Open Left - cabinet

Lend Us His Ear

jcullen — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:30:02 GMT

As we wait for the most highly-anticipated inauguration in a generation, President-elect Barack Obama has demonstrated that he belongs in the Oval Office. His approval ratings have topped 70% in Gallup polls as he has put together a Cabinet that should provoke lively debates but it also will keep progressives worried about who's got Obama's ear.

Obama's choices for labor secretary and trade representative are a good example of the potential for creative tension: Organized labor applauded the selection of Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as labor secretary. The daughter of immigrants, whose father worked at a battery recycling plant and was a member of the Teamsters union, Solis has been a steady pro-labor and progressive representative in four terms in the House from the Los Angeles area. She took a leadership role in fights to help workers organize and bargain collectively, to reframe the trade debate and to defend the rights of workers in the US and abroad during eight years of the most anti-labor administration in modern history. Solis has voted with the AFL-CIO labor federation 97% of the time since coming to Congress-which some Republicans think is an argument against her.

More troubling is Obama's choice of former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk as trade representative. Kirk is a "free trader," a pro-business Democrat who supported the North American Free Trade Agreement and Permanent Normal Trade Relations for China but he opposed fast track for trade deals in an unsuccessful 2002 Senate race. Sure, he looked good against John Cornyn but now he will be responsible for implementing Obama's pledges to create a new trade and globalization policy for Americans.

Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, said on Bill Moyers' Journal on PBS Jan. 9 that the nomination of Solis and Kirk shows Obama was serious when he says he wants to see people debate the issues. "Then he'll make the choice." But asked by Moyers if he was worried about that, Gerard replied, "Absolutely I'm worried about that."
With the economy cratering, Obama started off the transition by naming an economic team that would reassure the financial markets. Timothy Geithner, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank who has argued that banks should operate under a global regulatory framework, is the new treasury secretary. Lawrence Summers, who was treasury secretary the final year and a half under Bill Clinton and was senior adviser to the Obama campaign, will head of the National Economic Council.

Obama is proposing an economic stimulus package with a mix of tax breaks, aid to state governments for infrastructure improvements and money for renewable energy projects but he indicated he will listen to concerns of Senate Democrats who were critical of proposed business tax credits. Summers and Jason Furman, a senior economic adviser to Obama, met Jan. 11 with 35 Senate Democrats in the Capitol and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told Politico.com, "It's very clear they've listened, they've heard and that they're moving to respond." Conrad added, "It was very, very healthy. They're not defensive, not arguing back, they're listening, they're attempting to hear and they're responding."

Paul Krugman said Obama's $775 billion package, 40% of which might come from tax breaks, "looks too weak" to close a gap of $2 trillion in lost production, but he added, "It will be a joy to argue policy with an administration that provides comprehensible reports, not case studies in how to lie with statistics."

Other choices reflect Obama's pragmatism. The nomination of former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack as agriculture secretary riled some sustainable agriculture activists. The Organic Consumers Association called Vilsack "a shill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto." Vilsack, a trial lawyer, was a centrist who, as governor, supported biotech and biofuels-popular positions in Iowa-but he kept his door open to sustainable farm advocates and the progressive Farmers Union as well as the more conservative Farm Bureau.

Former Sen. Tom Daschle, the former Democratic leader who is nominated to take over health and human services, is well-positioned to pursue universal health care in Congress. He also will be the first Cabinet member in decades to have an office in the West Wing, with the added title of director of the Office of Health Reform.

Eric Holder, former deputy attorney general under Bill Clinton, now up for attorney general, appears to be the most controversial Cabinet nominee. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has complained that Holder has spoken out against torture with "some very unfortunate statements about our interrogation of prisoners." Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), ranking Republican on Judiciary, is looking to rough up Holder with questions about his role in Clinton's Marc Rich pardon, the Elian Gonzalez controversy and the 1993 federal siege outside Waco, to burnish Specter's GOP credentials as he faces a potential primary challenge in 2010.

Dawn Johnsen, an Indiana University law professor (and former ACLU counsel) who is up for the Office of Legal Counsel, also likely will face questions about her criticism of memos from the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel that justified torture. Johnsen also lambasted the Bush administration for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in secret and wrote, "We must resist Bush administration efforts to hide evidence of its wrongdoing through demands for retroactive immunity, assertions of state privilege, and implausible claims that openness will empower terrorists." Her voice to Barack's ear.

Sen. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state shouldn't have major problems implementing Obama foreign policy. She is respected by world leaders and she agrees with Obama on most significant global issues. Obama was looking for stability when he asked Robert Gates to stay on as defense secretary, and he should be able to help Obama withdraw troops from Iraq, even if many of them will be moved to Afghanistan. Retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones, a critic of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war, will be a credible national security adviser. The major problem with selection of Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a centrist Democrat, as homeland security secretary is that it puts Republicans in charge in Arizona. Obama campaign foreign-policy aide Susan Rice will be a US ambassador to the United Nations who actually believes there is a role for the United Nations.

After the choice of Leon Panetta as CIA director was leaked, it was a good sign that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the incoming chairwoman of the Intelligence committee, and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.), the outgoing chairman, were unhappy with the selection of an "outsider" to the job. Neither "insider" senator distinguished themselves in their oversight of the Bush administrations excesses. Panetta has little intel experience, although he sat in on briefings when he was President Clinton's chief of staff, but he certainly has managerial experience. More importantly, he has denounced torture and other Bush administration's excesses. He also has backed greater control over covert operations.

Another good choice is Dr. Steven Chu, the Nobel laureate for physics who, as director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, focused research in solar power and other alternative energy sources to address climate change. At the Jan. 13 hearing on his nomination as energy secretary he said that energy efficiency, not increased domestic production, is the key to decreased dependence on foreign oil. This is a refreshing change for an Energy Department that for the past eight years worked as a subsidiary of Big Oil.

That leaves us with the guardian of Obama's ear, his chief of staff: the walking contradiction that is Rahm Emanuel, who started his political career working for the public interest group Illinois Public Action, helped elect Paul Simon to the Senate in 1984 and Richard M. Daley to his dad's old office in 1989, then hitched up with Bill Clinton as finance director of his 1992 campaign, earning a place as senior White House adviser. Later he was an investment banker and congressman from the northside of Chicago who helmed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee when the Dems retook the House. He was on the fast track to House leadership when Obama beckoned. He'll keep progressives jumpy but it should be a heck of a ride.

See the entire editorial at The Progressive Populist. Cross-posted from DailyKos. Reprinted with permission.

Centralization of Governing Authority on the Presidency: Part II

Daniel De Groot — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:25:48 GMT

In part I, we examined the initial cabinets of a couple administrations that took office from the other party, and whether or not sitting Senators and Governors were apparently willing to give up those posts to become Secretaries. As late as 1980, it was rare for sitting high office holders to surrender their independent power base posts for the task of serving under someone else. Under Bush 43 and now Obama, this has clearly changed as Senators and Governors line up for posts.

Inside, let's examine what might be behind this shift. The short version is simply that the Presidency has become so much more powerful, that being a Governor or Senator is to be in general less powerful than being Vice-President or in Cabinet.

Obviously mileage will vary. States vary considerably in size, so giving up the Governor's mansion in Vermont is hardly the same as doing so for Florida. Senators vary in power according to their role in the caucus and committee seating. Cabinet roles vary considerably too, from the heavy hitters of Defense and State to much lower profile and lower budget portfolios. So it shouldn't surprise us that the Senators who took spots in Obama's cabinet got powerful roles but were junior in the Senate, and the Governors who have joined were from medium states. Not sure what to make of Blagojevich's interest in a cabinet post, because Illinois is huge, but perhaps that was just the particular circumstances he was facing.
So What is Going On? The Senate

This is ground well covered these days by writers like Glenn Greenwald and Kagro X. Simply, Congress has over time, lost its status as co-equal to the Presidency. The value of being a Senator in terms of actual power to control policy has declined. In the past, some used to describe the Senate as 100 Kings. Now, Congress has to beg to have its subpoenas obeyed and DoJ views prosecuting those held in Contempt of Congress as optional (thanks to a Reagan era DoJ memo). Congress' power over declaring war has become extremely tenative, with both Presidents Bush agreeing to allow Congress to authorize their wars in the middle east only after it was made clear (via begging) such a vote would pass overwhelmingly. More recently Bush Jr's use of signing statements and absurd post-modern interpretationism of clearly stated legislation have further decreased the power of Congress.

Condoleezza Rice even hinted that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress' approval if they pulled funding. Congress has fallen far from the days of FDR, where he had to wheedle and skim to get Destroyers for Bases and Lend-Lease past the isolationists. LBJ needed the Gulf of Tonkin to get his war rolling and Jimmy Carter had a really difficult time passing legislation out of a Democratic congress.

The Governors

At the State level, the story is similar, albeit involving far less malfeasance and more a story of the organic evolution of federalism in the United States toward becomming a unitary state. It is long story, but can be summarized in the increasing scope of authority given the Federal government under the commerce clause, and the decreasing scope given to the 10th Amendment. While there is a strong case to be made for the desirability of a stronger Federal government (avoiding civil wars is nice), if that centralization is combined with the Presidency growing in scope and power within the Federal government it does become dangerous. In Canada, very strong Provinces act as a real check on Ottawa, and in particular on powerful Prime Ministers. Thus, the centralization of power on the PM and Cabinet is less of a concern since there are 10 Premiers who can usually pull the PM up short if s/he overreaches. The 50 Governors have no such ability (or unity) in the US, and have not for quite some time. This story can be demonstrated quite simply in financial terms.

In 2005, the expenditure by level of government in the US looked like this:

Level	Spending
Federal	$2472B
State	$1068B
Municipal	$1300B
Federal/State Ratio	2.31

Not only does the Federal Government command over twice what all the States combined do, it turns out the States are beat out by the municipalities too.

Here's Canada for 2005 (figures Cdn, but it doesn't matter since it's the ratio I'm more concerned with):

Level	Spending
Federal	$204B
Provincial	$246B
Municipal	$55B
Federal/Prov Ratio	0.83

For further comparison, in 2005, the State of California had a total budget of just under $120B. California has more people than Canada and a higher GDP at about $1.5T. Yet its state budget is far less than just the Federal level spending in Canada.

Then if you compare that $120B maximum budget for a State, to the various portions of the US Federal Budget, you can see how controlling even one slice of that pie is usually sweeter than having a whole State to play with. Governor Napolitano had about $9B to oversee while Secretary Napolitano gets to spend $36B.

For a sense of how this has changed, let's compare the US ratios at the time of the two Presidents I discussed:

1980:

Level	Spending
Federal	$591B
State	$431B
Federal/State Ratio	1.37

1932:

Level	Spending
Federal	$4.3B
State	$8.4B
Federal/State Ratio	0.51

From a Federal/State ratio of 0.51 to 2.31 Federal dollars for every dollar spent by states. The 2008 Ratio will be 2.36 and 2009 even worse, but I think the $700B bailout and coming stimulus kind of skew the math here.

I think this answers Chris' implied question about how a sitting governor could leave her State to a Republican in exchange for a Cabinet post. It's just no fun being a Governor in the US anymore. No wonder Sarah Palin was so loath to go back to it.

This is centralization in action.

What Obama's Cabinet Says About Centralization: Part I

Daniel De Groot — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:00:00 GMT

Josh recently noted something actually quite interesting:

I continue to be surprised how many relatively young senators [...] are willing to give up their seats to serve in Obama's cabinet.

And Chris:

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security: Matt seems excited about Napolitano, but I'm not. For one thing, and this may seem petty but it really isn't, a Republican will become Governor of Arizona

It turns out this is significant, and not really anything to do with Obama particularly. It is yet another sign of the Presidentialist, dominant federal government. The Executive now dominates the Legislative, and the Federal government now by far dominates the States.

Obama's cabinet includes 2 each of sitting Governors and Senators (Clinton, Salazar, Richardson, Napolitano). You might include Biden too, making the score 3 and 2. The significance is that all of these have given up powerful, independent roles in the Presidential feeder leagues for subservient roles within the Presidency. If you look at the Republican side, McCain had no shortage of eager Senators and Governors willing to be his VP either. For Bush's first Cabinet, he didn't pick any sitting Senators, but he did pick 2 sitting governors, and at least 2 others were under serious consideration. Similarly for Obama, it is pretty clear he could have had even more Senators (Kerry, Murray, Dodd) and Governors (Granholm, Blagojevich) if he had wanted them.

For some context, let's examine what happened for the first cabinets of a couple other Presidents, in situations somewhat analogous to Obama's. Obama is coming to power with a large electoral victory, and substantial gains in Congress after a long period of relative powerlessness for his party and particularly for his ideology (wherein I group him broadly as a liberal).

FDR: Democrats Return From A Long Wander In the Desert

1932 was a large sea-change in voting behaviour, and this was apparent at the moment. Democrats had not been in the White House since Wilson, and had not controlled Congress since 1919. Even Wilson's victory in 1912 came in a three way race, and he failed to get a majority of the popular vote in his re-election. It was clear that this was a historic opportunity for the Democratic party. You might expect then, with the high degree of interest in FDR's cabinet, that sitting Democratic office holders like Governors and Senators would be eager for a chance to serve in the Roosevelt cabinet. Not so much:

Cabinetmaking is easier in October than in February. During that interval the President-elect learned that he could not crook his finger and get the ready services of his party's first & foremost. Much mentioned before election but not to be found on last week's slate were the national names of Bernard Mannes Baruch, Owen D. Young, Newton Diehl Baker, Albert Cabell Ritchie, Alfred Emanuel Smith, Carter Glass. Even his two ranking Cabinet officers Mr. Roosevelt had to "draft" (his own word) into Federal service.

There's quite a list of refusals. Senator Carter Glass, whom we might know by his later handiwork on Glass-Steagall, turned down being Secretary of the Treasury. Senator Bronson Cutting, turned down Secretary of the Interior and Maryland Governor Albert Richie had turned down an offer to be FDR's running mate.

FDR's first cabinet had no sitting Governors, and only 3 Senators. Senator Cordell Hull as Secretary of State had been elected to the Senate in only 1930, and was quite junior. Montana Senator Thomas Walsh was 73 when he accepted the post of Attorney-General, and in fact never served as he died on the train to Washington. Even so, Time quipped thus about his level of enthusiasm:

Attorney General. Thomas James Walsh, 73, Senator from Montana, was more excited last week about taking a wife in Havana than about his seat in the Cabinet.

The final Senator to agree to sit in FDR's first cabinet was Claude Swanson. Time (ibid) notes:

Secretary of the Navy. Claude Augustus Swanson, 70, got into the Cabinet only when his Senate colleague from Virginia turned down the Treasury. Behind his appointment lay the following political situation: Senator Swanson is up for reelection next year; Harry Flood Byrd was getting ready to beat him for renomination; by sidestepping into the Cabinet. Senator Swanson makes way for Harry Byrd to enter the Senate immediately by appointment, neatly saves his own old face.

Of three Senators agreeing to serve, one is quite junior (and got Secretary of State, which used to be even more powerful), another quite elderly, and the third facing certain defeat. On the other hand, Senators turned down powerful posts at Treasury and Interior, and a Governor turned down the Vice-Presidency. It is a stark contrast to all the Governors and Senators who were interested in being Obama's running mate, and their apparent willingness to serve in his cabinet. Evidently in 1932, being a Governor or Senator in the Majority was a more appealing prospect than serving in the Cabinet of a landslide winning Democratic President.

Reagan: Republican Revolutionaries' Grand Triumph

Jumping ahead to 1980. Although the Republicans had not been out of power for very long at the Presidential level, Reagan's win was a big deal for them, particularly the movement conservatives. Nixon had won big in 1972, but being chased from office two years later really spoiled the savour of that victory, and had never managed to win either chamber of Congress. Reagan at least had taken the Senate, giving the Republicans their strongest governing opportunity since 1954, when Eisenhower lost control of Congress (and no need to rehash what conservatives thought of Eisenhower either).

Yet, looking at Reagan's first cabinet he doesn't have even one sitting Governor or Senator. I can't find any evidence of any of them turning him down, but it seems Reagan's cabinet decisions were conducted in a secretive manner. The closest we get is retiring Senator Richard Schweiker taking the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services.

I wondered if this was because the kinds of movement Conservatives Reagan would have wanted in government were not Senators and Governors, who would be more of the Rockefeller Republican mold in 1980, but Time notes:

The Republican New Right is not happy with Reagan's Cabinet carpentry. Except for Stockman, the ultraconservatives have been completely shut out so far. Collectively, Reagan's choices announce louder than anything he has said that he intends to run a pragmatic Administration, one not bound by ideology, and the right wing is vocally dismayed. Said Richard Viguerie, a leading hardliner, accurately enough: "It's the kind of Cabinet Jerry Ford or George Bush would have assembled. I'm sick to my stomach. Reagan gave all the winks and signals that he was going to be a true conservative, and he turns his back on us."

Reagan was largely considered a lightweight, and the kind of person whose Cabinet could have used the seasoning of a few sitting Republican officials, so it is surprising that he chose none. Did some turn him down, or did he just not even ask them since he figured they would rather remain where they were?

Just to be sure, I checked on Jimmy Carter, and his cabinet too, had almost no sitting officials from the two top shelves, just one sitting Governor (from a small state), and no Senators were in Carter's initial Cabinet (there were a couple House members, but being 1 of 435, it's not surprising a Cabinet post is more appealing). In fact the mayors of LA and Detroit turned down posts in the Carter Administration.

Clearly things have changed, and the Presidency is now the best game in town, or out of it. In part II, we will examine some of why this has happened.

Hilda Solis: Get Excited

The Media Consortium — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:07:20 GMT

by Zach Carter, Media Consortium MediaWire blogger

UPDATE: Friday afternoon, President-Elect Barack Obama confirmed the nomination of Rep. Hilda (D-Calif) for Secretary of Labor.

President-elect Barack Obama named Rep. Hilda Solis, D-Calif., as the next administration's Secretary of Labor this morning. To put it simply, progressives are ecstatic about the pick.

"If you were to sketch an ideal Labor Secretary, you could hardly do much better," Jonathan Stein writes for Mother Jones.

"Solis should make progressives feel pretty good," according to Steve Benen of The Washington Monthly, who calls her nomination, "a big win for unions."

Why all the excitement? As Harold Meyerson details in a great profile for The American Prospect, Solis led the successful push to raise California's minimum wage in 1996, diverting funds from her own State Senate political account to fund a signature-gathering campaign that culminated in the measure's passage over strong resistance from Republican Gov. Pete Wilson.

Solis doesn't just have passion and patience, she's got guts. When she ran for the House of Representatives in 2000, she took on a 9-term Democrat with a terrible record and absolutely trounced him in the primary, going on to win back California's 32nd District for the left.

"In the House, Solis has continued to champion labor causes, immigrants' rights, women's health and environmental protections," Meyerson writes.

She has a 100% rating from the AFL-CIO, and as Meyerson's fellow Prospect-er Ezra Klein notes, she has successfully defused tensions between immigrant laborers and older union workers who viewed immigrants as a threat.

And then there's her personal story. As the daughter of union worker immigrants from Nicaragua and Mexico, Solis embodies America's most-prized and rarely realized ideal: the promise of opportunity for all citizens that rewards hard work.

The Labor Secretary position can be either enormously powerful or completely irrelevant, as demonstrated by the contrast between the tenures of President Bill Clinton's first Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, and that of current Secretary Elaine Chao. In just four years, Reich secured the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Pension Protection Act and the School-to-Work Jobs Act, raised the minimum wage and still had time to call out deregulation ideologue, budget hawk and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin on his reckless lunacy. Chao's only accomplishment after eight years is a 2003 rule that denied overtime pay to 6 million workers. Progressives can trust Solis to ensure that the Department of Labor will finally be going to bat for laborers again.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy. Visit Economy.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on immigration, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical health and immigration issues, check out Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.

Weekly Pulse: Pro-Choice Cabinet Picks Boon for Health At Home and Abroad

The Media Consortium — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:22:36 GMT

By Lindsay Beyerstein, MediaWire blogger

It's finally official: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be Barack Obama's Secretary of State.

Some observers thought Clinton was a curious pick because she made a point of differentiating her foreign policy views from Obama's during the Democratic primary.

However, optimism is running high in the reproductive health community that Clinton will use her new office to champion women's health issues worldwide. They expect that Clinton will push for changes in foreign aid criteria to make it easier to provide comprehensive sex ed and reproductive health services to the world's neediest girls and women.

Back in the U.S., Clinton and Sen. Patty Murray introduced legislation to block the finalization of the rules changes at Health and Human Services that would have given employees the right to refuse to administer any birth control or abortion-related services that offended their religious beliefs. These changes would have restricted access to reproductive health services nationwide.

Emily Gould of RH Reality notes the deadline for submitting rules changes is 60 days before the inauguration, but the HHS has classified these "conscience clause" changes as "non-major," thereby giving themselves a 30-day extension. It's a sneaky procedural move, but the stalling won't circumvent the Clinton/Murray bill.

Additional presidential appointments are starting to give shape to President-elect Obama's health care agenda. Melody Barnes has been named Obama's Senior Domestic Policy Adviser. Barnes is one of the few cabinet appointees so far who can be regarded as an unequivocally progressive choice. Barnes is a former executive policy director for the Center for American Progress and well-known in the progressive community.

"By appointing policy leaders like Barnes who see the connections between health and the economy, Obama appears to have pulled together an economic team that reflects many of the goals he set out during his campaign," wrote Todd Heywood in RH Reality Check.

Ezra Klein of the American Prospect compares satisfaction ratings across several countries, and between Americans on Medicare vs. private insurance: "Medicare has much higher satisfaction ratings than private insurance. Americans are much less satisfied with their health system than they are in other countries."

Healthcare reform is gathering momentum in Congress and the White House. The health insurance industry can't help but take notice and offer a few preemptive reassurances, in the hopes of forestalling more fundamental change.

As part of his ongoing coverage of the health insurance industry: Ezra Klein of the American Prospectphones Robert Zirkelbach, America's Health Insurance Plans' director of strategic communications to discuss the trade organization's recent pledge "[...] too guarantee that health plans provide coverage for preexisting conditions in conjunction with mandate that individuals keep and maintain healthcare coverage." Zirkelbach admits that the insurance companies have not pledged to make this coverage affordable. He also says that the Association resists competition from public plans as a strategy to drive down costs.

Here's a fun fact courtesy of Mother Jones to bring up around the Thanksgiving dinner table: Scientists have shown that obesity in mice is linked to the diets of their grandmothers. If pregnant mice were fed a high-fat diet, their offspring were more likely to be obese and insulin insensitive. The surprising result was that the next generation were predisposed to the same problems.

To close this Thanksgiving edition, we offer you a list of 10 things science says will make you happy, courtesy of YES! Magazine. Unaccountably, tryptophan didn't make the list, but gratitude did.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care. Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. And for the best progressive reporting on the ECONOMY, and IMMIGRATION, check out, Immigration.NewsLadder.net and Economy.NewsLadder.net.

This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.

What will Monday mean?

btchakir — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:04:28 GMT

After revealing that Obama and Hillary Clinton have met to discuss the Secretary of State position, the change team let out this release today:

"On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain will meet in Chicago at transition headquarters. It's well known that they share an important belief that Americans want and deserve a more effective and efficient government, and will discuss ways to work together to make that a reality. They will be joined in the meeting by Senator Lindsey Graham and Congressman Rahm Emanuel."

Is there a cabinet position in play here? Is there some other kind of involvement that Obama will offer McCain in the Administration?
The fact that Lindsay Graham will be in on the meeting (offset, of course, by Rahm Emanuel) leads me to think that a "proof of offer" situation is in place. Certainly, nothing relating to the Iraq or Iran situations is n the offing... McCain's position on a warring America just does not tally with Obama's position.

The economy, however, has a more complementary aspect to it. I hope energy is not what they are talking about... McCain is too oil oriented - remember "drill, baby, drill."

It remains to be seen where Obama is going with this. His expressed reverence for "Team of Rivals", Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on Lincoln and his cabinet appointees, many of whom felt they deserved the Presidency more than Lincoln, but made his administration successful, has been widely discussed in the press.

In fact, McCain seems, at least in potential relationship to the President if not in this particular area of expertise, to be a lot like Licoln's Treasury Secretary, Salmon P. Chase:

Chase never ceased to underestimate Lincoln, nor to resent the fact that he had lost the presidency to a man he considered his inferior. His frustration with his position as secretary of the treasury was alleviated only by his his dogged hope that he, rather than Lincoln, would be the Republican nominee in 1864, and he steadfastly worked to that end. The president put up with Chase's machinations and haughty yet fundamentally insecure nature because he recognized his superlative accomplishments at treasury.

I don't think McCain is planning to run again, but it was clear during the campaign that he considered Obama his inferior and my guess is that there is a good deal of resent here.

Monday will be something to watch with real interest. My guess? McCain will probably feel he can accomplish more as a Senator than as an underling of Obama.
Under The LobsterScope

Alternative Perspective on Summers and Women

supag32 — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:11:49 GMT

I tend to agree with Sheryl Sandberg's post on huffpo link , the controversy over Summers remarks is a bit overblown.
I was at Harvard during this period, and followed the issue quite closely. He was sort of speaking economist-eae, and and used improper phrasing when discussing the various factors contributing to low Female representation in the sciences. We should not treat what he said as a broad indication of his overall respect for women and their abilities. It strikes me as reflexive identity politics to oppose him on these grounds when there are many other substantive reasons to think he would be the wrong pick (including his previous support for deregulation and derivatives, his comments on pollution, etc.). But the biggest concern for me, is his interpersonal style and management style. To put it mildly, he is not a coalition builder. He runs a hardcore, tight shop, and brooks no opposition. He will steamroll any opponent and surround himself with loyalists who will always support his views. This is what he did at Harvard that so alienated the faculty, that ultimately let to his ouster. He is also notoriously awkward to interact with. The idea that someone who is not open to other ideas, and who will bully others into compliance should be at the very center of Obama's economic policy machine disturbs me. Summers would exert too great an influence within Obama's inner circle. I'm all for finding the smartest person out there to do the job - and I'm sure that's why Obama likes Summers (he was, after all, a prodigy who was one of the youngest people ever to get Tenure). But no one person has all the answers. He needs a team of smart people, from different disciplinary backgrounds, who can work together to find solutions. I don't think that Summers fits that mold.

Obama's ideal cabinet

Chammy Nooks — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:28:44 GMT

I find it very useful to think in terms of the "ideal". Since politics is typically a domain of horrendous compromise, it serves us well to imagine politics without compromise.

Barack Obama's election has given many people renewed hope in the future of this country and the world. I share some of that optimism, but am also gravely familiar with everything that could go wrong. We are already hearing various names that may be under consideration for Obama's cabinet. These names include Republicans such as Chuck Hagel, Dick Lugar, Robert Gates and Colin Powell. They also include members of Clinton's cabinet such as Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. This latter pair are directly responsible for much of the deregulation that occurred in the Clinton administration and which paved the way for the current financial crisis.

I hope these names are unfounded in reality, otherwise somebody ought to take Obama to one side and explain to him what "change" means. It certainly does not mean retaining elements of the Bush administration and the most culpable members of Clinton's cabinet.
So what does "change" mean? I have put together a cabinet that would, I think, engender the greatest positive change for the country. You'll note that there are no Republicans in this cabinet, and you might say therefore that this is unrealistic, as we know Obama will have Republicans in his cabinet. I'm not interested in trying to guess Obama's cabinet - this is not a parlor game. The netroots should properly engage with who should be in the cabinet and immediately start applying pressure to that end.

Secretary of State - Gary Hart

Secretary of the Treasury - Nouriel Roubini

Secretary of Defense - Ron Dellums

Attorney General - David Cole

Secretary of the Interior - Winona LaDuke

Secretary of Agriculture - Jim Hightower

Secretary of Commerce - John Cavanagh

Secretary of Labor - Holly Sklar

Secretary of Health and Human Services - Steffie Woolhandler

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Rocky Anderson

Secretary of Transportation - Earl Blumenauer

Secretary of Energy - Amory Lovins

Secretary of Education - Jonathan Kozol

Secretary of Veterans Affairs - Tammy Duckworth

After The MySpace Election, The MySpace Cabinet Selection Process.

jamesboyce — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:40:12 GMT

Think about this a second.

In 1992, President-Elect Bill Clinton, our party's last President-Elect, set about the process of picking a cabinet and, to be honest, he made some great choices. However, it's hard to imagine, but in 1992, no one was blogging about their favorites, no one was watching the prediction markets, no one was emailing their friends, hell, cell phones were new and faxes came out of the machines on long rolls.
The campaign we just survived was indeed the first national election in the internet age, there is no argument about that, but just as the netroots had injected itself squarely in the middle of the political conversation in this country, so now too, will the most DC of processes be broken wide open.

We saw a hint of this with the VP selection process where, when it appeared the choice was coming down to Biden and Bayh, there was an outpouring of negative sentiment towards Bayh, enough so that when that notion made it to the mainstream press, it had to have an effect.

Now, with key positions from Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and many many more all up for grabs, the opinions will come fast and furious from all sides.

Like many things online, the task of keeping track of all that information can be a little bit difficult so today, we are launching the Cabinet NewsLadder. On this special-edition NewsLadder, you will find all of the stories, articles, posts and rumors (and, of course, we'd appreciate your linking up any we have missed.)

You can also comment on stories and candidates, vote articles and the candidates they espouse up and down and, in general, make your voice known. There is a special Twitter feed from the Cabinet NewsLadder and a daily email will go out.

If you wish to see the latest on John Kerry's chances, just click on his name in the tag cloud.

If you want to see all of the people being considered for Secretary of Defense, click on the job, any job, in the tag cloud.

16 years ago, Bill Clinton picked his cabinet in relative quiet. Right or wrong, I don't think President-Elect Obama is going to have to worry about receiving a shortage of opinions.

The netroots was heard loud and clear this past cycle, I have a feeling we're going to be hearing a lot more from them in the coming days.

Two Open Senate Seats in Massachusetts?

Matt Stoller — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:04:53 GMT

Steve Clemons puts out rumors about John Kerry being appointed Secretary of State.

The rumor is that McClatchy News is trying to report a story that should Barack Obama win the election, most of the key members of his Cabinet will be announced on Friday, November 7th.
And the two most likely candidates for the job of Secretary of State, according to the rumblings are. . . . .Senator John Kerry and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

With Ted Kennedy sadly unable to perform his duties as Senator, Governor Deval Patrick might have the opportunity to appoint two Senators. Most of the Congressmen in Massachusetts have been waiting years (or decades) to get a shot at filling one of these seats. Usually Governor's hate choices like these, because you make one friend over whom you instantly lose leverage and gain a whole lot of enemies. I suppose in this case, Patrick will at least get to make two friends... Update: Looks like MA does special elections for Senators. Weird.

This is also interesting because, if true, it means that there will be three Senate seats emptying into the administration so far - Obama, Biden, and Kerry. And there are rumors Jack Reed might be headed to the Department of Defense, which brings the possible total to four. Add in Ted Kennedy and in all likelihood Robert Byrd who is too old to perform his duties on Appropriations, and that's up to six Senators who will have to be replaced in non-electoral circumstances. If you consider the class of 2006 and 2008, with around 20 new Democratic Senators, and you're talking about almost half the caucus elected since 2006 in progressive wave elections or their wake.

Additionally, the Senate will dramatically turn over, with the most senior Senators leaving the body in the next few years. Right now, the most senior Senator is Byrd, number two is Kennedy, number four is Stevens, number five is Domenici, and number six is Biden. That's a lot of institutional history leaving the institution, and a shift in leadership to Senators elected in the 1980s and 1990s.