Blogs and Stories
The Obama-Clinton Administration
Clinton didn’t do much better. Despite passing NAFTA and a deficit reduction package, his first two years were a comedy—and tragedy—of errors, marred by the gays in the military fiasco, several aborted cabinet nominations, the health care disaster, and humiliating reversals on Haiti, Bosnia, and China. Part of the reason was that Clinton—wary of being associated with the much-maligned Carter administration—chose relatively few of its veterans. From Defense Secretary Les Aspin, who had never before worked in the Pentagon, to Chief of Staff Mack McLarty, an old Arkansas buddy, to George Stephanopoulos and Dee Dee Myers, both in their teens when Carter left office, Clinton’s staff was plagued by inexperience. Things only got better when Clinton brought in old hands like David Gergen and William Perry, who helped right the ship.
So what Obama is doing is smart—unusually so for a Democrat. Knowing that he is new to Washington himself, he’s surrounding himself with people who aren’t. He’s doing something neither Carter nor Clinton could: taking advantage of the fact that the Democratic presidency before his was a success. And as a result, his first year in office probably won’t be amateur hour, which is a good thing, since we can’t exactly afford that right now.
The liberal blogosphere is worried that all these Clintonites spell timid centrism, but that is probably wrong. Remember, Reagan stocked his administration with people who had worked for Nixon or Ford, and yet he pursued a far more conservative path. Similarly, Obama will likely be more ideologically aggressive than Clinton—even with many of the same appointees—because he is governing in a different time. Clinton, after all, won the presidency by running as a New Democrat, and even then failed to garner 50 percent of the vote in what was still basically Reagan’s America. In 1993, he faced a Congress where conservative Southern Democrats held sway, and then after 1994, where the Gingrich revolutionaries ran wild. Obama, by contrast, campaigned as a more conventional liberal and won a clear majority. The Democrats he’ll be facing in Congress are more numerous and more liberal, and the public—according to polls—is more open to big government than it has been in decades. And not only has the country changed, so have the Clintonites themselves. On economics, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and their disciples acknowledge that the government must do more to counter globalization’s destructive effects. On foreign policy, the Iraq War has chastened the Clintonites’ faith in military force. Hillary and Obama genuinely differed on Iraq in 2002, but by the end of the campaign, they had largely converged.
So President Obama’s agenda will likely be bolder than President Clinton’s because political circumstances allow it to be. And he’ll likely pass most of that agenda, partly because he’s employing ex-Clintonites who know how to get things done. It’s the best combination possible, and gives Democrats a better chance at dramatic change than they’ve had in 75 years. Only liberals could still find reason to be glum.
Peter Beinart is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Behind the Democratic Wipeout
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Hope Amid the Rubble
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
Why the Democrats Should Lose
Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is a professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.
I think Obama is going to have a wonderful team, he has put together a bunch of very experienced people so far.....of course we are going to hear from the "right".."how is this change".
I think it will be change because we will finally have an administration that will actually work for all the American people.....change does not just mean "new faces", we want folks who know what they are doing to get this country back on track.
So, I feel very confident in our President elect's choice of cabinet post's so far and can't wait for Jan 20th to get here to get the ball rolling.
What a great day that will be...very exciting and historic.
I don't think Obama campaigned as "conventional liberal" at all. He strayed away from such terms and time and time again he talked about bring both sides together, rather than sticking to the standard ideological position. I think fellow liberals, do have reason to worry, because all indications seem to suggest that in favor of playing to a center-right country he will push liberal positions to the side. What evidence from his actions as president-elect so far has showed the contrary.
I do think it will be a very effective administration. Just one not as liberal as I would hope. But hey, liberals are use to this by now, right?
I also have concerns about how effective he will be to handle all of them. Obama might be a powerful speaker, but he's not talking to the public anymore, he's dealing with Washington Egos.
It's rare to see arguments premised wholly by hot air
We voted for Obama because we have confidence in him, in his intelligence and his judgment. Both left and right should hold off on their criticism or praise until he's had a chance to do something. So let's let him pick his cabinet and his staff without howling quite so loudly. He seems to have gotten a lot right up to this point. Let him choose his people, then we can criticize him and them when and if they screw up.
Another plus with these experienced hands is that they won't be self-impressed by being "in the White House" and instead of preening can just get after getting stuff done. They've already got the tee-shirt. The word that springs to mind is 'grown-ups.'
Obama made a smart move by gathering an experienced team. But wouldnt it be difficult for a newbie to manage and control the veterans? They will have strong opinions drawn from their past records. And Obama, as the new president, will have to voice his opinions with great caution and respect or else he might offend some of the veterens in his cabinet.
................
http://thesuffocate.blogspot.com/
I think you guys nailed it...How is this change? It isn't a team of half knit-wits and half idealogue Neo-cons who can't learn from their own mistakes. This is change because it's people who are working for the benefit of actual Americans. The future looks very exciting.
You media people should back off from the inflammatory headlines like "The Obama-Clinton Administration" It's the Obama-Biden Administration and we don't need the sarcasm right now. Just be happy you are not the one trying to get this country back in the right direction. Give the guy a break and let him choose experienced people- we voted him in and should trust his judgement. Your article is good, but why the negative headline? If this type of journalism persists here during the beginning of the administration, I'll not be logging in.
Before we part the Red Sea let's get him swore in!
That is another difference between Dems and Repubs.....we Democrats will shout loudly if our new President falls short unlike the Repubs who regard that as being "un patriotic".
We are allowed to disagree with the President, Bush in particular as he has been wrong on so many occasions and if President Obama is wrong I will disagree with him also.
He is not looking for Sainthood, he just wants this country to get back on track and I think we should all give him a fair chance.
Sorry Peter, but your argument would hold more water if you tested it against a historical record that goes back a bit further than the Bee Gees.
If you want, look back to FDR's first cabinet -- and remember how incredibly successful and impactful his first 100 days were. You know, the 100 days Obama's been reading up on? Somewhat before the Clinton years, so not sure if you're familiar.
Almost none of FDR's top appointees were creatures of Washington, or possessed of any previous Federal-level experience. Frances Perkins, Harold Ickes, Henry Morgenthau -- all of them were virtual unknowns on the national stage, and wound up becoming some of the most effective and influential cabinet secretaries in our history.
Now, if you'd care to explain to me why that was an exception, and there's no way in the current environment that Obama could achieve the same success with people outside of the DC clique, I'd be much more inclined to share your rosy view of his choices so far!
I am also encouraged by the start so far. I'm an independent who made up my mind to vote for Obama at the last minute, and one reason why was after reading articles about his projected staff. He has done exactly what analysts said he would do -- appoint a team of highly qualified people.
I think that is something that is a step in the right direction, and the whining coming from people is a bit annoying. It seems like it's coming from two directions -- folks on the right who are going to complain regardless and if there's nothing to complain about, they'll invent something, and folks on the left who are more concerned with the "I/we voted for you, now what's in it for me/us?" mentality. I'm not an expert or veteran on this subject, but it seems to me that his moves have been very smart and very well-thought out, and that they all have one thing in common -- they are people who will be able to get the job done. I don't understand, at this point in our history with so many major problems, why people wouldn't want a highly experienced staff to deal with it.
P-E Obama said a bunch of stuff during his campaign that sounds good, like fixing the economy, energy independence, fixing health care, etc, but we've heard that all before, and I'm sure that many people took it with a grain of salt, believing it would be fixed when they see it. Certainly those things are a long way off from being fixed, but all signs are that he is very serious about finally fixing them and is assembling a team that will give him a fighting chance of doing that. That's what I was hoping to see when I cast my vote, and I'm happy so far.
Read Friedman in the NY Times today. We need Obama's team working NOW, not in January. How can we move W to take unprecedented action and switch out to Obama's selections before January 20th??
Obama, Obama!
What's Next?
Is It Monica?
I supported Obama for his intelligence, cool style, and flawless campaign, that only got better and better. I am impressed with most appointments, but hope there will be a more progressive tone to subcabinet and agencies picks. I believe that there will be. Yes we can!
As I did vote for McCain, I was "cautiously optimistic" with Obama stepping it. Admittedly, he's playing his cards right with his first hand at the table. Surround yourself by smart people and you'll get positive results. Let's see how is run time is once he hits the ground.
brig70 - since you voted for McCain, I am not interested in your opinion at all; although you are entitled to it. Obama will play his cards however he sees fit, and with a Democratic Congress, he will get what he wants. Those of us who voted for him, voted for change - big change, and we expect to get it. As it now stands, I believe he has made good choices in his cabinet - which may turn out to be a short-term or long-term appointments. We shall see.
I also like his use of the Willie Sutton approach - using a thief to stop a thief. Most of his moneymen are acolytes of Bob Rubin, one of the architects of this mess. Rubin, like Michael Milken (who Bush pardoned yesterday, what dark comedy!), is simply too smart to keep up with.
Barack should hire a few more world-class scoundrels and see if he can use them to serve his ends. So far, he's picking the right ones. Hope they don't gang up on him....
Wow, Sandras! I think I sense some bitterness there...if you look closely, you might actually see that you said pretty much the same thing as brig70, except the part about bashing his opinion. As far as Obama's administration, I'm waiting to see him carry through on his bipartisan promises, since all I see are ex-Clintonites.Neither party has it right, so it can't hurt to try and work together.
Even for a very intelligent individual, there is going to be a learning curve. His foreign policy team looks like they are capable of running on their own with some oversight but the economic team which is where he will be immersed initially he will have to give a lot of direction if he intends for the change to be from the bottom up not the top down. I really don't think they will be able to pull the wool over his eyes and take him in the wrong direction with Volker's input though he is going to have a very tough row to hoe there for a couple of years.
Sandras -- It's been two months since the comments started. Do you still feel confident about the choices he's made in his Cabinet? Namely, Richardson..Tom Daschle...Nancy Killefer...
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.