Quantcast

The Nation

Dowd v Clinton, Chapter 3465

Is Maureen Dowd obsessed with Hillary Clinton or what? Last week, she complained that Hillary spoke "girlfriend to girlfriend" to women voters while refusing to share the pain of being married to a sexually exploitative monster who had made her violate all her beliefs and principles, as Caitlin Flanagan opined in the Atlantic. This week, Dowd accused Hillary of "playing the woman-as-victim card" because her campaign put out a humorous video portraying the last debate as a masculine pile-on (never mind that Hillary herself said she was the focus of tough questioning because she was the front-runner): "If the gender game worked when Rick Lazio muscled into her space, why shouldn't it work when Obama and Edwards muster some mettle? If she could become a senator by playing the victim after Monica, surely she can become president by playing the victim now."

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who quotes Caitlin Flanagan approvingly has lost their bona fides on gender issues. Flanagan, after all, is the woman who calls herself a homemaker while acknowledging that she's never changed her own sheets, who insists that children don't love working mothers as much as they do stayhomes, and who says women have a duty to have sex with their husbands at least twice a week. As for playing the woman-as-victim card, can this be the same Maureen Dowd who wrote in her last book, Are Men Necessary?, that men don't ask her out because she's too smart and successful and will never see 35 again? How's that for painting yourself as a victim  of sexism--which, I hasten to add, Dowd probably is!

You don't need to be Simone de Beauvoir to recognize that lots of middle-aged men would find Dowd too challenging and too old -- i.e., their own age. For applying this rather obvious sociological observation to herself--for permitting herself one unguarded moment and writing what women say to each other all the time--she was publicly taken to task all over the media. Unlike Hillary, Dowd backed down. I turned on the TV late one night and there was Dowd, all sultry red hair and fishnet stockings, gaily insisting to some male interviewer that her social life was terrific, no problems in that department at all.

The more people insist that sexism plays no part in the primary campaign or its media coverage, the more likely I am to vote for Hillary Clinton and I'll bet I'm not the only one. Her poll numbers with women are rising, after all. I think a lot of women are just fed up to here with the sexism they see around them every day at their own workplaces and that their male colleagues just don't notice as they ride the testosterone escalator upwards. Six male politicians salivating to score points, two super-self-satisfied male journalists asking the questions (and what questions!), one woman who has got to know the world is just waiting for her to set a foot wrong--it makes a picture. If you've ever been the only woman at the meeting, on the panel, with your job, at your level, you see that picture all the time, and it's a self-portrait.

While on the subject of Dowd, let me add that I am sick of Hillary being tagged with the adventures of Bill's genitals. What's it to Dowd or Flanagan that Hillary ran for the Senate instead of filing for divorce? At least Hillary isn't a sad doormat like Wendy Vitter and countless other political wives. As long as we are looking at candidates' spouses, what about Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Edwards, smart lawyers who quit work to promote their husbands' ambitions? Nobody criticizes those choices, or says nasty things about those relationships. In fact, we are constantly being told how warm and wonderful these marriages are. Fact is, none of us knows a thing about what really goes on with the Obamas, the Edwardses, or any of the other candidates and their wives. And if it weren't for Kenneth Starr, we wouldn't know about the Clintons, either.

House Puts Impeachment On, Then Off, The Table

The move by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to open a House debate on the question of whether to impeach Vice President Cheney turned into a imbroglio for the Democratic leadership of the chamber Tuesday as mischievous Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in rejecting a move to table the resolution.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had thwarted Kucinich's efforts to convince the Judiciary Committee to take up his proposal to hold the vice president to account for lying to Congress and the U.S. public in order to enter into a war in Iraq, and for trying to mislead again in order to start a war with Iran. So the Ohioan used a privileged resolution to bring the impeachment question up before the full House.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, then moved to table Kucinich's resolution. "Impeachment is not on our agenda. We have some major priorities. We need to focus on those," said Hoyer, echoing Pelosi's position that presidential accountability is "off the table."

That should have been the end of it. But it wasn't.

A combination of more than 80 Democrats who apparently sincerely favored taking action against Cheney and Republicans who thought that an impeachment debate would embarrass Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders blocked the motion to table.

Only 162 members -- 27 Republicans and 135 Democrats -- supported Hoyer's call to table the resolution. A total of 251 members -- 86 Democrats and 165 Republicans -- opposed it.

What followed was wrangling between Kucinich and Hoyer on whether to refer the resolution to the Judiciary Committee. The majority leader wanted to bury the articles of impeachment in committee, while Kucinich keep angling for a debate on the House floor.

That set up more votes, as Democratic leaders scrambled to block Kucinich's moves.

C-SPAN covered it all, with its anchors breathlessly trying to keep up with the vote switches and political intrigues.

It took two more roll calls before members completed the procedural business of sending Kucinich's articles to the Judiciary Committee -- on a final vote of 218-194. That was technically a "win" for Hoyer, but the day belonged to Kucinich. After all, the Ohio congressman and Democratic presidential contender had succeeded -- albeit briefly -- in getting impeachment on the table.

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

John Nichols is the author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

 

It Is Time For "A National Inquest"

In May of 1972, when then-President Richard Nixon was riding as high as he ever would politically, anti-war activists attempted to place an advertisement in The New York Times urging his impeachment for illegal war making in southeast Asia.

The two-page ad, headlined "A Resolution to Impeach Richard M. Nixon," called on the newspaper's readers to support House Resolution 976, which had been proposed several weeks earlier by Michigan Congressman John Conyers and several other liberal representatives.

Nixon and his aides went ballistic. The same political operation that was busy orchestrating the Watergate crimes celebrated a brief attempt by pressmen at the Times to block the printing of the paper including the ad. When the censorship failed, Nixon's political henchmen made sure that Times executives were inundated with letters condemning the very mention of presidential accountability as "traitorous." A Nixon aide showed up to thank the pressman for trying to prevent publication of the ad. Attorney General John Mitchell and a top Republican in the House, Gerald Ford, explicitly attacked the authors of the impeachment resolution and its supporters. And the group that placed the ad was hauled into court and accused of violating federal campaign finance laws because they had encouraged the election of House members who would pursue impeachment.

Condemnation and ridicule of those who would impeach a president in a time of war is obviously nothing new. And there will be always be political and media players who are at the ready to tell the sincere proponents of the rule of law that it is not the right time to mention impeachment. They will declare that the Constitutionally-defined process is "off the table." They will even warn, ominously, that the Republic -- or, at the very least, the prospects of the proponent's own party in a coming presidential election -- will be harmed by the exercise of patriotic duty.

That's the message Congressman Dennis Kucinich got Tuesday when the Ohio Democrat attempted to force the House to consider the articles of impeachment he has brought against Vice President Cheney. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, moved to table Kucinich's privileged resolution seeking to open a debate on the issue. So, today, it is not just a Republican White House but the leaders of a Democratic-led House who are resisting the pull of the Constitution.

What should Americans who keep faith with the Republic's best values and intents answer think about the question of whether the House should move to hold a top member of the executive branch to account? The best response is to recognize that those who raised the subject of impeaching Richard Nixon in 1972 and those who raise the subject of impeaching former Nixon aide Dick Cheney in 2007 are the keepers of an American tradition that stretches back to 1787.

That was the point made in a response to the controversy about the 1972 Times ad authored by Telford Taylor, who had served as the chief U.S. prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg trials.

"Making full allowances for the hyperboles of partisan politics, it is impossible to justify the violence of the attacks leveled by Messrs. John N. Mitchell and Gerald R. Ford against the Congressional sponsors of the Resolution (H. Res. 976) for the Impeachment of President Nixon, set forth in the advertisement printed in The Times on May 31," wrote Taylor, one of the ablest and most honorable legal thinkers of the 20th century. "It is, of course, entirely proper for anyone so disposed to contest the charges set forth in the Resolution, but to condemn them as 'revolting,' 'disgraceful,' and 'traitorous' is wholly unwarranted."

Taylor recalled that the founders of the American experiment had intended impeachment to be proposed when there was a sense in the land that a member of the executive branch had committed "an abuse or violation of some public trust." And he recalled the faith of Alexander Hamilton that the essential value of the impeachment power afforded the House was that it provided "a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men."

Noting that "such a 'national inquest' is precisely what is proposed in the Nixon impeachment resolution," Taylor argued that initiative was timely and appropriate -- as similarly well-versed scholars of the Constitution suggest today that Kucinich's articles of impeachment represent the right response to the lawlessness of Cheney and the administration the vice president has defined.

"It may well be doubted that a Congress which has been unable or unwilling to take less drastic steps to reassert its proper responsibilities for peace and war is likely to embark on the impeachment process, especially at a moment when President Nixon is riding the tide of Congressional support for his missions to Moscow and Peking," argued the Nuremberg prosecutor 35 years ago in language that is just as compelling today. "But these political realities should not be allowed to obscure the seriousness of the issues posed by the impeachment resolution, which merits full consideration by the appropriate agencies of the House of Representatives."

Telford Taylor offered the right response to those who attempted to squelch an impeachment initiative in the spring of 1972. That response is just as right in the fall of 2007.

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

John Nichols is the author of THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

'We Need a Nobel Prize in Law'

It's very moving to watch how Pakistan's courageous lawyers have emerged, for the second time this year, as the vanguard of resistance to the Musharraf government.

Angry protests by thousands of lawyers in Lahore and other cities on Monday were the first organized demonstrations opposing the emergency rule imposed by the General's dictatorship. Their brave support for the rule of law, democratic institutions and human rights reminded me of Garrett Epps' proposal that a Nobel Prize in Law be given every year.

As Pakistan's lawyers put their lives on the line to defend the rule of law and human rights, one can't help thinking of the torture-writing lawyers who've filled positions in the Bush Administration. Linked to that is this Administration's ugly hypocrisy: exporting democracy abroad while subverting the rule of law at home and abroad--obstructing the International Criminal Court, spitting on the Geneva Conventions, condoning torture.

As Epps wrote, "One of the hallmarks of authoritarianism today, as in times past, is its unremitting hostility to law and its demand for docility before the state and the powerful interests it protects." Is it a surprise that the anti-democratic Bush Administration would place the US's trust and money in an openly anti-democratic Pakistani regime?

Judiciary Panel OK's Waterboarding, Er, Mukasey

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning approved President Bush's nomination of former Federal Judge Michael Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General.

Mukasey, a radical advocate for expanded executive power, had refused to condemn the torture tactics -- such as waterboarding -- that Gonzales sought unsuccessfully to legitimize.

The committee voted 11-8 to forward Mukasey's nomination to the full Senate with a recommendation that the former judge be confirmed.

All the Republicans on the committee backed the nominee of their party's president. They were joined by two Democrats, New York Senator Chuck Schumer and California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said they were convinced to support nominee by his private vow to enforce any law Congress might enact barring waterboarding or related torture tactics.

To his credit, committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, pointed out that the assurance from Mukasey was meaningless.

"Unsaid, of course, is the fact that any such prohibition would have to be enacted over the veto of this president," explained Leahy.

The full rationale for rejecting Mukasey was offered by the last Democrat to announce his position, Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, who said, "As Judge Mukasey's answers mirror the president's on this issue -- and defy common sense -- we are forced to question his independence as well. The attorney general's loyalties must be to the Constitution, to the American people and to the law. Too much doubt on this point is disqualifying."

Disqualifying for those who take seriously their oath to defend the Constitution. But not, unfortunately, for Schumer, Feinstein and their Republican colleagues on the committee.

The New Prohibition

Reason magazine offers a stinging critique of a new crop of increasingly draconian DUI laws titled, "Prohibition Returns!" One example: In Washington DC, cops can arrest you for any blood alcohol reading above 0.01, even if you are not legally drunk.

David Harsanyi writes, "Neoprohibitionists aim to muddle the distinction between drunk diving and driving after drinking any amount of alcohol. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) endorsed the idea at a Senate Environment and Public Committee hearing way back in 1997, contending that we 'may wind up in this country going to zero tolerance, period.' Former MADD President Katherine Prescott concurred, in a letter to the Chicago Tribune, where she stated 'there is no safe blood alcohol, and for that reason responsible drinking means no drinking and driving.'"

Now, that's crazy talk, and much like the recent push to ban people from smoking in the privacy of their own apartments, it's a classic case of our puritanical instincts run amok. We seem unable to maintain the distinction between between a personal vice and a legal crime. People do and should have the freedom to do things that are not necessarily good -- even outright bad -- for them. They don't however have the right to be a hazard to others. So it makes sense to ban smoking in public spaces due to the dangers of second-hand smoke, but not to designate cigarettes a controlled subtance so you can get the FDA to essentially ban it.

Similarly, it makes sense to crack down on drunk driving, but not to restrict people's right to drink alcohol, period. "Drinking is under attack these days in ways we haven't seen since the failed experiment with national alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. Indeed, for many neoprohibitionists, that experiment wasn't a failure at all, since it did cut alcohol consumption, which is all that matters. We can see that mentality today in policies that go beyond preventing drunk driving or punishing drunk drivers and aim to discourage drinking per se," Harsanyi writes.

I'm not a hard-wired libertarian like Harsanyi -- who objects to even road blocks during holiday season -- but I do think it's time to say no to this push to control private behavior and space. It's outright un-American.

Postscript: I noticed that the article is adapted from Harsanyi's book, titled "Nanny State: How Food Fascists, Teetotaling Do-Gooders, Priggish Moralists, and Other Boneheaded Bureaucrats Are Turning America Into a Nation of Children." I've never much cared for the term "nanny state," if only because it's one of those catchy rightwing phrases that plays on liberal stereotypes to dismiss perfectly sensible policies. It also misleadingly suggests a liberal/lefty consensus on the extent to which the state should regulate private behavior, be it eating, drinking, smoking, taking drugs, or sex. Besides, groups like MADD -- and their ideological position on regulating personal behavior -- get plenty of support on either side of the traditional left/right divide.

Citigroup: Too Big to Fail?

The fall of Citigroup is a resonant political event--akin to the Republican Party's failure to win reform of Social Security--only this time the bell tolls for the Democratic Party. The creation of Citigroup as an all-purpose financial supermarket and too-big-to-fail banking marvel was very much the accomplishment of Clinton Democrats. They enacted the law in the late 1990s that authorized this megabank monstrosity, with coaching from Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Fed chairman Alan Greenspan and of course Sanford Weill, the creative genius who built Citi.

Now that this institution has slid into deep trouble and Rubin has been appointed emergency chairman to rescue it, Democrats inherit the stink. They made this mess possible. Will they now accept the meaning of Citigroup gone sour and begin to undo the damage? That is, undertake reform of the financial system in fundamental ways? I doubt it, though the message is obvious.

Just as the GOP dreamed for decades of dismantling Social Security, investment bankers campaigned for thirty years to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from its investment-house cousins. This was the New Deal achievement enacted in response to the double-dealing banking practices that contributed to the crash of 1929. Bankers pushed their depositors into buying the corporate stocks the bankers were hustling, among other malpractices. Wall Street hated the law but failed year after year to win repeal. The problem was always Democrats (since Republicans were sure supporters).

Bill Clinton delivered his "New Democrat" party, accompanied by lots of happy talk about magic words like "synergy" and how "modernization" would create a more stable (and profitable) financial system. It did the latter, for sure, but not the former.

Actually, the combination of insurance, investment banking and old-line commercial banks multiplied the conflicts of interest within banks, despite so-called "firewalls" supposed to keep these activities separate. Much like Enron, placing some deals in off-balance sheet entities did not insulate Citigroup from the losses in its swollen subprime housing lending. The bank has so far written off something like $15 billion and more to come.

Think of Citigroup's rise and fall as another high-water mark for the conservative order. Like Social Security reform, it looked like a sure thing in politics. It was accompanied by the usual encouragement of lavish campaign contributions. On the downside, no one will remember having voted for it.

Reforming the deregulated financial system is another test for the new "New Democrats." I expect it will take them a while--maybe years--to face up to the implications. This is a far more daunting challenge--substantively and politically--than reforming healthcare or restoring labor organizing rights. Other megabanks like JP Morgan Chase also exist and will argue they have none of Citigroup's flaws. As investors (including pension funds) continue to lose billions in the deformed financial system, government will continue to worry more about the survival of these banking institutions that generate the losses. The megabanks are indeed "too big to fail" and, if that seems likely, Washington will come to their rescue in the name of protecting the soundness of the system. What a scam that is.

At least the unambiguous truth about "financial modernization" is now on the table for all to see. That should keep the Wall Street guys from whining for a while about the oppressive nature of bank regulation. The next reform era, when it does finally arrive, will head in the opposite direction--restoring public protections for the little guys against the greedy excesses of big hogs.

Mukasey Is (Much) Worse Than Gonzales

George Bush's nominee to replace disgraced former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, retired Federal Judge Michael B. Mukasey, must be rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee for the same reason that Gonzales should have been rejected in 2005.

Like Gonzales, Mukasey refuses to accept that the president of the United States must abide by the laws of the land, beginning with the Constitution. In fact, the nominee to replace the worst Attorney General since Calvin Coolidge forced Harry Micajah Daugherty to quit rather than face impeachment is actually takes a more extreme position in defense of an imperial presidency than did Gonzales.

When questioned by Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont and Constitution sub-committee chair Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, during the key hearing on his nomination, Mukasey embraces an interpretation of presidential authority so radical that it virtually guarantees more serious abuses of power by the executive branch.

There is no question that one of the ugliest manifestations of that expansion of authority involves the Bush-Cheney administration's embrace of extraordinary rendition and torture as tools for achieving its ends. But those who focus too intensely on Mukasey's troubling dance around the waterboarding question make a mistake. Even if the nominee were to embrace the Geneva Conventions -- not to mention the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- and condemn all forms of torture as the cruel and unusual punishment that they are, he would still be an entirely unacceptable choice to serve as the nation's chief law-enforcement officer.

And while some Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have made their peace with Mukasey -- shame on New York's Chuck Schumer and California's Dianne Feinstein -- the fight to block this nomination cannot be abandoned. Mukasey's critics on the committee, led by Leahy and Feingold, should do everything in their power to re-frame the debate to focus on the broader question of whether a president can break the law -- and on the nominee's entirely unacceptable answers to it. They should pressure Schumer and Feinstein to reconsider, and they should reach out, aggressively, to "Republicans who know better" such as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter.

Mukasey has made the case against his confirmation more convincingly than any of his critics.

The former judge has defended the administration's attempts to dramatically expand the definition of executive privilege, telling the Judiciary Committee that it would be inappropriate for a U.S. attorney to press for contempt charges against a White House official who claimed to be protected by a grant of executive privilege. Under this reading of the law, U.S. attorneys would cease to be independent defenders of the rule of law and become mere extensions of the White House.

As such, Mukasey accepts a politicization of U.S. Attorneys far more extreme than that attempted by Gonzales and former White House political czar Karl Rove when they sought to remove U.S. Attorneys who failed to fully embrace the administration's electoral and ideological goals.

But Mukasey does not stop there.

Under questioning from Feingold, Mukasey endorsed the administration's argument that congressional attempts to define appropriate surveillance strategies and techniques could infringe inappropriately on presidential authority.

When pressed by Feingold, Mukasey refused to say whether he thought the president could order a violation of federal wiretapping rules.Feingold's response was measured. "I find your equivocation here somewhat troubling," said the senator.

In fact, everything about Mukasey's testimony suggested that he would as Attorney General be more of a threat to Constitutional governance than the inept and frequently inarticulate Gonzales. Mukasey gives every indication that he is as enthusiastic as was Gonzales about helping the president to bend and break they law. The scary thing is that Mukasey appears to be a good deal abler when it comes to cloaking lawlessness in a veneer of legal uncertainty.

Consider the nominee's suggestion that the president can ignore any law, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, if he and his lawyers determine that the law impinges on his authority as commander in chief during wartime.

"The president is not putting somebody above the law; the president is putting somebody within the law," Mukasey explained, with a response that employed legalese at levels not heard in Washington since Richard Nixon boarded that last plane for San Clemente. "The president doesn't stand above the law. But the law emphatically includes the Constitution."

Leahy said after that "troubling" statement by the man who would be the nation's chief law enforcement officer: "I see a loophole big enough to drive a truck through."

The Judiciary Committee chair is right. It's the truck carrying the trappings of an imperial presidency. And Mukasey should not be handed the keys.

'A Potential Death Sentence'

If the situation in Iraq is improving, as Bush and Cheney insist, why are US diplomats likening forced postings in Iraq to "a potential death sentence"? In a contentious hour-long "town hall meeting" last week, US diplomats faced off with State Department officials about a recent order that requires them to serve in the Baghad embassy and outlying areas.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Jack Croddy, a Foreign Service veteran of many postings and a former political advisor with NATO forces, said. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?" His remarks were greeted with loud and sustained applause from the 300 diplomats at the meeting. "Any other embassy in the world would be closed by now," Croddy said.

As Juan Cole wrote the other day ("Informed Comment," Nov. 1), "The US Embassy in Iraq should be closed. It is not safe for the personnel there.... Please write your congressional representatives and senators and demand that the US Embassy be closed and the forced deportation of US diplomats to Iraq be halted." This may be one way to start ending the war--along with bringing home (and bringing to justice) security contractors/ mercenaries like Blackwater, which has served as the State Department's security force in Baghdad. (Watch for Jeremy Scahill's article about Congressperson Jan Schakowsky introducing legislation this week that would attempt to end mercenaries' activities in Iraq. )