Obama's Choice
OK, so the media has a new meta-narrative to keep itself occupied during the lull of the transition: is Barack Obama really Clinton III instead of Change? First, John Podesta as transition chief. Then, Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Next, Eric Holder as AG. And maybe even Hillary as head of State. Conclusion: Obama might be just the Clinton Admin Redux.
Nope. It's not that Obama is a secret Clintonista. It's that Obama is a Democrat. And the most seasoned, steady Democrats around with actual experience in running things --for the most part-- had something to do with the last Democratic administration. Duh.
Should those who Hoped for Change now feel short-changed? Hardly.
At least not yet.
I dunno about you, but if I were planning to make some real change and rock the boat in Washington I would want to come in loaded for bear, backed by a rock-solid team of veterans. And, most importantly, I'd want to carefully choose my battles.
I'd be saving my ammo for the titanic fight over public works and infrastructure investment, reversal of the Bush tax giveaways, the shut down of Gitmo, national health care and troop withdrawal from Iraq. It's on those issues, by the way, that I will evaluate Obama's commitment to change. Not by his cabinet appointments.
Clearly, I wouldn't be crazy about the Hillary thing. I don't think he needs her. But then again, it might be safer to have her at Foggy Bottom rather than grandstanding in the Senate.
But I've got no problem with either Emanuel or Holder. Both are, indeed, card-carrying Clintonoids -- though Holder was an early and enthusiastic booster of Obama's candidacy. What they both have in common is a reputation for being totally competent if not deadly serious get-it-done administrators. I couldn't care less what their policy views are. I only care which directives they are given by Obama and how well they execute them.
As I said before, Obama's coming fight --if he chooses to fight for anything-- will be with Democrats, not the Republicans. It's a shrewd move to pack his team with Establishment Dems if he's planning to arm-twist the Democratic Establishment. You know, Nixon Goes to China and all that jazz.
It's crystal clear that the unflappable Obama wants a flapless transition and, if anything, he has closely studied the blunders of the Clinton administration's early days. Do you all remember that fiasco? Before he had even dropped his trousers in the Oval Office, Clinton had blown half his political capital on Zoe Baird and on clumsy and ill-prepared fight over gays in the military. What clout he had left he squandered in his first few months by breaking his own party -- not over any agenda of change, but rather to pass GHW Bush's cock-eyed NAFTA measure.
For the moment, I have to believe that Obama has somewhat more noble plans that that. He's lining up his soldiers. He's holding his fire for when it counts. We ought to be patient enough to see if he comes through and stop playing along with the media's cabinet guessing game. It's meaningless.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk
He mentioned Chile!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:30 am
Among the “titanic fights” to come: immigration reform, whether comprehensive or partial. Will he make good on his promise to Latino voters? Yes. When and how?…stay tuned.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:51 am
For the moment, I have to believe that Obama has somewhat more noble plans that that.
—
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus
November 19th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Hey, maybe the Titanic could have stayed afloat.
It could have happened.
I got me some hope, man. Heck, I hold my fire all the time these days.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Obama = Titantic ? Somebody needs to get laid…
On matters that folks capable of more than puerile jabs are concerned with, my son made an insightful point on the Clinton thing (which obviously wouldn’t have been MY move, but then neither was running for President and getting elected): By putting the person perceived as the 2nd most representative voice in current American politics - who was his only serious competitor for the Presidency among rational folk - he’s making a clear statement that the State Department is the preferred instrument of his foriegn policy, not “Defense.”
Compare this to most of the Bush period, when the unhinged Vulcan Veep and the Crazy Old Man Pentagon totally trumped the State Department and the very idea of diplomacy. This is indeed a major change and a clear signal of how Obama wants the US perceived in the world, as well as how it will act. It is consistent with Obama’s message of “hope.” It’s also a measure of his self-confidence that he’d hire Hillary.
I also think that it’s a good signal to the world to continue what now appears almost a “tradition” of having a woman lead U.S. diplomacy. That’s window dressing, and I’m no particular fan of Albright or Rice, but all other things being equal it’s a good image.
I’d prefer Richardson on personality and experience and Kerry, but just by a tiny margin, on experience, but on general knowledge of the terrain confronting State I’m confident Hillary is very fit, having spent several years preparing herself for the top office she believed was almost inevitable. She’ll be free of whatever political calculation drove her senatorial hawkishness in recent years, which frankly I think was a bit of a pose. And her only measure of success will be identical to Obama’s. This guy O plays chess not checkers and he can probably do it on a couple of boards at the same time. (He’s gonna have to.)
November 19th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Incidentally, kudos to Marc for holding his emotions related to the name “Clinton” in check on this one. The media is looking more than a bit foolish right now - with the election over, the gossip-column, he-said/she-said quality of so much political reporting becomes ever more evident. Why can’t these Beltway political reporters do some meaningful journalism ? It’s not like there aren’t problems facing the country that they can’t research. At least profile some new members of congress so we know who the hell is going to be voting on shit over the next couple of years and what drives them. I.F.Stone had more intellectual curiosity in his little finger than all of these jerks put together.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Marc is right on. As leftists we should keep our eyes on the prizes that he lists (health care, public works, taxes, energy, ending the war) and realize that we’ll all be lucky to get any of those things done, given the deep ambiguities within the new governing party. Don’t be distracted by the small stuff. Go for the big items.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Incidentally, the difference between the very professional, competent and essentially decent Holder, who notably has made very public condemnations of the “legal” justifications of torture, and the two most recent AGs is HUGE. There’s so much cleanup at Justice that it’s probably imperative to have somebody who knows the department from the inside, as well as sharing O’s agenda.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“I’d be saving my ammo for the titanic fight over public works and infrastructure investment, reversal of the Bush tax giveaways, the shut down of Gitmo, national health care and troop withdrawal from Iraq. It’s on those issues, by the way, that I will evaluate Obama’s commitment to change. Not by his cabinet appointments.”
Amen. I’d have enjoyed seeing Lieberman punished and I don’t relish the idea of Hilary at state but that’s not what really matters. Meanwhile, all evidence suggests the man has his eye on the ball.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Balloon Juice: “now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection”
November 19th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Ezra Klein on Obama’s pick of Tom Daschle for HHS:
“You don’t tap the former Senate Majority Leader to run your health care bureaucracy. That’s not his skill set. You tap him to get your health care plan through Congress. You tap him because he understands the parliamentary tricks and has a deep knowledge of the ideologies and incentives of the relevant players. You tap him because you understand that health care reform runs through the Senate. And he accepts because he has been assured that you mean to attempt health care reform.”
November 19th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I agree with Marc totally and blogged to the same effect on Balter’s Blog, but for some reason this site won’t let me post the URL (it has something against blogspot URLs I think.) But if anyone is interested, click on my name and you will get there.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Actually, click on my name and then on the blog button.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:35 am
As for Lieberman, as I say on the blog, at least Obama has proven once and for all that he is a Christian.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Good one…and probably more truth than one might assume at first chuckle. If he can strike the proper balance between the heart of Jesus and the head of Machiavelli, he’ll be a great Prez. I can’t let this moment pass, however, without noting that you - Michael Balter - have become, de facto, a Hillary Shill.
(I wish I were as forgiving as O. It’s just not in me. Good thing he’s the guy with his finger on the button, not me.)
November 19th, 2008 at 11:54 am
“you - Michael Balter - have become, de facto, a Hillary Shill.”
I agree with Marc on this, if she’s in the cabinet Obama can keep a better eye on her.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I think Lieberman is in a position now that he must talk, work and vote like a Democrat if he is to maintain any credibility at all. He has already broken faith with the voters of CT, to whom he promised he would remain a Democrat (implying he would not, say, endorse a Republican for president in 2008). If he does return as a moderate Dem, particularly on the critical domestic fronts Marc identified, Obama and the leadership will have moved the agenda forward, forswearing the adrenaline rush of stomping on his weasly excuse for a career. The test may come when Obama nominates his first controversial appellate court or Supreme Court judge.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
As much as anything, I think this speaks to Obama’s self-confidence. I also think he sees Hillary as a large enough figure to underscore the importance of the administration’s diplomatic initiatives.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Frankly, on Lieberman it’s hard to imagine Obama having a Homeland Security Chairman more in his pocket than he’s got Lieberman. If Obama lifts the phone and suggests hearings on this or that to the little weasel, it’ll be done. I don’t want to get in a mode of over-explaining how brilliant every move by O is, because he’s destined to make some bad ones, but these early ones do, in fact, look a lot smarter than simply doing what would seem “obvious” to some Daily Kos diarist.
November 19th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Marc, you say:
“I couldn’t care less what their policy views are. I only care which directives they are given by Obama and how well they execute them.”
Agree with much of what you are arguing — politically it’s got to be smart for Obama to calm the constituencies he’s going to need first and foremost. (Notice he hasn’t nominated a treasury secretary yet, despite all predictions that he’d start there - he’s taking care of his political business first.)
I also like his approach based on either Lincoln, if you believe that, or the Arabic proverb “hold your friends close but your enemies closer”. (A variant I love comes from the French tragedian Racine — “I embrace my enemy, all the better to stifle him.”)
But but but… here’s my concern. It’s only a question at this point, because we don’t have all the information, or all the appointments. Doesn’t the point come though when a foreign policy team built on the likes of Hillary, Joe Biden, maybe Holbrooke, Dennis Ross etc etc makes one wonder — how can a group of people who got it so wrong on Iraq, starting during the Clinton era when they had access to all the intelligence, be expected to shift course in both a different direction and also the RIGHT direction now?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Someone needs a job, or a hobby.
Maybe a bailout?
November 19th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
“For the moment, I have to believe that Obama has somewhat more noble plans that that. He’s lining up his soldiers. He’s holding his fire for when it counts.”
This is the line of argument which says something like this, “i know that he looks like he enjoys hanging out with them, but deep down he loves me”. I have some serious doubts about this. It’s starting to look, to me, at least, that it’s the Marc, Balter and others may harbour seriously overblown hopes about Obama. While Obama has indeed articulated a kind of rhetoric grounded in a “bottoms up” idea of social change- itself a product of his own experience organising the black poor in Chicago– his own politics do not widly diverge from Clintonism, which if anything moved towards redifining liberalism as conservatism. He promises return to normal imperialism away from the mad dog imperialims of Bush. The Albrights and Dennis Ross’ of the word may be better, in some ways, than Rumsfleds and Cheneys but the difference here is one of degress. Yes, the election of Obama was in many ways a defining moment, but there’s broader problem with seeing it the way Marc and others tend to be inclined to . I think Adolph Reed makes alot of sense when he says the following
“And it’s crucially important for those who identify with the left to recognize that there is no designated moment at which the crisis becomes intolerable and “the People” either “wake up” or “rise.” That is simply not the way politics works. Absent concerted, organized intervention, it could go on indefinitely, with all kinds of inventive scapegoating available to stigmatize the previous rounds of losers and provide desperate reassurances to the next. And that would be a political situation and social order likely to grow ever uglier and more dangerous.”
November 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
What Ahmed says is certainly possible. I know in 1976 I was a pretty big Carter supporter. A friend said, in his whisky-inspired oracular style: “you all think he’s great now, but you won’t even vote for him in 4 years….” Well, 3.5 years later I was working for Ted Kennedy. He was right.
Still, I believe that Obama is choosing who he is choosing because he recognizes how much the world is relying on the US getting on the right track NOW. He is going to be investing in the ability of the mainstream political and financial leaders to get things done, under his leadership. We’ll see.
As for Lieberman’s utility, another point is that when the right starts attacking Obama for being soft on al Qaeda or Russia or Burma or the Boy Scouts, and talks about how much safer we were under Bush (I predict that will become a mantra), he can just point to Lieberman and say, “so whom do you know in the Democratic Party that I should have supported?”
November 19th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
It’s as simple as this: Obama is determined to have a successful presidency. He’s going to try to repeat everything Clinton did well. The message is going to be that Democrats believe in governing and are good at it, whereas Republicans don’t believe in governing and are bad at it.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
“It’s as simple as this: Obama is determined to have a successful presidency. He’s going to try to repeat everything Clinton did well. The message is going to be that Democrats believe in governing and are good at it, whereas Republicans don’t believe in governing and are bad at it.”
This doesn’t sound very “tranformative” to me nor does it seem to represent the kind of generational driven redefinition of the political map away from the Reagan, Clinton and Bush years that Marc has been talking about.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The count is official–McCain wins Missouri…the “comeback kid!”
November 19th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Good lord. I’m afraid I keep repeating myself, but all of the prognosticating based on his appointments is a gigantic snoozeorama.
We don’t know anything yet about what’s going to happen. It might be a dismal Clinton 2 fart. It might be something far more interesting, and reformist. The simple fact is we do not know, and trying to read on the basis of current appointments is seven shades of silly.
The appointment-prediction cottage industry makes a big mistake: it just erases Obama from the picture. It’s a reasonable bet, based on what we’ve seen, that he will exert strong control over the direction of the administration. But I’ll repeat: It’s Nov. 19th and he doesn’t take office for two more months, so this is all so much bunk.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
As an aside Marc, you may want to tell your journalism students to learn to park cars–just in case. Money’s money.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
“Transformative” seems to be a mirror in which everyone sees their personal political beliefs. Simple decency and a respect for constitutional rule would be a transformation from the last administration all by itself.
This is an observation that has nothing to do with the man’s politics or policies: Henry Waxman looks like the villain in an action comedy. That is, not the formidable, scary kind of villain but the villain who is made to look ridiculous.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
[...] a third good friend, who posts comments here under the handle ModestProposal has a slightly differing view. He says he broadly agrees with my lack of concern over Obama’s [...]
November 19th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
“I agree with Marc on this, if she’s in the cabinet Obama can keep a better eye on her.”
And she on him. When you’re in the tank, there is no lemon Obama can throw at you you won’t eat…..and witihout making so much as a face. LOL.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Btw, I believe Bill is in the tank for some pretty generous and oil rich middle eastern guys. What makes anyone think Hillary, who has joint assets with Bill(they file a joint IRS Income taxes) will not be compromised to a degree, with Billary self interest, when dealing with our oil suppliers?
Oh, and speaking of interesting characters, wasn’t it Holder that helped Clinton with his mulitple and questionable pardons, including the ‘character without a country’ Mark Rich, who was able to return to ours by paying for in in cold hard cash to Billary?
Bill and Hill are two of the worst characters, and their joint Secretary of State positions will cost us dearly. Alot more than Bills underwear tax write-off.
November 19th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
……and the White House furniture.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
After 8 years of a DOJ that helped justify torture, and vigorously politicized the Justice Department, I honestly do not see how anyone but the most reactionary are going to be disturbed by Holder’s marginal involvement in the Rich pardon.
November 20th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Even if Obama is a Clintonista, it beats the hell out of what we have now.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:41 am
Good article! I stopped watching all the blabber on television, BUT:
I like to think of myself as PASSIONATE about certain VERY IMPORTANT POLITICAL ISSUES, rather than angry, and as a Liberal/Progressive (and even Conservative on a few things) Activist, I want to give our very intelligent President-Elect Obama a chance to get organized, but I deeply believe that all of us need to stay vigilant and give him our input. I, personally, contributed great time and money to his campaign because the WAR ISSUE & the NUCLEAR WEAPONS ISSUE are of paramount importance to me and the future of my children and Grandchildren. I think that we need to let him know that the Old Republican Party Neo-Conservative Hawks have NO business in his administration. I voted for CHANGE, and do expect President Obama to deliver, so as a MoveOn member I will be participating in a national petition to remind our new president to keep his promises to the American people. Inclusive, but not Divisive is important, but NO Robert Gates or John McCain, please!