Sunday, November 23, 2008
Yes Armand, Secretary of State Clinton Indeed
The New York Times announced Friday that Hillary Clinton has reversed her many previous statements and decided to accept the position. Clinton had previously stated many, many times that she would much prefer to stay in the Senate, but after talking with President-Elect Obama about "how she would fit into Mr. Obama's administration" she decided to accept the nomination. Fromer President Bill Clinton has previously stated "I think she'll be really great as Secretary of State" The decision by Clinton was a large surprise to many of even the greatest political minds in the country, among them Jonathan Shulman. Yet, Clinton seems to be a wise decision for Obama who is looking to gain as much support for his administration as possible, and with Hillary Clinton on board many people who were unsure about him will now undoubtedly feel much more comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Surprised indeed!
It will be interesting to see if her role in the Obama administration turns into a clash of agendas. Hillary has been set on implementing her health care plan as well as wasting tax dollars in other ways. I am not convinced that this alliance between former rivals will be peaceful and surrounded by the spirit of cooperation. I doubt that in a few years this will be seen as a good choice .
Not only that, but is it possible she realized she could ride Obama's success to victory in 2012??
(If you think about it that is QUITE the gamble)
This appointment is just another example of Obama's stark dearth of "change." I don't care if Obama pretties it up by calling it "unity," (he still has yet to name what token Republican he will tack on to his cabinet...) Obama's recent appointments seem to reject his calls for an administration of fresh faces and fresh ideas. An alarming (for some) 31 of Obama's appointments to his transition team have come from the Clinton Administration. Let's go a little further and break down his recent additions and Cabinet appointments:
John Podesta (Co-Chairman of Obama-Biden Transition Team) – Served as President Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff for three years. Doesn’t get more “Clintonesque” than Podesta, except for maybe...
Hillary Clinton (Sec. of State) - Need I say more?
Timothy Geithner (Sec. Treasury) - Probably one of the fairest and most qualified picks, yet he was the mentee of Larry Summers (Bill Clinton's Sec. of Treasury).
Greg Craig (White House Council) - Served as Special Council to the President in the Clinton Administration and was his lawyer for the impeachment proceedings. Fun fact: he also defended John Hinckley Jr.
Ron Klain (Biden’s Chief of Staff)-Longtime Democratic Insider, he was very influential in the Clinton Administration, as he oversaw Clinton’s Judicial Nominations and served as Al Gore’s Chief of Staff. Fun Fact: Played by Kevin Spacey in the Movie "Recount" about the 2000 Presidential Election.
Peter Orszag (Budget Director) - Served as Bill Clinton's Senior Economist and Advisor on his Council of Economic Advisors during his administration.
Bill Richardson (Sec. of Commerce)-Served as Bill Clinton's US Ambassador to United Nations and as Clinton's Sec. of Energy. Also, this was probably payback for Richardson’s endorsement of Obama in the heat of the primary race.
Tom Daschle (Sec. of Health and Human Services) - While this is far from a glamorous position (although with all the talk of revamping health care...) Daschle is certainly not a new face. He was Senate Majority and Minority leader for the Democrats during Clinton's Presidency and into Bush's.
Rahm Emmanuel (Chief of Staff)- Although an ambitious young Democrat and fairly new to the national stage, he served as Bill Clinton's Director of Finance and Fundraising for Clinton's first Presidential Campaign and later served in the Clinton Administration.
The only truly "fresh" appointment I'll concede to Obama is Janet Napolitano for Sec. of Homeland Security. Yet, even she was appointed US Attorney for Arizona by President Bill Clinton.
Obama's promise of change has now turned into a more of a “moratorium.” Obama recently announced he does not plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, as he promised he would during the campaign. Furthermore, out and out reversals include Obama’s going back on his campaign promise of barring lobbyists from his transition team, as we talked about in class. It seems Obama has gone back on a lot of campaign promises recently (along with those earlier such as his vow to stick with public campaign funds or his position on the superdelagates).
Personally, it's not a big deal for me. I never expected Obama to carry out all his promises on the campaign trail, just as I never expected McCain would really be the "real candidate of change" from the inside. I recognize that that's how campaign's go, which is why I tended to look at the candidates' records (that is, if they had one) when voting.
A problem, I believe, is that so many expect(ed) Obama to be this great wave of real change to the White House, and he would sweep away all the corruption and old politics and everything would be all better. Well, I think many will be disappointed as Obama is taking a more moderate approach to say the least. So far, Obama is looking like any old generic Democrat (albeit with certain twists like his race and a more exciting personal story and family) in his decisions, and it seems like another 4 years of Clinton. Even though many of us voted for Obama, I think we're still left with ...Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton...for our presidential succession.
(Agree or not, but is interesting to see how everyone is connected in the political world...)
For Clinton to ride to victory in 2012....that would mean she would have to unseat Obama himself, assuming he runs for reelection. This would be hard, considering for Obama not to get the nomination, he would have to do a pretty poor job. And, if he does so poorly, she will be undoubtedly linked to his failures as one of the top cabinet members (although Condi Rice has managed to remained remarkably untainted by the negativity towards Bush). Could this all be a ploy for Obama to "...keep his enemies closer?" (Probably not considering all the other Clinton cronies he's included).
As we have discussed in and out of class, I think that Obama made this choice so that he could say that he didn't owe anything to Hilary after the way she "helped" his campaign. I do not think that Obama or his advisors truly expected Hilary to accept the nomination, especially after her publically stating that she would not take a position in the Obama administration. Having said that, I dont think anyone was suprised, not that Hilary took the job, but that another Clinton lied again. It should be interesting to watch how the Clinton's marraige pans out, as Hilary clearly no longer needs Bill. But I suppose they could truely love each other. And Monica.
The Obama Cabinet appointments have been a fantastic combination of both novelty and experience. They highlight the principle of "change" that President-elect Obama campaigned upon. It is a vision of change from the past eight years and a change in the overarching leadership style and vision that will encompass the work of every one of these appointees.
There are a total of 450 members of President-elect Obama's transition team, meaning that former Clinton Administration members make up 6.9 percent of the team. The Clinton Administration influence on this administration is a stabilizing one, but in no way an overwhelming one. For the betterment of the nation, President-elect Obama must have all systems in place well before his inauguration.
Who better than former Clinton employees who had eight years to ponder what they could improve in their systems?
Why would anyone believe that these systems would be utilized to make the exact same decisions as the Clinton Administration, considering they've had 8 years to reflect on their mistaken decisions?
The overall leadership and vision comes from a man born 15 years after Clinton, with a different race, upbringing, and education.
President-elect Obama IS the change.
This claim is only reinforced by an examination of President-elect Obama's recent appointments:
Timothy Geithner- Being the mentee of someone gives you the opportunity to learn what things need "Change." And considering Geithner has been off the national scene for 7 years, I would hardly consider him a Washingtonite.
Bill Richardson- As a Governor of New Mexico, a formerly red but turned blue state, Bill Richardson is not a Democratic mainstay, and instead will be helpful to Obama's principle of change, regardless of the reason for his nomination.
Tom Daschle- Being the Democratic leader of two unpopular Congresses will only cause Mr. Daschle to want to work for change. Clearly, his experience will not lead him to the same policies of the past.
Rahm Emmanuel- Regardless of his experience, he is known for his "combative style" and therefore I envision him being an agent of change for the future.
President-elect Obama should be applauded for his efforts to bring in members of his team that have both experience and vision. If the Obama was made up of individuals with less prior political involvement, it would be a government of inexperience, not a government of change. One must understand a system to change it.
To respond to Eric, I for one was very surprised at Sen. Clinton's acceptance of the Secretary of State position. It demolishes her hopes of a 2012 Presidential run, and she must now look towards 2016. I would disagree with Kees, Secretary of State Rice has certainly taken a hit to her reputation, as will Sen. Clinton if the Obama Administration does not succeed. It's a brilliant strategy by Obama to silence what could have been his loudest critic, and a unhelpful move for Clinton's political future.
While the Clinton appointment may have surprised many, I don't think that the majority of people who voted for Obama really expected that former Clintonites would be excluded from his administration. Afterall, it would seem irresponsible if not a bit foolish for members of the past democratic administration, which despite Bill's character flaws is generally looked upon in a positive light, to be completely shunned from the new administration.
You can't tie a shoe if you don't know how to loop and knot the strings. It's the same thing in politics. If nobody knows how to tie the delicate laces of policy and legislation, it will be much more difficult to make Obama's vision into a concrete reality. And just because one has experience doing something doesn't mean that he or she can't use that knowledge to bring about change (i.e. tying the shoes in a new way). As Obama pointed out in a press conference last week, he is the change and the vision that people voted for, and he has the power to shape the agenda. But he needs competent and keen people to make the wheels turn.
After talking to a few past Clinton supporters, I think the decision was tactically wise. They are all thrilled that Hillary will assume such an important role and don't seem worried about her political future. Maybe it's just them, but it seems that democrats (and some republicans) are looking beyond personal agendas and thinking about what is in the best interest of our country right now.
I still don't believe the Obama Administration has been all the "change" it has been worked up to be. “Change from the past eight years" is not hard for any Democrat, or even for a Republican for that matter. John Kerry, Mr. mainstream, generic Democrat would have brought change from the Bush Administration exactly as Obama has. As for the "overarching leadership," that remains to be seen, but the only thing we have to go on is Obama's picks for his team and cabinet.
For Obama's transition team, I'm sure the 93.1% not mentioned as directly working in the Clinton administration are the new lobbyists that have suddenly been welcomed into his campaign...No, but seriously, one only needs to take a look at the leadership on Obama's team to see the widespread Clinton influence. The Chairman of his Transition Team, John Podesta, was THE White House Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton. The Advisory Board, which oversees the whole transition team, is also heavily stacked with former Clintonites. Not to mention his Cabinet appointments... I suppose we can go back and forth on what is the definition of an "overwhelming” influence, with each position and appointment, but I guess that depends on how much deviation from the Democratic leadership you anticipated from Barack Obama in the first place. Your main argument for many of the Clintonesque picks on why they are really change is because they...CAN change? Having a past to change from doesn’t suddenly make you an agent of change. Does the Clintons’ past hold over the government make them suddenly want to change it drastically? Under this theory, why should have we elected Barack Obama? Who would have been better than George Bush himself to learn from George Bush’s mistakes and shift his policies? Certainly Bush has the most potential for change, with all the mistakes he’s made. Ah...darn term limits.
I think many people did vote for Obama’s inexperience because they were fed up with Washington. I mean look at Hillary Clinton's run. She campaigned on being able to change the system from the inside ("Agent of Change for 35 straight years" hmm...), much like McCain, and both lost to the young, fresh guy who had only been in Washington for 2 years. My point is, I believe Obama will be much more of a conservative president than many believed he would be, and he will disappoint many of his followers in how little he deviates from the Clinton legacy and policies.
The fight in the primaries seems now to have been less over a dramatic shift in the Democratic leadership and/or our government as a whole, but simply who would be the face-man (or woman) of a return of the same Democratic Party. I have yet to see evidence of this great wave of change; all I have seen are some broken promises (which is nothing novel to Washington) and his appointments. I applaud Obama’s appointments for the most part, which says something in itself. I think they are great picks because they are knowledgeable and stabilizing forces as you said. Yet, they certainly don’t bring any great change in terms of government as whole, unless all Obama meant the entire time is change from Bush, which anyone could have executed. You are right about one thing, Obama IS the change...but that’s it. He is simply the young, more hip, multicultural, world-embracing, heart-warming, inspirational face of the same Democratic Party. We elect a lot more than just a president and vice-president when we cast our ballots on Election Day, we elect administrations. With Obama, it seems as if, so far, we have received Clinton Administration 2.0.
You mentioned who better to help bring about change than the “former Clinton employees who had eight years to ponder what they could improve in their systems.” Maybe in eight years we should call back all the Bushites who will be perfect to govern after pondering their decisions for eight years. President Sarah Palin will BE the change; born 18 years after Bush, she will be of a different upbringing (Wasilla), education (...not Yale...), and race (Alaskan), she will provide the “overall leadership and vision.” Secretary of State Dick Cheney will be ready to mobilize his neo-cons to totally shift the government from the way he had it when he was in power. Alberto Gonzales will be equipped with new and creative ways of wire-tapping our phones and inexplicably forgetting important details in front of congressional committees. Jeb Bush could even be tapped as Secretary of the Interior, as governor of a formerly red, shifted blue state. Because our government is in no way a bureaucracy and totally changes with each administration, all that will be needed for change will be the figurehead of “the reformer” Sarah Palin at the top and everything will be straightened out.
Concerning Condoleezza Rice, I certainly don’t mean she hasn’t taken hits, but her reputation has been hurt substantially less than Cheney or Rumsefeld, even though she’s one of Bush’s top 3 advisors. She certainly carries a more tarnished reputation, but she seemed to also get a pass on a lot of things, even though she is the Secretary of State. Evidence of this is that she was even mentioned as a possible 2008 Presidential Candidate (wouldn’t that have been interesting...).
Kara, I am personally happy that Obama has included many Clinton veterans to help run the government. I think it would be a total disaster if Obama tried to govern without their help. I believe he will have "competent and keen people to make the wheels turn," yet these people will also be steering.
Obama, as the captain of his ship might say "sail North," but it will be the Clinton political machine that will navigate the course, maneuver the sails, and, most importantly, control the speed.
I suppose only time will tell how Obama and his team sail together, but for now, everything you’re saying is mere speculation, and I think you may have a little too much blind faith in the “Clinton political machine.” Really, if the Clinton machine had been that well-greased, I think Hillary would have at least won the nomination. But she didn’t.
Obama has a lot riding on his shoulders right now—as much as or much than any other president in recent history. What’s at issue here is the fact that people have SUCH tremendous expectations for the president-elect (thanks to our wonderful current president) that no human could possibly fulfill them all overnight or even in a few short weeks. Anyone who actually thought that the minute Obama took office he would pull a team of brilliant politicians out of nowhere and somehow save the country from peril was simply naïve.
Kees, I’m not sure I understand what change means to you—if it’s a Palin presidency, that would be purely terrifying (though I sensed a bit of sarcasm). Anyway, I think a black president with an unusual background, a brilliant politician who pulled off a seemingly impossible win, and a logical and inspirational man with a clearly functioning brain is pretty good for now. I mean, he hasn’t event taken office yet.
I for one can say that when I voted for Obama, I didn’t vote for some off-the-wall character (like another winking lady we all know) because I thought that he would completely rewrite the ways of Washington. I still have a little faith in our democracy that has managed to survive for this long, though I think some serious reform is needed. Change can be waking up with a new outlook on life and fresh inspiration and ideas for the future. I have experienced that feeling. And when I woke up, I didn’t decide that I had to completely change who I was and throw out any good ideas I may have had, say, eight years ago. I believe America has just woken up after a long, cold season of hibernation. It’s time for a fresh start, but that does not necessarily mean an overhaul of all things past.
Kara, I hope you sensed the sarcasm, because I would be equally terrified if those events actually transpired. I was simply making a point on whether or not the capacity for change equals an outcome of change. I totally agree with what you have said. My point is, I believe a lot of people really expected, and expect, that Obama will bring about this whirlwind of change that will shake-up our democracy. As you have pointed out, this has put immense pressure on Obama, especially with the economic crisis.
All I have now is mere speculation, but speculation based on Obama's campaign and policy "shifts", as well as his cabinet and transition team appointments. Based on those, I see him being a much more conservative president, disappointing a lot of his supporters, the ones who truly believed he would waltz in to Washington and break-up the good ol' boy power network and institute a series of liberal reforms.
Of course Obama has brought change, but only in his election and himself. While that's all fine and inspirational, there's no evidence, as of yet, that this will prove to help "change" Washington like many people had believed or hoped.
Personally, I'm happy with Obama's calm and less proactive approach. I forsee him putting-off such big projects as quickly pulling-out of Iraq or shifting the country towards universal heath care, and for me, I couldn't be happier. This will probably all be in the name of focusing on the economic crisis, although I think Obama will be relieved voters won't pressure him as much to make such great changes with their mind on the economy. Still, there will be those who voted for him to really change the system in Washington, and I believe they will be sorely disappointed.
That being said, it would be nice if maybe Obama tried to shake up Washington, failed miserably like Hillary in 93, embarrassing his administration and helping the Republicans in '12.
One thing I can disagree on is the notion that Obama pulled out a “seemingly impossible win.” I can’t remember an election in years past that has been an easier win for Democrats. It’s as if everything fell perfectly into place (Bush legacy, unpopular war, public corruption, economic crisis) and all the Democrats had to do was not fumble it away. The primary race was certainly a more credible feat, but even then, Obama did not begin as a total longshot. Since the 2004 Democratic National Convention, at which he was handed the keynote address, Obama was groomed for higher office (much like Jindal is now...). I don’t think anyone can be considered a true dark horse if they’ve got the most powerful and visible woman in the country campaigning for them (yes I mean Oprah).
All of my comments regarding each of the returning Clinton Administration officials has been made under the assumption that each has the capacity to change and improve. I doubt many Americans believe that President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, or Gov. Palin have any capacity to change. One would hope that the current administration believes it has done the best job it possibly could have, and Vice President Cheney's unfaltering and unapologetic neo-conservatism makes me question his ability to improve the situation we have gotten ourselves into.
However, at the end of the Clinton Administration the unemployment rate was 4% and now it is 6.7%. No change was needed after the Clinton Administration, other than a possible victory for morality from those who question President Clinton's veracity. Obama's "change" is a change from the Republican cooperate lobbyists who have played an integral role in the past eight years. It is a change from a conservative way of thinking. It is a change from a President who led us into two wars and did massive harm to the US foreign image.
Kees, I believe you overestimate the desire for "widespread systematic changes" from Obama supporters. The individuals who truly wanted to rebuild the Washington DC political culture would have supported the Ron Paul campaign. President-elect Obama is still a member of the Democratic Party, and thus his foundation is stable.
However, there is great truth to the old idiom "You have to beat the system to change it." While Obama has garnered the support of the American populace, his administration must still grow its roots into the DC culture before it can then create great upheaval. I look forward to the next four years.
Think how much President-elect Obama has already accomplished, without even being inaugurated.
to be honest....what has Obama accomplished, other than create jobs for Clintonites and build a good cabinet? Feel free to mention concrete accomplishments; "spreading hope" doesn't count. Unless you’re simply talking about getting elected, which is great...but what he does in office is what really counts.
I guess the only to know if Obama "changes" anything is to wait and see. I personally don't think he's going to change all that much, which is great, but it does run contrary to his platform.
Troubling to me is you seem to insinuate this entire economic crisis, such as the unemployment, is somehow Bush's doing...
I don't want to get in over my head, and maybe we should bring in Samir, but I believe the deregulation that allowed the crazed mortgage lending occurred during the...Clinton Administration. I'm by no means implying it was Clinton's fault, I think the markets run much more independently. It's not as if Bush and Cheney sat around and cooked up this economic crisis. The market dived when they got into office with the tech bubble bursting and 9/11. Then, during his presidency, there was a lot of growth and it slowly rose back-up. It only went down because of the housing bubble burst and this whole crisis, which occurred on Wall Street not Pennsylvania Ave...(if your name is Samir and you happen to read this, please feel free to tell me I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about, kind of like last time).
Post a Comment