How Far Will Obama Take 'Team of Rivals' Approach? ... Hillary? McCain? Romney? Lieberman?
Turns out that Hillary Clinton (D) and President-elect Obama (D) met yesterday in Chicago, presumably to talk about the possibility of her being named Secretary of State.
My two cents: I love the idea. It would be great if Obama named Clinton as his very first cabinet appointment and such a move would show Obama was dead serious about his "Team of Rivals" approach to his administration. She's obviously qualified and I think America would love to see a new government that wasn't simply made-up of cronies but of people with differing viewpoints who come together for the good of the country.
Some will cynically view the effort as an attempt by Obama to remove his chief Democratic rival from the Senate so as to prevent a power clash like Carter had with Kennedy or Bush had with McCain. I don't buy it. Obama really has shown himself true to his word and has resisted attempts to make calculated moves that hint at petty politics. So, I do believe this intention is genuine and that he's determined to re-create the modern day version of President Lincoln's cabinet when he did bring in his true political rivals to govern with him. Beside, recall how close Clinton is to Vice President-elect Joe Biden (D).
The question I have is why would Clinton want the job? As Josh Marshall commented last night:
Secretaries of State don't usually last more than a single presidential term. And sometimes they don't make it that long. So, for the life of me, I do not understand why Hillary Clinton would want to give up what is in all likelihood a senate seat for life to run the State Department for Barack Obama.
It puzzles me too. Unless there was some belief that Biden would only serve one term and Clinton would land the VP slot for one term and set herself up for the presidency in 2016 -- but there's not a shred of evidence that Biden intends to do anything but serve eight years. Maybe Obama promises her the next vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court if she serves? Does Bill Clinton (D) get the appointment to her Senate seat (remember that he never ruled out running again for some office)? Who knows?
In any event, I hope it's true and would be very happy with Hillary as our chief diplomat. I'd feel very comfortable with her abilities in a tough meeting with the Iranians or Russians or North Koreans. She'd be exactly what we'd want in that respect, yet she would be executing Obama foreign policy, not her own.
Last point...How far does Obama go with his Team of Rivals approach? Who else does Obama name to his cabinet? He tapped Biden as his running mate and everyone fully expects that Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) - another presidential rival -- will land in some Obama cabinet post, and John Edwards (D) had a great shot at Attorney General until his own bad judgment derailed that possibility.
But does Obama tap his Republican rivals? Does Obama ask John McCain (R) to be Defense Secretary (I hope not) -- but be mindful that the two rivals are meeting next week. What about Mitt Romney (R) as Commerce Secretary (I'd be okay with that)? Or Rudy Giuliani (R) as either Homeland Security or FBI or CIA chief (no thanks)? I mean Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) or Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) or Tom Coburn (R-OK) are hardly rivals in any real sense. They're members of the opposing party who have worked with Obama on some issues -- especially Hagel -- but they aren't true political rivals. And then there's Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who has emerged as a true political rival (please God, no). What about First Lady Laura Bush as Education Secretary (somewhat interesting)?
I suspect we are not going to see an Obama-Biden Administration where Clinton, Richardson, McCain, Romney, Bush and Lieberman hold the top posts. But how far does Obama go to try to replicate Lincoln's governing approach? He certainly has surprised us many times with his decision to take the high road when he would have been well within his right to clobber someone. I suspect we're going to be surprised again. The real question is how surprised?
Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "How Far Will Obama Take 'Team of Rivals' Approach? ... Hillary? McCain? Romney? Lieberman?"
Follow Mark Nickolas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mnickolas
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
I don't think he'll be doing because, after all . . . . . he's an agent of "change" don't you know.
Why can't Obama cut to the chase and tap Bill to be VP?
Our new President has more on his plate than most of us can begin to fathom.
It will be a long hard climb to bring the country out of eight-year hole we have been
dug in to. ...I think he can do this, or at least make significant progress and create
the momentum that gets us up and out of the hole.
He is young and has the potential to use this to his advantage. New ways of thinking
and new ways of looking at problems. Creative problem solving and working with
people of varying viewpoints are what we desperately need.
Some may disagree with the "Team of Rivals" approach but it opens the door to debate
within the Cabinet. When all points of view are allowed a place at the table, then all
Americans are represented at that table. This, in my opinion, is one of President-Elect
Obama's greatest strengths- he is not afraid to hear all sides of a problem and
all ideas regarding the solution. After having ALL of the information and ALL of the viewpoints, he will do his best to make intelligent decisions for the country.
I doubt he'll use his Presidency as a political prize giving him carte blanche
to force an agenda on the country that 46% of the population doesn't agree with. He's far
more likely to work a middle of the road approach - making sound decisions while also
working to bring a broad consensus and unity to the country.
Clinton as Secretary of State is a particularly disappointing selection on Obama's part. Although Hillary demonstrated heroic loyalty to Obama after she lost the nomination and I am not at all hostile to Hillary serving in an important position in the Obama Administration, Hillary lost the nomination because she lacked the judgment in international relations to wholly reject the warmongering policies of the neocons. To this day she has not apologized for putting the lives and limbs of my military family members, and millions of other military family members like mine, in harm's way against the interests of the United States. She supported labeling a part of the Iranian government a terrorist organization, in effect giving Bush authority to attack Iran according to Senator Jim Webb. She continually articulated a close-to-neocon predisposition and demonstrated an incredibly narrow world view -- exactly the opposite of what she needs to perform as a competent Secretary of State. It is even more disappointing because the most qualified person for Secretary of State in a generation, Bill Richardson, is there for the asking. Richardson has the exact perspective necessary to supplement Obama's stated goals of switching from cowboy militarism as our foreign policy to effective negotiations. Hillary doesn't have those talents based on her record, although she has many talents. The choice means that Obama may have decided to adapt to many of W's instincts -- all of which were wrong.
Hopefully Hillary is self-honest, recognizes her limitations and rejects the offer.
There is a benefit to winning, it is called winning. I understand the team of rivals but give me a break, we've been in the wilderness for 8 years. I'm interested in GOP ideas, just like I'm interested in everyone's ideas, but there are intangibles that go with these cabinet posts and the Dems need to take control of each branch of government. The GOP politicized state, DOJ, everything. We have to get dems in to bring the places back into balance. This isn't a campaign were everything can flow from one place or one person. The moving parts of a functioning government involve tens of thousands of people. Dems, who share a baseline philosophical stance need to be in charge. That doesn't mean yes men, and that doesn't mean we don't listen to go ideas but we've had 8 years of GOP leadership in every element of public policy. We've had enough. Elections have consequences.
J
how far will the MSM milk the sensationalized narratives they glom onto?
n contrast to a nuclear power plant, a solar-based power plant can be fully operational in less than two years. And Iran could have multiple, distributed solar-based power plants up and running all over their country and put their people to work without having to worry about the political repercussions or the possible fall-outs of a nuclear accident. It has been proven that the Chernobyl nuclear accident will cost more to clean up (30- to 40 billions) than all the electricity ever produced by all other nuclear power plants in the U.S.S.R. combined. Only by talking to Iran could we get the opportunity to prove to them that it no longer makes sense to build nuclear power plants. A win-win situation in that regard would be for us to show them the technology and the advantages of distributed electricity generated on-site and to sell this technology to Iran at a more affordable cost. We win by manufacturing the solar panels and by helping Iran set those up all over Iran. Iran wins by having electricity galore very cheaply.
Carlos Jean-Gilles
Saint Louis, MO
You don't think they would wonder that if we thought this technology was so great how come we have nuclear plants but no solar. We have nuclear because it allows us to breed the fuel necessary for nuclear weapons. Even with our unbalanced dealings with the countries Bush called the Axis of evil, possession the nuclear technology was the difference between negotiation and invasion. It was a pretty stark and brutal lesson that Bush taught all of the developing world. We will treat Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea cautiously because they have the bomb. Countries like Iraq, we can go in when we feel like it. I am surprised that there isn't a more active nuclear arms race in the middle east right now. But I guess if we suggest nicely, they will choose a technology that we have passed on as a government.
This "Team of Rivals" talk is a crock by the CSPAN-watching, Goodwin-enamored crowd, and the MSM looking for a job by spouting chaff for the next 4 years - David Gregory/Andrea Mitchell-Alan Greenspan.
Obama needs appointments and staff that are competent, give their best advice, and manage his decisions and directives with skill and efficiency. He should look to his own roots and seek out "Hungry" and loyal people.
If Obama places people of all of the same stature - ages (late +50s), relatively similar career experiences in the Democratic and Republican parties and/or government, personal financial situation and expects them to produce results for himself and the country, then he - and we - will be sorely disappointed. They will all be looking to 2012 for their next opportunity, writing a tell-all book, and getting ahead.
He also doesn't need to go out of his way to put the opposite party in any cabinet or agency roles: the only ones from the Republicans that will make themselves available to cross party lines are NOT necessarily the best people, and they will leak information via their RIMS to their buddies on the Washington cocktail circuit and their task-masters at the RNC.
Obama would be wise to remember who really got him elected from being a first term senator, and if he Triangulates too much thinking he can pull in the Right, he will betray an opportunity to really change; and leave himself as a 1 term president.
I agree. This "Team of Rivals" bunk is an entirely MSM brew, concocted so they can have something to talk about when they are basically running on fumes. Even if Obama were deeply influenced by Lincoln's experience, it would be virtually impossible to replicate how Lincoln's cabinet worked - everything is different. It's just nonsense. Neil Young in another blog, talking about the Detroit car companies, said, "We need forward looking people who are not restricted by the existing culture in Detroit." And the same is true of Washington. If we expect to have any meaningful change, "We need forward looking people who are not restricted by the existing culture in Washington." So far, that doesn't seem to be what we are getting. I realize there are many capable people who served with President Clinton, but a Clintonite restoration is not what we need. Unfortunately, as Naomi Klein said in a recent article, "just days after a euphoric victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth transition" and "continuity." Continuity with the existing culture in Washington will hobble Obama's administration from day 1.
"...I think America would love to see a new government that wasn't simply made-up of cronies but of people with differing viewpoints who come together for the good of the country."
Only if they can renounce they're belief that turning over programs and projects for the public benefit to private industry is good for the country.
In this era of hyper-deregulation, private industries remain even MORE loyal to their bottom line. They're allergic to anything done for the sake of the public.
How Far Will Obama Take 'Team of Rivals' Approach? ... Hillary? McCain? Romney? Lieberman?
I hope 'none of the above'.
The issue is not whether Obama appoints male or female, democrat or republican, liberal, conservative or centrist.It is not whether he reaches across campaigns or the aisle to tap adversaries for positions in his administration.
It is whether he appoints and implements with the meaningful change this country so terribly needs. Regarding these appointments, there should be this litmus test - whether the appointee has the capacity and genuine desire to change our government, from its current role as shill for big business to an enlightened and positive force that would serve corporations just as well, if not better, but whose primary interest is in the American people. The latter element, of course, is missing in our government, today.
It is not solely whether HRC is capable of being a superb Secretary of State, for it is clear that she is. The real question is whether Obama will fulfill his promise to genuinely pursue the kind of change he profeasses to want, and whether HRC, or any other appointee, can and will help him in that endeavor.
Assuming that Obama possessed the strength of character, I see no reason why his cabinet should not be composed of the best available talent, be they Democrat or Republican.
Irrespective of their values?
Why would Hillary want to be Secretary of State?
Well, maybe Barack Obama will free her to try a new approach to solving the Israel-Palestine problem by engaging all of the parties in the area (friends and foes alike), and starting early while Obama's global political capital is at a high point.
Bush waited until his sixth year to try, and there has never been any realistic hope.
Peace in the Middle East, now, that would be a legacy to hang one's hat on...
Not likely to happen with the current cast of characters being assembled, especially with Mrs. Clinton at the helm of the State Department. To get a peace deal there would have to be a much more sympathetic approach to the plight of the Palestinians and tough pressure on Israel to abandon its settlements in the West Bank. If Bibi Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister you can forget about. He'll roll right over the Obama administration.
This is great fun, to bandy about the idea of Obama's team of rivals. Clinton and Richardson are great additions no matter how you slice it -- although I have just warmed to Clinton at State - where I thought for Richardson. I had orignally thought of Clinton at Justice. (Wouldn't that be sweet after what Justice did to her and her husband... not that that is a reason to make an appointment). Clinton at State also complicates my idea for bringing in a high level Republican - Lugar or Hagel -- at State. But then, I also thought that leaving Gates or bringing in Hagel at Defense would show a new politics. THe idea of two TOP cabinet positions going to the opposition (not the insult of Transportation - Bush) would show his commitment. This commitment does NOT have to extend to the worst edges of the campaign or the opposition - Guliani (my own mayor who was) is least deserving after his sneering attitude during the race (the part that is truly dispicable - and "character -free" is that he WAS a liberal Republican for years). The problem with McCain is that his only long-held positions on important issues (the war, regulation, the economy, even campaign finance for that matter) are diametrically opposed to Obama (with Obama being IMHO right). I can't even contemplate Leiberman, who I think would have to be put in at least the fourth circle of Dante's hell for his behavior in the last...
The "Team of Rivals" approach could be overplayed because Obama doesn't want to spend too much time debating Cabinent members who may seek to undermine him. Obama is fair minded, mature and magnanimous, but those qualities can't be allowed to work to his detriment.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
