Rethinking The Clinton Transition

« Straw Men | Main | When The Auto Makers Report In... »

Feb 16 2009, 12:08 pm by Marc Ambinder

Remember how bad that Clinton transition was? All the nominee juggling. The stronger-than-expected prerogatives of Congress? Early White House chaos? Communications problems? The point is: transitions are very hard. Maybe it's not fair to compare them. Depending upon your point of view, Obama's transition was stunningly efficient (thanks in large part to the Bush White House) or it vindicated the decisions that Clinton's planners made. In late 1992, Clinton decided to focus on cabinet nominees and policy first, and put off the organization of the White House staff until later. Some of Obama's policy reviews, by contrast, still haven't been completed. The White House staff had weeks to prepare, but in retrospect, the building is like a gravity field operating on energy: everything slows down, regardless of input. Metrics don't tells us everything either; by this point in 1993, every cabinet member sans one -- the Attorney General -- was confirmed.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rethinking The Clinton Transition:

» Why We Trust Clinton Economics, Why We Distrust Obama from Hillary Is 44
Hillary Clinton is not only trying to Save The World, Hillary Clinton is also trying to save the American and World economies. Meanwhile Barack Obama is dead set on destructive flim-flam economic policies announced at circus rallies. The financial ... [Read More]

Comments (2)

Ian Leslie February 16, 2009 4:55 PM

This is typical of Ambinder at his most frustrating: a fascinating choice of topic backed with the author's usual knowledge and acuity - but so sloppily written that it's nigh-on impossible to grasp the main points. What on earth that does that gravity field metaphor mean? What exactly does that last sentence imply? I spend far too many minutes figuring this kind of stuff out on your blog - when all I want is the author's brilliant reporting and insight. Please, please take more care to be clear.

slag February 17, 2009 9:48 AM

This post makes sense, as far as it goes. But it also illustrates the reality that narratives--once constructed--are incredibly hard to break down. All presidents are going to be prone to rookie mistakes in their first term just like all new employees everywhere. The difference is the campaign narrative that has built up prior to this point.

It's hard to escape the feeling that the press--by and large--had a deep and strong desire to tear Clinton down before he stepped into office. They had built up an unhappy narrative about him through the campaign, and anything that might reasonably be construed as fitting within that narrative was thrown in as reinforcement. By contrast, where were reports of all of GW Bush's big transition mistakes? Buried under phony stories of missing Ws on keyboards, that's where. (And maybe also under PDBs titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside US".)

That said, Obama's "No Drama" narrative that he built up in the campaign will hopefully keep the wolves at bay a little during his transition. He's seen as the man with the plan. And within three weeks, he passed huge (really huge!) legislation through Congress. Though it wasn't everything I might have liked, I have to give him serious props for getting it done.

The Atlantic Home