David Brooks: The Insider's Crusade (on Obama personnel selections)

[JudyInTheHeartland]

<snip>

Obama seems to have dispensed with the romantic and failed notion that you need inexperienced “fresh faces” to change things. After all, it was L.B.J. who passed the Civil Rights Act. Moreover, because he is so young, Obama is not bringing along an insular coterie of lifelong aides who depend upon him for their well-being. As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true.

First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence. Orszag, who will probably be budget director, is trusted by Republicans and Democrats for his honest presentation of the facts.

Second, they are admired professionals. Conservative legal experts have a high regard for the probable attorney general, Eric Holder, despite the business over the Marc Rich pardon.

Third, they are not excessively partisan. Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship.

Fourth, they are not ideological. The economic advisers, Furman and Goolsbee, are moderate and thoughtful Democrats. Hillary Clinton at State is problematic, mostly because nobody has a role for her husband. But, as she has demonstrated in the Senate, her foreign-policy views are hardheaded and pragmatic. (It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.)

Believe me, I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie. But the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He’s off to a start that nearly justifies the hype.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1

[lamp_shade]

1. Great read. Thanks.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. I don't care who you are...

"holding White House staff meetings in the carpool lane" is a fantastic line.

But, yes, a great read.

[TrogL]

12. That's likely where stuff gets accomplished

I'm going to vent two of my favourite obsessions. I work as a systems analyst so I spend a lot of time in meetings.

The purpose of many meetings is to pick the attendees of the meeting after the meeting where something actually gets accomplished.

In my line of work those end up being huddles in the hall or around somebody's desk or even in the washroom or else somebody calls a special meeting later in the week with the correct attendees. Given that it's often the same people attending these over and over, it often begs the question of having the original meeting in the first place. Where I work these are often "scheduled but cancelled by default" which works for me. Nevertheless, I could certainly see valid work happening in the carpool line.

The other was generated by a DU thread a few years ago showing a picture of a White House meeting.

I can't find the exact picture, but this one is similar.



Contrast this with Ford meeting with Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1975



Any meeting I attend, you're expected to have a copy of the agenda, the previous minutes and your papers for your contribution to the meeting.

Granted, I tend to go to "working meetings" so YMMV and people also have their Blackberries, cell phones, pagers, laptops, ipods, remotes for the overhead projector, keyboards for the main display computer so the conference room table ends up pretty crowded and messy - but something actually gets accomplished because everybody has everything they need at hand.

Nevertheless, somebody occasionally comes up with:

A messy desk is the sign of a messy mind.

Hence:

An empty desk....

[formercia]

3. This is a hoot:

"Obama signaled that he means to live up to his postpartisan rhetoric by letting Joe Lieberman keep his committee chairmanship."

Bipartisan might have been a better choice of word.

[high density]

4. Wow, a good column from David Brooks

Mark this date on the calendar.

[ErinBerin84]

5. "I’m trying not to join in the vast, heaving O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie"

Righhhht. Come on Brooks, you just said that to make yourself feel better, as Obama would say. We know you heart him.

[livedemocarticordie]

7. he totally hearts him

big man crush at the beginning and then tried to absolve himself it..but too late..when obama wrote Davida note on one of his columns he was all rosy and flustered..man crush...lol

[riverwalker]

6. Bingo

"(It would be great to see her set of interests complemented by Samantha Power’s set of interests at the U.N.)"

If Power was on his foriegn policy team I could join the mrs. big dawg bandwagen.

[ErinBerin84]

8. Yeah, I was hoping she would be added...

Is she still at Harvard? And of course, I hope that Susan Rice gets a job that she is happy with.

[TheDoorbellRang]

9. I'd like to see that, too

Altho she committed the faux pas of calling Hillary a "monster" (without requesting that the comment be off record before she made it) back in the primaries, I'd think an abject personal apology to Hillary could start them off on a better footing. After all, if Hillary could forgive McCain for his disgusting Chelsea joke, surely she could forgive Samantha Power too.

[ErinBerin84]

10. I remember the day "monster-gate" broke

It was ridiculous...there was an "update" every 15 minutes, with the media lapping it up because it was a perceived "cat fight". The comment was really stupid and disrespectful, but I doubt anyone would have cared if it were two men. And, even though I am not one to be too concerned with "diversity" (I mean, it's great, but I think finding the most qualified people for each position takes priority), it would be pretty cool if women ended up being in a majority of the national security positions.

[emulatorloo]

11. good piece -- thanks for posting it n/t