Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Team of Rivals
The President-Elect indicated to me last summer that he was interested in surrounding himself with the toughest, smartest people he could find in his Administration. People who would argue with each other, who would disagree with him. This seems a wise course of action. Obama has the strength and confidence, I believe, to be able to handle a little contention--and the lack of diverse, pushy voices is, in part, what killed the Administration of George W. Bush.
Last summer, Obama told me that he'd be open to talented Republicans--people like Robert Gates, who may well be asked to remain for a time as Secretary of Defense. That would be a good thing. Gates has been excellent.
But Obama should also be open to people in his own party, people who didn't support him for President. Which brings me to Richard Holbrooke--who is, without question, the finest diplomat in the Democratic Party, but one who supported Hillary Clinton and has been a rival of several of Obama's closest foreign policy advisers, namely Tony Lake and Susan Rice.
No one questions Holbrooke's talent. Stories are told about his ambition and his, well, pushiness. I had the opportunity to watch Holbrooke close up during the Bosnia peace negotiations a decade ago. I spent a week on his shuttle, watching Holbrooke face down Slobodan Milosevic (who needed to be pushed)--and work, very nicely thank you, with the National Security Adviser Tony Lake, who was frequently in phone contact from Washington. Holbrooke put together a first-rate team for that effort--a team of rivals, in fact, including General Wes Clark, Don Kerrick (of the National Security Council, who should be getting consideration for National Security Adviser now) and Christopher Hill of the State Department. It was an incredible show, one of the few clear-cut diplomatic triumphs of the Clinton Administration.
There are others who would be acceptable, perhaps even very good Secretaries of State. I have high regard for Senators Kerry, Hagel and Dodd, General Jim Jones, career diplomats like Nicholas Burns and Chris Hill. But there is only one diplomat who has the skill and track record--historical memory and the working knowledge--to negotiate the deals that will be needed between India and Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Taliban and who will know how to play the game to come with Iran...and that's Holbrooke.
I've known the man for 30 years. He is a friend, and our friendship made me reluctant to make this argument. But this is a difficult moment for our country overseas. We will have great Ambassadors in the President-Elect and Vice President Joe Biden. We also need our very best negotiator on board--and that's Richard Holbrooke.
RSS Feed |
Senior Writer Karen Tumulty has been TIME's National Political Correspondent since 2001, and has also covered the White House and Congress for the magazine. A native of San Antonio, she is a graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard Business School, where her career choice has significantly lowered the average salary of her graduating class. But she gets lots of free magazines. Read More »
Follow Karen Tumulty on Twitter
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. His weekly TIME column, "In the Arena," covers national and international affairs. In 2004 he won the National Headliner Award for best magazine column. Read More »
Michael Scherer is the White House correspondent for TIME. He previously worked for Salon.com, Mother Jones, and the Daily Hampshire Gazette. A native of San Francisco, he graduated from U.C. Santa Cruz and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Read More » Follow Michael Scherer on Twitter
Jay Newton-Small is the congressional correspondent for TIME. Born in New York, she spent time growing up in Asia, Australia and Europe following her vagabond United Nations parents. A graduate of Tufts University and Columbia’s Graduate School of Journalism, Jay previously covered politics for Bloomberg News. And, yes, despite the misleading name SHE is a she. Read More » Follow Jay Newton-Small on Twitter
Amy Sullivan is a senior editor at TIME magazine, and author of the book The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats are Closing the God Gap (Scribner, 2008). A Michigan native, she holds degrees from the University of Michigan and Harvard Divinity School. She writes about religion and politics for TIME, but no longer answers to the name "Bible Girl." Read More »
- Sarah Palin to Quit as Alaska Governor
- What Happened To the Stimulus?
- Michael Jackson Gets His Requiem
- Afterbirth: It's What's For Dinner
- Why British Health Officials Say Swine Flu is Nothing to Party About
- Does the E.U.'s Airline Blacklist Make Flying Safer?
- Pakistan Hopes for Answers on Bhutto Murder
- While Canada Spends Big to Save GM, Mexico Gets Free Ride
- This Preposterous Week! Paul Slansky's News Index
- How California's Fiscal Woes Began: A Crisis 30 Years in the Making
- Inside Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch
- U.S. Marines Open a New Offensive in Afghanistan
- The History of the Bikini
- Photos: India's Contraband Wildlife
- Photos: A Madoff Family Album
- Michael Jackson: The Last Photos
- Public Enemy: The Extremely Brief and Violent Life of John Dillinger
- Photos: Sacha Baron Cohen's Outrageous BrÜno Promotions
- The World's Ugliest Dog Show
- Party On with the G-8!
- ABC News’ The Note
- Andrew Sullivan
- CBN’s Brody File
- Ezra Klein
- Foreign Policy’s The Cable
- Juan Cole
- Lynn Sweet
- Marc Ambinder
- Matthew Yglesias
- MSNBC’S First Read
- Nate Silver
- NRO’s The Corner
- NYT’s The Caucus
- Politico’s Ben Smith
- Powerline
- Ross Douthat
- Talking Points Memo
- The American Prospect’s Tapped
- TNR’s The Plank
- Tom Ricks
- Washington Monthly’s Political Animal
- WashPost’s 44
- WashPost’s The Fix
- WSJ’s Washington Wire
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Joe--judging from your entry, it would seem there is a plethora of talent and a deep bench to choose from.
.
With that said, however, you can only choose one for a position. People will be disappointed no matter who gets chosen. That said, here's hoping the best people are picked who will work in their chosen slot.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:21 pm
What I find interesting is that Kerry could be the Secretary of State. That just seems...odd. I felt bad for him in 2004, but I wonder if his famous long-winded monologues would serve him well in such a position.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm
"...open to talented Republicans..."
.
At this point, given the demonstrated filth with which Republicans run their campaigns, given the demonstrated incompetence of Republican governance, and given the demonstrated failure of Republican ideals, tendencies and philosophy, I have to question the judgement, sanity and, yes, the talent of any politician that still clings to that party identification.
.
There is plenty of room for them in the Democratic Party. The ranks of the DLC could use the fresh blood.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Plus, I agree with Yoshi. Kerry has no place in the Executive Branch. Keep him in the Senate where he can continue to be productive.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Terrapinion, don't demonize the whole of the other party. It wouldn't get Obama anywhere, and it won't get the Democrats anywhere either.
A lot of people who voted for McCain, believe it or not, did it because they have conservative beliefs that Obama opposes. Switching to the Democrats won't really promote those beliefs.
We've seen what monolithic ideological legislation has done for the GOP's time in the seat of power.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:42 pm
No to Kerry or Holbrooke. I like Clark, though Hill would be a fine replacement for Condi the H20 carrier.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:46 pm
If the people who voted Obama into office wanted a centrist running the country they would have voted for Clinton instead. Obama better be careful about surrounding himself with nothing but centrists, or right wingers. The majority of his appointees ought to be liberals, because that is who supported him.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 6:52 pm
I am fascinated by the mix between "knowledge" and "skills" in these cabinet selections. It's not something I'd given much thought to in the past. Typically, you hear a lot about knowledge - expertise and advice. In recommending Holbrooke for Secretary of State, you talk a lot about skills - actual talent at negotiating. It pinned my ears back a little, because I don't really think about many other cabinet positions in terms of a sliding scale of ability at a discrete skill. I bet I should.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm
terrapinion,
He got elected on the platform of bi-partisanship and running on conservative ideals. If he does not pick some members represent those conservative ideals he will go over like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. We see what fabulous numbers they have racked up for the Dem controlled congress.
Didn't they get to single digits in July? Look dems can beat their dead horse George W Bush but, elections are two years away and if they don't show more promise than they have in the previous two I think you are going to see a backlash.
Pelosi and Reid said they where going to run bi-partisan and still got away with being able to blame their whipping boy, however that time is coming to a close. Now the dems will start to be held accountable. So lets hope they are smart and try a new tack of being bi-partisan instead of talking about it.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:07 pm
judgementz:
.
But last week, you said he was too liberal.
.
You wouldn't be, uh, flipflopping, now, would you?
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate. That is what McCain kept saying. That is why he was elected. He owes the centrist cult nothing and it would be foolish of him to burn all his bridges with the Left, now that he has power. He will need their support in another 4 years. His choice for chief of staff is already a slap at the Left.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Derek, give the man a chance, for cat's sake. Rahm's job is to be an enforcer, and that starts with the transition itself.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I'm hearing a faint rumbling about Fareed Zakaria for Secretary of State? The prospect thrills me. On the off chance that he was offered it, would he take it?
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:33 pm
The media shouldn't be joining in on the center-right thing. The same people who said Obama was running as a socialist, can not be allowed to say that he ran as a centrist after he won without being challenged.
Instead of being challenged, the media embraces the talking point. That is just horrifically wrong.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:39 pm
zakaria would be great
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:41 pm
How is it possible for so many people to live through a 2 year campaign run by a non-ideological candidate and come away thinking he's a progressive, a centrist, or a conservative. The man is a pragmatist, one I might add, who has been telling us for 2 years that he detests labels because they are counterproductive and he is right. Obama wants people who have the skill set and the drive to get the job done. You want to know what's wrong with Washington - it is that everyone comes from the same schools, the same backgrounds, and regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, they think a like because they have come through a similar set of experiences. And this happens on both sides of the aisle. Obama wants to eliminate group think by surrounding himself with diversity of thought not just diversity of race and gender -- but clearly a few days after the election everyone wants to retreat to their comfortable label driven corners and demand that Obama join them. I don't know if Holbrooke is the man but if he has the necessary chops and there is no one else anywhere that has better abilities then he should be the man I don't care what side he is on or who he use to support. The country is in trouble and if we don't put up our A game it could very well go down the tubes. So I say the Obama scouts ought to be looking at any body who has got some serious game.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Democratic Wilsonians potentially open the door for neocons. Ken Adelman is already sniffing around to see if there's a way in.
There are some obvious criteria to seek at State: diplomatic smarts, well-established relationships with foreign leaders, but also the sense that there's no game of telephone between the SecState and the White House. Holbrooke's interesting, and hard to label, though I'm guessing that Obama still talks to Sam Power -- she may be offered a job, but probably not an outward-facing one where her temperament might cause problems -- and her relationship with Holbrooke is fairly spiky on certain issues.
Did you read Brady Kiesling's book, Joe? Or David Jones' piece in the AFSA journal earlier this year? One of the chief inward-facing tasks of the new SecState is to rebuild and retool the Foreign Service -- remember, the US has more military band members than diplomats -- while taking a hard look at the mechanisms of force projection. So that has to be weighed up as well. Holbrooke has the experience to rebuild State, but I'm not certain that he has the vision. Steve Clemons has a similar perspective: he's worried about a Clinton III Cabinet, and I have to agree with him. He likes Hagel as a pick for outward-looking realism, which would slam the door on neoconnerie, but Hagel hasn't explicitly signed on to Obama's for-pol goals, which I think is a problem, and would need to be backed up by career State types to head the internal reform.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:44 pm
How is it possible for so many people to live through a 2 year campaign run by a non-ideological candidate and come away thinking he's a progressive, a centrist, or a conservative. The man is a pragmatist, one I might add, who has been telling us for 2 years that he detests labels because they are counterproductive and he is right. Obama wants people who have the skill set and the drive to get the job done. You want to know what's wrong with Washington - it is that everyone comes from the same schools, the same backgrounds, and regardless of gender, race or orientation, they think a like because they have come through a similar set of experiences. And this happens on both sides of the aisle. Obama wants to eliminate group think by surrounding himself with diversity of thought not just diversity of race and gender -- but clearly a few days after the election everyone wants to retreat to their comfortable label driven corners and demand that Obama join them. I don't know if Holbrooke is the man but if he has the necessary chops and there is no one else anywhere that has better abilities then he should be the man I don't care what side he is on or who he use to support. The country is in trouble and we need to put up our A game. I say the Obama scouts ought to be looking at any body whose got some serious game.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:46 pm
53_3,
I have posted little in the last few months just because of the climate around here and many of the fixtures here resorting to name calling and labeling instead of actually debating.
His campaign and rhetoric was but, he is shaping up to be a lot more moderate than he was on the campaign. So who is actually going to emerge that guy from the campaign trail or the guy of the last 3 days?
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Holbrooke might be fine for the top job, don't know. I'm going to say something that is impolitic, but I'm going to say it anyway:
.
I think it would be valuable for our main diplomats involved in our Middle East efforts from Israel to Pakistan to be non-Jews. Specifically, secularists or non-dogmatic Christians. I think that symbolically it makes it easier for the U.S. to play mediator.
.
This is the biggest issue in Israel of course, where it seems for decades now, when we seek to play "honest broker", we send Jewish diplomats.
.
But it's also an issue in dealing with Arab countries or with Iran. Symbolism is important in diplomacy, and they're not religion-blind so its silly for us to pretend its not an issue.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 8:00 pm
judgementz, I think he was pretty moderate on the campaign trail.
.
I think it was the Right who keep talking about how liberal he is (i.e. socialist) until people believed it.
.
He's never sounded like anything so much as a pragmatist to me. Which is why I voted for him. When there are many big problems to be solved, a little pragmatism can't hurt.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 8:03 pm
The new motto of the Right "To the vanquished go the spoils."
A few days ago they were calling him a commie and friend of terrorists. Now they are complaining that he isn't appointing more of them to cabinet positions.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 8:09 pm
John Edwards ran quite to the left of Obama. Dennis Kucinich ran very far to the left of Obama. Yet, if you listened to Fox noise, you would have believed that we would have Leon Trotsky discussion groups going on in the White House if Obama won.
Obama is not that liberal. I just object to allowing the blowhards who accused him of being a commie to flip-flop the next day and say he ran as a Reagan democrat. They shouldn't be allowed to be so dishonest.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 8:18 pm
@terrapinion: The ranks of the DLC could use the fresh blood.
'
Hmm. Makes me wonder if we'll see a case of "fight from the inside." Will we hear, sometime in the future, how the Repugs sent younglings to the Democrats to infiltrate the party, and foment discord from within, to destroy the enemy?
'
Not that the Dems need any help self-destructing...
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 8:25 pm
@trifecta: They shouldn't be allowed to be so dishonest.
'
I agree. Let's line 'em up and shoot 'em.
'
Seriously - how do you get rid of a Carney, or a Scherer?
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Threat much, Mr. Nice Guy? I know the reaction that would ensue if rusty happened to say that about somebody he doesn't like...
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 9:08 pm
What the he** is wrong with you people? Paul Volcker is a nine foot tall gigantic monster-beast, most likely from space. How can you just sit there while this megazoid is a few inches away from our President. This is crazy.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Yoshi, my friend, either you forgot your Xanax, or the batteries in your Acme Sarcasmo-meter, aka "snark detector," need to be replaced.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I echo others who find the idea of John Kerry as Sec of State bizarre. If anything, perhaps he's better suited as Ambassador to France. But best of all, he should stay in the Senate and take the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Biden just gave up.
.
After all, why oh why would Obama want to deplete Congress of his senior allies? Especially the Senate in which seats were so hard won that they are actually considering letting Lieberman continue to caucus with them simply for the possibility that they might need his vote.
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Let me also throw in Samantha Power as a close confidant and excellent candidate for a new generation of diplomat. (With all due respect to Holbrooke, he's had his time in the past.)
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 11:17 pm
judgementz:
.
Then the best thing you can do is to make a connection with facts , and try to avoid talking points.
.
Obama is no conservative, nor did he put forward any type of conservative agenda. I think he's going to do his best to not make it difficult for small business, but other than that, the guy is showing a progressive agenda.
.
right now, his job is to stabilize things, then try to get the economy back on track. If he achieves that, then watch and see...
Friday, November 7, 2008 at 11:21 pm
judgmentz:
.
" have posted little in the last few months just because of the climate around here and many of the fixtures here resorting to name calling and labeling instead of actually debating."
.
Far be it for me to raise the rather ugly pointer, but going to any right wing website is much, much worse. Worse yet, the moderators on those websites make sure that a dissenting voice has a muzzle, and, of course, gives the local dogs free reign.
.
Keep in mind that if you lose your connection with facts then you are wide open to attack.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 12:58 am
I'm having some trouble imagining Richard Holbrooke as Secretary of State.
A simulation involving Hal Holbrook on a holodeck would be helpful.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 1:00 am
Oh, and by the way, Joe -
Don't you think Bill Richardson is angling for this position as we speak? You know, speaking of former Clintonistas.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 1:08 am
Dick Durbin should be Senate Majority Leader. Harry Reid was mediocre, even as a place-saver.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 4:50 am
Richard Holbrooke will be an effective choice for State: he is tough and he knows the neighbourhood. Things are at a place where no one has time for on the job training. Susan Rice may well be groomed to take over. I am not sure about Samantha Powers: maybe a place in the UN at No 2 or in a policy shop within State. Fareed Zakaria simply does not have access or credibility in India/Pakistan or in the ME. He is doing well with his new CNN program, but he comes off as someone who is skilled at that job. The post of Amb to Israel is also important. Does AIPAC get to have a say? I think so. But it may be time to appoint someone outside the faith. Hey Fareed Zakaria: what would you do if asked?
Is it not great that we have choices. The one concern I have is that the bi-partisanship argument can go too far. I have great respect for Hagel and Lugar, but I don't see them as being in the first rung. State has ome neocons; someone has to take a broom to that place.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 6:13 am
"Derek, give the man a chance, for cat's sake. Rahm's job is to be an enforcer, and that starts with the transition itself."
You will have to forgive me but I have a natural mistrust of anyone who is a member of the DLC. It also bothers me that so many of them, and other retreads, are being named as members of the new "liberal" administration. Even when liberals win enforcers are sent out to keep them in check.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 6:51 am
Bitter: Holbrooke would be on my list, too. I would not have any Republican at State. It is vital to project Pres elect Obama's policy with its "Liberal bias". John Meacham's centre right bs is just another talking point. To a certain sector of our commentariat our country will always be "centre-right" no matter how voters do their job.
It would be helpful to hear about suggestions for the NSC from knowlegdeable posters here.
The Economic Team is issue No 1 and I hope we will see some nomination soon. My very limited experience in these things tells me that more often than not the better candidates are simply not interested in a job that has all the problems and requires one to take a hefty pay cut. Which is why we end up with Rubin and Paulson and Corzine in a governorship. Having made their bundle these men are ready for a bit of "sacrifice". Not being snarky at all. I believe even the diminutive Robert Reich is not short of a buck or two.
On a lighter note: has anyone seen Paul Volcker and Robert Reich side by side recently?
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 7:21 am
The same Holbrooke who made a deal with the devil himself Joe Klein? "Karadzic demands alleged documents of Holbrooke deal".
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwO7bpHiL9c6SmHPul9VoK0dep0w
Or, perhaps you mean the man who helped a non-military Larry Lawrence to be buried at Arlington Cemetery just a few years ago? "Holbrooke helped Larry Lawrence get rights to be interred at Arlington National Cemetery. Lawrence died on January 10, 1996, and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Bill Clinton presided over Lawrence's burial at Arlington and delivered the eulogy. In 1997 his body was disinterred and brought to California after congressional investigators searched military records and found no evidence that Lawrence was ever in the Merchant Marine".
And, this little goody of his days cavorting with the likes of Suharto in East Timor, "in August of 1977, then Assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke traveled to Indonesia to meet with Suharto in the midst of one of the Indonesian military's brutal counterinsurgency campaigns in East Timor in which tens of thousands of East Timorese were being slaughtered. Holbrooke visited officially to press for human rights reform, however once Suharto was met by Holbrooke, he (Suharto) was praised for Indonesia's human rights improvements and was told that he in fact welcomed the steps that Indonesia had taken to open East Timor to the West, allowing a delegation of congressmen to enter the territory under strict military guard, where they were greeted by staged celebrations, welcoming the Indonesian armed forces.
Behind the scenes, Holbrooke and Zbigniew Brzezinski played point in trying to frustrate the efforts of congressional human rights activists to try and condition or stop US military assistance to Indonesia and in fact accelerated the flow of weapons to Indonesia at the height of the genocide."
Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, the finest of Democrat Diplomats at your disposal to the new Obama Administration. "Change YOU can believe in"!!!
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 8:31 am
Derek,
.
Have any other positions been filled? This is why people always say that Democrats know how to screw things up. We are less than a week from a historic election getting the presidency back and here we are arguing about people being selected for the administration who havent even been selected for the administration. And I would remind everyone that we had a pretty good run with Clinton in office so if Obama picks up some of the people from that administration who were actually good at their jobs why is that a bad thing? Can we get behind our new president for at least 2 weeks and give him a chance to actually name his staff before we start criticizing it? At this rate the GOP won't have to tear Obama down, his own supporters will beat them to it!
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:03 am
And Clinton had lousy appointments, starting from his chief of staff Mac McLarty to his Cabinet posts, many of whom were political chips being called in. I hope that Obama will resist the lobbying of people who think they are 'owed' and instead picks the best people for the job. He should keep in mind that Clinton lost Congress a couple years in, because he couldn't get his major promises, including health care, passed or had to make huge compromises like Don't Ask Don't Tell.
.
Which is another reason why Rahm is such a great choice, in spite of his personal demeanor. With Rahm working the House and Biden working the Senate, hopefully the Dem majority will fall in line.
.
Which is also why it's imperative that Waxman is able to unseat Dingell over at the House Energy and Commerce committee. Dingell will block Obama's alternative fuels agenda, as a stooge of the auto industry. The Energy Committee chair is too important to leave in his special interest hands.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:05 am
For those who are saying that Obama is now changing his positions (judgement et al), I would submit that I have never seen a candidate for President who was clearer or more consistent in his positions.
.
Just this morning, in President-Elect Obama's first ever Saturday morning address, he repeated these core policy positions and restated the need to press forward on them all as component parts of an overall strategy to dig us out of a ditch and move us forward as a nation. Remember, this is a guy who understands strategic thinking, as opposed to repub tactical thinking. Obama's radio address is here:
http://otrans.3cdn.net/a935f21490985cc7e6_z3m6ztacs.mp3
.
For those who say he didn't offer policy detail, that simply translates into "I accepted the RW talking point that he didn't offer detail and chose not read the highly detailed white papers he had on virtually every conceivable policy area."
.
I really look forward to having a President who speaks to us as adults.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:06 am
I don't see why the Left needs to take a backseat to the centrists or right-wing, when it comes to making suggestions for the open positions. We keep hearing old names mentioned, from the same group that supported deregulation, and the war in Iraq. I wonder how those ideas turned out? If this election is really about change then the new "liberal" president's staff ought to reflect it.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:20 am
Derek Says:
.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 6:13 am
"Derek, give the man a chance, for cat's sake. Rahm's job is to be an enforcer, and that starts with the transition itself."
.
You will have to forgive me but I have a natural mistrust of anyone who is a member of the DLC. It also bothers me that so many of them, and other retreads, are being named as members of the new "liberal" administration.
*********************************************************
.
I see nothing wrong with promoting whom we think would be the best guy or woman for some post. I see nothing wrong with debating the merits of a person who has already been named. But look at your own words. You are saying you are bothered by ficticious people. So far there has been one position officially announced and thats Rahm Emmanuel for COS. So all I am saying is if you are pi$$ed then be pi$$ed at the people who are SUGGESTING the names that you don't agree with. But don't get so worked up about people who many never see the light of day in an Obama administration.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:29 am
Derek Says:
.
"Derek, give the man a chance, for cat's sake. Rahm's job is to be an enforcer, and that starts with the transition itself."
.
You will have to forgive me but I have a natural mistrust of anyone who is a member of the DLC. It also bothers me that so many of them, and other retreads, are being named as members of the new "liberal" administration.
*********************************************************
.
I see nothing wrong with liberals/progressives promoting whom we think would be the best guy or woman for some post. I see nothing wrong with us debating the merits of a person who has already been named. But look at your own words. You are saying you are bothered by ficticious people. So far there has been one position officially announced and thats Rahm Emmanuel for COS. So all I am saying is if you are pi$$ed then be pi$$ed at the people who are SUGGESTING the names that you don't agree with. But don't get so worked up about people who many never see the light of day in an Obama administration.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:37 am
The list of people being considered for the important positions has been discussed pretty clearly. So far it looks like the only job a liberal will have is cleaning the toilets. If you are happy with that, fine. Pardon me for not being happy about it.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:42 am
I'm in favor of putting some old hands in critical cabinet positions: State, Justice, Defense, Treasury. The Bushies have left a number of time bombs as detailed by this extraordinary essay in Esquire.
.
.
.
.
.
Esquire Endorses Barack Obama for President - Election 2008 - Esquire
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:45 am
President-elect Obama's first radio address is here:
http://otrans.3cdn.net/a935f21490985cc7e6_z3m6ztacs.mp3
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:49 am
Ok Let's discuss people who are actually nominated since I don't see us being consulted before a nomination is made. Patience and Peace.
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 10:58 am
Anyone notice Obama changing his tune on getting out of Iraq? I wonder if it has anything to do with keeping the Republican "Gates" in his position.
I wonder who will be put in charge of persecuting the war crimes conducted by the previous administration, Karl Rove.