TAKING OVER

Handover Horror Stories

Winning is half the battle. A history of bumpy transitions.

PHOTO GALLERY

Backstage with Obama

NEWSWEEK's photographers caught exclusive glimpses of the Democratic candidate down the homestretch

Press Box: With McCain Loss, What's Next for GOP?

By Dan Brillman | NEWSWEEK

Published Nov 5, 2008

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

The good news for President-elect Barack Obama: following George W. Bush is only slightly harder than following Jane Fonda at a VFW rally. The bad news: compared with governing, campaigning is easy.

As much as Obama may want to turn the page and make good on his change mantra during the first hundred days, he might take a moment to read about the Hoover-Roosevelt transition of 1932-33. Or peruse tales of the clumsy Clinton start after the 1992 election. The period between the first Tuesday in November and Jan. 20 can be a treacherous time for an incoming commander in chief, and history is rife with controversy—from radioactive cabinet nominee dramas to tales of political revenge, catty vandalism and petty theft. "The early months are so important," White House veteran David Gergen has said, "because that's when you have the most authority, but that's also when you have the least capacity for making the right decisions." A brief history of some of the most troubled presidential transitions:

2000- 01
When George W. Bush took office in January 2001, he aimed to make a clean break from all things Clinton. The acrimony, much of it stemming from the 2000 Florida recount and the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, apparently went both ways. Reports of office vandalism and thievery made their way into the press soon after the Bush team moved in.

An initial 2001 General Services Administration audit found little to the story, other than wear and tear when "tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." But GeorgiaRep. Bob Barr pressed the matter, and the General Accounting Office began a deeper probe. A year later, the GAO released a report that found between $13,000 and $14,000 worth of damage. The vandalism included missing items like doorknobs, a presidential seal and "W" keys from nearly 60 computer keyboards. The 215-page report said the damage amounted to a "criminal act" but didn't specifically blame anyone. Clinton spokesmen acknowledged that there may have been pranks done in jest, but attributed the majority of the damage to normal wear and tear. In the end both sides claimed vindication, but the bitterness was a symbol of the entire 2000 election.

1992-93
The 1992-93 transition is generally remembered—even by those who worked on the first Clinton administration—as unfocused and undisciplined. Clinton Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers called the period "hell." In his autobiography, Clinton himself admitted that he "spent so much time on the cabinet that [he] hardly spent any time on the White House staff." One public embarrassment was the nomination of Zoë Baird for attorney general, which blew up shortly before the Inauguration. Baird removed her name from consideration after it was revealed she had employed several illegal aliens and neglected to pay Social Security taxes on their work. Clinton's second nominee, Kimba Wood, withdrew due to similar reports. Clinton seemed determined to nominate a woman for the position and, on March 12, Florida State Attorney Janet Reno was sworn in.

1988-89
John Tower—the former U.S. senator from Texas, Reagan and Bush adviser, and author of the Iran-contra investigative report—had his nomination as defense secretary shot down on a 53-47 vote. Among the criticisms: his ties to defense contractors and his pro-choice stance on abortion. Some Democrats targeted Tower for payback, angered over their feeling that George H.W. Bush's campaign had used negative tactics against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 election. But the issue that took up the most newspaper space was his reputed drinking and womanizing. The perception—fair or not—of Tower as a loose cannon overly fond of imbibing doomed his chances. In his memoirs, Tower blamed the episode on the media (whom he called a "lynch mob"), enemies gained over 27-odd years in Washington (especially the then Georgia Democratic Sen. Sam Nunn) and other "crackpots and busybodies." Dick Cheney, considered a moderate pragmatist, was confirmed unanimously 10 days later. Tower was the first cabinet nominee to be rejected in more than 30 years. He died in a 1991 plane crash.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: mikep007 @ 01/30/2009 6:41:32 AM

The author of this article failed to note that it cost the American tax payer, over $200,000 to do the GAO report after the Clinton-to-Bush administration. The GAO rightly noted that they did not know WHO did the damage. IE It very well could have been the new Bushies looking to slander the outgoing regime. Also, the Clinton regime, back in 1993 had made similar claims abiout the HW Bush administration.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ellisliza @ 01/16/2009 4:11:57 PM

I told a young woman yesterday who said she had been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama, that he is not who she thinks he is. I said, "he wants to invade and occupy Afghanistan with 90,000 troops." She said bluntly, "he does not want to invade and occupy Afghanistan." I looked at her in the eye and said, "Do you believe he intends to?" She said, "No, that is not what we campaigned for." I said, I believe that certainly.

There are two versions of Obama, the media hyped glossing over the bad reality of him, with eager pretense as if that will work, and the Obama version which is a truthtelling hypocrit, using claims of strong catch words of :"peace" when he wants to "occupy" Afghanistan and, yes, he HAS SAID he wants 90,000 troops and he is hypocritical because NO COUNTRY will ever allow "occupation" with 90,000 troops. Moreover, in the beginning of his campaign he threatened Pakistan's Mushareff with a challenge that was not to Mushareff's face but to a supposed war enthusiastic supporting BUSH audience, but the public is not who they ought to be, they are obviously able to say Heil Obama as easily as Hitler. I would not. Not all did in Germany either. The United Nations has called for a cease fire in Gaza. THE MEDIA delivers Obama's hypocrisy. When a man talked with me, and answered my accusation that Obama has no sense of courage or honor or proper diplomacy when he made that statement, a second Obama enthusiast (aka believer in the two party opposition that is a supposed contrast that does not require voters to think about the candidate, and to believe the media forced two party supposed contrast as if there is any difference), a clear Democrat Party guy, said, "Oh, he's just young and naive! He doesn't mean it." I looked at him and said, " but you will vote for someone who you think doesn't mean what he says?" He thinks Obamas statements are innocent. I do not. I voted for honor and upholding democracy and peace for proper policy that nets both a budget on track and peace policy by someone who knows the difference between a gesture of assistance to a country who is troubled by terrorists and a gesture of more terror on top of what is already Being nice when there is every reason to be nice, is diplomacy. The Middle East deserves "nice" not threats of obliterators in the making. Crack the Whip? THAT MEANS IMPEACH BUSH AND PUT OBAMA ON NOTICE FOR HIS CONFLICTING AND ILLEGAL CLAIMS. PEOPLE VOTED FOR THE MEDIA LIES without substance: hope, change, and peace. Obama doesn't offer those any more than healthcare. NADER did. The media didn't what that reality. There was a real candidate not being allowed in front where he belonged. Nader. OBAMA IS RED INK, RED BLOOD AND INCREASED WEAPONS AND THREATS. I do know certainly that is NOT who the young woman campaigned for. She should have been on the Nader campaign!
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: ellisliza @ 01/16/2009 12:26:52 PM

If he has no such intentions, already showing, in my opinion, is TREASON the correct appraisal of the matter at hand? And, whose TREASON is it, obviously he owns responsibiliity for HIS ACTIONS, certainly, and his WORDS. The public owns responsibility for WATCHING and not objecting and worse, VOTING FOR a "KING" which is NOT our CONSTITUTION. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, knows this, as well as his partner in objecting, author of "Warrior King: The Case to Impeach George W. Bush" by John Bonifaz, Esq. a Boston Private Attorney. It is a brief, succinct, and well written book available in paperback, and prefaced by John Conyers, Esq. House of Representatives. There is a HUGE ACTIVIST PEACE MOVEMENT in this country and the press considers them :"outside" their duty, obviously, as to coverage, only the PROTESTS when in large numbers are given coverage, as if they do not belong as part of the real picture, the actual facts and themes of what we object to as required taken seriously for proper upholding of a free democracy with a government worthy of respect at home and abroad, and by our literal neighbors in North America and South America. We in the peace movement utterly depise Bush and the majority of voters were supposed to have the opportunity to see the full slate of agenda driven candidates who are not corrupt, who offer peace policy as reality.