Special Classifieds Feature
Buy Washington Post Inauguration newspapers, books, and more
RSS
Required Reading | RSS
Top Video | RSS
Trench Warfare | RSS
Blunder Box | RSS
Reader Picks | RSS
Staff Picks | RSS
Best of The Post | RSS
Punchlines | RSS
Down-Ballot | RSS
4 p.m. ET: Sometimes, complete sentences and complex ideas can be a drag, especially in the afternoon when the morning caffeine has long worn off. At such times, a celebrity magazine-style "In/Out" list seems like the best way to capture the news of the day:
IN: Henry Waxman, the West L.A. liberal elite and the meritocracy.
OUT: John Dingell, the auto industry and the seniority system.
IN then OUT: Penny Pritzker, a Commerce Secretary candidate, and then not.
IN: Bipartisanship, according to Rahm Emanuel.
OUT: Congress, at least until December.
OUT: Discipline and boredom.
IN: Linda Sanchez's baby.
OUT: Ted Stevens, permanently.
8 a.m. ET: When Barack Obama's transition began two short weeks ago, we thought we knew two things with a fair degree of certainty: The incoming president would likely try to fill the "Big 3" Cabinet posts -- State, Defense, Treasury -- before turning to lesser offices, and he would strive to emphasize "change" with whatever choices he made.
Neither of those things has quite turned out to be true. As of this morning, we have a reported Cabinet lineup that includes Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Daschle, Attorney General Eric Holder and likely Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. And we have a nearly complete sense of who will populate Obama's senior White House staff, though it was always expected that the president-elect would fill those posts before most Cabinet jobs.
But we don't have picks yet for State, Defense, or Treasury, though each job seems to have been narrowed to three or fewer finalists. We may have had a Secretary of State pick sooner were Obama not apparently inclined to choose Hillary Clinton, who brings along so much baggage that cash-strapped airlines probably delight each time she arrives at the ticket counter (thank you, I'll be here all week). Defense appears to have been narrowed largely to Richard Danzig, perhaps after Bob Gates stays on a bit longer, while Treasury speculation remains centered on Tim Geithner or Larry Summers.
That brings us to the "change" theme, which is now and was always likely to be problematic for Obama. Did he promise too much during the campaign, or did his followers and the media read too much into his rhetoric? Did he really pledge to govern from Day One, beginning with his Cabinet picks, in a completely different and revolutionary way? Or did he mean that his policies and the "tone" of his administration would be different?
Whatever Obama meant to say, his words are now being used against him, as his Cabinet picks so far are widely judged to be overly conventional. "Experience Reigns, Not 'Change'," reports the Wall Street Journal this morning, while the Associated Press delivers the headline: "President-Elect Promised Change, Picking Insiders". Obama has indeed been picking veterans of the Clinton administration (Holder), Congress (Daschle) and now the statehouse (Napolitano), though it's worth asking: How many good candidates are there who don't come from one of those places? And how would the press -- and Republicans -- react if Obama named people with scant government experience to any of those jobs.
Now back, for a moment, to the opening at Treasury: Obama might want to move that one up the priority list, as the Dow dropped below 8,000 yesterday for the first time in five years and no one seems quite sure what to do about the flailing auto industry (though all are agreed that corporate jets aren't the best mode of travel right now).
Congress seems likely to leave town without getting much of anything done, though at least the leadership lineups are falling into place. The biggest remaining drama is whether Henry Waxman or John Dingell will chair the Energy and Commerce Committee next year. Hmm, "change" vs. "more of the same." Perhaps Obama will be watching C-SPAN today.
By
Ben Pershing
|
November 20, 2008; 8:00 AM ET
Go to full archive for The Rundown »
Posted by: 33rdStreet | November 20, 2008 9:07 AM
We would all be aghast if in the interest of bi-partisan change he had made Joe the Plumber ( for vetting purposed, Joe the unlicensed contractor)the Secretary of HUD. Now that would be change, though it isn't necessarily the kind of change that makes people happy.
It's also a little early to be complaining he's not changing the government, he wont be taking control of it for two more months.
But...Ben has column inches to fill so we're going to be examining this ongoing issues over our New Years egg nog, no doubt.
Posted by: dijetlo | November 20, 2008 12:30 PM
"Anyone who owned an investment portfolio during the Clinton administratin probably isn't terribly uncomfortable with the notion of "change" back to the monetary and budgetary policy that made them so well off."
Yes, let's go back to the days of Enron and IPOs of companies that didn't have a business model or even a business.
"And anyone who prefers to see the nation pretty much at peace would prefer our involvement in Bosnia over our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Yes, let's go back to the days of half-hearted involvment in Somalia where our people in uniform were left high and dry. Even better, let's be the World Police for the UN!
"And anyone in the middle class probably liked the Clinton years of relative prosperity and job growth far better than the last 8 years."
I've had better jobs since Clinton left office than I did when he was in. The "prosperity" was an illusion brought about by the tech bubble.
On a side note, so far, white women and black men are making up his cabinet. I'm really hoping for an Asian-American Secretary of something, maybe a Native American and quite frankly, a bit more ethnic variety than was under Clinton.
Posted by: jimbobborg | November 20, 2008 12:49 PM
We will soon have an intelligent POTUS.
That's enough change for me. And for the rest of the world that has lived in constant fear and loathing due to the world's superpower being run by the ignoramus W.
Intelligence matters. It'll be nice to actually have smart plans that can lead to peace and prosperity. That's the change we need.
Posted by: jrob822 | November 20, 2008 2:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Well, golly, Ben. Maybe there is at least one more option that you didn't consider. I mean, he did say "change" not "revolution". And when he used the word "change" it was in the context of the disaster that is the Bush administration.
Anyone who owned an investment portfolio during the Clinton administratin probably isn't terribly uncomfortable with the notion of "change" back to the monetary and budgetary policy that made them so well off.
And anyone who prefers to see the nation pretty much at peace would prefer our involvement in Bosnia over our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And anyone in the middle class probably liked the Clinton years of relative prosperity and job growth far better than the last 8 years.
So change in the direction of the policies that gave us those advantaages is probably not viewed as negatively as you suggest. It could mean that pundits will have to dig a little deeper than just regurgitating resumes to describe the "change" that is being instilled in DC, but it most certainly is change.
Clean underwear is a good start. A totally different kind of underwear that we have never seen nor worn before, or a new approach that makes underwear unnecessary might, in fact, not be the best way to start out an administration that must stabliize the economy and international relations as a first tier set of priorities. But then, it isn't nearly as exciting to right about as you had hoped, is it? But it is, nonetheless, change. Isn't it?