Melody! Obama Taps a Progressive and Nobody in the Media Knew It

Here.

until the press conference and I am totally pleased. She has been at the Center for American Progress and doing lots. Fabulous!

Learning more about Ms. Romer has me even more interested.

Wow. I am actually going to learn more economics with this team and with the transparency that we all need!

Just a nit-pick but our new chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors is Christina Romer, not Cynthia.

I agree that the absence of the Gov. Richardson is certainly odd in this context. Also, it should be noted that while Obama is doing a splendid job of making diversity in his cabinet seem effortless, the as yet absence of brown faces is distressing.  Perhaps, we might get lucky and he'll insist that Rep. Luis Gutierrez be awarded the Pres.-elect's vacated senate seat.

Thanks. Fixed.

Case in point re media speculation: Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081124/NEWS/811240320

Washington, D.C. - Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack on Sunday said that he won't be the next agriculture secretary, ending speculation that an Iowan would snag the post important to a large swath of the state's economy. In an e-mail, Vilsack said he had never been contacted by aides to President-elect Barack Obama about that position or any other.

"I would have to speculate that I was in fact in the running and further speculate as to why I was no longer. I do not think it prudent or appropriate to speculate about either," Vilsack said.

Vilsack had been linked repeatedly to the Agriculture Department position in news reports. The Washington Post at one point called him a "near shoo-in" for the job. Obama's staff had never confirmed that he was being considered.

    [h/t: Ezra Klein]

You have "Melanie Barnes, Domestic Policy Council served as chief counsel..." where it should be Melody.

I'm going to have to go back through my RSS feeds and happily read all the articles about how Obama's choice of Larry Summers is a done deal and what that means for his promise of change.

Would that be the daughter-in-law of former Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado? If she's the same person I'm thinking of it's a fine pick.

Looks to me like Obama is (surprise!) doing this with careful foresight. His plan seems to be to roll out and float enough "safe" names to reassure the nervous nellies that, no, he won't have a DFH administration.

Mind you I'm not saying "he won't have a DFH administration." That question is still open. I'm saying he wants to create a soothingly reassuring initial sense in the mediaspehere that this is the case, and the safe-feeling (to them) Names You Know will be in charge.

Look at the "Obama administration as Clinton administration redux" meme caused by the appointments so far. I don't think that's an accident. Makes 'em feel safe.

It's quite an exercise in media management he's doing here, and rather successfully so far. No news there; the dude is good at this, we knew that already. It's a key component of the No Drama Obama school of governance.

In the end all we can say is that we won't know who the real nominees are until they're officially announced.

BTW Al, since you're cross-posting at DKos is your preference that we comment there (more visibility) or here (more Narcotraffic)?

You sure know how to get 'em all riled up over at DKos!  They are like a barrel of monkeys on this one.  OK, on all of them.  I try to rec up all your diaries, just so I can sit back and watch the fireworks.  Then I get to read the more reasonable comments over here.  Thanks!

Comment at whichever place moves you to comment. The conversation is a bit more "fast class" here, but for pure gladiator-in-the-coliseum adrenaline, over there has its thrills, too!

I'm glad you pointed out Melody Barnes's appointment, Al.  Neither her nor Valerie Jarrett are in positions that will attract a lot of media attention (aside from Jarrett's status as Friend of the Obamas), but both are in position to co-ordinate a wide variety of policies from energy to health to education to helping urban communities.

It would have surprised me had Melody Barnes not gotten an important job in the new administration, given her roles as a campaign adviser and on the transition team.  This particular job indicates she will be a power in the new administration, and I couldn't be more delighted.

Hi Al,

I think that while there may be a few more centrist policies than we like on top, I believe that there will be a large amount of progressivism on less prominent but still important issues.

Mexican Nobel Laureate to lead Obama transition effort on climate

A Mexican scientist who won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1995 will lead President-Elect Barack Obama's transition team's climate effort, according to a Latin American paper.

but while celebrating these good appointments, I'm still stewing about Obama's foreign policy team.

There is a Robert Dreyfuss article in The Nation about the subject.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/385746/obama_s_foreign_policy_team?rel=hpbox

We could all make lists of people that we might have chosen for secretary of state, defense, attorney general, homeland security, intelligence, and national security adviser. (True, not all of Obama's appointments are certain, yet, but the writing is on the wall.) It's now likely that not one of those posts will be filled with someone who either voted against the war in Iraq as a member of Congress or who, from outside Congress, vocally opposed the war. Not one.

I confess I am one of the people he writes about that overlooked many of Obama's comments during debates while thinking "he has to say those things to get elected."

I'm obviously hoping Dreyfuss is wrong in his assessment, but I am feeling, shall we say, very alert right now. 

Al, I am desperate for you to comment on Halperin's take on the media coverage of this Presidential Election.  I, personally, can not stand the man in either print or on-air.  I'm guessing many in his peer group feel the same, as he comes off like the kid in class who thinks he's smarter than everyone else despite all evidence to the contrary.  I know you still link to him on this site, but I'm seeing many others drop him as he continues to shill for the "anti-Obama" crowd. 

Is he so obtuse as to completely miss the point about how hungry this country was/is for change?  The "change we need" is not just change in the White House, of course, but change from the failed policies and ideology espoused by the right wing, fear mongering, swift boaters who have both bought and sold Halperin and his ilk many times over. 

BTW, far too much chicken littling going on here about appointments and what not.  Obama was NEVER going to take Capitol Hill by storm, with an army of left wing revolution soldiers at his flanks.  That would do nothing but drive a bigger wedge between parties.  The man is a statesman, brilliant in his tactics and sound in strategy.  He will create change from the INSIDE, institutionally, that will be lasting.  Barack will do so, for the most part, fairly quietly while building alliances that are necessary to the task at hand (which is monumental).  Let's give him a little time before we start becoming that which we despise - concern trolls and the like.  The man has proven, to me at least, that he can rise to any challenge and emerge with the upper hand.  I see no need to begin doubting his thought process at this stage of the game. 

 

I find his comment today very hard to understand.

Quote: "I still can't bring myself to care too much about individual Obama cabinet picks. He will be judged by his actions, not who enacts his agenda."

So he must think that Rumsfield, Powell and Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Gale Norton, Ridge, Chernoff's actions or inactions didn't have any influence on the events of the last eight years?!   He gets all wrapped up in a CT. Senator's committee chairmanship and yet finds these appointments of no interest.  Odd indeed.  I wonder if he would have any reaction if Obama just decided to keep all of Bush's current cabinet.   His disinterest doesn't make sense on any level.

Can you name all of the cabinet members from the first term of the Clinton Administration off the top of your head -- in the second for that matter?

I only ask that because I think Bush is fresh in our minds and unique in many ways in that his cabinet was as much controlled by the VP as him, so the cabinet members appeared to have power [or lack power], in many cases, independent of the president. And so there was a lot of dysfunction and lousy management and leadership [not the same thing] that tends to stick with you because it rippled down to our level all the time.

Cabinet posts are in many ways most important in the role they play in directing the bureaucracy behind the scenes. But because they are political appointees, there for a short time, most folks in the bureaucracy who are lifers play them, betting on outlasting them, as much or more than they follow the actual direction of the cabinet head. 

And if that cabinet head doesn't have ranking to get the president's ear, it's almost certain they will be failures -- as many of the bureaucracies under Bush proved to be.

So my guess, and that's all it is, given Obama's knowledge of how the DC bureaucracy works, or doesn't, and spreads its tentacles out into the field across the land, that he is looking for people loyal to his vision, but who know how to finesse the bureacracy under them to minimize the dysfunction [even reform it] and to maximize its effectiveness in reaching the objectives.

In short, they have to be great managers, leaders and followers -- and above all loyal to the president and not prone to running off on their own agendas.

Not having all of those traits leads to failure for sure in overseeing these huge bureaucracies, whether it be State, DHS or Justice. Pragmatically, I have to believe that's Obama's first triage, finding people with those quailities, with ideology being important, but in the sense that it has to be subordinate to the president's agenda -- which many are now doubting, but I still believe is progressive in nature.

So put yourself in the job of the captain, and decide who you want working on your ship -- knowing the stakes of a mistake in hiring can easily put you, and the nation, on the rocks.

So far, with his announced picks -- the one's he or his people have confirmed -- I see that pattern in effect, and expect it will continue as we move forward. 

To me, that's pragmatic progressivism [theory/ideology plus experience/practice equals praxis] and it is not a contradiction. Alinksy was a pragmatist in that sense, in my view.

Now, if that's the test of vetting, I can see some cabinet members making the cut who might not be deemed pure progressives, but who will be good managers, leaders, followers and loyal to Obama's vision. And I can see some so-called liberals, or progressives, who's egos are beyond control, or who are terrible managers or lousy leaders that won't make the cut for that reason -- even if they have great resumes and the devoted following of "the base" -- whatever or whoever that is.

Just a theory waiting to be tested with experience.

Melody Barnes as a "progressive" or her appointment as any plausible sign that Obama has NOT chosen to govern in an utterly centrist -- ie pro-corporate -- fashion.

She's out of Podesta's shop and on the Board of some bipartisan heavy hitting legal org which seeks consensus with Repblicans on the death penalty, torture etc. Not that's there's anything wrong with that but it hardly describes someone I would describe as a leftist. See also her youtube interview on CSpan where she speaks approvingly (chillingly?) at 7:40 or so of her support for a "very robust national security policy" ie a sympathy for militaristism.

And Al, your hosts at narco news would be interested that her old law firm specialises in latin amercian privatisation among other services on behalf of corporate giants, FWIW.    

As for Geithner's appointment being a positive sign, that sets the bar a tad low, doesn't it?

As to whether Obama pulled off a successful "head fake", who cares?

We need to do better than this -- we cant leave ourselves with a choice between rejecting and decrying Obama as a sell out OR being an apologist for every move of his government, which to date shows little if any inclination that it intends to cross the interests of US (finance) capital.

How about we recognize his win and his government as a significant defensive accomplishment, the lesser of two evils, sparing us the nightmare of a further 4 years of republican rule and couple that with a commitment to criticize him when he and his admin deserves it (like IMO in respect of his appointments to date). Obama (not to mention the rest of us) could use a public left opposition and its up to us to provide it.     

Jayman - Yes, I link to those blogs I read regularly on US politics, including ones I disagree with. I consult Halperin many times a day because he simply runs the fastest site regurgitating what other people report - kind of a Drudge Report exclusive to US politics. Halperin can complain all he wants, but his daily work is to copy and paste what everybody else writes. If he really has a problem with how the media covers things he sure doesn't say so when it's happening. In any case, I don't really care or get myself all bothered about what anybody else writes or says.

Catherine - I think Markos has the view that Obama is going to make his appointments no matter what any of us bloggers say and then - as a blog dedicated to strengthening the Democratic Party - he's going to be stuck with promoting whomever is in the line-up as part of bolstering the Democratic brand. As you know, I admire Kos a lot. He knows how to do this stuff better than almost anybody.

My own goals - while often in harmony with his - are distinct in that I'm not building the Democratic Party brand (I'm not even a registered Democrat) as much as I support Kos' other goals of reforming it. What I want is change and in certain directions, particularly on my beat: throughout the hemisphere. So it's natural that given our priorities, and even though we have so many points of confluence in our agendas and interests, we have different takes on the Secretary of State appointment. But, again, I don't worry myself over what other bloggers do. It's a big enough job to keep what I do on track and in tune with my own values and priorities.

Michael K - You might be a bit confused about who my "hosts at Narco News" are: I founded Narco News and I own it, and so obviously my "hosts" don't have any big disagreements with what I report and write here! That said, I publish the work of other writers that don't always agree with me. That's pluralism at work.

I'm utterly unconcerned about what law firm Barnes or anybody else has ever worked at. I think it's reactionary and even McCarthyist thinking to say lawyers shouldn't represent unpopular clients because, in the end, folks with views like yours and mine would have a much harder time getting legal representation if there weren't such a strong ethic of everyone having a right to a lawyer. Furthermore, what one lawyer does in a firm does not mean anything about another lawyer in that firm. So you're raising a non-argument to me.

As for "seeking consensus" with Republicans around issues like the death penalty, I think that's a swell idea. With 80 percent of the American public supporting capital punishment, opponents (of which I am one) of the death penalty have no done our job organizing and convincing public opinion. Since we're in the minority, we ought to thank our lucky stars that they're willing to talk with death penalty opponents and seek consensus. On that issue, we're in the position of weakness, not them.

Did you read Barnes' essay from 2007 that I linked to, above? How you can say that someone that so clearly is for redistribution of wealth and power is somehow not "progressive" or "leftist" enough for you is an opinion you have every right to have, but I think it's one of the most important things in determining whether someone is on the left or not: more important than a lot of other side issues that people obsess upon.

And as for your talk of a "left opposition" to Obama, that's just a slogan. Tell us what you think it would look like, how it would be organized, how it could even have a chance of being effective, and I'll be more interested. But my experience of listening to my fellows and sisters on the left for more than three decades now is that those that speak of "left opposition" almost never have a plan, and among those that do, I've yet to see one that I thought could work.

How about we oppose him when his policies are harmful and support him when his policies are helpful? That, to me, seems much more reality based.

Much of what is happening, appointments-wise, is a function of calming the financial markets.  We are seeing a crisis in consumerist-capitalism--and given the heated, delusional rhetoric at the close of this campaign, I think that Obama is trying very hard to ensure the owners of capital and the 'establishment' that O-man will not be an American Che.

This system is blood-thirsty and cynical.   Obama knows this, and he has to competently negotiate with the powers that be in order to have a shot at engaging a moderate and sane agenda.

Getting this economy stabilized will be no small achievement.

In connection with this Obama has a chance to make some key, bold policy moves with respect to climate change, health care, education, and creating jobs that can't simply be off-shored.

There is a tremendous amount of good-will directed and projected toward Obama--and if he is stupid enough to let the Clinton's squander this political capital, then I mis-judged the man.

I am in observation mode--but if he can't step up  with a better set of policies both globally and domestically, I will revert back to opposition mode.

The Clinton period was a huge disappointment for me.  Obama HAS to do better.  Jesus, please let Obama be better!

(My hunch, though I could be a chump, is that Obama is playing it cool right now because he knows that he will need a great amount of political capital when it comes to advancing some bold, but sane, policy goals.  Obama has a short window to get things done before he is again in election-mode.)

Al,

Thank you for your explanation of the differences in goals of Kos' blog and yours. His agnostic attitude makes a bit more sense based on (IMHO) narrow goals.  I have to say that his approach still comes across like deciding to watch a baseball game only when your team is up and not when they are in the field. 

In reference to your statement that, "...Obama is going to make his appointments no matter what any of us bloggers say...", I find that a difficult statement to believe.  We all know that the higher quality blogs are read by some (many?) in Obama's team --if for no other reason than to get a sense of the public opinion.  Certainly the fact that the AP was writing today, (incorrectly of course), about DKos' negative attitude towards a possible Clinton SoS takes blogging beyond the usual medium that existed even a year ago. 

To add to that point, Sen.Obama himself wrote a diary back in 2005 on DKos and his opening paragraph was something to the effect of "I've read with interest your comments..."  I'm not crazy in thinking Obama himself has a moment even to check out one blog ever again but I'm sure that the blogging medium has a large readership in the Obama circle of influential advisors and confidantes.  Not all blogs are just people laying down commentary - most of the real in-depth reporting you can only find on blogs or somewhere in the Long Series of Tubes.  (Except for the stellar reporting on Lou Dobbs and Anderson Cooper 360 lol!)

If Kos was informing the public with information such as Bill Conroy's http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2008/11/sen-clinton-if-named-secretary-state-cant-escape-husbands-golden-tongue he would be helping out his own cause of ousting some of his least favorite Blue Dog Dems and some of the DLC'ers in the process.  Just my own crazy opinion but I think that his lack of commentary about the appointments is because they are primarily focused on just two things --economic appointments and HC and 1) he's doesn't have a strong financial knowledge (he was way off in the basic understanding of the financial markets during the "McCain campaign suspension/first bailout" discussions) and 2) I think he doesn't want to go back to the PUMA wars again on his blog.

I was looking for. Perhaps not perfect but good (probably better than I could have made). There is no reason we have to be silent or to go along to get along. If the natiional security team has the qualities of the unexpected ruling the old same but experienced then there is a chance. If not, no matter how good the economic or domestic team is, progress will be halting and short. There's no reason to settle for the mediocre and so I applaud again everyone who is resisting the Clinton pressure. We don't want to sacrafice the good for the perfect but neither do we want to sacrafice the good for the mediocre.

Before you come over here trying to submit a comment that distorts yesterday's state and regional elections in Venezuela, please read my report, filed tonight on Narco News.

Consider it an education in authentic democracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7746979.stm

amk

Steve Hunt,

Che was an American (Argentinian).

night and the swearing in US ? I am not aware of any country where an elected leader had to wait so long to take the control. What's the logic ?

As the dkos FPer, BarbinMD notes today

the country has two economic captains; one who can give orders, but won't, and the other who wants to, but can't.

amk

Venezuelans get paper receipts that verify their choices were properly recorded, and must deposit them into boxes before leaving the polls.

Then, election officials monitored by representatives of each candidate count millions of the paper receipts for comparison to the electronic totals.

Just prior to the election, they performed random hardware and software checks of 1 percent of the machines. The machines are disconnected from the network during the actual voting.

Digital thumbprint devices aimed at preventing the casting of multiple ballots are used by about 40 percent of the voters in the most populous states and along Venezuela's borders, and no record is kept of the sequence in which thumbprints are recorded.

These are the some of the most significant safeguards.

Compare this system with the system used in the USA and tell me which system has the dictator

You really cant get your news from the US corporate media, not even the BBC

Mary, I've been following President Elect Obama for some time now, after first learning about him from a family member who was his classmate at Harvard Law back in 1990.  I would suggest that his leadership style at the Law Review provides an excellent model for what we may expect from him in the White House.  At the law review he angered the progressives by bringing so many conservatives in to top positions.  And even though he became the President of a very divided and contentious organization, he managed to create consensus--and no the law review did not become a right wing publication.  The extremes on both sides were neutralized.

Don't underestimate his presence and strength in setting the course for his administration.  Seemingly the Nation has forgotten that the President sits in the biggest chair at cabinet meetings and he was absolutely against the war.

 

Bill introduced by Senator Kerry to bring high-speed railine connecting Boston - Atlanta - Texas!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/25/95822/061/985/666177

KD

I appreciate your comment, and what you say is what I'm hoping.  However, it still means I have to continue to believe that some of his hawkish statements made during both campaigns were strategic and not necessarily his core beliefs.  That they might have been his core beliefs is my worry.  Though I think he is going to have his hands full getting the economic train back on the track, for quite some time.  This might mean curtailing our country's military "adventures," which is the only silver lining of this economic mess that I see.

 

While I disagree with President Elect Obama on a number of both foreign and domestic policy positions, I am encouraged by several factors.  He has demonstrated good judgment, an ability to anticipate trends, strategic thinking, a steady temperament, and agility and flexibility in reacting to changing circumstances and information.  I would argue that  his demonstration of these qualities is more important than  some of his statements.

I also tend to reject the labels of "dove", "hawk", "centrist" because I don't think they are helpful and often prevent accurate communication.

 

Thanks to Jesus Reyes for thge information about voting in Venezuela - eye opening! And special thanks to Al, again & again for Authentic Journalism.

 

http://digg.com/world_news/NYT_declares_victory_for_losing_side_in_Venez...

The Stephen Spoonamore Sept 2008 series on YouTube are well worth watching. Spoonamore is considered one of the world's top cyber security experts on securing credit cards (he does Amex, etc), banks, and voting machines. Period.

He is the guy who alerted the USA to the flaws in electronic voting machines in the late 90s.

Watch the 2:47 min Part 8 on what he thinks the solution here in the US should be. Not too different than the Venezuelan process. He's fun to watch because he's direct, and doesn't putz around explaining complex issues. 

Technically Obama hasn't been elected yet.

The Electors still have to meet and cast their votes.

Inguration Day was originally set for March 4, giving electors from each state nearly four months after Election Day to cast their ballots for President. It took time to travel.

In 1933 Inguration Day was changed to Jan 20.

The Electoral College does not meet until Dec 15.

From mid Nov to Dec 15 After the general election, the Governor of each State prepares seven original Certificates of Ascertainment listing the persons appointed as electors.

On Dec 9 States must make final determinations of any controversies or contests as to the appointment of electors at least six days before December 15 meetings of electors for their electoral votes to be presumptively valid when presented to Congress.

The Electors will  cast their votes Jan 6.  Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes. The President of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it. The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected.

 

So it's not a done deal until Jan 6.

 Plus the 2 months time makes for a smooth transisiton.

 

John Brennan won't be CIA Director or DNI.  See

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/25/john_brennan/index.html

A great quote from Greenwald's post:

It's unclear if it was Obama or Brennan who was the catalyst for this decision, but either way, it's to be celebrated.  And as Big Tent Democrat wrote today:  "In case people were wondering, THIS is why you do not wait to express your 'concern' about issues and personnel."

Indeed. 

on climate change:

Kerry also said he expects to work closely on the issue with Vice President-elect Joe Biden and with Senator Hillary Clinton, expected to be named secretary of state.

"She's, you know, committed on this issue," he told reporters. "And I think it's going to be a very powerful team. I mean, I think we're going to get as strong a focus on this issue as we could possibly have hoped for. And that excites me. I mean, I really see the capacity for us to get this done."

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/kerry_...

KD

 Picking HRC as Secretary of State would violate the constitution, since she was in the senate when they voted to raise the pay of SoS. Anyone know anything about this? I do not believe Barack should start his term with constitutional violations.

 Who just emailed me and informed me this place figured this out a couple of weeks ago, while I was gone. Figures, I am way behind just like the traditional media.

a tortuous political process (as if primaries and GE weren't enough.).

It all seems so outdated given today's IM and Blackberry world.  I also find it odd that an outgoing prez can issue so many Exec Orders even after the general elections.

In India, the Election Commission prevents the government from taking any major policy decisions, once the election dates are announced. Constitutionally, it is the prerogative of the incoming government to take policy decisions..

amk