Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What the Democratic White House will look like (2009)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:12 AM
Original message
What the Democratic White House will look like (2009)
Edited on Sat Jan-05-08 11:16 AM by Infinite Hope
Based on momentum and the changes the caucus brought to the race, here's a real possibility of the 2009 White House. An "*" denotes those who would be problematic picks due to their position in key Congressional seats. I will try to think of replacements. This is subject to change so reply with nominations/suggestions! Have fun!

President: Barack Obama
Vice President: Janet Napolitano
Secretary of State: Joe Biden
Secretary of Treasury:
Secretary of Defense:
Attorney General: John Edwards
Secretary of Interior: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Sheila Jackson Lee
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: John Lewis
Secretary of Transportation: Jim Oberstar *
Secretary of Energy: Lincoln Chafee
Secretary of Education: George Miller
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: Max Cleland
Secretary of Homeland Security: Richard Clark
Secretary of Agriculture: Chuck Grassley
Secretary of Commerce:
Secretary of Labor: Dick Gephardt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
goldcanyonaz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Praise Jesus! nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. I don't mind that as much as a Clinton one, but I prefer Edwards as president. :-)
I'm not entirely sure Obama will have the balls that Edwards would to carry things out. Edwards speaks out even when it's highly unpopular. Obama is too gentle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I'm an Edwards supporter as well.
Though right now, the momentum is with Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Yep, but only since Iowa, which is only 1 state.
Don't get me wrong, I do NOT dislike Obama at all. I seriously tho think he's too gentle, too soft, too mushy, too capable of buckling under the least strong wind, whereas Edwards would tell the powers-that-be to F off. :-) I like toughness in a man of principle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #8
12. I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. I think he has been bought.
Repuks want him to be the nominee because they know how prejudice the amer ian people are. They will roll over him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I have no idea but he's too "gentle" for my tastes. I like a man who doesn't mince words and calls
corporations what they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadBadger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. Biden wont be Sec of State
Hell stay in the Senate. Even though hes a big supporter of Hillary now, Id put Wes Clark in at Sec of Defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Who would you put in as SOS? By the way, Clark cannot be SOD by law. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I was looking into that last week
I couldn't find the rules on SecDef. I remember there's a time frame for former military to be eligible to be SecDef. Do you know what it is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slick8790 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. 10 years, I think. N/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. In 2010, he'd be eligible. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
5. Secretary of Curing Gays: Donnie McClurklin.
Secretary of Hoopla: Oprah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
11. Bill Richardson: Being gay is a choice nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I'm glad you brought that up!
Edited on Sat Jan-05-08 11:30 AM by MethuenProgressive
Because that one line, taken out of context, is all most know about Bill Richardson on Gay Rights.
Here's the rest of the story:
http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Civil_Rights.htm
Bill Richardson on Civil Rights
Democratic Governor (NM)

Won't accept honorary chair of Boy Scouts due to gay issue
Q If you're president of the United States you're automatically honorary chairman of the Boy Scouts of America. In light of that organization's position on sexual orientation, would you accept that position?
A: No, I wouldn't. Because I think, as president, I would commit myself, number one, that I will be a leader that prevents discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation.

Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Focus on achievable civil unions as a path to full inclusion
Q: In response to a question on same sex marriage at the CNN-YouTube debate, you said you would focus less on marriage and more on what's "achievable" in terms of rights and responsibilities for same sex couples. When will same sex marriage be achievable
A: The nation, I believe, is on a path to full inclusion. A president must lead that effort. In my judgment, what is achievable is civil unions with full marriage rights, with domestic partnership. I believe that's achievable.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Voted for DOMA, but now regrets vote; repeal it
Q: In 1996 why did you vote for DOMA?
A: I was the chief deputy Democratic whip at the time, and Clinton was president. The objective in passing DOMA was to fight a huge assault for a constitutional amendment in the Congress to ban gay marriage. It was sort of a cheap political way to decimate a bad initiative. I would repeal that horrendous initiative that I voted for and I regret now. DOMA would preclude a number of the full partnership rights that I want to see with civil unions.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Included transgender in hate-crimes law
Look at what Bill Richardson as governor has done.
I passed a hate crimes act that was based on non-discrimination I was the first governor to include transgender.
I also passed domestic partnerships avoiding discrimination. I'm the only governor that called a special session to expand domestic partnership.
I've appointed Cabinet members that are gay and lesbians. All through my administration I have been inclusive of the lesbian/gay community.
Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Apologizes for "maricon" comment; but look at the record
Q: As a guest on the Don Imus show, "Imus in the Morning", in March 2006, you were asked by Imus in a gag if a staffer was a "maricon," which is Spanish for "faggot." In your response, you repeated the epithet. But you've since apologized and now you question the timing of this issue coming up. Do you not believe that you should be held accountable for repeating that word?
A: Sure, you know, and I'm Hispanic. I felt the sting as a kid of being stereotyped. And I apologized but I meant no harm when I said that. It was, you know, one of those exchanges that I was caught off guard. No, I am not backing off. I apologize, but I think you should look at my actions and not words. Let me tell you what I've done as governor. You can talk about what mistakes people have made. I've made plenty. And I've probably said things that I regret across the board. But we should look at what we've done. I accept obviously -- but you should look at my record. Action speaks louder than words.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

The country isn't there yet on gay marriage
Q: You said you're calling a special session for domestic partnerships in NM....
A: No. I did .

Q: Oh, you did. And how did it go?

A: It didn't pass. We lost by one vote.

Q: So you didn't call a special session for same sex marriage because you can't get domestic partnership through. If the New Mexico legislature handed you a marriage bill, would you sign it?

A: I am pushing the NM legislature very hard to expand domestic partnership. It's a question of going through a path that is achievable.

Q: If the legislature hands you that piece of legislation, in your heart, where are you on that issue?

A: Well, you know, in my heart, I'm doing what is achievable. And I'm not there yet. And the country isn't there yet. New Mexico isn't there yet. We have to bring the country on. We have to move in the direction of making this happen. That doesn't mean that I'm closed on this issue. It means that you do what is achievable.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Homosexuality is a choice, but it's not an issue of science
Q: Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological?
A: It's a choice.

Q: I don't know if you understand the question. Do you think a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

A: Well, I'm not a scientist. I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency. I don't like to categorize people. I don't like to answer definitions like that, that perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand.

Q: Well, it's hard when you are a citizen of a country that tells you that you are making a choice when you were born that way.

A: As a Hispanic, I grew up with people thinking because of my darker skin and because I wasn't fully speaking English at a time, that I was not equal. So I understand that issue of inequality, and so across the board I've always felt that every human being desires the same rights.

Source: 2007 HRC/LOGO debate on gay issues Aug 9, 2007

Full civil unions with full marriage rights
Q: Would you allow us, , to be married to each other?
KUCINICH: Yes. Gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender should have the same rights as anyone else, including a civil marriage ceremony.

Q: : You supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

DODD: ought to have civil unions. But I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

RICHARDSON: I would do what is achievable. What I think is achievable is full civil unions with full marriage rights. I would also press for a hate crimes act in the Congress. I would eliminate "don't ask/don't tell" in the military. If we're going to have in our military men & women that die for this country, we shouldn't give them a lecture on their sexual orientation I would push for domestic partnership laws, nondiscrimination in insurance and housing. I would also send a very strong message that, in my administration, I will not tolerate any discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007

Diversity isn't just talking points; it's facts of life
Q: Is race still the most intractable issue in America?
A: Leading on the issues of race is about being authentic, about speaking honestly. Race is a major issue in this country, and the next president has to talk about it. Race is not just passing new laws. Race is not just naming solid Supreme Court justices. Race is also dealing with bigotry and racism that exists in this country.

And I believe very strongly that the next president is not just going to have to pass laws and take the steps necessary to reaffirm affirmative action and take steps to make sure that our schools are integrated, but also the next president is going have to lead and speak passionately about a dialogue among all people.

And I believe very strongly that issues of diversity, for me, the first Latino to run for president, aren't talking points; they're facts of life.

Source: 2007 Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University Jun 28, 2007

For hate crimes law, domestic partnerships, civil unions
Here's what I would do. I would do what I did as governor of New Mexico. One, I would move in the Congress for a hate crimes law. I would have domestic partnerships. I would have civil unions. I would initiate laws that practice non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I would get rid of "don't ask, don't tell." I voted against it as a congressman.
Source: 2007 Dem. debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Let gay and lesbian servicemembers serve openly
In Richardson's first term as Governor, he threatened to veto a New Mexico DOMA-type law, unless it was enacted alongside civil unions. (It was never necessary.) He is also for letting gay and lesbian servicemembers serve openly in our Armed Forces, and said so during the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" debates in the 90's. He extended civil rights laws to homosexuals and transgendered people while Governor of New Mexico.
Source: Campaign blog www.BillRichardsonBlog.com Jan 28, 2007

Added sexual orientation & gender identity as NM civil right
You don't get better than Richardson on gay issues, and again he's not just talking the talk; he's walked the walk. In his first term as governor, he led the state from nowhere to being ranked among the best in the nation on gay rights protections:
He signed legislation expanding New Mexico civil rights laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity (which only 3 other states included).
He signed a hate crimes law that included actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
He signed an executive order in 2003 extending health insurance and other benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of NM state employees.
He's on record backing full-fledged civil unions and opposes state-level constitutional amendments banning gays from marrying.
While in Congress, Richardson backed military service for out gay men and lesbians. That means he was anti-Don't Ask, Don't Tell when it was very uncool to be.
Source: CitizenChris blog on TypePad.com Jan 21, 2007

Defeated DOMA in NM by tying it to civil union legislation
Richardson's negotiation savvy the difficult issue of marriage equality for same-sex couples. Richardson opposes gay marriage, but when the New Mexico legislature began pushing a "Defense of Marriage Act" in 2005, Richardson said he would veto it unless the DOMA was enacted alongside civil union legislation. Richardson's position wasn't just expedient, it was fairly principled and would satisfy any but those with a gay marriage litmus test. The DOMA effort failed.
Source: CitizenChris blog on TypePad.com Jan 21, 2007

Voted for federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996
Richardson's record isn't unblemished. He voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and I couldn't find any statement since recanting that support. Even with such an impressive record on other gay issues, Richardson will need to explain his position on DOMA to gay Democrats.
Source: CitizenChris blog on TypePad.com Jan 21, 2007
----------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. Dream on: Who will be Obama,s Rumsfeld, Cheney and
Neocon Adviors.

The first thing he will learn . Promising anything about the wars
was an empty promise.

it is different when campaigning. Wham when you get into the Oval
office -- Reality hits one in the face
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:25 AM
Response to Original message
13. Give suggestions for cabinet positions please! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #13
16. why would we risk
asking a senator to fill ANY cabinet position when we know we will have a thin majority in the senate after the elections? We cant afford to lose anyone from the senate

we could ask LIEberman to be the Ambassador to Israel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I'm not so sure. I think there will be some very long coattails in this election! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
18. Only 2 women? We can do better than that.
However, I very much agree on Napoletano, Biden, RFK, Jr., Cleland, Edwards, Lewis, Lee and Clark.

K. Sebelius is a fine governor, for instance. She could also be a VP pick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Infinite Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I also like Sebelius and frankly, it was between her and Napolitano for VP.
I chose Napolitano for her western appeal where Democrats could be very strong as well as her tough position on immigration just to stifle Republicans some.

Sebelius is a popular governor in a red state and will probably remain there until she potentially runs for president (or more generally, higher office).

Give your suggestions for other woman in other cabinet positions. That's the purpose of this...to get suggestions and so far people are giving input, but not suggestions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
terisan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 12:17 PM
Response to Original message
19. You are dreaming. Goldman Sachs and Joe Lieberman will never approve. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krabigirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-05-08 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
23. Funny, I'd see more Republicans in the cabinet. All about unity, you see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC