So it is oficial today, here is the national security team:
Hillary Clinton as secretary of state
General James Jones as National Security Adviser
Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security Chief
Robert Gates as Defense Secretary
Eric Holder as attorney general
Susan Rice as ambassador to the United Nations
What do you think of his picks? Are there any you especially like or dislike?
I would’ve liked less of a celebrity at Secretary of State.
And I still think Hill would be a good SC justice. The court could use a little celebrity mojo.
I dislike the Clinton pick. Nothing against her in particular…she is a smart lady but I think that job should go to a career diplomat or at least someone with some serious experience in diplomacy. To me this smacks of a “favor” position. Obama probably offering it to Clinton ages ago in exchange for her support in the general election. Perhaps politics as usual but I do not like it…those sorts of “plum” jobs should be of the “Ambassador to Liechtenstein” variety IMO.
What happened to Clinton working on health care? Wouldn’t she be more valuable and indeed powerful remaining in the Senate? And of course she is constitutionally ineligible for the position which everyone seems content to overlook. Granted it is no big deal but damnit that is what the Constitution says! It is hard enough keeping the Constitution intact interpreting the dang thing but in this case it is unambiguous and explicit. If they do not like it amend the thing but till then it should be followed.
I think Hillary is capable of being Sec of State, but her gigantic ego, celebrity status, and husband will be huge distrations. I would rather have seen someone else.
Someone really needs to take Team of Rivals away from Obama. 
People will be annoyed at Bush holdover Gates, but Bush appointed him to help clean up Rumsfelds mess. I think he and Obama will work well together and hopefully we’ll be out of Iraq on schedule.
ETA: I agree that State should go to a career diplomat, preferably with Mid-east experience.
Could you please elaborate? How is she constitutionally ineligible?
It’s better than Team of Mavericks. 
How is she constitutionally ineligible? (Link to the thread if you like, I haven’t been following GD very closely lately).
The Constitution says, IIRC, that no federal official can accept a job which has been created or its salary increased during that official’s tenure. The SoS’s salary was increased in 2003, I believe, while Clinton was Senator. Usually, people in this position are simply paid the previous salary, but it’s more than a formality.
Says it right here:
Senator Clinton was serving her term when they gave the Secretary of State a pay raise. Hence, she is constitutionally ineligible. In the past this has been done and they simply reverted the salary to the pre-pay raise level. While all nice and fine it skirts the letter of the law…the highest law we have (the Constitution).
I think you may be confusing Hillary with Bill, who as a former two-term POTUS is ineligible ever to hold the office again.
Even Bill, however, would be eligible to be Secretary of State. The Vice-President must be a person constitutionally eligible for the presidency (Twelfth Amendment), but that does not apply to any other official in the presidential line of succession. It was perfectly constitutional for Henry Kissinger to be SoS, even though, as a non-native citizen, he was not eligible for the presidency.
Nope. See my post just above (#8).
Ah. Well, that’s pretty weak tea – as you note, there is precedent for resolution. Anyone, Pub or Dem, who tries to make a big fuss over it at the confirmation hearing will look like a dickhead, not a careful guardian of the Constitution.
I like the team. I think putting Rice at the UN and making it a cabinet post was a good idea. I’d like to see the US push for reform at the UN for all the reasons mentioned in the press conference, and this has to be done by someone the UN will respect. Gates seems to be a stand-up guy and keeping him in place for a year or two seems prudent, politically and otherwise. And Holder is a good pick so long as the Drug War continues to take a backseat to the War on Terror.
I’m not crazy about Hillary as SecState. She gave a grandstandy speech at the press conference which I think is likely to symbolize her tenure in the office. But I don’t think she can do too much damage in that role.
I’d like to know more about Napolitano. Especially her views on immigration.
BG hasn’t been following GD? Did you have a child or something?
Weak tea or not it is what it is. It is explicit. It is unambiguous. Skirting the law is not the same as upholding the law.
If they think it is a dumb law fine. Amend the Constitution. That should be an easy one to get though but till then we do not cherry pick what we feel are laws worth abiding by in the Constitution.
I certainly agree with that sentiment…
…but can you explain why paying her at the lower salary is an ineffective remedy? If that’s what’s done, then the emoluments of the office have NOT been increased, and by the strict letter of the Constitution, she’s fine.
I agree that paying her the higher rate is out of the question.
What’s a white man got to do to be the US Secretary of State ?
Clinton is a great pick. Her persona and name carries great gravitas amongst US allies and she’s demonstrated that she is able and willing to be a team player.
Gates has certainly settled down the opposition to the war efforts and presided over the “recovery” in Iraq. Seems to have broad support in the government and that is particularly important at this time wrt the war effort.
Don’t know much about the others, but I’m pleased overall with the Obama performance in transition so far.
It hate being nitpicky but the salary was increased during her tenure. Putting it back does not undo that it was increased. It just effectively makes it like it wasn’t.
The Constitution does not read “if you put it back to pre-pay raise levels it’s cool”. That would be ideal for an Amendment.
I should note that it is hardly a tragedy constitutionally to slip Clinton in. Just the Constitution says what it says and I dislike fudging it even in a minor way.
But would she accept the post anyway? Isn’t it a poison pill? She’d have to give up being Senator and would serve at the pleasure of the President? All he has to do is wait for her to make a mistake, however slight, and it’s sayonara, baby.
I’m sure if she didn’t want the job she would never have been named for it.
I have to wait to see how well they do it. They have plenty of qualifications.