We’ve already announced Obama’s Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel

And everyone’s been hearing the speculation over Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, so until we get that confirmed or denied, here’s a look at some of the other key positions already proposed to be filled:

Eric Holder Jr., former Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration, had been serving as legal advisor to Obama during his campaign, and is now poised to be the first African-American to hold the office of Attorney General.

Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader, an outspoken fan of Universal Health Care he had reportedly turned down offers for VP and Chief of Staff, but due to his affinity for the health care issue he’s a perfect fit for Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Robert Gibbs, communications director for Obama’s campaign last known for being tapped as John Kerry’s Press Secretary, is now looking at taking on the role for Obama’s administration.

As more come to light, we’ll continue to fill out the list and gather more background on these individuals.

Popularity: 1% [?]

A reporter asked John McCain if he was willing to support President-elect Obama’s agenda as President.  To which Senator McCain replied, “Obviously“.

In a joint statement issued after their first meeting since the presidential election, the former rivals said they hoped to work together on challenges such as the financial crisis, creating a new energy economy and protecting the country’s security.

“At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time,” the statement said.

“It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family,” they said.

I’m curious to know if the two rivals would be so cordial if the economy wasn’t in such a dump-hole.  Or if there wasn’t a two front war still raging.  Or if the auto industry wasn’t about to collapse.

Then again, Sen. McCain was known for his across the aisle discussions in the Senate.   That’s where he got such a “Mavericky” nickname.  Of course he spoiled all of that by pandering too far to the conservative right during his Presidential campaign.  So does that mean we’ve got Sen. McCain back as he used to be?  It’s nice to see the McCain that I had a vast amount of respect for two years ago (and honestly considered voting for at the time).  I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that the man didn’t change to fit the GOP mold during this last year.  It’s what cost him the Presidency in the end.

A bigger example couldn’t have been set than the meeting between McCain and Obama today.  After only two weeks after election day, they made amends with no time to spare.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Let’s all breath for a second and consider this article by Paul Hsieh at the Denver Post, a long time Republican, who explains why the GOP lost his vote in the recent elections.

Keep in mind that the Republican party hasn’t always had the face of the religious right and Evangelical agendas.  They haven’t always had such a strong social conservative agenda to ban abortions, gay marriage, and embryonic stem cell research.

Let’s give the floor to Paul:

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

[...]

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a “wall of separation” between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

Is there a way back for the GOP?  Or have they pandered to the religous right with far too much zest? Have they soured their image with voters forever?

The numbers from this last election undoubtedly show a shift in voters to Democratic.  There wasn’t necessarily a large voter turn-out either which further proves the point.  Republicans have lost their way.

[hat tip: LGF]

Popularity: 1% [?]

I came across an amazing article by Politico about the support from military veterans the Republican party has enjoyed for the last thirty years.  After analyzing the voter turnout information, there’s something funny going on with military voters:  they’re moving Dem!

In the past two election cycles, Democrats have added ten new Democratic veterans to Congress. Last week, President-elect Barack Obama helped close the gap among military voters, winning 44 percent of veterans as opposed to John F. Kerry’s 41 percent in 2004.

To anyone who survived the bruising campaigns of the 1990’s, the thought that the Republican Party would surrender its stranglehold on military voters seems unbelievable. But the reality is that this image was never more than surface deep. All those political operatives who seemed to care so deeply about the heroic service of Republican nominees in 1992 and 1996 thought nothing of denigrating and attacking the service of Al Gore and John Kerry when it was the Republican candidate who had avoided serving in Vietnam.

But the really fascinating part is that military personnel haven’t always cared so much whether a candidate was a Republican or a Democrat.  It’s a relatively recent trend that we’re seeing more service members and veterans voting for Republicans.

Republicans did not always have a lock on military voters. Prior to Vietnam, military service was seen as an obligation of all Americans – regardless of political affiliation or wealth. George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy were both sons of privileged, politically-connected families who served heroically in the military during World War II. Back then, this was seen as your duty as an American – and no political party could lay an exclusive claim to the flag.

The Republican strangle-hold on military voters is actually rooted in nothing more than a campaign strategy:

The GOP’s ability to market itself as the “Party of the Military” grew in large part from schisms in the electorate arising during the Vietnam era. For a generation, Republicans exploited George McGovern’s 1972 campaign as a means to brand Democrats as unpatriotic and weak on national security – never mind the fact that McGovern flew 35 bombing missions over Europe during WWII and earned the Distinguished Flying Cross.

It was during these formative years as a budding Republican operative that Karl Rove learned the tools of the trade. Ironically, Rove avoided serving in Vietnam so he could sharpen the political skills he would later use to brand Al Gore a fraud, Max Cleland a coward, and John Kerry a traitor. Never mind that Al Gore enlisted in the Army; Max Cleland left three limbs on the battlefield; and John Kerry fought his way to three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star.

Senator McCain was the one true American hero of the Republican party.  Something many of his counterparts could never lay claim to:

For all the GOP’s patriotic imagery and testosterone-infused rhetoric, the sad truth is that most of the current crop of Republican leaders – Rudy Giuliani; Mitt Romney; Newt Gingrich; Mitch McConnell; John Boehner; etc. – were all of age at the time of Vietnam but avoided serving in the military.

Just one more irony of the Republican party.   But at this point, is it really any suprise?

Popularity: 2% [?]

President-elect Barack Obama ain’t wastin’ no time!

Today Obama announced his first staff choice as Rham Emanuel who will fill the position of White House Chief of Staff;  a position often called “The co-President” or “The Enforcer” because of the level of responsibility required of that position.   Obama’s choice is both brilliant and concerning.

First, the brilliance:

• Emanuel knows his shit. He was a senior adviser for the Clinton administration from 1993-1998 (The guy knows all the secret passageways in the White House already).
• He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful attempt at universal health care by Hillary Clinton.  This will come in handy when (if) Obama makes health care reform an actual priority during his term in office.
• His father immigrated to Chicago from Israel making Rahm a semi-ambassador to Israel.  This will be an advantage when (if) those peace talks pick up again between Palestine and Israel.

Now the concerns:

• Emanuel was a senior adviser for the Clinton administration from 1993-1998.  (Yeah, I know it’s in the “brilliance” column too.   My point is will Emanuel truely be an agent of change having already spent so much time in the Clinton administration?)
• Emanuel held a seat on the Freddie Mac board in 2000 and 2001, earning him over $260,000 amid company scandal.  This isn’t exactly a good time to have your name associated with that scum sucking bunch.
• His Israeli-American father, Benjamin Emanuel, is said to have been a former member of Irgun; a militant Zionist group.   I think Israeli’s will appreciate it as national heritage and pride and may be advantageous to gain further Israeli support but Americans, on the other hand, Americans love a scandal and may associate him with radicalism.

My personal thoughts are that Obama made a bold choice and decent choice. A choice in Emanuel guarantees a strong partner in the White House and one who can bring a massive amount of experience to the table both domestically and internationally.

Popularity: 3% [?]