I would hypocritically second Mike Tomasky's call for calm as we wait to see what policies Obama's administration actually pursues rather than reading too deeply into the tea leaves of who he's appointed. And I say that as someone who has read those tea leaves pretty deeply because, well, that's my job, and you'd all stop coming to this blog if I didn't fill it with exciting political speculation. But for a dose of humility, think two years into the future, and imagine how easy it will be to write the story of either the success or failure of the Obama administration. If it all goes well, then Obama will be lauded for convening a team of giants and putting their tremendous skills in service of reform. If much goes poorly, then commentators will soberly explain the inevitability of infighting and incoherence in an administration composed of political rivals and riven by policy disagreements. The only caveat I'd add is that there has been a significant amount of attention devoted to the management experience and bureaucratic skills of various appointees, and that's a positive development. Governance requires skills and expertise, and it would be nice if the Obama administration succeeds and cements the idea that running a good government is the sort of thing that requires people with experience in the sphere of "running a good government." Both the Carter and the Clinton administrations were severely damaged by the myth that what bedevils Washington are the people who understand how it works.
