The New York Times had a political memo this morning on Rubinomics. The article poitns out that Geithner, Summers, Orszag and Fronman all have deep Rubin ties. The Times is correct that these individuals have diverged some on policy and the moderate stances they have held in the past; however, I want to know why there is not one liberal economist being put in a key economic post. Now I know that Obama is moderate on economics, as am I, but in a world where Lincoln is his model, and rigorous argument is his ideal, why can’t he appoint one true liberal economist?

I am not a protectionist, and I think that America’s grand manufacturing industry is in a long decline of diminishing comparative advantage, but we should run the biggest deficit in history next year. We should run a New New Deal. We should pass universal health care (which apparently a la Kristol’s 1994 memo, might destroy the republican party for a generation). Now, sure, Larry Summers has come to that position:

As for Mr. Summers, he has “truly evolved,” Mr. Bernstein [an economist at Economics Policy Institute] said, based on his reading of Mr. Summers’s columns in the Financial Times this year. Both men have been advisers to Mr. Obama, and at a recent meeting, Mr. Bernstein recalled: “I told him, ‘Boy, Larry, your views on trade, on income inequality, on stimulus spending, they’re approaching ours at E.P.I.’ And he sort of huffed and puffed, and said, ‘Oh well, changing circumstances.’ ”

But where is the Bob Reich. Rubin and Reich may well have both moderated over time, and “the two Bobs” have come together, but where is the possible dissenting voice on economic issue. Who is the true champion for liberal economics, even more domestic spending than Summers or Geithner think necessary? I don’t know that there will be one.

Timothy Geithner is expected to take up the treasury positions, according to NBC News and WSJ. This isn’t a surprising pick, but I think it is a good one. He’s a known and trusted quantity to the markets, but he is not an insider. I think that we should be comforted by his years of public service and what kind of man that suggests he is, vs. the possibility of another big business Paulson like Secretary. I’m also relieved it isn’t Larry, not only because he is a brash, blunt man unfit for careful nuanced times, but also I think that the more the Obama camp can minimize the harking back to the Clinton days the better. I think that is true even though Hilliary will be Secretary of State. Geithner is quite young, 47, and worked in the Treasury department from 1988-2000, suggesting that he may well know the department better than any Secretary in recent memory.

So the big four seem to be shaping up to be Clinton, Geithner, Gates and Holder. I’m looking forward to hearing about Education (maybe Arne Duncan), Labor (maybe David Bonier) and housing and urban development. Although the media is focused on the big names and the big positions, the national security, foreign policy and economic teams, I think these other positions have large, important and often overlooked roles. If you read the newspapers carefully, you know that these positions have control over a vast area of regulation that are no less important because they aren’t on the front pages.

People on all sides of opinion seem to be going crazy over the amount of leaks coming out of the Obama Transition team, especially with regard to whether or not Senator Clinton will be nominated as Secretary of State. For example take this now over-extended entry at the Huffington Post, going through the various gyrations of what has been leaking to date.

We’ve heard it all, it’s a done deal, it’s not happening, the problem is Bill, Bill turned over all of his records, it’s yes, it’s no, and on and on we go.

I do think that this is pretty much as close to a done deal as can be had right now. Recall that this speculation, while feeling like a long time, has been going on now for about a week, with the actual vetting seeming to have taken place beginning around Tuesday of this week.

Indeed, there is now a “leak” that uses the exact same language being bandied about the media, seen here in the AP:

President-elect Barack Obama plans to nominate Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state after Thanksgiving, a new milestone for the former first lady and a convergence of two political forces who fought hard for the presidency.

The senior adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity because the president-elect is not prepared to officially announce the nomination, said Obama believes Clinton would bring instant stature and credibility to U.S. diplomatic relations.

I also don’t think these leaks are coming entirely from the Clinton camp, or that she is trying to gain leverage, simply put she has none to gain. Senator Kennedy in a reversal from where he once stood along with the Democratic Senate Leadership are considering what leadership role she could play should she stay in the Senate. Obviously she has a decision to make, and she gains no leverage in either direction at this point, she needs to make a monumental and life defining choice, but hey let’s just hope she does it in 24 hours since Obama asked her, and how could she say no.

But what does this say about the once leak proof Obama campaign? Greg Sarget at TPM Election Central argues that it’s an issue of planned vs. unplanned leaks. While I think this is true, I still think it misses the point all together, which is these leaks don’t hurt anything.

Let’s imagine for a moment a government that didn’t have any leaks? I think that ideally we shouldn’t use unnamed sources, that conversations should be on the record, but the media climate and the rules of the game say otherwise, and often times leaks, whether unofficial or planned are an important part of how we get our news. To think that we should allow the Obama Transition and soon to be Administration to operate in a leak free world, and indeed be distressed when leaks are happening is to want to play a part in the game that we don’t play in the first place.

Leaks are fundamental to our free press, for better or worse at this point. There are good ones and bad ones, planned and unplanned, and even illegal, but without this information coming out, we’d be far worse, and further in the dark for what our government is planning. I trust Obama as President, but I like to know that there will always be leaks to know what’s going on.

I think this story by Chris Bowers at Open Left deserves some much needed attention. Chris writes:

Kind of remarkable that every time Democrats seek elite media and political credibility for having a “bi-partisan” cabinet, they turn to Republicans to manage the Pentagon. Kind of makes you think that Democrats believe Republicans are better at managing both national security, and what is by far the largest department of the federal government. There have been no Democratic Defense Secretaries since 1996, and only eight years of Democratic Defense Secretaries since 1968.

This post comes after the Financial Times indicates that chatter points to Obama working out the details that would allow current Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in an Obama Administration.

I agree with Bowers here that the eventual effect of this is wrong. Of course it could be that Gates is the exact person Obama wants to head his Pentagon, but surely if one is worried about transition issues Secretary Gates, “an old-fashioned patriot”, in Mr. Obama’s own words could be called upon to remain on past January 20th as a contractor or special adviser. Choosing the right people is important, but there are other roles Gates could fill to use the knowledge and experience he has.

Democrats are not going to be able to take back the issue of National Defense if we insist on allowing Republicans, even moderates, to head the Defense Department. Obama should chose a qualified and experienced Democrat, Sam Nunn?, to step up and lead a Pentagon that will refocus itself on stopping al Qaeda, bringing our troops home safe, and modernizing for the future of warfare.

I want surprises. I want innovation. I want change. I voted for change. Many American voted for change, but it seems so far that we’re going to get a cabinet of the usual players. Now, Gary has pointed out to me that if you look at FDR’s cabinet you had a lot of insiders, but obviously that cabinet brought about a lot of change.

But Roosevelt had the brain trust–an unlikely cadre of advisers who thought of some of the most innovative solutions to the nation’s problems that we have ever seen. They turned upside down the expectations for government. Who is the Loius Howe? The F. Palmer Weber? Maybe these figures, a modern day brain trust will appear, but so far what I’m seeing is exactly what we’d expect: old names, old faces, old ideas. Tom Daschle? Hillary Clinton? Rahm Emmanuel? Eric Holder? All fine choices, and I will likely in the coming days, weeks, and months will accept, indeed praise, their appointments, but today, this hour I just want to know when we’re going to see some change.