Continuing in his quest to assemble a so-called "team of rivals," President-elect Barack Obama today announced that he would name Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston to key Cabinet positions.
The two actresses, who have been perennial tabloid fodder as a result of their longstanding feud over actor Brad Pitt, were surprise choices for Mr. Obama's Cabinet, since neither of them has been a government official or even portrayed one in a movie.
But in his weekly Internet address, the President-elect explained his rationale for choosing the sworn enemies to his Cabinet: "I chose Jennifer and Angelina for the same reason I have chosen every other Cabinet member: they clearly despise each other with a passion."
While Mr. Obama was vague about which Cabinet positions the two actresses would ultimately hold, insiders said that Ms. Jolie was a shoo-in for Secretary of Labor.
Doris Kearns Goodwin, historian, Colby College grad (my class of 65) and author of the book Team of Rivals, said that she was "thrilled" by the selection of the two actresses to Mr. Obama's Cabinet.
"Every time someone says 'team of rivals,' I sell another book on Amazon," she said. "Team of rivals, team of rivals, team of rivals."
74 comments:
How about Sarah Palin as Secretary of Animal Extinction?
lol
The main reason why I'm opposed to having this sort of star-struck approach to cabinet appointments (HIllary Clinton for SoS! Colin Powell for SoD! Romney for SoC!) is that these people are larger than life.
The position would become all about them and not about the issues. What Obama needs are experienced, hard-working people who are not necessarily taking these positions to satisfy their over-sized egos.
I think McCain for Homeland Security and Hagel for Defense to take over from Gates. Discussion? anyone?
Hagel I like, leave mccain in the senate!
McCain hasn't done diddely on his Indian Affairs Committee; why would he do more on Homeland Security?
Joe the plumber as Head of Education Dept
I'm a liberal, and I'd like to see Chuck Hagel doing something in the administration, he's a thoughtful, no nonsense, moderate Republican. He satisfies the "team of rivals" scenario, without being a far right wing nutter. Disagreement in government is fine, undermining its credibility is not.
I would put John McCain in charge of Veteran's Affairs. He's certainly qualified, and he really is a fighter (albeit not too bright), but with the policy decisions removed from his grasp and allowed to use his influence and contacts for good (veterans) instead of for evil (endless war) I think he'd do a great job.
Why would you put McCain in charge of Veterans' Affairs? He has an abysmal rating from veterans' groups. The guy hasn't looked out for his own.
McCain is no longer a rival. No need to put him anywhere the administration.
Well, although I do not like McCain at all Obama must see some value in him. It would be a way of bringing people together which I think is high on Obama's list.
McCain's voting record shows he is no friend of veterans, or of active duty military. He has turned his back on them.
How about a "new government" made up of new faces, instead of dinosaurs from the past? Wasn't Bush's team made up of rejects from the Reagan era? Obama may be the only new face in his entire cabinet. The American political oligarchy is still firmly entrenched.
But you can't expect a newbie to have the necessary experience and understanding to handle these kind of serious positions. I have no doubt that Obama will chose the most qualified people for these jobs.
If Obama picked all new faces, he would be criticized for choosing 'inexperienced' candidates.
If he picks people who have experience, he is criticized for picking Clinton retreads.
The right is going to criticize him no matter what. All I care about is having good, SMART, dedicated people who are more concerned with doing what is right for the country and the American people, while keeping faith with the progressives that got him into office.
We cant have completely new people in government because we are stuck in two wars and a really really bad economy.
You have to pick the best of the best.
So many people are whining about people from the past being appointed. How, uh, do you get White House experience coming in if you don't appoint people who have been there?
Bill Clinton strongly said that was a huge mistake he made - going into office with too many people who did not have past White House experience.
There is no advancement possible if everyone is an old-timer, I think that Bill Richardson or John Kerry would be a much better choice for this post and Romney is too much of a snake-oil dealer to trust with anything. I would be fine with Hagel or Lugar, they seem to be normal, I guess.
I think that the fact that we will, once again, have a SMART person in the White House, his choices should be done well.
i'm glad to see you at least put "rivals" in quotes, doc. centrist right or centrist left, doesn't matter. the same bunch passed the patriot act, military commissions act, funded illegal wars, fisa and the bailout.
rivals would be kaptur, kucinich, paul and mccotter.
If you're going to reject everything by anyone who voted for the Patriot Act, ect., you're not going to have many people.
Learn to work with your available resources. This isn't a perfect world. We have the people we have. Take the best. Who cares who or what they supported in the past?
lincoln chaffee from rhode island might not be a bad choice for something good.
The key to the success of the "team of rivals" strategy is not hiring your enemy, it's choosing the best person for the job, regardless of that person's affiliations or past hostility to you.
Hiring people on the basis of their historical antipathy is about as bright as hiring people out of your high school yearbook, but instead of giving you an administration of amiable incompetents, you get one with superficially qualified backstabbers dedicated to your demise.
This is interesting. If you have McCain and Clinton and Lieberman on your team which way will people like Sean Hannity point their fingers? It's a "no excuses" administration...
I can see Hillary taking the SOS post, and she would be great at it. When her time with that is done, she could run for office again - NY Governor, NYC Mayor?
Giuliani, No way. Romney, I can see that. McCain for Veteran's affairs?? Has anyone looked at his record on Vet issues? Thanks, but no thanks to that bridge to no where.
McCain for Veteran's affairs?
It would certainly put him on the spot though. Put up or shut, Mr. Maverick.
No, Powell for Veteran's Affairs He need to look Max Cleland in the eye and explain himself.
McCain and Lieberman can stay in the Senate - they will be mostly harmless there.
Mitt Romney might be good in some Sec. of Commerce position.
Ask Governor S. in California if he wants to be ambassador to Austria - and let's see if some Democrat can capture the governorship there...
Cheney or Rove?
Aarrgghh! No no no no!
Team of rivals, not team of assasinators
What are the requirements for the position? What are the prerequisites for a position in Obama's administration?
I've got an idea. How about if Obama picks only those people whose life-long service has been, without conflict, to the people of the U.S. How about if he picks people who have stood with integrity and refused to accept money from foreign countries or their front-groups in the U.S., choosing instead to remain without conflict on the side of the working people of the U.S.? How about if Obama simply chooses people who did not trash him, did not resort to hate-mongering and deceit during this campaign?
What on earth is going on here? I can probably think of 10 people quickly who would be better qualified for the job including John Kerry and Bill Richardson. So why Hillary? Why pick someone who is so in the pocket of Israel, so pro-war, so much a supporter of the aggression against Iran, wants to obliterate Iran, supported torture? Who is really making these decisions? Rahm Emanuel?
I've got a great idea for the Obama administration. Pass a law making it illegal for any politician or candidate to accept money from any group that is "supporting or advocating" for a foreign country. How about that? Let's have the U.S. back in control of Americans. Just to start.
Why doesn't he pick some philosophical rivals? People that aren't just the Coke to his Pepsi? Someone like Ron Paul or an Objectivist? Picking Republicans isn't exactly choosing black against white; unless you mean that the chess pieces look exactly the same and are slightly different colors. http://mediacondom.com
Or Kucinich?
I have a better idea: how about Obama makes competence the primary criterion? I want to see well-qualified people, not people that some of us assume are qualified simply because they've reached high office. In this approach, for example, "First Lady Laura Bush" would never be mentioned as a possibility for "Education Secretary"
It would be a "no sense" administration. Romney played a demagogue in primary season.
Hegel, Lugar, oh, but give me a break on McCain, et al. These are abhorances, not post-partisan intellectuals. They are diseases, you only introduce diseases into your body as innoculation, not to become infected.
Don't misunderstand Lincoln's "team of rivals" approach.
He only appointed members of his own party to the Cabinet; he appointed no one from the opposing party.
The fact someone meets with someone else like Obama did with Bush and McCain does not mean, in any way, that he subscribes to their views. Obama has said since he started his campaign he would talk to those with whom he disagrees. If he didn't meet with such, he would have been lying to the American people.
You are correct! But there's also another good reason to talk to one's enemy: your enemy might have a good idea that you or your friends might not have thought of, and by implementing such an idea not only could that benefit you but it could open the door to a rapprochement as well. Besides, talking to your enemy is basically the only way a win-win arrangement can be reached. Talking to McCain, for example, makes sense because now that McCain's ambition of becoming president is out the window McCain's last chance at pushing some of his ideas through the Senate might be by convincing the president or rallying behind him. Another perfect example of why talking to your enemy makes sense is the situation with Iran: Germany is in the process of decommissioning all of its nuclear power plants, and the reason for that is solar power is now more affordable and accessible than ever before. It takes ten years to build a new nuclear power plant. While being built, a nuclear power plant produces no electricity whatsoever.
paragraphs? please? easier on the eyes and brain, thanks
We need to stop speculating about Obama's every move, and line of thought. A pundit on Hardball today said that Obama was always two steps ahead of his political rivals, so what makes the media, and the general public, think that they can decipher his motives, and decision making process? Remember his meeting with Hillary Clinton? After the primary, the media was camped out in front of Hillary Clinton's house all evening, only to find out later that Clinton & Obama were at Diane Feinstein's house the whole time?
One thing for certain, if we want to even begin to understand his modus operandi, we must first understand that all of the codified political models of the past were made instantly archaic the moment he decided to run for president.
Personally, I think the news media would better serve the public, doing this lame duck session, if they spent more time doing expose's concerning the more insidious aspects of Neo-Consevative ideology, and its present impact on the economy, rather than lifestyles of the incarcerated, or regurgitating the Jonestown tragedy without placing it into the bigger question of religious fundamentalism. But the media isn't interested in solutions to sensitive questions, but only in the viewership that these open ended questions can sustain. Otherwise, the media will be like those tracking hounds in the movie "Cool Hand Luke" !
i'm paraphrasing advice (from the Art of War?) it sounds like he is following "keep your friends close and your enemies even closer"
I like, "Lie down with dogs; get up with fleas." Hope that works for you, too.
I think Obama should reach out and appoint Joe the plumber as Secretary of Leak Stoppage in his new administration. It would be Joe's job to anticipate a leak before it gets to the press, and wrap some teflon tape around the mouth of the "leaker."
Sarah Palin could be our next Secretary of Steaks. Moose steaks to be more specific. I can't imagine anyone more qualified to take on the coming moose-overpopulation-due-to-too-few-wolf-predators-because-of-helicopter-shootings-crisis, than our dear Sarah. Seal sauce anyone?
The "Team of Rivals" approach could be overplayed because Obama doesn't want to spend too much time debating Cabinet members who may seek to undermine him. Obama is fair minded, mature and magnanimous, but those qualities can't be allowed to work to his detriment.
This is great fun, to bandy about the idea of Obama's team of rivals. Clinton and Richardson are great additions no matter how you slice it -- although I have just warmed to the possibility of Clinton at State - where I thought for Richardson was best.
I had originally thought of Clinton at Justice. (Wouldn't that be sweet after what Justice did to her and her husband... not that that is a reason to make an appointment).
Clinton at State also complicates my idea for bringing in a high level Republican - Lugar or Hagel -- at State.
But then, I also thought that leaving Gates or bringing in Hagel at Defense would show a new politics.
THe idea of two TOP cabinet positions going to the opposition (not the insult of Transportation - Bush) would show his commitment.
This commitment does NOT have to extend to the worst edges of the campaign or the opposition - Guliani (my own ex mayor) is least deserving after his sneering attitude during the race (the part that is truly despicable - and "character -free" is that he WAS a liberal Republican for years).
The problem with McCain is that his only long-held positions on important issues (the war, regulation, the economy, even campaign finance for that matter) are diametrically opposed to Obama (with Obama being IMHO right).
I can't even contemplate Leiberman, who I think would have to be put in at least the fourth circle of Dante's hell for his behavior in the last election...
Why would Hillary want to be Secretary of State?
Well, maybe Barack Obama will free her to try a new approach to solving the Israel-Palestine problem by engaging all of the parties in the area (friends and foes alike), and starting early while Obama's global political capital is at a high point.
Bush waited until his sixth year to try, and there has never been any realistic hope.
Peace in the Middle East, now, that would be a legacy to hang one's hat on...
Not likely to happen with the current cast of characters being assembled, especially with Mrs. Clinton at the helm of the State Department.
To get a peace deal there would have to be a much more sympathetic approach to the plight of the Palestinians and tough pressure on Israel to abandon its settlements in the West Bank.
If Bibi Netanyahu becomes Prime Minister you can forget about. He'll roll right over the Obama administration.
Assuming that Obama possessed the strength of character, I see no reason why his cabinet should not be composed of the best available talent, be they Democrat or Republican.
Irrespective of their values?
The issue is not whether Obama appoints male or female, democrat or republican, liberal, conservative or centrist.It is not whether he reaches across campaigns or the aisle to tap adversaries for positions in his administration.
It is whether he appoints and implements with the meaningful change this country so terribly needs. Regarding these appointments, there should be this litmus test - whether the appointee has the capacity and genuine desire to change our government, from its current role as shill for big business to an enlightened and positive force that would serve corporations just as well, if not better, but whose primary interest is in the American people. The latter element, of course, is missing in our government, today.
It is not solely whether HRC is capable of being a superb Secretary of State, for it is clear that she is. The real question is whether Obama will fulfill his promise to genuinely pursue the kind of change he professes to want, and whether HRC, or any other appointee, can and will help him in that endeavor.
How Far Will Obama Take 'Team of Rivals' Approach? ... Hillary? McCain? Romney? Lieberman?
I hope 'none of the above'.
If Obama places people of all of the same stature - ages (late +50s), relatively similar career experiences in the Democratic and Republican parties and/or government, personal financial situation and expects them to produce results for himself and the country, then he - and we - will be sorely disappointed. They will all be looking to 2012 for their next opportunity, writing a tell-all book, and getting ahead.
He also doesn't need to go out of his way to put the opposite party in any cabinet or agency roles: the only ones from the Republicans that will make themselves available to cross party lines are NOT necessarily the best people, and they will leak information via their RIMS to their buddies on the Washington cocktail circuit and their task-masters at the RNC.
Obama would be wise to remember who really got him elected from being a first term senator, and if he Triangulates too much thinking he can pull in the Right, he will betray an opportunity to really change; and leave himself as a 1 term president.
Even if Obama were deeply influenced by Lincoln's experience, it would be virtually impossible to replicate how Lincoln's cabinet worked - everything is different. It's just nonsense. Neil Young in another blog, talking about the Detroit car companies, said, "We need forward looking people who are not restricted by the existing culture in Detroit." And the same is true of Washington. If we expect to have any meaningful change, "We need forward looking people who are not restricted by the existing culture in Washington." So far, that doesn't seem to be what we are getting. I realize there are many capable people who served with President Clinton, but a Clintonite restoration is not what we need. Unfortunately, as Naomi Klein said in a recent article, "just days after a euphoric victory for "change," the mantra abruptly shifted to "smooth transition" and "continuity." Continuity with the existing culture in Washington will hobble Obama's administration from day 1.
There is a benefit to winning, it is called winning. I understand the team of rivals but give me a break, we've been in the wilderness for 8 years. I'm interested in GOP ideas, just like I'm interested in everyone's ideas, but there are intangibles that go with these cabinet posts and the Dems need to take control of each branch of government. The GOP politicized state, DOJ, everything. We have to get dems in to bring the places back into balance. This isn't a campaign were everything can flow from one place or one person. The moving parts of a functioning government involve tens of thousands of people. Dems, who share a baseline philosophical stance need to be in charge. That doesn't mean yes men, and that doesn't mean we don't listen to go ideas but we've had 8 years of GOP leadership in every element of public policy. We've had enough. Elections have consequences.
Our new President has more on his plate than most of us can begin to fathom.
It will be a long hard climb to bring the country out of eight-year hole we have been
dug in to. ...I think he can do this, or at least make significant progress and create the momentum that gets us up and out of the hole.
He is young and has the potential to use this to his advantage. New ways of thinking and new ways of looking at problems. Creative problem solving and working with
people of varying viewpoints are what we desperately need.
Some may disagree with the "Team of Rivals" approach but it opens the door to debate within the Cabinet. When all points of view are allowed a place at the table, then all Americans are represented at that table.
This, in my opinion, is one of President-Elect Obama's greatest strengths- he is not afraid to hear all sides of a problem and
all ideas regarding the solution. After having ALL of the information and ALL of the viewpoints, he will do his best to make intelligent decisions for the country.
I doubt he'll use his Presidency as a political prize giving him carte blanche to force an agenda on the country that 46% of the population doesn't agree with. He's far more likely to work a middle of the road approach - making sound decisions while also
working to bring a broad consensus and unity to the country.
If you haven't read doris kearns goodwin's "team of rivals" it's likely you DON'T understand the philosophy, wisdom and style of governance of lincoln....it was ALWAYS about WE, THE PEOPLE...what was best for the country and he WANTED to hear the dissent from his rivals in order to put it in the mix and use it to come to a decision....whether he agreed with them or not....it's a philosophy and style of governance that will ALWAYS work in our system irregardless of the year in our evolution as a democracy (EXACTLY what our founding fathers envisioned and hoped for)....think about it....governing to ALL of us, not the "chosen" 1%....
Obama is already showing himself as a true leader. Our country is in a major disaster, heading for a bad depression and only with everyone working in one direction will we survive. President Obama is the leader we need and his ability to work for the benefit of his country not just his party is what we need!!!
So far he has done everything he promised he would do, and he isn't even in office yet. Gawd....it's SO wonderful to have a President we can be proud of again!!! Thanks, America.
The more people he can get on board the better.... Perhaps, and I could still be dreaming, people in the government will put aside their petty partisan differences and work together to fix the disaster Mr 43 got us into....
I don't understand why Obama would consider working with McCain. McCain proved , when he "suspended his campaign" and rushed back to Washington, that he had no influence with his own party. I think it would be wise for Obama to involve someone who has some stature with the repubs in Congress.
it doesn't matter whether this is a team of rivals or a team of allies, as long as these are the best minds and hardest working people he can find.
Agreed... the brightest and the best are what we need now....
Obama isn't choosing the people I want him to choose.
I am therefore rescinding my vote and support until he does what I want.
So there.
I detect an overtly facetious tone there, adlib. lol
I believe George Washington set the precedent of including rivals in the presidential cabinet.
Kept him from having 'yes' men, kept him apprised of many diverse opinions, helped make Washington AND Lincoln the great presidents that they were.
We need all of the players at the table. Capitalism is economic natural selection. We humans tinker with the fundamentals of natural selection - when it is cold, we build shelters. . ................
Capitalism has as much to do with economic natural selection as slavery had to do with career selection. The one with the biggest club does the selecting.
I'm trying to imagine President Bush letting a rival anywhere near him.
Nah. Never happen.
All the chattering about how Obama would be brilliant if he creates a "team of rivals" overlooks the differences between 1860 and 2008. First, in 1860, the political class (Governors, Senators, nationally experienced politicians) from whom Lincoln could draw appointees was far smaller than today -- and half of it had just seceded to form the confederacy. Lincoln would have been foolish to overlook his rivals if they were talented, as was the case with Seward. Second, the U.S. was plunging into a nation-rending internal conflict of unknown duration: Lincoln had to show that he was uniting diverse points of view within the remaining Union, if he expected to prevail. Today our problems are severe but they are not similarly existential. In addition, political rivals are politicians, usually without specific expertise. Today the complexity of financial, industrial, environmental and international-security challenges require vast knowledge that elected politicians don't have time to acquire. The Cabinet should have that knowledge inside the meeting room, not sitting in offices back in the departments.
President Obama,
Where does Sarah go?
How can we use little Miss "I'm like OK God..."?
secretary to larry flint
Or a body double in " NAILIN PALIN 2".
Moose Pooper Scooper Patrol.........
Secretary of Winking
Ambassador to Dirkadirkastan
At times like this I hearken back to one of LBJ's pearls of political wisdom. He wasn't exactly one of my favorite Presidents and I don't know if he originated the saying, but it went something like this:
Responding to questions about the appointment of one of his political foes to some key position, he said
"I'd rather have the SOB inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
Post a Comment