True enough, Ezra, but there is an ample supply of "ruthless doers" who weren't involved in the (failed, by your own admission) Clinton endeavors of the early 90s. If Obama is looking to find some gritty pragmatists who have the knowhow to wrangle the legislature into getting his agenda done, picking people who've already failed once to do precisely that isn't exactly comforting.

You might argue that the intervening years have given Clinton's old team the experience it needs to do things right the second time around. And there might be something to that. But the symbolism is less than encouraging.

I understand why COS and Treas. Secy are key appointments that need to get done nearly first.

But....

Summers and Emmanuel are the poster-kids for bad opticals (I actually hate that phrase, but such is life).

IMO, they both exhibit 'centrism' and 'ruthless politics' and some sort of subject-to-wild-swings mix.

However, you can't have a government that is effective in the world of international and domestic finance without a Treasury Secretary that has the respect of the financial insiders. That's an Iron Law. JFKs choice of Douglas Dillon seemed weird then (and now too), but Wall Street must be appeased like the monster-god of the volcano. (Having a pack of virgins handy to sacrifice is also a good thing).

I just don't want a Robert Rubin-like submission by the President to those gods of conventional financial wisdom. Clinton had nothing like the worldwide financial crisis we now have, and that will require the cooperation of lots of financial bigheads, but it should also demand some unconventional approaches that have to be force-fed to the financial hydra.

I was sufficiently (that is to say, extremely) unhappy with Clinton's willingness to compromise on things that matter that I quit the Democratic Party in the mid-90s, but honestly, I don't see how the Clinton years can be considered a failure. Well, unless you're narrowly focused on the fortunes of the Democratic Party itself.

But look, Obama ran as a centrist who was going to be a competent administrator and who was going to reach across the aisle to get things done. What did you think that meant?

I'm sorry, I just don't follow why Clinton's failure at health care caused (or contributed to) a GOP takeover in the House. Was it that people really wanted a national health care system of some sort, but once they realized they couldn't have one, they instead voted for the people who were more likely to dismantle Medicare, which they saw as a second-best alternative?

Maybe this is true, but it's something you hear a lot ("Clinton's failures in health care led to the election failures in 94"). If one were a Republican, one might say that the two shared a common cause (revulsion at Clinton's schemes for health alliances, etc.?), but I know that's not what EK is saying. Or is it just that it make Clinton look weak and pathetic, which inspired the contempt of the people who voted for the GOP? Anyone want to explain, or link to an explanation?

(Which is not to say that he would not be remembered more fondly in the long run than he is had he passed health care. But all the things we now praise Johnson for were not enough to help him in 66 or 68.)

I think you have something of a mixed fruit salad here. Chief of Staff and Treasury are different jobs. Roughly speaking, CoS is tactical, Treasury is strategic. And you don't put someone who has a big share of responsibility for getting us into this mess into a strategic position for getting out of it.

"Knowing the building" is a how. We need a better what first.

On top of that, if you want to talk politics over policy - pissing off your biggest constituency? Not a great idea.

This sounds a lot like the argument we were having during the primary about the possible return to the White House of the Clinton-era First Lady, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton administration can be looked at as a failure if you look at a list of the legislation he signed. And Summers was there for all the deregulation that set up our current crisis. Keep him out. I think Rham is a good pick tho.

[repost]

Clinton lost 94 because he failed to deliver any economically liberal agenda, and instead passed NAFTA. So many people stayed home. But he did hit some red-meat issues for the right, like gays in the military fiasco and gun control, so they turned out. Plus, he just looked like a loser.

I suspect there is a mis-match in expectation. Health care reform, new energy economy, refroming our standing on the world stage, economic recovery, etc. Are all big tasks. They will not be solved by a piece of sweeping legislation. They will be addressed by policy shift, changes in incentives and incremental change. The time of that change is longer than a two-term Obama presidency. Separate from economic improvement, his goal is to set these objectives on the right tracks and grow them with continuous progress. Guide them to the goal so that they become entrench, unavoidable outcomes.

Clinton disillusioned me with Democrats, with his welfare reform and shredding the safety net. Right now Obama is reading or just read that book Team of Rivals about Lincoln appointing a bunch of political rivals to his cabitnet to keep his enemies close. I'm not worried about Obama chosing these guys, because in the end, he's the decider. Obama is looking for smart, pragmatic guys. like David Plouffe and David Axelrod.

Those two ran circles around the campaign teams of Edwards, Hillary and McCain.

I agree that the failures of the Clinton administration are traceable to simultaneous failures of politics and of policy. My sense is that given the Clintons' failures of politics --- caused by failure to understand Washington and by the improprieties of an ethically challenged President --- the only way they could hold onto power was through the short-term gains had by polling public opinion, triangulating, and finding the prized center.

One of the best things about the Clinton administration was the talented crop of individuals it attracted to the Cabinet. Yet, these individuals were also key players in crafting these centrist political strategies to protect POTUS. They were also at the epicenter of the legal strategies to protect him too (e.g. "all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.").

The question is whether "centrism" was bred by circumstance or whether these people (i.e. Emmanuel, Podesta, Summers) still believe and will push a cautious agenda.

Here's my Jon Podesta anecdote: At an American Constitution Society conference at Yale a few years back, he joined a number of legal scholars (e.g. Kenji Yoshino) in advocating a move away from using Equal Protection as a means of protecting minorities in favor of the Due Process Clause. Although the two clauses of the 14th Amendment are not mutually exclusive (of course), Podesta was of the mind that the shift away from Equal Protection would mitigate the perception that liberals are playing "identity politics."

I -- and Ted Shaw from the NAACP -- was livid. It was just another cut to the center, in which liberals are supposed to back away from deeply held convictions (i.e. that all people are created equal under the law) because god forbid Sean Hannity or some "push poll" accuses people of seeking "special rights."

Then there's Rahm's urging the Democratic caucus to be harder on immigration lest the Right acuse of backing "amnesty."

Sure, I agree that the only crop of Democratic pols with executive experience were reared during the Clinton administration. But obviously the Clinton White House is not the only pool of talent abound. It's obviously early, but I'd feel better if I were hearing a more mixed batch of names. I think Obama can do better.

I actually find Emmanuel comforting as CoS for both reasons that make left-progressives nervous--he'll hopefully keep the Obama administration from over reaching, and he'll help ensure that they are effective in the things they decide to do. Good on both counts as far as I'm concerned.

As for Treasury, I'd much rather see Sheila Bair (head of the FDIC). She's a career civil servant, has the respect of bankers, a strong legacy as a regulator, and the FDIC has been the single organization to have distinguished itself in recent weeks.

That's not change, that's more of the same.

I worked at Treasury when Summers was the undersecretary. At the time Treasury ran itself, it was full of lots of competent people mainly appointed by Bentsen and Rubin. Summers didn't have to be any kind of great manager in the waning years of the Clinton Administration.

When Summers actually had to run something-Harvard- he failed, badly.

Running Treasury now will be much harder because he has to both deal with the greatest crisis since the depression and rebuild a once-proud staff that has been gutted and politicized by Bush. He just isn't the guy to build up a top-notch organization from less than zero.

Larry Summers? You mean a continuation of the failed neoliberal policies of the last 28 years? Is this a cruel joke or what?