Many have been critical of President-elect Obama for choosing too many former members of the Clinton administration to serve in his own. Of course, those who are critical don't make any recommendations of which candidates might be better, more qualified and more experienced. But, hey, that's what being a critic is all about.

Let's take a look at the choices that Obama had available to him that meet the "better, qualified and experienced" qualifications.

In the past 16 years, we've had only two Presidents and two administrations. Clearly, the President-elect wasn't going to choose too many from the Bush administration--they didn't exactly distinguish themselves in almost any department or function you can think of. Many of the lesser cabinet secretaries were little more than political or financial supporters who were rewarded with a cabinet position. However, there were many candidates from the Clinton administration who met all the tests. During Clinton's eight years in the White House, the economy was strong and the world was generally safe. They were pretty good times for the country.

Prior to President Clinton was President Bush 41, of course, but he left the White House 16 years ago. Many of the more prominent members of that administration, like James Baker, Larry Eagleburger, Dick Thornburgh, Elizabeth Dole and Jack Kemp and the like are all well into their 70's. Oh, there is one younger guy who was Bush 41's Secretary of Defense, but I don't think he made Obama's list--Dick Cheney.

So I ask you, if you wanted a cabinet whose members are qualified and experienced and who could "hit the ground running" in these troubled times for our country, how many choices did Obama really have outside a large number who served in positions of responsibility during the Clinton years?

Yes, you could pick people who never served in senior government positions, and Obama has done that in a several cases (Senator Clinton for State, Geithner for Tresasury). He chose Gates for defense from the Bush administration. But others in his new administration who could be effective from the outset did serve under President Clinton.

So what's so terribly wrong with those choices? And what were the alternatives?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Many have been critical of President-elect Obama for choosing too many former members of the Clinton administration to serve in his own. Of course, those who are critical don't make any recommendations of which candidates might be better, more qualified and more experienced. But, hey, that's what being a critic is all about.

Let's take a look at the choices that Obama had available to him that meet the "better, qualified and experienced" qualifications.

In the past 16 years, we've had only two Presidents and two administrations. Clearly, the President-elect wasn't going to choose too many from the Bush administration--they didn't exactly distinguish themselves in almost any department or function you can think of. Many of the lesser cabinet secretaries were little more than political or financial supporters who were rewarded with a cabinet position. However, there were many candidates from the Clinton administration who met all the tests. During Clinton's eight years in the White House, the economy was strong and the world was generally safe. They were pretty good times for the country.

Prior to President Clinton was President Bush 41, of course, but he left the White House 16 years ago. Many of the more prominent members of that administration, like James Baker, Larry Eagleburger, Dick Thornburgh, Elizabeth Dole and Jack Kemp and the like are all well into their 70's. Oh, there is one younger guy who was Bush 41's Secretary of Defense, but I don't think he made Obama's list--Dick Cheney.

So I ask you, if you wanted a cabinet whose members are qualified and experienced and who could "hit the ground running" in these troubled times for our country, how many choices did Obama really have outside a large number who served in positions of responsibility during the Clinton years?

Yes, you could pick people who never served in senior government positions, and Obama has done that in a several cases (Senator Clinton for State, Geithner for Tresasury). He chose Gates for defense from the Bush administration. But others in his new administration who could be effective from the outset did serve under President Clinton.

So what's so terribly wrong with those choices? And what were the alternatives?

I have not heard anyone criticize his selections for the reason you cite. I started a thread awhile back and the purpose, while folks seem to think I was being critical, was to determine how those many supporters who posted on here about bringing in new blood to the process felt about the appointments. That was the purpose of my thread although I was called out for being critical but that is that....

The only one I question with any vigor right now...guess despite Emanual...is Geithner and my question is more of a wonder why no explanation on his involvement in Lehman and AIG and ONLY as an explanation as to his role with those two bailouts !

I am curious where you heard all the criticism however as I have heard "remarks" but no serious criticism

The good news is that it really is no different than any other time the Plum Book appointees have been swapped out. They come and they go, but the senior career employees remain to keep the engines running while training these new "leaders" on what the agencies really do and can do.

As most of the appointees have never run anything larger in staff than a basketball team, expecting them to be effective executives over operations with staffs of several dozen thousand to a couple hundred thousand employees stationed worldwide is really expecting miracles. They may get the press clippings, but its many others who really get the job done and make most of the policy and almost all of the day-to-day operational decisions.

So, when Sen. Clinton - whose largest managerial effort has been over a Senate staff of less than 50 - takes over the Department of State which has a staff of almost 150,000 and offices in almost every nation on the planet and has several highly technical and diverse subsets, what is the REAL expectation of her performance? Perhaps the most capable executive named so far is Gov, Napolitano, as she has acquired experience running a comparably sized operation encompassing many of the missions of DHS.

As has always been the case, the senior federal careerists will keep the new appointees from screwing up too much, just like every senior sergeant has had to do when the new second lieutenant who thinks s/he's Patton arrives on scene.

In other words - same game, different day.

Tim Geithner's "involvement" with the failed investment banks had to do with his responsibilities as President of the New York Fed. The New York Federal Reserve Bank is the only regional bank with a permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee and its president is traditionally selected as the Committee's vice chairman. The President of the New York Fed is generally considered as the most powerful of the Fed Bank CEO's and certainly the one with the most responsibility, given the bank's location in the "capital" of the U.S. financial system. One of his primary responsibilities is to serve as the Fed's "voice" to the New York financial community.

As president of the New York Fed -- one of 12 regional federal reserve banks that regulate banks and help set the nation's monetary policy -- Geithner has been the central bank's chief representative to Wall Street as it has disintegrated. In speeches during the years leading up to the current crisis, Geithner repeatedly raised concerns about frailties in the financial system -- pointing out, for example, weaknesses in the settlement and clearing systems by which financial transactions occur and the absence of regulatory oversight in the market for obscure financial products known as derivatives. In his role with the Fed, all he could do is speak out and recommend. It is the Congress which has primary responsibility for directing regulatory activities of the government.

I used to work with Geithner's predecessor at the New York Fed, Bill McDonough. Bill was a senior executive at The First National Bank of Chicago, the bank where I worked for 23 years. He was head of the New York Fed from 1993 until he retired and Geithner took over in 2003. While Geithner was involved with the financial crisis of 2008, McDonough was similarly involved in representing the Fed in the near failure of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), the huge hedge fund that nearly brought down the U.S. banking system in 1998.

While the LTCM failure wuld have brought down the banking system, it was a miniscule problem compared to the current crisis. McDonough is generally credited with "saving" the system by pressuring the heads of the ten largest banks in the country to piut together a credit facility over the weekend before LTCM was going to decalre bankruptcy that would permit LTCM to continue to operate as it was liquidated. The current problem was simply too large for Geithner to have any chance at similar success this time around.

So while some press reports have said that Geithner was "involved" in the failure of the investment banks, the takeover of others and the government takeover of Fannie and Freddie, they really didn't go far enough to explain to the public that his involvement was as the government's representative to Wall Street. I've never seen it written, but my guess is that it was Geithner's weekend negotiations that resulted in the Bank of America taking over WaMu and JPMorgan Chase taking over Bear Stearns and later Merrill Lynch, narrowly avoiding their failure. I'm certain he was similarly involved with a major voice in recommending to the Secretary of the Treasury and the President that the government had to take over Fannie, Freddie and AIG. He's a lot more than a stuffy bank chairman. He's been on the front lines of the current crisis, experience which will help him do a better job on his watch as Treasury Secretary.