Funny Math at the NYT

I'm trying to understand the math in today's NYT story by Michael Shear about Bill Clinton people in the Barack Obama Administration, begged to the announcements of Bill Daley as Chief of Staff and Gene Sperling to head the National Economic Council.

Key quotes:

The appointments add to the already significant ranks of Clintonites in Mr. Obama’s administration.

Still, as some of Mr. Obama’s longtime advisers leave the White House, his decision to revamp his staff by tapping more veterans of Mr. Clinton’s administration is notable.

Can we get a bit of a reality check?  Both of the people who are being replaced (Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers) are every bit as much associated with Bill Clinton as are Daley and Sperling.  So the net change in Clinton people would be...zero.  In fact, since Sperling was already over at Treasury, it may be that there will be fewer, not more, Clinton people when all is said and done, at least by one reasonable way of counting, and assuming no more changes.

Why does anyone care about this?   Well, in fact, it is important to understand that the Clinton White House was and the Obama White House is deeply situated within the Demcocratic Party network; neither of these administrations has been primarily filled with personal loyalists with ties only to the president.  Indeed, while Daley, Emanuel, Summers, and Sperling all worked for Clinton, each of them has various other ties within the party, and none of them were Arkansans or otherwise had roots to Clinton that reached back before the 1992 campaign.

That is not, however, the tack that Shear takes.  Instead, he uses the supposed increase in Clintonites as a signal (or a potential signal; he cloaks it in wishy-washy "To many" language instead of identifying himself or specific others who are claiming it) of ideological movement to the center.  For that, however, he's going to need an increase of greater than -1 to make his point. 

Daley

William Daley is going to be the new WH Chief of Staff.  In general, my reaction is pretty positive.

I can repeat what I said when Peter Rouse got the interim gig back in October.  First, these positions are quite important.  Second, in my view at least, far too much is made of the "real" ideological leanings of these people.  We should want to know whether they're well-equipped to do the job.  

When I was describing Rouse's strengths, I listed: "he's a problem-solver, he doesn't cultivate enemies, he knows the Washington landscape well, he has an excellent working relationship with the president."  As far as I know, those all apply to Daley, as well, with the possible exception of an as yet unproven working relationship with Barack Obama.  I'd say it's also a plus that Daley knows his way around a presidential campaign, since keeping the presidency running during one of those is going to be one of his challenges over the next two years.  I like the idea that when the campaign demands that Obama absolutely, positively needs to be in San Dimas tomorrow or else California is lost, Daley will have a good idea of how to evaluate that request.

I can also say that my biggest hesitation about Rouse, enough to make me suggest at the time that Obama would be better off seeking someone else, was that Rouse does nothing to address the administration's biggest weakness, which is its administration of the executive branch departments and agencies.  Daley, as a former cabinet secretary, should be more oriented towards that side of the presidency than the numerous former Hill staffers in the Obama WH (and, perhaps more to the point, the former Senator in the Oval Office) tend to be.  

Now, all that said, if he doesn't develop a good working relationship with the president, he'll be a poor chief of staff, and I have no idea whether he will or won't.  But for the most part, and from what's on record so far, Daley seems to be a reasonable choice for the job.