News What Are Your Thoughts on Obama's Appointments and Holbrooke's AIG Role?

[Astronuc]

More announcements tomorrow as

Obama turns to friends, foes for White House posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_cabinet

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama plans on Monday to announce six experienced hands to fill top administration posts, moving at record speed to name the leadership team that will guide his presidency through a time of war and recession.

His selections include longtime advisers and political foes alike, most notably Democratic primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and President Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, staying in his current post. The two were among six who Obama planned to announce at a news conference in Chicago, Democratic officials said.

The officials said Obama also planned to name Washington lawyer Eric Holder as attorney general and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary. He also planned to announce two senior foreign policy positions outside the Cabinet: campaign foreign policy adviser Susan Rice as U.N. ambassador and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser.

The Democratic officials disclosed the plans Sunday on a condition of anonymity because they were not authorized for public release ahead of the news conference. Those names had been discussed before for those jobs, but the officials confirmed that Obama will make them official Monday in his hometown.

. . . .

Meanwhile - the Joint Chiefs of Staff and some in the Pentagon seemed pleased and/or relieved.

Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901912.html
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page A01

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.

There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
. . . .
. . . But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.

. . . .

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Obama releasing his national security team live on cnn in a few minutes

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Hillary is secretary of state

 

[cronxeh]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

 

[Astronuc]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

Because as of Jan 20, 2009 (7 weeks from tomorrow), these people will be responsible for foreign policy and national security of the US - assuming they are all approved by the time Obama is inaugurated on Jan 20. Before that, they will be formulating policy with Obama.

 

[turbo]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

In addition to the reasons given by Astronuc, our economy is in tough shape and the markets are very jittery. It matters a great deal to people in the financial sector what kind of expertise and attitudes will be represented in his economic team.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting comment:

New York Times columnist David Brooks nailed it recently when he called the emerging cabinet a “valedictocracy”: a team of the nation’s first-in-class Ivy League elites. He meant it as a compliment. He’s not alone: it’s hard to find Republicans who don’t express admiration (at least in private) for the emerging Obama team.

from Yahoo/Politico "5 things the war Cabinet says about Obama" (IMO, it's unfortunate that people think in terms of a war cabinet - as opposed to diplomacy and security).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081201/pl_politico/16072

 

[turbo]

Interesting comment:

from Yahoo/Politico "5 things the war Cabinet says about Obama" (IMO, it's unfortunate that people think in terms of a war cabinet - as opposed to diplomacy and security).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081201/pl_politico/16072

I think that the DOD should be renamed to the "War Department" because that is exactly what is has been used for by the current administration. It would give people pause to consider how much of our nations resources we squander NOT in defense of our own nation, but in the subjugation of others.

 

[mgb_phys]

So does it actually mean anything in policy terms or is it just a bridge building exercise?
Secretary of state is the highest job he can hand out, after VP, isn't it?

 

[Proton Soup]

I think that the DOD should be renamed to the "War Department" because that is exactly what is has been used for by the current administration. It would give people pause to consider how much of our nations resources we squander NOT in defense of our own nation, but in the subjugation of others.

it's not so much about subjugation as it is about keeping the spice(oil) flowing. there's a battle going on now between us, the russians, and the chinese to control caspian spice. and oddly enough, i think afghanistan plays a part in this. why would we only make a few token media gestures to destroy opium production there? opium keeps the area unstable. it funds muslims in western china so that they can make trouble for the chinese government.

it's going to be interesting to see how Obama handles this whole problem of not letting hostile powers gain control of a resource that we are unable to get by without.

 

[WarPhalange]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

It's this kind of attitude that got us into the Iraq War, you know. "Oh, things won't possibly change! Ever! So who cares who's 'running' the country?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's this kind of attitude that got us into the Iraq War, you know. "Oh, things won't possibly change! Ever! So who cares who's 'running' the country?"

If we have learned anything over the last eight years, it is that who get elected, and who gets appointed, matters a great deal.

Doin a hell of a job, Brownie.

 

[Astronuc]

So does it actually mean anything in policy terms or is it just a bridge building exercise?
Secretary of state is the highest job he can hand out, after VP, isn't it?

With respect to policy, it can matter, since policy is driven by people and their thoughts/ideas.

The secretary of state is the leading diplomat after the president, but in the Bush administration, the VP and Secretary of Defense did wield significant influence with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

With respect to order of succession, after VP (who is president of the senate) comes:

speaker of the house
president pro tempore of the senate
secretary of state
secretary of treasury
secretary of defense
. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Apparently Clinton was being considered for Chairmanship of Ways and Means, which is a power spot in the senate.

 

[mgb_phys]

The secretary of state is the leading diplomat after the president, but in the Bush administration, the VP and Secretary of Defense did wield significant influence with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Depending on your politics you could say that the sec Defence ran the last administration.

With respect to order of succession, after VP (who is president of the senate) comes:

speaker of the house
president pro tempore of the senate
secretary of state
secretary of treasury
secretary of defense

But the speaker and pro-tem aren't presidential apppiontments - so this is the highest job he can hand out.
So presumably is the best consolation prize for Clinton supporters.

 

[BobG]

Depending on your politics you could say that the sec Defence ran the last administration.

If Rumsfeld was running the last administration, we would have probably only gotten involved in military campaigns that made the reforms he wanted look good - specifically, the quick invasion followed by a quick exit as soon as the invasion was done. There's no way he would have supported a long occupation, if he knew the long occupation would have been required. He obviously didn't support deviating from his vision of the military even after it became obvious the occupation and his vision weren't compatible.

I doubt Rice, Cheney, or Rumsfeld would have supported going to the UN unless they thought UN backing of the invasion was a slam dunk. Of course, Powell wouldn't have supported the invasion at all unless the intelligence was a slam dunk.

I think the Bush administration was going at least 3 separate directions simultaneously when it came to Iraq and, somehow, there was some delusion that all three of the directions would be compatible with each other.

Which always left me wondering how people could think Rice might have been a good candidate for President. The role of the National Security Advisor is to get everyone on the same page. She was pretty much a non-entity during her stint as NSA.

Any discipline within the administration that would required key leaders to agree on a coherent strategy would have caused the entire Iraq invasion idea to fall apart at the seams before plans ever left the cabinet.

No one really ran the last administration - which was its biggest problem.

 

[Astronuc]

Depending on your politics you could say that the sec Defence ran the last administration.

After reading Bob Woodward's The War Within and Plan of Attack, it's clear Bush wanted to do something about Saddam and Iraq. It's clear that he didn't think it out well enough, particularly the occupation, which the CPA mishandled. The conflict between State and Defense hurt the post-invasion process. They didn't have appropriate contingencies for the short invasion. They had expected something like 9 months, rather than a few weeks. But ultimately, it was Bush's call.

Then there is -
Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest regret
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081201/pl_nm/us_bush1_1

but Scott Ritter was saying in 2002 that there was no WMD, that there was no evidence to suggest WMD was in place. As far as I can tell from what I've read in books and media, Cheney and others were trying to turn any bit of information into evidence of WMD in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

as for Bush's comments

"I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack'," Bush said. "I didn't anticipate war."

That is inconsistent with his comments about using US troops to remove a dictactor if it was in the interest of the US (Wake Forest debate with Gore, Oct 2000), and then his broaching the subject of Iraq in the first cabinet meeting of his administration in 2001. He is the one who went to Tommy Franks and asked for a war plan in 2002.

But the speaker and pro-tem aren't presidential appointments - so this is the highest job he can hand out.

That's correct. The secretary of state is the highest cabinet level position after VP.

So presumably is the best consolation prize for Clinton supporters.

Effectively yes.

No one really ran the last administration - which was its biggest problem.

It certainly seems that way. Well Bush drove the bus the way a drunk driver would. Dissent was discouraged, and no one challenged the navigation. Powell was blind-sided because people withheld information from him. There was a hostile relationship between Rumsfeld's Pentagon and the State department, which undermined the US policy and actions.

Bremer should never have been the one in charge of the CPA, and that was attributed to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Apparently Bush, Powell and Rice had not been involved, and they should have been. It's not clear to me if Hadley (Rice's assistant and later NatSecAdv) knew about the CPA and it's mission.


It really does matter who is president, and who are the VP and cabinet members, and who serves in congress, as state governor, state legislator, county legislator, mayor, and who sits on the Supreme Court and various other federal, state and local courts - and so on.

 

[Astronuc]

After Sharp Words on C.I.A., Obama Faces a Delicate Task
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us/politics/03intel.html

Profiles of nominees to Obama's administration
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/the_new_team/index.html

I hope Holbrooke doesn't get a position. It would surprise me if he got a Dep Sec slot at State.

 

[mheslep]

as for Bush's comments
That is inconsistent with his comments about using US troops to remove a dictactor if it was in the interest of the US (Wake Forest debate with Gore, Oct 2000), ...

No, Bush's statement there is consistent with the Bush Gore debates. Bush's position before 911 was clearly less hawkish than Gore's position as the debates showed. Prior to 911, Bush's publicly stated policy was no nation-building, he was less inclined than Gore to get militarily involved abroad.

Oct 3

...
MODERATOR: What if he [Milosevic] doesn't leave? What if all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure and he still doesn't go? Is this the kind of thing, and be specific, that you as president would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone?

GORE: ... But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.

BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.

MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?

BUSH: No.

MODERATOR: Why not?

BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. ...

Oct 11

...
MODERATOR: ... Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either...

Bush said this kind of thing repeatedly in the 2000 campaign. That all changed after 911.

 

[mheslep]

but Scott Ritter was saying in 2002 that there was no WMD, that there was no evidence to suggest WMD was in place. ...

Ritter also in the second week of the invasion:

The United States is going to leave with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win. We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in the war is inevitable.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452284988/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ritter also in the second week of the invasion:


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452284988/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Ritter was a weapons inspector, not a military strategist. I wouldn't ask the plumber how to fix the TV either.

 

[Astronuc]

Oct 11

...
MODERATOR: ... Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either...

Bush said this kind of thing repeatedly in the 2000 campaign. That all changed after 911.

Thank you for proving my point. Bush did say "I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests," and so far Saddam Hussein is the only dictator overthrown by the Bush administration. And it's clear from the occupation, there was no adequate plan to rebuild what was destroyed, or protect the population. Many Iraqis are still without reliable electricity or clean water.

Iraq was already on Bush's radar screen - first cabinet meeting of 2001. Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaida or 9/11, but that's an inconvenient truth.

Somalia and Haiti are simply poor countries, so no interest in helping them, although there is a little aid that trickles in. Malnutrition, starvation and high infant mortality rates are problems there. Now if there was oil, perhaps Bush would intervene based on an interest in the oil.

 

[mheslep]

Thank you for proving my point. Bush did say "I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests," and so far Saddam Hussein is the only dictator overthrown by the Bush administration.

Your point is oblique to me, perhaps you could clearly state it. The issue appears to be Bush pre 911 intentions in Iraq which you state are in conflict with his recent statements. His comment that the US military might be used to thwart a dictator, after the Gulf war, was simply rehashing history. I also have read a fair amount of Woodward on Iraq, but I've missed anything on pre 911 war intentions as you imply here and in other threads. What evidence does he provide that Bush intended prior to 911 to invade Iraq. And let's not get side tracked with Wolfowitz and the like who favored it. Your statement was about Bush.

And it's clear from the occupation, there was no adequate plan to rebuild what was destroyed, or protect the population. Many Iraqis are still without reliable electricity or clean water.

"And ..."? Is this an argument or a list of grievances? The occupation was fumbled and poorly planned. What does that have to do with pre 911 Iraq intentions?

Iraq was already on Bush's radar screen - first cabinet meeting of 2001. Of course, Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaida or 9/11, but that's an inconvenient truth.

Iraq was on everybody's 'radar screen', and much more so in the Clinton administration and VP Gore's public statements prior to the 2000 election, as you must know from the Iraq literature. If Sen. Obama brings up Iran in his first cabinet meeting, does this mean he has secret intentions of invading it?

Somalia and Haiti are simply poor countries, so no interest in helping them, although there is a little aid that trickles in. Malnutrition, starvation and high infant mortality rates are problems there. Now if there was oil, perhaps Bush would intervene based on an interest in the oil.

Pres. Bush's 2000 debate comments addressed his reticence to sending in the military. The Bush administration has greatly increased aid to Africa, far more so than its predecessors. What would you have a US administration do instead? Regards oil, the better argument is that oil interests kept the US, the West, and the UN OUT of Iraq during the 90's, and not the other way around.

 

[turbo]

After Sharp Words on C.I.A., Obama Faces a Delicate Task
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us/politics/03intel.html

Profiles of nominees to Obama's administration
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/the_new_team/index.html

I hope Holbrooke doesn't get a position. It would surprise me if he got a Dep Sec slot at State.

I hope Holbrook doesn't get the South Asian affairs position. He did not comport himself well when Suharto was slaughtering the East Timorese.

 

[mgb_phys]

I hope Holbrook doesn't get the South Asian affairs position. He did not comport himself well when Suharto was slaughtering the East Timorese.

Although he didn't actually then try and sell them the weapons - by current presidential standards that makes him Mother Therasa.

 

[Gokul43201]

...
I also have read a fair amount of Woodward on Iraq, but I've missed anything on pre 911 war intentions as you imply here and in other threads. What evidence does he provide that Bush intended prior to 911 to invade Iraq.

I think what is well known is that there was a lot of Iraq/Saddam debate^* going on in the Bush cabinet prior to 9/11. The neocon wing of the cabinet were positing military options against Saddam which was being stronglyopposed by State. I don't think it's very clear whether Bush was strongly in favor of one side or the other, at this point. By 2002 though, it seems that Bush had been more or less fully swayed by the neocon argument.

^* Just after Bush took office, there was the famous Security briefing by outgoing Sec Def Cohen, for instance, that was being reported as being all about Iraq.

 

[jreelawg]

I agree, Gates is a good man.

Unfortunately, at any time he can cite the number of days that he has left. Maybe with new blood in the White House, he will be willing to stay for a time.

What is so good about gates?

I think he is questionable considering his involvement in building up Iraq into the threat it became.

"On 9 June 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George H.W. Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became, and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.”

"The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq."

"On 25 May 1994, The U.S. Senate Banking Committee released a report in which it was stated that "pathogenic (meaning 'disease producing'), toxigenic (meaning 'poisonous'), and other biological research materials were exported to Iraq pursuant to application and licensing by the U.S. Department of Commerce." It added: "These exported biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."[20]
The report then detailed 70 shipments (including Bacillus anthracis) from the United States to Iraqi government agencies over three years, concluding "It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the UN inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program."[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

 

[Office_Shredder]

He was a young gun back then... too much privilege, not enough power... like all kids at the time, going through a phase of experimenting with recreational arms smuggling

 

[Art]

Although he didn't actually then try and sell them the weapons - by current presidential standards that makes him Mother Therasa.

Probably just didn't want to upset Britain and it's arms exports at that time

 

[mheslep]

I think what is well known is that there was a lot of Iraq/Saddam debate^* going on in the Bush cabinet prior to 9/11. The neocon wing of the cabinet were positing military options against Saddam which was being stronglyopposed by State. I don't think it's very clear whether Bush was strongly in favor of one side or the other, at this point. By 2002 though, it seems that Bush had been more or less fully swayed by the neocon argument.

Agreed, that's generally my take. I'll add that the history of the regime change people goes all the way back to the end of the Gulf War and the follow-on slaughter of the Shia and Kurds by the Bathists.

 

[Gokul43201]

The US Constitution: Article 1, Section 6

Section 6: The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he[/color] was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Now, following Sec. 3a of a http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html from Jan 4, 2008, we have a raise in the Salary of Sec State.

Fortunately for Obama, Hillary's not a he[/color]!

 

[mheslep]

The US Constitution: Article 1, Section 6

Now, following Sec. 3a of a http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080104-6.html from Jan 4, 2008, we have a raise in the Salary of Sec State.

Fortunately for Obama, Hillary's not a he[/color]!

Also if she had been elected President she could have remained in office for life as

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

 

[Gokul43201]

Phew! Dodged that one!

 

[mgb_phys]

Probably just didn't want to upset Britain and it's arms exports at that time

Those were hawk trainers - the enquiry said so. It's just to make the training more realistic they painted them in camouflage colours and fitted bomb racks. Then they could do really realistic live fire exercise in rebel areas.

 

[drankin]

Also if she had been elected President she could have remained in office for life as

Interesting. The Constitution never intended women to hold that office.

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting. The Constitution never intended women to hold that office.

Heck, the Constitution never intended for women to be able to vote for the men seeking that office.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Steven Chu to be energy chief

 

[Gokul43201]

Wooo!

 

[mheslep]

Wooo!

No, Chu

 

[Astronuc]

Chu to bring fresh perspective,
scientific integrity to Obama's DOE

Interesting comment in the trade press.
http://www.restructuringtoday.com/members/login.cfm?hpage=10529.cfm (requires registration - but one can read the headline)

Obama names Chicago school chief to Education Dept.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama announced Arne Duncan, the head of the Chicago school system, as education secretary Tuesday and declared that failing to improve classroom instruction is "morally unacceptable for our children."

"When it comes to school reform, Arne is the most hands-on of hands-on practitioners," Obama said, making the announcement at a school that he said has made remarkable progress under Duncan's leadership.
. . .

 

[BobG]

Ken Salazar, Senator from Colorado, is expected to be the Secretary of the Interior. Salazar Interior News

Good choice for Obama. Kind of a loss for Colorado.

 

[Astronuc]

NAS, NAE, and IOM Members to Fill Obama Energy, Climate, and Science Posts
http://nationalacademies.org/headlines/20081223.html

December 23, 2008 - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has selected academy members Steven Chu, John P. Holdren, and Jane Lubchenco as his nominees for secretary of energy, chief science adviser, and administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

. . . .

 

[chemisttree]

Bill Richardson, http://www.chicoer.com/business/ci_11370767" , withdraws his name from consideration of Sec. of Commerce.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aL0GGUluJeT8&refer=worldwide"

It's doubtful that he wouldn't have been confirmed, IMO.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama has apparently nominated Leon Panetta for Dir. of CIA??

In addition to Richardson, apparently Hillary Clinton has a potential conflict with someone donating to Bill Clinton's foundation.

 

[LowlyPion]

Obama has apparently nominated Leon Panetta for Dir. of CIA??

In addition to Richardson, apparently Hillary Clinton has a potential conflict with someone donating to Bill Clinton's foundation.

Panetta is an interesting choice. Certainly there is a message there that things will change at The Agency. He seems more a civilian than a backroom security insider. I'd guess that it won't be business as usual there, though looking at the way Bush and Cheney cast aside their intelligence reports on Iraq and cherry picked from the ether whatever they might use as cover for their personal agendas they can hardly be blamed for the last administration's foreign policy blunders.

As to Richardson I think you are right. I think he would be confirmed. ... at least from what seems to be known now. The world of politics and finances is so complex with contributions that it is a wonder that the appearance of impropriety doesn't taint every one that runs and is elected.

Of course people contribute to candidates that they figure will give them the best hearing and likelihood to act in the interests of the donors. Until contributions are universally prohibited there will undoubtedly always be correlations to uncover after the fact as to there being possible pay to play arrangements. My sense is that Richardson has merely been caught up in something that is more coincidence than fact. It would be highly disappointing if there is more to it however.

 

[turbo]

Richardson is a skilled troubleshooter (foreign affairs), diplomat, and negotiator. He was my first choice (only, actually) for State. I was quite disappointed with the sop that Obama threw to Clinton, if only because her "foreign policy" experience was "ducking sniper fire in Bosnia". She could have traveled to remote Alaskan islands with Palin and gained a lot more relevant experience watching those sneaky Russkies. Political expediency will come back to bite Obama on the ***, in this case, IMO. Don't ask a celebrity to grow into a job like State - it's too critical.

 

[LowlyPion]

I grant you that Hilary's recitation of dodging bullets in Bosnia was not her finest hour, but that aside, I still think that she is qualified for the position. Maybe even more so than Richardson, if only for the stature provided by the support base of those votes that she earned in the primaries. She as well continues to speak for a section of the US electorate and one would think she brings that gravitas to the projection of Obama's policies abroad.

As someone who was at one time prepared to see her President, I have no problem with her selection as Secretary of State. And while I certainly respect Richardson and like his candor, I'd say that his ambition may be a bit ahead of his circumstances. While this may be a brief setback in the short term, he is after all only giving up Commerce, and who is to know what the future may hold for him by being available in the future.

 

[turbo]

Clinton's value may only be recognized if she surrounds herself with skilled, experienced diplomats and heeds their advice. Diplomats like Richardson who have some experience... The Clintons are the ultimate political/celebrity animals, and I fear that Obama's State appointment will come back to haunt him. When you've got baggage like Bill and Hill, you have to keep that in mind in touchy situations. Bill Richardson would have been good, Bill Cohen would have been a good choice, too, and his moderate views and Republican affiliation would have been a real plus.

 

[Astronuc]

Team Obama dabbles in drama
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090106/pl_politico/17089

Interesting commentary.

Apparently Bill Richardson wasn't fully vetted.

Jake Tapper of ABC News recently reported that “officials on the Obama transition team feel that, before he was formally offered the job of commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was not forthcoming with them about the federal investigation that is looking into whether the governor steered a state contract towards a major financial contributor.”

I hope the next administration doesn't become a many-headed Hydra of conflicting voices and policies.

Blagojevich and Burris are a side show.

 

[IPart]

"Chief Performance Officer" - Nancy Killefer. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Clinton was just confirmed as S of S