Those unhappy with Obama's picks: tell us who you would choose instead...

[zulchzulu]

Instead of complaining, come up specifically with who you'd choose for cabinet position and why... let's see something more than just whining.

I started a list:

Secretary of State

Secretary of the Treasury

Secretary of Defense

Attorney General

Secretary of the Interior

Secretary of Agriculture

Secretary of Commerce

Secretary of Labor

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Secretary of Transportation

Secretary of Energy

Secretary of Education

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Secretary of Homeland Security

[cottonseed]

1. Kucinich for all of them.

[Occam Bandage]

3. You want that anti-choice zealot in charge of women's rights?

I thought this was a place for real progressives.

[Forkboy]

40. 100% NARAL ratings suck, don't they?

:silly:

[Occam Bandage]

55. I'm sorry, I thought that this was a forum where

we happily obsessed over positions people held a decade ago. Now you're trying to silence my voice? What kind of right-wing fascist censorship is this?

[Forkboy]

71. Perhaps your issue is with another poster?

:shrug:

[Coexist]

90. word.

lol!

[zulchzulu]

4. You forget about Nader and Chomsky...

Cindy Sheehan in Defense?

:sarcasm:

[Drunken Irishman]

14. McKinney!

For what, I don't know, but she definitely should be somewhere!

:eyes:

Oh and the guy Gonzales from San Francisco.

Yeah!

[Drunken Irishman]

15. Ha! I guess I didn't look down thread. :O

[zulchzulu]

17. Don't forget Jello and Cindy n/t

[Forkboy]

39. I take Jello over them all, including the Dems.

:P

[camera obscura]

82. 9/11 Truth and Katrina Coverup Czar!!!!!

That would be HUGH

[Occam Bandage]

2. Anyone who answers "Krugman" fails.

[leftstreet]

5. Krugman

[Bucky]

117. .

[Eric J in MN]

6. FDA chair should be Howard Dean.

Secretary of Agriculture should be Fred Kirschenmann:

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/foodies-make-a-pitch-to-obama/?hp

[zulchzulu]

7. Why would Dean want the FDA chair?

I couldn't see him in that position... for the main reason that it's not that political and would be more about babysitting the pharmas and their latest drugs fresh out of clinical trials... he wouldn't really get to try to reform healthcare.

I could certainly see him as Sec. of Health and Human Services, but I think his strengths are developing grassroots efforts for future political races.

[Eric J in MN]

22. He could regulate in a way which get safer, more effective drugs to patients.

He could protect the food supply.

[zulchzulu]

31. I've done work with the FDA in the past...

...and it's like watching paint dry with regulatory handwringing... I worked doing healthcare advertising for a stint and working with the FDA was indeed frustrating and incredibly slow. I think Howard would get bored with the slow wheels turning... he's more apt at getting things done from a new angle versus fighting the system and its legions of career slowpokes.

[Two Americas]

45. food

Wish we could leave real food - produce as opposed to imitation packaged "food products" - to the USDA, where the expertise is. I think that the Bush political appointees were using the FDA to suppress and harass small growers of fruits and vegetables on behalf of the drug companies. That tomato scare was abominable. They alarmed the public and hurt growers without ever having tested one tomato. Turns out is was imported produce that was the problem, and not even related to tomatoes at all.

[boppers]

79. The USDA?

The one pimping hormone laden beef and milk?

The one turning a blind eye to factory farming?

Really?

[Two Americas]

80. we need to be cautious here

All of the federal agencies have been corrupted and politicized by the Republicans. They tell the public that "government doesn't work" and then when they get control over government, they set out to prove that. They would love nothing better than to have is blame the federal agencies for the corporate agendas that the Republican political appointees have used the agencies to advance. we should not call for elimination of the agencies because of the misuse of them for corrupt political purposes.

The reason the agencies have been making bad decisions is not because of anything inherent in the agencies, but rather because of political agendas imposed on them by the Republicans.

Most of the work done by the USDA is vitally essential for the public welfare. Most of the people are dedicated professionals. The USDA is the appropriate agency for dealing with farm products, because it is the agency where the ag professionals work.

What we should be advocating is elimination of the revolving door policy of the Republicans, cycling people from industry into the agencies that are supposed to be watch dogs to the same industries.

[NashVegas]

49. That Deserves Its Own Thread

On the way ...

[gogoplata]

8. Ted Rall- Secretary of Defense

[zulchzulu]

10. I was thinking for Sec. of Defense in Rall's World:

Rall would accept him...

[gogoplata]

9. Cynthia McKinney- Homeland Security

[BluegrassDem]

35. Cynthia McKinney?

Then you might as well give up now cause you'll never be happy with Obama's choices.

[gogoplata]

37. The OP state that we should give other choices for the cabinet if we're not happy.

Or just shut up.

Now, with a choice you disagree with, I'm told to just give it up.


When did dissent become a four-letter word?

[anigbrowl]

81. I nominate Bugs Bunny for Treasury

Since we're clearly not being serious any more.

[ruggerson]

41. lol

thanks. That just made our whole household laugh. Even the animals are chuckling.

[gogoplata]

42. Howard Zinn- Dept of Education

[gogoplata]

43. Ward Churchill- Secretary of the Interior

[ruggerson]

52. Gus Hall

sec'y of Labor

Oh, wait he's dead.

[Two Americas]

11. no connection there

The validity of people's commentary about the picks does not depend upon them being able to come up with an alternative list of candidates upon your demand. This line of reasoning is a kissing cousin to the right wingers taunts of "oh yeah, if you liberals think America is so bad, (or "capitalism" or whatever) then let's hear your alternatives!"

I criticized the comments made by Emmanuel after he was picked. Other than that, all I have done is to defend the right of others to criticize the picks without being smeared and maligned. But even that is cause for being subjected to smears and personal attacks.

The relentless baiting and smearing of any and all people who are offering critical commentary about the new administration is highly suppressive. Since those exact same tactics have been used to great effect by the right wingers against all of us, it is dismaying to see people here using them on one another.

[zulchzulu]

12. If you think there is a problem, you should provide a solution

I'd love to see people actually tell why someone else would be better instead of just blindly trashing the choice Obama made so far.

Just calling someone a "Clinton era hack" is good for some knuckleheads and professional whiners, but offering someone with a little more depth and bone in the argument serves a little more in the dialogue.

[Two Americas]

21. that is rarely true

That is rarely true, and is a perennial argument used by reactionaries against those advocating for social progress and justice. As but one example, the same debate went on in the 1850's on the issue of slavery. Abolitionists were discredited with the argument they "didn't have an alternative and were just criticizing." This line of reasoning was used to support royalty and monarchy, as well.

The "alternative" to hitting oneself on the thumb with a hammer is to stop doing that. We don't keep hitting ourselves and say to anyone who points out what we are doing with "oh yeah? What's your alternative if you are so smart?"

The alternative to the ongoing drift of the party to the right is to stop doing that.

[Zynx]

24. Abolitionists had one of two solutions: 1. Freedom for slaves or 2. A return to Africa

Some like to forget that a lot of northerners were fine with the second choice, but there it was.

In most revolutions, an alternative is proposed, if only vaguely.

I'm sorry, what you suggested just simply isn't true.

Also, a better analogy is that we are going out for lunch and the fact is that we have to eat something and the far left just keeps saying "no".

[Two Americas]

30. no

Since those tow options were presumed to be too expensive or impractical, they were not accepted as alternatives. Likewise, any alternatives that people offer to the cabinet picks will be rejected as "impractical."

There is a dishonesty in those arguments, and implied but unspoken component. "If you are against the bail out, what do you want as an alternative - a total collapse of the economy???" was a recent variant on this line of reasoning that we saw here.

In the 1850's, the apologists for compromising with the slave power said "what is your alternative then?" but when pressed added "throwing millions of people into the Labor market and causing whites to lose their jobs?" or "leaving all of the slaves destitute and starving?"

The "what is your alternative?" argument is often really a taunt, a stalking horse for another argument. Any alternative that anyone suggests can be dismissed as "impractical," if nothing else. By that logic, we can never criticize anything because the "practicality" argument can always be used. If we are going to argue only for what is practical, that precludes there ever being social progress, since that is always impractical at the onset.

Emancipation was much more "impractical" than naming Michael Moore or Howard Zinn or Dennis Kucinich to the cabinet.

[zulchzulu]

38. Provide the alternative answer instead of just whining...

That is the point of what I'm trying to get down to. It's easy saying "it sucks". It's harder to actually come up with a solution that then can be examined.

Your "hammer" example makes no sense as per this dialogue. It's not about hitting your hand with a hammer.

Instead of choosing one candidate, who would you choose otherwise? Say you don't like the choice for Sec. of State... who would you choose and why... Obama's choice was not my first choice, but I understand there is a logic to that choice and at least will give the benefit of a doubt for the candidate to prove herself in that role. Sure, I could call her a "hack" or whatever, but that's hardly an answer.

As for the abolitionists not having an alternative, it would be pretty obvious that the alternative was to get rid of slavery. Your example on that is puzzling. Are you indicating that an abolitionist would be stumped if they were asked what an alternative to getting rid of slavery was?

[Two Americas]

47. yes

And in our case, the alternative would be to get rid of the ever-encroaching right wing philosophies and opinions and corporate corruption within the party.

Just because someone disagrees with you, that does not mean they are "whining" or saying "it sucks."

By the way, the state of our democracy and our country does "suck" it so happens. Look around, and stop "whining" about people disagreeing with you and saying that "they suck."

I have not complained about the appointees, other than Emmanuel for a specific reason, nor am I "surprised" by them. But people are, and should be, and I am defending their right to do so. Mostly for me it is what I expected, so I have not been outspokenly critical, but that was despite the continual denials by Obama supporters that this was exactly what was going to happen.

However, after months of many of us saying that the Dems have been rolling over to the Republicans and not standing up to them, and that the party has been drifting ever rightward and not being much of an opposition party, why would any of us be surprised to hear an outcry here when one of the appointees immediately says "we are putting together the administration team" and "we welcome the ideas and concepts of the Republicans?" We. The ideas and concepts.

Now, would it not make sense that anyone on the left would say "they seem to be welcoming Republican ideas and concepts?" As Leftists, how can we not speak out about that?

You may disagree with some or all of what I just said, but they are legitimate opinions, and calling people "whiners" and everything else under the sun because you disagree with them is obviously suppressive and destructive to the free flow of ideas and a civil discussion. And, no, asking people to refrain from personal attacks is not "the same thing" and is not itself suppressive, so we are not "just as bad" when we request that.

[political_Dem]

85. You hit the nail right on the head.

Instead of ridiculing anyone who has a divergent opinion, dissenting voices should be given a legitimate and safe place to air out their grievances.

The ugly thing about taunting everyone who possesses a dissenting opinion is the fact that censorship is being subtly encouraged without saying it outright. As long as there are a bunch of loudmouths who go around being "holier than thou" while browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with them into submission, we--as an entire group of left-leaning, progressive thinkers--suffer.

Politics, no matter what the time-frame, need to be discussed. Period. In that way, we need to know the pro's and cons of what we're fighting for.


I mean, what kind of message does it send to paint any view outside of the box as hysterical and ridiculous?

My .02. :)

[Two Americas]

127. inside out

Notice how those ridiculing and mocking want us to believe that the only alternative to what can only be called the inner circle, the powerful and corrupt few, is some sort of "fringe" thinking - narrow, limited, doctrinaire, ideological, unrealistic?

The opposite is actually true. The big challenge is to find 30 people who will be defenders of the status quo, while looking sort of like change or like something different from the Republicans. Outside of those very narrow confines, there is a wealth of talent and experience we could be drawing from.

The "center" is the "fringe" - the odd, the unusual, the narrow, the dogmatic, the immoderate, and the radical. The "center" means conservative and authoritarian on the inside, with a veneer of something else on the outside that seems a little nicer or smarter.

[Zynx]

18. The lowest form of life is a critic. Also, the right wing was right on that one.

We had to do more than just say no. That's part of the reason we weren't winning elections.

[Two Americas]

27. the founders of the country do not agree with you

"A true patriot would keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances, and not allow them to rest till the causes of their just complaints are removed." - Samuel Adams

"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and that, I am sure, is the ultimate and sincere object of us both. We both value too much the freedom of opinion sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even where in opposition to ourselves." - Thomas Jefferson

[Zynx]

29. Those quotes do nothing to dispel what I said at all.

Try harder. Critcism is fine, but you have to more than just bitch and moan. You need to present a concrete alternative. You seem more interested in argument than solution and that makes you useless.

[Two Americas]

111. false and malicious

There is no evidence to support that those who express one point of view therefore don't do anything constructive, while those who express another point of view do.

I happen to know from personal experience that some of the most vocal dissenters are also the biggest doers. Throwing out this false and malicious idea - that those speaking for the Left should be ignored and dismissed because they supposedly don't do anything but "bitch and moan," with the strong implication that dissent and action are somehow mutually exclusive, is an attempt to get people to ignore all dissenters, and is not only unsupportable, but suppressive.

"Concrete alternatives" are being offered on this thread, and the claim that people on the Left do not offer concrete alternatives is an oft-repeated smear that is not backed up by any evidence. Read the bios of some of my suggested alternative choices for cabinet appointments, and you can see person after person with long records of concrete accomplishments, and offering carefully reasoned, well-documented and brilliant "concrete alternatives."

This propaganda - "they (whoever they are supposed to be) are just bitching and moaning and have no concrete alternatives" - is nothing but a malicious lie designed to smear millions of good people - our allies, and people who happen to be the strongest voices, clearest thinkers and most productive people among us.

[maryf]

118. Another voice on criticism, Churchill

“Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.” Winston Churchill

Calling attention to an unhealthy state does not necessarily mean one has to know how to heal it...

(I like the message not the messengers always! ;) )

[maryf]

121. kick just for the fun of it!

and Two Americas research deserves more reading by others...good job here...

[Two Americas]

126. heh

I know that I am having the time of my life lol.

Thanks for the kind words and the support.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Those taunts are valid.

If you're complaining about a system, you had better be presenting a plan for a viable alternative if you want people to take you seriously. We lost in '04 in large part because we weren't presenting alternative plans; we were just saying how bad the Republicans' plans were. In '06 and '08, we started presenting plans, and we started winning.

[karynnj]

26. That is not true

In fact, EVERY Democrat took Kerry's alternative energy/environment platform in 2008 - many echoing his words on the advantages. Kerry had a clear foreign policy speech - given in April 2004, an Iraq speech in Sept that contained many ideas that the Iraq study group was later to recommend (he also called for no permanent bases long before most even thought of it), he gave a speech on how to right non-state terrorism, that Gates pretty much adopted in his report on that this year. Healthcare, his plan was the strongest of any one that year - and in 2006, he tweaked it only slightly to convert it from near universal to universal. (yeah before JRE or HRC)

You do realize that in 2006, the ONLY reason we had a plan on Iraq was that KERRY forced the Senate to deal with the issue against the wishes of the HRC aligned Senate leadership. Obama moved to a plan that was similar to kerry/Feingold. Obama also moved to nearly all of Kerry's foreign policy positions.

[Two Americas]

28. taunts are never valid

They are what people use when they cannot refute a point. Rather than refuting the message, they taunt the messenger. After decades of the right wingers using this tactic against all of us, I am surprised that there is any controversy about this.

[Occam Bandage]

34. That's silly.

The concepts of "taunt" and "refutation" are independent. A statement can be one, both, or neither.

[Two Americas]

36. maybe I was not clear

A taunt is not a valid argument. Yes, a person could make a valid argument and taunt, yes a person could make an invalid argument that was not a taunt, etc.

I am rejecting the idea that a taunt is a valid argument if it is warranted or deserved, or used against certain people or certain arguments.

[cali]

32. you are sneering and smearing and baiting in YOUR post

you compare the OP- wrongly and nastily- to wingnuts proclaiming America love it or leave it. That's just mean spirited and ugly. Not to mention false.

[Two Americas]

33. no I am not

There is a vast difference between characterizing the message, and characterizing the messenger. That is the issue.

[cali]

88. Of course you are. You're making false and nasty accusations against

people. The very essence of your message is smearing and sneering.

[Two Americas]

96. where?

Where have I made any false and nasty accusations against anyone? I have not made any personal attacks whatsoever.

[RC]

44. Yeah, what you said!

That been said, there are some here that seemed to have raised Obama to the level of royalty. Any criticism is the equivalent to blasphemy. and said people squeal like stuck pigs.

To me Obama's biggest draw is he seems to be honest. If the criminal Right hadn't pulled the real political center so far to the right, Obama would be a Republican. Think Eisenhower. And that would not be a bad thing in that case either. Regardless of what some people would have us think, Obama is no liberal. His cabinet picks prove that.

[Two Americas]

51. he could prove to be an exceptional leader

But there is no way that his administration can be successful if the only "fuel" it has is idolatry and enforced loyalty. There is not even 20% of the public who can be relied on to see Obama the way that his most ardent supporters do.

Regardless of what Obama "is" - as though politicians were an item of merchandise, something we select from the shelf as though we were shopping as an exercise in personal choice as consumers of a commodity - our task remains the same. If we are to refrain from advocating for the same things that we always have, in order to "give him a chance" lest we be accused of being "whiners, purists, ideologues" and of helping the opposition, then that would mean that the recent elections represented a repudiation of the political Left, rather than what they so obviously were - an utter and almost complete rejection of the right wing economic program. The hero worship and enforced loyalty are certain to undermine and sabotage the new administration, and cripple its chances of success. If this attack on the critics is antagonizing and alienating people here, and it most definitely is, it will be an even bigger disaster with the general public. The public has given Obama a chance, and what they have given him a chance to do is to improve the very dire and desperate conditions they are facing. As Democrats, we know that alleviating the suffering of the people means moving to the Left - otherwise we would be Republicans and advocating some variation on trickle down and free market programs.

The people did not vote for the same old centrist pro-corporate politics, merely with new more intelligent, competent and stylish management. They did not vote for "post partisanship." What I heard on the street more and more as the election approached was "we need another New Deal" and there is no way that is going to happen by being non-partisan or welcoming ideas and concepts from Republicans. Those working class blue collar people I am talking about, in Alliance, Ohio and Macomb county, Michigan, and in rural districts around the country, who formerly voted Republican, are what made the difference in the recent elections, and those people have finally rejected the Reganomics, they have not taken up biking on the rails-to-trails paths nor gone organic on us. They aren't giving up hunting nor selling their trucks. They are the ones saying "we need another New Deal," they are not saying "we need snazzy new smarter management of the same policies" and they have not suddenly turned into upscale suburban liberals, either.

[anigbrowl]

83. I think a lot of the 'critical commentary' is ill-founded whining

One may not be able to do better (as in have the experience or ability to do the job oneself) but one should certainly be able to offer a credible alternative or concrete reasoning. A lot of the objections to cabinet picks (not all of which I am thrilled with either) consist of 'Progressives are being betrayed again, we are the majority but we always get screwed waaaaaah' which is not critical commentary, but wank.

[Two Americas]

98. pejorative characterization

What makes an opinion "ill-founded whining?" Why do we even use that loaded and inflammatory term against people we disagree with?

I can't believe, after the years of brilliant posts and analysis by so many members here, that anyone could think that the Left is unable "to offer a credible alternative or concrete reasoning."

What on earth is wrong with saying that the Left is the majority here - I will go farther than that and say that the Left represents a majority among the general public as well - and what is wrong with saying that the Left, and the people have been and are being betrayed? Why would anyone mock and ridicule that?

[gogoplata]

13. Ok, no more kidding around. Stephanie Miller at Labor.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. Jimmy Hoffa Junior for Labor.

[mirrera]

19. Go to the Backbone Campaign web site and look around...

http://backbonecampaign.com/

[zulchzulu]

23. Wow... all the choices!

:wow:

[Occam Bandage]

25. Ralph Nader for AG!

:rofl:

[Two Americas]

99. Christopher Alexander

Professor Christopher Alexander, Backbone Cabinet nominee for Secretary for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is an award-winning architect, community planner, and prolific author. He has been a consultant to city, county, and national governments on every continent, has advised corporations, government agencies, and architects and planners throughout the world.

Today, Professor Alexander is taking steps to help people reclaim their neighborhoods. Professor Alexanderýs new, evolving web site www.LivingNeighborhoods.org describes socially-oriented ways in which to plan and build/rebuild neighborhoods from within, and provides tools people can use to make cities and neighborhoods their own. These are based on the recently published four-volume The Nature of Order, which summarizes much of Professor Alexander's current thinking (www.natureoforder.com).

[Two Americas]

100. Byllye Avery

Recognized as dreamer, visionary and grassroots realist, Byllye Avery is founder of The Avery Institute for Social Change and the Black Women's Health Imperative. A women's health activist for over 25 years, she has received honorary degrees from Thomas Jefferson University, Gettysburg College, Bowdoin College, and others. A sample of Ms. Avery's awards include the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship "Genius Grant" for Social Contribution, Lifetime Television's Trailblazer Award, the Essence magazine award for community service, the President's Citation of the American Public Health Association, and the Academy of Science Institute of Medicine's Award for the Advancement of Health Care.

Recent national polls (conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation and other organizations) indicate that voters ranked health care among their top concerns. An estimated 50 million Americans lack medical insurance, including 9 million of our children. About 18,000 Americans die each year because they lack medical coverage. But even those who have insurance suffer under the current system. Of the more than 1.5 million bankruptcies filed each year, about half are a result of medical bills; of those, three-quarters of filers had health insurance.

Businesses and employees are financially hard hit too. Insurance premiums increased 73 percent in the last six years; that is, they outpaced increases in salaries and inflation by incredibly huge margins. Businesses canýt thrive with these overheads and they share increased insurance costs with employees whose take-home pay is thus reduced.

For almost all Americans, then, this system is not working. And in spite of the urgency of this issue, dialogue at the national level is just as broken. Among most politicians in Washington DC, a comprehensive solution ý based on successful working models from other wealthy nations - is off the table. The health care industries combined are the top spenders on Capitol Hill, and politicians from both major parties are beholden to all-powerful insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists and other influence peddlers.

In other wealthy countries, universal health care is the norm. And, according to a 2005 Harris Poll, 75 percent of Americans want the peace of mind of universal health insurance. Americans recognize that prevention is the best medicine. But we are all vulnerable to illness, job loss and injury. These are unplanned, difficult events in all our lives regardless of our financial status. Society as a whole benefits when we each can access the help we need. Without our permission, then, we continue to fund and participate in a failed 30 year old experiment between for-profit versus for-people health service industry.

And this path we are on is not even cost-effective, but the debate among politicians and those in the for-profit health care world is usually falsely framed. For instance, it is not widely known that studies done by various Congressional committees and state-based groups have concluded that billions of tax dollars would be saved annually if the US adopted, for instance, a universal single payer health care system.

How do ordinary citizens sort through the complexities of this crisis, and work together towards a solution? For this Conversation we had the good fortune to have as our guest speaker Byllye Avery (bio) a Backbone Cabinet nominee for Health and Human Services (HHS), and founding director of The Avery Institute for Social Change.

The Avery Institute is a national, non-profit organization based in Harlem, NY that is committed to quality health care for all. The organization takes a practical, visionary approach to health care reform, linking the grassroots, academic, and policy communities, giving voice to those who experience the impact of health disparities, particularly in communities of color. The Avery Institute is building a movement of concerned citizens, health activists, strategists and advocates to develop community-driven solutions to end health care disparities and to achieve healthcare reform. The organization seeks community-driven solutions for ending health disparities while stimulating a grassroots movement for national health care reform.

[Two Americas]

101. Quentin Young

Dr. Quentin Young, progressive nominee for Secretary - Health and Human Services is a pioneer in the movement for a universal, single-payer national health care system in the United States. He was deeply involved in the civil rights movement and served as Dr. Martin Luther King's personal physician. Dr. Young is now the National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). PNHP is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program since 1987. PNHP has more than 14,000 members and chapters across the United States.

Dr. Young is a practicing internist in Hyde Park, a Clinical Professor of preventive Medicine at the University of Illinois Medical Center and Senior Attending Physician at Michael Reese Hospital. During the 1970s and early 1980s, he served as Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine at Cook County Hospital, where he helped establish the Department of Occupational Medicine.

In addition to his distinguished career as a physician, Dr. Young has been a leader in public health policy and medical and social justice issues. In 1998, he had the special distinction of serving as President of the American Public Health Association and in 1997 was inducted as a Master of the American College of Physicians. In 1980, Dr. Young founded the Chicago based Health & Medicine Policy Research Group, of which he is currently Chairman. Health & Medicine is a non-profit organization created to be an advocate for the health care needs of the poor and underserved in Chicago. Dr. Young is also the National Coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP), a Chicago based organization of over 9,000 physicians who support single payer national health insurance. He has served as Chairman of the American College of Physicians' Subcommittee on Human Rights and Medical Practice and has been a member of both the Humana-Michael Reese Medical Board and the American College of Physicians Health and Public Policy Committee. Every other Tuesday morning, Dr. Young hosts "Public Affairs" on WBEZ, Chicago public radio. Dr. Young has chosen to limit his medical practice in order to spend more time fighting the corporate takeover of medicine in America.

An Interview with Quentin D. Young M.D.
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2004/may/an_interview_with_qu.php

[Two Americas]

102. Elena Herrada

The United States today is home to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Approximately 7-8 million of these undocumented workers are from Mexico and other Central American countries (source: Census 2000 and Allocation of Pew Research Report on Undocumented Immigrants). People across the political spectrum agree that our immigration system is broken, and that our country needs comprehensive immigration reform. How can government devise sensible laws for our undocumented inhabitants who are in this country because, under NAFTA, they could find no work at home, and whose work makes a substantial contribution to our economy? How can we create an immigration and border plan that reflects our humanity, our belief in the American Dream, while also addressing government infrastructure inadequacies, and national security concerns?

The Bush team and Congress have recognized the importance of this complex issue, but the federal government has failed to construct a workable, socially-just solution. In December the House passed a controversial bill that resulted in mass pro-immigrant rallies across the country, culminating in a national boycott on May 1st -- after which the government felt compelled to respond. In May, the Senate passed a slightly less punitive bill, and Bush outlined his immigration reform plans on national TV. Among other proposals, Bush called for a temporary guest worker program, a border wall, the deployment of 6,000 national guard troops on the US/Mexico border, high tech id cards and mass detention centers. Instead of taking up this issue in a practical, holistic manner in this election year, the House GOP last week announced that it will conduct field hearings on the Senate proposal during Congressional vacation time in August.

Thus, there is no unified government leadership on this critical issue, and yet the privatization and militarization of US/Mexico border control has begun. Homeland Security Department funds are pouring into border states. (Texas for instance, will soon receive $90 million.) And companies with close personal ties to the Bush team and the Dept of Homeland Security are receiving lucrative business contracts for as-yet-unproven products and services. Additionally, thousands of inhumane deportations of long-time US residents continue across the nation. These socially repulsive and racist programs are being funded by US taxpayer dollars.

Meanwhile, around the country, grassroots immigration and worker rights groups continue to strategize, organize and mobilize. A leading immigrant rights organizer is Elena Herrada of Detroit, Michigan.

Elena Herrada is the Backbone Cabinet's first nominee for Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security.

Elena Herrada is co chair and founding member of the Committee for the Political Resurrection of Detroit, which focuses on domestic human rights. Ms. Herrada is a member of the Interfaith Committee for Worker Justice, she has worked at a SEIU local, and was the president of a RWDSU (Retail, Worker, Department Store Union) local. A columnist for the newspaper Michigan Citizen, Elena Herrada is also a longtime advocate for Detroit's Latino Community. She is a member of Latinos Unidos, and, in 2001, Ms Herrada produced a documentary film entitled Los Repatriados: Exiles from the Promised Land, about the depression-era deportation of Mexicans from Michigan. Just six weeks ago, Ms. Herrada founded a new Latino Workers Center in Detroit, the Centro Obrero, whose open doors will, according to Ms. Herrada, "assist immigrant workers in finding their voice and bearing in the Promised Land."

[Two Americas]

103. Lester R. Brown

Brown has come a long way from his first job growing tomatoes on a southern New Jersey farm. Now as founder, president, and senior researcher for the Earth Policy Institute, he leads a mission to provide a vision of an environmentally sustainable economy.

The journey from farmer to global environmental leader has been marked by many remarkable accomplishments along the way. After earning a degree in agricultural science from Rutgers University in 1955 and spending the next six months in rural India, Brown began a 14-year career with the U.S. Government's Department of Agriculture. During these years, Brown served as an international agricultural analyst, adviser to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman on foreign agricultural policy, and administrator of the department's International Agricultural Development Service.

In 1969, Brown left government service to help establish the Overseas Development Council, and then, in 1974, he founded the Worldwatch Institute, which became the premier research institute devoted to the analysis of global environmental issues. In 1984, Brown launched the State of the World reports, annual assessments translated into 30 languages that have become the bible of the global environmental movement. Four years later, Brown expanded Worldwatch's publications by launching World Watch, a bimonthly magazine featuring articles on the Institute's research.

In May 2001, he founded Earth Policy Institute, whose purpose is to provide a vision of an environmentally sustainable economy, a roadmap of how to get from here to there, and an ongoing assessment of this effort, of where we are moving ahead and where we are not.

Brown, a MacArthur Fellow, has been awarded 22 honorary degrees. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards, including the 1987 United Nations' Environment Prize, the 1989 World Wide Fund for Nature Gold Medal, and the 1994 Blue Planet Prize.

[Two Americas]

104. James K. Galbraith

James K. Galbraith teaches economics and a variety of other subjects at the LBJ School. He holds degrees from Harvard (B.A. magna cum laude, 1974) and Yale (Ph.D. in economics, 1981). He studied economics as a Marshall Scholar at King's College, Cambridge in 1974-1975, and then served in several positions on the staff of the U.S. Congress, including Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee. He was a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution in 1985. He directed the LBJ School's Ph.D. Program in Public Policy from 1995 to 1997. He directs the University of Texas Inequality Project, an informal research group based at the LBJ School.

Galbraith has co-authored two textbooks, The Economic Problem with the late Robert L. Heilbroner and Macroeconomics with William Darity, Jr. He is the author of Balancing Acts: Technology, Finance and the American Future (1989) and Created Unequal: The Crisis in American Pay (1998). His most recent book, Inequality and Industrial Change: A Global View (Cambridge University Press, 2001), is coedited with Maureen Berner and features contributions from six LBJ School Ph.D. students.

Galbraith maintains several outside connections, including serving as a Senior Scholar of the Levy Economics Institute and as Chair of the Board of Economists for Peace and Security. He writes a column called "Econoclast" for Mother Jones, and occasional commentary in many other publications, including The Texas Observer, The American Prospect, and The Nation. He is an occasional commentator for Public Radio International's Marketplace.

[Two Americas]

105. Gary Hart

Senator Gary Hart has been nominated for multiple positions: Defense, State, Treasury, and Secretary of Homeland Security on the Backbone Cabinet. In light of the recent disaster in the South, and the failure to appropriately use Homeland Security/FEMA/National Guard resources; the obvious short changing of preparations for the inevitable; and the constant vulnerability of the poorest in our society, we have invited Senator Hart to speak to how our nation should be balancing anti-terrorism expenditures with value-added investments in public health and infrastructure.

Actions needed for position:
Form strong position on *effective* homeland security.

Iraq Solution:
1. Recognize the difference between "national insurgents" who want us to leave their country, and international terrorists (al Qaeda)
2. Replace US military with NATO forces
3. Internationalize reconstruction
4. Create national oil company (like Aramco) to distribute oil profits throughout country


Talking Points:
- Don't use military for homeland security (posse comitatus)
- Institute public campaign financing and other campaign finance reform
- Repeal tax cuts

[mirrera]

112. Thank You Two Americas... You get it.

I did not check back because I am tired of the High School Clique atmosphere that has prevailed lately. Progressive is just that... progressive, looking forward. This slow quicksand immersion in right wing sludge is not pretty. You get it that there are wonderful people available if the desire for change is honored.

[Two Americas]

113. thanks

I am not saying that my suggestions are perfect, but it is not true that there is a shortage of candidates, nor that there are no alternatives, nor that insiders are always the best choice.

I would think that the most important change we could expect - and I do think that this is what the public just endorsed with their votes - would be a repudiation of the Bush doctrines and programs. There are many, many, people who are qualified and competent and experienced and who have strongly opposed the various Bush programs - programs and policies that most of us also opposed back before the election.

This is not "purity" nor "ideology" nor "far left" - this is taking a stand on the vital and over-riding issues we face. To stack the deck once again with people who are at best ambiguous about these issues, and then claim that they are the best or only good choices flies in the face of all of the evidence.

Unlike Emmanuel, I do not "welcome the ideas and concepts" of the Republicans, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for us to dissent from that opinion, which Emmanuel claimed was a guiding principle being used in the formation of the new administration. The actual appointments themselves strongly suggest that there will be no serious break from the Bush doctrine and programs, or repudiation of them, and the idea that this would be impractical or not supported by the public, or that there are no credible candidates available who have always unambiguously opposed and fought against the Bush doctrines and programs, is simply not true.

Most of us here have long since rejected the "ideas and concepts" of the Republicans for a while now, and so has the general public. We have a moral obligation and a civic duty to continue to speak out against them, no matter where they appear.

[mirrera]

114. Well said. We... uh... won. And I for one am proud to be Liberal and left of Center.

The bulk of Americans want a real change. The GOP is never shy of embracing their right wing ideology, yet we let them tarnish our heroes. I am amazed that people on this sight will put down some of our great activists, and mock them. It is very short sighted.

I would love to see Ray McGovern have some voice... There are many voices that should be heard.

[Two Americas]

115. the danger

There is a grave danger to the party, and to the success of the new administration in all of this. Some of the most dominant voices in the party and here are liberal on the social issues, and very conservative on economic issues and also authoritarian and aristocratic. The problem with that is that this is in exact opposition to the public mood, and the people are tired of being made poor and tired of being pushed around. They are not parsing and dissecting issues and splitting hairs on subtle differences in policy. They are desperate and they need relief - the real thing, not some pretty words.

[frylock]

46. partial list..

Secretary of State - Bill Richardson
Secretary of Defense - Wesley Clark
Attorney General - John Edwards
Secretary of Agriculture - James Earl Carter
Secretary of Labor - Linda Sanchez
Secretary of Health and Human Services - Dr. Howard Dean
Secretary of Homeland Security - Ditch DHS. Kill it dead.

[Uzybone]

56. Clark is ineligble until 2010.

John Edwards is a ruined man right now IMO.
Bill Richardson is on the cabinet (albeit not as SoS).

[mtnsnake]

48. Amen. Lots of people whining about Obama's picks, but notice how few of them show up in this thread

Kudos to the ones who did show up and at least offer their alternative choices, though.

K&R

[Two Americas]

72. oh, I am here mtnsnake

But it is getting pretty lonely.

There are many qualified, talented and experienced people who were in alignment with our opposition to the right wing legislation that has been shoved down our throats the last few years. Nor are they ideologues or extreme leftists or lacking in substance or talent.

There were alternatives.

[LWolf]

87. I'm here.

I didn't dive into all the choices; I focused on the one most personal, the Secretary of Education. And referenced the post I made last Sunday offering a long list of better choices that Obama is not considering. It's in this thread somewhere; I'll give it to you again here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7938693&mesg_id=7939097

[jberryhill]

50. My Friends and My Nose...

...but not my friend's nose.

[rucky]

53. Deathklok

[wyldwolf]

54. Michael Parenti as Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

[Two Americas]

57. a few names

Secretary of State: Jim McDermott

Education: C.J. Prentiss

Commerce: Margot Dorfman

Health & Human Services: Kathleen Sebelius

Treasury: Elizabeth Warren

Energy: Dan Reicher

Labor: David Bonior

Interior: Susan Williams

FDA Commissioner: David Blumenthal

FCC Chairman: Michael Copps

Attorney General: Charles Ogletree Jr.

Agriculture: Jim Hightower

Homeland Security: Donald J. Guter

FEC Chairman: Spencer Overton

Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Tammy Duckworth

U.S. Trade Representative: Marcy Kaptur

[Two Americas]

58. David Bonior

David Bonior is the Chair of American Rights at Work’s Board of Directors and has served in this role since the organization’s founding in 2003. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1976, he served Michigan’s Macomb and St. Clair Counties for 26 years—the longest tenure of any Congressman from this district. When he retired at the end of 2002, he had held the position of Democratic Whip, the second ranking Democrat in the House, for 10 years.

His tenure in Congress was marked by a passion for social and economic justice. Bonior earned a reputation as a strong voice for working families and as a leader on the environment, fair trade, jobs, and human and civil rights.

Born in Detroit, he graduated from the University of Iowa, received a Masters Degree in history from Chapman College, served in the Air Force, and worked as a probation officer and adoption caseworker before he was elected to the Michigan Legislature in 1972.

Bonior is the author of two books: The Vietnam Veteran: A History of Neglect and Walking to Mackinac. He previously served as University Professor of Labor Studies at Wayne State University and on the boards of Public Citizen and Community Central Bank in Mount Clemens, Mich. In 2007-2008, Bonior took a leave of absence from American Rights at Work to join John Edwards’ presidential campaign as the national campaign manager.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bonior

Quote:

The Peru trade agreement is an example of how corporate interests and their lobbyists and cronies have corrupted the Democratic Party. Like the failed free trade agreements before it, this agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities. Despite progress on labor and environmental standards, the guidelines outlined in this agreement are only as strong as George Bush's will to enforce them -- and we all know, trusting Bush to enforce a trade agreement is like letting Mark Penn negotiate a labor contract for workers.

Coincidentally, Senator Clinton's announcement that she supports the agreement came on the same day that the New York Times reported she would receive the endorsement of former Clinton Administration official and NAFTA architect Robert Rubin. Rubin's endorsement builds on Clinton's already robust support among Wall Street elites who favor free trade policies that prioritize the profits of multinational corporations over the needs of America's workers.

We've all seen the devastating effects of these free trade policies: in recent years our country has lost middle-class manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits. But it doesn't have to be this way. Instead of expanding the NAFTA model, we need our leaders to fight for trade agreements that strengthen and maintain, rather than undercut and erode, labor rights, environmental standards and wages.

[blue_onyx]

76. Yeah, he would have been a good addition

but he said he didn't have an interest in being it the administration. I wonder if he's interested in running for MI Governor in 2010. The Dems are lacking a lot of choices and he could provide another option other than our Lieutenant Governor.

[Two Americas]

59. Marcy Kaptur

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, who represents Northern Ohio's Ninth Congressional District , is currently serving her thirteenth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. She is the senior-most woman in Congress and is one of only 90 women out of 535 members of the 110th Congress.

Training & Education

Congresswoman Kaptur, of Polish-American heritage with humble, working class roots, mirrors the boot-strap nature of her district. Her family operated a small grocery where her mother worked after serving on the original organizing committee of an auto trade union at Champion Spark Plug. Congresswoman Kaptur became the first family member to attend college, receiving a scholarship for her undergraduate work. Trained as a city and regional planner, she practiced 15 years in Toledo and throughout the United States before seeking office. Appointed as an urban adviser to the Carter White House, she helped maneuver 17 housing and neighborhood revitalization bills through the Congress during those years.

Subsequently, while pursuing a doctorate in urban planning and development finance at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, her local Party recruited her to run for the House seat in 1982. Kaptur had been a well-known party activist and volunteer since age 13. Though outspent by 3 to 1 in the first campaign, her deep roots in the blue collar neighborhoods and rural areas of the district made her race the national upset of 1982.

Congresswoman Kaptur fought vigorously to win a seat on the House Appropriations Committee . Since elected, she has risen in seniority and is now the senior Democratic woman on Appropriations. She has secured subcommittees on Agriculture, the leading industry in her state, Transportation/Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Defense. Kaptur is the first Democratic women to serve on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In her legislative career, she has also served on the Budget; Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs; Veterans Affairs Committees, and on Veterans Affairs-Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies (Environmental Protection, Veterans, and NASA and the National Science Foundation), Foreign Operations, and Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittees, which have allowed her to pursue her strong interests in economic growth and new technology, community rebuilding, and veterans. Congresswoman Kaptur was also appointed by Party Leadership to serve on the prestigious House Budget Committee for the 110th Congress.

http://www.kaptur.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98&Itemid=26

[Two Americas]

60. Jim McDermott

orn in Chicago on December 28, 1936, Jim McDermott was the first member of his family to attend college. He went on to finish medical school, and after completing residencies in adult and child psychiatry, he joined the U.S. Navy Medical Corps in 1968.

As a Lieutenant Commander, Jim McDermott was assigned to the Long Beach Naval Station in California. His assignment at Long Beach was to assist returning Vietnam veterans and their families with adjusting to civilian life in an America increasingly hostile to the war and its combatants. Jim witnessed firsthand the often devastating effects of the war and its surrounding controversy on the returning soldiers and their families. He became more interested in a career in politics as he sought a way to change the policies that had led to that war.

A Career in Politics Begins

Jim McDermott's first political campaign was in 1970, when he was elected to the Washington State House of Representatives from the 43rd Legislative District in Seattle. In 1974 he was elected to the Washington State Senate, a position to which he was re-elected three times.

And in 1980, Jim McDermott successfully challenged an incumbent Governor to become the Democratic Party gubernatorial nominee.

After 15 years of legislative service, Jim McDermott decided to leave politics in 1987, but he continued in public service as a Regional Medical Officer in the U.S. Foreign Service. Based in Zaire, he provided psychiatric services to Foreign Service, AID, and Peace Corps personnel throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

Jim McDermott is the coauthor of legislation to establish a single-payer health-care system in the United States, and he continues to lead the fight in the U.S. House of Representatives to guarantee all Americans comprehensive health care coverage.

Jim also is deeply involved in trade issues. Last year the Congress passed the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a measure with far-reaching economic and humanitarian implications. In some diplomatic circles, Jim McDermott is known as the "Father of AGOA" because he worked for years to secure bipartisan support and final passage of the legislation.

On September 19, 2002, while standing on the steps of the Cannon House Office Building, Jim McDermott became the first Member of Congress to publicly suggest that the Bush Administration would willingly mislead the American people about its intentions in Iraq. His remarks turned out to be prophetic.

http://www.mcdermottforcongress.com/Biography.aspx

[Two Americas]

61. Charles Ogletree

Outspoken civil rights attorney and educator Charles Ogletree was born December 31, 1952, in Merced, California. Ogletree graduated with distinction from Stanford University with a B.A. in 1974 and an M.A. one year later, both in political science. At Stanford, his civil activism was born. Ogletree attended Harvard Law School, where he worked as editor of the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review and on the board of the Harvard Prison Legal Assistance Program. Earning his J.D. in 1978, Ogletree was also national chairperson of the Black American Law Students Association.

Upon graduation from Harvard Law School, Ogletree began his career working for the Washington, D.C., Public Defender's Office. At the time of his departure in 1985, he had risen to the position of deputy director. Between 1982 and 1984, Ogletree began teaching law as an adjunct professor at both Antioch Law School and American University School of Law. In 1985, Ogletree became a partner in Jessamy, Fort & Ogletree, and remains today counsel to Jessamy, Fort & Botts. In 1989, Ogletree returned to his alma mater as an assistant professor of law. He was also given responsibility for overseeing Harvard Law School's trial advocacy workshop. Today, Ogletree works as faculty director of clinical programs, associate dean for clinical programs and the Jesse Climenko Professor of Law.

Ogletree's career has focused on securing equal rights for everyone. He was on the team that represented Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation proceedings. He is also active in the area of reparations to the descendants of slaves, such as the survivors and descendants of the Tulsa race riot of 1921. Ogletree has filed suit on behalf of the survivors of that incident in federal court.

Ogletree continues to serve as a television commentator and moderator. He is chairman of the Stanford University Task Force on Minority Alumni Relations, a founding member of the Harvard Law School Black Alumni Association and chairman of the Southern Center for Human Rights Committee. Ogletree has been named one of the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America by The National Law Journal. He also is the recipient of numerous awards and honorary degrees including the NAACP's Universal Humanitarian Award.

Charles Ogletree Jr.

For the post of attorney general in an Obama administration, Charles Ogletree Jr. would be a good choice.

Ogletree, a tireless advocate for social justice causes, is the founder and director of the Harvard Law School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, which focuses on issues relating to race and justice, sponsors research and provides policy analysis.

Ogletree is another one of Obama’s Harvard professors-turned-adviser. He counsels the candidate on constitutional and criminal justice issues. He would be the perfect antidote to a justice department poisoned by illegal, politicized hiring, a reprehensible tolerance for torture and a refusal to enforce civil rights legislation.

Before joining the Harvard faculty in 1985, Ogletree served as a public defender in the District of Columbia, a position that helped shape his focus on civil rights and criminal justice issues. He has since earned a reputation as a brilliant legal theorist.

In 1991, he was legal counsel to Anita Hill during the Senate confirmation hearings for Justice Clarence Thomas.

Ogletree has also been a prominent media presence, moderating several PBS forums and serving as a commentator on national news programs.

He is author of several books, including From Lynch Mobs To The Killing State: Race And The Death Penalty In America in 2006, and the 2004 book All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half Century of Brown v. Board of Education.

Ogletree is co-chair of the Reparations Coordinating Committee, a group of attorneys pursuing a legal route to reparations for descendants of enslaved Africans.

In 2000 and 2002, the National Law Journal named him one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.”

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/continued/3933/twenty_two_to_know/

[maryf]

120. Love this choice...nt

[Two Americas]

62. Dan Reicher

Dan W. Reicher has over 20 years of experience in business, government and non-governmental organizations focused on energy and environmental technology, policy, finance and law. He recently joined Google where he serves as Director of Climate Change and Energy Initiatives for the company's new venture called Google.org. Google.org has been capitalized with more than $1 billion of Google stock to make investments and advance policy in the areas of climate change and energy, global poverty, and global health.

Prior to his recent position at Google, Mr. Reicher served as President and Co-Founder of New Energy Capital Corp., a New England-based company that develops, invests in, owns and operates renewable energy and distributed generation projects. Mr. Reicher is also a member of General Electric's Ecomagination Advisory Board.

From 1997-2001, Mr. Reicher was Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). As Assistant Secretary, he directed annually more than $1 billion in investments in energy research, development and deployment related to renewable energy, distributed generation and energy efficiency. Prior to that position, Mr. Reicher was DOE Chief of Staff (1996-97), Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy (Acting) (1995-1996), and Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Secretary (1993-1995). He was also a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Climate Change Negotiations, Co-Chair of the U.S. Biomass Research and Development Board, and a member of the board of the government-industry Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. After leaving the Clinton Administration in 2001 he was a consultant to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and a Visiting Fellow at the World Resources Institute.

In 2002, Mr. Reicher became Executive Vice President of Northern Power Systems, a venture capital-backed renewable energy and distributed generation engineering, services and technology company with installations in more than forty-five countries. Mr. Reicher led the renewable energy sales group at Northern and also was actively involved with the company's project finance, government relations and public affairs initiatives. He also played a significant role in the successful sale of the company to Proton Energy Systems, a leading hydrogen company, and the simultaneous creation of Distributed Energy Systems, a new NASDAQ-listed holding company that now owns both Northern Power and Proton Energy.

Prior to his roles at the Department of Energy and in the business community, Mr. Reicher was a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council where he focused on the federal government's energy and nuclear programs as well as environmental law and policy issues in the former Soviet Union. He was also previously Assistant Attorney General for Environmental Protection in Massachusetts, a law clerk to a federal district court judge in Boston, a legal assistant in the Hazardous Waste Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, and a staff member of President Carter's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island.

Mr. Reicher currently is co-chairman of the advisory board of the American Council on Renewable Energy and a member of the boards of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, the Keystone Center's Energy Program, and Circus Smirkus. He was also recently a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Alternatives to Indian Point for Meeting Energy Needs.

Mr. Reicher also recently served as an adjunct professor at the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Vermont Law School. He holds a B.A. in Biology from Dartmouth College and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. He also studied at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

Mr. Reicher was a member of a National Geographic-sponsored expedition that was the first on record to navigate the entire 1888 mile Rio Grande and was also a member of the first group on record to kayak the Yangtze River in China.

http://www.tdo.org/Accelerate2007/presenters/presenter.php?speaker=0

[Two Americas]

63. Elizabeth Warren

Professor Elizabeth Warren joined the faculty of Harvard Law School in 1992 as the Robert Braucher Visiting Professor of Commercial Law and became the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law in 1995. She is the coauthor of ALL YOUR WORTH, just published in March and on the best-seller list. Her earlier book, THE TWO-INCOME TRAP: WHY MIDDLE CLASS MOTHERS AND FATHERS ARE GOING BROKE has been cited by senators and presidential candidates, and her earlier award-winning books include AS WE FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS: BANKRUPTCY AND CONSUMER LAW IN AMERICA, THE FRAGILE MIDDLE CLASS, BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY, and three leading casebooks.

Warren is the Vice-President of the American Law Institute and is on the Executive Committee of the National Bankruptcy Conference. She directed the National Bankruptcy Review Commissions study of federal bankruptcy laws and drafted its report to Congress. Chief Justice Rehnquist appointed Professor Warren to the Judicial Education Committee of the Federal Judicial Center from 1990 to 1999. The National Law Journal named her one of the Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers in America. Harvard students voted her the Sacks and Freund Award for teaching excellence.

Prior to teaching at Harvard, Professor Warren was the William A. Schnader Professor of Commercial Law at University of Pennsylvania School of Law and also taught at the University of Texas School of Law, University of Houston Law Center, University of Michigan and Rutgers Law School. We look forward to Ms. Warren’s commencement speech as she highly regarded not only as an academic and a legal scholar, but also as an inspiring and entertaining speaker.

[Two Americas]

64. Margot Dorfman

Fir decades, the Department of Commerce has represented the interests of the U.S. global business elite to the detriment of healthy and sustainable commerce.

Since the ’80s, the department has done little to abate the destruction of Main Street enterprise, the collapse of our manufacturing base, the looting of our public infrastructure, massive global outsourcing of jobs, and rampant tax shifting to overseas tax havens.

A prospective Obama administration should nominate Margot Dorfman for secretary of commerce. Dorfman would advocate for Main Street, not Wall Street, and for business owners and employees, not absentee shareholders. She would support high-road enterprise that encourages real investment and healthy growth, not speculation, outsourcing and exploitation.

As CEO of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce, Dorfman has supported sustainable business development, durable economic policies, community entrepreneurship, worker education, and small business development for women and people of color. Prior to that, Dorfman worked for General Mills and several small enterprises.

When the U.S. Chamber of Commerce led the fight against raising the federal minimum wage in 2007, Dorfman and the Women’s Chamber led the fight to raise it. “We all lose when American workers are underpaid,” she said. She has been a leading voice with Business for Shared Prosperity, a national network of forward-thinking business leaders.

Sub-appointments: Van Jones, of the Ella Baker Center, to direct the Commerce Department’s new “green jobs initiative,” and John Arensmeyer, of Small Business Majority, to oversee the economic development administration.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3933/twenty_two_to_know/

[Two Americas]

65. Michael Copps

In his two terms on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Michael Copps has done yeoman’s duty, consistently protecting the public’s stake in the communications spectrum under a string of hostile chairmen.

In his first term, Copps helped launch a series of public hearings about media consolidation. In 2007, he announced his American Media Contract, which asserts citizens’ rights to “programming that isn’t so damned bad so damned often.” And at the 2008 National Conference for Media Reform, Copps called for tougher, more frequent FCC monitoring of local broadcast licenses, and the enforcement of net neutrality principles.

Trained as a historian at the University of North Carolina, Copps would bring nearly four decades of public and private sector experience to the position. He’ll need all of it to deal with the coming disruptions in the media environment.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the analog broadcast signal will be shut off, turning many Americans’ TVs into doorstops unless they subscribe to commercial cable or satellite services, or obtain a converter box. Coupons for those boxes are limited, and advocates for elderly, minority and low-income Americans warn that they may be cut off from crucial emergency and public information services.

A battle is also raging over new spectrum allocations: Consumer advocates argue that “white spaces” should be left open to provide options for affordable public wireless networks, while broadcasters counter that this would interfere with broadcast quality.

Meanwhile, media consolidation continues. Current FCC Chairman Kevin Martin approved the recent merger of XM and Sirius, even though the move created a monopoly in satellite radio. Copps dissented, citing, as usual, the public interest.

It’s long past time such dissent became mainstream.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/continued/3933/twenty_two_to_know/

[Two Americas]

66. Jim Hightower

Two current U.S. senators would make excellent secretaries of agriculture.

One is Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Harkin has been a committee chair and leader on agriculture issues, opposing deregulation and favoring supply management, conservation, antitrust actions and many progressive policies — only some of which he has managed to put into law.

The other is freshman Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), an organic farmer with a distinctive flat-top haircut. Tester is a populist who is sympathetic to environmental issues and critical of corporate globalization. He might push more comprehensive reform than Harkin would.

But here’s the problem: Both are needed in the Senate.

Luckily, Obama can call on Jim Hightower, who is best known for his crusading print and radio journalism and his pithy, punchy, populist proverbs — like his book title, “There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.”

But the funny, feisty Hightower also knows his farm and food issues. As Texas Agriculture Commissioner from 1983 to 1990, he promoted organic agriculture, alternative crops (like wine grapes and native plants), direct international marketing by small farmers, strong pesticide control and comprehensive environmental management.

Hightower would be a cheerfully combative complement to Obama’s ultra-cool post-partisanship (although he may have been too post-partisan for some Democrats by supporting Ralph Nader in 2000).

If Obama ever needs a Cabinet member to attack the fat cats who keep the sweet stuff for themselves on the top shelf — out of reach for the little guy — he could send Hightower, who would perform the task with glee.

[zulchzulu]

92. I bought Jim a beer two years in a row at Fighting Bob Fest in WI

He's a good man. Salt of the Earth guy... huge friends with Molly Ivins and he was pretty sad to see her go... he should have some hand in the Obama administration if only because he would be hilarious...

[Two Americas]

110. that is great

Would love to meet him.

[Two Americas]

67. Donald J. Guter

Retired Rear Adm. Donald J. Guter, one of the many principled military lawyers who voiced strong opposition to the failed policies of the Bush administration, would make a great secretary of homeland security.

Guter was the Navy’s top lawyer from 2000 until retiring in 2002, after 32 years of service. (He was also in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.)

One of the first insiders to challenge then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Guter waged an internal battle against the military tribunal system, arguing that it was inherently unjust.

In 2003, he was one of three high-ranking military officers to file an amicus brief on behalf of detainees being held indefinitely at the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay.

Last year, when Attorney General Michael Mukasey was mumbling murky answers about the legality of waterboarding during his Senate confirmation hearings, Guter and three other retired military lawyers sent a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), arguing that “waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.” He is currently dean of Duquesne University’s law school.

First order of business for Guter as secretary of homeland security? Change the department’s awful, Third Reich-sounding name. Next, he should work closely with the attorney general to restore the full rule of law, from which true security derives, by abolishing racial and religious profiling, repudiating programs that encroach on the privacy rights of citizens (warrantless wiretapping, spy satellites on domestic targets, and the like), and implementing a humane and equitable immigration policy.

[Two Americas]

69. Spencer Overton

If Barack Obama is elected, he would take office with arguably more knowledge about what’s wrong with our current election system — and how to reform it — than any president since the framers of the Constitution. At the University of Chicago, Obama taught election law courses covering public financing, the Electoral College, proportional representation and universal voter registration. He has sponsored state legislation to establish instant runoff voting and federal legislation to stop deceptive electoral practices.

As a result, Obama’s choice to head the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which regulates campaign finance legislation and provides a bully pulpit for improving democracy, should be a good one. He could do little better than George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton.

A visionary academic grounded in reality, Overton has served on the boards of Common Cause — a nonprofit that advocates for an open and accountable government — and of Demos — a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy organization. He has written widely on campaign financing and knows the rules, regulations and needed reforms.

More than one in four eligible U.S. voters is unregistered to vote, and campaign finance inequities are worse than ever. Moreover, our system’s winner-take-all rules make most voters spectators in presidential and congressional races.

With more than 12,000 jurisdictions making independent decisions affecting federal elections — often with limited guidance and insufficient funding — a strong FEC member is needed to revamp the country’s antiquated, voice-suppressing, vote-wasting elections, and to unify a partisan commission. Overton would bring the passion, knowledge and civility necessary to do just that, and ensure every vote counts and every vote matters.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/continued/3933/twenty_two_to_know/

[Two Americas]

70. Elizabeth Warren

If treasury secretaries have legacies, the two with the most memorable in the last 16 years are Clinton Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin and recent Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. At different points in their careers, both men championed extremist free-trade policies, had a hand in the deregulatory policies that led to corporate meltdowns; contributed to boom-bust cycles; and spent time heading investment banking behemoth Goldman Sachs. Perhaps the latest financial meltdown will break Goldman Sachs’ death grip — and maybe, just maybe, Elizabeth Warren will be the first woman to head this key department.

A renowned Harvard Law professor, Warren may seem an unconventional choice for a position typically held by a business titan. But a presidency whose economic prospects will pivot on cleaning up conservatives’ laissez-faire wreckage could use a tough-minded regulator at the helm of the government apparatus responsible for collecting taxes and policing Wall Street. Warren fits that description perfectly as one of the nation’s leading experts on the laws and regulations that the treasury department is supposed to enforce, but too often doesn’t.

Having made national headlines as a bestselling author and a leader in the fight against the lobbyist-written Bankruptcy Bill of 2005, Warren would set a new tone for a treasury department that has often been a bought-and-paid-for appendage of Corporate America.

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/continued/3933/twenty_two_to_know/

[Raineyb]

94. I like this choice as well.

I had Ravi Batra as my choice but frankly there's more than one position both would be good.

Regards

[zulchzulu]

73. Certainly some great names to get on the list

Thanks for your input!

[anigbrowl]

84. Big props for your serious and well-referenced answers

I like quite a few of these picks, for example I too am a fan of Elizabeth Warren. I don't think she has the experience to actually run the treasury, but I hope her input will be drafted. I applaud you for such a comprehensive and serious response.

[sniffa]

68. Lee Mercer Jr., for State, Treasury and Defense

All three.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. Earl Blumenauer for Secretary of Transportation

He's an Oregon Congressman who is an avid advocate of alternatives to the automobile, precisely what we need at this point in our history. He's also in a safe Democratic district.

One of those retired brass types from The Center for Defense Information for Secretary of Defense. They have been great detecters of bullshit and would really clean house at the Pentagon.

Secretary of Homeland Security: Anyone who would preside over the demise or at least re-missioning of that department

Secretary of Education: Someone who has actually been a public school teacher

Secretary of Veterans' Affairs: One of those hotshot veteran type candidates who were supposed to win in a landslide, even though none of them did.

Secretary of Health and Human Services: Dennis Kucinich

[Radical Activist]

75. Howard Zinn for Defense or Education.

RFK Jr. for EPA Director.

Those are my two dream appointments. I'm happy that at least one of those is seriously being considered.

[Teaser]

89. Howard Zinn would cause mass convulsions in some quarters

which would be fun to watch.

[harun]

109. Would be nice if he picked someone who would do that, anyone...

But I trust he knows what he is doing.

[BlooInBloo]

77. This thread is priceless.

[hulka38]

78. I'm for putting the courageous visionaries who lead us into Iraq in charge of our foreign policy. So

I'm very happy with Obama's recent choices.

[LWolf]

86. Okay.

For all the rest, I will simply say I would appoint someone slightly left of center, instead of center and center-right. That's simple enough to "get."

For Secretary of Education, I've already posted my suggestions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7938693&mesg_id=7939097

[Raineyb]

91. Secretary of Treasury

Professor Ravi Batra of Economics at Southern Methodist University if I remember correctly. He's often heard on the Thom Hartmann show. He's the author of Greenspan's Fraud and The New Golden Age. His ideas are definitely demand side and he's not one to consider Wall Street's "needs" (more like wants) to be supreme which is exactly what this country needs.

Regards

[DevonRex]

93. Kermit because frogs need representation, too.

[JonLP24]

95. No, not me. I couldn't of ask for a better cabinet

I love Clinton, Napolitano, and Richardson and we have them all on the same team. Now all we need is Kucinich. I think he said Gates would be temporary or something like that which I'm ok with.

[Two Americas]

97. "better" cabinet candidates

It is false that there is some monolithic group of "leftists" - when did that become a bad thing? - who all think alike, who are whining, who are purists or extremists, who complain for the sake of complaining, and who have a hidden agenda to tear down the party.

At issue here is not ideology or purity, nor a demand for a "far left" agenda. There are many competent, experienced, qualified and brilliant people who were opposed to the various initiatives and scams and cons from the Bush administration and the Republicans all along, rather than corrupted by, associated with, ambiguous about or in actual support of those Republican programs.

So it is not "far left" that people are asking for. It is entirely understandable that we would want officials in the administration who have been strong supporters of Labor and civil rights, who had opposed the bankruptcy bill, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions act, the telecom immunity, who had spoken out strongly against torture and preemptive war, who had always opposed trickle down Reaganomics, who were opposed to deregulated finance and who opposed the bail out, who are champions of protecting the environment, and on and on.

This is not "far left" nor is it whining, or impractical or unreasonable. There are many perfectly qualified people who opposed the Bush doctrine - strongly, consistently, unambiguously - as a matter of principle, not as a matter of purity or ideology.

We oppose the Bush doctrine and programs, do we not?

The people have rejected the Bush doctrine and programs.

We oppose torture - or we don't.

We oppose the Iraq War - or we don't.

We oppose the erosion of the Bill of Rights, or we don't.

We oppose the give-aways to the corporations - or we don't.

We oppose spying on the citizens - or we don't.

We oppose privatization of everything - or we don't.

We oppose the whole rotten mess of Reaganomics - supply side, trickle down, free market unregulated and predatory capitalism - or we don't.

This is not "purity" or ideology, it is a matter of the principles and ideals we hold dear, and it is what is morally right. We are not being unreasonable to ask that officials awarded positions of power and public trust in the new administration share these principles and ideals - clearly, strongly, consistently, and unambiguously.

[martymar64]

106. That means you too! What are your choices.

Lemme guess, they're all Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller for you. Where would you put Newt or Dick Cheney? I'm sure you'll give them plum spots in the spirit of bipartisanship, right?

[ddeclue]

107. You asked so here goes..

And I added a few other agency level positions as well:

Secretary of State - Colin Powell

Secretary of the Treasury - Robert Rubin

Secretary of Defense - John Murtha

Attorney General - John Kerry

Secretary of the Interior - Brian Schweitzer

Secretary of Agriculture - Tom Harkin

Secretary of Commerce - Dennis Kucinich

Secretary of Labor - John Edwards

Secretary of Health and Human Services - Howard Dean

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Jesse Jackson

Secretary of Transportation - Corrine Brown

Secretary of Energy - Bill Richardson

Secretary of Education - Madeline Albright

Secretary of Veterans Affairs - John McCain

Secretary of Homeland Security - ELIMINTATE THIS NAZIFIED DEPARTMENT

Environmental Protection Agency - Al Gore

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - Bill Nelson (well we'd need a Dem Senator to replace him but...)

Permanent Ambassador to the United Nations - Bill Clinton

Central Intelligence Agency - Dianne Feinstein

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Janet Reno

Federal Reserve Chair - Robert Reich

Federal Emergency Management Agency - John Ellis Bush (yes boo and hiss me and I hate his guts too...but he did a good job of this during his Governorship here... it's a shame * didn't have the sense to pick his own brother for FEMA director after Katrina and after John Ellis was out of the FL governor's mansion...)

Thereyago...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Two Americas]

123. interesting suggestions

Your mention of Harkin, Kucinich, Kerry, Nelson, Murtha and others brings to mind a point I wish to make. I was not happy back 4 years ago with losing Edwards seat in the Senate, nor do I think it is a good trade-off with recent appointments to sacrifice (or place at risk) seats in Congress for the sake of placing people in (usually short term) administrative jobs.

The right wingers have been gutting, corrupting and politicizing the federal agencies for years. They have also been gerrymandering themselves into safe seats in state legislatures and Congress. We need to rebuild the federal agencies from the ground up, and politicians may not be the best choices for doing that, and we also need to hang on to any and all seats we have in Congress.

Also, I am going to object to McCain, Powell, Rubin and others who have either been enthusiastic supporters of the Bush and Reaganomics doctrines, or enablers, or are recent "converts." The people involved in, compromising with, enabling or supporting the Bush doctrines need to pay a price for that. There is an abundance of qualified people who can fill the jobs who were consistent and outspoken opponents of the Bush doctrines and Reaganomics all along. Those people were right. The enablers, compromisers and supporters of the Bush doctrine were wrong. That matters.

It is not as though we need to welcome in, or revive or restore people who were on the wrong side in order to "get the job done" or to have the most capable and qualified people. Nor does that mean there is no alternative to the same old cast of insiders other than "far left" people or "ideologues."

[harun]

108. Kucinich for Housing and Urban Development

Juan Cole SoS
Michael Moore Secretary of Health and Human Services
Ron Paul Secretary of Treasury

Kucinich because he actually cares about helping poor people instead of simply putting them to work for low wages to help business.

Juan Cole because he is against U.S. Imperialism and brilliant.

Moore because he is a visionary and looks at health care as a way to heal people instead of a way to make profits for health insurers.

Ron Paul because he actually thinks debt is a bad thing instead of worshiping it like a god.

[Doctor_J]

116. You're doing well. I started this thread last week and got called

all kinds of names. And only got one suggestion. I actually trust Obama, but I will give you my picks anyway

Energy - Cuomo (would be Schweitzer, but we already gave up one Governor's mansion in a red state)
Vets Affairs - Duckworth
Ag - Hightower
Defense - Clark
HHS - Dean
Labor - Bonior (someone upthread brought up this excellent choice)
EPA - George Miller

[jrockford]

119. Not HRC. nt

[earth mom]

122. I wanted RFK Jr. to head the EPA-he was THE BEST choice for the job outside of Gore.

That said, this thread is nothing more than bullshit since the writing is already on the wall that "change" was just a warm, fuzzy and empty slogan that only served to get votes and some major coin.

[maryf]

125. Ditto on all but Gore

He's a lightweight compared to RFK jr...

[maryf]

124. kicking in the right place

Great selections by Two Americas, worth leaving up for that alone...

[Better Believe It]

128. Krugman for Treasury Secretary

[vduhr]

129. I would have preferred Richardson as SOS, but I'm

not unhappy with Hillary as the choice.