Huffington Post is catching some grief over a post by Anya Strzemien titled “Sarah Palin’s Toenails: What’s Painted On Them? (PHOTOS, POLL).”  Apparently, the Alaska governor and former Republican vice presidential nominee had some manner of decorative adornment on her nails which were in display in some orange strappy sandals:

While some are taking HuffPo to task for journalistic silliness and questioning whether they have a foot fetish, the most prevalent theme of the critics is whether it’s sexist to comment on how a female public figure looks.

We’ve said many times that focus on a woman’s body parts instead of her ideas and actions is sexist, and that such belittling is aimed at women on both the left and right by both men and women.  In this case, some will argue that HuffPo is just having a little fun.  However the comments posted after the stroy are classist, sexist, and hateful, which can’t be a surprise to Huffpo.  So what about encouraging comments that you know are going to be a mysogyny fest?  Is that sexist, too?

Teresa Kopec, who tipped me to the story via Twitter, observes, “There is a lot of anti-woman BS that is going around lately against Palin, Sotomayor, the women targeted by Playboy, etc.”

While perhaps it’s splitting hairs, I would distinguish between sexism and double standards.  There’s not much doubt that the way women look is more commented upon than the way men look.  That doesn’t necessarily translate into thinking women’s intellects or skills are less important than those of men.

I don’t think, for example, that Hillary Clinton or Sonia Sotomayor have been viewed as silly sex objects.  It’s certainly true that Clinton’s appearance has been at issue as long as I can recall her being in public life (which is to say, since 1991 or so).   When she was First Lady, her hairdo was especially commented on, as was her choice of pantsuits vice dresses. And WaPo’s Robin Givhan devoted a whole story on C1 to Hillary Clinton’s cleavage.  And then there was the case of Condoleezza Rice’s commanding clothes which, according to a C1 story in WaPo, spoke of “sex and power,” also from Givhan.

Do we comment like that on how male public officials dress?   No, we don’t.

To be sure, there’s the occasional story on John Bolton’s hair or Dick Cheney’s Auschwitz outfit or John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo loafers.   But they’re decidedly less common.

Still, Clinton is almost universally perceived as an extraordinarily bright and competent woman.  She catapulted to the United States Senate despite no real record of her own and was considered the hands-down frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination six years later.  And Sotomayor’s words and judicial record, not her toenails or fashion sense, are what we’re focusing on.

Palin is almost a separate case.  She was a virtual unknown on the national scene when McCain tabbed her, so her national image was forged by instant impression.  By vice presidential standards, she’s extraordinarily attractive.  She’s young and a former beauty queen. Further, she dresses in a way that plays up her sexuality.  Why, a recent scientifical study found that Palin’s sexiness hurt the ticket.  Naturally, the news of said study sparked a round of blogospheric discussion about Palin’s hotness and a backlash against bloggers talking about Palin’s hotness.

Still, while the focus on her appearance goes well beyond what would be normal for a male candidate, it’s not like there wasn’t plenty of commentary on her preparation for the job.  Indeed, I’m sure she’d rather we spent more time talking about her legs.

As to this particular controversy, it’s a silly blog post and some of the commentary it drew was particularly unattractive.  Palin is a polarizing figure, which doesn’t help.  Then again, one can scarcely imagine, say, Tim Pawlenty appearing at a public event in jean shorts and sandals, the male analog to what Palin was photographed in.

Hilary Bok:

I am not, in general, a big fan of saying: Republicans: you lost. Get over it. But in this case, I’m going to make an exception. The Republicans do not seem to be willing to allow the President to do things that are plainly his prerogative: appointing the reasonable, qualified, law-abiding people of his choice, deciding which documents should be declassified, and so forth. Any moment now they’ll threaten not to pass the budget unless he sets his air conditioner at their preferred temperature.

Andrew Sullivan links approvingly and I agree so far as it goes.   But it’s not so cut and dried.

Presidential Appointments

Whether I voted for a given president or not, I’ve consistently believed that the Senate’s advise and consent powers on appointment should be a backstop against truly outrageous choices.   That goes doubly true for executive appointments.

At the same time, however, there seems to be quite a bit of wiggle room in “reasonable” and “qualified.”  (Indeed, even if “law-abiding,” given the criminalization of politics over the last twenty years.)

Was, for example, John Bolton qualified to serve as UN Ambassador?  Seemingly so:  He’d held a number of progressively responsible positions in government over a two decade span, including General Counsel at USAID, Assistant AG, and Assistant Secretary of State.  Was he “reasonable”?  His critics said No.  Mostly, the criticisms were over temperament and style, although these things always come down to policy differences.

The bottom line on these things, though, is that what comes around, goes around.  The spiking of Ronald Reagan’s appointment of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court — back in 1987 — seems to be the start of the current all-holds-barred approach to these things.   The Republicans don’t really have much incentive to be the first one off the merry-go-round, since they’ve got no assurance of taking back the White House any time soon, let alone any reason to think the Democrats would reciprocate.

Classification

President Obama almost certainly has the right to decide to de-classify the so-called “torture memos” from the previous administration.  Indeed, he may be obligated to do so pursuant to a court order.

As a general rule, though, I’m not at all sure that the president should be the sole decider.   Indeed, many on the Left spent much of the previous eight years demanding that Congress intervene to stop what some regarded as the Bush administration’s abuse of this particular power.

If we’re going to cede Congress oversight responsibility in this area — and I don’t see how a Republic could operate otherwise — then they, too, will naturally abuse/use their power to advance their own political interests and pet agendas.   The beauty of checks and balances is to have faction counter faction and everyone jealously guarding their own prerogatives.

Jonathan Stein remarks on something former recess appointment UN Ambassador John Bolton said yesterday at CPAC:

“The fact is on foreign policy I don’t think President Obama thinks [stopping Iran's nuclear program is] a priority,” said Bolton. “He said during the campaign he thought Iran was a tiny threat. Tiny, tiny depending on how many nuclear weapons they are ultimately able to deliver on target. Its, uh, its tiny compared to the Soviet Union, but is the loss of one American city” – here Bolton shrugged his shoulders impishly – “pick one at random – Chicago – is that a tiny threat?”

Bolton wasn’t the only one who thought this was funny. The room erupted in laughter and applause. Was this conservative catharsis, with rightwingers delightfully imagining the destruction of a city that represents Obama? Or perhaps they were venting vengeance with their laughter.

Rather obviously, Bolton is not advocating nuking Chicago but, rather, illustrating in a personal way how tragic it would be.  And the audience was laughing at this jibe at Obama’s naivete, not relishing the ruin of the Second City.

There were doubtless some really dumb things said at CPAC yesterday and some inappropriate audience reactions.   And, heck, there are even reasons to critique Bolton’s analysis of the Iranian threat (cf: 2007 NIE) or his caricature of Obama’s position on the subject.   But, for a red meat speech aimed at a mostly young crowd of enthusiasts, this was pretty unobjectionable.

John Bolton, President Bush’s former UN ambassador, is not at all pleased with last week’s deal with North Korea on the nuclear stalemate.

With much fanfare and choreography, but little substance, the administration has accepted a North Korean “declaration” about its nuclear program that is narrowly limited, incomplete and almost certainly dishonest in material respects. In exchange, President Bush personally declared that North Korea is no longer a state sponsor of terrorism or an enemy of the United States. In a final flourish, North Korea has undertaken a reverse Potemkin Village act, destroying the antiquated cooling tower of the antiquated Yongbyon reactor. In the waning days of American presidencies, this theater is the stuff of legacy.

North Korea has consecutively broken every major agreement with the U.S. since the North’s creation. The Bush administration provides no reason why this one will not be added to that long list except the audacity of hope. Where have we heard that recently? Barack Obama and John Kerry both announced support for the deal, and Mr. Obama said he intended to apply Bush’s policy to other rogue states, thus confirming the early start of the Obama administration.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Bolton will suddenly become a legitimate authority on international diplomacy among his former enemies on the Left while his cheering section among Bush Republicans will quiet considerably.  (See-Dubya, blogging at Michelle Malkin’s place, meanwhile, still adores him.)

While I have no reason to think Kim Jong Il is more trustworthy now than he was two weeks ago, I’m befuddled by the reaction of Bolton and others who dismiss this agreement altogether.  (As to Bolton specifically, Steve Clemons notes that there has been quite a bit of bad blood between him and Ambassador Christopher Hill, who negotiated this deal.  I’m willing to give Bolton the benefit of the doubt, though, and chalk it up to his rather obstreperous view of international diplomacy.) In exchange for some progress in stopping the DPRK from proliferating nuclear weapons technology, most notably getting China on board as a key player, we’ve taken them off of one of our many lists of naughty states.  If they cross us, we can put them back on just as easily.

What’s the harm?  Yes, twenty-one years ago, when Kim’s dad was running the place, they blew up Korean Airlines Flight 858.  That’s, to say the least, old news.  Meanwhile, Pakistan is letting al Qaeda run amok and Saudi Arabia is financing them.   We call them our “allies” in the war on terrorism.  Somehow, I think we can live with the consequences of taking North Korea off the list.  (Technically, as Michael Kraft details at great length, it won’t happen for 45 days, during which time Congress has the right to intervene.

Kevin Drum awards the world record for fastest flip-flop to Sean Hannity in a show yesterday commenting about the North Korea deal:

HANNITY: The news today brings a clear foreign policy victory for the Bush administration. But will the press report it that way? Joining us now for analysis, former ambassador to the U.N. and a Fox News contributor, John Bolton. What do you think this means?

BOLTON: I think it’s actually a clear victory for North Korea. They gain enormous political legitimacy….In return, we get precious little. I think this is North Korea demonstrating again that they can out-negotiate the U.S. without raising a sweat.

HANNITY: Boy I tell you they’ve done it time and time again, and I’m sorta perplexed, Mr. Ambassador, to understand why we keep going back to the well knowing that they haven’t kept the agreements in the past. Whatever happened to Reagan’s “trust but verify”?

That’s just funny right there. You’d think someone who makes a living spouting their opinions to the world could stand up for them for at least 30 seconds. Or, at the very least, acknowledge that he’s changed his mind.

Just one more reason why I don’t bother watching news or political opinion on TV. Except for Stewart and Colbert, of course.

The news over the past 48 hours or so about movement in solving the nuclear arms standoff with North Korean has been stunning. Not only is President Bush taking the DPRK off the “state sponsors of terrorism” list but the Kim government has taken major steps to dismantle their program and provide with stringent verification regimes.

The administration fully admits that it is well short of achieving all its goals and that much more work needs to be done. Still, the world is a bit safer today and, more significantly, this shows the way for similar rapprochement with Iran.

The White House — which emphasized that the agreement could not have been reached without the help of its allies in the talks — said American officials would verify the North’s declaration over the next 45 days, a process that could eventually remove North Korea from the terrorism list and make the North eligible for American aid and for loans from international institutions like the World Bank, a goal long sought by the cash-starved country.

[...]

Thursday’s developments reflected the change in the Bush administration’s policy towards the North. After years of confronting the North — Mr. Bush famously said he “loathed” the North’s leader, Kim Jong-il, and described him as a “pygmy” — Mr. Bush allowed Christopher R. Hill, an assistant secretary of state, to start engaging in full-fledged negotiations with Pyongyang in early 2007, under the guidance of Ms. Rice.

So, what happened? Phil Carter has an interesting thesis:

What I’m hearing through the grapevine is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan required so much attention from senior decision makers that it allowed career diplomats and junior political appointees to do their work in East Asia. In essence, the six-party talks needed less attention to work well, so that diplomats and national leaders could get down to business without all of the posturing that goes along with highly public diplomacy. This may or may not be true, but it’s an interesting view of how diplomacy can work.

Steve Clemons agrees that Chris Hill deserves the lion’s share of the credit.

There are still a lot of questions ranging from the interesting issue of North Korea cooperation with Syria’s alleged nuclear facility that was destroyed by Israel and other issues — but when President Bush gave Colin Powell the positive nod in the first week of April 2003 to proceed with the Six Party Talks, Bush and Cheney ignored Iran’s offer of a structure for normalized US-Iran relations the very same week in 2003.

The contrast in circumstances between where America is today with North Korea and where we are with Iran is vital to note. We ‘engaged’ North Korea and blew it with Iran.

And, he notes, “for those who want to knock China around, they should know that this entire process was impossible without China’s impressive, collaborative diplomacy.” That’s certainly true. The key there is not Chinese altruism but rather the harnessing of common interests.

Clemons also asserts, “Barack Obama’s inclination towards engagement with problematic leaders around the world now is now buttressed by an experience of the George W. Bush administration.” But engagement with preconditions is what got us here. Bush steadfastly refused to relent to the DPRK’s demands for bilateral negotiations and insisted on a six-party process that included South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia.

But I agree that it looks as if we’ve blown it with Iran. My only caveat is that I am not privy to what’s happening behind the scenes. It may well be that the administration is much closer to a deal with Iran than we realize. Indeed, Condi Rice is currently overseeing a very similar process, involving China, Russia, the UK, and Germany in trying to simultaneously pressure Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and allay its economic and security concerns. (See Richard Perle’s WaPo op-ed today and Rice’s statement from last month.)

Ambassador Hill, who has brilliantly overseen the negotiations with North Korea, spoke at the Atlantic Council three months ago and foreshadowed some of the recent news. In addition to emphasizing the work done by others, including his predecessor Nick Burns and the other partners in the six-party negotiations, he pointed out that there was a genuine spirit of reciprocity. One can’t expect a country to give up nuclear weapons, which confer all manner of advantages, without something substantial in return.

North Korea does not have a lot of fossil fuels at its command. Energy is a huge problem for North Korea, and we would be prepared, once they are out of the nuclear business and into the NPT and have established a record of no-proliferation, we would be prepared to talk to them about aspirations for a civil nuclear program. We are also prepared to work with them on retraining opportunities for their scientists. North Korea has many scientists who have been engaged in these nuclear programs over the years. We’d be prepared to sit down and see what can be done in terms of getting them out of these fields and into other scientific fields.

Finally, and this goes back to the first point I started with, we’re prepared to create a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism, whether it looks like the OSCE, whether it looks like some other institution from some other part of the world, will depend on the participants, I would say. We at this point cannot say with any precision what it would look like, but North Korea could be one of the founding members of this Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. So all of these elements would go on the table. And what North Korea needs to decide is does it want to keep its aspirations for nuclear weapons in lieu of all these other elements.

This, again, strikes me as the way ahead with Iran. We need to engage regional actors (who have an even greater interest than we do in wanting to forestall a nuclear Iran) on the basis of common interests and understand that Iran is a formidable regional actor with legitimate concerns and aspirations of its own. As Dave Schuler and I discussed on last evening’s episode of OTB Radio, finding the right combination of carrots and sticks will be difficult. One presumes, though, that security guarantees and a solution to Iran’s civil energy needs are a major part of the former.

During a major foreign policy address yesterday, John McCain talked about his plan to create a League of Democracies. Charles Krauthammer sees a plot to do away with the United Nations:

Well, I like the idea of the league of democracies, and only in part because I and others had proposed it about six years ago. What I like about it, it’s got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it’s all about listening and joining with allies, all the kind of stuff you’d hear a John Kerry say, except that the idea here, which McCain can’t say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N.

See the video here.

Ben Armbruster thinks Krauthammer is on to something

After all, he backed anti-U.N. crusader John Bolton’s nomination as the organization’s U.S. ambassador and secretly pushed his confirmation. Bolton famously said “there is no such thing as the United Nations” and if the U.N. building in New York “lost ten stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

Well, here’s what McCain actually said on the subject:

The United States must lead in the 21st century, just as in Truman’s day. But leadership today means something different than it did in the years after World War II, when Europe and the other democracies were still recovering from the devastation of war and the United States was the only democratic superpower. Today we are not alone. There is the powerful collective voice of the European Union, and there are the great nations of India and Japan, Australia and Brazil, South Korea and South Africa, Turkey and Israel, to name just a few of the leading democracies. There are also the increasingly powerful nations of China and Russia that wield great influence in the international system.

In such a world, where power of all kinds is more widely and evenly distributed, the United States cannot lead by virtue of its power alone. We must be strong politically, economically, and militarily. But we must also lead by attracting others to our cause, by demonstrating once again the virtues of freedom and democracy, by defending the rules of international civilized society and by creating the new international institutions necessary to advance the peace and freedoms we cherish. Perhaps above all, leadership in today’s world means accepting and fulfilling our responsibilities as a great nation.

One of those responsibilities is to be a good and reliable ally to our fellow democracies. We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to. We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact — a League of Democracies — that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.

At the heart of this new compact must be mutual respect and trust. Recall the words of our founders in the Declaration of Independence, that we pay “decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed. We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies. When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic, or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them.

This is a very broad internationalism, encompassing not just “Old Europe” but emerging democracies as well.

Further, McCain has been talking about a “League of Democracies” for months. When he brought up the idea in a blogger conference call last October, I was able to ask him directly:

I was able to get in the first question and followed up on this idea, asking whether he was talking about a “NATO Plus” organization or something else. McCain replied that he envisioned something more along the lines of ASEAN or the G-8, a somewhat formal IGO that would have regular meetings but no standing forces. In follow-up, I inquired whether he thought this meant that NATO and the UN Security Council, as presently constituted, were failures. He said that, no, those organizations have their purposes but that NATO was a military alliance whereas his League of Democracies would focus mostly on non-military solutions such as economic sanctions, trade, diplomacy, and public relations.

Now, Krauthammer is right that using an IGO other than the UN to accomplish purposes that the UN was chartered to do weakens the UN by making it less vital. But the fact that we have created dozens of multi-lateral organizations over the years to get around the UN’s inability to function would seem to demonstrate that the UN doesn’t need much help in being weak.

Bolton was fundamentally right when he said, “There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.” (Yes, context helps.) The UN isn’t an organism which can be killed but rather a building and a mechanism through which sovereign states attempt to transact business. Attempting to get that business done through a smaller coalition of more like-minded states only makes sense, and it’s a far sight better than either going it alone or waiting on the UN to achieve consensus.

via Memeorandum

Photo Credit: Traveling Mego Hulk

Fidel Casto may have stepped down but the embargo aimed at his ouster is staying put.

The Bush administration is ruling out any changes in its Cuba policy — including lifting a five-decade trade embargo — after Fidel Castro’s resignation, deriding his brother and heir apparent, Raul, as “dictator lite.”

[...]

“They’re the ones who suffered under Fidel Castro,” Bush told a news conference in Rwanda. “They’re the ones who were put in prison because of their beliefs. They’re the ones who have been denied their right to live in a free society. So I view this as a period of transition and it should be the beginning of the democratic transition in Cuba.”

“Eventually, this transition ought to lead to free and fair elections — and I mean free, and I mean fair — not these kind of staged elections that the Castro brothers try to foist off as true democracy,” Bush said. “The United States will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty.”

Fundamentally, of course, he’s right. The only thing that’s changed here is the name on the door. And not even the last name, for that matter.

Still, our policy has been an embarrassment. Not only has it not helped lead to freedom for Cubans but it’s made their economic lives much more miserable and given the Castro regime a scapegoat. Steve Clemons observes that,

Of all the low cost opportunities to demonstrate a new and different US style of engagement with the world, Cuba is at the top of the list. Opening family travel — and frankly all travel — between Cuba and the US, and ending the economic embargo will provide new encounters, new impressions, and the kind of people-to-people diplomacy that George W. Bush, John Bolton, Richard Cheney, and Jesse Helms run scared of.

Kevin Drum adds,

The accession of Raul Castro is unlikely to appease the electorally important (but less important all the time) Cuban exile community in Florida, but why not try pandering to the nation’s cigar smokers instead? “Vote for me and Montecristo #2s will be legal again!” I’ve heard worse campaign slogans.

Partisan sniping about a bipartisan policy started by a Democrat and carried out through nine administrations notwithstanding, this is right. Fidel is gone. It’s time for this policy to go with him.

Fred Thompson has become the latest former 2008 Republican presidential candidate to endorse John McCain.

Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to “close ranks” behind the presumed nominee.

“This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain,” Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.

One wonders why Thompson held his fire this long. The endorsement was natural and expected and yet he waited until McCain had the nomination all but mathematically sewn up.

One also wonders how long cognitive dissonance will continue to plague anti-McCain Republicans. Many were enthusiastically behind Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and even Rudy Giuliani, all of whom are now backing McCain. Were they wrong about those guys? Have they sold their souls in the name of party unity? How about John Bolton, the Patron Saint of Diplomacy? Or Tom Coburn? Steve Forbes? John Cornyn? George Allen? The list is getting pretty long.

Image: PoliGazette

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton writes an open letter to the Brits telling them, essentially, that they must choose between the United States and the European Union.

[S]aying that the UK’s “single most important bilateral relationship” is with America, but is not comparable with UK membership of the EU, is a clever but ultimately meaningless dodge. Drop the word “bilateral”. What is Britain’s most important “relationship”? Does Mr Brown regard the EU as a “state under construction”, as some EU supporters proclaim, or not?

The answers to these questions are what Washington really needs to know. What London needs to know is that its answer will have consequences.

For example, why does a “union” with a common foreign and security policy, and with the prospect of a real “foreign minister” have two permanent seats on the UN Security Council and often as many as three non-permanent seats out of a total of 15 council members? France and Britain may not relish the prospect of giving up their unique status, but what is it that makes them different – as members of the “Union” – from Luxembourg or Malta? One Union, one seat.

Mr Brown cannot have it both ways (nor will President Nicolas Sarkozy), in part because many other EU members will not let the matter rest. Of course, the Security Council permanent seat itself is not the real issue – it is the question of whether Britain still has sovereignty over its foreign policy or whether it has simply taken its assigned place in the EU food chain.

Consider also the US-UK intelligence relationship. Fundamental to that relationship is that pooled intelligence is not shared with others without mutual consent. Tension immediately arises in EU circles, however, when Britain advocates policies based on intelligence that other EU members do not have. How tempting it must already be for British diplomats to “very privately” reveal what they know to European colleagues. How does Mr Brown feel about sharing US intelligence with other Europeans?

States have multiple alliances and overlapping interests. To the extent the EU is a free trade zone, the UK’s membership no more impinges on its “special relationship” with the US than our membership in NAFTA harms the UK. But, yes, if the EU becomes something like “The United States of Europe,” with the UK a mere semi-autonomous region within a federal collective, Bolton’s concerns are justified.

There are some on the Continent who would like to see that happen. The UK, historically, has been perhaps the most sovereignty conscious state in Europe. Indeed, it was very late addition to the predecessor European Economic Community and has been dragged kicking and screaming to most expansions. It still hasn’t adopted the Euro, preferring control over its own currency. One can scarcely imagine, then, that they will suddenly let their foreign policy be dominated by Europe to the detriment of their relationship with the US.

Robin Givhan is at it again. She has a story on C1 of today’s WaPo about Hillary Clinton’s cleavage.

There was cleavage on display Wednesday afternoon on C-SPAN2. It belonged to Sen. Hillary Clinton.

She was talking on the Senate floor about the burdensome cost of higher education. She was wearing a rose-colored blazer over a black top. The neckline sat low on her chest and had a subtle V-shape. The cleavage registered after only a quick glance. No scrunch-faced scrutiny was necessary. There wasn’t an unseemly amount of cleavage showing, but there it was. Undeniable.

It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative — aesthetically speaking — environment of Congress. After all, it wasn’t until the early ’90s that women were even allowed to wear pants on the Senate floor. It was even more surprising to note that it was coming from Clinton, someone who has been so publicly ambivalent about style, image and the burdens of both.

The last time Clinton wore anything that was remotely sexy in a public setting surely must have been more than a decade ago, during Bill Clinton’s first term in office when she was photographed wearing a black Donna Karan gown that revealed her shoulders. It was one of Karan’s “cold-shoulder” dresses, inspired, Karan once noted, because a woman’s shoulders remain sensuous and appealing regardless of her age.

I’m sure everyone here who came in via Google search for “Hillary Clinton Cleavage” want to see the photo. We aim to please, so I have placed it below the fold. Warning: This may not be safe for work.

Shocking in it’s brazen sexuality, no?

Uh . . . no. And not just because it’s Hillary Clinton, either. That’s not exactly a risquée outfit, is it? I’m no great fan of the junior senator from New York but, really, this is a non-story.

So, why is it on the front page of the style section? Apparently, Robin Givhan has some photos of Post editors in compromising positions, is related to the owner, or something. This is, after all, the woman who gave us Dick Cheney’s Auschwitz parka, Condi Rice’s commanding boots, John Roberts’ Stepford Children, John Bolton’s Senate-defying haircut, and other follies. The Post has been giving prominent placement to this nonsense for over two years, so clearly she’s got some kind of leverage.

Paul Bedard reports that Senate Democrats will hold bogus “sessions” in order to prevent the use of the recess appointment power.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush’s devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton. We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie “pro forma” session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he’s the new sheriff in town.

Steve Benen, Pamela Leavey, and Ron Beasley are pleased.

It’s far from clear, however, that this tactic will work. Article II, Section 2 states merely that, “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate.” As FindLaw notes, “How long a ”recess’ must be to be actually a recess, a question here as in the pocket veto area, is uncertain. A ‘recess,’ however, may be merely ‘constructive,’ as when a regular session succeeds immediately upon a special session.” So, even if Bush proceeds as if these sham “sessions” constitute a session under the meaning of the Constitution, he could presumably appoint people during these interim periods, regardless of how short.

A May 2000 C-SPAN Q&A points out that all modern-day recess appointments are dubious:

The original purpose behind granting the President the power of recess appointments was to get around a practical problem. At the time the Constitution was written, short sessions and long periods of adjournment were the meeting pattern expected for Congress: the early Senate would routinely be in recess from March through December. Moreover, sessions were sometimes delayed because difficult travel conditions meant waiting a long time for enough Senators to arrive to assemble a quorum. The power given the President to make recess appointments was granted so that he wouldn’t be without top officials of government for long periods while waiting for the Senate to assemble.

Obviously, that’s no longer an issue. Recess appointments nowadays are motivated by political considerations rather than urgency. Still, that’s not exactly a new phenomenon, as T.J. Halstead notes for the Congressional Research Service:

[I]n addition to fostering administrative continuity, Presidents have exercised authority under the Recess Appointments Clause for political purposes throughout the history of the republic, giving rise to significant political and legal controversy. For instance, President Madison’s recess appointments of Albert Gallatin, John Quincy Adams and James A. Bayard as envoys to negotiate a peace treaty with Great Britain in 1813 prompted heated debate in the Senate. Presidents Jackson, Taylor, and Lincoln made hundreds of recess appointments during their terms. Additionally, recess appointments to the judiciary were common during the early years of the Republic, with the first five Presidents making 31 such appointments, including five to the Supreme Court. Among these, President Washington’s recess appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice generated significant controversy, ultimately factoring in his rejection by the Senate.

He goes on to note that the interpretation of the phrase “during the Recess of the Senate” has had numerous interpretations over the years, all issued by Attorneys General. The Supreme Court has largely remained on the sidelines on the issue. A 1974 D.C. Circuit case, Kennedy v. Samspon, provided some loose judicial guidelines for what constitutes a “recess” for purposes of the pocket veto. Yet,

[R]ecent Presidents have nonethelessmade numerous appointments during short intrasession recesses. President Reagan, for instance, made a number of intrasession recess appointments, one during an 18 day recess ending September 8, 1982, nine during a 23 day recess ending on July 23, 1984, and two during the 13 day recess ending on January 21, 1985. President George H.W. Bush made eight intrasession recess appointments, the shortest occurring during a 17 day recess. President Clinton made numerous intrasession appointments, including five during an 11 day recess ending on January 22, 1996, five during a 16 day recess ending on April 15, 1996, one during a nine day recess ending on June 3, 1996, and one during an 11 day recess ending on January 20, 2001. President George W. Bush has continued the recent practice of making appointments during brief intrasession recesses, including six such appointments during a recess ending on April 28, 2003, four during a 10 day recess ending on April 19, 2004, and, perhaps most controversially, the appointment of William H. Pryor to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on February 20, 2004, on the seventh day of a ten day recess ending on February 23, 2004.66 The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld Pryor’s appointmentappointment, stating:

The Constitution, on its face, does not establish a minimum time that an authorized break in the Senate must last to give legal force to the President’s appointment power under the Recess Appointments Clause.
And we do not set that limit today.

Recess appointments, then, are one of a handful of cases where the vagueness of the Constitution creates an “invitation to struggle” on the margins of separation of powers. Republicans thought Bill Clinton was abusing the process (see, for example, this Slate piece from June 1999) and Democrats think the same of Bush. Both were probably right.

Advocates of a president, reasonably enough, think that he ought to be able to pick and choose his appointees with near-plenary power, with the Senate merely stepping in to ensure that the person has the technical and moral qualifications for the job. When the Senate, as it invariably and increasingly does, decides to bring partisan political considerations into the calculation — even to the point of using procedural holds or filibuster to preclude a vote — the president’s supporters are frustrated and urge him to use every trick in the book to get around what they see as an abuse of legislative power. Opponents of the president, naturally, see that as an abuse of executive power.

UPDATE: Steven Taylor has more background on recess appointments here and here.

There’s some back-and-forth in the comments section below about the desirability of simply ending the recess appointment power. As a practical matter, it would take a Constitutional amendment and it’s simply not going to happen; the hurdles are too high and the demand is too low.

Further, one could argue that the threat of the recess appointment gives presidents leverage to help force compromises. Absent that power, we would essentially reverse the Constitutional order of things, putting the Senate in charge of appointments with the advise of the president. Since the filibuster is now used routinely for even mildly controversial nominees, we in essence require a supermajority for the president to appoint the people he desires for policymaking jobs that are, by definition, political.

U.S. ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is going to be nominated to replace John Bolton as U.N. ambassador and Ryan Crocker, currently the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, will be nominated to replace Khalilzad in Baghdad later today.

This continues a significant shake-up of the foreign policy staff including the replacement of Don Rumsfeld with Bob Gates at Defense, the shift of John Negroponte from DNI the number two slot at State, and a reshuffling of the senior military commanders in Iraq. Whether any substantive policy changes will follow, however, is unclear.

Ed Morrissey is quite dismayed by the shake-up in the Bush foreign policy team marked by the ouster of Donald Rumsfeld, resignation of John Bolton, and now the transfer of Iraq envoy Zalmay Khalilizad. Given that Democrats and a handful of RINOs wanted to see a shakeup, this looks to Ed suspiciously like Bush giving up the fight.

Pardon me, but the presidency carries with it certain prerogatives, among them the power to determine the foreign policy of the United States. In fact, it’s one of the chief responsibilities of the office, and normally Presidents are given the leeway to determine the people best suited to carry it out. The treatment of John Bolton was unprecedented — the rejection of a political appointment in the foreign service not because of any disqualifying event, but because the Senate didn’t like the policy of the administration.

It’s a serious breach of the separation between the branches of government. Congress does not dictate foreign policy nor should they veto ambassadorships unless the nominee has no qualifications to the position. Bolton has years of service in foreign policy, and has demonstrated his ability to conduct the affairs of the US at the United Nations for the last year. It sets an awful precedent: Congress just invalidated the 2004 Presidential election that put foreign policy in Bush’s hands.

Both as a general principle and in the case of Bolton specifically, I believe presidents deserve to have their appointees receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate. While the filibuster and other obstructionist techniques have a long history, they are extra-constitutional and should be reserved for only the most fundamental policy disputes.

Still, the idea that the Constitution gives the president carte blanche on matters of foreign policy is simply wrong. The Constitution provides for some major checks and balances in both foreign and military affairs. The president is commander in chief of the armed forces but Congress declares war and raises the army and navy. The president negotiates treaties but they only go into effect if they are ratified by two thirds of the Senate. The president appoints ambassadors but they must be confirmed by the Senate.

By the nature of executive power’s consolidation into a single individual, the president has a natural advantage. The president can set events into motion by, say, ordering the military to deploy and use force and, as a practical matter, it is then very difficult for Congress to cut off funds and force him to bring them home. Through abuse of the recess appointment power (which was intended for an era when Congress was in session for only short periods, not the full time body it has become since the advent of air conditioning), as happened in Bolton’s case, or the negotiation of executive agreements, presidents can in effect bypass much of Congress’ authority. (For a more detailed discussion, see my TCS article “Real Power Is Something You Take.”)

Let’s not confuse reality with design, however. The Framers clearly intended for foreign policy to be “an invitation to struggle” between the Executive and Legislature. In recent decades, the president has been winning that struggle, with only minor corrections in the other direction when Congress gets its dander up over what it perceives as executive abuse.

As to whether Bush is giving up the fight here, I see no evidence of that. He has already signaled that he has no intention of major changes in direction in Iraq, Baker Commission or Congress be damned.

Still, the war has clearly not gone well, has dragged on much longer than he would have liked, and has been an anchor around his neck, draining his political capital and making it impossible to achieve any of his other policy goals. He was re-elected despite the war in 2004 and lost both Houses of Congress weeks ago largely because of it. Perhaps recognition of these facts and some course corrections as a result of that is a good thing?

UPDATE: Steven Taylor notes, too, that “policy is not people, it is ideas. While a given person may be more efficacious at executing a given policy than someone else, the real issue is whether there are good ideas being deployed.”

UN Ambassador John Bolton will step down at the end of his recess appointment and not go through a Senate confirmation process that is sure to end badly.

Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his recess appointment expires soon, the White House said Monday.

Bolton’s nomination has languished in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a year, blocked by Democrats and several Republicans. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican who lost in the midterm elections Nov. 7 that swept Democrats to power in both houses of Congress, was adamantly opposed to Bolton.

President Bush gave Bolton the job temporarily in August 2005, while Congress was in recess. But the appointment expires when Congress formally adjourns, no later than early January. Although Bush could not give Bolton another recess appointment, the White House was believed to be exploring other ways of keeping him in the job, perhaps by giving him a title other than ambassador. But Bolton informed the White House he intended to leave when his current appointment expires, White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said.

It’s a shame that the use of extraordinary tactics by the minority in the Senate kept him from getting confirmed to begin with. With the new Congress coming in, Bolton wouldn’t win an up-or-down vote, obviating any previous rationale for bypassing the rules.

Hot Air has video.

UPDATE: Both Steven Taylor and Bruce McQuain share my sense that this story is essentially just an acknowledgment of reality rather than a catastrophe. Judging by my trackbacks and Memeorandum, though, quite a number of folks are up in arms about this.

Pam Oshry is going positively apes bonkers, declaring that “Anybody happy about this is an America hater. The tyranny of the minority strikes again.” I seem to recall reading somewhere that the Republicans were defeated in some election or another and are about to assume minority status. Of course, those who voted–let alone know who John Bolton is–are technically a minority.

Sean Hackbarth adds some perspective: “What has he done of real significance to advance U.S. interests? I can’t think of anything off-hand. That’s not because of Bolton’s abilities so much the position he’s in.”