Michael Grunwald has an interesting piece in TIME this morning about Obama's cabinet picks and how they all underscore one thing - policy in this administration will be made in the White House, not the Cabinet. So are we making too much fuss about the composition of his Cabinet appointments?
Of course, that's not going to stop me from offering up reaction to the newest picks - Ken Salazar at Interior and Arne Duncan at Education.
And, some people think the shoe-throwing incident may actually be good for Bush. There are also some disturbing reports about the condition of Muntadar al-Zaidi.
I must admit, I've indulged in lots of talk about Obama's potential cabinet appointments and speculated on what his choices may mean for policy. That said, I thought Michael Grunwald makes a interesting point in this piece for TIME:
Judging by his appointments so far, the Cabinet will continue to be an irrelevant institution, while policy will still be made out of the White House.
I don't know if I would go so far as to call it an "irrelevant institution" but Grunwald does argue that Obama's most important - and telling - picks are those that will serve in the White House:
In fact, the most telling Obama appointments have been his best-known economic pick, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, his best-known environmental pick, former EPA head Carole Browner, and his new health care czar, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle — all of whom have lengthy Washington resumes, and all of whom will be working out of the White House. Daschle's dual titles are the most telling; he was actually nominated to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, but Obama gave him a West Wing job as well to indicate that unlike previous HHS secretaries, he's actually supposed to run health policy.
If you agree with Grunwald's point, does this mean we have been making too much fuss about the Cabinet? In a way, I think we have - me included - just because there is not much else to talk about during the transition. I guess I can see both sides of the argument - what do you think?
::::::
And yeah, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop talking about the Cabinet, so don't worry! Obama is set to announce Ken Salazar as his Secretary of the Interior and Arne Duncan as the Secretary of Education today. CQ Politics highlights reaction to Duncan:
Duncan, head of the Chicago school system since 2001, is generally well-regarded in the education community, and he has won praise for an emphasis on teacher quality and focus on graduation rates. Duncan favors keeping, but significantly revising, President Bush’s 2001 No Child Left Behind law (PL 107-110).
He won praise from Democrats for Education Reform, a New York-based political action committee, which endorsed Duncan for the post.
“Duncan has credibility with various factions in the education policy debate and would allow President Obama to avoid publicly choosing sides in that debate in his most high-profile education nomination,” the memo read.
TheWall Street Journal also highlights what they see as Duncan's appeal to both sides of the education debate.
::::::
Seyward Darby at The New Republic approves of the pick:
The choice is a solid move on Obama's part. It's a relief for the education reform camp, which sees the appointment of one of its own as a heartening sign of Obama's education priorities. But, while Duncan is a respected and aggressive change agent, he also appeals to the more traditional Democratic establishment and teachers' unions.
::::::
There seems to be considerably more reaction to the Interior pick... maybe because the speculation over that position was so intense? Katharine Mieszkowski highlights Salazar's ability to "ruffle feathers" on both sides of the aisle:
Salazar has been known to ruffle feathers on both sides of the aisle. He once memorably called James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family "the antichrist." After righteous outrage from religious conservatives ensued, he clarified his remarks dubbing Dobson merely "un-Christian."
Salazar ran afoul of members of his own party for not only supporting Bush's nomination of Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, but even introducing him at his confirmation hearing. He later called on Gonzalez to resign following the firings of U.S. attorneys for political reasons.
Salazar once said of the Democratic party's leaders: "I hope they heed the fact that we in the West have been able to get the Democratic Party back in the saddle, and that's by being moderate pragmatists that don't see Republicans as devils."
The Denver Post editorial board calls it a wise choice.
Well, in my humble opinion, Grijalva - a very reliable progressive - would have been a FAR better choice.
::::::
There is also lots of media coverage surrounding Caroline Kennedy's confirmation that she wants to pursue the Senate seat. Chris Cillizza reports on the behind-the-scenes drama:
Paterson has been reluctant to tip his hand, but the weeks since Kennedy's emergence as a possible candidate have been punctuated by a behind-the-scenes battle between her backers and Clinton allies.
The Clintonites have made it clear that they remain unhappy that Kennedy endorsed Obama during the Democratic primaries and have voiced concern that Clinton's Senate seat would be handed off to a New Yorker who did not support her presidential bid.
I really don't think election endorsements should make one iota of difference in who deserves the seat. Clinton doesn't "own" the seat, just like Obama doesn't "own" his. The New York Times also reports that Kennedy has emerged as a clear front-runner and she plans to visit upstate New York soon.
::::::
Kevin Drum from Mother Jones joins with other prominent bloggers in opposing Kennedy's appointment:
For what it's worth, I'd like to join the almost unanimous blogosphere consensus that Paterson should choose someone else. Rich and famous people already have a huge leg up when it comes to winning political office, but at least they still have to run and win. Appointing them instead so they can avoid the whole messy business of engaging in a campaign is just a little too Habsburgian for my taste.
The Economist thinks Paterson should appoint a placeholder until 2010 so Kennedy can compete for the seat in an election. On the other side, M.J. Rosenberg hopes Paterson appoints Kennedy and argues that she has the "instant clout and credibility" to replace Hillary Clinton:
Same with Caroline who also, like Hillary, brings the aura of future President or Vice President. Who else in New York politics can match that?
::::::
Note to the RNC - you might want to take John McCain's advice:
More than three-quarters of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the presidential transition, up significantly from three weeks ago, and a slim majority in the new poll said the president-elect has already done enough to explain any connections his staff may have had with Blagojevich.
::::::
John Dickerson at Slate thinks the "shoe-icide attack" may be the best thing that has happened to Bush in a long while and may help revitalize his reputation in the United States:
At the very least, I suspect a spark of patriotism will kick in when some Americans watch the tape or see al-Zaidi heralded in the streets as a hero. Hey, you can't throw shoes at our president, they might say. Only we can throw shoes at our president. This may test Nixon's theory that presidents benefit from rough treatment by journalists.
Yeah... not so much. My hunch is most Americans felt embarrassment for what a dolt they elected to the presidency (twice!) rather than a sense of patriotic pride that Bush is the butt of jokes told around the world. Dickerson argues that Americans will "marvel" at how calm Bush was and how he laughed off the incident. While I did praise his reflexes, I think this whole incident only underscores the failures of the Bush presidency, and does not encourage a new of patriotic pride in our President. (Say that three times fast!)
::::::
The Tulsa World (OK) editorial board thinks the incident sends a clear signal about Bush's legacy:
The war in Iraq has left Bush with an awful legacy. He ignored the warnings and pleadings of long-held allies and invaded Iraq to destroy what he claimed was a stash of weapons of mass destruction. No WMDs have been found. Nevertheless, the U.S. continues, almost on its own, to occupy Iraq. As of Monday 4,209 U.S. soldiers have been killed and thousands wounded.
The shoe-throwing incident seems to sum up what most Iraqis think about the occupation. It was time to go long ago. It shouldn't have taken a hurled shoe or two to make that clear to the president.
::::::
Finally, some foreign news outlets are reporting that Muntadar al-Zaidi has suffered numerous injuries, according to his brother:
The Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has a broken arm and ribs after being struck by Iraqi security agents, his brother told AFP on Tuesday.
Durgham Zaidi was unable to say whether his brother Muntazer had sustained the injuries while being overpowered during Sunday's protest against Bush's visit or while in custody later.
::::::
What's on your mind?