home

The Faces Of A New Administration

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:31:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Kevin Drum points us to a NYTimes magazine gallery of photos of faces of the incoming Obama Administration (faces you know and some you do not.) Kevin's post is good so go read it, but I was struck by his observation about Hilda Solis' photo:

Hilda Solis looks pensive and sad.

She does. It's my favorite in the series. There is a lot to be pensive and sad about, even in the midst of this historic inauguration.

Speaking for me only

< Sunday Open Thread | Inauguration: "We Are One" Concert >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Faces Of A New Administration | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    waste of paper (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by noholib on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:12:28 PM EST
    Actually my family and I found the portrait gallery silly and vacuous--and a waste of paper. We all thought--without any text, what's the point? Just a celebrity mag?

    It was not impressive to me either. A few of the (none / 0) (#19)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:31:08 AM EST
    photographs were good, but some of them were just not well done at all. If that's the best the NYT Mag photographers can do, it's very disappointing.

    Some of them looked like mug shots to me, i.e. Jim Messina. And what was with all of that white backgound?

    It was great to see all of the faces of the next adminisration, but if they weren't going to make it quality work, then why do it?

    Parent

    I am wondering what happened (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by hairspray on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:29:30 PM EST
    to Wesley Clark.  He was a rising star a few years back and was a well like military man even with most of the left. I thought he was a better candidate than Kerry.  The Kos community adored him.  All of a sudden he challenges McCain on what experience is relevant for being the president and he is out of the picture.. poof.  Considering some of the marginal people like John Brennan Obama has put in his cabinet, I wonder why Clark was banished. The possibility of Clark coming back in 2010 as the Secretary of Defense has crossed my mind.  If not, I guess the Obama people really don't like him.

    I've wondered that, too. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:48:28 PM EST
    Can't quite figure it out.  

    I also thought that Obama would find a spot for Chuck Hagel, but that didn't happen either.  

    Parent

    Simple really... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    Wes Clark is a 4 star General, battle tested, brilliant, a heart of gold, and nobody's fool......kind of like Paul Krugman. Quite obviously, there's no place for folks like these in an Obama Administration.


    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#34)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    I guess its fair to assume that you weren't supporting Hillary then right? I mean because your post seems to be a pretty harsh assesment of her and other Obama appointees.

    Parent
    Well, if this was Fox News (none / 0) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    we could fling simplistic, "yuh wid us, or agin us?" comments back and forth, but gratefully, it's not.  Hillary's relationship with P.E. Obama is uniquely hers alone, as are each of his important appointments. Similarly, my comments and observations are my best guess as to what is taking place.

    S.O.S. Clinton is obviously an experienced politician and knows her way around the swamp, apparently much better than does Wes Clark. That doesn't make one better, or worse, than the other; it just shows they have different styles, and, in my opinion, there was something in Clark's style Obama couldn't accept. You might ask why, during the worst economic tsunami   in generations, Obama didn't seek to bring the Nobel economist, Krugman aboard? It couldn't have been substance, so I assume it was Krugman's style.

    Both Clark and Krugman are the best in their respective fields, and both show a deep concern for the social inequalities that are ripping our country apart. What's not to like? I'm not a mind reader, but I feel a little uneasy with the apparent contradiction in Obama's stated homage to a "a team of rivals,"  when these two guys, and I'm sure many more, would have been on anyone's A-team in these perilous times.

    ......unless there's a filter we don't know about that precluded that type from being considered.


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:57:29 PM EST
    Military have to be retired for 10 years before accepting a job like the Secretary of Defense. Clark has one more year to go, and Gates was appointed for a year. A coincidence that I find hopeful.

    Also Krugman is much better suited outside the government, imo. Maintaining independence, for him only boosts his position, imo.

    Parent

    Krugman (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    Is one of the best, but to say flatly that he is the "best in his field" is a bit of a stretch, the Nobel is given out yearly after all. As to appointing him- I'm not sure where he'd fit, he much like Samantha Powers in the foriegn policy arean seems to work better in "squeaky wheel" role than an actual governing position.

    Parent
    Of course..... (none / 0) (#45)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 03:10:12 AM EST
    there's no such thing as "THE best." I should have been clearer. When I say the best, I mean he's among a tiny, elite group whose achievements have earned them a special patina of respect shared by a very few.

    I also agree with you and Squeaky as to Krugman's role being better served as a squeaky (sorry, Squeaky) wheel.

    I guess what I'm groping at is that I believe there's more going on than has been reported on so far. This has the feel of being a "sleeper" that will soon grow into a major event. I have never seen Paul Krugman stepping out this far in illuminating, and defending his positions. I don't think he likes Obama; I think he feels Obama is carrying his pragmatism, and "reaching out" too far, and that many, many people will suffer as sacrifices to the altar of "Post Partisanship Politics."

    Krugman is pi**d, he called Obama out, and Mr. Obama doesn't like it.

    Last week, in an article in The Times,"Forgive and Forget?" he delivered a Roundhouse to Obama's groin regarding the apparent abandonment of any investigation and/or prosecution of the Bush atrocities:
    *    *******************

    "Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.

    And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside,that's not a decision he has the right to make."**********************

    Krugman's position is clear, and it looks like he's determined to force President Elect Obama's hand on the most pressing issue facing our country: Are we truly a Nation of Laws, or did the Criminal Bush, with his Nation of Men redefine who we are?

    Krugman threw the high, hard one at Obama's head right on Day 1.

    The ball's in Obama's court now.

    Stay tuned, I think this is going to get a lot more interesting.

    Parent

    If there's a schism, I doubt it's as trivial ... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    ... as the McCain flap. The General hasn't even emerged at the whisper level of transition buzz.

    I wouldn't stereotype him as SecDef material. Energy, education, intel, state, security, budget ... if he's not at the table, it's not because there's nowhere to sit.

    Meanwhile, Clark offered a WaPo op-ed in December urging rapprochement of Democratic Party and military culture.

    Parent

    There seemed to be an irreparable fissure (none / 0) (#16)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:14:57 AM EST
    in the relationship after Wes Clark's commentary on McCain's preparededness (or lack of) to become president. Clark stated something close to, 'being a captured pilot who was tortured' didn't necessarily make one equipped to become president.

    I think he was responding to the barrage of ads featuring McCain's POW experience, and what he said, of course, was accurate, but Republicans and various media outlets pounced on it. It looked as if the Obama campaign just kind of eased away from him after that.

    I'm sure that's not all there is to the story, but that's when that separation became apparent to me.

    Parent

    On Sec. Def. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    He legally can't be secretary of Defense til at least mid-2010, I'm not sure if that restriction prevents other major positions but it might.

    Parent
    Gross But not Uninteresting (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:52:16 PM EST
    I had to turn off the audio portion of the photographer blathering on. The pictures all seem contrived and overly self conscious, but still it is interesting to see all the Obama people.  

    BTW, Obama (like GWB) starts with two A-A's ... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 10:44:26 PM EST
    ... of Cabinet rank.

    WJC started with five.

    Funny how far we've come.

    Heh. But who's counting!?! (none / 0) (#13)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:12:36 AM EST
    I'd love to see this lineup but it crashed my Dell.

    Oh, well.

    Finally someone upthread noticed Wes Clark's absence from the first tier.  Any ideas?  Think Hil will draft him for State?

    Parent

    I Assumed (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:18:58 AM EST
    That since he had one more year left before meeting the civilian requirement for DOD chief,  (10 years retired from the military), he would replace Gates which I thought was a one year appointment.

    Parent
    and #25 (none / 0) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    See # 19 above. (none / 0) (#21)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:34:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Oops, # 16. (none / 0) (#22)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:36:28 AM EST


    Parent
    New Faces (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 06:46:25 AM EST
    From todays' NYTimes:

    "Over the last three months, Mr. Obama has quietly consulted Mr. McCain about many of the new administration's potential nominees to top national security jobs and about other issues -- in one case relaying back a contender's answers to questions Mr. McCain had suggested.

    Mr. McCain, meanwhile, has told colleagues "that many of these appointments he would have made himself," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close McCain friend."

    Does this give anyone pause?

    Yes. Indeed. n/t (none / 0) (#35)
    by jawbone on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:18:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Not so much (none / 0) (#41)
    by FreakyBeaky on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 05:55:14 PM EST
    This -

    Mr. McCain, meanwhile, has told colleagues "that many of these appointments he would have made himself," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close McCain friend."

    is very tough to believe.  Eric "waterboarding is torture" Holder?  Hilda Solis?  Susan Rice?  Don't think so.

    Perhaps Graham was referring more to some of the military-related appointments: Gates, Shinseki, James L. Jones, etc.  Gates is the only one I really don't like.  The rest seem like solid picks.  Easy enough to think that McCain would have picked people with their backgrounds for a job or two, but in the main for important jobs I don't think they'd have passed the wingnut test.  

    Parent

    Horrible photos (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ChrisO on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 08:43:45 AM EST
    I wasn't overly familiar with the way a lot of these people looked, but the photos overall looked like some of those weird, stiff Ellis Island photos. But when I saw Hillary's photo it was clear how horribly unflattering these were. Really terrible.

    Ooh, she's off message from the start! (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:40:16 PM EST
    How long do you think she'll last? (That's not quite a joke).

    Have to disagree on the unhappy part (none / 0) (#2)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:37:55 PM EST
    She does look serious though.    A lot of the people aren't smiling.  The thing I took away from this cool photo collection was generally how good looking the people are.  He is going to have one hot white house.

    Those people might be attractive in real (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:31:58 PM EST
    life, but the photography here makes them look horrible actually. It's some of the most unflattering work I think I've ever seen. Jim Messina looks like the Joker. Denis McDonough looks as though he'd like to get a closer look at your brain.

    If Salazar showed up dressed like that it should be held against him at confirmation.

    Parent

    Minus salazar (none / 0) (#6)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    Who obviously likes that hat just a little too much:).   But Susan Rice, Reggie Love, Ellen Moran, Valier Jarrett, Ms. C, Desirree Roberts, etc. All hot.

    Parent
    Really... (none / 0) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:06:17 AM EST
    ...being proud of one's ethic/ranching/state heritage is a back thing and should be held against him at his confirmation?  

    Snark or not, it's good to know that you're so open minded.

    Parent

    "bad", not "back" n/t (none / 0) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:07:12 AM EST


    Parent
    I've always been bigoted toward stupid (none / 0) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:51:41 AM EST
    hats. He's a United States Senator, not one of the Bonanza boys.

    Parent
    It seems to me that men in the Southwest and West (none / 0) (#17)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:23:43 AM EST
    tend to wear hats as a personal or fashion statement. Remember Lyndon Johnson?

    I've never been too fond of it though.

    Parent

    I think Tommy Lee Jones is the only guy (none / 0) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:27:46 AM EST
    who can get away with it.

    Parent
    Right! He's one of the few. (none / 0) (#20)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:32:58 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep, back the West (none / 0) (#27)
    by sj on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 10:21:43 AM EST
    men wear hats.  And spurs.  And chaps.  Are you kidding me? We're part of this country, you know.  And a baseball cap is much more common than a Stetson.  Which is only common during the Stock Show in January.  [Hey, I'll even pull out my cowboy hat to go to the Stock Show.]

    I agree that it's a statement, but I'm not sure what it's stating.  Salazar's big ole hat is an oddity in most of Colorado as well.

    It wouldn't be an oddity if he actually worked outdoors.  But then, if he actually worked outdoors he wouldn't be wearing a "dress" hat.  So maybe it would still be an oddity.

    Parent

    It's certainly not an oddity... (none / 0) (#29)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    ...in the San Luis Valley.  In fact, it is the norm.  Ever even been to LaJara?  

    Colorado is much more than just the "big city" and the Front Range.  It would be mistake to base your argument of "what's common" based on the Stock Show.

    Also, you don't think he works outdoors?  I'm guessing that you've never done any ranching.  

    Parent

    au contraire (none / 0) (#31)
    by sj on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    My mother's family is FROM the San Luis valley.  [sidebar:  my grandmother, who was a Salazar from the area, had brothers who have/had more than a passing resemblance to the good Senator.  I've had the idea to do a family tree thing, but not the gumption].

    My father worked ranches for many years before switching to construction, and always kept a hand in even after the switch.  I've done more than my share of day to day with cows and sheep.  No chickens or goats.  That fancy hat would not be worn for that sort of work.  The sweatband that builds up would stain it terribly.

    Another sidebar.  It turns out I inherited my small head from my dad.  His workin' hat fits me perfectly.  I wear it if I have to work outside, or just if I suddenly miss him terribly.

    Parent

    However, I'll grant you the nod (none / 0) (#32)
    by sj on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:44:32 PM EST
    as it reflects on my comments regarding the baseball cap thing.  That DOES reflect Denver/Colo Springs/Fort Collins area more than the southern part of the state.

    Parent
    Just providing anecdotal evidence. (none / 0) (#44)
    by DeborahNC on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 01:15:14 AM EST
    While traveling, I've seen more hats of that style in Texas, Wyoming, Montana, than I have in New York, MA, or even in the South.

    Merely an observation.

    Parent

    Solis doesn't strike me as visionary (none / 0) (#9)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 10:39:39 PM EST
    ... and if we ever needed a labor visionary, now is the time.

    I haven't read a good account (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:15:17 PM EST
    of reasons for her reluctance at the hearings to discuss so many issues, such as the Employee Free Choice Act.  This is not a Supreme Court nomination, where potential future justices have to be careful to maintain the appearance of objectivity for future rulings.  

    A Cabinet member is supposed to be an advocate for a President's policies.  So I find her hearings  worrisome.  I also find it worrisome that mainly Repub Senators, and few Dem Senators, also find that worrisome.  Solis must be smart, so this isn't owing to ignorance, and it must be being deliberately secretive.  Why?

    And who would we consider the Senate's leading Dem advocates for labor?  I swear, I'm just not sure anymore -- and never did we need them more.  Frances Perkins, Solis is not. . . .

    Parent

    Her sad expression in the photo made me wonder if (none / 0) (#37)
    by jawbone on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    she's feeling she may not get a lot of support.

    Re: the union check off bill, Obama told the WaPo that he would try to do something which didn't require legislation, try to get bidness to agree to something good but less, uh, binding.

    Maybe that's making her reluctant to talk about what she'll do--she may be getting the Whitman treatment -- Bush doing things without telling Christine Todd Whitman what was going on. Which he did a bit to Colin Powell, as well.

    Now, Obama's words to the WaPo could just be a nod to the rightwingers and Villagers who don't like unions. Or it could be a warning to unions that they ain't gonna get what they thought they would get.

    Some blogger I read, an Obama apologist, wrote that it was unlikely business would come up with anything which would meet with Obama's approval, and thus the legislation would happen. I do not have such an optimistic take on this.

    But I do stand ready to be delighted by a progressive Obama...Pleeeeeeze! However, BringItOn at Corrente says Obama is Conservative Right (and says he's said that since the primaries). Ooooof! Say it isn't so!!


    Parent

    Interesting about the card check bill, (none / 0) (#38)
    by allimom99 on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:49:11 PM EST
    when he also said he would prefer to wait for Congress on stem cell research. I'm not sensing a progressive here, but that's been my impression all along.

    Parent
    Meanwhile, on the photos, they are mostly (none / 0) (#39)
    by allimom99 on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:53:03 PM EST
    pretty bad. rahm looks like they dragged him out of his coffin in full daylight, and, as Drum says, Axelrod looks like someone's uncle - yeah, someone's uncle Ernie!

    Yeah (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:06:01 PM EST
    Way too artsy.

    Parent
    The Faces Of A New Administration | 45 comments (45 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment