Several times in the last couple of weeks, various commenters have noted — either with approval or dismay — that Barack Obama is opting for experience in his choice of advisers.
For a sample of what I mean, note this piece from the front of The New York Times‘ Week In Review section Sunday, "Change is Landing in Old Hands:"
AS he sought the presidency for the last two years, Barack Obama liked to say that “change doesn’t come from Washington — change comes to Washington.”
Nearly three weeks after his election, he is testing voters’ understanding of that assertion as he assembles a government whose early selections lean heavily on veterans of the political era he ran to supplant. He showed that in breathtaking fashion by turning to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his bitter primary rival and the wife of the last Democratic president, for the post of secretary of state.
Mr. Obama will bring pieces of Chicago to the White House in the form of longtime advisers like Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod. But even after vowing to turn the page on the polarized politics of the baby boom generation, he’s made clear that service in the Beltway wars of the last 20 years is not only acceptable, but in some cases necessary for his purposes.
Of course, y’all know what I think — experience is a valuable asset. I may object to the Hillary Clinton appointment, but less because she doesn’t represent "change" than the fact that the particular job seems a bad match. I applaud his turning to other Clinton veterans, such as Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers.
Anyway, this discussion reminds me of something. Way back last year, I had lunch with someone from the John Edwards campaign after my "Edwards is a phony" column. She was a strikingly attractive young woman of apparently multiethnic background. At some point in our discussion I asked, "Why Edwards?" (Meaning, "…out of all the Democrats running for president?," not "…since he’s such a phony?")
I was really struck by her answer. She said she had thought about working for Obama, but took a look at all the old white guys around him, and thought she wouldn’t feel at home on that team. Yes, the observation seemed ridiculous in light of all the young folks of multiple backgrounds who had flocked to the Obama banner by that time, but I didn’t say so. Maybe at the start of the campaign, his staff had really looked that way to a young political professional. After all, Ted Sorenson was one of his more prominent early supporters, and surely HE is an Old White Guy? Or maybe she was just rationalizing.
Anyway, I knew Obama was smart, and he’s proving it by choosing smart, experienced people for his team. And not all of them are old, white guys.
Related Posts
By the way, here’s the caption for that really cool photo I put at the top of the post:
Actually, I think Sen. Clinton will be a first class Sec. of State. She brings experience and a lot of personal networking to the job. At the same time it doesn’s seem to me to be a position that ‘feeds’ the stereotypical construct of her that so many seem to hate. Why don’t you think she’s a good choice, Brad?
Austan Goolsbee’s narrow area of research in economics has been in the marginal rates of taxation which people will tolerate. In other words, Goolsbee is interested in setting tax rates to extract the maximum amount from each socio-economic group, from the working poor to billionaire heirs.
His work is all statistical, using methods which excite some of his peers, but which are laughed at by business economists, mathematicians and software engineers who have to product working predictive systems for the real world.
I posted about Austan Goolsbee here over 6 months ago, stating then that his being a close advisor to the campaign was an indicator of how socialist Obama was on tax policy.
Hillary appears to not even be eligible to hold any appointed office, under federal law.
The Emoluments Clause provides that “[n]o Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time.” As I understand it, 5 U.S.C. § 5303 provides for an automatic annual increase in certain federal salaries, including the salary of the Secretary of State, unless the President certifies that an increase in salaries is inappropriate. The salary of the Secretary of State has increased during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, which does not end until 2012. Therefore, under a straightforward application of the Emoluments Clause, Senator Clinton is ineligible for appointment as Secretary of State because the emoluments of that office “have been encreased” during Senator Clinton’s current Senate term, and this disability continues until the end of “the time for which [she] was elected, or until January 2013.
See the law review article by John O’Connor, “The Emoluments Clause: An Anti-Federalist In
So it pleases you, Brad, that Obama shows himself to be nothing but a lying political hack even before he takes office?
You are one sad piece of work.
The new boss is the same as the old boss.
There is one reason that Hillary is a bad choice for Sec. Of State. She rolled over and played dead when Bill was cheating on her with several women that we know by name. How many is maybe not the issue because one infidelity is enough.
When she is dealing with heads of state throughout the world, how much of a handicap is her inability to throw the bum out going to work on the minds of those leaders?
You can accept a woman in some countries but not a weak woman that cannot clean up her own house when she is trying to negotiate with the leaders of other nations.
How come the Democrats who were complaining about the $300 Billion deficits signed by President Bush are now silent on the $1,000 Billion deficit created by Nancy Pelosi to bail out the Democrats’ junk mortgage programs?
How come Obama can talk about running an $8 TRILLION deficit and none of his supporters even blink?
Gee! If Barack Obama had picked a completely fresh team he would have been accused of staffing his government with inexperienced politicians and academics. If he had picked all Democrats, he would have been accused of polarizing Washington and failing to confront our problems on a bipartisan basis.
You would all do well to refer back to the chapter on Jefferson in Hofstadter’s (1948) book, The American political tradition. Compromise, the search for consensus, and pragmatism are the hallmarks of the administrations of our greatest presidents who, nevertheless, still managed to put their stamp on both the government and society.
Let Barack govern from the center-left, if you please! 7.5 million more votes than the other guy got would seem to demand that he be given a chance.
BTW, I stand behind my remarks on other parts of this blog that the republicans risk sliding into utter obscurity as a regional party of low-information yahoos from politically insignificant states (such as our own, alas!) unless it retrieves its roots in a Lincolnesque attention to civil rights, federalism, fiscal conservatism, and a robust, but non-imperial, foreign policy (I am thinking here of Eisenhower and Reagan, not TR!).
It does our country no good if the government ends up being virtually a one-party state, ruled by the Democracy. We Democrats have a right, indeed a mandate, to exercise power and to see our platform enacted in broad outline–but not without due consideration of the views of the opposition and certainly not without their participation, moderation, and input.
Kevin Phillips’ book (2005), American Theocracy, should already have given Republicans some meat to chew on, but are they reading the words of their own in-house intellectuals such as Phillips and Scowcroft. I doubt it. Too enamored of that hot chick from Alaska who, if she gets the nomination in 2012, will doom the party to utter irrelevance and permanent political loss while turning the Grand Old Party into a national laughingstock as the new No-Nothing Party.
Fear not, Rich. The GOP will not wither with the Democrats in power. The Democrats’ inability to chew gum and touch their noses at the same time will make sure of that.
Face it – Obama has no connections with people of ability and track records of success, because he never held a real job in business in his life, and has no accomplishments as an elected representative.
He could choose old losers, or a team of his totally inexperienced Marxists pals.
Bottom line, he is not equipped to do chose or execute the correct economic policies. And it is scaring investors out of the market and putting business on hold.
The GOP is dead as we know it. It will continue in right wing irrelevance or become strong as a right of center party that accepts gays and immigrants. Either way, the old GOP is history. (Hey, that rhymes!)
Illegal aliens are not immigrants.
Hey, that’s good to hear! If illegals aren’t "immigrants," then there’s no such thing as "illegal immigration." Thanks for making that problem go away, Lee.
Karen, I apologize for failing to link to the previous posts about Hillary Clinton. Here’s the initial one, and here’s the brief follow-up.
Basically, I raised the same objections that David Broder and Tom Friedman did (and if you read just one of those, make it Broder — I particularly like his distinction between the roles of "agent" and "author"). Obama needed someone in that job who would clearly be HIS person, someone who foreign leaders would look upon and see his agent, not a political rival with her own base of power.
Barack Obama is starting off with a huge reservoir of good feeling around the world. People are excited, all over the world, about HIM being president of the United States. Why confuse or throw away that good feeling by putting someone so high-profile (and so NON-Obama) between him and those people?
When she steps onto that red carpet at a foreign airport on a state visit, the local dignitaries will think, "Here comes Hillary Clinton," instead of "Here comes Barack Obama’s representative." It’s just a completely unnecessary complication.
Brad,
If you want to become a real newpaper opinion writer, you need to stop running from issues while hurling childish semantic jabs over your shoulder.
The problem with you, Lindsay Graham, John McCain, and others on immigration and illegal aliens, is that you are afraid to honestly state what it is you want for a policy, and why. That makes you just a weak enabler for radicals who want to legalize the criminals who are here, and to encourage more of them.
As much as you like to bash libertarians, you are aligned with the most radical libertarians, who want to drop all border controls, and end the concept of nationhood.
People are excited, all over the world, about HIM being president of the United States. Why confuse or throw away that good feeling by putting someone so high-profile (and so NON-Obama) between him and those people?
-Brad
People are also very excited about the Clintons. They remember the fine job Bill did as president in keeping the world safe. To use a football analogy you want to have your best “atheletes” on the field. Hillary is one of the best and we need her skills as the top diplomat.
Clinton – the most corrupt administration so far…. but give Obama a chance.
Clinton armed the Muslims in Kosovo, and their war continues, with 250,000 Christians and Jews driven from their homes.
Clinton’s recession in 1996 and 2000 and his stock market crashes were a lot of fun.
Let’s not forget his refusal to pursue Osama Bin Laden, his cover up of the TWA 800 crash.
And his timid refusal to use the war powers granted him by Congress in 1998 to stop Saddam Hussein’s terrorism factory.
Oh, and the 40 associates who turned up dead, and the more than 100 who were convicted of money crimes.