OK. Robert Gates. I get it. Lots of people don't like the pick. Ditto Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State (which, frankly, is the only head-scratcher so far for me, given the baggage she carries...but I think from a purely political standpoint, it is a brilliant move for Obama, and the subject for another diary).
But I think what we are seeing in the hand wringing and downright anger in any cabinet pick that Obama makes is a result of what we've experienced under Bush in the past eight years. Follow me below the fold to see why.
I remember in 2000, when my moderate-to-conservative father-in-law said he was going to vote for Bush not for "who he is" but for "who he would appoint to his cabinet." His reasoning was that Bush was not the brightest bulb in the world, but hey, at least he was going to appoint people that were bright and would help run the government.
An Ashcroft, a Rumsfeld, and a Condi Rice later, I'd wager he'd take that sentiment back by now.
Here's the deal. We all know Bush appointed cronies and yes-men and yes-women to his staff. And we also know that Bush is not exactly the most hands-on manager in the world. The constant statements about trusting his men "on the ground" made the world wonder, "Who exactly is commander-in-chief, again?"
And we got to see his utter lack of emergency response awareness by not going to New Orleans pronto after Katrina, and when he finally got to the Gulf Coast, he declared that Brownie was doing a heckuva job.
And now, with the economy in shambles, Bush is nowhere to be seen, letting Paulson and gang run the show. It's all a pattern with Bush...let me be the Decider, but not actually decide anything and let my buddies actually run (or destroy) the government.
My theory is that the last eight years of this horrific management style have clouded a lot of our analysis of Obama's cabinet picks. Not to say they should not be examined and scrutinized. Of course they should. But they should be scruntinized with the overriding lens of the following Prime Directive that is really at the center of the new government:
Obama is the one in charge.
I mean, let's get real about it. The critique of Gates or Hillary has, at its core, a fear that those individuals will have undue influence over what actually gets done per their respective positions in government. And while that is a legitimate worry, it is worry framed by eight years of watching Bush let these folks in these positions essentially have free rein.
Now, take a look at the campaign Obama has waged to win the presidency. Is there any doubt who was in charge there? While the energy, time and money was bottom-up, the discipline and message was top-down. And that started with Obama.
No drama. That was Obama's mantra. No yes-men. Obama wants people to disagree with. No question where the buck stops. Obama is the one in charge. Just look at the fact he's holding press conferences now to get the ball rolling on the economy.
Seeing the way Obama manages, I don't think for a second he's going to tolerate anything that doesn't fit his vision of what needs to get done. While he'll listen to dissent, he'll give it right back to you if he thinks you are wrong.
How soon we forget. Let's review Obama's meeting with General David Petraeus earlier this year:
General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for "maximum flexibility" going forward.
Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
I don't know if there is a clearer example of "change" with respect to an Obama administration than the above quote. Bush wouldn't have said that at all.
And that's what we need to remember about Obama. We're not going to agree with everything he does or says, but we can be sure that the next four years will not be like the last eight in terms of management style. Just like Obama told Petraeus he has a certain "prism" he needs to view his advisers' counsel with, there is also a prism we need to look at any and all picks in Obama's administration.
Ultimately, Obama's got this.