Cabinet for Obama

[TheCoxwain]

I can now start fantasizing .. Here is my preliminary line up

POTUS : That One
VPOTUS: That Other One

Treasury Secretary: Warren Buffet ( I know it sounds cliched - But he is a smart Guy)

Federal Reserve Chairman: No Opinion ( I really dont know what they do other than change the Federal Reserve Rate)

Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates ( I think he is a good guy and will serve us well)

Secretary of State: Tom Friedman

Homeland Security : Functions moved to CIA ( including the intelligence conducted by Pentagon)

FEMA : Restored to Clintonian Glory

Health Secretary: Hillary Clinton

National Security Advisor : Wesley Clark


Update:

Attorney General: RFK Jr.

[BelleCarolinaPeridot]

1. I always thought about John Kerry for Secretary of State.

[TheCoxwain]

2. Yes Kerry would be an excellent choice ... But Tom Friedman is far more shrewd

[blm]

6. "Give it another 6 months" Friedman is shrewd? Did you determine that the FIRST time he said

"Give it another 6 months" or the fifth time he said "Give it another 6 months"?

[TheCoxwain]

12. I get your point ..But there are few people who understand GeoPolitics as well as he does

He has broad understanding of other issues including Energy and Economics that play an important role when it comes to leveraging the American Power

He is assertive and is not afraid to speak his mind to both the President and Others.

Kerry is knowledgeable - but is too soft in my opinion

[Overseas]

22. Tom Friedman lost all credibility by promoting the Iraq War

Kerry has a lot more depth and intelligence and experience in the real world.

Not the Bill Kristol Armchair Tough Guy crap and Country Club Creds Friedman goes for.

[politicasista]

32. He and Obama have the same temperment

Cool, calm, and knowledgeable. :) I like him as SOS or AG, or Chariman of the SFRC, but we shall see.

[blm]

50. Yeah right -SOFT Dems agree to protect BushInc. Tough Dems work to investigate their

illegal operations even when the powerful in their own party are against that effort.

You don't know much about your nation's ACTUAL history, do you? Clinton was a SOFT Dem who gave in to every need GHWBush and his BCCI thugs needed from him. That wasn't tough to do - it's what a SCARED and SELFISH politician would do - go ALONG with the powerful in hopes you have an easier time of it for yourself.

There isn't a lawmaker in DC who has stemmed the fascist tide of the last 35 years more than John Kerry has, and you think THAT was the actions of someone too soft?

You have a corpmedia skewed point of view, dontcha?

[politicasista]

56. LOL!

I notice how people ignore that part for some reason.

[karynnj]

65. Kerry is too soft compared to Tom Friedman? Are you crazy?

Kerry is a highly decorated war hero
Kerry stood up to Nixon (kind of speaking his mind then)
Kerry investigated the Contras
Kerry investigated BCCI, against the wishes of the entire power elite.

These show an assertiveness beyond someone sitting at the NYT and writing op-eds.

Kerry is on both the Finance committee and SFRC and it showed when the Finance committee had hearings on off shore money shelters - Kerry was the one who identified it as an international problem.

[politicasista]

68. I am sure they wouldn't say that to his face

:rofl:

[karynnj]

81. That's true - in fact he scared the young Republicans off in a near by town

In 2005, Kerry went to 5 towns in NJ to try to get volunteers and support for Jon Corzine. In this town, he was speaking outside in a patio of a restaurant with a big deep parking lot. This group of about 5 young Republicans were at the entrance to the parking lot as was an EMT ambulance in case it were needed. As it was, the scheduling was so tight that Kerry was about 45 minutes late.

One woman, a neighbor of mine, had gotten there very early and shortly before the time the event started, she started to feel dizzy and was taken to the EMT ambulance. She was upset that she was going to miss seeing the Senator, so she asked one of the EMT guys if he could get some pictures of the Senator, who was then standing listening to some local Democrats. One of the other joked that maybe he would bring the Senator back. Seeing her smile, he quickly told her that with a crowd of over 500, there was no way he would walk through the crowd. Just as he said that, the Senator walked in with the first man. They had a nice conversation and she got some pictures taken with him.

The next day, the local paper had the story - and in addition to a nice account of his speech and the fact that he went over to speak to this woman, they had a really cute story. It seems that as Kerry walked purposely through the crowd towards where the Young Republicans were, they thought he was coming towards them - and they ran like crazy out of the parking lot! Although he is a big guy, I suspect they thought he would debate them - and that would be scary.

More seriously what is needed in a Secretary of State is diplomatic ability. Kerry has represented the US as a Senator on the SFRC for 24 years and is extremely respected around the world. Friedman is well known and many people have read his books, but he has none of the experience Kerry has.

[politicasista]

86. Thanks for sharing that

I agree with your last paragraph. :patriot:

[wisteria]

101. I remember that story. Thanks for reminding me of a great story. n/t

[Joe Bacon]

46. NO NO NO NO TO Mr. "FU"

No!.No to such a bankrupt asshole as Tom "Six More Months" Friedman!

[karynnj]

58. No he isn't, part 1 - the earth is flat

(I think Kerry will stay in the Senate, especially given Kennedy's health. He likely will be the chair of the SFRC)

In 2005, Friedman came out with his the earth is flat book and spoke of no one speaking of those issues, but Kerry did as early as in this 1992 speech:

"Thus, Mr. President, it is a treadmill world for millions of Americans. They work hard, they spend less time with their families, but their incomes don't go up. The more their incomes stagnate, the more they work. The more they work, the more they leave the kids alone, and the more they need child care. The more they need child care, the more they need to work.
Why are we surprised at the statistics on the hours children spend in front of the television; about illiteracy rates; about teenage crime and pregnancy? All the adults are working and too many kids are raising themselves.
Of course, there is another story to be found in the numbers. Not everyone is suffering from a declining income. Those at the top of the income scale are seeing their incomes increase, and as a result income inequality in this Nation is growing dramatically. Overall, the 30 percent of our people at the top of the income scale have secured more and more, while the bottom 70 percent have been losing. The richest 1 percent saw their incomes grow 62 percent during the 1980's, capturing a full 53 percent of the total income growth among all families in the entire economy. This represents a dramatic reversal of what had been a post-war trend toward equality in this country. It also means that the less well-off in our society--the same Americans who lost out in the Reagan tax revolution--are the ones being hurt by changes in the economy.
You might say that we long ago left the world of Ward and June Clever. We have entered the world of Roseanne and Dan, and the yuppies from `L.A. Law' working downtown.
Many, many commentators have explained how the assumptions from that long-ago world will cripple us if we do not have the courage to look at today's economy with a clear eye.
Back then, we were the only economic superpower. American companies had virtually no competition and, since they produced almost entirely in the United States, their workers felt no particular threat from workers abroad. This was the era when `Made in Japan' meant something was cheap--not good, just cheap.
Throughout the 1950's and 1960's productivity was rising rapidly throughout the American economy, so that people could expect over time to work less, but earn more.
Back then, free trade for America meant more markets for America, not competition. We maintained the Bretton Woods rules, the GATT, and other treaty obligations not only to buttress the free world against communism, and not only out of the goodness of our hearts; we enforced a basic level of stability in the world because a stable world meant open markets for us, and we made the products people most wanted to buy.
Back then, large corporations and large unions set the pace for middle-class prosperity. Remember it was Henry Ford, no fan of unions, who created the mass production line to turn out cars cheaply--cheaply enough so that his own workers could buy them. When he finally capitulated to the United Auto Workers, he gave his workers the largest settlement of the Big Three.
In those days, Fortune 500 companies controlled well over 50 percent of our total economy, and employed three-quarters of our manufacturing work force. If the New Deal built the floor for personal security in America, the corporate economy put up the middle-class safety net, with pension plans and health insurance.
In those days, American families lived on one man's paycheck, from one job that lasted with one company for an entire lifetime.
If you were laid off, you were laid off for the duration, and you were called back when business picked up.
No more.
And two key words summarize the difference: globalization and technology. Each one feeds the other. Each one confronts American employers with a choice: Can I beat the competition by making a stand in America with my own workers, or must I beat the competition by going abroad? Will my workers join the ranks of the 70 percent falling behind, or will they join the ranks of the 30 percent--or fewer--who will get ahead?
The dynamics of this are familiar to anybody who works. Technology, particularly computer technology, makes it possible to move production anywhere in the world. Technology makes it possible for formerly large corporations to make do with drastically fewer people at home. Remember those bar-code readers.
Increasingly freer trade amongst nations means that competition comes from low-wage workers in developing countries, or from high-skilled, highly productive workers in the industrialized countries. The choice is a stark one: either a nation must secure more technology and become more productive or it must underbid all others for labor and other costs. Most countries understand that this is a choice they have to make.
I submit to you, Mr. President, that this is a choice which we are not making, and the consequence is that the choice is being made for us--toward low costs, leading to the unprecedented wave of downsizing underway in our economy.
Two weeks ago an American Management Association survey reported that nearly half of the companies polled had reduced their work forces in the last year. A quarter reported that they will do so again in the coming year, some for the second or third time in 5 years, and experience shows that the number of companies that eventually downsize is twice the number that predict they will.
Workers who are downsized in today's environment are not out for the duration. They are out for good, and their ability to climb back into the economy is utterly dependent on the match between their skills and the needs of the small and midsized companies which now represent the pivot point for American economic success. Central to this division is skills: those that have them win, those that do not have them lose.
Workers with high skills can reap the rewards of the new technology, which is higher productivity. Higher productivity is not only the basis of increased pay, it is the ticket of admission to world markets, hence to growth, hence to new jobs and higher pay.
Recently Princeton economist Alan Krueger showed that workers who used computers on the job earned a 10- to 15-percent higher wage rate than otherwise similar workers. On the basis of this study, Microsoft Corp., the software giant, ran advertisements in Time magazine and elsewhere declaring `we make it easier to get a 15-percent raise.'
On the other hand, there is a growing disadvantage to not being well educated and flexibly skilled. Workers with lower skills find that technology either eliminates their jobs or moves them overseas. It is this disadvantage that lower skilled
workers face in the new global, high-technology economy that explains why they are faring increasingly poorly in terms of wages and incomes. It is these lower-skilled workers who are having the rug pulled out from under them. And it is no wonder they are scared by NAFTA .
Now, I do not come to this issue as some latter-day luddite, ready to smash bar code scanners in the supermarket and wall off our borders from foreign imports.
I believe that the change we are witnessing--whether we like it or not--is inevitable. What is not inevitable is our passivity, and our inability to make change work for, instead of against, American workers.
In the past few months I have visited any number of companies in my home State of Massachusetts that have made technology work for them and their workers. Through aggressive R&D, advanced manufacturing technology, and continuous worker training and involvement, they have maintained and often increased manufacturing jobs in Massachusetts, a State where manufacturing is supposedly dead and buried. These include the Bose Corp., a major player in the Japanese hi-fi and automotive parts market, thanks to its constant innovation; and Modicon Corp., which brought jobs back from Asia when it radically upgraded technology and workplace organization. In my State, you simply cannot create new manufacturing jobs with a low-skill, low-wage strategy. You must go the high-technology, high-skill route, and you must export.
The question is, Are we going to learn from the Boses and the Modicons?
Other nations, notably Japan and Germany, have structured their entire economies around the goal of employing their citizens in well-paying jobs. This is the goal toward which government, industry, and individuals work together.
This happened in part because they were poor in natural resources and had small home markets. And so in order to become industrialized nations they were forced to export. At an early stage, therefore, international competition became their obsession. And economic considerations often dominated foreign and security policy. They were not afraid--in part as a result of cultural differences--of an economic model where big business and big government worked together to promote long-term job creation.
But in this country, Mr. President, we are still lacking a strategy that sends out an unmistakable signal to every American that the highest priority of the American Government and American industry is ensuring that Americans have the ability to get good
jobs--maybe not one job for their entire lives, but one or a series of jobs that will support their families for the entirety of their careers.
This strategy needs to address the insecurity that people feel for their economic future and in order to do so it must recognize the centrality of education and training--two priorities on which President Clinton rightly focused during the campaign.
In 1949, we spent 9 percent of our Federal budget on education. We now spend less than 3 percent. An estimated 83 million Americans have inadequate reading skills and the United States is the only major industrialized nation in the world with no formal system or structure to facilitate the school-to-work transition. Federal support for vocational education has declined approximately 30 percent in real dollars over the last decade. Meanwhile, such competitors as Germany spend dramatically more on training the best educated and now the highest-paid workers in the world. American students attend school for 180 days per year while Japanese children go to school for 243 days and German children for 240 days. This means that our children attend school for 25 percent less time each year than their future competitors.
This is unacceptable. There is no question that our priorities have become skewed. The space station will cost us $2 billion this year, while the Federal Government will spend only $630 million on primary and secondary education. Over 80 percent of prison inmates are dropouts, and they each cost us between $15,000 and $30,000 per year to incarcerate. This situation is totally unacceptable.
We should be prepared to use any mechanism necessary to find more money to invest in our one true asset--our people. We can find this money in pork-barrel projects; in entitlement programs; we can reexamine the issue of the gas tax--surely Americans would be willing to pay a few more pennies a gallon to educate our children for the global competition they will face. There are many other places we can look for the resources--if we are serious and committed to the objective.
We need to begin by quickly funneling more money into our education budget. I strongly support Senator Jefford's suggestion that we add money to education spending in increments of 1 percent of the Federal budget until it accounts for 10 percent in the year 2004. I also agree with Senator Simon and Senator Dodd that we must abandon property tax supported education which leads to inequities among school systems.
Next, we need to quickly put in place the School-to-Work Program on which the President and Senator Kennedy have been
working. And we must not be shy about fully funding these, either. This is no place to be penny wise and pound foolish.

[karynnj]

59. No he isn't - part 2 the environment

Friedman's current book is on how developing alternative fuels and more efficient technology could be the way to stimulate the economy. Kerry spoke of this continuously in 2004 and in the book he and Teresa wrote in 2007.

Friedman was WAY behind Kerry on this.

[karynnj]

60. No he isn't part 4 - non-state terrorism

Kerry's idea that were in his 1997 book were close to what he proposed in an article in 2001 and which he stated in 2004. Defense Secretary Gates' most recent Pentagon report backs Kerry's ideas to the point that the summary sounds as if Kerry ghost wrote it.

Friedman hasn't written a book on this yet.

[karynnj]

61. No he isn't part 5 - Iraq plan

The Iraq study group pretty much copied the idea's in Kerry's 2005 speech (The path forward) as their plan and the Democratic plan pretty much follows the Kerry/Feingold logic.

Friedman has been all over the map.

Part 6 - general view of the world - Kerry is far closer to Obama than Friedman

[politicasista]

87. Good links

That will help the lurkers or anyone reading this thread. :)

[9119495]

16. Bill Richardson...master negotiator.

Pragmatic, not bellicose.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

94. I think Bill R would be a great SOS

Smart, even-keeled, has experience to burn. A man who would command respect from friend and foe alike, just like his boss, BHO.

[jobycom]

108. That would be a spectacular pick. Experience, intelligence, and no ego. nt

[phleshdef]

3. Federal Reserve Chair - None, get rid of the fed

...one of the few things Ron Paul and I agree on

[EmeraldCityGrl]

7. Dittto

[alsame]

4. Attorney General = Jonathan Turley n/t

[bpcmxr]

8. Or RFK, Jr. ? n/t

[alsame]

13. Dupe

[TheCoxwain]

15. Agreed . Updating my Original post

[alsame]

14. DUPE

[alsame]

17. Ooh, yes, he'd be a great choice too! And it would be so poignant

to have him fill his father's position.

[Kalyke]

5. Wes Clark for Secretary of State

He's already got the Rolodex (or, in his case, the Blackberry listings)

[Larry in KC]

18. Seconded. Wes Clark for Secretary of State!

[Bucky]

36. Agreed. Clark wouldn't be as well suited for the Pentagon as for Dept of State

Clark is a doer, not a manager. One of the biggest problems with the Bushies is that they dump far far too many jobs overseas on the Pentagon.

[TheCoxwain]

38. I agree .. Pentagon needs serious clipping of wings .. Cheney has really indulged them

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

95. or Natl Security Adviser

I definitely see a place for Wes in an Obama administration.

[Lasher]

9. Secretary of Labor: Robert Reich

Federal reserve: Somebody who knows supply-side economics is a crock, and says so.

[snowbear]

120. Very good choice!

I would've stole your answer if I had seen it before making up a list.. LOL

Labor Secretary Robert Reich ~~~

[Lasher]

10. Secretary of Labor: Robert Reich

Federal Reserve: Somebody who's on record having said supply-side economics is a crock.

[gmudem]

75. Great point.

That should be a job requirement for any job in the Obama administration relating to economics.

[Aloha Spirit]

11. Peter. Orszag, CBO Executive Director, for Treasury.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

[Overseas]

19. Tom Friedman is a total corporatist. Cheap creep. NO NO NO.

We need someone with real foreign policy skills. Not a cutesy gimmicky columnist.

[Buck Rabbit]

47. Friedman for Ambassador to China.

But only if he is paid $9 for each 80 hour work week.

[TheCoxwain]

48. Jeez -- people really hate him in here .. but your post was funny!!

I like TF though ... I think he is smart & I read his columns regularly

[Sebastian Doyle]

20. My "dream team"

POTUS : That One
VPOTUS: That Other One

Treasury Secretary: Warren Buffet

Federal Reserve Chairman: Ron Paul. He thinks he can do better than the Federal Reserve. I don't see how he could do any worse. OK, I'm kidding. Sort of....

Secretary of Defense: Wes Clark. Yeah I know about the 10 year rule. Let's make an exception. After what the Bush/PNAC civilian leadership did to the Pentagon, can anybody honestly think a 4 star general would do WORSE??

Secretary of State: Bill Richardson

Homeland Security : Abolish the fascist shit and restore things to how they were before. In the 1990's we actually caught terrorists. Reichland security has produced NOTHING of value.

Health Secretary: Dennis Kucinich

National Security Advisor : Samantha Power

Secretary of the Interior : Al Gore (and if he doesn't want the job, take whomever he recommends)

EPA: Bobby Kennedy Jr.

Attorney General: John Edwards. Fuck the tabloid shit, he's the best man for the job.

[Bucky]

29. Edwards would be better at HHS dealing with healthcare issues

Yes, he got screwed by a personal flaw--the AG still has to be spotless.

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. We need an AG who will rip up the corporatocracy

Starting with the whore media. Edwards has already indicated willingness to do so, and I could also see him actually going after the Bush Crime Family for their many crimes. Edwards has his flaws, but we already KNOW about them, so it's not really something the right wing can use for leverage anymore.

If not Edwards, who would you suggest who would be likely to do these things?

Vince Bugliosi? He's obviously willing to go after the recent crimes of the Bush Crime Family, but the fact that he's so willing to accept the JFK coverup would take him off my short list.

[karynnj]

64. There are likely many people who

are currently state attorney Generals or Federal or State DAs. There is likely a standout among them. There are also many politicians who have actually fought corruption - something Edwards only spoke of. He was a trial lawyer, not a prosecutor. Though I doubt he would take it, Kerry actually has real credentials here.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

96. Turley for AG, Bugliosi for Special Prosecutor of the Bush Crime Family

Vince is great at setting heads on pikes, and dawg knows he'd have a big enough portfolio of assholes to prosecute.

[karynnj]

63. No Ron Paul or John Edwards

Ron Paul is as wrong as can be for treasury - he is an ideologue. As to Edwards, it is not his affair that I am thinking of, but the fact that he has never managed an organization or been a prosecutor. He led no investigations in the Senate. There are many people with more relevant experience and who have fought corruption.

[blue_onyx]

72. John Edwards would be a good choice

I just don't see it happening.

[jobycom]

109. Dump Samantha Power and John Edwards.

Power shoots from the hip too often to have a serious cabinet position. Calling Clinton a monster, telling the BBC Obama didn't really mean what he said about Iraq... she's got no sense. And Edwards--Fuck, I've never seen such an overrated puff piece of a politician. Let him fade into obscurity again, before his ego gets us in more trouble.

For NSA... What's Richard Holbrooke up to these days? For Attorney General, I'd prefer someone I've never heard of, with strong legal credentials and no political ambition. I'm tired of such an important office being used as a payoff for campaign support.

[jpljr77]

21. I hope we don't recognize most of the names on the Cabinet at first

It's time that real adult career people are put in charge, not pie-in-the-sky political appointees.

So rather than name names, here are some requirements:

Defense: someone that doesn't mind wielding a hatchet, budgetarily speaking

State: someone high-ranking in the department now, or formerly high-ranking, that has established connections within the global diplomatic community.

Attorney General: preferably, a current state AG with a strong record of going after financial malfeasance, since that isn't going away anytime soon. Obviously, Spitzer would have been perfect, but oh well.

Homeland Security: BOOOOOO

Education: a real education reformer, who can offer ideas other than "vouchers". Ayers, anyone :shrug: Just kidding.

Treasury: someone not connected to banks at the wallet. Not sure Warren qualifies here.

[Aloha Spirit]

28. For treasury, check out Orszag, Director of the Congressional Budget Office.

He's always really sharp when giving testimony for the Finance Committees.
Even has a blog on the CBO website...
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

"Peter R. Orszag began his term as the seventh Director of CBO on January 18, 2007. Under his leadership, the agency has significantly expanded its focus on areas such as health care and climate change.

Before joining CBO, Dr. Orszag was the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution. While at Brookings, he also served as Director of The Hamilton Project; Director of the Retirement Security Project; and Codirector of the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture with the Urban Institute.

In previous government service, Dr. Orszag served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Senior Economic Adviser at the National Economic Council during 1997 and 1998. Earlier, he served as a staff economist and then Senior Adviser and Senior Economist at the President's Council of Economic Advisers.

Dr. Orszag graduated summa cum laude in economics from Princeton University and obtained an M.Sc. and a Ph.D. in economics from the London School of Economics, which he attended as a Marshall scholar. He has coauthored or coedited a number of books, including Protecting the Homeland 2006/7 (2006), Aging Gracefully: Ideas to Improve Retirement Security in America (2006), Saving Social Security: A Balanced Approach (2004), and American Economic Policy in the 1990s (2002)."

[jpljr77]

35. Yeah, OK. Looks like the kind of person I'm talking about.

A high-ranking official already in the government that knows his subject area and is SMART.

Shouldn't be too hard to find these people.

[Aloha Spirit]

41. I know! I don't doubt that Obama will find talent-I just hope that talent is willing to take the job

[weezie1317]

23. Richardson needs a spot.

[alsame]

27. Sec of Energy? UN Ambassador? There will be a good

spot for him, I'm sure.

[cali]

24. Ack. I sure don't like your picks- and they're totally unrealistic.

No way will Hillary take a 2nd tier cabinet position. Friedman? NO.

[TheCoxwain]

26. It ok .. come up with your own .. all of us are equally unqualified to make pick .. but hey ..

go for it man..

[Bucky]

25. Gates wants to go back to Texas A&M. He's already said he won't continue

But moving Homeland Security functions to the CIA is illegal. They can't have any domestic operations.

[Bucky]

33. For Secretary of Defense, try Thomas P.M. Barnett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Barnett The man

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/ His weblog

[eissa]

30. My prediction

Secretary of State: Richard Holbrooke

NSA: Wesley Clark

Secretary of Defense: Max Cleland

Energy Department: Robert Kennedy Jr.

Treasury: Paul Krugman

[last1standing]

31. Mine is definitely different.

Treasury Secretary: Warren Buffet (ok, we agree here)
Sec of Defense: Wesley Clark
Sec of State: Bill Richardson
Homeland Security: Chris Dodd (Someone who will be more interested in protecting us than the government)
FEMA: Really don't know
Health Secretary: Howard Dean (He's going to be at a loose end and no one deserves a position in this administration more than him. Also, he's an actual medical expert)
NSA: Chuck Hagel (Obama has to show that he can reach across the aisle and it's good to have the guy who owns part of ES&S on your side)
Attorney General: John Edwards (I know he isn't the most popular Dem here lately, but he still supports the right causes and is a Damned effective lawyer)

First SCOTUS pick: Hillary Clinton (Hillary needs a position that will allow her complete autonomy to make decisions)
Second SCOTUS pick: Dennis Kucinich (It's time for a REAL progressive on the court)

[McPainsBrain]

34. Dennis Kucinich can't be on the Court!

He's not an attorney. Lol.

[jberryhill]

37. It's not a requirement

You do not need to be an attorney to sit on the Supreme Court. You need to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

[Bucky]

39. I've read the Constitution. There's nothing that says you have to be an attorney

IIRC, a couple of Scoti early in our history were not lawyers (altho this was before the emergence of the modern legal profession).

I'm not sure even a 60+ Democratic Senate could vote him in, however.

[last1standing]

42. As jberryhill said, it's not a requirement.

Also, I think it's time for some honest progressives to be appointed to the court in order to offset the current massive conservative tilt. Even of the so-called liberals (Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens) only Stevens could possibly be considered even remotely progressive. Souter, Breyer and Ginsberg were all appointed as moderates who could be pushed through Senates with a majority of hostile members.

[McPainsBrain]

45. I'll respond to all 3 responses at once.

Yes I'm aware that the U.S. Constitution does not require attorneys on the Supreme Court, but it hasn't happened in the past 150+ years. We discussed it in Con Law class during my first year of law school.

Don't get me wrong-I love Dennis. I think his views are a breath of fresh air. But he's not qualified to sit on the Court in this day and age. Hillary is definitely qualified.

And you're wrong about Ginsburg and Breyer. Breyer IS more moderate than Ginsburg, just a bit, but they are both reliably liberal members. I guarantee you they've voted for every Democrat for president since their confirmations, and will do so again this year. If you look at the Supreme Court decisions of the past 10 years, Breyer and Ginsburg (and Stevens and Souter) were on the right side of almost all of those 5-4 decisions.

Stevens and Souter were appointed by Republicans so ignore those two.

If you guys really want to nominate a progressive who stands a shot of getting confirmed by the Senate, how about Russ Feingold? He is respected by the Judiciary Committee ranking member Arlin Specter, and he has many friends in the Senate. Why even McCain is good friends with and would probably vote for him next year or the year after. McCain voted for Breyer and Ginsburg, after all.

Russ Feingold = best Supreme Court choice.

[last1standing]

49. Just because it hasn't happened in a while doesn't mean it can't, or shouldn't, happen.

I stand by my belief that Kucinich would make a very good justice. Nothing in your Constitutional Law class changes my opinion or the legality of it.

As for who is liberal and who isn't, we can look at it either as a relative matter (where you're right) or as a policy matter (in which I'm correct). Yes, Breyer and Ginsburg have been on the right side of most 5-4 decisions but that's not too tough when you consider that it takes four justices to vote for hearing a case. If there are not four who will support even hearing a case that could further progressive causes then we never even have a chance to see exactly how liberal these justices are. Combine this with the fact that the court has been packed with at least five conservative justices for the last 20 years and what chance do we have?

Once again, we need much more progressive justices on the court. I support Kucinich for one of those positions.

[harun]

62. RF or DK would be GREAT pix.

[taddles]

67. I agree with your choice...

though I would sorely hate seeing any real progressive taken out of the senate, we need him there now more than ever.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

98. Justice Stevens has been our best friend on the Court since Bill Brennan retired

He will go down as a near-great-to-great Justice.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

97. Cass Sunstein and Richard Fallon for first two SCOTUS seats

AFAIK, Cass is still at the U of Chicago and I know that Dick is still at Harvard. Had both of 'em in my time at HLS. Brilliant legal scholars who can write with great clarity and precision. Genuinely nice guys, too.

[tonycinla]

106. not really

It always amazes me that people do not consider a person's personality and/or current station in life when suggesting them for a position.WARREN Buffet one of the richest men in the world and a cancer survivor is obviously very happy being Warren Buffet everyday to accept the position.Hillary Clinton would not consider for a minute being on the Supreme court anytime in the near future.She is an active player in politics and still has dreams and plans on being a president.Look at the personalities of the people on the court,boring,Clinton will not be interested.She likes the game.Same for Dennis,he could not be himself and would DIE up there.Obama would NEVER pick Edwards for AG.

[last1standing]

114. Yes really.

This is a game we're playing, not some list we're working on to send to Obama. I have my choices and you can have yours. I won't be so presumptuous as to judge Buffet's, Clinton's or Kucinich's motives or to think I know their personalities better - or worse - than anyone else.

I would suggest you do the same and knock off the snide commentary when we're trying to have some fun.

[greyshade]

43. Shake up the Congress Too

Edwards as AG! Let's put the "Justice" back in the "Department of Justice."

I want Hillary as Senate Majority Leader, and Dennis Kucinich as Speaker of the House. I'm sick and tired of Harry Reid's lack of backbone and Pelosi's appeasement (impeachment "off the table," indeed).

[TheCoxwain]

44. I dont think Obama can appoint the Senate Majority Leader

Plus I dont think Hillary is looking to stay in the senate -- She is happy doing things .

[greyshade]

78. You're right, he can't appoint...but he can suggest.

I'm just frustrated with what I see as a lack of leadership in the Congressional Leadership.

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

105. HRC as Majority leader is something I'd like to see

She would not be in the business of caving to Repukes and would be in a very powerful position to help O advance his agenda. Plus, I think she deserves it.

[BurtWorm]

51. Homeland Security : Joe Lieberman

Play to his ego. Get him out of the Senate. Dump him in a year (unless by some miracle he doesn't suck). Or Ray Kelly or William Bratton, the current and former NYPD commissioner respectively.


Treasury Secretary: I wonder if Joseph Stiglitz would be interested in the job, or if it would suit him. Or would the following suit him better?

Federal Reserve Chairman: See above

Secretary of Defense: Wesley Clark

Secretary of State: Samantha Power

FEMA: Ellis M. Stanley, Sr.

Health Secretary: Would Hillary be interested?

National Security Advisor: Richard Clarke

Attorney General: I think Russ Feingold would be an excellent choice, but appointing him (so I've heard) would give the Repubs an opportunity to gain a seat in the Senate.

Dept. of Energy: Tom Allen, who's probably going to lose to Susan Collins in Maine. Or Angus King, for that matter, former governor of that state.

Dept. of Education: David Paterson (rescue him from having to rescue NY, if he wants to be). Or maybe Adrian Fenty, mayor of DC?

[TheCoxwain]

52. You cannot be Serious... Brace yourselves buddy

We will enough of a senate majority to relagate Liarman to the Senate Doghouse

[chiefofclarinet]

53. I have a suggestion of DHS

Have Lieberman appointed secretary, and after confirmation and his replacement has been appointed, abolish the department.
:evilgrin:

Connecticut will lose its least popular senator, and the acronym of DHS can go back to the Department of Health and Human Services, like it should be. That, and we can dismiss the myth of "Homeland Security" that Dubya started.

[BurtWorm]

54. Excellent!

:toast:

[gmudem]

76. Now there's an idea!

Homeland Security should be abolished or at the very least have it's name changed to something less fascist-sounding.

[Chan790]

93. Because CT's GOP shill governor will appoint a Republican to replace Lieberman.

We have no state law saying she can't. Trust me...LIEberman is better than anybody that M. Jodi Rell will appoint to his seat. If Chris Shays loses his race on Nov. 4, it'd probably be Shays. I've fought too hard to get the last GOP Congressperson in CT defeated to see us hand a Senate seat to the GOP.

[chiefofclarinet]

115. My bad...

I thought Connecticut, being a generally progressive state, would have a progressive governor to go with it. Oops...

Yeah, better to have Lieberman, who only acts like a Republican, than have a real Republican.

[Buck Rabbit]

82. I like it... but can him during the first meeting for not being

a team player.

[Xenotime]

55. Secretary of State: Hilary Clinton

Its the only logical choice

[Sebastian Doyle]

83. Hell no!

Not after that "obliterate Iran" bullshit.

[Lorien]

57. EPA: Al Gore

why is the environment so often forgotten?

[blue_onyx]

71. Yes, I agree.

Al gore needs a role in the Obama administration.

[JPZenger]

66. Won't be any Senator from a Purple State

One thing is likely - it is unlikely that anyone will be appointed to the Cabinet who is a current Senator from a Red or Purple state or that has a Republican Governor who would appoint a Repub. Those seats will be too important.

When the Dems gained the edge in the Senate a few years ago, Bush tried to get Lie-berman to take a cabinet position. It was an obvious attempt to steal control of the Senate. Lie-berman actually considered it, but then was convinced to say no.

[MadBadger]

69. I know I'm in the Minority, but Chuck Hagel for Sec Def.

[Phx_Dem]

73. I'm with you.

Sec. Def.: Hagel or Gates

Sec of State: Richardson

Ambassador to Siberia: Liberman (but only if he has to live in Siberia)

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

99. Hegel would be solid at Veterans' Affairs, but I'm partial to Tammy Duckworth

in that spot.

[blue_onyx]

70. I have a feeling Attorney General could be Jennifer Granholm

She seems to have a good relationship with the campaign (even though she endorsed Hillary. She did help Biden prepare for the debate by playing the Palin role. Our local news also reported she may be on the list for the Supreme Court. Personally, I would like her to stay here in Michigan for the rest of her term.

[Sebastian Doyle]

84. Not a good choice

She's a DLC'er. We need an AG who's not afraid to prosecute the criminals who were behind all the treason of the last 8 years.

[blue_onyx]

85. I disagree...She's a GREAT choice.

Personally, I'm skeptical that Obama or his administration will go after Bush and people who violated the law/Constitution. I do believe Granholm would uphold the Constitution and law (rather than ignore both like Bush/Alberto gonzales did). I'm very proud to have her as my Governor and she would make a great addition to the Obama administration.

[gmudem]

74. Tom Friedman?? As in Friedman Units??

God no. He's a columnist not a professional diplomat. I think John Kerry should be the Secretary of State. He is already somewhat known on the world state and clearly has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and policy.

For SecDef I think Hagel would be an interesting idea. He's retiring from the Senate and I think it's pretty clear he supports Obama even if he doesn't say it out loud. I know he is right-wing on a lot of stuff, but as SecDef that won't matter because he is right when it comes to the war in Iraq and opposing neo-con policy.

I doubt Hillary will be in the cabinet, she can probably do more in the Senate, especially with a large Dem majority and a Dem president.

RFK Jr. would be an excellent choice for AG, but I think it's highly unlikely. I think he has a bit of a history with drugs and Republicans would cause a shitstorm if he was nominated for that, but mostly because he actually cares about pollution and vote suppression.

Treasury Secretary I really don't know, but Buffett is unlikely. Perhaps Jon Corzine? Although he was a CEO of Goldman Sachs himself.

[progressivebydesign]

77. I refuse to "fantasize" or even THINK about an Obama victory.

Been burned too many times on Election Day.

We need to fantasize and WORK on making America a place where your votes actually get counted.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but once bitten.. well actually twice bitten.. forever shy.

[greyshade]

80. Absolutely. Dreams are just that without effort.

I'm just excited about Obama because I feel like we have a winner. But you are right. Everybody needs to be active - join a phone bank, become a poll worker or poll observer, etc., etc. I was a District-level Delegate for Obama and have worked and contributed more for him than anyone before.

[LynneSin]

79. I don't think Hillary wants a cabinet position - she has more power in the Senate

but that's just my two cents

[Beacool]

88. Hillary wouldn't leave the senate for that cabinet position.

Besides, her healthcare plan is the better one. That's why she was the one who won the endorsement of the AMA and the Nurse's Association. I do hope, though, that she has input in designing the plan that will be presented to Congress. Even though I think that for now the whole thing is a pipe dream. There's not enough money at the moment for new entitlements.

[snowbear]

117. Do you think she would....

.
.

.....Accept a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court?

[Beacool]

118. Hmmm, doubt it.

I think that she truly loves the senate and would only leave it for another run at the presidency (which I hope she tries again). Then again, who knows? I don't even know what I will be doing in another year. LOL!!!

[SoxFan]

89. That Cabinet

President: That one
Vice President: That one with the plugs
State: Her
Defense: Him
AG: That woman
Treasury: That banker
Agriculture: That hick
Interior: That guy in the cowboy hat
Commerce: That other woman
Transportation: That guy, the one who always wears that shirt

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Hell no to keeping Gates, not after his non-response to KBR negligence...

Jon Corzine might be a good Fed Chair or Treasury Secretary.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

91. A few come to mind

POTUS: Obama
VP Biden

Agriculture: Tom Vilsack
Defense: Chuck Hagel
Health: Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton
Labour: Robert Reich
State: Barbara Boxer
EPA Director: Al Gore
Ambassador to the UN: Lincoln Chafee

[midnight armadillo]

92. Tom Friedman? Are you out of your mind?

That half-wit must never be allowed near any government position. It's bad enough the NYT inexplicably lets him write op-ed pieces.

[Every Man A King]

100. Wow Tom Friedman?

Let me guess... he will get us out of Iraq in 6 months? :think:

[Dinger]

102. What About Me?

:sarcasm:

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

103. I suspect a few academics may appear particularly at high

subcabinet positions. O is supremely comfortable in both politics and academia. Whoever his appointees are, they will be the smartest Cabinet since that of JFK or FDR. O is NOT intimidated by people on his own intellectual level. After all, he married one.

[asdjrocky]

104. I agree with the first two, after that ya lost me.

Hillary as Health? Are you kidding me? Hell, I'd rather see someone of Hillary's abilities on the SC or as AG.

[liberalpragmatist]

107. Most of the cabinet will be people we've never heard of

Most cabinet appointees in the modern era include a few big names from Congress and the nation's governorships. But most positions are filled by loyalists, by academics and businesspersons, experts, or careerists in the relevant departments and state-level appointees.

A few names that are plausible (at least for the major departments):

State: Susan Rice, Anthony Lake, Anne Marie Slaughter, John Kerry, Dick Lugar (R), Chuck Hagel (R), and Bob Gates (R) if he wants to move out of Defense.

Defense: Again, Gates, if he wants to stay. Jack Reed of Connecticut is a top prospect, as is retired General Claudia Kennedy (though she might be in line for an appointment to the Joint Chiefs).

Attorney General: Jennifer Granholm, Dennis Archer, Patrick Fitzgerald, Kamala Harris and Janet Napolitano are all top prospects.

Treasury: Laura Tyson, Joe Stiglitz, Austin Goolsbee, Jon Corzine, or Roger Altman. Bob Kuttner in the American Prospect also profiles a couple top names that I've never heard of: Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Sheila Bair, a progressive, pro-regulation Republican who is head of the FDIC. (See: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=meet_the_next_treasury_secretary)

Homeland Security: Gary Hart, Richard Clarke, Jane Harman, or, again, possibly Gates.
Education: Paul Vallas
Health: Tom Daschle

[thatsrightimirish]

110. Secretary of State

I think Albright will come back

[jobycom]

111. I'm not big on political or superstar picks, though I want Kucinich in charge of Homeland Security.

First, why would Warren Buffet do it? Second, why would Hillary Clinton take such a small position when she's already senator? Maybe Secretary of State, but that's not really her strength. I think she stays as senator, unless Obama makes her a Supreme Court offer she can't refuse.

Treasury Secretary: I'd love to see James K Galbraith up there. If he doesn't have the practical experience for the role, then hire him as second to whomever does.

Fed--I dunno. Can't abolish it, but it's a rather technical job, and I wouldn't know who's qualified.

SoS--Bill Richardson.

Homeland Security--Dennis Kucinich. I'd love to see the HSA's ridiculously invasive powers turned against Bush and Cheney. :evilgrin: They are the biggest threat to homeland security this nation has ever faced.

FEMA--Someone who worked for FEMA under Gore's reconstruction, or under James Lee Witt. For that matter, see if Witt wants his old job.

Just some suggestions.

[jobycom]

113. Oh yeah, and add Jim Hightower as Secretary of Agriculture.

Not sure if he's be any good, but he'd be quite memorable.

[WallStreetNobody]

112. Jon Corzine

I think Jon Corzine, the Democratic Governor of NJ, former Senator, and former CEO of Goldman Sachs would make a good Treasury Secretary. I know some people may wince at the idea of another ex-Goldman guy at the helm but Corzine is extremely qualified and is very true to his party. We need someone who intimately understands the financial markets, particularly in this environment, and Corzine understands them much better than Paulson. Corzine spent his career as a star bond and commodities trader, Paulson was an investment banker.

[Beacool]

119. Ahhh yes, my neighbor.

Jon would be good for the job, but he's not exactly Mr. Popularity in NJ at the moment.

[snowbear]

116. I'd say...

.
.

Secretary of the Treasury- Austan Goolsbee

Secretary of Commerce- Susie Orman

Secretary of Defense- Either Chuck Hagel or William Cohen **UNTIL** May 2, 2010 at which time General Wesley Clark will take over!!!

Secretary of State- Jamie Rubin

National Security Advisor- Peter Bergen

Secretary of Homeland Security- Lieutenant General Russel L. Honoré

Secretary of Health & Human Services- Tom Daschle (*stated he was interested in this position)

Attorney General- Governor Ed Rendell (Seriously.. He has the experience!)

Secretary of the Interior- Governor Bill Richardson

Secretary of Agriculture- Governor Brian Schweitzer (if he won't take it, he advise President Obama on a good selection)

Secretary of Education- Lincoln Chafee

Secretary of Veterans Affairs- Tammy Duckworth / Assistant: Jon Soltz (founder of Vote Vets)

Secretary of Energy- TB Pickens.. LOL

Head of the FCC- Ned Lamont (Actually has a background in this area!)

Secretary of Labor- Governor Tim Kaine


Secretary of Housing and Urban Development- ??


Secretary of Transportation- ??