For example, take Attorney General – what would be better than having say, John Edwards out there all day every day taking on Mukasey on the core issues of torture, human rights, etc? I think it would be great. It would also showcase the leadership and ability to assemble a team that Barack needs to show some people who doubt his experience and background is sufficient.
I also believe that if you look at the very successful Clinton Presidency what actually drove it and America to great success was the strength of his appointments. Erskine Bowles, a distant relative in the interest of full disclosure, was Clinton’s Chief of Staff for part of Bill Clinton’s Presidency. Erskine is an incredibly smart, savvy businessman and leader and his presence in The White House was a benefit to all of us. Same with Robert Rubin at Treasury, Madeline Albright, and many many more.
We can contrast Secretary of State Rice with any number of Democrats who are better, smarter and more sophisticated. I’d take Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke any of them and have them speak all day every day.
How about Secretary of Veterans Affairs? I vote for Max Cleland, think Max would win the discussion on the GI BILL, PTSD Issues and more? Hell yes.
Chime in the comments with your choices. And compare them with their current Republican counterparts. Want to make sure it’s John McSame McCain? Get these Democratic leaders out of the shadows and front and center.
Sure, it’s different, sure it’s unexpected, no they don’t have to be binding, but this election is about more than the occupant of the Oval Office, it’s about needing a complete leadership change in Washington, and we’ve got the team.
There are lawyers here who actually know something about this, but when similar subjects have come up there’s been reference to a federal law that makes it illegal for a candidate to promise a federal appointment, under what exact circumstances I’m not sure. (The specific claim I saw was that BHO could not promise HRC the first available Supreme Court appointment.) This contrasts with parliamentary systems where the opposition party has an official “shadow cabinet” and trading cabinet positions among parties is a standard tool of pre-election coalition building.
<
p>Of course it’s a good idea to have prominent Democrats out there on the stump, and if Biden, Richardson, and Kerry are out there giving intelligent foreign policy speeches the press will talk them up for SoS without the candidate having to do anything…
I think Obama should put together a “policy team” which includes big names (who could then fill in Cabinet posts when he wins) who could speak to the issues in the brief. I especially like the idea of doing this on national security.
<
p>Ultimately, a lot of the folks who would be on his veep list could also be on his policy team list as well, with some interchangeability. Here are some thoughts I have on who he could put on his policy team. There is a wealth of talent out there, drawn especially from his rivals and former rivals for the nom.
<
p>STATE DEPT:
<
p>Gov. Bill Richardson – has the experience and also attracive for geography and demography. Made big choice in coming out for Obama. On veep list no doubt.
Sen. John Kerry – has experience on issues, came out early for Obama, well-known.
Sen Joe Biden – very experienced and good debater. Not with Obama yet but independent minded for better or worse.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein – after Richardson, I really like this pick. For one, she’s a very respected Senator with experience on foreign policy comm. She’s a Clinton backer and she’s not a dude. She may also help with Jewish vote in key states. If she did get it it may mean Arnie gets to pick her Senate successor – at least temporarily losing a seat
Rep. Lee Hamilton – 9/11 comm chair, foreign pol chair in House and endorsed Obama before home state of Indiana. Stature is there, although not a big name. Maybe he could be found something else of important.
<
p>Any of these characters could also be up for Defense or Homeland Security as well, but those may not be as attractive.
<
p>DEFENSE DEPT:
<
p>Sen. Chuck Hagel – gotta be his if he’d do it, getting the anti-Iraq war Vietnam vet Republican would be a coup (better than giving him veep slot where conservative social views would be controversial)
Gen. Wes Clark – big Clinton supporter and obviously well respected. Good for party unity. Heard he didn’t play nice with other generals though so could be problem with Pentagon brass
Sen. Jim Webb – Reagan’s Navy Sec and now anti-war Virginia Senator. Good fit but not sure he’d want it. I’d prefer him for veep if anything.
Fmr Senator Sam Nunn Chaired Armed Services comm, big name moderate with stature. Could also be for State.
<
p>ATTORNEY GENERAL:
<
p>Sen. John Edwards – slam dunk in my eyes. Got the experience and the demeanor to be an activist AG for the little guy. Gotta also consider him for veep though.
<
p>Gov. Janet Napolitano – was AG in Zona before two-term Gov there. Big Obama backer. Great background and record and nice to have a Zonan to stick to state-compatriot McCain. She of couse has to be on veep list as well.
<
p>You’d maybe put our current Governor on the list as well, but because I really want him to stay and get re-elected in 2010 I am not even gonna put him down.
<
p>HOMELAND SECURITY:
<
p>This job has to go to someone with huge record of competence at the highest levels. Someone who you can trust with a terrorist attack or Katrina-like disaster. Maybe a big name Governor
<
p>LA Police Chief Bill Bratton – comes to mind as the top cop in U.S. Then again, HS issues are much wider than crime, like Hurricanes and such.
<
p>If he hadn’t essentially become a Republican on security issues, and stayed neutral in this race, Joe Lieberman, the brainchild behind the creation of the Dept. would have been the type of guy up for consideration. Now that he is doing all he can to take down Obama, it ain’t gonna happen.
<
p>In any event, I’m sure there are other ideas for appointments (maybe I’ll come back with thoughts), particularly on the domestic side of the equation. As far the merits of doing it, I think there is a lot to be said for naming a “policy team” and giving out portfolios to these “advisers”. The risk comes from being responsible for their past records and anything they say. Now instead of just vetting the veep, you have to make sure these people don’t bring any gross baggage a long. Nevertheless, I like the idea. One of Obama’s selling points was that he can bring people together and doing this, with rivals, Clinton backers and Republicans together on his team can show he is doing that.
<
p>
When the selected shadow person has a bimbo eruption or is the subject of some other scandal, it will reflect poorly on the candidate.
And I tend to think if he picks well established politicians who know the drill then the chance of error would be reduced.
<
p>But, as much as I like the novelty of the idea, and can see benefits to it, I have a feeling it won’t happen and this is in part because of the risks you cite.
<
p>Then again, Obama wants to change Washington so why not run with a team and shake up the dynamic for how presidential campaigns are run.
A winning campaign works full time on this from November-Inauguration Day and beyond, as a Transition Team.
<
p>I suspect that this would be the campiagn equivalent of the war in Iraq, as crticized by a non-iberal: a nice idea, and all well and good, but a serious misallocation of resources that could be better deployed elsewhere.
Sad to say, there’s also an advantage to being vague: We can imagine an impossible-to-create cabinet of super heroes packed with awesomeness. No such cabinet can be created, but they’ll let us imagine.
I ask because I believe the law says one must be retired for at least ten years before he can take a civilian position at the Pentagon. This is to ensure a clean break between the military and civilian sides and civilian control.
I don’t anything about the law, but Clark retired in May 2000.
It might be fun for us, but there’s no benefit to his candidacy even if it’s allowed.
<
p>Campaign strategy suggests the candidate should make as few definite decision as possible, and only as much as necessary, between now and election day. The downside exceeds the upside in every case. Candidates would not even name their veeps until after election day were it not required earlier.
<
p>Much safer to run on the flag or America or Hope.
<
p>The exception is when the campaign desperately needs to change the subject and wrest control of the electoral dynamic. See, for instance, Reagan’s early veep pick in 1976. This can work but it is really a sign of weakness.
Slightly off topic, but lanugo’s list brought to mind a related cabinet issue that is far too often overlooked, but I think ought to be considered, and that is the balance in Congress.
<
p>I bring this up because Obama/Clinton are both Senators (and even McCain for the sake of discussion), as are many of the top names mentioned for running mates and cabinet slots. Right now, the balance of power is 49-49-2 (one of those being a shaky Lieberman). Even with a couple of pickups in the fall, it might not take much to push the Senate back into the red.
<
p>Clinton picked Sen. Gore as his running mate and Sen. Bentsen and Rep Aspin for his first cabinet. All three of those seats flipped in the next election and are still Republican today.
<
p>By contrast, GWB has not appointed any sitting member of Congress to his cabinet. He appointed both Ashcroft and Abraham only after they’d lost their respective Senatorial races.
<
p>Obviously, you want the President or candidate to go with the best people, but all things being equal, the “big picture” repercussions ought to at least be a factor.
I think most of the folks on the list are either from safe Dem territory or are already moving on from office so the risks would be reduced.
<
p>And hopefully, the Dems will expand their numbers in November. We should be able to.