Today Keith and Matt had an online chat and pondered Obama’s appointments:
Keith: I would say that despite my initial flush of optimism, I am watching Obama’s appointments and potential appointments with approaching alarm. Now the rationale is given: the Clinton people were the only experience Democrats in the last 20 years so you have to expect some of this. But I also feel Obama could be tapping people from more progressive think tanks and academics who have had some government experience. Or people like Kucinich. Sure they must be out there. Surely
Matt: With the Parliamentary system in Canada we don’t, of course, have the whole country to pick from for cabinet, they must come from Parliament. In the U.S., they can’t hold another office – they must resign. So we have Governors, Senators, etc giving up jobs.
Keith: The Obama faithful are keeping the faith but surely some of this must be disquieting. See, for instance an article from Robert Scheer and William Pfaff in TruthDig entitled "Change You Can Bank On." I do not want Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. This would signal that Obama really has thrown in his lot with the hawks. Of course, based on previous statements he has made vis a vis transferring troops from Iraq to afghanistan, that should not be surprising. Disappointing but not surprising.
Matt: Obama is a bit of a hawk himself, such as on Pakistan, and he has been a bit slippery on his position with the war, but if the "change we can believe in" is the Clinton’s it does raise flags.
Keith: I do think that the first, actually, fifty days after Obama takes office will tell us pretty much everything we need to know about how his domestic and foreign policy will play out. We may even understand pretty much everything from his Inaugural Address. I do fear however, that there is a strong feeling among establishment Democrats that if they want to win again in ’12, they will need a ‘peace with honour solution to the Iraqi War
Matt: I think they Dems will use the tanking economy as cover for the war(s). “Our work here (in Iraq) is done – we can’t afford it, it is hurting the economy, time to go” – will be the story. They will have to work to keep reminding people of the "Bush recession” while they do this. Obama, as is widely reported, seems to be taking more of a Lincoln approach and will be appointing people to cabinet from across the aisle – so that may have an impact as well.
Keith: Hmmm. Now that is an interesting angle I did not see. If he makes certain high profile Republicans are part of such somewhat unpalatable decision making, it could provide him with valuable political cover. I do hope you are right but I think in the case of the war that that issue, right now, is the only one that the GOP can really sink their teeth into him with great effectiveness if something goes wrong during the pullout. They have nothing on economic issues at all because of the last eight years. That just leaves the war and the Dems can’t pin any of this on Bush because, quite frankly, Americans will forgive and forget when the subject is military action. For instance, Reagan was not hurt at all by the Lebanon barracks bombing. Wrap it in the flag and salute and talk about national honour and voila! I hate to say it, but I’ve seen it too many times.
Matt: Yes, I think the appointments will provide Obama cover, but also might move him to the right, which is why so many progressives are upset, as you are, about Clinton as Sec of State (versus Health and Human Services, or Education) and why progressives are upset that Obama apparently pressured the Senate Dems to let Lieberman keep his powerful chair position on Homeland Security – where he is a super Hawk.
Keith and Matt will be posting individual posts as well as chats on this IRTN blog.