Obamacans: Thanks, but no Thanks

Let's see, he's only made a handful of appointments and already you're upset because he didn't choose the person you thought was better. Or should I say Republican. Hagel and Powell had outright said they wouldn't be interested in a cabinet appointment. While I agree Clinton would not be my first choice, choosing a Republican just because for "show" is not the smartest move either.

Come on. What were Bush I and Bush II's Democratic appointees? Or Reagan's? Or Clinton's Republican appointees?

Unifying and governing from a more bi-partisan position does not mean appointing the opposition to key posts. It means working with the opposition to craft legislation that furthers your goals, but does not run roughshod over their concerns.

Or are you advocating an Equal Opportunity Political Party Employment Act and associated quotas for Cabinet-level positions?

I think too much is being read into his appointments in general. It is my understanding that the last three presidents have been very weak compared to some historical standards; I don't mean the absolute power they have but that they had fractured administrations where the cabinet members had tons of leeway in setting policy. (OK for Bush it was more the VP vs. State but still)

If Obama is going to try to be more of a Reagan or Nixon (who actually had enormous impact on foreign policy) or JFK -- not even mentioning FDR -- then it is hard to determine what "best" person there is for a job because it might be less about personal views and more about the way that someone works within the context of the administration.

I would hold off on assuming that appointments are going to be very reflective of policy, and a Chuck Hagel for instance is the type that doesn't seem like he'd be a good fit if he doesn't have full power...while Powell and Rice are (fairly or not) very tarnished. I also think there is about a 90% chance that he'll keep Gates on as SecDef, as from what I've read Gates is a very middle of the road guy when it comes to independence and also being a team player.

It's possible that Team-Obama is thinking "change". After all, that is what they promised. Condi Rice is not change. She's within the Bush fold. ANYONE within the Bush fold must be rejected without a second thought.

Clintons have the world's respect. Who better to interface with the world?

Duh..

Tony, are you sure you aren't just substituting your speculation or more, your wishes, for what actually is happening? Speculation is rife that Hagel and McCain might be asked to join Obama's cabinet, as well as Colin Powell, possibly others such as Lincoln Chafee (don't know about any roles for Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins!), and don't forget Cohen from Maine, who was in Clinton's administration. (I saw him on television here but was preoccupied with other things and didn't go to the TV to listen, to learn if he was being asked to comment about race -- Cohen's wife is black -- or about simply the future, how it might compare to the Clinton years, and so on.)

The latest appointment is Tom "I'm Concerned" Daschle, to run Health and Human Services. He also is separately reported to be given the role of "health czar" or "health policy czar," which indicates that Obama will run health policy, not Hillary Clinton, and Clinton at State will be removed from a domestic policy role on health care or anything else (if she accepts the State position).

We only have 2 or 3 appointments so far, don't we? But I guess your tossing an opening salvo before the rest of the appointments are made. I do agree with your underlying point that we need to see some more names out there than Clinton admin retreads or Democratic congressional leaders.

FWIW, I agree that Hagel might be a better pick for various reasons, but I am not sold on either Powell or Rice as clearly better Secretaries of State. Rice hasn't accomplished much of anything in her tenure, has she? And I remember tons of complaints that Powell wasn't a terribly good executive for State.

A.) Obama hasn't made any major appointments to major cabinet spots outside of DoJ. The Clinton for SoS is still a possibility and not official yet, and there are major concerns about that field. Saying Obama is putting his party first based on appointments this early in the game is just foolish.

B.) Have you been paying attention to the news at all? You know, the ones reporting that the Obama staff really wants Gates to stay as Secretary of Defense if he wishes to chose so, or says Obama really wants to put Hagel somewhere, or note the possibility of Lugar being put somewhere as well?

A list of possible Republicans may be found here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122694441542934...

To me something more interesting would be if Obama creates a new Department of the Environment and puts Gore in there as the new Secretary. It is silly to create such a department (sillier than that dumbly-named Department of Homeland Security), but it would make great sense to rename and reconstitute the long-obsolescent-named Department of the Interior to a new Department of Natural Resources and put Gore in charge of _this_ new (or renamed) department, which would include the EPA. To appeal to the goofy kids, he could also make Gore a new "global warming" or "climate change" "reform" czar. (Gotta love those czars and the mindset they imply!)

Looks like Campbell just discovered this thing called "politics". Imagine that: political appointees being chosen on the basis of political considerations. I wonder what new revelations Campbell will share in his next article. Also, it's good to see that Campbell is just looking out for the Republican Party and not the tens of millions of Hillary supporters in the Democrat Party. Maybe he'll figure out that Hillary got 18 million votes in his next article. I'll be on the lookout for it.

Aren't they all rumors at this point?

Isn't Gates rumored to be staying at Defense?

Angry Bear has the perfect cabinet for you:

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-ca...

Well, I think at least Obama's trying to put in competent people, not just toadies. I'll hold off judgment until the entire cabinet is announced.

He may not have picked any Republicans for his cabinet yet, but he did let Lieberman slide and he met with McCain-- those are both steps in the right direction. I'm wondering which Republicans would want to serve in a Democratic administration. Sen Lugar has already said thanks but no thanks.

Tony, Glenn Greenwald has some good and instructive things to say regarding the utility of "bipartisanship." We've had a "bi-partisan" Congress (despite all the rhetoric regarding how obstructionist were the Democrats or the Republicans during whatever tenure we're discussing) and it generated almost-unanimous, even enthusiastic, zealous approval of the war, out-of-control spending, torture--I mean "interrogation," warrant-less wire-tapping, fundamental erosion in checks and balances, etc, etc, etc. I'm not particularly convinced that "bipartisan" is a means and an end a laudable goal in itself.

"Change," whatever that may mean, doesn't necessarily mean bi-partisanship. We've had plenty of bipartisanship with this Congress. Personally I wish we (as a voting nation) had the ability to throw ALL the bums out. I too supported Obama and don't have any qualms of his not choosing Republicans just for the sake of choosing Republicans. We've had Republican Rule for 8 long years, and whatever "bipartisan" efforts of Congress have been enabled, it seems to me to have been shallow consideration, with the threat of harsh criticisms regarding "patriotism" and "with-us-or-against-us" certainty. Maybe it is true that the whole point of politics is to keep getting elected.

Additionally, as important as rewarding campaign faithful and using the experience of the beltway "ways," I personally yearn for those good ideas that can come from some fresh, intelligent people. Condi Rice? I still remember her on television discussing the fact that she loved "her Fox guys." I still remember her talking about the "mushroom clouds" like she was a Newt Gingrich (or Pat Robertson) knock-off. She is as branded, and proud of it, as any Bush appointee. Wonderful expert on Russia. Why would I get excited about her? And Colin Powell? Does anyone not remember his parade before us and the rest of the world describing the details of weapons of mass destruction? Why would I want to have him leading in this phase of American government? Sure he's a great guy, brilliant man, but isn't he part of team-Bush? His endorsing Obama is fine but Change?

I wish we could end the empires of the Bush and Clinton families. They have served as our leaders for a collective20 years. Aren't there devoted, talented citizens worthy of consideration outside of these families?

yeah! why DIDN'T obama pick people that have publicly said they don't want the position?! what an idiot!

now that would be change, wouldn't it?

"senator hagel, be my secretary of state."
"no."
"too bad! it's yours you can't say no, no tradebacks!"

what a great article.

You lost me when you vouched for Condi Rice.

I'm with ChrisWWW! Why would Obama start out with the Sec of State who has at best had mediocre results? How would retaining her be viewed internationally???

Sorry, but even Colin Powell lost his luster when he went along with what he must have known was a speech based on questionable evidence before the UN. How could he help Obama and us now?

Have to agree with chris and kim - Condi has been underwhelming as SoS.

Throwing my hat in the ring with Chris, kritt and Austin. You had me interested until you claimed Rice was a better Sec of State than Clinton could be. At best, she's been mediocre. I'd have a hard time believing Clinton could be worse.