Quote :

" Hooksaw makes a good point, why is he seemingly surrounding himself with tons of Clinton era people."

He makes a typical Rush/Hannity point. Hooksaw is pretty ignorant, so pardon him. Let the GOP continue to wither and bitch for the next 8 years. It's fantastic.

Obama's doing this because he needs people like this to actually get things done...for better or worse. He'll need lots of buy-in and traction right away, the country needs to have it. If he pulls a Clinton and brings in all new blood, there's years of crappy transition and little know how of how washington works.

Plus if on the chance Clinton had the motivation for it - if she takes this position she's in the catbird seat to run a very successful bid for presidency IF and only if Obama has successful years in the WH. So, she'd have a stake in the matter and it's a win win for both parties.

11/15/2008 5:08:04 PM

not to mention, Obama's mantra of "Change" can be interpreted multiple ways.
hooksaw is taking the broadest definition possible, implying that "change" must mean everything changes. No Bushies, to Clintonites, hell, how about nobody that knows anything about politics! That would be the ultimate change!!

But nobody can deny that much of the "Change" Obama has been speaking of is simply a change from Bush and the last 8 years. So by bringing back some of the more popular figures from the Clinton administration, the most popular recent President, you could argue that some of his "change" is to go back to how things were done in the 90's.

11/15/2008 5:15:59 PM

I dunno about that, Obama during the election was pushing the "Change in politics as usual in Washington."

Quote :

"the most popular recent President"

Well, we have only had two "recent" Presidents.. and the other is Bush.. that isn't saying much at all. Reagan was much more popular than Clinton.

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 5:31 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2008 5:30:09 PM

Quote :

"Reagan was much more popular than Clinton."

i guess it depends on when you take the measure. but the approval rating at the end of presidential terms shows clinton with the highest since the measure started being polled, with reagan following close behind.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm

and looking a little deeper, it looks like reagan was overall less popular than clinton:



[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 6:38 PM. Reason : pic]

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 6:40 PM. Reason : moral of the story: don't believe everything hannity tells you]

11/15/2008 6:37:37 PM

Quote :

"moral of the story: don't believe everyanything hannity tells you"

11/15/2008 7:20:07 PM

it must be nice being president during that first couple of years

after that everyone hates you and thinks you're doing a shitty job

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 9:10 PM. Reason : asdfghjk]

11/15/2008 9:09:41 PM

Quote :

"i guess it depends on when you take the measure. but the approval rating at the end of presidential terms shows clinton with the highest since the measure started being polled, with reagan following close behind. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm and looking a little deeper, it looks like reagan was overall less popular than clinton: "

Eh, look at the elections of '84 and '96, or even their initial elections. Reagan got over 50% of the vote in each, Clinton never got over 50. Notice this, Clinton got 49% of the popular vote in '96, but his approval rating was over 65%. I don't buy into approval polls for a variety of reasons, that type of poll question can be very misleading.

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2008 11:06:27 PM

^ i guess you must also believe that, "if you didnt vote for a president, you cant ever *really* approve of their performance"

11/16/2008 1:16:00 AM

^^perot also ran in 92 and 96 and got a substantial number of votes (especially in 92)

anyway, it's far from clear that reagan was "far more popular" than clinton

it's just bullshit that conservatives have been spreading for so long that people take it as true now. just because conservatives loved him doesn't mean everyone did.

[Edited on November 16, 2008 at 2:19 AM. Reason : .]

11/16/2008 2:18:43 AM

Quote :

"it's just bullshit that conservatives have been spreading for so long that people take it as true now. just because conservatives loved him doesn't mean everyone did."

yeah, i was gonna say.....
It's pretty much a myth that Ronald Reagan was the last "Great President" that the whole country was in love with for 8 years. I mean, no doubt he was popular, especially among Conservatives. But he was not this transformative figure that brought the entire country together in a giant happy conservative circle-jerk through the 80s and beyond

11/16/2008 9:35:13 AM

Yea, no one said that did they? But approval poll ratings are a joke. Look at Bush's ratings post 9/11 up until the Iraq war...

Most analyst would say that Perot was a spoiler for Bush, not Clinton.

And I don't recall anyone but you saying Reagan was some sort of transformational figure that was universally loved. But Reagan had strong support from areas that weren't traditionally Republican, you can see this in the elections of '80 and '84. But I guess elections don't count. Cause opinion polls that are widely volatile and variable are much more reliable.

Anyone this is way off topic.

11/16/2008 3:00:24 PM

you're the one who claimed reagan was far more popular than clinton. i think that claim is dubious. i further was refuting the seemingly endless fawning over reagan that i've heard from the right during this election cycle (mostly because they couldn't fawn over bush and they needed someone people still remembered). and of course those memories of conservatives have improved with time. and it is true that reagan won more votes than clinton did. but that is only a snapshot of approval. the gallup poll is just another measure. sure it is volatile and reactive to current events, but i think that is instructive. i think it would be interesting if they included approval ratings for former presidents a year after they had left office or something.

11/16/2008 6:33:01 PM

im not so sure that obama should load up the cabinet with a bunch of minorities

if im him, i would probably go with a more traditional lineup. a black president is going to be enough change for now, additional "statements" are not needed.

11/18/2008 11:04:24 PM

Quote :

"if im him, i would probably go with a more traditional lineup. a black president is going to be enough change for now, additional "statements" are not needed."

if i were him i'd pick the best people i could find. "traditional". jesus christ.

11/18/2008 11:38:26 PM

"traditional" is a code word for caucasian, right?

11/18/2008 11:45:04 PM

just seems ironic that his first two pics are minorities

slow down nigga

11/18/2008 11:48:21 PM

i'm aware that handler holder is being floated as the potential AG. who's the second minority cabinet position?

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2008 11:55:13 PM

attorney gen is black

don't know too many whites named rahm emanuel

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 11:56 PM. Reason : ]

11/18/2008 11:56:13 PM

i'm aware of that. who's the second minority pick that you were referring?

jesus christ dude. anyway. rahm emanuel is chief of staff, not a cabinet position, but a staff position.

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2008 11:56:56 PM

close enough

fucking a

11/18/2008 11:58:50 PM

"first two" isn't accurate at all then. he has named lots of other non-cabinet level positions. plenty of them filled by pure, traditional, down-home white folks.

[Edited on November 18, 2008 at 11:59 PM. Reason : .]

11/18/2008 11:59:30 PM

two most notable are minorities

11/19/2008 12:00:21 AM

clinton being floated as sec of state isn't notable anymore?

communications director isn't notable anymore?

etc etc.

holder isn't finalized yet. no cabinet positions are. but for real. maybe race shouldn't be the deciding factor for his picks.

not to mention these two picks were very experienced and qualified nominees. it's not like he just picked some random black guy or jew he knew from college. i don't know all that much about holder, but the emanuel seems like a solid one. and aside from holder's involvement in a controversial pardoning during the clinton administration, i don't know that his nomination was all that unexpected either.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 12:08 AM. Reason : .]

11/19/2008 12:03:08 AM

Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has accepted Secretary of Health and Human Services today. Just broke.

11/19/2008 1:17:18 PM

Thats not a good thing, IMO. I was never a fan of Daschle when he was the majority leader.

This Cabinet is shaping up to be pretty far to the left, and full of retreads.

11/19/2008 1:43:04 PM

maybe he should have tapped Tom Tancredo for DHHS?

11/19/2008 1:52:29 PM

^^"retreads". . . would you have preferred he get people to start his first term who don't know what they're doing in the federal gov't?

oh yeah and john cole brings the funny again:

Quote :

"I was ambivalent about Hillary at Secretary of State, but figured if Obama and Clinton can work out there differences, more power to him. Additionally, I find all the angst about former Clinton acolytes in the Obama White House to be pretty amusing: "More now on the “Raw Politics” of the attorney general pick and, in a larger sense, the retread factor, between John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, Holder, and possibly Hillary Clinton, an awful lot of ex- Clintonites running around these days. Is it wise? Is Eric Holder a good choice, in any case." 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. At any rate, all of this is a long way of me saying the following- now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection, and look forward to four and hopefully eight years of her at the State Department. I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing."

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=13951

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 1:56 PM. Reason : link]

11/19/2008 1:54:57 PM

I'd prefer some outsiders and position-specific experts for cabinet positions which are not political in nature. A health care expert or industry veteran would have been nice for the HHS position.

What again makes Daschle an expert on Health and Human Services? Was it his degree in Political Science, or his stint in the Air Force?

He certainly had a long and distinguished career in congress, but I don't see how that qualifies him for this role. More likely it was his service as national co-chair for Obama's Presidential campaign that got him this position.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : 2]

11/19/2008 1:56:41 PM

the last person i want in that post is an industry veteran.

11/19/2008 1:58:38 PM

Good article I just read in Newsweek last night about this subject:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169174

Recommendations from the article:

Treasury: Larry Summers
State: Richard Holbrooke
Energy: Al Gore
Education: Joel Klien (and a LOL suggestion of Bill Gates)

11/19/2008 2:01:06 PM

^^^i don't really know. but apparently he was considered for COS, but said he didn't want and that he was enthusiastic about helping to bring about universal health care.

i have no particular fondness for daschle. but i would think that an industry veteran would have huge conflicts of interest being the sec. of hhs

11/19/2008 2:04:00 PM

Quote :

"the last person i want in that post is an industry veteran."

Yes, because doctors obviously don't know shit about health care.


The last thing I want is a career politician with lots of ideals but zero real-world experience in the field overseeing our Health and Human Services Department.

Quote :

"he was enthusiastic about helping to bring about universal health care."

that's what I'm worried about. A lot of mistakes are made by people with lots of enthusiasm but little understanding of the complexities of the issue.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM. Reason : 2]

11/19/2008 2:05:59 PM

"industry veteran" to me doesn't equate with a doctor. but i wouldn't be entirely opposed to a doctor as long as they have some experience with congress/executive branch

"industry veteran" to me implied someone from a drug company or insurance company.

word has it that dean was being considered as well, since he was a doctor and all. but that his role as dnc chairman might hurt him in working with republicans in the future.

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/19/2008 2:08:17 PM

Quote :

"PrawnStar: The last thing I want is a career politician with lots of ideals but zero real-world experience in the field overseeing our Health and Human Services Department."

you apparently are missing the main point of the principles behind executive-level management.

you don't want a C++ coder, no matter how outstanding a coder (s)he is, to be CEO of a tech company. you want someone who understands the technology from a high level but also understands the many complexities surrounding the business and how to leverage various resources -- most importantly PEOPLE -- effectively to drive the business in a competitive environment.

this is why hospital directors are typically not medical doctors. the people who run hospitals at the highest levels are administrators who are more skilled in political negotiation than they are in medical diagnostics.

my wife knows a lot of doctors -- many of whom are brilliant physicians or researchers -- who can barely even manage their own practice or research budgets.

As Senate Majority Leader, Daschle has a long resume filled with negotiating a slew of policy decisions related to health and human services issues. He's as good a pick for the position as anyone.

In short, Obama needs people who understand the system and can work with the system effectively. not some starry-eyed idealists or academic policy wonks who will spend the first 2 years flailing about trying to figure out how the phone system works. Metaphorically speaking.






[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 2:16:16 PM

ezra klein's take:

Quote :

"The choice of Daschle suggests that the Obama team has learned those lessons well. Magaziner and Clinton signaled that the Clinton administration viewed health care as a policy problem. For them, the key to success was the genius of the policy team. Daschle signals that the Obama administration view health care as a political problem. The key to success is votes. And Daschle is a guy whose last job was lining up votes. He is also a guy who has recently written a book on health reform. Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis should now be on every health wonk's reading list. Among other things, his book argues that reform must be comprehensive, as we can no longer afford incrementalism or inaction, and that the real problem with health care reform is, well, Congress. I interviewed Daschle on his book here. "

full post here: http://tinyurl.com/5jpnkf

11/19/2008 2:23:33 PM

Quote :

"He makes a typical Rush/Hannity point. Hooksaw is pretty ignorant, so pardon him. Let the GOP continue to wither and bitch for the next 8 years. It's fantastic."

Kraiyon

1. So, "Rush/Hannity" are incapable of making legitimate points?

2. I'll remind you of your ignorance every time a former Clintonista is brought into the "new" Obama administration.

Eric Holder, Old Washington, New Washington

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/eric_holder_old_washington_new.php

Change we can believe in.

[OLD]

11/19/2008 2:24:16 PM

you're [OLD].

your issues are [STALE].

go [HOME].




[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : and your penchant for making up childish names is INCREDIBLY unfunny. you sound like a retard]

11/19/2008 2:25:06 PM

Gore isn't going to take DoE. He can probably wield more influence for his climate crusade outside of any government post. Besides, why should someone of his stature step down to take a secondary cabinet position and deal with all the administrative bs that comes with it?

As for his selection of Clinton veterans, think of it this way: the vast majority of all experienced and skilled Democrats today were at one point or another part of the Clinton administration. Obama can't avoid it, not if he wants to have a competent cadre of individuals who knows how to maneuver in Washington (which he'll need to implement his vision). As long as he can control them (the big question in my opinion), he'll be positioned to do a lot of great things. If he can't control them, much like how Dubya couldn't control his cabinet and staff, then we're going to have a lousy eight years.

11/19/2008 2:57:22 PM

Quote :

"i would think that an industry veteran would have huge conflicts of interest being the sec. of hhs"

a conflict of interest is the reason I don't want Gore in the Energy position

11/19/2008 3:38:28 PM

2 of the last 5 Secretaries of HHS have been former physicians.

11/19/2008 3:49:42 PM

Whelp - looks like Obama's now up to three rabid Drug Warriors on staff - Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, and now his AG pick:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130163.html

Of note - the guy was calling for higher mandatory minimums on marijuana possession in '96, and hasn't exactly shown signs of relenting his rabid anti-drug hysteria since then.

But hey, I'm sure Obama's really going to change things, right? He's totally going to scale back the War on Drugs - I mean, he kind of sort of hinted at it, maybe a little obliquely, right?

...change?

11/19/2008 3:51:42 PM

Quote :

"i would think that an industry veteran would have huge conflicts of interest being the sec. of hhs"

hmm... yeah, kind of like how hiring the CEO of an investment firm to run the Treasury Department, then having him demand money from Congress virtually at gunpoint so he can funnel it back into the company he ran because of the horrible decisions he made when he was running it.

11/19/2008 3:55:18 PM

Quote :

"hmm... yeah, kind of like how hiring the CEO of an investment firm to run the Treasury Department, then having him demand money from Congress virtually at gunpoint so he can funnel it back into the company he ran because of the horrible decisions he made when he was running it."

Remind me, which party signed onto that bill of goods hook, line, and sinker, anyways? And castigated those who refused to go along with it? And which Senator also didn't raise a peep of opposition when his turn rolled around?

Oh, right. Nevermind, then.

11/19/2008 3:56:47 PM

I'm not trying to abdicate responsibility on passing that bill from anyone.

I'm just saying, nobody can possibly talk about conflicts of interest of private vs. gov't without looking at the set of crooks in the current administration that are literally taking our money and funneling it directly to their former coworkers.

11/19/2008 4:05:09 PM

That's absolutely a problem, and in no way was I advocating an insurance company CEO to be head of the HHS.

I would like to see someone with real world health care experience, however. Daschle was the leader of old-school Dems that everybody hated and his ineptitude spurred the republican congressional sweep in '94. I view him as a partisan hack, and I don't see how Obama will form any type of across-the-aisle coalition, or "change" for that matter, with the cabinet he is selecting.

But then again he doesn't need the support of Republicans with a near-supermajority in Congress. Its great how we went from one extreme to the other in just 2 years

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM. Reason : 2]

11/19/2008 4:07:48 PM

tom daschle?

GAH

it's starting to look like he made some sort of deal with the clintons and in exchange for support putting some of their old peeps back in the white house

he better name a republican something soon

[Edited on November 19, 2008 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

11/19/2008 4:17:17 PM

Quote :

"he better name a republican something soon"

just as a token?

11/19/2008 4:19:49 PM

he was asked in the 60 Minutes interview "will there be a republican on your cabinet" and without hesitation he said "Yes", then was asked if there would be more than one, and he paused and said something like "you'll just have to wait and see"

11/19/2008 4:33:23 PM

love it...the cynicism is rippling through this thread like a high wind. How about you wait and see what happens with an Obama-run WH and this cabinet before throwing out generalizations of what is and will be eh? Some of you non Obama supporters would shit on his picks no matter who he threw out there, it is all part of the gagging on the bitter pill.

11/19/2008 4:36:40 PM

Quote :

"love it...the cynicism is rippling through this thread like a high wind. How about you wait and see what happens with an Obama-run WH and this cabinet before throwing out generalizations of what is and will be eh? Some of you non Obama supporters would shit on his picks no matter who he threw out there, it is all part of the gagging on the bitter pill."

Yeah, because things like "avowed positions" and "voting records" are simply "baseless generalizations."

Here's a rejoinder for you - when can we expect Obamaniacs to enjoin us as to why important issues no longer matter? Whenever it becomes obvious that Obama won't do squat on those issues, at least.

Don't worry, we all can wait. Anytime you're ready to tell us why principles no longer matter, we'll be here, waiting for you to gag on your own "bitter pill."

11/19/2008 4:43:51 PM