Change

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_11/015742.php

CHANGE....

snip//

Look, there's been exactly one Democratic president since 1980. If Obama's team is going to recruit like-minded officials for high-ranking government posts, there's a practical hurdle here that's very hard to ignore. As Kevin noted yesterday, "There are some fresh faces around for Obama to tap, but for the most part, when you're staffing highly visible and responsible positions, you want someone who has at least some experience to fall back on. And since Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to hold the presidency in the past 28 years, that means someone who served in the Clinton administration."

Or, as John Cole put it, "Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration? From the Bush administration? Clearly, Obama is bringing in a lot of new blood, but I have no problem with old hands like Eric Holder being tapped for administration jobs."

Neither do I. I'm looking at qualifications and an ability to help execute Obama's agenda for change. I can't think of a reason why "worked in some capacity in the Clinton administration" should be some kind of disqualifier.

The team is still coming together, so some of this chatter is moot, pending additional announcements. But as far as I can tell, some key posts will be filled by those with Clinton-era experience (Holder, Emanuel, Craig, Sutphen), those who aren't "Clintonistas" (Daschle, Orszag, Axelrod, Gibbs, Jarrett, Schiliro, Rouse), and those who fall somewhere in between (Napolitano was a U.S. Attorney under Clinton; does that count?).

Are these capable, competent officials? If the answer is yes, and I think it is, whether they're affiliated in some way with Clinton strikes me as irrelevant.

-Steve Benen

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. My dear babylonsister!

And this says it as plainly as anyone can...


Are these capable, competent officials? If the answer is yes, and I think it is, whether they're affiliated in some way with Clinton strikes me as irrelevant.

[sabra]

2. exactly - are we saying anyone one who worked in politics during the 90's is out?

[babylonsister]

3. I thought so, too, Peggy.

All the hemming and hawing doesn't really reflect the truth so far. I do believe we don't have a choice but to look at the Clinton admin. That doesn't mean everyone supposedly selected is from there. It is a balancing act, and I think the transition team is doing a fine job. :hi:

[OhioChick]

4. K&R

:kick:

[izzybeans]

5. Waxman ousting Dingell on the Energy and Commerce is a direct result of

an Obama election. Obama had already appointed one of Waxman's deputies to a key post. The audacity... an environmentalist on that committee. :)

this place is nothing, if some folks aren't complaining prematurely about something.

I am taking a wait and see approach, but this Waxman thing, well I believe this is the sort of change I want.

[CADEMOCRAT7]

6. With the right leadership, seasoned inside people can be agents of change.

People who know the system, who no longer have their hands tied, can be even more effective agents of change. They know the system, can hit the ground running, have seen the pitfalls, learned, and can really do what they have always wanted when given the right environment and leadership. I am all for the "best and the brightest" who are strategically placed in the right post to get the agenda passed and put into practice. This is about "action and asap".

[qwlauren35]

7. I'd Like to See a Mix of Old & New

I hope that Obama will scour the moderate and progressive think-tanks, PACs and lobbyists for people who may know how government works, but haven't necessarily been a part of it.

I also hope that he will hunt down proteges of people from the Carter and Clinton administrations who have shown some new energy or new direction.

I don't agree that everyone on the Cabinet should already be "high profile".

Sadly though, the platform that Obama ran on was to *not* continue the Bush years. I sense that a lot of DUers were looking for a lot more than that. There was someone else here who said that's important to judge Obama's current actions on his actual statements, instead of our personal hopes... and agendas. I know I want to see a diverse Cabinet in terms of race, gender, ethnicity. AND sexual orientation (but then, if they don't tell, I'm not going to ask). But that's my personal agenda. It was never promised.

I do hope that everyone on DU who really wants to see special things is writing in to the Obama website, and urging others to as well, so that their views go farther than a discussion board.