The new Democratic establishment

Who's who in Obamaworld

A guide to the main players in Barack Obama's aspiring administration

See article

Readers' comments




Yes, the brain trust might stumble, but even the worst case scenarios for this group look far better than what has happened under this breathtakingly incompetent administration. I appreciate the Economists' warning, Yet it pales when I look at reality.


Why in the world does this article end with that sinister tone of gloom? Everybody epexts Obamagnificient to stumble; everybody is waiting for the halo to fade. What they all fail to see is that this intelligent, decent, humane man is the genuine article: a committd, ambitious reformer whose head and heart are in the right place.

In recent speeches, and in forming this elite shadow cabinet, he has given the lie to those who said he was all rhetoric and no substance. His foreign policy pronouncements have been majestic, his swift moves to align the Democratic party behind new ideals the mark of a decisive leader.

However, no matter how well he performs, people just sit there waiting for him to fail. Well, he won't. He didn't come so far so fast by accident, and over and over again, he will prove this.

Right after he takes the oath of office, people will still be waiting for him to stumble. Next thing you know, eight years of the best presidency in decades will be over. Yes, he can.


What possible case can be made that on Obama administration could be worse than a McCain, or any other Republican, administration? The tragedy of the last 8 years is yet to really fall on us in all of its weight. I'm no Obama partisan, let alone a disciple, but the total failure of the Republican party to govern, and the phoniness of the "Maverick" McCain image makes the last paragraph of this article hard to choke down.


We are in a recession; our financial institutions created a mortgage mess and we bailed them out with 30 Billion; the war in Iraq is costing 11 Billion per month; the Republican Party rejects any attempt to change Detroit mpg standards; McCain says that it isn't important to get out of the costly mess in Iraq; we are behind China and India economically; our infrastructure is falling apart; we don't have a national health care system and GM just moved a giant parts company over into Canada to take advantage of their health care, and on and on. Is Obama Jesus? No. He is a progressive Democrat. Is McCain Jesus? No. He is a backward, elderly neocon Republican. Who would you vote for?


Ultimately class warfare is going to be the ruination of the social democracies. It's absolutely impossible to continue to provide higher and higher levels of service without a proportionate growth in real productivity. When people are living longer and retiring with decades left of expensive life to maintain AND are not having the necessary amount of children to work and pay for their own upkeep and maintenance then ultimately these programs got to go.

You cannot blame a Republican OR Democratic president for being unable to muster the popular support to get rid of some of these social programs. It's damn near impossible because once a democracy figures they can vote themselves cradle to grave healthcare, education, housing, transportation, and food they will.

Well, this is a lot like global warming (regardless of its causes) in that the signs of catastrophe are there but everyone is too interested in their own selves to do anything for the common good. Which I suppose is ironic, advocating less public service as being better for the common good, but history has shown that to be the case.

Lock Piatt

Senator (hint Politician) Obama is no different than any other seeking election. He is smoother than most but not backed by any real facts. His history points to a Liberal/progressive/socialist belief system. If you check, he clearly stated "he will redistribute wealth" from the rich to the working class?It seams I have heard those words and proposals somewhere else and if I recall that whole government and system failed. In fact history shows that not one single government using that method of change has ever succeeded.Yes, Russia, Cuba, China, and most of old Europe tried to some extent and have failed or are failing. Mr. Obama brings the same old tired ideas recaps them and labels them "CHANGE"I have studied his proposals, nothing is new, nothing is different he wants to tax carbon the base element of all living things. So I guess they really want to tax every living thing and spend it to make their power over life more complete, cradle to grave.Just say NOBAMA, I want my freedom and do not want to hand the control of America to a man that will not admit he does not have enough experience to even manage a small business. If he is not qualified to manage a Mac Donalds, why would Americans hire him to manage our great country.


I have never lived during a depression but have lived during a recession. At the moment, the financial state at least in my neck of the woods, feels like neither. When you have a hamburger joint called Red Robin selling burgers for $7 bucks and up and the parking lot is crammed full of cars, we are NOT in any sort of recession - YET. As high as food prices are, as high as gas prices are, I am nothing short of astounded that for the most part life for most has gone on with barely an audible "ouch". People today are resilient and can modify their behavior pretty darn quick. We are having a huge summerfest here in our town and the crowds are huge paying 25 dollars and up for admission. Maybe in my mind a recession is technically upon us when all the frills in the life no longer are attended. BTW, I also see few for sale signs in the yards. I think the media has grabbed on to this idea that the end is near in order to support their political position that change is needed. Do I think this administration has been fiscally prudent? NOPE, not by a long shot. Do I think any administration has been? NOPE, and never will unless the US taxpayer takes the time to put the screws to those in Washington that live in a bubble.


It seems many of the men/women you mentioned were at one time tied to the Clintons. Is that change? Often enough, I hear elected officials being interviewed on t.v., and to be very blunt, they just plain aren't that smart. I would say often they act very naive. They frequently are not in touch with reality - the real meat and potatoes of our daily lives. It is like they grew up in a vacuum and then went to Washington to learn how to do nothing. I have spent the time to research many politicians and almost always they have a decent resume and yet they come across stupid. See, maybe it isn't stupid, but book smart with zero ability to look at the big picture and consider several plans before picking one. Fundamentally many of these "smart" people have spent their entire lives pondering in the academic world that is never tested. We don't need genius minds, but we do need people that can follow the scent and through practical experience know what will work most of the time. If for example, you take Iraq, it just doesn't take a genius to figure out that firing all law enforcement, no matter if they were thugs by our standards, will only result in mass chaos. You simply cannot eliminate a government and expect the people to govern themselves. STUPID. The reason so many bad decisions were made is because it was nation building which nobody in charge had any practical experience doing. I heard tonight a speech Michelle Obama made about how her husband, the most brilliant person according to her and Oprah, will be governing once elected. She said he will demand that everybody work hard. Life will never be the same for any of us. He will demand we serve our country and work hard. See...this is the sort of rhetoric only a person that lives in the bubble would make. People are working hard already. Many like the life they have now and want to keep it. I don't embrace organized religion and frankly am not in the least interested in hearing how Barack thinks I need to work harder. The job of the president is to keep the US safe. To interact with the international community and to keep and bring new job opportunities to this country. Barack needs to lead by example, but leave the preaching from the pulpit out of government policy. This is what happens when the academic world gets involved in public policy. It is all that thinking and pondering, which I confess I like to do and appreciate about others, but is often the reason many politicians feel handcuffed. Too many possibilities, too many options, too many downsides, too many upsides, and most of all no guarantees. As I recall, Bill Clinton never made a decision without asking everybody what they thought. That might sound like a good idea, but it often makes the choice that much harder because the reality is there are few good answers that won't hurt many no matter the best of intentions.


We don't manufacture a lot of things in the USA because of something called comparative advantage. When the standard of living in China and India approaches the USA's their comparative advantage for unskille manufacture will diminish.

Unfortunately capital flow is practically unrestricted but labor is not. Therefore you have capital going to countries that are not bound by restrictive, expensive laws and regulations of the very sorts that Mr. Obama endorses.

Technically or not, the US is not currently in a recession. Words have no meaning nor utility if they are not used in the manner in which they are defined. It's especially bad when words are deliberately misused in order cause confusion.

Yes the USA is in debt. Since the debt is in dollars and the USA controls the dollar it's not impossible to see one of the many solutions to the debt problem.

1. Print more money. It's hard to see that the USA is not in a deliberately money inflating/currency devaluing policy now. Which hurts creditors and rewards borrowers.
2. Spend less on discretionary programs such as welfare, the military etc. It is possible to spend less.

Anyways debt and recession are not the same thing. We were in debt in the 90s when the internet bubble was in full swing and the GDP growth looked very good on the basis of speculation. On that topic the very definition of GDP is problematic for wealth measurement.

Is the average US student really behind the average Indian or Chinese student? Are all the peasantry and rural, poor included in the Asian statistics?

Finally, if the USA with population ~0.3 billion does fall behind India and China each with ~1.4 billion then in the aggregate I will not be that surprised countries with 1.1 billion more people actually have a bit more wealth.

Unless Obama goes protectionist and isolationist his policies will not be successful. The US is big enough and has diverse enough resources to be be insular. This would hurt Europeans more then us.


Ahh,,,the fun of picking and choosing from top minds to deal with the reality of the mess that Bush has left. It will take a great deal of bridge building and all out dedication AND a President who can accept that real changes take a long time.I don't think Obama is capable of the long haul. His overall experience is limited at best and his Messiah attitude will not support the claims that he makes.Who ever is elected were in for a continuing rough time in the World. Recovering from the smothering stench that Bush will leave behind may take decades.


funny - Obama ran as an "outsider" but has garden variety democrat policy wonks for advisors. It just shows how empty his claims of "change" are.

Doctor X

Jet Screamer: McCain is no ordinary Republican. He criticized the Rumsfeld strategy from day one (earliest was 2004, I believe), calling for more troops to secure the peace and listening to the generals on the ground. McCain also called for the surge (and a much larger one) long before the Bush admin even contemplated. The fact is, we would not be in the same mess had McCain managed the counterinsurgency from the start. That's why I trust McCain, Republican or not. northstate: I was never swayed by the faux patriotism leading up to the 2003 intervention. If you were, and you now feel duped, that was your fault. Don't try to change the subject because you have no legitimate response to facts. If we are there for decades, why is there this assumption that the weak Iraqi government will stay in its present state for so long? And the Iraqi government is no puppet. It commands support from two federal elections with a larger turnout than our own. Yes, it has its gridlock and serious defects, but it is not some kind of American imposed stooge. You cannot impose democracy. It's a logical impossibility. If there is democracy in Iraq - and there is, given the evidence before, even if it's weak democracy - then it is not American imposed. But indeed, if we can get violence down and reduce casualties to a manageable level, I'd be for a two decade long occupation. It's what we did in Japan and Germany. As for Afghanistan, Let's ask our allies why they are all withdrawing from Afghanistan and at the same time calling for more western leadership in solving the world's problems.


Ah, leave it to the Economist readers to turn a comments section into a nasty, argument-less battleground in no time.

If I can believe the article, Obama's team seems reasonable, centrist and promising - probably more promising than anything McCain can muster. My concern is that Obama seems too extreme for the Hill and his team - too inexperienced with getting things through.

Risking the usual onslaught from the extremists here, I have to say - Hillary may be the only relatively certain way to make an Obama administration work.


pgr88 (and others),Obama has surrounded himself with experienced policy wonks precisely because he will need their expertise and wonkiness to effect any sort of change. He needs to have some traction with the existing apparatus in order to interact with it and yes, change it. These advisers are intended to give him that traction.Consider taking a walk with someone who is moving at too slow a pace. You could simply walk fast and have a total disconnect, or you could match their speed and slowly increase it, resulting in their slowly changing their speed to match yours. You need to make contact with a thing in order to change it.It could be argued that HillaryCare failed in the early 90's by virtue of failing to apply this principle...


Doctor X: I was against the war when Hans Blix and Scott Ritter reported no WMD. Bechtel left Iraq almost 2 years ago because of corruption in the Iraqi government - looting, no security etc. Halliburton is still there sucking up money, doing jobs the military could do for itself, making more than our kids are making. Blackwater is still there, unaccountable to anybody or any government. The Maliki government made it through two so-called controlled elections, but pulled elections in the South when it was clear that they could not carry the country. No regional elections allowed. Who props up Maliki if not the US? $30 billion in NY banks and we are still paying for everything? Perhaps our allies are pulling out of Afghanistan because it has become a corrupt narco state with Pakistan being "unhelpful" in securing the border. The Taliban just managed to break out between 1200 and 1500 Taliban prisoners in the South. Iraq is neither Germany nor Japan: We had completely beaten both countries when we began to establish democratic governments there; we were not facing Japanese insurgents, nor German insurgents - we did not face an unseen "enemy"; we had allies; and we were able to administer both countries until we had truly established representative governments. Not true in Iraq, not now, nor in the foreseeable future. Maliki is not our strength, rather our weakness. What do we know about Middle Eastern politics, tribal loyalties across borders, an ancient political history -or anything at all for that matter. And, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, with the Bagram prison scandals, have left us out there alone with torture as a policy. To date, we are still paying for Rumsfeld's "old Europe" arrogance and the Bush/Cheney willingness to kidnap and torture unnamed, unseen "enemy combatants". Maybe you know who is in Gitmo and why they are there, what they have been charged with, who were sold to us, and who were legitimately captured attempting to do us harm - I don't - and I don't think my fellow citizens know either. Until Bush is gone, we are seriously tainted.


All these guys that Obama has on his side to advise him looks like are Clinton folks. If someone is running on the notion of change why would he surround himself will same old folks where is the change, innovation and new thinking. It is sounding more like any other candidate.


Look, of course those last few open questions are merely easy-target provocations, aimed to spark debate among Economist readers. And nothing reveals that "debate" quite like online comments pages! [ Reading the NYTimes comments for ANY Opinion article about Hillary or Barack was a treat every time ]. In that sense the economist got what they were aiming for: rabid response.But the writer makes a good point, if a tad provocatively:The danger of Obama's high point (his amazing ability to rouse the weary and wary Democratic electorate, to pack auditoriums and college basketball arenas, and to give "change" and "hope" new meanings) is that he leaves himself vulnerable to falling from such high iconic heights.I am a crazy-mad Obama supporter, and I worry about his maybe becoming an idea more than a man, an ideal more than a fact. By looking upward to see his great heights, perhaps American voters could eventually stop being able to see clearly all the way up there; to remember who he really is and wants to be: a compassionate, thoughtful, egalitarian politician. Maybe this iconic status has helped his being so little-known and seldom understood by those working-class Ohioans and Pennsylvanians we have heard about —why 10% of some of these select demographies think he is in fact Muslim!I think that's what the writer was hinting at, though he said it in 100 words... I wrote it in roughly a million.T.M.


It looks like no much will change afterall (at least regarding international trade policies), certainly not the liberal/socialist would like. And that is actually a good thing.

Policians always advocates big changes and then fall into mediocrity when they are elected. They will try to implement big changes when they just get into office and then find out that their changes are disastries. If Mr Obama can just focus on one or two big changes he advocates and get it done, it will be huge.


What a huge huge pleasure it will be in November 2008 when the TV flashes "Mccain takes Ohio, McCain Takes Texas, McCain Takes Florida, McCain takes Pennsylvania, McCain Takes Michigan", and the sweet tears drip drip down Michelle Obama's cruel face.....!

I have a good bottle of champagne ready to drink along with Hillary that evening.

How sweet it will be to see all these crooked smart guys beaten and humiliated !!!

I am a lifelong Democrat.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

