Monday, December 8, 2008
Response post - Due 12/16
Respond to someone's post on their thoughts about Obama's choices for key positions. Be sure to respond to someone who hasn't been responded to. You can respond to their argument, critique their sources, and/or respond to what they didn't cover. Please cite your information.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
To Kassie Brown
I have to agree with you on how it will be hard for Obama to put through his changes that he continually promised through out his campaign seeing how experienced and entrenched in politics his cabinet is but I don't agree that his lack of experience will hinder his ability to lead the group. I feel if anything they'll force Obama to be more realistic in the decisions he makes seeing as they have seen the trends and how to best push for legislation to go there way. I agree though on the Hillary Clinton front that she may very well hinder Obama's foreign policy decisions with her own.(2) She also differed on many opinions during the campaign which will make it interesting during the next four years of office with these to polar opposite liberals working together. But we also have to consider the fact that since Obama has no foreign policy experience he needs someone who as extensive experience and admittedly Clinton has it, Obama is just going to have to lay down the law when it comes to making her follow his agenda and not her own. I also agree that he should have chosen less prominent politicians but at the same time the experience was necessary I feel to pull us out of our economic depression. He wanted people who he could give an idea to and they could run with it to make sure it's implemented so he could place more focus on the economy.
1.http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/index.html
2.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97350108
3.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/06/politics/main4578937.shtml
This post is in response to Megan:
I agree that Obama is off to a good start by finding a diverse cabinet. However, you were commenting that you don’t think that his cabinet reflects the change he promised because it consists of many former Clinton administration members and people who already have ties to Washington. I don’t think that reusing some cabinet members is a problem because there is a lot of diversity in his cabinet, and I don’t think that he would rehire members that weren’t good at their jobs the first time. Besides, what is most important right now for Obama is to create a strong administration that has the previous experience in the White House. This way they can start fixing our country right away.
I can believe that some people would be nervous about all the ties to the Clinton administration we are seeing, but there are always critics to everything. For that matter, would having ties to the Clinton administration really be a bad thing? When we had Clinton as president, we had a budget surplus (1). We have reached a record national debt of over $10 trillion, so I think that Obama having some ties to the Clinton administration would be potentially beneficial to healing the economy (2).
I don’t think you have to worry about whether Obama has the economy at the top of his to-do list. The economy is showing up in the news more and more as it gets worse. According to a poll done in November, 62% of the American public has the economy as their number one priority right now (3). The fact that the majority of the country is most concerned about the economy means that Obama likely has this as his number one priority. If it isn’t, he is not going to have much support from the people, and therefore little support from Congress when he is in office.
I agree that keeping Gates as Secretary of Defense was a smart decision. It is good to keep some people who are already up to date on issues, and adding a Republican to his cabinet adds to the diversity of his cabinet. I think that your view on Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is very pessimistic. She does have some political insight because of her experience as the First Lady, and she has likely learned a lot about politics through Bill Clinton (5). What many people overlook is the fact that she has been a Senator in New York since 2001 which is more experience than Obama has (4). To those who think that she is a bad choice because she is close to Bill Clinton, I want to point out that she does have a will of her own. She will do what she thinks is right, not just sit around to be Bill’s puppet in politics. I do agree that some of his reasons for choosing Hillary Clinton are probably related to appeasing some members of his party and the American public. So far, I agree that Obama is doing a good job picking cabinet members. The only fears I really have are whether the diversity of his cabinet is going to cause too many disagreements, making it difficult to get things done when Obama is in office. Our country is in pretty bad shape, and we all want to see change on the horizon A.S.A.P.
Sources:
1. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
2. http://www.deficitsdomatter.org/?gclid=CLfYhaH5vpcCFQ89awod12y0Tg
3. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15270.html
4. http://pewforum.org/religion08/profile.php?CandidateID=2
5. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html
Danaaa:
I don’t think that Obama is taking a step back by picking experienced candidates. I think this helps him to gain support of groups he previously didn’t have. Many speculate that he is returning to the Clinton era with multiple cabinet members with direct links to Clinton such as Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Bill Richardson, and obviously Hillary (1). While many speculate as to the level of change he can bring, analysts argue that Obama’s personal brand is strong and that his cabinet picks aren’t has important as his own personal actions (1). Also, Obama needed to pick cabinet members with experience to calm accusations of his lack of experience (1). Also, analysts say that the pool of qualified Democratic candidates wasn’t large and the ones with the experience were best for the jobs (1). Also, he has chosen a Washington outsider, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, as his pick for Homeland Security Secretary (4).
As far as Susan E. Rice is concerned, I don’t think she stands out from the rest (2). She too worked for Clinton in the State Department (1). While she was associated with the Clinton presidency, she was an early supporter of Obama even when Hillary was presumed as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination (2). I think Rice is a good example of how prominent position holders can be linked to past presidencies, yet can change their stance or support on an issue. However, there is a downfall to Rice (2). While she is supposedly going to take dramatic action against genocide, her role during the 1994 Rwanda genocide is questioned (2). At that time, she was a member of the Clinton administration that kept the U.S. from becoming involved (2). This could lead to people questioning if she truly will take a harsh stance on that issue.
Honestly, I think abrupt change would be too much for the country. If Obama hadn’t picked experienced cabinet leaders, Americans would have feared that he was leaving the country vulnerable and at risk (3). It is comforting to many that there is someone that has been in that position before and knows what is going on. A presidential historian as the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs, Russell Riley, said he wasn’t surprised at all the Obama picked people associated with President Clinton because his presidency was viewed has having accomplishments and being well-run (4). Also, the political climate of today is clearly much different from that of Clinton’s presidency, therefore it would impossible for them to be very similar (4). The people with experience know how the system works and what does and doesn’t work in the system. Therefore, they may be able to help know what kind of new programs would be successful or unsuccessful based on knowledge of programs previously tried in their area of expertise (4).
1. http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obamas_cabinet__change_or_Clinton_1123.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics/06rice.htm
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/26/obama-defends-cabinet-the_n_146648.html
4. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/20/obamas-cabinet-picks-heavy-washington-experience/
In response to Bremily:
I disagree with your statement that Obama is going to “milk the Democratic victory for all its worth.” Although you speculated that he won’t appoint Moderates or Republicans, he in fact has, which has probably been the main contributing factor in the widespread support for his cabinet choices. He has chosen a wide variety of people, from Senator Clinton to President Bush’s Gates to new people, such as Nopalitano (1). Americans were pleased that Obama decided to keep Secretary of Defense Gates around, which I think shows the fact that citizens are looking more at the actual person rather than the parties as a whole (2). Most of Mr. Obama’s cabinet picks have been moderate centrists (1). I think this is because Obama realizes that now that he is the president, not everything is political. He understands the need to do what is best for everyone in the country, not just Democrats. When Bush was elected, he chose an entirely Conservative cabinet which definitely backfired on him (2). I think Obama learned a lot from that, and it is already affecting him positively. 88% of people interviewed think that this mixture of people with different experience levels and beliefs will work well together for the benefit of the country (2). Even a majority of Republicans are in favor of these choices (2). You said that Obama won’t appoint Republicans or Moderates because they won’t support his ideas. However, this was not the main thing driving his appointments. I think if anything, Obama won’t take advantage of having so many Democrats in power because of these cabinet picks. Obviously, the change he promised on the campaign trail is going to be much harder to immediately implement with such a diverse group of cabinet members. It can appear as “more of the same.” While right now 78% of Democrats think Obama’s choices represent “real change,” I think the Democrats in America are going to end up being the most disappointed when all is said and done (3). However, I am in support of Obama’s decisions. He was wise to get a group of experienced and diverse men and women behind him as he dives right into two wars and a great financial crisis.
1. http://www.galesburg.com/opinions/x1720681594/ROUNDTABLE-Obamas-cabinet-picks
2. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/?iref=mpstoryview
3. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/11/fox-news-poll-americans-positive-obamas-cabinet/
BJORN:
Hey there.
"Change was still the theme on election night, but President-elect Barack Obama’s early appointments have some of his liberal supporters wondering what exactly change means."-Randall Pinkston Are we going to get the change we need with Obama’s cabinet?
I think that Obama picking a diverse cabinet can also be a positive thing (however, also negative in ways). The cabinet will be diverse with many different point of views and diverse opinions. However, with Obama promising all this change for America, and with Obama claiming that change is right around the corner, do you think that having this diverse of a Cabinet is going to slow down change or help the change move along? I think Obama is taking a bit of a risk with his cabinet members. With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of Defense, she said she supports Obama, but that he has already failed to start the change America needs. Clearly this might cause some executive problems if his cabinet members are already criticizing our new President. Also, it was interesting Obama picked her after he criticized her during the Democratic Primaries about her 2003 vote for the Iraq-Invasion. Obama also chose to keep Gates at the Pentagon, which is making liberals nervous that Obama will not keep his promise or be able to withdraw troops for the war within his 16 months as President as he promised.
A CBS Highlight report said many of Obama’s picks aren’t as diverse as people are claiming. They claim they are traditional, Clintonesque, moderate, and many are centrist Democrats. They are also all Veterans of Washington; I think this can be seen as a positive, or a negative. Since he chose the typical picks for cabinet members, I don’t think we will see as drastic of a change that many people are expecting. Obama is new, with fresh ideas, but his cabinet members don’t reflect the new look of Washington Obama is bringing to the table. “He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America. They also mentioned Obama made these picks because he needs to start checking off items on his to-do list, but these appointees might slow down the process because they are all moderate, and experienced without fresh ideas.
Liberals think Obama took his cabinet to far in one direction. They believe Obama has undermined his own message for change. One liberal activist stated: "I don't know what he's doing. This is not governing from the center. This is governing from the past." Other liberals argue, which I somewhat agree with, that sometimes experience isn’t always the best solution, when the Country as a whole needs a new ideology. The experienced cabinet has been in Washington the past years, and I think we need to start over, not continue what has been happening.
Obama responded saying that he made his cabinet choices because he thought he would send America the wrong idea if he picked all new-comers. He thought the Veterans would bring there wisdom and he would combine it with his fresh wisdom.
I know that the cabinet can’t consists of a bunch of new guys that don’t know how to properly run a country. I am just trying to offer you a little different point of view that maybe to much experience in a cabinet, can lead to the same old thing. These people have been a part of Washington, been influencers on politics, and clearly things are not working out for our country right now. Obama promised changed, but I think he might have taken a step back with appointing all centralists and moderates to his cabinet. They are not as diverse are America is raving about.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/11/25/cbs-highlights-criticism-obama-s-cabinet-liberals
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/obama_answers_l.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/politics/01rice.html?ref=us
To Savvan,
I disagree on your opinion that the people that Obama should have chosen better people in certain Departments. My question really is who are the people that you feel shouldn’t have gotten the job. Rahm Emanuel may have an extreme personality, and I do agree that sometimes having an extreme personality does get to the point, and it may also have a more effective impact to carry out his goals. I find that it’s a good idea to have a diverse group of politicians in the cabinet and it’s not going to be a problem. The group that Obama picked is a very diverse group of people coming from different backgrounds, different political party, and different ideas, but the key thing is that they are the best of their jobs, the people that we need to help the current situation right now in the U.S. In a NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, 67% said they were pleased with Obama’s Cabinet choices. (2)
I also agree that Hilary Clinton is another great appointment to the Secretary of State. She has the experience, and the motivation to help the country. Also by appointing Hilary Clinton on Obama’s cabinet, it will draw up the Clinton supporters during the Democratic nomination race, in which will increase more public support, something that Obama needs. Obama’s coalition of adversaries including Joe Biden as V.P., Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff, and Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State all have great experience, and they are a group of strong leadership that could help Obama reach his goals such as closing Guantanamo Bay. (1) I do agree that Obama is backing out on some of his promises that he once promised at his platform but I think that it is a reasonable thing. The reason why is that when one isn’t in or close to the President seat, they don’t understand the complication of the United States system, and that some of it’s goals couldn’t be carried out. In a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal survey 52% approved and believed that Obama will be able to accomplish his stated goal of bringing “more cooperation and less bickering between the political parties.” (2)
(1)http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?article_class=3&no=384409&rel_no=1
(2)http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/12/republicans_guilt-by-associati.html?hpid=topnews
Response to Dan:
Hey Dan! I also did a little research on America’s opinion on Obama, his cabinet choices, and his upcoming plans. Like you said, over three fourths of Americans are happy with the new cabinet so far (1). This is quite a bit higher than Bush’s 53% in January of his second term, and Obama only had 8% of people said that he made poor decisions for his cabinet. (2) I think that this approval is much needed to accomplish the many difficult tasks ahead of Obama and his bureaucracy. This country has very high hopes for Obama, and apparently they have a lot of faith in him and the people he has chosen to help him. Only 35% of the voters thought that Obama chose a cabinet that will provide America with “more of the same” from Washington (2). I think so many people are happy with his choices because, as you mentioned Dan, Obama realizes that more will get accomplished with the Republicans on his side.
I guess that war with Afghanistan could be considered a “good war” as you quoted from Bill Schneider, but I think Americans are definitely ready for all wars to be over. The Iraqi war has been going on for so long, without much of an improvement and basically no end in sight, that Americans are getting sick of it. I’m sure you will rip me to shreds for this, Dan, but I just see war with Afghanistan following the same endless path as Iraq has taken us. There have been so many soldiers killed in Iraq for what could be called no reason, and I don’t think there need to be any more deaths in Afghanistan. I think that it is time to bring the troops home once Obama decides they are done in Iraq. They have been away from home for so long now and they deserve to come back. Some people have said that war in Afghanistan is based on emotion rather than realism (3). By sending more troops to Afghanistan, the situation will intensify rather than resolving itself and coming to peace. 46% of people disagree with war in Afghanistan (4). 60% of people think that we are losing the war over there, so why continue it by sending more troops over there? I think that our reputation among foreign relations has been greatly decreased because of these wars, and if we end them hopefully we can get our old allies back on our side.
1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-12-02-obama-poll_N.htm.
2. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/11/fox-news-poll-americans-positive-obamas-cabinet/
3.http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/10/15/the_reality_of_war_in_afghanistan/
4. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/poll.troops/
Asampson:
After reading your post, I do agree with what you said. However, I do think Robert Gates is a very good choice [not saying you think he's a bad one, but you seem skeptical.]
Both Obama and Gates are committed to reducing the troop level's in Iraq (1). It was made known that Obama's goal is to withdraw all troops within 16 months. However, Gates' stance falls on the advice of military advisors (1). As much as I personally would love to bring our troops home, asap, I think it is crucial to listen to the military commanders. Gates thinks if stability in Iraq holds, U.S. commanders will be able to recommend substantial troop cuts (1). Obama has said he favors leaving a "residual force" in Iraq after the withdrawal of combat troops (1). However - both Gates and Obama feel it is best to send troops to Afghanistan to tackle rising insurgent violence (1). Gates said at the news conference at a military base in Kandahar on Thursday,“The president-elect has been very explicit throughout the campaign and since the election that he believes that waging this fight in Afghanistan is a high priority and he would like to see more resources devoted to this fight, including more troops." He also said, “So I think that you will see a continuing American commitment to defeating the enemies of the Afghan people during the administration of the president-elect.” (2). On the bright side, Gates and Obama think it is time to close the prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay (1). Gates said in October the next U.S. administration should address the issue early in its term, and work with Congress to push through legislation on this issue (1).
Gates may lean more Republican - but he has had experience with both parties. Gates’s advisers say he is able to make the transition from Bush to Obama because over a 42-year career in government, much of it at the Central Intelligence Agency, he has worked for seven presidents of both parties; Mr. Obama will be his eighth (2). I think Gates is a great choice because he understands the current situation in Iraq [after dealing with the Bush administration] and agree's with all of Obama's views on defense. His CIA background will also help with the Obama-Gates goal of better diplomacy. I think he'll turn out to be a very good choice for the Cabinet.
(1) http://www.reuters.com/article/AerospaceandDefense08/idUSTRE4BE3DC20081215?pageNumber=2
(2) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/world/asia/15gates.html?ref=middleeast
In Response to Alec-
I really enjoyed reading your blog post, and also watching the youtube videos that you posted. Reading your opinion on whether or not Gates should stick around as Secretary of Defense made me want to research the topic further. I was apprehensive when I heard one of the main head leaders from the Bush Administration was staying on board. Reading further I found that consistency is important while a war is in session. He has been helping run the war therefore, his job is very important at this time. A Time article said, “Keeping Gates would allow Obama to demonstrate bipartisanship in national security, an area particularly dear to Republicans.” (1) I agree totally with this insight, and I believe that with your blog post you would agree as well. Like when you said, “Obama’s campaign promises included working with both sides of the isle” A cooperative, and efficient bipartisan government is what we need right now. Also, with the Secretary of Defense post being an important one, I do feel that Gates knows he will be under a lot of pressure to perform well, and make informed decisions. Something that I particularly thought was well put in your blog was about “change” and the “Clintonians.” I feel the same way about Obama’s change we need. A change from the Bush Administration is definitely one of the things I think that Obama meant to convey in his campaign. I feel that people would definitely say they would like to return to the peaceful times of the Clinton Administration. Looking further online I did discover some negative attitudes towards Hillary’s new job post. One party strategist asked, “"What were the last two years all about? The restoration of the Clinton’s?”(2) A random angry blogger expressed, “Obama you promised us HOPE Please don't put Hilliary in as Secretary of State. It would be a betrayel against all who voted for you thinking you were going to sweep out the White House and bring new blood to leadership in this country.(3) Clearly Clinton’s nomination is arousing some discontent, which is expected, but I believe that Obama will stay true to his campaign promises. He will not allow himself to be overpowered, or overshadowed. I also think that the high-powered independent leaders Obama elected are just what this country needs. Clinton had the support of many Americans in the presidential race and that hasn’t changed. With Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates as nominees I believe that strong-minded leaders are what Obama was looking for. (4) As you said, “Obama is welcoming such dissenting opinions and debates so that all the ideas for solving the problems our country faces are out there on the table and so that he as President has better options for making executive decisions.” This is very true. The more opinions and leaders expressing their opinions, the more options there are. These leaders are dedicated if anything, and regardless of political views, I believe that they will really get things going and help America see some change.
(1)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1861038,00.html
(2)http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1860727,00.html
(3) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/11/13/hillary_clinton_secretary_of_s.html
(4)http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grbkxsqgj1jgjmex2KaPC-9FtE4wD953AE281
In response to Kath:
While the decision to name Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State has been popular with most Americans, many people still wonder if Obama and Hillary can work together after a heated battle for the democratic nomination (1). Traditionally, American presidents have given high-profile positions to their main rivals from within their parties (2). The practice started with John Quincy Adams and his appointment of Henry Clay (2). Lincoln's appointment of a “team of rivals” did not cooperate, and seldom achieved their goals (2). Obama's choices of Hillary Clinton, and Bill Richardson could also prove to be controversial. Bill Clinton had appointed to the positions of secretary of energy and ambassador to the United Nations, they have a long history and friendship (3). However, during the primary season, after Richardson dropped out of the race for the democratic nomination he promised Bill Clinton he would not support Obama (3). When Richardson did publicly announce support for Omaba, Bill Clinton went into an angry rage (3). This could cause tension between Richardson and Hillary Clinton who will both be serving on Obama's administration. Also, you claim that Hillary's foreign policy strategy is similar to the Republicans, but even if this will win her some Republican support, I think I will lead to conflicts between Obama and Clinton about how we should conduct foreign policy.
I don't think choosing Robert Gates to stay on as Defense Secretary is sufficient proof that Obama is willing to work with the Republicans. Most Republicans would likely argue that Obama needs to make more appointments from outside of his party (4). While I think both Clinton and Richardson are qualified, I don't think they could work well together after the disaster with Richardson supporting Obama during the primaries (3). I also think that right now, Obama needs to actually pick more Republicans to join his administration before we can praise him for reaching out across the aisle.
I also like Obama's appointments, but I disagree with your statement that Obama's cabinet is a representation of both liberal and conservative views. While I will concede that Obama's appointments are diverse in many aspects, he has only appointed one Republican to a leading position in his future administration (). So far Secretary Robert Gates is the sole Republican appointment Obama has made, or Secretary he has kept (). While you could argue that some of his Democrat choices have conservative views, there still remains the fact that most of his secretaries identify with the Democrat party. Also, even if 88% of Americans believe his cabinet can cooperate even though many of them have been former rivals, this isn't fact of proof that they will be able to work well together. As the New York Times has argued, Lincoln's cabinet was unable to work together because of conflicts between former rivals (2). While I also think Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton was a good choice, we can't ignore the fact that her appointment was unconstitutional (5). under Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution, no Senator of Representative can gain a position if it's salary has been raised during their term in office (5). However, Congress just cut the salary for the Secretary of State (6). So yes, I did just answer my own argument. (*^-^*)
Oops. I forgot my sources.
(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7759866.stm
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20oakes.html
(3)http://www.globaltv.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=1026933
(4)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/08/obama.cabinet/?iref=hpmostpop
(5)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/clinton.eligible/
(6)http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/congress-cuts-top-diplomats-salary/
Evan:
I completely agree with you and what you said in your post, but I would like to add some more information and site a few more sources because just having one is not as significant and believable.
I agree that his choices so far are on the right path for the country. His top priority is still the economy, which pleases a majority of Americans (1). His choices for top officials reinforce that he is on the right path. I agree with you that he made a very good choice when he picked- and continues to pick- experienced politicians with public support (4). The public is still supporting his cabinet picks, a Fox News poll stated that overall, 65% of the public is pleased with his choices as a whole (2). 24% rated them excellent, 41% rated then good, and 20% rated them fair, with only 8% rating them poorly. Not much to anyone’s surprise, 88% of Democrats are happy with his choices, but even 43% of Republicans are happy with them, along with 62% of independents (2). I agree that his choice of Hillary Clinton will bring in support from her followers from the campaign. His picks are said to bring a lot of support in general, because they are very diverse, which is clearly what he is looking for (3). The diversity shows Americans that he wants equality, and is not just looking for people who agree with his views and will agree with his every whim. He is making his choices to make his cabinet very bipartisan and shows that Obama is confident is his leadership, which is a good thing for the country because we need a strong leader right now(3).
(1) http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obamas-first-priority-remains-economy/story.aspx?guid={4E91FF74-A39A-40D0-A8AE-974E066D283B}
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/11/fox-news-poll-americans-positive-obamas-cabinet/
(3) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/transition.wrap/index.html
(4) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/20/obamas-cabinet-picks-heavy-washington-experience/
Evan-
Although I agree with you that Timothy Geither was a good choice on Obama’s part for the position of the Secretary of Treasury, I think that some other candidates would have also served well in the job. One of the candidates, specifically, if Larry Summers (1). Summers has a different, potentially very useful, form of political background. He worked in the Clinton administration, and his first assignment was in the treasury department in the late 1990’s when he dealt with an Asian economic crisis, meltdowns in Russia and Latin America. During this time Summers also handled the failure of the U.S. firm Long-Term Capital Management.
Geither does have a position within the current Cabinet of president-elect Barack Obama, but its position is less prominent than his last with Clinton. People still expect great things from him though. They expect him to be a dominant force in the administration as Obama battles an economic crisis nearly as devastating as the Great Depression (1). Julian Zelizer, a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University says of Summers, "He won't be shy. The thing about him is he doesn't sit behind the scenes. He’s a forceful presence." Obama’s cabinet so far has been a strong one, and because of this Summers would fit right in.
Zelizer also said of Summers, "My guess is he's going to take that position and make the most of it, and Geithner will have a competitor, even though he's the secretary of the Treasury," Summers has already worked his way into Obama’s inner-circle, and is advising him about how to handle the financial meltdown. He is the director of the National Economic Council, a very important post for America in our dire times (2).
So although I agree with your statement that Geither was a really great pick, I guess I would just say to keep open to other powerful figures in the administration as well.
1. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/14/a-force-to-be-reckoned-with/
2. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/12/04/the_comeback_of_lawrence_summers/
Molly, I agree with you on Obamas choices for his cabinet positions, for many of the same reasons. I think that he needs an experienced cabinet right now, because he is going into a very tough situation with very little experience. I think that having a cabinet that has served since the Clinton administration is going to be greatly beneficial to his administration (1). Also, I think that his idea to keep a diverse cabinet and administration is good idea in order to please the entire country, and make sure that those that think he is going to ruin the country have some faith in the government. I think that he has done this in his nominations like you do, because as you said, even 52 percent of Republicans approve of his nominations (1). I think that him allowing Robert Gates, a Republican, to stay as Secretary of Defense, is also a great idea, because he is experienced in the problems we are facing as a country and will help ease Obama in (4). I think that this is going to also add a mix in policies and give the Republicans some representation and power, and this will greatly help the country to support his policies, so I agree with you on the diversity of his cabinet.
I think that his choice of the major cabinet positions were all good, like your example of Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce (2). I think that this is going to be a very big issue in the coming years, and his experience with the economy and commerce will be greatly beneficial. But I think that something that you didn’t say that he brings is experience in the area of energy, as he served on an energy committee during the Clinton administration (2). I think that someone else that you didn’t mention that was a very good choice was appointing Hilary Clinton to Secretary of State (3). Her experience in foreign affairs while she was the First Lady will greatly benefit the administration in dealing with the international problems that will occur from energy and the worldwide recession (3). Also, having her at such a high position will cause some who wanted her to win the presidency to be supportive of the administration (3). I think that this was also an important nomination that you missed, but it agrees with your positive analysis of Obama’s selections for his Cabinet secretaries.
Sources:
1) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/index.html
2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/transition.wrap/index.html
3) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Hillary%20Clinton%20+%20Secretary%20of%20State&st=cse
4) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/01/obama-dales-cabinet-picks/
Mr. Siiro,
I enjoyed you post very much. I agree that Obama’s picks are “setting the tone for his administration”. So far he seems to be off to a good start. I found more data testifying how happy people are with his picks. A survey by Gallup and USA Today show 3 out of 4 voters, including a majority of Republicans, approve of his picks to date (1). A site I found suggested that people are giving his picks such high approval ratings for two reasons. First, some people think he has made superior choices, and second, people are sick of partisanship (1). I think it is a good idea to have a variety of Democrats and Republicans in the top positions, but I wonder if he is going a little bit too far. Do you think that having a fairly equal representation between the two parties could lead to some sort of gridlock? Nevertheless Obama is pleasing both Moderates and Liberals alike. Some people feared that his choices would alienate the more liberal base of his party, but this is proving to be untrue (2).
I agree that Obama’s selections do seem to address the main promises of his campaign. His swift nomination of Bill Richardson reassured many Americans whose main fear is the economy (3). I disagree with your statement that just because Richardson ran for president means he is qualified, I think there are much better determinants as to whether someone is qualified or not. I didn’t know that he was the energy secretary in the Clinton administration so that was interesting to find out (4). This background could be quite useful because I believe new energy innovations and independence will be critical to America’s economic standing in the near future. The fact that Obama is leaving Robert Gates as Defense Secretary also appealed to me. Your argument that it would “be best to keep someone already in on the problem than to nominate someone new” is a good one. The complexity of our national security system dictates that the Defense Secretary’s position is a hard one to fill.
On your final point regarding the nomination of Hillary Clinton I disagree. As I noted in my post it wasn’t that long ago when Obama was saying “Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience amounted to little more than drinking tea with ambassadors while she was first lady” (5). I think that her experiences as first lady will be helpful when she assumes the role, but the duties of a first lady are quite different from those of a foreign policy expert. I think that for the most part she will comply with Obama’s policies, but her own stances on issues will not be ignored. This appointment could be the launching pad to the furthering of her political goals and the party nomination in 2012 or 2016. I just find it strange that he picked his biggest rival for such an important job. The degree to which the two went at each other during the primary definitely weakened my opinion of her. I don’t doubt that she will be able to manage the job fine; I just would have preferred someone who had been in foreign relations previously.
1. http://themoderatevoice.com/24805/obama-cabinet-meets-with-approval/
2. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/14/obama-and-the-wary-left/
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Hillary%20Clinton%20+%20Secretary%20of%20State&st=cse
4. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/transition.wrap/index.html
5. http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a4e3184a-0708-4dc0-9248-b6d87b3a4fc7
Katie B.
First of I would like to say that I agree with you when you say he has picked a group with a large amount of experience. Clinton especially because of her background with many U.S. military leaders, senate work in the Armed Services Committee, her work with Robert Gates, who has served eight different presidents, and with her background with National Security Advisor, James Jones (1). But it has been a question as to will Clinton work well with Obama. You said that you believe both of them will work well together because the have both expressed plans to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Well so did President Bush, but it never happened. The truth of the matter is that both of them have expressed very different views on pulling out of these countries, Hillary first voted for the invasion of these countries, and now only wishes to remove a small amount of the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan saying that she would remove all by 2013, while Presidential Elect Obama clearly stated that he would move them out as soon as 16 months after his election (2, 3).
My next question is this why do you say that it’s a good thing that Obama has chosen people with so much experience and skill in their areas, “because Obama lacks it himself,” but you go on to say “I don’t see how we can expect much difference with Obama's cabinet than what we have in the past we have in the past, because most of them have been there in the past.” Why is it a good thing, even if they have experience, to nominate these people if we are not going to see a difference in the nation?
1. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1864142,00.html
2. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802
3. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Kyle:
I agree with your statement that Obama’s cabinet picks are very diverse and not chosen by party affiliation but rather merit and competence (2). I also agree with your opinion that it is smart of Obama to pick people that do not necessarily share his exact ideology. While his cabinet is over all a centrist one, Obama picks people from not only his own party but also from the Republican and Bush Cabinet too (2). In these choices Obama is proving and acting on his promise to “ignore” party lines and work together as a country, which reassures many Americans that he will be able to hold many of the other promises he made (2). While his diversity shows his desire to work as a country as a whole, I also ask Kyle if he thinks asking people who share different ideologies and backgrounds to work together is unrealistic and if he thinks anything will get done. My opinion on that question is that I do believe his cabinet will be in a bit of a stagnation at least at the beginning of Obama’s presidency. While his “dream team” is filled with experienced and intelligent politicians, they also hold potential to turn the White House into a breeding ground for disagreement with different ideologies and past rivalries (1). It might be hard for many of these officials to make compromise when they are already rooted in their former leadership positions and mentalities, having been in Washington for many years (1). Dr. Larry Sabato, a top political analyst, says that all conflict will disolve once the new administration gets moving (3). He states this is because if nothing else, the Cabinet appointees answer to the president only and he has the power to quickly dispose of them ("No Cabinet officer with an ounce of sense is going to cross the president. Clinton and Richardson have a lot of sense. A president can fire a Cabinet officer without stated cause on any day. All Cabinet officers have a constituency of one”) (1). While I agree with Sabato’s statement that the president holds a lot of power over his Cabinet members, President Barack Obama is a different situation. The fresh face of Washington barely has any experience and is counting on his Cabinet officials to help him direct the country toward a more prosperous direction (2). I believe that his lack of experience also creates a lack of authority, and it will be hard for him to control the controversy that will erupt in his Cabinet over ideology and opinion differences. I feel he will not be able to command them on a lot of issues because of his weak background in politics and the strong Cabinet officials may walk all over him. These are only speculations and feel free to refute my opinion.
1)http://www.rttnews.com/Content/Policy.aspx?Id=801754
2)http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/11/as_obama_fills_his_cabinet_opinions_come_down_on_his_picks.html
Kyle –
While I agree with many of your points concerning Obama’s need for an experienced cabinet, I feel there are some serious flaws in your argument. First of all, you say, “Although this may not be fair, people expect a lot of change to come from Obama.” My question is, how is this expectation unfair? Obama made promises during his campaign to bring change to the White House and to our federal government as a whole. In fact, his entire campaign was built on that one word; change. America has every right to expect the president-elect to stick to his campaign promise. I also disagree that without public support of Obama, “too much policy gridlock” will occur in Congress. While, like any President before him, Obama needs to worry about his public approval rating, I don’t believe those numbers will strongly affect Congress because we have both a Democratic Congress and President, and the two together should help to avoid policy gridlock.
I completely agree with you that Obama has been very wise in his bipartisan cabinet choices, revealing his desire to solve problems instead of avoiding them, which may be easier to do with a single-minded cabinet. You point out that Obama is going for expertise instead of party affiliation, which is completely true and, I agree with you, a wise strategy. In a nation facing the problems that we are (war, economy, etc.) it is more important that ever to have people with expertise and experience in the White House. It is even better to have those people close to the President where they can advise them in his cabinet.
You also suggest John McCain as a possible cabinet-member to join Obama’s ranks. This is a very interesting proposition and I’m just wondering, which cabinet position do you think McCain should fill? As of half an hour ago, Secretary of the Interior was the only cabinet position left, and McCain’s specialty is definitely not in natural resources (it was not even listed as a major issue on his campaign page!) (1). I’m curious as to what positions were available for John McCain to fill at the time you blogged, or which position you think he’s the most qualified to fill.
(1) http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
In response to Angel:
I would not disagree with you that Obama has stacked his cabinet full of highly qualified people. And I do think that this is a true testament to his promises of change. He’ll take any steps necessary in fixing our nation, including putting some of his “enemies” in top positions (5). Although I believe that this experience is beneficial in solving our nation’s major problems, I do not agree that choosing such a politically diverse group of tenured Washington politicians was a good move on Obama’s part. I feel that as president he will encounter a lot of opposition and have a difficult time getting things done. I put my full trust in Obama and I really thought his “inexperience” would be the change our country needed to get back on the right path. But with all of these Washington insiders, Obama’s not going to be able to take the track he wants, he’s going to meet naysayers every step of the way (5). You talked about how Obama has been “shifting” his stances on certain issues. This definitely worries me and I think this may have to do with some of his cabinet appointees. For example, Obama has chosen to keep Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (1). I disagree with your claim that this was a good idea. Gates does have a lot of experience in the CIA and served under President Bush, and by keeping him Obama is not only showing confidence in his administration but also keeping continuity in this time of war (1). Despite these facts, keeping Gates around is sure to extend the U.S stay in Iraq and Afghanistan (4). Gates has his plans and they will be carried out, Obama has given him the chance to accomplish what he started. I tend to think that with these cabinet appointments the next four years will prove to be a watered down version of what it could have been. Obama’s charisma and strong beliefs will have a powerful effect on this nation and his ideas will bring change, but with the people he has appointed he is going to struggle to have his voice heard. Don’t get me wrong, the 60+ years of combined political experience going into Obama’s cabinet will bring the U.S around to the right track, but we will not see the change we have been promised by Mr. Obama (4). With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, America is going to see a whole new State Department, one with a very powerful secretary (2). This appointment in specific will prevent Obama from carrying out all of his ideas. A lot of the president-elect’s campaign promises stemmed around diplomatic relations with foreign nations, well with Clinton in the seat of head diplomat, Obama isn’t going to get much airtime. Clinton has played the political game for years and she knows the ins and outs of the White House (3). She was a dangerous choice by Obama, and demonstrates his confidence in himself. Even with that said, I think appointing her to such a powerful position was a little too risky and prove to harm is effectiveness. Only the next four years can truly show us what will happen, but I am worried about these not-so-liberal appointees.
1. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1861038,00.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/13/hillary-clinton-secretary_n_143735.html
3. http://newsblaze.com/story/20081203090038tsop.nb/topstory.html
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/robert-gates-obamas-defen_n_144874.html
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97350108
This is in response to Jessie’s post.
I agree with you that Obama needed to pick a variety of people to please the voters. However, I think his choices of moderates over more liberals were important. First, Obama knows that Congress can continue to pass liberal legislation. The new Congress seems to be bipartisan and with this will be able to enact the change that Obama campaigned for during the last election (1). Second, Obama will still be the one leading the administration. He will be able to gauge his advisers’ opinions along with their backgrounds. He will be able to combine the multitude of opinions into a cohesive policy. Third, most liberals are still very pleased with Obama. Before Obama’s announcement, his approval rating with liberals was 91% (2). After the announcements, his rating was down, but only by 7% to 84% (2). Fourth, supporters agree that moderates are going to be key to affecting change especially when the Democrats were unable to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (2). This means that Obama’s administration will need to compromise with Republicans. Fifth, Obama’s administration will be more effective in the long term by including moderates. Moderates will be able to continue to serve effectively even if the Democrats lose some influence at the midterm elections. This will make Obama’s current administration be more effective in the long term because they will be able more able to adapt to the public’s opinions.
Too many liberals might have angered moderate or conservative voters. Obama campaigned with a promise of bipartisanship (3). If he did not choose a number of moderates and even a few Republicans, he would be failing in his promise of bipartisanship.
(1) http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/newcongress_11-18.html
(2) http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/12/14/obama-and-the-wary-left/
(3) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5167418.ece
In response to Erik V:
I just have to say that quoting The Onion on this issue is not a good idea unless you make it obvious that it is in fact a joke. I don’t know if you had intended it to be a joke but I can guarantee you that they made that up. Besides that, I also find it amazing that Barrack chose Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State when it seemed like foreign policy was the only thing that they disagreed on. I don’t think that she is a bad choice, though, as when Barrack was commenting on his choice of Biden for VP, Obama said he was willing to surround himself with people of differing viewpoints (1). I think the bottom line is that she is still very liberal, and Obama likes Clinton and her policies enough to give her the high level position. I also agree that Obama will keep Clinton in check when it comes to foreign policy (1). I even heard a pundit on CNN suggest that Obama is giving her the position to take her out of the Senate, therefore reducing opposition to his policies and ruining a future run against him for President. I’m not sure I believe that as much as the strong minds and opinions make for a strong country idea (1). I also agree that the country is going to have more liberal policies, because the President and a large majority of the Congress are Democrats in January. They will certainly see the elections as a vote of confidence for liberal policies, regardless of what Republicans say. From the looks of his department picks, they are all well experienced. I have to applaud his pick for Energy Secretary, a man who is actually a scientist and not just a bureaucrat (2). Maybe his campaign promises have been overlooked by his pick of Clinton, but I think most of the others fall in line. He isn’t president yet, so I don’t think we can judge whether or not he will follow through on his promises.
Look forward to hearing your response Erik .
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/01/transition.wrap/index.html
(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE4BE6IV20081215?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10341
Jen R
Obama is picking many top experienced Washington insiders to join his cabinet ranks. I can’t argue with you there. Eric Holder may not necessarily be a good pick for attorney general. Just because his views are similar, doesn’t mean that he will always follow what Obama believes is the right direction. For example, Nixon was none too pleased with his nomination of Burger, who made the decision to desegregate schools and of course make Nixon release the tapes. I know this is different from a cabinet appointment because judges are further removed from the influence of the president once in office, but my point is that people aren’t always what they seem. Also, Holder had a little scandal just before Clinton left office. This involved a pardon to Marc Rich, who “spent years running from taxes” and whose ex-wife was a prominent Democratic Party Donor (1). This incident brings questions about his decision making abilities and how he handles situations under pressure.
The issues of education, energy, and human rights are important, but at the current time, I think that the Iraq war and mainly the economy are the most important. Education and Energy are long term investment opportunities and human rights are important so that we keep our image of democracy and freedom, but it won’t matter what we do in those categories if the government collapses (worst case scenario, extremely unlikely to happen). The American people will be less likely to care about human rights in another country, if they are struggling to pay off debts and provide food for themselves and their families.
I agree that the nomination of the Secretary of Treasury is very important in our current struggling economy (2). He has a great influence in the direction the economy takes. Timothy J. Geithner, the nominee, has a very experienced background in economics and has met with many well know people such as Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker (2).
I think that the experienced cabinet will be able to make some changes, as you said, that Obama promised. But I think they will still be able to make drastic changes if needed. They won’t make any drastic changes that they believe won’t work from past experiences and educated models to predict possible consequences.
1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/eric-holder-obamas-attorn_n_137696.html
2) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6196682&page=1
In response to Jaqi:
Obama’s choice of Senator Hillary Clinton is, indeed, an interesting one. Clinton strongly opposes Obama’s policy of negotiating with Iran and has threatened to ‘obliterate’ Iran if it chooses to use its nuclear weapons against Israel (1). Obama also has alluded to negotiating with Russia to achieve peace and Clinton wants to reduce the nuclear arsenals (1, 2). Clinton and Obama’s policy goals are obviously quite different, but I think Obama’s policy is clear enough for Clinton to follow.
You’re right that most Republicans approve of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense; 89% of Republicans, according to a Gallup/USA Today poll, approve of Obama’s choice (3). It is hard to say whether Gates will continue with Bush-esque policies under Obama’s presidency. Gates is very experienced but I think one of the main reasons Obama kept him is because Obama and Gates have similar foreign policy goals, not necessarily to improve approval ratings (5). Both Obama and Gates want to reduce troop levels in Iraq, increase troops in Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay (4). Gates has also spoken out against the costly new weapons systems the United States has been investing in to fuel the military-industrial complex (5).
I think Obama’s nomination of the President of the New York Federal Reserve, Timothy Geithner, is a curious choice. Geithner worked under Lawrence Summers during the Clinton administration 6). Many of Obama’s appointments are former Clinton administration officials. Geithner, as the President of the New York Federal Reserve, is at the center of the economic crisis and therefore I think he was a good choice for Obama’s Treasury Secretary (6). I agree with you on the topic that Geithner has considerable experience in dealing with this particular economic crisis (6). Not only does he have a long record of economic public service, but he also has been working the past months to resolve economic issues and therefore is likely better-informed than other potential nominees. Some people, however, have questioned his appointment because the financial collapses happened under his watch; I disagree with this opinion because Geithner was not the direct cause of the collapse and cannot be blamed entirely for its occurrence.
1. http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4AT2JM20081201
2. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-14-hotspots_N.htm
3. http://www.gallup.com/poll/112804/Obama-National-Security-Picks-Get-High-Marks.aspx
4. http://www.reuters.com/article/AerospaceandDefense08/idUSTRE4BE3DC20081215
5. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/12/14/gates_on_balance/
6. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/11/26/timothy-geithner-obamas-teflon-treasury-secretary.html
Chelsea dear –
I found your post very insightful in regards to what the political ramifications of his Cabinet choices are, and I very much agree with your statement that policy should be the main concern rather than the politics of the choices. In an article, I liked Obama’s statement that he “didn’t check his voter registration,” referring to Defense Secretary Robert Gates [1].
I was very interested by what you pointed out about Schwarzenegger being selected as the Secretary of Energy. There was not a citation next to this, so I did some of my own research into his background and voting record, which you mentioned. First, however, I have my own opinions on the choosing of a Secretary. Obama needed to decide what his primary goal in this decision was. Did he want political criteria, high technical expertise, or someone with a record aligned with his own who would follow his every plan? Considering these three criteria, I evaluated the Governor based on his website [2]. For the first, I think that Obama would have been wise to select a Republican Secretary of Energy. He has been very careful thus far to select a centrist cabinet, and this would definitely help unite the country more [1]. For the second point, I’m not sure if Schwarzenegger would have been the best. As a governor, he is responsible for a mélange of issues. I think that for a Cabinet position, it is important to have someone with a strong conviction and deep knowledge of energy. In researching your last point, I found several interesting points about Schwarzenneger’s energy policies as California governor. In the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, he engineered a bipartisan agreement to fight global warming by reducing the state greenhouse gas emissions [2]. I think that this is good, but as an executive, it is very possible that he will end up having his own ideas once in office that may or may not be contrary to Obama’s. With this being said, I think it’s interesting that Obama just announced his new Secretary of Energy – Steven Chu, who is the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and who shared the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics. He also was an early advocate for climate change solutions, and as the director of this laboratory he led many projects for alternative and renewable energy research [3]. I’m personally glad that Obama went with an academic rather than a politic; I think that it will provide for a clearer agenda once he’s in office [4]. I’m starting to tangent off now, but your mention of Schwarzenneger interested me and I wanted to find facts to back up your claim. However, I am very excited for what Obama’s new Energy Department will be able to accomplish.
I disagree with your opinion on Hillary Clinton’s appointment as Secretary of State. I honestly think that Obama was attempting to appease those who initially supported her in the primaries. As first lady, Clinton had many good ideas about healthcare reform. Because she has expressed such interest and passion for this issue, and it is a forefront issue of the times, I think that Obama would have been wiser to use her talents and extreme competence in that area. While I know that she has received high praise; current Secretary Condoleeza Rice said that Clinton has “inspiration,” would “bring enormous energy and intellect,” and has “a deep love of the United States of America” [ 5]. These are all very positive things, but it does not address her competence as the chief diplomat of our country.
In any case, I definitely agree with you that only time will tell. It will be very interesting to see how our country progresses in the next four years.
[1] - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/08/obama.cabinet/index.html
[2] - http://gov.ca.gov/about/arnold
[3] - http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=1078901
[4] - http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSTRE4BB03G20081212
[5] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7758673.stm
Evan:
I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t think you had sufficient sources for your last blog. I went to the first website you referenced, and it’s just a list of all the new people appointed to positions within Obama’s cabinet and other White House positions, and not much else about them or their backgrounds (1.) While you also list cnn.com, I don’t think this website was specific enough to understand your position on Obama’s cabinet picks (2.) If you were going to use this site as a source, it would have been better to find a specific article and give a link directly to it, like you did with your first citation. And your first citation could have been a good one, if it had been alongside other clear, reliable sources. I would say that at least two more reliable sources would have really helped the statements you made. Then the rest of your blog starts to sound like an opinion, but you mention some other facts that I would not say are common knowledge. For example, how are Obama’s choices the right ones for the country and politically? I mean, I have some ideas of my own, but it is difficult to find why you believe this. What sort of people was Obama looking for in whom he appointed to his cabinet? How has Obama’s appointment of Hillary Clinton unified her dissatisfied supporters with those of the president-elect? Also, I had never even heard of Timothy Geithner before you mentioned him and I decided to look him up; you didn’t give any reasons for why he will give “great insight” to Obama’s administration. If you Google him, for instance, within the first page you are able to find a page from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which gives some of his background, like the fact that he is the ninth president of the bank, he has served as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs; all that was after he joined the Dept. of the Treasury (3.) Why do you think he will do so well in Washington with the high privilege of working even closer with the president than he has in the past? And what do you mean when you say Geithner will bring “further background” to the nation’s economy problems? It’s fine to think the new cabinet will be helpful, but I think it’s important to explain why you think that with reliable sources. And how do you propose Treasury Secretary Paulson become a better ally to Obama? Have they had bad relations in the past, or do you just believe this should occur in order to secure Paulson as Obama’s Treasury Secretary? If he’s the Treasury Secretary, don’t you think it would be his job to bring insight to his position? What makes you think he doesn’t? You have some good opinions, but they’re just unfounded. I have a difficult time understanding where you got your facts and why you believe what you do, apart from maybe just taking what you hear in passing on the news and deciding your position on it without saying how you arrived there. I know that can be tempting, but it doesn’t make a very convincing argument, I’m sorry to say. Also, when you list your sources, it makes it much clearer to do in the format where you write a fact and then list it below, like this: Hillary Rodham Clinton was appointed to the position of Secretary of State (1.)
(And I’m sorry to be so harsh on you, but I hope my comments have been helpful…to be honest, there weren’t a lot of choices in how to respond to people since most everyone wrote about the same thing and their approval of Obama’s cabinet. Since we were allowed to critique sources, I decided to assist you. Now impress me with your next post!)
(1) http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec08/0,4670,ObamaAppointees,00.html
(2)www.cnnpolitics.com
(3) http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/orgchart/geithner.html
In response to Erik-
Well, I see you agree with me on most accounts. Well done! However, I’d like to talk to you about Hillary. I think you’re getting too worried about her nomination. It also appears to me like you need better sources.
I’d like to address your last paragraph first. Really? REALLY!?!?!? I’m not trying to put you down here, but man, for future reference, don’t use the Onion to cite serious arguments. Also that quote that you used "My fellow Americans, I admire Barack Obama, but in his first 20 minutes as president-elect, he has failed time and time again to deliver the change he promised” is not a real quote and can only be found in the Onion. I laughed so hard when I read it. It’s funny because a president-elect can’t exact change within 20 minutes. Even if she DID say that, it would be in no way apparent of her disapproval of him, merely a joke about Obama’s persistent campaign promises. C’mon, Eric. Use BBC next time.
Besides that I essentially disagree with your views about the choice of Hillary as Secretary of State. Hillary said it herself that she would be proud to serve under Obama (1). In addition, Obama has made it perfectly clear who will be making the executive decisions (2). The choice of Hillary just means that he will have more different ideas put in front of him than he would if he chose a yes-man. What’s more, if Hillary does an unsatisfactory job or tries to undermine Obama’s power (which I highly doubt she will), Obama can fire her.
In conclusion, Hillary is a capable candidate who will work well with Obama in the White House. Any choice he makes will still be his decision; he just has a better array of options before him because he doesn’t surround himself with his own part (Bush?). I don’t think you should be unsure about Obama’s decision. He made the right one.
1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z6fTLf3laY
2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZeQHsEC_e4&feature=related
Hello EmBerg this is a response to your post...
I had one of the same sources as you and agree with your points completely. CNN polls indicate that 75% of the public agree with his picks and 71% agree with his choosing Hillary Clinton (1). This was one of the same sources i had, and i thought that this was a very important piece of information as you said, and i think that it means a lot that the public is "on board" with his early decisions. I also thought it was good that after your point about some being skeptical, you followed this up with a fact base claim that other were not so skeptical. I also thought that it was a good point that it is probably too early to tell what exactly Obama's picks mean for his administration and for the country. Because as my 2nd source implies in the its article, it is a bit too early for hispanics to be disappointed with Obama's cabinet picks (2). There are still opportunities for their candidates to be chosen, and even if they aren't who's to say there views will not be upheld.
I also really liked your point about Robert Gates (Obama's pick for the Secretary of Defense position) and how he ill bring experience to the cabinet. As Obama said, he is committed to eliminating terrorism, and I agree that Robert Gates was a great pick on his road to acchieving this goal (3). His picks overall i thought were very good and I thought that he did a good job in setting the stage for a well rounded cabinet of politics views. As i said, I think that it is important to have a cabinet which includes both republics and democrats and which i see is in agreement with your thoughts as well. Overall great job on the post! i enjoyed reading it and responding!
1. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/index.html
2. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081130/pl_politico/15967
3. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/President44/Story?id=6365516&page=1
In response to Lauren,
I (maybe as one of the enemies) have been very impressed with Obama’s picks for posts. I think that an attempt to better represent the country makes sense, as long as those that are picked for positions are qualified. I think Obama has done a good job of bringing together a cabinet with varying backgrounds and viewpoints that will insure responsible compromise in the policies of the cabinet, as well as giving Obama different viewpoints to consider when making a decision.
I definitely agree with Lauren that education and experience level should be seen as more important than race, and I am happy that Obama seems to have found well qualified candidates for positions rather than simply giving the position to someone of a certain race in order to achieve diversity. I think Obama has done a good job of finding people for his cabinet that fit the bill. While representing minority groups, his picks have also demonstrated that they are qualified for their positions.
Amanda,
Sorry this is kind of late, but I have to agree with your statements. A very large amount of Clinton as Secretary of State and the soon-to-be White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Obama is picking people on merit, qualifications and experience rather than party affiliation, gender or race (2). Affirmative action may be part of the American system, but personally, I think the people running our country (especially when it is in such a distressing state) should be the best of the best.
Latinos, as you said, may be disappointed with Hillary Clinton getting the Secretary of State seat over (NM) Bill Richardson (2), but maybe Obama thought his ability to work with Clinton might be better. Obama has to take into account the ability to trust his cabinet members, too. I think that his choice for Intergovernmental Affairs director, Cecilia Muñoz will make Latinos a little happier. Obama is considering a lot of Hispanics for different positions such as head of Labor or Education departments, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Transportation (2). The Obama Administration, I think, will be very diverse when all the positions have been filled.
CNN said 88% of believe his cabinet members will work together efficiently even though they might be in different political parties. It also said Obama’s choices for cabinet “are so popular that 52% of Republicans approved”(1).
1) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/?eref=rss_topstories
2) http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081130/pl_politico/15967
Post a Comment