Time's Person of the Year 2008: Barack Obama
Most unnecessary support story in the POTY coverage: Why We Chose Obama
Ummmm, do you REALLY need to answer that question?
Now, I am no expert at major network programing, and my tastes in TV tend to run against the grain (raise your hand if you loved Arrested Development), but something tells me that this little plan is not going to work out.
Leno on at 10 PM, 5 nights a week? Yeah...someone is going to get screwed here. Maybe it will be Leno who will appear to overstay his welcome. Maybe it will be Conan who will not be able to thrive if Leno is overshadowing him at 10 PM. Maybe it will be NBC who have just ensured that the 10 PM time slot is now a two way race for scripted dramas.
Then again, maybe I am wrong and this will be the spark that restores a once proud network to #1 in the ratings. Or maybe not.
Let's start with the newest rumor that Obama will retain Defense Secretary Gates. I read it first here, and it was all but confirmed here later in the day. Of course, I need to mention that I called this one a few days ago. And really I called this over a week ago in a conversation with my Dad, but only he knows that. Not that it was a tough call, but still, how's that for arm chair analysis?
Needless to say, I remain unhappy with this pick for all the reasons I stated earlier. Now I don't count myself among the "net roots" community, even though my support for Obama and hatred of Joe Lieberman put me generally in their camp. But I gotta say, they have a point here. Obama ran on change and he would not have been a viable candidate during the primaries without his anti Iraq war stance. Now he is holding over Bush's Defense Secretary to get us out of this mess? That is not governing from the center, that is pandering to the right (IMHO).
OK, some final thoughts on other top posts:
Homeland Security
Let's pause for one moment to reflect on the fact that, in America, we have a top division of the government called the "Department of Homeland Security". Is that creepy or what???
The rumored top candidate for this post is Arizona Governor Janet Nopolitano. I don't know much about the Governor except that she was an early Obama supporter and that she runs a boarder state. I am glad to see that Obama is leaning towards a governor for this post and not a Senator. DHS is a rambling mess of different divisions and bureaucracies that have yet to fully integrate in one unit (I believe they are still spread out in different buildings over DC and VA). This post requires someone who can pull the department together and try to make it work. Having a working knowledge of immigration and boarder security will not hurt either.
Now, who was on FAU's short list for DHS? To be honest, no one. I am still not clear what makes a person qualified for this job. I am glad that he didn't go the "police chief" route (I think uber commissioner William Bratton was rumored for the post) since this has to be more than the nation's "top cop". But let's take Nopolitano's qualifications and see who else fits the bill: governor, immigration knowledge, boarder state, key Obama supporter, can run a bureaucracy...hmmmm, nope, no one comes to mind except:
Commerce
Bill Richardson. Poor Bill Richardson. The man I initially supported for President (until I heard him speak). I really have nothing to say about Richardson as Commerce Secretary so let's talk for a moment as to why he might have been passed over not once, but twice.
OK, he may have been Ambassador to the UN (which can be a stepping stone to State), but in a match-up against Hillary there is no way he was going to win that job. I think Sen. Clinton is the right choice for State as I have said before.
But why not DHS? Richardson has all of the qualifications that Nopolitano does and he has the bonus of being a Latino which could help in building bridges to the communities that are directly impacted by US immigration policy. If Richardson tells the Latino community the hard truth (that a secure boarder is the first essential step to immigration reform) it may have more credibility. Plus, he has run a government department and he is a diplomat which may be a useful skill in smoothing over issues between fractions at DHS that likely still exist. Not to mention the media diplomacy needed to repairer the perceptions that the TSA and FEMA are ineffective agencies.
There are two reasons I can think of to pick Nopolitano over Richardson: 1) Obama doesn't trust Richardson or does not think he can handle one of the top jobs or 2) John McCain now owes the 44th President a big favor (or two). Since Nopolitano was likely to challenge McCain for the Senate in 2010 he now has a much easier path to reelection if she is out of the way.
UPDATE: I thought of a third reason: Sen. Clinton is still pissed at Richardson for throwing his support behind Obama and blackballed him for DHS (basically saying "if you want me, he cannot be in a top post"). This may be more than just pettiness since State and DHS have to work together on some difficult issues. She may be so pissed that she wants nothing to do with him (or it could just be petty).
I would say that Commerce is a "fine department", but that would be a lie. It is the place where new Presidents generally put their top crony (exhibit 1 and with all due respect, exhibit 2). It is essentially a political demotion for Richardson and it's really sad if he takes it (Politico suspects that his need to be in the action is why he would agree to this appointment). If he's willing to roll over and take this job then I guess we know why he isn't our next President.
That may be all from me on Obama appointments. In general think he is making the smart picks given the current situation in the country. We don't have time for learning curves and everyone seems to know the lay of the land well enough that they can hit the ground running on 1/20. Of course, one of them is likely to fall apart before they are confirmed, it will be interesting to see who it is.
I know a lot of parents say that, but really, try to argue that point with me:
More new photos are on Flickr and Facebook.
Much has happened since I wrote my last entry on this topic.
The Clinton nomination seems to be a done deal (I am very happy) and I was wrong about Sec of Treasury. I do feel Obama missed and opportunity with that last one, but I rather have Geithner than the other names on the short list.
And more rumors are flying about other posts which leads me to part 2:
Secretary of Defense
Part of the reason I was crossing my fingers for Sheila Bair was an answer Obama gave in his 60 Minutes interview. When asked if there would be Republicans in the cabinet he said "yes" without missing a beat. In my mind there were two names who would easily be on that list: Bair and Sec Robert Gates. So now that we know it is not Bair, it is likely that Obama will retain Gates.
This distressed me greatly. I feel like we have a high opionion of Sec. Gates becuase we have such a low opion of his predicessor. Just because Gates is doing better than Rummy does not mean he is the bast man for the job. And there are at least three Democrates who I would argue could do the job better: Wesley Clark, Jim Webb and Sam Nunn.
A mistake tells me that Nunn has said he does not want the job. That's too bad beacause I really like Nunn and think he is pargamatic and a very smart man (and highly respected on the right). Webb seems to like his job in the Senate and as a "blue" seat in a traditionally "red" state there would be pressure to keep him in there. That leaves Clark (who I supported for President in 2004), arguabally a better choice politically: first of all how many prominant former Generals are Democrates and, as a former Hillary supporter isn't he a better fit for the "Team of Rivals" narative.
This also ticks me off for two other reasons: 1) Gates is a politically safe choice because he is well liked by both sides in Congress, but don't we need more right now? At a time when the country is yearing to turn the page on Iraq and get the hell out, why would Obama stick with the current guy just to be politically safe? That would really bug me.
And 2) why is it that the one Republican in a Democratic Administration is always the DoD Chair? Are we saying that our team is not tough enough for the job? Our bench is not that deep? The Dems need to show that they can be strong on National Defense and the "War on Terror" or they will never be able to kee a hold on power long term. We don't need Republicans for babysit us at the Pentagon. The Dems have to take this issue out of the GOP playbook and that starts with naming a Democrat to DoD and capturing bin Ladin (something that Gates has yet been able to do).
Attorney General
I will freely admit that most of what I know about Eric Holder I have
learned in the last few days. Here is a recap for those not in the know:
- He was Deputy AG for part of the Clinton administration and apparently kept the lines of communications to the White House open since Pres. Clinton and AG Reno are rumored to have hated one another
- He was the US Attorney for DC
- He served as an adviser to the Obama campaign
- Of course he would be the first black AG in US history
- Oh, and he signed off on Marc Rich's pardon by Clinton, which became the final "Clinton scandal" trumped up by the right wing media in early 2001
Yeah...I'm gonna call bulls**t on that one. Look, the Rich pardon was not the best, but it was not the worst (Ford has that one locked up for a long time). Here's the thing, Holder's confirmation hearings will be taking place either just before or just after Pres. Bush issues two pardons that are widely expected: Ted Stevens and Louis I. "Scooter" Libby. You can argue the merits of a Stevens pardon (he is 85), but a potential Libby pardon is WAAAAYYYY worse than a pardon for Rich. Marc Rich was a wealthy guy who had some shady dealings and a wife who donated to the Clintons. Libby contributed to outing a member of the CIA's clandestine service as political payback. Me thinks there is a little more quid pro quo in the Libby pardon (you break the law, I'll get you out of it).
On top of that there is our last AG...you know, the one who authored a memo [PDF] expalining how tourture was not a violation of the Geniva convention BEFORE he got the job as the top lawyer. The one who left in disgrace after he fired US Attorneys who would not go after Democrats. Gonzoles basically got a free pass during his confirmation hearings. If he can get confirmed then Holder will sail through. Sorry Sen. Spector, your old pal George dropped the bar REALLY low on this one.
Interesting footnote here: Rich's lawyer from 1985 to 2000? Scooter Libby. Yeah, it's a small world.
OK, sorry for those of you who don't care for my inside politics analysis. I promis to only hit on a few more key appointments in part 3. And some day I'll get back to blogging about my kids.
I have been challenged to give a public opinion on one of President-Elect Obama's potential cabinet nominations so I thought that I would use the opportunity to share some thoughts on that and other potential appointments:
Secretary of State
OK, let's start with the big one that EVERYONE is talking about. For the record, I think that Sen. Clinton would be an excellent choice for Secretary of State. She has the experience to step right into the job, she knows many of the relevant world leaders, and she is a rock star on the global stage which will help us quickly repair many strained relationships. She is more qualified and a better public face for the nation than Kerry or Richardson (both of whom would usher in an era on snore diplomacy).
Yes, I would miss having her as my Senator. And yes, I think the Bill should be asked to limit his role in the Clinton Global Initiative (something he seems willing to do). It is not unreasonable for the former President to make a few changes in order to avoid possible missteps or awkward diplomatic situations (think of the limits as a diplomatic chastity belt for old Bill).
Now, what the President-elect needs to accepts is that if he wants Clinton in his "Team of Rivals" then he is going to get the Clinton drama. As this has played out in the media he is getting a taste of what could happen when she gets the job. The Clintons have their own lines to the media and their own theory on using leaks that may not match Pres. Obama's approach. For example, I happen to think the she leaked the "I'm torn and I'm not sure I want to leave the Senate" story both to put pressure on Obama to officially offer her the job and to give herself an out if they couldn't resolve the Bill issue.
Bottom line: the good news is she is ready "day one" and is the best person for the job, the bad news is she is likely to bring some drama to Obama. In my mind, the positives far outweigh the draw backs there.
Treasury
While I do see some value in giving the job to someone who knows it already (See Rubin or Summers) I happen to think that it is not a good idea to take a step back like that. Both are fine men, but both have flaws (Rubin's close ties to Citi and Summers bumppy turn as President of Harvard). Paul Volker is also a fine man, and brilliant, but I am a little concened about his age.
I am going to make a not-so-crazy pitch here for FDIC Chair Shila Bair. Politically Obama gets three things: the first woman to head Treasury, a Republican and a person who is pro-regulation. It would likely help him get new regualtions through with limited attacks from Congressional Republicans (its hard to slam a regulation change when a member of your own party is managing it).
He also gets someone who was willing to take a risk by floating her own plan for mortgage reform, a plan that that both seems reasonable and is supported by Congressional Democrats. And she is right in the middle of the current crisis so she knows the people involved (especially the Fed Chairman).
If he does not nominate her to Treasury (a long shot based on all reports), then he should at least keep her on at the FDIC (if she will stay). She has shown herself to be smart and calm under pressure and she is one of the only Bush officials emerging from recent events without a tainted reputation (plus she sounds great on NPR)
Tune in tomorrow (or next week) for part 2 where I'll disucss the AG and DoD.
Now, I don't normally quote pundits but there were two lines last night that I thought were brilliant. The first was humorous: after PA went blue (as expected) Joe Scarboro said "Pennsylvania is fools gold for Republicans. Every election they think they can win the Philly suburbs and they never do."
The second quote was more poignant. Gene Robinson, MSNBC's sole black commentator said "Tonight it feels different to be an America." I could not agree more.
I thought that McCain's speech was gracious and one of his best (concession speeches often are, see Clinton, Hillary). I hope that he and Obama are smart enough to realize that they both could benefit for working together on some key issues. Obama gets to prove that he really is post-partisan and McCain can rehab his badly damaged image.
Obama's speech was not one of his best. I honestly think that the address he gave in June when he captured the nomination was better. But these are more sober times and they called for a more sober message. History was on stage tonight and it was not time for too many platitudes. But I admit that I cried while listening, especially when he described the 106 year-old black woman in Georgia. It put the entire night in the grand context of history that it deserved.
Seeing Jesse Jackson and Oprah in the crowd was touching. They are celebrities, but they are also black Americans who have faced discrimination. It was powerful to see how these larger than life figures were touched at that moment.
Also worth noting is the loses by the GOP in Congress. Two years ago I wrote about how "my GOP", the Northeastern, moderate Republicans, was dead. Well if it was not dead in 2006, it is dead now. Chris Shays, the last GOP House member from New England was voted out and Democrats picked up seats in New York and New Jersey. All of New York City is now represented by Democrats.
Bush has done a number on the party. The GOP has to regroup, but it may take many years and require the emergence of a new, dynamic leader before they can do that. The fractures that have divided the party are deep and repairing them will take some work . Meanwhile the nation is becoming more urban and more Hispanic, both changes that seem to create more challenges for the Republicans.
As for our President-elect, he has a lot of work to do and very high expectations. As he said himself, we cannot fix everything in one year or even one term (nice plug for re-election), but like almost 64 million other Americans I have hope that he can turn things around.
Indeed, today it feels different to be an American.
Today Em and I loaded MLTU and DMTU into the car, drove to our polling place and gladly preformed our civic duty. Unlike reports coming in from all over the country (too many to link to), the lines were not out the door.
To say I have been remiss in posting during the general election is an understatement. I looked at the blog today and realized I has missed the entire month of October and have not commented on politics since early September (not long after the conventions ended).
Since that time I have been obsessed with four sites (fivethirtyeight.com, politico.com, slate.com and the NYTimes Caucus Blog) visiting them several times per day trying to "read the tea leaves" of this election. Between my massive consumption of information, parenting my children, catching a few minutes of TV to escape and trying to get some sleep (although less than Em thinks is healthy) this blog has suffered.
So, I am going to attempt in one post (or two if this gets to long or I can't finish before I go to bed) to get a bunch of thoughts out of my head and into the world. This is going to be long so I'll break it up to keep it digestible.
To start with, on some level I feel vindicated on two points. First I have been saying for four years that, to win, the Democrats need to forget the deep south, campaign hard in the inner-mountain west (specifically by going after the Hispanic vote) and second try to co-opt the economic issues from the GOP. It looks like I called that one.
As a marketer, I have been really impressed with the way Sen. Obama has run his campaign. I know that the pundits clearly agree that it has been "disciplined", but to me it goes beyond that. He set a large strategy which set in motion everythng that he did (in marketing we call this a "brand positioning"). Then he took that positioning and created a tagline (Change We Can Believe In), a slogan (Yes, We Can) and a logo. These three things are the bedrock of any good brand effort, and I really want a copy of his brand book.
But, Obama also employed some practical marketing tactics like including a clear "call to action" on every commuication, giving people an incentive (getting first word on the VP pick) as a way to add them to a text message or email list, employing people at a raly to call friends and remind them to vote, turning "brand advocates" into at home phone bank workers, having a clear, easy to read website that is "web 2.0" in style, substance and funcationality, buying paid search results for "Joe the Plumber" the day after the last debate (first sponsored link drove to the Obama tax calculator). As a fan of the candidate I was comforted by these efforts, as a marketer I am in awe of them. That goes beyon disciplin, that its a f***ing great product launch.
One quick shout out to Sen. Clinton. I truly feel that the long primary battle made Obama a better candidate by both testing him and by forcing him to set up ground opperations in almost every state. The Obama who won Iowa would not be where he is today without Sen. Clinton and while that fight got heated, I think that the way it has ended has been admirable. She has been a class act in throwing her support behind him and, should he lose, she is my top pick for '12 (for now anyway).
The worst part of this election has been watching the daily erosion of John McCain's integrity. While I applaude the Senator for holding back in some areas (like Rev. Wright), I feel some pain whenever I hear him using thinly vailed jingoistic language or questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism. And don't get me started on the ads, they make the Bush tactics look like Little League. I think that McCain looked into the face of hate when the people at his events called Obama an arab and a terrorist and it freaked him out, as well it should. He got into bed with some bad people and he has paid the price. A once great man has little integrity left and is morally bankrupt. Should he win I fear he will be virtually unable to govern with a Democratic Congress. Should he lose, he will have to decide if he wants to rehab his image or walk off into the sunset. Excuse me while I call the year 2000 and ask for my primary vote back.
This election has clearly raised the level of emotion in the country, and in me. There are times that I am over invested emotionally and I see this election as a referendum on the American character. I admit that one of the reasons I want Obama to win is that I want to believe that America is a mature enough democracy that his race, or his name or the rumors about him will not stop people from voting for him. But if he loses, I fear that it will make me feel like I live in a nation that I do not know, that I do not belong in.
I know that is a heavy burden to place on an election, but that is how I see it. And it is not just because of race, it really comes down to the way McCain chose to run. If he wins it will be a direct result of the fear and hatred that he directly and indirectly stired up in America. While he never played the race card, he did enough to paint Obama as "un-American". When you add that, and throw in "pals around with terrorists" the message is clear: he is the enemy and we must fear him. Look, had the economy not fallen apart, McCain may have won on the issues, after all, he was closer or leading in the polls when everything fell apart. And if he had ran on the issues, it would have been a clean fight. But when the market crashed, he went to the gutter in earnest and has not looked back. If he wins it will be a result of racism and I am really not sure what that will say about America.
The silver lining in all of this is that whenever someone on the right has gone to the "un-American" or "real America" place they seem to get called on it by the meida and in the polls. The bad thing is that the message creeps into the conversation in ways that are hard to notice right away (see Joe the Plumber at a McCain event saying "I am voting for a real American, John McCain"). All I can hope is that on Tuesday a decisive Obama vistory proves that these intollerant people are the minority in this country.
I have been a political junky for most of my life, but I have never followed an election this closely. Maybe it is the availiblity of information, maybe it is that fact that the issues of jobs and taxes and health care really resonate with me now that I own a home and have children, maybe it is the fact that I so want to see the Bush years washed away. Whatever the reason I think we all realize that this is an important election. On Tuesday I will proudly vote for Obama and hope that the nation stands with me.
Yes we can.
To say I have been remiss in posting during the general election is an understatement. I looked at the blog today and realized I has missed the entire month of October and have not commented on politics since early September (not long after the conventions ended).
Since that time I have been obsessed with four sites (fivethirtyeight.com, politico.com, slate.com and the NYTimes Caucus Blog) visiting them several times per day trying to "read the tea leaves" of this election. Between my massive consumption of information, parenting my children, catching a few minutes of TV to escape and trying to get some sleep (although less than Em thinks is healthy) this blog has suffered.
So, I am going to attempt in one post (or two if this gets to long or I can't finish before I go to bed) to get a bunch of thoughts out of my head and into the world. This is going to be long so I'll break it up to keep it digestible.
To start with, on some level I feel vindicated on two points. First I have been saying for four years that, to win, the Democrats need to forget the deep south, campaign hard in the inner-mountain west (specifically by going after the Hispanic vote) and second try to co-opt the economic issues from the GOP. It looks like I called that one.
As a marketer, I have been really impressed with the way Sen. Obama has run his campaign. I know that the pundits clearly agree that it has been "disciplined", but to me it goes beyond that. He set a large strategy which set in motion everythng that he did (in marketing we call this a "brand positioning"). Then he took that positioning and created a tagline (Change We Can Believe In), a slogan (Yes, We Can) and a logo. These three things are the bedrock of any good brand effort, and I really want a copy of his brand book.
But, Obama also employed some practical marketing tactics like including a clear "call to action" on every commuication, giving people an incentive (getting first word on the VP pick) as a way to add them to a text message or email list, employing people at a raly to call friends and remind them to vote, turning "brand advocates" into at home phone bank workers, having a clear, easy to read website that is "web 2.0" in style, substance and funcationality, buying paid search results for "Joe the Plumber" the day after the last debate (first sponsored link drove to the Obama tax calculator). As a fan of the candidate I was comforted by these efforts, as a marketer I am in awe of them. That goes beyon disciplin, that its a f***ing great product launch.
One quick shout out to Sen. Clinton. I truly feel that the long primary battle made Obama a better candidate by both testing him and by forcing him to set up ground opperations in almost every state. The Obama who won Iowa would not be where he is today without Sen. Clinton and while that fight got heated, I think that the way it has ended has been admirable. She has been a class act in throwing her support behind him and, should he lose, she is my top pick for '12 (for now anyway).
The worst part of this election has been watching the daily erosion of John McCain's integrity. While I applaude the Senator for holding back in some areas (like Rev. Wright), I feel some pain whenever I hear him using thinly vailed jingoistic language or questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism. And don't get me started on the ads, they make the Bush tactics look like Little League. I think that McCain looked into the face of hate when the people at his events called Obama an arab and a terrorist and it freaked him out, as well it should. He got into bed with some bad people and he has paid the price. A once great man has little integrity left and is morally bankrupt. Should he win I fear he will be virtually unable to govern with a Democratic Congress. Should he lose, he will have to decide if he wants to rehab his image or walk off into the sunset. Excuse me while I call the year 2000 and ask for my primary vote back.
This election has clearly raised the level of emotion in the country, and in me. There are times that I am over invested emotionally and I see this election as a referendum on the American character. I admit that one of the reasons I want Obama to win is that I want to believe that America is a mature enough democracy that his race, or his name or the rumors about him will not stop people from voting for him. But if he loses, I fear that it will make me feel like I live in a nation that I do not know, that I do not belong in.
I know that is a heavy burden to place on an election, but that is how I see it. And it is not just because of race, it really comes down to the way McCain chose to run. If he wins it will be a direct result of the fear and hatred that he directly and indirectly stired up in America. While he never played the race card, he did enough to paint Obama as "un-American". When you add that, and throw in "pals around with terrorists" the message is clear: he is the enemy and we must fear him. Look, had the economy not fallen apart, McCain may have won on the issues, after all, he was closer or leading in the polls when everything fell apart. And if he had ran on the issues, it would have been a clean fight. But when the market crashed, he went to the gutter in earnest and has not looked back. If he wins it will be a result of racism and I am really not sure what that will say about America.
The silver lining in all of this is that whenever someone on the right has gone to the "un-American" or "real America" place they seem to get called on it by the meida and in the polls. The bad thing is that the message creeps into the conversation in ways that are hard to notice right away (see Joe the Plumber at a McCain event saying "I am voting for a real American, John McCain"). All I can hope is that on Tuesday a decisive Obama vistory proves that these intollerant people are the minority in this country.
I have been a political junky for most of my life, but I have never followed an election this closely. Maybe it is the availiblity of information, maybe it is that fact that the issues of jobs and taxes and health care really resonate with me now that I own a home and have children, maybe it is the fact that I so want to see the Bush years washed away. Whatever the reason I think we all realize that this is an important election. On Tuesday I will proudly vote for Obama and hope that the nation stands with me.
Yes we can.
