It's A Good Day To Be A Democrat

Everyone is freaking out. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Joe Lieberman's not gone after what he did? What the fuck?! Change, my ass! I didn't sign up for this shit... Or did I?

Just stop and think about it for a minute.

Barack Obama ran on a message of change. A message of hope. But how can we hope to change if we don't rise above the partisan bickering and political infighting that has ravaged our democratic process for so long? Am I expecting Obama to select John McCain for a cabinet position? No. But I wouldn't be surprised if he did.

For once we chose a politician who is already making good on the promises he made while on the campaign trail, but we've been so used to disingenuousness and disappointment, we don't know how to react. We don't know what to make of this person who does what he said he would do.

Lee Stranahan:

...I don't like Joe Lieberman. I was disgusted by Hillary's campaign. And I couldn't be happier with Obama's decisions.

You see, I took all that talk about new politics seriously. In speech after speech, Obama said we had to move past "the smallness of our politics" and he didn't single out the Republicans. He didn't say the smallness of their politics. The smallness has been in both parties and it's turned our political system into a decades long episode of Crossfire where angry and self-righteous adherents shout at each other across an infinite abyss because they are both totally convinced of the righteousness of their own positions.

With these early pre-Presidential decisions, Obama is showing confidence in the idea that he ran on; that America was ready for not just new policies but for a whole new approach to governing. It's the biggest possible change I can imagine.

It's not just good politics. It isn't some clever move. It's what those better angels Obama kept mentioning look like. No wonder it's confusing to so many people of all ideological stripes.

Bob Cesca:

Seriously, now, it's probably not a good idea to totally lose our shpadoinkle every time an Obama announcement rubs us the wrong way -- at this point, there's no need to turn everything into some kind of spasmodic "he's betraying us!" red alert. Disagreements with the administration are bound to happen, but it's also important to keep an eye on the larger narrative thread. Where's he going with this? What's the strategy? Meanwhile, I can think of a long, long list of Republican crazy to prosecute, too.

So in a word: chill.

Jamison Foser:

...we're likely in for yet another round of media snark about the supposed conflict between campaigning on "change" and then hiring Clinton alums.

This is absurd.

...[T]he suggestion that hiring Clinton administration alums is inconsistent with "change" is dependent upon the belief that the Clinton and Bush administrations were identical. Nonsense.

...If the media chatterers want to claim that Obama isn't making good on his promise of "change," they're going to have to do better than simply pointing to the hiring of Clinton administration alumni.

And on that last point, where do you suppose Obama would pick his cabinet from? Preferably whoever he chose would need the requisite experience for the job they would be asked to do, and when was the last successful Democratic administration again? Oh, yeah, the Clinton Administration. Not to say that he's solely going to pick from old Clintonites. You don't see James Carville and George Stephanopolous running around with the Obama entourage, do you?

Think of it this way: Obama asks Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State and the "more of the same" crowd goes ballistic. These same people are saying that Bill Richardson should've been asked. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bill Richardson work for the Clinton Administration? Is that "more of the same"? Don't fall for the media dictating the narrative, what is change and what is more of the same. The media is looking for ratings and what better way than to create controversy?

A very intelligent friend of mine and I were having a debate on Obama and the choices he's made so far, between the FISA compromise vote, some of his possible staff choices, etcetera, but on this particular day he was angry about the extensive application form that you'd have to fill out in order to be considered for an interview for a place on the Obama staff. After a spirited talk, he said, "I guess I've been against something for so long, I'm having a hard time and forgotten what it's like to be for something."

And that's it in a nutshell - there will be disappointments along the way as Barack Obama plays more towards the center than we'd like if his administration is to get anything done. If being an extremist worked, we'd be talking about President-elect Dennis Kucinich (don't get me wrong - I love you, Dennis). But Bob Cesca is right. We need to take a step back, take a deep breath and chill for a bit. Let's try and reserve our judgment at least until the man is in office for a little while.

Adding - and by the way, another reason to be a happy Democrat today? Mark Begich has beaten Ted Stevens in Alaska. Go directly to jail, Ted. Do NOT pass Go. Do not collect $200.

In Defense of the Obama Application

What if John Edwards was chosen to be Poverty Czar or Attorney General by the Obama Administration and then it was revealed that he had an affair? Or what if the affair came to light during the vetting process?

This is what I ask myself as I see grumblings and outrage over the news this week that the Obama transition team has asked prospective applicants for cabinet or other high ranking positions to fill out what some are calling an extensive and even invasive questionnaire.

Jesse Wendel, Group News Blog:

Like it makes sense to give professional political operatives, HR people no less, your deepest, darkest, most personal secrets, along with your medical and tax records going back years. Then TRUST THEM. Because they work for the President-Elect, so they won't fuck you over, no Sir, nuh-uh.
Other than the on the transition website, which goes further than the Bush Administration's, there's no assurance, absolutely none that they won't use everything you tell them to fuck you...

...So go ahead, hand some 20-30 year old political staff the political equivalent of blackmail video-tapes of you having a torrid affair with Bill O'Reilly, surrounded by luffas and candy you stole from children.

Wendel goes on to say that it's all about checks and balances.

"No one should be forced to submit to political vetting (and trust their public identity to non-existent assurances that their identity won't be destroyed by a trial balloon or a tactical leak for political purposes by the Obama team) on hiring decisions PRIOR to initial hiring."

He uses the phrase "tactical leak for political purposes" immediately after after saying how he knows some of the people on the transition team and trusts them deeply.

Wendel doesn't like the idea of the untrained eye - this is the first Obama Administration after all - going over personal information and compares it to the FBI's years of experience, as if the FBI has a pristine record and would never use information for political purposes. He calls it hypocrisy, something the Republicans would do, and even questions the legality of it.

Is this even legal? I know it wouldn't be anywhere else. Or is this another one of those bullshit situations where the Executive and Congress have exempted themselves from the same laws the rest of the United States must live under. Because if I were hiring people for GNB, I sure as shit couldn't ask a potential hire these questions and base hiring decisions on them. I'd get my ass sued and rightly so.

...If President-Elect Obama with his cocaine use is too much of a chicken-shit to use me and grownups like me, then really, he and the transition team can shove it up their hypocritical asses.

Well, I think you've just blown your chance with that last paragraph, Jesse. And by the way, you're wrong about the legal issue, but we'll get to that in a second. I get where you're coming from but you gotta lighten up.

Let's go back to my initial hypothetical question. Imagine if Edwards was chosen as AG and then the affair came out because there wasn't full disclosure? Game. Fucking. Over. While some see this questionnaire as over the line, and while it may be overprotective, I think it's a smart move on the Obama team's part because of all the bullshit attacks they need to defend themselves from daily just on the stuff that's made up. The last thing they need is to put out fires in their administration before getting off the ground.

As far as the legality of the application, here's a comment from "Myrtle Hussein June":

In 1980 I worked for a government contractor on the space shuttle mission at an air force base. I had to fill out a 10 year history, not unlike Obama's questions except no e-mail/internet stuff, for a security clearance and had to pass a drug test for that job.

Today, where I currently work, every single applicant has to submit to a 10 year background check/security.... for a state university. Every single person no matter the position.

Another blogger just got hired and reported having to answer some highly personal questions.

So, it's not JUST the Obama application or just for the federal government. I think no matter where you go these days there are more and more "security" measures connected with getting employment. Thank you Patriot Act.

... I'm applying to the Obama admin, got the app right here. I'm going to fill it out honestly. I'm not going to judge anything I've ever said or done to qualify as being an "embarrassment" to Obama. It just is what it is.

I don't think it's "chicken-shit"; I think it's the laws that have been passed. It's the crazy right wing extremists, or maybe left wing extremists, they're looking out for. And no, I don't consider fighting for our country to take a hard left BACK to the center "extremist" of any sort. I don't think they do either. The Obama transition team is NOT the Bush Administration.

Sorry, I don't think this is all that unusual for government workers. At least, that's not been my experience since 1980.

And that's how I see it as well - you can't be too careful when there's a world of wingnuts looking for that one opportunity to stab you in the back 24/7. Is it a little over the top? Perhaps. But if more than a little intrusion into your privacy when applying for a government job in a post 9/11 America is not your cup of tea, then don't apply. No one is forcing you to divulge information. If you've got nothing to hide then go for it; if you know you have skeletons in your closet that you don't want people to find out about but still want a job in politics, then go work for the RNC. Apply or don't apply - it's up to the applicant and they have full knowledge of what's being asked of them before they apply.

It's also matter of getting things done in a straight forward, organized fashion. Remember that the Obama camp dubbed the President-elect, "No drama Obama." It's not just a catchphrase. They don't abide any distracting bullshit. It rarely happened during their campaign, but the second there was a distraction - like foreign policy advisor Samantha Power calling Clinton a monster for example - she was gone before the end of the day. Look at how the delayed reaction regarding the Rev. Wright mess affected the campaign. It took weeks for them to shake that off. If you don't nip it in the bud early enough, all you'll be doing is fighting off bullshit distractions and never concentrate on real issues. Case in point is the McCain camp for fuck's sake - they got a poll bump from the Sarah Palin pick and then when she became the distraction, they couldn't get rid of her and they sunk like a stone.

I might tend to lean more towards Wendel's argument if the Obama Administration were walking into a "peace and prosperity" White House, but let's face it: shit has never been more fucked up than it is now and they have to hit the ground running. This will just narrow the search earlier than later. It'll shoo away those that are hesitant to apply if they think they have something to hide and cull the herd. Also, no one's 100% kosher, and I'm sure that having something on your record like a traffic violation isn't going to automatically disqualify you, but it's not so bad that it'll ruin your career if it should be nefariously leaked.

Now for those who thought Barack Obama was a lefty liberal's dream, one only need look at the FISA vote long before the election took place, or the $700 billion bailout approval to tell you that with Obama you get a pragmatist who is maybe just slightly left of center on issues that have broad bipartisan appeal. We all knew that coming in and anyone who thought he was a 21st century Che Guevara was deluding themselves.

We can't lose sight of the bigger picture. Change doesn't come in eight days. We just broke the Ronald Reagan deathgrip on this country for the last 28 years - it can't all happen in one day. Baby steps. Already there are those who are pissed at Obama for the Rahm Emanuel pick, or the possibility of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, or the incredibly invasive application questionnaire. But I think I might wait til maybe Inauguration Day before I start flying off the handle. The fact that his was one of the best run campaigns in American politics wasn't a happy accident. I doubt that his entire staff went "Teh Stupid" on November 5th.

But like I said, I just don't think they can be too careful with all the loonies out there. It's not like they're trolling for information to hold against you like the other side does (see 'illegal wiretapping'). And yes, ultimately we don't know who peeks into those files, so if you like instant messaging minors in a sexual fashion, if you rail against gays while picking up men in airport bathroom stalls, if you killed someone and buried them in your backyard, then maybe you shouldn't fill out an application. But if you think you have what it takes, still like your mom and don't fuck your cat Fluffy on a Saturday night bender, then go for it! Make change happen!