I like Napolitano, but I’m not as thrilled about her heading up Homeland Security. It appears Obama is making the focus of the post on immigration, I would have preferred he took Adm. Thad Allen with more of a focus on port security; he also did a good job during Katrina.
I really do not like the Clinton pick. I understand that since Clinton was the last Democratic Administration you can’t not have their people and have experience at the same time, but is it so much to ask not to have a Clinton(or Bush) working in the White House for a change? I also plain don’t understand the pick apart from pure crony-ism. How is Hillary Clinton qualified for the position? What were the two foreign policy credentialsshe touted for herself on the campaign trail? Her harrowing adventure dodging sniper fire? Or her purported role in bringing a peace treaty to Norther Ireland, in which her claims were deemed “silly” by Nobel Laureate and former First Minister of the Province, Lord Trimble?
Why her? Why was Richardson who has far better foreign policy and diplomatic credentialsnot picked?
Ugh, I hate this pick.
I sort of get(smoother transition at one of the more important posts), but don’t particularly like the Gates pick. I don’t expect him to be there too long. I think it was on the Rachel Maddow Show, I heard that despite bringing in Gates to clean up after Rumsfeld, he kept on much of Rummy’s staff. I know we defended Obama from guilt by association in the primaries but no degree of separation is enough from Rumsfeld or any of these other Neo-Con war pigs. To keep any staff of theirs around to even risk mucking things up or to prevent actual change makes me very uneasy.
Gen, James has been working with an organization that promotes a sustainable and self-sufficient energy future. This includes domestic gas supplies, offshore drilling, nucelar paower and clean coal as well as alternative energy, renewable energy, energy efficiency etc. So basically this organization believes in using everything possible to create more energy independence. is selection to the NSA seems to me to show that Obama consider’s our energy policy as much a security issue as a environmental stewrdship issue.
I believe she was convinced her input would be valued and that she could accomplish some major things. I also think it’s true that she was frustrated at her lack of seniority in the Senate and maybe a bit embarrassed (that’s probably too strong a word) to go back to her old job after spend so much time running for president and coming close to getting the nomination. It’s also being reported that Obama’s people will help her raise money to finish paying off the rest of her campaign debt.
My view is that she’s very smart, practical, thorough and knows how to make a deal. Does she have the experience for this role? I don’t know, and I’m surprised it was offered to her. I don’t buy the “keep your enemies close” explanation at all and I don’t think she was offered this job in return for her endorsement. She did a lot for Obama, as it turned out, and even if she didn’t want to, politically she knew she had to. The Constitutional thing is a non-issue, and rightly so: that provision is probably in place to prevent backroom spoils system-type deals and the creation of do-nothing posts for the president’s supporters. We can safely say that’s not the case here.
From what I’ve read about her, I like Rice. And I like this team in general. In terms of experience and style it seems of a piece with the economic team introduced last week.
What counts as her tenure, though? Above it was posted that the salary increase was 2003; Hillary was last elected in 2006. As I read the quoted article, 2006 should be considered the start of her tenure, since it’s “during the time for which he was elected”.
By Executive Order the salary of Sec State (among others) was increased in January of 2008. The Constitution does not say Congress had to make the pay raise, just that a pay raise occurred during their tenure.
There’s a Washington Post article here that gives some background on the constitutional issue. I’m curious to see whether the issue is raised by Republicans, either in a political context (in confirmation hearings) or through some sort of legal proceeding (though I don’t know who would have standing to bring an action over this).
I don’t like Clinton’s nomination for secretary of state - like TDS1273, I see her amazing blunders during the primaries as what should have been the killing blow to this idea.
According to Wikipedia, she opposed Arizona Proposition 200, which requires that individuals registering to vote or applying for public benefits produce proof of citizenship. Her website has some other information.
I’m interested in finding out what she’s going to do about the TSA.
I mean, long, winding lines that concentrate the most people in the least area–BEFORE they go through inspection? How is that NOT a suicide bomber’s wet dream?
Ha, and some people say that liberals won’t criticize Obama. HA!
That said, Eric Holder is an absolute nightmare of a pick for AG. He never ever should have passed the vetting process, and wouldn’t have normally, but he’s black and is a friend of Obama’s, so that makes his creepy past ok I guess. While he couldn’t possibly be worse than Ashcroft or Gonzales, his is the only pick that makes me question Obama’s judgment, putting friends before country and the law. Otherwise, I’m willing to wait and see what Obama has on his mind. He’s a brilliant man, a good and decent man, so I’m giving him all kinds of leeway. He’s much smarter and knows a hell of a lot more than I do.
Hmm…can’t say as I like the man either. However, despite the creepy things he did he sounds like he is good at his job. In those cases in the article presumably he was representing his clients to the best of his ability and was successful (creepy though it may have been).
So, I can only hope that when working for Obama he will be kept inline by Obama himself.
I’ll remain cautious on this one…not happy but will wait and see.
I’m not too worried about Holder. As it happens I have a couple relatives who are both career attorneys with the Department of Justice. They were there for the Clinton years and the Bush years. They’re also both quite liberal in their politics, and neither seems at all concerned about Holder. They basically see him as a “known commodity”, since he was already the DOJ #2 under Janet Reno (and even severed as acting AG for a little while, I think).
Do you really think he’s going to be pushing a Gonzales-like agenda? Even if those were his views, I don’t think Obama would ever sign off on that. But anyway, the article you linked not withstanding, Holder has actually been critical of the Bush administration’s implementation of the Patriot Act.
According to Holder’s wikipedia bio, he became a D.C. Superior Court judge in 1988, was appointed a U.S. Attorney for D.C. by Bill Clinton in 1993, and was elevated to the post of Deputy Attourney General (second highest in the Justice Department) in 1997. He didn’t even meet Obama until 2004. From here
Whatever his politics may be, in terms of his experience Holder is clearly one of the most qualified candidates for the job of Attorney General. I don’t see how you can suggest Obama is picking him because of his race or out of personal friendship.
I don’t understand the sentiment here (and in subsequent posts). I am reading your comments as a grudging admittance that accepting the lower pay gets around the constitution on a technically, but are unhappy that it violates the spirit of the law.
I don’t get this. Surely the spirit of this law is to avoid the conflict of interest involved with in effect voting yourself a pay raise? If you don’t accept the pay raise, what “spirit” of the law has been broken?
As far as evil money making schemes go, “I’ll vote myself a giant pay raise, and then decline to take it. Mwahahahaha!” sounds like a pretty stupid idea. I’d stick to friggin’ laser beams and secret moon bases …
As far as I can see, not accepting the pay raise is neither in spirit nor technically against the constitution.
The “letter of the law” also says “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” and yet you still aren’t allowed to, say, make death threats against someone. Luckily, laws are subject to judicial interpretation, rather than enforced in the most literal way possible. If someone has a problem with Clinton being appointed Secretary of State, let them challenge it in court and see how the court rules. But to act like simply nominating her is somehow not giving proper respect to the “highest law in the land” is silly. People challenge the precise meaning of constitutional language in court all the time. That’s a major function of the Courts – to interpret the meaning of the law.