I thought that it might be interesting to have a thread profiling the various choices that Obama makes as to who his cabinet and staff members will be.
I hope he calls Powell and says "Whatever cabinet position you want, it's yours."
I also hope he picks at least a couple other moderate Republicans who would do well in their positions. I have a feeling he'll choose people who are qualified over people who are merely loyal.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I have no doubt that he will have no problems with this, given how active he is in politics already, but I do wonder how Emmanuel will handle Shabbat. I understand that Jews are commanded to break the rules in order to save life, so I imagine he could be doing things at work if there's a major crisis. But it still seems like it could be quite difficult to handle the smaller, regular crises that I'm sure appear quite often while still holding to his beliefs. Heck, I couldn't do my job properly if I couldn't check on programs that I have running over the weekend on Saturdays, some weeks.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I hope he calls Powell and says "Whatever cabinet position you want, it's yours."
I also hope he picks at least a couple other moderate Republicans who would do well in their positions. I have a feeling he'll choose people who are qualified over people who are merely loyal.
After his debacle at the UN, I really hope Obama doesn't appoint Powell. I used to think he was a man of integrity. Its hard to believe that Powell is still defending his speech with the claim that every point was vetted by US intelligence. UN intelligence experts were able to identify some of the frauds in minutes through google. It's far easier to believe that Powell caved in to pressures from Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield than it is to believe that he was that easily duped. Either way, he no longer deserves my respect.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Has he defended his speech? And if so DID US intelligence vet it but it was merely wrong?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Has he defended his speech? And if so DID US intelligence vet it but it was merely wrong?
Yes, he has defended that speech as recently as a few weeks back. I'll see if I can find the link.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hmm, looking at Wikipedia he seems to have expressed regret over it saying it is a "blight on his record".
If thats defending...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
What makes you think he's religious?
Btw, my grandfather delivered his mother, whose father was my grandmother's first cousin. He's apparently the guy who choreographed the handshake between Rabin and Arafat, so he's not on my top 10 list.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It's my understanding that Linda Darling-Hammond is the front runner for Sec of Education.
I've been trying to read up on her, and get a feel for her view on No Child Left Behind, teacher qualifications, and funding.
I have to say, I like what I've read about her views on NCLB. And, I like what she says about extended pre-service teaching and teacher mentoring. I've learned more in the 3 weeks I've spent as a pre-service teacher with an excellent mentor than I did in four years of undergraduate study. The problem is, that getting a teaching certificate is already a long, drawn-out, expensive process. Adding more pre-service hours only extends it, resulting in even less people willing to go through it. What we really need to do is replace some of those useless theory courses with more supervised teaching experiences. I don't see that happening, however. This year my university upped the number of pre-service hours you need before student teaching from 150 to 200, without dropping any course requirements.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, the UN speech was painful in hind site, but I believe he's learned a great deal from that mistake. I'm not willing to give up on someone who I consider a great man for it. Can understand if you aren't so forgiving, was a pretty huge mistake.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Considering the teacher shortage in many areas of the country, I'm wondering why we can't talk about paid internships for beginning teachers rather than extending the number of pre-service hours.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Yeah, the UN speech was painful in hind site, but I believe he's learned a great deal from that mistake.
I'd be inclined to think so too, X, and Powell's somebody that I definitely used to have great respect for, but I was kind of taken aback by his "going to the mat" defense of Stevens a few weeks back. It's left me feeling a bit more uncertain of him than I was.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: What makes you think he's religious?
Btw, my grandfather delivered his mother, whose father was my grandmother's first cousin. He's apparently the guy who choreographed the handshake between Rabin and Arafat, so he's not on my top 10 list.
His wikipedia article states that he's an active member of a modern Orthodox synagogue and sends his kids to day school. I had thought it also said that he practices/keeps kosher and shabbat, but if it did, it currently doesn't. Of course, it also looks like there've been at least 200 edits to that article today, so I don't know what's up there. Do you know, Lisa?
Edited to replace temple with synagogue.
[ November 06, 2008, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Honestly, I know his brother Zeke, who isn't Orthodox. I also know that a lot of people who go to Anshe Shalom aren't actually Orthodox themselves, and that the school Rahm sends his kids to isn't even close to Orthodox (weak Conservative; my partner has subbed there). So I highly doubt that he's Orthodox. He might be observant to some extent, though I doubt he'd let that keep him from working on Shabbat in the White House.
Btw, I know you meant no offense, but you should know that "temple" is considered kind of offensive when referring to an Orthodox synagogue. The Temple was and will be in Jerusalem; the Reform movement started calling their synagogues temples as a way of saying, "We don't care about the Temple anymore."
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Thanks for that note on courtesy, Lisa. I edited.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Lisa, can I just say I really appreciated your tone in that explaination to Jhai? It acknowledged that she probably did not know that and pointed out why she might want to change it in a very polite way. I love reading Hatrack posts like that. You know, us getting better at communicating without involuntary offense, that kind of thing. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
She event started agreeing with me in other threads Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Speaking of the wikipedia article,
quote:Axelrod signed the ketubah at Emanuel's wedding, an honor that goes to a best friend.
Um, no. Honor, yes. (To two people, actually.) "Best friend"? Not usually -- rabbi or mentor, far more often.
Also, if his wife did indeed convert just before their wedding as wikipedia reports, I rate the likelihood of them being Sabbath-observant at least as unlikely as Lisa seems to.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
NPR this morning mentioned Gov. Granholm as a SecEnergy pick. She'd be a great choice. She's been all over the world learning about Green Energy and picking her would certainly show Obama's intentions. She's been trying to turn Michigan into the Sweden of America as far as energy goes, but our legislature keeps stopping her. I'd miss her if she left, but I'd rather she do good things in Washington than hang around here and be unfairly berated.
I love the idea of RFK JR being the head of the EPA. I think Sam Powers would be a great choice for NSA. Tim Geithner looks like he has some sort of inside track on SecTreas, but that's going to be a long list. Christine Todd Whitman would be a good choice for Secretary of the Interior.
Edit to add: I speculated in a different thread on some of the other positions. I think Gates has a great chance of staying on in the interim as SecDef. He has a good working relationship with Obama and for that matter Congress, and I think his plan to transition the military is closer to what Obama has in mind anyway. I don't think it'd be a permanant spot though, just temporary for maybe a year. Granholm is also being talked about for AG, as is Clinton, but Clinton has said she has no intention of leaving the Senate anytime soon. That might change if the rumored SCOTUS appointment ever were to happen, but I think that's a longshot. I wouldn't support it. AG maybe, SCOTUS no. She was never a judge and has no record or scholarship behind her in constitutional matters.
Colin Powell's name is getting thrown around for a half dozen different positions. I hear SecEd, I hear SecState, I hear UN Ambassador, I even hear Chairman of the Joint Chiefs again. UN Ambassador would be an interesting choice, though I wonder if Powell's credibility suffered at all after what he said and did the last time he was at the Security Council.
I think half of Obama's appointments are going to look and feel just perfect, and the other half are going to shock and surprise us (and may ALSO be perfect). I just see him pulling a couple rabbits out of his hat. I'd like for him to not just pick a bunch of Democratic senators and governors though, as it seems many are suggesting. I'd like professionals as well. People who've been actively involved in whatever they're being appointed to run instead of a politician who may have some specialty in the area.
[ November 07, 2008, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think Sam Powers would be a great choice for NSA.
You're joking, right?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Honor, yes. (To two people, actually.) "Best friend"? Not usually -- rabbi or mentor, far more often."
I don't know. I've seen a number of ketubah signings recently, and while the rabbi has signed all of them, so have two witnesses, and those two witnesses have all been "best friends." Or something similar.
Maybe different traditions?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There should be only two signatories. Never three.
And since the ketubah in question was an Orthodox one (at least according to the article), I was assuming we were talking about Orthodox practice.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I love the idea of RFK JR being the head of the EPA.
There is an earlier post on that blog, which I can't get to from work, which contains a link to an article that articulates those thoughts in much greater detail, if anyone is interested in reading it.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Noemon,
Thanks for the link. I agree with Reverend Big Dumb Chimp regarding vaccinations and Kennedy's role on that bandwagon.
Unfortunately, both McCain and Obama said things during the campaign that indicated they had buyed into the autism/vaccination hysteria to a certain extent - or were just paying lipservice to it to solicit votes.
Neither of those explanations casts a particularly good light on either candidate on this issue, of course.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Well, according to conservative radio, and Governor Palin, shouldn't we expect Ayers to be made AG?
Maybe President Chavez given a green card and put in charge of the treasury.
Wheel in Castro as Secretary of State.
and don't forget--Obama will find Osama Bin Laden, just to make him head of Homeland Security.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. -- Godfather II: MichaelCorleone quoting his father's advice
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I love the idea of RFK JR being the head of the EPA.
There is an earlier post on that blog, which I can't get to from work, which contains a link to an article that articulates those thoughts in much greater detail, if anyone is interested in reading it.
Well that's certainly giving me pause. Would you mind giving us your thoughts after you do your Kennedy research? I know he's a fairly well respected advocate for the enviroment, which is why I was initially excited about the idea of his appointment, but I also despised every anti-science decision and announcement that came out of the White House for the last eight years, and have no desire to continue it.
I've heard a lot about the autism/vaccine issue, but never really looked into it. I didn't think the issue was nearly so settled as the author of that post proclaims. I thought they were still doing studies. I'll probably end up doing some research of my own now, but only if he's picked. I don't really have the time to research every candidate, but I'll be sure to take a serious look at the ones that are appointed.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Considering that "the precise mechanism by which ReyeSyndrome occurs remains unknown", I think any claim (including from epidemiological studies) that deliberately inducing an immume response (often including fever) is harmless is extremely suspect.
Balanced against the vaccine risk is the fact that a LOT more children will die or become impaired if there is less than strong compliance with vaccination programs.
However, that the net benefit is ?10to1?100to1?1000to1? in favor of vaccination does not mean that further studies are unwarranted. There already exists a small group of children who do appear to have developed neurological diseases after vaccination amongst a vastly larger group who appear to remain unaffected. Remember: 1) Only a miniscule fraction of children who were given aspirin went on to develop Reye's; and evidence of the existence of PostTraumaticStressDisorder remained unfound because early epidemiological studies mismatched cohorts for comparison. 2) There already exists a pool of children upon which genetic and immunological assays should be conducted to see if there are differences between those who became impaired and those who remain healthy. 3) There is no such thing as a wasted medical science study: secondary findings and spinoffs more than pay off investments.
That being the case, there really is no excuse for lack of further studies (other than "don't wanna know for fear of being blamed"). Even if there is no causation nor even correlation, such assay studies will provide an information base upon which help to the neurologically impaired can be developed. It never pays to ignore the canary in the coal mine.
[ November 07, 2008, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Even if there is no causation or even correlation, such studies will provide an information base upon which help to the neurologically impaired can be developed.
Sure, but there are a LOT of open questions out there competing for the research dollars and time. I have no objection to doing good science and repeating it to verify previous findings, but I'd rather not see that driven by political interests and pseudoscientific theories that have already failed to produce any positive data.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've heard a lot about the autism/vaccine issue, but never really looked into it. I didn't think the issue was nearly so settled as the author of that post proclaims.
It's settled. There is no compelling evidence. I suggest you start with this blog post and the links within.
Kennedy is a terrible choice, no matter what other qualifications he may have. (And beyond that, why not someone with a science background, rather than a legal and activist background?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: Kennedy is a terrible choice, no matter what other qualifications he may have. (And beyond that, why not someone with a science background, rather than a legal and activist background?)
Agreed, agreed, amen!
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:I've heard a lot about the autism/vaccine issue, but never really looked into it. I didn't think the issue was nearly so settled as the author of that post proclaims.
quote:That being the case, there really is no excuse for lack of further studies (other than "don't wanna know for fear of being blamed"). Even if there is no causation nor even correlation, such assay studies will provide an information base upon which help to the neurologically impaired can be developed.
I am the mother of an autistic child and I have done the research. I can assure you that this issue has been exhaustively studied and settled. The last thing my daughter needs is yet another study that proves the same thing - there is no causation or correlation between autism and vaccines.
There is a big reason to stop these studies - money. There is a limited amount of funding to help autistic children and it needs to be spent on things that have been proven (by studies published in peer-reviewed journals, etc.) to work. Namely, therapy and early intervention. For example, one hour of speech therapy is $100 and it is rarely covered by insurance. Private schools that specialize in autism can run up to $50K per year and public programs are poor to non-existent in many areas. We are very blessed to be able to afford private therapy for Aerin and to live in an exceptional school district. She has made measurable progress. I worry about the kids in crummy school districts whose parents can't advocate for them and/or can't afford private therapy.
RFK, Jr. spoke at a rally conducted by Jenny McCarthy, who believes that Googling and talking to "lots" of mothers of autistic children are scientific research and that she is the "Indigo mother" of a "Crystal child." When confronted with actual scientific data, she replied, "Evan [her son] is my science." I would be terrified to have anyone who would ally himself with this person's organization as the head of the EPA.
RFK, Jr. also regularly uses private jets and opposed the construction of a wind farm near the Kennedy compound in Hyannis port. Since I feel it's important for public servants to lead by example, I feel he would be a terrible choice.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Conservative Radio said that Obama used Hypnosis Techniques with his speeches. When the world finds this out, he will be impeached and replaced.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
HollowEarth, Mrs. M -
Thanks you two. I'd only heard snippets here and there, and you know how the news is; they never take a position on anything, they always present both sides of an issue as if they were equal.
I'm also nowhere near as enthusiastic about RFK JR, now...I guess my knowledge of his credentials and worthiness was a lot more superficial than I thought at first.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It has 1-5 candidates for the Secretary slots, with many of the usual suspects we've already seen bandied about in the press. I suspect that's all it is: a summary of speculation.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the Republican candidates being bandied about are trying to shoot down any rumors that they are even candidates? Colin Powell, Sen Lugar, and Arnold Schwarzenegger have all been mentioned by the news media as possible candidates. All have then been quoted as basically saying "Thanks, but no thanks."
I wonder if he'll end up with a completely Democratic administration simply because he can't get any Republicans to accept the offered positions...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Chuck Hagel would say yes, as would Robert Gates (I don't know his party affiliation). Arnold probably said no becuase he wants to run for Senator in two years when his term is up. Lugar wants to stay in the Senate. I hadn't heard that Powell turned anything down.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I thought that Powell had specifically said that while he had no desire for a position, he would serve if called upon to do so.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I thought that Powell had specifically said that while he had no desire for a position, he would serve if called upon to do so.
I heard him quoted as saying just that he didn't want a position. It didn't say anything about him being will to serve if called upon, so maybe they just cut off that part of the quote.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm torn. On the one hand, I'd love to get Arnie out of Sacramento. OTOH, I'm kind of afraid of what he might do as a member of Obama's cabinet . . .
God FORBID he might become Secretary of Education!!!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, but if Arnie left, wouldn't there be another raffle/3 ring circus of an election like the one that made him Governator? Who knows who would win such an election? He or she could easily be worse than Arnold.
While I initially supported keeping Gates on for a while, now I read that he's against a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq so if he stays it will probably mean Obama abandoning his pledge for a 16 month withdrawal.
Assuming that's all true, then Obama should pick someone else.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Yeah, but if Arnie left, wouldn't there be another raffle/3 ring circus of an election like the one that made him Governator? Who knows who would win such an election? He or she could easily be worse than Arnold.
Doubtful. There are a few likely candidates I think would be way better. (I don't recall names offhand, and I'm too tired to dig up stuff on a hypothetical.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lots of unconfirmed but official sounding information coming out about cabinet positions.
The Wikipedia article on his transition has the information fairly well organized. It's all rumors thus far, but these sorts of rumors tend to me more true than not once they get enough independent sources to confirm. Obama is probably ordering the info leaked. You want to get the info out to reassure people, and it actually worked on the stock market this morning, but at the same time he doesn't want to get in Bush's way (which would be hard since Bush is just sitting on his butt riding out the clock).
There's also info in those links about Eric Holder as AG, and a possible former Marine General for NSA. Tom Daschle is said to be the Secretary of HHS and will be Obama's "Health Czar" to oversee all the details of Obama's push for healthcare reform. Janet Nepolitano, who was believed to be considering a run against McCain in 2010 is being rumored to be the new SecHomeland Security.
The downside to some of these appointments is muddled. Richardson would be replaced by a Democratic Lt. Governor, and it might give her a chance to use the seat for awhile before running for election in her own right with experience on the job in 2010. Clinton would be replaced with another Democrat (likely) by Gov. Patterson. Janet Nepolitano on the other hand has a Republican Lt. Governor, and he would replace her in Arizona if she left.
The downside is that Obama's cabinet would be removing a lot of prominent and powerful Democrats from various offices across the country and replacing a lot of them with either Republicans or weaker Democrats. If they're the best candidate for the job, then good, but it's a questionable decision if they're all just political appointees done for show to hit demographic quotas or to repay favors.
Obama is trying to emulate Lincoln. He's a big Lincoln fan, not just because the two of them both were born in another state but made Illinois their political home before becoming unlikely and sudden presidential candidates and winners despite rather lackluster national Congressional careers. Lincoln's cabinet was a lot smaller than Obama's obviously, because back then there were only a half dozen or so posts to fill. But Lincoln filled them with a team of political rivals that represented a wide array of positions. Seward was his chief political rival, and he man he beat out for the Republican nomination. He put him in his cabinet for many reasons, but mostly to keep him from sniping from the sidelines. But he also ended up being a fantastic SecState that dealt with a lot of issues over the Civil War that could have been disastrous, and it allowed Lincoln to largely ignore international affairs to run the war. If Obama picks Clinton, the move will look like he's seriously trying to copy Lincoln. Clinton is his biggest rival within the party, and he might like to keep her under wraps rather than letting her, and her husband, run free and uncontrolled. But frankly she might really be a good person for the spot. Personally I'd rather have Bill Richardson. Richardson actually knows people in the State Department, knows diplomatic language and what not. There've been a lot of calls to promote from within the State Department, or to at least pick someone with that sort of background, and he'd be a good pick in that respect. Clinton might be better than people expect, and I think she in fact would be. There are more parallels between the two of them and their cabinets, and certainly Obama is trying to go for the same "unity" cabinet that Lincoln succeeded in creating.
More later, my battery is dying.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Clinton as Secretary of State... ugh. My only comfort is now there's one less pathetic Democrat in Congress until her replacement is picked.
It might be a good move for Obama, in that he won't have to fight a Clinton base in the legislature when he wants to pass his own agenda, but it stinks of politics. I'd much rather see these bums thrown out on the street and new Obama-approved scientists and economists given these positions.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It also silences a potential rival in 2012 if things get off to a rough start. As an added bonus whether intentionally or not, there are some people in the framework that Hillary has a working relationship with from Bill's days in the white house.
I don't have very strong opinions regarding the totality of the cabinet, because obviously there are tons more people to nominate. But so far Obama has selected very intelligent, and strong minded folks. I'll have to get to know them better.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
"Four heartbeats away from the Presidency..."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: "Four heartbeats away from the Presidency..."
I wouldn't put it past her ambition.
Pelosi worries me more than Clinton though TBH.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It also silences a potential rival in 2012 if things get off to a rough start. As an added bonus whether intentionally or not, there are some people in the framework that Hillary has a working relationship with from Bill's days in the white house.
I don't have very strong opinions regarding the totality of the cabinet, because obviously there are tons more people to nominate. But so far Obama has selected very intelligent, and strong minded folks. I'll have to get to know them better.
I doubt he was considering 2012. Party nomination challenges to sitting presidents in recent memory are nothing compared to what they used to be. It made sense for Lincoln, especially considering he DID face a serious nomination challenge. But Clinton openly challenging Obama would be disastrous. If she won, especially because of problems in the country, she'd get blame for Democratic failures, and she'd also get extreme hostility for trying to oust a sitting president from her own party.
Frankly for her own ambition, staying out of the White House and going for the Governorship of NY makes more sense.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I don't understand getting all worked up over the positions of Pelosi or (maybe) Clinton in the line of succession.
OTOH, there are some things that are legitimately fear-inducing.
quote:Byrd is President pro tempore of the United States Senate of the 110th United States Congress, a position that puts him third in line of presidential succession, behind Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But Clinton openly challenging Obama would be disastrous. If she won, especially because of problems in the country, she'd get blame for Democratic failures, and she'd also get extreme hostility for trying to oust a sitting president from her own party.
In 1976, Reagan ran against sitting President Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination. He lost the primary but Ford lost the election. Reagan's challenge very likely contributed to that loss but it certainly didn't prove to be political suicide for Reagan.
In 1980, Ted Kennedy ran against sitting President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. He also lost the primary but then Carter lost the election.
I think there is now a wide spread consensus that running a campaign against a sitting President of your own party hurts the parts chances of winning the general election. But then the only cases where a person has been able to seriously challenge a sitting President of their own party are examples where that sitting President was very unpopular. It seems likely that Ford would have lost the election in '76 and Carter would have lost the election in '80 whether or not they had been challenged in their party primaries.
Perhaps the more correct conclusion to draw would be that it isn't possible to mount a significant challenge against a sitting President of your own party unless that President is already very unpopular.
In that case, it isn't actually that different from mounting a successful challenge against a sitting President of the opposition party.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: I don't understand getting all worked up over the positions of Pelosi or (maybe) Clinton in the line of succession.
OTOH, there are some things that are legitimately fear-inducing.
quote:Byrd is President pro tempore of the United States Senate of the 110th United States Congress, a position that puts him third in line of presidential succession, behind Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Robert Byrd is certainly an interesting character. There are certainly some huge ugly scars on his resume' but at the same time I must say I admire someone who is able to admit he was wrong and so completely change his views of race even if it took a personal tragedy to bring that change.
Reading Byrd's resume' sort of made me wish that Bush, Cheney and Pelosi would all suddenly resign so that Byrd could be sworn in as President for the next few weeks. I irony of having a President who filibustered the civil rights act and was a member of the KKK immediately succeeded by the first black president kind of tickles my fancy.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rabbit,
my main fear with Byrd is that he's just not up for the demands of the presidency. Couldn't find anything right now, but I know there have been reports about him nodding off a lot in the Senate.
In the Senate, he's working with familiar issues and colleagues. He has a staff he can depend on.
That means he can probably function adequately in his role in the Senate, but I wouldn't want him to assume the responsibilities of the presidency, even for a limited amount of time.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Obama names his Financial team, Greithner will be new SecTres.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Glen Greenwald has a good column on Obama's economic team, and how they're being received by the press.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
press conference going on now. Obama has announced the national security team and they're all giving small speeches.
Hillary Clinton - Secretary of State Jim Jones - national security adviser Eric Holder - attorney general Janet Napolitano - homeland security secretary Susan Rice - ambassador to the United Nations
and Robert Gates is staying on.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Anybody heard any kind of a rumor about positions for which Samantha Power might be being considered?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I went looking for an answer immediately after posting the above question, and found this. The claim made in that post isn't substantiated by any kind of a link to anything definitive that I can see, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt, but it's still worth linking to here.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Anybody heard any kind of a rumor about positions for which Samantha Power might be being considered?
Oh, God forbid.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, I'm aware that you don't like her.
[Edit - Actually, in my post asking about her I thought about including the sentence "Yes, Lisa, I know you don't like her."]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Gates must know where the bodies are buried. Some Democrats are very upset that he is staying on in his post.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And some Democrats are glad he's still there.
Frankly, what I'm seeing is the cabinet of a man who wants to govern, and not that of a man out to build a lasting supremacy of loyalists, and I like it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Amen.
I want to see who gets picked for Secretary of Education. I can't even find speculation more recent than 3 weeks ago.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I went looking for an answer immediately after posting the above question, and found this. The claim made in that post isn't substantiated by any kind of a link to anything definitive that I can see, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt, but it's still worth linking to here.
Unfortunately, it's true.
Link. She's there, about half way down the page.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks, Lisa.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
So it looks like Samantha Powers will be working in the State Department under Hilary Clinton. That's more than a touch ironic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Amen.
I want to see who gets picked for Secretary of Education. I can't even find speculation more recent than 3 weeks ago.
I read somewhere that he's actually considering Chancellor Rhee from DC, but I've seen absolutely nothing to corroborate even suspicions that he might be considering doing so, and I can't even imagine the furor that doing so would create with the teachers unions. I've also seen The Governator's name in contention for the post, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and he wouldn't say yes anyway, so it's a moot point.
He seems to be focusing right now on the names that are most important to the issues he campaigned on: Economy, National Security, Energy and Healthcare. Education isn't nothing, and we'll probably get word on that by Christmas or so, but it's not top of the pack priority. I'd probably put it in the second tier, but still well above a lot of other posts.
Ron -
Gates' job as SecDef will likely be temporary, only for a year or two at most, and it has nothing to do with "knowing where the bodies are buried." If that's all it took, Rummy would still be around. Gates is there for a multitude of reasons, ranging from the fact that putting a hawk in front of dovish looking policies helps to sell them (much like Bush did in putting Powell in front of an Iraq War plan, only reversed). Gates agrees more with Obama on negotiation with Iran versus saber rattling. When you combine him with a more hawkish looking Hillary Clinton, who has cultivated a record as a Democratic hawk, and even Rahm Emmanuel as it related to Israel/Palestine policy, you have an Obama Administration that can push new ideas using proxies that won't be accused of being patsies for those ideas. Having new ideas come from proponents of the old ideas, or at least the camps of those who came up with them, helps lend them credence.
Plus he's a Republican, which sates the call for bi-partisanship for the sake of bi-partisanship. Plus the guy is well liked all over Capitol Hill and has a lot more credibility with the public on Middle Eastern war issues. Plus Obama worked well with him when he was a senator.
If Obama can get Clinton, Gates, and other wide ranging members of his national security team in place and keep them in line selling his new ideas, then it could turn out remarkably well. If they follow their own agendas and Obama has trouble reining them in, he'll have screwed up his foreign policy agenda for a couple years. There's always a risk in picking team members from the opposing camp to sell your own ideas, but there's also a lot of reward to be won in the risk if it works out well. During the campaign we saw an Obama that worked remarkably well at managing people, and often times people with far more experience than he in specific policy areas and in national politics. His campaign was the "no drama" campaign, to be easily contrasted with the clusterfrick of personalities and agendas that sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign. If he's the same kind of CEO of the country as he was of the campaign, then I think many of these choices will serve him very well, and he (and us) will be well rewarded for it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've seen a few articles, but they're all rewarmed speculation.
He sounds like a fantastic choice, from what I've read.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, a lot of people here and elsewhere were clamoring for Obama to appoint professionals (scientists etc) to posts, and it looks like that's exactly what he's done.
My only concern is that his undersecretaries be policy wonks and administrative veterans. Given the prominance energy policy is going to take under this administration, and the amount of wrangling the department will have to do with Congress, I fear that having a non-politico who doesn't know the ropes might hamper his efforts. His appointment is a great idea in a number of ways, I just want to make sure that his good ideas and plans don't get bogged down because he doesn't understand the process as well as an insider might.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I agree that that is something to be considered generally when making appointments like this, but in this instance I think that Obama did a remarkable job of finding someone who is both an accomplished scientist and an able administrator. His experience as head of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has to mean that he knows how to deal with bureaucracy. The more I read, the more inspired I think the choice is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am ecstatic that obama is selecting Steven as energy secretary though it does make my life a .. uh, bit more complicated.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Why?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Maybe he's really Steven.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or his co-worker.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Or his evil twin brother.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Word on the street is Caroline Kennedy is angling for Clinton's senate seat. She has reportedly spoken with Gov. Patterson about the position and has made it known that she is interested in it. There are a large number of big names in the state that are considered up for the job however, making the Kennedy brand a contender, but not a shoe-in.
Also interesting, if she were to be appointed, it would mean every 1 in 25 senate seats was held by two families, the Kennedys and Udalls (who would have actually had 3 in the Senate if Merkley hadn't beat Smith, who was a distant cousin in Oregon).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Senator Salazar interior secretary. He's really cleaning out the senate with his appointments. It is kind of bothering me. What is "normal" for an administration?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure what his record is on interior issues, but on the surface it seems he has a decent rep. I'll have to delve into this one to see how he is, and how he fits into Obama's larger environmental team.
But as far as robbing the Senate goes, it might not have been a horrible choice. I know it looks like he is raiding the cookie jar pretty heavily, but a lot of his picks aren't that bad. Clinton is trouble actually, because if Giuliani runs in 2010, it could mean a real point of contention, whereas Clinton likely would have kept him in check, most of the Democrats who are in contention are unknown quantities, and it's questionable whether or not Patterson will make his choice dependent on who has the best chance to retain the seat. Caroline Kennedy at the least will be able to raise large sums of money, which will be necessary to beat the GOP contender in 2 years.
Biden out of Deleware isn't a big deal, it's basically a handoff to his son in two years with a placeholder to take the seat until then. Beau will likely win the seat handily when he comes back from Iraq. Illinois is going to be a clusterfrick, but that isn't Obama's fault. In Colorado, Salazar was actually shaping up to be a troubled hold for the Democrats. He's facing strong potential contenders from the GOP, though many expected him to hold onto the seat. Obama may have felt that a state he won handily in the election would be an easy save in two years with a new senator from the Dems.
Janet Nepolitano was considered the only hope the Dems had to steal the Senate seat there from McCain. She's very popular and was the only one really even in contention. Her appointment likely puts the seat solidly in the GOP camp.
One could argue that these are savvy appointments of people who know their issues well, have relationships with other lawmakers on the hill, many of whom are from a different generation of Democrats than the last, and who will be more effective in getting policy ideas turned into law. He's willing to raid the cookie jar if it gets him the most effective administration possible, and given his hiring savvy for his election team, he has good credentials in that regard.
2010 was looking like a strong year for Democrats in many ways, and Dems already have a large lead in the Senate, so it's possible that Obama felt the Dems could absorb the losses. And he might be right. So much depends on what Democrats actually have to run on in 2010. He's putting a LOT of pressure on himself to perform well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also interesting, if she were to be appointed, it would mean every 1 in 25 senate seats was held by two families, the Kennedys and Udalls (who would have actually had 3 in the Senate if Merkley hadn't beat Smith, who was a distant cousin in Oregon).
That's a rather ham-fisted statistical pretzel. That's like saying my grandmother's mother on my father's side- her mother was a quarter native American. There was a similar line on the Sopranos, where you had to sit there going, wait... he's a 64th or a 128th?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 2010 was looking like a strong year for Democrats in many ways, and Dems already have a large lead in the Senate, so it's possible that Obama felt the Dems could absorb the losses. And he might be right. So much depends on what Democrats actually have to run on in 2010. He's putting a LOT of pressure on himself to perform well.
He has yet to give a single indication that he can't handle that pressure. I mean, really, how likely is it that everything he's done so well so far doesn't bode well for his actual performance upon ascending to President? If anything, the sheer gravitas he's accumulated will carry him even if he does make big mistakes- which I don't honestly think he will. He doesn't strike me as the kind of leader who lets a little mistake become a big one.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Also interesting, if she were to be appointed, it would mean every 1 in 25 senate seats was held by two families, the Kennedys and Udalls (who would have actually had 3 in the Senate if Merkley hadn't beat Smith, who was a distant cousin in Oregon).
So, that would be two families that each have two members of their family in the Senate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. I didn't say it was calculus, it's just interesting. Considering the millions of American families, I find it interesting that any single family could or would have more than one member in a government body like the US Senate, and that two families could each have two is even more unlikely and interesting.
quote:That's a rather ham-fisted statistical pretzel. That's like saying my grandmother's mother on my father's side- her mother was a quarter native American. There was a similar line on the Sopranos, where you had to sit there going, wait... he's a 64th or a 128th?
Actually it's like saying the Udalls are cousins and the Kennedys would be uncle and niece. Those aren't dramatically far removed relations. It's all within a generation. If Smith was still in the Senate, it'd be a little more distant.
quote:He has yet to give a single indication that he can't handle that pressure. I mean, really, how likely is it that everything he's done so well so far doesn't bode well for his actual performance upon ascending to President? If anything, the sheer gravitas he's accumulated will carry him even if he does make big mistakes- which I don't honestly think he will. He doesn't strike me as the kind of leader who lets a little mistake become a big one.
I never voiced an opinion on whether or not I thought he'd succeed. I was just framing the issue. I'm as excited about him as anyone, but I'm also not willing to totally forget some of the mistakes and compromises that he HAS made. Is he only impressive because he's the best Democrat we've seen in a long time, or is he good independent of that? Not sure yet.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:President-elect Barack Obama will pick Arne Duncan, a longtime friend who leads Chicago’s public-school system, as his education secretary, Democratic party sources said.
Mr. Obama’s choice of Mr. Duncan may signal the president-elect’s support for approaches to education policy pressed by advocates of deep structural change in elementary and secondary education. It is less clear what the selection might mean for higher education.
Hard to tell what this means.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can't get in to read the article, but TIME has one as well on Duncan.
It looks like he's some sort of middle of the road reformer that straddles the divide between status quo hardliner and Michelle Rhee radical. If you do any further reading rivka, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of Duncan when you're finished forming one.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
I think one thing is clear with the picks Obama is making, he is trying to bring together people in order to get things done. A while back, someone called Obama a pragmatic incrementalist, and I think that's an apt description here both with the Vilsack pick and the Duncan pick.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I worry about that choice though. Vilsack spent his time in the Senate defending massive giveaway Ag bills that are a huge waste of money to prop up major agrobusinesses who got a vast majority of the money while small farms still struggle and get edged out. I was hoping Obama might cut down on some of that, and putting the guy in charge of the Ag Department who was in the thick of it is not a good sign to me. But maybe he'll just his use knowledge of the industry to implement a different policy. I can hope.
His appointment, like so many others, also has Senate implications. Vilsack was seen by many as the best chance the Dems had to recapture the seat that's up in 2010 in Iowa. They might be back to square one.
I'm not sure if it's significant or if my knowledge has just expanded, but it seems like he's picking a lot of really big names for a lot of posts. I recognize well over half the people he's chosen thus far. More so than Bush did anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If you do any further reading rivka, I'd be interested to hear your opinion of Duncan when you're finished forming one.
At this point, anything in higher education (where most of my subscriptions focus) is going to be pretty speculative.
Ask me in a year. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:The choice met with virtually unanimous acclaim, even among Republicans and teachers'-union leaders who chafed at some of Mr. Duncan’s plans to overhaul Chicago's schools but have said they appreciated the respect he showed them in the process of finding compromise.
National higher-education leaders joined in the praise, saying they hoped Mr. Duncan’s record in Chicago of emphasizing cooperation over confrontation will also characterize his relations with colleges when he gets to Washington.
“He demonstrated effective leadership at the K-through-12 level and has a clear appreciation for, and connection to, higher education,” said William E. Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. “So it just seems to me that it’s a great choice.”
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In Colorado, Salazar was actually shaping up to be a troubled hold for the Democrats. He's facing strong potential contenders from the GOP, though many expected him to hold onto the seat. Obama may have felt that a state he won handily in the election would be an easy save in two years with a new senator from the Dems.
The colorado gop is actually ecstatic over the salazar appointment because it provides them a remote chance to beat an appointment over an expected 'snowball in hell' chance of toppling one of the salazar bros.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I need to read different political gossip. Or at least more varieties of it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
And it is more symbol than substance. Still, symbol counts.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
i'm with you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm impressed that he's making such visible efforts to reach across partisan boundaries.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:"Warren represents the absolute worst of the Democrats' religious outreach, a right-winger masquerading as a do-gooder anointed as the arbiter of what it means to be faithful," she added.
Wow. I wasn't aware that giving the invocation at the inauguration confered that power.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It doesn't confer power, but it does send a message. I understand the impetus to reach out, but it is unfortunate that by extending a hand to social conservatives, President-elect Obama is giving the back of his hand to the gay community.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Putting him up there isn't an endorsement of everything the man stands for.
We'll never achieve any sort of meaningful bi-partisan spirit in good faith if every attempt to reach across the aisle is construed as a total acceptance of EVERYTHING the other side stands for and promotes.
I suspect that by the time Obama's first term in office is over, the gay community won't have much to complain about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I believe that you're right about that. I think that that Pres.Elect Obama will do better than this would signal. This is still very disappointing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe.
It's impossible to make everyone happy with 100% of his choices. There are too many competing interests, and anything he does is going to piss of SOMEONE even while it greatly pleases someone else. From what I can tell, all of my major issues have been given big welcoming boosts by the people he has chosen to oversee their advocation. I'm rather thrilled with a great deal of his moves.
On some things of lesser importance I'm a litle hesitant to throw my enthusiasm behind his appointments, but it's really about perspective. He's signaling his intention to fulfill a great many of his campaign promises, maybe on a scale we haven't seen in decades. So if a couple things he does, that are mostly symbolic anyway, aren't totally up to snuff to the left wing, then I'm okay with that if it means sating the right in order to grease the skids later on.
And I don't just mean that in the "it's good politics" way. I also mean that it'd be nice to have a president that felt it was worthwhile to reach out to the other side, even if it annoyed his base, because he felt bringing the country just a little closer together was more valuable than political capital. That'd likely gain him political capital anyway, but it's rarely a blank check.
Maybe less than this specific issue, it's a sign that the hostility we've seen in the last eight years on BOTH sides to competing points of view is going to be tamped down and actively dissuaded in the next four, even if Obama has to bring BOTH sides with him grumbling all the way.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I think that that Pres.Elect Obama will do better than this would signal. This is still very disappointing.
I cannot say that I know the anger some feel as a homosexual because I simply don't have those shoes, and yet, I do know that many in this country feel the same as Rick Warren. They do have those shoes, and if we really are going to bring this country together, we cannot do so by leaving such a large portion of the country behind. The same argument applies to, say, those who supported the war in Iraq and even those in the 28% who think Bush has done a wonderful job--coming together does not mean that we leave large portions of the country behind. In fact, that is how George Bush governed, he governed to the people who agreed with him, his version of togetherness meant that he was right and everyone should come around to his view of the world, but that's not truly how it works.
Some will argue that Obama provides legitimacy to the views of Rick Warren by giving him such a position, and yet, I would imagine that the millions and millions of Americans who agree with Pastor Warren provide that legitimacy anyway. But let's say that Obama is incorrect by giving a forum to those we disagree with, does that mean that he must do the same on every issue? Does that mean that those who disagree with us on abortion or capital punishment or illegal immigration should not be given a voice either? See, that's the problem with excluding someone when your goal is to bring people together, the question then becomes whether you are any better than the guy who came before.
The failure, both on our part and Obama's, lies not in our exclusion of those we disagree with, though that is important, but in our inability to accurately and effectively communicate our own ideals. In other words, I don't care who you are, you are a human being, and if we are truly going to come together as a better race of human beings, if humanity is going to improve, then I dare say that we cannot do so by ridding ourselves of those who are wrong.
Even though I strongly disagree with Rick Warren on nearly every issue, I have no problem, and in fact applaud, Obama's decision here. I do think it will matter what happens after this though, and if this is something that could be used to start a "real" dialogue about homosexual issues and religious politics, then I think it could be a wonderfully productive move.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Well said.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Richardson out of nomination to Secretary of Commerce.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sucks that he's getting hit with some of the same accusations as Blagovich, as it looks like very, very different circumstances. But Obama's statement was unusually strong given the taint of a federal investigation. Usually presidents or governors treat people under investigation as if they were radioactive. Obama knew about this investigation before he nominated him, which actually makes me wonder if Richardson really withdrew his name with no prompting or if Obama asked him to.
Either way, his statement was strong, and it looks like he really expected to have Richardson in the White House working for him at some point, and I hope he does. I think Richardson is a genuinely good guy, and a good public official, and I'd like him in charge of something, something other than New Mexico anyway.
It would seem that events are conspiring to give Obama a larger number of obstacles during his transition than he could have imagined when he first decided to run. Scandals, economic meltdown, trouble in the middle east and elsewhere, it's certainly not a milk run.
But like some have been saying, this gives Obama a chance to appoint someone to Commerce Secretary now to shut up some of his naysayers. There've been a lot of complaints about his appointments, and he might be able to sate those people by appointing one of their candidates to the spot.
There's a lot of continuing news out of Minnesota and Illinois if anyone is interested in the problems with the Senate candidates there. And Colorado's governor announced a replacement for Ken Salazar.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote: Despite lofty narratives released by his campaign to the contrary, president-elect Barack Obama received about the same amount of money from small donors as George W. Bush did in 2004, according to a new study.
quote: The descrepancy between the figures is that many of those $200-or-smaller donors gave repeatedly, an act which disqualifies them from being included in the small-donor category.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure that's necessarily a "canard." If multiple small donors made enough small donations to no longer be considered small donors, that doesn't really mean he has fewer small donors; it means he did a great job converting small donors into large donors.
The charitable way to interpret this data is that "regular people" gave more to Obama than they normally would. The uncharitable way is that "fat cats" donated tiny chunks to inflate the "small donation" totals.
Personally, I think the former is far more likely. I know a number of people in both categories, and it has certainly been my anecdotal experience that Obama managed to get donations from people who'd never donated before, managed to get people who'd previously only donated small amounts to -- in the long run -- donate quite a lot, and didn't approach wealthy donors any more often than was typical.
You could analyze the rolls to determine which of these effects held sway by comparing percentages of income donated over the last few campaigns, broken down by income categories.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: The descrepancy between the figures is that many of those $200-or-smaller donors gave repeatedly, an act which disqualifies them from being included in the small-donor category.
I gave $50 to him twice. That statement seems to imply that I would be excluded, even though both of my contributions together would still be less than $200.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I donated for the first time to a campaign. $25 dollars several times. (I don't recall how many exactly.) Not enough to make me a large donor.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I donated twice as well, two $25 donations, which were my first donations to a campaign.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
According to the rules, none of you are small donors.
How does it feel to be a Fat Cat?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the cutoff is just a total of $200 or less, and it was clumsily explained. That is, Obama received far more donations of less than $200, but many of them were by the same people, meaning the number of donors that gave less than $200 to him was about the same as Bush's.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So if I donated more than $200 more than once, does that make me a Really Big Donor, or does that thrust me into the Monied Shadow-Hegemony?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dude, first rule of Monied Shadow-Hegemony...you do NOT talk about Monied Shadow-Hegemony!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You're joking, right?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)