Posted by Brad @ 9:34 pm on November 23rd 2008

Obama’s Emerging Cabinet

Andrew Sullivan, who gets a lot of flak from our bloggers, nevertheless has a very good take on it in the Sunday Times, and one which I agree with almost entirely. Also included: implicit answers to the criticisms of James on “change” and Rojas on Clinton.

2 Comments »

  1. My principal objection to Clinton’s selection is that she has no diplomatic experience worth mentioning, and is therefore unqualified for the job. I see no responses to that in Sullivan’s piece.

    It remains jaw-dropping to me that a person who has never served in any professional diplomatic capacity has been selected, from a field of thousands, as America’s chief diplomat.

    And for that reason, it is a textbook example of a selection that places the President’s political interests above those of the nation. Andrew Sullivan, of course, thinks the two are one and the same. What do you think?

    Comment by Rojas — 11/23/2008 @ 11:47 pm

  2. An additional comment, for pre-emptive reasons.

    I am going to concede full credit for Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic triumphs to Barack Obama, on the grounds that he selected her and is responsible for the successes and failures of his personal appointees.

    I am going to expect that others do the same with regard to Clinton’s failures, and I’m going to be raising holy hell if efforts are made to separate the two.

    This was Obama’s play, and ALL the consequences are on him.

    Comment by Rojas — 11/23/2008 @ 11:49 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.