I heard some really smart guy on Rachel Maddow several days ago making this same case after Rahm Emanuel had been picked.

I just can't seem to remember who that was. Hmmm.

I'd like to hear more of Kuttner's point of view on this. I'd expect its a lot more nuanced.

These are the most visible positions as the administration gets started. So of course you have to mostly fill them with experienced people, i.e. people from the most recent administration of the same party. However, the levels underneath will need to draw on a larger pool, and lots of those will be new blood. They will eventually bubble up and by the end of Obama's time will form the ranks of old hands for subsequent Democratic administrations to draw on.

Frankly I think we're in much better shape than the incoming Clinton administration was is at an analogous point. The retreads they had to tap were from a much less successful presidency (Carter's), and they had to deal with lots of leftover dixiecrats in congress.

We can thank Newt's armies for clearing out much of the Congressional democratic deadwood in '94, meaning that Obama will have better Democrats in the Congress and better bureaucrats in his own administration.

Was going to put my 2 cents in but reading jimBOB and his 2 cents are the same as mine. Nothing more to add

Obama knows what policies he wants to implement. I'm glad to see he's chosen a truckload of people who can help him implement them. And like Steve says, these are mostly going to be former Clinton officials.

Sure, you'd like new blood too, and there's a good way for Obama to do this: hire the sorts of people from outside of government that you'd like to eventually see in the Cabinet, or in the top White House staff positions, and assign them to positions a level or two down from where you'd like them to ultimately end up.

They gain experience, and in a few years, when the first round of hires is feeling the wear and tear of playing at this level, the new blood is ready to step forward.

I bet Obama's smart enough to figure this one out.

And you know if he brought in a bunch of new faces, the CNN text would go something like this:

"We all remember when Jimmy Carter brought his Georgia Mafia in and they thought they were going to change Washington, and we all remember how that turned out. I don't see how Obama is going to get anything done without some people who really know how Washington works. I hate to say it, but we may be looking at Jimmy Carter all over again. Is it too soon to predict Obama will be our first one-term President since the first President Bush?"

These tools are so predictable.

three points: I think Kutner and the Left are upset that there is Big Labor friendly appointees. I think "that" is the real criticism from the Left.

Second, pointing aside my own beliefs and opinions, most Americans look back favorably on the Clinton presidency as a practical endeavor, putting aside the Lewinsky matter. Thus, I would be very surprised if most Americans were dismayed by Clinton related appointees. (I have real policy criticisms of the Clinton years from the Left -- ATEDPA, welfare reform, nafta, etc)

Last time I checked both Hillary and Bill were very popular, so whyshould we treat Clinton folks as pariahs.

Plus, so long as we are not talking about the Clintonistas who trashed Obama, who effing cares.

orange

This is an absurd topic as it is. At no time during the Obama campaign did I get a sense that Change was referring to anything BUT moving the country away from the Bush administration, and more generally, away from right-wing policy positions. The way The Conversation is unspooling, the only way for Obama to really institute Change is to appoint large numbers of Republicans to his cabinet.

I get a sense that The Village is just looking for its Narrative over the next four years.

I think it's funny, if only because so many of the people who were so aghast at the thought of Hillary Clinton in the White House said it was because they didn't want all those Clinton-era retreads in charge. (Because, you know, peace and prosperity was SUCH a drag.)

I think Clinton Derangement Syndrome kneejerk response is what's driving those comments.

Was drinking a little whiskey last night and guess I had a masochistic streak, so I tuned in to Hannity to get a laugh.

There was a woman on there (can't remember her name, imagine that) who made a very astute point regarding this topic:
Obama promised change... change from Bu$h policy!

He's going to deliver.

Good argument, Steve. I guess I was hoping, perhaps irrationally, for a group of new faces in cabinet positions that reflected a more liberal philosophy. I understand that government experience is a necessity for WH staff but don't see such experience as being that important for cabinet positions. Pragmatism isn't my long suit. It should be an interesting four/eight years.

too many people have too little to do now that the election is over.

one of the problems in massachusetts is the dearth of democrats with direct administrative government experience -- duvall patrick's effectiveness has suffered as a result.

anyone who takes seriously cautionary remarks from republicans and professional concern trolls should go take a nap.

As far as I can tell, Obama wants to hit the ground running when his inauguration comes. With the country in the state it's in, there's no time for a prolonged executive learning curve. That requires people who know how to get things done getting things done pronto. His picks are as much a matter of necessity and functional considerations as it is a demonstration of his center-left leanings.

Look, there's been exactly one Democratic president since 1980.

Nitpick: Jimmy Carter was, in facty, President for the first couple of weeks of 1981, so this is not exactly true, unless you redefine 1980 to end with Inauguration Day in 1981.

Substantively, I agree with you. Its amazing that people still don't get this (if that's even the case, rather than this being just a phony, ginned up basis for whining.)

I hear your point that all experienced Democrats are 'Clintonistas' - eg, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice are both from the Clinton era.

But purely based on policy viewpoints, I think Susan Rice was a better pick from among the list of 'Clintonistas'. Also on the drama front, it's obvious Obama is boxed in now - his own fault. And more drama to come.

So I'm with Kuttner.

If the republicans are complaining, that means Obama is likely doing something smart.

They do not want us to succeed.

A successful, competent Obama administration will just be the final nail in the republican movement's coffin.

Not everyone who served in the Clinton administration was necessarily a Clintonite to begin with. Even if they were, it is 8-16 years later. Smart, capable people evolve. More importantly, President Obama will be calling the tune and the staff will dance.

Well, to state the obvious, it isn't like either Bush administration put itself on short rations of Reagan and Nixon/Ford veterans. Clinton had some Carter people on board, Carter had LBJ people, and so on back into the Adams and Jefferson administrations.

Whatever. By electing Obama, I thought for sure I'd be offered a lower level cabinet spot, or at least some sort of advisory position that reported directly to Barack. I feel betrayed.

I say that anyone who's ever had any sort of experience working for a government or politician in any sort of real capacity should be disqualified from working for Obama. This isn't about qualifications, this is about fairness. They already had their shot; now it's our turn.

The only area where Obama should mandate entirely new blood is Treasury. Too many of the Clinton people are partly to blame for this mess and/or worked on Wall Street. Casino capitalism must come to an end.

i would take advice on "clintonistas" from republicans the same way i would take ANY advice from republicans at this point....ignore it.....

karl rove was concern-trolling at the wsj, today...saying, incoherently, that if hill was to turn down the job at state, her supporters would STILL BE DISAPPOINTED!...

tools.....

The Clinton administration inherited a debt-ridden deficit-increasing Bush mess and turned it around.

The Obama administration is inheriting a much worse debt-ridden deficit-ballooning Bush mess, and must turn it around.

Hell YEAH I want him to take advantage.

We are supposed to cringe when we hear Clintonites, despite the success they had. Screw that.

The reality is that certain pundits are going to complain about any decision Obama makes. That is their agenda for the next 4 years: To have two sets of arguments ready for any event and releasing the appropriate complaint depending on how Obama acts.

Oddly enough, even Karl Rove said the other day that an incoming administration will have a mix of old hands and new talent.

To expect an administration to appoint staff that is 100% new to Washington is a Palinism in the extreme.

Some people will never be happy. We already have a big change. Respect of the world back. Optimism in spite of the economy.
Also for eight years the Dems have had to fight just to keep everything from going down the drain.

Finally... progress is going to happen in health care, the environment and new energy. New ideas won't be stifled and blocked. I think he will be wise with Iraq too. I don't know how he will do it but I trust his judgment. He won't start unnecessary wars.

I think Obama is trying to get the best person for every job regardless of their politics.
I also think he will bring out the best in everyone...even Lieberman and McCain,

After WWII, I've read that many of the US factories that produced tanks and other armored vehicles needed to find new products to manufacture, lest they go out of business. American society got development-happy, building roads and subdivisions like mad. The industrial infrastructure shifted from making Shermans to making Caterpillars.

This is what happened to the vast MSM in the US, I think. After the election, pundits and prognosticators suddenly had to find something to write about now that the big topic of the past 24 months was done. They have turned to incessant examinations of the smallest details of any possible Obama decision, and they have created controversies out of thin air.

Little of their reporting has any substance, though it is much easier to write about Clintonistas than it will be to do in-depth reporting on a variety of health care options that will be presented in the upcoming Congress.

I'd like to see Obama broaden his perspective beyond the DC area code a little more.

There have been a lot of Democratic Governors and since 1980. Many of them had very strong staffs and experienced teams surrounding them. I for one would like to see Obama reach out to more state governments to fill out federal jobs. When talking about some of the larger states (New York, Florida, Illinious, California) or even mid-sized states (Washington, Oregon, New Jersey). There are a lot of experienced, competent, Democratics to pick from.

One does not have to look exclusively in the DC area code to find people who can make government work.

I'll take the competence and pragmatism of the "Clintonistas" over the corrupt incompetence of the Bushies and call it a major improvement.

I am not at all concerned that the Obama admin will be Clinton 2.0. That was a different time, and a different political landscape. I think many of Clinton's critics from the left fail to appreciate how fierce and well organized his opponents were. To some degree, he was seriously handcuffed by this. For me, the measure of him is what he managed to do in spite of it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Look at this distraction over here!

Am so glad to hear your comments, and those of Kevin Drum et al. The frenzy people are in over the various appointments and, especially, the Lieberman wrist slap is ridiculous.

Other sources of experienced people are those who ran large departments at the state level, particularly in large states like New York or California.

Media hype, is all it is. Since they don't talk about real issues, they have to contrive them and drive them, while driving us batty. Last night it was a sickening replay of the Obama/Clinton feud that we heard about for months. Will Hillary run amok or be a team player ad nauseam.

Why do they do this? The American Idol crowd doesn't watch these programs. They don't have to pander to them. They don't have to turn politics into a celebrity frolics program.

As republicans actually won this election, you dumbocrats should seek advise from real americans about who to staff government with.

As my buddy Eagleburger has told us, the only dimocrat he thinks would be adequate as SOS is Hillary. As he said, Richardson is stupid & Kerry would not have the gonads to step up to the idiot Biden. Larry implied that the only sensible thing to do is to appoint him or another republican genius to the job.

At the DOJ, we still need a house cleaning from the stink left over from the Clinton administration. Therefore, a logical choice would be Robert Bork.

At DOD, we need consistency and a love of the military supply system. Therefore, Obama should reach for stability and appoint Dick Cheney.

Fortunately for our country, the corporate media has an endless supply of republican thinkers to provide the answers about who Obama should pick to run the government. Fortunately, the corporate media does not waste much of its time asking dumbocrats.

So far no one is talking about removing General Petraeus, but as reported by -- I think Joe Klein -- Obama made it very clear in a meeting with the General this summer that as President he will set the mission and it will be up to the General to execute it.
I think the same message goes with Obama's appointments of experienced people to any position. It is clear that he wants people who can effectively execute.

As I said here:

when GWB brought John Negroponte and Elliot Abrams into his Administration I don't recall any such kerfuffle, despite their dirty hands in Central and South America during the Reagan Administration. Their activities bordered on the criminal in their earlier careers (Abrams was actually convicted of several misdemeanors having to do with the Iran-Contra affair), while none of the people being discussed as possible members of Obama's team have any blots.

Some liberals and progressives are already complaining about cabinet positions and this is what I worried about the most. People aren't even giving him a chance. I could care less if these people are Clintonites, as long as they are competent, intelligent, and just know what the hell they are doing. I don't think these people would accept these positions if they didn't think they were up to the job to help Obama, and I don't think Obama would choose these individuals if he thought they could not effectively push his agenda.

I read somewhere that anti-war advocates are concerned because the top choices for Sec. of Defense authorized the war in Iraq and that Hilary approved the war. Joe Biden approved the war an he is VP. Most of the Dems who approved the war have admitted that they were wrong as well as a few Repubs, and I'm willing to forgive, rather than those who still believe that this war was just. Gates may retain Sec of Defense. Yeah I would love to see someone new, but if he stays for an interim period that's fine. So far he has done a better job that Rumsfeld could ever do.

People forget that Obama has always said that he would appoint people who may not always agree with him (Biden was a clear example). Change is not just about ending GWB policies, it's about changing the mind-set of the people who are already in Washington and getting them on board with improving the country. I seriously wonder whether some people actually listen to some of the things that Obama says

I don't blame the people in the blogosphere for being disappointed, but as far as the press goes, the very same people who are yapping about Obama choosing so many Clinton veterans are the same people who ridiculed the Clintons for bringing so many noobs with them to Washington when they had to staff their White House. Obama can't please them, no matter what he does, so he should just ignore them.

Obama's selection of Hillary for SoS is the appointment that sticks in my craw. One of the main reasons I voted for Obama rather than Hillary was foreign policy so I have to wonder what I was voting for after all now that he has offered the position to her.

Her campaign rhetoric echoed the republicans and her China advisor left her campaign because of things she was saying about China on the campaign trail. I don't think she has the experience, or the wisdom to occupy the SoS post.

Obama will have better...bureaucrats in his own administration.

But he'll also have to deal with all the Liberty U. graduates the Bushies embedded all through the civil service.

I certainly think some combination of Krugman, DeLong and Roubini would go excellently at treasury secretary, and Ezra would certainly contribute to good health care policy, etc. We already know Elizabeth Warren is going to be busy.

Yglesias is rather useless however.

JimBOB said:

Frankly I think we're in much better shape than the incoming Clinton administration was is at an analogous point. The retreads they had to tap were from a much less successful presidency (Carter's), and they had to deal with lots of leftover dixiecrats in congress.

Correct, IMHO, about the "successful"-ness of Clinton's presidency. The 90s was such a prosperous time, I had always assumed Clinton rode on its coattails in balancing the budget. But then in about 2003 I discovered how much he cut out of the non-military budget, on top of the post-Cold-War military base closings and other reductions in military spending. My memory says the total budgetary reductions were something like $500B-$600B a year. I was amazed. Clinton simply was not given enough credit for MANAGING the Federal government. Success? I'd give him and A+. And I was never either for him or against him. But competency COUNTS, dammit! So why NOT lean on those who made that success happen?

And eric [11:18] posted:

...most Americans look back favorably on the Clinton presidency as a practical endeavor, putting aside the Lewinsky matter. Thus, I would be very surprised if most Americans were dismayed by Clinton related appointees.

Right! Besides not getting Hillary's health care system through, what policy or management failures were there during Clinton's presidency?

...The 1993 WTC bombing was in his first month, so can that be laid at his doorstep? Not much, if at all. Bush 41 never took any heat for that at all.

...Somalia - not good results, but the right thing to attempt at the time.

...The embassy bombings? Okay, one could concede that one, that it happened - but his response was appropriate and specific.

When Clinton left office, America was STILL the most admired country in the world, and THE leader of the world. I think people really do tend to forget how fortunate we'd been before Bush, in having really competent Presidents. To have a complete nincompoop in the WH has brought everyone's expectation of the office of the Presidency so low that if nothing else, Obama will reinstill THAT.

So, if Obama leans on previously proven competent people, why would anyone bitch about THAT?

We need all the competent people we can get!

One more thing:

I WOULD like to see less of a centrist direction, though. Hopefully, Obama does not lean as far toward the delusional "Center-Right" "reality" of America as the loser pundits have been declaring to be our inner American core.

Clinton pragmatically governed from the middle - which may have been his only real mistake. IMHO, it gave the GOP the impression that even the Left was somewhat toward the right. A Democrat should govern as a Democrat, not some GOP-lite compromiser.

Obama has a real mandate to take us back to the left, if he can get the Clintonistas to follow him far enough in that direction.

I think Kutner and the Left are upset that there is Big Labor friendly appointees. I think "that" is the real criticism from the Left.

Wait, the Left doesn't like unions anymore? Why didn't I get the memo?

The last unknown to hit the national scene was one named Sarah Palin.