Power and Perception – The Clinton-Obama Whitehouse

In a recent AP article Kevin Freking noted Washington Republicans were complaining that President-Elect Obama is choosing Washington Insiders for Cabinet Positions - like some groups from the left, there is a concern that the promised change may be tempered by moderate governing. One can understand Republican angst – should Obama govern from the center, his changes of success are increased, although given the current state of the nation, one is hard pressed to find anyone who would want to fill Obama’s shoes, especially a Republican. The media, who were somewhat less than objective during the two-years running up to the general election, failed to notice something lacking on the side of the Republican machine. The biggest new regarding Republicans is that they suffered a huge loss, they were fractured, they were out-campaigned – true Obama ran a remarkable campaign, funded to the hilt, and aided by the likes of Dean, Pelosi and Reid, with a host of other top players in the Party, all intent on undoing Hillary Clinton (hold that thought), while the Republican’s ran an unusually lackluster and somewhat frenetic campaign. John McCain’s emergence as the front-runner, a man known by the base and moderate Republicans’ as most like to caucus with the Democrats, did little to inspire the base – the biggest component that went missing from this election – the 501’s in defense of McCain. There simply were none – and no one seems to wonder why? It isn’t as though there wasn’t enough material. The divide between so-call cultural and social conservatives is being talked about as though it might be a factor, although leaders on both sides have banded together in past elections in order to get out the vote – this time – they stepped away -almost appearing to ‘lose by design”. Obama won the general by a 1 point margin over the previous general election, yet, the media persists in the delusion that this is some sort of land-slide. Obama, who’s general governing experience, was limited to say the least, has the sense and ability to choose top positions wisely, and he also appears to understand that he needs seasoned experts that are also moderate in temperament will help him succeed.

That said one starts to see a pattern developing with some of the appointments to date:
Eric Holder, Attorney General (Justice Department under Clinton), Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff (former 6 year advisor to Bill Clinton), Robert Reich, Obama Transition Team ( former Secretary of Labor under Clinton), White House Counsel, Gregory B Craig (former defense attorney for President Bill Clinton), Tom Daschle, Health and Human Services(vigorously defended Clintons Health Care plans in the 1990’s) and finally, Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State (pending formal rumored announcement).

The logical conclusion would be that Obama has chosen members and defenders of the Clinton administration based on their knowledge and established power in both the Party as well as in Washington. One can also wonder, Obama chose Clinton, over his mentor John Kerry (D-MA), as Secretary of State. Kerry will assume Biden’s old senate position as the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This non-appointment, though prestigious enough, speaks volumes. How long has Biden held that position and to what advantage? The old adage: “throw a dog a bone” may apply to Kerry in this instance.

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Absolutely, Hillary Clinton has an established presence in Washington now that has the potential to push her vision and her policies through with seamless effort. She has transcended the Presidency –a women, who for all intents and purposes should, by popular vote, been the nominee, a woman that some post-election polls suggest would have won the presidency by a greater margin had she been the nominee – now may, if she chooses, become Secretary of State in and administration where she will be surrounded by friends and allies. In the early stages of the campaign, it was rumored that the Clintons had some damaging information on the President-Elect, a rumor only, however, one has to wonder, due to choices made so far – if this information existed and if it has been put to greater use. It is good to be a woman.

Obama – the Centrist Military Model and the Lefts Concerns

The Los Angeles Times article, “Antiwar groups fear Barack Obama may create hawkish Cabinet”, voices concerns by leftist activists regarding President-Elect Obama’s cabinet choices being “hawks” as opposed to doves. These are individuals who oppose any military action; regardless of intent or necessity. They are, for all intents and purpose not necessarily opposed to violence, should their voices not be heard, yet, the first to protest against the United States when the nation is attacked – “just in case”. In the weeks following September 11, 2001, anti-war activist sprang into action in the event the US would retaliate – shades of 1968, with a few hundred thousand less attendees. These are the same activists who hounded the Bush administration for the past eight years, and were somehow convinced that should Barack Obama become President, the military would be disabled, and peace would be realized. One has to ask: “What are they smoking?” Actually, one might have a pretty good idea; of what it is they are smoking to come to this harebrained conclusion.

It goes without saying that Barack Obama, like any other man who took the weight of the presidency upon his shoulders, is in a precarious position; with the exception that in this age, at this time in American, Obama will face challenges from all fronts that no-one would want to deal with – the situation is so severe it gives rise to speculation that the incredibly benign campaign run by the RNC was more planned than accidental. That said Obama is facing threats from abroad before even setting foot in the White House. Al-Qaeda’s Zawahiri, (Osama’s number 2), has taken to using racial slurs, in a warning more to his “troops” than the US, of no change in direction or policy with an Obama presidency. There simply is no end in sight to this "War on Terror". Barack Obama is no fool, having risen swiftly from the Illinois Statehouse to the White House; one has to credit his ability to campaign effectively, and to lead effectively in order to continue his success. That is good news for those of us in the trenches, but for those on the fringe, it’s a bit disconcerting.

Unfortunately, the world in which we live is fraught with dangers. Attacks on US soil have been threatened, Iran is tuning up its nuclear abilities, and the Israeli’s are leaning towards the Likud Party, lead by Netanyahu, China, Cuba and Venezuela are holding weekly meetings, and on and on. What’s a President-elect to do? He will surround himself with those who would protect our nation; to leave the United States vulnerable is unacceptable. To the Philip Beringer’s who just don’t “get it”, those who have to make the horrendous decisions to engage an enemy, under any circumstances, do so unwillingly. Obama will be no exception, yet his options are few, and the fronts are many. Campaign promises, are made to be broken, they are not a contract, rather a means to an end.

Conservative Feminism – Is Palin Credited for Beginning a Movement?

A comment on this blogs Post, “Sarah Palin, Sexism and Politics Why the Sudden Respect”, questioned the emergence of Conservative Feminism as “newly found” and tied exclusively to Sarah Palin the G.O.P. Obviously, there has been an increased interest, judging from “Google Search” (1.9 Million searches for Conservative Feminism, 2.9 million searches Conservative Feminist) in the term since Palin came to the national stage, however, “conservative feminism is not defined by one woman’s candidacy or by one party. The blogger, Merge and Divide’s comments here are worth sharing. What follows is a rebuttal to those who would define a movement by one individual and/or one political party.

The idea of “conservative feminism” is not something that has risen out of the candidacy of Sarah Palin – “within the past few months” – Palin definitely played a role in bringing conservative feminism to light – given her high profile – that said; from a personal perspective, I have always been a feminist, I have not always been a conservative, and yet, when I found that my point of view towards social and economic issues changed to a more conservative point of view, I did not lose my basic feminist instincts – therefore, I was both – a conservative and a feminist. Conservative Feminism is not tied to any specific religion as is claimed by “Merge”. One cannot say that those that follow Christian, Judaic or Muslim doctrine, all religions that prohibit “abortion”, are less feminist for being religious. The problem many of the “old traditional feminists” have is that they are a one issue, and exclusive – focused on “reproductive rights” – (abortion) rather than the big picture. They would cast blame on man, rather than work with other feminists who do not share some of the same ideology, in order to push one political party over another. Conservative Feminists take a different approach – it is not exclusive, rather inclusive - understanding that although one may disagree on a certain issue, there are more than enough problems facing women as a group to necessitate working together towards a common goal.

The notion that Conservative think and GOP does not go hand in hand is something the national parties failed to understand. Liberals are not necessarily Democrat and conservatives are not necessarily Republican – to think that people are that easily pegged is naive to say the least. When Clinton ran up against sexisms stone wall – those that came to her defense were both liberal and conservative – something – the situation was so severe that even right-wing (and that is not to say conservative, but specifically right-wing) columnist began to take notice. Go figure.
The assertion that the “vast majority of attacks (on Palin) having nothing to do with sexism” is ludicrous. Those who had Google email alerts on Palin from July through present find articles that are still focused, not on the issues, or her perceived inabilities, rather – the wardrobe, the celebrity status, ad nauseum.

Now, as to the role of women in the GOP, it is fairly well documented that more positions of equal pay and equal status have been granted to women in that party than in the Democrat Party. Additionally, there had been slow progress made in employment (jobs that we’re traditionally held by men, given to women) in the 1970’s, during the 1980’s more women assumed these positions but still held the same “less than” status, during the 1990’s – nothing changed, with one exception, there was less emphasis on gaining ground and more on the status quo, which is where it has stood. It was gratifying to see the Conservative women coming to the GOP (and I am not referring to the ridiculous Pink Elephants – that was demeaning) during this campaign, from both parties. Some because their personal convictions were more in-line with the Party and others because they felt their party had abandoned women, yet again. Try and find bills regarding women’s issues proposed by either party over since 1999 in the Senate and you will find little from either party.

On Palin and 2012 – No one has any idea of who will run in 2012 – Palin has a fan base within the Republican Party – to be sure, but one can almost bet the house that there won’t be a woman on the top or bottom of either ticket in 2012. Palin will work for conservatives and for her State. However, no-one knows if she will emerge as a candidate in 12, or if another woman, from either party, will decide to run, including Hillary Clinton.