Time to put this thing to bed...Obama, name a cabinet...now!

Obama could get this thing back on a serious track by naming a cabinet to include a Veep candidate.

It is time to address;

Environment
Healthcare
Iraq
Foreign Policy
Justice
Economy

Then roll out the people who are going to be at the helm of each initiative.

Lets hear from all of you.

Who runs what? Will this strategy work? Could it help us re-legitimize this primary and take the idiotic narrative away from the pundits and Ferraro type surrogates?

•  I never understood

  why they didn't do this...in parliamentary systems, there is always a shadow cabinet.

  by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:53:40 PM PDT

  •  Exactly......

    I always thought it would add a lot of transparency to a campaign.

    Imagine if we knew all the maniacs Bush would have appointed. Then we could have run against them too.

    Not that it helped in the 2nd election when President CooCoobird was a known quantity.....

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM PDT

    •  Yeah

      you think maybe if we knew Aschroft is going to be AG, 600 votes in Florida would've flipped the other way?

      by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM PDT

  •  Because no matter who you name...

    there are some people who hate that person and might vote against you for it. And those who like that person would either vote for you anyway or not find it important enough to change their vote.

    The better tactic is to put those people to work in a highly visible manner within your campaign staff.

    by sjbob on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM PDT

    •  No, its time for leadership....

      not more game playing politics.

      Thats Hillary's forte

      by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:11:22 PM PDT

      •  oh I thnk you'll find

        Obama is good at playing politics too.

        It is, after all, politics.

        by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:18:27 PM PDT

      •  I don't see it as game playing any more than ...

        ... doing the delegate math.

        I'm not saying to hide those names. That's why I said to highlight them in your "campaign cabinet". The other good thing is that it is hardly ever true that all your first choises works out on a personal interaction basis. That's just as important to you as president as is their talent and ideology. It gives you a chance to see how well you work with each other and how honest the two of you can be when working together.

        by sjbob on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:21:39 PM PDT

  •  the reason this isn't normally done in a primary

    is because you don't want to alienate potential allies in your party by selecting some over others.

    That logic may be out the window at this point.  We are in alienate-overdrive right now.

    I don't know about a cabinet, but a vp might definitely be a good idea.  In fact, I was lobbying for Obama and Edwards to team up Right after Super Tuesday.

    If someone could think of a likely woman to fill the spot, she would also be worth considering.

    Again, normally you would like to reserve the VP for your closest rival in the primary (Bush I got in that way).  Don't think Barack would in any scenario pick Hillary after what's gone down, so maybe a team ticket before PA is a good idea.

    In fact, Hillary was floating the idea of tagging Webb as far back as last year, as memory serves.

    by nailbender on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:41:53 PM PDT

•  Sheesh.....

  I used to be for an Edwards VP spot but honestly I don't know.

  Anybody who suggests Hillary after her and her peeps behavior this last month needs to get a grip.

  by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:53:48 PM PDT

•  Let's see, there's...

  Edwardian
  French Provincial
  Shaker
  Contemporary
  ...

  More seriously, let's get to the nomination, shall we?  The cabinet is NEVER announced this early.

  by oscarsdad on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM PDT

  •  Yeah we know....

    the argument is it should be.

    I think a shadow cabinet would help put this nomination where it belongs. Away from Hillary.

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:57:21 PM PDT

    •  I suppose I just disagree.

      The position of President is worth considering on its own.  Suppose, for example, that both Clinton and Obama had put Spitzer in their cabinet a week ago.

      Enough said?  The qualifications for President are difficult enough to judge without tossing a whole cabinet in there to consider, too.

      by oscarsdad on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:06:24 PM PDT

      •  Yeah but....

        cabinet nominations tell the whole story and put to rest many arguments.

        Edwards on healthcare eliminates any thoughts that Obama wouldn't make it a priority.

        Gore for some environment post.

        Etc...

        by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM PDT

      •  Yep.

        As Obama has said, this is one state at a time for the persidency of the United States of America.

        That said, I would like to have a picture painted of what each candidate's presidency would look like. Who would they rely on? What would they prioritize in the near-term and the long-term?

        And I'm reminded of what I read in a now obsolete book called "Earthdream; The Marriage of Reason and Intuition" which quoted the philosopher Fritjof Capra:

        When President Johnson need advice about warfare in Vietnam, his administration turned to theoretical physicists.

        . . . We can now say, with hindsight, that Johnson might have been much better served had he sought the advice of some of the poets. But that, of course, was -- and still is -- unthinkable.

        That was a quote from 1985. It still is unthinkable twenty-odd years later.

        by MrSandman on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:26:06 PM PDT

  •  What about Poland? nt

    by bedir than average on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM PDT

    •  Is Poland a cabinet? nt

      by oscarsdad on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:03:53 PM PDT

      •  Naaaah...its a country....

        part of the coalition of the willing. But not for long.

        by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:05:13 PM PDT

      •  No but it's high time that we remember...

        ...that we forgot Poland!!

        by jpfdeuce on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:07:00 PM PDT

        •  You bet your Dupa!....n/t

          by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:08:48 PM PDT

•  I'm worried that

  he'll put someone like Hagel or Lugar on his cabinet, which he has suggested before.

  by rjarnold on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM PDT

  •  Specific arguments against Hagel or Lugar?

    Or just due to the letter next to their name in the ballot box?

    by bedir than average on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:01:37 PM PDT

    •  They both have very anti-progressive

      voting records on just about every single issue. Hagel hasn't been as much of a rebel against Bush on Iraq than many think.

      by rjarnold on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:08:59 PM PDT

      •  They aren''t voting working in the cabinet

        They are working desk jobs, really.

        And if their views ar so counter productive they don't fit the candidate description, they won't be considered.

        by jpfdeuce on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:12:30 PM PDT

      •  Of course they are no flaming liberals

        But AFAIK Lugar is highly respected across party lines and considered one of the wise old guys on foreign policy. And Hagel has indeed been very much the rebel on Iraq and related issues (Gitmo, torture, etc.), and most likely wrecked his political career in the process.

        by mangusta on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:15:39 AM PDT

    •  This I don't get

      I don't want the white house to continue games of partisian hate...  That being said, if there is a Republican who isn't an ideological nitwit who is up for a job in the cabinet and would work with the countries welfare in mind and not a lobbying group, then let him or her serve.

      But saying "Nyah Nyah!  Bush was mean to us so we won't let you in our clubhouse!" accomplishes nothing except extending the bickering the Obama has been trumpeting to put an end to.

      by jpfdeuce on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:10:35 PM PDT

      •  Name one......

        What republican passes that test?

        Not the weak kneed Hagel and Lugar thats for sure. Find me a (R) that stood up for the values of democracy and justice.

        by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:12:59 PM PDT

        •  It is clear from your comment

          That no Republican could ever suit your demands.

          Lugar is likely on the short list for a cabinet position.  The Lugar-Obama nuclear non-proliferation bill is an important endevour.  If Lugar is put in a position where he has his strenghts, but is surrounded by people with more progressive histories I would be fine with it.

          The problem is that I don't think a President should name a crossparty cabinet post to SecDef or SecState as those two cabinet positions have so much power.

          Though Lugar would also put another Senate seat up for contest.

          by bedir than average on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM PDT

          •  You are wrong......

            I am not saying there isn't a (R) that could suit me I just can't think of one.

            Educate me...

            Enough with Lugar and Hagel though. Their speeches mean shite compared to their voting record.

            by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:21:46 PM PDT

            •  General Zinni?

              He endorsed Bush and like McCain called for a surge back in 2006.

              But he also feels that Climate Change is a national security issue, currently opposes the Iraq occupation, and has credibility with both Isreal and Palestine.

              But he thinks that endorsing Bush in 2000 was a mistake, and I'm actually unaware of what his party is/was.

              Another possibility would be Michael Bloomberg, who spent more of his life as a Dem than Rep, and while a Rep acted more like a Dem.  Considering that the issues he places at the forefront in his administration he would be a solid selection.

              by bedir than average on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM PDT

              •  Zinni....

                an unknown quantity. It would depend on his politics regarding other issues. Also what post? Defense?

                Bloomberg? Why? What has he done as NYC Mayor that would make him soooo attractive that we need or want him in National office. I mean besides screwing the poor at every turn?

                by comeinpbrstreetgang on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:49:38 AM PDT

                •  Bloomberg hasn't really done anything

                  Except for dramatically improve education
                  Except for dramatically improve the NYC environment
                  Except for create a national campaign of mayors for gun control
                  Except for create more affordable housing
                  Except for increase jobs in NYC

                  He's a real a-hole alright.  Going around and converting all those taxis to hybrids was a real crappy thing to do.

                  And the nerve of him to get all those trees planted and rennovate the brownfield blocks.

                  As for screwing the poor, you do realize that he is actually working on creating a new definition of poverty, one that applies in the modern world and includes costs of things besides food, but health care.

                  by bedir than average on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:37:39 AM PDT

                  •  I am sorry, I don't agree with you...

                    Except for dramatically improve education;
                    You mean corporatize.

                    Except for dramatically improve the NYC environment;
                    No he hasn't. What he has done is take steps to improve it. BTW it is the greenest city in America already so while this is fwd thinking it doesn't do much to improve the lot of the common man in the short term.

                    Except for create a national campaign of mayors for gun control;
                    Because crime was so out of control in NYC, big woopee.

                    Except for create more affordable housing;
                    Outside of Manhattan. So those former Manhattan living undesirables could move out and then ride the over priced commuter lines.

                    He is busy turning Manhattan into a walled off playground for the rich with tax cuts for huge corporations and tax amnesty for large institutional entities while he drives a vicious collection agency type operation aimed at squeezing the middle class and poor on utilities.

                    He constantly sides with landlords who break up rent controlled apartments and public housing to make way for more multimillion dollar condos and lofts. He has raised rates on commuters.

                    The jobs he has created have been pretty much low paying service jobs aimed at providing services to the rich and rich tourists who are flocking to NYC.

                    Hey I applaud the green initiative which will make the greenest city in America even greener but sorry the trickle down economics of Americas richest mayor don't impress.

                    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:24 AM PDT

            •  Are you really familiar

              with Hagel's voting record? Not on social and economic issues, though he had some interesting ideas there as well, see for instance the infrastructure bill he has worked on with Dodd, and that as per Pelosi yesterday will be considered in the House as well. But on foreign policy and national security issues his voting record has been close to perfect for more than a year.

              by mangusta on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 05:04:21 AM PDT

        •  Ron Paul? n/t

          by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:19:10 PM PDT

  •  He'll put Republicans

    I have no doubt about that. I'll deal

    by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:07:34 PM PDT

•  He can't

  until she officially drops out. As hard as it might be for some around here to believe, he might be interested in a couple of the same people she is.

  by decembersue on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:59:00 PM PDT

  •  hmm, good point. nt

    by kate mckinnon on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:23:50 PM PDT

•  I just want Obama's first appointment to the

  SCOTUS to be

  ANITA HILL

  by Chamonix on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:04:27 PM PDT

  •  Oh damn thats good....

    Had the pleasure of speaking to her on the phone once.

    Impressive woman.

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM PDT

    •  Take that Freepers and

      the non speaking Thomas. Oh yeah, and fuck you Scalia.

      Bwahhhhhhhhahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

      by Chamonix on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:08:05 PM PDT

•  Having said that;

  Obama's VP Picks;

  Governors:

  Brad Henry (Oklahoma)
  Katie Sebelieus (Kansas)
  John Kitzhaber (Oregon)
  Janet Napolitano (Arizona)
  Bill Richardson (New Mexico)
  Dick Codey (New Jersey)
  Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania)- yeah I know he endorsed HER
  Joe Manchin (West Virginia)- yeah I know he's pretty conservative, but good for Applachia.

  Senators:

  Chris Dodd (Connecticut)
  Sherrod Brown (Ohio)
  Jim Webb (Virginia)
  Ron Wyden (Oregon)

  Anyone Else?
  Gen.

  by nrafter530 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:06:05 PM PDT

  •  I think Wes Clark would be a great VP

    even though he is a Clinton partison. John Edwards is also a possibility though it probably wouldn't help out the ticket that much.

    by rjarnold on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:12:16 PM PDT

  •  As of right now I would choose from this list

    Ben Roethlisberger
    Terry Bradshaw
    Lynn Swann
    Mean Joe Green
    Jack Lambert
    Reggie White
    Mike Schmidt

    He can change after Pennsylvania of course.

    by retriever on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:13:01 PM PDT

•  I'd like VPs known before nomination...

  but the rest of the cabinet can wait because a lot of highly qualified people are more interested in their area of expertise than in which of the two candidates actually wins.  Say that Al Gore wanted to be top dog at NSF, if he threw his weight in with Clinton; but she lost - then he loses out on the opportunity, and the country loses out on a qualified person.

  But for the VP slot - they are politicians. It is likely that the VP would be chosen for more political purposes.  While delaying the VP selection could help a candidate attract support from a number of people who might be interested in the job -- Knowing who the candidate would like to see on the ballot with them in the fall could tell a lot about what the candidate really thinks.

  by Yoshi En Son on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:08:10 PM PDT

•  I think

  that this is a great idea...at the Convention.

  After Obama has locked it up, he should name his choices for Cabinet positions, and send them all out around the country to speak on their specific area of expertese.

  The Repub will only have two people on the circuit. We would have something like 20. They wouldn't know what hit them.

  by offgrid on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:16:26 PM PDT

  •  I have been calling for this for ever

    instead of a long acceptance speak make it short.  Announce your preliminary cabinet say "these are the folks who believe in a government that can work, and they will be coming to your town very soon to try to convince you to support our vision" and then hit the road.

    by ETinKC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:32:08 PM PDT

    •  Exactly

      The proposed Treasury Sec talks about taxes and the economy, etc.

      The proposed Interior Sec talks about forestry and mining issues, etc

      The proposed Sec of State talks about the war and foreign affairs, etc.

      The proposed Sec of Energy talks about changing the country over to a carbon-neutral, renewable energy based economy, etc.

      etc, etc.

      That way Obama can talk about the broader ideas of where the country should be headed. And it would show the People what a focused team can do for the country.

      I've also been yelling this from the mountaintop (literally, since I live on a mountaintop!)

      by offgrid on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 10:26:05 PM PDT

•  Yes, Yes. This will work

  I diarised about this back in January before Super Tuesday (feels like the 19th century).

  I stand by my comments way back then. Seems an even better idea now.

  by robertbe on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:26:39 PM PDT

•  I think he should put some serious thought into

  Richardson as his VP if the guy will ever come out and endorse him. It will help him in the Latino community, and nobody can accuse Richardson of lacking experience.

  He can pick a serious National Security person as his NSA or SecDef. (Jim Webb, Dodd, Biden, etc.) since those people have more of an effect on national security and foreign policy than does a VP (well, except maybe Cheney)

  by gradatbing on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 08:50:46 PM PDT

  •  Not Richardson.....

    He isn't going to be Prez someday....why choose him?

    by comeinpbrstreetgang on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 03:46:00 AM PDT

    •  Because he is a good man with good ideas?

      by gradatbing on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

      •  No because he acts like an ass at debates....nt

        by comeinpbrstreetgang on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:01:05 PM PDT

•  You people

  are so fucking stupid. He needs 2025 delegates to get the nomination. Until he hits that number, this is a race. We cannot act as if the race is over. Everytime time we do that, it lowers expectations for her. He cannot play games like that.

  by Alex116 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:11:58 PM PDT

  •  and your coming off like an asshole

    guess that makes us even.

    by ETinKC on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM PDT

    •  Even it is

      Sleep well

      by Alex116 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM PDT