So you say we need people from the Clinton admin because they have the required experience?

[thesubstanceofdreams]

How come we didn't ask the same from Obama? It turns out that for a cabinet position, even a secondary one, experience in the executive branch is a must, but when we were electing the PRESIDENT we wanted someone new who hadn't been corrupted yet? Why this double standard?

Either you believe that experience is a must to enact change - in which case you should have voted for McCain, honestly- or you believe that bringing fresh air and an outside look has a much better chance at enacting change. You can't have it both ways.

[democrattotheend]

1. Just about everyone with any policy experience in DC has some ties to the Clinton Administration

Unless we want a bunch of starry-eyed 20-year-olds serving as Cabinet secretaries. It's not like Obama had no experience...I think he had the perfect combination. He had enough experience to understand how the Senate works and thus will not make the same mistakes Jimmy Carter made (and Bill Clinton to a lesser extent), but he is new enough to Washington to bring a fresh perspective and maintain a little bit of his idealism, a rare thing for a politician who has made it as far as he has. But to say that nobody who worked in any capacity in DC before can work in the administration would be completely ridiculous.

[thesubstanceofdreams]

2. I hope you are right!

And no, I'm not saying that he shouldn't bring anyone who worked under Clinton. Of course he should, and I'm not even opposed to having Hillary herself.
My problem is that ALL the people he's bringing is from the Clinton era. For sure there are younger people, may be not 20-year-olds, but 30 or 40 year-olds, or older people with experience of another kind, not necessarily in the executive branch, who have new ideas and energy to contribute. There should be a balance, that's what I'm not seeing at the moment.

In any case, my post wasn't so much against Obama but against the argument many are using to justify his appointments.

[firedupdem]

3. This country is in horrible condition and people are really that

concerned about cabinet positions? Don't you want people that can work together to carry out the agenda of this administration? If anybody is really that upset at this point I really think that maybe you were upset before he even won the nomination. Everybody has their favorites but we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. Perhaps some of the people that we've tapped on our own are behind the scenes saying they don't want the position that we've deemed they are deserving of. We really need to breathe and let the man get in office.

[Clio the Leo]

4. He's just a figure head. I only voted for him because.....

.... I thought he'd look cool behind a desk. :-p

[PM7nj]

5. So... who would you suggest?

I still haven't seen any of you give any examples of "acceptable" "progressives" for any Cabinet posts. Also, make sure they don't have any questionable associates (I can believe after all the Ayers crap people are judging others on their former bosses, and fellow board members). It is also necessary that have never made eye contact with a Clinton.

[Dragonfli]

8. I can think of a few, by the way many of us, (your opposition?) have. mentioned several!

Are we the enemy now because we believe in a liberal aproach to govt? What board is this?
THIS ONE as in one of the discardable "any of you" annoying libs do have a caucus of like minded elected people.
I hope it is alright if THIS ONE still posts.
Co-Chairs
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-9)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Raul Grijalva (AZ-7)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5)
Hon. Hilda Solis (CA-32)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-2)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-1)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-3)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-8)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-1)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-9)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-7)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-7)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-4)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-5)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-2)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-4)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-4)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-4)
Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-9)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-5)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-2)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-7)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-7)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-3)
Hon. George Miller (CA-7)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-4)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-1)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-4)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-1)
Hon. Linda Sanchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-9)
Hon. Jose Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-2)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-6)
Hon. Tom Udall (NM-3)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

[stillcool]

10. You've got my Representative

on that list, John Tierney, and I'm wondering which Cabinet positition you believe he is qualified for? Why would you want to fill Cabinet positions with members of Congress? Oh yeah...what about the 'liberal' label, and I'm sure if you many of the people on your list have ties to the Clinton Administration.

[Dragonfli]

20. I like him for something in education and labor but there are other things.

I obviously did not advocate using everyone on the list supplied( we would have to make up several new positions for that). I was merely pointing out that there are many so called "inexperienced" Democrats, that via there judgment and left of center leaning could supply some balance to a cabinet that appears to require a center right lean and experience in a past administration to be considered qualified.

Did I, or even the OP, ever state that clinton association was somehow verboten? I have reread my post - perhaps we have a different understanding of the english language.

I am not necessarily against a former clinton administration appointee, although I may have some concerns about some of them - (for instance I would be against anyone that advocated pre-emptive war in any post anywhere near Diplomacy no matter what the experience level).

Do you think that congressmen are not qualified for anything else? If so, what position must be held prior to consideration, just so I know what few options are left.

If you wish to understand the list I supplied, ask yourself what they all have in common, I gather that half the posters here could help you with that.

I am sorry you do not think any of the Dems listed are worthy of anything other than obscurity. I am truly sorry that you are unhappy with your own representation. I can not help you with that.

I can only say that a large tent and a large task ahead should use all resources available right of center and left of center and I was responding to a silly post claiming that no one offered any options, merely criticism. Such was an untrue statement.

By the way why don't you like your congress-critter? Did you even vote for him?
It isn't about labels so much as balance in a "team of rivals" with the right so overly represented I see nothing wrong with some representation of the left. Why do you?

[stillcool]

22. ooh..putting a few words in my mouth..

there eh? I am very happy with my Congressman, and have voted for him several times. If Obama thought he could use him in a certain cabinet position that would be his business. If it isn't labels than how is it you've come to term his choices so far as the right being over-represented? And which choices are 'right'?

[Dragonfli]

24. Your words your post

I just tried to answer you.
I am not in the mood for games so I will simply call you a winner!
This is the most liberal cabinet ever built so far! I am so stoked!

Are you happy now, or do you wish me to write an op-ed extolling the risks and virtues of such a progressive "changely new" bunch of appointees?

If you can't be bothered to learn the positions of the players, then I simply find it easier to agree with you than to educate you.

As Jimmi used to say "let us stop talking falsely now, the hour's getting late"

And I'd much rather spend time educating my towel.



This should allow you to further marginalize me as a hippie stoner and move on with a feeling of victory.
Freeing me up to continue learning more about the players in the game so that I may understand the many intelligent posts on this board.

[stillcool]

38. Liberal cabinet?

I'm not sure why anyone would think that Obama would load have a "liberal" Cabinet. Nor do I think anyone in government is going to fit into your version of 'liberal' for very long. After all, even Dennis was for abortion at one time. Good luck to you way up there on your perch.

[PM7nj]

11. I meant "any of you" as "any of you flipping out over cabinet posts"

You are not my opposition or my enemy. I am sick of all the drama around here these days.

[Dragonfli]

23. Apology? accepted

I am growing rather tired of being marginalized simply because I am a liberal. Your language did not help much with that. I can only speak for myself but voicing an opinion by anyone should not be compared to flipping out, also it is not so much dislike of any singular appointment as it is that there is very little representation of liberals thus far. If I can accept democrats with corporate or pro-war "leanings" why am I flipping out because I assumed others might be willing to accept democrats with anti-war or pro populist working poor "leanings". Where is the unity from your camp?

[bunnies]

30. ummm. How long ago did you make that list, exactly?

Hon. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (OH-11) - She was quite the Clinton supporter wasnt she.

[EstimatedProphet]

35. You forgot Nancy Pelosi.

She was in the caucus until she joined the leadership.

[AJH032]

6. Obama makes the decisions, and he surrounds himself with people who know how to make things happen

Isn't that better than appointing newbies just for the sake of "change" itself?

[KakistocracyHater]

9. there are experts who are not in gov

positions, I would strongly prefer outsiders, the direction hinted at by his choices say he'll be the 'other Right', i.e. no change. Hope I'm wrong, but many people did not understand the "confidence game" that is/was Iraq/War on Terror, I recognized it quicker.

[stillcool]

13. You mean like..

"heck of a job" Brownie did with FEMA? Should Obama fill positions like Bush...any 'liberal' will do?

[KakistocracyHater]

16. funny I just mentioned those burrowing 'ticks'

in another thread-no, I mean like Juan Cole co-heading MidEast Ops, got a problem with that?

[stillcool]

18. I don't know...is that

a quasi/military affairs position in the State Department? I think he would be much better suited as a foreign affairs advisor, no?

[cali]

28. Yes. I have a problem with it. Cole couldn't get confirmed.

He couldn't get a post at Yale, how the hell do you get him confirmed? What's the point of a sideshow like that?

[KakistocracyHater]

39. a specialist in the area of Modern Iraq

why couldn't he get into Yale? Some idiot nitpicker, probably....Look at the alumni of Yale, you'll probably find a few tin pots in there.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. Outsiders can bring a fresh perspective but Obama needs people that can get things done

In general the cabinet performs more of an executive function than an advisory function. The Secretaries of State and Defense are often crucial advisors to the President and to a lesser extent the Treasury Secretary and the Attorney General are as well. But beyond that, many Cabinet secretaries have very limited access to the President and he is advised by people within the Executive Office of the President.

[DJ13]

7. Can anyone see in this why some might not be perfectly happy?

Obama tilts to center, inviting a clash of ideas

<snip>

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination with the enthusiastic support of the left wing of his party, fueled by his vehement opposition to the decision to invade Iraq and by one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate.

Now, his reported selections for two of the major positions in his cabinet — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and Timothy J. Geithner as secretary of the Treasury — suggest that Mr. Obama is planning to govern from the center-right of his party, surrounding himself with pragmatists rather than ideologues.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27849923/

[stillcool]

14. Why would anyone

..who supported Obama for the last 2 years, being well aware of his policy positions, pay attention to that horseshit?

[Uzybone]

15. If you continue to buy into media spin, you'll never be happy

I read that article on the NYT website. Apart from listing Clinton and Geithners names, there was no other evidence they gave to prove that Obama would be a center-right democrat. The main crux of the piece was that he has selected pragmatists, insinuating that its not possible to be both liberal and pragmatic at the same time.

[Uzybone]

12. Stupid argument

We are not voting for cabinet posts. We voted for the man who would appoint those cabinet post.

The OP reminds me of the "Palin has more executive experience" arguments. Voters choose the president, the president then chooses his staff.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Presidents aren't managers-in-chief and they don't need to be experts in any one particular area

Presidents basically do two things. They appoint people and they make decisions. The federal government is far too large for the President to actually manage. That is why he needs to have the judgment to appoint people to the various departments and agencies that actually do have good management skills and those skills usually require experience.

Additionally the President doesn't need to be an expert in any one particular policy area whereas many of the people he appoints to the Cabinet do. The President is not supposed to go out and get his own advice, he doesn't have time to. It's his advisors' job to bring him the best advice possible. The President then needs to use that advice to make good decisions.

[jobycom]

21. Or else you reject silly absolutes and pick people for what they bring.

Dumb-ass false dichotomies notwithstanding.

[Life Long Dem]

25. There is experience and then there is Obama.

[treestar]

26. Some people are stuck on the concept that "change" refers to

the people who take these government posts! As if they must all be new and inexperienced people or things can't be changed! That's crazy.

Let alone that the Clinton Admin was successful. And that it was drastically different from the * Administration.

Honestly, this is getting annoying. Do people really think it matters that much who helps the President? And that it's bad if it is people who know the ropes?

[No Elephants]

27. Obama did have experience. He was in the working world for 25 years and held 3 or more jobs a lot

of those years.

Wall Street (1 year),

community organizer/activist (several years,before and after law school)

Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review, supervising 80 people (1 year)

civl rights attorney (about 20 years, some part time)

Director of several not for profit organizations;

founder and CEO of at least one not for profit

professor of Contstitutional law (12 years "part time," but 3 classes per semester, which is more than some "full time" professors carry),

state legislator (8 years)

United States Senate since January, 2005

And in most of those things, he did outstandingly well.

Why is anyone here repeating the Republican meme that he had NO experience?

[stray cat]

29. Of course you can have a team with experience and intelligence to bring about change

If you were moving to the middle east would you ask people who had never heard of it for advice or people who had lived there? The change of moving to the middle east will probably be better if you know what you are talking about

Besides change means different than Bush/Cheney as far as I'm concerned and a return to responsible government, the constitution and helping all Americans - How is the former dem administration unable to bring that about?

[bunnies]

31. This is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

The qualifications the President needs are superior judgment and intellect. Obama has an abundance of both.

[Diamonique]

32. Geez. It looks like some folks just don't have anything to do.

How about reading a book?

That's much more productive than throwing bombs in DU.

[BootinUp]

33. A fresh look from the outside

confirmed that we needed some experienced qualified adults in there.

[CreekDog]

34. i could respond to this for the 100th time

or

"How do I hide a thread?

To hide a thread, click the small icon next to the title of the thread. You can also click the small black "Hide Thread" link in the bottom left-hand corner of the message."

or better yet...

[TexasObserver]

36. The president's job is to lead. That includes picking people.

There's nothing wrong with most of the people who worked for the Clinton administration, and your comment is the stuff of rightwing radio, not Democrats.

Complain about the appointees on their merits, and stop trying to label them as "Clinton" people. Just because they worked for Clinton doesn't make them Clinton people. It does make them Democrats who served in a very successful Democratic administration.

[LostinVA]

37. Of course Obama is already "corrupted" -- very, very politicians aren't

And, I'll bet even fewer from Chicago are. That doesn't bother em at all, as long as their Admin is ethical.

And, I adore Jimmy Carter, but I think his Admin is textbook for what NOT to do, so I'm glad Obama is getting in some smart, experienced people who are TRUSTWORTHY, and known team players. I'm less than thrilled with the Daschle appointment, but he's also trustoworthy and loyal.

[Arkana]

40. You're right--we should hire all 30-somethings who have no clue

how to utilize the current system in Washington so that we can bitch about nothing getting done! Surely this would be better! :sarcasm:

Throw a handful of pebbles down the Capitol steps and they will hit a dozen former Clinton staffers. It's helpful to have some people on the inside who know how it works. Get control of the old system, and you can turn it into a new system.