Obama's Big Gamble
Barack Obama has decided that he is going to try to shoot the moon. He is going to try to expand the tent and see if he can get everyone to buy into his ideas for reform. If it works, everyone will be invested into the change that's coming. If it doesn't, then his administration might spin out of control.
The old saying is that you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I don't really believe that. How did that work out for Julius Caesar? It worked to the tune of about eight daggers in his back the minute he turned around. His enemies were so close they were in stabbing distance.
I was most concerned about this when Obama pressed Senate Democrats to keep Joe Lieberman in his Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chair. That's the committee that would "investigate" Obama if things went wrong.
Lieberman never thought it was worthwhile to investigate Bush, including the Hurricane Katrina response (even though this was one of his campaign promises). But Republicans investigated Bill Clinton's Christmas card list and his cat, literally. You think Lieberman won't side with Republicans if it suits his political advantage to start a nonsense investigation of Obama? Then you don't know Lieberman at all.
Now, Obama has selected Robert Gates as the Secretary of Defense and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. I'm not sure which one is more right-wing in foreign policy. Don't get me wrong, I think Gates was an excellent Secretary of Defense and the Clintons are a welcome face for the rest of the world. In fact, now that he got rid of John Brennan at the CIA, I don't necessarily disagree with any of his picks.
It's easy for me to agree with him because I'm a moderate and his picks are decidedly centrist. I wouldn't have wanted a purely progressive cabinet. I value diversity of opinion. Though I do think that part of that diversity should be the inclusion of at least a few strong progressive voices in this "Team of Rivals." The one I would strongly suggest is Howard Dean. The man has been right about just about everything, it might make sense to seek his advice and counsel.
So, why am I concerned about Obama's cabinet and staff? It's Washington. They play hardball here, and the leaks come fast and furious. Once the Fox News Channels and the Rush Limbaughs set in and dissension starts, it could get ugly. It's imperative that Obama run a tight ship, and if need be, make an example out of someone early. In other words, if someone is leaking news for internal advantage within the cabinet, get rid of them publicly to let others know that you are here to do the people's business not seek personal political gain.
In the end, if Obama is strong and wise, he can pull it off. He can get varied, interesting, thoughtful advice from all of these folks. And they can all unite to lead the country in a different direction. I have faith that this is the more likely outcome. But it's not a blind faith. Keep everyone close; just don't turn your back.
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"The one I would strongly suggest is Howard Dean. The man has been right about just about everything, it might make sense to seek his advice and counsel."
His rightness about "just about everything", in particular his rightness before the event about the wisdom of going to war on a false pretext, is precisely what excludes him from consideration. The Obama picks and possibles we've heard about so far may be varied, but they have one thing in common. Included are some of the people who were most brazenly outspoken for war before the event. Not one of the 23 senators or 133 house members who voted against the war has apparently been considered, not even for a nanosecond. That one vote of theirs equates to permanent and total exclusion from consideration. Also, there was never any possibility of meaningful punishment of Lieberman, and in fact Lieberman could have got away with much more than he has done, because Lieberman has always been one of the biggest hawks.
"The old saying is that you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer". How is that supposed to relate to the current situation? Has Obama described any of his potential cabinet picks as enemies? Can you imagine him ever describing them as anything other than old or new friends? Oh, and Jotunloki has it right, the people who stabbed Caesar were those he would have thought of as friends.
I agree with these sentiments, particularly "keep your enemies closer." Cenk used the exact example I always use - if they are close enough to stab you in the back, that is a problem. Obama has shown himself to be a brilliant strategist up to this point. However, many brilliant minds misjudge human nature. He will have enough enemies from the opposition party. Why put enemies in the cabinet? We will see if this works out, but I think it is questionable.
Cenk, I liked the article, however, Obama's big gamble to me was running for the presidency. Look how well that worked out for him. I don't agree with every thing that he says or does, but he is better than the alternative. Let's remember that he didn't rely on luck as much as he did him self. He had a plan and he stuck with it. I am a democrat not a republican because I don't get their philosophy. I get their distractions and can see how they bait their hooks with fluff that a lot of people fall for like catering to the religious right but not follow through on their promises to them. Claiming they want smaller goverment (I personally believe that they hate government.), but when they need a bail out or extra funds for their state who do they run to? That's just to name a few. Plus I just can't get with the "No. I'm not my brothers keeper thing, and all the other mindless distraction weddge issue squabbles that they engage our citizens in.
Remember Obama overcame the "the kitchen sink" strategy twice along with Jerimiah Wright, the 3am phone call, a "war hero"and a pitbull w/ lipstick. He didn't arrive at this point with out a plan. I believe that he knows what he is doing. And that what ever he does it or don't do will be better than the last 8 years and remarkably better than more of the same.
I love your last paragraph, Citizen-Jane. That about sums it up for me, too !!
Anyone can appoint toadies and yes people - the last guy did, and look what happened. It shows much better maturity, wisdom and leadership to choose and listen to people you may disagree with to get alternate views.
Walter Lippmann a conservative political writer of the 1940's & '50's had a great quote
"When everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking very much."
Good article Cenk.
It was Julius' supposed friends who did him in.
I'm an independent who voted for Obama and I have a major problem with how the Lieberman situation was handled. For me it had nothing to do with partisanship, but with what was right and what was smart. I still find it incomprehensible that Lieberman was awarded his chairmanship again -- despite doing a poor job in that position and also despite his tremendously dishonorable behavior over the past two years toward his fellow Democrats.
The problem for me is that this showed a weakness and lack of principle on the part of Democrats that indicated to me they will not be the party of reform they need to be in the coming 4 years. It was a sign of business as usual, where the Senators all protect each other because they're basically in the pockets of the same big money and special interests. What was especially striking, was how the Senators all stood by Lieberman's side so *proudly* at the press conference following their vote to retain him as chairman. That was pretty disturbing.
As an Independent, I think both parties are seriously riddled with corruption at this point -- which is precisely why we're about to spiral into a horrible financial meltdown. Huge reform is what's needed. If the Dems don't have the backbone to stand up for what's right in the case of Lieberman, how are they going to do on the really big issues?
Keeping Lieberman was shrewd and later I am sure we will be astounded how O uses it to his advantage.
I'm okay with absolving Lieberman, but feel a little annoyed that he was asked to do nothing to earn his way back. After being so disloyal in the election, he actually threatened to jump ship if he was penalized. We won. What kind is of way is that for the victor to treat the vanquished?
In addition to campaigning against Obama, Lieberman donated to a Republican incumbent in Oregon and made a statement that a majority of 60 for the Democrats would be a bad thing.
To prove his loyalty, he should be campaigning in Georgia now, or making statements about absentee ballots in Minnesota. Instead, he is being allowed to keep a foot in both camps. Come 2010, if he doesn't get the Democratic nomination, we know he will jump ship then and go Republican. He should be forced to burn a bridge or two so that that route is not made so easy for him.
I'm relieved to see there are moderates at HuffPo. With all the sour-grapes liberal posts I've read here lately, I was beginning to think the HuffPo was 100% far left. This year I have no tolerance for hard right or left politics. Our economy crisis demands quick action, legislation that isn't bogged down by partisan haggling and squabbling. And the two wars we're into means we don't need a bunch of doves in national security, foreign affairs and defense.
I used to be a very liberal Democrat but I've been moving to the center since the early 80's. I find that the moderates of either party are better thinkers and more practical than their extreme counterparts. Far right and far left seems to be blinded by rigid ideology which leads to biased decisions that may not be right for the situation. When I was younger, I was a true liberal, and I remember some of those unreasonable, inflexible stances I took on many issues, especially war and the environment. I was a tree hugger, for sure.
So, as a moderate Democrat, I think Obama's choices are wise if, as Cenk says, Obama watches his back and maintains control. Let's hope for the best. Obama certainly has his hands full.
So many times, during his campaign, Obama showed me that he is bigger and smarter then me.
Then most of us. With Bush, I never had that feeling.
Now, while I, as a regular Joe, let my blood stream up to my brain and get mad, Obama is opposite, he smiles. With his Bambi eyes. And - he gets things done.
What I've learned is - lay back and trust him.
The Change comes from his "vision of change" and the rest of his team is just a tool to achieve it.
I'm sure that we have to question our leader, but for now, keep an eye on Bush, he is hurting us badly, while we are questioning Obama.
Obama is not about playing it safe, if there is one thing he has shown is that he will do what is necessary to get the job done, Obama is a true pragmatist, this has its pros and cons, sometimes it feels like a gamble because its not always easy for people to know what you are trying to accomplish, Obamas biggest challenge will be to never loose touch with what it is he is being perceived as doing, so message discipline will be a key component of his administration.
It will also paint him as much of a centrist, at least for the first 4 years of his 8 year Administration, but he will always be leaning center left on most issues, specially social and most fiscal issues, the war is my only worry, I really hope he delivers on Iraq.
Pres-elect Obama's decision to leave Sen. Lieberman in a leadership role in a key committee and the proposed appointment of Sen. Clinton as SoS is to placate the center right, especially as to policy with Israel. Both are strong supporters of the AIPAC views of Israel, a precieved weak area for Obama.
As to if or when someone in a cabinet or policy role in his admistration tries to go their own way publically for their own gain, yes he will have to act decisively and publicaly to dismiss them. While you don't want all yes men and women, you also don't want people who would undercut your authority, cause diversion of the party and of the policy goals.
"...diversity of opinion" is something you get automatically in the newspapers and internet when you are the American President. But, since the cabinet is the president's policy tool-box, I do not see how diversity at that level is anything but mischevous and harmful. Putting Hillary Clinton at State may, in time, reveal that Obama "has all his cuts upon his front", but he will just prove Clinton's primary saber thrust, that he is "naive" as well as arrogant and vain. It cannot work.
Hear, hear.
PE Obama was elected with a mandate for change. And with demonstrrated wisdom in the past, he has earned the trust of much of the nation as he organizes an administration to address huge problems and find new opportunities in them.
One thing PE Obama cannot do is erase the huge distrust and deep divisions the Clintons create, based on 20 plus years of experience. Much of the nation is sick of the Clinton thirst for constant controversy, and the resulting, endless, needless DRAMA.
He could have spared the nation more of that DRAMA at the heart of his administration. He chose differently. I hope he is right. If he is wrong, the cost could be greater than any benefit would have been.
To those who say "Trust him":
Isn't it our duty as citizens of a democracy to always be skeptical of our leaders?
Since he was elected, our new presidents actions have served only to provoke my mistrust.
With an exception of perhaps 2, everyone I know voted for him, expecting that he will curb U.S. militarism, and focus on economic stability. His appointments thus far assure that will not be the case. I've decided that my best course is to re-join the anti-war movement since, despite the myriad that the word "Change" was invoked, there won't be nearly enough of it in reality.
After eight years of trusting Bush which led to an ill-advised invasion of Iraq, I find it ludicrous that anyone would suggest that we just "trust" Obama. All of us need to think more, question more, and stay informed.
I can't imagine who would think that Obama won't deserve the same treatment President Bush received from the back stabbers. ( I think Caesar had closer to eighteen than eight).
Take that argument somewhere else because we all know you are full of crap.
After 9/11 Bush had the support of the ENTIRE Nation, no one was "back stabbing"(Sic) Bush back then.
He then abused that support to pass laws curtailing our rights and invaded Iraq even though he KNEW there were no WMDs, he lied to the entire nation.
It wasn't until he pulled all this bullshit that he started losing support of everyone.
Now you come in here and try to lie to us just like him, blow it out your ass!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
