Where is the 'Team of Rivals'?

[Chicopee John]

This week will bring the announcement of several cabinet posts so this post might be somewhat premature. Only time will tell.

 

However, how much hype have we been force fed by the media: Obama and Lincoln - Team of Rivals.

 

Today I read that nominating Clinton as Secretary of State aligns with the Team of Rivals approach. I say hogwash.

 

Let's see.............Kennedy picks Johnson as his RUNNING MATE. Reagan picks BUSH.

 

We are led to believe that Obama - AKA, Mr. Change is shaking things up and building a Team of Rivals by nominating Clinton????

 

Talk about cult of personality.

 

IMHO, a Team of Rivals would include McCain, Romney, or Huckabee. Keeping the Secretary of Defense is a vanilla decision and probably will be added to the lore of this so-called Team of Rivals.

 

More like a group of cronies to me.

 

I hope to be pleasantly surprised this week.

[Guest Aloysius]

Today I read that nominating Clinton as Secretary of State aligns with the Team of Rivals approach. I say hogwash.

 

Let's see.............Kennedy picks Johnson as his RUNNING MATE. Reagan picks BUSH.

One difference you're missing out on is that Kennedy & Reagan picked their opponents for VP because they had to. If they didn't, they risked alienating important constituencies within their respective parties.

 

In 1960, Kennedy represented the Northeastern, relatively liberal wing of the Democratic party, whereas Johnson represented the conservative Southern Democrats. In 1980, Reagan represented the newly-dominant Goldwater wing of the party, whereas Bush represented the establishment, moderate branch of the party.

 

By contrast, there was very little ideological contrast between Hillary & Obama in the primaries. Similar to the Lincoln-Seward race in 1860, it came down to who would be the best candidate. In 1860, Seward was deemed too strongly abolitionist to win the election, so Lincoln was nominated. This year, Obama was seen as being more capable of representing change (because he's not a Clinton) and articulating why the Iraq War was a mistake (because he opposed it).

 

I'm not sure if this Team of Rivals stuff is really important. But I think your reason for calling it "hogwash" is a little misguided.

[Chicopee John]

By contrast, there was very little ideological contrast between Hillary & Obama in the primaries.

 

I'm not sure if this Team of Rivals stuff is really important. But I think your reason for calling it "hogwash" is a little misguided.

 

You lost me, Al.

 

First of all, Reagan didn't need to nominate anybody to beat Carter. He chose Bush - a 'rival'.

 

Second of all, I don't understand why my calls of hogwash - perhaps a strong word - is misguided when even you say that Obama and Clinton were not that far apart philosphicaly (sp) on many issues.

 

Maybe I misread or misunderstood your point.

 

[Chicopee John]

You lost me, Al.

 

First of all, Reagan didn't need to nominate anybody to beat Carter. He chose Bush - a 'rival'.

 

Kennedy offered the job to Johnson, fully expecting him to decline the offer. Wasn't he surprised!

 

Lastly, I don't understand why my calls of hogwash - perhaps a strong word - is misguided when even you say that Obama and Clinton were not that far apart philosphicaly (sp) on many issues.

 

Maybe I misread or misunderstood your point.

 

[rich4eagle]

John, I think your lack of objectivity and one sidedness in politics is blatantly obvious and not conducive to debate.

 

Kennedy had to choose Johnson because he being a Catholic was going to lose the whole southern baptist bible belt.............and Johnson was a needed ingredient

 

As far as our assessment of what Obama has done so far. Your view is if this is not a too strong a word hogwash.

 

I am also bewildered by your statement about Reagan and Bush being rivals......Reagan had zero federal govt or defense expertise when he got elected and Bush was loaded with credentials so they were not a team of rivals but two similar with complementary talents one a salesman and one truly experienced and quailified statesmam.....that complicates my concern aboiut your statment that Obama's stuff so far being HOGWASH

 

not to mention you never mentioned Biden or Volcker or Buffett or the new Treasury Chief also a republican or Summers or Schmidt or any other of the august team members to date.........yah know the HOGWASH GANG

 

Obama has been marvelous to date and very Presidential something completely missing now for eight years.............give peace(sic him) a chance..........which you seem to not want to occur. He has already brought on three republicans to his team which is three more than democrats brought to Bush's dysfunctional gang that cannot shoot straight team in eight years!

[Chicopee John]

John, I think your lack of objectivity and one sidedness in politics is blatantly obvious and not conducive to debate.

 

Kennedy had to choose Johnson because he being a Catholic was going to lose the whole southern baptist bible belt.............and Johnson was a needed ingredient

 

As far as our assessment of what Obama has done so far. Your view is if this is not a too strong a word hogwash.

 

I am also bewildered by your statement about Reagan and Bush being rivals......Reagan had zero federal govt or defense expertise when he got elected and Bush was loaded with credentials so they were not a team of rivals but two similar with complementary talents one a salesman and one truly experienced and quailified statesmam.....that complicates my concern aboiut your statment that Obama's stuff so far being HOGWASH

 

not to mention you never mentioned Biden or Volcker or Buffett or the new Treasury Chief also a republican or Summers or Schmidt or any other of the august team members to date.........yah know the HOGWASH GANG

 

Obama has been marvelous to date and very Presidential something completely missing now for eight years.............give peace(sic him) a chance..........which you seem to not want to occur. He has already brought on three republicans to his team which is three more than democrats brought to Bush's dysfunctional gang that cannot shoot straight team in eight years!

 

Well, I wish the media included such information in the report I read. It mentioned Clinton and used her as an example of using the Team of Rivals. I would have been helpful to cite other examples.

 

To date, arguably, the appointments have been mid-tier with the big jobs coming up.

 

I have no problem with understanding the entire picture but it would be interesting if that information was provided in a short sighted view RE: Clinton.

 

Rich, you know as I know, that Kennedy DID NOT WANT JOHNSON but offered with the full expectation that Johnson would decline. That would have been win-win for Kennedy because he would be credited with reaching out to Johnson and would not have him on his ticket.

 

Johnson called Kennedy's bluff and the rest is history.

 

[rich4eagle]

Not sure about the Kennedy thing............my gut says he thought he needed Johnson to beat Nixon because he was going to lose that Southern Bible Belt Baptist vote like I said earlier.

 

As far as mid tier I would not consider Secretary of Treasury mid tier and Paulson has bungled that job totally lately and Secretary of State is not mid tier nor is Secretary of Defense .................

 

anyway he is building a bipartisan team ...........

[Guest Aloysius]

You lost me, Al.

 

First of all, Reagan didn't need to nominate anybody to beat Carter. He chose Bush - a 'rival'.

Granted, I wasn't alive to witness this personally, but the impression I've gotten from studying the history is that Reagan initially was perceived as being way out of the mainstream. He had given a bunch of hard-right anti-communism speeches for Goldwater in '64, challenged a sitting Republican president in '76, and Bush had called his economic program "Voodoo economics". Though the country was looking for anyone but Carter to be president, it still wasn't sure that Reagan could be trusted.

 

That's why picking Bush, who represented the moderate wing of the party, was a must. And it's why people talk about how the debates won it for Reagan. Once people saw the easygoing, funny Reagan, it calmed any fears that he was going to nuke the world to smithereens.

 

I think a similar thing happened in this year's election, where Obama's composed, effective debate performance killed the Republicans' attempt to portray his as an inexperienced, dangerous guy who pals around with terrorists.

 

Second of all, I don't understand why my calls of hogwash - perhaps a strong word - is misguided when even you say that Obama and Clinton were not that far apart philosphicaly (sp) on many issues.

My use of misguided probably was too strong as well. My bad.

 

To be honest, I think the whole Team of Rivals thing is a frame the Obama camp is using to explain away a pick that was made for strategic reasons, not because Obama wants to be just like Lincoln. My only point was that there's a reason why Kennedy & Reagan had to offer the VP slot to their former rivals, whereas Obama didn't have a similar problem. Clinton's supporters weren't going to move in large numbers to the McCain camp, whereas southern Democrats could have easily supported Nixon in 1960; Nixon even considered making some anti-Civil Rights overtures to try to win over white southerners.

 

Similarly, Reagan's hard-right approach risked losing moderate Republicans to the Democrats. Just look at how the Republican party in New England is dying, John. That's the kind of thing Reagan was worried about.

 

So the situations Kennedy & Reagan faced were much different from Obama's.