NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm amazed by how much attention has been paid to the top two slots on the ticket, and how little has been given to those around the nominees. Anyone who remembers Nixon knows that his immediate staff and top cabinet picks are very nearly as influential as the position of POTUS. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't expect any candidate to be a subject matter expert on all aspects of the economy, diplomacy, tax policy, legislative behavior, judicial conduct, or any other aspect of that job. I expect them to surround themselves with qualified people who can concentrate on their specialty and provide excellent advice.

Here's an article on the importance of previewing Treasury and the Council of Economic Advisers, among others.
In TV's "The West Wing," President Jed Bartlet was a Nobel Prize-winning economist. In real life, our presidential candidates are not experts in economic principles. So when they keep getting asked what exactly they would do to manage the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression, their responses are fairly vague.

The result is that voters cannot determine how well each candidate would chart a desirable course through this crisis. (Different groups will define "desirable" differently, putting all the more emphasis on knowing exactly how each new administration will make regulatory policy.)

The identity of key appointees -- in particular, the secretary of the Treasury -- is enormously important. Congress appears to be on the verge of granting stunningly broad powers to the Treasury secretary, authority that his predecessors never dreamed of. News outlets are already speculating about who the next Treasury secretary will be, but why should we have to rely on speculation?

< more > (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1232746.html)

So, who are the people behind the scenes in each campaign? Who is likely to be Obama's Chief of Staff, or McCain's Press Secretary? Who is going to be putting spin on foreign affairs as National Security Adviser? Who is going to have daily access to the Oval Office (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/graphics/2008stafflistsalary.html), and what's their record on passing information accurately?

I'm gonna do some research, but please feel free to help me out with facts and speculations where possible. This ain't Jed Bartlett and The West Wing. This is real.

Here's a good starting point from Wikipedia.

Barack Obama presidential campaign staff members, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_staff_members,_2008)

John McCain presidential campaign staff members, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_John_McCain_presidential_campaign_staff_members,_2008)

Anybody know anything about any of these folks? Who's not on the list?

Mod ask tuff questions. Hurt Cat-Tribe's brain. Bad Mod.

I choose not to vote in the poll because all of those positions are very important, and if I could, I'd want to know the shortlists for all of them before the election (and I have some names I'd like to see on Obama's shortlist; I don't care about McCain's since there's nothing on this earth that could make me vote for him anyway).

EDIT: Looking over Obama's staff list, I'd guess several of the former Clinton staffers could fill cabinet positions, but I doubt they would, as most seem to be professional "handlers" -- people whose greatest skills are in managing politics rather than policy. Colin Powell and Zbigniew Brzezinski are, of course, both highly qualified for Secretary of State.

But I am confident that between them, Obama and Biden will put together a good WH team.

EDIT2: Actually, some of the names I would have wanted to see couldn't have been picked before the election to be in an Obama cabinet because until recently they were running against him for the presidential nomination. For example, I would especially love to see Bill Richardson as Secretary of State. And if only John Edwards had kept his pants zipped -- I would have wanted him for Attorney General. I'm afraid he has disqualified himself. Men and their penises -- THINK WITH THE BIG HEAD, damn you!

So the POTUS isn't some kind of dictator that rules over every aspect of the federal government personally?

(and I have some names I'd like to see on Obama's shortlist)

Yeah? Who?

... And what can you (or any of the 'little people') do to bring them to the attention of the campaign?

Yeah? Who?
See the edits I added to my original post.

EDIT: Here I'll do it again (add an edit, I mean): Bill Richardson for Sec of State. John Edwards for Attorney General (if only he hadn't had that sex scandal, damn him). Chris Dodd could do for several positions -- very capable man, Mr. Dodd. I'm not sure who I'd want for Defense.

Essentially, I looked at the Dem pool for the presidential nomination and saw what nearly amounted to a dream cabinet.

... And what can you (or any of the 'little people') do to bring them to the attention of the campaign?
Well, there's this thing called email... but then I think they already are aware of the people I mentioned.

EDIT2: Actually, some of the names I would have wanted to see couldn't have been picked before the election to be in an Obama cabinet because until recently they were running against him for the presidential nomination. For example, I would especially love to see Bill Richardson as Secretary of State. And if only John Edwards had kept his pants zipped -- I would have wanted him for Attorney General. I'm afraid he has disqualified himself. Men and their penises -- THINK WITH THE BIG HEAD, damn you!
Well, let's see... he's a sharp cookie, and pretty much unelectable, so he wouldn't be trying to angle for another run for office for Senator, Governor, President, or what-have-you. I think that's a point in his favor.

I'd like to see Obama bring Kucinich, Clinton, and Gravel on board. Make Clinton the AG, and I'm all good.

I'd like to see Obama bring Kucinich, Clinton, and Gravel on board. Make Clinton the AG, and I'm all good.

Um. I agree with you on Clinton, but Kucinich and Gravel? Maybe as Ambassador to Pixieland and the Land of Trolls, respectively.

id be happy knowing that he is going to bring in someone to prosecute the evildoers of the bush administration.

I'd like to see Obama bring Kucinich, Clinton, and Gravel on board. Make Clinton the AG, and I'm all good.
Which Clinton?

Which Clinton?

Either of them. Both. I'm easy.

Err... Obviously, not make both of them attorney general...

Um. I agree with you on Clinton, but Kucinich and Gravel? Maybe as Ambassador to Pixieland and the Land of Trolls, respectively.

Kucinich would bring the thunder. :)

And... well, Gravel would have been my pick for President, so gotta get him in there somewhere.

Obama's choice of economic advisors pleases me. They lead me to believe that his talk about rewriting NAFTA regardless of what Canada and Mexico had to say about it was just primary talk.

Obama's choice of economic advisors pleases me.

Are you referring to the list in Wikipedia? Just glancing over that list ...

Austan Goolsbee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) looks like a potential pick for Treasury or OMB. Rising star, but resume's a bit thin. His 2007 defense of subprime mortgages (http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/PDFs/escene.07.3.subprime.pdf) gives me pause.
Jeffrey Liebman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Liebman) worked on Clinton's Social Security Reform team. Otherwise mostly academia.
David Cutler is another of the brainy academics (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/32315.html) - "bright but untested". Harvard chops are good but not a lot to build on.
Karen Kornbluh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kornbluh) may have the strongest government resume among the listed lot. Making her a spokesman for economic issues would be a solid move, particularly in light of Palin's invisibility on the issue. Treasury slot? Maybe not the top, but high on the list.

http://www.brynmawr.edu/news/2008-04-03/images/kornbluh_thumb.jpg
-- Kornbluh

Mind you, there's a strong possibility that he'll draw more heavily from former Clinton staff that aren't currently on his advisory panel. Interesting assortment nonetheless.

I want to see em all.

Yegads people...can you just have your stupid election already so we can go back to ignoring your government for a few years?

Yegads people...can you just have your stupid election already so we can go back to ignoring your government for a few years?

Well, you'll only be able to avoid our government if a certian candidate wins.


Otherwise we might invade you next...;)

I'd like to see Obama bring Kucinich, Clinton, and Gravel on board. Make Clinton the AG, and I'm all good.

Kucinich as what? As a stretch I could see him as HHS or HUD. Maybe Interior or even more maybe Labor.

Kucinich as what? As a stretch I could see him as HHS or HUD. Maybe Interior or even more maybe Labor.

I'm not to worried where he sits, to be honest... I'm just playing 'Fantasy Whitehouse' :)

Kucinich earned his pick with his attacks on Bush-baby. He deserves something. :)

I'm not to worried where he sits, to be honest... I'm just playing 'Fantasy Whitehouse' :)

Kucinich earned his pick with his attacks on Bush-baby. He deserves something. :)

Secretery of Gnomes.

I'm not to worried where he sits, to be honest... I'm just playing 'Fantasy Whitehouse' :)

Kucinich earned his pick with his attacks on Bush-baby. He deserves something. :)

UN Ambassador.

UN Ambassador.

Ooh, not a bad pick. And let's face it - while it starts out a bit like being sent to Coventry, it's not like he's going to LOWER the brandname. I like it.

Ooh, not a bad pick. And let's face it - while it starts out a bit like being sent to Coventry, it's not like he's going to LOWER the brandname. I like it.

That was what I was thinking.

Steering the McCain Campaign, a Lot of Old Bush Hands (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/09/22/ST2008092200078.html) - Washington Post

One fair point: "If you're going to fill a campaign out with experienced people, the last two general elections were won by someone named Bush. Where else would they have come from?"

Still, "If the McCain campaign is trying to prop up Palin as its change agent, and its inoculation against the 'third Bush term' rap, then why on earth is she surrounded by a cast of Bush advisers?" said [a] Republican loyalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Since she's been selected, every single one of the senior aides that she's brought on board had prominent roles in Bush's White House or on his campaigns, or both."

The personnel shift has become a cause of distress for some Republicans, who had hoped for a new brand of Republicanism to take hold, fueled by players who had experience outside Washington. "It's insane to me that at the same time that it's running saying it's not going to be the Bush administration, this campaign looks like the Bush campaign on steroids," said one Republican strategist.

No parallel exists on the Democratic side -- where the last White House team dissolved with President Bill Clinton's departure in 2001. And in a Democratic Party that has long been divided between Clinton people and non-Clinton people -- with most of the old Clinton hands working on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid until three months ago -- Obama has wound up with an inner circle whose members have never worked in the West Wing.

Hmmm.

Are you referring to the list in Wikipedia? Just glancing over that list ...

Austan Goolsbee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austan_Goolsbee) looks like a potential pick for Treasury or OMB. Rising star, but resume's a bit thin. His 2007 defense of subprime mortgages (http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/website/PDFs/escene.07.3.subprime.pdf) gives me pause.
Jeffrey Liebman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Liebman) worked on Clinton's Social Security Reform team. Otherwise mostly academia.
David Cutler is another of the brainy academics (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/32315.html) - "bright but untested". Harvard chops are good but not a lot to build on.
Karen Kornbluh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Kornbluh) may have the strongest government resume among the listed lot. Making her a spokesman for economic issues would be a solid move, particularly in light of Palin's invisibility on the issue. Treasury slot? Maybe not the top, but high on the list.

http://www.brynmawr.edu/news/2008-04-03/images/kornbluh_thumb.jpg
-- Kornbluh

Mind you, there's a strong possibility that he'll draw more heavily from former Clinton staff that aren't currently on his advisory panel. Interesting assortment nonetheless.

Jason Furman is the guy who stands out for me. He was a top economist for the Clinton administration and has plenty of policy experience at the Brookings Institution.

http://www.brynmawr.edu/news/2008-04-03/images/kornbluh_thumb.jpg
-- Kornbluh

This woman has one of my favorite looks. Competent, sexy, smart. I'm in wuv.

Haven't really given much thought about this. The most recent election I've participated in was the German parliamentary elections, and there the cabinet is pretty much entirely dependent on how the coalition negotiations go. Pretty much the only positions that are given are the chancellor and sometimes the vice-chancellor, though that's more of a title with rights to succession that get's given to a minister.

... there the cabinet is pretty much entirely dependent on how the coalition negotiations go.

It's not that different in the American two-party system, except the coalition building is done within the party. Ultimately, the politicians who are the putative directors of the permanent bureaucracy are selected via arcane and somewhat hidden processes. Other parts of the government, either the minority or the ones who weren't fully involved in the secret process, end up signing off that they accept the new leadership.

It appears that the Cabinet Merkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Merkel) differs from the US Cabinet in that the "new broom" doesn't always sweep clean. Some of your current Cabinet Ministers predate Merkel's election by quite a few years. We always replace the lot of them with a new bunch of incorruptible figureheads, some of whom manage to go six months to a year before the corruption filters down to press ears.

The core fact remains, almost certainly for all modern political leaders: the position of President, Chancellor, Prime Minister, or whatever name you choose is essentially Chairman of a Staff Command. The Cabinet and other official advisers are not in the primary decision-making loops. Those positions are reserved for the people Der Leader personally trusts. Look around - they're the ones lurking in the background, making tally marks on a clipboard, watching to see who is truly loyal to Their Man and who is just faking it.

Those are the people I want to know about. Not the headliners, but the ones who control access to Der Leader. They're the ones with the real power.

Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury.

It's not that different in the American two-party system, except the coalition building is done within the party. Ultimately, the politicians who are the putative directors of the permanent bureaucracy are selected via arcane and somewhat hidden processes. Other parts of the government, either the minority or the ones who weren't fully involved in the secret process, end up signing off that they accept the new leadership.

It appears that the Cabinet Merkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Merkel) differs from the US Cabinet in that the "new broom" doesn't always sweep clean. Some of your current Cabinet Ministers predate Merkel's election by quite a few years. We always replace the lot of them with a new bunch of incorruptible figureheads, some of whom manage to go six months to a year before the corruption filters down to press ears.

The core fact remains, almost certainly for all modern political leaders: the position of President, Chancellor, Prime Minister, or whatever name you choose is essentially Chairman of a Staff Command. The Cabinet and other official advisers are not in the primary decision-making loops. Those positions are reserved for the people Der Leader personally trusts. Look around - they're the ones lurking in the background, making tally marks on a clipboard, watching to see who is truly loyal to Their Man and who is just faking it.

Those are the people I want to know about. Not the headliners, but the ones who control access to Der Leader. They're the ones with the real power.
I am not entirely sure that's how it works in the US WH Cabinet, that the cabinet members control access to the president -- except maybe for the WH Chief of Staff. But I do believe there is very little to stop people from bypassing the various secretary-level cabinet members to talk to the president directly. He's not like a king, after all -- Bush's evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Attorney General, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury.
Just out of curiosity, why would you want to know who would be Sec of Treasury rather than Sec of Defense?

I am not entirely sure that's how it works in the US WH Cabinet, that the cabinet members control access to the president

I must have been unclear. Cabinet members don't control access. In fact, apart from a very few close buddies and rare (mostly pro-forma) full cabinet meetings, they also have to navigate the West Wing channels to be heard, same as ordinary peons like Senators and foreign dignitaries.

In the 2000 Bush White House, for instance, SecDef Rumsfeld appeared to be an insider, but in fact it was Deputy SecDef Wolfowitz who was the true insider, working through Cheney and Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby to help formulate the so-called Bush Doctrine. Those three were the true authors of American foreign policy via the PNAC agenda (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), leaving ostensible foreign policy chief SecState Colin Powell totally outside.

I don't think there's anyone who now doubts Karl Rove's ability to act as a 'flapper' (lifting the ear-flaps so that Bush could hear what Rove wanted him to hear). His official posts as "Senior Adviser" and "Deputy Chief of Staff" didn't reflect the true weight of his council and influence. It should also be pointed out that he folded Rove and Company to become Bush's full-time chief strategist during the 2000 campaign. That's the sort of association I'm trying to track down for the 2008 campaigns.

.

I must have been unclear. Cabinet members don't control access. In fact, apart from a very few close buddies, they also have to navigate the West Wing channels to be heard, same as ordinary peons like Senators and foreign dignitaries.

In the 2000 Bush White House, for instance, SecDef Rumsfeld appeared to be an insider, but in fact it was Deputy SecDef Wolfowitz who was the true insider, working through Cheney and Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby to help formulate the so-called Bush Doctrine. Those three were the true authors of American foreign policy via the PNAC agenda (http://www.newamericancentury.org/), leaving ostensible foreign policy chief SecState Colin Powell totally outside.

I don't think there's anyone who now doubts Karl Rove's ability to act as a 'flapper' (lifting the ear-flaps so that Bush could hear what Rove wanted him to hear). His official posts as "Senior Adviser" and "Deputy Chief of Staff" didn't reflect the true weight of his council and influence. It should also be pointed out that he folded Rove and Company to become Bush's full-time chief strategist during the 2000 campaign. That's the sort of association I'm trying to track down for the 2008 campaigns.
Oohhh... I see. Yes, yes, very true. Very important.

Traditionally, the guys with the real power and influence are a few steps down the ladder. High enough to be able to do stuff, but not high enough to be watched while doing stuff.

It would be interesting, but ultimately would it make much difference? Perhaps one of the appointments would be so repellent to a voter that they'd vote for the other team, but generally it would just be a matter of knowing more about the Pres candidate by who they would pick ... and certainly the parties would have a disproportionate influence (rather than the nominee once they become Pres and don't need the party so much.)

I suppose that while the election is still in the future, the nominees have to listen to public criticism of their proposed appointments. It's still not a lot different from trying to stay popular once they're in.

Men and their penises -- THINK WITH THE BIG HEAD, damn you!

Oh, they are. They are. :)

Just out of curiosity, why would you want to know who would be Sec of Treasury rather than Sec of Defense?

Because the secretary of defense will probably be some military dude, while secretary of the Treasury is very important in helping shape economic policy. The department of defense depends on the income of the government, which is influenced by the economic policy that secretary of the treasury helps create. I also just regard it as a more important position.

I dearly wish that I had time to follow Foreign Affairs and CQ enough to weigh in on possible cabinet picks, but I don't. The only non-obvious suggestion I've heard that I liked was local (Chicago) newshound Carol Marin's nomination of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald for Obama's AG. Even that's sort of an obvious suggestion -- nationally he's best known for heading up the investigation of l'affaire Plame, but most folks in Illinois pretty much think he walks on water because of the way he's taken on the Mob and corrupt politicians.

Because the secretary of defense will probably be some military dude, while secretary of the Treasury is very important in helping shape economic policy. The department of defense depends on the income of the government, which is influenced by the economic policy that secretary of the treasury helps create. I also just regard it as a more important position.
Especially if (when) the position gets an enormous blank check handed to it.

It would be interesting, but ultimately would it make much difference? Perhaps one of the appointments would be so repellent to a voter that they'd vote for the other team, but generally it would just be a matter of knowing more about the Pres candidate by who they would pick

It's a matter of judging a candidate by the company he keeps. The candidate is stage-managed like a racehorse or a beauty queen. Watching the people in the background who may not realize they're on camera (or better, reading their published works pre-campaign) may give you greater perspective on the front man.

At first glance, McCain seems to be surrounded by the Bush party machinery, and Obama by a grassroots coalition with a strong leavening of academia. Given their backgrounds and a basic knowledge of the past 12 years of American history, that's not really surprising. I still want to know more.

Because the secretary of defense will probably be some military dude, while secretary of the Treasury is very important in helping shape economic policy. The department of defense depends on the income of the government, which is influenced by the economic policy that secretary of the treasury helps create. I also just regard it as a more important position.
Good point. Thanks.

It's a matter of judging a candidate by the company he keeps. The candidate is stage-managed like a racehorse or a beauty queen. Watching the people in the background who may not realize they're on camera (or better, reading their published works pre-campaign) may give you greater perspective on the front man.

At first glance, McCain seems to be surrounded by the Bush party machinery, and Obama by a grassroots coalition with a strong leavening of academia. Given their backgrounds and a basic knowledge of the past 12 years of American history, that's not really surprising. I still want to know more.
Well, I doubt you'll get much more because they can't really announce who they would give a job to in advance of that person committing to taking the job, and nobody is going to commit to taking a job in advance of either candidate having the power to actually give it to them.

It's not that different in the American two-party system, except the coalition building is done within the party. Ultimately, the politicians who are the putative directors of the permanent bureaucracy are selected via arcane and somewhat hidden processes. Other parts of the government, either the minority or the ones who weren't fully involved in the secret process, end up signing off that they accept the new leadership.Depends. It's usually relatively open in Germany, as a number of politicians attempt to instrumentalize the media to get their position and a lot of parties do have priorities and will drive a hard bargain to get certain slots, usually having one or more people pegged for the position. For instance, the other conservative party is a tad further right than the rest of the "Union" (the collective term for the two Christian *something* Union partys), and has a preference for the ministries of Agriculture and Consumer Protection.
It appears that the Cabinet Merkel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Merkel) differs from the US Cabinet in that the "new broom" doesn't always sweep clean. Some of your current Cabinet Ministers predate Merkel's election by quite a few years. We always replace the lot of them with a new bunch of incorruptible figureheads, some of whom manage to go six months to a year before the corruption filters down to press ears.The broom wouldn't sweep clean, since that's not really how it works. The preceeding ruling party was part of the coalition, and since they don't believe they did wrong while ruling, they're not as apt to change things. This might stem from there being no term limits for Chancellors; under Kohl, people remained on board as much as 16 years.
The core fact remains, almost certainly for all modern political leaders: the position of President, Chancellor, Prime Minister, or whatever name you choose is essentially Chairman of a Staff Command. The Cabinet and other official advisers are not in the primary decision-making loops. Those positions are reserved for the people Der Leader personally trusts. Look around - they're the ones lurking in the background, making tally marks on a clipboard, watching to see who is truly loyal to Their Man and who is just faking it.Yes, the "Head of Government".
Those are the people I want to know about. Not the headliners, but the ones who control access to Der Leader. They're the ones with the real power.Yeah, it being mainly a party matter probably makes it a lot less transparent than if two or more parties were involved, since those often make semi-public demands as part of the coalition courtship.

Well, I doubt you'll get much more because they can't really announce who they would give a job to in advance of that person committing to taking the job, and nobody is going to commit to taking a job in advance of either candidate having the power to actually give it to them.

But those are important jobs, if not quite at the level of President. It's apparently not unreasonable to expect good candidates to stand for President or Congress even without any guarantee that they will get the "job." So why not the secretary places?

If that's not clear, let me put it like this. To run for President, a Senator needs to give up their prospects of being re-elected Senator. Is it really too much too ask of a prospective Defence Secretary or Chief of Staff that they make a similar sacrifice to show they really want the job? And if they won't take that risk ... that says something pretty bad about the prospective President who asks them to be on the team. It pretty much says he or she can't win.

Having slept on it, I see a lot more merit in Fris's idea. Those jobs would essentially have a share of the mandate, making it much harder for the President to ignore them or replace them with yea-sayers.

But those are important jobs, if not quite at the level of President. It's apparently not unreasonable to expect good candidates to stand for President or Congress even without any guarantee that they will get the "job." So why not the secretary places?

If that's not clear, let me put it like this. To run for President, a Senator needs to give up their prospects of being re-elected Senator. Is it really too much too ask of a prospective Defence Secretary or Chief of Staff that they make a similar sacrifice to show they really want the job? And if they won't take that risk ... that says something pretty bad about the prospective President who asks them to be on the team. It pretty much says he or she can't win.

Having slept on it, I see a lot more merit in Fris's idea. Those jobs would essentially have a share of the mandate, making it much harder for the President to ignore them or replace them with yea-sayers.
Actually, what you are saying is NOT reasonable for the same reason it would not be reasonable for a company to call you up, tell you they are thinking of offering you a job if they should happen to get the ability to hire people soon, and expect you to quit your current job or turn down other immediate job offers just to remain available for them, just in case it turns out they can hire you someday.

Remember, regardless of whatever power they may wield, which I think varies widely from admininstration to administration, appointees do not serve the public. They serve the president (who has the power to hire and fire them at will). Technically, they are his team, not ours. We (the voters) are not offering them any job, nor are they asking us to hire them for anything, so really they don't have to account for themselves to us in advance of the election at all.

And since they don't have to, why should they for the sake of a job that doesn't even exist to be filled yet? Why should a list of people who cannot at this point be offered a job line up to sell themselves to the public (which won't be the ones hiring them) for that job? And especially why should they quit the jobs they have now for a job that doesn't exist yet?

Here's my plan for Obama's cabinate. If he released this, it'd make me a very happy person.

Secretary of State: Bill Richerdson. Come on, he should have been VP. An experienced diplomat.

Secretary of Defense: Weasly Clark. A former general and a Democrat.

Environment: Al Goar. Its his issue.

Health Care: Hillary Clinton (well, maybe. Didn't she screw it up last time?)\

I'd also like to see Edwards do something, if his affair doesn't make him politically unviable for the cabinate. Maybe something to do with poverty, if their's such a possision.

Obama hinted that he would give his fellow Democratic nominees important possissions when he praised them at the end of the primaries.

Here's my plan for Obama's cabinate. If he released this, it'd make me a very happy person.

Secretary of State: Bill Richerdson. Come on, he should have been VP. An experienced diplomat.
Yes, please. Please, by the gods, Bill Richardson at State. Please.

Secretary of Defense: Weasly Clark. A former general and a Democrat.
I like Wes Clark too, but please -- it's Wesley. His detractors don't need help painting him as "weasely."

The big problem with Clark is that he has personal enemies among high ranking military personnel. Bitter enemies.

Environment: Al Goar. Its his issue.
Also please, Gore. His name's bad enough, don't make it worse.

I'm not sure he'd take it, though.

Health Care: Hillary Clinton (well, maybe. Didn't she screw it up last time?)\
No, no, please, no. And anyway, Health isn't just one cabinet position, and none of the offices that fall under that head are, I think, high ranking enough to suit her.

I'd also like to see Edwards do something, if his affair doesn't make him politically unviable for the cabinate. Maybe something to do with poverty, if their's such a possision.
Uh, hello... Edwards the lawyer... Attorney General...

Obama hinted that he would give his fellow Democratic nominees important possissions when he praised them at the end of the primaries.

It's a matter of judging a candidate by the company he keeps. The candidate is stage-managed like a racehorse or a beauty queen. Watching the people in the background who may not realize they're on camera (or better, reading their published works pre-campaign) may give you greater perspective on the front man.

You know, at first I was seeing this through the prism of a more perfect democracy ... ie constitutional reform to make at least some of those positions directly elected.

But you aren't saying that (you never were) ... and I think this is an excellent idea. It's actually an option that a prospective Pres should consider, (doesn't need to be a formal requirement in running) if they could get strong candidates to commit to the jobs before they're certain to get them. That would show confidence in victory and fore-thought about their Presidency.

At first glance, McCain seems to be surrounded by the Bush party machinery, and Obama by a grassroots coalition with a strong leavening of academia. Given their backgrounds and a basic knowledge of the past 12 years of American history, that's not really surprising. I still want to know more.

Though as you said yourself a few posts up, there are no rules about who the President has to listen to. Unless the positions are somehow formally elected, the Pres still has the option of sacking any of them, so 'he' keeps the whip hand.

Switzerland obviously has a very different system to the US, but I find it interesting how (without a single majority party to enforce a monopoly) their cabinet is made up of members of different parties. This seems to have started as a compromise -- it wasn't required by their constitution but has gradually firmed-up into their actual method of government. I mention this, despite the radical difference in systems, because such a "vote for a White House team" system would probably start with a candidate naming one or two appointments in advance, winning, honouring that promise ... and not by a constitutional requirement right off the bat, that they do that.

As a foreigner, the only US politicians who attract much attention over here are President, Secretary of State, and UN ambassador. That last is not on your list I presume because it requires Senate confirmation, but I'll mention it anyway and select "other" as well as State in the poll.

Attorney General is a very important post I believe? But since the role is rather technical it doesn't get much attention from people who (how to put this delicately?) think the US electoral system is barking mad to start with. That would be ... pretty much everyone who doesn't live there! :tongue:

Actually, what you are saying is NOT reasonable for the same reason it would not be reasonable for a company to call you up, tell you they are thinking of offering you a job if they should happen to get the ability to hire people soon, and expect you to quit your current job or turn down other immediate job offers just to remain available for them, just in case it turns out they can hire you someday.

Oh no, it's an argument by analogy.

If the job the company was offering me was US Attorney General; if I could accept or refuse this proposal when it was put to me; and if I could assess for myself the odds of "just in case it turns out" (ie their chance of winning the election) ... then I WOULD find it reasonable.

I also think that what Fris is proposing is far less one-sided than your scenario. If the candidate is elected, they are pretty much obliged by their word to appoint who they said they would. So it's more like a contract to employ me if certain objectively-assessed criteria are met. Eg, 'this contract requires Gross Brothers to employ B.S. Bugsii from November 2008, if x legislation prohibiting indecent t-shirts is rescinded.'

Remember, regardless of whatever power they may wield, which I think varies widely from admininstration to administration, appointees do not serve the public. They serve the president (who has the power to hire and fire them at will). Technically, they are his team, not ours.

Yes, I'm aware of the dangers of the "serving the public" argument. I won't claim that because the President serves the public (s/he DOES) that any servant of the President serves the public. That undermines the whole point of having a team and a 'buck stops here' figure accountable for the actions of that team.

As always, I am not prepared to defend the diametrically opposite view to yours. A system where the committees, the cabinet, every powerful role, is directly elected would be a very different system to either of our representative democracies, and I'm not even saying I think it would be desirable.

We (the voters) are not offering them any job, nor are they asking us to hire them for anything, so really they don't have to account for themselves to us in advance of the election at all.

They don't have to, no. I think it would be good if they DID, though. They don't have to campaign full-time. They don't have to retire from the Senate or from a Governorship or from any job ... merely be prepared to answer some questions, and to make a commitment to take the post if 'their' candidate wins.

As I said to Fris, this is an idea which deserves to be tried out. I certainly wouldn't try to legislate to require it, but I think it could be of huge benefit to a candidate IF they had good prospects of winning, IF they have the strength of character not to be outshone by strong appointees, and IF no scandal embroils their appointee before the election.

Yes, there are risks. If such a pre-appointment experiment became a tradition, it would deal harshly with candidates who are unlikely to win: unable to attract the commitment of good appointees, their disadvantage would be magnified.

That's the only argument I see against it, and ultimately I think that is outweighed by the long-term advantages of a tradition of disclosure. The parties, choosing a Presidential candidate, don't just choose the person who makes the best impression standing up there on their own, but the person who will make the best impression when actually doing the job ... which involves delegating real power to the staff.

If a President can't do that well, their Presidency will be the weaker for it. Surely we don't want people of weak mind or character, who can be pushed around by their supposed subordinates (eg Rove) ... and we don't want dictators like Nixon who will throw their own staff under a bus to save their own hides. Anything that exposes such undesirable traits before the person becomes President has to be a good thing!

And since they don't have to, why should they for the sake of a job that doesn't even exist to be filled yet?

Duty. "Ask not what your country can do for you ..."

Oh dear, I am so dreadfully old fashioned, aren't I? But though I do see power corrupting, I do not see corruption as the only reason for seeking power. The truly cynical politician, who doesn't care about the country or the people, who is in the job only for the salary and the chance to bully subordinates ... I believe is the exception rather than the rule.

A pre-appointment would be a real test of the appointee's sense of duty. We would be expecting them to make a sacrifice just to be considered for the job.

Why should a list of people who cannot at this point be offered a job line up to sell themselves to the public (which won't be the ones hiring them) for that job? And especially why should they quit the jobs they have now for a job that doesn't exist yet?

To show that they really want it ... and by being a part of the team while it is still in electoral jeopardy, by campaigning, demonstrate their commitment to serving the President even if they personally get nothing for it.

Or in a word: duty.

Attorney General is a very important post I believe? But since the role is rather technical it doesn't get much attention from people who (how to put this delicately?) think the US electoral system is barking mad to start with.

It's not that technical, actually. The Attorney General (AG) is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. Given the amount of corruption in recent governments, and the ineptitude of certain AGs in noticing it, having a reliable AG is somewhat higher on the list than perhaps it might be in other years. (Incidentally, assigning John 'baby-daddy' Edwards to that position would be a horrific mistake. He's in no way qualified.)

a prospective Pres should consider if they could get strong candidates to commit to the jobs before they're certain to get them.

I'd not taken that to the level of an actual proposal, but yeah, that would be nice. I don't see it happening, as I can see that many people would want to stay off that list for professional, political, and personal reasons prior to the election. Win or lose, they'd be chased by the press for 'official' opinions, which dramatically multiplies the opportunity for mixed messages and political gaffes. There are many more opportunities for negatives than for positives in such an arrangement.

No, what I'm really looking at are the people who currently advise the campaign. Most of those people are working full-time on the campaign with the full expectation that they'll be offered EOP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States) jobs after they win the election. Most EOP jobs 'serve at the pleasure of the President' and are not subject to legislative or judicial approval. That makes them powerful but essentially unaccountable to anyone but the President himself (as anyone who followed the Bush White House knows - think Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzalez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Executive_Privilege_claims)).

I want to know who is likely to be given significant unaccountable powers. I want to know this before the election. Afterward, it's too late.

Oh no, it's an argument by analogy.

If the job the company was offering me was US Attorney General; if I could accept or refuse this proposal when it was put to me; and if I could assess for myself the odds of "just in case it turns out" (ie their chance of winning the election) ... then I WOULD find it reasonable.

I also think that what Fris is proposing is far less one-sided than your scenario. If the candidate is elected, they are pretty much obliged by their word to appoint who they said they would. So it's more like a contract to employ me if certain objectively-assessed criteria are met. Eg, 'this contract requires Gross Brothers to employ B.S. Bugsii from November 2008, if x legislation prohibiting indecent t-shirts is rescinded.'
Yes, but they still could not guarantee delivery on this sort-of contract because they might not win the election.

Yes, I'm aware of the dangers of the "serving the public" argument. I won't claim that because the President serves the public (s/he DOES) that any servant of the President serves the public. That undermines the whole point of having a team and a 'buck stops here' figure accountable for the actions of that team.

As always, I am not prepared to defend the diametrically opposite view to yours. A system where the committees, the cabinet, every powerful role, is directly elected would be a very different system to either of our representative democracies, and I'm not even saying I think it would be desirable.
I'm not saying it would be desirable, nor am I saying it would be undesirable. It would be so different, that I have a hard time imagining it.

They don't have to, no. I think it would be good if they DID, though. They don't have to campaign full-time. They don't have to retire from the Senate or from a Governorship or from any job ... merely be prepared to answer some questions, and to make a commitment to take the post if 'their' candidate wins.

As I said to Fris, this is an idea which deserves to be tried out. I certainly wouldn't try to legislate to require it, but I think it could be of huge benefit to a candidate IF they had good prospects of winning, IF they have the strength of character not to be outshone by strong appointees, and IF no scandal embroils their appointee before the election.
I'm not saying it would not be nice. I'm just saying that I don't think it is reasonable to ask them to do it.

Yes, there are risks. If such a pre-appointment experiment became a tradition, it would deal harshly with candidates who are unlikely to win: unable to attract the commitment of good appointees, their disadvantage would be magnified.
I think that's actually a very strong objection to the idea.

That's the only argument I see against it, and ultimately I think that is outweighed by the long-term advantages of a tradition of disclosure. The parties, choosing a Presidential candidate, don't just choose the person who makes the best impression standing up there on their own, but the person who will make the best impression when actually doing the job ... which involves delegating real power to the staff.

If a President can't do that well, their Presidency will be the weaker for it. Surely we don't want people of weak mind or character, who can be pushed around by their supposed subordinates (eg Rove) ... and we don't want dictators like Nixon who will throw their own staff under a bus to save their own hides. Anything that exposes such undesirable traits before the person becomes President has to be a good thing!
I am not saying you are not right in principal, but in a practical application sense, unless you are going to change presidential tickets from president plus vice president, to president, vice-president AND five or six senior cabinet positions, all running together, I just don't see how it could be made to work in a way that would be fair to the people who might be offered the positions.


Duty. "Ask not what your country can do for you ..."

Oh dear, I am so dreadfully old fashioned, aren't I? But though I do see power corrupting, I do not see corruption as the only reason for seeking power. The truly cynical politician, who doesn't care about the country or the people, who is in the job only for the salary and the chance to bully subordinates ... I believe is the exception rather than the rule.

A pre-appointment would be a real test of the appointee's sense of duty. We would be expecting them to make a sacrifice just to be considered for the job.



To show that they really want it ... and by being a part of the team while it is still in electoral jeopardy, by campaigning, demonstrate their commitment to serving the President even if they personally get nothing for it.

Or in a word: duty.
Well, personally, and speaking only for myself, I have always believed patriotism to be the virtue of the vicious and the last refuge of the scoundrel. I do not admire it. So, personally, anyone who would, under the guise of "duty" commit so strongly to such a powerful job before they were offered it, well, that would actually make me suspicious of their motives. Maybe I'm just perverse, but there you have it.

So I tend to be content to judge the candidates on their own merits or lack thereof and look at who I know them to have relationships with and to be working with, and in what way, and judge from that whether I think they are likely to put together a cabinet team that will be good or not good.

For example, McCain's campaign team includes many of the same people as the Bush campaigns and administration. That is not good now, in my opinion, and it does not bode well for the future, either. Based on who I see him dealing with now, I don't want to see who he'd pick for his cabinet.

On the other hand, Obama's campaign team seems less idealogical and more pragmatic in who the staff are. The talent pool is deep and comes from varied sources. Those are good features, in my opinion. They speak well to me of his judgement and motivation in choosing staff. So does his choice of Biden as running mate. Based on the team he has put together for his campaign, I am of the opinion that he will likely do at least as well in putting together his cabinet.

Secretary of State: Bill Richerdson. Come on, he should have been VP. An experienced diplomat.


Fuck yeah. Bill Richardson should hella be Secretary of State. He's so damn qualified it's ridiculous.

It's not that technical, actually. The Attorney General (AG) is the top law enforcement officer and lawyer for the government. Given the amount of corruption in recent governments, and the ineptitude of certain AGs in noticing it, having a reliable AG is somewhat higher on the list than perhaps it might be in other years. (Incidentally, assigning John 'baby-daddy' Edwards to that position would be a horrific mistake. He's in no way qualified.)

Hmm, when I said "technical" I really meant that it required legal skills. AG in the States doesn't seem so different from the same role in the Westminster system. Though it's not a high-profile job usually, the AG is sometimes called on to make important decisions which require a good understanding of the legal system. Of course they'd have extensive advice and at the end of the day serve the government rather than the law ... but when they do break the law, as Nixon's first AG did (and his second as I see it, concealing a crime) the Presidency takes double damage because of what their role supposedly is.

And I quite agree that AG would be a good one to know before the election.


I'd not taken that to the level of an actual proposal, but yeah, that would be nice. I don't see it happening, as I can see that many people would want to stay off that list for professional, political, and personal reasons prior to the election. Win or lose, they'd be chased by the press for 'official' opinions, which dramatically multiplies the opportunity for mixed messages and political gaffes. There are many more opportunities for negatives than for positives in such an arrangement.

Good! Give the candidate hell before they get the power I say.

The ability to make good appointments, and to take the best advice rather than surrounding themself with suck-ups, is an essential part of such a leadership job. It should be tested before they get the job, not on the job.

And where's the harm in exposing those appointees to the public scrutiny they WILL get when appointed for real? If anything, with the election result still in the balance, the prospective President needs to make better choices. (Well, could 'pre-appoint' but then sack them on day one, but that would look pretty bad.)

No, what I'm really looking at are the people who currently advise the campaign.

If it was me, my most important advisors would have their identities kept very secret. Until someone asks why the recycling guy is being paid a Senior Counsel's salary ...

Most of those people are working full-time on the campaign with the full expectation that they'll be offered EOP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States) jobs after they win the election.

That's a bit of a leap of faith. I suppose they have the dirt on the campaign and the new Pres can't afford to piss them off too badly.

Most EOP jobs 'serve at the pleasure of the President' and are not subject to legislative or judicial approval. That makes them powerful but essentially unaccountable to anyone but the President himself (as anyone who followed the Bush White House knows - think Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzalez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy#Executive_Privilege_claims)).

OK.

I want to know who is likely to be given significant unaccountable powers. I want to know this before the election. Afterward, it's too late.

You could try the Westminster System. (I'm just teasing, it sucks in various ways too.)

Yes, but they still could not guarantee delivery on this sort-of contract because they might not win the election.

That's not a "sort-of" contract. It's a contract. If there's any dispute about whether the pre-condition has in fact been met, that can be settled in court.

In any case, I'm disputing that the rights of an employee are all that is involved in a political appointment. Sure, they get a nice salary for those jobs ... but they are not just jobs. They're political service, and to reduce them to "just like any other job" is a very strange thing to do.

I'm not saying it would not be nice. I'm just saying that I don't think it is reasonable to ask them to do it.

I think it IS reasonable to ask of such important government functionaries, what it would not be reasonable to ask of a generic employee.


I think that's actually a very strong objection to the idea.

So a rotten candidate who wouldn't be able to appoint their choices of AG or Secretary of State (because the best wouldn't take the job) needs the playing-field leveled so we can find that out when they're in office?

Look, it would require adjustments in the nomination process. The choices would be vaguer at that stage, the party convention could ask perhaps for a short-list, rather than a firm commitment from the prospective nominee about who they'd appoint.

If the nominee is that weak, that they cannot attract decent people to be on their "ticket" (if association with the nominee is political death) ... then their party's convention picked the wrong person already. Simple allegiance to their party, in the only chance the party will have for four years, should be enough unless the nominee really stinks.

I am not saying you are not right in principal, but in a practical application sense, unless you are going to change presidential tickets from president plus vice president, to president, vice-president AND five or six senior cabinet positions, all running together, I just don't see how it could be made to work in a way that would be fair to the people who might be offered the positions.

Your concern for those people is touching.

I concede that some talented people would not accept the provisional offer: either being part of the campaign would take too much time from their current employment, or they would fear being associated with a losing campaign. Essentially, they value their own careers above a calculated probability of getting an important job.

I think that's a sad state of affairs. If they're a party member, and they see the chance to contribute to the campaign of their party's Presidential candidate ... but instead choose their current career ... well, all I can say is they better be doing good work in the Senate or whatever their current role is. Looks pretty selfish to me.

Well, personally, and speaking only for myself, I have always believed patriotism to be the virtue of the vicious and the last refuge of the scoundrel. I do not admire it. So, personally, anyone who would, under the guise of "duty" commit so strongly to such a powerful job before they were offered it, well, that would actually make me suspicious of their motives. Maybe I'm just perverse, but there you have it.


Yes, it does seem perverse. Certainly I am suspicious of those who drape themselves in the flag ... but what I'm asking for here is not patriotic words but a material personal sacrifice. There is still the option of refusal: they may think the candidate is simply not likely enough to win, that they should disrupt their present careers or waste their poltical reputation ... in which case they can discreetly decline the offer.

So I tend to be content to judge the candidates on their own merits or lack thereof and look at who I know them to have relationships with and to be working with, and in what way, and judge from that whether I think they are likely to put together a cabinet team that will be good or not good.

Certainly, if they were a governor before, or had experience in business, there might be a track-record there to judge that ability by. Whether there was or not, though, I say add to the evidence available to judge that ability by.

And no part of "pre-appointment" would exclude looking at the current associates of the candidate.

For example, McCain's campaign team includes many of the same people as the Bush campaigns and administration. That is not good now, in my opinion, and it does not bode well for the future, either. Based on who I see him dealing with now, I don't want to see who he'd pick for his cabinet.

I take your point ... but let's imagine such a tradition existed. Association with the Bush administration is surely a liability of McCain's already. He'd have to choose more widely (which might be funny if they refused to accept) ... he would have to commit to a better team than what he will probably pick if he gets the Presidency. Then, if he decides he'd rather have the old cronies when he actually gets the job, his Presidency starts off with breaking his word.

We DO want to see who he'd pick ... and we want to see that list before deciding if he gets the job.

On the other hand, Obama's campaign team seems less idealogical and more pragmatic in who the staff are. The talent pool is deep and comes from varied sources. Those are good features, in my opinion. They speak well to me of his judgement and motivation in choosing staff. So does his choice of Biden as running mate. Based on the team he has put together for his campaign, I am of the opinion that he will likely do at least as well in putting together his cabinet.

Campaign and office are fairly different things. But yeah.

That's not a "sort-of" contract. It's a contract. If there's any dispute about whether the pre-condition has in fact been met, that can be settled in court.
If it's not enforceable then, effectively, no contract exists, and ability to deliver the promised result is not a "pre-condition." It's the point of the contract.

In any case, I'm disputing that the rights of an employee are all that is involved in a political appointment. Sure, they get a nice salary for those jobs ... but they are not just jobs. They're political service, and to reduce them to "just like any other job" is a very strange thing to do.
Well, it's the way it's done in the US. Now we're back to thinking about a totally different system to replace the one we have.

I think it IS reasonable to ask of such important government functionaries, what it would not be reasonable to ask of a generic employee.
May we agree to disagree about that?

So a rotten candidate who wouldn't be able to appoint their choices of AG or Secretary of State (because the best wouldn't take the job) needs the playing-field leveled so we can find that out when they're in office?
Who says they'd stand a poor chance of getting elected because they are a rotten candidate? Maybe they are an excellent candidate but belong to an alternative party which is being unfairly blocked from ballots by the main parties. Happens every election cycle. Or maybe they are Jewish or Muslim or gay or something like that. Or maybe they are a perfectly okay white Christian rich member of a mainstream party who gets "swiftboated" or otherwise has his/her campaign chances torpedoed by unfair tactics by opponents. That happens a lot, too. Sometimes it takes more than one try for a person to get a fair shot at getting votes. With you creating the additional burden of them having to assemble their cabinet teams before they can even appoint a cabinet, you make it even harder for a non-established political insider to get a chance at high public office.

Look, it would require adjustments in the nomination process. The choices would be vaguer at that stage, the party convention could ask perhaps for a short-list, rather than a firm commitment from the prospective nominee about who they'd appoint.
Are you saying you would not want a president who might reach across party lines to fill his cabinet? Because it is very unlikely that the party would let a candidate pick cabinet candidates from other parties, don't you think? So if they have to submit their list to the party convention, that will be a problem.

Again, speaking only for myself, I agree with the founders of the US that political parties were and are a bad idea, so I would not approve of any plan that would promote party unity like that.

Also, I can just imagine the infighting and meddling in a candidate's plans when members of the party convention get a look at those shortlists and don't see their names, or their friends' names, or their cousins' names, etc., on them. You say you want a president who will be properly advised but not led by the nose by his cabinet, nor build a cabinet that is a secretive cabal, but by forcing candidates to reveal their lists of cabinet possibles ahead of time, you only invite an onslaught of exactly the kind of back-room dealing and pressuring you say you don't want.

If the nominee is that weak, that they cannot attract decent people to be on their "ticket" (if association with the nominee is political death) ... then their party's convention picked the wrong person already. Simple allegiance to their party, in the only chance the party will have for four years, should be enough unless the nominee really stinks.
I'm sorry, but that sounds kind of silly to me.

Your concern for those people is touching.

I concede that some talented people would not accept the provisional offer: either being part of the campaign would take too much time from their current employment, or they would fear being associated with a losing campaign. Essentially, they value their own careers above a calculated probability of getting an important job.

I think that's a sad state of affairs. If they're a party member, and they see the chance to contribute to the campaign of their party's Presidential candidate ... but instead choose their current career ... well, all I can say is they better be doing good work in the Senate or whatever their current role is. Looks pretty selfish to me.
A) Why selfish? If they are in Congress or another elected office, then they are already serving the public, so how is that selfish? If they are in private business, what makes you think they don't have other obligations to fill for the sake of others?

B) And why should they not be selfish? Just being in a political party does not make you the slave of that party. Public service in the US is voluntary. No one should be thought less of for choosing not to do it. In my opinion, they especially should not be looked down on for choosing not to abandon everything else they could be doing with their talents to help others just on the off chance that they might be called upon to take one particular job, maybe. To be blunt about it, if you came to me with such a proposal, I'd turn you down, and if you called me selfish for it, I'd tell you to go to hell and ask you just who you thought you were.

Yes, it does seem perverse. Certainly I am suspicious of those who drape themselves in the flag ... but what I'm asking for here is not patriotic words but a material personal sacrifice. There is still the option of refusal: they may think the candidate is simply not likely enough to win, that they should disrupt their present careers or waste their poltical reputation ... in which case they can discreetly decline the offer.
What you are asking of these people is, in my opinion, unreasonable. Because of that and because the jobs in question are so powerful, I would be suspicious of the motives of anyone who would agree to do as you are asking.

Certainly, if they were a governor before, or had experience in business, there might be a track-record there to judge that ability by. Whether there was or not, though, I say add to the evidence available to judge that ability by.

And no part of "pre-appointment" would exclude looking at the current associates of the candidate.



I take your point ... but let's imagine such a tradition existed. Association with the Bush administration is surely a liability of McCain's already. He'd have to choose more widely (which might be funny if they refused to accept) ... he would have to commit to a better team than what he will probably pick if he gets the Presidency. Then, if he decides he'd rather have the old cronies when he actually gets the job, his Presidency starts off with breaking his word.
At which point it's too late for the voters to do anything about it, and you are left right in the same position (stuck with a lemon of an administration) that you were trying to avoid in the first place with all this rigamarole.

And remember, these cabinet members serve "at the pleasure of the president," so he/she can replace them at any time, fully within presidential power and privilege, regardless of what "commitments" you think he/she made before the election.

So, on that point, this idea, if applied practically, would be nothing more than a complicated and inconvenient way for a politician to tell the public whatever they want to hear in order to get their votes, and then do as they please once the election is done. It would essentially be a set up for a bait-and-switch.

We DO want to see who he'd pick ... and we want to see that list before deciding if he gets the job.



Campaign and office are fairly different things. But yeah.
I understand that you want those things, but as I said, I don't think you will ever get them. And after having discussed it a little, I'm starting to think that might be for the best.

I've been doing a bit more digging on the wiki pages, following up on the earlier look at Obama's economic advisors. This time we'll look at some of the movers and shakers in the McCain campaign.


Chief of Staff Mark Salter is McCain's co-author on most of his books. According to this WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121080096992092987.html), Salter is key to shaping the tone of the campaign. Reading this not-particularly-favorable article, it appears that Salter suffers from the same impulsiveness that McCain's been criticized for lately. It's an interesting read.


Former campaign Chair Senator Phil Gramm officially left the campaign (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQgyvcWXm2pM&refer=home) on July 18, 2008, following the statement ""We have sort of become a nation of whiners". However, he often accompanies McCain during the campaign, and continues to be an unofficial adviser on economic and financial matters. He is currently Vice Chair of UBS Securities, and is credited in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#Gramm.27s_relationship_to_the_2008_Subprime_Mortgage_Crisis) with authoring the legislation that lead to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.


Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said (http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/03/07/mccain_merges_with_rnc) she would be a point person for the McCain campaign on economic and business issues. She's a mixture of genuine respectability and loose cannon. Not sure if she's an asset or a liability to the campaign.


Wikipedia has an extensive list of other economic advisers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_John_McCain_presidential_campaign_staff_members,_2008#Economic_policy_advisors) (based around a 2007 press release), but I'm not finding a lot of current info. His economic plan on JohnMcCain.com (http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/) consists of a lot of broad goals with a leavening of vague promises and platitudes, but doesn't mention anything more specific about how he plans to get there. The Obama equivalent is quite a bit more informative.


I did turn up a Feb 2008 article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/751tryie.asp) which mentioned supply-side economics proponent Jack Kemp as one of several disparate advisers. The article concludes, "No consistent economic principles can be extracted from McCain's grab bag of policy positions, and no amount of textbook baloney about the free market, deregulation, and limited government will deter him from bringing his malefactors to justice. McCain's economics aren't ideological but improvisational--a campaign with shifting fronts, running on indignation."


So, names you're more likely to recognize, but also names with more baggage. For me, the list raised more questions than it answered.

I've been doing a bit more digging on the wiki pages, following up on the earlier look at Obama's economic advisors. This time we'll look at some of the movers and shakers in the McCain campaign.


Chief of Staff Mark Salter is McCain's co-author on most of his books. According to this WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121080096992092987.html), Salter is key to shaping the tone of the campaign. Reading this not-particularly-favorable article, it appears that Salter suffers from the same impulsiveness that McCain's been criticized for lately. It's an interesting read.


Former campaign Chair Senator Phil Gramm officially left the campaign (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQgyvcWXm2pM&refer=home) on July 18, 2008, following the statement ""We have sort of become a nation of whiners". However, he often accompanies McCain during the campaign, and continues to be an unofficial adviser on economic and financial matters. He is currently Vice Chair of UBS Securities, and is credited in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#Gramm.27s_relationship_to_the_2008_Subprime_Mortgage_Crisis) with authoring the legislation that lead to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
Phil Gramm's record for itself, in my opinion. It doesn't say nice things.

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said (http://townhall.com/Columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/03/07/mccain_merges_with_rnc) she would be a point person for the McCain campaign on economic and business issues. She's a mixture of genuine respectability and loose cannon. Not sure if she's an asset or a liability to the campaign.
Carly Fiorina became a liability as soon as the Wall Street shit hit the fan. She is most famous for being forced out of her position of Chairperson and CEO of Hewlett-Packard on accusations of incompetence but still taking a "golden parachute" of over $20million.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/technology/hp_fiorina/

Wikipedia has an extensive list of other economic advisers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_John_McCain_presidential_campaign_staff_members,_2008#Economic_policy_advisors) (based around a 2007 press release), but I'm not finding a lot of current info. His economic plan on JohnMcCain.com (http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/jobsforamerica/) consists of a lot of broad goals with a leavening of vague promises and platitudes, but doesn't mention anything more specific about how he plans to get there. The Obama equivalent is quite a bit more informative.


I did turn up a Feb 2008 article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/751tryie.asp) which mentioned supply-side economics proponent Jack Kemp as one of several disparate advisers. The article concludes, "No consistent economic principles can be extracted from McCain's grab bag of policy positions, and no amount of textbook baloney about the free market, deregulation, and limited government will deter him from bringing his malefactors to justice. McCain's economics aren't ideological but improvisational--a campaign with shifting fronts, running on indignation."


So, names you're more likely to recognize, but also names with more baggage. For me, the list raised more questions than it answered.
Heh, what you call baggage I call reasons to vote against McCain. What raises questions for you, answers questions for me.

What raises questions for you, answers questions for me.

I'd like to think that it's possible to have an open mind about this. I'd really like this thread to remain as non-partisan as possible, in hopes of giving all interested parties a chance to objectively look at both teams.

I'd like to think that it's possible to have an open mind about this. I'd really like this thread to remain as non-partisan as possible, in hopes of giving all interested parties a chance to objectively look at both teams.
Who said otherwise? I'm just pointing how our different viewpoints cause us to react to the information differently.

I'd like to think that it's possible to have an open mind about this. I'd really like this thread to remain as non-partisan as possible, in hopes of giving all interested parties a chance to objectively look at both teams.

Haha, I don't think it quite works that way in NSG. :)

If that's not clear, let me put it like this. To run for President, a Senator needs to give up their prospects of being re-elected Senator.

My understanding is that that's not quite true -- depending on which state you're in, it may be possible to simultaneously be on the ballot for Senator and for another position. (And many Senators who have run for President don't run into this because they're running in their off year.)

Bumping this up with something I just ran across from Newsweek:

Obama's Brain Trust (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139894/page/1): A new series from the Council on Foreign Relations profiles the main foreign policy advisers for Barack Obama.
A New Foreign Policy Vision
Obama was elected to the Senate in 2005 and serves on the Foreign Relations Committee. Prior to that, his professional experience was primarily confined to Illinois, where he served as a state legislator representing a Chicago district, and before that, a community activist. He has cited his personal background-his Kenyan-born father and a youth spent in Indonesia-as crucial to the development of his world view. Like other presidential campaigns, Obama's draws on a long list of advisers on foreign policy matters. The most senior include several ranking Clinton administration officials, the Brookings Institution's Susan E. Rice, former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, and former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig.

"This is a team that's very reflective of Obama, who has made it pretty clear in his speeches and statements during the campaign that he believes that diplomacy has been undervalued over the past few years and that the United States shouldn't fear to negotiate," says Derek Chollet, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security who advised John Edwards' presidential campaign.

If Obama wins the general election in November, his foreign policy and economic agendas will surely break with the legacies of the Bush administration, experts say. "Whether it's our approach to torture, or climate change, or how we're dealing with Iran, to Iraq, to the Middle East peace process you're going to see significant changes," says Chollet, who is not connected to the Obama campaign. Obama advocates a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions, and has said the United States should invest $150 billion over ten years to advance clean-energy technology. Obama has also been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, which he opposed from its outset in 2002. He has said he will withdraw troops from Iraq and refocus U.S. military efforts against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

McCain's Brain Trust (http://www.newsweek.com/id/139898): A new series from the Council on Foreign Relations profiles the main foreign policy advisers for John McCain

A Big Tent or Competing Influences
The McCain campaign's foreign policy coordinator is Randy Scheunemann, a former top legislative aide for Republicans on Capitol Hill, including two former leaders of the Senate, Trent Lott and Bob Dole. Former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin coordinates economic policy. On national security issues, McCain receives advice from several generations of Republican strategists and former top foreign policy officials such as Henry Kissinger and Richard Armitage, often grouped in the realist camp of foreign policy, as well as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, leading neoconservative voices. The campaign lists Kagan as a leading foreign policy adviser, as noted below, along with State Department veteran Richard Williamson, former top defense and national security official Peter W. Rodman, and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, who advises on national security and energy issues.

Media following the campaign have reported on jockeying for influence between the groups. The New York Times reported in April 2008 about concerns expressed by pragmatists advising McCain that more conservative Republicans and neoconservatives are gaining increasing influence. But other campaign advisers downplay any schism. Scheunemann, Kagan, and Kristol are project directors of the Project for the New American Century, an organization formed when Democrats controlled the White House in 1997 around what many analysts say are neoconservative ideals. The project says on its website it aims to promote U.S. leadership in the world and "rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world." The organization's statement of principles says the United States needs to "increase defense spending significantly," "strengthen ties to democratic allies," "promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad," and "accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."

Good, solid articles both, with bios of many of the players. Both end with bios of leaders on economic policy as well. Take the time to read them both, even if you've already decided who you're voting for. One of these groups of people will be making policy for the USA over the next four years. You should know where they stand.

Bumping this as it becomes relevant again ...

Dems sketch Obama staff, Cabinet (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15142.html)

Some of the more interesting suggestions as I see them:
White House chief of staff: Former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.); Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.); or dark horse candidate Bill Daley, Commerce secretary under President Bill Clinton and now an executive with JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Deputy chief of staff: Pete Rouse, chief of staff in Obama Senate office; Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Vice President Al Gore; longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett; Jim Messina, campaign chief of staff

National security adviser: Jim Steinberg, the deputy under Clinton; Gregory Craig, special counsel to Clinton; Susan Rice; retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni; Samantha Power of Harvard’s Kennedy School

White House economic adviser: Austan Goolsbee, senior policy adviser to campaign and University of Chicago economics professor; Jason Furman, director of economic policy for the campaign; Michael Froman, former Treasury chief of staff, Citigroup executive and Harvard Law classmate with Obama

Director of legislative affairs: Chris Lu; Mike Strautmanis

Political director: Erik Smith

Defense secretary : Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); Richard Danzig, Navy secretary under Clinton; John Hamre, president and CEO of CSIS and former deputy secretary of Defense; President Bush’s incumbent, Robert Gates — would be for at least a year so he wasn’t a lame duck.

Supreme Court nominee: Washington superlawyer Robert Barnett; legal scholar Cass Sunstein; Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick; 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York; Elena Kagan, dean of Harvard Law School. Consensus is it would most likely be a woman.

Secretary of State: New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.); Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.)

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: Susan Rice, senior campaign national security adviser and State Department and National Security Council official under Clinton; Caroline Kennedy

Treasury secretary: former Clinton treasury secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin; FDIC Chairman Sheila C. Blair; New York Fed President Timothy Geithner, former Treasury under secretary and Assistant Secretary; former Federal Reserve hairman Paul Volcker.

Secretary of Energy: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.); Tammy Duckworth, the director of Illinois Veterans’ Affairs, Iraq veteran and former Democratic House candidate; Bush’s incumbent, James Peake
Interesting list. Schwarzenegger for Energy? Caroline Kennedy in the UN? Elena Kagan for SCOTUS? Cleland in the VA as a poke in the nose to Saxby Chambliss? This could be more fun than the election.

I like Schwarzenegger for Secretary of Energy, actually. It's been one of his main projects as governor of the state that leads the way in alternative energy technology.

See the edits I added to my original post.

EDIT: Here I'll do it again (add an edit, I mean): Bill Richardson for Sec of State. John Edwards for Attorney General (if only he hadn't had that sex scandal, damn him). Chris Dodd could do for several positions -- very capable man, Mr. Dodd. I'm not sure who I'd want for Defense.


Better than even money it will be Webb.

To be honest I don't give a crap who's gona be in the cabinets. All I wan't to know is who's currently running the US shadow goverment.

Bumping this as it becomes relevant again ...

Like I said. This is such a good idea, campaigns will do it without having it formalized as part of the electoral process. It's just good politics!


Dems sketch Obama staff, Cabinet (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15142.html)

*snip*

Secretary of Energy: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R); Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)

*snip*

I gotta think that Arnie is doing more good where he is than he would as a Secretary. California ain't Alaska.

Might have been an idea for Obama to check with Arnie before mentioning his name. After all, Schwarzenegger is quite active in the McCain campaign. Isn't exactly overwhelmed with gratitude at the offer: Arnie making fun of Obama. (http://news.google.com.au/news/url?sa=t&ct=au/0-0&fp=490b792afb205fd3&ei=j6YLSYSSHo20gQOVnJzmAQ&url=http%3A//blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/10/31/republican-schwarzenegger-says-obama-needs-to-bulk-up/&cid=1265190354&usg=AFQjCNGT_kE5g1n3u0kuBZ40YLtalmgseg)

Might have been an idea for Obama to check with Arnie before mentioning his name.

The Politico source wasn't Obama, but rather "sources close to Barack Obama have quite specific ideas about his most likely choices for a wide array of top jobs." For all we know, it's one of his janitors.

I saw Arnie live on CNN, and a position in the Obama White House didn't look promising. However, Maria Shriver was a prominent endorser of Obama back in February 08. I could see her as an expert adviser on women's issues. (I doubt she'd walk away from her husband to accept an ambassadorship to the Vatican or anything like that.)

An awful lot of people are talking about sitting governors and recently reelected Senators. I don't see that. The Dems aren't going to squander their recent gains by putting prominent Congressional winners into the Executive branch. Retired legislators like Al Gore and Max Cleland, sure. Richard Lugar, Tim Caine, Janet Napolitano - no way.

Not to be partisan - this was also linked from the Obama article. Missed it the first time around.

A peek at a potential McCain Cabinet (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/15146.html)
With their candidate working to catch up in the polls just days before the presidential election, John McCain’s campaign team has given less attention than its Democratic rivals to drawing up lists of potential Cabinet appointments and White House staff members.

Previous reports have indicated that McCain’s transition team, headed by former Navy Secretary John Lehman, has given particular attention to the area of national security, but may not be as far advanced as Barack Obama’s team in actually slating names for specific administration positions.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that “domestic agencies aren’t the top priority and the team is staying away from compiling formal lists of candidates for choice jobs. ... Mr. Lehman’s plan focuses on the mechanics of bringing a new administration up to speed on the most pressing intelligence questions, terrorism-related developments and broad national security issues.”
That was followed by some guesses by the reporter or Politico staff. No "sources close to" or anything, just WAGs.

If Obama wins...

I'm a bit surprised Rahm Emanuel is getting so much attention for CoS. Would he really be willing to forsake his House seniority for the position?

For Treasury, I think Geithner would be ok. Volcker would be a really left-field choice; I hope it's not Rubin.

I'm interested in what names might be floating around for CEA chair, and USTR. I think trade remains the big unknown for many moderates supporting Obama, and his appointments on trade policy could be important in deciding the early tenor of his presidency.

Or is it only us Europeans that care about that side of things?

Naming a "dream team" is one thing. It doesn't mean much, though, if those proposed appointees don't commit to take the job when it comes up.

The Politico source wasn't Obama, but rather "sources close to Barack Obama have quite specific ideas about his most likely choices for a wide array of top jobs." For all we know, it's one of his janitors.

Hehe yes. Not just a few people would want to be considered "close to Barack Obama" just now.

It's a matter of judging a candidate by the company he keeps. The candidate is stage-managed like a racehorse or a beauty queen. Watching the people in the background who may not realize they're on camera (or better, reading their published works pre-campaign) may give you greater perspective on the front man.

At first glance, McCain seems to be surrounded by the Bush party machinery, and Obama by a grassroots coalition with a strong leavening of academia. Given their backgrounds and a basic knowledge of the past 12 years of American history, that's not really surprising. I still want to know more.

Their staffs really reflect them don't they? McCain surrounds himself with military types and Bush old guard and Obama seems to surround himself with highly educated thinkers.

I've already expressed my likes and dislikes of each candidate and how unlikely I am to vote for either one of them, but I will say that I am impressed with Obama's ability to absorb the knowledge of those he surrounds himself with and put it to use. Competence is such a refreshing change.

I am very interested. A president is only as good as the ideas he gets, and he will undoubtedly come to rely on those closest to him.

Anyway, I would say Richardson has to be SecState. Seriously, I cannot think of a more qualified person. Plus, it'll make all the Hispanics happy.

I'm not too familiar with the rest, except that I'd like to see Edwards do something. Damn political suicide. I'd also like to see a few moderate republicans in there, as a sign of good will. Not that it'll make much difference for the high up GOP member and the idiot supporters, but the few moderate supporters they have left will appreciate it.

Oh, and Fris' point a few posts back about not squandering their legislative gains is very true. It's more important that they keep that than having those people in advisory positions.

Obama offers Rahm Emanual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel) Chief of Staff position.

Politico speculation (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15314.html)

CNN speculation (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/obama.transition/index.html?iref=mpstoryview)

Potential players in the upcoming Obama administration:

Valerie Jarrett (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-072708-jarrett,0,1640738.story?page=1) - "Senior Advisor", no specific policy initiatives identified. Look for her to be a member of the "Kitchen Cabinet", with an ear in both the West Wing and the Residence.

Campaign manager David Plouffe (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=f746721e-74d7-4313-9231-7e75e5d56fbb) - Assiduously avoids the spotlight. He's the ultimate wonk responsible for getting stuff done while staying on message. Communications Director?

Head of transition team John Podesta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Podesta) - served as Clinton's 4th Chief of Staff. Well positioned to take a Cabinet seat should he so desire. Homeland Security, maybe?

Chief strategist David Axelrod (http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080314_121054.htm). He and Plouffe were both mentioned in the acceptance speech, so they're clearly on track for major policy positions. Legislative director, or Senior Adviser for Legislative Affairs? I could see him being the stage manager for any efforts on the Hill, with Biden as his front man. Added advantage of keeping Biden under a trusted thumb.

These are some of the unelected folks who will be shaping the Obama Doctrine. You might want to see what we're getting into.

Well, I can see that there aren't too many serious policy wonks in NSG, as nobody else seems to be responding to this thread. As such, I'm not going to spend any more time posting speculative choices unless a few of you respond.

For anyone who is still interested, Politico has put up what appears to be the perfect wonk site for me and people like me. I encourage you to visit http://www.politico.com/politico44/ for ongoing news of policy movers and shakers in the Obama White House.

These are the people whose ideas that will shape your lives for years to come. Pay attention, dammit!

I think Richardson would be a fine choice for Secretary of State. He is extremely qualified, and from when I've heard him speak, he sounds very intelligent and reasonable. I'm going to look at this thread more later, as right now I don't have much time before class.

Part of the reason I didn't before was because it felt too much like jinxing it to me. Now that Obama has won, that is not a problem.

For Secretary of Defense, I think Wes Clark would be great, but I don't think he is eligible, hasn't been a civilian long enough. I've heard Chuck Hagel's name thrown around, he'd be good. For Secretary of State, I'll join the Richardson lovefest, but I hear Susan Rice and Dick Lugar a lot in regards to that position as well. For Secretary of Treasury, it looks like he's got plenty of good options, I was thinking Warren Buffet perhaps?

So aye, this guy is a cabinet member. Tell me if he's good or not, I'd never really heard of him in the past.

Barack Obama has started forming his administration by asking Rahm Emanuel, a former adviser to President Clinton, to be his chief-of-staff.

US President-elect Obama is expected to appoint a new treasury secretary soon.

He has until his inauguration on 20 January to select his senior officials. President Bush has pledged his complete co-operation during the transition.

Mr Obama was elected the first black US president on Tuesday with a resounding win over Republican rival John McCain.

There has been speculation Mr Obama will ask Defence Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his post.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7712270.stm

I havent heard much of him, but he was a clinton advisor, Im optimistic.

He's got a cool-sounding name.

He's got a cool-sounding name.
True of Mitt Romney, doesn't mean he's any good :tongue:

Emanuel claims he hasn't been offered the position, and he hasn't accepted. He's at the top of the short list, but AP jumped the gun by announcing at about 10 AM on 5 November.

I posted links to a couple of bios in this transition team thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14172218&postcount=75) already. Have a look.

"General Raam (http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9056/generalram03smallxb3.jpg)" anybody? :p

I'm interested Fris! Honest!

Which is why I posted this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14174139&postcount=4912) in the other thread. And actually posted in here earlier.

Anyway, Rahm... cool name. But that's been said. Dang hippies and their time machines.

I honestly have no knowledge of him. What are the chances of him actually taking it, if he's offered? What's his history?

Also, it'd be cool to have another West Wing character in there. But I'd still prefer Richardson for SecState, I think.

Which Clinton?George. Sheesh, what a stupid question :rolleyes:

I'm not sure who ought to be appointed where. I do think Bill Richardson would be good as Secretary of State...probably stick someone like Wesley Clark somewhere...

Beyond that I just don't know.

I think it's good that Obama is bringing in so many people with extensive experience to staff his transition team. There are a few people off his campaign, too, but even some of those have prior Washington experience. Carter and Clinton both stalled in their first legislative sessions because they relied overly on people from "back home" in Georgia/Arkansas. And given Obama is still relatively new to Capitol Hill, it's all the more important. The Harris biography of Clinton is very positive on Podesta, which is encouraging. The hiring of Emmanuel - against, as I'll admit, my first impressions - certainly reflects a keenness to get things done. Interesting that he's pretty unpopular among a lot of the netroots activists that rallied so hard for Obama 2 years ago, because of issues like not pushing for testimony from Miers and Bolten, and helping renew FastTrack. Gibbs seems like a safe choice for Press Sec: I don't see him beginning badly like Stephanopoulus did.

By the way, I'm not sure anyone has posted this link in this thread: here is the transition team homepage (http://www.change.gov/).

Geithner or Corzine at Treasury. That's who it looks like. I don't like either of them. Corzine is another GS insider, and Geithner is a highly unethical fellow. Spend some time looking into Maiden Lane.

George. Sheesh, what a stupid question :rolleyes:

To be Secretary of the new Department of Funk.

By the way, I'm not sure anyone has posted this link in this thread: here is the transition team homepage (http://www.change.gov/).

I followed that link to the Plum Book (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2004/index.html), a GPO listing of the 7,000 positions that need to be filled. It's utterly amazing how many jobs are PA (Presidential Appointment) or worse, PAS (Presidential Appointment with Senate Confirmation).

I mean, c'mon, Senate confirmation of 8 "Member, Broadcasting Board of Governors"? The Chief Executive Office of the Millennium Challenge Corporation? "Archivist of the United States"? 18 members of the "National Commission On Libraries And Information Science", including both the Librarian of Congress and an "Elderly Expert"?

I start to see why patronage appointments are not just common, but necessary. That's a hell of a lot of warm bodies to fill empty slots, especially when some of them are incredibly important.

and Geithner is a highly unethical fellow. Spend some time looking into Maiden Lane.
Because I'm lazy, do you have a link? I'd read good things about Geithner from the New York Times 'reading list' (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/summers-and-geithner-a-reading-list/?hp), so would be good to get a counterpoint. OpenLeft have already provided their take (http://action.openleft.com/page/petition/nosummers) on Summers.

While I have mixed feelings: Agree with Obama or not, in my case not especially on foreign policy. Obama has been democratically elected President of the USA, that I must accept the American way. Dosent mean I have to agree with Obama on everything. My one litmus test most you know about is my main problem of trust with Obama. Obama must show me I can trust him if he even wants or cares about my vote for his re-election. My sense is if Obama dosent govern too much too the left he will do well and be re-elected. I hope he does well for the nation of the USA.

While I have mixed feelings: Agree with Obama or not, in my case not especially on foreign policy.

So, your litmus test issue is how Obama deals with Castro and the Cuban-American community, correct? How about educating us on any realistic options for who you think Obama should put on his Cabinet or in appropriate staff positions? What prominent center-right Democrats or center-left Republicans could properly represent you in an Obama White House?

Bring it back on topic for us, willya?

Ok, so not one of the major positions, but I'm interested in who Obama lines up as 'drug czar' - ONDCP Director. Eric Sterling's blog (http://justiceanddrugs.blogspot.com/2008/11/morning-after-question-who-will-be.html) argues the position will probably not be filled till some way into the first year, after AG and HHS Secretary appointments. Still...

When the US recently passed 1% of its adult population, voices calling for drug reform became louder, and the relative lack of attention to Obama's personal history with drugs mean he might have more political capital to spend on the issue than did Clinton. Obama's sponsored anti-methamphetamine legislation, but he'd have more traction on issues like mandatory minimums and equalising sentencing guidelines. Biden, as Senate Judiciary Chair, was one of the chief architects of the War on Drugs. Some activists (http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/08/that_queasy_feeling) think this has the possibility that he could help lead drug law reform. A NORML senior policy analyst is sceptical (http://www.alternet.org/election08/97810/obama%27s_biden_pick_signals_%27more_of_the_same%27_stupid_drug_policies/).

The Politico gossip (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=542710E6-18FE-70B2-A8A346B36828470E) has only one name: William Bratton. This would be an appalling choice. He was instrumental in effecting Giuliani's 'zero tolerance' policies in NYC, and has even contributed a chapter to a book on Zero Tolerance: Policing a Free Society in which he explains the benefits of such policies. Now, maybe taking the fight to New York's crack dealers was a good idea, but it's not a policy that can be applied across the US as part of domestic and foreign policy. Bratton has demurred (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2008/nov/06/drug_czar_appointment_watch_will), but as the article points out, so did Biden before being appointed.

Needless to say, whoever is ONDCP Director will have to work with the SoS, SoHHS, AG and DoHS: and so far all of the big names for those positions have strong anti-drug records.

George. Sheesh, what a stupid question :rolleyes:

Which one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Clinton)?

Because I'm lazy, do you have a link? I'd read good things about Geithner from the New York Times 'reading list' (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/summers-and-geithner-a-reading-list/?hp), so would be good to get a counterpoint. OpenLeft have already provided their take (http://action.openleft.com/page/petition/nosummers) on Summers.

He's in good stink with the press. But the fact remains that he is head of the NY Fed. You can go back as far as last August 16th to see the problems.

But the fact remains he was in on the illegal carve up of Bear Stearns with Jamie Dimon (a NY Fed board member) that benefited JPM (Dimon's bank) at the expense of tax payers. Thing of it being that it wouldn't have gone down had they just announced the Primary Dealer Credit Facility 24 hrs earlier.

The US faces a huge credibility problem internationally right now because of the way the capital markets have been administrated. Putting one of the 'gang' in treasury won't help. (Because of said poor ethics).

Someone not involved needs to be put up for treasury. I'd actually recommend a foreigner at this point.

Even Cramer hates him. That's about as bad as you can get.

Rahm Emanuel is a poor choice too. Far too provocative to the muslim world.

Rahm Emanuel is a poor choice too. Far too provocative to the muslim world.

It's possible that he'll be able to help leverage the Israelis into making concessions. He's quite moderate, too.

Rahm Emanuel is a poor choice too. Far too provocative to the muslim world.

Well, duh? Muslim president, remember?

'nother link: The GAO Transition page. (http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/)
He's in good stink with the press. But the fact remains that he is head of the NY Fed. You can go back as far as last August 16th to see the problems.

But the fact remains he was in on the illegal carve up of Bear Stearns with Jamie Dimon (a NY Fed board member) that benefited JPM (Dimon's bank) at the expense of tax payers. Thing of it being that it wouldn't have gone down had they just announced the Primary Dealer Credit Facility 24 hrs earlier.

The US faces a huge credibility problem internationally right now because of the way the capital markets have been administrated. Putting one of the 'gang' in treasury won't help. (Because of said poor ethics).

Someone not involved needs to be put up for treasury. I'd actually recommend a foreigner at this point.
The English football team approach :)

If you want someone with more international credibility, which Larry Summers certainly doesn't have, then how about Paul Volcker? He doesn't have the insider connections like Corzine, Bair, and the others, he's been vocal in support (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360251805321773.html) for regulatory overhaul, he's got Joseph Stiglitz's backing (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4A513U20081106), and he's been involved with the Obama team's economic discussions from early on, meaning there won't be crossed wires.

Rahm Emanuel is a poor choice too. Far too provocative to the muslim world.

...

Why? Because he's a Jew? Why should that even be something to contemplate when it comes to choosing the Chief of Staff?

'nother link: The GAO Transition page. (http://www.gao.gov/transition_2009/)

The English football team approach :)

If you want someone with more international credibility, which Larry Summers certainly doesn't have, then how about Paul Volcker? He doesn't have the insider connections like Corzine, Bair, and the others, he's been vocal in support (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122360251805321773.html) for regulatory overhaul, he's got Joseph Stiglitz's backing (http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4A513U20081106), and he's been involved with the Obama team's economic discussions from early on, meaning there won't be crossed wires.

Volcker is too old I think. And I don't think he wants it anyway. (I'm not a Volcker fan anyway).

I really don't know who they should pick. My fantasy pick would be Hugh Hendry of eclectica funds. But no-one is going to go for a scottish hedge fund manager.

...

Why? Because he's a Jew? Why should that even be something to contemplate when it comes to choosing the Chief of Staff?

:rolleyes:

No. Not because he is a jew. Kool-aid. Just say no!

...

Why? Because he's a Jew? Why should that even be something to contemplate when it comes to choosing the Chief of Staff?

He was a volunteer for the IDF and his father was in the Irgun. But seriously, Israel is an America ally. We send them a third of our foreign aid. Appointing Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff isn't going to push anything over the edge. And he didn't ruin the Oslo Accords when he was involved in those under Clinton.

He was a volunteer for the IDF and his father was in the Irgun. But seriously, Israel is an America ally. We send them a third of our foreign aid. Appointing Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff isn't going to push anything over the edge. And he didn't ruin the Oslo Accords when he was involved in those under Clinton.

His father might though.

In an interview with Ma'ariv, Emanuel's father, Dr. Benjamin Emanuel, said he was convinced that his son's appointment would be good for Israel. "Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel," he was quoted as saying. "Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

link (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1225910047157&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

So, I've heard like 2314349376 things on Obama, and about 3 on Biden.

What do we think about him? I read a bio, he seems like a pretty well qualified VP. How do y'all think he'll go?

Well, duh? Muslim president, remember?
Exactly. If the King of the Muslims likes him, I don't see why the others would be upset.

Biden. What do we think about him? I read a bio, he seems like a pretty well qualified VP. How do y'all think he'll go?

We heard 2314349376 things about Biden during the campaigns in 1988 and 2008. He's been about as open and accessible as you could possibly be for his 36 years in the Senate, so reporters and bloggers have pretty much ignored him as 'not news'. He'll be fine in a job that doesn't really have any requirements.

Right now he's doing exactly what he ought to be doing - standing next to his boss and smiling a lot. He's supposed to be sitting in on a lot of meetings with Obama, and his extensive first hand political knowledge will be invaluable during the transition. Barack said he'd listen to him, and I believe he meant it.

While it's not of immediate interest, the Office of the Vice President has its own staff of assistants which mirror (to a lesser extent) the West Wing staff. Of particular interest is Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President, a position from which Lewis 'Scooter' Libby used to exert a disproportionately large amount of influence towards furthering the PNAC agenda (http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm). The Office of the VEEP isn't given a lot of credibility, so it's an ideal place to hide a major player. However, I have no reason to expect Cheney-like behavior from Biden. He likes the sunlight better than the shadows.

All the signs from the campaign trail indicate that Biden was cordoned off behind the walls of the Obama campaign machine and largely managed by Obama aides. My guess is that Biden, who hasn't had a boss since his Senate election at age 29, will quickly chafe under this level of restriction. I'd expect him to bring in members of his old staff such as Danny O'Brien, formerly Biden's Senate CoS, and Larry Rasky, Biden's longtime communications whiz, and possibly his sister Valerie Biden-Owens, who has managed most of his campaigns.

I am hoping that Obama keeps Gates as SecDef.

I am hoping that Obama keeps Gates as SecDef.

Long sig is long.

EDIT: By which I mean, that sig is far too long. Sigs are limited to 8 lines. makes reading the page easier :)

Politico's Adam Bonin, on keeping Gates as SecDef (http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Adam_Bonin_B61BF2EA-5BF5-491B-A719-3801060F0A52.html):
He should get a hypoallergenic one from a shelter.

Hehe. Even stuffed shirts have a sense of humor.

I like the idea of Colin Powell as SecDef.

Another idea I had would be McCain as Secretary of Homeland Security. Would be a huge "gap-bridger".

Another idea I had would be McCain as Secretary of Homeland Security. Would be a huge "gap-bridger".

I think there are other Republicans better suited for such a position. It's overseeing a bureaucracy, which I don't see McCain being good at or wanting to do.

Politico's Adam Bonin, on keeping Gates as SecDef (http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Adam_Bonin_B61BF2EA-5BF5-491B-A719-3801060F0A52.html):


Hehe. Even stuffed shirts have a sense of humor.

Hehehe, snark. :tongue:

I am hoping that Obama keeps Gates as SecDef.

I hope not. There are many other, far more qualified people for that role.

I hope not. There are many other, far more qualified people for that role.

Who are you thinking of?

I think there are other Republicans better suited for such a position. It's overseeing a bureaucracy, which I don't see McCain being good at or wanting to do.

I mulled over with someone else offering McCain SecVetAff. Anyone with two arms and half a brain can run VetAff, and it would be a symbol.

Who are you thinking of?

Colin Powell? :)

Colin Powell? :)

He'd be a good choice, although I would put him as Sec. of State (again)

I mulled over with someone else offering McCain SecVetAff. Anyone with two arms and half a brain can run VetAff, and it would be a symbol.

Noooo. McCain is given a "D" by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=4227&rtype=R). He justified voting against education benefits for veterans by saying he didn't want to give them an incentive to leave the military.

I like the idea of Colin Powell as SecDef.

He says he isn't interested (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/05/powell-says-he-wouldnt-serve-in-obama-administration/). “I am not interested in a position in government, nor have I been approached,” said Gen. Powell, who was traveling in Hong Kong. The former Army general and secretary of state under President George W. Bush said the election marked a generational shift in the U.S, and that he would always be available to offer advice. “I’m not expecting to go to government,” he said.

When asked specifically about whether he might serve as Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense, Gen. Powell shrugged it off, saying: “Why? I’ve done it.”

“President-elect Obama has a large number of people he could look to who could be good candidates for State, Defense, or elsewhere,” he said.

Incidentally, I hope Obama offers the VA to Max Cleland. Wouldn't that be a poke in the eye to Saxby Chambliss, win or lose.

So, you want to work in the Obama administration? It's not quite so easy (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?scp=3&sq=calmes&st=cse) in the Digital Age ....

A seven-page questionnaire being sent by the office of President-elect Barack Obama to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts may be the most extensive — some say invasive — application ever.

The questionnaire includes 63 requests for personal and professional records, some covering applicants’ spouses and grown children as well, that are forcing job-seekers to rummage from basements to attics, in shoe boxes, diaries and computer archives to document both their achievements and missteps.

Only the smallest details are excluded; traffic tickets carrying fines of less than $50 need not be reported, the application says. Applicants are asked whether they or anyone in their family owns a gun. They must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages.

The application also asks applicants to “please list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

... read the whole article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?scp=3&sq=calmes&st=cse) ...
I just Googled a handful of screen names I've used in the past. If this site didn't kill me, some of the other gaming sites I've joined would do a great job of getting me destroyed. That's not to mention recollections of old co-workers, schoolchums, and various nefarious associates in my past. (A couple of the most damning are thankfully dead now.)

Could you clear the hurdles? Would you want to?

So, you want to work in the Obama administration? It's not quite so easy (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13apply.html?scp=3&sq=calmes&st=cse) in the Digital Age ....


I just Googled a handful of screen names I've used in the past. If this site didn't kill me, some of the other gaming sites I've joined would do a great job of getting me destroyed. That's not to mention recollections of old co-workers, schoolchums, and various nefarious associates in my past. (A couple of the most damning are thankfully dead now.)

Could you clear the hurdles? Would you want to?

No and yes, respectively.

Come on, it would be AWESOME to work for Obama. I just aint qualified, and have too many, erm... shall we say embarrassing moments in the past.

I was going to post something new, but A-SD beat me to it.

Hillary for Secretary of State? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=572917)

I was going to post something new, but A-SD beat me to it.

Hillary for Secretary of State? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=572917)

Hmm....Hillary..that is quite an interesting pick for Obama...who knows if she would take it or not.

Hmm....Hillary..that is quite an interesting pick for Obama...who knows if she would take it or not.

I was Richardson damnit!

Give her health or something...

I'd like to see Clinton as Senate Majority Leader. State should go to Richardson.

Can someone explain to me Richardson's credentials? I don't know much about the guy.

Also, I've changed my mind about offering McCain a Cabinet post of any kind. Obama needs him in the Senate. The Republicans are talking about moving to the right in response to this defeat, and McCain could be a moderating influence.

Ironic - if there is a general Republican shift to the right, McCain could end up as an ally of Obama.

Back to SecDef, if Powell isn't interested, then if I were Obama, I'd simply get a list of the top generals (and admirals) at the Pentagon, and start going down the list. Maybe General Petraeus?

EDIT: Nevermind about Richardson. I just read his Wikipedia page. Obama, appoint this guy already?

Newsweek is reporting that Eric Holder has been tapped (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/11/18/obama-s-attorney-general.aspx) as the new Attorney General.
Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal “vetting” review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted, the source said. The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments.
Any of our legal eagles know anything about his record or history, beyond what the blogosphere is repeating? What would you use as a reliable source beyond Google?

Edit: Biography from his current employers, Covington & Burling LLP (http://www.cov.com/eholder/)

June 2008 extensive and thorough speculation in The American Lawyer (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421950304)

"Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has been offered the job of Health and Human Services secretary by President-elect Barack Obama and has accepted the job, according to a Democratic source close to Daschle."

-- Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/30285-1.html)

Bios from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Daschle), Sourcewatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Daschle), current employer Alston & Byrd (http://www.alston.com/tom_daschle/).

Tom Daschle on Health Care (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Tom_Daschle_Health_Care.htm)


.

Newsweek is reporting that Eric Holder has been tapped (http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/11/18/obama-s-attorney-general.aspx) as the new Attorney General.

Any of our legal eagles know anything about his record or history, beyond what the blogosphere is repeating? What would you use as a reliable source beyond Google?

Edit: Biography from his current employers, Covington & Burling LLP (http://www.cov.com/eholder/)

June 2008 extensive and thorough speculation in The American Lawyer (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202421950304)

You've already found good sources re: Holder and I don't know of any better ones (or any important information about Holder) off the top of my head.

From what I read about him, Holder seems an excellent choice.

Back to SecDef, if Powell isn't interested, then if I were Obama, I'd simply get a list of the top generals (and admirals) at the Pentagon, and start going down the list. Maybe General Petraeus?
No, no, no, no. The Secretary of Defense is supposed to be the CIVILIAN CONTROL over the military. An active officer is completely disqualified (that would destroy the chain of command) and I don't know of an ex-military Secretary, it might have happened once or twice but it is against the concept of the office.

Here are some takes on Holder and Daschle by NORML (http://stash.norml.org/2008/11/18/obamas-attorney-general-eric-holder-supporter-of-stiffer-marijuana-penalties/) and RH Reality Check (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/11/19/will-tom-daschle-be-the-secretary-health-and-human-services-repro-rights-community-wants).

I've heard that he is going to take on Hilary as Sec of State and a Replican (I'm guessing McCain) on his team. That would be amazing! 8)

More leaked picks:
Arizonan will head Homeland Security (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15815.html)
Arizona Demcratic Gov. Janet Napolitano has been chosen to serve as secretary of the vast and troubled Department of Homeland Security for President-elect Barack Obama, Democratic officials said. Napolitano is a border governor who will now be responsible for immigration policy and border security, which are part of Homeland Security’s myriad functions.

Napolitano brings law and order experience from her stint as the Grand Canyon State’s first female attorney general. One of the nation’s most prominent female elected officials, she made frequent appearances on behalf of Barack Obama during the campaign. She was reelected to a second four-year term in 2006.


Penny Pritzker was widely reported as being in line for Commerce, but she's apparently refuting the rumors (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/pritzker-wont-be-commerce-secretary/):
Chicago businesswoman Penny Pritzker said Thursday that she is not a candidate for Secretary of Commerce in the administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Pritzker said she “never submitted any information for the vetting process to begin” and that “while there were discussions, I was never formally offered the position.

“I have obligations here in Chicago that make it difficult for me to serve at this time.”

Pritzker was Obama’s national campaign finance chairwoman and had been mentioned as the leading candidate to become Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. She is the chairwoman of TransUnion, a national credit-reporting agency.

In a written statement her office issued Thursday, she said, “I think I can best serve our nation in my current capacity: building businesses, creating jobs and working to strengthen our economy.”

Pritzker noted that “it has been my great privilege to serve in the Obama campaign. I look forward to helping our new president in every way possible and am excited about the future under his leadership.”

Update:

Clinton is to be Sec. of State.
Richardson is to be Sec. of Commerce
Timothy Geithner will be Sec. for Treasury.

Update:

Clinton is to be Sec. of State.
Richardson is to be Sec. of Commerce
Timothy Geithner will be Sec. for Treasury.

Really?


The other two were predictable.

he is changing change, one change at a time

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/21/sources-jones-leading-choice-for-national-security-advisor/

Anyone have a opinion on this either way? Seems like a solid pick to me.

after we spent 6 years talking about kool-aid drinkers, i'm not sure the gods of alanis-morisettian irony can take a jim jones acting as a high level adviser in the white house

That's important because in the current situation, the Treasury has become pretty much the most important department, even news-wise.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/NBC-Geithner-to-be-tapped-for-US-Treasury-chief-LLRUA?OpenDocument
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/21/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2008112118
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/21/1685124.aspx
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7V42kGHp.4o&refer=home
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aVliMjNPmgCU&refer=home

He's interesting to the degree that he was never a banker (though he did work in a consultancy firm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissinger_and_Associates) for three years after finishing his studies), unlike many Treasury bosses in the past, including Paulson. That doesn't mean he wasn't around Wall Street though - he's a career official in the Treasury and Fed system and as boss of the New York Fed was basically second in command behind Bernanke in the response to the crisis.

Wall Street reacted positively, but that's probably just a spur of the moment thing right now. Any news that doesn't include stuff going to pieces right now is good news.

Thoughts, questions or comments?

I think I'd rather see James Earl Jones take the post.

I think I'd rather see James Earl Jones take the post.

Why?

Why?

He's awesome, that's why.

Why?

He's awesome, that's why.

Duh.

He's awesome, that's why.

The voice of Darth Vader as National Security Advisor, it's a stroke of genius.

So am I the only one who think he shouldn't have picked Hillary Clinton....for anything?

So am I the only one who think he shouldn't have picked Hillary Clinton....for anything?

Nope

So am I the only one who think he shouldn't have picked Hillary Clinton....for anything?

There's another substantial thread discussing the pros and cons of Hillary (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=572954). For the rest of the appointees (unless he appoints the Ghost of Ronald Reagan or something), let's keep them here in one place.