It's not very "bipartisan," but this would make me immensely happy, not least for the way it would cause right-wing heads to explode.

would be an awesome transportation secretary.

However, we may need him on the House Transportation Committee, where a group will be working to redirect the focus of the 2009 highway bill and to make sure that climate change legislation addresses surface transportation:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=1686

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=1707

My dream candidate for secretary of transportation is Bill Richardson:

http://www.bleedingheartland.com/showDia ry.do?diaryId=519

I understand Obama has to reward those who endorsed him at crucial times, but come on Colin Powell that lying sob who took us to Iraq war. And Caroline Kennedy, what diplomatic skills/experience does she have exactly. I am hoping that this list is fake, because these names would dent my confidence in Obama's skills big time.

I'm looking forward to shrills screeds from the usual suspects attacking Obama over this list.

Every single "leak" by these guys has been some kind of strategic coup.  The idea that we are actually sitting on some kind of actual roster - as if all these decisions have been made already, and they're just waiting to slowly roll out the names kinda like baseball hands out the postseason awards - seems pretty unlikely.

This chart reads like a dream lineup of rock stars. Probably most like the Travelling Wilburys, but with Jerry Garcia and Johnny Cash thrown in the mix. It's too good to be true.

Dick Gephardt, Secretary of Department of Labor - long time coming and perfect fit.

Al Gore, Climate Czar? Would he actually want to get back involved with government after the treatment he has received in the media? I would understand if he said no.

Colin Powell as Secretary of Education is choice. Treasury has me concerned.

M

for National Security Adviser.

The importance of who he appoints to Treasury can not be overstated. It must not be any ex-Goldman folks or Tim Geitner, the current odds on bets.

Paul Volcker, age 81, is the only choice that makes sense, and he should accept despite his age.

We are facing a worldwide catastrophe, and in this case experience DOES matter.

I want Hagel for UN Ambassador.

I'd like Gore and Powell to be informal advisers, not cabinet officials.

To me Director of National Intelligence is as important as most of the cabinet positions.

I'd like Andy Stern to get Sec of Labor. Stern's likely successor would be Tom Balanoff, chair of the state council in Illinois. Balanoff and Obama are... close.

Scott Kleeb will get a good job at the Ag Dept, right?

I like Kerry for DOD. But I see the sense in letting Gates supervise the withdrawal from Iraq. Obama has to have the balls to tackle some of the unnecessary weapons programs in DOD, including nuclear weapons programs.

Dean for HHS is cool, but how about Elizabeth Edwards?

I'd like to make Howard Dean ambassador to Iraq. He'd learn some good stuff and it would be a cool symbolic move.

Homeland Security? I'd like to see a real liberal who believes in a strong Bill of Rights. Call me old fashioned but I'm far more worried about my gov't curtailing my freedoms than dying in a terrorist attack.

Schweitzer would be good at Interior, but he's got serious foreign policy credentials too. He should be groomed to be a viable VP candidate in 2012. (No offense, but Biden isn't necessary in the same way for re-election and he'd prob rather be Sec of State in the next term anyway.)

I like Patrick Leahy for AG, but Janet Napolitano is a fine choice. I don't see her being appointed AG being consistent with running for U.S. Senate in 2010. How about Leahy for AG. Napolitano runs for U.S. Senate? If she doesn't win she gets AG when Leahy retires (if she's not VP in 2012).

Gephardt or Bonior should get something. With one of them plus Rahm the Obama team should be able to whip the vote in the House.

Since nuclear weapons are under Dept of Energy, I'd kinda like to see Sam Nunn at DOE.

I prefer Richardson to Holbrooke as Sec of State, but both are immensely talented individuals.

I like Max Cleland, but if the guy isn't going to run for U.S. Senate I don't think Obama should waste a cabinet appointment on him.

If McCain wants it he can have Sec of Vets Affairs. Otherwise I'd give it to Duckworth.

If Obama is considering Republicans, is he willing to consider independents and minor party figures, like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Ventura, Lowell Weicker, etc?

Should Ronnie Musgrove be on the list to be considered at Dept of Ed?

Who should get FEMA? Is Ray Nagin up to the job?

Susan Collins as SecHomSec. Lieberman would love that, redeem himself by not making a fuss and even speak kindly of the person taking over his previous Chairmanship. Powell is heavily into education and gets how institutions are run. he would really be a great Ed. Secretary.  I think at this point Pritzker (at HUD) and Geithner are already getting prepared, Gates is sticking around for now (as is Mueller) for obvious reasons of stability. A brilliant move would be to make Bob Menendez AG and have Cody replace him in the Senate from Jersey. Frank Pallone Jr hands down for HHS Secretary and Gephardt a definite for Labor. Richardson a must for Interior. I think Hegel would be great at Veteran's Affairs. And Reich, of course.

I doubt he could get the Republicans to accept under those circumstances.  They would be leaned on heavily by their party (the party they chose to support) to refuse.

Sure, he's telegenic, he's from clan kennedy, and maybe he's a good organizer, but...

his highest profile work has shown him to be a provincial antiscientific hack.  First, he dedicates his life reducing rates of childhood immunization, even though the scientific evidence clearly shows that his concerns are unfounded.  Then he opposes the Cape Wind project because it would disturb the view from his family compound.

Maybe BO could give him an integrity transplant and he'd be able to get some good done.  But based on his record to date, he's exactly the person we don't need after eight years of corporate creationists in the Executive branch.

Considering Women delivered this election FOR Obama, imo, he needs to put A-LOT MORE Women in that cabinet than what this chart says.

I like Napolitano for AG - but where's Boxer or Feinstein? Murray or Cantwell? Where's McCaskill or Blanche Lincoln?

Granholm or Sebelius?

and OF COURSE

Where's HILLARY?

I can't see why the Maine Senators would accept and bump to the cabinet.

My only concern with these lists are that there are so many elected officeholders being mentioned.  I'd hate to see the Cabinet appointments diminish the Democratic advantages in the Senate and the Governors' mansions, but a lot of these picks have the potential to do so.

But, of course, I'm sure President-Elect Obama will choose the best people to fit into his team (and remember, it is a team, so certain choices may depend on how well they'll work with the President as well as their qualifications).

Has anyone else noticed that Laura Tyson's name seems to be inching back up the lists of possible Treasury Secretaries, after almost completely falling off when the financial crisis hit? She may not have as much Wall Street cred as Geithner and some of the other candidates, but she seems to have Obama's ear, a stellar reuptation as an economist and dean, solid experience as a Clinton aide, a less abrasive personality than Summers (OK, she's not the only one who has that), and a relatively progessive attitude towards industiral policy and planning. The shift towards helping the auto industry, not just the financial markets, probably helps her chances.

I think it's possible that Obama will pick Volker with Tyeson as his deputy and likely successor.

I like former oregon Governor Dr John Kitzhaber for HHS secretary.

This list I find very concerning; I can only hope it's a red herring. One of the things I had most hoped for with an Obama administration would be the end of the spoils system--an end to rewarding the incoming president's friends and supporters in campaign and government. I am not trying to say that those on this list are not intelligent or capable individuals, but (1) are they truly the best possible choices?, and perhaps even more importantly, (2) how does their appointment effect a "change" in US government?

One of the reasons that, at least for me, Barack Obama's relative dearth of national political experience didn't matter nearly as much as the opposition would have had us believe because we all know that the president doesn't (and can't possibly) have that much effect on the day-to-day workings of all of the various government bureaus and departments, especially in the domestic arena. Rather, we would rely on a president Obama to appoint the best and brightest possible individuals to run and staff them. In other words, the "hope" of an Obama administration would be a return to expertise over cronyism and partisanship with regard to the actual movers and shakers in the federal government.

I like Howard Dean a lot...I'd think there aren't many around here who don't. On the other hand, merely his being simultaneously a physician and a politician shouldn't necessarily obviate his suitability for heading up the agency responsible for all of the federal healthcare and social work infrastructure. We certainly wouldn't think the same of Ron Paul or Bill Frist. Dean was the governor of Vermont, one of the country's smallest, and therefore does not have practical experience with dealing with a large and crumbling healthcare bureaucracy. And if you don't like the "experience" argument (which I think is a lot more powerful regarding cabinet secretaries, as they are the ones who actually do the heavy lifting for the administration on a day-to-day basis), there's always the fact that he hasn't (at least according to a Google search) achieved any  degree or even done advanced research on healthcare policy.  Obama should consider instead somebody, for example, like Jeanne Marsh, the dean of the University of Chicago School of Social Services Adminstration who has made her entire career based on an inside-out knowledge of the nation's healhcare and social work apparatus, and how better to proportion services. And I feel similarly about many of the names mentioned on this list. Colin Powell? How on earth does being a former Secretary of State and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff make him in any way an expert on educational policy? He'd be just as formidable an authority on the subject as Margaret Spellings. We like John Kerry a lot, of course, but members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are by no means the greatest experts or most impressive thinkers on matters of foreign policy.  Heck, Norm Coleman is John Kerry's Republican seniority counterpart on the committee. Indeed, this is why they have hearings in which they listen to the testimony of the actual foreign policy professionals!  Why not instead consider a faculty member of the Kennedy School at Harvard, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts, the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton, etc. etc. etc.? We needn't only look to academia, either. Certainly the private sector has fledged not only corporate raiders. Much of the movement toward sustainable development and fair trade, among many other examples, has been fomented by those in the business world Certainly the Gates Foundation has advanced their cause of expanding access to healthcare and education worldwide more efficiently than the US government has! It's not only Democrats or liberals, either. Just look at what Jon Huntsman, Sr. has done for expanding healthcare accessibility in rural Utah.

Moreover, even the names outside of current government still are not the fresh faces we envisioned attendant to a grand "change" campaign. Many of them--Danzig, Steinberg, Rice, and so forth--are veterans of the Clinton administration. And while those years were certainly preferable to the latest eight, they were by no means perfect. It is naïve, even dangerous, to assume that these seasoned political hands would have changed their stripes in the meantime. Do we really want a return to Clintonian triangulation? The "third way" is not necessarily equivalent to the bipartisanship for which we hope and the Obama campaign promised. Indeed, with regard to academics and private sector folk, it is not only the greater mastery of the subject matter and the greater creativity with which they generally address the problems they're trying to solve, but also that they would bring a welcome measure of "outsider-ness" to the office. Don't get me wrong: they of course would propound the policy agenda of the Obama administration, but at least they would be far less likely to hijack the agencies for political purposes a la Alphonso Jackson.

I think it would be catastrophically counterproductive, to say nothing of disappointing, merely to reshuffle the Washington chessmen in formulating our new government. This is tantamount to squandering the trust invested in the progressive movement only a week ago. Indeed, choosing brilliant leadership for the agencies that actually do the work that Obama has promised us is the surest way not only to ensure the continued salience and credibility of progressive politics, but also to make our country--and our world--a better place. This is truly the heart of progressivism.