Obama's Cabinet

Despite the election being over, the news still is heavily focusing on the now president-elect Barack Obama. The headline grabbers these days are his cabinet positions and what his philosophy will be for filling them and further, taking their advice. My hope is that he's really taken Abraham Lincoln's approach to building his cabinet by looking for diversity in opinions to form a stronger team - oft quoted these days after the fabulous book by Doris Kearns Goodwin - a Team of Rivals. Of course, the trick is that Barack has to have the fibre to not be overwhelmed and controlled by any of their viewpoints while simultaneously providing enough structure and compromise to allow progress on discussion of issues. I really need to read his autobiographies but from what I know of him, I'd bet on him over anyone else in the current landscape to lead such a group of people, which of course we'll need to get the world out of the mess GW has plunged us in. I'm glad the American people feel the same.

His first choice, about a week ago, was Rahm Emanuel for Chief of Staff. I'm not nearly educated enough of the political candidates beforehand to know who he is but from descriptions of his personality and his history of working in the House, I think he is an excellent choice to complement Barack. From his descriptions of being strong-willed, strong-headed and combative, Rahm seems like someone who will really keep Obama's intiatives on track within the government. Obama has the natural ability to listen; convince you he's listening; provide solid reasoning and persuade you towards his opinion - much like Abe Lincoln. On the other hand, Emanuel will be there to crack the whip to actually get things done expediently and if the plan to meet these objectives go awry.

Emanuel reminds me of the Secretary of War during Lincoln's presidency - Edwin Stanton. Remember that the American Civil War was raging, making this no enviable position during that time. Within Team of Rivals, Stanton has nerves of steel and never shows remorse for the hard choices he has to make yet until the door is closed: fighting back tears, he's overwhelmed by the resposbility of being steadfast in sending young men to their death. Now Rahm does not have the same responsibility but the juxtaposition of his and Obama's personality is incredibly similar to Lincoln and Stanton. In the latter case, Lincoln would often pardon men who had deserted and were scheduled for execution when their mothers or wives would come begging at the White House - where Lincoln would receive all who wished an audience; Stanton steely refused every single request. Hopefully, Emanuel will give Obama the same steely resolve often needed to persevere during tough times and luckily, we have Obama's wisdom to temper the Machiavellian view that naturally is required, something the soon-to-be past administration lacked sorely. 

Clandestine meetings between Clinton and Obama have many suspecting that she's being offered the Secretary of State (SoS) position within the cabinet, a job currently described as the US' head diplomat. The rumours are unsubstantiated less that they met alone for a few hours in Chicago. It's plausible and highly likely that there was cabinet discussion but let's run with the assumptions of SoS. All the pundits are claiming an even divide between those praising and decrying the idea from her 'advisors'. The argument against is that she gives up the powerbase of her NY Senate seat and loses the ability to champion her agenda on the floor. 

The argument is largely unfounded considering that she still has one of the more important roles within the cabinet, she would gain more foreign experience (maybe actually dodge snipers) while increasing her national coverage. Let's be honest here, Hillary Clinton does not need more exposure but she would need to stay relevant for the next eight years if she wants to go for another bid at the presidency. She's more likely to do that by representing part of the White House than she is being on the Senate floor. Furthermore, she could create more buzz on the Senate floor by sabotaging some of Obama's initiatives but that would be completely counterproductive since it sabotages the Democrats' efforts when they have the only responsibility as they control everything at present (save the Supreme Court). I wouldn't be surprised that she could easily be vilified or even scapegoated should that occur.

Now I'm no expert: I don't study political science outside of hobby; I don't read every detail of the process and the people; I could be incredibly naive about the situation but really, even those who do are often so blinded by their biases that they can't logically discuss any political problem. What it comes down to here is not whether or not it will be a good career move for Hillary. This should be considered an obligation to your country when you're the best person for the job and you're asked to perform it. It's selfish to consider how your career aspirations will pan out if it comes at the price of three hundred million others or more. It's selfish not to accept such a position when the US has come perilously close to running a draft. It is selfish and cynical to refuse given how challenging the times currently are if you're the best person to help everyone out of the situation. Politicians talk about service but the ultimate servants are those who sacrifice self for others. Those who practice altruism.

I believe that Hillary is better my veiled accusations. She is a public servant and I strongly support her efforts for universal healthcare. Her campaign failed because she  has a sense of entitlement leading to underestimate a young man from Illinois. Her campaign failed because she could not manage and lead a successful campaign machine. Her campaign failed because she sacrificed some of her beliefs in order to win, much like the once great John McCain. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone can learn from them, Hillary is no different. The question that should be asked is if she is the best for the position. Barack might think so and I give Hillary enough credit to figure out if she agrees.

Should Hillary decline, I hope Bill Richardson is next on the list. It's likely between him and Kerry and Bill is the better orator. Further, we still can't underestimate the impact race does have in this. Consider that Bill Richardson is Latino but, like Obama, has a North American cultural presentation (i.e. can come off as being white). While I'd strongly like to believe most foreign relations are no longer governed by race, it can have a positive effect. If not race, which I'll say is speculative, Bill Richardson could strongly improve relations with the large portion of the globe that speak Spanish. Grasping a bit a straws but it even rounds out Obama's international representation: Obama with african, asian and american/western roots; Biden (assuming he tries to emulate some of the power Cheney displayed) with grassroots american; Emanuel with Israeli; and then Richardson with South American. If Obama can find advisors from Pakistan and maybe Saudi Arabia, he'd be set. Yeah, yeah, it's pretty shallow but one can hope it might carry some symbolism even a fraction of Obama himself.

Fun times. Here's hoping for Lincoln 2.0 - with less assassination.