Heidi Li's Potpourri

Hillary Rodham Clinton's confirmation hearings: In the middle of troubled times, a strong, deeply intelligent voice

"It is not unique for spouses of government officials to work."

--Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State designee, 2009 January 13, 2:47 p.m. eastern

Amid all the other comments, answers, and statements - many of which speak to more specific and presently pressing matters - made by Hillary Rodham Clinton during today's confirmation hearings, this is the one I will smile about whenever I recall it. Senator Clinton is referring to herself as a government official and to Bill Clinton as her spouse.

The spouse is the husband of the Secretary of State designee; the government official is a woman, his wife, on the verge of becoming Secretary of State.

In the world I dream of there would be no reason to parse this statement, to underscore or even care about which spouse is the husband, which the wife, or even whether the spouses were of the same sex or opposite ones.

But we do not yet inhabit that world. So, I will be smiling at Senator Clinton's comment for many days to come.

Senator Clinton spoke on many issues, and all she said will receive coverage from the usual media outlets. Three points jumped out at me, all in continuity with the foreign policy positions and outlook Senator Clinton articulated during her run for the Presidency, and now with new importance given Senator Clinton's pending service as Secretary of State:

• the central importance of leading foreign affairs from state, not from the defense department;
• the crucial importance of adding massive resources to the civilian face of American diplomacy, the state department;
• the vital role of ensuring that foreign policy be used to empower women and girls in all the countries with which the United States interacts.

I close this post with a fitting factoid, from The Chicago Tribune.

As her appearance was being broadcast nationwide on C-SPAN, Clinton debuted in her new role at a time when her public image is soaring. A new Gallup poll Tuesday showed 65 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable opinion of Clinton, the highest such rating in nearly 10 years.

Watch NARAL affiliate try to make up ground lost by NARAL's national office

After its parent organization endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate less committed to reproductive rights than Hillary Rodham Clinton, NARAL-NY is now pressuring Governor Paterson to appoint somebody to fill Secretary-of-State-Designate Clinton's Senate seat with a Democrat who is as strong on reproductive rights as Hillary Clinton has been during her tenure in the Senate. This item in the New York Daily News brought the matter to my attention. I have no idea whether Governor Patterson cares what NARAL-NY thinks; I actually lost what shreds of respect I had for the national group when they not only refused to endorse Senator Clinton but endorsed a candidate with no track record on reproductive rights. But there is a perverse irony that NARAL's New York chapter president wrote the following in an op-ed in the Albany Times-Union: (emphases added)

"[When we think about appointing her replacement, we must ask what it truly means to replace Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"It means replacing the woman who nearly single-handedly ended the Food and Drug Administration's foot-dragging on approving emergency contraception for over-the-counter access. Clinton's strategy of stalling a confirmation until the FDA made a decision ensured that women were more easily able to access this important method of back-up birth control.

"It means replacing the woman who joined her fellow New York Democrat Sen. Charles Schumer to oppose the administration's plan to reduce federal reimbursements to health clinics (including family planning clinics, substance abuse counseling and mental health clinics). The predicted loss of $350 million in funds to our state would be devastating to health care providers and the more than 400,000 New Yorkers, many of them low-income, who rely on them.

"It means replacing the woman who joined her colleague Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., to introduce the "Protecting Patients and Health Care Act," legislation that would that would block the Department of Health and Human Services from passing a bill limiting patients' access to basic reproductive health care service. Clinton and Murray have been leading the opposition to this misguided legislation since July, when rumors of the bill first began.

"It means replacing the woman who has not only been a staunch ally on health care issues, but also a sponsor of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation would've helped close the pay gap and end the inequities that have shortchanged women and families for far too long.

"It means replacing the woman who cosponsored legislation to repeal the global gag rule, to end funding for abstinence-only education and fund comprehensive sexuality education, to expand contraceptive access, and to codify the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade ruling in federal law.

Simply put, there is no other senator who has shown such commitment, dedication and leadership when it has come to standing up for women's health and rights.

...

"We hope that as Gov. David Paterson considers the appointment of Clinton's successor, he will choose someone who will commit to upholding this legacy. Though gender need not his only guide, the governor must keep in mind that Clinton is one of only 16 women currently serving in the Senate and that her advancement provides an opportunity for another woman to build upon her foundation."

It means replacing the woman who NARAL did not endorse for the Presidency.

So forgive me if I agree with the points being made but will not be hopping to support NARAL any time soon.

CAVEAT: NARAL-NY's President objected to the decision by the national office to endorse then-Senator Obama rather than Senator Clinton. From an article published in Medical News Today in May:

"NARAL Pro-Choice New York President Kelli Conlin, who objected to the national office's endorsement, said the "real differential" between Clinton and Obama is Clinton's "tremendous work" in helping assure FDA approval of over-the-counter emergency contraception for women ages 18 and older. She added that the EC approval was the "most important advance for reproductive rights in a decade."

I admire Ms. Conlin for taking a stand against the national organization. But note that the national organization has lost all the credibility Ms. Conlin is trying to retain for her state-level chapter.

Secretary-of-State-Designate Clinton already sets the tone

Today I received the following message from SOS Children's Villages - USA, via HillaryClinton.com:

Officially designated to be the next Secretary of State just two days ago, already Senator Clinton is using her position to set the tone for the type of Secretary of State she will be. By giving SOS a platform, SoS-Designate Clinton indicates  that she envisions the USA as an advocate for children worldwide. I do not know of another U.S. Secretary of State or Secretary-of-State-Designate who has, as her or his first act, shown such fundamental recognition of how truly interdependent the people of the world are.

Advisory Boards: Not just for Presidents (Secretaries of State have them too)

I still aim for a Presidential Empowerment of Women Advisory Board. But with the appointment of Senator Clinton as Secretary of State, and presuming that she will be confirmed by the Senate, Senator Clinton will be uniquely able to create an International Women's Advisory Board (IWAB), modeled after the already existing International Security Advisory Board (ISAB). Currently, the ISAB is housed within the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN), which reports to the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.   A quick review of  the current State Department organizational chart  suggests a number of potential places for an International Women's Advisory Board.  Most ambitiously, a new Under Secretaryship could be created, an Under Secretary for Women's Affairs. If this were done there could any number of internationalist programs aimed at women's status around the world, with Assistant Secretaries charged which specific areas such as economic empowerment, diplomatic outreach to women, and so forth. Most narrowly, an IWAB could be created to report to one of the current Under Secretaries, such as the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs (these Under Secretaries currently report to the Deputy Secretary of State's Chief of Staff) or if more suitable to the Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs, who currently reports to the Executive Secretary to the Deputy of Secretary of State.

The point of suggesting an IWAB or even broader department within State is that this is another way the new Administration and Senator Clinton as part of it can capitalize on her idea of women's rights as human rights. Just as the struggle for human rights is inherently global and internationalist, so is the struggle for women's rights. In Senator Clinton we will have an  SoS already committed to these ideas.

Furthermore, while we still need a PEWAB (Presidential Empowerment of Woman Advisory Board), the State Department could be a model for how to put women's issues front and center in every executive department.

With Senator Clinton's appointment to head the Department, I - along with millions of other Clinton Democrats - and there are millions of us - will make it our business to get to know the State Department. Another bonus to Senator Clinton as SoS: she will make more Americans interested in and knowledgeable about the Department of State. Good for democracy, good for America's international and foreign policy.

The incoming president's national security team and what it means for women

Here's the team announced today by President-elect Obama:

• Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton
• Defence Secretary: Robert Gates
• National Security Adviser: General James Jones
• Department of Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano
• Ambassador to the UN: Susan RiceAttorney General: Eric Holder

1. Half the members are women, which does make a statement; Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton heads the team as the highest ranking cabinet member on it.
2. Senator Clinton is going to be an energetic, creative, intelligent and progressive Secretary of State - because she's an energetic, creative, intelligent and progressive person. Watch and listen to her acceptance remarks.

Items I and 2 are good for women, good for people who care about women, and just plain good.

But items 1 and 2 do not mean that the President-elect has done what I believe is necessary: he has yet to create a dedicated institution to examine the status of women's empowerment. As I learn more about presidential advisory boards (so far I have written part one and part two of my discussion about them), I become increasing convinced that a dedicated, broadly scoped President's Empowerment of Women Advisory Board ("PEWAB") is the tool. More on PEWAB to follow in subsequent posts. While we celebrate Senator Clinton's, Janet Napolitano's and Susan Rice's appointments, we cannot see them as a substitute for sustained presidential attention to the issue of empowering women all across the country, in every sector and capacity.

For now: my heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Senator Clinton in her new post; my congratulations to President-elect Obama for adding the most progressive and prominent Democrat active today to his cabinet.

Americans abroad, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

According to a breaking story from the NY Times: President-elect Obama is contemplating a serious '“civilian reserve corps” of nation-builders under State Department auspices.'  If this is true, and with Senator Clinton  heading the State Department, what a terrific idea. This sounds like the Marshall Plan meets the Peace Corp. By sending individual Americans to work on these projects, Americans will have the opportunity to learn from those they go to aid, while bringing America's best resource - its human capital - to the global problem of strengthening civil society, rule of law, and genuine democracy.

Senator Clinton is just the person to design and lead  a meaningful global public service program. Senator Clinton herself exemplifies a life devoted to public service (even when in private practice, she participated in a range of public service activities, and indeed supported her spouse and daughter so her husband could serve in public office). Taking that ideal and the reality of public service global is a mission Senator Clinton will lead with panache. She mobilized 18 million Americans to vote for her; she continues to provide a role model for men and women who are genuine progressives.

Lamentably but predictably, the NY Times characterizes Senator Clinton as hawkish; that seems wrong to me. She is an internationalist, a person involved already with global initiatives like Vital Voices. But that does not mean she is a conventional hawk, consistently favoring war. The NY Times seems to have begun braying early.

Hillary Rodham Clinton: a progressive and somebody who certainly saw the current fiscal crisis coming

In the postcript to an earlier entry, I wrote that if Senator Clinton does join Senator Obama's cabinet (she has not been officially offered nor officially accepted the position of Secretary of State as I write now), she will be the most progressive member of an Obama cabinet.

The reason I consider Senator Clinton an exemplar of genuine progressivism is that she has consistently believed in government's ability and responsibility maintain equality of economic opportunity - a constant shared baseline chance for all to achieve economic gains during their lifetimes. Thus, it made sense that as soon as Senator Clinton noticed the subprime mortgage problem brewing, she started expecting the government to get involved to protect individuals from a systemic disaster.

To review this aspect of Senator Clinton's economic progressivism from March 2007 until now, go here for her views on subprime mortgage lending.  See here for Senator Clinton's call on President Bush, which she issued in March 2008, to name a foreclosure working group to focus on the housing crisis. Or here, for her discussion, in Nevada in January 2008 of the stimulus package she was talking about implementing, were she elected President.

The reason I would like to see her as Senate Majority Leader is because I believe she could marshall votes to pass progressive proposals focused on maintaining the baseline equaliy of economic opportunity President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal originally envisioned: a New Deal for laborers was Roosevelt's promise in 1932. It is not clear to me that equality of opportunity for the working or middle class is a priority for the new executive administration or the current Democratic Party leadership. This is a signature issue for Senator Clinton and having her available to take the lead on it in the Senate might restore, at least to some measure, Americans' deeply diminished confidence in the U.S. Congress.

At this point, it would take nothing less than Senator Harry Reid renouncing his the Majority Leadership specifically in favor of her becoming Senate Majority Leader for her to assume the role I think she could play in reviving a Congress that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid have led to record lows in approval rating. I do not anticipate this happening. But I take this opportunity to open the door to a discussion of what makes an American politician progressive (as opposed to right or left; Democrat or Republican): that fundamental commitment to government's ability and responsibility to maintain equality of economic opportunity for all of the governed.

True American progressives include, off the top of my head, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follete, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Mario Cuomo, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and Hillary Rodham Clinton.

These days Barack Obama seems increasingly like Lyndon Johnson

Before Lyndon Baines Johnson became President he was a critic of the northeastern establishment, a son of Texas, and a devotee of bipartisanship.  Barack Obama has been in political life for a much briefer time than Lyndon Johnson was before Johnson was elected to the presidency (after he first ascended to the office upon John F. Kennedy's death). Yet the parallels to LBJ are there. Prior to winning against John McCain on November 4, President-elect Obama critiqued the Washington establishment (including Democrats who had spent more time in office there than he ever has); both during and after the general election, he has operated from Chicago, thereby emphasizing his adopted mid-western mantle; during the primaries and the general election he campaigned as critic of partisanship.  Now President-elect Obama is joining hands across the aisle in an unprecedented manner, reappointing a sitting Cabinet member of the other Party's outgoing President. Not just any member of the Bush 2 team, either. Mr. Obama has selected  Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and Gates has agreed to the appointment.

Seems a hawkish move. Very in keeping with the Lyndon Johnson style.  LBJ represented the right wing of the Democratic Party when it came to foreign policy. During the mid-1960s, Johnson escalated the Vietnam War, a believer in the need to contain Communism by force. Ultimately, Johnson's hawkishness lost him the support of rank and file Democrats, leading him to decide against seeking the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 1968.

I am not suggesting that President-elect Obama will not attempt to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Historical parallels aside, the Gates appointment makes clear that Senator Obama meant what he said during the general election: he does not oppose U.S. troop presence overseas or using military force to fight terrorism; nor does he oppose Republican foreign policy in a blanket way. What Senator Obama wants to do is redeploy U.S. troops, not bring them home. That is, he plans to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, to beef up  Operation Enduring Freedom, George W. Bush's other post post-9/11 war. (Sweeping redeployment, removing virtually all troops from Iran, seems destined to take at least another two to three years.) Whether the U.S. has learned enough about post-conventional warfare for it to make sense to use more troops in Afghanistan remains to be seen.

Do not get me wrong. Lyndon Johnson did some admirable and amazing things as President - including making sure that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 got passed and signed into law. So being like Lyndon Johnson is not necessarily a bad thing, at least from an overall liberal point of view.  Let us note, however, that President-elect Obama has not made any bold Great Society-like moves yet. He has created a new presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, but this is not a New Deal or Great Society descendant. It is modeled on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. No President's Commission on Women  seems forthcoming; although, actually, now I have my sights set on a President's Advisory Board on the Status of Women in America. Really, I do.

POSTSCRIPT

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most genuinely liberal or progressive person President-elect Obama has reportedly asked to join his Cabinet. Senator Clinton: supporter of the view that womens rights are human rights; proponent of genuinely universal healthcare, early advocate of direct relief to mortgage holders. Whether Senator Obama's offer is made official or is accepted remains to be seen.  Wherever Senator Clinton ends up come January she will be to the left of those around her. I  hope she influences whoever she can to move her way.

Given my druthers, I, along with hundreds of others I know of, would prefer to see Senator Clinton become Senate Majority Leader. So would Marie C. Wilson, head of The White House Project. But whatever Senator Clinton decides to do, given her options, I have confidence she will indeed move those around her to progressivism and liberalism.

Internationalism about women's issues and Senator Clinton's international involvement with these issues

Around the world, people are thinking about women's issues from an international perspective today, November 25, designated by the U.N. as as International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Indeed, today kicks off sixteen days of activism on this issue.

From the United Nations:

The 16 Days of Activism against Gender Violence (25 November – 10 December) is an annual campaign that is symbolic of the global women’s movement and end-violence networks. Its starting day, 25 November, is observed each year to honour the Mirabal sisters, three political activists from the Dominican Republic who were assassinated on the same date in 1961. The end of the 16 Days is marked by 10 December, International Human Rights Day.

If you want to do something about today's significance, remember this is the first day of

16 days of activism. Hit the button for more information from the Center for Women's Global Leadership, based at Rutgers University and a partner with the U.N.

.

******

For those who are spending time obsessing about Senator Clinton allegedly adding too much drama to the Obama administration - another latently sexist turn of phrase (women create "drama", men bring "charisma") - take note. Entirely apart from Senator Clinton's experience in the Senate and as First Lady, she has taken an active role in women's affairs at the international level by working with and even serving as honorary co-chair (along with Senator Kay Bailey and former Senator Nancy Kassenbaum) - of at least one NGO that takes an internationalist perspective: Vital Voices.

From the Vital Voice's site:

"The nonprofit Vital Voices Global Partnership grew out of the U.S. government's successful Vital Voices Democracy Initiative. The Vital Voices Democracy Initiative was established in 1997 by then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright after the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing to promote the advancement of women as a U.S. foreign policy goal."

Being an honorary chair of an organization does not usually translate into much day to day operational work. The significance, for the present moment, of highlighting Senator Clinton's role Vital Voices, an organization which arose in part because of her famous speech in Beijing, during which she declared that women's rights are human rights, is to illuminate (especially for those who seem to be missing the point) Senator Clinton's recognition around the world as international leader. Not a bad (although certainly a rather dramatic) starting point for a Secretary of State.

Learn more about Vital Voices.

The U.S. Senate Boys Club

Despite what has been reported, I doubt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could now create a genuine option for Senator Clinton to remain in the Senate with an enhanced official position and concomitant opportunities for power and influence.  If this were a viable option, why would a new extra spot have been needed in the first place?

No, the extra spot is needed because none of the Democratic men in the Senate would give up a position or power to make it possible to empower a colleague who 18 million voters wanted as their President. The gentlemen of the club like the titles and privileges they have and, as I have been saying, it is not typical of politicians to put Party, principle, or country ahead of their own particular ambitions. They might do it for one of the guys (e.g. Joe Leiberman), but not for a gal who already outshines them.

So, the "head boy", Senator Reid, has floated the idea of giving a "girl" a special spot of her own. Possibly Senator Reid finally realized that the Democratically controlled Senate was about to look completely ridiculous by relying on club traditions, however hallowed the club's traditions might be. But talk about too little, too late. After joining the effort to hound Senator Clinton out of the primaries and then doing nothing to ensure that she would  have the equal opportunity to become the nominee that the Democratic Party nominating rules required, now Senator Reid wants to empower Senator Clinton. Talk about tokenism. Imagine if this had played out with Clinton's and Obama's positions reversed - and Senator Reid turned around and made a "special" post just for Senator Obama.

Senator Clinton's yeoman effort on behalf of President-elect Obama in the general election were something of an exception to rule that politicians always seek immediate power at the expense of larger considerations. So is President-elect Obama's apparent (but not yet official) decision to offer Senator Clinton the Secretary of State position is too. I am not suggesting super-selflessness on the part of either Clinton or Obama: their respective decisions have advantages for their respective political ambitions. One good thing about making Senator Clinton Secretary of State is that it is a real position with historical pedigree and some degree of power. Credit to both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama if they decide they can work together and make each other better than either would be working separately, in different branches of the federal government.

But if Senator Clinton decides she would rather exercise fuller autonomy and serve as Senator from New York rather than as Secretary of State, I sincerely hope she holds firm on insisting that she play a role defined by the club's traditions, and does not accept an ad hoc token platform. Anything short of a serious traditional Senate post will be yet another snow job, meant to make the American public  believe that the Democratic Senators actually get what millions of Americans have known all along: that Senator Clinton is a exceptional and talented human being, policy thinker, advocate, and politician, and that the country needs that sort of talent channeled into the most official places in our government.

Please note, I am not arguing for Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State; I am arguing that at least that position is a traditional power spot (although subordinate within the executive branch to the chief executive, as one would expect); not a gerry-rigged add on to a roster that has plenty of room for better people in its usual starting line-up.

Three postscripts

1) I am refraining from suggesting that people donate further to retire Senator Clinton's primary debt, pending what happens with regard to the Secretary of State position: one would hope that if President-elect Obama and Senator Clinton decide to work together so closely, President-elect Obama will be able to motivate his donors to knock off the last bit of debt. 2) For news coverage about the intricacies of the situation surrounding Senator Clinton as Secretary of State, go here. Also, Bonnie Erbe has an interesting opinion piece here. 3) The absurdity of what appears to happened with regard to Senator Clinton and the U.S. Senate Boys Club highlights yet again the importance of a Presidential Commission on Women, to be instituted in the first hundred days.