The New York Sun reports that Larry Summers has been quietly giving economic advice to Barack Obama.
In one of his first appearances as a campaign surrogate, the former Treasury secretary last week touted Mr. Obama’s proposals and rebutted charges from Republicans that his plan for tax and spending increases would damage the economy.
Mr. Summers’s participation on the conference call drew little notice, and that was fine by the Obama campaign. In the two years since he resigned as president of Harvard amid a faculty revolt, Mr. Summers has made a relatively seamless transition back into the upper ranks of Democratic economic scholars.
But in a political environment where sensitivities surrounding race and gender have rarely seemed more acute, it remains to be seen whether Mr. Summers’s widely criticized remarks about women at Harvard will hamper his chances for a Cabinet-level appointment.
Some women are already warning Mr. Obama against giving Mr. Summers a high-profile role during the campaign….
…”If Obama is trying to court women, particularly women from Hillary’s camp, he should be wary of using Larry Summers as a surrogate. It would potentially cause concerns and hesitation,” the vice chairwoman of the National Council of Women’s Organizations, Shireen Mitchell, said. “It’s a concern that Obama needs to take seriously.”
However one feels about Larry Summers and what he said about innate aptitude, this stance seems absurd. If you believe that what he said was a legitimate attempt to explain a problem, then clearly there’s no problem with him giving advice to the Democrats’ presidential candidate.
And if you strongly disagreed with Summers’ remarks, what more could you ask of the man? He’s apologized about a million times. Do we truly believe in drumming a man out of public life forever because of one comment? As Randy Matory, a vehement Summers critic back in the day, says in the article, “I would not wish to pre-judge Mr. Summers’s contributions, because we all live and learn.”
Supporters say Mr. Summers’s comments at Harvard obscured a strong record on issues related to women. He appointed the first woman dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, and long before that, as chief economist at the World Bank, he pushed aggressively for increased investment in the education of girls in developing countries.
Well, let’s not get carried away. Kagan came pretty late in the day, and the declining numbers of women receiving tenure during the Summers’ years was a real concern.
Summers gets an old ally to back him up: Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, formerly Summers’ chief of staff at Treasury.
Here is Sheryl Sandberg’s Facebook photo:
“He is a big believer and proponent of women, and I think that is why he was talking about the subject in the first place,” a former chief of staff under Mr. Summers at the Treasury Department who now serves as chief operating officer of Facebook, Sheryl Sandberg, said. Ms. Sandberg, a Harvard graduate who studied under Mr. Summers, said he was instrumental in helping her start a student group for women in economics and government.”
Summers and Sandberg have a history of helping each other out. Remember that Sandberg was the Google exec in charge of campus outreach for that company’s library project, and that it was after a private meeting between her and Summers that Harvard librarian Sidney Verba instantly agreed that Harvard would participate in Google’s digitization process.
Here’s what Summers said to the Sun’s reporter:
Mr. Summers, in a brief telephone interview, declined to respond to the concerns women expressed about his role in the campaign. “I’ve just been happy to help the campaign when my advice has been sought,” he said.
Fair enough. But looking through the article, one gets the sense that Summers then went off the record or on background and pointed the reporter to his allies, Sandberg and former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, for quote support.
The irony, of course, is that for liberals there are probably much more serious reasons to oppose Summers’ involvement in this campaign—namely, his track record at the Treasury Department.
Oh, and one aside: Can you imagine how insufferable and troglodytic a politically significant NOW would be in a Hillary Clinton administration? Yikes.