The Obama Team

With General Shinseki’s recent nomination as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, it’s becoming more and more apparent that Barack Obama is not only bringing a new cast of characters into the highest echelons of government but that, probably more importantly, he’s bringing a vastly different approach to governing. For a nation that remains largely divided, it’s critical. Instead of the political hacks and “loyal Bushies” of the past eight years, Obama’s Cabinet, particularly his national security team, are proof that he seeks good judgement and results, not complete deference to the boss, and that he rewards competence over loyalty. If true change is on the horizon, our nation will need serious people to lead us through serious times. In that regard, Obama is off to a good start.

The Times on the Obama national security team:

After years of watching American leadership crumble under the weight of bad decisions made in a White House shuttered to all debate, President-elect Barack Obama’s national security team is a relief. Starting with the selection of Hillary Rodham Clinton, his former rival, as secretary of state, the president-elect has displayed his usual self-confidence. Declaring that he prizes “strong personalities and strong opinions,” Mr. Obama, who has limited foreign-policy experience, showed that he wants advisers with real authority who will not be afraid to disagree with him — two traits disastrously lacking in President Bush’s team.

…Both the selection of Mr. Gates and the appointment of General Jones should ease Mr. Obama’s early relations with the Pentagon. The military’s leaders tend to lean Republican and often mistrust presidents who do not have any military service, as they initially did with Mr. Clinton. When the United States is fighting two wars, good ties with the military are crucial. Mr. Obama seems to have already scored points by reaching out to important commanders, like Gen. David Petraeus. There is no underestimating the challenges facing Mr. Obama, and he will need a strong team to help him. [His choices thus far] are a strong start.

The Post:

Barack Obama’s announcement of his national security team immediately prompted questions about whether he had created a "team of rivals" who would spend as much time feuding as formulating policy. That strikes us as unlikely. True, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates are Washington heavyweights with their own strong views about foreign policy and national defense, while incoming national security adviser Gen. James L. Jones has been NATO commander. If Susan E. Rice, nominated as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has a relatively lighter résumé, she compensates by having the closest personal relationship with the president-elect, whom she served during the campaign.

…Mr. Gates, Ms. Clinton and Gen. Jones have also all questioned Mr. Obama's 16-month timetable for withdrawing from Iraq and underlined the need to end the war without touching off a surge of violence in the country. Mr. Obama appears to be tacking toward their position: While he reaffirmed his 16-month timeline yesterday, he also said his "number-one priority is making sure that our troops remain safe in this transition phase and that the Iraqi people are well served by a government that is taking on increased responsibility for its own security." While it's possible those priorities could be upheld during a 16-month withdrawal, most likely Mr. Obama's own team will press him for greater flexibility.

The president-elect said yesterday that he favors "strong personalities and strong opinions" around him in part because this prevents "groupthink." But groupthink may still be a danger on this team. Eager to correct the perceived errors of the Bush administration, Mr. Obama and his appointees are heavily invested in the notion that better diplomacy can answer Iran's drive for a nuclear weapon, ease the threat of terrorism from Pakistan and maybe even solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. We hope they are right. If they are wrong, particularly about Iran, someone in this group will need to speak up.

Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, offers his thoughts on Obama's "Team of Centrists:"

It is a lineup generous in its moderation, astonishing for its continuity, startling for its stability. A defense secretary, Robert Gates, who once headed the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M. A secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, who supported the invasion of Iraq, voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and called direct, unconditional talks with Iran "irresponsible and frankly naive." A national security adviser, retired Gen. James Jones, most recently employed at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who served as a special adviser to the Bush administration on the Middle East. A Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, who is one of Henry Paulson's closest allies outside the administration. A head of the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, whose writings and research seem to favor low tax rates, stable money and free trade.

It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant. First, these appointments add evidence to a debate about the political character of the president-elect himself. Conservatives have generally feared that Obama is a closet radical. He has uniformly voted with liberal interests and done nothing to justify a reputation for centrism.

Until now. Obama's appointments reveal not just moderation but maturity -- magnanimity to past opponents, a concern for continuity in a time of war and economic crisis, a self-confidence that allows him to fill gaps in his own experience with outsize personalities, and a serious commitment to incarnate his rhetoric of unity. …Whatever the caveats, Obama is doing something marvelously right: He is disappointing the ideologues. This is more than many of us hoped -- and it is causing some of us to raise our hopes in Obama again.

Even Henry Kissinger is getting into the act, providing his thoughts on the “Team of Heavyweights:”

President-elect Barack Obama has appointed an extraordinary team for national security policy. On its face, it violates certain maxims of conventional wisdom: that appointing to the Cabinet individuals with an autonomous constituency, and who therefore are difficult to fire, circumscribes presidential control; that appointing as national security adviser, secretary of state and secretary of defense individuals with established policy views may absorb the president's energies in settling disputes among strong-willed advisers.

It took courage for the president-elect to choose this constellation and no little inner assurance -- both qualities essential for dealing with the challenge of distilling order out of a fragmenting international system. In these circumstances, ignoring conventional wisdom may prove to have been the precondition for creativity. Both Obama and the secretary of state-designate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, must have concluded that the country and their commitment to public service require their cooperation.

…No one has ever been appointed national security adviser who had the command experience of retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former head of the Marine Corps and NATO commander. Inevitably, the facilitating function of the security adviser will be accompanied by a role in policymaking based on a vast, almost unique, experience.

...The continuation in office of Robert Gates as secretary of defense is an important balancing element in that process. Alone among the key players, he is at the end, not the beginning, of his policy contribution. Having agreed to stay on in a transitional role, he cannot be interested in the jockeying that accompanies all new administrations. The incoming administration must have appointed him with the awareness that he would not reverse his previous convictions. He must make the difficult adjustment from one administration to another -- a tribute to the nonpartisan nature of the conduct of his office in the Bush administration. He is a guarantor of continuity but also the shepherd of necessary innovation.

Process is no substitute for substance, of course. But even with this caveat, the new national security team encourages the hope that America is moving beyond its divisions to its opportunities.

For the Benefit of Mr. McCain

Highlighting the recent tactics of the Clinton campaign, James Fallows points to their apparent willingness to do whatever it takes to regain personal glory, even if that means tearing down Barack Obama as much as possible. In the end, these tactics make it more and more likely that John McCain will be the only one benefiting from Hillary's prolonged candidacy.

In laying out his case, Fallows first looks to a column by Chuck Spinney in which he quotes Michael Gerson among others: "Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates and appeals, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules."

Puncturing the idealism? "The skies will open up, the light will come down.." Sullying the character? Not a Muslim -- "as far as I know." (Yes, yes: saying that someone is a Muslim is no slur. In the circumstances..) Appeals? The Michigan and Florida delegations. Racial tensions? Passim. Plus, infamously two days before the Ohio-Texas voting: "I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

(Update: In a live CNN interview, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of "experience," knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience. But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now.

The conclusion of Spinney's (and Gerson's) analysis was that Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way.

In a side note, he adds some more thoughts on the “experience” question:

I mean, it's almost incredible to think about, when you consider what constitutes an "experience" edge in this election. The elder George Bush, by the time he ran for re-election, had been president for four years; vice president for eight; ambassador to the UN for two years; de facto ambassador to China for two; Congressman for four; director of the CIA for one year; plus former head of the Republican National Committee, decorated combat pilot, and commander in chief during one brief hot war and the end of the prolonged Cold War.

Moreover, in his "3 a.m." moments of real crisis, he had used his experience to make sane decisions: handling the collapse of the Soviet empire, standing up against Saddam Hussein, putting together a wartime coalition so broad and supportive that the United States may have actually made money on the Gulf War, then having the sense not to occupy Iraq. Not bad!

Nonetheless, the young, vigorous, though vastly less experienced governor of Arkansas was a better match for America's needs in 1992 -- or so Bill Clinton argued, and I believed. To hear, 16 years later, the Clinton team stress the transcendent importance of a "lifetime of experience" must drive the elder George Bush mad.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

The Clinton Campaign's “death by a thousand cuts” is receiving more and more public scrutiny. The devolution of the campaign from one internal crisis to another, its lack of a consistent message, and its reaction to various setbacks has only added fuel to the fire. A chronology:

Three more primary losses, not even close. Now it's eight in a row. A slide in the national polls. Staff shakeup: soap-opera-watching campaign manager out, deputy out. Bill's former campaign manager, David Wilhelm, jumps for Barack Obama. Josh Green, in a stunning piece that might be called a meticulously reported notebook dump, says, in The Atlantic, that Mrs. Clinton made personnel decisions based only on loyalty, not talent and skill. (There's a lot of that in the Bush White House. The loyalty obsession is never a sign of health.) The Wall Street Journal reports "internal frictions" flaring in the open, with Clinton campaign guru Mark Penn yelling, "Your ad doesn't work!" to ad maker Mandy Grunwald, who fires back, "Oh, it's always the ad, never the message." (This is a classic campaign argument. The problem is almost always the message. Getting the message right requires answering this question: Why are we here? This is the hardest question to answer in politics. Most staffs, and gurus, don't know or can't say.) On a conference call Tuesday morning, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters Mrs. Clinton simply cannot catch up. It is "next to impossible" for her to get past him on pledged delegates, she'd need "a blowout victory" of 20 to 30 points in the coming states, the superdelegates will "ratify" what the voters do. (I wrote in my notes, "not gloating -asserting as fact.") Within the hour Mr. Plouffe's words were headlined on Politico, made Drudge, and became topic one on the evening news shows. Veteran Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier took a stab at an early postmortem in what seemed a long-suppressed blurt: The Clintons always treated party leaders as "an extension of their . . . ambitions," "pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon." He cited party insiders: Superdelegates "won't hesitate to ditch" Mrs. Clinton if her problems persist. To top it all off, Mrs. Clinton has, for 30 years, held deep respect for her husband's political acumen, for his natural, instinctive sense of how to campaign. And he's never let her down. Now he's flat-footed, an oaf lurching from local radio interview to finger-pointing lecture. Where did the golden gut go? How did his gifts abandon him? Abandon her? Her campaign blew through $120 million. How did this happen?

The thing about that paragraph is it could be longer.

The Clinton response? "She awoke each day having to absorb new sentences in a paragraph of woe." But "her response to what from the outside looks like catastrophe? A glassy-eyed insistence that all is well.... Whether or not you wish her well probably determines whether you see it as game face, stubbornness or evidence of mild derangement."

EJ Dionne provides his thoughts on "what happened to Hillary Rodham Clinton?" Last fall, she was the 'inevitable' nominee whose 'machine' would raise scads of cash and push her to an early victory.... But this narrative was flawed from the beginning" and "her campaign has suffered from profound organizational failures."

Clinton has offered experience and some well-thought-out policies. That might be enough in a different year. But when it comes to a larger theme, her campaign has been all over the lot. You can tell a campaign has difficulty establishing a message when its slogans keep changing. In recent weeks, the Clinton campaign has featured one banner after another: "Big Challenges, Real Solutions," "Working for Change, Working for You," "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead" and "Solutions for America." Obama has stuck confidently with the slogan "Change We Can Believe In." Clinton must either get voters to stop believing in the change Obama promises, or make them an alternative Big Offer that they can believe in more.

Michael Gerson agrees:

Hillary Clinton's attempt to define a narrative of her own has been hobbled because her campaign is defined by the rejection of rhetoric. Obama's eloquence and idealism are dismissed as "abstract" and a "fairy tale" in contrast to Clinton's experience and policy substance. It is difficult for a campaign to inspire while using "inspiration" as an epithet. Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination - and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules. Unlikely - but it would be a fitting contribution to the Clinton legacy of monumental selfishness.

Despite the various opinions on how we’ve arrived at this point, it’s now clear that Hillary Clinton must defeat Barack Obama in both Texas and Ohio next month to survive. And instead of presenting a case for why she is the most experienced and able candidate to bring a different kind of change, she has fallen back on the tired negative attacks of a desperate candidate. The latest - "speeches versus solutions, talk versus action;" "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night;" "I am in the solutions business. My opponent is in the promises business."

In defining the differences between their candidacies, she's clearly chosen the low-road. While sure to grab headlines, it’s probably not the message you want to send to an electorate that’s eager for change, fed up with politics as usual, and hopeful for the future. To the record number of Democrats who’ve turned out in support of Barack Obama (many first-time voters, and many independents and moderate Republicans) or those who are considering doing so, it’s a charge that they’ve all been duped by a candidate that’s all style and no substance. That has to make them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. For those who’ve followed Obama (including those who once complained that he was too “professorial” and "wonkish"), it comes as quite a stretch... and rather insulting. It’s the classic Clintonian self-denial (which has growing Nixon-like qualities)– the “if you’re not with us, you're misguided, and we're going to tear you down until you join us" mindset. It's quite a contrast from a message of hope and unity.

To be an effective statesman and chief executive, a president must garner the support of the American people if he/she hopes to accomplish anything of substance. It’s hard to do that when, in the quest for that presidency, you alienate more and more people every step of the way.

Political Transformation in Iowa

Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, comments on the recent endorsement of Mike Huckabee by Jim Gilchrist. Gilchrist is founder of the Minuteman Project, an activist anti-immigrant organization that many have called a hate group or, at the very least, a xenophobic organization that espouses intolerance and relies upon the exploitation of American fears and insecurities.

While many would spur, or at least blush from, Gilchrist’s endorsement, the Huckabee campaign has fully embraced it. The candidate who speaks of bringing together, the candidate with reasonable and humane stances on immigration as Governor, again shuns his principles for political expediency by further kowtowing to the Republican base that will ultimately derail his message and his entire campaign. Gerson writes:

I am predisposed to like Mike Huckabee for his commitment to economic mobility, his firm but nonjudgmental social conservatism and his Christian concern for the poor. But Huckabee's embrace of Gilchrist and his recent shifts on immigration policy undermine the core of his appeal: authenticity. From the G-rated, family-values candidate, this is the kind of politics that should be covered with brown paper, kept under the counter and hidden from children.

Gilchrist is not just another voice on immigration. He is one of the most divisive figures in the most divisive debate in American politics. In 2006, responding to pro-immigration demonstrations, he told the Orange County Register, "I'm not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this. I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that." Note the oily formulation -- not promoting, but also not criticizing, the resort to political violence. "I'm willing to see my country go into battle if necessary," he added, "for our sovereignty and to be governed by rule of law."

Gilchrist has called for the impeachment of President Bush over the issue of border enforcement. He has made noises about running for president as a third-party candidate because of his disdain for Republicans. This is an odd choice of company for a candidate who promotes a conservatism without anger.

…Huckabee has accompanied his choice of new friends with an immigration plan that would require 12 million illegal immigrants to return home before applying for permanent status -- a completely unrealistic approach borrowed from anti-immigration activists. Huckabee's campaign regards this evolution as immunization against Mitt Romney's immigration attack ads -- and it may work in the short run. But a political shift this transparent raises questions about the quality and seriousness of Huckabee's campaign.

Huckabee's main appeal has been his homespun decency. But his behavior on immigration has been a kind of politics-as-usual so blatant it is actually unusual. Huckabee is managing to compromise his most distinctive virtue at the very moment the attention of the public is focused on his candidacy. In politics, a candidate can bend over backward so far that his spine snaps.

I can’t help but think that the blatant pandering of Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani to the Republican base will ultimately leave the door wide open for a John McCain resurgence.