One quick though came to mind with the pick of Leon Panetta to be CIA chief. If I'm not mistaken, George HW Bush didn't have any spy experience before taking over the CIA in the mid-70s.
Back in 2003, when he was being posited as a possible gubernatorial candidate, I noted that "He's a smart liberal and the best the Democrats have to offer" in that race. That still holds.
There is a place for an intelligent, well-rounded generalist to be supervising things. For instance, did Bill Richardson or Spence Abraham have any energy expertise to speak of before becoming energy secretary? Yet both were intelegent public servents who could master a somewhat foreign topic.
Personally, I'll take a smart liberal with a candid streak like Panetta over a CIA vet who distanced himself enough from the Bush team to show up on Obama's radar.
Bush's appointment was controversial for different reasons - he was deemed too partisan. I wish Wikipedia would have explained George Will's opposition.
I'm the guy who wanted to make James Lileks UN ambassador, so I'm probably not the best expert on presidential appointments.
Posted by: Alan K. Henderson | January 10, 2009 at 12:27 AM