If you want some kind of experience, you have to look to either Clinton or Carter. He needs some folks that know something about things.
Something to ponder: are these appointees as left as Bush’s appointees were to the right?
Yet. Let’s see what happens to Colin Powell.
No. In theory, the three branches of government are separate. Not even in theory are they equal. The executive will always have more power than the others.
Instead of focusing on his appointments of Clinton appointees, we should be asking how Obama can purge the Bush appointees – especially those who have managed to “burrow” their way into civil-service positions. (Unfortunately, Bush’s judicial appointments are beyond reach.)
This OP isn’t “principled opposition”, it’s cheap drive-by equivocation, the OP hasn’t even returned to defend it. It does merit a cheap dismissal, and Hamlet’s participation in other threads does not change that. If you can’t see that, I think you’re suffering a loss of your own perspective here.
Before we criticize Obama’s picks, how about we actually let him, I dunno, pick them? :dubious: He knows he benefits from at least appearing to reach out to opponents like Hillary and McCain whether he picks them or not. You may not recognize this after being accustomed to Bush, who basically started his administration by saying “fuck you” to everybody outside of his tiny tent (I believe the actual terms were “we’ve got a mandate from the American people” and “political capital is only good if you spend it”).
Having said that, I will be disappointed if he does pick Hillary for anything. I’m tired of Clintons and Bushes. But putting a little political muscle in his cabinet does not necessarily equate to having betrayed the notion of change. I got the change I wanted by booting out the Republicans and putting Obama in their place, and I’m confident he can still represent change.
The change* I* voted for was a change from the Bush Administration and there is no question in my mind that Obama will deliver that. But I think the notion that he would even consider a former adversary for his Cabinet speaks volumes about his character. He doesn’t want a bunch of yes-men, he wants to hear all perspectives. IMO** that **is change.
You think the two threads warranted a comparison. I don’t. Such are the vagaries of life. I found this OP to be nothing more than a thoughtless, drive by potshot and not even close to “principled opposition”. The other thread, I used the OP to point out something that was bugging me about an entire social movement and rhetorical device (note: not the President so the "shoe/other foot thing doesn’t fly). So I responded differently to different OP’s. Big deal.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.
TWEEEET!
The meta-debate over whether this thread has a legitimate place in this Forum is now over. Take it to the Pit.
Despite the apparent disappearance of the OP, (it’s only been 16 hours FCOL), and despite the off-topic csniping, the thread has brought out a number of good observations and analyses. It may not actually turn into a fiery debate, but being political, it was almost bound to show up in GD, anyway, and I see no reason to play Hot Potato with it looking for the best home.
[ /Moderating ]
The New York Times focuses on the Clintons, predictably, but discusses a few other appointments:
I’m curious to see if KlondikeGeoff and others view these choices as “Washington insiders” or something else. Napolitano has been governor of Arizona for the last six years, prior to which she was the state attorney general, and before that she was appointed by Clinton as U.S. attorney in the state. So she’s worked in Arizona for her whole political career, but as a Clinton appointee, is she something old or something new? I see these words being thrown around but I’m not sure people are defining them.
I’m not sure I agree with you there. Are you talking about one branch having more power even if all three have equal influence in theory, because the executive branch is embodied in one man, and the other two are herds of cats, so the executive branch is pretty much always bound to be more effective in carrying out an agenda?
The fact that it’s apparently taken days for Bill Clinton - not the potential Secretary of State nominee, the husband of the potential nominee - to even agree to vetting criteria shows the main reason I’m confused about that nomination. It’s always something with them. Generally, that something is ethical shadiness, a lack of discipline, a need for the spotlight and the feeling that the rules don’t quite apply to them. I’m not dismissing her abilities, but it sounds like a four-year-long headache.
What would represent change in your mind?
Under Bush, FEMA was run an unqualified Bush crony, Michael D. Brown, former commissioner for the IAHA, who was ousted from that position for a conflict of interest: requiring the IAHA to pay for his salary in addition to his legal expenses, running the organization into the ground. Installing thoughtful, competent qualified people is change I’m content with.
Under Bush, the Attorney General circulated memos undermining the authority of the Geneva Convention and ousted Justice Department employees for being insufficiently loyal to George Bush. Installing political rivals as well as friends is change I’m content with.
Under Bush, unilateral exercise of imperial presidential power was the rule of the day. Now the Republicans are crying for bipartisanship. Sadly, I think they should have it: because multilateral bipartisanship is change I’ll be content with.
What does everybody think change is?
Every appointment Obama has made has been a change.
Napolitano has been named as Head of Homeland Security. It is sort of an open secret here is Arizona that she is a lesbian.
If this goes through, would this be the highest political position a lesbian has been in?
Depends on what you believe about Condoleezza Rice (currently fourth in the order of succession) and Janet Reno (seventh). Since Homeland Security is the newest cabinet department it’s actually at the bottom of the list, at #18.
Actually, there hasn’t been any appointment yet. But to your point, the change he meant (as he explained it) is a change in the way things are done, not necessarily in who does them. A new CEO taking over a company often makes few changes to personnel even at the top. But he often makes massive changes in policy and procedure.
There have been rumors also about Donna Shalala, Clinton’s Secretary of HHS.
Pritzker is now saying she is not a candidate for commerce secretary.
Never never never would happen. The crazy segment of the right would EXPLODE. I’d like it, but still pretty unpossible.
Tom Daschle in charge of health care reform? Bah, what does he know about getting major legislation through the Congress?
What?