The former Salon columnist talks straight about being attacked by readers, why she's not crazy about Hillary, her wonderful week with Molly Ivins, and what a drag it is getting old.

To listen to a podcast of the interview, click here.
To subscribe: Click here to add Conversations to iTunes or cut and paste the URL into your podcasting software:

Anne Lamott works in mysterious ways. Her publisher overnighted me a copy of her new book, “Grace (Eventually): Thoughts on Faith,” so I could read it the weekend before our scheduled interview. On Saturday morning, the doorbell rang and a Fed Ex guy delivered the book; a half-hour later, mysteriously, another Fed Ex guy, another book. So I had two. I grabbed one and took it with me to get a manicure, where a woman sitting across from me couldn’t get over the fact that I had the new Anne Lamott before it was even published, when she’d been waiting for it to come out for so long! I explained that I was writing about it, and then I set out to read it, but she kept interrupting. “How is it? Do you like it? Have you read all of them? Is it as good as the last one?” The normally petty me would have been irritated, but under the influence of “Grace (Eventually)” I knew there was only one way to respond: I handed her the book as she left (knowing I had another one at home), making her day, and mine.
I’m sure my nail salon friend wasn’t disappointed. “Grace (Eventually)” continues where “Traveling Mercies: Some Thoughts on Faith” and “Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith” left off, with Lamott raising her son, Sam, railing at the Bush administration, ministering to friends, loving Jesus, staying sober, getting older. For the last 20 years I have tried to read everything Lamott has written, going back to the days when we both contributed to a mind-blowingly smart but short-lived magazine called Equator, as well as the late, sometimes great California magazine. She wrote “Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year” just in time for me to read it after my daughter arrived without any. And she began her series of books on faith as I began to realize that my adolescent rebellion against and lingering disappointment with Catholicism wasn’t a reason not to have a spiritual life as an adult.
Readers of “Traveling Mercies” and “Plan B” will find familiar, if slightly darker territory in “Grace (Eventually).” In “Ski Patrol,” she takes a bad fall off a chairlift and pretends to be fine, but finally allows a woman worker from the ski resort to minister to her until she’s safe and warm. In “A Field Theory of Beauty” she makes uneasy peace with aging, covering some of the ground Nora Ephron did in “I Feel Bad About My Neck” but with more God and less money spent on maintenance. There’s grace in all of the essays, but it doesn’t always make them light reading: “At Death’s Window” is about helping a friend with cancer die; in “Dear Old Friend” she helps her aging Aunt Gertrud, who’s outlived close friends and family, change her mind and keep her house and her independence; in “Samwheel” (that’s the way her son pronounced his name when he was small), she narrates an awful fight with Sam that culminated in her slapping him. When a version of that piece ran in Salon, it generated more reader mail than any essay ever had before. (Lamott says things with Sam got worse “and we both got help, and now, five months later, we are closer and healthier than we’ve been in years.”)
I feel as though I should disclose my friendship with Lamott, even though our interview about “Grace” was the first time we’d ever had a conversation in person, apart from brief hellos at readings and political events. But she once wrote a Salon Premium testimonial (back before we’d ever met or spoken) suggesting that I deserved a raise (and I got one); we had a long e-mail commiseration when the San Francisco Giants lost the World Series and fired Dusty Baker in 2002; she regularly writes with encouragement after my various television adventures, and we have teenagers who are about a year apart, which is a crucial bond.
Your book is called “Grace (Eventually).” But I thought the deal is that if I get to the right spiritual place I will be in perpetual grace. Are you saying instead it’s “Grace eventually,” not “Grace now,” and not “Grace permanently”?
I think it’s very frustrating and if I were God I would have a completely different system. I would have a magic wand and I would touch people with it, and help them be struck well. But nobody cares about what would work for me spiritually. My experience is that grace is never in the direction you are looking for it and it never even vaguely resembles what you think decent grace might look like. It’s like a shift, it’s like a breath, it’s like a pause. But then an hour later or three days later real life rears its ugly head again and it’s dicey, life is, and it’s a mess. We’re in our seventh year of the most catastrophic and appalling administration we’ve ever had and any place of calm or surrender or spiritual equilibrium we can get to will be hard won. It’s very frustrating.
But there it is.
There it is.
I told you the story about the woman in my nail salon who wanted your book so badly that I just had to give it to her. It seems like you’re writing for people in need, who have fallen off some kind of wagon and are trying to find the courage to get back on. Is it ever a burden for you?
I don’t feel it as a burden. I feel like all I can share is my experiences and my belief that we’re all pretty much in the same boat. Everything in the culture says that if you’re a person who really loves Mary or Jesus or one of the Hindu gods or whatever, that you’re not supposed to have jealousy or existential waves of judgment. And I don’t think God ever said that. I think the message of Jesus is “Me too” and “It’s weird down here” and “People can be really awful and the amount of suffering you’re going to see around you, whether in San Francisco or Fairfax or a foreign country, is going to literally blow your mind.” I work like hell but I’m also secretly kind of lazy. I do tons of benefits and stuff like that and yet I’m kind of lazy and shiftless; I take a nap every single afternoon. I have a life that allows a 45-minute nap. So what I can say to people is, “There’s nothing you’ve thought, I haven’t thought too. No matter how awful you behave I can probably relate, although the details will be different.”
One thing you and I have talked about is a sense of needing grace as you age, and how “aging gracefully” is something nobody really does. Is that one of the things we need grace for — deciding not to get Botox, or getting it if we want to?
Or you can do it and still have this really deep reservoir of self-love; be there for yourself as though you were your own gentle but militant mother, the way you would be there for your daughter even if she felt she needed to lose weight, god forbid, or to straighten her hair or whatever. Be in a place of tenderhearted understanding. Your neck looks very good, by the way.
Thank you. I’m grateful, but I feel bad that Nora Ephron feels bad about her neck, because she’s such a great writer, why does she have to care about her neck?
I think, probably, she doesn’t care nearly as much about her neck as reading her book would make you think. She’s very passionate and she writes. You know, I can feel really bad about my neck. For some reason we all have these different aspects of ourselves that just are so unacceptable, and for me, my neck is pretty terrible.
But when you grow up in California, you get outside at about 8 [in the morning] when you’re a kid, and you literally come home when it’s dark. People that are 53 — and I’ll be 53 in April — many of them look much younger than I do because they’ve done so much to look younger and I’ve done nothing. I look in the mirror — sometimes I’ll catch myself outside when I haven’t had time to prepare, and I see myself and go, “Aaaaa! Who’s that sad old derelict?” I don’t know why Nora Ephron would care; she’s so brilliant and hilarious. When “Crazy Salad” came out, I couldn’t believe what a treasure trove it was.
I think the other thing about Nora’s book — people really get the title, “I Feel Bad About My Neck,” it’s a great title, you remember it — but the more important message is just how hard it is to get older. We turn aging into such a shtick — people complaining about their friends dying and their health all the time. But as you get older you start to realize: Oh my God, if I’m lucky I’ll live long enough to outlive most of my friends.
I think two things are true. One is that life gets so much easier. Oh my God, life has never been easier for me. The truth is, I get just as lost and anxious and frightened and egotistical and narcissistic as I ever did, but it doesn’t last nearly as long. I mean, it used to last entire years and now I get it and it can last two days. The truth is that you care so much less about most of the stuff you used to care about. It’s like you’ve thrown so much stuff out of the plane that you used to bog down in. I honestly couldn’t name a person I know who would turn back the clock.
But the paradox is that it’s also very hard to get old. It’s especially hard to become a much older woman. It’s hard to have a body. I travel to give talks or to do benefits or readings, and if I lift my stuff into the overhead [compartment] my body is not forgiving about it anymore. I was with my Aunt Gertrud on President’s Day, and with God as my witness, for an 89-year-old she’s great. But that’s what you say when someone is old, you say, “Oh, she’s in great shape for an 80-year-old.” You don’t say, “Oh, she’s in great shape for a 15-year-old. She’s in great shape for like, 8.” It’s only when you are really going down the tubes.
When you’re getting decrepit.
And I tease her about it and she loves it because she knows she has lived too long, but she still has a lot of pleasure in her life. But she uses a walker, in fact she uses two walkers now, and I just find her exasperating. I just say, “Gertrud, you are just wearing me out.”
When you get her, you have to get the regular house walker and you walk out to the car, which is an effort, and then you go into her car, and her car is broken-down too, but there’s no point buying a decent car because she’s 89. And then you try to wrestle the walking walker out of the car; she has a high-tech walking walker and it’s got all these wires connected to it and all the wires catch on things and her car is breaking so the trunk is banging you on the head and she’s yelling from the front, “Oh I forgot to tell you, don’t get banged on the head by the trunk because it doesn’t work; I have to do something about it.”
So then with the trunk leaning on your head, which is throwing your neck completely out of kilter because you’re tipped over holding the trunk up with your head, you’re trying to wrestle out the walking walker. Then you get the walking walker out, get into your car, and then you drive. We drove down to the waterfront and we got the walking walker out and we started walking and it took us about an hour to go the equivalent of about five city blocks. And at one point she said, “Oh, I’m afraid I’m going to fall.” And I said, “Gertrud, I know this is not going to sound Christian — if you fall I’m going to toss you over the rocks into the water like the Eskimos would have done years ago.” And she said, “I have lived too long.”
And that’s what we get if we’re lucky.
And she’s lucky.
You wrote a piece for Salon last year proposing we have a very quaint protest on Bastille Day, and in response you got a ton of letters, a lot of them negative, which you wrote about in the book. Did that affect the way you’ve thought about writing? We’ve been talking about this a lot at Salon lately.
It was so painful for me. It was just terrible. The obvious thing to do would be to…
Not read them?
Not read them. But you’re not going to be able. I don’t think you’re going to find really, really good writers who are so healed and healthy and mentally stable that they’re not going to read the letters, especially if you set off a firestorm. No one has more loyal readers than I’ve had at Salon — I mean inappropriately loving. Like, out of all sense of perspective — and I love it. I get so many Salon readers that come to readings and say, “Oh I discovered you in Salon” or “When are you going to write some more in Salon?”
We get that a lot.
So I love that Salon is so big out there but I have to say, I have found it devastating when I have been really attacked. But it’s also sort of fascinating, it’s a little like cobra-hypnosis where it keeps saying next at the bottom.
Next page, click!
And you’re going, “OK, next! Click…” But they were vituperative, when that revolution essay was so sweet and so silly. It was like, “I think we should have a revolution. We should have it wherever we are…”
On Bastille Day.
On Bastille Day. And we will turn off our cellphones and our revolution will be about good manners and peacefulness and about, maybe it will be a little bit about Al Gore’s movie, but it wouldn’t have to be. God, you would have thought that I was saying we’ll all have our animals put down that day or something. I didn’t get it. It was such a sweet and silly piece. Before, when I [wrote the essay about] how I’d slapped Sam, I was kind of prepared for that, because I don’t like slapping children stories much. But it was about the terrible ways being and having a 17-year-old can shape both of you, psychologically and spiritually. It was about grief. But what it was really about was that grace against all odds can get in. [Like in "Ski Patrol"] when I was in that cramped little room, and it smelled like kerosene from the heater; a little bit of fresh mountain air got in. That was what grace was like — fresh pine-scented air in the midst of a really awful hour.
Do you smell any fresh, pine-scented air in our political climate right now?
The plates of the earth shifted for me tectonically the night of the midterm elections and I have not been the same. The day after the 2004 election ranks up there for me with days where cherished friends died. I was so hurt and stunned and hopeless. The day of the midterms I wouldn’t watch them with anybody.
So superstitious.
I’m nobody’s fool and I wasn’t born yesterday. And also remember, new polls had come out two days earlier and it made the trend seem to have shifted and so all of a sudden Bob Menendez was in trouble in New Jersey, and I mean in real trouble, and he’d be doing much better and all of the sudden McCaskill was not going to win Missouri. So I got all of my foods, you know, my communion foods. I got Cheetos and M&M’s, and I got cozy blankets, and I got ready for the good thing not to happen again. I sat here, and all of the sudden the first thing that happened was [Rhode Island's Lincoln] Chafee lost. Then all of the sudden Menendez won, quite handedly. And then Webb won, by God. There’s a lot of fresh pine-scented air for me in that nothing Bush wants is going to happen.
How are you feeling about the Hillary-Obama-Edwards, etc. question?
I’m not crazy about Hillary.
Why?
Because I think she’s been too hawkish about the war for too long. She really strikes me as being an opportunist. But the main thing, actually, the truth is, I hate how she’s been about abortion rights. She has found, what she thinks, is a centrist and evangelical position. You know, Jim Wallis and the progressive Evangelicals, their position is that you can be pro-life and still be in favor of legal abortion, but that the actual solution would be for a lot fewer girls and women to need abortions. And that just doesn’t cut it for me. Obama, I like him, I like that he didn’t vote for the war. I really like John Edwards a lot. And I really like Al Gore.
I wanted to ask you about Molly Ivins — I know you spent time with her just before she died.
I saw Molly in the second week of January, about two weeks before she died. I went and stayed there for three days, and it was great because she was going quickly but she was still definitely Molly. She could hardly walk, and it was hard for her to get up but, when she did, she was just like careening all over the place with just every ounce of her, her Mollyhood, Mollyness. We went out to dinner with her family Friday night, and then the next day I decided that we should have a dinner party and we got into this hilarious party planner mode, which included a clipboard. I’d say, “Molly, I’m sorry but we’re going to need to talk about the napkins. You only have six of this one kind. You have five of this, and neither of them go with the only tablecloth I can find.” “This is a problem,” she would say, “we better have a cup of tea.” And we’d sit down and talk about the nightmare of our mismatching napkins.
Saturday morning, first we went and got her chemo and then we went to Whole Foods. And I found a new fiancC), although I love my guy — but I found a pâté man who played me like a violin and that made Molly happier than she could express in words, and she laughed and talked about my new fiancé, the pâté man, all day. She had just written that wonderful column that was so Molly, that we should all get out on the streets with our pots and pans and bang them until we start to get our troops home. And do anything, no matter how ridiculous, to bring down this ridiculous, heartbreaking regime.
Then we both had very, very, very long naps together, and that was fun. I mean it was one of the happiest days of my life. I wanted to write a piece called “Molly Ivins: Party Planner,” but didn’t get around to it. When I left her, she was in the living room on a Sunday having tea, and we were talking about our plans for world peace. She had a disease with a 5 percent survival rate, which means in five years, 5 percent of the people are alive, and something like three out of four people, women, are dead by the end of the first year. And she lived for seven years. Not only did she live, but she published amazing books. I’ve been onstage with her drunk — which I never let her live down — when she was just totally drunk, and I had to hold her up, but what an honor. And then we did events where we were sober; we did a big Code Pink event in Austin, two months before she died. And it was fabulous, at a spa where we rabble-roused and then got our nails done. We tried to galvanize the next wave of the women’s movement, and had massages, too. You know, the best of both possible worlds. What we both loved most.
Bill Keller writes newest, dumbest Biden-Clinton 2012 swap piece
Former New York Times editor combines hackneyed analysis with shopworn topic, with predictable results
Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton (Credit: AP/Jason Reed)
Bill Keller, a bad opinion columnist, has written a bad opinion column. It is about how Barack Obama will replace Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a thing that will not actually happen.
The former New York Times editor has lately been celebrating his return to writing by fearlessly tackling hacky column ideas already exhausted by everyone who was writing bad opinion columns during Keller’s tenure as a person with an actually important job. Having offered his own takes on classics like “The Huffington Post isn’t as good as a real newspaper” and “Twitter is dumb,” Keller today tries the old “running mate switcharoo” scenario.
John Heilemann made the case in August of 2010, but Bob Woodward really kicked it off by pretending a Biden-Clinton switch was “on the table” in October of 2010. That notion — supposedly — can be traced back to pollster grifter Mark Penn, which should have stopped anyone else from bringing it up ever again. But Jonathan Alter took another crack at it last October, and publishing speculation on the switch has become reliable Drudge-bait ever since.
Keller’s column frames the switch as something wished for, instead of predicting it based on the “chatter” of “insiders,” which helps make it merely stupid instead of inherently dishonest. But here are his arguments as to why it would be a good idea instead of a bizarre and desperate stunt:
One: it does more to guarantee Obama’s re-election than anything else the Democrats can do. Two: it improves the chances that, come next January, he will not be a lame duck with a gridlocked Congress but a rejuvenated president with a mandate and a Congress that may be a little less forbidding. Three: it makes Hillary the party’s heir apparent in 2016. If she sits out politics for the next four years, other Democrats (yes, Governor Cuomo, we see your hand up) will fill the void.
One: What? Prove it, maybe? Two: Haha what, again? Congress will get ungridlocked if the president switches vice presidents? To a Clinton? Three: OK, but what if Obama/Clinton loses? And if Obama wins again wouldn’t any Democrat be at a disadvantage in 2016 due to historical trends anyway, making it a “safer” bet to not be his running mate, assuming she actually wants to be president still, which is not at all a given?
But we’re not dealing with observable reality here, as the bit about Clinton’s magical power to un-gridlock Congress demonstrates. We’re in the world of vague assertions about “warmth” and “voltage.” How many electoral votes would running mate Hillary Clinton be worth? Keller never bothers to attempt to make a quantitative guess. This is the closest we get:
Moreover, even if Obama can win without Hillary, there’s a lot to be said for running up the score. If she can do in 2012 what Obama did in 2008 — animate that feeling of historic possibility — the pair can lift some House and Senate candidates along with them. One reason Republicans did so well in the 2010 Congressional elections is that they overcame the gender gap and carried women voters 51 to 49. Those voters will flock back to Hillary, the more so if the Republican ticket is locked into a culture-war agenda. So, by the way, will Hispanic voters, securing such endangered states as Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado.
Ooh, actual data! The Republicans won women in a midterm election. Hillary Clinton is a woman. So in a presidential general election, women will “flock back to Hillary.” Those women may be Republicans, voting in a Republican wave election, but they are women and so they will vote for Barack Obama if he is next to a woman on the ballot. (Though what about those Hispanics? Shouldn’t Obama replace Biden with a Hispanic woman, in this case? Or isn’t he in fact best off retaining Joe Biden, who is, after all, a white man? From Scranton? White men will “flock back” to Obama once they see that he is friends with a white person.)
The column isn’t just bad analysis — it’s also oddly condescending to Secretary Clinton! It complains that she owes “us” a vice-presidential run after she “raised our expectations” by running for president last time. It calls Clinton “the dutiful Methodist schoolgirl.”
Here’s the line that is secretly the worst:
But the idea that she should replace Joe Biden as Obama’s running mate in 2012 is something else. It has been kicking around on the blogs for more than a year without getting any traction, mainly because it has been authoritatively, emphatically dismissed by Hillary, Biden and Team Obama.
Did you see that? “Kicking around on the blogs.” That’s Keller-speak for “not worth anyone’s time until a real journalist like New York Times opinion columnist Bill Keller brought it up.” The “bloggers” kicking this idea around, as I mentioned earlier, are New York magazine political writer John Heilemann, Washington Post living legend Bob Woodward, and former Newsweek senior editor and best-selling author Jonathan Alter. Those bloggers and their crazy notions!
As a blogger, I know that my silly opinion is not as carefully considered and well-informed as that of former New York Times editor Bill Keller, who is not at all simply talking out of his ass. But even if there were any hint at all that the switch was a possibility, which there isn’t, it would be a stupid idea. Hillary Clinton is already part of the president’s Cabinet, and she and her husband will already campaign for the president’s reelection. Running mates barely nudge the numbers in presidential elections, unless they’re historically awful, which Joe Biden isn’t. The Clintons are among the most divisive figures in American politics — Hillary Clinton’s recent high approval rating has come because she’s not running for anything — and relitigating every Clinton scandal would consume the national political press for weeks if she ended up on the ticket.
The running mate switch hasn’t been successful since the Franklin Roosevelt administration, and the last time a president made a strategic switch to help win a tough reelection, it failed.
And I bet if Obama did make this stupid switch, Bill Keller would write some awful column about how desperate it made the president look. Unless he will have by then moved on to finally writing his “kids today sure are sexting each other a lot” piece.
Fake Democratic pollsters have stupid idea
The Wall Street Journal publishes nonsense from Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell, because they think you're an idiot
Hillary Clinton and President Obama (Credit: AP/Charles Dharapak)
I think it’s best to understand the Wall Street Journal editorial board’s decision to publish any given column by con artist pollsters Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell as basically an expression of contempt for people who read the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
Caddell and Schoen, two loser “Democratic” “pollsters,” regularly publish very lame link-bait columns about how if Democrats want to succeed electorally, they must immediately cease being Democrats, and become, instead, Republicans. This week’s variation on that theme: Barack Obama should step aside (already heard that one last year around this time) and allow himself to be replaced by Hillary Clinton, for the good of the party and the nation.
Even though Mrs. Clinton has expressed no interest in running, and we have no information to suggest that she is running any sort of stealth campaign, it is clear that she commands majority support throughout the country.
Because she’s not running for anything.
So Hillary Clinton should be president instead of Barack Obama, because Obama is too partisan and divisive. America needs a bipartisan plan to attack the deficit and also create jobs, and it is Obama’s fault that that is a vague, magical fairy tale. Hillary Clinton will make this fairy tale real, thanks to the fact that, as we all know, Republicans love cheerfully working with the Clintons for the good of the nation. When a Clinton’s in the White House, partisan politics are always put aside!
This is self-evidently dumb on about ten different levels — Clinton won’t run, President Clinton wouldn’t have any more success negotiating with Congressional Republicans than President Obama, Clinton’s popularity is a result of her not being a partisan candidate for office anymore, if there was such a thing as a “bipartisan” plan to reduce the deficit while also stimulating job growth (and protecting entitlements!) we’d presumably have already decided to act on this fantastical plan, everything resembling such a plan is explicitly supported by the White House and rejected by Republicans, Republicans would not endorse said plans if President Obama promised to go away because then they’d simply want to wait for a Republican to take over for him, and Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen are not, as they claim to be, Democrats — but the Journal published this regardless, as they always do with fresh tripe from Schoen and Caddell.
Schoen — who works for hypothetical future independent presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, though that fact is never, ever disclosed — is a simple hack, precisely as dumb and unprincipled as you’d expect anyone who was once Mark Penn’s right-hand man to be. Caddell angrily left the Democratic party 20 years ago, which is seldom mentioned when he’s trotted out to trash the president on behalf of the right-wing media outlets that pay his rent. But the fact that they’re classic “Fox Democrats” matters much less than the fact that all of their editorials are predictable, wrong, and patently stupid.
As I said, printing their editorials is an implicit admission that you think your audience is credulous and moronic. The people in charge of the Wall Street Journal are savvy enough about politics to know that all of this is bilge and bullshit. They know both that this will never happen and that it’d be a stupid suggestion even if it were within the realm of possibility. They just don’t care. They don’t care that they’re printing garbage, because they figure garbage will get some traffic from those engaged in the same game.
If I were a conservative American I’d be less outraged at the specter of liberal elites hypothetically disrespecting me from their coastal enclaves and much more pissed off that the people on my side are constantly peddling this bullshit.
Does Hillary Clinton get too much credit?
She's a huge foreign policy asset to the president but this week's hosannas feel like overkill
Hillary Clinton (Credit: Reuters)
I’m on record as a great admirer of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, going back to her days as New York senator and certainly through her 2008 presidential campaign. But this week’s set of stories depicting the U.S. Libya intervention as “Hillary’s War” (The Washington Post) and an example of Clinton’s “smart power” doctrine (Time Magazine’s cover) go a little bit too far for me. They feel like someone’s effort to upstage or diminish President Obama. For the record, I don’t think the effort is Clinton’s. It may just reflect the mainstream media’s inability to give Obama his due.
Clearly Clinton’s competence is an asset to the president, and her power and credibility reflects well on his ability to work with a former rival. And the Time piece, in particular, makes clear, while praising Clinton, that ultimately Obama makes most of his decisions with a small team of confidantes, and she is not among them. He’s the commander in chief.
And there’s fine reporting in the two pieces. Certainly Clinton deserves credit for using her role to leverage support and resources from other agencies, getting greater control of foreign aid funding and even Defense Department funds to bolster her agenda at State. Elevating the role of the State Department took particular work after George W. Bush ignored and degraded so many American alliances.
But neither piece apportions any share of blame for the downside of Clinton’s expansive diplomacy – her role in pushing a bigger continued U.S. presence in and around Iraq, for instance, flagged Monday by Glenn Greenwald. The continued Iraq presence will also use more of the sometimes lawless private contractors whose role she opposed during the presidential campaign. It also seems a little early to be declaring Libya a decisive victory for American interests, or the cause of human freedom, as the nature of the government that will emerge there remains unclear.
Still, at a time when Obama struggles to get the kind of credit he deserves on the foreign policy and domestic security front – for killing Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaida leaders, winding down the military role in Iraq and toppling Muammar Gaddhafi without losing a single American life – it strikes me as a little unseemly that when credit is given, so much of it goes to Clinton. For her part, at least publicly, Clinton works to turn the spotlight on her boss, telling David Gregory on Meet the Press 10 days ago that “President Obama has passed with flying colors every leadership challenge.” And while she insisted, not convincingly, “I’m out of politics, as you know, David, I don’t comment on it,” she quickly boosted her boss against his potential 2012 rivals. “I think Americans are going to want to know that they have a steady, experienced, smart hand on the tiller of the ship of state, and there’s no doubt that that’s Barack Obama.”
It feels a little mean-spirited to be raising these questions about Clinton’s coverage on the day she lost her mother, Dorothy Rodham, at 92, but this is the week of the adoring press coverage. Again, I’m a strong Clinton admirer. But there’s something a little odd about the worshipful tone of these pieces. I still see a faint echo of Maureen Dowd’s analysis propping up Clinton and other female administration “hawks” in her continued effort to diminish Obama’s leadership and masculinity. Dowd seems to be on vacation, or else we might see her to use these two profiles as another reason to pit Clinton against her boss.
I spoke with a close Clinton friend last week who insists the Secretary of State has no interest in either the role of vice president in 2012, or a presidential run in 2016, so I don’t think there’s any crusade for either job behind these admiring stories. Maybe her allies are just trying to make sure she gets credit for the great work she did, against all odds, for a man she was once accused of trying to destroy.
Hillary’s legacy rests on fixing tainted pipeline approval process
The State Department's shoddy review of a hazardous project is connected to former Clinton aides
Hillary Clinton (Credit: AP/Carolyn Kaster)
Hillary Clinton is one of those people who never really got a fair shake — she had to endure her husband’s philandering and the right-wing’s endless hatred, down to the scurrilous suggestion that she had something to do with the death of her friend Vince Foster. So it’s been a pleasure to watch her accomplished second act — pretty much everyone has had to admit that she’s been a creditable secretary of state; she spent yesterday in Tripoli where rebels-turned-rulers fired guns in her honor. Last year, a Gallup poll found she was the most admired woman in the United States.
That’s why it’s particularly painful to see her nearing the end of her career as our top diplomat with a scandal looming. It’s not too late for her to nip it in the bud, and if she doesn’t President Obama can still put a stop to it, as well. But right now, it threatens to tarnish her legacy.
Here’s how the story goes: The TransCanada corporation wants to build an oil pipeline from the tar sands of Canada down to the Gulf of Mexico. Because it crosses our border, they need a “presidential certificate of national interest,” and that can only come on the advice of the State Department, which has been carrying out a theoretically independent review process.
But even before the review process got underway, Clinton said she was “inclined” to grant the permit. Perhaps that’s because her former deputy campaign manager, Paul Elliott, had been hired as TransCanada’s chief lobbyist. (Emails unearthed by Friends of the Earth show that State Department staff were rooting hard for him — “Go Paul,” is how one of them put it, when he spread the news to this supposedly independent staffer that he’d managed to bring U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., onboard as a pipeline supporter). Perhaps it’s because a whole web of lobbying firms have the same kind of overlapping ties. Employees of McKenna, Long and Aldridge, for instance, donated $41,000 to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and collected at least $190,000 from TransCanada for lobbying. Or DLA Piper, whose employees were the single largest corporate source of funds for her presidential bid, and whose partner, James Blanchard, was both a big-money bundler for the campaign and a highly-paid lobbyist for the province of Alberta’s pro-pipeline effort.
The State Department standard response to this kind of accusation has been: “We meet with everyone, including environmental groups.” Clinton herself says the department remains in “listen and outreach mode” as it prepares to make a decision.
But the New York Times put the lie to this official cover earlier this month, when they revealed just how deeply compromised the State Department actually was. The State Department — and read this carefully, because it’s almost beyond belief — asked TransCanada who they would like to have conduct the “independent” pipeline review. TransCanada submitted the name of three firms, and State helpfully chose the first one on the list: Entrix Corporation. If you head over to their web site, you’ll find that TransCanada is listed as one of the company’s “major clients.”
The Times called this “flouting the intent of a federal law.” You could say it was like hiring Fox Associates for a security study of Henhouse Inc. It’s hard to imagine even the Bush administration doing anything quite this blatant — it makes a complete and utter mockery of the idea of independent review.
It also helps explain how the review found that there would be “minimal” environmental impact, even though we’re still cleaning up the Kalamazoo and Yellowstone rivers from big leaks of tar sands crude. Even though 20 of the nation’s top scientists sent the president a letter saying the pipeline was in neither the nation’s nor the planet’s best interest. Even though our most important federal climatologist, NASA’s James Hansen, wrote recently that heavily tapping tar sands for oil would mean it was “essentially game over” for the climate.
The only good news is that this particular crime against the environment, and against good government, is still in progress. The permit hasn’t been granted yet. Clinton could still send it back for a true, fair review; barring that, the president could still insist that the certificate not be issued.
It’s become the most important environmental test for the president between now and the election. But it’s also become a legacy-sealing moment for the secretary of state, a public official with a long and powerful, but not quite complete, record.
Hillary: An emphatic “No” on 2016
The Secretary of State insisted on the "Today" show that she has no interest in another presidential bid
VIDEO
(Credit: NBC News)
In an interview that aired on this morning’s “Today” show, Hillary Clinton displayed the same charm and command that have made her one of America’s best-loved stateswomen. It’s also easy to see why the secretary of state is the most popular figure in the Obama administration, and why many are clamoring for more. Still, Clinton shrugged off the idea, yet again, that she will run for president in 2016. Asked by NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, she said:
No. No. You know, Savannah, I’m very privileged to have had the opportunities to serve my country. I’m really old-fashioned. I’ve made my contribution. I’ve done the best I can. But now I want to try some other things. I want to get back to writing, maybe some teaching, working on women and girls around the world.
I have made my contribution. I’m very grateful I’ve had a chance to serve, but now I think it’s time for others to step up.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Page 1 of 239 in Hillary Rodham Clinton
At the CPAC-Occupy beer summit
Our non-withdrawal from Afghanistan
“We don’t need someone to think”
How rough it’s gotten for Mitt
The Grammys’ most memorable moments
A passport to utopia
“The Fault in Our Stars” and “There Is No Dog”: Not kids’ stuff
Ricky Gervais: My conscience never takes a day off
Lessons of a very sexy pirate costume
America’s failed promise of equal opportunity 

