Ron Klain Will Be Biden's Chief Of Staff As Old Clinton Hands Return To D.C.
As expected, former Al Gore chief of staff Ron Klain has accepted the opportunity to return in the same capacity for Joe Biden, a Democratic official confirms to us.
Klain is the second former Clintonite (after Rahm Emanuel) to take a high-profile and influential White House post, another sign that Obama is tapping experienced D.C. hands to implement his change agenda.
Ben Smith makes a smart point about Klain, arguing that for all of Obama's change rhetoric, he's long been the "toast of Washington" and is close to many D.C. insiders. His promises of "change" apply more to policy than personnel, and we've already seen that Obama is making substantive changes as he prepares to govern, placing his own reformist stamp on the transition process in various ways.
There are a couple of corollary points to be made here. First, Obama is a hard-headed realist about how to implement the sometimes airy-sounding promise of "change." The bottom line is that in order to get it done you need people who know how to do the hand-dirtying and not particularly noble work of behind-the-scenes politics.
Second, one emerging -- and very interesting -- storyline here is that many figures from the Clinton world are re-entering power at a time of real Democratic ascendancy and promise, what with the large Dem majorities in Congress. This contrasts sharply with the Clintonites' experience of D.C. in the 1990s. They were heavily constrained by ascendant conservative ideas, as well as the subsequent take-over of Congress by the GOP, and as a result, some of the biggest Clinton accomplishments had a heavy centrist gloss to them.
That isn't even remotely the case now: These people are coming back to D.C. at a time when the Republicans are catastrophically weakened, conservative ideas have been broadly discredited, and polls show wide public support for liberal governance. The opportunity to prove the virtues of one-party Dem rule and of liberal ideas in general, and to build an enduring Dem majority, are extremely ripe, and the excitement among these old D.C. players is palpable.
I'm sorry, I don't get this. Why is Gore's former CofS automatically a Clintonite? Gore himself wasn't a Clintonite.
November 13, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
you also have john podesta, former clinton chief of staff, running Obama's transition
November 13, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Depends on how you define "Clintonite." I think what Greg is talking about is people who were Democratic party players during the Clinton-Gore years, not just the smaller group of the Clinton inner circle.
November 13, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is plain crazy to brand all these folks as 'clintonites'...it is a label just like 'flaming liberal' nothing but a right wing radio/media talking point.
We on the left have to reject this characterization, we cannot let the GOP control the language and verbage.
Obama is turning to people WITH EXPERIENCE...end of story. Simply because you worked in government during the Clinton administration does not make you a Clintonite.
Once this 'clintonite infested' meme takes hold they will use it to batter and insist that there is no change!
That's false.
It is no different than a team with a losing record getting a new coach with some of the same players on the rooster from the former coach.
What that team does under the new coach is go ahead and win championships!!
Stop letting the right control the talking points.
November 13, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
there's some truth to that, but nonetheless, it is a fact that some people who worked for clinton are now working for obama, and I find it interesting that these folks are returning at a time when the potential for liberal governance is extremely high.
also, clinton is an awfully popular figure these days, and people have fond memories of the 1990s on the economy and so forth, so if the right wants to try to turn this into a liability, let 'em, say I.
November 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't take folks who worked for/with Clinton from 1992-2000, where would you find Dems with any experience in the Executive branch. Clinton brought in an entire team of outsiders and suffered greatly for it. As long as there is change in policy, does this other stuff really matter?
November 13, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly on another thread: If you want some experienced hands who share your political perspective to round out your transition team, and you don't want to use Clinton-era Dems, you're going to have to reanimate the corpses of the Kennedy/Johnson administration (since Clinton tended to rely on Carter's people). Or maybe you want to go back to Truman?
If you want to be pragmatic and intelligent, you use the talent available to you.
November 13, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, we all have a stank taste in our mouth with regards to Clinton. And a lot of that has to do with the primary season. But let's not forget just how good he was. His political skills were legendary for a reason, and he had a lot of good people around him.
But here's the main difference as I see it:
Barack Obama is a smart man. But he doesn't have that same need to be the smartest guy in the room like Clinton did. He is fundamentally a more secure human being. He's more self aware. He's more grounded. He isn't plagued by the same personal weaknesses of Bill Clinton. Barack won't be tempted by interns or stuff like that because he's just not insecure on that level. That alone gives me a lot of confidence in him because he'll be able to have all these DC insiders from the 90's around, along with some new blood, and he'll be able to make sound judgements without being threatened by people who may know something he doesn't know.
November 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
So long as they truly understand this, then great, I have no problem. So long as they are not stuck in a '90s mindset. And, as DW noted, most of the Clinton administration's failures were due to Bill's, rather than his staff's.
Still, why not Kevin Spacey? From what I hear, he did a better job of playing Ron Klain than Ron Klain does in real life.
November 13, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think its safe to say we're all pleased they aren't Bushinites.
November 13, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
When Clinton was first elected, and then hired career Democrats who had worked in the Carter administration, was Clinton derided for recruiting "Old Carter hands"? This whole notion seems to be a refuge for journalists who can't think of something original to write about.
November 13, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think anyone is deriding the choices -- the opposite, in fact...
November 13, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what Ron Klain wants to know? Who won this fucking election. I mean, who really won it.
Also, calling Klain a 'Clintonite' isn't the worst thing you can call him. I mean, the man did kill Brad Pitt's wife, and fooled everyone into thinking he wasn't Keysor Soze.
Wait, do I have the right guy here?
November 13, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the real-life Ron Klain is anything like the guy Kevin Spacey played in "Recount" then he gets my vote!
November 13, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton's third term. The dream is still alive :) Who'd have thunk it! (me! me!)
Obama's policy proposals as a candidate were well to the right of Bill Clinton, not more liberal. I was wondering when people would start to realize that Obama's economic plan did not differ significantly from Bill's policies.
November 13, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Policy proposals and implementation are two different things. Clinton's implementation, for better and worse, were quite centrist. Don't forget NAFTA and that hideous FCC change which allowed unprecedented media consolidation. I think we'll find Obama a different animal. These people are being hired to force or fanangle through Obama's agenda.
November 13, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief! Are you folks seriously believing that anyone who worked in the Clinton administration is some sort of Clinton groupie? Get a grip.
The phrase Clintonites just perpetuates this silly myth. My unsolicited advice, Greg, is to come up with a better phrase--not that you have to do anything that I suggest.
dijamo, you need a reality check. The Clintons are simply not going to call the shots in spite of your fervent dreams. You are obviously an intelligent person from your posts so drop the Clinton obsession and your "not hidden at all" desire for Obama to fail. It's sad.
November 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Conservatives are going to beat Obama over the head with Clinton staff/allies just like they would go after him for refusing to use experienced people if he didn't hire Clinton staff. Obama is smart to bring on experienced people and if he won't look at people who were worked for Clinton or Gore, where else is he supposed to go? I wouldn't complain if Carter staff wanted to come back, but if they can't be talked into coming out of retirement, Clinton staff are pretty much it.
November 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
From looking at his bio, it seems Kalin had a good amount of time and authority in the Senate before going to the Clinton White House -- connections to Daschle and Biden himself. So his chief of staff duties for Gore may simply be a "plus" for someone Biden wanted, no matter what he'd been doing in the intervening years. Listening to everyone, it seems the theme of experienced and qualified is continuing. --- Good for them! What we need is competence and integrity in these positions. I don't care how the competence was learned or the integrity instilled.
November 13, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink