Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
CONSULTING CONGRESS.
I'd been operating under the assumption that Marc Ambinder was correct and Feinstein and Rockefeller weren't informed of Panetta because the name leaked early. But Biden's comment doesn't fit that model. Caught outside the Senate today, Biden said, "I'm still a Senate man and I always think this way: I think it's always good to talk to the requisite members of Congress. I think it was just a mistake."
It's possible that Biden is simply out of the loop here. Or it's possible that he's being unclear and means to say that her ignorance was accidental, rather than a strategic error on the president-elect's part. Or maybe they're just trying to do some apologizing rather than getting into a complicated question of leaks. In any case, it remains weird. But worse than weird is the idea floating around some quarters that it's actually awesome. That Obama purposefully didn't inform Feinstein and Rockefeller because, as Scott Horton argues over at Harper's, Rockefeller and Feinstein were failures on the Committee, and Obama didn't want their opinion. "I’m delighted that the Obama team didn’t consult them," says Horton.
This sort of thing is a very bad idea. Horton is right to heap scorn on Rockefeller and DiFi's committee performance. But history suggests that acting highhandedly with powerful senators is a bad idea. Those are votes Obama will need not only on his nominee, but on much else, and the last thing his administration should do is anger them or their allies. The point of presidential consultation is to show respect for their opinions and make sure the working relationship is constructive. Putting that aside for either pique or vengeance is a bad idea indeed, and not the sort of thing progressives should cheer. On this, Biden is right. Talking to the members is always a good idea.
COMMENTS (9)
I think you and Mark are probably right, Panetta's name leaked. Obama and his team seem to be working hard to avoid repeating Carter's and Clinton's mistakes, and both of them got off to rough starts because they offended powerful members of Congress. Your post the other about this being a more liberal Senate than Carter and Clinton had to deal brought a name leaping to mind---Sam Nunn. Seems to me all the former Clinton team members around Obama would be moving extra carefully to avoid that sort of mistake again.
Posted by: Lance Mannion | January 6, 2009 5:20 PM
One of the things I really appreciate about Ezra is his focus on getting things done, e.g. his focus on Baucus w/r/t health care. Needlessly antagonizing senators doesn't appear to help to Get Things Done.
Posted by: Klug | January 6, 2009 5:46 PM
Or, it could be that Obama knew they'd try and submarine his choice, and decided that they could take their indignation and shove it up their tight DINO asses.
Posted by: brewmn | January 6, 2009 6:15 PM
Ezra, you're being obtuse here, even ridiculous. Of course this was intentional from the most careful and thorough transition in modern history. So: why? Feinstein has been a disgrace on matters of intelligence, torture, ad nauseum, as has Rockefeller. Thus it's critical to remember that Mr. Obama always - ALWAYS - plays the long game. For instance, Feingold approves of Panetta, Feinstein disapproves. Compare the two on issues of intelligence and national security. How might Team Obama, then, be shaping the future of Congressional oversight and management of intelligence? Just how much power does a Senate committee chair have in the face of the Obama juggernaut? How does Feinstein's kvetching compare to the measured, precise moves of Mr. Obama? What long term effects on the meta-narrative will this 'little' scuffle engender? Butterfly effect, Ezra, butterfly effect. She's being backed into a corner with two doors: double down and disappear, or adjust to the diminished reality of her position and "get along." And honestly, it couldn't happen to a nicer gal. Shed the concern, Mr. Klein. Feinstein needed to have her black wings clipped, and with a single cut Mr. Obama has done just that; Obama's really handing Feinstein her ass on this one. There's nothing she can really do except: a) accept her (deservedly) diminished role, or b) keep whining and fade quickly. Returning to Senator Feingold – between him and Feinstein, who might be slightly more authoritative (morally and ethically, never mind functionally) on the subjects at hand, and whose views are likely in the long run to gain real (read: instrumental) stature and influence as a result of this kerfluffle? Sometimes you worry me, young man.
Posted by: Conrads Ghost | January 6, 2009 11:52 PM
The danger of pretending to get the opinions of people whose judgment you don't respect is that THEY will leak in an unfavorable way and the first impression of your nominee will be a negative one. The first impression of Panetta was 'he's a heavyweight' with a dash of 'Feinstein's mad'. That's better than a leak of 'Obama thought to be politicizing CIA, wants Dem poobah' coming out of DiFi's office. I think this was just a minor screw up with timing but DiFi doesn't need her ass kissed, she needs it kicked.
Posted by: joejoejoe | January 7, 2009 6:57 AM
It seems to me that you're overlooking the biggest reason an outsider is needed now: An insider, by definition, is part of an organization that deliberately falsified intelligence to deceive Congress and the American people, and also committed torture and possibly other crimes against humanity.
A lot of people are rather ticked off about these facts and a nominee that promises the same ol' same ol' is not going to go over well with anyone *except* Dianne Feinstein.
Panetta has the experience, but not the taint. That's what makes him a good choice, and anything Feinstein says about preferring a professional is going to fall flat with people who remember what they're professionals *at*, right now.
Posted by: chris | January 7, 2009 8:17 AM
Of course it's prudent to talk to Senators like Feinstein and Rockefeller first as long as Obama doesn't actually follow their advice afterwards because... they suck.
Posted by: Ron E. | January 7, 2009 9:26 AM
If you haven't seen already, watch a clip of Rachel Maddow on Feinstein and Rockefeller last night. She not only declared the lack of consultation a deliberate snub by Team Obama, but a well-deserved one done in the name of accountability. Said Maddow: "They were the people who WE THE PEOPLE had to rely on during the Bush administration for Congressional oversight of the Bush administration on intelligence matters. We had them to count on to expose, to bring to light criminal acts like torture, like wholesale breaking of the wiretapping laws, like indefinite detention without trial; these criminal acts perpetrated by our own government... The consequence of that failure is... well, maybe it's that you don't get the first call when the incoming President is deciding who to select as his new CIA director." I think shaming Dems for past misdeeds in this instance is more than justified and is worth any procedural setbacks it may entail later on.
Posted by: Christopher Barillas | January 7, 2009 10:01 AM
The last 8 years have demonstrated that neither Feinstein nor Rockefeller could muster 2 vertebrae between them. What exactly does Obama have to fear from them? ohnoes! Feinstein supported the seating of Burris!!! What will Obama do now!
A clean break from the past is what we needed, and snubbing the prime Bush enablers was Teh HAWSOME no matter what you say. So there.
Posted by: J.W. Hamner | January 7, 2009 11:40 AM