And people who can't see that Obama needs to reassure the political establishment by doing things like re-appointing Robert Gates at the Pentagon precisely so he can have the establishment's good will, which in turn grants him the room to operate and to isolate the political opposition, understand so little about politics that it's not even worth the time it would take to spell out the argument to them.
What Tomasky apparently does not realize is that those stupid people who demonstrated total political ignorance by opposing Gates for re-appointment included many of Obama's own advisors:
The speculation over Gates' tenure has been most intense inside the Obama transition team. The team received a request from Gates that, were he to stay, he would want to retain some of his top civilian assistants. The request led to concerns among the Obama transition staff: "Gates is not a neo-con or even a hardcore Republican," a person close to the process noted, "but the people around him sure as hell are." A former Bill Clinton administration official who has been deployed by Obama to conduct a series of "meet and greets" with top officials at the Pentagon scoffed at the notion of a continuation of Gates' tenure: "The [presidential] election was a clean sweep," he says, "and that includes Bob Gates. It's called a change in government."
There was a vigorous debate inside Obama's transition team over whether to re-appoint Gates as Secretary of Defense. This debate was reflected in that Gates was leaked as the pick long after several other leaks--including other senior national security advisor picks like Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano--had all been leaked. It was far from a universally held opinion that Gates should be re-appointed. So, if people who don't understand that Gates had to be re-appointed are political idiots, then apparently there are a lot of political idiots inside Obama's transition team.
Perhaps, as I discuss in the extended entry, before sending off screeds like these, we need to ask ourselves: what would Obama do?
This is an important thing to remember when discussing the Obama administration: there is always going to be dissent within the administration itself. Further, this is dissent that Obama himself has openly encouraged, "welcoming vigorous debate within the White House. It doesn't strike me that Obama thinks anyone who disagrees with his picks are idiots who "understand so little about politics that it's not even worth the time it would take to spell out the argument to them."
Debate is good. Debate is healthy. Accusing those who have a different analysis than you of acting in bad faith for personal gain is anything but healthy:
The cable shows have hours to fill, and bloggers know that if they complain they might well be asked to help fill them.
Yeah, that's productive. I remember thinking, the day before Thanksgiving, as I was packing to hop on the bus to New York, "man, why hasn't my criticism of Obama landed me more sweet television gigs?" Fortunately, my hard work finally paid off, and Hardball sent me an email later that morning.
Debate is good. Debate is healthy. It is happening within Obama's own team. Saying that those who disagree with you are idiots acting in bad faith for personal gain is not good. Hell, it isn't even Obama-like. At best, it can set off yet another unproductive, vague argument ala the one with Hildebrand yesterday.
Instead, maybe we need to start asking ourselves "what would Obama do?" I think, if we took Obama at his words, we should be encouraging "vigorous debate" ourselves. We should be treating each other with respect. Whatever we think of Obama's transition so far, or thought of his campaign, the basic rhetoric isn't bad. Inclusive, vigorous, informed, respectful debate is a good thing. Let's try to keep that in mind.
