Opinion of the Obama Cabinet so far...

[Beet]

Even for a cynic like me, this Cabinet is shockingly bad.

Well you were too much of a cynic to believe Obama could win, opebo, and in some sense so was I. So I guess angus has us both beat on that count.

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience. The whole Obama boom could still be the political equivalent of subprime, because we don't know how competent he is at governing; of course, we don't know how competent anyone would be except for those that have already held the job. But I would be more confident with Clinton at the helm. I'm convinced she would have already named her Treasury Secretary by now and would be coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

[angus]

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience.

As do most of us who voted for him, I suspect.  (Democrats excepted.  And they probably would too if they had enough sense.)

we don't know how competent he is at governing

coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

Those two statements made in the same breath amount to an astonishing paradox!

We often hear about how we should only bail out GM if they agree to some structural changes.  Bollocks.  You come to me for a loan, and either I trust you or I don't.  If I trust you, I lend you money.  Sure, it's a risk, but I'll play the odds.  If I don't, I politely refuse.  But what I never should do is say, "well, here's the money, but only on the grounds that you go out and learn to do things you never have before." 

Past performance is the best indicator of future performance.  Harsh?  Yes.  True?  Alas.  If Obama comes out for a strong bailout of GM, I hope it is one with no strings attached.  If Obama decides it can't be done without government micromanagement, then I hope he simply steps out of the way and focuses on enforcing, rather than making, the law.  After all, he will surrender his seat in the national legislature in only two months.  But we will all have to live with the consequences of our legislature's decisions for a long time.

[Beet]

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience.

As do most of us who voted for him, I suspect.  (Democrats excepted.  And they probably would too if they had enough sense.)

we don't know how competent he is at governing

coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

Those two statements made in the same breath amount to an astonishing paradox!

We often hear about how we should only bail out GM if they agree to some structural changes.  Bollocks.  You come to me for a loan, and either I trust you or I don't.  If I trust you, I lend you money.  Sure, it's a risk, but I'll play the odds.  If I don't, I politely refuse.  But what I never should do is say, "well, here's the money, but only on the grounds that you go out and learn to do things you never have before."

Why not? "I trust you" is clearly out the question. The automakers' business model is a money-losing proposition. They simply should not continue to operate as they are.

The alternative-- bankruptcy, would be as pointed out by economists, far different from a traditional bankruptcy. Because of the way the companies' supply chains are linked, a GM failure would also kill Ford and Chrysler. Furthermore, it would be forced to cease operation. It cannot simply restructure and reopen under new management like a K-Mart or an airline. Thirdly, the total regional impact in terms of jobs would be far larger than a retailer or airline-- we are talking millions. And fourthly, the impact on confidence on financial markets at this very delicate juncture would be extremely negative.

Given these facts, and the responsibility born by those at the top, I have a hard time believing they would say no; particularly if there can be a restructuring without bankruptcy that cuts the companies' costs enough to survive. However, it is true that bad brands should be dropped.

But the general point that we may disagree on the meaning of 'competence' is well taken. I guess we'll find out.

[Flying Dog]

Generally approve.

[paul718]

The Obama Administration obviously values competency and showcases one of the basic reasons why I like the Democratic Party.  Republicans will tell you government doesn't work, get elected, place incompetent boobs and horse judges into important positions of power, fill the choose people to administrate a territory during an ongoing war based on their position on Roe, slash funding for vital programs, and create bureaucratic nightmares like the Department of Homeland Security, point to their results, and say, "See?  We told you government doesn't work."  Democrats roll up their sleeves, hire tough, smart, experienced people, and make government work. 

Substitute "Republicans" with "George W. Bush".

[angus]

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience.

As do most of us who voted for him, I suspect.  (Democrats excepted.  And they probably would too if they had enough sense.)

we don't know how competent he is at governing

coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

Those two statements made in the same breath amount to an astonishing paradox!

We often hear about how we should only bail out GM if they agree to some structural changes.  Bollocks.  You come to me for a loan, and either I trust you or I don't.  If I trust you, I lend you money.  Sure, it's a risk, but I'll play the odds.  If I don't, I politely refuse.  But what I never should do is say, "well, here's the money, but only on the grounds that you go out and learn to do things you never have before."

Why not? "I trust you" is clearly out the question. The automakers' business model is a money-losing proposition. They simply should not continue to operate as they are.

The alternative-- bankruptcy, would be as pointed out by economists, far different from a traditional bankruptcy. Because of the way the companies' supply chains are linked, a GM failure would also kill Ford and Chrysler. Furthermore, it would be forced to cease operation. It cannot simply restructure and reopen under new management like a K-Mart or an airline. Thirdly, the total regional impact in terms of jobs would be far larger than a retailer or airline-- we are talking millions. And fourthly, the impact on confidence on financial markets at this very delicate juncture would be extremely negative.

Given these facts, and the responsibility born by those at the top, I have a hard time believing they would say no; particularly if there can be a restructuring without bankruptcy that cuts the companies' costs enough to survive. However, it is true that bad brands should be dropped.

But the general point that we may disagree on the meaning of 'competence' is well taken. I guess we'll find out.

First, the three million jobs is something of an exaggeration.  About 900 thousand is a more realistic figure.  Those other two million can, and will, quickly retool in order to supply other, more efficient industries. 

Secondly, Obama is expected (by me and others) to make good on the New new deal.  The roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure that we so desperately need, will require millions of workers.  If undertaken with alacrity, those workers displaced in the current economy (not just auto workers, but all out-of-luck skilled and unskilled workers) will have good, government jobs in time. 

Thirdly, a disappearance of the major auto industries will add additional motivation for the restructuring of the so-called "health care crisis" which is costing upwards of 16% of our nation's aggregate GDP by now.

Fourthly, if the Big Three go, so does the UAW.  Enough said about that.

Fifthly, US cars haven't been competitive with foreign brands for a long time.  And for good reason.  In 2004, GM had 27 recalls.  In that same year Toyota had three.  Look, I know the Republican in you (and in me!) wants to see the brand that invented the car stay in business. Henry Ford's an American icon, by the way.  Not unlike Mom, hot dogs, and apple pie.  But guess what?  Apple pie gives me heartburn, hot dogs raise my cholesterol, and Mom never really approved of most of what I did anyway.  Sometimes you just gotta move on.  Don't put ideology ahead of practicality.  I said before that this was an essential part of the Obamania appeal.  And whatever US car company rises from the ashes will be competitive.  It will have to be.  Social Darwinism.  Wouldn't you want an American luxury car that really can compete with Lexus and Mercedes?  Wouldn't you want an American econocar that can compete with Honda and Toyota?  I would. 

Yes, my stocks tanked today.  I accept that, but I also understand that we can't keep "throwing good money after bad."  That's the operative cliché, I believe.

I think it's time to let some of these employers learn to sink or swim on their own.  Those who survive, survive to see a stronger, and maybe a bit more nationalized, economomy started from scratch.  At least that's how I see it.

[MK]

Frankly, I do have concerns about Obama's lack of experience.

As do most of us who voted for him, I suspect.  (Democrats excepted.  And they probably would too if they had enough sense.)

we don't know how competent he is at governing

coming out strong for the Detroit bailout.

Those two statements made in the same breath amount to an astonishing paradox!

We often hear about how we should only bail out GM if they agree to some structural changes.  Bollocks.  You come to me for a loan, and either I trust you or I don't.  If I trust you, I lend you money.  Sure, it's a risk, but I'll play the odds.  If I don't, I politely refuse.  But what I never should do is say, "well, here's the money, but only on the grounds that you go out and learn to do things you never have before."

Why not? "I trust you" is clearly out the question. The automakers' business model is a money-losing proposition. They simply should not continue to operate as they are.

The alternative-- bankruptcy, would be as pointed out by economists, far different from a traditional bankruptcy. Because of the way the companies' supply chains are linked, a GM failure would also kill Ford and Chrysler. Furthermore, it would be forced to cease operation. It cannot simply restructure and reopen under new management like a K-Mart or an airline. Thirdly, the total regional impact in terms of jobs would be far larger than a retailer or airline-- we are talking millions. And fourthly, the impact on confidence on financial markets at this very delicate juncture would be extremely negative.

Given these facts, and the responsibility born by those at the top, I have a hard time believing they would say no; particularly if there can be a restructuring without bankruptcy that cuts the companies' costs enough to survive. However, it is true that bad brands should be dropped.

But the general point that we may disagree on the meaning of 'competence' is well taken. I guess we'll find out.

First, the three million jobs is something of an exaggeration.  About 900 thousand is a more realistic figure.  Those other two million can, and will, quickly retool in order to supply other, more efficient industries. 

Secondly, Obama is expected (by me and others) to make good on the New new deal.  The roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure that we so desperately need, will require millions of workers.  If undertaken with alacrity, those workers displaced in the current economy (not just auto workers, but all out-of-luck skilled and unskilled workers) will have good, government jobs in time. 

Thirdly, a disappearance of the major auto industries will add additional motivation for the restructuring of the so-called "health care crisis" which is costing upwards of 16% of our nation's aggregate GDP by now.

Fourthly, if the Big Three go, so does the UAW.  Enough said about that.

Fifthly, US cars haven't been competitive with foreign brands for a long time.  And for good reason.  In 2004, GM had 27 recalls.  In that same year Toyota had three.  Look, I know the Republican in you (and in me!) wants to see the brand that invented the car stay in business. Henry Ford's an American icon, by the way.  Not unlike Mom, hot dogs, and apple pie.  But guess what?  Apple pie gives me heartburn, hot dogs raise my cholesterol, and Mom never really approved of most of what I did anyway.  Sometimes you just gotta move on.  Don't put ideology ahead of practicality.  I said before that this was an essential part of the Obamania appeal.  And whatever US car company rises from the ashes will be competitive.  It will have to be.  Social Darwinism.  Wouldn't you want an American luxury car that really can compete with Lexus and Mercedes?  Wouldn't you want an American econocar that can compete with Honda and Toyota?  I would. 

Yes, my stocks tanked today.  I accept that, but I also understand that we can't keep "throwing good money after bad."  That's the operative cliché, I believe.

I think it's time to let some of these employers learn to sink or swim on their own.  Those who survive, survive to see a stronger, and maybe a bit more nationalized, economomy started from scratch.  At least that's how I see it.

Heartless and cold.

You are willing to let people lose their jobs which they will never get back - all in order to please some long held political views.

Sadly, the republicans don't care about the folks because they would love nothing more then things to tank.  This way President Obama and the democrats can be to blame much like the left did McCain/Bush.
Its political ping pong and iam not falling for it.

[pragmatic liberal]

I'd rather have John Kerry than Hillary Clinton at SoS, but I'm probably the only one

Nah, I think so too. Kerry's a pretty loyal lieutenant to Obama and is also close with Biden and most of Obama's advisers (i.e. Susan Rice was a Kerry adviser prior to joining Obama's campaign). Plus his main portfolio in the Senate has been foreign affairs, unlike Hillary's, which have been domestic legislation and defense.

Hillary would make much more sense at the Pentagon, if you ask me.

OTOH, I've never been a big fan of Bill Richardson. He's lovable, but kind of oafish. And although he has done a lot of free-lance diplomacy, he doesn't actually have much expertise in any area of foreign policy (i.e. he routinely makes major gaffes on foreign issues). A chief diplomat needs to have a firm knowledge base in addition to negotiating chops.

Otherwise, Lugar or Hagel would be good picks. So would Gen. Jim Jones.

[Lunar]

Hillary would be a politically brilliant pick for Department of Defense but probably not be the  militarily brilliant pick -- and that could cause some backlash.  Keeping Gates on was a better move.  Besides, I think SoD is beneath Hillary -- only the #1 cabinet position is even worthy of consideration.

It's got to be either Richardson or Hillary for SoS -- Kerry adds nothing besides an ally.  Richardson and Hillary both add political capital for 2012 (for Hillary supporters and Latinos respectively).  Kerry, if he is willing to settle for Secretary of the Interior, which will probably be more powerful during this administration than ever before, can have the slot.  I don't know how bored Kerry is getting of the senate though.

[Lief 🗽]

When's the last time someone from Massachusetts got Sec of Interior? Or even someone from the east of the Mississippi? That'd be pretty weird. Also, Obama doesn't really need any political capital with Hispanics or Clinton supporters; large super-majorities of both supported him.

[paul718]

I'm not really comfortable with Holder, but keeping Gates on at DoD and not having Joe Biden head the State Department will make up for just about anything.  I guess I'm satisfied. 

[pragmatic liberal]

Hillary would be a politically brilliant pick for Department of Defense but probably not be the  militarily brilliant pick -- and that could cause some backlash.  Keeping Gates on was a better move.  Besides, I think SoD is beneath Hillary -- only the #1 cabinet position is even worthy of consideration.

It's got to be either Richardson or Hillary for SoS -- Kerry adds nothing besides an ally.  Richardson and Hillary both add political capital for 2012 (for Hillary supporters and Latinos respectively).  Kerry, if he is willing to settle for Secretary of the Interior, which will probably be more powerful during this administration than ever before, can have the slot.  I don't know how bored Kerry is getting of the senate though.

Gates is likely staying on just for another year, so Hillary could easily be appointed at that time (she'd even have time to work on health care legislation in the interim).

Also, despite Marc Ambinder floating the Kerry-at-Interior rumor, I really doubt it (even Ambinder took it back today). Kerry's a very high-profile senator who was almost president. I don't see him giving up his Senate seat for a low-ranking cabinet post like that.

Especially when his consolation prize in lieu of SoS is chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He's going to play a pretty key role in foreign policy debates regardless, and his name will likely remain as a possible Secretary of State either in an Obama second term or in the next Democratic administration, should a Democrat win in 2016.

[Meeker]

Kerry is becoming Chairman of Senate Foreign Relations, so I highly doubt he'll be leaving anytime soon.

[pragmatic liberal]

Hillary would be a politically brilliant pick for Department of Defense but probably not be the  militarily brilliant pick -- and that could cause some backlash.  Keeping Gates on was a better move.  Besides, I think SoD is beneath Hillary -- only the #1 cabinet position is even worthy of consideration.

It's got to be either Richardson or Hillary for SoS -- Kerry adds nothing besides an ally.  Richardson and Hillary both add political capital for 2012 (for Hillary supporters and Latinos respectively).  Kerry, if he is willing to settle for Secretary of the Interior, which will probably be more powerful during this administration than ever before, can have the slot.  I don't know how bored Kerry is getting of the senate though.

Also, I doubt there'd be a backlash in the military to Hillary. She has excellent relations with the top brass (in fact, she had excellent relations with Gen. Petraeus prior to his appointment as chief commander in Iraq) -- far better than her husband did. And she has gotten rave reviews from all sides for her performance in the Armed Services Committee.

[perdedor]

I actually really liked the Rahm Emmanuel pick. Since then, it's been pretty safe and uninteresting. I'll feel better if he chooses to fill environmental positions with actual environmentalists rather than business minded corporatists. Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic about that possibility either.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So far the pattern is as I'd been expecting.

[Sam Spade]

So far the pattern is as I'd been expecting.

^

[Mint]

So far the pattern is as I'd been expecting.

[angus]

Heartless and cold.

You are willing to let people lose their jobs which they will never get back - all in order to please some long held political views.

Sadly, the republicans don't care about the folks because they would love nothing more then things to tank.  This way President Obama and the democrats can be to blame much like the left did McCain/Bush.
Its political ping pong and iam not falling for it.

Heartless, one hopes, but not cold.  It was 8 degrees Fahrenheit when I left for work today, and I wouldn't wish that on anyone else.  Government policy should be heartless, since it is not the job of government to legislate values.  At least it has been my long-held view that the government should not legislate values.  When we start down that slippery slope, we get into mandatory-sentencing laws and three-strikes laws which ultimately overcrowd our prisons with nonviolent offenders, and we get into political correctness and the oppression of free speech, hate crimes legislation, FCC fines for showing T&A on television, and a million other horrible consequences.  Admittedly, we are already legislating values, but I don't think it's a good idea, and I wouldn't try to encourage it.

I do understand that among the government's specific charges is the promotion of the general welfare.  I can see that you do as well.  Where I think we disagree is how one might go about doing this.  Just as I, and a few others, were against the 700 billion dollar banking bailout because it will only serve to deepen our federal budget deficits and make our society even more reliant on living beyond our means than we already are, I think this is a bad scheme as well.  Ultimately, all our citizens will bear the burden of propping up failing business models.

You can label me what you will, if it makes you feel better, and we can devolve into name-calling if you think it adds substance to this debate, but I will not pretend to support a bad idea in order to win your approval.  Nor will I admit to having no sympathy for the under-insured, the unemployed, and the hungry.  In fact, I have seen no evidence to suggest that I have any less sympathy for them than you do.  As I have stated many times, I am not against public welfare programs, unemployment benefits funded by the general revenue, and nationalization of certain natural monopolies, such as mass transit.  I am not a libertarian.  Moreover, I have suggested that if we commit to the priorities that Obama championed in his speeches--mass transit, ecologically-sound energy policy, and a re-evaluation of tax codes which encourage American companies to operate in distant lands--then we will create the very jobs that you claim will be lost under my ideal vision, and the vision of Obama's campaign.

And do not, directly or indirectly, accuse me of being so stubborn or maniacal as to vote for a man for President, and then hope for his failure just so I can blame his party.  That is a position that you cannot possibly intelligently defend.  Moreover, Democrats and Republicans are guilty of much corruption and largess, and I am capable of blaming democrats and republicans for their failures without resorting to such bizarre conspiracies.  I voted for Obama in good faith, and I have supported his candidacy for approximately two years now, and I do not wish for his failure any more than I would ever have wished for Bush's failure. 
 

[opebo]

First, the three million jobs is something of an exaggeration.  About 900 thousand is a more realistic figure.  Those other two million can, and will, quickly retool in order to supply other, more efficient industries.

Utter nonsense.  You have no idea how delicate and brittle is the feeble remainder of american industry.

Virtually all auto industry suppliers would go under with the big three.  Why on earth would anyone retool something when it can be done by slave labour elsewhere?  Three million is a tremendous underestimate. 

...Government policy should be heartless, since it is not the job of government to legislate values. 

More nonsense.  Socialism has nothing to do with 'values' any more than does capitalism.  Both are about power.  Government policy will always reflect what those with power want it to reflect - i.e. their interests.  Anyway everyone's 'value' is gimme and screw you.

[The Duke]

I don't understand Clinton for State.  Her main experience managing something was to run health reform into the ground (Hopefully, she'll appoint a strong Deputy SoS who will run the department while she tours the world).  She has no real foreign policy experience, either.  I'd say this must be a political pick (because it sure wasn't for policy) except I have no clue what the political angle is either.  Its like he read a book by Doris Kearns Godwin and decided that recreated Lincoln's cabinet would be really cool.  Except for the fact that Godwin's book was awful and Lincoln's cabinet was actually notoriously dysfunctional.  I don't think this appointment is going to work out.

Timothy Geithner at Treasury is a "safe" pick, and it is much more reassuring than if he had picked Summers.  Geithner's role in the collapse of Lehman is disturbing, but a lot of smart peopel thought we could survive the failure of Lehman Bros.  Geithner isn't the only one who got that wrong.

Eric Holder at Justice is just a bad pick.  This guy brings back memories of Elian Gonzalez and Mark Rich.  Why bring that stuff up?  Its not like Holder is an exceptionally talented guy, he's just your run of the mill, conniving insider.

Robert Gates at Defense (if the rumors are true) is a slap in the face to everyone who voted for Obama as a vote to end the war.  Needless to say, if he's the pick I will be engaging in a good deal of schadenfreude.

Bill Richardson for Commerce doesn't make sense.  Then agan, neither does having a Commerce Deparmtent in the first place.

If Obama picks Herseth for Agriculture, I should send him a note thanking him for the free House seat.

I understand why Obama wants Napolitano to head DHS.  What I don't understand is why she would take the job.  This is an impossible job when (not if) something goes wrong, you get blamed for it.  Someone tell me where the upside is for Napolitano?

[MK]

LOL.

Obama has 3 of the other contenders during the primary in the admin now.

I like it so far though.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama has 3 of the other contenders during the primary in the admin now.

Mike Gravel for Secretary of Veterans Affairs!

Kucinich for Secretary of Peace!

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It's not horrible. They seem competent enough, but honestly, "change?" He's basically trying to recreate the Clinton Administration. Everyone he's brought in almost are Clintonites.

[Flying Dog]

I have a build-in hatred of Hillary but I think she's suited for that role, so meh. A couple WTF's include Richardson for Commerce and Napalitano, though.

Basically:

Good picks:
Daschle, Rahm, Geithner,

Meh picks:
Holder, Hillary