If Obama’s going to have to salt token Republicons throughout his administration in order to live up to the post-partisan promises, this seems like a decent start:

Following up on an item from Wednesday, I’ve been reading a bit about the various perspectives on whether it’s wise for Barack Obama to keep Robert Gates on as the Secretary of Defense. Slate’s Fred Kaplan, whose perspective on military and national security issues I regularly enjoy, described Gates as “an excellent choice” and “a stroke of brilliance.”

In his nearly two years at the helm of the Pentagon, Gates has delivered a series of speeches on the future direction of military policy. He has urged officers to recognize the shift in the face of warfare from the World War II legacy of titanic armored battles between comparably mighty foes to the modern reality of small shadow wars against terrorists and insurgents.

More than that, he has called for systematic adjustments to this new reality: canceling weapons systems that aren’t suited to these kinds of wars and building more weapons that are; reforming the promotion boards to reward and advance the creative officers who have proved most adept at this style of warfare; rethinking the roles and missions of the individual branches of the armed services; siphoning some of the military’s missions, especially those dealing with “nation building,” to civilian agencies.

From the start, he knew that he wouldn’t have time to make a lot of headway in these campaigns — which, within the military, represent fairly radical ideas. His intent was to spell out an agenda, and lay the groundwork, for the next administration.

I know. Kaplan’s laying it on thick, right? May be a little too starry-eyed to trust his judgement. That’s where Steve’s post from last week comes in:

Gates may be a leading member of Bush’s team, but he represents a complete break from the neo-conservatives who dominated the administration’s first term. Gates is considered a non-ideological pragmatist, who’s open to competing ideas, and who enjoys broad respect from the brass and lawmakers in both parties. In the midst of two wars, having a competent and qualified Pentagon chief, who has no partisan or ideological axe to grind, will bring a degree of steadiness and consistency that may benefit Obama enormously.

You know what he sounds like? An Obama Democrat. I don’t think Obama would be keeping him on otherwise – post-partisan stops at retaining the bumbling fuckwits that got us in to this mess. It seems Gates has been trying to dig out, and making a bit of headway even though the Bushies above keep trying to fill the hole back in.

I know a lot of folks are screaming for change, change, and more change. They want nothing but die-hard Democrats posted throughout the administration, a quid pro quo, in fact, for the Bush years. And that would be emotionally satisfying, yes. But it won’t get us anywhere. That would be playing the same childish games that Bush did.

So Obama reaching out to the two or three eminently-qualified Republicans left, holding on to the very few folks that somehow convinced Bush they were incompetent enough to serve the regime even though they were actually smart, tough, and independent-minded, that doesn’t bother me in the least. Maybe I’m not far-left enough, but I just can’t see punishing good people for the dumbshit they served under. If they’re good at what they do, that’s what matters. And it seems that Gates is good at what he does.

Besides, this shuts down a lot of the trouble Obama would’ve gotten in to had he appointed someone else more to the left’s liking. That’s how real governing is done.

We may not recognize it after the last eight years.

And he seems to be a pretty damned good carpenter, despite some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth from some folks on the left who think “change” means “don’t choose anyone who knows how Washington works.” I’m one of those who think that change can only come to an institution such as Washington when you know it well enough to manipulate it.

Hillary Clinton’s our next SOS, if she ever gets through playing coy and makes up her mind. Bill Richardson’s being eyeballed to head Commerce, and then there’s this guy nearly nobody’s heard of:

Of the three apparent cabinet moves this afternoon, we know a lot about Hillary Clinton, quite a bit about Bill Richardson, but comparably less about Timothy Geithner. If he’s going to be the Secretary of the Treasury in the midst of a historical financial crisis, it’s probably worth taking some time to get to know him.

I’ve read two solid pieces lately on the likely next Treasury Secretary. The first was back in September, when Robert Kuttner wrote a fascinating item on Geithner’s background and expertise.

Unlike many senior Treasury and Fed officials, Geithner is not a high roller from a big bank or investment house but a public-minded civil servant. He has neither a doctorate in economics nor an M.B.A. After receiving a master’s degree in international economics from Johns Hopkins University, he worked as a research assistant to Henry Kissinger and then joined the Treasury, where he was posted as an assistant attache in Japan. He came to the attention of both Larry Summers and Robert Rubin and quickly moved up the ladder. He was a key player in the containment of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and later went to the International Monetary Fund as a top official. Despite being a Democrat, he was named president of the New York Fed after two stronger and more conservative candidates withdrew.

[snip]

Perhaps most importantly, Kuttner noted a speech Geithner delivered to the Economic Club of New York last June, calling for a far-tougher regulatory policy to alter “the level and concentration of risk-taking across the financial system.” He got quite specific, saying regulators “need to make it much more difficult for institutions with little capital and little supervision to underwrite mortgages.” Reassuringly, Kuttner described the remarks as “a blueprint for fundamental overhaul,” which is what’s necessary given the need for a new financial architecture.

The other piece was Noam Scheiber’s recent article, describing Geithner as “the next Larry Summers,” and providing some helpful context to Geithner’s professional and ideological background. It’s well worth reading.

The market bounced back after Geithner’s announcement despite the fact he’s gone all regulatory on their ass. That could be a sign they trust him to clean up their mess.

I hope Obama’s bought him a very large broom.

Earlier today, Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly was waxing poetic over the possibility that Eric Holder would be our next AG:

I’m very encouraged by some of the names who may be joining Barack Obama’s cabinet. Here’s the latest report on the would-be Attorney General.

President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition.

Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal “vetting” review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted, the source said. […]

Holder, 57, has been on Obama’s “short list” for attorney general from the outset. A partner at the D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling, Holder served as co-chief (along with Caroline Kennedy) of Obama’s vice-presidential selection process…. A New York City native who graduated from Columbia University and Columbia Law School, Holder spent years as a federal prosecutor—a job in which he earned a reputation as tough and aggressive foe of public corruption. After serving in the public integrity section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later a District of Columbia Superior Court judge, Holder was named by President Clinton as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He became deputy attorney general in 1997 under Janet Reno and was viewed as a centrist on most law enforcement issues, though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department.

The AP reports that Obama aides have already reached out to Senate offices about whether Holder’s confirmation would go smoothly.

Everything I know of Holder is positive (check out this speech he delivered to the American Constitution Society a few years ago). He’s universally respected and as a former deputy AG, knows a bit about how the Justice Department is supposed to work. And after eight years of Bushies trashing the joint, that’s an important skill to bring to the table. (No, don’t pay any mind to that Marc Rich issue.)

Steve should be a happy man come tomorrow:

NBC news confirms that Eric Holder will accept the position as Barack Obama’s Attorney General. NBC’s Savannah Guthrie talked to Mark Whitaker who reports that Holder was the front runner for the position.

John Amato:

Holder comes out of the Clinton administration and was linked to the Mark Rich pardon which will have Conservatives up in arms, but supported Barack Obama for president. We need an AG for the people and not like the Bush crony Alberto Gonzales. It’s no shock that Obama will appoint ex-Clinton people to his staff as his administration takes shape. Many capable people came out of that administration.

And Looseheadprop over at Firedoglake is going to have to find a new moniker, because her head’s going to explode. There’s wailing and gnashing of teeth over at Daily Kos, too, but that’s only a brief interruption to the histrionics over Lieberman.

Myself, I think this is a fine choice, and I’ll sum it up in Eric Holder’s own words (pdf):

The choices that are being made by those conservatives, those neo-conservatives, who control all three branches of our government, threaten to undermine the real progress that this nation has made in so many areas over so many years. With all due respect to President Reagan, the problem is not government. The problem is with those who run the government. In the struggle against terrorism, these people have made a mockery of the rule of law.

[snip]

The notion that the Department of Justice would in essence sanction the use of torture as part of the President’s plenary power over military operations is as wrong as it is shortsighted. This position flies in the face of the entire history of American law, helping to create a climate in which unnecessarily abusive conduct can somehow be considered legitimate.

[snip]

When government lawyers are asked how prisoners, how prisoners held by our government must be treated, it is inconceivable to me that they would fashion arguments to bolster the obviously false claim that torture and abuse are permissible tools of American policy.

[snip]

Now when I spoke to you last year, I said that we were engaged in a battle for the soul of our nation. That battle continues today, and if anything, has become even more consequential. The arrogance of our conservative brethren in the exercise of the power that they temporarily hold is breathtaking. From redistricting schemes, to attacks on abortion rights, to energy policies that are as shortsighted as they are ineffective, to tax cuts that disproportionately favor those who are well off and perpetuate many of the inequities in our nation, the conservative movement has been unafraid to push the limits in advancing this agenda.

[snip]

The nation must be reminded that the word liberal is more than a conservative slur. The nation must be reminded that it was the progressive, liberal tradition that brought about the social and economic changes that were necessary many years ago. The nation must be convinced that it is a progressive future that holds the greatest promise for equality and the continuation of those policies that serve to support the greatest number of our people.

You know what? There’s a lot more, but I’ll stop there. Go read his speech, and read Deoliver47’s wonderful diary giving us a snapshot biography, and remember one thing: this man is megaparsecs better than what we’ve had, and even if he’s not our personal favorite choice, he’s an excellent one indeed.

Besides, Steve loves him, and I’ve trusted Steve’s judgement now for – ye gods, approaching two years. He hasn’t let me down yet.

I think Obama picked a winner.

Compared to the last eight years of never-ending idiocy, seeing things change this fast is practically miraculous:

According to John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Liebermann, the Neocons and Joe the Plumber, the election of Barack Obama was supposed to “embolden our enemies”, epsecially Iran. Well, according to the Jerusalem Post, it ain’t really working out that way.

Despite this message, the conservative hard-line camp in Iran is worried about the overwhelming enthusiasm and support for the US that Obama’s election has created around the world. A popular American president who talks about peace and wants to negotiate with Iran would take away their justification for leading the anti-American front in the Middle East. Furthermore, increased international support and credibility for the United States represents a more serious challenge to Iran, especially if the international community initiates new sanctions against Teheran. All this while oil prices are falling.

This is why efforts are already efforts under way in the Iranian press to tarnish Obama’s image.

Apparently, despite our dearly deluded rabid right fucktards’ certainty that Obama is the antichrist, he doesn’t make a convincing poster boy for the Great Satan.

So. Our standing in the world turned 180 degrees from abysmal to awesome literally overnight. What other miracles would President-Elect Obama care to perform today?

Oh, you know. Nothing big. Just making absolutely clear that the evil that is Guantanamo Bay is as good as gone:

Members of Barack Obama’s team have already indicated policies the new White House plans to tackle early on in 2009, but let’s not overlook Obama’s efforts to reverse the Guantanamo nightmare.

President-elect Obama’s advisers are quietly crafting a proposal to ship dozens, if not hundreds, of imprisoned terrorism suspects to the United States to face criminal trials, a plan that would make good on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay prison but could require creation of a controversial new system of justice.

During his campaign, Obama described Guantanamo as a “sad chapter in American history” and has said generally that the U.S. legal system is equipped to handle the detainees. But he has offered few details on what he planned to do once the facility is closed.

Under plans being put together in Obama’s camp, some detainees would be released and many others would be prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts.

A third group of detainees — the ones whose cases are most entangled in highly classified information — might have to go before a new court designed especially to handle sensitive national security cases, according to advisers and Democrats involved in the talks. Advisers participating directly in the planning spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans aren’t final.

The initiative is not, of course, without controversy. Most notably, the approach under consideration would include a new “hybrid” system for suspected terrorists that is short of Americans’ due process rights but more expansive than Bush’s military commissions. It’s a proposal burdened by, shall we say, kinks.

That said, the AP report noted that Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and Obama legal adviser, believes that the closing of the detention facility would be a top priority of the new administration and the plan being crafted by Obama’s team “has been championed by legal scholars from both political parties.”

Spencer Ackerman added, “[C]onsider not only that this is one of the first initiatives that Obama is pursuing — it’s one of the first that he’s leaking, as well. This is as clear a signal as can be sent that the Bush era isn’t just over, it will be actively rolled back.”

Kinks I can deal with. Kinks can be worked out. After all, I’ve got this Smack-o-Matic lying nearly idle, and this fire sadly lacking feet. I’d much rather be bawling Obama out for a harebrained idea to create some Frankenstein court system than for ignoring solemn campaign pledges to close Guantanamo Bay. Not to mention that nagging sense I have that the “hybrid” bullshit is merely a squeak toy to distract the rabid right.

(This is the problem with having a President-Elect who’s demonstrated a penchant for careful, reasoned, and intelligent thought: I can’t discard the possibility of a smart political manuever and instantly start screaming “YOU FUCKING FUCKTARD!!” instead, as I could with Bush’s outrageous ideas.)

Nothing is going to be easy. But signs are pointing in the right direction for America. At fucking last.

I really need to stop worrying:

Of course, it isn’t as if Obama hasn’t prepared himself for the enormous task ahead. Back in June, he assembled a stellar national security advisory team; the thirteen members include former Secretaries of State Madeline Albright and Warren Christopher, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig, who is leading the team.

Inside Defense fills in many of the blanks in a lengthy subscription-only article. We are looking at, yes, a lot of change:

The Obama transition team, according to a briefing paper prepared for the campaign’s national security advisory team, may consider a number of organizational changes to the Defense Department’s civilian leadership that signal a break with priorities of the last eight years and point to the ascendancy of new issues that will affect defense strategy.

The incoming administration, according to the paper, may retool the intelligence under secretary office established by Donald Rumsfeld; create a new high-level energy security post; and divide the substantial portfolio of the assistant secretary for special operations/low-intensity conflict and interdependent capabilities.

It will also mull cuts to high-profile weapon systems, the paper states, naming three: national missile defense, the Airborne Laser and the Army’s Future Combat Systems program.

I like it. Creating an energy security post would make campaign rhetoric reality. In fact, Obama has literally been saying “energy security is national security” for over two years.

Now, about cutting funding to national missile defense: bravo. Let’s turn to Lt. Gen. Robert Gard (yes, the same guy who’s been posting here at dailyKos, as part of Vets for Obama). He’s been talking about missile defense for a while now, and his latest analysis came out about three weeks ago.

Despite the Bush administration’s investment of an estimated $60 billion since 2001, U.S. national missile defense continues to be an unnecessary and counterproductive enterprise. Testing objectives consistently are not met, cost overruns and scheduling delays are rampant, and relations between the United States and Russia are worse than at any time since the end of the Cold War, thanks in no small part to squabbling over the proposed third missile defense site in Europe.

He recommends three basic changes. Please click the link above for the details; basically, shift spending to systems countering existing threats, dissolve the Missile Defense Agency, and “spend political capital” on diplomacy.

You know, I’ve spent the last couple of days careening between the pinnacle of hope and the valley of despair. Obama made a lot of promises, and I know he won’t be able to keep them all – no president can keep every campaign promise. But there are times I worry he won’t be able to keep any, what with the way things are. The challenges and opposition seem too insurmountable.

Then more information comes out that shows me he’s got this thing covered. He’s had brilliant staff assigned to every conceivable issue, and the way things are presented, it seems we may indeed get to have our cake and eat it, too. So maybe there won’t be icing on it. Oh fucking well.

This, though, is just astounding. In my wildest fantasies, I never considered he’d go after wasteful defense spending while at the same time turning the U.S. Military into a more effective force. And yet, that’s precisely what he’s aiming for.

Obama’s proving with every day that he understands the hell he’s getting in to, and that he’s more than prepared to handle it. The Smack-0-Matic and I can only stand by helplessly. The fire I must hold his feet to remains unstoked. Every time I go to light the damned thing, I notice he’s already gotten his feet roasting in a bonfire of his own.

It’s a good thing there’s still some Blue Dog Dems and some Con fuckwits left to kick around, or the Smack-0-Matic and I would be totally superfluous.