Hillary's Hard Choices and Ours

She’ll run. She has to. She is driven by duty and destiny. The question is, should we let her?

Her new book “Hard Choices”, chronicles her submersion into the world of international crises and the maddening complexity of international decision-making. The revelations on jockeying between and within conflicting agendas, the importance of nuances in language when agreement is reached … it’s all here. She convinced me that I do not have the personality or patience to be an effective diplomat. Still, the skill required to do that work, the excitement that must come from being in the thick of momentous events, the terrifying implications of choosing the wrong course, all this permeate the story and make it a valuable read. This is the story of a woman devoted to public service, vilified by the right-wing political machine, humiliated by her husband, then spurned by voters in favor of an inexperienced upstart, who still accepted the call one last time to make a difference. Her nomination as Secretary of State seemed like a miserable consolation prize to many of her devotees. High risk, low reward; a recipe for invisibility, or failure, or both.

Unless you are a Washington insider, you probably don’t know much about the inner workings of the Department of State. Here’s what I knew: the Secretary is the chief diplomat, whatever that actually means. From what I could recall, none of the recent Secretaries had experience in the foreign service. So it’s natural to wonder how a political appointee figures out how to do the job. Is there a training program? Is background as a Senator advantageous or useless? How much autonomy do you have? Is it necessary to fly all over hell and gone to get things done?

The answers: No training program; being a Senator helps and being a former First Lady helps even more; autonomy is negotiable and constantly fluctuates; and yes, you have to fly all over the place. There isn’t much substitute for staring someone in the eye or soothing them with a gentle tone. Unsurprisingly, Hillary mastered it all, and she did it fast. This is her strength: she takes on enormous challenges within complex organizations and just gets it done. It is one of the things I admire about her.

But she is a mediocre writer (I’m being kind). She drones on with details that can numb your brain. She batters you into submission with the sheer volume of it. I have zero tolerance for this kind of thing. I don’t care the specific time an event occurred. The floor and room number of the room everyone met in. The names of all the minor attendees. But sandwiched in between the dull recitation of events, you learn what drives international relationships: the role of energy policy in cementing alliances, the expendability of human rights when the stake is access to air space for mission-critical helicopters, and the maneuvering over trade policy with insufficient regard for the environment (see energy policy). It is all so interwoven that it is excruciating to imagine how to pull a thread for change without unwinding the whole damn cloth, to the detriment of all.

I am not a proponent of small-scale change. In my youth, I verged on being an anarchist. I’m sick to death of all this bullshit in which corporations run everything and the rest of us muddle along, moving slowly downward into the abyss of irrelevance. But short of a large-scale, global uprising, how the hell DO you maneuver? Are tiny victories the best we can do? Are we doomed by our interconnectedness even as some of us believe that is our salvation?

The problem is that wisdom, the ability to reach for a vision, is unevenly distributed in humans and nearly non-existent among politicians. We, all of us, act out our lives and hopes on a global stage over which even the power players have little control. The ability to anticipate the other guy’s moves, let alone to affect the direction they go, is illusion. It reminds me of raising kids — you do your best to influence them but in the end, have very little control over the outcome. That’s frightening and real.

It also confirms how damn difficult it will be to make any of the things happen that have to happen if we are to save humanity from itself. As a group, we avoid hard choices. As individuals, we are no better at it, so why would we expect that to improve when we huddle together trying to position our country for winning the next global game? Even if we make progress with China, Putin has become the wild card that no one anticipated (though Hillary cautioned about him early in the book and she was right, it turns out).

So here’s the thing: I do not like Hillary’s connections to business, to money, to the “elite”. But if you are going to do battle, with any one of them on any scale whatsoever, do you send in a novice or someone who at least knows where they are vulnerable? Do you send a woman who can manipulate with the best of them or someone who is clueless and in constant learning mode?

A lesson: liberals and Democrats chose the novice last time. We got all fired up over a guy in whom I had little to no faith. He hated playing outside the house and getting dirty with the other kids. He thought that intellect mattered most. He was naive and we’ve lost what may have been our only opportunities to get some of the hardest choices made in our favor. His stand-in this time around is Elizabeth Warren. I swear, though I love her, I will beat the crap out of any serious Democrat who supports her in a Presidential run. If we haven’t learned anything in the last eight years, then we are not equipped to face reality as it is instead of as we wish it would be. We are already likely to lose the Senate this time around, making the person who sits in the Presidential chair our only hope of holding back the forces of darkness. And honestly, I don’t want a foreign policy virgin at the helm. Almost all recent Presidents have been sucked into the vortex by unexpected foreign policy crises. We’re oblivious to the possibility that will happen again and believe that if it does, then the military will save us. How’s that worked so far? Exactly. Oh, and if we have to mobilize a global effort to counter Climate Change, it’s critical that we build effective relationships with the other players, none of whom live here.

I do not agree with Hillary on everything. But she is a smart, savvy woman who knows her way around Congress, business and the world. She can play hardball. She consistently stands up for women and minorities. She stared Putin in the eye and didn’t see a benign soul looking back. It’s about time we step up and put her where she should have been in 2008. I’ve made my hard choice. Your turn.

Lusty Capitulation

Nope, it's not a post about kinky sex. You'll see. Be patient. Read on.

You haven't heard from me in a while. You can count that as a blessing or a loss -- you choose. I've been out here digesting political reality, mourning the dream of President Hillary, seething over the Palin pick, grasping the siderails as our disintegrating economic battleship rams into a Perfect Storm. Amidst it all, I've also been practicing at being sixty -- no small feat in more settled times. I might be getting the hang of it. Or at least enough of it to unleash my opinionated self again.

It's been noted that I've gone from being really pissed off at Obama to having two of his signs in my yard and a car that is covered with Obama stickers. Yes, I still get a tear in my eye whenever I see Hillary campaigning on his behalf, but I'm unabashedly committed to BHO. What changed? Simple answer: Nothing and Everything.

First for the 'nothing'. I'm a Democrat down to my DNA. I always said that I would support our nominee, despite my conviction that he was not the best person for the job. Any Democrat -- and I mean ANY -- is a superior choice as compared to even the very best Republican. I cannot, with any conscience, vote Republican. I'm a partisan, through and through. I do not believe the Republican party represents my values nor do I think their value system and policies are good for the country and the world. Period. No exceptions. So it was ordained from the get-go that if Hillary lost, I'd vote for our candidate. I'm not now, and never have been a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass --- the acronym for Hillary supporters who were hell-bent on punishing the party for mistreating Hillary and giving the nomination to Barack). But I seriously doubted that I would/could be enthusiastic for the man himself and there was no way I could imagine donating money. I capitulated -- accepted the party's choice. Fell in line. OK, I also cried during his acceptance speech. I'm a wuss...what can I say?

Much to my surprise, I've given him money. Today I will give him more. I'm enthusiastic. Even rabid. What the hell is that about?

Seasoning. It's about seasoning. Not mine, his. Hillary may have lost the primary season, but she put him through hell on his way to the nom. And thank God for it. I wasn't always sure that she was pursuing the best strategy and I wanted to beat the crap out of Big Dog, but it forced Barack to get his shit together and develop a strategy in the general that could respond to whatever the Right has lobbed at him. She brought up Rezko, Ayers, Rev. Wright. She and her surrogates never let him off the hook. That paid off... for Obama.

The man has earned his place in the polls and in my Democratic heart. For me, everything changed as I watched him over the last few months. He's solid. He picked an outstanding running mate. He's connected to a web of advisors of exceptional talent and experience. He projects a strong, intelligent, steady leadership style. But perhaps what I admire most is his organizing skill. I know ...I dismissed that early on ...but the man knows how to build an organization and lead it. He has a ground game unlike any that has ever existed before ...except when the unions dominated Democratic politics. He has legions of workers in nearly every single state. They are young, and tireless, and they are zealots. They are exceptionally well-informed. They have dreamed up strategies like The Great Schlep, and are winning converts the old-fashioned way -- one at a time. He is competitive in swing states. I'm in awe of the campaign he has run ...he has been more professional, creative, and focused than Hillary. It hurts to say that, but it is true nonetheless.

None of us can anticipate the future and its challenges. We do know -- unless we are delusional -- that very tough times and choices lie ahead. For us as individuals. For the country. For our government. For our president. We need thoughtful leadership. A willingness to see the world clearly and still not be trapped by old mental models. This country could be falling into a death spiral. The old model says that only the pilot can right the plane. The new model says that while the pilot pulls on the stick, the passengers need to haul their ass to the back of the plane, throw unneeded shit out the windows to lighten the load, and lean backward, aiming for the heavens above.

Barack, when you seize the controls on November 4th, I'll be leanin' and throwin'.

Health Care Policy for Dummies

OK, I'm trying to hold my temper, but I'm sitting here watching the Democratic debate, and I want to just smack Barack Obama. He and Hillary are debating health care. The contrast between the two is remarkable. She understands the business and the domain. He simply does not. He has a pollyanna view of health care that is consistent with his lack of experience on the national stage or in the trenches where the really big and powerful play hardball.

Let me cut to the chase: Barack's plan is right of center and far too Republican friendly. He is sacrificing principle and worse, he is violating basic business principles that make coverage work. He believes he's progressive on this issue. He's not. It is obvious he's never had to actually negotiate coverage. You cannot leave anyone out of the pool and make the thing work. It is a fundamental actuarial principle of the business. And whether Cigna or the Feds run it, you have to follow the same coverage principle. You must mandate coverage, just as Hillary and Edwards pushed for.

I have been an executive in an insurance company. I was intimately involved in managing care and helping to rate applicants. Barack says everyone who wants health care will buy it if it is affordable. Bullshit. I have seen many young adults -- working young adults -- refuse coverage because they'd rather spend their money on cars, electronics, entertainment. They do not believe they'll get sick. Wolfe Blitzer is right. Those people get sick and then the rest of us pay for it. Yes, people with little income for insurance...mostly responsible adults with families...can't afford the premiums. Subsidies are the answer, not exempting them from the system.

He also spouts that he will pay for his program by focusing on prevention. To paraphrase him: we'll pay for a dietician so we won't have to pay for a diabetic's foot amputation. Right. Has this man ever talked to someone who actually cares for patients? I do. I'm a nurse practitioner. I work with people who have heart problems and many of the illnesses that go with them, like diabetes. Even if you can get people to get control of their health and lifestyle (and let me tell you, this is a rare feat), this takes an enormous amount of time and MONEY. The payback is not in a premium year. Ever. He is totally nuts and clueless to think he's going to pay for his programs with this as a core strategy. It just won't work. And I think what distresses me the most is that this guy thinks he has answers when he is so clearly misinformed.

Hillary covers her program with new taxes and savings from negotiating pricing and instituting administrative cost savings. That may still not be enough, but it is much more realistic.

You know, I keep saying that I'll support Obama but the truth is, while he's charismatic, he just isn't a heavy hitter in the policy department. Worse, he has top advisors guiding him and they aren't pointing him in the right direction. Why would anyone think that would substantially change if he were elected?

I'm sorry, too much of this story feels like 2000, when the Republicans fell all over themselves lining up behind a guy who was charismatic and seemed like a whole new animal. He was an empty suit. I'm still not sure how full Mr. Obama's suit is either.

I Have a Very Bad Feeling ...

South Carolina results are in. We took a whoopin'. There is just no way to dismiss these results as aberrant or a reflection of the black vote alone. I truly believe this is a message to Bill and Hillary that their hardball politics were repugnant to voters. When S.C. white voters line up behind Barack, you have to be willing to entertain the idea that he just might be able to mobilize white voters in the south and west.

We have a long way to go yet, but one thing is clear: Bill needs to get out of the way. He is suddenly making this contest about him, not about Hillary. I'm deeply concerned that she will not be able to stand on her own now, not because she doesn't know how, but because his messages overshadow her. It is also possible that the tactics of their well-oiled machine are no longer appropriate to this time and place.


I have been mighty pissed at Obama supporters over the last two weeks. Their insistence that he is the second coming borders on a faith-based ardor that some days scares the piss out of me. They are intolerant of any facts that fly in the face of the reality they have constructed. That is perilously close to the dynamic we've lived with for the last 7 years. I do not think that Obama is promoting this; I think it is a reflection of the youth that dominate his campaign.

I'm a pragmatist and have said I would support our nominee, regardless who that might be. Since I declared myself one week ago, the universe shifted. The MSM has decisively lined up behind the Obama campaign and defined the narrative. The increasingly subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on Obama, that stirred up the spectre of racial divides, have been toxic beyond imagining. But the bad feeling I'm having isn't about Obama supporters or Obama himself, it's the feeling that I have that S.C. was the tipping point. Hillary just might be done.

Saint Barack — The Halo Slips

Did you watch that debate? Did you? [if you missed it, you can read a transcript or watch it here]. Am I the only one who was pissed at Saint Barack? You know, I’ve always been very attracted to the guy. It was agonizing trying to decide between him and Clinton. Monday night, I was glad I’d walked away from him.

As I watched the man whose supporters paint him as a latter day Martin Luther King, Jr., I sputtered, fumed and swore. (By the way, lest we forget, King accomplished great things, but he had clay feet). Obama insists that his campaign won’t sully itself with Realpolitick. He harps on the need for a new civility, a non-partisan mindset. It’s all about ‘inspiration’ and ‘transformation’. He attacks, then denies it. He doesn't take ownership of his own dirty tactics, like the Spanish language ad run on his behalf by the Culinary Workers that accused Hillary of not caring about Latinos. If someone calls him on his own distortions, he calls foul, and then whines that he’s mistreated. “Can’t we all just get along?” he pleads. Will someone make that mean Bill Clinton go away? Right. Welcome to politics with Big Boys and Girls Barry.

His arrogant, dismissive style, consisting of “listen, listen” or “look, look” as he lectures and shakes his finger, sends me into orbit. When he cannot find a cogent argument to defend his past actions, he just whines, “trust me, you know what a good person I am, you know I didn’t mean it, my words are being distorted”. Worse, the fucking media plays along, defending him as a poor victim of Clintonian dirty politics.

I watched the key sections of the controversial interview Obama gave to the editors of a conservative Reno newspaper. The newspaper whose endorsement he was fishing for. No one mentions that the paper’s agenda is a Republican one. This is the interview in which Barack just happens to extol the Republican party as the party of ideas, more ideas than even Bill Clinton had during his presidency. Clearly, Obama was trying to align himself with Republicans to win their support. He did, by the way. Yet these key facts are left out by his supporters when they defend him. The media has been utterly silent about the context.

Let me be clear, I have no problem with Obama's strategy to gain votes. I do object to his saintly protestations that we all misunderstood him and are trying to sully his precious attempt to ‘reach across the aisle’. When he is called out, which is what Hillary tried to do during the debate on Monday, he waxes into a lengthy professorial explanation of what he “really” meant. If we didn’t get it, then we must be stupid or bad people who aren’t playing nice. Again, I call bullshit.

And I’m really, really sick to death of Obama supporters who prance around the blogs, spoiling for a fight and accusing anyone who is beginning to see the guy’s flaws, as racists, against change, corporatists, or worse, purveyors of Rovian politics. We older Democrats are getting sick and tired of being accused of racism or cynicism when we point out Obama's flaws and the political realities that expose his weaknesses. Slam us enough and we'll vote for his opponents. I think that dynamic may be taking hold in recent primaries.

Obama is a politician, not a saint. His senate run was essentially unopposed due to problems within the Republican party at the time. He hasn’t been tested in the mud-wrestling environment of national politics. From what I can see, he can’t take the heat very well and he sure as hell can’t think on his feet or respond articulately when attacked spontaneously. He is great at teleprompter speeches but not-so-great when he has to react quickly. A campaign against the Republican machine will require quick responses from him, not just his bevy of strategists behind the scene. This was one of Kerry’s great flaws, he wasn’t a street fighter. Hillary, on the other hand, is. You may hate that reality, but it isn’t going to go away. The Republicans will not play nice just because Barack wants a kumbaya world. That's not cynicism. It's just what's so.

Beyond the campaign, many of the most critical presidential decisions are ones that have to be made in a split-second, when experience and an understanding of context count. There are times when you cannot ponder the options for days or weeks. I continue to worry that Obama’s skill at that is poorly developed. While he is a thoughtful man -- which is a strength -- it can also be a hindrance if you lack practice at making timely decisions about complex international situations.

If we are to have a fair examination of the candidates, not just what they believe but how successful they will be in a national campaign, then I think it is reasonable to evaluate their performance when attacked. It is also fair to identify when they are pandering to the Right to position themselves for votes. If Hillary panders she is accused of ‘triangulating’, as if she is conducting a ménage a trois. When Obama does it, he’s shaping a broader vision and building a consensus with Independents and lite Republicans. That’s utter crap. Let’s call it what it is: they are both trying to win an election, whatever it takes. Playing holier than thou feels way too similar to “God is on my side”, the rationale we’ve all endured for 7 interminable years.

She won??

It's getting hot. Very hot. More divisive than ever. My candidate 'won' the caucuses though perhaps not the delegate count. Things are still up in the air. Regardless, the reported voter alignment makes for interesting analysis.

Black and young voters overwhelmingly supported Obama. Black voters seem to be moving rapidly behind 'their' candidate. And youth have consistently lined up behind him, a clear trend that solidifies with every state contest.

Latinos and women overwhelmingly supported Clinton. The fact that Latinos supported Clinton despite their union lining up behind her opposition, is a huge surprise. In an open caucus in which you publicly declare whether or not you are for the union's endorsement or against it, Latinos stood up to their union and voted their conscience. I think I feel good about that but it sure may portend a dilution of the two big service unions' political power. This is important because so many service workers are Latino/Hispanic. And that demographic is the largest growing one in the country.

Women may turn out to be a wild-card in this election. The pundits and polls consistently harp on how soft Hillary's support is, especially among educated women. But women over 60 just might trump that and determine the outcome, along with Latinos. Both groups vote in high numbers.

But there is another undercurrent here that is only beginning to be gingerly discussed. There is very bad blood between Hispanics and Blacks. In my personal experience, they hate one another. The real 'race issue' here might just be the chasm between our two largest non-white ethnic groups. California is ahead....a huge Hispanic enclave. Feb 5th, here we come.

And in case anyone is wondering, yet again the turnout was huge -- over 100,000. Democrats are energized and are not staying home.

This primary season is going to be so close that we may not have a clear nominee for months. Who would have thought that? Certainly, not me.

Competence Counts

At last I chose. I’ve vacillated for months. But today, I chose my candidate. Then I sent some money. This helped me decide:

“…I'm not alone in wishing for a nation run by someone [Hillary] whose desire for our well-being is passionate but whose actions on our behalf also exude bedrock competence, someone who lacks any flash whatsoever except the flash that keeps a person assiduously doing the hardest things in life. In New Hampshire and all across the country, many female voters seem to be thinking along the same lines.”

The NV debate pushed me in her direction and away from Obama as well. When asked about his greatest weakness, Obama confessed that he isn’t an operations guy, he can’t keep track of a paper for longer than 2 minutes. He does the ‘vision thing’. He is a ‘transformational leader’. He hires good people who do all that management stuff. He declared that it is not his job to run the government. Ding, ding! Been there, seen that (for the last 7 years).

I was about Obama’s age in the early ‘90s. I was as naïve, as ‘experienced’, as full of hubris as he is. I wanted to transform health care. I had a vision. I could articulate it. People lined up to follow me. I was an executive of a large organization hired specifically to be a ‘change agent’. I failed. Spectacularly.

Coincidentally, Hillary was trying to do the same thing. She failed too. We both learned some very hard, very public lessons: transformational change is seldom a fit for large organizations or government. If you attempt it, it is one of the most difficult things you will ever do and it requires constant, hands-on intervention by the top leadership. You are setting about changing mindsets, culture, systems, processes. Due to its scope, it rarely succeeds. To quote an old manaagement professor, 'the organization always pushes back and it almost always wins'. Given Obama's loose use of the term, it is clear he hasn’t tried it. Community organizing, passing bills in a state legislature aren't even remotedly the same. What's scary, is that he thinks he knows how to do it. His near-dismissal of anyone who challenges his belief, his denigration of those who have actually done the grueling work to create change, borders on arrogance. It is certainly naive. You can only get so far on charisma. The 'American People' won't do the work. Personally, I’m not anxious to let him use the presidency as his training wheels.

Here’s how political and institutional change really works: you use insider’s knowledge and accumulated chips to get things done (see the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War”). It is painstaking work. It is incredibly frustrating. It is slow. I hate it.

As an alternative, you could seize unilateral power to dictate solutions — I believe that is the model Dick and George like best. Think about that.

But if you want to make substantial change in government and policy, you must be willing to endure the almost soul-sucking battles fought on the inside. You do what Hillary has done: you slog through for years, learning how the wheels turn and who you want to be beholden to you. When the day comes, you call in your chips. That’s the political process. That’s what LBJ learned to do. He was masterful at it. All those civil rights we have today came from the work of experienced politicians who took risks, knew how to cut a deal and which buttons to press. Activists are necessary, but not sufficient. In a democracy, the political process has to seal the deal. I hate that reality. But that IS reality.

Like Hillary, I’m impatient. I want change faster than I’m gonna get it. I alienate people with my passion and my willingness to bust some balls (which is not very feminine of me, is it?). The organization, the society, the status quo always pushes back. So you damned well better have the fortitude to fight hard and not give up. She has proven her mettle for 35 years. You can dismiss that if you want to. But it deeply pisses me off that when you spend your life positioning yourself to get the big things done, the younger generation dismisses your experience, your wisdom, and opts for ‘change’. Pardon me, but they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about. I was one of them once. I learned that the ideals of youth take the wisdom and experience of age to ‘make it work’. The challenge is to hold on to your ideals for 35 years. I have. Hillary has.

There is a third alternative: revolution. And some days, I crave that option. Some days, I think it might be the only way to save ourselves. But revolutions are not begun by politicians. If you want change without revolution then you’d better be looking to someone who can navigate the corridors of power. Who can play hardball while building political alliances. Someone who knows what levers to pull. The challenges facing this country are so huge, so complex, that nothing will be accomplished quickly. But if you are a novice, you’ll get nowhere singing kumbaya and giving great speeches. The largest accomplishments of our era were made by people who were insiders and over 40: FDR and LBJ. They had plenty of enemies and no illusions. JFK’s vision, while grand, only became reality through the work of a career politician, someone today’s generation would disdain.

If Barack and his minions, who are looking more and more like a cult of personality, want transformational change, then they should remain activists. We need them to stir the pot and build a large-scale movement for a specific agenda, not just ‘change’ and ‘non-partisanship’. Revolutions are painful. Obama and his troops will have to sacrifice, they will have to step into the streets, they will have to serve. But I do not believe they are ready to run a government, not based on their few, small-scale accomplishments.

Oh, and one last thing: Obama gave an interview yesterday in which he praised Ronald Reagan as a transformational leader and extolled Reagan’s skill at getting people to follow his vision. What’s wrong with this picture?

So, Hillary’s my candidate. She’s imperfect. Sometimes I want to thrash her. Sometimes she shows poor judgment. But I’m now prepared to fight for her, warts and all. And if she loses the quest for the nomination? I’m a Democrat. I’ll work my ass off for whoever we choose. And yes, that includes Obama.

Women Who Run With The Wolves

Am I the only one who remembers this book? Surely not. When I first read it, more years ago than I willingly admit, I instantly identified with the parallel drawn between female wolves and Wild Women. No, I don't recall details -- I'm very bad with details -- but I do recall that I felt fierce, and strong, and primed to howl at the moon.

Like now.

The alpha female in a wolf pack is fiercely protective of her young, her pack. Seems to me it's the right blend of gentleness and ferociousness. Some prefer the elephant model, but the image just doesn't resonate.

Which takes me to Hillary. You know exactly who I mean. She's compassionate...and ferocious and is prepared to bare her teeth. Mostly, we don't like that. The 'we' of which I speak, is women, not men. I'm troubled at the vitriol slung at her by women, especially the well-educated and priviledged. While I'm deeply ambivalent about some of her policies and positions, the woman is prepared to kick ass any time, any place. Some would say she is too 'male'. Maybe. But I'm a pragmatist. The world I'd like to navigate through is not the one we have since GW Fuckup has diddled it for 6 years. I don't think isolation is the answer and neither is kumbaya -- the Kucinich solution. We tried that in 1939. Ooops.

Ken Burns reminds us of what may be required - toil, sacrifice, community, perhaps a "Village". What I do know is that age -- that other taboo as it applies to women -- teaches some of us lessons. Hillary is nothing, if not a quick study. My instincts tell me she's gotten wiser, more savvy, more pragmatic. Short of a revolution ...and that's not comin' people ... we need smart, pragmatic, compassionate, agile leadership that can 'hunt' if required. Maybe a wolf is just the thing.