Political Physics: The Obama-Clinton Flow Chart Conundrum
.
A blogumn by Monique King-Viehland
EVEN before a single candidate was selected (or the infamous “flow chart” was leaked), Obama was under fire for rumored candidates. Women’s groups protested the possible appointment of Harvard University economist Lawrence Summers as Treasury secretary, recalling comments he made as Harvard president that innate characteristics may prevent women from achieving more prominence in science.
Now with only 11 choices made of his 28 Cabinet positions, Obama is already taking a lot of heat for his choices thus far. He’s being accused of being a hypocrite for selecting many veterans of the Clinton administration and other governmental veterans. Maureen Dowd chastised Obama in her New York Times column, noting “the man who vowed to deliver us from 28 years of Bushes and Clintons has been stocking up on Clintonites.” Then there are the voices out there up in arms about the lack of diversity among the selected candidates and the rumored contenders. In US News & World Report, Bonnie Erbe stated that women who voted for Obama were “destined for disappointment” the two female top choices for Obama cabinet positions, Penny Pritzker at Commerce and Janet Napolitano at Justice, did not indicate any progress for women given that both positions had been held by women in the past.
Okay, people. The man has only selected 11 candidates out of 28. Yes, I know, technically that represents nearly 40% of the Cabinet, but give him a chance. During the campaign, Obama pledged that as he considered Cabinet appointments he would balance post-partisanship with the needs of the groups that helped deliver his victory. I think he is trying to honor that pledge. Even if you just look at the 11 choices that he has made thus far, there are two women, one African American, one Latino, one Republican, etc. Do I agree with all of his choices, no. I would have passed on Lawrence Summers and I probably would not have selected Hilary Clinton (sorry Clintonites) as Secretary of State, but I understand and respect his rationale. And most Americans agree with me. In a recent CNN poll, 43% of those questioned were very confident that Obama would make the right choices, with 34 percent somewhat confident and only 23 percent not confident.
And to the too-many-Clintonites question, I think Charlie Cook summed it up best in his analysis for MSNBC. Obama only has so many options:
a. Pick someone with executive branch experience during this Bush administration.
b. Pick someone who had experience from the eight years (1993-2001) of the Clinton administration.
c. Pick someone from the 12 years of the Reagan and previous Bush administrations (1981-1993) or perhaps a vet of the Carter administration (1977-1981).
d. Pick someone with no executive branch experience, but with either legislative or judicial branch experience.
A president-elect who is already viewed as a neophyte does not have the luxury to pick other neophytes (or at least not a lot of them) to fill his Cabinet, nor should he. Obama is going to want people – preferably Democrats – with the most relevant experience, particularly at the federal level, with impeccable qualifications, reputation in their field, etc.
So why pick so many Clinton administration veterans? According to Charlie, because that’s where the experienced Democrats are and I agree. Obama is not choosing Clintonites per se, he is choosing veterans, but not the stick in the mud, rooted in the past, refusing to change kind. But the kind with enough experience in DC to successfully navigate the complex political landscape and drive Obama’s agenda.
.
Exactly – people criticizing Obama's choices need to step back and realize that in the last three decades the Democrats held the White House for only 8 years – so the only "practised" or "experienced" Democratic appointees would be those who worked with Clinton, in one capacity or another, during his administration or subsequently.
Exactly – people criticizing Obama's choices need to step back and realize that in the last three decades the Democrats held the White House for only 8 years – so the only "practised" or "experienced" Democratic appointees would be those who worked with Clinton, in one capacity or another, during his administration or subsequently.
Exactly – people criticizing Obama's choices need to step back and realize that in the last three decades the Democrats held the White House for only 8 years – so the only "practised" or "experienced" Democratic appointees would be those who worked with Clinton, in one capacity or another, during his administration or subsequently.
As someone who was feeling really critical about his choices, I really appreciated this breakdown. I think you're right about Obama not having the luxury of bringing in new blood. And I heard an NPR report, that Clinton got in real hot water for doing so when he first moved into the White House.
However, I'd like to see way more women in positions that haven't already been filled by women. And I still don't understand what's so special about Larry Summers that makes him worth giving an appointment, considering what he's said about women in the past. I really don't like him and I don't think he's worth the negative publicity.
As someone who was feeling really critical about his choices, I really appreciated this breakdown. I think you're right about Obama not having the luxury of bringing in new blood. And I heard an NPR report, that Clinton got in real hot water for doing so when he first moved into the White House.
However, I'd like to see way more women in positions that haven't already been filled by women. And I still don't understand what's so special about Larry Summers that makes him worth giving an appointment, considering what he's said about women in the past. I really don't like him and I don't think he's worth the negative publicity.
I love his choices. I don't care what he said in the campaign it's time to pick the best people for the job. If these people served under Clinton or Bush so be it.
I love his choices. I don't care what he said in the campaign it's time to pick the best people for the job. If these people served under Clinton or Bush so be it.
I love his choices. I don't care what he said in the campaign it's time to pick the best people for the job. If these people served under Clinton or Bush so be it.
Thanks Chuck. Yea I think it's easy to be critical of his choices but people need to put themselves in his shoes…..the pool of qualified candidates just isn't that deep (with non-Clintonites that is).
And CH, you right he needs to appoint the best people and that may mean having to put their political affiliation aside. And I think if anyone can do that it is Obama.
E, I understand your concerns about the number of women in the Cabinet and about Lawrence Summers. I personally agree that there were other candidates besides Summers for the position, but I am really trying to trust that the Obama camp, knowing his past comments about women, Cornell West, etc., must have felt that all that aside he was the best man for the job. In terms of women, I am going to wait and see. Remember he still has 17 posts to go and that is just his Cabinet.
Thanks Chuck. Yea I think it's easy to be critical of his choices but people need to put themselves in his shoes…..the pool of qualified candidates just isn't that deep (with non-Clintonites that is).
And CH, you right he needs to appoint the best people and that may mean having to put their political affiliation aside. And I think if anyone can do that it is Obama.
E, I understand your concerns about the number of women in the Cabinet and about Lawrence Summers. I personally agree that there were other candidates besides Summers for the position, but I am really trying to trust that the Obama camp, knowing his past comments about women, Cornell West, etc., must have felt that all that aside he was the best man for the job. In terms of women, I am going to wait and see. Remember he still has 17 posts to go and that is just his Cabinet.
Thanks Chuck. Yea I think it's easy to be critical of his choices but people need to put themselves in his shoes…..the pool of qualified candidates just isn't that deep (with non-Clintonites that is).
And CH, you right he needs to appoint the best people and that may mean having to put their political affiliation aside. And I think if anyone can do that it is Obama.
E, I understand your concerns about the number of women in the Cabinet and about Lawrence Summers. I personally agree that there were other candidates besides Summers for the position, but I am really trying to trust that the Obama camp, knowing his past comments about women, Cornell West, etc., must have felt that all that aside he was the best man for the job. In terms of women, I am going to wait and see. Remember he still has 17 posts to go and that is just his Cabinet.