What Are Your Thoughts on Obama's Appointments and Holbrooke's AIG Role?

[Ivan Seeking]

That's interesting, because word from Obama's camp was that he would likely offer the job to her but not until after Thanksgiving. Obama's aides have been complaining about all the leaks coming out of the Clinton camp, saying that the Clintonistas are trying to box Obama in and force him to offer her the job.

Clinton as Sec of State is a horrid idea. She supported the Iraq war, and does not want to negotiate with Iran, among other things. Bill Richardson is an experienced and accomplished diplomat and HE should be offered the job first, IMO. Plus, he lost a lot of political clout by breaking with the Clintons and supporting Obama.

I don't know what I think about this one - I can see advantages and disadvantages. But I like what Obama is doing. He is pooling the best talent in Washington rather than trying to divide and conquer. I for one thought Lieberman should be tossed out on his can, but Obama insisted that he didn't want any retribution, which I thought was admirable. I guess he is a bigger man that I am.

At this point I am willing to trust that I put my faith in the right man and he will do what's best. If he thinks Hillary is the right person, then I support Hillary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tim Geithner is being announced as head of Treasury.

Market up +200

Gergen thinks the rally is a direct result of this selection.

 

[turbo]

I like Obama's moves for the most part, but appointing Clinton as Sec of State would be a black mark on him. Choosing the politically expedient route instead of appointing the most experienced, qualified diplomat in his camp AND exhibiting the type of disloyalty to Richardson that the Clintons punish their enemies for. Not good.

If we're lucky, Hillary the drama queen is forcing this situation, only so she can bow out at the last minute, citing the importance of Bill's foundation work or some other blather. If I were Bill Richardson, I would be mighty insulted not to have been offered State.

 

[Proton Soup]

well, she'd better behave. because if he has to fire her, she won't have a Senate seat to fall back on.

 

[LowlyPion]

Gergen thinks the rally is a direct result of this selection.

We're closed up 494 up.

Better than the pokes in the eye with a sharp stick the market has been delivering recently.

I'd say with Geithner he has the experience and the familiarity to comfort the markets. I think he represents continuity to the markets. So it's no wonder he was selected. Sumers looks a trifle radioactive for a Democratic administration after his observations about women.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I like Obama's moves for the most part, but appointing Clinton as Sec of State would be a black mark on him. Choosing the politically expedient route instead of appointing the most experienced, qualified diplomat in his camp AND exhibiting the type of disloyalty to Richardson that the Clintons punish their enemies for. Not good.

If we're lucky, Hillary the drama queen is forcing this situation, only so she can bow out at the last minute, citing the importance of Bill's foundation work or some other blather. If I were Bill Richardson, I would be mighty insulted not to have been offered State.

I don't understand your position here. What leverage does Hillary have over Obama? She lost, and Bill is a political lead weight. Also, i don't see any indication that political expedience had anything to do with it. To what end?

 

[LowlyPion]

I would also point out that Richardson is not lost to the administration. He simply won't be Secretary of State at this time.

 

[turbo]

I don't understand your position here. What leverage does Hillary have over Obama? She lost, and Bill is a political lead weight. Also, i don't see any indication that political expedience had anything to do with it. To what end?

Have you spoken to many Hillary-supporters lately? Many are still extremely bitter, and they will not be satisfied until Obama has made a conciliatory gesture - maybe not even then. When he passed her over for the VP slot, a couple of my neighbors (older retired people) were apoplectic. Now that Obama has won the presidency, they are still terribly bitter they believe that he cost a woman the election.

I don't believe for a minute that Clinton could have beaten McCain because most Republicans have a visceral hatred of her, and her appeal to independents would have been tatter by constant attack ads re: Vince Foster, Rose Law Firm billing records, White-water, fantastic profits in cattle futures, Bill's philandering... need I go on? The GOP was practically salivating for a Clinton win in the primary.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There is another twist on this. With Hillary as SoS, it will be far more difficult for her to run against him in 2012.

 

[turbo]

There is another twist on this. With Hillary as SoS, it will be far more difficult for her to run against him in 2012.

I don't think you should equate her to creamed chipped beef on toast. It's not polite.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think you should equate her to creamed chipped beef on toast. It's not polite.

Yep, SoS was what dad called it as well. I think that's an old miltary dysphemism.

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like Richardson will head Commerce.

 

[LowlyPion]

Friday, Nov. 21, 2008 12:54 PST
Obama makes the smart pick for Treasury: Dow goes wild

Jim Cramer will be devastated, the Lawrence Summers-hating left will be relieved, and How the World Works is flat out delighted: NBC News and the Wall Street Journal are reporting that Barack Obama's pick for Treasury secretary will be New York Federal Reserve Bank president Timothy Geithner.

My reason is simple: Back in 2006, while most of the financial establishment was pooh-poohing the possibility that the global economy was at any risk from a systemic shock, Geithner was actively warning that unregulated derivatives posed a threat to financial market stability.

Here's what I wrote in September 2006, after mulling over a speech he gave in New York that attracted a fair amount of attention in the blogosphere:

For the most part, as is typical of central bankers, Geithner stakes out a careful, cautious stance that treads familiar ground: the difficulty of striking the right balance between regulatory supervision and unfettered market efficiency. But his caution surrounds a dangerous core: Geithner acknowledges that the explosion, over the past 10 years, of hedge fund trading in exotic financial instruments may well have contributed to the general resilience that the U.S. (and global) financial system has demonstrated in response to external shocks since the Asian financial crisis of the late '90s. And yet he surmises at the same time that the very flexibility of the current system may actually make it more vulnerable to a really, really big shock.

Financial panics start when traders and bankers who call in loans or sell off their holdings at the first sign of trouble set off a cascading effect in which everybody else follows their example and the system implodes under the strain. Paradoxically, Geithner appeared to be saying, the more flexible the system, the more quickly such a cascade could happen, and the harder it could be to stop.

"The same factors that may have reduced the probability of future systemic events, however, may amplify the damage caused by and complicate the management of very severe financial shocks. The changes that have reduced the vulnerability of the system to smaller shocks may have increased the severity of the large ones."

That's a subtle argument, and we're not going to know whether it holds water until the flood is already 5 feet high and rising. Naturally, given my own fixations, the first thing that came to my mind was yesterday's editorial in the New York Times worrying about the proliferation of mortgage-backed securities, and wondering what would be the consequences of all the current musical-chairs-like trading in mortgage risk in the event of a prolonged housing bust. Will that be the backbreaker?

As we are all too well aware now, the proliferation of mortgage-backed securities and their derivatives did indeed break the back of the global financial system. Before the storm fully broke, Geithner made heroic efforts to get Wall Street's biggest financial institutions to voluntarily come together to rein in the wild west world of credit swaps. But without the active support of the White House or a succession of Bush administration Treasury secretaries, he was just one man attempting to bring order to an entire territory of outlaws.

Now he gets a chance to be the top sheriff, with the full backing of an administration determined to find a new balance between regulatory supervision and market freedom. It's a smart pick.

And while it's always foolish to read too much into any particular swing of the Dow Jones Industrial Average -- there's no ignoring Friday's late afternoon skyrocket: The Dow jumped 494 points.

Whether we should be happy that Wall Street is happy is, of course, a valid question.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/?last_story=/tech/htww/2008/11/21/geithner_for_treasury_secretary/

I'm relieved that Jamie Diamond at JP Morgan wasn't chosen.
As a shareholder, I personally like to see him remain there.

 

[Astronuc]

Obama’s Troika May Push for Deeper Role in Economy, Markets
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20081124/pl_bloomberg/avkilynvogiw

Nov. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama will today unveil an economic team steeped in fighting crises and likely to push for an unprecedented government role in reviving growth and stabilizing the financial system.

New York Federal Reserve Bank President Timothy Geithner is set to be nominated as Treasury secretary, former Treasury chief Lawrence Summers will be White House economic director and Peter Orszag, head of the Congressional Budget Office, will be in charge of assembling President-elect Obama's budget, aides said.

"Obama has picked a very strong troika to pull the sled," said Peter Wallison, a Treasury general counsel in the 1980s and now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
. . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081124/pl_nm/us_usa_obama

Obama and Biden also named Melody Barnes to serve as director of the Domestic Policy Council and Heather Higginbottom to serve as the council's deputy director.

 

[turbo]

That's interesting, because word from Obama's camp was that he would likely offer the job to her but not until after Thanksgiving. Obama's aides have been complaining about all the leaks coming out of the Clinton camp, saying that the Clintonistas are trying to box Obama in and force him to offer her the job.

Clinton as Sec of State is a horrid idea. She supported the Iraq war, and does not want to negotiate with Iran, among other things. Bill Richardson is an experienced and accomplished diplomat and HE should be offered the job first, IMO. Plus, he lost a lot of political clout by breaking with the Clintons and supporting Obama.

According to Elizabeth Drew, at the New York Review of books, Clinton and her staff fabricated Obama's "offer" of Sec of State to Clinton to box him in, publicly.

Mrs. Clinton's and her closest advisers' turning a suggestion by the President-elect that she might, among other things, head the State Department into an "offer" and reports that she was agonizing over whether to accept it, did not please officials in Chicago, some of whom hoped that issues over disclosure of Bill Clinton's post-presidential record might block the appointment. But the former president's camp blocked that by promising to cooperate with requests for information and to accept limits on his activities, including clearance of speaking engagements abroad. Statements by the Hilary camp on November 21 saying that "she's ready" for the position but then backtracking, saying that some matters were "under discussion," typified the whole mess, the only snag thus far in an otherwise unusually smooth transition involving impressive choices—an object lesson to Obama (which he had reason to know already) that getting involved with the Clintons is rarely uncomplicated.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22170

 

[Astronuc]

More announcements tomorrow as

Obama turns to friends, foes for White House posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081201/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_cabinet

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama plans on Monday to announce six experienced hands to fill top administration posts, moving at record speed to name the leadership team that will guide his presidency through a time of war and recession.

His selections include longtime advisers and political foes alike, most notably Democratic primary rival Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and President Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, staying in his current post. The two were among six who Obama planned to announce at a news conference in Chicago, Democratic officials said.

The officials said Obama also planned to name Washington lawyer Eric Holder as attorney general and Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary. He also planned to announce two senior foreign policy positions outside the Cabinet: campaign foreign policy adviser Susan Rice as U.N. ambassador and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser.

The Democratic officials disclosed the plans Sunday on a condition of anonymity because they were not authorized for public release ahead of the news conference. Those names had been discussed before for those jobs, but the officials confirmed that Obama will make them official Monday in his hometown.

. . . .

Meanwhile - the Joint Chiefs of Staff and some in the Pentagon seemed pleased and/or relieved.

Joint Chiefs Chairman 'Very Positive' After Meeting With Obama
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/29/AR2008112901912.html
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page A01

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.

There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.
. . . .
. . . But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.

. . . .

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Obama releasing his national security team live on cnn in a few minutes

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Hillary is secretary of state

 

[cronxeh]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

 

[Astronuc]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

Because as of Jan 20, 2009 (7 weeks from tomorrow), these people will be responsible for foreign policy and national security of the US - assuming they are all approved by the time Obama is inaugurated on Jan 20. Before that, they will be formulating policy with Obama.

 

[turbo]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

In addition to the reasons given by Astronuc, our economy is in tough shape and the markets are very jittery. It matters a great deal to people in the financial sector what kind of expertise and attitudes will be represented in his economic team.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting comment:

New York Times columnist David Brooks nailed it recently when he called the emerging cabinet a “valedictocracy”: a team of the nation’s first-in-class Ivy League elites. He meant it as a compliment. He’s not alone: it’s hard to find Republicans who don’t express admiration (at least in private) for the emerging Obama team.

from Yahoo/Politico "5 things the war Cabinet says about Obama" (IMO, it's unfortunate that people think in terms of a war cabinet - as opposed to diplomacy and security).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081201/pl_politico/16072

 

[turbo]

Interesting comment:

from Yahoo/Politico "5 things the war Cabinet says about Obama" (IMO, it's unfortunate that people think in terms of a war cabinet - as opposed to diplomacy and security).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081201/pl_politico/16072

I think that the DOD should be renamed to the "War Department" because that is exactly what is has been used for by the current administration. It would give people pause to consider how much of our nations resources we squander NOT in defense of our own nation, but in the subjugation of others.

 

[mgb_phys]

So does it actually mean anything in policy terms or is it just a bridge building exercise?
Secretary of state is the highest job he can hand out, after VP, isn't it?

 

[Proton Soup]

I think that the DOD should be renamed to the "War Department" because that is exactly what is has been used for by the current administration. It would give people pause to consider how much of our nations resources we squander NOT in defense of our own nation, but in the subjugation of others.

it's not so much about subjugation as it is about keeping the spice(oil) flowing. there's a battle going on now between us, the russians, and the chinese to control caspian spice. and oddly enough, i think afghanistan plays a part in this. why would we only make a few token media gestures to destroy opium production there? opium keeps the area unstable. it funds muslims in western china so that they can make trouble for the chinese government.

it's going to be interesting to see how Obama handles this whole problem of not letting hostile powers gain control of a resource that we are unable to get by without.

 

[WarPhalange]

Why do people care about Obama's appointees? Nothing will change in next 6 months from today.

It's this kind of attitude that got us into the Iraq War, you know. "Oh, things won't possibly change! Ever! So who cares who's 'running' the country?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's this kind of attitude that got us into the Iraq War, you know. "Oh, things won't possibly change! Ever! So who cares who's 'running' the country?"

If we have learned anything over the last eight years, it is that who get elected, and who gets appointed, matters a great deal.

Doin a hell of a job, Brownie.

 

[Astronuc]

So does it actually mean anything in policy terms or is it just a bridge building exercise?
Secretary of state is the highest job he can hand out, after VP, isn't it?

With respect to policy, it can matter, since policy is driven by people and their thoughts/ideas.

The secretary of state is the leading diplomat after the president, but in the Bush administration, the VP and Secretary of Defense did wield significant influence with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

With respect to order of succession, after VP (who is president of the senate) comes:

speaker of the house
president pro tempore of the senate
secretary of state
secretary of treasury
secretary of defense
. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Apparently Clinton was being considered for Chairmanship of Ways and Means, which is a power spot in the senate.

 

[mgb_phys]

The secretary of state is the leading diplomat after the president, but in the Bush administration, the VP and Secretary of Defense did wield significant influence with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Depending on your politics you could say that the sec Defence ran the last administration.

With respect to order of succession, after VP (who is president of the senate) comes:

speaker of the house
president pro tempore of the senate
secretary of state
secretary of treasury
secretary of defense

But the speaker and pro-tem aren't presidential apppiontments - so this is the highest job he can hand out.
So presumably is the best consolation prize for Clinton supporters.

 

[BobG]

Depending on your politics you could say that the sec Defence ran the last administration.

If Rumsfeld was running the last administration, we would have probably only gotten involved in military campaigns that made the reforms he wanted look good - specifically, the quick invasion followed by a quick exit as soon as the invasion was done. There's no way he would have supported a long occupation, if he knew the long occupation would have been required. He obviously didn't support deviating from his vision of the military even after it became obvious the occupation and his vision weren't compatible.

I doubt Rice, Cheney, or Rumsfeld would have supported going to the UN unless they thought UN backing of the invasion was a slam dunk. Of course, Powell wouldn't have supported the invasion at all unless the intelligence was a slam dunk.

I think the Bush administration was going at least 3 separate directions simultaneously when it came to Iraq and, somehow, there was some delusion that all three of the directions would be compatible with each other.

Which always left me wondering how people could think Rice might have been a good candidate for President. The role of the National Security Advisor is to get everyone on the same page. She was pretty much a non-entity during her stint as NSA.

Any discipline within the administration that would required key leaders to agree on a coherent strategy would have caused the entire Iraq invasion idea to fall apart at the seams before plans ever left the cabinet.

No one really ran the last administration - which was its biggest problem.

 

[Astronuc]

Depending on your politics you could say that the sec Defence ran the last administration.

After reading Bob Woodward's The War Within and Plan of Attack, it's clear Bush wanted to do something about Saddam and Iraq. It's clear that he didn't think it out well enough, particularly the occupation, which the CPA mishandled. The conflict between State and Defense hurt the post-invasion process. They didn't have appropriate contingencies for the short invasion. They had expected something like 9 months, rather than a few weeks. But ultimately, it was Bush's call.

Then there is -
Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest regret
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081201/pl_nm/us_bush1_1

but Scott Ritter was saying in 2002 that there was no WMD, that there was no evidence to suggest WMD was in place. As far as I can tell from what I've read in books and media, Cheney and others were trying to turn any bit of information into evidence of WMD in order to justify the invasion of Iraq.

as for Bush's comments

"I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, 'Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack'," Bush said. "I didn't anticipate war."

That is inconsistent with his comments about using US troops to remove a dictactor if it was in the interest of the US (Wake Forest debate with Gore, Oct 2000), and then his broaching the subject of Iraq in the first cabinet meeting of his administration in 2001. He is the one who went to Tommy Franks and asked for a war plan in 2002.

But the speaker and pro-tem aren't presidential appointments - so this is the highest job he can hand out.

That's correct. The secretary of state is the highest cabinet level position after VP.

So presumably is the best consolation prize for Clinton supporters.

Effectively yes.

No one really ran the last administration - which was its biggest problem.

It certainly seems that way. Well Bush drove the bus the way a drunk driver would. Dissent was discouraged, and no one challenged the navigation. Powell was blind-sided because people withheld information from him. There was a hostile relationship between Rumsfeld's Pentagon and the State department, which undermined the US policy and actions.

Bremer should never have been the one in charge of the CPA, and that was attributed to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Apparently Bush, Powell and Rice had not been involved, and they should have been. It's not clear to me if Hadley (Rice's assistant and later NatSecAdv) knew about the CPA and it's mission.


It really does matter who is president, and who are the VP and cabinet members, and who serves in congress, as state governor, state legislator, county legislator, mayor, and who sits on the Supreme Court and various other federal, state and local courts - and so on.

 

[Astronuc]

After Sharp Words on C.I.A., Obama Faces a Delicate Task
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/us/politics/03intel.html

Profiles of nominees to Obama's administration
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/the_new_team/index.html

I hope Holbrooke doesn't get a position. It would surprise me if he got a Dep Sec slot at State.

 

[mheslep]

as for Bush's comments
That is inconsistent with his comments about using US troops to remove a dictactor if it was in the interest of the US (Wake Forest debate with Gore, Oct 2000), ...

No, Bush's statement there is consistent with the Bush Gore debates. Bush's position before 911 was clearly less hawkish than Gore's position as the debates showed. Prior to 911, Bush's publicly stated policy was no nation-building, he was less inclined than Gore to get militarily involved abroad.

Oct 3

...
MODERATOR: What if he [Milosevic] doesn't leave? What if all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure and he still doesn't go? Is this the kind of thing, and be specific, that you as president would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone?

GORE: ... But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.

BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force.

MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force?

BUSH: No.

MODERATOR: Why not?

BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country.

MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?

BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. ...

Oct 11

...
MODERATOR: ... Somalia.

BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either...

Bush said this kind of thing repeatedly in the 2000 campaign. That all changed after 911.

 

[mheslep]

but Scott Ritter was saying in 2002 that there was no WMD, that there was no evidence to suggest WMD was in place. ...

Ritter also in the second week of the invasion:

The United States is going to leave with its tail between its legs, defeated. It is a war we cannot win. We do not have the military means to take over Baghdad and for this reason I believe the defeat of the United States in the war is inevitable.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452284988/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ritter also in the second week of the invasion:


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452284988/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Ritter was a weapons inspector, not a military strategist. I wouldn't ask the plumber how to fix the TV either.