Obama's Cabinet Picks DO Represent Change

[lessthanjake1234]

First off, before anyone says "OMG YOU ONLY HAVE 11 POSTS, YOU MUST BE A FREEPER!!!" I had another account with this name just without the numbers with almost 1000 posts, but I forgot the password and it wont email it to me for some reason. I am not new here.

Anyways, people here are constantly complaining that Obama's picks are from the Clinton Administration or are not progressive Democrats and thus do not represent change at all. I would dispute that. I think that picks from the Clinton Administration DO represent change. Let me explain. The ideology of cabinet members makes very little difference. Obama will always call the shots, and the cabinet members will simply implement his policies. We all consider Obama's policies to represent change. So with that said, the best way to achieve this change is to put in the cabinet members who will be best able to implement Obama's policies. The people who are best equipped to get Obama's policies passed are those with experience getting policies passed. For the most part, the people who best fit that bill are Clinton people.

For example, Rahm Emmanuel is a Clinton person and people here dont like him since he's part of the DLC. But the thing is, it makes no difference what his ideology is. His job is to run Obama's White House and help get Obama's stuff passed. In that role, there is no one better than Emmanuel.

Another example is Daschle at HHS. He's not a Clinton person but a lot of people here are complaining about him and his corporate ties through his wife and such. They'd rather have Howard Dean. I love Dean and I supported him in 2004 and supported him for DNC Chairman. However, picking him for HHS over Daschle would make no sense. Health care reform will go through the Senate. Daschle has better Senate connections than anyone. There are plenty of people who still owe him favors, AND most importantly, he is eminently experienced at getting the votes to get stuff passed in the Senate. That was his job. Dean does not have that same experience at all and would not be as able to get health care reform passed.

Furthermore, let me again reiterate that the ideology of cabinet members does not represent the ideology of the Administration. Obama will get advised by these people, and he will take that advice into account when making decisions. However, he is a very liberal guy as American politics go, and it would be somewhat harmful in my opinion for him to fill his cabinet with progressive who agree with him. He would be surrounding himself with yes men. We saw how that worked with Bush. He probably SHOULD surround himself with people who are more moderate than him. It's healthy.

Lastly, the interest groups who expect to be directly represented in the cabinet are ridiculous. Obama doesnt need an Hispanic, some women, and a gay person to have his administration represent the interests of hispanics, women, and gays. To pick someone because of their status as one of those would be foolish. He should pick whoever is best for the job, no matter what.

[avaistheone1]

1. In any case I think it is shameful there are so few progressives in

Obama's cabinet. It seems Obama can relate better to the republicans.

I find that disturbing. My opinion.

[lessthanjake1234]

13. He has not appointed one Republican...

And so what if he did? Again, we dont want a president who surrounds himself with yes-men. Thats what Bush did. All that does is insulate the president from opposing views, which is not what we want.

I think we should want our president to have strong ideological differences with his cabinet. They should be loyal and well able to get his agenda through, but they should also challenge his views on things to make sure he does the right thing. With that said, Clinton people will be able to get his agenda through BUT will also sometimes challenge his progressive policies in private. Sounds perfect to me.

[avaistheone1]

16. You have got to be kidding. The republicans are the ultimate yes men.

Did any of them stand up to Bush? Nope. Hagel made a little noise and that was about it.

[lessthanjake1234]

20. You are talking about different things

Congressional members of the President's party rarely buck the President's views when he is popular. That is what happened with Bush.

However, we are not talking about publicly going against the President. I am talking about advisors and cabinet members being willing to tell Obama that they think his view on something is wrong. Bush surrounded himself with people who just confirmed his views. Thats well documented. We dont want that again. Obama would do well to have people with opposing views who can challenge him in private, even if they publicly support whatever he does in order to show unity in the administration.

[w4rma]

18. Gates. (nt)

[lessthanjake1234]

19. Gates has not been appointed yet

Although, I do suspect that he will be appointed. If he isnt, I expect Hagel will be. The point is though, that its ridiculous to say Obama is somehow clearly more comfortable with republicans than dems when he has yet to say he will appoint one single republican.

[wisteria]

2. There is no change here- he is taking from other administrations.

I was afraid of this with him. He isn't a bold person- he rather stick with the status quo then really be progressive. The people he has picked are mostly from the Clinon administration and now he adds the oldest relic- Hillary herself. The only change all this represents is a change from Bush. Great leaders make bold moves- so far I have seen one- the bazar pick of Clinton. Seems to me we aren't off to a good start.

[davidinalameda]

3. I want people in there with some experience and who know Washington

it's not like Obama is naming Janet Reno to the AG spot or Williams Christopher for SOS (wasn't he SOS?-can't remember)

I think that we'll see undersecretaries who are new faces and names

they're going to the next generation of leaders in the 2nd Obama administration

let them get their feet wet

[avaistheone1]

4. Alot of these picks look like Obama is leaving no republican behind.

Yuck.

[stillcool]

6. such as?

[stillcool]

5. He has chosen people who..

have expertise in how government works. And he has not chosen his Cabinet. And Hillary has not been chosen. Change is competence. Just because you may not like whichever person that you have a problem with, that doesn't mean that that person is not talented at the job for which they have been selected. The purity bullshit is bullshit.

[lessthanjake1234]

10. Why does he need progressives in his cabinet?

He IS the progressive. The people in his cabinet will simply implement HIS progressive policies. For the most part, their own views are irrelevant because they will be doing Obama's bidding. What IS relevant is their experience and ability to get things done. In that regard, people who have already worked at high levels in a Democratic Administration are best suited for the jobs.

[babylonsister]

11. Do you 'get' how dumb you sound, wisteria? nt

[Lilyeye]

15. That poster is in another thread stinking it up with this crap.

[Fovea]

7. President Obma's cabinet

will have to respond to a series of NeoCon disasters.
The collapse of the economy.

The collapse of the employee insurnace based healthcare system
which means the collapse of a big hunk of the public health system.

The abortion that is our war on an abstract noun.

ANd the whole panoply of Bush fuckups, accidental and deliberate.

The administration will use veterans in key positions. Many of these veterans have an axe to grind with the Bush administration including McSame.
Obama handed Daschle the keys to the Anthrax lab. And the only thing that makes repugs thrash about in fevered dreams more than a pitbull in lipstick is Rahm Emmanuel
calling them 'Distinguished Legislator' or 'fellow American'.

Obama can afford to deal with the repugs from a serene place because most of his current underlings want to incinerate the toxic remains of Republicans after waterboarding them in bio-hazardous broth.

[thoughtcrime1984]

8. Wonderful post, I'd sign my name to that! K&R

The right people in the right positions will get the most accomplished. Getting Obama's agenda promoted is JOB ONE, and I think we can all agree with that, hopefully.

[TheKentuckian]

9. The lack of incompetent cronies heading departments they are only qualified to ruin

is a pretty substantive change, imo.

Its not mana from heaven but competence and a general belief in the concept of government is a hell of an upgrade.

[babylonsister]

12. lessthanjake1234 , thanks for writing this. Very good, and welcome to DU. nt

[lessthanjake1234]

14. Thanks for your nice comment; I'm not new though

My past account just is screwed up. I've been here for years and had like 800 posts on my previous account

[Lilyeye]

17. This was a great post and I agree with every word.

[democracy1st]

21. K & R

[cooolandrew]

22. Randi said it best Obama wants a successful administration and in the last 30 years>

the most successful out of all of them is the Clinton administration so where else would he go. It's Obama who is CEO and the company is shaped by the CEO.

[dsc]

23. but he specificly promised to pick someone because they are GOP

and apparently that is OK with the most qualified crowd. I don't have any specific problems with his cabinet and agree with much of your post. But a gay person is needed to be sure gay issues end up mattering at the end of the day.

[lessthanjake1234]

24. He will pick a Republican who IS most qualified though

An example would be Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense.

And I dont see what a gay cabinet member would achieve for actual gay issues. For instance, say a gay person was named Secretary of Energy or something. What would that achieve for the gay community? I'm obviously not anti-gay at all, im just wondering what Obama would be achieving by appointing a gay person to a position that they are not the most qualified person for. If they are the most qualified person for the job, then by all means they should be picked. However, he shouldnt HAVE to pick a gay person for his cabinet.

[dsc]

28. two things

One he didn't promise that the GOPer would be most qualified, just a GOPer. Two, the gay cabinet secretary would be at cabinet meetings and would then be able to provide a gay point of view on all issues. Ask any gay open in a straight enviroment, we get asked for that alot.

[No Elephants]

25. Anyone who thought Obama's promise of change was about specifics missed

the point, IMO.

As far as his cabinet picks, the U.S. is in bad shape, domestically and abroad, more so than any time in my memory; and I am 65. This is not the time for on the job learning across the board. The only Democrats with experience in working for a President who are still alive worked for Kennedy, Carter or Clinton; and most of the Kennedy and Carter "gangs" are deceased or likely too old for jobs that require stamina and vigor.

On the other hand, I am not naive enough to think that ideology does not matter in Washington, D.C., no matter what the circumstances. I think people try to slide in whatever they can.

[nod factor]

26. Poodles need not apply.

Obama has an agenda okay? It is the most "radical" agenda this country has ever seen. Our guy WILL change this country and he WILL change the world. His job as DECIDER is to decide who is gritty enough to enact that agenda. Change ain't easy to come by folks. He needs rottweilers not poodles. It has nothing to do with previous administrations or "business as usual." It has to do with appointing those who you feel are the most seasoned, most effective veterans who can export your agenda in the most meaningful manner. So far all his appointments are fantastic. So far I would say they are the sharpest, most vicious of the bunch. I personally don't like Hillary as a piece of the puzzle, the same way coaches fear too much star power on their team, but we will get alot done. ALOT! I don't know about you but I am excited.

[BREMPRO]

27. I agree, lets not forget how radical a change this is from Bushco

Bush cabinet members were almost all corporate shills, ideological demigods, or incompetent boobs.

Dummy Rummy, Burnt Ashcroft, Gonzo Gonzalez, Dry Rice, Yellow Snow, Terror Ridge, Clearcut Norton etc...

Obama's cabinet choices are A SIGNIFICANT change to quality and more progressive policy advisers.

We need experienced competent people, and because Clinton was the most recent DEm in the White house, it naturally follows that many of the most competent choices served in the Clinton Admin. They will advise, Obama will lead.