Obama's Big Three
The transition puts some impressive names in the top three cabinet jobs, though Clinton is not the best match at State. Other appointments suggest too much of a Clinton restoration.
President-elect Barack Obama appears close to announcing his choices for Secretary of State, Treasury, and Defense — the Big Three of the Cabinet — as well as his national security advisor early next week.
The Treasury appointment, in particular, will be vital. The designee will begin working promptly with Democratic congressional leaders in shaping an auto-industry rescue and will work with Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to assure coordination between the outgoing and incoming administrations during the present financial/economic crisis. It was thought a Treasury designee would be Obama's first; the delay in naming him had become worrisome. But now New York Federal Reserve President Tim Geithner is expected to be named for the Treasury appointment.
Past presidents have stumbled over some of their choices. President Kennedy made first-rate domestic cabinet appointments but erred in naming Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. They, along with national security advisors McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow, mired both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations in an unnecessary Vietnam War. President Carter guaranteed foreign-policy confusion by appointing Cyrus Vance as secretary of state and Zbigniew Brzezinski as national security advisor without knowing they differed in their world views and approaches to policy. Outgoing President George W. Bush launched an intervention in Iraq largely on the advice of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, and Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. His national security advisor at the time, present Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, was a weak bureacrat.
On the positive side, JFK's principal economic advisor, Walter Heller, adocated economic policies that kept Kennedy's promise to "get America moving" and President Clinton's eventual Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin, steered him through two international financial crises and reduced the federal budget deficit to zero.
These key appointments do make a difference, sometimes enough to make a presidency successful or unsuccessful. So how is Obama doing?
To start with Geithner, the likely Treasury Secretary. He is a protege of former Harvard President Larry Summers, who served as Treasury Secretary at the end of the Clinton years, after Rubin's departure. Summers had until now been considered the frontrunner to serve again. Impolitic comments at Harvard got him crosswise with women's groups but it was thought unlikely that misstep would disqualify him for the vital Treasury job. Whether it did or did not, Geithner emerged Friday afternoon as the probable nominee.
Confirmation issues: Was Geithner, in his New York Fed role, too close to Wall Street recipients of federal bailout money? What are his views regarding the size and form of a Detroit rescue package? As a side issue, his prospective appointment means a new New York Fed president must be found, an important post.
There was confusion Friday about another prospective member of the economic-policy team. Leaks from the Obama transition had made it seem that Penny Pritzker of the wealthy Chicago Pritzker family was about to be designated as Commerce Secretary. She raised big money for Obama in his nomination campaign and stood on the stage with him last week at his economic-policy press conference. Yet Friday attention shifted to New Mexico Gov. (and former U.N. ambassador) Bill Richardson, who earlier had been considered a finalist for the Secretary of State position.
I doubt that Richardson would want the Commerce job, which is not in the first tier of cabinet appointments and mainly consists of cheerleading for White House economic policies in the business community. Richardson endorsed Obama in the nominating season, leading to angry recriminations against him by Sen. Hillary Clinton and former President Clinton. He had been Energy Secretary as well as U.N. ambassador in the Clinton administration.
Biggest speculation, going into the weekend, was whether Obama would designate Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, as seemed to be about to happen. Clinton's appointment had been touted as a smart political move by Obama, bringing him a high-visibility figure as secretary while, at the same time, removing Clinton as a possible near-term rival. (Many were quoting the old political dictum: "Bring your friends close and your enemies closer.") Both Obama and Clinton, in my judgment, would be better served by Clinton's continuing service in the Senate.
The optimal Secretary of State is a wise person, above partisan politics, able to help a president make and conduct wise foreign policy. He or she ideally would be someone considered above personal ambition. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, longtime chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee, would be such a person (although too old now to be considered). Clinton, if she got the job, would be taken out of domestic policy altogether. As a senator, she prospectively would play a lead role next year in framing and pushing an Obama domestic agenda, to include health-care reform, where she has spent so much previous time.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Nov 21, 3:38 p.m. inappropriate
pretty BOLD action for a president elect who WAS all about real change.
where can I get a "don't blame me, I didn't vote for him" bumper sticker ?
Posted Fri, Nov 21, 10:42 p.m. inappropriate
Along the same lines, can someone please find me a crane large enough to pull my head out of my ass, as I am clearly deeply embedded.
I mean really, what kind of a genius does it take to see that outside of the Sec. of Defense, that all of Obama prescriptive nominees are dramatically different than those of the current administration, and hence, representative of change?
I mean honestly, some people's children...
Posted Fri, Nov 21, 11:10 p.m. inappropriate
liberals are funny, alas empty headed - regress back to the clinton gang and it's "dramatically different" !
so "child", is that the best you can do ?
Posted Fri, Nov 21, 11:32 p.m. inappropriate
Well, as I live and breathe, someone who didn't vote for Obama trying to dictate what Obama meant by change!
I'm sorry if Obama's change doesn't suit you, but it is still dramatically different from the slate nominated by the current occupant of the Executive seat.
And really, it's not as if Obama could do any worse than your champion, eh?
Posted Sat, Nov 22, 7:54 a.m. inappropriate
Anybody notice that Obama isn't pulling anyone from the State of Washingtons Deep, Long Serving Democratic Bench?
Posted Sat, Nov 22, 10:22 p.m. inappropriate
I am, at this point in life, a skeptic by nature. I never bought into Obamania (my shorthand for Obama - mania). Experientially, too green for me to jump up and down. As an intellectual, community organizer and citizen-of-the-world, he is, however, the transformative figure of which everyone speaks.
His 60 Minutes interview where he admitted that his election as the 44th President hadn't sunk in was disconcerting on one level, but genuine and down-to-earth on another.
At the end of the day, the President is elected as "one of us" to represent us in what arguably remains the most influential role in the world, bar none. I think we are all in a better place that a man of his talent and ethnic background is seen not only today - but 30, 50 even 100 years ago as a time when the U.S. finally moved beyond a certain limitation in its view of whom could be President.
However, in the here and now, we have a man who recognizes his limitations and is drawing around him an experienced group of leaders to help him direct the wheels of government as it battles a financial meltdown and world view that has suffered due to the arrogance of the current administration's efforts to unilaterally dispatch despots and secure our 'strategic interests', aka oil supplies.
Obama is going to spend 4-8 years undoing policies that benefitted very few Americans. He needs people who have the wits, chops AND experience to do that. I was not a speechwriter for Hubert Humphrey, so I can't say that I know better who should or shouldn't be appointed to various posts in government. Likewise, I can't say whether or not one person is better qualified to serve as Secretary of State or not.
However, I wouldn't underestimate Hilary Clinton's abilities in that role nor overestimate Bill Richardson's. The fact is, Clinton is gritty, an excellent communicator and has a husband who knows his way around the world 'block', as it were. This could turn out to be his best appointment.
Posted Sat, Nov 22, 10:23 p.m. inappropriate
I meant to say 30,50, 100 years from now.
Posted Sun, Nov 23, 3:38 a.m. inappropriate
Update: Since this was written, it appears Larry Summers will head the National Economic Council in the White House---a job coordinating economic/financial policy as the National Security Council coordinates foreign/national security policy. It is reassuring that Obama will have Summers close by on a daily basis. With Geithner at Treasury, he will have a strong team accustomed to working together. Richardson is overqualified for Commerce Secretary but, if he takes the job, the economic team will be even stronger.
More on General Jones: I have talked with people who have worked with him. Not surprisingly, he is described as a solid administrator but not a maker of strategy. That was the way the job was originally intended but has not always been performed (Kissinger, Brzezinski, etc.). This will put added importance in policymaking on the Secretary of State and Defense Secretary.
MukMan has high hopes for Hillary Clinton at State. I hope he is right.
The fact remains, though, that she is relatively inexperienced in the field, serving a President who also is relatively inexperienced in the field. Although I did not express it in my piece, I also have concern that she will bring to State with her a coterie of those who have worked with her in the past...generally, people long on arrogance but short on
thoughtfulness. Her strongest experience---and the place where she could contribute most in the Senate or a domestic Cabinet job---has been in domestic policy.
Don't understand MukMan's swipe at the fact that, for some five years, I wrote speeches for Vice President Humphrey---among other duties. If it matters, I did lot of other things in national policy/politics over 40 years and, in the private sector, ran a couple national think tanks. I do not know Obama personally, although I have strongly supported his nomination and election, but do know many of the people around him.
Because I am an old guy, I have known many since they were young people
first entering public life and know something about their strengths and weaknesses. I draw on that knowledge to try to bring readers opinions which are informed. You can take them or leave them.
Posted Sun, Nov 23, 5:08 a.m. inappropriate
Some others have a different view of Hillary at the State Dept:
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana: "I think it would be very well taken if that is the case, at the end of the day," said Solana when asked how he thought European diplomats would react if President-elect Barack Obama chose her to head the State Department.
"She is capable, with experience. She is well known," he added. "Nothing seems to be negative."
Ambassador Swanee Hunt of Harvard’s Kennedy School: “She and I have worked together with representatives from probably 50 different countries, in war zones, and there is this extraordinary warmth about her that makes her connect with people so quickly – then she has also all of this understanding and smarts,” says Ambassador Hunt. “It’s a striking combination.”
Lawrence Korb, Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations: She “really does understand” the world and is a “quick learner,” he says. He recalls a 2002 meeting with her soon after he returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq.
“She was really on top of the game, but what surprised me was how much she knew about lots of other defense issues,” says Mr. Korb, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration. “We ended up not only talking about Iraq, but defense transformation [and] the history of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [She has] really quite a remarkable understanding of things that I’ve spent my life working on.”
Posted Sun, Nov 23, 12:02 p.m. inappropriate
My point about you writing for Humphrey was not intended to be a swipe - simply to note (without reciting the balance of your career) that you've been in some rarefied political air that I've never breathed. So, I accept that your insights are developed from closely being engaged with government policy at the highest levels.
In any event, Richardson is on tap for Commerce and that may be more than the ceremonial, second tier post you ascribe it to be in this particular situation. As noted today by David Axelrod on "This Week," Obama's selections are not expected to be 'potted plants'. . .