Be Vewy Quiet, I'm Hunting Torturers

[akirlu]

Hal has a theory that the Obama team's leak of of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State candidate may have been a deliberate, somewhat elaborate head fake. Think of it as chumming the waters in one spot, so you can fish in peace in another, while the sharks are all busy knocking the chum into smaller bits of pulp. Certainly, much of the national press drives itself into a blood-crazed frenzy whenever the Clintons are mentioned.

I have no idea if this is true, but it has plausibility, to me. The Obama campaign was masterful at keeping its endorsements secret and releasing them on a pre-arranged schedule, so as to keep themselves perpetually on the crest of a wave of building endorsements, rather than have them all hit at once and then fade from memory. In general, the Obama team seems to be pretty savvy at managing their own press contacts.

So, if the Clinton (potential) State appointment was the chum, what was the real fish? Treasury. A position that is far more immediately crucial at this juncture, and the furore over possible candidates died out completely once the Clinton leak was out. But with Hillary Clinton in the water for the press to exhaust themselves over for a week or two, the Obama team had the time to focus on finessing the Summers thing with an advisory appointment and securing Geithner for Treasury itself. This way the Summers appointment does not need Congressional approval, and the rather young Geithner seems like a far less sexy target for the chattering classes than he might have, sans Hillary drawing fire.

So, let's hold all that speculation about press savviness in our minds for a moment and now consider Gitmo.

Last night on The Rachel Maddow Show, Dahlia Lithwick was airing her disappointment that the long knives are not already out for various Bush cronies who had a hand in war crimes at Gitmo. And if that dark page gets turned entirely without review, then I'm right there with her.

But consider the possible press savviness of an Obama team deciding how to approach justice for Yoo and Cheney and Gonzalez and all the rest. Would it really be wise of them to declare firm intentions to prosecute while George Bush is still in office? Remember, Bush still has the power to write a bunch of pardons on leaving office, and according to standing precedent, even to pardon people who have not yet been accused or convicted of any crimes. If the Obama team signal blood lust now, what are the chances that Bush will preemptively pardon everyone who might otherwise get hauled up and held accountable? Pretty good, I'd say. But maybe, just maybe, if the President Elect plays possum on that issue, and lets the clock run out on the Bush presidency, then the Shrub team won't elect to signal the guilt of the various torture advocates by pardoning them for things they have yet to be accused of.

Now, it's equally possible that Obama and the rest of the Democrats in Washington will decide yet again that the country does not have the stomache for prosecuting war crimes at all. But I think there's at least a chance that what is going on is that until he's President, Mr. Obama doesn't want to spook the Bush administration into doing anything that would be hard to unrolll after the fact.

Comments

[greenshadows.livejournal.com]

I like yer thinking and believe some if not all of it's true. The Clinton thing does not thrill me, but I'm willing to trust BO so far and I still have great faith in his intellect AND cleverness. Hey, us liberals live to be disappointed...we really don't know how to react when things go well!

In other news, I need to make a Rachel Maddow icon. She's like, my favorite lesbian EVAR. :b

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

Rachel Maddow rocks my world. Smart, articulate, funny, able to think on her feet, and on our side. Oh, yeah, and she has that million gigawatt smile, to boot. I would lust in my heart if I weren't so sadly straight.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Maybe offering Ms. Clinton State was the only way to be really sure she stayed out of the health-care debate? She'll probably be good in State, so it's not like there's a high cost. But thinking of misdirections and things, it occurred to me that maybe they wanted to avoid the mistakes of last time, and thus wanted to keep the lead people from last time at a safe distance.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

As to the reasoning of why Senator Clinton was on the candidate list for the job, I have no opinion. I just think that once she had made it to the short list then deliberately leaking the fact could easily have served as a useful distraction for more important and difficult appointment conundrums.

[farmgirl1146.livejournal.com]

As much as I would like the torturers to get what they deserve, I truly doubt that the majority of the pubic really has the stomach for this. Likely, Obama knows this. However, because of the Presidential pardon prospect, perhaps Obama & et.al. are waiting until Jan 20, 2009. I would like to see Cheney in the box, to use a British term.

The economic situation is dire. I am disgusted with Paulson. Bush seems to have lost his brain, where is Cheney, anyway? Obama is attempting to nudge the bailout activities to how he wants them, but the effort is not as successful as some say. Notice that every time he speaks, he talks about "main street." That's no accident. Goods have to be made and bought to have a healthy economy. The US economy has been being killed since 2002. Expect a Detroit bailout -- that represents in large round numbers 50MM jobs when then secondary industries are included. That is truly mind boggling.

Clinton is placing her entire political career into Obama's hands if she accepts SOS. One thing about cabinet posts, each cabinet officer writes his/her resignation letter, signs it, and gives it to the President before being sworn in. I think that she should stay in the Senate, work her way up, and be powerful there. She seems too impatient for that.

[maryread.livejournal.com]

We will be vewy vewy quiet, while you are vewy vewy clever.

[apostle-of-eris.livejournal.com]

Hillary's appointment strengthens the likelihood that we have something a couple of millimeters to the left of the third Clinton term. Which is nowhere near what we really need.
But . . .

The misdirection which puzzles me is the "bailout"s.
The Detroit proposal (stipulating that the 3 Stooges could do a better job of running a major industry) is less than 1% of the Wall St. bailout, which is going on with major secrecy (no, you mere citizens won't be told who is getting your trillions (millions of millions) of dollars, or under what terms).

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

The fact is that the country does not have the stomach for prosecuting Bushies. 48% voted for McCain/Palin... Even I have no stomach for it anymore. I'm sick of the country dividing itself down the middle on everything all the time, each side convinced the other is brain-dead or batshit-crazy. I'm ready to move on.

Also, I'm convinced it would be an immense strategic blunder. The last thing we need now is the political equivalent of a land war in Asia.

As for Clinton - a headfake in that direction would be a staggeringly risky tactic. The Clintons have an enormous base of support, especially Hill, and those people would go livid if they felt betrayed again. Obama better be a smarter politician than that.

Why start out your term by antagonizing everybody?

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"As for Clinton - a headfake in that direction would be a staggeringly risky tactic."

Hm. "Headfake" may be an unfortunate term on my part. I don't think the offer was insincere. I only think the timing and the leak was intended to distract from the more important issue, because the fuss that would be made was predictable.

"...those people would go livid if they felt betrayed again."

Two things:

* Wouldn't they have to be "betrayed" a first time, um, first?

* Secretary of State ain't beanbag. And it's not even like the position doesn't have a history of holders who think they'd be better at being president than the person who persuaded both their party and their country to vote for them (cf. Baker, Kissinger, Acheson, Bryan, Clay, Calhoun, Jefferson, etc.)

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Ah, okay, I misread the "headfake" part. Nevertheless I still very much doubt it was an intentional diversion. For one thing, the Clintons themselves would have been incapable of keeping that a secret anyway - so if it's going to leak out, you want to leak it yourself. Exert whatever control you can on the cycle. Also, there's no way to avoid drama, so the next best thing is to get it out and out of the way as early as possible. In that regard, timing it to overlap with the Treasury pick might have been partly a way to diffuse the inevitable drama slightly faster.

Wouldn't they have to be "betrayed" a first time, um, first?

No - they only have to feel betrayed a first time. After that they become hypersensitive. It's not rational - as proven by the Hill supporters who threatened to vote McCain-Palin. Not what I'd call clear thinking. Those people have got their outrage all cleaned and pressed and ready to don again at any perceived injury.

One of the NYT columnists had an interesting analysis of the SecState-Prez dynamic. His thesis was that to be effective, a modern SecState must have the full and unreserved backing of the Prez; otherwise they are toothless. Powell was cited as an example; kneecapped by SecDef, and left twisting in the wind by Bush, he never had much force. Hill could be a great SecState, if she and Obama can trust each other. (Though I keep wondering what happened to Richardson.)