C.h.a.n.g.e - Page 3

wallyburger · November 26th, 2008, 07:51 AM

Anything less than G.W. "Attila the Hun" Bush is a marked improvement. I understand, but do not like, the retention of Gates, and look forward to Hillary Clinton as a replacement for Condoleeza Rice.

Divide Et Impera · November 26th, 2008, 07:59 AM

I have always been ambivalent to Gates and I find myself satisfied that he is being kept on. I take him as nuanced and pragmatic, but he is first and foremost a good soldier. I'm willing to bet that we will ultimately see Gates emerge as a legitimate player once he is allowed to fully flourish in his role....

Divide Et Impera · November 26th, 2008, 12:32 PM

As stated by some of the more astute posters here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/26/obama-change/

Quote:

Obama Takes Down Media’s ‘Conventional Wisdom’: ‘The Vision For Change Comes From Me’»

During a press conference earlier today, CNN’s Ed Henry challenged President-elect Barack Obama on his naming of some recent appointees who have had experience serving in the government. “What do you say to your supporters looking for change?” Henry wondered. Obama noted that there is a “conventional wisdom floating around Washington that ‘well, there’s a recycling of people who were in the Clinton administration.’”

Addressing the media criticism directly, Obama explained:

Quote:

It would be surprising if I selected a Treasury secretary who had had no connection with the last Democratic administration because that would mean the person had no experience in Washington whatsoever. And I suspect you would be troubled and the American people would be troubled if I selected a Treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council…who had no experience whatsoever.

Obama said his personnel selections will “combine experience with fresh thinking.” But he underscored that the buck stops with him:

Quote:

But understand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost. It comes from me. That’s my job — is to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure that my team is implementing it.

Obama concluded, “What I don’t want to do is to somehow suggest that because you served in the last Democratic administration that you’re somehow barred from serving again — because we need people are going to be able to hit the ground running.”

AZZenny · November 30th, 2008, 08:29 PM

Read that JCoS Adm. Mike Mullen met privately with Obama last week for 45 minutes, just the two of them, at Obama's invitation. Mullen brought no briefing material, just wanted to get a feel for the new boss. Reportedly, Mullen's colleagues said he was relieved, perhaps even pleased. Said Obama listened respectfully and asked good and pointed questions, expressed readiness to be flexible and work with his generals, but had a good handle on the need for strong leadership.

Supposedly Mullen felt Obama was a basically practical and sensible man, not an ideologue, and had a more realistic sense of what the military can and can't do (and should/shouldn't do) than has been seen in the Bush WH at any time. 'A breath of fresh air,' said one source.

A friend with kin in the Pentagon said much of the place was surprisingly relieved when McCain didn't win. I heard a similar thing from a federal/military investigator in Chicago -- that if people feel reassured Obama wouldn't make them pay for carrying out WH directives that most of them distrusted or disliked, he could have a lot of unexpected military and intel support.

krepitch · December 1st, 2008, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZZenny

Read that JCoS Adm. Mike Mullen met privately with Obama last week for 45 minutes, just the two of them, at Obama's invitation. Mullen brought no briefing material, just wanted to get a feel for the new boss. Reportedly, Mullen's colleagues said he was relieved, perhaps even pleased. Said Obama listened respectfully and asked good and pointed questions, expressed readiness to be flexible and work with his generals, but had a good handle on the need for strong leadership.

Supposedly Mullen felt Obama was a basically practical and sensible man, not an ideologue, and had a more realistic sense of what the military can and can't do (and should/shouldn't do) than has been seen in the Bush WH at any time. 'A breath of fresh air,' said one source.

A friend with kin in the Pentagon said much of the place was surprisingly relieved when McCain didn't win. I heard a similar thing from a federal/military investigator in Chicago -- that if people feel reassured Obama wouldn't make them pay for carrying out WH directives that most of them distrusted or disliked, he could have a lot of unexpected military and intel support.

The first two paragraphs are very good news and the third is a very interesting angle on the situation. Thanks.

hsandhu · December 2nd, 2008, 12:05 AM

I LOVE both obama's economic and national security team. All brilliant and competent. This cabinet is Murderers' Row.

You know he picked a great cabinet when right wing kool aid drinker fred barnes likes it http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/856nzktr.asp
(and he's only talking about the economic team) and the left wing nuts at
huffingpost are upset. If obama upsets the left that means he will be a hell of a president.

Good piece by mark mckinnon http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...g-about-obama/.

Seriously, did all you righties think he was going to be a communist? Did you
actually do any research on the man, deeper than he voted with his party
90% of the time etc...

wallyburger · December 2nd, 2008, 03:01 AM

I am ready to creep out on the limb a few more steps. My quandary with Obama from the outset was with who he would select as his cabinet and advisers. So far, not bad. I hope they have their track shoes on and bring their big sticks.

AZZenny · December 2nd, 2008, 06:02 AM

This is exactly the kind of cabinet anyone who really studied the man and his previous actions and statements -- who listened to the pre-primary Obama -- should have expected. No question, elections require a shift in emphasis and style if only to capture the media's gnat-like attention and tick-like obsessiveness. But people on the right who feared he was a pie-eyed utopian commie and people on the left who hoped he was, were only watching what already supported their biases.

This is a very SMART guy as well as a very intelligent guy. As one Chicago cab driver said to me, "This guy wins in Chicago politics -- he ain't nobody's fool."

He works the system and back-channels and develops unusual coalitions, he listens to all sides and enjoys debating AND listening to the sides debate each other, he has some visionary ideas to reform, rather than remake, America, and approaches accomplishing them practically and incrementally. I have heard repeatedly that he has no patience for know-it-alls, ideologues of any stripe, or people who lack real expertise in their area. He puts great weight on people who are excellent organizers and people-managers.

So he's assembled a broadly centrist team with more-or-less compatible long-term goals, very strong personalities and leadership skills who know how to get things done, and so far, reasonably good reputations.

Breath of fresh air!

wallyburger · December 2nd, 2008, 06:43 AM

It is getting tougher to throw compliments around in this forum.

One thing I have learned about expectations. Don't hang them too high and the fall will be shorter.

“Never idealize others. They will never live up to your expectations.”

Linderbee · December 2nd, 2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyburger

It is getting tougher to throw compliments around in this forum.

One thing I have learned about expectations. Don't hang them too high and the fall will be shorter.

“Never idealize others. They will never live up to your expectations.”

Truer words were never spoken.

UncleChris · December 3rd, 2008, 06:25 AM

UncleChris's 2nd law of curmudgeonry psychology:

"A pessimist is never disappointed."

AZZenny · December 3rd, 2008, 09:09 PM

Good column on Obama's appointing so many women to security/foreign affairs posts.

Quote:

In fields long dominated by men, a group of female politicians, academics, and policy wonks form the backbone of the Obama administration. Of appointments already designated, the top posts in the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, both cabinet-level positions, are Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano, respectively; our new ambassador to the United Nations will be Susan Rice; and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the number three position in the Department of Defense, is said to be reserved for Michele Flournoy.

These are not token appointments, but rather a collective reflection of a recent and unprecedented ascendancy of women in these fields. ...no one now questions the toughness or capabilities of these women. That these appointments have been met by a collective public yawn is itself a remarkable development.

Burgeoning security superstars Samantha Power and Sarah Sewall are advising the transition on related matters and will likely have significant roles. From the political world, Jane Harman, the former ranking member on the House intelligence committee, has also received attention for her expertise and abilities in these areas as well, and is reportedly under consideration for a top intelligence post.

conraddobler · December 5th, 2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wallyburger

It is getting tougher to throw compliments around in this forum.

One thing I have learned about expectations. Don't hang them too high and the fall will be shorter.

“Never idealize others. They will never live up to your expectations.”

I'm glad he won, he looks bright and he looks like what we need.

That being said he's got a rip roaring problem set to deal with, perhaps reducing expectations by some would be in order?

He's just a man, talented yes, intelligent yes, that counts for something but what this country needs most is basic and does not have anything to do with those things.

The fact so many things he has to deal with have to do with the economy and he's never run a business in his life means I have less than a warm fuzzy about his economic ideas.

He's reading out of a Keynesian textbook down to the footnotes, if he had ever had to make a payroll or layoff someone for financial reasons or sail into a macro buzzsaw with a company and survive it I'd feel better but the other guy didn't ever do that either so there you go.

Divide Et Impera · December 13th, 2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

The fact so many things he has to deal with have to do with the economy and he's never run a business in his life means I have less than a warm fuzzy about his economic ideas.

You and I have been in lock step agreement over economic issues over the last 2+ years, but this is where we diverge. I suppose my disagreement with you isn't necessarily with the economic issues and his approach, my disagreement with you is with your uncertainty.

I personally LOVE the fact that he is going Keynesian line by line. I am a hard anti-laissez faire, anti-Reaganomics, anti-trickle down kind of guy and my hopes are that we have seen the absolute death of these philosophies. Obama's ideas of growing the job base and using the government as a job-creating engine is the ONLY sustainable way to grow an economy of this scale.

The fact of the matter is that he has the exactly correct philosphical starting point. The only question is whether he can implement his policies from that starting point - and I think he will be able to.

I am not concerned at all about his lack of proven economic experience because in my estimation, if you plant an apple tree, you'll be able to grow apples. His philosophy is the apple tree and the results of his philosophy are the apples....

Divide Et Impera · December 14th, 2008, 08:54 AM

Speaking of Reaganomics, Thom Hartmann - a brilliant mind - takes this issue dead on:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...ce-reaganomics

Full video at link. I don't know how to embed it like LIAC does....

Quote:

Thom Hartmann on Countdown: This is an Absolute Consequence of Reaganomics
By Heather Saturday Dec 13, 2008 7:00pm

Can we please see more of Thom Hartmann on the cable news networks? Good for David Shuster for bringing him on while filling in for Keith Olbermann on Countdown. They discuss the Republicans absolute hatred for unions and the labor movement and their reasons for wanting to destroy it. Thom also has a suggestion for the Obama administration to get the economy back on track. Read Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures from 1791 which Thom has posted at his site.

Quote:

Hartmann: David what he needs to do immediately is read Alexander Hamilton's 1791 report to Congress on manufactures. Hamilton laid out this six step plan to build an industrial economy in the United States and we followed it. We, Congress actually put into place in 1792 and it stood until Ronald Reagan came along and started deconstructing this, followed by George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton and George Bush now and the legislatures, mostly pushed by the Republicans taking this thing apart. You could argue some of this started with Taft-Hartley. But basically the founders laid this thing out. They had it figured out and it worked. We built the biggest industrial infrastructure and industrial economy in the world.

We have gone, when Reagan came into office we were the largest exporter of manufactured goods and the largest importer of raw materials on the planet. And the largest creditor. More people owed us money than anybody else in the world. Now just twenty eight years later we're the largest importer of finished goods, manufactured goods, exporter of raw materials which is kind of the definition of a third world nation and we're the most in debt of any country in the world. This is the absolute consequence of Reaganomics.

Dead. On.