I'm just glad that this will mean that Emmanuel will probably never be the speaker of the house. Thats worth it, to me.

I think this is an immediate, clear sign that the people on both the left and the right who said that Obama is going to exhibit the same caution and reluctance to take even minor gambles he showed on the campaign trail will continue in the White House. I am hopeful that Obama will prove me wrong, but I would say my hope stops short of optimism.

I have a feeling it'll be a long while before we see Obama doing anything that can be called bold. I think he's going to jettison the "100 Days" shtick -- the idea of diving in and going big guns right off the bat is totally against his MO -- and instead spend the first 3 months putting his political toes in the Washington water, getting a feel for what he can and cannot do, and generally putting his administration in order and building a foundation for increasingly bigger initiatives.

I hate to be a spoil-sport (no I don't ;-]) but I "setting priorities" in the new admin will mean Obama's minimum wage: a dollar below LBJ's $10/hr, double the average income later -- will mean a card check leftover from the 40s that some bright labor lawyer happened to notice or we apparently would not have anything to talk about; not the world wide (third, second and first worlds) answer to the race to the bottom: sector-wide labor agreements, the perfect answer to Wal-Mart.

I am afraid that the attitude of the incoming admin will be the usual "the working poor (who have no business being poor, not in a double the average income of 1968 era) we have always with us" -- so we assume that they are always supposed to be with us: we really need to do a LITTLE SOMETHING for them.

If we could have foretold to folks of 1968 that 40 years hence the economy would be in recession -- and that, oh by the way, the minimum wage of 1968 would become the 25 percentile 2008 wage -- the folks of 1968 would have forgotten to yawn over the current recession while throwing a fit at the seemingly impossible prediction of a "great wage depression." What could they possibly have guessed would the cause: civil war, multiple depressions or even plagues?

But try to tell our progressive elites to focus on what should have been this impossible economic history -- on what should be taken as today's most extreme if never ending (boring?) economic emergency. Maybe if their affluent next-door neighbors were reduced to less than $150,000/yr, maybe then they would achieve all-out focus on the wage depression that exists for MOST of our workforce and maybe then they would be willing to take some "risks" to -- quickly! -- do something about it like doubling the minimum wage in a hurry (causing only direct 3% inflation) and importing the answer to the race to the bottom used all over the globe: legally mandated sector-wide labor agreements.

The need for fully adequate wage support mechanisms is made all the more critical by America's never-ending influx of willing-to-work-for-less labor -- plus outsourcing to the same. I am not knocking immigration or outsourcing but the under-pricing of American labor caused by the lack of real wage supports: serious minimum wage (it was $10/hr, 40 years ago at half the average income of today) and sector-wide agreements (Canada uses a lite version: ununionized firms must operate under contract conditions worked for unionized firms.)

Our progressive super economists can perform 20X the volume of academic labor that I am capable of in one day, but they somehow cannot keep 2 things in mind at the same time: this years financial mess and the endless wage depression.

Today's Oxymoron:

Rahm Emanuel & change.

Tomorrows will be:

FISA & hope.

Class dismissed...well, at least the Bush reign is over, now we can Republican policies with a smidge of sanity. Pretty low bar for the new guy, he should be able to clear it.

Just to point out, I think the public mood on universal health care has shifted dramatically in the 2 years since "The Plan" was released.

I really have no idea how Obama could possibly expect to avoid a massive revolt from his party's left and center were he to attempt to refrain from introducing healthcare reform legislation (given the fact that he expressly campaigned on the issue). Moreover, the fact is Obama's plan (a piece of political brilliance in my view) isn't really an overly ambitious universal healthcare plan per se, so it shouldn't be too difficult to assuage the fears of those who are worried about liberal overreach. In addition, I think Obama's political instincts have proven to be first-rate: surely it'll be easier to get an expansion and strengthening of the safety net enacted during a time of great economic insecurity. It makes no sense, politically, to wait until GDP is once again growing at a nice 5% clip.

Ezra, incidentally, I checked out the links you provided, and it looks to my eyes that both Emanuels have argued against full-throated adoption of European-style single payer -- not against government-sponsored universal health insurance coverage per se. That's a position I can live with, especially if we get the "single payer by stealth" that I think is implied by the Obama plan.

I'm thinking of Josh slapping a Congressman around in the first season of West Wing:

Katzenmoyer: Against an incumbent Democrat. You'll go to the press and endorse a challenger?
Josh: No sir. We're going to do it in person. See, you won with fifty-two percent, but the President took your district with fifty-nine. And I think it's high time we come back and say thanks. Do you have any idea how much noise Air Force One makes when it lands in Eau Claire, Wisconsin? We're going to have a party, Congressman. You should come, it's gonna be great. And when the watermelon's done, right in town square, right in the band gazebo... You guys got a band gazebo?
Katzenmoyer: Josh...
Josh: Doesn't matter, we'll build one. Right in the band gazebo, that's where the President is going to drape his arm around the shoulder of some assistant DA we like. And you should have your camera with you. You should get a picture of that. 'Cause that's gonna be the moment you're finished in Democratic politics. President Bartlet's a good man. He's got a good heart. He doesn't hold a grudge. That's what he pays me for.

You need a guy like that.

Jasper, I don't think you have to worry about 5% GDP growth any time soon. I don't expect to see that high a rate for even a single month for many years. If I had any money, I'd be willing to bet there will not be a single month in Obama's (first) term when 5% is achieved. It's possible 3.5% won't be seen.

There were Krugman fanboys touting him for Treasury Secretary or head of the CEA for Obama. Leaving aside that Krugman was disappointingly and inexplicably so pro-Hillary it actually affected Krugman's judgment, I think Emmanuel being CoS puts the kibosh on that. There is no way Rahm Emmanuel and Krugman could work together. I just don't see it.

Jasper, I don't think you have to worry about 5% GDP growth any time soon. I don't expect to see that high a rate for even a single month for many years. If I had any money, I'd be willing to bet there will not be a single month in Obama's (first) term when 5% is achieved. It's possible 3.5% won't be seen.

Mitch: I say you're dead wrong. I expect 2009 to be a pretty dismal year for the economy -- and 2010 may not get off to a great start -- but sharp downturns are typically followed by robust recoveries. I'm old enough to remember the utterly dismal conditions of 1982 (unemployment nearing 11%) -- and the utterly torrid recovery that soon followed, and helped Ronald Reagan to a landslide reelection.

Trying to read tea leaves regarding a new president is inevitably a frustrating experience. What we know so far is that Obama is very shrewd. He recognizes opportunities but is cautious in how far he reaches. He finds talented people and places them all around himself.

He recognizes Emanuel's talents and feels he can make good use of them. He hasn't hired him to be his political adviser; he's hired him as chief of staff. Obama was a supporter of Dean's 50 state strategy. Not a critic, like Emanuel.

The only big mistake Obama made in the campaign, other than a couple of rhetorical slips such as "bitter" and "you're fine, Hillary" was his boneheaded move on FISA, capitulating in a battle he could have won while surrendering a chance to run both to the left and right on McCain. Nevertheless, he still managed to steamroll to victory.

I can't help but feel we're in good hands. Given his mastery of picking people for specific talents and fitting them in where those talents can be most useful, I think this is a fine move.

This is a decision to build experience and competence into the WH organization 'cause there's no time for learning. It shows there will be as much stick as carrot in the bipartisanship, but we already know that BHO plays to win.

They also want someone who has an eye on 2010 -- they don't want a repeat of the 1994 Congressional losses, which sharply curtailed WJC's ability to govern. After the gains of 2006 and this year they're vulnerable to a midterm reversal.

The role of Chief of Staff has varied widely over the years - depending on both the COS personality/closeness to Pres. and the style/needs of the President. Recall that Reagan's COS essentially ran the country, but many others have been no more than doorkeepers (itself a position of real power).

I can't see Rahm not getting his fingers into policy very deeply. What puzzles me is his mix of kneecapping and caution.

I guess I'm saying that he is likely to be a key player (like Don Ragan under Reagan), but is he being brought into to keep the trains on time, to be the chief policy calendar setter, or to be the enforcer with Congress, lobbies, and interest groups? Or maybe all three.

It's clear that his modus operandi is fear of his wrath rather than his congeniality, and surely Obama knows that.

A curious choice!

The Craig: You know that Josh Lyman is based on Rahm Emanuel, right?

Am I misremembering, or did Daschle not say that he's not interested in the CoS job?

COS is not a policy job-- If anything, I'd guess that it's a shot across the bow towards anyone who thinks Obama can be pushed around. If I was Joe Lieberman, I'd be more worried than I'd been previously.

"I'm of mixed feelings on Rahm Emanuel's selection as Obama's White House chief of staff. Emanuel is a brawler. He's legendarily tough and effective and ruthless. Hes the type of guy who makes enemies, then makes lists of his enemies, then makes lists of his enemies' friends, then makes lists of how they'll pay."

Err, Ezra...given that, shouldn't you amend your post to read: "I'm just thrilled to bits about Rahm Emmanuel becoming Chief of Staff! How does he stay looking so fit and young given his workload! And his wife is so charming, and a great hostess!"

Quick, before the intertubes archive the post.

Aside from that career-preserving advice, I'm with MattF: Emmanuel is a beong taken in as a strategist and enforcer, the bad cop to Obama's good cop, but likely not as a policy person. As part of what I'm looking for in an Obama administration is a metaphorical knee-capping of the GOP infrastructure, Emmanuel is a promising choice.

I like Daschle, and think his early support of Obama deserves great credit (hopefully in a prominent position in the administration), but he's too nice a guy for a political strategy role.

Yeah, I'll agree w/ SPotGS here, but what kind of surprises me is the way some people (*ahem*) are still puzzling about what they can expect from an Obama administration, when it's been pretty clear for a while now that he knows what he is doing, how he is going to do it, and when. Looking back on his campaign, I not only have a hard time seeing him being pushed around by his CoS, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone else is worried about such a thing.

I take your point, but in a world where Bob Rubin is writing op-eds like this, maybe it's not fair to ascribe every former Clintonite's then-stated views on the possibility of progressive politics to their current selves.

President Obama didn't get where he is by playing 'mr nice guy', he IS a product of Chicago and Illinois after all; he's been trained very well.
But Emmanuel a 'play-it-safe' brawler? How's that work out?

But Emmanuel a 'play-it-safe' brawler? How's that work out?

Well, one example is that he shoved out local Democrats with local support who were running in Hastert's and FOley's former congressional seats in favor of handpicked people like Tammy Duckworth and former Republican Tom Mahoney he figured would be "tough." Duckeworth lost, and Mahoney has now been defeated in the wake of a sex scandal. Emmanuel was also telling Democrats in 2006 to be avoidant when it came to talking about the Iraq war, and to ignore the issue in order to concentrate on economic issues. He continued this line up until the day when Lamont defeated Lieberman in the primary. He was really clueless about the degree to which the electorate hated the war, going for the "play it safe" strategy of avoiding the issue so that they Democrats would "look strong."

Don't get me wrong-- he's the exact sort of partisan brawler who wants to break some republican backs who's needed right now, but he buys into a lot of the "Beltway Consensus" crap when it comes to actual issues to run on.

Emmanuel ... Aside from national politics, given Rahm's personality, experience in the Clinton admin and his commitment to a peaceful middle east, I hope that he would be a helpful advisor to the Obama admin in pushing negotiations forward!

> I think Emmanuel being CoS
> puts the kibosh on that. There
> is no way Rahm Emmanuel and
> Krugman could work together. I
> just don't see it.

Well, FDR put quite a few people in his administration who hated one another, apparently quite deliberately in many cases. Then he was able to get better information and play one against another to see who was tougher [or even whose idea was better sometimes ;-) ]. I don't think Obama is that deliberately ruthless but I don't see him selecting any admin members who start their interview by whining "I can't work with Suuuuuuzie".

Cranky

The lack of a preview function on Ezra's blog must be destroyed!

Well, for some inexplicable reason I found myself at The Corner and a guy over there said this decision was a horrible first sign. Obama must be doing something right!

You don't bring a knife to a gunfight...

In this picture, Emanuel reminds me of a cleaned-up, freshly-shaved Bruce Weitz, the actor who played undercover cop Mick Belker on Hill Street Blues. Belker was famous for biting suspects when he arrested them. Maybe the resemblance I'm seeing is spiritual.

Also, maybe I have the same understanding of the Chief of Staff's job as Sarah Palin had of the Vice-President's, but isn't it to keep the President on track and the staff and allies in line and not to lay the track or draw the line? And how close are Emanuel and Obama anyway? Is the President going to be turning to him for advice or is he going to be turning him to say, Bring me that bastard's head on a pike!

I like Emanuel as CoS. I don't think Obama is one to be pushed around by people who work for him, especially on issues that are important to him. I also think Emanuel's toughness is going to be necessary to remind stubborn Republicans that they lost, and rather badly.

Emanuel reminds of the Martin Sheen character who, before he was on West Wing as prez, played chief of staff in chick flick The American President. He, too, was extremely tough in implementing strategies, but as Tyro says, bought into the Beltway consensus crap. Both he and his successor Leo McGarry, chief of staff on fantasy show West Wing, were to the right of the president they served.

I think this is a good thing; at least I hope so. I supported Hillary, and was very apprehensive that Obama was not enough of a 'fighter' when it was apparent she was not getting the nomination. Then one afternoon, Obama and Leiberman met in the well of the Senate after casting a vote, shook hands, Obama didn't let go, steered Joe over to a wall, leaned over him and 'talked' to Joe with some intensity for quite a few minutes. That's when I knew this guy was going to be good for America. Seeing the announcement today of the meeting between Reid and Leiberman was sweet. So I think this will be a good thing.
lq

Speak softly and carry Rahm Emmanuell.

I love this pick. After all, to get the capital to push through initiatives like universal health care, President O is going to start out with more middle of the road things like schip, stem cells, shutting gitmo. Rahm is perfect for building that kind of a record. He is loyal, effective and considering he gave us back the House in 2006, has earned the benefit of the doubt.

Fondly remembering Rahmbo's IIRC, "I won't stop til I hear their vertebrae crack" pledge, and as a fan of Belisarius', it seems like the best possible pick to me.

another fond memory:

'Cheney says his office is "not an entity within the executive branch," so Emanuel wants to take away the tens of millions of dollars that are allocated to the White House to maintain it. . .'

Good Luck, Rahm.

you pick Emanuel because you don't want the Chicago version of Mack McLarty or Hamilton Jordan.

So how many people here predicted a year or two ago that Obama would win this election with a Clinton-like margin? So your thinking has changed a bit in the past year or so? Perhaps Emmanuel has evolved a bit as well. Perhaps much of his judgment is context driven and he would make different judgment calls with a heavily democratic Congress and President Obama than he did with a divided Congress and President Cheney.

Emanuel was an awesome choice.

Emanuel has shown terrific talent for making money, too. Not just at his financial company, but as a board member of Fannie Mae when it was misreporting earnings to investors. He has a truly inside understanding of the credit crisis.

This pick makes me very uncomfortable, not because he's an attack dog or a tough guy or anything--both good traits for a CoS.

What makes me uncomfortable is his loyalty to Israel. Not because I'm against Israel, but because the Iraq war was pushed by AIPAC and Israel and war with Iran has been pushed by them as well.

I'm an Independent and voted for Obama because he seemed like the guy who would help smooth things over with the Middle East, get us out of Iraq and keep us out of Iran.

There is no way Obama will be able to implement any of these changes he wants to if we keep up the warmongering.

I'll be keeping my eye on this guy.

Two points of concern:
(1) How did this dude make over 16 million as a banker in about 2 1/2 years? Even if it was legit, this kind of easy big cash is exactly what distorts and corrupts the elite turning their idea of America as potential jackpot for any but idiots, regardless of whether your a Dem or Rep.
(2) About Israel - it's possible, he believes peace there is impossible and will continue uncritical support of Israel and fake show peace process. Anyone know whether he's at all serious about peace there?

I'm keeping an eye on all of them. If there is anyone the country distrusts vehemently right now, it is investment bankers. So that's his first pick, He is Jewish, right, not going to sit well with middle easterners. Tough guy from Chicago that makes lists of his enemies??Ugh! Huge benefactor of campaign contibutions from investment bankers.? Isn't there anyone else? I'm sorry, but this could be worse than Carl Rove (hard to imagine, I know)

Remember, this the gatekeeper to the guy who is supposedly more open to the common man. Who will listen "even when we disagree" Somebody, talk me down.

How reality is mirroring fantasy

Obama's administration is beginning to look more and more like Jed Bartlet's. Rahm Emanuel, a political force from the windy city who has corporate connections is a strinking image to the character of Leo McGarry. Pete Rouse aka the 101 senator, reminds me of the other 101 senator, Josh Lyman. David Axelrod, a noble veteran of the political field and future Senior White House advisor, in my mind is a duplicate of the pious White House Communications Director Toby Ziegler.

Whats the point of all these comparisons you may ask? Well, for years, as Democrats we only could look to The West Wing for hope and wonder what a group of truly progressives advisors combined with a charming and charismatic president could offer our country. Our prayers have been answered and the change we seek is now upon us.

Armed with our progressive ideas, and guided my a strong staff, I can't wait to see what the first 100 days of the Obama Administration will be like. The challenges are daunting, the tasks ahead will be hard. If I have learned anything from the West Wing, it is individuals have the power to make a collective difference and influence the world around them! Bottom Line, Emanuel, Rouse, and Axelrod are the agents of change we have so long been waiting for.

He sure is one hot dude - this emanuel guy:)

I am concerned that Emanuel may put Isreals interests before those of the United States. The United States must be more balanced in how we relate to the Palastinians. Emanuel cannot be objective.

دردشة

Good post,thanks a lot.There is not a question of whether there are enough people to possibly be trained to practice medicine. There is only the question of whether you want one more doctor or one more derivatives trader.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

Good post! Thanks for your information!

The name links of london Necklaces itself screams perfection .

Now that links of london Necklaces retain the highest standard in jewelry production and that is beauty, excellent craftsmanship and sturdiness.