Abraham Lincoln really had to have a highly inclusive cabinet because: a) the Republican party was still not a completely institutionalized entity, and to keep it together in its first shot at power Lincoln needed all the major figures in the party to be represented and; b) the country was at war--a real war--and that almost always calls for inclusivity, even to the point of having governments of national unity. Neither of these factors apply in this case. Obama has massively more control over the Democratic party than Lincoln did, and while we are in an economic crisis, it's not nearly as bad as the Civil War or WWII. So the conditions that necessitated a "team of rivals" don't apply. I'm increasingly wondering if this will turn out to be a "circular firing squad of rivals."Not if Obama maintains his penchant for "No Drama." That is the key to so much. If he can keep the ego and petty squabbling out, he'll be fine. I imagine that's harder to do on a presidential level. I wonder how much of the Clinton entourage would be accompanying her to the White House.
« A Southern Strategy For The Rest Of Us | Main | Bama on 60 Minutes » Team of Bitter Enemies17 Nov 2008 09:30 am
From JHU political science prof Steven Teles:
Comments (13)Comments on this entry have been closed. |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I think the No Drama Obama gets to the heart of the current media ills: Here the Obama transition team, lacking drama. There the media, furiously churning over every rumor, denouncing rumored possible picks over past associations (Brennan) or passing comments (Sommers). It's the Obama team's fault, really--if they'd generate some drama, like a nice juicy round of death-by-memo, the media could report on that. Or even just get the damn puppy already.
Deleted. Get a blog.
How can you create drama as Sec. of State? Is she going to incite foreign leaders against Obama or criticize him while overseas?
If there are problems between the two at home HRC can always be sent to do a good will tour through central Asia or something like that. Its a role that will maximize her talents. I think more than anything this tells us Obama isn't going to mess around- he will go for the best talent he can find.
In any case Obama and Clinton really do agree on most everything EXCEPT who should win the democratic primary and that is over now.
Also I've been seeing more of the sort of thing posted by Nigel lately. It makes me worried for the Os.
Nigel was worth a laugh once.
Can we have him banned now?
Nigel is a parody, right? Right?
My concerns over the "circular firing squad" possibility are mitigated by the knowledge that Obama, who has already proven himself to be one hell of a manager, will have those folks' undated resignation letters sitting in his desk drawer -- and I'm feeling pretty sure that he won't hesitate to bounce those who won't play ball.
Of course, that gets tricky with Madame Clinton -- eject her too early and you invite a primary challenge in 2012 -- but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has thought of this, and if this SecState talk is legit I assume Obama and his confidants have thought this through backwards and forwards.
(What the hell kind of name is "Nigel" for a redneck, anyway?)
Back in 1968, the assassination of Robert Kennedy created a vacancy in the Senate from New York. John Lindsay, then the golden-haired boy of liberal Republicanism, and Mayor of New York City, went to Albany to meet with Nelson Rockefeller, the eponym of liberal Republicanism and the Governor of New York State. As Lindsay later recalled, he sat there thinking to himself, "Offer it to me, Nelson." And he thinks that Rockefeller sat there thinking to himself, "Ask me for it, John."
Rockefeller eventually appointed Charles Goodell to the seat.
When I hear that Obama didn't actually offer the Secretary of State to Clinton, but made it clear that it was hers if she wanted it, I am reminded of that meeting forty years ago.
Is it just me, or are the Clintons suddenly the most boring people on earth? They remind me of their election anthem Don't Stop Thinkin' About Tomorrow--a plodding pop jingle I'd rather not hear ever again.
I am so against this, but maybe its a way for Obama to tell Hillary to prove her foreign policy experience.
During the primary Hillary bragged that she was entitled to the nomination "because ", she chuckled, "her opponent had no foreign policy experience." However, when asked what her foreign policy experience was every single "accomplishment" she claimed was disputed.
1. She said she helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland. This was disputed.
2. She said she negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. This was a lie.
3. She said she stood up to the Chinese government on women's rights. When all she did was give a speech. This was during the time when she was belittling speeches. "That dream [MLK's speech at the Lincoln Memorial] became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people’s lives, because we had a president [LBJ] who said ‘we’re going to do it,’ and actually got it done."
4. She said she advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there. This was a lie. It wasn't in her memoirs or Albright's.
I think Obama should just let Hillary finish in the Senate. As far as I'm concerned, she's an imposter: She served on the board of Walmart while they exploited their employees, esp the women; She was a Goldwater Republican; She, and her entourage, McAullife, Woodson, etc, is a closet Atwater admirer i.e. just blatantly lie the media condones it. See Tuzla.
How do you have no drama if someone has access to an ex-President. There is a reason msut countries have one party states. It is to enrich the leaders and provide conduits of access to the leaders. There is no rational reason to believe this would not continue to be the belief anytime WC walked into a room where unofficial or official business was being held.
What about Bill!? If Pres. Elect Obama (I just can't stop writing that) thinks they can handle Bill's global "little rabbit foo-foo," scooping up the donations wherever he finds them and under some pretty shady circumstances than more power to them. My problem is Hillary as a manager. Health care reform, bleggh! Presidential campaign, double bleggh! Bill, triple bleggh!
Does this not bother anyone else to read?
What are we fighting, a little bijou war? War-lite? Warette?
I say, again, this has to be the worst legacy of the Bush administration: the demotion of war as "no big deal." And making that a publically acceptible position to take!
It's a lesson any future president ignores at his peril. Bush took a divided country to war and had to spend half of his time and resources strong-arming 49% of the country into going along with the 51%. It stifled actual, honest criticism, smeared anyone with any actual insight against the war as being unpatriotic, and, coupled with a pathological need to save face while blood and treasure spilled, prevented any course correction from within his own administration until after a political outsing in 2006.
Wars -- any wars, bijou or otherwise -- cannot be won without a whole country mobilized behind it. Unity is critical to its success.
I'm increasingly wondering if this will turn out to be a "circular firing squad of rivals."
Circular firing squad is not really a huge problem if you're not in the middle (or on the circle).
The issue is not whether there will be cabinet squabbles, but whether Obama can (has the mindshare, political clout, and confidence) to step in to sort them out.
Zbig and Vance were a problem because Carter struggled to bring them into line with each other, not because they disagreed. It's a good question whether Obama could do better, but my bet is with my vote.