Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Politico had an article a few days ago speculating on who might be filling key positions in an Obama administration. There are reports out that Rahm Emanuel is going to be Obama's chief of staff, which would suggest that Obama is taking seriously the notion of governing from the middle. That is where all of Emanuel's instincts lie and he will be in a position of great influence to make that happen.
There is much speculation that Obama may keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense for at least a year, which I think is a good move. It would signal bipartisanship and it would keep a steady hand in the seat to oversee withdrawal from Iraq and policy changes in Afghanistan. Gates has shown himself to be a pragmatist and was a huge step up from Rumsfeld, who often appeared lost to the point of delusion.
I think retired Gen. Anthony Zinni would be a terrific pick for national security adviser and maybe as Secretary of Defense when Gates leaves. Zinni understands better than most the necessity of pairing diplomatic efforts with military action. Virtually everything he predicted in criticizing the Bush administration on Iraq came to pass. He should be on the team.
Attorney General could be an interesting pick. Politico lists Deval Patrick as a leading candidate, which I wouldn't be terribly happy about but would seem a safe prediction. He and Obama are very close and he held a high position in the DOJ during the Clinton administration. Let me add one dark horse candidate to the list: Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Like Obama, she is a Harvard law grad. She could also end up with an appointment to the federal bench.
Secretary of State possibilities include Bill Richardson and Richard Lugar. Let me throw out the radical idea of re-nominating Colin Powell to the post. I think it would be interesting to see what he would do in an administration that actually valued his counsel and didn't shut him out of the decision making process. Like Zinni, I think Powell understands the necessity and usefulness of diplomatic efforts.
The possible picks for Secretary of the Treasury include two men who already held that job, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin. But here's a thought: how about we avoid having a treasury secretary who is so closely tied to Wall Street and has such conflicts of interest? I'd go to the academic world rather than the corporate world for this one. Robert Reich is an intriguing possibility.
One of the more promising ideas on the list is Gary Hart to head up the homeland security department. And let me add one more idea for bringing a morally challenged former politician into the mix: one of the first things Obama should do is name Bill Clinton as a special ambassador to the Middle East. Clinton is one of the few people with serious credibility on both sides of the conflicts in that region. He's very, very good at diplomacy. Those talents should be taken advantage of.
One last note. Orin Kerr and Glenn Greenwald suggest Marty Lederman, who blogs at Balkin's place, to head the Office of Legal Counsel (the DOJ group that issues rulings on the legal status of executive policies; this is where John Yoo worked). I think that is an inspired choice. Lederman has been a dogged critic of the Bush administration's constitutional excesses and would aggressively rescind rulings that justified those excesses.
Politics
Comments
1. Since it's perhaps a bit more apropos for this thread, let me bring up again the rumored appointment of Robert F. Kennedy to either EPA or the Interior Department. As numerous scienceblogs bloggers have opined, Mr. Kennedy is a perfectly awful choice, based in his acceptance of pseudoscience, including his support of the now discredited notion that thimerosal in vaccines was a cause of autism and his paling around with anti-vaxers like Jenny McCarthy.
2. How about Michael Bloomberg as Treasury Secretary?
Posted by: SLC | November 10, 2008 9:44 AM
Bill Richardson's resume exceeds his actual qualifications. On paper he looks great; however in the Democratic primary debates I found him to be a very intellectually lazy person. I like him personally, however I'd pass on his being any sort of effective leader/administrator.
I'm impressed with the Rahm Emmanuel Chief of Staff pick, which has been confirmed. While the Right is whining he's too tough; Chief of Staffs need to be tough; plus, simply put, Emmanuel is a winner.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 10, 2008 9:48 AM
How about George W Bush as ambassador to Afghanistan?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 10, 2008 9:49 AM
I think that George W Bush should be sent as a peace negotiator to Palestine - didn't he recently say that it was something he wanted to work on?
Posted by: Umlud | November 10, 2008 9:58 AM
From a personal integrity point of view I'd like to see Gen. Taguba get some redemption. Given the work he did knowing it would cost him his career deserves something from a fresh administration.
Posted by: Pineyman | November 10, 2008 10:15 AM
Some politico friends in New Mexico tell me the current rumor is that Richardson has decided he doesn't want State, and instead wants to be Ambassador to China. We'll see.
I've also heard some speculation about bringing Frederico Pena back to run DOE, but I don't know if there's anything behind it.
Lastly, there has been some talk of maybe bringing James Lee Witt back, either as head of FEMA (again) or as Homeland Security Secretary. For those who don't know him, Witt was Clinton's FEMA Director, and is the one who rebuild FEMA after the last time a Bush Presidency nearly destroyed it. He's hugely respected - practically idolized - within the emergency management community. The other name I've heard discussed for Homeland Security is Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano.
Posted by: WScott | November 10, 2008 10:19 AM
You'd send Bush to work with Middle East peace envoy Tony Blair? Cause when those two get together it always goes soooo well.
Posted by: Matty | November 10, 2008 10:20 AM
I suppose I can see the wisdom of keeping Gates on temporarily for continuity's sake, but the last place I want to see "bipartisanship" is in the DOD. My reason has nothing to do with partisan opinion on defense policy. It's because Defense is precisely the place where everyone expects a Democrat to appoint a Republican.
There is a completely unjustified belief, claimed as objective fact by the Republican party and accepted as gospel by an intellectually bankrupt press corps, that only Republicans can be trusted with national defense. Leaving a Republican at DOD only feeds that beast of a myth.
I would prefer a "bipartisan" cabinet that is entirely Republican except for defense over the opposite.
Posted by: Mr. Upright | November 10, 2008 10:20 AM
I like Bill Clinton as something like Special Envoy to the Middle East. I've thought for some time that would be a great move for President Obama. Clinton came very close to brokering a real deal 8 years ago and I think he'd work very hard to seal it if he got another chance. He has the credibility and I think he would see it as a real feather in his cap and something for his "legacy" if he could get the parties to settle on a working agreement. Bill Clinton has real talent and when he wants to put it to use, he can be very persuasive. I can't think of anyone who would be better for the job and I don't think there is much that would appeal more to Clinton. It seems like a near-perfect match.
Paul
Posted by: prn | November 10, 2008 10:36 AM
I like Bill Clinton as something like Special Envoy to the Middle East. I've thought for some time that would be a great move for President Obama. Clinton came very close to brokering a real deal 8 years ago and I think he'd work very hard to seal it if he got another chance. He has the credibility and I think he would see it as a real feather in his cap and something for his "legacy" if he could get the parties to settle on a working agreement. Bill Clinton has real talent and when he wants to put it to use, he can be very persuasive. I can't think of anyone who would be better for the job and I don't think there is much that would appeal more to Clinton. It seems like a near-perfect match.
Paul
Posted by: prn | November 10, 2008 10:39 AM
There are reports out that Rahm Emanuel is going to be Obama's chief of staff, which would suggest that Obama is taking seriously the notion of governing from the middle.
Hmmm, if by the "middle" you mean ruthlessly partisan. Here is a quote from the
Times OnLine about the appointment.
Described by those who know him as variously an attack dog, warrior, political gangster - the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Barack Obama's chief of staff has sent a shiver of unease through Republicans hoping for a new spirit of conciliation under the newly-elected president.
Others say the take-no-prisoners partisan nicknamed Rahmbo is a perfect fit for the almost preternaturally serene Mr Obama, who will need political strongmen around him if he is to push through the radical changes he seeks.
I remember George W. Bush promising to be a "uniter not a divider" before presiding over one of the most intransigently partisan administrations in modern history.
Let's hope that the Obama administration doesn't repeat the same mistake.
Posted by: Lance | November 10, 2008 10:47 AM
What about Powell as Secretary of Defense? I think he'd do well in that role.
Posted by: Lance | November 10, 2008 10:47 AM
For clarity sake the second "Lance" is not the same as the first. I have been posting here for a long time and politely request the other "Lance" to perhaps add an initial so as to differentiate his posts from mine.
I think Colin Powell would be a poor choice for Secretary of Defense.
While he is a respected statesman he has been "out of the loop" with the DOD for too long and brings with him the baggage of his involvement in the Iraq war.
Posted by: Lance | November 10, 2008 10:56 AM
Bleah! I usually try not to post the same thing more than once. Sorry about that.
Paul
Posted by: prn | November 10, 2008 11:00 AM
As his books reveal, Reich's knowledge of economics is almost entirely limited to posturing with buzzwords. He would be a foolish choice for Treasury. He is knowledgeable about labor.
Posted by: william e emba | November 10, 2008 11:01 AM
Testosterone-heavy list up there. Funny how that happens.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 10, 2008 11:25 AM
I agree with William Emba that Reich as SecTreas is a bad idea. He is not a well-respected economist. Rather, he is more of a labor studies person with an economics degree he doesn't really put to use. He believes in industrial policy, which ought to make us all shiver.
Gates really ought to stay at Defense, despite Mr. Upright's understandable objections. (a) The stability as we move toward winding down the Iraq war is crucial, and he's demonstrated that he can do an excellent job. (b) It wouldn't be long-term. The overwhelming liklihood is that he would resign within two years, and then President Obama could appoint a Democrat to the post.
If Emmanuel is an attack dog, then he's the right person for Chief of Staff. That is not a position for someone who wants to play nice with others. The CoS's job is to protect the president's time from all those who want a piece of it. You need someone who can tell the different sides in a policy debate that, "the decision's made, now you all shut the fuck up and support it in public, and don't think you're going to get time with the Prez to keep arguing your case."
I'd love Lugar as Sec State, as he's the only member of Congress who has consistently and persistently been trying to work on securing loose nuclear materials. But if Gates is kept on at Defense, I don't know that it would be wise for Obama to have two Republican Secretaries--he has to avoid losing the support of Democrats after all.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 10, 2008 11:34 AM
What the hell good is "bipartisanship"?
The Repubs have been wrong about, to a first approximation, everything: national security, the economy, the character of the people they choose, health care, corruption, the environment, foreign relations, domestic policy ... The only exceptions I can think of are the appointment of Judge Jones in Pennsylvania and the creation of that marine wildlife protection zone in Hawai'i (on W's whim after watching a nature documentary).
This is the time to obliterate the Republican influence on national policy, not to extend it.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 10, 2008 11:36 AM
Lance, the first:
It is a common error to assume that Emanuel's attack dog nature makes him partisan. This is a false assumption. It means that he works his butt off to get his way. In 2006 that meant getting Democrats elected to office -- an act that would make him appear partisan. However, he did so by encouraging candidates to look at non-liberal as possible and by finding conservative democrats wherever he could (Heath Shuler comes to mind).
Similarly, in an Obama white house, he would work to get Obama's agenda passed, and twist republican and democratic arms to make that happen. Emanuel will be exactly as bipartisan as the administration's agenda. No more, no less.
Posted by: Mr. Upright | November 10, 2008 11:53 AM
yeah. the republicans must be terrified of rahm emanuel:
1. member of the so-called New Democrat Coalition (NDC), of group of center-right pro-business Congressional Democrats affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Conference, which is dedicated to moving the Democratic Party away from its more liberal and progressive base.
2. single most important official involved in pushing through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the bill ending Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and Clinton's draconian crime bill, among other legislation.
3. promoted pro-war and pro-business center-right candidates against anti-war and pro-labor candidates in the primaries, pouring millions of dollars of donations from Democrats across the country into the campaigns of his favored conservative minions to defeat more progressive challengers.
4. major supporter of the Iraq War resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq.
5. consistently opposed efforts by other Democrats to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces from that country and related Congressional efforts to end the war.
6. passionate supporter of increased spending for the Pentagon and has resisted efforts by fellow Democrats to trim excesses in the Bush administration's bloated military budget.
7. voted against Democratic efforts to prevent the Bush administration from launching military action against that country [Iran] and has joined the administration in exaggerated claims about Iran's alleged nuclear threat.
8. prominent hawk regarding Israel, attacking the Bush administration from the right for criticizing Israel's assassination policies and other human rights abuses.
9. prominent supporter of Israel's 2006 attacks on Lebanon, even challenging the credibility of Amnesty International and other human rights groups that reported Israeli violations of international humanitarian law.
http://www.alternet.org/election08/106189/is_obama_screwing_his_base_with_rahm_emanuel_selection/?page=entire
out with the old, in with the same old. yay... change?
Posted by: arin | November 10, 2008 12:04 PM
I am hoping to see Obama NOT appoint anyone to DHS. It will soon be coming up for reauthorization and on that day it should be quietly allowed to die.
However, it would be good to see him create some sort of transition committee to oversee de-tangling all of those agencies thrown together by this dangerously tyrannical bureaucratic boondoggle.
As to Treasury, I agree that it is now time to stop letting the financiers police themselves and reach out to academia on this one. The ravaging of wages and economic stability which the last 30 years of such policies have produced should be enough for everyone in this country to finally realize that the interests of Treasury should rightly be seen as separate from those of Wall Street.
Posted by: Julian | November 10, 2008 12:06 PM
In more ordinary times Patrick would be a good AG, but not now. The place needs to be cleaned out with a firehose, and Deval is too nice a guy.
Posted by: snoey | November 10, 2008 12:13 PM
Pierce R. Butler,
The good of bipartisanship is that it tends to be good for the country. Policy debates aside, it gives the American public as a whole more confidence in the administration because they see it as responsive to a broader swath of America, rather than captive to a special interest wing of the particular party in power.
And in terms of policy debates, each party really needs the balance provided by the other. My perspective is that some of the more distinctly left-wing Democratic proposals would be as disastrous for the country as some of the right-wing policies have been, just in a different way. I'd like to try non-disastrous policies for once.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 10, 2008 1:01 PM
SECONDED!!!!
(and a vigorous, non-rancorous debate to figure out which policies are non-disastrous).
Posted by: gwangung | November 10, 2008 1:24 PM
Bill Clinton is doing amazing things right now with Kiva. Although Clinton would make a good diplomat, I would hate to see him drawn away from his charity work.
Posted by: Brandon | November 10, 2008 2:26 PM
James Hanley: ... bipartisanship is that it tends to be good for the country. Policy debates aside, it gives the American public as a whole more confidence in the administration because they see it as responsive to a broader swath of America, rather than captive to a special interest wing of the particular party in power.
In present circumstances, "policy debates" simply cannot be set aside - and most of us would have less confidence in an Obama administration trying to appease the "special interests" of rabid losers.
I'd like to try non-disastrous policies for once.
Can't argue with that - but de debbil be in dem details, and half-disastrous doesn't sound very good...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 10, 2008 2:30 PM
Thank god that Obama picked Emanuel for COS. I thought for a while that Obama was serious when he made people believe that he was antiwar or that he would not be tough with our enemies in the Middle East. Emanuel will ensure that an Obama presidency won't change much when it comes to confronting evil with force.
Posted by: Democritus | November 10, 2008 3:27 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger as Secretary of Energy?
I dunno about that.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 10, 2008 3:57 PM
Treasury: Paul Krugman (fresh off his Nobel Prize win for Economics)
State: Anyone, but John Kerry.
Attorney General: Patrick Fitzgerald.
Defense: I could live with Gates.
Posted by: CHV | November 10, 2008 6:58 PM
While we're sort of on the subject of Rahm Emmanuel: There are two very important questions for which I don't see answers being found by the media or politics-as-usual.
First, where are the trillions of dollars that have been looted from the American economy by the Bush's puppetmasters (and the robbery continues right up to the wire?) There aren't nearly enough known billionaires in the world to absorb all this loot. There are obviously dozens of trillionaires out there whose name no one knows.
Second, is the conspiracy of voter suppression, voter intimidation, ballot destruction, and election fraud that stole the 2000 and 2004 elections merely a state-by-state conspiracy by Rethuglican governors and secretaries of state, or is the plan orchestrated from the RNC?
My question is: we know Emmanuel volunteered for the IDF in the first Gulf war, and (unlike the "terrorist" Obama), his father actually was a terrorist, in the Irgun. Does he have any Mossad connections? I hate them, and they permeate the world like an evil fog, but they can by God find things out! What are the chances of getting their help resolving these questions?
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 10, 2008 8:05 PM
How about Democrats in the big departments - State, Defense, Treasury? Obama can be bipartisan in HUD, Energy, Education, Transportation. It's time for Republicans to enjoy the wilderness for awhile. They had 8 years and messed up big time. Why should Obama see if they can do as much damage in his administration as they did in Bush's? Oh, and James - the liberals won this election, so why this whining about being centrist? Elections have consequences, you know.
Posted by: BC | November 10, 2008 9:15 PM
I'd be willing to bet that Hillary gets offered Health and Human Services so that she gets the credit for health care reform. I'd also be willing to bet that she turns it down and stays where she is.
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Wesley Clark for Defense yet.
Posted by: Pseudonym | November 10, 2008 9:45 PM
Hey Lance,
My apologies. I'll try to remember to use my initial.
Posted by: Lance B | November 10, 2008 10:09 PM
Damn, Lance B., I was gonna suggest T.O.C. (The Original Churlish) Lance for Lance 1 and Lanceafta for you. Then you had to go and get sensible. Shucks!
I like the idea of Bill Clinton dealing with the mullahs, the sheiks and the Israelis. He's got at least one bad habit that offends each of the groups. That means they will have to listen carefully because they know he's not their special pal.
Colin Powell, if he's offered anything, should work his ass off to eradicate the stain on his escutcheon. Hilary should stay my senator, who knows what the fuck kind of mischief Bloomberg, Rudy or some other downstater will get up to if that seat opens up--hell, Mittunswillard Romney might MOVW here!
Secretary of the Treasury, easy, Paris Hilton (Obama owes her for dissing McCain)--with Robin Leach as her special assistant.
Oh, wait--you guys are serious? I thought that, with all of this bi-partisan talk, you were just being snark.
If Obama does nothing else, he should tell all of the idiots-in-charge at the various intel apparats to hand in their resignations or pack a bag with tropical clothes.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2008 11:06 PM
I'm with Demo on the last sentence...but I go further:
" ...Then send 'em to an Arctic Listening Post." :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 10, 2008 11:41 PM
DingoJack:
I was thinking "Gitmo", but a tour in the Palinstan Archipelago would be hell on earth.
Posted by: democommie | November 10, 2008 11:51 PM
Well, democommie, speaking as a MA resident who knew Romney before he was famous (I went to Scout meetings at his house, and went to church with him in Belmont before I went apostate), if you can take him away from my state, I could see my way to making it worth your while.
Did I mention that I not only brew beer, but that I make cheese, sausage and bread as well? I can pay for you to take him, really...
Posted by: BrutalGourmet | November 11, 2008 12:16 AM
BC: If what Mr. Obama wishes to do is reform our bureaucracy and make it functional again, then HUD, Transportation, Energy, Education and Interior are going to be the big departments.
As to state and defense; all he needs to do is appoint people who don't see war and bombs as the only solutions befitting our dignity as the current administration believes.
To those who bring up Powell, he's already given a pretty absolute and public preemptive refusal in regards to any formal position within the administration. From what he has said, he wouldn't mind acting as an adviser or fixer of sorts, but he's been rather adamant about turning down an actual post. Of course, in politics, nothing is final.
Posted by: Julian | November 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Sorry for the threadjacking (at least it's not about Palin, gays or the gold standard) but it appears that John McCain's conciliatory concession speech may have been a bit premature:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-mcnay/max-clelands-chance-for-r_b_142365.html
As was suggested by a commenter on that thread; as president, Obama should launch a genuine investigation of voting irregularities in federal elections--wouldn't want to tamper with time honored homegrown vote rigging in local and state eletions--wouldn't be constitutionally prudent.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 7:32 AM
BrutalGourmet:
I also lived in MA (late '73 til late '06) and saw firsthand what a statesman Mitt was. First he was from the State of MI, then UT, then MA. I don't know if I will be able to arrange for his uprooting his boys and household once again (where are their "missions", anyway? Cancun, Peurto Vallarta?) but we'll give it a try.
I will be in the Boston area from late thursday until I wear out my various welcomes, gimme a holler at my blog (watch out for the trolls over there) and put together a "sampler"--I like old cheese and dark beer!
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 9:38 AM
Gack. Half an hour late, and no new posts. Undergoing Dispatches withdrawal.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 11, 2008 10:04 AM
Interesting post and blog. Relevantly, many prominent experts and publications have pointed out that Obama is part of Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and GenXers.
This link takes you to a page you may find interesting: it has, among other things, excerpts from publications like Newsweek and the New York Times, and videos with over 25 top pundits, all talking specifically about Obama's identity as a GenJoneser:
http://www.generationjones.com/2008election.html
Posted by: EyesOnTrends | November 11, 2008 11:22 AM
Interesting post and blog. Relevantly, many prominent experts and publications have pointed out that Obama is part of Generation Jones, born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and GenXers.
This link takes you to a page you may find interesting: it has, among other things, excerpts from publications like Newsweek and the New York Times, and videos with over 25 top pundits, all talking specifically about Obama's identity as a GenJoneser:
http://www.generationjones.com/2008election.html
Posted by: EyesOnTrends | November 11, 2008 11:42 AM
Ignoring the two preceding spambot messages, 20 minutes apart but identical in content, here's another question:
Whom will Bush pardon? Scooter Libby, I presume. But while numerous other Bush appointees engaged in criminal activity, very few were actually convicted or even prosecuted. I guess putting the Justice Dept. on the top of the list of agencies to corrupt paid off.
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | November 11, 2008 12:26 PM
Herod the Freemason:
But, then, if he doesn't pardon them for all crimes past or present, they are left twisting in the wind for some vindictive ex-apparatchik to sell out.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 1:30 PM
BC,
I sincerely hope I didn't sound like I was "whining" about centrism. If so, I need to work on my writing skills.
Certainly the Dems won, and it's their right to put their own people in power. But as a political scientist, my perspective is that presidents who select from too narrow a spectrum begin to believe their advisors are nevertheless representative of the whole spectrum. That promotes policies that are distinctly offcenter, making the partisans happy, but ultimately resulting in a backlash by the middle of the American electorate.
It's more than fair to argue that the middle in America is too far right, but it remains true that governing from the middle is the most successful strategy for a president who wants to succeed, while going too far from the middle is the method adopted by presidents who fail spectacularly.
As I don't want Obama to fail spectacularly, I'd like him to beware the siren song of Democrats singing "We want it all, and we want it now." I fully understand their desire, but it would be rather foolish to believe it would work out any better for them than it did for the right-wingers who sang the same song in 2000 and 2004, and who have now dealt their party a seriously damaging blow.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 11, 2008 2:23 PM
JH said:
"It's more than fair to argue that the middle in America is too far right, but it remains true that governing from the middle is the most successful strategy for a president who wants to succeed,"
Yet, I keep seeing poll after poll - for years now - which show that most of Americans share liberal ideals. We want public schools, social programs. We mostly feel the country was on the wrong track, that single-payer medicine is the way to go, that we spend too much on the military, etc.
People vote for republicans for many different splinter issues, but in their hearts they seem to want a liberal America.
Perhaps the Gingrich approach failed because it was felt to be cruel and crass, and that Obama does not need to govern from the center, but should instead redefine what the center should be - and that is decidedly more liberal.
Umm... like the rest of the civilized world! :D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 11, 2008 3:52 PM
Gingerbaker:
I rarely agree with James Hanley in a way that might give aid and comfort to the enemy; but I think he's at least partly right.
It's not so much that I think the middle is "too far right" as it is that the vast majority of people like to avoid confrontation and so they don't get into the dialogue when it's ugly. Their is such a thing as disagreeing on substantive issues without being an asshole about it--I'm sure I'll figure out how to do that someday. In the meantime it will be left to those of us who really don't give a lot of thought to whether we are liked by those who think we're wrong, anyway. I do think one of the reasons that Obama did as well as he did is that a lot of folks had their "Network News" moment and got mad as hell and wouldn't take it anymore.
Re: "governing from the center". There are numerous dems who are anything but liberal. Ben Nelson for one. He's also a resident of the Nebraska, as is Chuck Hagel (full disclosure, I used to really HATE Chuck--I only dislike him now). That would seem, to me, to make those two, neither of whom is anything like, say, Barney Frank, a natural bi-partisan team. But, I am, admittedly no scientist, political or otherwise.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 5:29 PM
The question is how far to the left of those American basics he should go. I think he could go far enough left to get universal children's health insurance, but I'm exceptionally dubious that he should try for universal adult coverage. In military matters, I think he's steering the right course now, after coming close to being too "leftishly" anti-military during the primaries. Too much eagerness to re-regulate the economy could bring back stagflation, etc.
Although I have good friends who think Obama's an out-and-out socialist, I actually am optimistic that he'll steer that middle course. I just think that if he doesn't the public will get fed up with the Democrats, as they have right now with the Republicans. And while, again as a libertarian, I'm not a big fan of the Dems, I don't want them to reopen the door for the Republicans for a while, because I loathe the current incarnation of that party.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 12, 2008 2:20 PM