Obama's Cabinet?

[asterroc]

I haven't been following Obama's picks for cabinet members. Someone care to update me? I think I saw Hillary was taking one.

I've also heard that people who have cabinet positions can never successfully run for office again after that. Is this true? If so, why? And why would someone like Clinton take the position then? Please give me the short version, as usual, too long and I lose track of where it started...

Which reminds me, this week I've had two people tell me either that since I teach physics I must be really smart, or else that physics is a really hard subject. Both times I replied in complete honesty that I think history is harder. Politics/current events might be even worse since things change so quickly, at least history's over and done with.

Comments

[q10.livejournal.com]

summary here

the ones that made the biggest splashes so far include Clinton for State and keeping Gates for Defense.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

Dunno. I think the biggest splash was Geithner for Treasury, because Treasury is probably the most important decision at this moment.

The risk for Hillary Clinton in taking the Secretary of State position is that she may lose visibility in some senses. As a Senator, she can take a position and get news attention on any issue she wants to, at any time. As Secretary of State, she has to hew Obama's line, which she may disagree with, and focus her attention on affairs of state. We haven't had a secretary of state become president in a fairly long time. I don't think it's a serious risk for her, though, because she has such name recognition and because provided Obama wins in 2012, she should have a pretty clear Democratic primary in 2016.

[q10.livejournal.com]

the word ‘include’ was included to leave me a lot of leeway about missing some of the big splashes.

i'm always singularly unimpressed by the ‘we haven't had an X become president in a long time’ arguments. because for any presidential candidate there are at least a few dozen moderately salient values of X for which this applies to them - there are just so damn many variables, and a small sample of presidents to date.

if i were going to pick one category factor to watch on Clinton in 2016, it'd probably be age (she'd be younger than Reagan was, but not by much), but if she can manage to look like she's in good shape i doubt that will matter much.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Oh wow, imagine if in 2016 it's Clinton vs. Palin...

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

Hmm... In some cases I agree with you. I think the "We haven't had a Senator become President since Johnson" one had legs because one could point to reasons why it might be so, as Kerry ably illustrated. Senators with any longevity in the Senate will have a record of votes that in this era of close media scrutiny will offer challenges and contradictions. Obama wasn't in the Senate long enough for this to be a problem. McCain was able to sidestep it with his reputation as a Senate maverick (though even that was partially defeated by the much-mentioned 90% voting with Bush).

Likewise, the "No Secretary of State has become President since... wow, since Martin van Buren..." seems significant to me because you can point to reasons for it- a Secretary of State must protect the policies of an official they may disagree with, will probably have to take responsibility for unpopular decisions to shield the president (like Colin Powell going in front of the UN with 'evidence of WMDs), and will sacrifice visibility whenever domestic issues take the front stage. (I caught a Condi press briefing on C-SPAN two weeks ago. She was working on really important meetings in Europe, was working on Israeli peace stuff, was talking to Afghanistan about the progress on the war there, etc... but she barely got any press because the bailout is the top story now)

What I'm trying to say is that it's not the "We haven't had a Secretary of State become President in a long time" that impresses me as much as the logic behind that statement and evaluating whether that logic applies to Clinton holding the post. I don't think it does, and I think she's made the same calculation.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Some of that sounds like the arguments against her taking a VP position with Obama. What's different between that and this?

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

I think to Clinton, the difference is that the Vice President has no actual duties (other than 'preside over the Senate') and thus any power the VP has must be granted by the President, and can be taken away as easily. (Some recent journalism on Cheney suggests this actually happened during Bush's second term to a degree). Clinton knows that under an Obama presidency her power and visibility as VP would be limited, and Obama knows that Clinton would struggle with these limitations and pose a challenge to control.

I think the calculation Clinton is making is that she'll have enough legitimate power as Secretary of State to make the State department her own little fief. And Obama is calculating that she'll be occupied enough with real work that he'll be able to keep her under his authority.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that explanation. It also seems like a good way to get legitimate foreign experience, something for which I believe people criticized many of the candidates this year.

[seekingferret.livejournal.com]

Yes, this is definitely part of it. Conversely, while I didn't like the idea of Clinton as President and wouldn't have had any of the hesitation I did about voting for McCain this year, I think she has the tools to be an excellent Secretary of State and I think Obama made a very good choice here.

Though my mom commented that it's fascinating that the Secretary of State appears to have become a 'woman's job'. Three of the last four have been female- Albright, Rice, and Clinton.

[xoder.livejournal.com]

I hadn't been keeping up, either, but the Wiki has a nice summary.

There is nothing prohibiting a member of cabinet from running for office again, however, one cannot be a member of cabinet and, for instance, a senator at the same time. And I'm reading now about the Saxbe fix, which is pertinent and most interesting.

[calieber.livejournal.com]

I cannot tell you how many people respond to my plans to go back for a degree with "chemistry? That's so hard!" Um, not for me, that's why I'm taking it. I mean, some of these people are nurses!

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

*slaps head*

Then again, it's not that surprising: I've seen elementary teachers brag about not knowing how to do fractions.