can he embrace a genuine re-write of the American social contract that pushes forward the rights and position of labor? Can he abandon the fiscally conservative ideology of the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project that he and Rubin helped hatch?

We need to know the answers to these questions. I find it strange that Obama is seriously considering someone whose previous work and profile is so at odds with the goals Obama has proffered in his campaign. If Summers is appointed, we have to hope that he is not the Summers we knew eight years ago.

Larry will have to prove to us that he is different. He will have to prove to us that he is not the harbinger of Clinton Term III.

I spoke to one of the world's leading, successful financiers Tuesday night who told me he prefers Summers to Geithner at Treasury. But I countered that Larry Summers will probably continue his work as one of Bob Rubin's chief acolytes -- and Rubinism is one of the chief reasons that this economy has been trampling the Middle Class and labor in favor of the super-wealthy financial elite. This financier told me that Rubin and Summers are quite different in fact but few knew of the tensions between them. I told him I'd love to hear more about that as it could help me appreciate Summers more than I do now.

I will keep an open mind, but we are beginning to see trends that if Obama does bring back Summers -- and possibly keeps Gates at Defense -- that he is not ready to make the first term of an Obama administration about the new great leaps forward we need. He may be crafting a hybrid of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush holdovers.

Indeed, there is a chance that Obama I could turn out to be GW Bush III & Clinton III.

-- Steve Clemons