Secretary Clinton

|

Politico confirms what we all already knew: Sen. Clinton will be America's next secretary of state.

Breaking: President-elect Obama is expected to name New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary on Monday or earlier. Obama is also expected to announce other members of his economic team, sources say.

Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) plans to accept an offer of secretary of State and resign from the Senate, a top Clinton adviser said. An announcement is expected shortly after Thanksgiving, officials said. "She knew this was the right thing to do but just needed to sit with it for a bit to make sure," the adviser said.

Geithner was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under Robert Rubin during Bill Clinton's second term. More change we can believe in.

NEXT: Drug Addict, Patient, Whatever

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Prepare . . . for . . . BATTLE!!! Wait. Where’s joe?

  2. I am not sure about this pick. But Joe said the other day it was a terrible idea. Maybe Joe can come on here and enlighten us as to why this is a bad pick and says bad things about Obama.

  3. What about Geithner as Treasury Secretary?
    That means a continuation of whatever Paulson is doing.

  4. All slamming of joe aside, this is pretty fucking awful. Our liaison to the rest of the world is a hawkish, utterly uncharismatic, power-hungry interventionist. At least Condi has some charisma.

  5. I would think this is kind of a demotion for Hills. I think she should have declined and demanded some juicy committee chairs.

  6. I should have read the post first.
    Geithner has been at every meetibg between Bernancke and Paulson since the “economic crisis” started.Some people have suggested he has been calling the shots all along.Geithner is as much a GWB retread as a Clinton one.

  7. I don’t understand why he’d put himself through this. It’s going to be a constant process of keeping her in line, nevermind Bill.

    He’s just asking for trouble here.

    So, does that make Nita Lowney the next Senator from New York?

  8. I think it is a pretty cynical pick. He is just doing it so she can’t run against him in 2012. That is a pretty lousy reason to pick someone to be Sec State after you spent the primaries telling everyone how wrong her positions on international affiars were.

    I have been baiting Joe on this on another thread. He won’t answer me. I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t post on this thread and just never comments on this. He really does have some kind of prime directive wired into his head that he can never criticize Democrats.

  9. Can we call a moratorium on the “More change we can believe in” quip every time Obama appoints an experienced person to a position? Anyone with the experience needed for senior level positions is likely to have been involved in the Clinton administration. If he appointed nothing but newbies, you’d be bitching about that. It’s just so tired.

  10. There’s really no defense for a Hillary sec of state nom. I know many folks who voted obama in the primary cause they couldn’t stand hills. Total Fin joke.

  11. and also I think State is probably the WORST possible cabinet post for Hillary. Wasn’t that whole whopper about running under sniper fire in Bosnia ginned up to bolster her non-existant foreign relations experience?

  12. I stand corrected. But he notice Joe still doesn’t say anything bad, just “I dont’ understand why he would do this”. So the prime directive hasn’t been broken.

  13. I am not sure about this pick.

    Me either. From a political POV, I guess it’s a smart move because foreign policy was an area that Clinton slapped around on in the primaries, and so co-opting her aggressiveness simultaneously removes one senator from sniping position and also pacifies some of the Dem hawks.

    On the other hand, he was elected partially because his foreign policy was distinct from Hillary’s. So, perhaps conceding this position to Clinton may weaken him when he pursues his “more chatty, more carrot” diplomatic approach.

  14. And here I thought I wouldn’t live long enough to see WWIII.

    I’ll be in the backyard digging my shelter.

  15. He is just doing it so she can’t run against him in 2012.

    Nothing is impossible for the Clintons.

  16. Hi, John. What is it you’re yammering about?

    Episiarch,

    Our liaison to the rest of the world is a hawkish, utterly uncharismatic, power-hungry interventionist. She’s not exactly a charmer, but she’s also someone who’s known around the world, who brings some stature to the job. Her ability to handle the diplomatic end of the job is the last thing I’m worried about with this pick. It’s the advice she’s give to Obama, and the possibility of daylight showing between the two of them, that are a bigger deal for me.

  17. I think it is a pretty cynical pick. He is just doing it so she can’t run against him in 2012.

    It’s cynical, but that’s not why. It keeps her from rabble rousing in the senate when he needs something. He’s keeping his enemies closer…

  18. (Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!?

  19. Where’s joe?

    He’s working on his spinning wheel.

    Her ability to handle the diplomatic end of the job is the last thing I’m worried about with this pick.

    Looks like he got it fixed.

  20. Oh, just shut up already John.

    The only reason you are remotely surprised that I would write anything critical about Hillary or Obama is because of how passionately committed you are to being a Republican hack.

    domoarrigato | November 21, 2008, 4:13pm | #

    and also I think State is probably the WORST possible cabinet post for Hillary.

    Ditto. I can absolutely see the “team of rivals” argument, but both of terms of her experience and her personality type, she seems particularly ill-suited for this particular job.

    I guess we’ll see.

  21. But she voted for the war Joe. I thought that was the most important decision this generation? How can she possibly be Sec of State when she got that wrong? Isn’t getting it “right” the only thing Obama has going for him? It is a hypocrtical and cynical pick that shows that Obama didn’t mean a word of anything he said in the primaries. All of the anti-war bullshit was just that bullshit. Frankly, I am glad it was because that is what is best for the country. But I think this pick puts an end to anyone saying that Obama is anything but a typical lying politician.

  22. Joe,

    He could have named Bush his sec of state and you would find a way to minimize it and explain it away. If you had any integrity you would be angry over this. But since you don’t, it is no big deal.

  23. Some talking heads have been opining that he chose her for SoS cuz it’s better to have her pissing out from within the tent than pissing into the tent from without.

    I don’t think that was the reason — what do you guys think?

    Overall though I am must say I am quite disappointed with the names the incoming Obama admin has been bandying about. When he said he wanted change, I didn’t think he meant “I want to change back to the way things were in the ’90s”.
    I mean for fucks sake isn’t there quite a few competent people to chose from that aren’t Clinton era rehashes? Is there no new blood or a new generation of people to choose from?

    This is not change this is a fucking rerun

  24. I love it. Given the state of the union, and expectation that we will be in a deep recession for quite a while, there’s nothing better than knowing we’ll all have some good theater to keep us smiling. Hillary will deliver her lines well, and in memorable fashion, Bill will play his part of this drama, usually creating much of it, as always, and Obama will be the stooge. I can’t wait for the show to start! Let’s make some real buttery popcorn!

  25. So, perhaps conceding this position to Clinton may weaken him when he pursues his “more chatty, more carrot” diplomatic approach.

    She’d make a good bad cop. Lord knows he wants to be the good cop.

    (Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!? Damn straight! Good to see people with their heads on straight replacing the Republican jackasses who’ve been running things. Now that’s change I can believe in.

  26. It’s cynical, but that’s not why. It keeps her from rabble rousing in the senate when he needs something. He’s keeping his enemies closer…

    If this is his belief, I think it’s a stupid one. She would be more loyal as a Senator than as a Cabinet member, IMHO. In fact I think giving her and her people the office of SoS empowers her to be more of a thorn in Obama’s side, and gives her the ability to make him look like he has little influence over the actions of his appointments. At least as a Senator if she she decides to go her own way on things, it wouldn’t reflect poorly on him

  27. OK, the CHANGE!? formula still needs work. But more elements will be coming forth I’m sure.

    Many of us here warned the Obamaniacs to prepare to be disappointed. For their sakes, I hope they did.

  28. ChicagoTom

    Good for you. You are exactly right. I think there would have been fewer former Clintonites in a Hillary Clinton Administration than in the Obama Administration. Obama sold himself as something different than what has gone on for the last 16 years, not just the last 8. I think people who beleived that ought to be disapointed in this.

  29. But she voted for the war Joe. I thought that was the most important decision this generation? How can she possibly be Sec of State when she got that wrong?

    He must be confident she’s learned her lesson.

    Yes, John, if you think the pick is a bad idea and demonstrates how foolish it was to vote for Obama, then I guess that’s that. Certainly, it’s not like you’re someone who just spins about how bad everything Democrats do is. I’ll just take my cues from you about whether the Obama administration is doing a good job living up to what I want from them.

  30. Tom,

    Obama ought to go ask Bush about the kind of damage the State Department can do to a President when they don’t support his policies. You are damn right she can hurt him from there.

  31. Ditto. I can absolutely see the “team of rivals” argument, but both of terms of her experience and her personality type, she seems particularly ill-suited for this particular job.

    She is an awkward introvert with little foreign policy experience being appointed to the top diplomatic post. She will be a walking contradiction. It also gives Obama a chance to kill her career once and for all should their relationship go pearshaped (as it inevitably will)

    I bet the Obama team is more than a little surprised that she is stupid enough to accept.

  32. Less than 60 days to go till the inauguration. How much further will Saint Obama debase himself? 60 days is a long time in the hypermedia era. The U.S. might be Canada’s bitch by the time he places his hand on the Koran–sorry, the Bible. Shit, these are interesting times.
    Goddamn that Chinese curse.

  33. I don’t see the problem here. I hate Hilary with the passion of a thousand Chinese girls at a Fahrenheit concert. But anything that keeps her out of domestic policy has got to be good for the country. Especially if she get’s the Powell treatment.

  34. I don’t think that was the reason — what do you guys think?

    It might be a keep your friends close and enemies closer moment, but politics is just too fucking warped to accurately divine intentions.

    At least he doesn’t have to worry about her submarining his nominations in the Senate. I’m just pissed as I thought his winning would mean that we didn’t have to hear that excruciatingly grating voice of hers for another 4 years.

    Shit.

  35. Good to see people with their heads on straight replacing the Republican jackasses who’ve been running things. Now that’s change I can believe in.

    That seems to be a rather low bar your are setting. Time warping back to the ’90s isn’t progress. Sure it’s “change” in that it isn’t the Bushies anymore, but for fucks sake, the only people available are a bunch of DLC types and ex Clinton appointees?? Sorry joe, that isn’t change worth believing in.

  36. Joe,

    For the record. I think Hillary will be an uncompromising secretary of state that will do a good job on the war on terror. Yeah, she is a bitch, but she will be our bitch. I think it is a good choice. I really do. I think Nepolatino is a great choice for DHS. Other than Holder and Dashcle, from my perspective, Obama’s cabinet isn’t bad at all. I don’t think everything Dems do is bad. But I am a Conservative. The fact that I think his choices are pretty acceptable, ought to give liberals like you a bit of pause.

  37. John | November 21, 2008, 4:20pm | #

    Joe,

    He could have named Bush his sec of state and you would find a way to minimize it and explain it away.

    joe | November 21, 2008, 4:12pm | #

    I don’t understand why he’d put himself through this. It’s going to be a constant process of keeping her in line, nevermind Bill.

    He’s just asking for trouble here.

    joe | November 21, 2008, 4:15pm | #

    …It’s the advice she’s give to Obama, and the possibility of daylight showing between the two of them, that are a bigger deal for me.

    joe | November 21, 2008, 4:19pm | #

    Ditto. I can absolutely see the “team of rivals” argument, but both of terms of her experience and her personality type, she seems particularly ill-suited for this particular job.

    No, but really, I’m just minimizing and explaining away how great this pick is, because only criticisms that are exactly what John has decided I should make are actually criticisms. Or something.

  38. “Geithner was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs under Robert Rubin during Bill Clinton’s second term. More change we can believe in.”

    From today’s NYT: “After two days of punishing losses, Wall Street surged on Friday afternoon after news reports said that President-elect Barack Obama had tapped Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, to be secretary of the Treasury.”

    You know, Mike, I kind of liked the economy the way it was back in the Clinton Administration.

  39. hear that excruciatingly grating voice of hers for another 4 years.

    Like broken glass in your ice cream, isn’t it?

  40. joe-
    (Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!? Damn straight!

    I agree with you that John is a “Republican hack”. I also agree with John that you are a Democratic shill.

    Who dares say I can’t be diplomatic?

  41. I was afraid Obama wouldn’t find someone as dishonest and opportunistic as Rice. This is such a relief.

    And I thrill to think how many adventures she’ll have as she travels the world. Snipers here! snipers there! Snipers, snipers, everywhere!

  42. Like broken glass in your ice cream, isn’t it?

    While dragging a thousand Siamese cats across a chalkboard.

  43. Obama sold himself as something different than what has gone on for the last 16 years, not just the last 8. I think people who beleived that ought to be disapointed in this.

    John, I agree with you on this point 100%. So far his choices have shown a startling lack of “change”. Sad really, cuz he really had a chance to shake things up and bring in some real outsiders and fresh faces with new ideas and new approaches — instead he chose to go with the same old same old.

  44. domoarrigato,

    One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats are more willing to seek out and go along with the guidance of the Foreign Service professionals at State, as opposed to Republicans, who tend to view them as the enemy.

    Also, “intorvert?” What Senator is an intorvert? She’s spent the last few decades addressing crowds and going up to strangers to tell them how wonderful she is.

  45. J Sub D,

    Yes, you are damn right I am a Republican. I do criticise the hell out of Republicans though. I would piss down Trent Lott and Larry Craig and Dan Young and that other jackass from Alaska’s legs if I could get away with it. My Republican enemys list is long and distinguished. I have never seen Joe express any distain for any Democrat.

  46. It is amazing what you can accomplish with a thousand FBI files.

  47. “John, I agree with you on this point 100%. So far his choices have shown a startling lack of “change”. Sad really, cuz he really had a chance to shake things up and bring in some real outsiders and fresh faces with new ideas and new approaches — instead he chose to go with the same old same old.”

    Honestly, if he had done that, I would support the guy. As it is, I look at the Clintonites as the devil I know. One thing is for sure, there won’t be any new new deals or anything that radical in the next four years. A return to the Clinton 90s, even the first two years of it, is hardly that radical. I find it conforting. I could see where someone with your views would find it infuriating.

  48. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Anyway, just as the first Clinton administration drew significantly from the previous Carter administration, so this administration will draw from the Clinton administration. That ties in with things like the iron rule of oligarchy, conservation of political power, etc.

  49. ChicagoTom,

    Time warping back to the ’90s isn’t progress. It’s not? Sure seems like it to me.

    the only people available are a bunch of DLC types and ex Clinton appointees Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president to hold office in the past 28 years. Of course the people with high-level executive experience are going to have served in that administration. If Clinton had been followed by President Feingold, but Obama was going back to the Clinton administration, I’d see your point, but another word for “Clinton retread” is “Democrat with high-level experience in Washington.”

  50. “Like a baby being hit with a cat.”

  51. joe,

    One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats are more willing to seek out and go along with the guidance of the Foreign Service professionals at State, as opposed to Republicans, who tend to view them as the enemy.

    I doubt that. No matter what party is in power, one of the constants in politics is the tension between elected officials and their political appointments and the career bureucracy. I can’t think of a single administration in my lifetime where media stories about this tension didn’t proliferate.

  52. When ya’ll discover how inept Obama is, you’ll understand why The Clinton’s had to keep their people so close to him.

  53. Why Do You Think They Call It Hope?

  54. joe,

    While I’m sure extroverts are hugely over-represented in politics – I’m just as sure it’s far from universal. I admit that I have no reliable evidence that she is, in fact, introverted – but I’d say I’m pretty confident in my assessment.

    Her style with people displays an inward lack of confidence – she seems ill at ease with people and doesn’t seem to connect at all easily from what I’ve seen. She’s doubtless compensated through LOTS of practice over the years – but I don’t think it’s her natural predilection. Pressing the flesh is done out of necessity rather than any real enjoyment of it (like Bill).

  55. Sad really, cuz he really had a chance to shake things up and bring in some real outsiders and fresh faces with new ideas and new approaches — instead he chose to go with the same old same old.

    He’s doing more of that with his White House team than his cabinet posts. Even Rahm Emmanuel is more of a Chicago guy than a Clintonite, and he’s the most Clintoney White House staffer to date.

    It looks like he’s working to make the White House “his,” and letting the party have the departments.

  56. Joe,

    Isn’t that the problem? The same people with high level government experience just keep trading seats depending on which side wins the election. If you really want to change the govenrment you have to bring in new people with new ideas. I think people like Tom and a lot of other people looked at Obama as someone who would be different and not just bring in the Democratic bunch of hoodlums to replace the Republican bunch. The fact that he is not doing that and is just behaving like a typical left of center Democratic administration ought to be pretty disheartening for them.

  57. One thing to keep in mind is that Democrats are more willing to seek out and go along with the guidance of the Foreign Service professionals at State, as opposed to Republicans, who tend to view them as the enemy.

    For the FS professionals the feeling is mutual, I’m told. You can’t hate in a vacuum.

  58. If he appointed nothing but newbies, you’d be bitching about that.

    I, for one, would be pleased as fucking punch…

  59. Well, yesterday the S&P was back to it’s 1997 level.

    Now the executive branch is being restored to it’s 1997 condition.

    Once they bring back the macerena (and I lose 25 pounds) the restoration will be complete.

  60. joe,

    In other words, Democrats are not special or different. They are subject to the same political rules and laws which Republicans are and prone to the same errors. Being human and all.

  61. btw, that wouldn’t be the worse thing in the world. (execpt maybe the macerena part)

    And Bob the Angry flower’s Admonitions regarding\ apostrophes in the 90’s obviously are still unheeded by some.

  62. “In other words, Democrats are not special or different. They are subject to the same political rules and laws which Republicans are and prone to the same errors. Being human and all.”

    And are driven by circumstances and have to make the same tough no win decisions Republicans do once in office. OMG!! You mean Obama doesn’t shoot rainbows out of his ass and won’t solve all the world’s problems? I am really cynical now.

  63. Seward,

    Yes, there is always that tension between the political and civil service types, but there’s a meaningful difference in degree between the two parties. The Republicans aren’t absolutely, 100% at war with the bureaucracy either. The two parties are just at different points on a continuum.

    Domo, I hear you on the “natural inclination” point, but at this point, she’s been doing it for decades, and she’s gotten pretty good at it. Also, one thing that I always hear about her is that she is much more relaxed and charming one-on-one or in a small room than she is during an event, or addressing a big crowd. That would fit with what you’re saying.

  64. joe,

    Yes, there is always that tension between the political and civil service types, but there’s a meaningful difference in degree between the two parties.

    No there is not. There is no meaningful difference. None whatsoever. On a plethora of issues the Clinton administration went toe to toe with the FS bureucracy just like the Bush administration did.

  65. “At least Condi has some charisma.”

    Wow. I never thought I would hear anyone say that.

  66. Seward,

    Well, yeah, Democrats and Republicans both govern within the same American political system. So would a third-party candidate if one ever came to power.

    It’s odd how people think this is a novel insight that only a select few understand, and that everyone else will be stunned to discover it.

  67. Joe, you can find experience in Washington without hiring the Clinton’s closest associates. I mean John Podesta? are you kidding me?

  68. Condi has all the charisma of nosferatu. And I actually like her…

  69. No there is not. There is no meaningful difference. None whatsoever.

    Whatever. You can overstate your point, you know.

  70. joe,

    Oh, and more to the point, just like preceding administrations, if it is important enough an Obama administration will try to run roughshod over the civil service bureaucracy.

  71. “At least Condi has some charisma.”

    Wow. I never thought I would hear anyone say that.

    It was a joke, dude. Christ. It works on two levels, because it also insults Hillary as having even less.

  72. All the screaming from the right about Obama being a SecretRadicalLeftist looks pretty fucking stupid now, doesn’t it?

  73. joe,

    Until you can you know, demonstrate your assertion with some actual facts, I will stick with what we know about human behavior in the political realm. That human behavior having nothing to do with whether a D or an R is next to a person’s name.

  74. BDB,

    Obama appears to be a screaming, radical mercantilist, like most American Presidents. 🙂

  75. I’ve been on the record since around September or so saying he was going to be the Doug Wilder of American Presidents. Cautious and boring but effective and competent. That’s about it. Don’t expect anything radical.

  76. On a plethora of issues the Clinton administration went toe to toe with the FS bureucracy just like the Bush administration did.

    Yeah – because the Clinton administration was pulling hard to right. The FS professionals are reliably liberal and probably viewed Clintons crap as a missed opportunity to practice highbrow left leaning diplomacy like they love to do.

  77. Oh, and just like Wilder, he’s a camera/media whore.

  78. Also, one thing that I always hear about her is that she is much more relaxed and charming one-on-one or in a small room than she is during an event, or addressing a big crowd.

    She enjoys being able to look into the eyes of the people she’s lying to. Adorable!

  79. Joe, you can find experience in Washington without hiring the Clinton’s closest associates.

    Daschle wasn’t a Clintonite. Holder doesn’t seem to have been a meaningful part of their inner circle.

    There’s a difference between having served in a particular administration and being that President’s guy. Look at Eagelburger – he served in the Reagan administration (I think he served in the Harding administration, too), but he’s best characterized as a GHW Bush guy.

    Someone who was 45 when Carter left office is now…uh…older than John McCain. If you’re looking for people with upper-level executive experience at the federal level who are available, they served in the Clinton administration.

  80. Seward,

    “That human behavior having nothing to do with whether a D or an R is next to a person’s name.”

    has no logical connection to your assertion that the two parties are equally supportive of, and equally supported by, the civil service.

  81. At this point, I consider boring, rational governance to be radical.

  82. BDB,

    He may boring, but I would question whether he will be “effective” in anyway that a libertarian would judge that term. Then again, did anyone expect Bush to invade Iraq?

  83. joe – it is possible to bring your own experienced people with you to the white house – like Dubya did. Some were his dad’s guys – but a lot were from Texas.

    That said, you would have to have had an actual organization under you at some point to do this…

  84. What is “effective” in anyway that a libertarian would judge that term even mean? Is “effective” too close to a compliment to ever apply to someone whose politics are different from yours?

    OK, what term for “able to solve problems and accomplish goals in the service of a cohesive strategy” isn’t too complimentary to apply to someone you don’t like? We’ll use that instead.

  85. joe,

    …has no logical connection to your assertion that the two parties are equally supportive of, and equally supported by, the civil service.

    Sure it does. You’ve claimed that Democrats are somehow more supportive of the FS bureucracy, I’ve stated quite correctly that is simply not the case. These two power centers are naturally going to clash and the intensity of such has little to do with whether the office holder is a Democrat or a Republican. Neither side is any worse or any better when it comes to such clashes.

  86. domo, W’s guys were kind of a disaster. Hughes went back to Texas quickly, Rove has turned out to be a false prophet. What worked in Texas won’t necessarily work in Washington.

    There’s always going to be a tension between fresh outsider ideas and old hands who know the ropes and can get things done. Given where Obama sits in that range, it makes sense that he’d lean more towards to the latter in his picks.

  87. I mean “effective” in how most people view “effective” (not in a libertarian sense), as in “not fucking things up that badly, not doing anything really, REALLY stupid”.

  88. joe, a less fellatious (yes, spelled it that way on purpose) way of saying that would be to note that “Obama is a politician, so he is appointing hacks. You can see a parallel in the way Bush, also a politician, appointed hacks.”

    It’s too bad you’re not competent enough of a hack to get appointed to any bureaucratic boondoggles.

  89. I guess Obama wasn’t able to find any decent talent to work on his senate staff, or his campaign, for that matter. If he had, one would think at least a few would make the cut.

  90. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic president to hold office in the past 28 years. Of course the people with high-level executive experience are going to have served in that administration. If Clinton had been followed by President Feingold, but Obama was going back to the Clinton administration, I’d see your point, but another word for “Clinton retread” is “Democrat with high-level experience in Washington.”

    You seem to be assuming that the current President is supposed to go back to past administrations of his party and bring these people back? Why? If the people who voted for Obama wanted a return the players of the administration of the “last Democratic President” then they would have chosen Hillary as the nominee.

    Silly me, and here I thought the fact that Hillary lost the primary meant that Obama supporters didn’t want a return to the ’90s and didn’t want a Clinton redux administration. I was under the impression that they wanted fresh blood and fresh faces and fresh ideas.

    I don’t want “Democrats with high level experience in washington” I want outsiders fresh blood, new ideas. I don’t want the old guard to be brought back and accomplish more of the bullshit 3rd way centrist/corporatist nonsense.

    Sorry joe, but Bill Clinton was not a great President, and bringing back his dimwits is not “change” (unless the only change you care about is anybody but Bush — like I said a LOW BAR)

    Where you see high level experience, I see a bunch of people with political baggage and a bunch of connected insiders who feel the best way to govern is to water down their own agenda to appeal to the DLC-types. These people aren’t interested in reform — they just want to be back in power. I don’t see any liberals or progressives. I don’t see any outsiders or reformers. I don’t see any new blood or new ideas.

    There is no change there, just a bunch of losers from a decade ago.

  91. You’ve claimed that Democrats are somehow more supportive of the FS bureucracy, I’ve stated quite correctly that is simply not the case.

    Actually, you’ve asserted it. And now you’re just repeating it.

    These two power centers are naturally going to clash No question, but the point is, how much?

    …and the intensity of such has little to do with whether the office holder is a Democrat or a Republican. It has a great deal to do with how much the particular officeholder has faith in the civil service, and how closely his own beliefs and goals are to theirs. Democrats tend to be both more confident in, and more ideologically aligned with, the Foreign Service people than Republicans.

  92. joe,

    Is “effective” too close to a compliment to ever apply to someone whose politics are different from yours?

    Being “effective” is not a substance free notion. The Bush administration was quite “effective” on many fronts for many years after all. They were “effective” in getting majority support for the War in Iraq, for example.

  93. Nigel,

    Sorry you’re such a dick.

    I don’t even know what comment this is supposed to be in reference to: “Obama is a politician, so he is appointing hacks. You can see a parallel in the way Bush, also a politician, appointed hacks.” It doesn’t really seem to have anything to do with anything I’ve written, and looks more like you just blowing off bile in my general direction, without any connection to the discusison at all.

  94. Look, what I’m saying is, the guy is a technocrat not an ideologue. Get it?

  95. James Ard | November 21, 2008, 5:05pm | #

    I guess Obama wasn’t able to find any decent talent to work on his senate staff, or his campaign, for that matter. If he had, one would think at least a few would make the cut.

    What wingnut blog did you cut and paste that from? He’s appointed pretty much the entire top tier of his campaign, and his Senate Chief of Staff, to high-level White House positions.

  96. joe,

    Actually, you’ve asserted it. And now you’re just repeating it.

    No, what I’ve asserted is the general rule (backed by years of time tested experience) regarding the relationship with the two. You’ve claimed (knowingly or not) that the Democrats are some sort of exception to this rule. I don’t see any reason to accept such.

    No question, but the point is, how much?

    About as much as any other administration.

    Democrats tend to be both more confident in, and more ideologically aligned with, the Foreign Service people than Republicans.

    Until they aren’t.

    Give this a few years and all this will be born out.

  97. Who wants to wager that Bill Clinton will not be appointed to the UN, or worse, the Supreme Court.

  98. “It was a joke, dude. Christ. It works on two levels, because it also insults Hillary as having even less.”

    Yes, I got it. It’s funny and true. I just hadn’t thought of it in those terms.

  99. “James Ard | November 21, 2008, 5:10pm | #
    Who wants to wager that Bill Clinton will not be appointed to the UN, or worse, the Supreme Court.”

    No, he will be appointed to her Senate seat I bet.

    Supreme Court? No. He has been disbarred.

  100. There’s always going to be a tension between fresh outsider ideas and people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Given where Obama sits in that range, it makes sense that he’d lean more towards to the latter in his picks.

    What exactly did this Clintonion old guard get done? What were some of these great accomplishments?

    DoMA? Don’t ask Don’t Tell? The DMCA? The law that was overturned by the Supremes that required people with adult content on websites to verify ages with a CC ?

  101. Chicago Tom,

    You seem to be assuming that the current President is supposed to go back to past administrations of his party and bring these people back? Why? See Carter, Jimmy. The ability to actually achieve what you set out to accomplish matters, and having people who know the ropes in Washington is a part of that.

    I don’t want the old guard to be brought back and accomplish more of the bullshit 3rd way centrist/corporatist nonsense. This is the other side – he has to do both. He has to combine people with fresh ideas with people who can make things happen.

    Where you see high level experience, I see a bunch of people with political baggage and a bunch of connected insiders who feel the best way to govern is to water down their own agenda to appeal to the DLC-types. No, what I see is both. I wouldn’t want an administration of JUST these people, but I wouldn’t want the executive branch being run by a bunch of city clerks from Cook County, either.

  102. joe,

    Or let me put it differently:

    What is a better predictor of the behavior between the two, the general rule or whatever particular addendum you are making to it? I’d say the general rule is a far better predictor of what will happen in an Obama administration. All those affinities and notions of respect and confidence just aren’t that important.

  103. So, Seward, if Ron Paul won the election, you would want him to surround himself with peole who are ineffective? So he could haven an ineffective administration?

    I don’t understand what you’re saying.

  104. BDB,

    I believe he’d be the only ex-President to ever serve as a Senator after leaving the Presidency.

  105. What high level positions, joe? Chief of Staff, Transition director?

  106. It doesn’t really seem to have anything to do with anything I’ve written, and looks more like you just blowing off bile in my general direction, without any connection to the discusison at all.

    Sorry, I thought this thread was about Obama’s cabinet picks.

  107. BDB,

    If that actually happened. Adams II is the only former President to return to the Congress if I am not mistaken, but he returned to the House.

  108. So what happened to Obama the RadicalSocialistLeftist?

  109. Seward,

    No, what I’ve asserted is the general rule (backed by years of time tested experience) regarding the relationship with the two. You’ve claimed (knowingly or not) that the Democrats are some sort of exception to this rule. No, I haven’t. I’ve agreed with you on this point every single time I commented on it – Democrats are subject to the same dynamic.

    I’m making a subtle point, and you’re insisting on a black and white one. Sorry, no there are shades are grey. It is possible to be more or less at war with the bureaucracy, as opposed to it being a yes/no question.

    About as much as any other administration. So what you’re saying is that every single adminstration has had precisely the same relationshiop with the federal bureacracy.

    That’s nonsensical.

  110. Seward–

    Adams II went to Congress *after* the Presidency. Andrew Johnson went to the Senate, too.

    The only other to have a high profile position was William Howard Taft (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).

    I wouldn’t be surprised if putting Bill in the Senate was part of the deal–partly to contain him and keep him busy.

  111. This was a stupid move on Obama’s part. Sorry, but there it is.

    If Obama really wanted to make a splash, he’d appoint at least a couple of new people to these key positions. He’s demonstrating to me my greatest actual fear–that he’s a fully programmed party machine drone. Of course, the actual proof of that will take much more time and him actually occupying the White House. Even a machine guy might acquire some independence once he has to make the decisions himself.

    I hate to say this this early, but the president Obama is reminding me the most of is Bush. Not experienced enough and not willing to buck the party establishment. Whether he’ll prove to have other bad qualities remains to be seen. I hope he’s not some radical lefty on top of this–that would just suck in this economy.

  112. joe,

    I don’t judge effectiveness merely on the ability to pass a piece of legislation, etc. Now I guess we could become word sleuths and have a hour long argument about what “effective” means, but I’m unlikely to engage in that.

  113. Terrible.

    These kinds of things happen in politics. You have to nurse coalitions and repay favors. But Hillary is just not qualified to do this work imo.

    Should have been Bill Richardson clearly.

    You know what gets me? Is being a US senator that terrible of a fucking job these days for a power hungry person? I mean, why not just be NY’s senator for the next dozen years. I don’t get it.

  114. Bill Clinton gets any position he wants. After all, it was his idea to find someone who won’t ever be scrutinized to run his shadow presidency.

  115. ChicagoTom,

    What exactly did this Clintonion old guard get done? What were some of these great accomplishments?

    The 1990s were a period of Republican dominance. For most of his term, Clinton was playing defense. They did that quite well.

    Look, I don’t think Bill Clinton was a great president, either. That doesn’t change the fact that the people who know how to deal with Congress from the White House, and who have actually managed foreign policy portfolios, and who have significant amounts of experience, and are Democrats, worked in his White House.

  116. Chuck Hagel would have been nice too.

  117. It’s a blog.
    It’s a chat room!

  118. “What exactly did this Clintonion old guard get done? What were some of these great accomplishments?”

    NAFTA? Welfare reform? Balanced budgets? Great economy? Respect around the world?

  119. Who did you want as Sec. of State ChicagoTom? Bill Daley? Dick Durbin?

  120. I have a feeling that Obama won’t risk the fallout of trying to appoint an attorney who was disbarred to the Supreme Court. However, the tar from that brush is limited–he could certainly send him to the U.N. or name him to a cabinet post.

  121. See Carter, Jimmy. The ability to actually achieve what you set out to accomplish matters, and having people who know the ropes in Washington is a part of that.

    This is the other side – he has to do both. He has to combine people with fresh ideas with people who can make things happen.

    Sorry joe, I am not buying this line of BS.

    You don’t change Washington by stacking your admin with a bunch of Washington insiders/dinosaurs.
    And tell me, where is this other half ? Where are the people with the fresh ideas? I haven’t seen any of them yet.

    There are lots of very smart qualified people that could fill many of his cabinet positions, and the fact that he is filling them with Clintonites shows me that “Change” was nothing more than a slogan.

  122. Who did you want as Sec. of State ChicagoTom? Bill Daley? Dick Durbin?

    Bill Daley was a Clintoninte as well genius

  123. In fairness I think you have to consider the woman governor from AZ he picked for Homeland/Death Star Security to be a new face.

  124. I like the Geithner pick. He’s a young, rising, intelligent dude. My friends on the Street and in the Exchange like and respect him (they’re mostly Republicans) and he doesn’t owe anyone on Wall Street anything, like Paulson. A big problem with Paulson is that he had a preexisting beef with Bear and Lehman (and despised Fuld), so it was hard to seperate the personal from the professional.

  125. I love James Ard’s Krazy Klinton Konspiracy.

    It’s really some top-shelf stuff.

    Lay it on ’em, James. Hillary, Richardson, Obama. C’mon, I can’t do it credit.

  126. I’m just trying to think if there is some Illinois Mafia he was supposed to chose form. It isn’t like he’s a Governor that has a pre-set cabinet already.

  127. I don’t think Bill would be interested in a Senate seat, or UN ambassador.

    The only role I see him playing is a sort of Special Envoy at Large. Why would he want to sit on Senate subcommittes as a freshman legislator?

  128. “Why would he want to sit on Senate subcommittes as a freshman legislator?”

    He’d get his pick of the Senate interns to screw. Sorry, but it’s true. That’d be the reason he wants it.

  129. I think Patterson should run for her Senate seat. When there are any charges of malfeasance among any of his colleagues he can say “I don’t see any malfeasance here” and he would be telling the truth…

  130. Who did you want as Sec. of State ChicagoTom? Bill Daley? Dick Durbin?

    I would like someone I’ve never heard of. Someone who the press has never heard of And preferably someone not from Illinois or at the very least not from Cook County.

  131. I guess Obama wasn’t able to find any decent talent to work on his senate staff, or his campaign, for that matter. If he had, one would think at least a few would make the cut.

    What wingnut blog did you cut and paste that from? He’s appointed pretty much the entire top tier of his campaign, and his Senate Chief of Staff, to high-level White House positions.

    That came from the National Review.

  132. ChicagoTom,

    You don’t change Washington by letting the dinosaurs eat you, either.

  133. Plus he gets Wall Street $$$ from representing New York.

  134. CED,

    I think you overstate your case. What may have been good was a more (and temporarily) reform-minded Congress faced off against a president willing to be a Republican to be more popular. And, of course, we had the twin good effects of the Cold War bonus and the realization that we could use computers to run inventories and stuff (the dot com boom was not the reason for the GDP growth, by the way).

    ChicagoTom,

    They’ll beat you to death if you say anything bad about Daley, right?

  135. BDB,

    Yes, but as I noted above, Adams II went to the House, not the Senate.

    joe,

    I’m making a subtle point…

    No, from my POV you are making a special rule for Democrats when that rule is not born out by experience. Again, if you could actually show some evidence for that it would be helpful. It would be easy enough to do – I am sure there are plenty of books written on the major FP areas of the Clinton administration – Rwanda, Bosnia, N. Ireland, etc. Indeed, I’d be interested to know what the FS professionals thought of say the whole use of the term “genocide” during the Rwandan genocide.

    It is possible to be more or less at war with the bureaucracy, as opposed to it being a yes/no question.

    And my point is that the “more or less” is a marginal aspect to the relationship. Indeed, whatever fellow feeling exists will also fade rather rapidly over the course of an administration.

    So what you’re saying is that every single adminstration has had precisely the same relationshiop with the federal bureacracy.

    No, I stated they were about the same. Roughly. Equivalent. Etc. Enjoy the rest of your day.

  136. Mo, link? I want to see how much of it was verbatim.

  137. Undoubtedly, had Obama selected people with no Washington experience, he would have been criticized for that too.

  138. Joe, I think we’re about to the point that you need to provide evidence that it isn’t a conspiracy.

  139. joe,

    Yes, it will be interesting to see where Bill Clinton ends up. He could just stay on the perimeter, but I don’t think he wants to.

  140. “classwarrior | November 21, 2008, 5:29pm | #
    Undoubtedly, had Obama selected people with no Washington experience, he would have been criticized for that too.”

    Yes, and instead of ZOMG! CLINTON RETREADS! we would be hearing ZOMG! TEH CHICAGAO MACHINE! or ZOMG! JIMMY CARTER!!

  141. That’s funny, MO, I never go to National Review. But nice to see they think like me.

  142. Bill Daley was a Clintoninte as well genius

    Apparently, Clintonitism is a contagious disease, like in 29 Days After. If you get a single drop on you, you turn into a zombie and lose your individuality.

    I’m sure some of you thought Bill Daley was first and foremost a Chicago politician. We’ll, you’re wrong – he held a post in the Clinton administration, and therefore, he is indistinguishable from anyone else who held a post in that administration. Just an indistinguishable mass.

  143. I’d have been happier if Obama had found some new blood. New doesn’t necessarily equal inexperienced, either.

  144. You don’t change Washington by letting the dinosaurs eat you, either.

    What does that even mean? Is Obama supposed to fear the ex-clintonites? Really?

    They’ll beat you to death if you say anything bad about Daley, right?

    The CPD will “interrogate” you to discern your intentions. They used to fly you to Florida to be interrogated by Jon Burge, but alas now that he has been indicted they need to find a new destination.

  145. Pro Libertate,

    Well, like I stated above, all of this nicely illustrates the conservation of political power and the iron rule of oligarchy.

  146. James Ard | November 21, 2008, 5:29pm | #

    Joe, I think we’re about to the point that you need to provide evidence that it isn’t a conspiracy.

    You first. I want everybody to know what you’re talking, and what exactly you think I have the burden of disproving.

    You aren’t embarassed of it, are you?

  147. No, from my POV you are making a special rule for Democrats

    Since we’re talking about two parties, am I not making a “special rule” for Republicans, too?

  148. Pro Libertate,

    If Obama is elected to a second term that’s when more “new blood” will come into higher positions. These will be folks who are hired at lower levels at this point. That leads of course to a lot of self-reinforcement of the idea structures of an administration.

  149. Oh, and by way of evidence, I offer you the Reagan administration vs. the Clinton administration. You would have to be David Patterson not to notice the difference.

  150. I’m sure some of you thought Bill Daley was first and foremost a Chicago politician.

    Are you for serious joe?

    Bill Daley was the US Sec. of Commerce under clinton?
    You don’t think that’s enough to call him a Clintonite?

    He then was President of AT&T (When it was SBC) and then became a lobbyist. He was also midwest chairman of BankOne/Chase.

    This guy is a corpratist to the bone. The epitome of everything the Clinton administration stood for.

  151. Yes, and instead of ZOMG! CLINTON RETREADS! we would be hearing ZOMG! TEH CHICAGAO MACHINE! or ZOMG! JIMMY CARTER!!

    Or ZOMG!!! Dirty Hippies!!

    Sigh, Barack Obama promised to change the tone in Washington and work in a bipartisan manner, and now he brings in a bunch of radical partisans with no record of reaching across the aisle.

    His supporters must be very, very disappointed.

  152. It was Victor Davis Hanson and has nothing to do with classics, so I wouldn’t feel too good about it James.

    Of course, it’s not at all copied and pasted, just a very similar sentiment.

  153. I mean for fucks sake isn’t there quite a few competent people to chose from that aren’t Clinton era rehashes?

    As he has done for the last year, Obama is just following orders from the Pritzkers.

  154. Embarassed? hell no. Hillary’s dad knows where the Chicago bodies are buried. Hillary has access to over 1000 FBI files. Obama has proved to me he’s an idiot (Nancy Reagan seances, anybody?). Eliminating competition the Clinton way, personal destruction. Now hiring all the Clinton fixers. Deny all you want, but I see less and less people calling me crazy.

  155. Chicogo Tom,

    What does that even mean? Is Obama supposed to fear the ex-clintonites? Really? I guess there’s that, too, but I was talking about his opposition. He can’t be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    Seward,

    If Obama is elected to a second term that’s when more “new blood” will come into higher positions. These will be folks who are hired at lower levels at this point. There’s that, too. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he moved people around earlier than that – Hillary to the Supreme Court, for example.

  156. Hillary’s dad KNEW.

  157. Nothing is impossible for the Clintons.

    Which is why some might question the wisdom of putting her fourth in the line of presidential succession.

  158. One of the things I’ve heard/read in the media is that the Obama campaign was very disciplined, etc. No leaking, etc. Which reminds me of the Bush II administration in at least its first incarnation. I think it is both remarkable and pedestrian how each party learns from the other regarding political tactics, etc.

  159. I’m sure some of you thought Bill Daley was first and foremost a Chicago politician. We’ll, you’re wrong – he held a post in the Clinton administration, and therefore, he is indistinguishable from anyone else who held a post in that administration. Just an indistinguishable mass.

    You know what joe, to a certain extent they are all fucking indistinguishable, especially in the context of trying to change Washington.

    You want to be an apologist for the Obama team go ahead, but I won’t. I expected real change, with new ideas and fresh faces. Obama had a real mandate for change. If his idea is to wait for a second term and hope that people are gonna re-up after broken promises, that’s an awfully risky proposition.

    Many first time voters came out and were inspired because they wanted something different. If reliving the ’90s is what they get, I wouldn’t be surprised if many of them stay home once they realize it doesn’t matter who wins, cuz regardless it’s gonna be the same small circle of people calling the shots.

  160. I see ChicagoTom’s problem now. He’s divided the world up into “the corporate DLC Clintonites” and “the progressive outsiders.”

    Are you for serious joe?

    Bill Daley was the US Sec. of Commerce under clinton?
    You don’t think that’s enough to call him a Clintonite?

    He then was President of AT&T (When it was SBC) and then became a lobbyist. He was also midwest chairman of BankOne/Chase.

    This guy is a corpratist to the bone.

    Being the midwest chairman of Chase is the same thing as having held a post in the Clinton administration is the same thing as being a lobbyist is the same thing as being a corporatist.

  161. I can’t believe yous guys still think Obama is going to be sworn in. Have you no faith in Alan Keyes’ lawsuit?

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200811202676/editorial/alan-keyes-lawsuit-to-stop-certifying-the-electors.html

    The .pdf of the suit is at the bottom. (I thought this went away)

    To top it off, he’s “Muslim”!

  162. C’mon, James, stop being so shy. Invisible Finger shared his conspiracy theory, why won’t you spill yours?

    I like yours. Don’t hold back.

  163. Wall Street surged on Friday afternoon after news reports said that President-elect Barack Obama had tapped Timothy F. Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, to be secretary of the Treasury.”

    Are all the NYT staffers under the age of 8? Not one person on Wall Street makes trades based on news of that sort.

  164. I guess there’s that, too, but I was talking about his opposition. He can’t be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

    So his “gun” is the Clintonistas who were unable to pass any type of progressive legislation when they did control the Congress? Seems like that gun is shooting blanks.

  165. You know what joe, to a certain extent they are all fucking indistinguishable,

    Gee, you don’t say.

  166. ChicagoTom has a point. Imagine if one of Obama’s campaign ads had included proposals for who he apparently wants to be in cabinet positions. That would have undercut the whole “change” mantra coming from the campaign.

    Then again, campaign slogans should be taken with a grain of salt no matter who they come from, so…

  167. Joe, the moment I realized it was a fix was when every media type constantly screamed RIVALRY. Not to say they’re in on it, but when that many stupid fucks agree on the exact same theme, they’re usually wrong. Like climate scientists.

  168. I see ChicagoTom’s problem now. He’s divided the world up into “the corporate DLC Clintonites” and “the progressive outsiders.”

    I didn’t do that, the DLC types did. They were the ones who loathed the liberals and the dirty fucking hippies and wanted the Democratic party to ignore the the left wing of the party. And now you are gonna try and take me to task for demanding that those fuckers get the heave ho?? DLCers and their apologists can go fuck themselves.

    Being the midwest chairman of Chase is the same thing as having held a post in the Clinton administration is the same thing as being a lobbyist is the same thing as being a corporatist.

    Secretary of Commerce is not merely holding a post. It’s a fucking Cabinet position. Yes being a in the cabinet of Clinton makes you an Clintonite.

  169. Invisible Finger,

    There is a distinct problem with the approach of government to trading markets if they surge and collapse based on the barest news out of the government. The fact that this sort of news can create this sort of volatility is about as strong of a criticism of the current system as one can make.

  170. At least he doesn’t have to worry about her submarining his nominations in the Senate.

    But then, why would she? They’re all coming out of the Clinton Administration.

  171. Invisible finger is funny, but Invisible Stinky Finger would have been better…

  172. Let me add, Hillary wasn’t going to get away with any funny business as president. Obama will.

  173. Really guys, why do you think Richardson has not been tapped yet?

  174. We should have seen this (a series of totally uninspired and recycled picks) coming after Obama picked Biden for VP.

  175. The fact that this sort of news can create this sort of volatility

    But the news didn’t create the volatility. If Obama had not announced any Treasury appointment today, the market movement today still would have been the same.

  176. Really guys, why do you think Richardson has not been tapped yet?

    I saw a report on CNBC that he would be Commerce Secretary.

  177. Okay, confession time. Who here is not upset that Obama didn’t appoint him or her to the Cabinet? Or to some other plum position? I thought I had the Court of St. James wrapped up, drat it all.

    CED,

    You mean Secretary of Commerce Richardson? Do try to keep up.

  178. I mean he came out kinda early and strong for Obama, he’s got mad creds and bipartisan respect. And he’s from a key demo. Since he was already Energy he’d have to get something like State, so I imagine he will get zilch. I’m very surprised.

  179. Is Tom Daschle a Clintonite?

    Janet Nepalitano?

  180. Didn’t the Clintons kill the last Secretary of Commerce? Aren’t they just setting up Richardson?

    Say, this is fun!

  181. Well shit! I gotta watch more news more often…

    My wife may very well leave me it I do that though…

  182. Has Sec. of Defense been taken yet?

    I nominate Sgt. Slaughter.

  183. We should have seen this (a series of totally uninspired and recycled picks) coming after Obama picked Biden for VP.

    Yup. As each horrible choice rolls in, it just cements the fact that it wasn’t a fluke.

  184. Actually, the Richardson endorsement was the beginning of my suspicions. Super Bowl with Bill. Come on, guys.

  185. Looks like the left will be voting for whoever the Green Party nominee is by 2016, though.

  186. joe sure is a sore winner.

  187. BDB,

    Anyway, on the boring side I do hope that we have learned the disasterous lessons of government interventionism that created and prolonged the Great Depression. No more attempts to limit the number of producers in a market and that sort of non-sense that was a cornerstone of the New Deal.

  188. “Anyway, on the boring side I do hope that we have learned the disasterous lessons of government interventionism that created and prolonged the Great Depression. No more attempts to limit the number of producers in a market and that sort of non-sense that was a cornerstone of the New Deal.”

    You’re not going to get that. We’ll probably end up with trade deals (with heel dragging just to satisfy the moonbats), 1990s level taxes, and a cut in defense spending.

  189. He will get his “Middle Class Tax Cut” through but it will have a sunset provision that expires in 2013 or some BS like that.

  190. Gee, you don’t say.

    Gee why don’t you explain to me why and how they are so distinguishable, otherwise have a big glass of STFU to go with your condescension.

    Just because I am more cynical then you doesn’t give you the right to be a smug prick. You want to explain to me why you think I am making a mistake and have a dialog be my guest — if you are just gonna take shots then go fuck yourself.

    The election of Obama (among other things) was supposed to be a repudiation of the Clinton/DLC wing of the party, not an opening for them to get back into power. Obama bringing them in is a big fuck you to a lot of his supporters who thought he was gonna be an agent of change.

  191. I guess Condi’s role as “Hottest Secretary of State ever!” is safe for a while.

  192. Has Sec. of Defense been taken yet?

    I nominate Sgt. Slaughter.

    Brian Urlacher.

  193. Based on how things are going, he will keep Robert Gates until June or so and replace him with Wes Clark.

  194. We should have seen this (a series of totally uninspired and recycled picks) coming after Obama picked Biden for VP.

    I thought that at first, but then I figured Biden was chosen to blunt the “green on foreign policy” attack.

    Unfortunately, it was indicative of things to come.

  195. Obama is the most disappointing President-Elect since George W. Bush.

  196. Obama bringing them in is a big fuck you to a lot of his supporters who thought he was gonna be an agent of change

    Are you really surprised, though, Tom? Did you really think a politician was going to change anything?

  197. Brian Urlacher.

    ???

    Don’t confuse the Steel Curtain defense with the Bears’ current Beef Curtain defense.

  198. If I die unexpently, You’ll know I was right. Now, no more posting by this fake name.

  199. Is Tom Daschle a Clintonite?

    Janet Nepalitano?

    No they aren’t. Although Daschle could hardly be considered a reformer or an outisder.

    Napolitano isn’t really all that objectionable.

    But the question isn’t “are 100% of his picks gonne be recylced clintonites” the question is what will a majority of his picks be. So far the trend seems that the Clintonites are going to outnumber the outsiders by a rather large margin.

    Maybe the trend will change, and I hope I am wrong.

  200. BDB,

    I doubt that we’ll see any cuts in defense.

    As for 1990s levels taxes, well, it doesn’t matter. Our current system of taxation leads to all manner of incentives and distortions no matter what the rate is. Further, given the way that the tax code works as a lottery for loopholes, the nominal rate never really matters all that much.

  201. Are you really surprised, though, Tom? Did you really think a politician was going to change anything?

    I must admit, I did. in fact I believed, if not now, then never. This was his moment. This was his best chance. The people were hungry for change. I thought he would deliver.

    And I am feeling rather foolish that I supressed my natural cynical tendencies.

  202. I’m not saying any of those things are good. I’m just saying, it is what I’m expecting him to do. Which is not all that much.

  203. And I am feeling rather foolish that I supressed my natural cynical tendencies.

    There’s a voter born every minute.

  204. Obama won’t be appointing Wesley Clark to anything.Even a secret MarxistMuslimRadical doesn’t hate America that much.

  205. I, for one, am pleased by the internecine conflict here. It gives me hope that the Democrats in Congress will not, in fact, be unified in their desire to take my country over a cliff.

    Clint Eastwood as Secretary of Defense. Crosses the aisle and would be full of win. In fact, if Obama makes this appointment, I predict that bin Laden will turn himself in on the day after the inauguration.

  206. Democrats are never unified about anything.

  207. It’s one thing to hire Clinton people. It is another thing to hire the sycophants that sacrificed their souls to cover for him.

  208. Wesley Clark is prohibitted by statute from being Secretary of Defense.

    Title X says you need to be retired/separated from being an active duty officer for a minimum of 10 years prior to being Sec Def or most of the deputy / undersecretary positions.

    Clark retired May 2, 2000 per wikipedia.

  209. I posted this in another thread, but since I’m nominating Eastwood to Defense, here it is again:

    Ten Bears: These things you say we will have, we already have.

    Josey Wales: That’s true. I ain’t promising you nothing extra. I’m just giving you life and you’re giving me life. And I’m saying that men can live together without butchering one another.

    Ten Bears: It’s sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men. The words of Ten Bears carries the same iron of life and death. It is good that warriors such as we meet in the struggle of life. . .or death. It shall be life.

    Maybe State would be better?

  210. Kolohe,

    Damn! for a second I thought maybe they just outlawed him personally by name.

  211. Would this be a good time to remind Obama that, in fact, everyone didn’t love Clinton? That any number of people on either side of the aisle were not happy with his administration? Once everyone is done being happy that Bush is gone, Obama’s going to deeply regret making this Clinton 2.0.

  212. No more attempts to limit the number of producers in a market and that sort of non-sense that was a cornerstone of the New Deal.

    That was the Early New Deal. Roosevelt had those people out the door by ’36. It didn’t work.

    Secretary of Commerce is not merely holding a post. It’s a fucking Cabinet position. Yes being a in the cabinet of Clinton makes you an Clintonite. Oh, spare me. If Richardson had gotten State, you’d be turning cartwheels.

  213. I do hope that those who think Obama will be efficient and competent and boring are right. A technocrat would reassure me; I don’t like or trust people who want to change the world, and people who want to perfect it or save it are even worse. It sounds like my own personal nightmare of an NHS-style government healthcare program might not be a foregone conclusion. I don’t fancy pulling my own teeth or waiting six months for a cancer screening. If that makes me selfish, oh well.

    NAFTA? Welfare reform? Balanced budgets? Great economy? Respect around the world?

    Why does everyone forget that Clinton spent 6 of his 8 years with a Republican majority? Welfare reform was accomplished with a Republican majority Congress; NAFTA too, IIRC (I’m off the clock and disinclined to do the research right now) – balanced budget ditto, great economy ditto – stock market took off after 1994, economy was rather lackluster while Clinton had a Dem majority in Congress. The respect around the world was off and on; recall that the French started whining about hyperpuissance while Bill was in the WH.

    And finally – why on earth would anyone who’s paid even minimal attention for the past two years think Obama is anything BUT a machine drone? He has no past, no resume, apart from the Chicago Democratic party machine. How could he possibly bring new faces to DC?

    And I have a girlcrush on Condi Rice. There. I said it. I’m not necessarily proud of it, but it’s easier to defend than my head crush on James Carville.

  214. You gotta love how there is a mini Civil War among the left less than three weeks after their victory.

  215. Once again, joe pwning every libertard in this thread. You’d think that everyone would’ve learned their lessons after he schooled you wingnuts on the meaning of the word “kidnap”.

    Just give it up already. You fools have no chance against such a vastly superior intellect.

  216. joe,

    That was the Early New Deal. Roosevelt had those people out the door by ’36. It didn’t work.

    Thus demonstrating the fundamental problem with central planning (FDR’s programs throughtout the New Deal being the epitomy of such) – it places all the eggs of an economy in one basket. Markets promote a diversity of baskets on the other hand.

  217. You gotta love how there is a mini Civil War among the left less than three weeks after their victory.

    You’re being generous, BDB. The interest-group Civil War started when the Prop 8 returns came in.

    The Democrats (although this is true for Rs, too) really don’t stand for anything. They are a conglomeration of interest groups that should be, by all rights, diametrically opposed (i.e. unions and the environmental left).

  218. joe,

    BTW, the fact that the New Dealers even thought that it would is a testimony of their incredible ignorance. By that point in time we had a couple of thousand years of experience with efforts by governments to sanction just a few actors in a market and the repeated failure of such.

  219. I can’t say I’m disappointed by Obama’s pick of HIllary Clinton for another job she’s hopelessly unqualified to perform, since I never expected any more than mediocrity from him.

    This is rather worse than a business-as-usual choice though. The woman is a snivelling, lying, race-baiting, power-hungry harpy, who will be the worst secretary of State since Kissinger. So much for Obama’s foreign policy credibility.

    -jcr

  220. Obama bringing them in is a big fuck you to a lot of his supporters who thought he was gonna be an agent of change.

    Change we can believe in!

    One of the few silver linings for me in the upcoming administration’s vaudeville show is going to be the bitter disappointment suffered by the people who bought Obama’s act.

    -jcr

  221. Can we call a moratorium on the “More change we can believe in” quip every time Obama appoints an experienced person to a position?

    Request denied. The man provided the catch phrase himself and it’s our right and duty as Americans to slam him with it at any opportunity.

    -jcr

  222. You know, there’s one thing that just occurred to me, that Obama could do that would raise my opinion of him tremendously.

    He could give HIllary the gig, get her to give up the senate seat, and then can her the next time Bill gets caught taking money from some unsavory characters or banging the help.

    -jcr

  223. “He may boring, but I would question whether he will be “effective” in anyway that a libertarian would judge that term.”

    Huh?

    Are you being serious?

    Of course not.

    A cursory review of the archives will show that nothing Obama does, short of becoming Ron Paul will be satisfactory to Libertarians.

    Initially, when it paid, he was a radical Leftist hell bent on converting the U.S. into a Communist regime, and now he’s just far too vanilla to really matter. Somehow his sudden lack of radicalism is a negative development that should outrage his supporters, and leave us all brooding over the coming Apocalypse.

    Of course, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.

    Cut the bullshit gentleman. You’re not engaging in serious political commentary. You’re dick waving.

    And stop moving those Goddamn goal posts.

  224. “Request denied. The man provided the catch phrase himself and it’s our right and duty as Americans to slam him with it at any opportunity.”

    Yes, because it isn’t Libertarian change that you can believe in. Unless of course you think that the average person who voted for Obama is disgusted with the thought of having to convert from Bush back to Clinton; which I would be willing to bet both of your testicles they’re not.

    Anyway, despite any intellectual flag that you think you’re waving, it’s simply a matter of style.

    It’s like the fat kid who keeps falling over in his chair because he got a laugh out of it the first time.

    Everything in moderation.

  225. Famous Mortimer,

    Then why should be satisfactory to libertarians (liberals)?

    Initially, when it paid, he was a radical Leftist hell bent on converting the U.S. into a Communist regime…

    I can think of few commentators here who made any sort of claim like that.

    Somehow his sudden lack of radicalism is a negative development that should outrage his supporters…

    Back in 2000 a lot of people made arguments about how Bush was going to bring bi-partisanship to D.C. Were you castigating folks back then for being incredulous, etc. regarding such remarks.

    Of course, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.

    The guy is the President-elect; it is perfectly appropriate to scrutinize any and all decisions by him and his staff. Particularly since he is making substantive policy proposals, like this one.

  226. Seward,

    Do you any logical problems with the formulation “Roosevelt’s ending certain efforts early in his administration demonstrate the failure of the efforts throughout his administration? Any at all?

    BDB,

    You gotta love how there is a mini Civil War among the left less than three weeks after their victory. Except there isn’t, really. There’s a great deal of braying from the right about how awesome it would be if there was a civil war on the left, and an effort to goad them into one, but it’s really not materializing. Even people who don’t like this pick are inclined to trust Obama. See Randolph’s comment: One of the few silver linings for me in the upcoming administration’s vaudeville show is going to be the bitter disappointment suffered by the people who bought Obama’s act.

    It’s no different from how they spent a couple weeks talking about how the left was panicking over Sarah Palin – just more wishful thinking, on the theory that misery loves company.

  227. Of course, he hasn’t even been inaugurated yet.

    Precisely, FM. This is the pre-programmed talking point, and they’re all trotting it out not based on whether it’s accurate, but whether it might be plausible. Like everything else you find in the political analysis in National Review – as repeated so dependably here – it’s not an effort to describe what’s actually happening (ie, reality-based), but an effort to control people’s perceptions of reality and thereby create a new political reality.

    See, look at this: I can think of few commentators here who made any sort of claim like that. Right, that’s why the words “socialism,” “Maoist,” “Comminist,” “leftist,” “redistribution,” and the like are never to be found in the Hit & Run archives’ Obama threads.
    Unless of course you think that the average person who voted for Obama is disgusted with the thought of having to convert from Bush back to Clinton; which I would be willing to bet both of your testicles they’re not. Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, New Hamsphire, Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Iowa, one of Nebraska’s Congressional districts…I’m sure they’re bummed out that Hillary beat out Dennis Kucinich for the State gig. LoL.

  228. The guy is the President-elect; it is perfectly appropriate to scrutinize any and all decisions by him and his staff. Particularly since he is making substantive policy proposals, like this one.

    There you go: change we can believe in. Big, left-leaning policy proposals. Most un-Clintonian.

  229. Joe, how do you explain people like ChicagoTom and the guy he linked to.

    OH NOES! CLINTONIANS! They’re probably the same group that voted for Nader in 2000.

  230. As minimal, BDB. You can always find a few people saying anything.

    As far as civil wars go, I’m seeing ten times more angst over the Lieberman vote than the Clinton appointment.

  231. …that excruciatingly grating voice of hers…”

    Does it piss anyone else off that Amy Poehler doesn’t even attempt to do that voice in her impersonation of Hillary? Shows how politically blinkered the SNL people are (except for Darrell Hammond, who does pinpoint takes on whomever he’s impersonating); they don’t want to make her look bad.

  232. Minimal but it was enough to throw the election to Bush in 2000. It will be interesting to see how Obama holds onto his left flank over the next eight years to prevent that 3% or so from bolting for the Greens in 2012 or 2016. Because he is going to alienate more of them than centrists.

  233. Bush’s problem was holding onto moderates. Obama will have problems holding onto his nutroots base.

  234. “Obama will have problems holding onto his nutroots base.”

    actually, BDB, it’s pretty easy – dig your thumbs into your taint and cup your hands upwards. that’ll keep your nutsroot in place, nicely

  235. joe,

    Do you any logical problems with the formulation “Roosevelt’s ending certain efforts early in his administration demonstrate the failure of the efforts throughout his administration? Any at all?

    1936 was not “early” in his administration, and that was not the only screwy policy by FDR that lead to continued economic troubles. Here is a nice summary of much of the evidence against FDR’s efforts.

    This what I wrote:

    I can think of few commentators here who made any sort of claim like that.

    This is what you wrote in response:

    Right, that’s why the words “socialism,” “Maoist,” “Comminist,” “leftist,” “redistribution,” and the like are never to be found in the Hit & Run archives’ Obama threads.

    So, since when did “few” morph into “never?” This makes you look like a jackass.

  236. joe,

    As for FDR, I would note that much of the modern notions of the Imperial Presidency arise with his administration, and that lead to a number of negative outcomes in his administration and those that followed.

  237. joe,

    BTW, I don’t think the modern Democratic party has much of a problem with the term “redistribution.” Indeed, that is the rationale behind many of the policies that Democrats support. If could please explain why that isn’t the case I’d be more than happy to hear you out. Otherwise I think it is a very accurate and fair word to use.

  238. I think WWII and the Cold War would have naturally led to the formation of the Imperial Presidency, even if Wendell Willikie had won the 1940 election.

    I don’t have a problem with expanded powers during a (real live, not fake) global war, its when you can’t get those powers back after the war that is the problem!

  239. BDB,

    I do mind extended powers in wartime, largely because the extension of those powers has proven time and time again to be far more than what is needed to prosecute a war.

  240. Yes, well, “what is necessary” is difficult to gauge. Though I’ll say, for example, that we got the Presidency back down to a normal size after the wars of Madison, Polk, Lincoln, and Wilson, but they’ve been institutionalized since FDR. I blame the Cold War for that more than anything. It is difficult to scale back “emergency” powers that you’ve had for forty years.

  241. And when I say “war” I mean a war that threatens our very national survival, not a pseudo-colonial war or a fake “war” on drugs, poverty, or terrorism.

  242. For example, Seward, it would be next to impossible to put something like the control of our nuclear arsenal under a Congressional committee.

  243. BDB,

    Because he is going to alienate more of them than centrists.

    I could see that happening, but having Hillary in his cabinet wouldn’t do it by itself. We’d actually have to see him tack considerably further to the right than he did during the campaign, and that’s pretty unlikely.

    Seward,

    1936 was not “early” in his administration

    Roosevelt served from 1933 through 1945. 1936 was one quarter of the way through his administration.

    So, since when did “few” morph into “never?” Since when does what the last three months of commentary have to offer morph into “few” examples of people making hyperbolic claims about the radical leftist Obama? Have you even been reading Hit & Run during the campaign?

    This makes you look like a jackass. No, pretending that such hyperbolic claims were somehow rare of few in number makes you look like an ignoramus…at least, to anyone with a passing familiarity with what his critics spent the fall writing on the threads.

  244. BDB,

    Well, the presumption should be the most minimal expansion, which is the direct opposite of the presumption these days.

  245. I know, how about you veer into a tedious dissertation delineating the precise semantic meaning of the term “few,” so as to change the subject from the implausible claim that Barack Obama wasn’t frequently, on a daily basis, accused of being a radical socialist on the comment threads.

  246. joe,

    Since when does what the last three months of commentary have to offer morph into “few” examples…

    There are a few commentators on this blog who have made remarks like that. Just a few; a half-dozen at most.

    No, pretending that such hyperbolic claims were somehow rare of few in number makes you look like an ignoramus…

    I was pretty clearly talking about the number of commentators, not the number of comments made by them. So yeah, sure, they made a whole bunch of comments; that doesn’t speak much about what the overall population of this blog thinks. You keep on looking like a jackass.

  247. joe,

    …so as to change the subject from the implausible claim that Barack Obama wasn’t frequently, on a daily basis, accused of being a radical socialist on the comment threads.

    The thing is, I never made that claim joe. Never. Nothing that I wrote illustrates such a claim. You are completely out in the weeds with this one.

  248. Maybe if you write the work jackass again, no one will notice your backpedaling.

  249. joe,

    I am not backpedaling. Have a good one.

  250. That’s not what “in the weeds” means.

    “In the weeds” would mean, for example, debating whether some hyper-technical definition of “few” is functionally equivalent to some other definition.

    The opposite of this would be debating the broad point of whether the characterization of Barack Obama as a radical socialist during the last three of so months was a relatively common, mainstream line of commentary among his critics, or a marginal one.

  251. joe,

    I missed this…

    Roosevelt served from 1933 through 1945. 1936 was one quarter of the way through his administration.

    And four years into his administration they suddenly realized that creating government enforced cartels was a terrible idea (an idea that should have seemed non-sensical on its face). Note that the best defense you can apparently make of this terrible mistake which led to massive economic turmoil was that it was simply “early” in his administration. That’s pretty pathetic.

    It is a fine example of why central planning is so terrible and why it leads to economic disaster time and time again. Central planning is a put your eggs in one basket approach; markets provide for a diversity of baskets.

  252. joe,

    The opposite of this would be debating the broad point of whether the characterization of Barack Obama as a radical socialist during the last three of so months was a relatively common, mainstream line of commentary among his critics, or a marginal one.

    Now, it is “among his critics,” not just his critics here. Look, I simply stated what is obvious; the vast majority of commentators here (very few of them that is) did not claim that Obama was going to turn the U.S. into a Communist regime. I didn’t make any statement about how many comments were made, etc.

  253. BDB,

    For example, Seward, it would be next to impossible to put something like the control of our nuclear arsenal under a Congressional committee.

    Yeah, but that doesn’t say much about nuclear weapons policy, which should probably be more under the wing of the Congress.

  254. joe,

    I notice you completely skipped my statement/question about “redistribution.” I’ll take that silence to mean that you agree with me.

  255. 1936-1933 = 4?

  256. joe,

    1933, 1934, 1935 and 1936. Four years into his Presidency. Anyway, you are even wrong about 1936 – having done a bit of research I found that cartelization continued after 1936, see for example the Connally Hot Oil Act (1935).

  257. Jesus, this blog is hilarious.

    Let’s review:

    1. Obama, who was once too radical to be a safe choice for President, is now not radical enough, and so his yet-to-begin Presidency is a total sham. Libertarians, um, told you so…I guess.

    3. The market would have resolved the practice of slavery, even if it took a few more generations, or twenty. In fact, anti-slavery activists probably slowed the whole process down, and even killed a puppy along the way.

    4. The civil war wasn’t really about slavery (a classic), yet demonstrated the tyrannical nature of bleeding hearts.

    5. The current economic crisis is actually due to FDR’s policies, and probably every single Liberal president that has ever existed.

    Are you guys intentionally trying to parody yourselves, or are you just assuming that no one is paying attention?

  258. Famous Mortimer,

    I guess if any of those statements represented the majority of the viewpoints taken here they would have merit.

    1. Obama, who was once too radical to be a safe choice for President…

    According to some people, of which a few populate this blog.

    (3) (where is 2?) and (4) are consistently argued against by the vast majority of commenters here, including myself.

    I don’t recall (5) being made by anybody. All FDR’s policies did was deepen and prolong the depression of the 1930s. Thankfully, much of what they tried to do as far as price stabilization, market entry regulation and other absurdities are now on the dust heap of history.

    Then again, what exactly is the problem with both welcoming a diversity of viewpoints while also arguing against those viewpoints which one finds absurd?

  259. (Clinton + Emmanuel + Daschle) x Biden = CHANGE!? Damn straight! Good to see people with their heads on straight replacing the Republican jackasses who’ve been running things.

    joe — If by “heads on straight” you mean “their cranial appendages are not visibly askew when viewed from the front”, then I totally agree with you.

    If you mean “imbued with common sense and an ability to not create clusterfucks when governing”, then not so much so. Bailouts. HillaryCare. Voting for the Iraq war. An alarming propensity to advocate new wars. Voting for spending far in excess of available revenues. A severe problem with telling the truth (sniper fire), or delusional thinking, or perhaps both. And so on.

    Meet the new jackasses, same as the old jackasses. (With apologies to The Who).

  260. I think it is a pretty cynical pick. He is just doing it so she can’t run against him in 2012.

    Disagree. I think she’s accepting it so she can run in 2016.

  261. Jesus, this blog is hilarious.

    Let’s review:

    Does anyone here peruse the comments for lengthy and meaningful treatises?
    I mean, it’s just a place for crackpots to spout off, right?
    Am I wrong?

  262. Does anyone here peruse the comments for lengthy and meaningful treatises?
    I mean, it’s just a place for crackpots to spout off, right?
    Am I wrong?

    Deja Vu

    Still wrong

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.