Living in No Man's Land
We're living in "no man's land." That is, we're living in the land where time is standing still. We have a lame duck President and a lame duck Congress. We have critical issues to resolve -- including what to do with the auto industry -- but we're left with a President who has no real credibility or even power. The only person who seems to have power is Hank Paulson. We have a Congress that is a hold over. The partisan margins are small, which means that the Democrats are still unable to get things moving without substantial GOP partnership and that doesn't seem to be in the offing.
President-Elect Barack Obama is moving full speed ahead on setting up an administration, one that looks to be quite strong (all those Clinton haters, get over it, where did you think he'd go to find staff in the middle of a crisis? Didn't you think he'd go looking for people with experience?). But, he's not the President. I'm sure he'd offer a different perspective on this crisis than the current administration, but he's not in that seat yet.
So, we sit there bickering, getting nothing done, and an industry that has been central to our country is on the brink of collapse.
I'd really love to see us turn this thing over now. I know it takes time to build an administration, but in this situation there is too much time between the election and the handing over of power. So, it's time to act!!!
President-Elect Barack Obama is moving full speed ahead on setting up an administration, one that looks to be quite strong (all those Clinton haters, get over it, where did you think he'd go to find staff in the middle of a crisis? Didn't you think he'd go looking for people with experience?). But, he's not the President. I'm sure he'd offer a different perspective on this crisis than the current administration, but he's not in that seat yet.
So, we sit there bickering, getting nothing done, and an industry that has been central to our country is on the brink of collapse.
I'd really love to see us turn this thing over now. I know it takes time to build an administration, but in this situation there is too much time between the election and the handing over of power. So, it's time to act!!!
Comments
But some of these picks are disturbing in and of themselves: Larry Summers as a major economic adviser and eventual replacement for Bernanke at the Federal Reserve? Really? Summers, as Clinton's Treasury Secretary, was responsible for much of the deregulation that is behind the Wall Street crisis. Timothy Geithner is a better choice for Sec of Treasury (since he actually predicted the current meltdown 3 years ago and sent out many warnings), but the Market's reassurance should cause the rest of us to worry. Wall Street is happy about Geithner because they believe he won't impose all that much regulation, after all. Why couldn't Obama have appointed a true progressive economist like James Galbraith, Lisa Blair, Joseph Stiegler or this year's winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, Paul Krugman? Summers and Geithner do not seem to be radical enough breaks with the past to truly reform our economy.
Hillary Clinton as Sec of State? When she (a) voted for the Iraq War, (b) voted against Biden's amendment to the war authorization that would have limited Bush's authorization and demanded more time for the weapons inspectors, (c) voted to call the Iranian National Guard a "terrorist organization" and called Obama dangerously naive for wanting to negotiate with Iran and Syria, (d)is a far-right hawk when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians? Is she really the new face to show to the world on foreign policy? Wouldn't Bill Richardson(former UN ambassador, former hostage negotiator, negotiator of a peace deal with North Korea while Bush was still threatening war) have been lightyears better? (I do think Richardson will be in a good spot to renegotiate NAFTA, etc. as Commerce Secretary.) And one of HRC's great strengths as a presidential candidate was her fierce independence--but won't that be a stumbling block as Sec. of State? Can someone who has never in her life taken orders really agree to seemlessly implement Obama's foreign policy, saying enthusiastically, "I serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States?" (Great West Wing ref. there.)
Some of Obama's other Clinton retreads are far more defensible: Eric Holder as AG. He's a pragmatic, center-left reformer who, having been deputy AG under Janet Reno, is VERY primed to heal the Justice Dept. that has been broken and demoralized by Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and Mukasey. Now we need a true legal progressive as Solictor General (the attorney who argues the WH's cases before the Supreme Court). I'm hoping for someone like Lt. Commander Charles Swift (Ret)., the Naval lawyer who successfully argued Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which temporarily restored Habeas Corpus rights to the detainees at Gitmo. There is a huge legal mess to clean up from the Bushies and this is the kind of high powered legal team we need to do it. I am reassured that we just elected a former professor of Constitutional Law as President!
Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff--just the kind of pit bull you want in that job.
It's also disturbing to see how white and male Obama's team is to date. So far, Richardson is the only Latino pick and Holder the only African American and Clinton the only woman. I hope this quickly changes. I have heard that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) may be named as Sec. of the Interior--that would be the most progressive pick so far and would thrill all environmentalists. Grijalva gets a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters! (And, as at Justice, there is a huge Bush mess to clean up.)
But I am not as disturbed by most of the Clinton re-treads as some other progressives. Clinton had to operate in a very different context and was forced to be far more conservative in his policies. The people just voted for the most progressive change since the New Deal--and Obama, who has his cautious and centrist qualities, knows that the context will force him to be bold and to move the center leftward. Hallelujah.
Its fun to watch how both left and right are attacking Obama. The Detroit News columnist yesterday warned us that Obama has a far left agenda as witnessed by his jobs program and his team.
The left thinks he's too conservative. My sense here is that due to the immensity of the problem he needs people who know the ins and outs of Washington. As for Hillary. Although Richardson has more diplomatic experience and would bring ethnic diversity to the top, choosing Hillary shows that Obama isn't afraid of strong personalities -- again the comparison to Lincoln.
On the diversity, remember that Janet Napolitano is being tapped for Homeland Security and Kathleen Sebelius will likely get something as well. If Michigan wasn't in a tailspin and Jennifer Granholm didn't need to protect her legacy she'd be in the mix. My sense is that she will get a Supreme Court job at some point.
But progressives should be very happy about 2 picks just announced today at the noon economic press conference: Berkeley economics prof. Christina Romer as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors (hopefully, she'll counterweight the horrid Larry Summers) and, especially, Melody Barnes as head of the Domestic Policy Council. Barnes has been a major player with the Center for American Progress and on Ted Kennedy's staff.
If Raul Grijalva is named as Interior Secretary and Richardson as Commerce Secretary, there will be 2 more progressives in place. And we still have openings in Education, Energy, Transportation, Defense (which I HOPE will NOT continue Robert Gates), the Environmental Protection Agency, etc.
So, I think that some of the progressive complaints have been premature--but not all of them. I think Summers is a mistake and I am disappointed in Hillary Clinton as Sec. of State. The Team of Rivals did not really work for Lincoln--he ended up firing his Sec. of State who kept trying to get him (Lincoln) to resign in his favor!