The Clinton and Obama cabinets

[krispos42]

Who is going to fill out the ranks of the Clinton or Obama administration?

I ask this because, as we belatedly learned with Bush, it matters.

While Bush himself may be a manipulating, callous psychopath with massive parental issues, the fact is he's not bright enough or curious enough to mastermind the trickery, legal manipulations, and shredding of the Constitution all by his lonesome. Remember, he's "Incurious George".

When people voted for The President They Could Have a Beer With, they had little if any idea of the smart, sharp, dedicated, and driven neoconservative assholes that would flesh out the organization that would become BushCo.

Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzales, Meiers, and Rice are the most obvious of them, but I'm sure there are more lurking around. Libby, Chertoff, whoever.


And political cronyism, are either Clinton or Obama more likely to reward political friends with critical but below-the-radar positions? Like, say, head of FEMA?




Presumebly long-time Democratic operatives and politicians of various stripes, some perhaps going back to the Carter Administration, will jump on board as Secretary of ___________ or the Director of __________.

For example, if Clinton wins, will that Terry McAulliff guy be in her administration?



Who is likely to be in each candidate's cabinet, and which candidate is more likely to get DLCers, Third Way Dems, Blue Dog Dems, Yellow Dog Dems,etc.? And which "flavor" (social, economic, etc.) of liberals will dominate?

Is one candidate more likely than the other to have a truly liberal Administration?



I haven't see this discussed really yet, but I think it should be. The discussions regarding Clinton and Obama seem to be more like this:




As Bush has proved, who gets appointed MATTERS.

[babylonsister]

1. Who knows? I trust Senator Barack HUSSEIN Obama to have the

most effective members surrounding him and to hire the best people for the job. Period.

[krispos42]

4. I'm thinking that, as deep as the Chicago political swamp is...

...it's not nearly as deep as DC's is.

[Two Americas]

6. that doesn't answer the question

It is not a matter of having "most effective members surrounding" the president nor that the president "hires the best people for the job."

The question is, what exactly is "the job" they are being hired to do? We have lost sight of that.

Given the job that Bush wanted to accomplish, he certainly hired "the best people for the job" and surrounded himself with "the most effective members." We are living in a fantasy world if we think the Bush administration "failed." They accomplished everything they set out to accomplish.

[JohnnyLib2]

2. You raised a very important point. I'd like to hear more about this.

Perhaps the campaigns are "gun-shy" of being labeled presumptuous or, God forbid, portraying inevitability. :shrug:

[krispos42]

5. That's not quite what I was worried about...

I'm wondering about just how many positions will be filled by either syncophants (i.e., "loyal Obamatons/loyal Hillbots"), or just slimey establishment types

[lapfog_1]

3. Terry McAulliff is gunning for "Chief of Staff"

his Deputy Chief of Staff will be this woman...

http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-s-mystery-woman-who-huma?page=0%2C0