The Obama administration team

[Dominick]

So, first one appears to be Rahm Emanuel, as chief of staff. I didn't know him but from what I read here and there it's a safe and centrist choice. What's the dirt on the man ? ;)

[Michael]

So, first one appears to be Rahm Emanuel, as chief of staff. I didn't know him but from what I read here and there it's a safe and centrist choice. What's the dirt on the man ? ;)
No surprise. I read about this last week. He's meant to serve as Obama's 'hatchet man'. He's a tough son of a bitch and a good choice for that important role.

He was a longtime head of the DNCC and the number one enemy of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. He's also traditionally connected with the DLC which means a Clinton connection (since Bill Clinton practically created the DLC).

He tried to claim credit as 'master strategist' for the big 2006 mid-term Democratic Congressional gains then, but few bought in to that.

Overall, an excellent choice. That job calls for a nasty, tough insider type and Rahm Emanuel is exactly that. Lots of Democratic egos and Republican land mines are Obama's immediate future. Rahm will be expected to 'anticipate' them.

[Donkey]

I want to see Bill Richardson as Secretary of State. Fingers crossed.

[partofme]

I want to see Bill Richardson as Secretary of State. Fingers crossed.

I was listening to Talk of the Nation the other day and he was brought up for that.

[Michael]

I want to see Bill Richardson as Secretary of State. Fingers crossed.
You're just a latinophile. ;)

Lots of hot competition for that slot. Probably the hottest slot people are watching around the world since this is the 'foreign face' of the Administration.

I'll bet on Susan Rice for NSA.

[Dominick]

Who's in the picture for Defense ?

Why do they call it defense anyway ? The US's been attacked twice in 100 years. It's the Department of Offence ;)

[Michael]

Who's in the picture for Defense ?

Why do they call it defense anyway ? The US's been attacked twice in 100 years. It's the Department of Offence ;)
Even money says Gates keeps it.

[Donkey]

Shame that there doesn't seem to be room for Clark in Obama's reality.

[Michael]

Shame that there doesn't seem to be room for Clark in Obama's reality.
Obama's burning of Wesley Clark and his vote for FISA stand as stark reminders that Obama is quite capable of doing really stupid things.

Personally, my 'weak' opinion of Obama hit bottom with these two actions and hasn't recovered yet. I like Obama only insofar as he's not Bush-McCain-Republican. That's it. I'd rather have had ANY other Democrat in the Whitehouse than Obama. That FISA vote is not something I'll ever forgive or forget.

[Donkey]

You're just a latinophile. ;)

Not untrue... :p I do think he's one of the best candidates for the job though.

[Michael]

Not untrue... :p I do think he's one of the best candidates for the job though.
Yes, he's a good candidate for the position - in a field with LOTS of other good candidates.

And given Obama's love affair with Zbiggy, I'm bracing for the worst.

And this job is going to be a hotseat - Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine are guarenteed to be huge issues throughout this term.

If it was up to me, I'd go for Holbrooke.

[Michael]

:eek: Larry Summers is being seriously mentioned for Treasury Secretary. :eek:

As Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Summers was a big part of the 1990's 'deregulatory consensus' that pretty much created the conditions for the recent meltdown in the US financial markets.

And his recent tenure as President of Harvard was certainly less than impressive (getting his ass fired for dissing women as scholars).

I'd be VERY disappointed to see Summers back at Treasury. Summers is one of the few Clinton Admin people I really considered to be bad news.

[Americano]

Though it'll never happen due to the giant egos involved Bill Clinton would make a most impressive Secretary of State to gather up the tattered remains of US world respect.

[Americano]

:eek: Larry Summers is being seriously mentioned for Treasury Secretary. :eek:

As Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Summers was a big part of the 1990's 'deregulatory consensus' that pretty much created the conditions for the recent meltdown in the US financial markets.

And his recent tenure as President of Harvard was certainly less than impressive (getting his ass fired for dissing women as scholars).

I'd be VERY disappointed to see Summers back at Treasury. Summers is one of the few Clinton Admin people I really considered to be bad news.

Obama has my hero Volcker on his economic advisory team (too old for the Fed at 81?) so maybe he'll keep tabs on whomever Obama chooses.

[partofme]

Obama has my hero Volcker on his economic advisory team (too old for the Fed at 81?) so maybe he'll keep tabs on whomever Obama chooses.

I was sort of wondering of Volcker may be given a position although I haven't heard him come up as much in the media speculation.

[Americano]

I was sort of wondering of Volcker may be given a position although I haven't heard him come up as much in the media speculation.

IMO too old for image purposes.

[Michael]

Though it'll never happen due to the giant egos involved Bill Clinton would make a most impressive Secretary of State to gather up the tattered remains of US world respect.
I agree completely, but this will never happen. Indeed, this is one of the big reasons I was a strong supporter of Hillary's candidacy - using Bill for just such a role.

Bill as Ambassador to the UN might be 'doable' though...

Btw, John Kerry is apparently lobbying hard for the Secretary of State job. Richardson is a good possibility. Even Chuck Hagel is also a 'darkhorse' possibility. Sam Nunn's name always gets tossed around, but I don't think that's credible here.

[partofme]

I agree completely, but this will never happen. Indeed, this is one of the big reasons I was a strong supporter of Hillary's candidacy - using Bill for just such a role.

Bill as Ambassador to the UN might be 'doable' though...

Btw, John Kerry is apparently lobbying hard for the Secretary of State job. Richardson is a good possibility. Even Chuck Hagel is also a 'darkhorse' possibility. Sam Nunn's name always gets tossed around, but I don't think that's credible here.

John Kerry as secretary of state just does not sit well with me.

[Americano]

John Kerry as secretary of state just does not sit well with me.

Nor me. He's a has-been.

[Americano]

I agree completely, but this will never happen. Indeed, this is one of the big reasons I was a strong supporter of Hillary's candidacy - using Bill for just such a role.

Bill as Ambassador to the UN might be 'doable' though...

I don't think it would be enough action for him and he wouldn't get the big jets to carry the entourage and press. But what a secretary of state.

Btw, John Kerry is apparently lobbying hard for the Secretary of State job. Richardson is a good possibility. Even Chuck Hagel is also a 'darkhorse' possibility. Sam Nunn's name always gets tossed around, but I don't think that's credible here.

[The Sister]

CNN casually dropped the names Robert Kennedy Jr at the EPA and Caroline Kennedy for the UN

[Michael]

CNN casually dropped the names Robert Kennedy Jr at the EPA and Caroline Kennedy for the UN
Indeed, I was hoping that these were both 'just smoke', though Obama certainly 'owes' a big one to Ted Kennedy.

I continue to hope that if one of the young Kennedy's has to be given a job, they'd get something much less important and more symbolic. I might add that I think Caroline is the better of the pair. :D

[Michael]

I don't think it would be enough action for him and he wouldn't get the big jets to carry the entourage and press. But what a secretary of state.
Obama would be a fool to share the stage with the one man in America who can match him for oratory, charisma and popularity. The media would go insane trying to create conflict between them.

[Americano]

Obama would be a fool to share the stage with the one man in America who can match him for oratory, charisma and popularity. The media would go insane trying to create conflict between them.

I know. Obama should, with his lack of experience, utilize the very best the market has to offer. He faces overwhelming domestic and fiscal challenges but his ego will get in the way when it comes to Bill Clinton, who could easily solve his foreign relations and military-industrial complex dilemmas. Clinton is the type to tell people fuck-off with a smile, they like it and do it. The US is facing formidable changes and Obama is still, to this point in time, purely a political animal with enormous party debt. I do miss the corporate raider atmosphere of just get it done.

[Americano]

CNN casually dropped the names Robert Kennedy Jr at the EPA and Caroline Kennedy for the UN

From what I've read Caroline is very bright, she appears very presentable and is obviously well-connected on a global basis. I'm not familiar with Robert Jr.'s qualifications. I certainly don't want any Palin types at that level.

[Americano]

What about the relatively new fiefdom Homeland security? Any rumors?

[Dominick]

Though it'll never happen due to the giant egos involved Bill Clinton would make a most impressive Secretary of State to gather up the tattered remains of US world respect.
You would want the European media to go from euphoria to ecstacy ? :)

What about the relatively new fiefdom Homeland security? Any rumors?
Zbigniew Brzezinsky in person ?

[The Sister]

What about the relatively new fiefdom Homeland security? Any rumors?

I haven't even heard it mentioned but I have been wondering - it's a crazy making job for your worst enemy - so maybe a Republican :D

[The Sister]

I'm not familiar with Robert Jr.'s qualifications. I certainly don't want any Palin types at that level.

Robert jr. is well respected in the enviromental world, mostly water issues (Riverkeepers.org) and his appointment at EPA would definately send shivers up the backs of polluters.
I would worry he is a little too in the environment tank, to be able to actually function in government. But maybe it's in the genes.

[Donkey]

John Kerry as secretary of state just does not sit well with me.
Nor anyone else except himself, I imagine. My professors think that the only reason he's being mentioned is because he's pushing it. I am inclined to agree. I doubt anybody is actually seriously considering him.

I can't see anything that he would bring to the table that Biden doesn't already, and there are so many good candidates for the position, why pick him?

[Americano]

Nor anyone else except himself, I imagine. My professors think that the only reason he's being mentioned is because he's pushing it. I am inclined to agree. I doubt anybody is actually seriously considering him.

The Heinz Fortune always gets attention.

I can't see anything that he would bring to the table that Biden doesn't already, and there are so many good candidates for the position, why pick him?

[Michael]

Robert jr. is well respected in the enviromental world, mostly water issues (Riverkeepers.org) and his appointment at EPA would definately send shivers up the backs of polluters.
I would worry he is a little too in the environment tank, to be able to actually function in government. But maybe it's in the genes.
Robert Jr. is borderline crackpot with his 'vaccines cause autism' obsession.

This is a man who thinks vaccines cause autism, and that a link between the two is being suppressed as part of a government/business conspiracy:

Salon.com printed Kennedy's article in which he made a highly speculative and unproven claim of a full-fledged government cover-up.

The autism-vaccine link is pure and utter hokum, and, by promoting it Kennedy is scaring parents out of vaccinating their kids and putting them at risk for diseases that are utterly preventable. Similarly, Kennedy's paranoia extends to his belief that the 2004 election was rigged. The man is clearly gullible or paranoid and certainly not remotely the right person to lead the nation's environmental agency at such a crucial time for the environment.

Source (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=11&year=2008&base_name=president_obamas_first_mistake)

He may be popular with the environmental activist set, but that's not the only constituency for the EPA. I'd much prefer a more 'balanced' appointeed rather than an activist of questionable judgement.

[Michael]

Btw, I've heard Colin Powell's name floated for Education Secretary. Seems odd, but Colin and his wife have long established interest in this field.

Could be a popular but poor choice. The US Education bureaucracy is just too complex a system for neophyte outsiders to be effective in.

[Michael]

What about the relatively new fiefdom Homeland security? Any rumors?
Jane Harman has been floated here. I consider her a lightweight and prone to 'Rockefeller-like' institutionalism (ie. 'dont rock the boat' is their guiding philosophy).

Speaking of which, I'm far more interested who is going to Chair the Homeland Security Committee in the Senate! Joe Lieberman deserves to be dumped - unceremoniously. His endorsement of McCain should be sufficient reason, but using his committee chairmanship to 'run blocker' for the Bush Administration for the last 4 years is more than good reason to dump him.

Edited to add: Looks like Holy Joe is trying blackmail - demanding to keep his Committee chairmanship or he will jump ship to the Republicans (McConnell has a standing offer to Joe). I say let him go. Indeed, Gore's choice of Lieberman as running mate in 2000 was as popular as McCain's pick of Sarah Palin - sucking the life out of Gore's campaign and gave victory to G.W.Bush.

[Michael]

All the blogs are alive this morning with talk of Hillary Clinton being the inside favorite to be Secretary of State. This is coming from high levels in the Obama campaign and Hillary just got back from a short trip to Chicago (where she allegedly met with Obama).

This is very interesting. I'd be a bit surprised if Hillary doesn't stick around the Senate given that she's got a safe seat for life and she's quite likely to become Senate Majority Leader within a year or two from now.

Despite that, I must say I like this idea - since this is the closest we can get to having Bill Clinton as Secretary of State. :)

[Americano]

All the blogs are alive this morning with talk of Hillary Clinton being the inside favorite to be Secretary of State. This is coming from high levels in the Obama campaign and Hillary just got back from a short trip to Chicago (where she allegedly met with Obama).

This is very interesting. I'd be a bit surprised if Hillary doesn't stick around the Senate given that she's got a safe seat for life and she's quite likely to become Senate Majority Leader within a year or two from now.

Despite that, I must say I like this idea - since this is the closest we can get to having Bill Clinton as Secretary of State. :)

Culturally I still dislike the idea of a female secretary of state. Most of the difficult negotiations are inevitably in dictatorships, monarchies and Muslim countries where leadership still considers a woman as a second class citizen.

If Bill traveled with her it would be a coup. Do they still travel together?

[Michael]

Culturally I still dislike the idea of a female secretary of state. Most of the difficult negotiations are inevitably in dictatorships, monarchies and Muslim countries where leadership still considers a woman as a second class citizen.
All the more reason to have a female. If it makes various reactionaries and despots uncomfortable, then I like it for that reason alone.

If Bill traveled with her it would be a coup. Do they still travel together?
If she is offered the job and takes it, I can well imagine this would be a 'two-for-one' deal.

On the upside, Bill and Hillary are media magnets in a way that US Secretaries of State rarely are. Condi could have a Middle East conference and no one cares or even notices it. The Clintons command a level of international media attention that is invaluable for moving forward on any serious foreign policy initiative in the present day.

I really do think that 'old school' diplomats meeting with their counterparts is no longer effective for moving big issues. One needs big players and media interest to raise the profile of these actions.

[Americano]

The clout and publicity of one of the most gifted US ex-presidents calling with his wife the sitting US secretary of state would be most impressive.

[Michael]

The clout and publicity of one of the most gifted US ex-presidents calling with his wife the sitting US secretary of state would be most impressive.
That's the kind of appointment that might bode well for some grand diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. Two big names for the price of one.

Though, I can't imagine Obama wanting to play second fiddle to the Clinton show.

Obama is popular because he's new and unknown (and not Bush). Clintons are very well known and very popular around the world.

Heck, they had to close a couple of streets in Toronto last time Bill Clinton showed up just to do a 'book-signing' at some bookshop. Thousands showed up for it. That's 'star-power'.

[partofme]

That's the kind of appointment that might bode well for some grand diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. Two big names for the price of one.

Though, I can't imagine Obama wanting to play second fiddle to the Clinton show.

Obama is popular because he's new and unknown (and not Bush). Clintons are very well known and very popular around the world.

Heck, they had to close a couple of streets in Toronto last time Bill Clinton showed up just to do a 'book-signing' at some bookshop. Thousands showed up for it. That's 'star-power'.

I waited with my two pissed off kids in a park for two hours to hear him speak during the primaries. :D

[Americano]

That's the kind of star power Obama needs to repair eight years of severe damage to the US image. No one else on the political scene I'm aware of has that experience, reputation and I dare say intelligence.

[Michael]

That's the kind of star power Obama needs to repair eight years of severe damage to the US image. No one else on the political scene I'm aware of has that experience, reputation and I dare say intelligence.
Yes, the more I think about this, the more I like it.

Obama has to do SOMETHING to repair the damage from the Bush years and no one has the credentials to do it better than the Clintons. Hagel, Lugar, Kerry, Richardson are all 'boring' or 'conventional' appointments that will not excite anyone except some US domestic political constituency. Appointing Hillary definitely adds some potential for dazzle there - and that's what's needed for a real 'game-changing' attitude on the foreign policy front. Both Bill and Hillary are both well-known and remarkably popular in most world capitals.

[partofme]

Yes, the more I think about this, the more I like it.

Obama has to do SOMETHING to repair the damage from the Bush years and no one has the credentials to do it better than the Clintons. Hagel, Lugar, Kerry, Richardson are all 'boring' or 'conventional' appointments that will not excite anyone except some US domestic political constituency. Appointing Hillary definitely adds some potential for dazzle there - and that's what's needed for a real 'game-changing' attitude on the foreign policy front. Both Bill and Hillary are both well-known and remarkably popular in most world capitals.

I just wonder if he is doing it because he thinks she is the best person for the job or he feels he has to throw her a bone. I like Hillary though and think she is light years ahead of John Kerry for example.

[Donkey]

Yes, the more I think about this, the more I like it.

Obama has to do SOMETHING to repair the damage from the Bush years and no one has the credentials to do it better than the Clintons. Hagel, Lugar, Kerry, Richardson are all 'boring' or 'conventional' appointments that will not excite anyone except some US domestic political constituency. Appointing Hillary definitely adds some potential for dazzle there - and that's what's needed for a real 'game-changing' attitude on the foreign policy front. Both Bill and Hillary are both well-known and remarkably popular in most world capitals.
I mean... I've been a Richardson fan ever since I learned about him at the start of the Democratic primary. I was quickly convinced by him that he wasn't the man for the presidency, but he seems to have serious foreign policy chops. I'm sure there's something to be said for Clinton flash and pizazz, and I wouldn't underestimate her potential, but it seems like a steady old international hand might be not only a "safe" bet, but a wise one.

Also, as far as the long overdue mending of relations with Latin America is concerned, Richardson has a natural advantage there.

[Americano]

I mean... I've been a Richardson fan ever since I learned about him at the start of the Democratic primary. I was quickly convinced by him that he wasn't the man for the presidency, but he seems to have serious foreign policy chops. I'm sure there's something to be said for Clinton flash and pizazz, and I wouldn't underestimate her potential, but it seems like a steady old international hand might be not only a "safe" bet, but a wise one.

Also, as far as the long overdue mending of relations with Latin America is concerned, Richardson has a natural advantage there.

I don't view Hillary as the underlying asset in the potential of appointing her as SecState. Bill would be the value. He's the only US political animal I can think of that could go anywhere in the world and be treated with respect, rather than distrust of a new face. Even if he wasn't there in person those dealing with Hillary would know she has access to one of the better minds on the world stage.

[Michael]

I mean... I've been a Richardson fan ever since I learned about him at the start of the Democratic primary. I was quickly convinced by him that he wasn't the man for the presidency, but he seems to have serious foreign policy chops. I'm sure there's something to be said for Clinton flash and pizazz, and I wouldn't underestimate her potential, but it seems like a steady old international hand might be not only a "safe" bet, but a wise one.

Also, as far as the long overdue mending of relations with Latin America is concerned, Richardson has a natural advantage there.
I agree that Richardson is a good candidate. But two things - one is the US world reputation is in REALLY bad shape. This needs some 'bold' action to rebuild US-ally relationships. The Clintons are particularly well placed for that kind of 'charm' mission.

As for South/Central America, I also agree that this area is way overdue for some relationship-repair efforts - however, South/Central America is not a major foreign policy problem at this time. US relationships in Europe are in far more dangerous territory right now and this must be a very high priority for US foreign policy. The US is fucked if they can't get UK, France and Germany on board with future US foreign policies. Afghanistan in particular is a hot issue with most of the NATO allies turning against this operation as ultimately futile. Obama has already staked himself for a serious doubling of US efforts there. NATO allies are critically important to that issue.

The Middle East is also a place that would massively benefit from having some serious US diplomacy that people might pay attention to. No one ever paid any attention to Condi Rice. Any deal with Iraq, Iran or Israel will need strong support from European capitals to be successful.

* * *

Btw, the Obama campaign has now officially acknowledged that Obama met with Hillary in Chicago and the SoS position was discussed (this is no longer a rumor - it is fact).

That makes it look like a done deal, but I guess we'll have to wait for the formal announcement to see if Hillary is interested.

[Americano]

I agree that Richardson is a good candidate. But two things - one is the US world reputation is in REALLY bad shape. This needs some 'bold' action to rebuild US-ally relationships. The Clintons are particularly well placed for that kind of 'charm' mission.

As for South/Central America, I also agree that this area is way overdue for some relationship-repair efforts - however, South/Central America is not a major foreign policy problem at this time. US relationships in Europe are in far more dangerous territory right now and this must be a very high priority for US foreign policy. The US is fucked if they can't get UK, France and Germany on board with future US foreign policies. Afghanistan in particular is a hot issue with most of the NATO allies turning against this operation as ultimately futile. Obama has already staked himself for a serious doubling of US efforts there. NATO allies are critically important to that issue.

The Middle East is also a place that would massively benefit from having some serious US diplomacy that people might pay attention to. No one ever paid any attention to Condi Rice. Any deal with Iraq, Iran or Israel will need strong support from European capitals to be successful.

* * *

Btw, the Obama campaign has now officially acknowledged that Obama met with Hillary in Chicago and the SoS position was discussed (this is no longer a rumor - it is fact).

That makes it look like a done deal, but I guess we'll have to wait for the formal announcement to see if Hillary is interested.

Hillary has to know it's Bill's mind and presence they're after. Is her ego smart enough to accept that fact and play it for what it's worth? She'll be in the public eye with national and international exposure she can never obtain as a senator.

[partofme]

Obama has named another Clinton insider for his cabinet. This time Attorney General.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/11/18/obama-s-attorney-general.aspx

[partofme]

It looks like yet another Clinton administration veteran will be offered a job.

http://lostintransition.nationaljournal.com/2008/11/orszag-tapped-as-obamas-budget.php

[Americano]

No rumors on SoS and treasury.

[Michael]

No real surprise with Eric Holder as AG. He's a no-name veteran, close to Obama with good Justice Department credentials - he's also been strongly opposed to the US torture & rendition games so he's politically suitable.

No rumors on SoS and treasury.
Actually, those two seem to be the ones with the rumors!

And rumor certainly has it that Hillary will be the SoS if an 'arrangement' is made about Bill's Foundation donor list and Obama's super-strict vetting game (this is apparently the delay in the announcement). Rumor has it that Hillary has in fact 'accepted' in theory. It is now all about Bill (as it always seems to be).

As for Treasury, that's seems still up in the air. I'd expect a very conventional choice here - someone drawn from either a) NY Federal Reserve or b) someone from Clinton's Treasury (Summers).

I hope it is not Larry Summers.

And since we're talking about rumors here, Richardson has also apparently been 'summoned' to Chicago to meet with Obama in the last day or two. If Hillary is going to be SoS (wow!), then I'd expect Richardson will certainly be given something high profile.

[Michael]

Janet Napolitano is the new Secretary of Homeland Security.

I consider this a bit of a surprise - I figured Napolitano was going to run for the Senate in 2010 for McCain's open seat, but since McCain is planning on running again (why?) I guess she decided to take a pass on the Senate run.

Napolitano as Governor of Arizona has been a popular figure, a common VP candidate and a long rumored cabinet appointee. Certainly one of the most capable female politicians in the US these days.

[Donkey]

Janet Napolitano is the new Secretary of Homeland Security.

I consider this a bit of a surprise - I figured Napolitano was going to run for the Senate in 2010 for McCain's open seat, but since McCain is planning on running again (why?) I guess she decided to take a pass on the Senate run.

Napolitano as Governor of Arizona has been a popular figure, a common VP candidate and a long rumored cabinet appointee. Certainly one of the most capable female politicians in the US these days.
I imagine she could have a rather definitive role, because Homeland Security could* be rather different under Obama than under Bush. Since it's such a new department, whoever is in charge could still affect its formation and definition, no?
*I mean, I hope...

[Dominick]

I've seen mention of David Axelrod as chief advisor (my translation; might have a specific title) and Tom Daschle for Health.

[Michael]

I imagine she could have a rather definitive role, because Homeland Security could* be rather different under Obama than under Bush. Since it's such a new department, whoever is in charge could still affect its formation and definition, no?
*I mean, I hope...
I'll be happy if she can just bring some decent management skills to that mess of inefficient and intra-department fighting. For the most part, this department is non-functional.

I've seen mention of David Axelrod as chief advisor (my translation; might have a specific title) and Tom Daschle for Health.
David Axelrod has been Obama's primary advisor and campaign manager since the beginning. That was the first appointment mentioned. It was so mundane and expected that I never mentioned it.

As for ex-Senator Tom Daschle, I'm no fan of his at all - he was the Democratic party Senate leader from 1994 to 2005 - a period where the Senate fought to oppose President Clinton in everything, including Clinton's healthcare initiative, impeached Clinton and then enacted the whole Bush agenda. The period of Tom Daschle's leadership corresponds with the period of the worst Democratic Senate leadership in modern history. No fucking praise for this incompetent bastard who represents everything I hate about the US Senate's old boy's club.

It is to be noted that Tom Daschle is Obama's mentor and was the key to Obama's initial primary organization (Daschle just gave his organization over to Obama since Daschle made history as the only sitting Senate majority leader to lose his own seat). Daschle is the reason that Obama is married to that stupid ethanol policy and the reason that we cannot expect any action from the Obama administration on farm subsidies (except expect them to grow ever larger).

Indeed, the irony of Obama's healthcare initiative being led by Daschle and Ted Kennedy - the two who worked the hardest to kill it under Clinton is rather amusing. Washington is all about egos. I've heard that the reason that Clinton's healthcare initiative failed in 1994 due to the fact that it didn't have Ted Kennedy's name on it as the 'creator' of it. Ted's ego didn't like that at all.

[Donkey]

Indeed, the irony of Obama's healthcare initiative being led by Daschle and Ted Kennedy - the two who worked the hardest to kill it under Clinton is rather amusing. Washington is all about egos. I've heard that the reason that Clinton's healthcare initiative failed in 1994 due to the fact that it didn't have Ted Kennedy's name on it as the 'creator' of it. Ted's ego didn't like that at all.
Maybe we'll get a 15-years-later Ted Kennedy healthcare swan song...

[Michael]

Maybe we'll get a 15-years-later Ted Kennedy healthcare swan song...
You'll be getting it. Obama 'owes' two Democratic big-wigs big time for his Primary victory - Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle. And Ted and Tom are both committed to bringing in universal healthcare.

Obama would be committing partisan suicide if he fails to deliver on this one. It was the 'signature' issue of the whole Democratic campaign.

[Michael]

Its official - Hillary Clinton is the new Secretary of State.

I admit, I was surprised to hear the offer was made and I'm surprised Hillary took it. That being said, I think it is an excellent move on Obama's part. Foreign policy is certainly going to be a high profile issue for the next few years - and Hillary is nothing if not 'high profile'. ;)

A nice world tour for Bill and Hillary to visit all the major state capitals would do wonders just for the optics and symbolism of 'improving' US foreign relationships.

[Americano]

Its official - Hillary Clinton is the new Secretary of State.

I admit, I was surprised to hear the offer was made and I'm surprised Hillary took it. That being said, I think it is an excellent move on Obama's part. Foreign policy is certainly going to be a high profile issue for the next few years - and Hillary is nothing if not 'high profile'. ;)

A nice world tour for Bill and Hillary to visit all the major state capitals would do wonders just for the optics and symbolism of 'improving' US foreign relationships.

And they get to use the big airplanes again, no small consideration for political egos.

[Michael]

One thing to keep in mind here is that under the Bush Administration, we witnessed both Colin Powell and then Condi Rice both serve as nothing more than figurehead do-nothings while ALL US foreign policy was driven directly from the Whitehouse.

Its been a long time since any US Secretary of State has made a mark on the world stage as anything more than a Whitehouse flunky. I'm hoping Hillary is up to the task.

Indeed, if Hillary is half the woman I think she is, she will want to make a big mark here in her own name - if only to let everyone know that she would have or could have been a good President.

[partofme]

How do you feel about Timothy Geithner? Better than Summers?

[Americano]

One thing to keep in mind here is that under the Bush Administration, we witnessed both Colin Powell and then Condi Rice both serve as nothing more than figurehead do-nothings while ALL US foreign policy was driven directly from the Whitehouse.

Its been a long time since any US Secretary of State has made a mark on the world stage as anything more than a Whitehouse flunky. I'm hoping Hillary is up to the task.

Kissinger?

Indeed, if Hillary is half the woman I think she is, she will want to make a big mark here in her own name - if only to let everyone know that she would have or could have been a good President.

She'd be a fool not to use Bill's admirable brain. That alone puts her some distance in front of others.

[Americano]

How do you feel about Timothy Geithner? Better than Summers?


I like Geithner better than Summers solely due to Geithner's broader range of experience. And the personal opinion that Summers looks like a porker and was unable to resolve his Harvard dilemma.

[Michael]

How do you feel about Timothy Geithner? Better than Summers?

Geithner. I don't like Summers at all.

I like most of the Clinton Administration's work - except at Treasury and Agriculture. Anyone associated with these departments is suspect in my mind for being corrupt and/or toxic to good policy.

Kissinger?
Indeed.

The earlier post-WW2 period the office is fairly impressive with the likes of Foster Dulles and George Marshall (he of the famous Marshall Plan).

Those are three big names for Hillary to rival. I should like to see her try. :)

[Michael]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has chosen seasoned policymakers Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers as his two top economic lieutenants to direct the fight to rescue the economy and stem the worst financial crisis in more than 70 years.

Obama plans to nominate Geithner, 47, president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank and a former Clinton administration official, as Treasury secretary, a transition official said on Saturday.

A main part of his portfolio will be managing the $700 billion bailout for the troubled financial industry.

Summers, who served as Treasury secretary under former President Bill Clinton, will become director of the White House National Economic Council, the official said.
Source (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4AM0A220081123?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews)

So Geithner becomes Secretary of the Treasury (yay!) but Summers is to serve as senior economic advisor at the Whitehouse (boo!).

I don't like Summers or Rubens from the Clinton era. I think it is foolish to have the architects of the financial mess offering advice on how to deal with the financial mess.

In other news... Richardson is now rumored (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/11/richardson_to_commerce.html?nav=rss_blog) to become Secretary of Commerce.

This seems like an odd appointment, but Richardson has done reasonably well with all of his previous jobs, so I'd expect another 'decent' job here of quiet competence.

[Greendruid]

Is it just me or does Summers look like he's hiding some of the 700 billion in his jowls somewhere there?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2008/11/24/tp-obama-team-cp-306-589185.jpg

[partofme]

Is it just me or does Summers look like he's hiding some of the 700 billion in his jowls somewhere there?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2008/11/24/tp-obama-team-cp-306-589185.jpg

It looks like he might of been really heavy before and lost a lot of weight. That is the only way I can think of explaining that. That's almost as distracting as watching Mark Shields on The NewsHour. He looks like a turkey when he talks.

[Michael]

If I hear one more media pundit 'praise' Obama's economics team for their knowledge and experience I'm going to choke.

These are the same people who spent the last 20 years praising Greenspan as the most brilliant and knowledgeable guy on the planet.

Their judgement is highly suspect. Indeed, they seem to praise Summers most of all - one of the senior architects of the deregulation of the US finance sector and a principal agent in the asset-bubble creation business. Not a word about Summer's 'train-wreck' tenure as President of Harvard.

[Americano]

If I hear one more media pundit 'praise' Obama's economics team for their knowledge and experience I'm going to choke.

These are the same people who spent the last 20 years praising Greenspan as the most brilliant and knowledgeable guy on the planet.

Their judgement is highly suspect. Indeed, they seem to praise Summers most of all - one of the senior architects of the deregulation of the US finance sector and a principal agent in the asset-bubble creation business. Not a word about Summer's 'train-wreck' tenure as President of Harvard.

You could view it as a software company hiring talented hackers for secure product development purposes.

[Greendruid]

I was a little stymied when I read this a few minutes ago.

U.S. president-elect Barack Obama continued to build his economic advisory team on Wednesday, naming former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker to head a new White House panel to create jobs and bring stability to the country's embattled financial system.

Volcker, 81, who served under both Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, will head the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. The board's top staff official will be Austan Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economist, Obama told reporters in Chicago.
Did that just say 81? Seriously? He's hired an octogenerian to find jobs for people? Seriously? Does anyone else find this richly ironic?

The Democratic president-elect also sought to assure Americans who are worried about the state of the nation's economy and their own finances ahead of the year's busiest shopping period that "help is on the way."Not that I hate old people or anything but I'm assuming that "help is on the way" is a polite way of saying, "We're helping him up the steps of the White House and he should be there by January 20th."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/26/obama-economy.html

[partofme]

I was a little stymied when I read this a few minutes ago.

Did that just say 81? Seriously? He's hired an octogenerian to find jobs for people? Seriously? Does anyone else find this richly ironic?

Not that I hate old people or anything but I'm assuming that "help is on the way" is a polite way of saying, "We're helping him up the steps of the White House and he should be there by January 20th."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/26/obama-economy.html


As long as he is in good health and is still cognitively sound I think he is a excellent pick. He may not last very long in the post though.

[Michael]

I was a little stymied when I read this a few minutes ago.

Did that just say 81? Seriously? He's hired an octogenerian to find jobs for people? Seriously? Does anyone else find this richly ironic?

Not that I hate old people or anything but I'm assuming that "help is on the way" is a polite way of saying, "We're helping him up the steps of the White House and he should be there by January 20th."

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/26/obama-economy.html
Paul Volcker is probably the most respected figure in US financial circles who isn't contaminated in any way by the recent 'crisis'. He's been a voice of sanity for years (and one of the few warning about this mess before it happened - him and George Soros). He's there as much for his name and reputation (and connections) as for anything else. Now that Greenspan's reputation is toast, Volcker is the 'grand old man' of US finance.

I'm surprised Americano hasn't replied - he's a big fan of Volcker's.

[Americano]

I do admire Volcker and was somewhat surprised that Obama named him to such a publicly visible post, primarily due to his age. Unlike other countries the US general public distrusts age in leadership as evidenced by the definite backlash against McCain's age and Obama's landslide victory was in no small part attributed to his campaign getting out the youth vote.

With the challenges Obama faces that position could become a revolving door.

[Michael]

Its official now - Richardson will be the Secretary of Commerce.

[Donkey]

Its official now - Richardson will be the Secretary of Commerce.
I'm glad to see him in the cabinet. Would have preferred to see him as Secretary of State. Despite him being an utterly uninspiring candidate, I do still like him; I guess I should brush up on exactly what the secretary of Commerce does...

[partofme]

I wonder who he will pick as his education secretary. Right now the big debate is about if he should pick a reformer that supports charter schools and merit pay or a traditional education supporter looking towards increasing funding. Personally as shitty as schools are in some places I think they should go ahead and do both at once. Merit pay, charter schools in places doing especially bad, and increased funding for school buildings, computers, and teacher and faculty pay. It looks like math scores have improved lately but we are still way behind many countries and not improving in science scores at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/education/10math.html?hp

[The Drunk Guy]

I wonder who he will pick as his education secretary. Right now the big debate is about if he should pick a reformer that supports charter schools and merit pay or a traditional education supporter looking towards increasing funding. Personally as shitty as schools are in some places I think they should go ahead and do both at once. Merit pay, charter schools in places doing especially bad, and increased funding for school buildings, computers, and teacher and faculty pay. It looks like math scores have improved lately but we are still way behind many countries and not improving in science scores at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/education/10math.html?hpThis should probably be a separate topic, but why are secular private schools so rare?

[Michael]

This should probably be a separate topic, but why are secular private schools so rare?
Because private schools cost BIG money.

I'd venture that the only people who will pay big money to isolate their child from the public mainstream are religious obsessives who consider their religion to be the goal of their child's education.

If one isn't seeking religion, then there isn't enough of a difference between private and public education to justify the large expenditure - unless one is very wealthy in the first place - in which case one is purchasing a social status item that is desired because it is expensive and rare.

[Michael]

I wonder who he will pick as his education secretary. Right now the big debate is about if he should pick a reformer that supports charter schools and merit pay or a traditional education supporter looking towards increasing funding.
I agree there is a debate going on. But as far as I can see that debate turns entirely upon one single issue - either pro-teacher's union or anti-teacher's union. That's the only issue it seems.

As everyone already knows, no reform of US public education is possible so long as the teacher's union has a strangle-hold on US public education.

Ergo, "reform" is code for anti-teacher's union (by definition). The debate is all about deciding whether reform is to be permitted or not. Both sides are flexing their political muscles and the stronger side will win.

I'll put my money on a pro-teacher's union appointment. That means no reform, no change, status quo continues - again. The'll dress it up with lots of empty verbage as they always do, but in the end, nothing will be done unless the teacher's union is confronted. They are the status quo 800 pound gorilla that won't budge on this issue. There is a political reason US public education is substandard and there's a political reason it will stay that way.

[partofme]

I agree there is a debate going on. But as far as I can see that debate turns entirely upon one single issue - either pro-teacher's union or anti-teacher's union. That's the only issue it seems.

As everyone already knows, no reform of US public education is possible so long as the teacher's union has a strangle-hold on US public education.

Ergo, "reform" is code for anti-teacher's union (by definition). The debate is all about deciding whether reform is to be permitted or not. Both sides are flexing their political muscles and the stronger side will win.

I'll put my money on a pro-teacher's union appointment. That means no reform, no change, status quo continues - again. The'll dress it up with lots of empty verbage as they always do, but in the end, nothing will be done unless the teacher's union is confronted. They are the status quo 800 pound gorilla that won't budge on this issue. There is a political reason US public education is substandard and there's a political reason it will stay that way.

That really bothers me considering I have two kids that will be going to public school in a few years. I'm not anti-union all the time but it seems like education is too important to the future of the country as a whole to let the union hold back what needs to be done to improve out system.

[Michael]

That really bothers me considering I have two kids that will be going to public school in a few years. I'm not anti-union all the time but it seems like education is too important to the future of the country as a whole to let the union hold back what needs to be done to improve out system.
If you and your wife both regularly read books/newspapers/magazines at home in front of the children and if you and you wife are both reasonably involved in your children's education (helping with homework, attending parent-teacher meetings, etc), you've already put your kids into the top 25% for performance in public education.

All the bitching about the failure of the public education system is about dealing with kids who come from semi-illiterate (or barely literate) homes with parents that invest zero time into their children's education.

All the public school reform in the world can't change the fact that a majority of public school kids are not properly supported at home (in any meaningful way). All the whining about it tends to come from parents who think the school system should do everything for their children that they can't be bothered to do themselves.

Seriously, how many nations NEED to operate massive public lunch programs just to make sure children get fed?

[partofme]

If you and your wife both regularly read books/newspapers/magazines at home in front of the children and if you and you wife are both reasonably involved in your children's education (helping with homework, attending parent-teacher meetings, etc), you've already put your kids into the top 25% for performance in public education.

All the bitching about the failure of the public education system is about dealing with kids who come from semi-illiterate (or barely literate) homes with parents that invest zero time into their children's education.

All the public school reform in the world can't change the fact that a majority of public school kids are not properly supported at home (in any meaningful way). All the whining about it tends to come from parents who think the school system should do everything for their children that they can't be bothered to do themselves.

Seriously, how many nations NEED to operate massive public lunch programs just to make sure children get fed?

That's interesting to think about. Do you think it has to do with American's having less free time to do these things or do you think it is more cultural?

[Americano]

I agree there is a debate going on. But as far as I can see that debate turns entirely upon one single issue - either pro-teacher's union or anti-teacher's union. That's the only issue it seems.

As everyone already knows, no reform of US public education is possible so long as the teacher's union has a strangle-hold on US public education.

Ergo, "reform" is code for anti-teacher's union (by definition). The debate is all about deciding whether reform is to be permitted or not. Both sides are flexing their political muscles and the stronger side will win.

I'll put my money on a pro-teacher's union appointment. That means no reform, no change, status quo continues - again. The'll dress it up with lots of empty verbage as they always do, but in the end, nothing will be done unless the teacher's union is confronted. They are the status quo 800 pound gorilla that won't budge on this issue. There is a political reason US public education is substandard and there's a political reason it will stay that way.

My state's unionized civil service retirement burden, teachers by far the largest group, is what prompted initial studies for a state universal health care feasibility plan. It goes on the ballot in 2009.

Any contemporary politician or administration taking on a union has a professional death wish. 48% of federal workers are unionized, and as with state operations, no sane politician wants the heat from civil disruption created by a union strike. The GM problem created by unrestrained union pay/benefits (I do consider prior and current management at fault) has taken over public service with similar financial results and far more negative ramifications, education in particular.

[Michael]

I wonder who he will pick as his education secretary. Right now the big debate is about if he should pick a reformer that supports charter schools and merit pay or a traditional education supporter looking towards increasing funding. Personally as shitty as schools are in some places I think they should go ahead and do both at once. Merit pay, charter schools in places doing especially bad, and increased funding for school buildings, computers, and teacher and faculty pay. It looks like math scores have improved lately but we are still way behind many countries and not improving in science scores at all.

Arne Duncan has been appointed as Secretary of Education.

This fellow appears to be a 'comprimise' candidate that, through his own personal style, uniquely straddles the divide between the teacher's union faction (death before reform) and the reform faction (both of which are powerful Democratic party constituencies).

That in itself suggests that we can reasonably expect little in this policy sector in Obama's first term. This fellow is a 'don't rock the boat' type who will engage in incrementalism at most - and only when it is supported by both reformers and the teacher's union.

It is important to note that there are virtually zero policy options that are common to both the teacher's union and the education reform movement.

This is probably good news. As many have already noted, Obama is in extreme danger of political overreach in his first term and that can be politically disasterous. Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy and healthcare is already a larger political agenda than most Presidents can reasonably hope to address in a single term. Adding education reform on top of that could kill or bog down all the other initiatives. US politics is a funnel aimed at veto-choke-points. Put too much into the funnel at once and it is choked.

On the general issue of education, I suspect that only the Republicans will be able to actually 'reform' the US public education system since for the Democratic party, it is just a minefield of special interests. That's why there was such high hopes for NCLB. Unfortunately, 'Republican party' and 'good public policy' appear to be mutually contradictory terms - thus the slow and unending decay of the US public education system.

In other words, just another 'status quo' middle of the road, uncontroversial appointee for Secretary of Education who's job will primarily consist of 'don't make it worse'.

[The Drunk Guy]

In other words, just another 'status quo' middle of the road, uncontroversial appointee for Secretary of Education who's job will primarily consist of 'don't make it worse'.
What was that campaign slogan, again? Could have sworn it said something about 'change.' Was it, "I'll blow your tax dollars, but let you keep the change?"

:shrug:

[partofme]

Arne Duncan has been appointed as Secretary of Education.

This fellow appears to be a 'comprimise' candidate that, through his own personal style, uniquely straddles the divide between the teacher's union faction (death before reform) and the reform faction (both of which are powerful Democratic party constituencies).

That in itself suggests that we can reasonably expect little in this policy sector in Obama's first term. This fellow is a 'don't rock the boat' type who will engage in incrementalism at most - and only when it is supported by both reformers and the teacher's union.

It is important to note that there are virtually zero policy options that are common to both the teacher's union and the education reform movement.

This is probably good news. As many have already noted, Obama is in extreme danger of political overreach in his first term and that can be politically disasterous. Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy and healthcare is already a larger political agenda than most Presidents can reasonably hope to address in a single term. Adding education reform on top of that could kill or bog down all the other initiatives. US politics is a funnel aimed at veto-choke-points. Put too much into the funnel at once and it is choked.

On the general issue of education, I suspect that only the Republicans will be able to actually 'reform' the US public education system since for the Democratic party, it is just a minefield of special interests. That's why there was such high hopes for NCLB. Unfortunately, 'Republican party' and 'good public policy' appear to be mutually contradictory terms - thus the slow and unending decay of the US public education system.

In other words, just another 'status quo' middle of the road, uncontroversial appointee for Secretary of Education who's job will primarily consist of 'don't make it worse'.

Lets hope not. He does seem to have done a good job at improving things in Chicago.

[Americano]

Arne Duncan has been appointed as Secretary of Education.

This fellow appears to be a 'comprimise' candidate that, through his own personal style, uniquely straddles the divide between the teacher's union faction (death before reform) and the reform faction (both of which are powerful Democratic party constituencies).

That in itself suggests that we can reasonably expect little in this policy sector in Obama's first term. This fellow is a 'don't rock the boat' type who will engage in incrementalism at most - and only when it is supported by both reformers and the teacher's union.

It is important to note that there are virtually zero policy options that are common to both the teacher's union and the education reform movement.

This is probably good news. As many have already noted, Obama is in extreme danger of political overreach in his first term and that can be politically disasterous. Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy and healthcare is already a larger political agenda than most Presidents can reasonably hope to address in a single term. Adding education reform on top of that could kill or bog down all the other initiatives. US politics is a funnel aimed at veto-choke-points. Put too much into the funnel at once and it is choked.

On the general issue of education, I suspect that only the Republicans will be able to actually 'reform' the US public education system since for the Democratic party, it is just a minefield of special interests. That's why there was such high hopes for NCLB. Unfortunately, 'Republican party' and 'good public policy' appear to be mutually contradictory terms - thus the slow and unending decay of the US public education system.

In other words, just another 'status quo' middle of the road, uncontroversial appointee for Secretary of Education who's job will primarily consist of 'don't make it worse'.

Excellent analysis.

[wphelan]

This probably deserves a thread of its own, but what reforms do you think should be made at a federal level? I definitely think the Democratic party's fealty toward teacher's unions is a serious problem. I just don't know what can or should be done at the federal level. What was so promising about No Child Left Behind?

[partofme]

This probably deserves a thread of its own, but what reforms do you think should be made at a federal level? I definitely think the Democratic party's fealty toward teacher's unions is a serious problem. I just don't know what can or should be done at the federal level. What was so promising about No Child Left Behind?

It set standards as far as testing goes and schools had to meet them in order to get funding. The controversy over it was that it encouraged schools to teach based on the test and nothing else and if your a student in a failing school it would only get worse. Reformers now are wanting to move towards merit pay and have teachers fired if they do not perform which is what the teacher's unions are fighting against.

[The Drunk Guy]

It set standards as far as testing goes and schools had to meet them in order to get funding. The controversy over it was that it encouraged schools to teach based on the test and nothing else and if your a student in a failing school it would only get worse. Reformers now are wanting to move towards merit pay and have teachers fired if they do not perform which is what the teacher's unions are fighting against.
The only true way to achieve success in education is to critically evaluate individual instructors as well as system 'requirements' that hinder the instructors. Only serious reform will improve education, which begs the question, "Does our government want us to be truly educated?"

[wphelan]

It set standards as far as testing goes and schools had to meet them in order to get funding. The controversy over it was that it encouraged schools to teach based on the test and nothing else and if your a student in a failing school it would only get worse. Reformers now are wanting to move towards merit pay and have teachers fired if they do not perform which is what the teacher's unions are fighting against.

Ok, that's pretty much what I understood NCLB to be, which is why I was wondering what was so promising about it. Personally, I didn't think it had much merit.

Merit pay for teachers seems like it would be an important step in improving education though. Imagine it. Teachers getting paid or retained based on the quality of work they do instead of tenure. Now that's an idea.

[Michael]

Personally, I've never invested much time or effort to study the US public education field so I don't have any answers here.

One thing that does seem odd is that 'merit pay' and 'firing useless' teachers is being offered as some kind of 'solution' to the problem in US public education.

Fact is, these 'tools' are not really available to those nations that consistently show much higher performance in public education issues (most of the western nations have better public education systems AND they all have strong teacher unions). Thus, I suspect that union bashing is just a partisan political sport here, not a realistic policy option.

As it stands, I really don't know why US public education is so poor (relative to other western public education systems).

One thing I suspect is a huge issue is the property-tax-based funding of education that is mostly in place throughout the USA - this means schools in rich neighborhoods have lots of funding and schools in poor neighborhoods get very little. This differential between different public schools is the cancer that seems to be killing the whole system since the funding difference between a rich white suburban school district and a poor black inner-city one is massive.

That's one feature that is not present in Canada - all our schools are funded according to across the board 'per-student' funding formulas established at the state level regardless of the location of the school district.

[Michael]

Ok, that's pretty much what I understood NCLB to be, which is why I was wondering what was so promising about it. Personally, I didn't think it had much merit.
The problems of US public education are so massive, so deep seated, so complex and so massively understood (and so overwhelmingly ignored) that the NCLB was welcome just for opening the door on the topic. Any kind of standardized testing will show up the weak spots in the system very clearly. This is good data that has been lacking. No one serious expected NCLB to solve any problem. It just starts the process.

[Donkey]

Personally, I've never invested much time or effort to study the US public education field so I don't have any answers here.

One thing that does seem odd is that 'merit pay' and 'firing useless' teachers is being offered as some kind of 'solution' to the problem in US public education.

Fact is, these 'tools' are not really available to those nations that consistently show much higher performance in public education issues (most of the western nations have better public education systems AND they all have strong teacher unions). Thus, I suspect that union bashing is just a partisan political sport here, not a realistic policy option.

As it stands, I really don't know why US public education is so poor (relative to other western public education systems).

One thing I suspect is a huge issue is the property-tax-based funding of education that is mostly in place throughout the USA - this means schools in rich neighborhoods have lots of funding and schools in poor neighborhoods get very little. This differential between different public schools is the cancer that seems to be killing the whole system since the funding difference between a rich white suburban school district and a poor black inner-city one is massive.

That's one feature that is not present in Canada - all our schools are funded according to across the board 'per-student' funding formulas established at the state level regardless of the location of the school district.
The property-tax funding has been declared unconstitutional a couple of times (if I'm not mistaken) by a heavily stacked Republican supreme court (actually, WHOLLY republican at the moment *shudder*). A fact which has been blithely ignored by, well, everybody.

[partofme]

Personally, I've never invested much time or effort to study the US public education field so I don't have any answers here.

One thing that does seem odd is that 'merit pay' and 'firing useless' teachers is being offered as some kind of 'solution' to the problem in US public education.

Fact is, these 'tools' are not really available to those nations that consistently show much higher performance in public education issues (most of the western nations have better public education systems AND they all have strong teacher unions). Thus, I suspect that union bashing is just a partisan political sport here, not a realistic policy option.

As it stands, I really don't know why US public education is so poor (relative to other western public education systems).

One thing I suspect is a huge issue is the property-tax-based funding of education that is mostly in place throughout the USA - this means schools in rich neighborhoods have lots of funding and schools in poor neighborhoods get very little. This differential between different public schools is the cancer that seems to be killing the whole system since the funding difference between a rich white suburban school district and a poor black inner-city one is massive.

That's one feature that is not present in Canada - all our schools are funded according to across the board 'per-student' funding formulas established at the state level regardless of the location of the school district.

The problem with changing this is that people want education to be done locally. People see having a big national education plan as being a big government program that could only lead to bad things. Having funding be driven nationally would be seen as a way for the federal government to get more power over what is traditionally done locally. Personally if other countries have a more centralized system and it works better then I don't see what the problem with it is. I just want results.

[Greendruid]

The problem with changing this is that people want education to be done locally. People see having a big national education plan as being a big government program that could only lead to bad things. Having funding be driven nationally would be seen as a way for the federal government to get more power over what is traditionally done locally. Personally if other countries have a more centralized system and it works better then I don't see what the problem with it is. I just want results.

As an outsider married to an American, I think this would be seen as un-American. It's just not part of the cultural back-drop to centralise these kinds of things. The banking problem is going to require a major cultural paradigm shift for the same reason.

[partofme]

As an outsider married to an American, I think this would be seen as un-American. It's just not part of the cultural back-drop to centralise these kinds of things. The banking problem is going to require a major cultural paradigm shift for the same reason.

I do realize that but if it we are lagging behind then it's better than just excepting that.

[Michael]

As an outsider married to an American, I think this would be seen as un-American. It's just not part of the cultural back-drop to centralise these kinds of things. The banking problem is going to require a major cultural paradigm shift for the same reason.
A good point, but you've got the bank example backwards!

The biggest problem with US banking only began when they eliminated the rule against inter-state banks - which allowed the banks to become ginormous entities under federal regulation. One couldn't have the present banking problem under the old system where banks were limited to each state where they had a branch network. This tended to keep down the size of the banks - avoiding the 'too big to let fail' case that we are suffering from now.

Education is a problem in the USA because it is limited to local state control and/or local county control where national standards are needed.

This is a key issue of political science and public administration - which types of regulations are done best at which level of government. For some things, city hall or a local county council or board, for others, state or provincial, in others ought to be federal or national. Even some other things need to be trans-national or international.

I think bank regulation ought to be limited to smaller geographic levels of government (state or provincial level) in order to limit size/scale which produces more danger to the economy than any reasonable benefit. As is clearly demonstrated in the present case - there is no increase in the 'quality of regulation' just because it is done by Washington. Washington regulators have failed at financial regulation just as badly as any local 'old boys club' in Louisiana might have done - except at 100 times the scale of damage.

Education on the other hand seems to prosper best with economies of scale and nationalized standards.

[Michael]

In other Obama appointments... a pair of mixed quality here...

1. Ken Salazar (Senator for Colorado) has been appointed to Secretary of the Interior. This is a pretty good appointment overall. This is a position with opportunties for LOTS of ugly patronage deals - or sweet deals for private sector companies from Federal lands. Salazar is unlikely to sell the taxpayer down the river to corporate/polluter interests as was Bush policy at every opportunity. Salazar even comes across as somewhat of an evironmentalist so that's an even bigger bonus here since the US Government owns practically 2/3 of the land on the interior (mid-west and western states).

2. Tom Vilsack (former governor of Iowa) has been appointed to Secretary of Agriculture. This is a really ugly appointment. This signals full-steam ahead with ethanol subsidies, zero reform of farm subsidies and continued dominantion of US Agriculture by the industrial and genetic farming lobby. This is very much in the tradition of appointing a Wall Street Banker as Secretary of the Treasury (fox guarding the hen house).

[Michael]

Richardson has officially withdrawn his name for Commerce Secretary.

Apparently some new scandal has broken out in New Mexico state politics and this would delay Richardson's appointment. The scandal isn't seen as too serious at this time.

[Donkey]

Richardson has officially withdrawn his name for Commerce Secretary.

Apparently some new scandal has broken out in New Mexico state politics and this would delay Richardson's appointment. The scandal isn't seen as too serious at this time.

I'm pretty disappointed. I've been a fan of Richardson for a while now, and this led to a string of random expletives which rather confused the people with whom I was watching a movie last night.

[Michael]

Obama's appointees are generally pretty good.

Some are not.

Here's an ugly one (of Bush-like proportions).

Mary Schapiro has been nominated to head the SEC. For the last half-dozen years, she's been in charge of FINRA - the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

During this time, FINRA has not only missed just about everything going on with sub-prime mortgages, credit-default-swaps, derivatives and the Madoff ponzi scheme!

Here's a small chart that illustrates Mary Shapiro's tenure as head of FINRA. Notice the falling trend through the last several years in fines levied. Heck of a job Mary - now you get promoted to the SEC!

[Michael]

Well, the Democratic-controlled Senate just approved Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury.

As much as I like this guy, I think this is a BIG MISTAKE. Lets just say that any time this guy says anything, the Republicans (quite rightly) are going to make comments about the "tax-dodging Treasury Secretary".

The optics of appointing an admitted tax-dodger to be the highest tax official is just plain dumb bordering on moronic.

Added to the two "waivers" given to hire two lobbyists in the last week, Obama's much vaunted "ethics rules" are turning out to be nothing more than hot air and bullshit for public consumption, not something to take seriously. Obama is acting like a very typical Beltway politican now that he's in office and although I can't say I didn't see this coming, it is still quite disappointing.

Is it too much to ask for high level officials to be free of illegal acts?

[drgoodtrips]

Well, maybe they've gotten all of the illegal acts out of their systems prior to their current appointments ;)

[Michael]

Dashele has formally withdrawn his name from consideration for Secretary of Health.

This will limit the damage to Obama's reputation - Obama's full support for Dashele stinks badly and shows that Obama's true instincts are to play the Washington insider-game (which is politically damaging to Obama since he's staked so much of his politics on the opposite principle - hypocrisy is never popular).

Personally, I'm very pleased. I loath Dashele as the epitome of corporate sponsored government. This guy is one of the (D-side) poster-boys for the revolving door between corporate lobbying and government and a poster boy for 'back-room machine politics' - both of which Obama campaigned against.

Btw, I nearly fell off my chair laughing when they described Dashele as some Congressional wizard who's 'brilliance' was needed to get healthcare legislation passed - given that Dashele presided over the most horrific Democratic pandering to the Republicans and corporate interests (and has a horrific record of actually passing Democratic legislation) - and ultimately lost his own seat in the process.

Indeed, Dashele is the most clear-cut "D" example of the infamous Bush-principle of failing upwards (which is always a sign of a well connected Washington insider).

[Michael]

Further to the Dashele episode, kudos to Obama for publically admitting that he screwed up in trying to support Dashele AFTER Dashele admitted to the tax issues.

That's a refreshing change from the Bush era where GW never admitted to making a single error in office. :erm:

[Michael]

Chas Freeman has voluntarily withdrawn his nomination for Chair of the NIC.

This is a huge victory for the all-powerful pro-Israeli endless-war faction - and a big black eye for Obama to buckle under predictable pressure from those who associate with criminals and treason (the leader of the anti-Freeman movement is under investigation for selling US intelligence information to a foreign nation (Israel of course).

So far, the only appointee Obama has gone to bat for was a corrupt lobbyist in the back pocket of the healthcare & agriculture industries (Dashele) and a run-of-the-mill tax evader (Timmy).

Bureaucrats with stellar records of public service apparently are to be sacrificed when hatemongers freak out.

Bad policy.

For the record, I considered the appointment of Freeman here to be the ONLY sign of possible improvement on the Israeli-Palestine issue. Obama has just thrown Palestine under the bus and we can expect no meaningful US diplomacy on that issue for Obama's term. Status quo on Israel rules Washington - once again. Obama hath spoken.

I need hardly add that failure to move on the Israeli-Palestine issue is pretty much a guarentee that Obama's entire term will be judged a major foreign policy failure. No need to pay attention to any mention of this issue - Washington has just affirmed the "absolute and unquestioned support for Israel no matter what" policy - again.

Doesn't the American government ever get bored of fucking up the same issues over and over?

[Michael]

Btw, Obama's "no lobbyist" rule that he announced on the campaign trail is just making Obama look like the inexperienced rookie that he is (and fucking things up in Washington).

It was a dump thing to promise and Obama's Administration is suffering seriously because of it.

Fact is, all the best environmental activists, healthcare activists and alternative energy activists that the Administration might want to employ are all unemployable by Obama's short-sighted rule.

Anyone who is anybody in any way, shape or form involving Washington is either a) a politician, b) works for a politician, or c) is a lobbyist.

Everyone in Washington fits one of those three categories (including the media).

[Americano]

Chas Freeman has voluntarily withdrawn his nomination for Chair of the NIC.

This is a huge victory for the all-powerful pro-Israeli endless-war faction - and a big black eye for Obama to buckle under predictable pressure from those who associate with criminals and treason (the leader of the anti-Freeman movement is under investigation for selling US intelligence information to a foreign nation (Israel of course).

So far, the only appointee Obama has gone to bat for was a corrupt lobbyist in the back pocket of the healthcare & agriculture industries (Dashele) and a run-of-the-mill tax evader (Timmy).

Bureaucrats with stellar records of public service apparently are to be sacrificed when hatemongers freak out.

Bad policy.

For the record, I considered the appointment of Freeman here to be the ONLY sign of possible improvement on the Israeli-Palestine issue. Obama has just thrown Palestine under the bus and we can expect no meaningful US diplomacy on that issue for Obama's term. Status quo on Israel rules Washington - once again. Obama hath spoken.

I need hardly add that failure to move on the Israeli-Palestine issue is pretty much a guarentee that Obama's entire term will be judged a major foreign policy failure. No need to pay attention to any mention of this issue - Washington has just affirmed the "absolute and unquestioned support for Israel no matter what" policy - again.

Doesn't the American government ever get bored of fucking up the same issues over and over?

Not when the new team is in line for their lobbyist 'contributions'.

[Michael]

Regarding Chas Freeman, here's Glenn Greenwald:

Freeman is stuck in the latest instance of the deadly power game long played here on what level of support for controversial Israeli government policies is a "requirement" for US public office. If Obama surrenders to the critics and orders [Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair] to rescind the Freeman appointment to chair the NIC, it is difficult to see how he can properly exercise leverage, when needed, in his conduct of policy in the Middle East. That, literally, is how the experts see the stakes of the fight now under way.

Indeed. As I noted above, Obama's whole foreign policy credentials just went down the toilet. Might as well tell Hillary to come home and stop wasting the taxpayer's dime - she ain't going to be able to do any good in the Middle East as long as Obama is in the Whitehouse.

Heck, might as well appoint George W. Bush (or Bill Kristol) to be the US Ambassador to Israel. That's an honest reflection of actual US foreign policy on display here.

(Seriously, this is a big a personal failure of Obama as his key vote for FICA and retroactive immunity for lawbreaking companies).

The ONLY thing making Obama look good these days is the alternative idea of McCain as President. As it stands, I'm not seeing much difference in real substantial policy issues from the Bush Administration. Just cosmetic stuff so far. Obama keeps flubbing it when it comes to actually striking a necessary change of policy.

Bush Administration 'status quo' continues to rule Washington.

[Michael]

Greenwald and Blumenthal are asserting that Freeman was "asked" to withdraw and citing Senator Schumer's statements on the topic.

Schumer has long been one of my least favorite "D" Senators. He's just moved to the top of my list.

It really is amazing to watch how the US political system actually operates prevent any discussion of any issue.

Piss on Obama - this is a big one and Obama blew it bad.

And of course, the next NIC you see, please remember that it will be submitted to AIPAC for their approval (and or necessary edits) before it is released. That's what this action really signifies (besides the fact that IT IS NOT PERMITTED to question absolute US support for Israel).

[Americano]

Greenwald and Blumenthal are asserting that Freeman was "asked" to withdraw and citing Senator Schumer's statements on the topic.

Schumer has long been one of my least favorite "D" Senators. He's just moved to the top of my list.

It really is amazing to watch how the US political system actually operates prevent any discussion of any issue.

Piss on Obama - this is a big one and Obama blew it bad.

And of course, the next NIC you see, please remember that it will be submitted to AIPAC for their approval (and or necessary edits) before it is released. That's what this action really signifies (besides the fact that IT IS NOT PERMITTED to question absolute US support for Israel).

So we're discovering his congressional clout is limited by one of the strongest lobbyist forces in DC. I don't find that surprising. Lieberman is again being worshiped as a hero by Israel.