Dean's "kitchen cabinet" to be announed Monday

As part of this transition, Dean has begun to pull into his campaign a team of senior foreign policy advisers, many of whom served in the Clinton administration. His campaign will announce the members of this "kitchen cabinet" Monday when he makes his speech, which along with a planned economics speech is intended to lay out his major themes before the New Hampshire primary Jan. 27.

During the interview, the former governor of Vermont appeared at ease handling questions that hopscotched across global trouble spots. One of his foreign policy aides, Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution, sat at his side as he tackled back-to-back newspaper interviews on foreign policy. Dean and Daalder, a former Clinton aide, huddled for five minutes after The Washington Post interview to review Dean's comments before beginning the second session.

In addition to Daalder, campaign aides said, Dean's core foreign policy team includes former national security adviser Anthony Lake; retired Gen. Joseph Hoare, a former chief of U.S. Central Command; retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former chief of staff of the Air Force; two former assistant secretaries of defense, Ashton Carter and Frank Kramer; former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice; and political theorist Benjamin R. Barber. Danny E. Sebright, a former Defense Department civil servant who works for the consulting firm headed by Clinton defense secretary William Cohen, is Dean's foreign policy coordinator.

…

Dean has also reached out to leading members of the Democratic foreign policy establishment as he tries to fill in the gaps in his foreign policy approach. "Dean certainly represents continuity with the bipartisan centrist line that has characterized American foreign policy from 1948 until shortly after 9/11," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. Brzezinski reviewed a draft of Dean's speech but has not endorsed any candidate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62184-2003Dec13.html


He also plans to announce on Monday that a host of advisers -- including W. Anthony Lake, former President Bill Clinton's first national security adviser; Adm. Stansfield Turner , the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency;  and Adm. Charles Larson, the former commander of all forces in the Pacific -- have signed on to the campaign. Like several of the other Democratic candidates, he also consults Samuel R. Berger, who succeeded Mr. Lake as national security adviser.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/politics/campaigns/14DEAN.html?ex=1071982800&en=bb20edebace4f803&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

This is a good sign. Dean is moving from the shoot from the hip to the more shrewd, calculated version we'll get to know and love if he gets the nomination.

is no longer the Soviet Union....

and that it's preferable to try Osama in the Hague to help vindicate International Law.

And that it's not appropriate to "get in other people's face" when there's a dispute.

that wasn't the smartest thing...the radio talking heads were going crazy about it this week...

And Dean will repair the damage will France and Germany too.

He knows his history and respects it.

the guy that thought up the pipeline htrough Afghnaistan? Oy vey.

Danny E. Sebright, a former Defense Department civil servant who works for the consulting firm headed by Clinton defense secretary William Cohen, is Dean's foreign policy coordinator.

Guess Dean needs all those people so that he can know what he is talking about and be able to prove it somehow.......

This is what Bush Jr. did during the recount/no count 2000 ....

I AM NOT IMPRESSED....AT ALL....

It's kinda of like not having any tits and wearing a padded bra....

you still have no tits after all is said and done.

(I am a woman and don't care what size tits anyone has...just using this for graphic illustration purposes)....

I'm sure there will be a place left in Dean's cabinet for your boy Clark.

:)

Don't say that!

board are not representative of Clark himself (or so I hope).

General to you.

The tits still are flat......You can pad all who you want to Dean.....

:D

that's too much personal info, Frenchie.

Dean!

I've never believed that, and anyone who has is very naive.

This is a very good reminder.

we're electing a president, not a staff.

and totally meaningless in the context of a Presidential campaign. If you think any one man can "know it all" -- or even should, you have an unrealistic and naive understanding of what the job requires.

But it was a clever line for the Kerry campaign to think up, was't it?

as he resurrected it from previous presidential campaigns.

Everyone asks for advisors to help them where they are inexperienced. Use it if you want, but use it fairly. Go look and see if Kerry, Edwards, Gep, et al didn't have a single advisor help them formulate their policies before using that for an argument.
It's especially funny to hear those sentiments coming from the Clarkies. Is there seriously any doubt that he has had a bit of advice forming his domestic policy?
Many who are elderly or have disabilities and desparately need healthcare aren't looking to elect an administration headed by a recent convert to handle it. These voters also have family members who are fed up with the health care situation.
I don't buy the idea that there are massive numbers of voters in military worship, and people will forego things like healthcare over it.

>Danny E. Sebright, a former Defense Department civil servant who works for the consulting firm headed by Clinton defense secretary William Cohen, is Dean's foreign policy coordinator.


That would be the Republican William Cohen who shafted Wes Clark.


:dem:

Dean apparently gave high praise to General Colin Powell and when asked did not deny that he would keep him on as Secretary of State.

Allowing Powell to stay on as Secretary of State would do more for his chances than ten Wes Clark VP's.

holy shit, that is one shrewd mf'er.

I've observed a number of things that have gone completely unnotriced here at DU and marvelled at his skill.

It has been reported that Cohen despises Clark. They have quite the mutual animosity club going between them. I'm puzzled as to Dean's choice.

Any other relationships to Clark among the remaining individuals that any DU'ers can shed some light on?

Edit: Reference the mention of Dean retaining Colin Powell, does that mean that Michael Powell will keep his position as chair of the FCC and continue his agenda of favoring big media? And wasn't Colin Powell the one who took his "this is bullsh**" dog and pony show to the U.N. and lied through his teeth to the world?

should vet their choices of advisors thru Clark? Or give a rat's ass about CLARK'S preferences in any way, for any reason?

Amazing.

...if there's going to be a Dean/Clark ticket, as many on DU have suggested

But I don't think Dean needs Clark. Not as VP. There are hundreds of qualified possibilities out there right now that aren't running for President.

If I HAD to put Clark in my admin, I'd put him up as SOD.

That being said, and lot's of people have said I'm nuts, but I think a Dean/Edwards ticket would lock it up tight.

Which southern/midwest candidates can take the issue off the table?

And of course Dean has both dropped hints about a role for Graham in a Dean administration, and is fairly friendly w/him.

to deliberately craft a single issue campaign on national defense. History does not bare that strategy out.

The only single issue that can win or lose a campaign is the economy. Bush I was punked by "It's the economy stupid", Clinton was effectively bulletproof because of a strong economy. Carter got whupped by Reaganomics. That's not to say it's the only issue that can bring someone down or elevate someone. But national security has never been enough of an issue to save or destroy a president.

The secret to winning a presidential campaign is to get people to trust you. We don't know the ins and outs of every issue, but if we trust the guy we elected, we figure everything is going to work out okay. And if it doesn't, we boot him (most of the time.) I think Dean has done that to a degree that none of the others have. And if Dean can craft a coherent common sense strategy on national security, he's got it all locked up. Because whether you believe it or not, (some people just won't believe him on principal) he gives you the impression that he's being straight with you. Even when he's caught up in a seeming contradiction, you know he was just taken out of context. He exudes the sense that he's not going to bullshit you. And that is what we are so desperately looking for right now.

And ya gotta love his money line, "I'll won't hesitate to send troops to defend out country, our allies, or our interests. But I'll never do it without telling the truth about why I'm doing it." I think that's the debate line we all want to hear.

For the most part, every one of them is a good guy, and I'm sure that they think they're plans are better. And some of them may be, but Kerry, Gep, and Leiberman don't seem to understand that they are part of the problem. And Clark is eventually going to have to move on, because if he's constantly working his "National Security" angle, he's going to get outflanked and crushed on other issues.

Obviously in media appearances he is going to be asked about national defense, since it's his specialty. But his campaign also covers domestic issues. ( http://clark04.com/issues/ )

Now the argument could be made that he has no background in domestic issues, but it's not like he spent his entire military career on a battlefield. The military is a bureaucracy too.

Also, I'm sad to say that Dean does not inspire trust in me. I don't see him on par with Bush by any means, but I do see him as yet another politician. I would of course support him if nominated, but I wish I felt differently about him.

But I'm talking about his public events. In every debate I've seen him in, he has emphasized the position that he's the only one that can go toe to toe against Bush on National Security. That is how he is defining his campaign. And the reality is that in a debate, any well prepared candidate can tear Bush apart on National Security. It's not nearly as daunting a task as people make it out to be. I'm sure he's done speeches and sent out press releases about how he will do this and that, but what most people see on tv is a guy that says "Vote for me because I'm the only person who can stand toe to toe with President Bush on national security issues."

That's great for someone who's job is just national security, but there are alot of issues facing Americans that have no real connection to that.

I'd argue that military bureacracy is a different beast from a political bureacracy. In the military, you have to cajole your superiors to get things done (and very gingerly at that). In politics, it's upside down. You can't just order the people under you to do something and it magically gets done. High level military experience is usually detrimental to politics for that very reason. It's difficult to make the transition to convincing someone under you rather than just telling them to do it.

The same with the budget. In the military, you're just allocating resources that you are given, which is never really determined by you. The national economy takes a good deal of subtle manipulation to keep running at least partly smoothly. You aren't just allocating resources, you have to create resources.

Ultimately, I don't trust Clark. So we'll just accept that we don't trust each other's candidates and call it a push. I find that particular debate tiresome and circular. I think we just interpret things a different way. You can't convince everyone all of the time.

Because I think for most people, it's a gut feeling anyway and words don't change that. Believe me, I'm not one of the people who tries to demonize Dean around here... I just wish he motivated me, but he doesn't.

I do have one comment before I go, on your statement "You can't just order the people under you to do something and it magically gets done." I don't think that particular method of getting things done works anywhere on earth, including the military. C'est la vie.

He will point to everyone's 401k and then it's game, set, and match. So there are two issues that matter in 2004, National Security and the Economy. If Dean decides to run on a re-regulate, anti-trade platform we can kiss the election goodbye.

Arthur Andersen, etc and so on?

At this point, I don't think most Americans see regulation as a bad thing. Because contrary to what the GOP talking points say, the economy isn't doing all THAT hot.

There was sharp growth last quarter that was explained by the distribution of the irresponsible tax rebates. Now that bucket has run dry, it's gonna start to sink again. But either way, we won't know until at least next April or July. Exultation is still a bit premature.

Bush is set to be the first President since Hoover to finish a term with negative job growth. Unemployment claims jumped again last week. After a 57,000 jump in jobs created. That puts him at still well over 3 million jobs in the hole. We are still losing manufacturing jobs at an appalling rate.

We've run up the biggest deficit in the history of this country (and not for national security, as they try to tell you. 55% of the deficit is for non security spending.) And if you don't think that matters, tell it to George I. It's a drag on the economy. It's no coincedence that the economy started to take off after we started to get the deficit under control.

Bush is hardly unbeatable on the economy. As a matter of fact, he'd better run away from discussing that issue at all costs. He's better off sticking with national security, and that's shaky. Like I say, a well prepared candidate, regardless of foreign policy experience, will tear Bush a new asshole at every turn.

The Dow is at 10000, and if it hits 11000 Tyco and Enron will melt away much like the Plame Affair and the 9/11 inquiry. I'm not saying the economy is in good shape, it's not, but it just needs to hobble along for another year and Bush will be in good shape. What's left is the Iraq and the 'War on Terra'. This is not 1992, we are at War and as Democrats we must accept the electoral realities of being in one. Neither topic, NS or Economy, is more or less important than the other.

The markets being up don't necessarily translate to better 401k's. For instance, mine has not regained half of it's value from 2000, and I have a fairly aggressive portfolio. That doesn't count the folks that got hosed at Enron who lost everything because the stock is now worth the cost of the paper. The bursting of the tech bubble left a lot of stocks valueless. Those people are never going to make their losses back. If the market gains at it's average of 11%, without extra contributions, a portfolio that lost half of it's value will take just over nine years to recover.

Besides, the market is not a good indicator of the overall economy. People are more likely to understand the state of the economy by whether anyone they know has been unemployed for a sustained period. Whether they've had to pick up the slack because of lay-offs. It's an experiential kind of thing, not a numbers crunching thing. That is how America experiences the economy. In fact, they are probably even more skeptical about the market numbers because of the tech bubble.

Enron and Tyco affected certain portfolios more than others, really depends on what funds someone has invested in. I'm not sure what you are investing in but most funds reflect market trends, rarely beating the S&P-500. Index funds are probably the safest long-term growth funds to invest in as they will track accordingly.

For instance the Nasdaq bubble killed many high-growth tech funds. When Bush took office the Nasdaq had already shed more than 1/3 it's value from the Jan-2000 high (5000 -> 2900). Since then the Nasdaq has gone as low as 1200 in late '02 to it's current level of ~2000. The Dow Jones was 11,000 when Bush took office in Jan-2001, it dipped to 7500 in early 2003 and is currently above 10000. Most 401k's reflect this trend line, essentially lower than they were in Jan-2001.

But if Bush can point to growth in 401k's and market trend-lines in 2003 & 2004 then he will sell this as future growth; and that is trouble for Democrats. He has already started to blame the recession on Clinton by using revised figures from 2000. Now I've actually argued your point that this bubble is being propped up by tax-cuts, home-refinancing, and a cheap dollar, effectively negating the gains in 2003. I actually think the 'rebound' will hit the wall in mid-2004, before the election. Now jobs is the biggest area where Democrats have an advantage, it is pretty indisputable that 3-million jobs have been lost since Bush took office, and the 9-million are unemployed. Democrats need to take advantage of this and push it as one of two main issues, the other being the foreign policy mess.

But if Bush can prop it up the economy until election time, we should make sure we have a credible ticket to attack his foreign policy. Remember how Reagan was propping up the economy before the 1987 Crash, we just may see a re-run.

Edwards is too young and inexperienced. I doubt that most Americans would want to replace Mr. Gravitas (Cheney) with some ambulance chasing freshman senator from Raleigh, North Carolina. I'd much rather see Dean choose Bob Graham or Wesley Clark for vice president.

If I remember correctly, Graham dropped out of the race and announced that he won't run because of health issues. So I doubt that he would be the choice.

I think Edwards because Dean is running a populist campaign, so he's not going to want a guy who's been around a long time. Edwards is a one-term guy, so he's not nearly as weighed down with baggage as the rest. It would also be a mistake to put up a complete outsider, because what duties the VP has are purely political. You need someone who can do that kind of thing.

Also, I've heard Edwards speak, and he is outstanding at it. If you want a guy to go out stumping for you, he's the one. It's a shame that he's gotten so little traction in this campaign.

Third, he's probably closest to Dean ideologically and politically. I know traditionally, you want someone further away from you to be the VP, but I think this is a case where having someone closer is better.

Especially when Dean has gone on record as saying that he would appoint people to the FCC who understand that corporate penetration in local media markets is a bad thing.

(Let me save you the trouble: I wouldn't believe anything Dean had to say about anything. If he told me the sun came up in the East, I wouldn't believe him.)

Other than that, I'd put Powell's record of service up against Clarks any day of the week. Too bad it's more of a fantasy because Powell is a good soldier and won't abandon the Bush family before the election. But if Dean publicly left the door open to him to keep his job, even if he declined, that would be a tremendous body shot to W.

So much for that weak on defense theory.

Looking good!