For the love of all things good and decent, no one IS OWED a cabinet post because

[AZBlue]

of sexual preference, gender, height, skin color, religion, eye color, previous support of Obama & Biden, hair color, age, what their favorite non-alcoholic drink is, time spent in politics, number of siblings or whether they prefer Mary Ann or Ginger.

No one is OWED a cabinet post, period.

A person should gain an appointment because of their ability, their qualifications and their experience. And of course nothing else (listed in the first paragraph or other) should even be discussed.

I know President-Elect Obama will choose those who are best for the position they will be holding. And I know that he will not be distracted by any exterior traits that are superfluous.

[rpannier]

1. There's one other consideration...

Based on their ability and willingness to work WITH the President.

There are many qualified people out there, but they are too ideologically-conservative to be of use to Pres-elect Obama.

I guess you could qualify under...because of their ability...

[BlooInBloo]

2. Clinton is, according to Clinton supporters.... Just because...

well, she's Clinton.

[Metric System]

3. Sorry none of us are arguing for her to be SOS. All the threads about her as SOS have been started

by the usual haters. But I'm not surprised to see this smear from you. Some of you are using this SOS rumor as an excuse to re-hash the primaries and get your Hillary-hate on. As I wrote in another thread about the SOS story:

If vetting is required for the SOS position, and Hillary is interested in it AND (most importantly) if Obama is interested in having her in that position, then she obviously would (and should) be subjected to the same vetting process as any other potential candidate for the job.

[Truth2Tell]

4. Nothing else "should even be discussed." !? Really?

I wasn't aware that you decided what we get to discuss. Who knew?

So it's only "ability, qualifications and experience." Got it.

But oops! Here I go discussing other things anyway.

You see, when a candidate runs for President by making particular promises or outlining particular priorities - which Obama did - it's not unreasonable to expect their political appointments reflect those same values and priorities.

Certainly a baseline level of professionalism, knowledge, experience and competence is called for. But within that range there are certainly more than a few who qualify for every position. And from that group it is OK - in fact it is imperative - that other factors be applied. For example:

Philosophy/Ideology - if Obama ran on a platform of cleaning up the environment then it stands to reason that he choose a Secretary of Interior who believes the environment needs to be cleaned up. If he ran on a platform of re-visiting NAFTA and other trade deals with an eye for labor, the environment and social justice, then it stands to reason that he appoint a Commerce Secretary who opposes open-ended, condition-free trade agreements. Etc etc etc.

Another example: Loyalty/Reliability. As an employer I've learned from experience that it's often better to hire employees with less knowledge of the particulars of the job - but whom I can be sure will arrive at work and follow direction -rather than the opposite. This is not to say that Obama should follow the Bush model of patronage, but simply acknowledge that accomplishing goals does indeed require loyal, trustworthy and committed people.

President Obama is about to undertake a reformation of American political landscape. I therefore disagree with the proposition that his cabinet appointments should depend exclusively on resume, or simple measures of professional competence. Instead, he should prioritize choosing a team that shares his values, believes in his agenda, represents his constituents and is ready to loyally fight on behalf of the new paradigm he has promised.


A final thought: What's with this new meme on DU about "competence" only? "Ability, qualifications and experience," as the OP scolds? Could it be that Obama is almost certainly going to appoint some right-wing Dems and/or Republicans to his cabinet and therefore the establishment apologists need a rationalization? Is the excuse for shunning the liberal/populist majority of the nation going to be that Obama is simply choosing the "most qualified" people and behaving in a so-called "post-partisan" way? Will the apologists now lecture liberals that no one "deserves" a cabinet post and that they should be driven by competence and not "politics", when in fact the RW choices will be made for reasons equally or more political? Is this what we are seeing? :shrug:

[AZBlue]

6. Apparently you missed the point of my post. Entirely.

[TexasObserver]

5. Disagree. Everyone should clamor for who they want.

Obama will choose whoever he wants, for the reasons he wants. The reasons will not be the same for every position. Some positions will be designed to make a constituency happy - such as LABOR, INTERIOR, or ENERGY. Some positions will be used to round out the mix for diversity. Obama is going to want to see some real diversity in his cabinet. It's not going to be the United Colors of Bennetton, but it will be diverse.

All groups should be making themselves heard right now. That's how we do it. First, we win, then we fight over the appointments.