For now, Obama's picks strike me as encouraging

Geithner is the Summers' protege, so a pick that's a nod to experience plus a nod to the current crisis, where Geithner gained his greatest national prominence yet.

The AZ gov (Napolitano) as homeland seems solid enough: outsider, from the front lines, female to boot.

Holder is a solid choice, yielding the first African-American AG. If you're going to pull off any additional "first" of this sort, that's about the coolest, most symbolic place to do it. I always liked Holder under Clinton. He seems very much in no-drama-Obama mold.

Daschle at HHS is a good payoff to his mentor and a solid pick in its own right. His stature from the Senate will prove helpful.

Finally, Hillary is a good pick at State, co-opting the Clintonian goodwill globally right where it can best be put to use. Whether Bill's detractors want to admit it or not, he's arguably the most admired past leader in the world today, other than Mandela. Hillary's now a much admired figure in her own right, so why not put all that to use while limiting any options she might still entertain for 2012? Having voted for both of them (Hillary in Indiana's primary, where she squeaked out a win, Obama in the general election where we tipped this place blue!), it is exciting (and a testament to Obama's self-confidence) to see them both together. In the end, this is a much cooler outcome than her being Veep (and I feel more comfortable with Biden as the trusty back-up). With Hillary at State, we might have our first strong SECSTATE since Baker, and here I agree with Gergen: we are likely to be surprised by how well they work together, so I think Thomas Friedman's fears, while reasonable, are unlikely to be met.

Plus, with Jones (a figuratively and literally towering figure) at national security adviser, I see the strongest, most credentialed player in that post since Kissinger-the-realized. I don't see him taking that job only to be as weak a coordinator as Rice and Hadley, meaning it won't be years until solutions like the Iraq surge are finally allowed to emerge (Seriously, how can you take those two seriously in the post when both expressed such awe at Bush's intellect? I would never want anyone in that gatekeeper role who held my intellect in awe--just a bad idea.). I would also expect him to work well with Petraeus.

With Hillary at State, then the pressure builds for a non-Dem at the Pentagon, so more desire, I suppose, to get Gates to stay (Although he's really an independent, isn't he? But I guess he counts as a holdover). If he does, then many assume Danzig preps as his deputy and then moves up.

In the end then, none of my early favorites seem to emerge, but I'm not disappointed. Parlor games are fun, but I like to be surprised by bolder picks (mine tend to be safer, duller ones). I mean, I hired the guy and when I hire people, I like to see them grab the job by the horns and make it their own. And in each instance here, I find myself feeling better and not worse about the choice, which you just can't predict beforehand.

All in all, I take a lot of encouragement from these choices. Obama is trying to satisfy in a lot of different directions, and I think it's a good mix to date. They reflect a true CEO mindset that wants very strong subordinates, and I like a cabinet for America right now that reflects too much agenda and too much leadership rather than too little in either category.

I don't want an America that simply accommodates or surrenders to presumed trends. I want an America that leads as it always has, but does so in a smarter fashion.

And I see such possibilities here . . .

Comments

[James]

Tom,

My only concern seems to be, as I've hears several news venues report, that it looks like were getting Clinton's 3rd term as opposed to the Change we were promised.

I've said all along that all I care about is keeping Gates as SECDEF so I can't complain yet, but it still seems like a valid point.

[farhad]

In a historical sence,Obama's election is a big blow to racisim(specialy in U.S)and a win for humanity.In a political sence,he is thelast card (in view of the people all over the word=second supperpower)for America to get it right;to satisfy the mainstream domesticly & globaly,and not forget the promises that he made to the people(thats why he is here in first place); CHANGE.of course wearen't talking about administrative's changes(different faces),we aretalking about substansive change:we can't presue same previous agendas and talk about change,we can't lead the people of the world,where people don't want a leader.Two choices in front of Obama,1)think about the social well being(jobs,health,education,thegap between rich & poor,...ect)of the people in U.S,and stop trying tosatisfy the big corpt's interest("globalization"),you can't have both.2) same old neocon's dream of world dominance,and satisfying the corpt's greeds in the name of leadership,or we are #1,we are better,and know better than everyone,...ect.If you are good,take care of your own people.

[Seth]

I can handle a Clinton 3rd term without the sleazy behavior. He just needs to ride out the crisis and the economic cycle will start to rise again, sit back enjoy collect the fruits of an Iraq campaign already won, and the military will take care of Afghanistan. Clinton was smart that he didn’t try to interrupt the economic growth that was taking place during his Presidency. The problem Obama is going to run into is when his supporters figure out they aren't going to get some drastic change. The one good benefit that has come from the bailout is that it would seem that health care reform and any other new big government programs are off the table.

[Rex]

@Seth

You should probably pay more attention.

Obama and his advisors have already stated that health care reform and other new big government programs are part and parcel of the stimulus plan. $500bn, $800bn, maybe $1tn -- they aren't specifying numbers just yet. But they expect Congress to have it ready for his signature on 1/20/09.