Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Cabinet Picks Creates Vulnerabilities

INDIAN WELLS, Calif. -- The Fix is enjoying another day in paradise but took a bit of time out of the sun to pen a piece on how the large number of elected officials picked by President-elect Barack Obama for his Cabinet has created a series of potentially dangerous electoral openings.

We write:

"Roughly a dozen current Democratic officeholders are rumored to be vacating their current posts for jobs in the Obama administration, potentially leaving openings that carry varying levels of concern for Democratic strategists."

Among the most problematic: Arizona where Gov. Janet Napolitano's likely ascension to head the Department of Homeland Security means Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer will become governor.

By Chris Cillizza  |  November 29, 2008; 10:08 AM ET
Categories:  White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Fix Breaks
Next: Bill Clinton Will Release Identity of Donors

Comments

He Chris, 37thRules is correct. I think he is saying that having a Clinton third term will pose many problems in the future. I think he is correct: Obama had
95% African American vote
95% white/black liberal vote
70% Latino vote
75% Gay vote
12% white vote
***********

obama won 45% of the white vote

Posted by: dummypants | December 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

He Chris, 37thRules is correct. I think he is saying that having a Clinton third term will pose many problems in the future. I think he is correct: Obama had
95% African American vote
95% white/black liberal vote
70% Latino vote
75% Gay vote
12% white vote

I wish affirmative action was gone. But he had the support from these groups to win. If he loses their support, they will turn against him BADLY! He needs to focus on the top 5 groups agenda above to get reelected 2012. Early this morning i was reading that most latinos are upset with his picks. Latino's did honesty help him win states like Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. The worst mistake was the Hillary pick. This will hurt him. The Republicans are now reaching out to all those groups including the Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. That would be a MAJOR LOSS and now if he loses the support of liberals and their agenda he is gone after 2012. Obama needs to show he is in control and has the experience and is ready to lead.
1. If he can't bring troops home fast within 16 months
2. Fix the economy
3.Piss off the Liberals, Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. They will all swing toward the Republican direction in 2012.

I predict a Republican surge in 2012

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | December 1, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

He Chris, 37thRules is correct. I think he is saying that having a Clinton third term will pose many problems in the future. I think he is correct: Obama had
95% African American vote
95% white/black liberal vote
70% Latino vote
75% Gay vote
12% white vote

I wish affirmative action was gone. But he had the support from these groups to win. If he loses their support, they will turn against him BADLY! He needs to focus on the top 5 groups agenda above to get reelected 2012. Early this morning i was reading that most latinos are upset with his picks. Latino's did honesty help him win states like Florida, New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada. The worst mistake was the Hillary pick. This will hurt him. The Republicans are now reaching out to all those groups including the Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. That would be a MAJOR LOSS and now if he loses the support of liberals and their agenda he is gone after 2012. Obama needs to show he is in control and has the experience and is ready to lead.
1. If he can't bring troops home fast within 16 months
2. Fix the economy
3.Piss off the Liberals, Gays, Latinos, and African Americans. They will all swing toward the Republican direction in 2012.

I predict a Republican surge in 2012

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | December 1, 2008 8:09 AM | Report abuse

"Because her actual policies were more ambitiously progressive than Baraks ever were."

Specifics, please.

Posted by: DDAWD | December 1, 2008 4:19 AM | Report abuse

37 Street-

Speak for yourself- not for liberals. I have been a left-wing activist for 24 years on the campaigns for Jackson, Dinkins, Cuomo, Bob Kerry, Ferrer, Messinger, etc. I was also a Clinton supporter- why? Because her actual policies were more ambitiously progressive than Baraks ever were. "Liberals" who chose Barak over the other candidates ignored the fact that the guy never was and never claimed to be a liberal. They ignored the fact that almost all the other candidtes, except Richardson, were putting forth more liberal agendas. His "most liberal senator" only came because he voted in 33% of the votes in 07 and 40 in 08- so the ones he did vote in were with the party. He actually ranked in the teens in his other 2 years in the senate.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | December 1, 2008 1:06 AM | Report abuse

Obama is doing precisely what he said he would do ---and he is not finished yet.
All the "sky-is-falling" Clintondrones with their superficial concern about campaign rhetoric and the right-wing fearmongering chickenhawks with their cry-wolf blather about socialists are now expressing surprise, shock and even begrudging support for Obama's early Cabinet picks.

Well, his choices are no surprise to those of us who took the time to read his pre-campaign speeches and position papers and Senate floor addresses.

He may have progressive social tendencies, but he has ALWAYS BEEN A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE MILITARY AND OF AGGRESSIVE ACTION TOWARDS AL QUEDA.

What is more, he is guided by a strong sense of Christian morality that will trump the avarice of party hacks and special interests trolls.

I predict that a strong, fair and effective President is about to take office.

If I'm wrong then we will exact our retribution in 2010. But, if I am correct - Obama will make a real difference to nearly all of us.

As a consquence, I will support him now -- wholeheartedly -- not with doubt and hedged bets. America does not win if it plays namby-pamby foolishness - like we did in Vietnam. If we want to succeed, we must commit to success.

If we are going to pull out of this mess, we must give him all of our support -- 100% --- trust but verify applies in 2008.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | November 30, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Obama is doing precisely what he said he would do ---and he is not finished yet.
All the "sky-is-falling" Clintondrones with their superficial concern about campaign rhetoric and the right-wing fearmongering chickenhawks with their cry-wolf blather about socialists are now expressing surprise, shock and even begrudging support for Obama's early Cabinet picks.

Well, his choices are no surprise to those of us who took the time to read his pre-campaign speeches and position papers and Senate floor addresses.

He may have progressive social tendencies, but he has ALWAYS BEEN A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE MILITARY AND OF AGGRESSIVE ACTION TOWARDS AL QUEDA.

What is more, he is guided by a strong sense of Christian morality that will trump the avarice of party hacks and special interests trolls.

I predict that a strong, fair and effective President is about to take office.

If I'm wrong then we will exact our retribution in 2010. But, if I am correct - Obama will make a real difference to nearly all of us.

As a consquence, I will support him now -- wholeheartedly -- not with doubt and hedged bets. America does not win if it plays namby-pamby foolishness - like we did in Vietnam. If we want to succeed, we must commit to success.

If we are going to pull out of this mess, we must give him all of our support -- 100% --- trust but verify applies in 2008.

Posted by: gandalfthegrey | November 30, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

If I had known Obama was going to keep Gates, appoint H-Rod and Tim G -- I probably would have voted for him.

He seems like a pragmatic centrist, at this point!

Posted by: newbeeboy | November 30, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse


mattadamsdietmanager1014

My additional concern is that there are so many Clinton people in the cabinet at early stages - what is the rest of the government going to look like ???


Obama can fill out the rest of the cabinet with people unrelated to the Clinton administration.


However there are over 3000 other positions in the government - and if the Clinton administration people have the inside track at this point, their people will have the inside track for the bulk of the other 3000 positions.

We really are seeing the third Clinton administration.


If they brought Monica back it would add some humanity to it, wouldn't it???

.

.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 30, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Response to 37Ostreet: I agree with what you are saying. I am responding to what people are saying on the street.
1. I think that Gov Richardson would have been a better choice or even John Kerry ( for New Mexico,Colorado,Florida latino voters)
2. Again he has too many Clinton picks in his cabinet mainly Hillary. The Republican's will use this against him in 2012 and say he's brought in washington insiders (not a maverick).
3. If he wants his presidency to be a success, he would need to follow through and get the troops out of Iraq.
4. Focus on creating jobs (Florida, Ohio)
5. Control the Clinton's and Hillary.
6. Prop #8 (liberals,California)
Sadly, the republicans will use this against him.
1. Hillary voted for the War in Iraq
2. Joe Biden also voted for the War
3. He now has the Bush cronies like Robert Gates staying on.

The Republican's im sure will be laughing this now to election 2012


Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | November 30, 2008 8:22 AM | Report abuse


.

.

.

.


mattadamsdietmanager1014


Did Obama campaign as the Post-partisan candidate or the liberal candidate? This is important.


What did Obama say?


See this is why so many people were angry with Obama's platform - they felt as though Obama was saying "post-partisan" and gaining support based on that commitment - however many people believed he was masking an ultra-liberal agenda like you described.

So which is it?

My thoughts are that Obama would be wise to stick with his words: that he is post-partisan - Let's see half the cabinet Republicans, a few Independents -


well.

Obama should do exactly what he said: be post-racial.


Obama should end affirmative action and impose a strict merit-based economy which is color blind.

Your assertion that certain ethnic groups need representation should be tossed aside - the best person for every job should be chosen - we have too many underqualified people filling slots.

Obama would do well if he follows his own words. It is not that hard.

.


.


.


.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 30, 2008 6:26 AM | Report abuse

Hi Chris agree 100% the Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates as well as Clinton Cabinet picks will cost him re-election in 2012. This is like a nightmare to us liberals. We are staying very quiet about it. It is also heart breaking to see this when he campaigned on "CHANGE". Mondays announcements wil hurt him politically.
If he wants to wn re-election in 2012 he would?
1. Need to bring the Troops home from Iraq and i mean FAST!
2. Fix the Economy
3.Address prop#8 in public
4.Hire new faces to his cabinet, latinos,gays, and afican americans.
5. Follow the liberal agenda a make sure his team follows it as well and not theirs.
6. Hopefully Hillary will do a good job if not,get rid of her like sh did of Powel in4 years or less. Make sure she folows his agenda and not hers.

Obama won the states of Nevada, Caliornia, Ohio and Florida because of those people.
He would need heir support. If he loses it, he's gone and the Republican's will have an opening to beat him.
Republicans are already reahing out to those groups.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | November 30, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

If I had to voluntarily turn over one office in the USA to Republicans, and dog-catcher in Punxsutawney wasn't one of the choices, Governor of Arizona might just be my pick.

Phoenix is the USA's 5'th largest city, I'll grant you, but it's also the city which has suffered the largest decline in real estate value during the Bush crash. It's most of Arizona, in terms of population.

Only a masochist would want to have to govern that state, which also sits squarely at the forefront of immigration issues and the burdens immigration places on state governments, under those conditions.

Let the party of Limbaugh and Palin have it.

Posted by: officermancuso | November 29, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

What a lazy post ... would you like to post where the classifieds are online, too? And your logic is no more persuasive in a lazy reposting than it was originally. Barack Obama is picking the best people for the jobs and perhaps isn't being partisan enough for you ... of course if he only picked out of work has beens you'd complain about that. You MSM blowhards should go on PERMANENT vacation.

Posted by: Omyobama | November 29, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

For all the hype of the incoming Obama administration, it sounds alot like the third Bush term. Everything from from taxes, budget, war and homeland security is a continuation of George W. Bush. They are even keeping his Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates. Maybe the President-elect should call his political agenda Progressive Status-Quo, because there is not much else to it other than what Bush has started the past eight years.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

Posted by: ussmcdaniel | November 29, 2008 7:03 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


The Clinton administration was anything but the best and brightest -


These are the people who started off claiming they were "policy wonks."

Soon it became apparent they were unable to produce any workable proposals for health care legislation - they produced a deficit-laden plan that had zero chance of passage.

Then they proved even more inept by failing to get support for their own plan.

Incredibly was all downhill from there: That set the stage for losing control of Congress, the budget crisis, the Monica affair, the trade deals, the Chinese money, the Indonesian money, the lying in a deposition, the disbarment of a sitting President.

Do I have to go on?

The Clinton administration was the worst in the 20th century - so much promise and absolutely nothing delivered.


All the while squandering the opportunities which came at the end of the Cold War -

You people can not be serious.

History will lay responsiblity for current economic crisis squarely on the democrats in the 1990s - the money that that DNC and the Clintons took from Wall Street in order to deregulate and repeal the Glass-Steagall Act

OH Hillary did get herself elected to the Senate - coincidence that she was courting Wall Street for her run at the same period of deregulation of Wall Street ???

As history will lay the failure of US Foreign Polic in the Middle East to confront al queda in the 1990s squarely on the Clinton Administration - leading to al queda's increasing boldness until the terrorist attacks in New York.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT RE-INSTALLING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IS A GOOD IDEA???

ONLY IF THE INTERNS COME TOO.

What this nation needs most is HONESTY - we have way too many partisans spinning their own versions of history so many ways that perhaps even they have deluded themselves.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 29, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

If he does as he has promised, next he's going to start robbing the best Republicans to bring them on board.

At least the brain drain is in the up direction and not down.

Posted by: AsperGirl | November 29, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Chris, I agree with Optimyst's premise and conclusion, but humbly request that we all refrain from the "best and brightest" motif that Halberstam coined to describe the folks who mired us in 'Nam.

This is my age showing.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | November 29, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

With all due respect, Chris, you are looking at this tactically. If Obama succeeds in picking the best and the brightest for his administration and Americans get used to the idea of their government operating efficiently and in their interest instead of under the three decades old dictum of Reagan -- "Government is the problem, not the solution" -- then the grand strategy will trump the few tactical weaknesses exposed in executing it.

Posted by: optimyst | November 29, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

As long as Obama and the congress move the peace and prosperity balls forward, democrats will continue to pound republicans in elections: the people agree with democratic policies by wide margins, and today's republicans are too stubborn and narrow-minded to realize that their policies don't work and need to be changed.

Posted by: jrob822 | November 29, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse


.


.


.

.


Let's talk about the Clinton Administration and the "judgement" of re-installing them in the government:


From the Wall Street Journal today:


Under fire for his role in the near-collapse of Citigroup Inc., Robert Rubin said its problems were due to the buckling financial system, not its own mistakes, and that his role was peripheral to the bank's main operations even though he was one of its highest-paid officials.

"Nobody was prepared for this," Mr. Rubin said in an interview. He cited former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan as another example of someone whose reputation has been unfairly damaged by the crisis.


Robert Rubin, in Washington this month, faces criticism as Citi slides.
Mr. Rubin, senior counselor and a director at Citigroup, acknowledged that he was involved in a board decision to ramp up risk-taking in 2004 and 2005, even though he was warning publicly that investors were taking too much risk. He said if executives had executed the plan properly, the bank's losses would have been less.

Its troubles have put the former Treasury secretary in the awkward position of having to justify $115 million in pay since 1999, excluding stock options, while explaining Citigroup's $20 billion in losses over the past year and a government bailout of at least $45 billion.

Mr. Rubin's salary made him one of Wall Street's highest-paid officials -- and a controversial figure among Citigroup shareholders and some executives, who questioned whether his limited duties justified the big paydays.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: 37thOStreetRules | November 29, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Obama is worried as much about political futures as he is about America's future. In historical terms, moderation always wins. Center Left or Center Right are both areas of complimentary solutions. ...........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/11/29/governing-from-center-left-or-center-right/

Posted by: glclark4750 | November 29, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Why would Brewer give up being governor for a foreign mission?

The Arizona one is the only real loss there, of the putative nominations so far; the others are in heavily Democratic states or seats where any reasonable Democratic candidate would win, or else, as with Kansas, if Sebelius is nominated, there's a Democratic Lt. Gov. (who, in that case, would actually have a head-start on retaining the governor's office in 2010).

Posted by: SeanC1 | November 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

There is already talk of Obama appointing Brewer to an Ambassadorship and then the State Attorney General a Democrat would become Governor.

Posted by: sjxylib | November 29, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company