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]

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.