Will Obama’s Team of Rivals Fare Better Than Lincoln’s?
If President-elect Obama indeed appoints Bill Richardson Secretary of Commerce and Hillary Clinton Secretary of State, combined with Vice President-elect Joe Biden, that will be three former primary rivals in his Cabinet.
And as pending White House senior adviser David Axelrod told George Stephanopoulos this morning on This Week, the President-elect "is someone who invites a strong opinions. He enjoys that he thinks that’s an important element of leadership. They are not going to be potted plants in their departments, they are going to be partners and I’m sure that is the message he has given them in their discussions."
It’s not just a question of putting some fellow Democratic colleagues on his team.
Try to think of it this way: Obama is putting in his Cabinet three people who not only (at least at one point) have thought they would be better Presidents than he will be, but they put those thoughts to action by running against him.
Abraham Lincoln’s "Team of Rivals" model that Obama heralds is an interesting one, but it didn’t work out in every case.
Rice University professor Douglas Brinkley says, "it’s based on a false historical analogy."
And writing in the Los Angeles Times, Dickinson University historian Matthew Pinsker writes that some of those appointments caused problems. As when Secretary of State William Seward (a former New York Senator and primary rival) "tried to seize political command from Lincoln during the Fort Sumter crisis…the effect of repeated disloyalty and unnecessary backroom drama from him and several other Cabinet officers was a significant factor in the early failures of the Union war effort. By December 1862, there was a full-blown Cabinet crisis.
"’We are now on the brink of destruction,’ Lincoln confided to a close friend after being deluged with congressional criticism and confronted by resignations from both Seward and Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase…Out of the four leading vote-getters for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination whom Lincoln placed on his original team, three left during his first term —one in disgrace, one in defiance and one in disgust.
"Simon Cameron was the disgraced rival, Lincoln’s failed first secretary of war. ["Team of Rivals" author Doris Kearns] Goodwin essentially erased him from her group biography, not mentioning him in the book’s first 200 pages, even though he placed third, after Seward and Lincoln, on the first Republican presidential ballot. Cameron proved so corrupt and inept that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives censured him after he was removed from office in 1862.
"Chase was the defiant rival. As Goodwin acknowledges, the Treasury chief never reconciled himself to Lincoln’s victory, continuously angling to replace him. Lincoln put up with this aggravation until he secured renomination and then dumped his brilliant but arrogant subordinate because, in his words, their "mutual embarrassment" was no longer sustainable.
"Attorney General Edward Bates was the disgusted rival. The elder statesman — 67 when he was appointed —never felt at home in the Lincoln Cabinet and played only a marginal role in shaping policy. He resigned late in the first term…
"Lincoln was a political genius, but his model for Cabinet-building should stand more as a cautionary tale than as a leadership manual."
– jpt

Email
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
Hold your friends close and your enemies closer?
Posted by: drjohn | November 23, 2008, 11:25 am 11:25 am
Somehow I doubt much useful information can be drawn from this comparison, the times are enormously different and the people are as well.
About the farthest you can go with this comparision is the obvious fact that people who agree on everything make for easier relationships than people that disagree on things.
Beyond that, it is all shades of grey. Sometimes people with different views can open up the discussion and inject new ideas that would be missed if everyone is on the same page, and sometimes it can be divisive and obstructionist.
There is no way to tell in advance whether this particular group will tend more towards one direction or the other.
Posted by: Tom | November 23, 2008, 11:27 am 11:27 am
I don’t really have too many opinions on this and I don’t have any objections either but Hillary’s statement about Kennedy getting assasinated just keeps ringing a loud bell in my head. BUT I do think the key here is Biden. Although he is officially considered a former rival, i really don’t think he fits the picture of a rival much. If Obama hadn’t picked him, he would have just gone on being a two-time failed presidential candidate (not a legacy he deserves, i dont think. but still…) Obama picking him to be VP was something like a redemption to him and I think he will probably prove to be the most loyal “former rival”, ESPECIALLY with Hillary in the picture. So, if anywhere, I think any disloyalties would probably start surfacing among the former rivals themselves and not necessarily with the president. It is my believe (and perhaps my hope?) that the dynamics would be so that they will be striving to prove their loyalty to him. anyways…
Posted by: Question | November 23, 2008, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
Mr. Obama is a serial liar. During the campaign, he gave us the impression that his cabinet will be bipartisan, but so far it’s all democrats.
Posted by: young_voter | November 23, 2008, 12:45 pm 12:45 pm
These are all very smart people, each gifted in their own way. We have to hope they are smaart enough to realize that here is their opportunity to leave a legacy of greatness.
If they will use their talents to pull together, we as a nation may be able to veer off the disastrous course we have pursued for years, and really under both parties steardship. History will remember them all as great Americans if they can rise above their individual rivalries and pull this off.
Posted by: Phoenix Lady | November 23, 2008, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
I am very uncomfortable with this Hillary choice. First and foremost because she voted for the war and these crucial questions of aggression or diplomacy are what she will be dealing with as Secretary of State. I also find it curious that all during Hillary’s presidential run, Bill Clinton refused to release donor/income information. Why is he so forthcoming now? It all seems superficial and disingenuous and what lurks right below the surface has the potential to really harm Obama’s presidency. I hope I am wrong, but I think he is being ridiculously naive in this choice.
Posted by: marty | November 23, 2008, 1:05 pm 1:05 pm
Today we discover that Obama lied about “spreading the wealth” from rich Americans to the lower classes. Given this, how can his “team” be trusted. We discovered Bush’s dirty divisive team’s abuse of the Constitution. To compare Obama’s team to Lincoln given Obama’s lies about keeping tax cuts for the rich among us is to insult a precious American heritage in the person of Abraham Lincoln. Thanks but no thanks Obama. Lincoln did not lie. You Obama, sir, have been found to be a liar in keeping the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. I have no use anymore for the new PEBO.
Posted by: buzziea | November 23, 2008, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
How come I come with the impression that Mr. Axelrod really knows what he is talking about and that he is in complete control of the situation?
Of course, our Greatest Smartest Changest Leader is in charge, with his cloths on, too!
Posted by: expecting | November 23, 2008, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
You’re wrong, young_voter. Look up James L. Jones in wikipedia, sourcewatch, and pr watch. He has close ties with the Bush/Scowcroft bunch and due to other activities and associations found online is almost certainly not a democrat.
Posted by: jan | November 23, 2008, 1:28 pm 1:28 pm
Matthew Pinsker is wrong. The model succeeded because the alternative was to have these powerful, opportunistic rivals outside the cabinet where they were beyond Lincoln’s control.
The goal was not to remove all animosity but to curb it, as Doris Kearns Goodwin points out.
Posted by: Barry Sharpe | November 23, 2008, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
young-voter-Who cares what you think!You voted republician anyway. His cabinet will be better than BUSH any day.
Posted by: ready99 | November 23, 2008, 1:53 pm 1:53 pm
Our country hasn’t been in so much trouble since Herbert Hoover. We need intelligent, experienced, hard working people in our cabinet and I think that’s what we are getting.
Hillary Clinton is more than qualified to be Secretary of State. I bet she will do our country proud. Give her and the rest of the cabinet a fighting chance before condeming them.
Posted by: basil | November 23, 2008, 2:03 pm 2:03 pm
Well, at least we know he’s choosing people with ability and intelligence, no just dumb loyalists with utterly no experience. That will be a refreshing change.
Posted by: HH | November 23, 2008, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
Obama is not Abe Lincoln. Night and day in ideology. Lincoln stood for the principles America was founded on. Read these quotes from Lincoln.
* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
* You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men’s
initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and
should, do for themselves .
Posted by: Andrew | November 23, 2008, 2:17 pm 2:17 pm
Andrew- I fail to see how Obama stands in opposition to any of the quotes you listed, though I’ll congratulate you on coming up with them.
Posted by: kat | November 23, 2008, 2:30 pm 2:30 pm
Hyperbole, thy name is Andrew.
Since when did paying your fair share of taxes constitute destroying the wealthy?
When did wealth become synonymous with strength?
Want to see how thrifty the wealthy are? Check out Neiman-Marcus and/or Sotheby’s.
“You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.” That hasn’t been a possiblity since Reagan took office and destroyed the unions.
“You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.” Lately, the only class hatred or disdain I’ve seen is from the wealthy directed toward the poor. I’m perfectly happy to let the wealthy enjoy their money as long as they pay their taxes and don’t keep trying to push us off the ladder.
When you push policies that enrich the wealthy and further impoverish the poor you destroy their independence, their initiative and their ability to feel anything but hopelessness. I’ve heard those who have already gained great wealth say that it’s not the money, it’s the game, it’s winning. The ability to make that statement is, in itself, a sign of privilege, wealth, and luxury that the poor and middle class cannot afford to make.
Posted by: jan | November 23, 2008, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm
Let’s not forget that now is the historic time of our country and this requires historic efforts from everyone of us to pull our country out this mess. They all understand this urgency.
Posted by: pmp2008 | November 23, 2008, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
Is Obama gong to put Ted Kennedy in charge of the FDA’s alcohol section? He is a pro at testing Chivas Regal by the bottle. Ted could also be in charge of the homeland securities waterfront task force with his personal water survival skills. Just ask Mary Jo.
Posted by: joseshema | November 23, 2008, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
J. W. Booth would LOVE ‘Bam. Oops..that’s a bad Lincoln parallel, sorry.
Posted by: EveryRealAmerican | November 23, 2008, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
Maybe the analogy of “team of rivals” is wrong. I suppose a team of equally qualified and opinionated might seem like rivals, but in the end, it is also a TEAM, meaning they want the same thing. I don’t see anyone in the current lineup for cabinet that anyone would particularly accuse of not being a “team player”, in the same way those examples were quoted. Sure, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but people, Hillary, Joe, Bill, and Barack are not enemies. Enemies are those people whos ideologies or personalities are so opposite from your own that you must block their moves. Rivals are those who have similar outlooks, but who want to get to the finish first. As Barack has already finished, maybe it is time to start calling his cabinet a “team of aptness” and not a “team of rivals” or a “team of enemies”. Quit making his team sound like a bickering crowd before they have even met.
Posted by: gradwrkout | November 23, 2008, 3:30 pm 3:30 pm
Andrew – Barack Obama would agree with all of those Lincoln quotes. It is only your fantasy bogeyman Obama who would not.
Posted by: jock59801 | November 23, 2008, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
Forget whether the team of rivals fairs better than Lincoln’s! With Obama fare better than Lincoln?
Posted by: Uranis | November 23, 2008, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
It’s a baited question. Don’t answer it. Big brother will come knocking. The SS Agents will pay you a visit.
Posted by: Maxify55 | November 23, 2008, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Let’s just hold judgment until his cabinet is seated and he actually begins to govern. At this point, it seems, he can’t blink without raising eyebrows.
Posted by: plantain11 | November 23, 2008, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm
The only thing Bill Richardson should be in charge of is putting wheels of miscarriages. He’s a self important, egomaniacal ass who will cause nothing but grief to Obama and his cabinet. I give him about a year before Obama hands him his hat.
Posted by: mrbubbleintrouble | November 23, 2008, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
So far, I’ve been extremely impressed. The Dems have a deep bench and he’s calling in all the best talent and assigning them to the roles they are uniquely fitted to succeed at. He will be in charge of a great team, a real Dream Team, that is truly dedicated to fixing America and restoring it to its former glory. Big, positive change is coming!
Posted by: hopesprings52 | November 23, 2008, 5:02 pm 5:02 pm
Josehama-
Senator Kennedy stopped drinking some time ago with help from his friend, Senator Hatch. He now has a brain tumor which will probably be fatal but that’s no reason to stop kicking him, right?
Posted by: Brooklyn Democrat | November 23, 2008, 5:06 pm 5:06 pm
Jock…what Obama are you seeing? I’ve heard it from his own words
Posted by: Andrew | November 23, 2008, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
What is the most impressive and rewarding experience of Obama is that he sees the situation we are in and is doing his best to surround himself with the best and brightest minds he can, regardless of petty opinions. In fact, his continual standing on higher ground, with noble thinking is exactly what the American people want and need.
The world is faced with several significant challenges, do we have time to bicker, gossip, lie, play games, be ego-centric? I think not. The wake-up call has been given. Action must be based on sound judgement and be swift. My prayer will always be for Obama to have wisdom and understanding and this is what I am pursuing within myself so as to be of service to him and America.
Posted by: srarch | November 23, 2008, 5:17 pm 5:17 pm
Obama is the smartest, most intelligent, most articulate president that we will ever have..sit back and watch! He will do a great job of turning this country around, because he will surround himself with smart people..he will seek their advice and he would make decision based on commonsense..quite unlike George W..God bless Barack Obama and his cabinet and God bless America!
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
Jan: You mean like Obama’s choice for Treasury secretary? A man that represents the worse curse to the American government. The Federal Reserve. A group of super rich private banks that print us money from nothing and collect interest.
Obama is the twin brother of Bush…seperated at birth. Chosing Timmy for TS is just following the family traditon.
Start buying food….it’s more of the same old, same old.
Posted by: kennedy | November 23, 2008, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
Obama said that he will include a Republican in his cabinet..I am waiting to see who that could be! beside chuck hagel..he will be hard pressed to find a smart Republican..Republicans are rich but not too bright and Obama needs bright people..Haven’t you seen what the Republicans have done to our country? They believed that you grow the economy by fighting wars..even my 13 year old daughter know that does not make sense! Thank God the democrats are in to fix this economic problem(I am not even a democrat..Am an Independent voter) but experience has taught me that the democrats are the better of the two evils on the question of domestic policy and focusing on America rather than the outside world..I am an American not an Iraqi or Afghan..America ought to come first. Obama and him bright team will do a great job of turning this country around if they are not blocked by the Republic who are good at playing politics and who put party before country. God bless Barack Obama and his cabinet and God bless America!
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
Stanley and you are exactly what all politician’s, rep and democrat, dream about. A sheep that can be slaughtered.
Posted by: kennedy | November 23, 2008, 5:27 pm 5:27 pm
Kennedy, you must be a Republican and Republicans are not too bright! You Republicans believe in voodoo economics(trickle down theory)and that you can grow the economy by fighting wars and messing in the internal affairs of other countries. I am an independent voter but democrats always make more sense than Republicans..I normally do not respond to Republicans because they don’t have a clue and the average Republican would look you in the eye and try to justify why its more important to spend 10 billion dollars a month to support a baseless,unjust war in Iraq than to invest that same money in Education, healthcare and in growing the economy..God bless Barack Obama and his cabinet and God bless America! The Republicans are about to go! What a sigh of relief! Thank you Lord!
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 5:36 pm 5:36 pm
Relax folks. It’s been so long, you just don’t remember how a real “uniter” operates. The last person who ran for president and claimed to be a “uniter” wasn’t. Not hardly. So sure it’s gonna look a little foreign to ya.
Posted by: foxisms | November 23, 2008, 5:41 pm 5:41 pm
The Clintons are capable people without all of the manipulation by media, surragates, and old timers.
I think the Clinton appointment was a bargning chip to get the support that the Obama campaign was convienced it needed to win. To really be “CHANG”, if the Clinton’s chose not to be involved they should have been left alone and the Obama campaign should have taken the risk. I think they would have been suprised.
If the truth was faced, Obama started to move up with women and the working man’s voters before the Clinton drama.
Yhis has the over tones of “calling in favors”.
With the push of the media and the oldtimers there was no trust that the new guy was capable of doing the job.
This is the unspoken evidence of the insidius racism in our country. AND THIS IS NOT THE RACE CARD.
Posted by: Jean2 | November 23, 2008, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
Quite frankly, I think Republicans should be kept away from management at the federal level..they have been a failure and always leaves us with a deficit..Bill Clinton left us with a surplus..Ronald Reagan, Papa Bush left us with big deficits and now Baby Bush is leaving us with the biggest deficit ever in the history of this country. The democrats always have to clean up the mess. Thank God that we now have a smart,level headed thinker who will surround himself with bright people to deal with the current situation that affects our beloved country. God bless Barack Obama and his cabinet and God bles America!
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 6:07 pm 6:07 pm
Isn’t it refreshing to have a president who is bright,articulate,intelligent and one who does not hold grudges but is more interested in investing in America! Isn’t it refreshing to have a president who when he speaks you can feel proud to say “that is my president speaking”..you don’t have to worry about green verbs and sentences that do not make any sense! God bless Barack Obama and his cabinet and God bless America for making the right choice!
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 6:17 pm 6:17 pm
Good grief. Obama is as Machiavellian as they get.
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | November 23, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Barack Obama(bright, intelligent..loves his country)..Hillary Clinton(bright, intelligent..loves her country..Good start president elect..we are supporting you and your picks one hundred percent and more importantly..we are praying for you and your cabinet…God bless these United States of America!
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
I’m personally disappointed with Obama’s choices for his cabinet. He promised change, but now he’s appointing career politicians like Hillary Clinton. (Did he forget her sleazy campaign tactics? She makes Lee Atwater look like Mother Theresa.)
Posted by: Jim B | November 23, 2008, 6:25 pm 6:25 pm
Jim, I interpreted Barack Obama’s promise of change to mean “changing the direction the country is going”..Most Americans believed that the country is headed in the wrong direction. I interpreted his promise of change to mean..”Reinvest in America..invest in schools, healthcare,jobs the economy..not war and messing in other country’s internal affairs”. Bill Clinton was president during 8 prosperous years and if Obama seek to choose a few of the smart men and women who were instrumental in engineering the prosperity under Clinton..I think that is a smart move on Obama’a part..he’s not going to choose all of his cabinet and advisors from the Clinton era but choosing one or two is a brilliant move..I do not care who he chooses as long as this country’s economy begins to grow again to the point where Americans can experience feeling the difference and there are jobs, and access to affordable and accessible healthcare,we can provide the best education for our children, and people can afford to purchase homes etc. Obama is serious about working to those ends..and if we support him and his cabinet..I have no doubt that his government will be succesful.
Posted by: Stanley | November 23, 2008, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm
West Coast Messenger- FYI, Prince Machiavelli would have killed off any rivals in his court, rather than systematically placed them in the manner of LIncoln and Obama. There was some historical folly to it in LIncoln’s time, but rest assured, Abe was no admirer of the liittle prince from several centuries ago.
Posted by: kat | November 23, 2008, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
Bill Clinton presided over a peiod of expansion and good times. After 9-11-01 Bush had to deal with economic slowdown and people wanted war! Remeber??? You can paint history to suit your own needs but realize that the economy is a cyclical thing and also that the first wave of baby boomers are retiring now and we are in contraction! People don’t have as many children so understand that there are not as many consumers!!
When you realize the messiah isn’t all you have him hyped to be perhaps you will have a better understanding. Clinton actually helped create the housing crisis before he left office.
Don’t be surprised when Obama continues to blame problems on the previous administration. It is what they do best! SPIN!!!!
Posted by: Badboy | November 23, 2008, 7:38 pm 7:38 pm
My goodness, BHO isn’t even president yet. I mean, he still holds the new office of president elect and we’re already trying to compare him to Lincoln? I can hardly wait for the annointed one to get into office so we can see the real PTL group get all fired up. Un-freaking-believable!
Posted by: TxBoB | November 23, 2008, 7:41 pm 7:41 pm
Why the should the rich have to “share” anything with anyone? If you want want what the “rich” have then go out and earn it you leeches. Nobody “owes” you anything! Stop your jealousy and your free loading off sucessful people. You have the same shot at sucess as anyone else.
Posted by: bmw1967 | November 23, 2008, 8:06 pm 8:06 pm
Bush’s tax cuts were such a childish idea. Spend, spend, spend . . . cut taxes and leave the mess for somebody else.
Here’s how the Republicans ran the government.
REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT
$421 Billion OVER BUDGET (2002)
$555 Billion OVER BUDGET (2003)
$596 Billion OVER BUDGET (2004)
$554 Billion OVER BUDGET (2005)
$574 Billion OVER BUDGET (2006)
This included RECORD overspending.
And the Republicans had the nerve during the election to try to label the Democrats as “overspenders of your hard earned tax dollars”.
Posted by: pefros | November 23, 2008, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
IM GETTING mad AT OBAMA WE VOTED THE REPUBS OUT AND ALL HE IS DOING IS TRYING TO MODEL HIS CABNET ON THE REPUBLICANS . HES DONE MOORE REACHING OUT TO THE GOP THAN HE HAS DONE TWO THOSE OF US WHO VOTED FOR HIM SO FAR . HE CAMPAIGNED AGAINST OLD WASHINGTON WHATS THIS CABNET OBAMA IS PUTTING TOGETHER ? ITS OLD WASHINGTON AGAIN .
Posted by: bernard | November 23, 2008, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
The President-elect may be haiving blind fascination with this team of rival concept. In espousing the concept, I do not think Lincoln was an naive as Obama appears to be -Lincoln, at least, was albeit selective about which rivals he picked, unlike Obama. Lincoln did not pick Robert E. Lee (the confederate general) among the team of rivals, in his cabinet.
The problem is that Obama appears to be fool-hardy in appointing some of his team of rivals. Take for instance, Joe Biden did not even endorse Obama; Hillary Clinton (upto now, still does not think Obama is qualified for the Office, despite her public statements); Ram Emmanuel did not have the courage to endorse Obama; now there is a rumor that Obama may appoint Ret. Gen. Jones, who voted for John McCain and supports the war in Iraq.
Other than following in the foot steps of Lincoln, with this ‘team of rivals” nonsense, what other considerations have informed Obama’s appointments that, from every conceivable angle, appears a third Bill Clinton administration? Does Obama’s transition team worry about the potential risk of divided loyality that may result from having so many Clinton loyalists and former staffers, dominate his staff and cabinet appointees?
For a candidate who ran as a change agent and wanted to change our politics, most of us who voted for Obama do not even know what he stands for, now. Obama is trusting Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, who do not agree with the general thrust of his foreign policy -”constructive engagement”, to execute and manage his foreign policy agenda. Either he is frightingly, naive, or he is fool-hardy. Either way, we would find out.
The most foolish blunder thus far, is the presumptive appointment of Hillary Clinton to the State Dept.
His transition team, with these lousy appointments, is setting Obama up to be a one term President. You think Hillary Clinton would not challenge Obama in 2012, think again!
Posted by: ICAN2101 | November 24, 2008, 12:47 am 12:47 am
Hey you democrats out there. How’s the knife feeling on your backs? We told ya so, but you wouldn’t listen. He’s not left of center or even center. He’s a good old Republican — to the right of center. He’s almost a Barry Goldwater Republican. Too bad!
By the way, the dude loves Ronald Reagan. Yikes!!!
Posted by: lavampire | November 24, 2008, 10:30 am 10:30 am
Stanley is right..thank God we have a Democrat in place, a bright, well spoken, highly intelligent man that if you will remember correctly.. won the election by a landslide vote! Thank God the nation had the good sense to elect him and thank God those two evil old moustache-twirling Republicans will soon be out of office and that once again, the Democrats will come in behind those two dismal failures and clean up the mess they’ve made of the country.
Posted by: liberaldem | November 24, 2008, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
President-elect Obama is choosing the best qualified experts to tackle these crisises we are in. These pros are being vetted for more than their credentials. There must be cohesion. The wise people surrounding Mr. Obama are helping him to make these critical decisions. He ran for president in these uncertain times because he believed he could give our country back to we the people. He is doing everything within his power to rescue our country from disastrous results of the past eight years. Have patience and watch and learn.
Posted by: EddieG | November 24, 2008, 1:21 pm 1:21 pm
Hey…. That’s snot subject..High ups pay for that flogging comparison
Posted by: Darrell E. Heard | November 24, 2008, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
did not post
Posted by: Darrell E. Heard | November 24, 2008, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
We, the new legal immigrants will be very optimistic to the new government of Barack Obama. The appointment of his former rivals to key government posts signals that he wants unity to this country. This will also help us to be assimilated to the mainstream American society. We are helpful that more jobs will be generated during his term. Thank you.
Posted by: Antonio C. Alfajora | November 24, 2008, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
The Bush administration demonstrated what can happen when a President surrounds himself with like-minded yes-men. A Bush-style cabinet frees the President to make stupid moves without a whisper of dissent from his own group-thinking team. So Obama is wise to include former rivals on his team. And his cabinet selection criteria clearly go beyond a willingness to dissent. So I certainly think the folks he is picking are adult enough to behave better than the historical figures that you discuss.
Posted by: Mark | November 24, 2008, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
When has Obama ever had to hire anyone in the past besides an election advisor. He is getting this from a book on something that happened 150 years ago? He’ll never know what hit him, so naive.
Posted by: stanjones | November 24, 2008, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
HELLO…. In order to have Unity in this country. You must start with Unity at the top. There must be Unity in the Cabinet, people!
Posted by: noodles | November 25, 2008, 1:42 pm 1:42 pm
There is another way in which Lincoln’s model didn’t work out, demonstrating further why we should ignore hack historians like Doris Kearns. While Lincolns election caused some people so much consternation that they withdrew from the union, many reform-minded folks thought he might produce true emancipation. He never did (the emancipation proclamation freed no slaves) and in the years following his death, the Republican party plunged to the right, leaving the “freedmen” with no protection and little opportunity. Most “former slaves” never escaped bondage, drifting into new forms of servitude. The reformers plan to provide for a true multi-racial democracy (and to bring such things as public schools to the south) was never really implemented for the most part following Lincoln’s death, and the few reforms that did see daylight were abandoned by a party that had become something quite different than the movement that had emerged in the fifties and had put Lincoln in office.
Will we see the same under Obama. He came to office, in part, out of the hard work of many reformers, but his recent appointments suggest that he will leave the party in the hands of an old power structure that will ignore ultimately ignore that reforming spirit. He apparently thinks he can hire “people of experience and talent” to help achieve progressive reforms, even if those people don’t agree with those reforms and have never supported them (perhaps also to keep his friends close and his enemies even closer), but he should be reading someone other than a hack historian for historical analogies that will serve him well.
Of course, we must also keep in mind that certain power elites in this country chose and supported Obama because they thought that his bio would make a good cover for the ambitions of the empire. They will let some reforms take place, but I’m sure they have made it clear to Mr. Obama, that they will not tolerate any major deviations from the norm.
Oh, and yes, I supported, worked for, vote for, and game money to Mr. Obama’s campaign. But I’m under no illusions about what he represents or doesn’t represent.
Posted by: johnn | November 26, 2008, 12:44 pm 12:44 pm
Obama’s election merely provides the OPPORTUNITY for reform of the system. The more apt historical analogy here is not with the nineteenth century Lincoln but with the twentieth century Franklin Roosevelt. The great reforms that became the New Deal emerged largely from progressive in Congress and as a result of pushes from progressives from the general public. FDR merely accepted those reforms and embraced them (no small accomplishment to be sure). If we want change, we must elect Democrats to Congress who support or will accept progressive reform, and then we must push them to introduce and support those reforms. Obama will probably not stand in the way a Bush has done or that a McCain (or Palin) would have done, but Obama is NOT going to be the source of reform.
Let’s keep pushing him. Starting with the election in Georgia on Tuesday.
Posted by: ab | November 26, 2008, 1:17 pm 1:17 pm
Gives new meaning the to the phrase “ship of fools.”
Posted by: John Kantor | January 6, 2009, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm