I was ambivalent about Hillary at Secretary of State, but figured if Obama and Clinton can work out there differences, more power to him. Additionally, I find all the angst about former Clinton acolytes in the Obama White House to be pretty amusing:
More now on the “Raw Politics” of the attorney general pick and, in a larger sense, the retread factor, between John Podesta, Rahm Emanuel, Holder, and possibly Hillary Clinton, an awful lot of ex- Clintonites running around these days. Is it wise? Is Eric Holder a good choice, in any case.
Where, exactly, is Obama supposed to find qualified people with government experience if they did not cut their teeth in the Clinton administration? From the Bush administration? Clearly, Obama is bringing in a lot of new blood, but I have no problem with old hands like Eric Holder being tapped for administration jobs.
At any rate, all of this is a long way of me saying the following- now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection, and look forward to four and hopefully eight years of her at the State Department. I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing.
MarkusB
even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing
Kristol’s come out against this, too? Oh. You meant the other guy like that.
Church Lady
She’s smart, she’s a workhorse, and she’s shown that she can be a team player. That Broder thinks it would be a mistake is just the icing on the cake. Hillary for SoS – win.
Juan del Llano
Broder’s against it? (Haven’t read a word of his in years…) Well then, there ya go. I think Hillary would be a kick-ass secretary of state. Not worried a bit.
This Obama guy ain’t no wimp, either. I’m already having LOTS more fun than I’ve had in years.
Michael D.
Did I miss something? Or did you mean Dick Morris???
LarryB
John, You made me laugh out loud. It’s true: Broder is sort of an anti-pundit, isn’t he?
Comrade Mary, Would-Be Minion Of Bad Horse
John and Hillary sitting in a tree,
K-I-S-S-I-N-G …
I think she’d be a good choice. The woman is fierce smart, she’s shown she can be a team player, and the heads of the deadenders will explode all over the landscape like plastiqued Jack-O-Lanterns. What’s not to love?
Punchy
The problem is that Hill is a woman. How in hell is Hillary supposed to perform her duties as SoS when she’s so busy cooking and cleaning? Terrible choice.
Secretary of the Interior? Perfect. She’ll match the drapes and sofa perfectly.
myiq2xu
David Broder – the George Costanza of punditry
Zifnab
ZOMG! That’s not change we can believe in!!!!
Even the most die-hard Obamafans weren’t naive enough to think he’d bring in an entire array of fresh faces for cabinet level positions. People have been talking about Edwards for Attorney General, Richardson for Secretary or Ambassador of this or that, Hillary for VP, where to stick Durbin, where to stick Kennedy, where to stick freak’n Byrd since before the primaries were even over.
Its just comic that the people acting all shocked at "Clinton retread" are the ones who love to smear Obama supporters for being so dreamy eyed and idealistic.
"Obama isn’t Jesus! He’s not going to really bring change!"
"OMG! Obama isn’t Jesus! He’s not ushering in a massive structural revolution! That’s not really bringing change!"
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again. Obama’s slogan might have been "Change", but he still echoed a great deal of the Clinton years. What people were ultimately voting for was for him to "Change it back."
AhabTRuler
As much as I hate referencing Seinfeld, it is very much like when George starting doing the opposite of what his instincts were, and it was full of win.
I have almost convinced my mom that Broder is an asshat. She said "Oh, I only read him once in a while, and I thought he was having off-days."
Nope, mom. He’s always like that. The Dean of FAIL.
ppcli
I sure hope Bill Kristol doesn’t come out in favor. The universe might end if two certain wrongness indicators disagree. Cats and dogs living together too. It would be bad.
gnomedad
Plus, she has experience dodging bullets.
AhabTRuler
Huh. Must have been the word asshat that called to him.
Sorry.
D-Chance.
Clearly, Obama is bringing in a lot of new blood
He is?
Biden, not new blood.
Emmanuel, not new blood.
Clinton (Hillary), not new blood.
Holder, not new blood.
Orszag, not new blood.
Wake me up when "change we can believe in" stops looking like "change means the same old, same old"…
Jeff
Weren’t all of Clinton’s experienced folks from the Carter administration? Hell, Bush’s most experienced and worst picks were from Nixon’s administration. The new folks are going to be under the older ones so they can get the needed experience before taking charge a few years later when the experienced folks go spend more time with their families.
Obama has consistently shown he values experience and knowledge, so that is what he is doing.
ppcli
Well, if "change we can believe in" turns out just to mean "a more efficient, only slightly more left-leaning version of the Clinton days, with no blowjob-driven impeachment hearings, and a more self-disciplined #1" then I guess I’d be disappointed, but I could live with that. Those were pretty good times, as I recall. They sure are looking good right now.
Studly Pantload
Here are Obama’s options, as I see them:
Bring in a much of neophytes and watch his administration get eaten for breakfast before you can say "one hundred days."
Bring in some folks from the Clinton years.
Or reach back to the last Dem admin before Clinton — which ended in 19-frakkin-80. Gee, what’s Mondale up to, these days?
People will bitch because they wanna bitch. And those ostensibly on the Left that are grasping for a bag to breathe into because ZOMG the Clintonistas drew so much fire in the ’90s! need that Obama "chill" picture tattooed to the insides of their eyelids. The man clearly knows what the fruck to do with a clue.
D-Chance.
Add:
Daschle, not new blood.
Yes, "change". Indeed.
J.D. Rhoades
Bill. And Bill’s baggage.
BombIranForChrist
I agree. If Broder thinks Hillary is a bad choice, then Hillary is a great choice. QED. It’s practically a law of nature.
boonagain
"their", please
Evinfuilt
Another advantage of Hillary is she already knows how to dodge the gunfire as she enters war zones.
Personally I do want to see her on the Supreme Court, with her legal background, her attitude, she’s exactly what we need there to counter the Alito’s of this world.
low-tech cyclist
Everybody laughs at Broder. Or should.
Garrigus Carraig
I’m not gonna fret too hard, but Josh made a good point:
It would still be a major improvement over the recent past. I remember reading a lot about unhappy State staffers of late.
Brick Oven Bill
I believe that Obama has showed his true colors with the appointment of Peter Orszag .
"A costly rescue for Fannie and Freddie is just a worry, not a certainty at this point. Peter R. Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, predicted in a letter to lawmakers Tuesday that there’s a better than even chance the government will not have to step in to prop up the companies by lending them money or buying stock."
Six weeks after giving this ‘independent watchdog’ assessment from the CBO, telling us that it would probably cost nothing, but may cost $25 billion, Orszag advocated that the government take over Fannie-Freddie, transferring trillions in liability onto the US taxpayer. In my opinion, Orszag should be indicted, not selected by Barack Obama to head the Office of Management and Budget.
Comrade Stuck
Crisis ———>new blood——>OJT——-delay–>
Brownies?——>FAIL
OR____________________________
Crisis———>old blood——–>Clinton—–>Drama–>
Competence?——–>WIN
Incertus
@Studly Pantload: Bingo. The other thing to remember is that change can have a very narrow definition in DC, depending on your point of view. If you’re Ralph Nader, then there really is only a dime’s worth of difference between what Obama wants to do and what McCain would have done. If you’re a bit more centrist, however, the differences are quite noticeable.
Napoleon
So what Obama is bringing on people from Clinton’s administration. It would be one thing if it was Cabinet level or similar White House staff level from the Clinton administration, but these people almost all were junior level people. Does anyone really think Eric Holder somehow thinks like Clinton or something just because he was the number 2 guy in the AG office?
As to Broder, if he is against Clinton that is reason enough for me to be for her. Everything that is wrong with Washington is personified by Broder.
No, and that is part of the reason that Clinton f-up so bad so early on. By the way, this same problem existed with Carter, who brought in his Georgia Mafia who thought they knew better then the old hands. It ended up not working out so good for Carter. I think Obama is bringing the right amount of balance.
Vincent
I have always assumed that by "change" Obama meant change in policy, change in the tenor of political discussions, getting shit done. Look at his speeches and what he has said about change and not what you think it is. Obama’s not doing anything different from what he said he would do.
And what exactly was so utterly horrible about the Clinton years that this ‘taint’ spells horrible doom for the next 4 years?
Studly Pantload
Bill. And Bill’s baggage.
Bill and Hillary have not been representing the people of New York since her Senate win. Only Hillary has. People lob the ideal of Billary around like some boogeyman people scared their kids with back in days of yore. It’s overplayed.
No, this is a smart move by Obama. Hillary has the smarts to grow into the job and the star power to beg some forgiveness is she starts slow. Hell, if it weren’t for Obama, she’d be president-elect, right now. I think she can handle SOS.
Oh, and someone needs to talk Josh Marshall down. He’s looking back to Hillary’s healthcare initiative as a bad omen. Bill has acknowledged that pushing that matter at that time was too big of a bite before he’d had time to really learn the lay of the landscape (at the time) and build goodwill by, say, focusing on welfare reform, first. (OK, yes, her presidential campaign started throwing sparks, but a) Mark Penn is all gone, and b) they got gobsmacked by Obama — contrast and compare how derailed McCain’s campaign became under the same circumstances.)
Tymannosourus
At 3 a.m., or just whenever?
Napoleon
@Garrigus Carraig:
All Obama needs to do is say that they are appointing a number 2 in that department who will effectively be the State Department’s COO and that Clinton has to be on board with that, then appoint a good manager that Clinton doesn’t interfer with. From the article on her campaign (was it Ryan Lizza or Josh Green who wrote that) the problem with her wasn’t so much that she mettled with what her campaign people were doing as much as she never bothered to have her hand on the rudder. Tell her going in that she doesn’t really need to have her hand on the rudder, that someone else will handle the nuts and bolts and she gets to be the public face and handle the high profile stuff.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
One of the advantages of taking back the White House now is that it has only been 8 years since the last time you had Democrats gaining practical experience running the executive branch, so Obama isn’t being forced to make a choice between picking fresh and enthusiastic but inexperienced people vs. recruiting from the old folks home.
The latter problem was I think part of the reason why things were so disorganized at the beginning of the Clinton administration in 1993 – the last batch of Democrats who’d had WH experience back then were from the 1-term Carter administration twelve years gone bye, and before that you had to go all the way back to 1968 at the end of the LBJ admin., so instead of being able to draw on lessons learned by people who’d been thru it before Clinton’s team had to learn a lot of stuff about the purely administrative aspects of putting together a WH staff and a cabinet all over again from scratch.
Obama on the other hand seems to be hewing to Bismarck’s saying about the wisdom of learning from other people’s mistakes.
Comrade Kevin
@D-Chance.:
It sure as hell is a huge "change" away from the Bush crime syndicate.
eyeball
Could we commission a contest:
WHO HAS BEEN MORE PUBLICLY, INEPTLY, VENALLY WRONG:
– broder
– kristol
– morris
– friedman
– barone
– barnes
– WSJ edit page
– bay buchanan
– {pick your own}
And then we could announce the Wrongies, a new award. Damn, I wish i knew how to do this shit.
The Moar You Know
@Incertus: Ralph Nader is not a leftist. Ralph Nader is nothing but an attention whore.
J.
Word has it Clinton may not really want the job. So all of this sturm und drang may be for naught. Personally, though, I am with you, JC.
Comrade Stuck
After basic competence, the single most important aspect of being an effective SoS is credibility on the world stage. The Clinton’s, both of them, have as much of that as probability anyone alive. You’re right about the #2 being an important cog in the SD machine. And despite Clinton’s caustic campaign rhetoric of being some kind of badass bomber, I don’t see Obama and her as being that far apart on foreign affairs philosophy and policy. That said, Obama would be wise to grow an extra pair of eyes in the back of his head
Brian J
There’s two separate forces at work here. One group thinks that bringing anybody associated with the Clinton administration in is bad news, despite any sort of relevant experience in running the government. This is cute in an idealistic sense, but also very wrong. The second group seems to think that it’s not a problem that former Clinton administration officials might be working in an Obama White House, but that they need to be the right people. Of course, the second group seems relatively pleased so far.
Tony J
Well it looks to me very much like Obama offered Hillary a deal in return for the fullsome (you can tell it was fullsome because the MSM chose not to opine on it) support she gave his Presidential campaign. She’d get a Cabinet position where her face would be out there on a regular basis, but it wouldn’t be anything domestic (too much scope for drama) and she’d have to be working to his policy guidelines.
That’s the SOS job. Bringing the soft power of the Clinton name to a role rendered equally pointless and tarnished by eight years of Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice waming the seat. Given a good Chief-of-Staff to bring organisational ability to the party, Hillary gets to be the person negotiating an end to America’s Imperial Adventure, and if she does it well, in his second term she gets a Supreme Court nomination.
Sounds like the kind of deal a junior senator who will never be President might go for. Supreme Court is for life, and sticking it to any future GOP Administration fom that kind of height would be a pleasure that never gets cold.
Hugh
Staffing is not where to look for "change we can believe in". Policy is where to look for it. I am very impressed with Obama. He is not afraid of working with heavy hitters and he pays attention to history while planning for the future. Pretty exciting. He’s creating a team that has so much wattage it’s hard to imagine them being intimidated by anybody. I think he might really get things done.
Notorious P.A.T.
Seriously, what are Hillary Clinton’s qualifications to be SoS? Seriously, what are they? I mean, really.
Bill Richardson was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize after negotiating hostage releases, and Hillary Clinton thought invading Iraq was a nifty idea. I don’t see how there is any comparison here.
Brian J
Your statements would imply that people like Paul Volcker know more about the economy than the people at, say, The Corner.
Where in the world would you get such an idea?
John Cole
D-Chance, you were a Clinton supporter. Are you really here to make the argument that a Clinton Presidency would have fewer Clintonistas in the administration? You really wanna try that nonsense here?
Tony J
That’s supposed to be "from" not "fom"and "old" not "cold".
I wish that ‘edit’ worked.
Hyperion
bullshit.
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=13919
where you say:
that ain’t ambivalence.
Notorious P.A.T.
As evidenced by what? Her brilliant handling of health care reform in ’93? Her wise vote regarding military force against Iraq? Her ingeniously plotted and executed presidential campaign?
Napoleon
That is a myth.
It was Bill’s plan and Bill was the one who mismanaged it, not Hillary.
Notorious P.A.T.
Jesus Christ! What did she ever do to deserve any of that?
Garrigus Carraig
@Napoleon: Well said. I was coming around to similar ideas after I posted.
The Moar You Know
OT: For the record, I want to clarify that I think Joe Lieberman is a sack of crap that should be flogged out of the Senate.
That being said, I am deriving a perverse pleasure from watching Markos and the rest of his Filthy Orange Horde shit blood about Lieberman’s retention of his chairmanship. Even though I find the idea of Lieberman’s withered, Bush-violated ass sitting in a Senate chair for the next four years disgusting, I’m almost OK with it because of the BAWWWing emanating from the Great Orange Shithole. Christ almighty, I find Kos’ horde of brainless sheep nauseating.
Alright, I’m done, thanks for listening.
John Cole
Are you new here? That IS ambivalence for me. I even summed the positive and negative aspects as I saw them in a previous post.
Simply stating I think she is a bad choice and moving on is ambivalence. If it was something that really had me worked up, there would have been 35 posts on the issue, and after the first fifteen posts, each one would have ended with me saying “This is my final word on the issue” or some variation of that.
I’m an idiot, but I do have a degree of self-awareness.
crshedd
obama said he would change how business is done in washington NOT who would do the change.
let’s see if change comes regardless of who he picks.
Notorious P.A.T.
Honestly, that doesn’t rehab Hillary Clinton’s image. That whole initiative was a fiasco, and Hillary was right in the middle of it. Sure, that article refutes criticisms of her that I’ve never believed, but it doesn’t do her any good beyond that.
Jack H.
The change that’s needed is that C word so lacking in the Bush administration – competence. It’s not some crazy Doogie Howser Cabinet.
eponymous
What Napoleon said (I made a similar argument in a previous post) – let’s see who Obama appoints as Assistant SOS. If it’s someone with good managerial/administrative skills, then Hillary doesn’t have to deal with the day-to-day stuff and can be left with being the face of State to the American public and the world.
Josh Hueco
@The Moar You Know:
For some reason I still go there every day, just because it’s good to know what people are talking about. But it’s not what it used to be. I love a lot of things Kos and the netroots have done (even got to meet him and Jerome before Jerome went to the dark side), but there is a lot of YAYYYYY!!!! or NOOOOOO!!!! over there and that gets old quickly.
Raenelle
Holy crap. Using anti-Broderism as the basis for judgment is pretty much equivalent to my lazy-ass anti-Bush rule of thumb for the last 9 years. (I knew his values were fucked up when I learned about his Karla Fay Tucker response.) Knee-jerk anti-Bushism was really, really effective. If Bush supports it, I’m agin it. Worked about as well as the laws of thermodynamics.
However, what am I going to do now? Is one unintended negative consequence of Obama’s election going to be that I have to start thinking again? I might have to be occasionally wrong about things again? It’s been so pleasant over the last 9 years being absolutely 100% right about everything. I’ve just loved being able to say "I told you so." Every time.
I’m going to have to think about this. Is it really worth losing my comfortable certainty, my benign neglect toward policy arguments? Merely in exchange for the improving fortunes of the the country and its citizens? Holy crap. I hadn’t realized the slacker upside to the Bush presidency until now.
eyeball
Important point:
With Hillary as SoS and Kerry as chair of Foreign Relations, Obama has all the pieces he needs in place.
That’s why he’s the -elect and we’re all just blogging.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
Hillary for SOS? Sure, why not. Holder for AG? Sign me up. As long as Cheney and Abu Gonzalez and Condi are gone, I can deal.
The Democratic Underground Purity Police showed up at Tbogg’s joint the other night. In their tiny minds, anything less than Noam Chomsky for SOS and Fifty Cent for AG was unacceptable, and they wrote many, many words proving their point. At Tbogg, fer chrissakes….
As for me: I’m easy. Obama speaks in complete sentences and Michelle sends starbursts around the living room. I’m good to go.
Montysano (All Hail Marx & Lennon)
@The Moar You Know:
Agreed. But I’m sure Obama now owns his ass. BO seems like a nice guy, but under the surface there seems to be a savvy, tough customer. I’m sure he extracted his pound of flesh.
Gwen
Obama spelled out what "change" meant in very specific terms in his acceptance speech at the convention. It was all about policy and getting things done and nothing to do with not working with people who have executive experience. Hell, in an early primary debate, Obama told Hillary he would seek her advice if he was Prez. It was a funny line, but it was also completely in line with everything he said all along and still says — he’ll call on good people with good ideas to help him clean up after Bush.
So, when people trot out the old tired "that’s not change…" line about transition appointments, and potential staff and cabinet positions, it’s really just lazy and whiny. And not applicable.
passerby
Broder:
Though I’m generally disgusted by the way most pundits frame the issues of the day, I agree with Broder’s opinion as set forth in this article.
The Clinton’s have never impressed me as being interested in anything but their own power in this world. I don’t get the impression that they really give a damn about the people who elect them or of serving the Obama administration.
And, I don’t think Bill is willing to give up the role of superstar-global wheeler/dealer and power broker at which he shines. Lots and lots of money in that.
I wonder if Obama is trying to get discovery of the unpublished money-trails of Bill through the vetting process (which Bill would not reveal during the Hillary for VP consideration.)…Or, whether this is just part of the political deals that were made in return for her efforts during the campaign…Or does he want her out of congress for some reason. None of us has inside info, so we’re left with conjecture as to what has influenced his choice here.
I’m dismayed at the thought of Clinton as SoS, but, Obama may have motives that haven’t been made clear yet.
I don’t trust the Clintons as far as I can throw the Clintons.
[blockquote anomoly]
passerby
anomaly
Capelza Gradenko
Josh Hueco…what dark side did Jerome go to?
And I agree, there’s a lot of bullshit at Kos. But I still like Kos, even when he’s being an asshat, it is his site..though it seems that sometimes a few hundred thousand users forget that and the other few hundred thousand agree with every word.
Studly Pantload
@The Moar You Know:
I’m actually a GOS old timer, and while the rabble there does grate on my nerves plenty, I’m usually on board with Markos’ views. But seeing him bitch at Reid about Joe L. when it was obviously Obama’s call really has me scratching my head. Although, I do note with assurance that Krago’s FP post today regurgitating the whole thing is being swatted down fairly solidly. We’ve got too much on our plate to be succumbing to Lieberman Derangement Syndrome.
DougJ
At any rate, all of this is a long way of me saying the following- now that David Broder has voiced his opinion and is forcefully opposed to Clinton as Secretary of State, let me state that I emphatically support her selection, and look forward to four and hopefully eight years of her at the State Department. I am not the brightest guy, but even I know to bet against the man who is wrong about every-god-damned-thing.
Amen. This is like how I knew Obama had it wrapped up when Nagourney wrote about how McCain still had a chance. Up until then, I was nervous, but Nagourney is always wrong.
Studly Pantload
@Josh Hueco:
But it’s not what it used to be.
Just to play devil’s advocate — would you be referring to pre-pie-wars or post-pie-wars?
Notorious P.A.T.
That, to me, is the best reason to nominate her for SoS. But she is a junior senator, and would almost certainly be blocked from leading any major initiatives by more entrenched members (Ted Kennedy has blocked her from leading health care reform, for instance).
Brachiator
Obama is practically deluged with offers to join up and work some of that "change" mojo on the nation and the world. I not worried yet, but am slightly disappointed that there are not more new faces. I’ve had more than enough of what we got with Bush, i.e., a lot of old hands mumbling about "experience" but determined to fight old battles that no one else cared about.
People make a fetish of "qualifications" and "experience" when vision and competence may be much more important. Besides, Washington insiders and former power players often have an inflated and totally unearned view of their past influence and their future usefulness.
Clinton may do OK as Secretary of State. I hope she does well if she is selected. But Clinton and her acolytes have a weird sense of her abilities. They really need to let go of the idea that just because she is a "strong and powerful woman," she can then do anything.
Senator Clinton has never successfully negotiated much of anything, and even her name recognition carries only so far in a rapidly changing world with a number of new players in place. And it is doubly weird that some people are floating the strange delusion that Bill and Hillary would be co-secretaries of state, spooning and negotiating and bringing peace to the world. This kind of crap is a bad romance novel.
And as for Senator Clinton’s eventual elevation to the Supreme Court, well, this might be a tough sell given the fact that Clinton failed the D.C. Bar Exam and hasn’t shown a deep grasp of constitutional issues.
I think that Clinton would be far more effective in the Senate, but if she goes to State, she will have to demonstrate that she really does have the goods and is not still coasting on her and Bill’s past reputation.
kay
I can’t decide if it’s good or bad. My biggest problem with HRC is that I think she’s deeply and completely conventional. This is not a slam or an insult. I’m a long-term interested Democrat and I’ve always thought that about her. It’s why I thought the conservatives of the 90’s were slightly ridiculous: she’s no radical.
This impression was reinforced during the primary,and particularly on foreign policy. I didn’t hear anything new out of Clinton. Not one thing. Nothing even interesting.
It’s a "concern" for me.
tavella
Yeah, the anti-Clinton hatred was stupid in 2000, stupid during the primaries, and stupid now. Bill Clinton’s administration was filled with smart people who wanted to make government work. To the extent that they sometimes screwed up early and thus we got 1994, it’s all the better to have people who *remember* those mistakes.
What was rather amazing about his administration was how effective they were during the last 6 years, in the face of Republican control of the legislature and foaming hatred in the media.
Comrade Stuck
Baloney, the Clinton hatred you speak of was actually anger that she and her campaign purposely instigated. It started after her defeat in South Carolina, with mudslinging specifically designed to draw Obama into a tit for tat war that the Clinton’s excel in, at least with GOP opponents. But guess what, it didn’t work, and Obama turned it back on the Clinton’s and whooped their ass.
Dennis - SGMM
Maybe in his second term. In his first term he needs competent mechanics more than he needs brilliant scientists.
DougJ
Friedman’s against Hillary for SoS too.
Have Friedman and Broder ever — and I mean ever — agreed on something that turned out to be true?
Steve S.
Well, you’re just a blogger so I don’t expect you to know where these people are hiding, but Obama is highly educated, has lots of connections both in and out of government, and has had the better part of two years to think about this. I’m not surprised that he is simply installing the Hillary Clinton Administration, since everyone outside the idealists knows that the "change" stuff was just horseshit to get elected, but I thought that he might at least sprinkle in a few new faces for the sake of appearances. Maybe he still will, we’ll see.
Not that this is the worst thing in the world, of course. The worst thing in the world would be a continuation of comically inept Bush cronies and extremist, warmongering neocons. But the "change" we are getting is definitely with a small c.
David in NYC
Since Nader has reared his head in a couple comments, I wanted to share this comment from another site (can’t remember where and don’t have time to search right now, unfortunately):
As for Obama’s methods, I think we can stipulate first and foremost that he knows what he’s doing, or he wouldn’t have been nominated and then elected. Can anyone here honestly say they thought that would happen 12 months ago?
Second, Obama appears to be playing a different game (even in a different league) than most. I know he says he has been reading a lot of Lincoln lately, but he clearly has read and absorbed, among other things, The Art of War. I am particularly reminded of this:
And, from that perspective, an interesting analysis of the Lieberman kerfuffle.
Comrade Stuck
@Steve S.:
Campaign rhetoric is always exaggerated, always has been. But extrapolating out whether, or how much, Obama will make changes simply based on his selection of his subordinates is in the BTD zone of future telling. His squeaky clean vetting standards are already a change in themselves, and they are actually happening in the here and now. But I know, you’re a really smart dude and already know what’s going to happen.
Brachiator
@Dennis – SGMM:
Life is rarely simply either/or. The best new solutions are typically "both/and." The Manhattan Project required both visionary physicists and practical engineers. Eliminating polio required the vision to see the possibilities and the practical creation of an easily produced and deliverable vaccine.
I looked forward to a lot of new change agents who would be energized not by their mere loyalty to Obama but because they were unleashed by him. And I applaud many of his Clinton-related appointments, but look for more people who will not sit around talking about how they used to do things during the Clinton Administration, but who will be focused on what needs to be done now.
Cassidy
@ Steve S.
Really? Small "c"? We just elected a black man as President, you dolt!
CIRCVS MAXIMVS MMVIII
Clinton’s problems had nothing to do with who he had in his administration, but had to do with his sliding zipper (and for the record, I see no reason why Obama would have that particular problem).
Joe Buck
In addition to federal government experience, there’s also state government experience, particularly for domestic issues. The focus should be on large states (New York, California, Illinois, etc).
fred lapides
what needs to be said:
cynics and conservatives et al now bitch that we are not to see change since Obama appointing people from Clinton era. But Malcolm Gladwell in his latest book Outliers, points out that very bright people can not begin to produce their brightness till they have a few thousand hours of experience behind them. Thus, Obama needs to call upon those with much experience and he will then lead them to the changes he has in mind. He does not plan to let the appointees do what they had done years ago but rather to call upon their expertise to assist him.
Would you want a surgeon brand new, never before tested, or one who has been around and whose work is well known?