but I'm not sure of the wisdom of having members of the oposition party in charge of both the Departments of State and Defense.

That said, keeping Gates makes sense, and Lugar would be a fine choice.

I want talent and integrity, and those two provide it in spades as far as I can tell...

You're going bipartisan rogue.  :)

and consider Teddy Roosevelt - Progressive Republican, then Bull Moose - to have been one of the greatest American presidents.  As Jim Webb and many others said, I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me (by moving far to the right, away from reform, away from environmental conservation, towards corporate crony capitalism, towards the "religious right," etc., etc.).

I think the other commenter has a point, though. Too often, people advocate bipartisanship for the sake of nothing more than bipartisanship (obviously, Lowell, I think your reasons are more thoughtful than that), and I agree - as a goal in and of itself, I think it is a bad idea.

Anyway, to me, the problem is not so much the appointment of the Department head as all that goes with it at lower levels in the respective departments, and the various political connections and attitudes those folks bring with them. I don't for a moment doubt the qualifications or integrity of Gates or Lugar, but they would bring with them a different group of political appointments, wouldn't they?

As a general rule, Republicans and Democrats see things differently on the U.S. role in the world and our foreign policy. My only objection was putting both Defense and State in the hands of the opposition party.

It's not just about the "D" but there are practical consequences.

is whether they recognize that the American Empire is coming to an end or not.  And by this I mean the "American Exceptionalism", and the use of the military for our own selfish reasons.  But the rest of the world is tired of it, and we are nearly bankrupt, so the status quo simply can't continue.

The Republicans are in denial about this and are trying to do whatever they can to keep the thing going.  All they really seem to have is talk however.

Democrats don't seem to want to say much at all about it right now.  But leaving a Republican in charge of DOD would seem to be a statement that we will continue to behave as if the Empire is alive and kicking.

are "American Exceptionalists." To the contrary, I see them both as realists, pragmatists and internationalists in the best tradition of American foreign policy.

By the way, whether or not a person has an "R" or "D" next to his or her name has had very little correlation historically with their views towards American "exceptionalism" or an aggressive military posture.  In fact, if we look back at the 20th century, I would argue that Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and JFK were essentially believers in "making the world safe for Democracy" (in JFK's case, "pay any price, bear any burden..."). Nixon, a Republican, accomplished detente with the Soviet Union and went to China.  George HW Bush was an internationalist and foreign policy pragmatist who believed in treaties and international institutions. Ronald Reagan ultimately came to terms with Soviet President Gorbachev, even offering at one point to scrap our nuclear arsenals.  The bottom line is that it's not so simple to say "Republican=bad, Democrat=good" on foreign policy. Not that you're saying this, I don't think but I have heard others make that argument.

There are fifty Democrats with at least as much talent and with considerably more integrity.

I was and am steeled for massive disappointment in Obama's cabinet choices, but with this list we might as well have elected a Republican.

f'ing Schwarzenegger? Are you kidding me? He is such a joke. Obama's landslide victory was NOT a mandate for bipartisanship, particularly bipartisanship for its own sake. I hereby pan this diary.

Schwarzenegger has been great on the environment and energy issues. He would raise the profile of the Energy Department greatly.  He's a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive in many ways. I'd love to see him appointed to an Obama administration, but again, if you REALLY need a "D" by the person's name, there are other fine choices for Energy Secretary like Jeff Bingaman.  

I didn't mean to dismiss out of hand Schwarzenegger's record on environment+energy issues, but why reward this with a plum cabinet appointment when his record on other issues, particularly labor, taxes, state budgets etc, from what I can tell, is fundamentally incompatible with Democratic principles?

Your list includes nearly as many GOPers as Democrats, and I just don't think that's where the country is right now--your whole list smacks of bipartisanship for its own sake, which to me is just pointless. Work with Republicans where they are willing to negotiate in good faith, but we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to reward their bad behavior by passing over qualified Democrats just for the sake of projecting an image of unity.

Republicans should only be considered for Obama's cabinet positions if no qualified Democrats are available, IMHO.

I didn't include a LOT of cabinet officials or other appointees, to the Supreme Court for instance.  As far as I'm concerned, they should all be strong on labor issues, economic fairness issues, personal and civil liberties issues, whatever the case may be.

I don't want to see some show of bipartisanship really.  I just want the best person available for the job.

regardless of party label.

The hurdles Obama faces are far too high to pander only to the left.  I agree with many other posters here - lets get the most qualified individual for the position and bring this country out of the gutter.  Nowhere in this election cycle do I recall "Change" meaning throw the bastards out.  By focusing on the job rather than party pundits, Obama will have instituted a very welcome change.  Remember, we are not blue states or red states, we are the United States.  If you can't understand that, well then...

like I said above, Republicans should ONLY be considered for cabinet positions where no qualified Democrats are available. Why are the calls for bipartisanship so strenuous only when Democrats win? After all the damage they have done, frankly, I have no interest in token displays of bipartisanship. The election results suggest the country can be united in common purpose without it.  

I don't have a problem with bipartisanship, but, you know, should Obama choose not to appoint any Republicans, well, someone said, I'm not sure who, "Elections have consequences."

As for this "most qualified person" nonsense, what does that even mean? Does any thinking person even believe their is a "most" qualified person in the sense of one person who is qualitatively better than all others for a particular post? No. Rather, there are numerous "qualified" people for these posts, and as Obama puts his team together, he will have to make thousands of judgments and calculations regarding their strengths and weaknesses and the manner in which they will interact with him and each other -- exactly the kind of judgments we elected him to make on our behalf.

And the fact is that while on one level, we are not red states or blue states, this does not mean that once someone gets elected they need to ignore what got them elected in the first place or that the losing party is entitled to much of anything.

Now, I hope Obama is smarter than that, and does exercise real leadership and inclusion in his government, because I think it would be better for America. But the idea that Republicans are somehow entitled to much say at this point, after the last eight years of mismanagement, corruption, lying, and division is frankly absurd.

during a rally in Ohio last weekend...

On the other hand, I keep thinking about Abraham Lincoln and the fascinating book, "Team of Rivals."  Lincoln wanted the best men (and it was all men back then) in the country to work in his administration, even if they disliked each other or even held HIM in contempt.  Somehow, not only did it work, but it worked brilliantly. Also, most if not all members of the "Team of Rivals" came to respect and even love Abraham Lincoln himself.  I can see that happening with Barack Obama too...

With the sudden and insulting appearance of Arnold, I wondered if he was offered something for his state.  All of a sudden he was publicly all over McCain.  He was having such a bad time financially, maybe he got something for his silly endorsement.

I realize that anyone with real experience has baggage, but I worked with some very senior leaders in Africa who she alienated late in the Clinton Administration. One of them was the President of Eritrea, who held her personally responsible for the war with Ethiopia. Probably unfair, but they will not be so open with her if she returns.

at State or at UN.  Have not heard anyone mention Richard Haass, but he would be very qualified at State; also, Tony Zinni practically anywhere, James Jones at either NSC or CIA, and Bob Kerrey just about anywhere.

General Zinni is a personal favorite.

Hillary Clinton.  There's nobody out there more qualified or more deserving of this post.  She could present real value to his presidency here, where her talents would have been altogether lost as VP.  Just my opinion.

to take this job.

While I am not a fan of her politically, how about Judy Feder?  Her professional background certainly more than qualifies her.

Hillary won't leave the Senate for anything except one particular job in the Executive branch...

working in a top-level position on health care issues in the Obama administration. She's superbly qualified in that area, as we all know...

Go with Chuck Hagel for SecDef.  Bipartisan, yet there is agreement on the issues of the military.

n/t

Was it Kos the other day who featured the article about Dems naming Republicans as SecDef?  

I can't remember for sure where I read this piece, but the author was making the point that Republicans never appoint Dems as SecDef, but that Dems frequently have done so.  The problem is that it reinforces the idea that Democrats are not strong on national defense which is a crock.

Aren't there some good retired military Democrats who might be good for this job?  Anthony Zinni?  Wesley Clark?  

I don't have a problem with leaving Gates in place in the short term if it makes getting out of Iraq easier.  

Al Gore for Energy, Interior, or EPA.  He's established his bona fides for any of these and his selection would signal the world that the United States is taking energy and the environment seriously.  Don't relegate him to some made up new position with no power or ability to enact anything meaningful (about as worthless as the "Drug Czar").

Max Cleland for Veterans Affairs would be a stellar move as would Olympia Snowe for Commerce.

I don't know about keeping Gates.  One area where the electorate is really looking for change is in our military policy.  While Gates has done an admirable job, there is a certain symbolism (and not the good kind) in keeping a remnant from the Bush cabinet in this critical and very public position.  Perception is sometimes as important as filling a position competently.

I think it would be great if the team could at least vet all the Bush castoffs.  You know the all stars they recruited in his first term when they were pretending to govern from the middle.  Imagine Whitman, Snow and Powell actually being brought back in some capacity, but this time the president listens to their advice.  Heck put David Iglesias in as AG.  I bet we get to the bottom of the US AG fireing scandal right quick.

People who are so strongly anti-science should go get coddled by the Republicans, that's their bag.

I know, he wouldn't have control over vaccination policy or anything, and he has done some good environmental work. But it makes me suspect that, unlike Obama, when presented with evidence that shows he's wrong, Bobby Kennedy, Jr. will ignore it.

If I'd wanted that kind of behavior, I'd've voted for McCain/Palin and Gilmore.

Anti-vaxers are against vaccination, generally because they incorrectly believe vaccines contribute to autism. With a few, it is because they don't believe in the germ theory of disease.

These people willfully ignore science, like Creationists and those who think that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

These groups have enough support among Republicans, Democrats don't need to give them any.

This article at Respectful Insolence does a good job of aggregating links to more information, but as the author puts it, the main point is this:

Yes, that RFK, Jr. You know, the one who added rocket fuel to the fire of the entire scare about mercury in the thimerosal preservative that used to be in vaccines as a cause of autism back in 2005, with his pseudoscience- and misinformation-filled article Deadly Immunity. He's also one of the key boosters of antivaccination fearmongering based on the claims that mercury causes autism, and has done numerous articles, public speeches, and media appearances supporting the now scientifically discredited idea that thimerosal in vaccines is a cause or "trigger" for autism.

and

... putting an pseudoscience-boosting crank like him in any position of power in the federal government, much less at a Cabinet-level position, is not the kind of message that reassures me that an Obama Administration is dedicated to using good science as a basis for determining policy.

I think Orac is 100% on the money here.

The problem is the forcing of vaccinations.  You can take all the shots you want but leave me alone please.  Please don't mandate.  That is the problem.  

The problem is people who don't bother to learn basic information about public health, vaccines, or even science in general.

While vaccines give individuals some immunity to a given disease, what makes them really effective is when enough people use them to cause a disease to essentially disappear. This is what has happened with small pox.

When not enough people take them, then you start making the existing vaccines less effective, because you have all these nice hosts for them to live in, and selective pressure will favor strains of the disease which can get past the immune system response of those who are vaccinated.

So, basically, those who choose not to vaccinate are hoping those who do outnumber them by enough that the disease won't become an even worse problem.

There are those who have good reasons for not taking vaccines (immunological problems, etc), and we need to have a high enough herd immunity for these people to be exempted from vaccines. So, why should we let those who have no real reason other than ignorance and arrogance create a larger public health hazard just because those people (such as, apparently, you) think they know better than doctors and epidemiologists?

This is why there was a measles outbreak in California early this year, when previously the disease had been thought to be virtually dead in the US. Every time you choose not to vaccinate yourself or your children without a solid reason such as allergies or being immunocompromised, you're screwing over everyone in your community who comes in contact with you.

In other words, if you weren't so ignorant about how vaccines work, you'd realize that mandating them is part of what makes them effective.

Essentially, it's like trying to say, "Well, sure if you're drunk driving, you're less safe. But don't try and mandate that I don't drive drunk." Those who drive drunk are a risk to public safety, of both themselves and everyone who is in the vacinity when they are drunk driving; those who chose to not vaccinate are similarly a public health problem, both for themselves, and for those in their communities.

So you can choose to not vaccinate, just as soon as you either establish a health reason for why you can't, or as soon as you get locked in a room by yourself, miles from everybody else. This is not some issue where there is conflicting evidence, and nobody is sure what the right thing is. So suck it up, and take your shots, or stay out of contact with everyone.

Because the problem isn't the mandating of vaccines. The problem is ignoramuses who want to set up a state of affairs which will allow the resurgence of diseases which can cripple and kill, all because they think they know more about public health and medicine than the doctors, epidemiologists, and others who actually study public health and medicine.

For Treasury Secretary, why a former one who was in office while our financial system went wild?  I like the idea of Jamie Dimon.  J.P. Morgan has come through this crisis on top.  They didn't go crazy like other banks.  And they were there to step in help solve the problem as other banks collapsed.  I think if anything this has proven what a star Jamie Dimon is.  And you need someone who has a thorough understanding of financial markets to serve as a good advisor and regulator of them (not that Rubin and Summers don't have that).  Equal weight with Dimon, I would put Volker.  And second choice would be Geithner.  

For Energy, you really need someone with a depth of experience/knowledge in a wide range of fuels.  Especially since we want to transform DOE into a transformative agent in the entire way we power our economy.  That needs to be someone with not only superior knowledge in the field, but also superior management skills.  Someone who can bring with them a very talented team to surround them and get the job done.  And maybe the latter elements are so important that you don't need someone with much background in energy.  I don't know that either of the Politico choices fit the bill.

But ultimately, Obama is intelligent, and I trust his judgment.  He managed to basically create and then successfully run a multi-million dollar organization spanning all 50 states encompassing thousands upon thousands of employees (paid and unpaid).  That's no small accomplishment.  So, I have a good feeling about whatever his choices end up being.

Rather than Clinton's Asst Sec'y of State for UN Ambassador, how about the big dog himself?  He already lives in New York.

Sorry...couldn't resist!

A lot of good choices, but as someone mentioned, mostly Washington insiders -- not necessarily the change we need.  It's important to have some new faces, not just retreads from the Clinton administration or elsewhere.

That said, there is value in experience, and there is value in (to be honest) moving some old faces out of Congress into senior posts where they can be replaced with new blood.  

BTW, I'd recommend Sibelius for HHS.  She made her reputation as Kansas Insurance Commissioner taking on the insurance companies.  Could there possibly be better experience for reforming our health care system than that?