Fewer Rivals, Please

Much is being made of President-Elect Obama's admiration for Abraham Lincoln's Team of Rivals approach towards piecing together an administration.  And, judging by his early actions, with good reason.  He's moving deliberately, so most names are speculative at this point, but here's a look at the current playing field:

Chief of Staff -- Rep. Rahm Emanuel, from Illinois.  While an extremely close friend of Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, make no mistake about it, he is a Clinton man from way back.  His first taste of politics at the national level was working for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign and he served as a senior advisor in the Clinton White House from 1993-98.  An interesting choice, he challenges the bipartisan meme of Obama's White House due to his cutthroat Democratic bona fides.  Conservatives are howling and the netroots are grumbling as well.

Secretary of Defense -- the consensus seems to be that he will keep Bush's current SOD, Robert Gates, on for at least a year, both as a reward for a job generally accepted as well done in Iraq and as a bipartisan aide to a transition to more of an emphasis on the mess in Afghanistan.  There has been some buzz, slightly abated now, that Sam Nunn, last spotted heading back to Georgia in 1997 as he retired from his senate seat citing a "lack of zest and enthusiasm," was a dark horse possibility.

Secretary of State -- less predictable than a game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey and more fun than a pinata party.  Chief party rival Hillary Clinton is the nom de jour.  Other than her very public differences of opinion over foreign policy with Obama, she faces the same difficulties being confirmed in the face of Bill Clinton's aversion to vetting as she did when being considered as a potential vice-president.  (I wonder if she ever sits up at night, over a Crown Royal nightcap, while Bill is jetting to some Arab Emirate on Ron Burkle's Boeing 757 known as "Air F*#k One," for staggeringly obvious reasons, and considers just how much being married to the Big Dog complicates her life.)  Republicans Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar's names are bandied about also as candidates (for both State and Defense) to trip across the Obama Footbridge of Peace being constructed over the center aisle of the U.S. Senate.  

Secretary of Treasury -- former SOT Lawrence Summers is on the shortest of lists, as is former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker.  While Summers has practically made a career out of insulting various core Democratic constituencies since leaving public office, it's hard to deny that he is a brilliant economist and comfortable thinking outside the box, a talent obviously in demand these days.  As for Volcker, gimme a break.  Jimmy Carter appointed him Fed Chair.  He's eighty-one years old!  He actually remembers the last time the economy was this bad.  All due respect (and he has certainly earned it), but I'm not sure the focus and energy that the current crisis will demand is the ideal fit for an octogenarian. 

Vice President Biden's Chief of Staff --  Ron Klain, Al Gore's chief of staff when he held the office.

White House Counsel -- Greg Craig, best known for helping Bill Clinton beat the rap at his 1998 impeachment hearings.  He has continued as close advisor to both of the Clintons.

I don't know about you, but as one who supported Obama based upon the campaign he ran and the promises he made, I'm about ready for some names that A)aren't joined at the hip to one or both of the Clintons, B)don't sit with conservative Republicans at Senate picnics or, C)are not hard-wired into the Washington power establishment.  I mean, the only group whose performance over the past few years rivals the incompetence and lack of integrity exhibited by Bush and the Republicans is the Democratic Congress.  

Obama promised, among other things, an approach in Washington that would be as fresh as it was bold.  No more re-treads.  Well, to channel a Clinton greatest hit, I suppose it depends upon what the definition of "retread" is, but most of the names listed above are awfully familiar.  

I'd like to see Samantha Power get some attention for State.  She's a realist -- she stated all the way back in March, while working for the Obama campaign, that sixteen months for an Iraq withdrawal was a "best case scenario" that he would revisit if elected.  She was forced to resign after speaking the truth about Hillary Clinton's campaign (that her level of deceit was unattractive) because she described her as a "monster," even though she told the interviewer that was off the record.  She won the Pulitzer Prize writing about genocide and was responsible for directing Obama's attention towards the atrocities in Darfur.  She would be a bold and fascinating choice.  

Obama met with vanquished presidential rival John McCain today.  The argument has been made that McCain won't relish continuing to serve in a diminished state with an increasingly minority party in the senate.  But it's hard to figure where he might fit in the Team of Rivals, were Obama so inclined.  Where do you put a flip-flopping Republican hawk who has declared a complete lack of respect for your experience and judgement along with a deep suspicion of your past associations, no matter how casual?  Come to think of it, I guess you sit him right next to Hillary. 

I can see only one realpolitik argument for finding a spot for McCain in the administration.  Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano is reportedly being considered for Attorney General.  She would bring a fresh voice to Washington, and increase the cabinet's diversity at the same time.  However, she is in line to run against McCain for his Arizona senate seat in 2010 and there is some doubt that the Democrats could find anyone else to mount a substantive challenge against him.  It must be tempting to finish transitioning Arizona from red to blue (McCain only won 53.8% of the vote against Obama) with Napolitano snatching McCain's seat out from under him.  So maybe you leave her where she's at and offer the AG spot to someone like Eric Holder, who led Obama's V.P. search committee.

While attempting to predict the incoming administration is a bit of an old Washington chestnut, it makes for a more enjoyable parlor game than gathering around the television and watching the market fall on CNBC.  Besides, it's the only game in town for the next couple of months.  Unless you're putting together an over/under pool on how many more days until GM goes under.

Hang on.  How many cars does McCain own?  That's right, thirteen. 

Obama is said to be considering naming "a point person to lead efforts to help the distressed auto industry return to health."  It should obviously be someone who believes in the product.  Someone experienced in deal-making.  Preferably someone with a bit of a jingoist streak to keep him going through the dog days when he looks at the numbers and sees Japan is still kicking Detroit's ass.  Someone who puts country first and would be willing to spend most of this winter in Michigan rather than by a babbling brook in Sedona, Arizona.

The perfect choice to round out President Obama's Team of Rivals.

Car Czar -- John McCain.

How Good Is Obama?

To call the Democratic National Convention conflicted would not do it justice -- it's positively bi-polar.  Dems have spent the first three days alternating between celebration and hand-wringing.  More time and energy is being spent dissecting the Clintons' role in the current state of Obama's campaign than in figuring out how to beat John McCain.

I can't think of a time when the passing of the standard bearer's torch from one generation to the next has been so fraught with drama.  The media, like a pack of hyenas after a wounded wildebeest, has latched onto the story, circling ever tighter, closing in on the idea that perhaps the Clintons won't deliver her constituency, worrying it and gnawing at its twitching carcass until the bones are picked clean.  Political operative after pundit after elected official is lined up and asked, "What will Hillary/Bill say?"  They are asked this serially, one after the other, for hours on end.  A typical MSNBC night of coverage is three hours of guessing, exactly two speeches, and three hours of analysis.  The most fun speech so far -- Dennis Kucinich's six-minute, crazed-but-yet-somehow-the-most-rational-argument-against-the-current-administration-made-to-date rant that borrowed equally in delivery style from Mick Jagger and Adolf Hitler -- was ignored.  Montana governor Brian Schweitzer gave a barn burner in the midst of a hoedown that has been depressingly free of pyrotechnics.  MSNBC chose to talk over it while training the camera on Bill Clinton as he gazed out over the hall, mouth agape, in as unflattering an image as any Clinton-hater could dream of.  John Kerry, the 2004 nominee, rated about ninety seconds of air time as he took aim at the Republicans before they hustled us back to hear what the Gene Robinsons and the Dick Durbins thought the Clintons might do.

There are a number of reasons for this.  The Clintons are not really a full generation ahead of Obama.  It seems like only yesterday when Bill was considered the future of the party and was drawing his own comparisons to JFK.  They have not, nor, I suppose, should they have, accepted the role of elder states persons.  Hillary is every bit the force Obama is -- the coin just came up tails this time.  Bad luck for her.  And, for whatever the reasons, many still wonder whether there is a there in Obamaland.  He hasn't exactly set the world on fire since the end of the primaries.  Driven home by the Republicans' quite brilliant Brittney Spears/Paris Hilton ads, the question of whether Obama has the heft to lead is hovering over the Democratic electorate like Hurricane Gustave bearing down on New Orleans.

So the Dems have spent their time worrying in between the Clinton speeches which have, predictably, both hit their marks.  At which point the Dems congratulate themselves on their embarrassment of riches while struggling with their deep-seated fear that they may have backed the wrong horse.  It's this anxiety that leads Obama supporters to nitpick the Clintons' speeches -- especially Hillary's -- and complain that their support was insufficiently enthusiastic.

Which is silly.  The Clintons just had the rug yanked out from under them by Obama, the South Side Wunderkind.  Their future was set.  They had given their notices, forwarded their mail to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., and begun drawing org charts.  This nomination was theirs.  And then came Iowa and Mark Penn's plan and Super Tuesday.  And now it isn't.

To expect them to go above and beyond the level of dutiful, pro forma support for the hotshot that snatched Hillary's dream from her very grasp is, at best, unrealistic.  That being said, one could argue that they did just that.  Hillary's speech was gracious and partisan, if not particulary Obama-centric.  Bill's was brilliant -- a reminder of what a superb politician he could be and an endorsement that he believed Obama shared the same abilities.  They did enough.

It's not their job to drag Hillary's supporters, kicking and screaming, into the booth to vote for the new guy.  It's Obama's.  It's like the former CEO of a company calling the current boss and recommending a friend for a position.  The recommendation will get him in the door but he has to sell himself once in the room.  If the new boss isn't comfortable with the guy applying for the job, he's not going to hire him, regardless of the recommendation.

Plus, if I were Obama, I would find it a little demeaning to admit such a deep dependency on the Clinton's good will.  Not only demeaning, but worrisome.  If Team Obama is expecting the Clintons to carry their water, after what has transpired over the past year, well . . . let's just say I wouldn't expect those buckets to arrive filled to the brim, if I were them.

Barack Obama has been hailed by many, myself included, as a political talent who comes along once in a generation, if that.  Thanks primarily to his charisma and message of hope and change, there are more Democrats registered to vote in the upcoming election than ever before.  There are eighteen million Democrats out there who voted for Hillary Clinton.  Somewhere between twenty and fifty percent of them have expressed reservations about shifting their allegiance to Obama.  Guys like Chuck Todd peg the precise demographic as white, rural, female Democrats, age thirty-five to forty-nine, with an income of under $50K.  

If the consummate Democrat of this generation can't convince that demographic to vote for him, what does that say?

Maybe he's not all that consummate, after all.