Comments on: President Obama Inauguration

Where was the political initiative to do this? And when would it have happened?

I can't answer those questions. the job of lawmakers is to make laws. That ought not to be the role of a good judge.

They didn't make law. They ruled that separate but equal wasn't equal. They ruled that laws that segregated schools were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

They didn't make law. They ruled that separate but equal wasn't equal. They ruled that laws that segregated schools were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on constitutionality of laws.

Yes, I agree and I wasn't suggesting that this particular decision was activism. I should have been clearer in my previous response.

You had said previously that we wouldn't have desegregated schools without activist judges. My take is that the legal ruling in that case wasn't activism, it was strict adherence to the constitution. That, to me, is what a good judge ought to do.

Linda, I live in Ohio - not Chicago, Illinois - so, no, that's not me. I may be the only woman in America not looking for a job with the new administration.

Let's clarify the record here.

First, an activist judge is someone who takes legislation and lawmaking into their own hands. In our system, that's the job of the LEGISLATIVE branch.

That is a partisan definition, right?

Second, the GOP correctly stopped Clinton from flooding the judicial system with bad judges like Urbina, who feels it is perfectly fine to turn Gitmo detainees loose on our society. :td:

Also partisan? The last poll I looked at has a majority of Americans wanting a less conservative Supreme Court (http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm). I assume that applies to the federal court system in total.

Nah, I'm not doing Florida 2000 again. :no:

Linda, I live in Ohio - not Chicago, Illinois - so, no, that's not me. I may be the only woman in America not looking for a job with the new administration.

You and Sarah Palin. See, you do have something in common.

Looks like the issue of torture may well be a feature of the new presidency.

WASHINGTON -- With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration's brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush.

Obama's plans for probing Bush torture (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/13/torture_commission/?source=newsletter)

You and Sarah Palin. See, you do have something in common.

Good grief...

Looks like the issue of torture may well be a feature of the new presidency.

I'm glad to think they're taking a look at it.

I really do not want to plow this whole thing up again, but I hope we are beyond having revisionist history introduced by liberals who are sore that Gore lost to President Bush. He wasn't selected, he was elected and the votes were counted to prove it.

Let's just say that revisionist history is in the eye of the beholder - and your take on these events could also be interpreted as just a tad revisionist.

It seems to me (as someone who is an outsider looking in) that with two so very partisan takes on recent history the only way of dealing with this is to take a big step back and adopt a much broader picture of history.

There is no point supporting either side's arguments with a take on history that's already heavliy influenced by the views of the same side. That's a circular argument, and therefore such arguments really can't count for anything.

- just a general methodological note of caution by someone who makes a living by being a historian.

That is a partisan definition, right?

I'm not sure what you mean by "partisan".


Nah, I'm not doing Florida 2000 again. :no:

Thank you! :love:

Let's just say that revisionist history is in the eye of the beholder - and your take on these events could also be interpreted as just a tad revisionist.

- just a general methodological note of caution by someone who makes a living by being a historian.

Ah, a fellow historian! Excellent!

You're right of course. I just returned from Japan and took a tour of the Yasukuni Shrine there, where right wing Nationalists maintain that the US gave Japan no choice but to attack Pearl and that Tojo was not a war criminal. Really offensive stuff.

But in the case of the 2000 election, I believe the facts are well understood.

But in the case of the 2000 election, I believe the facts are well understood.

In any case, there was no transition to Obama's Administration in 2000... ;)

Right!

I wonder what Obama will do regarding the missile shield question (Eastern Europe).

I don't expect Barack (or his team) to comment on this while Bush is still in office. I do expect that he's keeping close tabs on the situation and monitoring it very closely, drawing up "fluid" plans as the tail end of the Bush adminisration handles the front line.

Linda, I live in Ohio - not Chicago, Illinois - so, no, that's not me. I may be the only woman in America not looking for a job with the new administration.

I may be obsessing on this transition. :whistle:

Side note: The original US constitution did not eliminate southern state rights that man may own a man, nor give either blacks or women (Q indians?) voting rights. So those that hold up the original document as hallowed & suggest Judges can never deviate from it, or gradually amend it, have lost me as an audience.

Bush was doing a defense of capitalism speech on TV today thus dooming capitalism forever. I will be interested to see how the capital markets react. It struck me as lacking nuance or even an understanding of the current flaws in the system that led to where we are now.

I may be obsessing on this transition. :whistle:

Not to worry, girlfriend. You're among good company with that obsession. I now have a sign on my office door: "I DON'T DO JOBS!"

msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/13/1673635.aspx)
is reporting scuttlebutt that Hillary Clinton is "under consideration" for State.

While "under consideration" covers a great many things, it would be an interesting choice and a politically wise one as she will be tied to the administration and less able to run her own agenda.

Hillary's passion is health care for all. Barack gave her that in this year's Democratic platform. From a strictly personal point of view - meaning I'm not empowered to discuss decisions being made about cabinet positions - I'd like to see her in that job.

Some news I've not seen mentioned:

Howard Dean will be leaving the DNC (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/dean-prepares-to-step-dow_n_142614.html) when his term expires early next year.

President Elect Obama is resigning his Senate seat (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27702953/) effective Sunday, November 16th. This is being done to remove any possibility of a conflict of interest.

Blogger Oliver Willis thinks the president elect is "more awesome than we thought" because, like our very own ComicBookWorm, he collects comic books (http://www.oliverwillis.com/2008/11/12/could-president-elect-obama-be-more-awesome-than-we-thought/).

Regarding the closure of Guantanamo, you'll find some information here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102865.html), here (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858205,00.html), and here (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLy-7Qsm2KeE15rL6Is9p56BcWhwD94BVTE00). There isn't a whole lot available from the man himself yet.

The transition team has announced that the president elect will establish a White House Office of Urban Policy (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/obama-to-create.html). Transition Team Co-Chair Valerie Jarrett said the office would "have a comprehensive approach to our urban development," who will be an "advocate for cities" within the White House, taking "all the variety of different federal programs and help target them in a logical and systematic way.

"For those of us who have worked in city governments across the country, we recognize how invaluable that person will be," she said.

I'll have more later. It's been a long, long day.

Blogger Oliver Willis thinks the president elect is "more awesome than we thought" because, like our very own ComicBookWorm, he collects comic books.:rotfl:

Pah! Spiderman.

President Elect Obama is resigning his Senate seat (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27702953/) effective Sunday, November 16th. This is being done to remove any possibility of a conflict of interest.

In my humble opinion, it is being done so he is out of the Senate Democratic Caucus before they boot Lieberman out on November 18th.

msnbc.com (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/13/1673635.aspx)
is reporting scuttlebutt that Hillary Clinton is "under consideration" for State.

While "under consideration" covers a great many things, it would be an interesting choice and a politically wise one as she will be tied to the administration and less able to run her own agenda.

I am sorry for Gov. Bill Richardson, but at the same time I think it might actually be a great appointment.

1. She knows a lot of leaders as former First Lady
2. She could travel with Husband, former President Bill Clinton.
3. It is a plum for a future President's resume.
4. She would be traveling a lot.
5. If Obama trusts her judgment / discretion / loyalty ...

I'm guessing Samantha Powers is out out tho'.

In my humble opinion, it is being done so he is out of the Senate Democratic Caucus before they boot Lieberman out on November 18th.That's an interesting idea. That way he would be above the fray.

I wonder what Obama will do regarding the missile shield question (Eastern Europe).

Apparently Obama supports a missile defence system, providing the technology works (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm).

I bet he also supports "safe" nuclear power, "clean" coal technology, "safe" bullets etc.

DOIMC has an Obama Guess the Cabinet member thread
http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?p=5181957#post5181957

I am sorry for Gov. Bill Richardson, but at the same time I think it might actually be a great appointment.

1. She knows a lot of leaders as former First Lady
2. She could travel with Husband, former President Bill Clinton.
3. It is a plum for a future President's resume.
4. She would be traveling a lot.
5. If Obama trusts her judgment / discretion / loyalty ...

I'm guessing Samantha Powers is out out tho'.

Powers blew whatever chance she had during the campaign...too undisciplined.

Hillary would be a good appointment for a few reasons, but mostly because she has good brand recognition. She's a known quantity and is known and respected by many leaders. (I can think of at least one who perhaps unwisely publicly stated a preference for Hillary during the primaries.)

Apparently Obama supports a missile defence system, providing the technology works (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7717669.stm).

Very interesting stand. Obama could justify backing off the commitment by asserting that because the system can't hit every single target, it doesn't work.

If that was the thinking in the 80s (Reagan/Bush), Patriot would never have made it onto the battlefield.

This one bears watching. :cool:

Just my two cents, but I'd like to see him axe a lot of the bloat in the Pentagon budget. And I think speculative weapons systems that don't work fit the textbok definition of "bloat."

In my humble opinion, it is being done so he is out of the Senate Democratic Caucus before they boot Lieberman out on November 18th.



I am sorry for Gov. Bill Richardson, but at the same time I think it might actually be a great appointment.

1. She knows a lot of leaders as former First Lady
2. She could travel with Husband, former President Bill Clinton.
3. It is a plum for a future President's resume.
4. She would be traveling a lot.
5. If Obama trusts her judgment / discretion / loyalty ...

I'm guessing Samantha Powers is out out tho'.

Gov. Richardson isn't out yet, is he? I do like him...although I'm not sure he's the "best" for the job. I'm kind of leaning toward Kerry myself. I think many have him as a front runner. I heard something on the news that Barack is meeting with Kerry in the next couple of days, so I do not think Hillary is a done deal.

While she already has a "brand name" reputation in the world and has met many leaders, I have some reservations about her pick for this particular person. She is a very strong woman, and that is good. I think she could take what is dished out..I do wonder about the discretion/loyalty issue. It is a big step of faith to put a woman who is most likely going to go after you in four years again (and just gave him most of his grey hair, as he says :lol:) in such a position to "compete" on policy (possibly).

But, it is hard to get the bearing of the new relationship between the two, the measure of possible strengths and weaknesses within that relationship, without being closer to those private conversations and back rooms. From "out here", I think I would prefer someone who's loyalties to Barack and Barack's policies are more secure.

But, it is hard to get the bearing of the new relationship between the two, the measure of possible strengths and weaknesses within that relationship, without being closer to those private conversations and back rooms. From "out here", I think I would prefer someone who's loyalties to Barack and Barack's policies are more secure.I may be wrong, of course, but my main reason to think better not is, that I don't think she is able to subordinate herself to anyone. Obama included.

Just my two cents, but I'd like to see him axe a lot of the bloat in the Pentagon budget. And I think speculative weapons systems that don't work fit the textbok definition of "bloat."

Interesting suggestion. What sort of weapon systems would Obama likely see as bloat?

Reason I am asking is that trimming the budget across the board is something that I think he will have to do.

I think that goes without saying. Both major candidates acknowledged the need for this (whether by axe or by scalpel).

I think most Americans are in favor of cutting out the unnecessary "bloat". The problem is, one person's "bloat" is another's "special-hard-fought-for-project". It'll take a strong hand to do what is necessary, and possibly some of us will find out something we cared about has become the "bloat" with an X marked on it for cutting.

Can't make us all happy all the time. I think this is definitely where some of us will be making sacrifices.

Leaving Hillary to fester in the Senate may not be the smartest move, though. Just ask Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter what it was like to have a once or future presidential rival in the Senate serving as a one-person Roman tribunal.

Look, all we know for sure is that there was a private meeting in Chicago between the president elect and Hillary Clinton. The meeting was not a formal interview; the guidance given to the press is that the two discussed the upcoming administration and the ways the two can work together.

The genesis for the Clinton for State bit originated from some New York Democrats who are more interested in who gets her Senate seat. They're also interested in countering chatter from Kerry and Richardson partisans who seem to feel their guy's campaigning for Obama somehow gives them an edge in this process. And that shows some folks aren't paying attention. Barack selected Joe Biden for veep and Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff and neither endorsed him during the campaign.

That said, I doubt the president elect will make the mistake of singing Clinton's praises and then failing to vet her for the veep's spot twice. He has respect for Senator Clinton and will make sure that comes through this time.

Don't listen to media reports suggesting that Max Baucus intends to take the lead role on health care because he anticipates a leadership vacuum with Ted Kennedy's illness and Hillary's possible departure. Baucus has found himself a way to make sure his finance committee will have a prime role in the debate.

The pundits will tell you that Obama wants Clinton in the administration more than Clinton wants to be there. I'm not sure that's an accurate take on what's going on.

ETA:

Pensieve, I don't know the answer to your question.

I agree that just ignoring Clinton in the Senate would not be a very wise idea, from a future political standpoint. I do think that "this" position (Secretary of State) may not be the optimum role for a "rival" of power, at this point.

That being said, keeping rivals close and incorporating them into an administration is also a wise move. There are other major capacities in which she can be of great value to both her own career and to Obama's new administration without being Secretary of State.

My take of the report from Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC was she may be reading too much into the meeting, or misreading it as to what it was really about and what position.

I guess we'll see for sure soon enough.

Interesting suggestion. What sort of weapon systems would Obama likely see as bloat?

Reason I am asking is that trimming the budget across the board is something that I think he will have to do.Obama said he was going to do that anyway. He said that for the duration of his campaign about how he's going to get rid of stuff that's not truly needed.

Just my two cents, but I'd like to see him axe a lot of the bloat in the Pentagon budget. And I think speculative weapons systems that don't work fit the textbok definition of "bloat."

McCain meeting with Obama on Monday in Chicago ... ?

Sounds like serious bridge reconstruction with two major rivals in the past campaign. I'm still hesitant to assign these meetings to specific appointments...although they may be information gathering before deciding if they are up to an appointment or not....especially of McCain.

My take of Barack is he likes to reach out with olive branches, then sit back and see how they're received before making a major decision. I think this is what he might be doing with McCain.

McCain could be a strong ally if he's receptive on certain issues of importance. At the very least, a "cease fire" could possibly be agreed to if done in the right way (heading off bi-partisan trouble before it gets too strong a foothold).

The fact that McCain is GOING to Chicago, not saying "why don't we meet in Washington" or "I'll be home at the ranch any time you want to pop over" makes me think this is about more than face. I would be thrilled to see McCain do something in the administration but what ?

I have several sarcastic answers to that :whistle: , but I'll keep them to myself on behalf of board and national unity :lol:

There has been discussion with the pundits over McCain and the issue of immigration reform...also, military since he has such a long history with the military branch of government in several capacities.

I have several sarcastic answers to that :whistle: , but I'll keep them to myself on behalf of board and national unity :lol:

There has been discussion with the pundits over McCain and the issue of immigration reform...also, military since he has such a long history with the military branch of government in several capacities.

It is traditional for the two candidates to get together after the election and mend fences. Just my two bits but I don't see McCain being willing to serve at Obama's will in his administration any more than I envisioned Obama willing to serve at McCain's will in his administration had McCain won.

It would be difficult.

I wouldn't envision it in a *major* way (like a cabinet appointment). But, strings could be pulled to help McCain achieve committee chair appointments, etc.,.

McCain, while obviously not happy about losing the election and serving Barack as his president, he may be a pragmatist in that he might be willing to give a polite nod in return for something of respect.

Does that make sense?

I wouldn't envision it in a *major* way (like a cabinet appointment). But, strings could be pulled to help McCain achieve committee chair appointments, etc.,.

McCain, while obviously not happy about losing the election and serving Barack as his president, he may be a pragmatist in that he might be willing to give a polite nod in return for something of respect.

Does that make sense?

Again, just my opinion here, but not gonna happen. As a Senator McCain won't have to serve at Obama's will - he'll be abe to follow his own council and set his own priorities. As a senior member of the GOP caucus in the Senate with considerable influence he'll be able to set the tone for Republican priorities and filibusters.

McCain is a very senior senator already ... I don't know.

I do know that when Obama promised change, he was right. Or at least a lot of meat for news junkies.

BTW, I like Michelle Obama, but headlines & articles like this make me want to gag:

Why All Women Should Love Michelle Obama (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-wood/why-all-women-should-love_b_143144.html)

hmmm.... what can Obama offer mcCain that's better than being a rather senior senator? I am asking out of ignorance - but I am under the impression that a senior senator has quite a bit of influence. I don't see Obama giving any major position in his administration to his former opponent. Unless he finds a cause McCain feels strongly about (veterans?) would a lesser position in Obama's administration really interest him?


Concerning Hillary .... well, yes, she has name recognition. I'd certainly prefer her to John Kerry. He is obviously known as well - but he seems so... uninspired? But then, just as a personal got feeling reaction I'd wish to see as many people as possible that aren't just somehow connected with the Clinto administration! I totally understand that Obama needs a few experienced hands with him (e.g. Rahm Emmanuel) - I am sure it's hard to deal with all the potential pitfalls in trying to wrestle with the system as a comparative newcomer. Still, I hope he can also find a few people from a different generation.....

Valerie Jarrett named Obama's Senior White House Advisor
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/valerie.jarrett.obama.2.864868.html

Does that mean Axelrod didn't want it?

hmmm.... what can Obama offer mcCain that's better than being a rather senior senator? I am asking out of ignorance - but I am under the impression that a senior senator has quite a bit of influence.

The Senate is divided into committees (health energy etc) that do hearings, vet bills, etc. and the majority party's most senior member (by time in office) on that committee chairs it. Byrd (age 92) from WV has agreed NOT to chair his committee this session.

As a Republican, McCain would not get any committee chairs. Also, the R's are a minority party 40-42 / 100, so they will not be initiating much legislation.

It could also be that McCain is bored in the Senate. A pundit suggested that the GOP might also be mad at him. This I don't know, but being one of many is less interesting than having a "task" to accomplish for America.

Pundits: Howard Dean NOT in contention for Health & Human Services.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15608.html

I think that is a very important post, but it is not a "high flyer", yet major reform is needed there.

Again, just my opinion here, but not gonna happen. As a Senator McCain won't have to serve at Obama's will - he'll be abe to follow his own council and set his own priorities. As a senior member of the GOP caucus in the Senate with considerable influence he'll be able to set the tone for Republican priorities and filibusters.

McCain has never been known as a team player, even within his own caucus. That's why some factions within the GOP were so dead-set against him at the beginning of the year, if I remember correctly.

On the other hand, a conciliatory gesture from this president elect is not apt to resemble in any way those George Bush tried during his administration. In Bush's case, it was more along the lines of "This is what I'm going to do and I'd like your support." No questions, no give-and-take. Barack doesn't work that way. He goal is generally always to find common ground from which two people, or groups of people, can move forward.

I'll be in Chicago Monday and Tuesday. This will be my first trip there since election night and I'm really looking forward to seeing the folks up there.

Side note: The original US constitution did not eliminate southern state rights that man may own a man, nor give either blacks or women (Q indians?) voting rights. So those that hold up the original document as hallowed & suggest Judges can never deviate from it, or gradually amend it, have lost me as an audience.

Yet the Constitution was changed. There is a process for changing it, through Amendments. Judges that take the power unto themselves if not the legal way to go about it.

The decision by the Supreme Court, examples: Brown vs Board of Ed, Desegragation... were in the right. They didn't create Law from the Bench, they upheld the rights of the Citizens under the Constitution.

Many States' didn't obey the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Surpeme Court stepped in. Albeit, later than I would have liked.

But, to sum it up, it is not the duties of the Court to "amend" the Constitution of the United States. It's their job to judge for or against the matters before them, so long as they do so within the Constitution.

If we need to Amend the Constitution, we can do so through two routes:

1) Through the Congress of the United States. To get a proposed Amendment passed through the Congress, each house must pass it with a 2/3's Vote. Once that is accomplished, it then goes to the States' Legislatures, and you need 3/4's(38 States) of those to pass it.

2) The second path is in the Constitution, but has been rarely, if ever, used. The second method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states(or 38 States).

So, it is quite possible to get a grassroots movement going to pass Amendments. Once they get enough people they can petition their State Legislatures, and/or the Congress.

In regards to the 19th Amendment, a movement of Womens Sufferage began to sweep the nation. They could've gone either route mentioned, and gotten that Amendment passed. Once passed, Courts would be required to uphold it against those who thought that women weren't equal.

Same goes for Blacks, and other minorities within the United States. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments may have meant only Blacks when they were first passed, but it's wording can be taken to mean everybody[I], no matter the color of ones skin. So the Courts stepping in was the right thing to do. It was in their legal right, once someone brought a complaint before them, to say "No. This is [I]not how it is suppose to be."

The Constitution itself says under 14th Amendment - Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.".

Which placed what many States were doing to non-Whites as against the Law. So, once again, what the Courts did was right on the money. Which, btw, and sorry for the side-note, means that what States are doing in regards to Gays(marriage, rights under the law where their spouse is concerned, etc.) is also against the Law, and the Courts are on the money in trying to get States to level the playing field.

Courts can't make Churches marry someone they don't want to, but for those that are willing to marry Gays, and the Justice of the Peace, they should be allowed to do so.

I support the Constitution, and believe Justices should follow it. If they do, they'll see that rights are guaranteed for ALL, not just a few.

Not to worry, girlfriend. You're among good company with that obsession. I now have a sign on my office door: "I DON'T DO JOBS!"

lol... Not sure what the "I DON'T DO JOBS!" references. Can you explain?

Regards,

-Tibbetts

Yet the Constitution was changed. There is a process for changing it, through Amendments. Judges that take the power unto themselves if not the legal way to go about it.

The decision by the Supreme Court, examples: Brown vs Board of Ed, Desegragation... were in the right. They didn't create Law from the Bench, they upheld the rights of the Citizens under the Constitution.

Many States' didn't obey the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Surpeme Court stepped in. Albeit, later than I would have liked.

Tibbs, there were also a boatload of judicial decisions leading to the eventual passage of the civil rights act and the voting rights act in the mid-sixties. Moreover, during times of conservative dominance on the Supreme Court, the rights of black Americans were routinely trampled by the Court. There was no such thing as equal rights under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.

I think we're also off-topic for this thread. Obama hasn't taken office yet, let alone propose his first judicial candidate.

I'm not sure about the idea of Hillary as Sec. of State - I mean, it seems like small potatoes for someone who was so close to being the Democratic nominee. VP she would have taken, but anything less....

But then, I misjudged her earlier on. I had this impression of her as an extremely ambitious person, whose priority #1 since 1992 at least had been getting to be President someday. But from the Newsweek article that had reporters in with all the main campaigns:
There were moments when it seemed she wasn't all that eager to give up her solid, useful life as a U.S. senator to pursue the Clinton destiny, at least as it was understood by the press and by the former president.

On a cold midmorning in January 2007, Hillary sat in the sunny living room of her house on Whitehaven Street in Washington, a well-to-do enclave off Embassy Row where she lived with her mother and, on occasion, her husband. She was finishing a last round of policy prep with her aides before getting on a plane to Iowa for her first big campaign swing. In a moment of quiet, she looked around the living room and said, to no one in particular, "I so love this house. Why am I doing this?"

Her policy director, Neera Tanden, and her advertising director, Mandy Grunwald, laughed, a little too lightheartedly. Clinton went on. "I'm so comfortable here. Why am I doing this?"

Tanden spoke up. "The White House isn't so bad," she said.

"I've been there," said Clinton.

I don't think she'll jump at the chance, but she may decide to go for it eventually. I'd certainly prefer her to Kerry - who is sadly gaffe-prone, a trait particularly bad for the country's main diplomat. And there's really no reason for Obama to give him a post. Not to be mean, but this administration is suposed to be about turning over a new leaf, not tying itself to past failures.

McCain will not be being offered or accepting a Cabinet posts, I think the meeting was just to talk over the possibility for bipartisan initiatives in the Senate. Just because McCain is, when he's not campaigning, generally a good guy, and stuck up for Kerry in 2004, doesn't make him an honorary Dem - he still disagrees with them on all major policies.

If he's going to appoint a Republican to Cabinet, I'd like to see Schwarzenegger in charge of Energy - it would send a really good message on the environment, that fighting global warming isn't a partisan idea, it's one where both parties have something to contribute. But the Govenator seems happy enough in California.

On another topic, I'm very disturbed that Obama's top national security advisors in the transition, and prospective picks for the CIA and related posts, are people who have been part of the Bush administration's pushing of torture, illegal wiretapping, etc. I don't like the sound of it at all. He's won - I don't CARE about whether people call him "soft on terror", if he doesn't unequivocally end all involvement of the US with torture - and do it promptly - then it's the duty of the people who put him in office to hold him accountable.

On another topic, I'm very disturbed that Obama's top national security advisors in the transition, and prospective picks for the CIA and related posts, are people who have been part of the Bush administration's pushing of torture, illegal wiretapping, etc. I don't like the sound of it at all. He's won - I don't CARE about whether people call him "soft on terror", if he doesn't unequivocally end all involvement of the US with torture - and do it promptly - then it's the duty of the people who put him in office to hold him accountable.

Eowyn, where did you read this? I think there's a good chance that some Clintonistas will end up with positions - but not Bush's minions. I posted a veritable tome in the Bush thread about the investigations of warrantless wiretapping, the use of torture and extraordinary rendition, and a number of other things the Bush administration has pursued. I don't see any of them ending up with jobs in the new administration.

Eowyn, where did you read this? I think there's a good chance that some Clintonistas will end up with positions - but not Bush's minions. I posted a veritable tome in the Bush thread about the investigations of warrantless wiretapping, the use of torture and extraordinary rendition, and a number of other things the Bush administration has pursued. I don't see any of them ending up with jobs in the new administration.

An article by Glenn Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/12/lieberman/index.html) on Salon:
It simply is noteworthy of comment and cause for concern -- though far from conclusive about what Obama will do -- that Obama's transition chief for intelligence policy, John Brennan, was an ardent supporter of torture and one of the most emphatic advocates of FISA expansions and telecom immunity.
The Washington Times has Brennan pegged as a likely candidate for head of the CIA.

Then there's an article from the Baltimore Sun (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.intel14nov14,0,4502683.story):
He appears to be ready to remove the top two intelligence officials, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and CIA Director Michael V. Hayden - both retired general officers - which suggests Mr. Obama recognizes the need to change the military culture of the intelligence community. But he also has placed the intelligence transition process in the hands of two senior cronies of former CIA Director George J. Tenet: John O. Brennan and Jami A. Miscik, who were actively engaged in implementing and defending the CIA's corrupt activities during the Bush presidency.

...Mr. Brennan, as chief of staff and deputy executive director under Mr. Tenet, was involved in decisions to conduct torture and abuse of suspected terrorists and to render suspected individuals to foreign intelligence services that conducted their own torture and abuse. Mr. Brennan had risen through the analytic ranks and should have known that analytic standards were being ignored in Mr. Tenet's CIA. He was also an active defender of the illegal program of warrantless eavesdropping, implemented at the National Security Agency under the leadership of Mr. Hayden, then director of NSA.

Ms. Miscik was deputy director of intelligence for Mr. Tenet during the run-up to the Iraq war, when intelligence was manipulated to support the Bush administration's decision to use force in Iraq. She endorsed the politicized findings of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in October 2002, as well as the unclassified White Paper of October 2002 that was designed to sway votes on the authorization to use force against Iraq. Ms. Miscik was also a willing participant in the crafting of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's regrettable speech to the United Nations in February 2003, which was designed to sway the international community.

Other key members of Mr. Obama's intelligence advisory panel have been former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, who helped to suppress proof that various sources of intelligence in Iraqi WMD were in fact fabricators, and Rob Richer, a senior clandestine services officer who was a key implementer of the renditions and detentions program.

Mr. Obama will not be able to change the culture of the intelligence community and restore the moral compass of the CIA unless there is a full understanding and repudiation of the operational and analytical crimes committed in the Tenet era. If Mr. Obama genuinely wants to roll back the misdeeds of Vice President Dick Cheney, restore the rule of law at the CIA and create the change that Americans want and can believe in, he should not be relying for advice on the senior officials who endorsed these shameful actions.

Obama has also said he wants to keep the door open for the CIA to be able to use interrogation methods that are banned for the military - which is what McCain voted for a while back, and the reason people accused him of backpedalling on his opposition to torture.

I am unimpressed.

McCain has never been known as a team player, even within his own caucus. That's why some factions within the GOP were so dead-set against him at the beginning of the year, if I remember correctly.

On the other hand, a conciliatory gesture from this president elect is not apt to resemble in any way those George Bush tried during his administration. In Bush's case, it was more along the lines of "This is what I'm going to do and I'd like your support." No questions, no give-and-take. Barack doesn't work that way. He goal is generally always to find common ground from which two people, or groups of people, can move forward.

Purple ... Obama is not going to bend to please McCain. He may appear nice etc, but McCain is going to get a take it or leave it offer. Obama just has the patience of an eastern potentate in getting to yes. Among other things, if McCain is going to work for Obama, he's going to have to know who is boss.

Obama is not so much different from George Bush as better at it.

Yet the Constitution was changed. There is a process for changing it, through Amendments. Judges that take the power unto themselves is not the legal way to go about it.

The decision by the Supreme Court, examples: Brown vs Board of Ed, Desegragation... were in the right. They didn't create Law from the Bench, they upheld the rights of the Citizens under the Constitution.

Many States' didn't obey the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, and the Surpeme Court stepped in. Albeit, later than I would have liked.

But, to sum it up, it is not the duties of the Court to "amend" the Constitution of the United States. It's their job to judge for or against the matters before them, so long as they do so within the Constitution.

What you & I call "uphold" others call "legislating from the bench".

Don't get too steeped in the "mythology" of the original constitution. It is a series of words that the society of the time reads into. I like the statement that we are always striving for a "more perfect union". What does "perfect" mean ? We read in our meaning based on our current societal situation.

I'm not sure about the idea of Hillary as Sec. of State - I mean, it seems like small potatoes for someone who was so close to being the Democratic nominee. VP she would have taken, but anything less....

Secretary of State is a far more powerful position than VP, in reality.

Day to Day, the VP does nothing. The Secretary of State forms & implements foreign policy. It is a HUGE job. It really is a Huge Huge HUGE plum.

I'm excited for Hillary, I'm kind of like "gosh I hope Obama knows what he's doing" (which he usually does), and actually I wish our foreign policy did not have a Clinton face but an Obama face, but he can't do both jobs.

Clinton was in power for 8 years, and he pegged many people to work in his administration. He had a competent administration (we left with a budget surplus). Perhaps it is a mistake to call these people (still capable & also experienced) "Clinton" people, rather than Democrats with experience.

Obama is not so much different from George Bush as better at it.

He's plenty different from George Bush, whose ego was threatened at any outburst of independence or brilliance in his vicinity. Bush politicized any and all policymaking and centralized it in the White House. I mean, think about it, the members of his cabinet were darned near invisible save for photo-ops at the big table or congressional hearings.

President Elect "No Drama" Obama, happily, isn't wired that way. He's an intellectually confident man who enjoys engaging with ideas, and inclines to pragmatism over partisanship. He can handle a Lincolnesque "Team of Rivals" or a FDR-style brain trust. Thank God! He's going to need one.

That said, there won't be any cabinet announcements before Thanksgiving.

Eowyn, Greenwald's premise on Brennan has been challenged. Here's a link to Andrew Sullivan's call that: "I'd say that 'ardent supporter of torture' is a stretch (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/hmmm.html)."

I've read Sullivan's comment on it. I find it unconvincing.

From what I've been reading thus far, it seems like Obama's kind of got a two-pronged approach going on.

For his advisors from Chicago (Washington outsiders), it seems like he's putting most of them into advisory roles again - like Axelrod and Jarrett. But he's not giving them the "Plum Book" jobs.

For his reviews of the various departments, he seems to be relying heavily on the "old guard" Clinton appointees - but there doesn't seem to be a guaruntee that they'll end up in the departments they're reviewing.

For his actual appointments, I rather like Emmanuel - he seems like he'll get things done. Lindsey Graham among other likes him, even if they barely agree on things (perhaps this is why Lindsey Graham is accompanying McCain to Chicago - he and Emmanuel worked on the debate prep together, and they seemed to get it done faster and with less acrimony than any other recent debate preps).

If I had to guess, most of those reviewing the departments won't end up in the department themselves, and I think that's a good thing. Otherwise this "change" mantra would be "change it back to 1993". And I really like how he's going far faster about the transition than Clinton or Bush did - it seems like Obama's "up" on his history and has already learned from past mistakes of presidents in their transition.

In the end I'd love to see a situation where Obama has a fairly diverse, super-smart cabinet willing to give him different opinions ready to be voted on by the Senate on January 21. Hit the ground running!

Tibbs, there were also a boatload of judicial decisions leading to the eventual passage of the civil rights act and the voting rights act in the mid-sixties. Moreover, during times of conservative dominance on the Supreme Court, the rights of black Americans were routinely trampled by the Court. There was no such thing as equal rights under the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.

I think we're also off-topic for this thread. Obama hasn't taken office yet, let alone propose his first judicial candidate.

Yes, and it made them "activist" judges, creating "law" from the bench. It was wrong for them to do so. If they had followed the Constitution, then they would of enforced the rights of all, not just Whitie.

What you & I call "uphold" others call "legislating from the bench".

The words are right there in black and white. Even a moron could figure it out. Wait... Many of the Justices then, and now, didn't. I guess morons can't figure it out. Maybe someone should write it in crayon, and put in lots of pictures so folks can understand it. lol...


-Tibbetts

Fr Otherwise this "change" mantra would be "change it back to 1993".
That's what it's been looking like for a while now.

In the end I'd love to see a situation where Obama has a fairly diverse, super-smart cabinet willing to give him different opinions ready to be voted on by the Senate on January 21. Hit the ground running!

I think that's exactly what he intends. There's a meme out there that when Obama said "change," he meant a different Washington, with new faces and fresh players. While there will be some of that, certainly, he's more focused on a Washington that actually works. He wants frequent successes from his team and that requires players who know how to wield power. His message throughout the campaign has been centered, to a large degree, on legislative achievement as an answer to polarization. He has described the country's divisiveness as the result of ineffectual politics; unity as the reward for effective policy-making.

"I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes, not incremental changes, not small changes. I think that there are a whole host of Republicans, and certainly independents, who have lost trust in their government, who don't believe anybody is listening to them, who are staggering under rising costs of health care, college education, [who] don't believe what politicians say. And we can draw those independents and some Republicans into a working coalition, a working majority for change."

I think it's fair to assume that a Democratic Party strong enough to pass the president's priorities is a good thing for the country. In short, strong parties aren't the problem; they're the solution. And a strong party needs experienced players. That's what we're seeing in this transition.

Just my two cents.

That's what it's been looking like for a while now.

I don't mind some people in the admin who've been in previous administrations, but taking the top layer off the Clinton cabinet and promoting the rest (ugh, i can't find the article I stole this from...I think it was on Politico) I wouldn't like. In the end, I'll judge Obama's first cabinet / etc based on who ends up in it. I'd love to see multiple Republicans / independants - Gates staying on, finding a role for Hagel, perhaps Arnold (if he changes his mind), Powell as an ambassador at large (my labmate brilliantly suggested Powell as ambassador at large to Africa), and one of the two Maine senators all come to mind. Part of the problem is, except for "new talent" like Obama, if you've got any skill at all and you're a Democrat you probably were in the Clinton administration at some point.

Blech, not Ahnold-- :no: please. But, remember, if you take him--you have to keep him in Washington and not send him back.

I had a cartoon at one point showing former Clintonistas storming over the gates onto the White House lawn. :lol:

I love the techie in Barack. He has chosen to expand the president's traditional weekly radio address to video. Here is the first:

Zd8f9Zqap6U

Remarks of President-elect Barack Obama

November 15, 2008

Today, the leaders of the G-20 countries -- a group that includes the world's largest economies -- are gathering in Washington to seek solutions to the ongoing turmoil in our financial markets. I'm glad President Bush has initiated this process -- because our global economic crisis requires a coordinated global response.

And yet, as we act in concert with other nations, we must also act immediately here at home to address America's own economic crisis. This week, amid continued volatility in our markets, we learned that unemployment insurance claims rose to their highest levels since September 11, 2001. We've lost jobs for ten straight months -- nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, many of them in our struggling auto industry. And millions of our fellow citizens lie awake each night wondering how they're going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and save for retirement.

Make no mistake: this is the greatest economic challenge of our time. And while the road ahead will be long, and the work will be hard, I know that we can steer ourselves out of this crisis -- because here in America we always rise to the moment, no matter how hard. And I am more hopeful than ever before that America will rise once again.

But we must act right now. Next week, Congress will meet to address the spreading impact of the economic crisis. I urge them to pass at least a down-payment on a rescue plan that will create jobs, relieve the squeeze on families, and help get the economy growing again. In particular, we cannot afford to delay providing help for the more than one million Americans who will have exhausted their unemployment insurance by the end of this year. If Congress does not pass an immediate plan that gives the economy the boost it needs, I will make it my first order of business as President.

Even as we dig ourselves out of this recession, we must also recognize that out of this economic crisis comes an opportunity to create new jobs, strengthen our middle class, and keep our economy competitive in the 21st century.

That starts with the kinds of long-term investments that we've neglected for too long. That means putting two million Americans to work rebuilding our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools. It means investing $150 billion to build an American green energy economy that will create five million new jobs, while freeing our nation from the tyranny of foreign oil, and saving our planet for our children. It means making health care affordable for anyone who has it, accessible for anyone who wants it, and reducing costs for small businesses. And it also means giving every child the world-class education they need to compete with any worker, anywhere in the world.

Doing all this will require not just new policies, but a new spirit of service and sacrifice, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. If this financial crisis has taught us anything, it's that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers -- in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people. And that is how we will meet the challenges of our time -- together. Thank you.

I think that's exactly what he intends. There's a meme out there that when Obama said "change," he meant a different Washington, with new faces and fresh players. While there will be some of that, certainly, he's more focused on a Washington that actually works. He wants frequent successes from his team and that requires players who know how to wield power.

Purp, I clearly recall statements in these threads dating back to the primaries that part of Obama's policy is that his admin would be one that was free of the old Washington players. There were even claims that Obama wasn't a Washington or party insider.

I know. I probably made some of them.

In all honesty, I didn't "get" the full picture until I became a fulltime staff member. The focus on the inside feels quite different than what I was accustomed to on the streets or telephones and whatever else I was doing earlier this year.

Having said that, I'm sure he'll continue to surprise me. He's already done so: those of us who won't be going on to Washington are getting a bonus (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/14/2008-11-14_barack_obama_gives_campaign_staffers_ext.html) worth a full months' salary, plus we can keep the laptops and Blackberries we've been using. I'm not sure this has ever been done before.

Having said that, I'm sure he'll continue to surprise me. He's already done so: those of us who won't be going on to Washington are getting a bonus (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/14/2008-11-14_barack_obama_gives_campaign_staffers_ext.html) worth a full months' salary, plus we can keep the laptops and Blackberries we've been using. I'm not sure this has ever been done before.

:wow: Geez, all I got at my last job was a box of candy :grumble:

Nice bonus :clap:

My grandson has already laid dibs on the computer. He would like the Blackberry as well, but I've gotten used to using it and it's mine now.

We do have to pay income tax on these things, though.

Sheri, I imagine that the computer and BlackBerry will get an industrial strength scrub first. But that's certainly a nice bonus.

And as a follow-up, this very sad news for President-Elect Obama: Say goodbye to BlackBerry? Yes he can, maybe (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27740220)

I'm of the opinion (ex-network techie here) that they could set up a secured VPN (virtual private network) that limits both incoming and outgoing messages to the private network via some industrial strength security.

BTW BlackBerry addiction requires a twelve-step program.

those of us who won't be going on to Washington are getting a bonus (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/11/14/2008-11-14_barack_obama_gives_campaign_staffers_ext.html) worth a full months' salary, plus we can keep the laptops and Blackberries we've been using. I'm not sure this has ever been done before.

I'm glad you guys are being let down easy, but the money spending actually annoys me. The phone bank managers provided food & often cell phone minutes to their volunteers for no compensation. That's a lot of food. & Most volunteers called on their own phones. That's a lot of minutes. Lots of people travelled places & put themselves up in hotels without compensation. Yesterday we had an Obama for OC get together Brunch and we all paid for ourselves. But Chicago office gets iPhones ???

I got lucky personally, my existing phone plan covered it, and my mom told me that if it didn't she'd cover me because she hadn't made any donations this cycle (Hey - I got her to wear a button !).

Re Arnold: He's "walking back" his joke Obama has scrawny arms. (He must be so tired of humorless people).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/16/schwarzenegger-walks-back_n_144158.html

I'm glad you guys are being let down easy, but the money spending actually annoys me. The phone bank managers provided food & often cell phone minutes to their volunteers for no compensation. That's a lot of food. & Most volunteers called on their own phones. That's a lot of minutes. Lots of people travelled places & put themselves up in hotels without compensation. But Chicago office gets iPhones ???

I hear you. :huggles: I've done all the things you've listed, including making sure the phonebankers and canvassers had food, transportation and lodging. I actually had operatives living in my home for months at a time.

Judy, if there's a way to do it and not create the kind of mess Bush had with email retention, it's a safe bet they'll go for it.

This blackberrry thing, IMHO is kind of an excuse. Apparently Barack has had the same email for years. You've got to assume the volume would be untenable, and he needs to work in a narrower world, without offending anyone. I don't blame him at all.

Aside from the security of the traffic, couldn't it be used to triangulate his location ?

Aside from the security of the traffic, couldn't it be used to triangulate his location ?Not in a secured VPN. That could be masked or redirected to a ghost locale. I'm sure the President has a cell phone, so securing a BlackBerry's location would be much the same.

He wouldn't be able to keep his existing email address. That would have to go. Even if it was redirected to his secured email, the volume would be excessive.

Greg Craig, the guy who played McCain in Obama's debate prep, also the guy who spearheaded Clinton's (successful) impeachment defense and also the guy who said "First Lady Foreign Policy Experience is an Oxymoron" (or words to that effect) during the primary, is going to be White House Counsel. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15663.html

What an amazing time we live in.

I'm under the impression the President doesn't need things such as a blackberry or cell phone. I don't think he makes his own calls, if he wants to talk to someone, I'm under the impression he asks to be connected or for someone to get the person on the line. What sort of email would he actually need to check? If he needs to know something, that's what he has people for, they come and tell him. He certainly won't write his own letters. As a means of providing him requested information it could be useful, as the article mentioned, he could receive reports via email rather than on paper. But really, very few people are going to have unfettered access to him, and no matter how few people have his email address, it will likely mean more than needs to go across his desk.

But as Bush pointed out, it's easy to get yourself into trouble with email, especially a blackberry. I work for a state agency, so all of our emails are subject to public records requests, but I've certainly heard my bosses discussing whether "pinging" on their blackberries would be similarly treated. It doesn't go into their email, so I think they hoped more than knew that it wouldn't be subject to such laws (but truth be told, if they have a state issued blackberry, their phone records could also be requested under our public records laws). I don't know if President-Elect Obama uses such a feature, but I feel like with technology there is certainly some gray area yet to be decided and that's not something you want to find out after you've already used it in ways that could get you into trouble.

He is going to live a very different kind of life than he has up until now. I've read articles that make it clear it's already changing for them (as soon as he was elected, the secret service barriers around his home were moved out by three blocks, etc.).

This Blackberry thing is silly. If the device is configured correctly, everything will be stored on a secure network. There is no issue with saving all incoming and outgoing messages sent via the mobile device. I am pretty certain that his primary email address is not published, so volume shouldn't be that big of a deal. My husband receives roughly 500 emails a day and his Blackberry runs just fine.

Well I'm pretty sure that Obama's current email address would have to be remain idle while he's President, but I really think that there's no problem for him to have a properly secured government line. This is the 21st century.

I don't think the issue is whether prior Presidents used technology or not, but whether the next President would want to. I don't think we can effectively decide if he needs to use it. Frankly, whatever the President thinks would enhance his performance is what he needs to do.

I'm under the impression the President doesn't need things such as a blackberry or cell phone. I don't think he makes his own calls, if he wants to talk to someone, I'm under the impression he asks to be connected or for someone to get the person on the line. What sort of email would he actually need to check? If he needs to know something, that's what he has people for, they come and tell him. He certainly won't write his own letters.


I mean, really - the man seems to be a fairly modern person - I would assume that he wants to use e-mail not just for business purposes, but you know, to write private e-mails to friends and family!

It seems logical that business stuff is handled in a different manner - I'd hope that a US president spends his time in a better way than handling his business correspondence himself.

But modern people can't do without e-mail, and why should they! That would be like asking any of the earlier presidents not to make private phone calls and not to write private letters (surely, former presidents would sometimes pen a private letter?)


I wonder where this is going in future. It's weird how far presidents seem to lag behind real life..... You know, what happens once the next generation gets into the White House. Would a high official be allowed to post (anonymously at least) on a message board such as this? Surely, that's a part of private life?

It'll be odd to think that in 20 years' time most people standing for high office in the western world will take all this for granted - yet, it's still difficult to imagine how this will be handled.

I've been reading a lot of buzz about how some people are distressed that Obama is bringing in Washington insiders and Clintonistas. I think that's really smart. These people know how things work and how to get things done. Clinton's problems were personal issue (his zipper problem) and lack of focus. Clinton could have been a great President, but he was undisciplined and his efforts were scattershot. His failures were due to his own flaws, not the people in his administration. And we all know how focused and disciplined Obama is. The outcome will be very different.

Clinton's and Carter's mistake was to not bring in enough Washington experience, so they fumbled around until they figured out to make things work. Carter had other problems, but they aren't particularly relevant for this thread.

Ditto. I can't say I have anything against the Clintonistas. They do know exactly what's been going on, they've been there before and in a time that certainly wasn't short on emergencies or vast changes.

I figure the outcome will also be vastly different. It's a different situation, even if the same people are involved. Obama is the difference, I agree with that. He also has better and new ideas- and certainly displays more discipline and (no offence, but IMO) dedication to the job he's won, as opposed to his personal life. It's evident from the past 20 months that Obama has more than enough confidence and propriety to carry off something of a similar administration, because it's the man at its head that will carry the change and carry the difference, in order to bridge the gap.

hmmmm... I think that it is right to bring some experienced people who have a chance to get something done, and people who can cover his back from a Democratic backlash if he has to compromise on something (and he will have to!).

I like his choice of Chief of Staff, for example. The CoS needs to get stuff done, and Rahm Emmanuel seems to be the guy for that, and he has the experience and connections it takes, it seems (and plenty of people are afraid of him).

But I think that it wouldn't be a good idea to overdo this. People did vote for change, and (as others have said) he shouldn't make it look like change back to 1992. I hope that the administration will be a good mix of people to achieve this.

And this isn't just about who is good at the job - surely there are good people for most jobs - but it's also about *perception*. As far as I (as a geekishly informed outsider) can tell, Democrats hold the Clinton administration in fond memory. But the other side does not. There is no reason to pander to those who lost the election all the time (they had their way pretty one-sidedly for eight years) - but still, it would be good to be diplomatic on this one, as far as possible anyway while at the same time putting in people who are good for those jobs.

In the end, that promise of a less partisan administration was worth a lot, I think (not elast after Bush made and broke it in 2000 and 2004). I would wish for Obama to make sure that he comes across as keeping that promise in a sensible manner (i.e. no need to overdo it, either).

(and plenty of people are afraid of him).

:rotfl:!!

But I think that it wouldn't be a good idea to overdo this. People did vote for change, and (as others have said) he shouldn't make it look like change back to 1992. I hope that the administration will be a good mix of people to achieve this.

I agree with you entirely. But neither am I disinclined to accept an administration not entirely unlike the Clinton administration. As stated above, I figure Obama himself will provide the biggest change, a total change in tact, in thinking, in routes, in warfare... Though I do actually agree that we cannot afford to just have the same thing as the 1990s, the world has moved on (or regressed, if that's what you believe.. and apparently some people do.)- and we certainly can't afford to survive in a stagnant and inert administration which would have the ability to throw the US into a Pariah state happier with being idle than to offer the promised change. And it's the change we need to see- that's why American voted Obama. He said we could, and he has to prove that before he can win others over- which I think is a demonstratively good test for him.

And this isn't just about who is good at the job - surely there are good people for most jobs - but it's also about *perception*. As far as I (as a geekishly informed outsider) can tell, Democrats hold the Clinton administration in fond memory. But the other side does not. There is no reason to pander to those who lost the election all the time (they had their way pretty one-sidedly for eight years) - but still, it would be good to be diplomatic on this one, as far as possible anyway while at the same time putting in people who are good for those jobs.

Absolutely. Regardless of Democrat or Republican, the thing about Obama is that he might show some insight into ability and what it means to him and why. he might be able to show an administration not unlike the Clintons, but perhaps more advanced, more capable, and more trained than we have recently seen. It makes sense to me that, as a Democrat, the Clintons had an Administration to capitalise on, and with the correct President, that administration style would work very well. But you're correct too in saying that we cannot just accept an Administration showing relatively little change.

He needs to prove that he can show change, because that's what he promised. To me, that means he can use the Clinton method as a model, but he has to change it, adapt it, mould it to fit what he wants, and ensure in this way that he can provide what was promised. I would hate to see him seen as a hypocrite, when he ran such a good campaign based on the "Change" motto.

ETA: Just seeing on the news that Barack Obama has confirmed that he has every intention of closing Guantanamo Bay. Apparently this was aired on his first 60 Minutes interview since being elected.

Ditto. I can't say I have anything against the Clintonistas. They do know exactly what's been going on, they've been there before and in a time that certainly wasn't short on emergencies or vast changes.

I figure the outcome will also be vastly different. It's a different situation, even if the same people are involved. Obama is the difference, I agree with that. He also has better and new ideas- and certainly displays more discipline and (no offence, but IMO) dedication to the job he's won, as opposed to his personal life. It's evident from the past 20 months that Obama has more than enough confidence and propriety to carry off something of a similar administration, because it's the man at its head that will carry the change and carry the difference, in order to bridge the gap.

What has President-elect Obama done to warrant this level of confidence and belief? In what way has he made this level of distinction in the campaign? What is it exactly that makes him seem so capable and able to be this type of difference maker? Especially if he is surrounded by insiders and party hard-liners? In what way has he shown more discipline or dedication than any other candidate for this job?

I am somewhat stunned at the expectations and credit Obama is recieving. I fear that even he would be a little concerned to have that type of expectations. He is the President-elect and I will stand behind him accordingly, but this idea that he is not a politician or that he is uniquely capable of some dramatic achievement seems a bit overblown to me. I think in some ways he is being endowed with traits we all hope he has as opposed to traits he has shown to already have.

What has President-elect Obama done to warrant this level of confidence and belief? In what way has he made this level of distinction in the campaign? What is it exactly that makes him seem so capable and able to be this type of difference maker? Especially if he is surrounded by insiders and party hard-liners? In what way has he shown more discipline or dedication than any other candidate for this job?

In comparison to what? I was talking as a comparison to Bill Clinton when he was in office. But to answer your question, feeble though the answers will seem, I suppose I can try. He made fantastic speeches that rallied the nation to him- and externally, people began to see him as something of a saviour, a change from a war that many feel has run on too long. It didn't matter whether you were anti Bush or not; Obama's message was change, and after eight years, that message was important and short enough to grasp attention. Obama spent a fortune in making it known internationally. He made sure that people believed in him. And no offence is meant with this comment, but I know that many people here said that a black man would never reach the White House, let alone win the Primaries against Clinton. He proved his quality in showing that he could do that. What makes him so capable is his personal reassurances of that quality, his confidence, speech capabilities... None of it might make sense, but on a personal level, Obama simply appealed more to the man on the street, or so it would seem.

I think he hasn't particularly shown any distinction from others, to be honest- other than a commitment that was not seen last time round. A commitment that operates inside the Democratic Party, even where it may not have before. I just think that he brought more people together with the word "Change". After eight years of one thing, someone promising change is likely to succeed, or at least, that's how I see it. I wish it were true of my own country, the variation would be helpful.

He might be surrounded by party hard liners, but it doesn't mean that he's not available to play ball himself. He can make his own choices and decisions- I think that's clear from the campaign he ran. I just think that he's built up a strong foundation based on respect, intelligence and general hard work. I can't put it any other way I'm afraid- and it's all imo. :)

I am somewhat stunned at the expectations and credit Obama is recieving. I fear that even he would be a little concerned to have that type of expectations. He is the President-elect and I will stand behind him accordingly, but this idea that he is not a politician or that he is uniquely capable of some dramatic achievement seems a bit overblown to me. I think in some ways he is being endowed with traits we all hope he has as opposed to traits he has shown to already have.

He is so a politician! :lol:, I won't argue with that! I think he's very shrewd and definitely has capability to make hard decisions. He's made that clear. I also don't think he's uniquely capable of some dramatic achievement, but you must admit that the world is sick of hearing about Iraq. The balance might shift in another direction with him- and we might see the end of that war, which is, I think, high on the agenda. Obama has economic policies that may or may not help the economy- but at least it's a new try. It's a change, and it's the change that people voted for. Quite frankly, after eight years of President Bush, I think a change will prove quite important at any level. It doesn't mean Obama is perfect or anything like that. It's more that, to me and in my opinion, Obama's offering something people want so badly to believe in.

We can all be cynical- but I harbour hopes that this will not be a case of cynicism winning out (cynical though I can often be myself! :D). It just seems to me that if he doesn't change anything and if he doesn't fulfil his promises, faith in America as a world power might flounder- and I don't think any of us want that. I think we're all, internationally, sick of politics and poor expectations of our own Governments. I so want that to be different- and that's what I see in Obama's promise, which is why I hope so hard that he can fulfil them. I don't know if he can, but for just a few years at least, I want to believe it. :)

I have seen many instances...The speech he gave during the Wright ordeal was most impressive. For me (and I can only speak for myself in this matter), he echoed my own beliefs as such I've not heard anyone else state in public. His "thought" processes are so much like my own. I understand them on a base level.

Observing his treatment of his opponents--again, impressed. He ran a campaign attacking policy and ideology but still showed respect to the "people" on the other side (again, my opinion).

When I first went over his plans--call it "the blueprint" for what he wanted to do as a president, more than any other candidate I was going.."YES..that's what I think, too..." or "YES! I have always thought that was the best way to go.." or..."Wow, didn't even think about that, but that's a great idea..." (and there were a couple, "ew--not all that thrilled about this issue", but they were on issues that were of less of a personal priority to me and, honestly--all of them had those. Barack had the least).

I watched him run his campaign and was very impressed at the way this man, first time candidate, put new ideas into action and "executed" them with incredible results, toppling not only the rest of the dem candidate field, but the front runner who had years of campaigning expertise and one of the most powerful political machines around. That's "executive", to me.

On going back in his history, he didn't always chose the easy route --but there has been a common thread "service" to fellow man. Research into past bills voted for, against, supported or opposed, I checked them out. There was also a pattern of thoughtful reasoning.

After researching plans, policy, campaign stands on issues--it was after that I heard him speak. While some would say that there are a lot of "pretty speeches" but it doesn't make a leader. Well, one of the main things a leader does is provide leadership, motivation and guidance--he communicates. Some of the greatest leaders were "also" great orators and communicators. What good does a great plan do if you can't move people to support it and pass it, or act on it? Confusion and fear can take hold of a population who is cut off, or feels like they don't understand what the governing administration is doing. Being able to skillfully communicate to a people (and also listen to them so they are in touch with real issues) is a massive skill.

So, we want to remodel a nasty-looking fixer-upper. It sits on some land that has become swampland, the neighbors are hostile and we're hiring a contractor to work on this.

I saw a man with house remodel "skills" (albeit, hasn't actually rebuilt an entire house yet), he has education in how to do it. Looking over all the blueprints, I liked his the best--it seemed best to deal with what ails the fixer-upper house (to me). I could have hired the old contractor with the plan I didn't like, but I was discouraged he didn't notice the high-groundwater, the list of the house and kept attacking the other contractors rather promote his own tools, skills, experience and plans. Upon checking references, I find he also helped remodel a room years ago and it burned down :/ hmmm . Yet, he did have experience and wasn't afraid of the job. He talks about buying cheap materials and "cosmetic" changes, wants to cut corners a little here and there to save money and the budget. Budget is important, but saving money won't help if the roof falls in...it can create more expense later. His idea is to build from the top down...even though the foundation's rotting (thus the leaning to the right). While adding a few upgrades, the old plumbing only needs repair, not replaced. He tells us that only some of the wiring needs fixing.

Who to hire?

Going with the younger, new guy with the good plans, education and apparent skill set. He had all his tools laid out, his plans were clean and easy to read and seems intelligent enough to actually do what he says he can. If he does the foundation right, the roof won't easily fall down again. He believes in building from the bottom up, update the old wiring while we're at it and make it more eco-friendly and will last years longer if it's done right. ...

Now, we just have to start the remodeling that listing house and draining the swampland around it. There's going to be a lot of noice, probably a little cussing and a few bruised thumbs--but the plan is solid and it makes sense to me. The guy in charge seems to have a good crew --and a "can do" attitude. He's a little expensive but I've always gone for quality over speed and quantity.

Granted--not as much experience as some of the other contractors for this job, but it's hard to not be impressed as he had to build that eight-lane bridge to even get to the house job, with his own team's design that is new and innovative. He arrived with a smile, a good attitude and talks straight to me...

Ya, that is why I'm optomistic.

Of course, the proof is seeing the house when it's done :lol: Have to wait for that, don't we? But yes, so far, I'm instilled with confidence--more so than any of the other contractors I've seen who used old roads and the same row boats to cross the river to try to get to this place.

Of course, your mileage will vary on this :lol: You asked.

What has President-elect Obama done to warrant this level of confidence and belief? In what way has he made this level of distinction in the campaign? What is it exactly that makes him seem so capable and able to be this type of difference maker? Especially if he is surrounded by insiders and party hard-liners? In what way has he shown more discipline or dedication than any other candidate for this job?




The answer, my good man, is NOTHING. Nothing at all. His experience is nil. He is President-elect because, IMO, he is a good speaker and benefitted from a well run campaign. Are the expectations of him unreasonable? You reap what you sow.

The answer, my good man, is NOTHING. Nothing at all. His experience is nil. He is President-elect because, IMO, he is a good speaker and benefitted from a well run campaign. Are the expectations of him unreasonable? You reap what you sow.


Well.. I am trying to be reasonable in my expectations - but I think you really are a tad unreasonable here.

The one thing you can't deny is exactly the campaign that Obama has been running in the public eye for almosty two years. That alone is simply too much evidence against your extreme position (and I would suggest that there is more - but for the sake of argument, let's reducie it to a minimum).

If he really had done nothing BUT running this astonishing campaign - that would already be a pretty impressive sign that the man can inspire, organise and lead. All crucial qualities. And that campaign is already being studied by political scientists and historians alike - it was extraordinary and will probably set the blueprint ofr campaigning for some time to come, whatever people think of the outcome.

Moreover - I think that getting through to the Democratic nomination over Clinton was a pretty impressive achievement. I happen to think that this was probably harder than getting through against McCain - because those months of scrutiny and debate added up to in-depth scrutiny. The Clinton Machine made sure of that!

I think one of the most counter-productive arguments of the McCain campaign was the weird statement that 'we don't know this man'. There was so much information out in the public domain about Obama, and he had been under so much public scrutiny by the time he got the nomination (adding information he himself wouldn't have highlighted to be sure) - that this statement simply sounded ludicrous. Every politician has a public face, whether he or she has been in the Senate for decades, or just for a few years. That's what we get to see, plus what others can dig up on them. Obama is better documented than most politicians (in any country) I have ever come across.

So, I think that while Obama fans should perhaps reduce their expectations to a realistic level, I would say that your 'NOTHING!!' spiel is just as unrealistic..... It just makes more sense to argue reasonably, rather than to represent extreme positions that simply couldn't be backed up by reasonable argument.

Guess we'll see who sowed what soon enough :whistle:

What has President-elect Obama done to warrant this level of confidence and belief?


He ran an exceptional campaign & accomplished something no one believed possible --> AA male as President, higher % win than any Democrat in last 40 years, (LBJ after JFK assassination is a blip, but still beats him), higher fund-raising than any other candidate ever, higher number of volunteers than any other campaign ever, majority win 52% 66,000,000 votes.

I really don't know why you can't see the exceptionalism.

Clintonistas

I think that they are being named earlier because they are completing the vetting process quicker. They just have to update the last 8 years, vs starting from scratch, basically.

They are like the "early returns". I think that when the final tally is counted, it will be an Obama cabinet.

Plus, there are going to be a ton of cabinet positions and other appointments. We've actually only seen a few appointments so far. Some of those have not been Clintonistas (as you put it), but from Obama's own campaign.

I agree that certain people are just quicker and easier to vet and appoint because of familiarity within the campaign and through the campaign struggle for the last two years. Others will be known less and have to have more vetting and more time to thoroughly get to know.

I do think it's too premature with such few appointments at this point (and, remember, Hillary is not a done deal as Sec. of State, there are a couple other people in the running for that, as well) to call it a Clinton cabinet--or anything else.

Hopefully, there will be some more announcements on this front soon. I am waiting before jumping to conclusion, to better get a full view of where he is taking this by action (which speaks louder than pundits :lol:).

I fear that even he would be a little concerned to have that type of expectations. He is the President-elect and I will stand behind him accordingly, but this idea that he is not a politician or that he is uniquely capable of some dramatic achievement seems a bit overblown to me. I think in some ways he is being endowed with traits we all hope he has as opposed to traits he has shown to already have.

I don't think any of that is even close to the mark, Lupe.

Overblown expectations could conceivably be a problem, and he's well aware of that potential. At the same time, he has the advantage of several million grassroots supporters who will not be standing down now that the election is over. They're organizing as I type to help him achieve his policy agenda. It's going to be a busy four years, maybe eight, for many of us.

BTW, none of us consider him "not a politician." He is, of course, but he's also an extremely intelligent and gifted leader.

Of course he's a politician. He wouldn't be successful if he wasn't. Being a politician doesn't mean someone is automatically evil, automatically corrupt, or automatically incapable of succeeding at his goals.

How he has performed since Super Tuesday has demonstrated beyond doubt that he is a consummate politician. Which isn't inherently bad but does require a touch of Machiavelli, thick skin, a big dose of ambition and a healthy ego.

Anyone who successfully runs for President has to have a thick skin, a big dose of ambition and a healthy ego, and probably a touch of Machiavelli. To decide you are qualified to be leader of the most powerful nation in the world, takes a healthy dose of self-regard. And to successfully become elected takes a great deal of cunning along with intelligence, which isn't so bad since all of the above skills are needed to be President too.

How he has performed since Super Tuesday has demonstrated beyond doubt that he is a consummate politician. Which isn't inherently bad but does require a touch of Machiavelli, thick skin, a big dose of ambition and a healthy ego.

Truly. You know this stuff pretty well, Wab. Have you seen his ethics rules for those seeking jobs with the administration? No more revolving door for lobbyist. I was so happy to see that.

I'm kind of surprised no cabinet announcements have been made yet - you'd think he'd want to choose people before Christmas so they have time to make arrangements and preparations and stuff, but that leaves 5 weeks for 15 appointments.

Do you realize tomorrow (Tuesday) is only 2 weeks since the election ? There's still 4 weeks to Christmas.

It feels like years. I went through my 5 stages of grief. I'm out on the other side.

Lieberman's fate is decided tomorrow. I think if the Dems don't take his chairmanship away they will be the laughing stock of the country.

They need Liebermann, but I suspect they'll keep him on a short leash. If he isn't helpful in close votes they can still strip him of him chairmanship. Mind you, I am disgusted with how he behaved, especially considering that he was a Democratic VP nominee. But they need him.

Truly. You know this stuff pretty well, Wab.

Working in the media and government you get to know what it takes.

I had previously thought that healthcare would come later since the economy is such a mess. But I've just realized that healthcare will get dealt with early on. Kennedy specifically refused to let Hillary chair a subcommittee on healthcare since he wants to do it himself. And Kennedy has an unfortunate time limit on what he can accomplish since they didn't cure his cancer (just slowed it a bit). I think Obama will let Kennedy push this through as the cap to his career.

I am curious, who actually believes the campaign was run by Obama? I keep hearing that the campaign was run by him, but that is simply not true. He was the candidate and no doubt had influence, but the ground strategy, key political strategy and personnel were handled by the campaign manager, not the candidate. Look, I am pulling for this man to be brilliant, and successful and for him to make excellent choices as the chief executive of the United States. That said, I am still at a loss for the credit he recieves. Axlerod ran the campaign, which was supposed to be a cakewalk for the Democrat nominee in a climate like this and had a candidate that was facing a member of the 23% approval Congressional old guard and a member of the equally unpopular incumbent party.

While I wish to take nothing away from the victory, it wasn't exactly the same hurdle Clinton overcame or Bush for that matter. For a good part of the process it was almost certain that the Democrat would win and with all of that had the housing bubble not popped when it did this was a close election anyway. Let us not forget the strategic mis-steps of the Obama campaign. He made some comments that were politically poor judgment and took stands that had they not been eclypsed by the housing collapse, would have been negatives for his campaign. In some ways the excellent campaign often had to work in spite of the candidate.

If his voting record is any indication, he would do well to at least give the appearance of bi-partisanship in his appointments, because he has so far been a hard-line Democrat and has voted the party line an awful lot. I hope I am wrong, but the guy is predisposed to pushing the Democrat agenda and the idea that he will act against the partys' wishes seems unlikely to me.

Truly. You know this stuff pretty well, Wab. Have you seen his ethics rules for those seeking jobs with the administration? No more revolving door for lobbyist. I was so happy to see that.

Yea the door isn't revolving, it's wide open. From the Washington Post: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403922_pf.html)

Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to change Washington, vowing to upend the K Street lobbying culture he encountered when he joined the U.S. Senate.

But more than a dozen members of President-elect Obama’s fast-growing transition team have worked as federally registered lobbyists within the past four years. They include former lobbyists for the nation’s trial lawyers association, mortgage giant Fannie Mae, drug companies such as Amgen, high-tech firms such as Microsoft, labor unions and the liberal advocacy group Center for American Progress.

Mark Gitenstein, one of the 12 transition board members who will play a significant role in shaping the Obama administration, worked on million-dollar lobbying contracts with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and promoted legislation for giant defense contractors Boeing and General Dynamics. Until this fall, he was registered to petition Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission on behalf of AT&T, Merrill Lynch, KPMG, Ernst & Young and others.

And there are more. Ron Klain, Joe Biden’s chief of staff, lobbied for Fannie Mae on “regulatory matters” until 2004 when the fraud he was working to keep regulators from noticing got uncovered after years of Congressional interference with regulators. Patrick Gaspard, associate personnel director for the transition, lobbied on health care issues on behalf of the SEIU. John Podesta, the man who is running the transition, spent the last few years lobbying for the liberal Center for American Progress. Podesta is even more interesting as he was the one who wrote the order rescinding Clinton's moratorium on White House staffers working as lobbyists for 4 years after quitting their jobs. The order Podesta wrote was drafted and signed during Clinton's last few months in office.

There's nothing inherently wrong with lobbyists, they are the ones who know the issues and know their way around Washington, and it is highly likely they're the ones who will form the foundation of any campaign or transition. But let's not pretend that lobbyists have been summarily thrown out of Washington by Obama and are banned from setting foot in the White House. He's welcoming them with open arms just as virtually every administration to come before has.

Ron Klain, Joe Biden’s chief of staff, lobbied for Fannie Mae on “regulatory matters” until 2004 when the fraud he was working to keep regulators from noticing got uncovered after years of Congressional interference with regulators.


Source of accusing him of fraud? Sounds like you're saying he's a criminal.

Puppygate (http://www.236.com/news/2008/11/17/******_obama_just_make_with_th_1_10291.php)

I am curious, who actually believes the campaign was run by Obama? I keep hearing that the campaign was run by him, but that is simply not true. He was the candidate and no doubt had influence, but the ground strategy, key political strategy and personnel were handled by the campaign manager, not the candidate.

You're trying to sell the meme that Obama is an empty suit, and it just isn't true. You were sold a false bill of goods.

Per the Newsweek embedded reporting, Obama was in charge of his campaign. You really should read that. For 25 years they've been embedded in the campaigns on the promise they don't print anything or leak anything until after the election, so it's published now, on all 3 campaigns (including Hillary). They call it the rough draft of history.

One example is the race speech in March 2008. Per Newsweek, the campaign folk were against it, but Obama said "this is what we are doing".

I've seen C-Span panels of the embedded reporters (who have some interesting things to say, for example, the reporter with the Obama campaign said that Obama's basketball game is stitched together. He is good, and he has worked on the elements needed to be good, but his brain is in charge of his game... it's an interesting observation - you should check it out on C-Span).

Bottom line, the Newsweek folk say there is no doubt Obama was in charge of his campaign.

While I wish to take nothing away from the victory, it wasn't exactly the same hurdle Clinton overcame or Bush for that matter.

You're joking right? An African American man with 2 years in the Senate (4 now) beat the Clinton machine & John McCain (X term Senator & Vietnam war hero). Bill ran against a 12 year incumbent party (not 8).

but the guy is predisposed to pushing the Democrat agenda and the idea that he will act against the partys' wishes seems unlikely to me.

[Sarcasm removed by staff]

The Democratic Party will do what Obama wants, because Obama has done something they were unable to do before, WIN.


Obama already moved the party HQ to Chicago.
Obama keeps his own money.
Obama is the single biggest source of fundraising for the Democratic Party. In September joint appearances with Obama raised the DNC $49 million.
Obama is responsible for the biggest influx of new members the Democrats have seen in a generation.
Pelosi has already announced that the USA is a country best governed from the middle.

[STAFF EDIT. You said it once. No need to repeat it for effect]

The DNC belongs to Obama, not the other way around. Obama will manage expectations so they end up thinking he just did what they wanted. That is his genius.

Obama has not disbanded his grassroots army. They were run through BarackObama.com not the DNC site. What is that mass of people there for - if not to give him ballast / buffer against "outside" pressures ? Obama (I think) might actually believe the party system is not good for the country. (Look at his absurd stance on Lieberman!). His Harvard Law advisor said that when he advised Obama & Michelle at Harvard, he thought they were young Republicans.

They need Liebermann, but I suspect they'll keep him on a short leash.

IMHO that's all karp. If they can't get rid of him now, with his public, national, disgraceful behavior, then little junk during the Senate session will not be sufficient to down him.

Mind you, I am disgusted with how he behaved, especially considering that he was a Democratic VP nominee. But they need him.

No. Lieberman needs the Dems to have any Senate status. Otherwise he is a lone independent Senator, a traitor without a home, not particularly liked by the GOP Christian Right he shares NO values with except Iraq. They would never let him in their caucus, or if they did, he would sit there going "I'm in Hell".

I had previously thought that healthcare would come later since the economy is such a mess. But I've just realized that healthcare will get dealt with early on.

Aside from Kennedy being on a time limit, which is a good insight, and the fact that Kennedy in charge prevents 2009 Health Care Reform being 1992 redux, apparently the big three automakers are in favor of government health care.

In North America, there is the NA Auto Pact, so US cars are made in Canada, and there is no Canadian auto industry. Also there are no US/Canada tariffs on the parts/cars. So the big Three have had the opportunity to price their operations in both systems and will support health care by the government as CHEAPER FOR BUSINESS.

Did you know the insurance companies have jacked up health care costs for companies 100% over the last 10 years ?

If Lieberman votes for health care reform, I might forgive him.

Disturbing news coming from the Obama transition...

Obama transition tangled in ties to lobbying (www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27728496)

Just last year, Obama declared that "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

And this year, he viciously attacked John McCain for sucking up to lobbyists (www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/20/america/Obama.php).

"So when John McCain says that lobbyists 'won't even get past the front gate' at his White House, my question is, 'Who's going to stop them?", said Obama.

Apparently not Obama.

Obama lied, lobbyists will thrive. :td:

And on a side note from that, I was reading The Guardian today... Front page.. said that Clinton will accept Secretary of State job, but that McCain has not been offered anything other than a conversation with Obama.

I think the lobbyists situation needs watching...

But I wouldn't give a lot on the Guardian's headline. Tat headline muist have been printed almost 24 hours ago - and as far as I can tell it hasn't been picked up elsewhere. Why would the Guardian have insider information which others don't?

Source of accusing him of fraud? Sounds like you're saying he's a criminal.

There are many, myself included, who believe that something smells bad at Fannie and Freddie, especially when we take into consideration that the failures at Fannie and Freddie precipitated the collapse of the credit industry and nonexistent regulation of Fannie and Freddie continued unabated despite multiple massive accounting irregularities and fraudulent financial reports by those companies. That smell seems to be originating from the direction of Congress. Lobbyists for Fannie and Freddie repeatedly lobbied Congress to keep OFHEO from looking to closely at Fannie and Freddie's activities and they handed out cash to members of Congress who stood up for them (Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama were the largest recipients of that cash - not to mention the members of Congress who received sweetheart loans from lenders like CountryWide).

A few of those lobbyists have found their way onto Obama's transition team - including those I mentioned and others. Did any of them commit crimes? I guess that depends on whether you consider knowing that your organization had misstated it's financial position and you lobbied Congress to keep regulators away from reviewing those financial statements to be a crime. I know I wouldn't hire such a person or allow them to work in a position of trust in my organization.

lead by failure at Fannie and Freddie, in lieu of the repeated accounting irregularities exposed at Fannie and Freddie and the cash that exchanged hands between Fannie and Freddie and Congress

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/obama-adviser-lobbied-to-protect-fannie/

If I may interrupt the Obama/Fannie/Lobby bash, the tap for Attorney General has been made public. It is Eric Holder
http://www.newsweek.com/media/42/081118_EricHolder_dl-dynamiclead.jpg Posted Tuesday, November 18, 2008 1:57 PM
Obama's Attorney General
Michael Isikoff

President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition.

Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal “vetting” review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted, the source said. The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and State departments.

Holder, 57, has been on Obama’s “short list” for attorney general from the outset. A partner at the D.C. law firm of Covington & Burling, Holder served as co-chief (along with Caroline Kennedy) of Obama’s vice-presidential selection process. He also actively campaigned for Obama throughout the year and grew personally close to the president-elect. Holder has not returned a call seeking comment; a spokeswoman for the Obama transition team told Newsweek in an e-mail early Tuesday afternoon that no decision has been made.

The sources said the Obama transition team is still debating over who should serve under Holder in the key post of deputy attorney general. One top candidate, favored by Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and other former Clinton White House officials, is Elena Kagan, dean of the Harvard Law School and a former lawyer in the White House counsel’s office under Clinton. Another top candidate, favored by other Obama advisors, is David Ogden, a former chief of staff to Attorney General Janet Reno, who is currently heading Obama’s Justice Department transition team. Kagan brings legal policy credentials; Ogden has more experience in the Justice Department trenches.

The only hesitancy about Holder’s selection was that he himself had reservations about going through a confirmation process that was likely to revive questions about his role in signing off on the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Although there is no evidence that Holder actively pushed the pardon, he was criticized for not raising with the White House the strong objections that some Justice Department lawyers and federal prosecutors in New York had to pardoning somebody who had fled the country. But after reviewing the evidence in the case, and checking with staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Obama aides and Holder both decided the issue was highly unlikely to prove an obstacle to his confirmation, one of the sources said--especially given the Democrats’ more sizable post-election majority in the Senate.

A New York City native who graduated from Columbia University and Columbia Law School, Holder spent years as a federal prosecutor—a job in which he earned a reputation as tough and aggressive foe of public corruption. After serving in the pubic integrity section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later a District of Columbia Superior Court judge, Holder was named by President Clinton as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. He became deputy attorney general in 1997 under Janet Reno and was viewed as a centrist on most law enforcement issues, though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department.

This story was updated Tuesday afternoon.

Advertisement


http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/poweringup/archive/2008/11/18/obama-s-attorney-general.aspx

I think the lobbyists situation needs watching...

But I wouldn't give a lot on the Guardian's headline. Tat headline muist have been printed almost 24 hours ago - and as far as I can tell it hasn't been picked up elsewhere. Why would the Guardian have insider information which others don't?


CNN's got it, too: Campbell Brown commentary (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/campbell.brown.lobbyists/index.html)

[staff edit]

Well, we shall see.

Those very high profile noises against lobbyists are clearly on record - and we'll see how much care they'll take NOT to be taken up on it.

But then - asking from ignorance: how many people (the sort of people you'd want in an administration team) haven't been lobbyists at some stage? Perhaps my imprssion is wrong, but it seems one of the ways into a Washington career.

If my suspicion is correct, then those promises were perhaps rash. But we'll have to see how things will be handled.

The ethics code doesn't rule out former lobbyists, but puts a time limit on it (currently, and a year back, or something to that effect). That's at least a start. I guess if you rule out everyone who is 'tainted' by lobbying sometime in their lives, it might be hard to find anyone!

But obviously - as I said, this one will need watching.

You're trying to sell the meme that Obama is an empty suit, and it just isn't true. You were sold a false bill of goods.

First, once again, what is a meme? Second, I'm not selling anything and third, I am speaking from my own perspective and haven't been sold anything. Anyone who is on these threads often should realize by now that I come to my own conclusions based on my own perceptions. This "buying" and "selling" stuff is just plain way off.


Per the Newsweek embedded reporting, Obama was in charge of his campaign. You really should read that. For 25 years they've been embedded in the campaigns on the promise they don't print anything or leak anything until after the election, so it's published now, on all 3 campaigns (including Hillary). They call it the rough draft of history.

One example is the race speech in March 2008. Per Newsweek, the campaign folk were against it, but Obama said "this is what we are doing".


McCain had the Wright issue that was even bigger control, but he didn't run the campaign either. This idea that making a set of decisions as the candidate is equivilent to actually running the thing is inaccurate. The administrative work, details, delagation and assignment was all done by the managers of the campaigns, as usual. Of course as that is why they are hired, it isn't that unexpected is it?


I've seen C-Span panels of the embedded reporters (who have some interesting things to say, for example, the reporter with the Obama campaign said that Obama's basketball game is stitched together. He is good, and he has worked on the elements needed to be good, but his brain is in charge of his game... it's an interesting observation - you should check it out on C-Span).

Bottom line, the Newsweek folk say there is no doubt Obama was in charge of his campaign.

So they are saying he planned all the strategy, even most of it? He did the screening and decision-making and vetting? I doubt they would say that, or could say that. That he had final say is not the point, he is the candidate, he, not unlike any other, has final say on large issues, but the staffing, ground work and administration was not being run by Obama.



You're joking right? An African American man with 2 years in the Senate (4 now) beat the Clinton machine & John McCain (X term Senator & Vietnam war hero). Bill ran against a 12 year incumbent party (not 8).

Bill ran against an incumbent that was still well liked and respected during a relative time of prosperity. So, no, I am not joking at all. As for the Clinton machine, that is what backfired, she was indeed part of the machine, a very unpopular and not well liked machine. As for the general election, it wasn't ever supposed to be close this cycle. The odds weren't as long and the deck wasn't as stacked as so many seem to think.

Look at the success of the "change" mantra. It was the new, unknown guy talking change versus the same people we've been seeing for years and who had very low approval among the people. if posible, be objective about the climate and circumstances here and it is very evident that I am seriously not "joking".


The Democratic Party will do what Obama wants, because Obama has done something they were unable to do before, WIN.


Obama already moved the party HQ to Chicago.
Obama keeps his own money.
Obama is the single biggest source of fundraising for the Democratic Party. In September joint appearances with Obama raised the DNC $49 million.
Obama is responsible for the biggest influx of new members the Democrats have seen in a generation.
Pelosi has already announced that the USA is a country best governed from the middle.



The DNC belongs to Obama, not the other way around. Obama will manage expectations so they end up thinking he just did what they wanted. That is his genius.

What in any of that is contrary to what I said in the quoted post? He is going to push the Democrat agenda, not govern from the middle and walk the party line, if his voting record is any indication. I didn't say he would bow to the party, on the contrary, he won't need to. His record reads like a party manifesto for the Democrats, so I believe the point of my comments has either been missed or in some way revised. Either way, my point is simply that the guy isn't a moderate or centrist in his record.

Although I will grant that he has an incredible ability to do very little and get a lot of credit for it. In that, you are quite correct, he is a genius.



Obama has not disbanded his grassroots army. They were run through BarackObama.com not the DNC site. What is that mass of people there for - if not to give him ballast / buffer against "outside" pressures ? Obama (I think) might actually believe the party system is not good for the country. (Look at his absurd stance on Lieberman!). His Harvard Law advisor said that when he advised Obama & Michelle at Harvard, he thought they were young Republicans.

That flies directly in the face of the recorded stances he has taken as an elected official. Maybe he will change in this office, but the voting thus far hasn't indicated that is very likely, no matter how much Kool-aid folks have been drinking.

So they are saying he planned all the strategy, even most of it? He did the screening and decision-making and vetting? I doubt they would say that, or could say that. That he had final say is not the point, he is the candidate, he, not unlike any other, has final say on large issues, but the staffing, ground work and administration was not being run by Obama.

I'm just sort of shaking my head here...are you saying that candidates should be doing ALL the work? They should do the screening, communications, vetting, as well as calling the main decisions shots or you consider them an empty suit????

NO CANDIDATE can run a campaign all his own. But the ideas that were carried out by Barack's campaign staff and millions of volunteers have the mark of his decisions, strategies and campaign shots called. You seem to be setting up unrealistic perimeters for anyone to be considered to be "running their own campaign". I think that's rather unfair.

There's a lot of chatter here about a dozen lobbyists securing positions on the transition team. I want to point one fact: there are 470 people working on the transition. I doubt seriously that twelve lobbyists out of 470 staffers makes much of a scandal.

I am curious, who actually believes the campaign was run by Obama? I keep hearing that the campaign was run by him, but that is simply not true. He was the candidate and no doubt had influence, but the ground strategy, key political strategy and personnel were handled by the campaign manager, not the candidate.

Again, not true, Lupe. David Axelrod (or "Ax" as we affectionately refer to him) was Barack's chief political strategist. David Plouffe was campaign manager and handled day-to-day operations. Both answered directly to the President Elect. Any number of people had a voice in campaign decisions, but those decisions were Barack's to make. He listens to opposing points of view - encourages them even, as I discovered myself when I remained silent during an Ohio strategy meeting - but in the end, it was he who charted the path. The very fact that he put together such a talented and cohesive team says a lot and every bit of it is positive.

I hope I am wrong, but the guy is predisposed to pushing the Democrat agenda and the idea that he will act against the partys' wishes seems unlikely to me.

I'm going to quote Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican who is retiring at the end of his term, and who is also not particularly happy with his Party's self-destructive actions:

"Eighty-seven percent of the American people said America is going in the wrong direction. You don't need to know another number about anything [...] The American people don't like what is going on. They want us to start doing what leaders are expected to do, address the problems, find some consensus to governing. Get along. There will be disagreements, sure, but in the end we can't hold ourselves captives to this raw, partisan, political paralysis."

87% of this year's electorate don't like where the Republican Party has taken us. Chew on that one a bit.

And on a side note from that, I was reading The Guardian today... Front page.. said that Clinton will accept Secretary of State job, but that McCain has not been offered anything other than a conversation with Obama.

I saw a Yahoo Headline that Clinton may decline SOS job, that "she is torn". My mother & I agree that if she doesn't pass the vetting, that she will say she doesn't want it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081118/pl_politico/15738;_ylt=Atez4tqfH.c4gvKongE4wwIb.3QA I've seen enough endorsements for her from Obama loyalists to know that she is Obama's pick.

Chris Matthews is against HRC for SOS. If she does go to SOS - who would be appointed Senator from NY ?

Eric Holder is said to be accepting the AG post. I think he's qualified. He was Deputy AG under Clinton. He did the VP vetting (a good job !) and is discreet & professional.

I think everyone in Washington has ties to Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (including Rick Davis, McCain campaign) so although it's a Republican red flag, it doesn't do much for me.

Senator Chuck Hagel, a Republican.

I think Hagel is a lock for Defense. Speculation is on Colin Powell for education.

I have to say, I still feel uneasy about Hillary Clinton in that position.

I know, as a leftish-liberal European woman I should absolutely love the idea, but I don't. I dunno... I am sure she's kept up with events and so forth - but still, I'd like Obama's foreign policy team (that part of the Administration that concerns me mostl opbviously) to be fairly fresh faces. The world has changed so much since 2000 - and somehow I think that of all areas this is probably the one where falling back on Clinton administration 'veterans' doesn't actually offer that much benefit.

Of course, Hillary Clinton has the name recognition and all - and that counts for something. But I'd like to see a fresh face. I don't know whom - but I'd like Obama to surprise me.

This is probably not a very qualified opinion, but hey, gut feeling is all I have on this.




Any opinions on Eric Holder as attorney-general?

BBC report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7736639.stm)

Others have said that the Obama brand might open doors but the Clinton brand won't.

I think she is reassuring to Israel. Does that make sense ?

Others have said that the Obama brand might open doors but the Clinton brand won't.

I think she is reassuring to Israel. Does that make sense ?


Yes. But surely, she's not the only qualified person in the US who is.

I sort of liked the Clinton administration - but I can't say that their foreign policy was exactly a trail of glory. OK, I am particularly unhappy about the record of Madeline Albright (I am from Central Europe - and I can say that in the late nineties we did NOT need an US Secretary of State whose view of that region was developed back in the 1950's, IMHO she just didn't 'get' the change fast enough - even if having someone who was literally at home in the region seemed like a good idea to begin with). Abyway, I think that quite generally, if change is needed in ANY area it's foreign policy, because the world has changed so much.

Even Israel has changed, with Kadima as a new political force, the complete mess the Palestinians have got themselves into, and Obama's noises about talking to Syria.

I just don't want anything like 1990's policies, and I am afraid Hillary Clinton is quite closely connected to those - even IF she, as a very intelligent woman who's been in the thick of things in the last years, is obviously up to date on the facts.



And I think it's true - a new face, connected with Obama and what his brand currently stands for, and NOT linked to the 1990's, would probably find it easier to cash in on the current worldwide wave of Obamania. Whether one agrees with worldwide Obamania or not - it can only be a bonus for the US in the next few months - if it is used well, that is.


Anyway. All just my personal opinion ...

If you'd asked me six months ago, I would have said John Kerry was a lock for State. He came out early for Barack and stayed 100% in his corner throughout the campaign. He was a very effective surrogate early on. Then Hillary made good on her vow to campaign for Barack if he won the nomination and, boy, did she!

I dunno how it will turn out. I do know Chicago has said there will be no announcements for cabinet positions before Thanksgiving.

I don't think that loyalty to Obama should be the first criterion - I guess that's how it will pan out, realistically (and it's a campaigner's legitimate point of view, of course), but I for one don't really see why your argument of how Hillary Clinton turned to support Obama is an argument to explain why she would be an effective Secretary of State. I know that there are more effective arguments, but well, I am just not enthusiastic.

Of course you need someone loyal - but again, that leaves a pretty big choice - lots of people are obviously loyal to Obama. Not sure whether I'd like Kerry, either - and again, the fact that he supported Obama early just shouldn't be a prime consideration. He didn't really seem to have any very inspiring ideas about foreign policy four years ago - I followed that election just as avidly as this one, and I do remember being highly unimpressed on that count.

I'd just like someone who stands for the future, and a different approach. Yes, Obama himself can stand for that - but still, appearances count. And using someone obviously connected with the past (less inglorious than Bush's foreign policy, but no longer up to date) just doesn't sound like a wise move.


LOL.... why am I even saying all this.... I expect that Hillary CLinton be announced in a few days, and I'll have to say: 'well, let's see how it pans out'. ;)

But, see, that's just it. Kerry did have sound ideas about foreign policy. He just couldn't make himself heard over the right-wing's noise machine (http://www.amazon.com/Republican-Noise-Machine-Right-Wing-Democracy/dp/1400048753) and the Swift Boat vets.

hmmmm... it's not that simple. The noise of swift boat ads was far less this side of the Pond.

I mean, you are the insider here, so I expect Kerry or Clinton to get it. But it makes me sad that people don't even to talk about anyone else - I dunno, more... exciting and fresh - , and that the main arguments seem to be about loyalty - as in 'who is the most prominent person who was acceptably loyal to Barack early enough'.

He wanted out of Iraq. He wanted a more reasonable diplomatic approach with Israel. He warned about the likely burst of the housing bubble and its effects. One of the economists he spoke of when discussing that bubble, Paul Krugman, won the Nobel this year despite all the naysaying on the right.

We should get back to Obama, methinks.

Fine by me. We can't discuss the Secretary of State anyways before he/she is finally announced.

I think I would personally be more comfortable with Kerry or Richardson in the SOS position. Hillary can be a powerful player, and I wouldn't mind seeing her in the administration somewhere, but I don't particularly like her in that spot for a number of reasons. I don't always get what I want, though :p

Now seems like as good a time as any to advertise the DoIMC's newest game show:

The DoIMC Cabinet Contest (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=118649)!

Prizes void where prohibited by law or lanifiel.

I think I would personally be more comfortable with Kerry or Richardson in the SOS position. Hillary can be a powerful player, and I wouldn't mind seeing her in the administration somewhere, but I don't particularly like her in that spot for a number of reasons. I don't always get what I want, though :p


Among the three, I like Richardson best, I suppose. Yes, he also worked for Clinton - but I really appreciate his UN work and the hostage/prisoner negotiations he carried out with some extremely diffcult countries. And his experience with energy could be be crucial in international politics in the next few years.

There's a lot of chatter here about a dozen lobbyists securing positions on the transition team. I want to point one fact: there are 470 people working on the transition. I doubt seriously that twelve lobbyists out of 470 staffers makes much of a scandal.

Obama said that "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

So how far do we bend the truth?

1? 12? 50? 100?

While lobbyists are quite disdained, they are also an important part of the process. Sure, some of them aren't good. They do things they aren't supposed to do, such as bribe elected officials, or not tell their clients that they are working on both sides of an issue. But by and large, they aren't the evil heartless people they are made out to be. They tend to be well informed about the issues they work on, and they know who the key players are and possibly have a good relationship with them (talk to lobbyists, they'll tell you it is all about relationships). Lots of people in politics or government work as lobbyists at some point, whether when they are just starting out (such as a friend of mine, it was the best job she could find when we finished grad school) or after they retire, as many agency heads and the like are known to do. This isn't something people are tainted by for their entire lives just because they did it at some point. If they are working for him, then one would assume they won't be working as lobbyists at the same time. They will be working on his behalf and following through with his agenda or they won't be working for him long.

Even if he goes against every single thing he said in his campaign, it's too late now to go back. Technically, they aren't as of yet working in the White House, and perhaps he has realized that it is more important to hire the best person for the job instead of someone who might be "tainted" by the stigma of a previous job or the work or previous work of a relative (which is just absolutely ridiculous in my opinion). If everything is this closely scrutinized, then I'm sure those opposed to his presidency will find a lot to take issue with and it will feel (to you) like a very long 4-8 years.

Plimpy speaks true- In general, lobbyist can be a wonderful source of information to politicians and background on certain industries. They can be a voice for grassroots groups who sometimes find a hard time being heard in the halls of representatives.

She is also right that many people in politics and the legal areas have worked as lobbyists at sometime. Not all lobbyist are bad. There are some that have really grafted and dealed into spoiling the whole bunch.

So, realistically, someone who had been a lobbyist at some point may not be a bad candidate for other subjects. They are not the "unclean", you know--but realistic requirements and safeguards should be put into effect to guard against bad-lobby-apples, as well and also that it's far enough in the past and the ties severed so that there is no longer a conflict of interest.

I agree with ethical reform and restrictions, but one must also be a bit realistic as well.

Prizes void where prohibited by law or lanifiel.

Aren't law and lanifiel one and the same?
:lol::lol::lol:

Obama said that "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

So how far do we bend the truth?

1? 12? 50? 100?

Um, they don't work in the White House, do they? They're members of his transition team. He has set firm rules (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15515.html) for any former lobbyist who does work on his White House transition team.

I suddenly saw why Obama might go with Hillary. How can the U.S. presume to broker peace in the middle east, if two members of the same party cannot work together ?

On the Lieberman forgiveness ... I wonder at the Dem's working so hard to get to 60, the filibuster proof majority. Makes me think there is some MAJOR legislation coming.

On the Lieberman forgiveness ... I wonder at the Dem's working so hard to get to 60, the filibuster proof majority. Makes me think there is some MAJOR legislation coming.

The biggest and best change an Obama presidency can offer is a government that actually works, a government that crafts and enacts legislation needed to address the problems we face. That magic number of 60 means filibusters can't be used for partisan political gain; yet it also imparts a measure of responsibility and accountability for the Democratic majority to do it right, if they manage a filibuster-proof majority. If they screw it up like the GOP did from 1997 through 2006, they'll be out of office before they can blink twice.

This should be exquisitely effective with the ground troops standing behind the president.

If they screw it up like the GOP did from 1997 through 2006, they'll be out of office before they can blink twice.

Or at least, after 9 years :lol:

Campbell Brown (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/campbell.brown.lobbyists/index.html) cuts through the spin on lobbyists working for the Obama transition.

I like her. She was great on The Daily Show a couple of weeks back, and she was great telling Republican strategists blaming their defeat on Palin where they could get off. She knows how to tell it like it is.

purp: I don't think a 60-seat majority is necessary. At a minimum, there are two Republicans from Maine who look reasonable based on votesmart.org. And the Democrats don't always vote party line either, I think.

Any opinions on Eric Holder as attorney-general?
If the rumour is correct, I find it very reassuring. He's been an ardent opponent of torture and other misuses of power.

Washington, D.C. -- Eric H. Holder Jr., Deputy Attorney General during the Clinton administration, asserted in a speech to the American Constitution Society (ACS) that the United States must reverse “the disastrous course” set by the Bush administration in the struggle against terrorism by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, declaring without qualification that the U.S. does not torture people, ending the practice of transferring individuals involuntarily to countries that engage in torture and ceasing warrantless domestic surveillance.

“Our needlessly abusive and unlawful practices in the ‘War on Terror' have diminished our standing in the world community and made us less, rather than more, safe,” Holder told a packed room at the ACS 2008 Convention on Friday evening. “For the sake of our safety and security, and because it is the right thing to do, the next president must move immediately to reclaim America's standing in the world as a nation that cherishes and protects individual freedom and basic human rights.”

Holder, who co-chair[ed] Senator Barack Obama's vice presidential search committee, was nominated by President Ronald Reagan as a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, on which he sat for five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton nominated him to become the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, the first African-American to serve in that position. He was appointed Deputy Attorney General in 1997.
Incidentally, he would be the country's first black Attorney General.

I think this one is a safe bet, Eowyn, but we'll see.

BTW, I like Campbell Brown too.

Howard Dean wants HHS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/dean-basks-in-election-re_n_144793.html



"I'm interested in doing something policy oriented," he says, downplaying another political post. "But please do not put me down as a candidate for one agency or another. Because it is all gossip and it doesn't help at all... That stuff is very harmful to anyone who is looking to get into the administration... The best way you don't get a job is to campaign for it. It's just the way it works. It is a very complicated, subtle way of doing it, which is why I don't talk about it... So don't make more of me saying I'm interested in doing policy because it is going to hurt my chances."

As evidence, he cites a Politico article that said he was out of the running for HHS -- a piece that Dean said, laughingly, "was pulled out of thin air" and/or had to be planted by enemies.

See ?

HRC irritating the Senate with requests for Committee Chairmanship beyond her seniority.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081119/ap_on_go_co/clinton_s_senate;_ylt=AgY9bTrOjLuwrIzyW4OQfFH2_sEF

For your viewing pleasure there's this look at the difficulties the transition team is having in finding any programs worth keeping from the Bush Administration. Enjoy!

lkf6P5WjxFw

Campbell Brown (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/17/campbell.brown.lobbyists/index.html) cuts through the spin on lobbyists working for the Obama transition.

Yes, I agree...she's cut through the Obama spin.

"Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names -- a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists."

Pants on fire...



I agree with ethical reform and restrictions, but one must also be a bit realistic as well.

Then Obama shouldn't make promises he can't keep. What other promises has he made that, either through his inexperience or other unknown motivations, he intends to go back on?

As Senator McCain warned, Obama will say anything to win an election.

I see Obama attempting to uphold the promise, but have noticed what, in my opinion, is the "It's not enough" approach on many issues from those who were not Obama supporters in which Obama could never realisitically reach expectations or benchmarks laid down.

I see Obama attempting to uphold the promise, but have noticed what, in my opinion, is the "It's not enough" approach on many issues from those who were not Obama supporters in which Obama could never realisitically reach expectations or benchmarks laid down.

He's the one who laid down the benchmarks. He's the one who said no lobbyists and then proceeded to hire a bunch of lobbyists. What he should have said was I will not hire lobbyists from firms, industries, or organizations I find unacceptable. Lobbyists from firms, companies, and industries I agree with are OK.

That would have been an honest promise and one which is far more reflective of the reality of qualified, informed people in Washington than the say no to lobbyists promise he made during the campaign.

I see Obama attempting to uphold the promise, but have noticed what, in my opinion, is the "It's not enough" approach on many issues from those who were not Obama supporters in which Obama could never realisitically reach expectations or benchmarks laid down.

I think so, too. I don't expect to see his disdain for lobbyists to go the way of "compassionate conservative" eight years ago, though. And I still believe his presidency will oversee the dismantling of DeLay's K-Street Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project) once and for all.

The K Street Project is an effort by the Republican Party (GOP) to pressure Washington lobbying firms to hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials. It was launched in 1995 by Republican strategist Grover Norquist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist) and then-House majority whip Tom DeLay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay). It has been criticized as being part of a "coziness" between the GOP and large corporations which has allegedly allowed business to rewrite government regulations affecting their own industries in some cases (see Dick Cheney energy task force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_task_force)).

Shortly after the 1994 elections which gave a majority of seats to Republican candidates, DeLay called prominent Washington lobbyists into his office. He had pulled the public records of political contributions that they made to Democrats and Republicans. According to Texans for Public Justice, "he reminded them that Republicans were in charge and their political giving had better reflect that—or else. The "or else" was a threat to cut off access to the Republican House leadership."[1]

The project is named for K Street in Washington, D.C., where the largest lobbying firms have their headquarters. Lobbyists are, in some circles, referred to as the "fourth branch of government," as some have great influence in U.S. national politics due to their monetary resources and the "revolving-door" practice of hiring former government officials. It is widely believed to be common practice for politicians to solicit money from lobbying firms in exchange for better access to officials, especially members of the United States Congress, and to buy favoritism in policies.

Candidates seeking to succeed DeLay as majority leader sought to distance themselves from the project, and as of January 15, 2006, all three announced candidates had vowed to dismantle it and overhaul the lobbying process. The Senate's Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_Transparency_and_Accountability_Act), passed March 29, 2006, bans senators from using their influence on the hiring practices of lobbyists "on the basis of partisan political affiliation".

All it needs is a glance at the 183 lobbyists McCain employed in his run for the presidency to see just how weak that Act actually is.

All it needs is a glance at the 183 lobbyists McCain employed in his run for the presidency to see just how weak that Act actually is.

Purp, you're trying to spin this away from Obama. You worked on his campaign. How does he explain away his promise not to hire lobbyists into the White House when he's doing exactly that right now?

That's the thing, none "are" lobbyist, *some* are ex-lobbyist. --if you want those who have never been lobbyist, you effectively narrow the field of experienced people with vast knowlege on some subjects. So, I guess the question is, what "is" a realistic boundry for ex-lobbyist who would like to work in an administration?

Do you have an acceptable boundry recommendation? I think what Purp was pointing out is you didn't have a great deal of problem with it when the lobbyist (current and ex) were working for your chosen candidate and it appears to be a bit of a double standard.

Purp, you're trying to spin this away from Obama. You worked on his campaign. How does he explain away his promise not to hire lobbyists into the White House when he's doing exactly that right now?

I can only direct you to what he has approved: Obama Transition announces rules for lobbyists in Transition (http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/obama_transition_announces_rules_for_lobbyists_in_ transition/).

Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.


Federal lobbyists are prohibited from any lobbying during their work with the transition.


If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.


If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration for 12 months on matters on which they worked.


A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

I am not authorized to speak for the President Elect on this topic. Here are some remarks from those who are:

"The ethical guidelines released today for the Obama transition are tough and unequivocal. They will prevent some honorable people with rich experience from serving in the transition. That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect. He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest. This is a very constructive step in that direction."

"Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign."

Source: Obama considering Daschle for Cabinet
By KEVIN FREKING – 33 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — President-elect Barack Obama is seriously considering selecting former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as his secretary of Health and Human Services, a person close to the deliberations said Wednesday.

This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions between Obama and Daschle are private, said the background of the South Dakota Democrat is being reviewed, part of a process called "vetting" in Washington-speak.

Daschle, a close adviser to Obama throughout the Illinois senator's White House campaign, recently wrote a book on his proposals to improve health care, and he is working with former Senate leaders on recommendations to improve the system.

Separately, Obama's transition team announced that Daschle will oversee Obama's health policy working group assigned to develop proposals and plans for action for the next administration.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jnRK6ZYrsR2I9f2c1cSqskbW0AKAD94I50I00

Hmmmm I have no idea where I should put this - but it seems relevant to the topics discussed in here.

Apologies if this is the wrong thread.

Al Qaeda comments on Obama's election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7737710.stm)

Interesting, this one.
Nasty on a sort of school bully level - and at the same time it seems to be using language coined by the Black Power movement (accusing people of African descent for 'collaborating' with the white man as if they were slaves, etc) .... bizarre, really.

As the BBC says, I think they really have a difficult argument there (which is obviously good!) - and to me this statement smacks of desperation.

They must know how enthusiastic many people in Muslim countries were about Obama's election.....

It just goes to show, though, that quick action will be required. If this does indeed suggest that Al Qaeda is worried (and I think it does), then a failure to do *something* in the Middle East soon might well lose an advantage. Just my guess....




This is obviously really serious - but what makes me smile is that we have Al Qaeda accusing Obama of being a Christian (when he shouldn't be). Not sure how that will play back in the US. What a weird situation this is. In any case, better than getting an Al Qaeda 'endorsement' as Kerry did.
And seeing Al Qaeda aparently desperate is satisfying. Preaching hatred of the Evil Empire of America just got quite a bit harder, I'd imagine. A US president with muslim first names must be quite astonishing to many people who have always been led to believe that the US is the strange, hostile Other.

----------> Breaking News

Tom Daschle accepts Health & Human Services
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/tom-daschle-health-and-hu_n_144897.html

There are so many qualified people for these jobs (except Treasury, I can't think of anyone).

What a weird situation this is. In any case, better than getting an Al Qaeda 'endorsement' as Kerry did.
And seeing Al Qaeda aparently desperate is satisfying. Preaching hatred of the Evil Empire of America just got quite a bit harder, I'd imagine. A US president with muslim first names must be quite astonishing to many people who have always been led to believe that the US is the strange, hostile Other.

It's a very curious statement by Zawahiri...almost a dare to test Obama's backbone. The term "abeed al-beit" is a pretty nasty insult in the Arabic world.


Tom Daschle accepts Health & Human Services

Daschle made the mistake of crossing President Bush and was punished by the voters. He's a big liberal, and I see his wife has lobbyist ties.

Obama said that "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

So much for that promise...what's next?

:td:

According to MSNBC news Mrs. Daschle will be giving up her health lobby job for her husband and leaving that firm to free up any conflict of interest.

According to MSNBC news Mrs. Daschle will be giving up her health lobby job for her husband and leaving that firm to free up any conflict of interest.

Good. What about the rest?

You know, pensieve--your starting to sound a bit "witch-hunty". The fact is, this transition team has more stringent rules about lobbyist than any previous administration.

President-elect Obama has set a high bar for the Transition team: to execute the most efficient, organized, and transparent transfer of power in American history...."

"...we adopted the strictest ethics guidelines ever applied to any transition team. President-elect Obama pledged to change the way Washington works, and that begins with shifting influence away from special interests and restoring it to the everyday Americans who are passionate about fixing the problems facing our country...

You know, Obama is not the messiah, he's just a working politician.
(With better ideas, better discipline & greater skill).

Axelrod has accepted to be another Obama Senior Advisor (how many are there?)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/its-official-axelrod-join_n_145013.html

This administration does appear to want to keep lobbyist influence to a minimum, but Obama may have made a mistake by talking in absolutes. Though, to be fair to Obama, he's not in the White House yet - so by definition the lobbyists cannot be in his White House yet :p.

It's a revolving door. The political operatives (who work for election seasons, and then maybe get jobs if their guy wins) are kind of always looking for work. Elected officials who want to get off the running for election every 2 years thing, go to work for lobbying companies. Almost every interest group (AARP, Seniors, Taxpayer Reform, Oil Industry, Green Industries etc.) have some sort of lobbyist presence.

So there are experienced skilled people that go back and forth between campaigns & lobbying firms.

You can see lobbyists as a way that vast amounts of information get broken down into portions digestible by Representatives, and as people who assist in forming coalitions to get bills passed.

I just can't hear lectures about lobbyists from the campaign that really didn't care at all about them when they were working for their side. They definitely have their flaws, but if during the campaign you didn't care about the ones on your side, and now you say "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to see lobbying going on here"... well, it gets no traction with me.

Further, who cares? Obama is in for 4 years. I'm prepared to look at the larger picture (which has not yet formed) before I make a decision. We're not really in a daily news cycle anymore.

They must know how enthusiastic many people in Muslim countries were about Obama's election....

And seeing Al Qaeda aparently desperate is satisfying. Preaching hatred of the Evil Empire of America just got quite a bit harder, I'd imagine. A US president with muslim first names must be quite astonishing to many people who have always been led to believe that the US is the strange, hostile Other.

Indeed it does.

Al Qaida's communique just before the election clearly favored McCain - so obviously, in fact, that McCain tried to run from it. The last thing al Qaida needs is an American president who's viewed favorably by Muslim people.

If there is one thing I agree on, it is that Al Qaeda is the enemy. I take no direction, positive or negative from them.

I don't think there's an American anywhere who wouldn't agree with you.

Hopefully, no matter red or blue, we can all agree on that.

It's kind of like my five boys. Sometimes they tease and taunt each other, often time not all that nicely. But, when a mean kid at school bullied one of them, they all stood together. It was like, "Hey--I can tease my brother, but no one else better touch him!"

I think America is sometimes like that.

Looking at three more announced picks today (well, rumored picks is more accurate):
Daschle - health and human services
Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security; and
Penny Pritzker for Commerce

And some of the older picks, it looks like now Obama is brancing out from the Clinton-era picks. Something struck me, though - perhaps the high number of Clinton-era picks early was an artifact of two things. First, he was picking transition heads, and to evaluate a department I'd want people who've been there before to check things out. For Democrats, that really means you have to look at Clinton-era picks. Second, the people who served under Clinton probably have a shorter vetting process, since more is already known about them. So, their picks are likely to be made earlier, since there's less to find out. So that gives two ways in which the "Clintonistas" can be picked earlier than others. The "Chicago" picks also have shorter vetting, too, since Obama and his team already knew more about them. So it's people like Napolito who have a longer process, and I'd guess that more "outside" picks may come to light over the next few weeks as the vetting for people he didn't know as well goes through.

Also, I'm liking the rumors I see of Gates staying on, at least short-term, as Defense secretary. At the least if he stays 6 months to a year it would ensure a smoother handover to Obama's administration. I'd love for him and Petraeus to have big roles with Obama's administration since they're both clearly quite competant and they know what they're doing.

Napolitano for Homeland Security link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_obama_cabinet

And some of the older picks, it looks like now Obama is brancing out from the Clinton-era picks. Something struck me, though - perhaps the high number of Clinton-era picks early was an artifact of two things. First, he was picking transition heads, and to evaluate a department I'd want people who've been there before to check things out. For Democrats, that really means you have to look at Clinton-era picks. Second, the people who served under Clinton probably have a shorter vetting process, since more is already known about them. So, their picks are likely to be made earlier, since there's less to find out. So that gives two ways in which the "Clintonistas" can be picked earlier than others. The "Chicago" picks also have shorter vetting, too, since Obama and his team already knew more about them. So it's people like Napolito who have a longer process, and I'd guess that more "outside" picks may come to light over the next few weeks as the vetting for people he didn't know as well goes through.
That would be my take on the appointments as well. I think these are also people who are familiar names and therefore more likely to be picked up in the rumor mill.

I'm glad to finally hear more about possible appointments not currently in the Senate. I know Senators are well known nationally, so once again there is the rumor mill effect, and they tend to have areas of expertise and experience that would be useful in a cabinet position. But, he's not going to take all of the well known and influential Democratic Senators out of the Senate. While some of them would certainly not turn down a cabinet position given the opportunity, he'll need allies to help pass legislation and he wouldn't want to give up any Democratic seats in the Senate if he could help it. I guess it makes me feel like the things we hearing now are less speculation and more likely to be closer to what will happen.

I'd love for him and Petraeus to have big roles with Obama's administration since they're both clearly quite competant and they know what they're doing.

As Petraeus is on record of favouring negotiations with certain enemies of the US in Afghanistan (having successfully done so in Iraq) he would fit in with the mood of the new admin.

Good new picks, as far as I can tell - I know the names, but don't have a lot of background on all of them.

I agree on Gates and Petraeus - I think that would send signals in both areas.... with Gates in particular, he is already in the thick of it, and it might be good not to have a radical break right now, in the middle of the crisis, given the fact that he seems to be doing a good job, working on the issues, rather than following a political agenda (that's what it looks like from here anyway).

Keeping Petraeus on might help some people to feel a little less nervous about the administration's military activities in the Middle East.



Concerning Al Qaeda - of course no-one in the West will follow their crazy rantings. But it's important to know what they are saying, but plenty of people elsewhere might.

That's why it's worth analysing their statements with a cool head.

It's a very curious statement by Zawahiri...almost a dare to test Obama's backbone. The term "abeed al-beit" is a pretty nasty insult in the Arabic world.

And that's exactly the point, isn't it. The whole thing sounds a bit desperate, like the statement of a school bully.

They always had 'arguments' of some sort. Not arguments that people in the West accept, but arguments nonetheless. This time they seem to be reduced to insults.... and the cruder the insults the more intense the desperation, I'd guess.

Gates has a contract I think that doesn't expire for a year, and Petraeus just took office. Petraeus strikes me as someone much like Gen. Clark, super efficient.

During a time of war, to have an intact, unchanging military team during the time of transition, strikes me as a good idea.

----------> Breaking News

Tokyo & Seoul are down 7% so far. I have a sickening, free-fall, feeling.

I'm watching West Wing. Season 3 2001-2. We just had an episode on energy independence (the only 3% in the US & drilling in Anwar came up). There was another episode with Google & blogging. Charlie just got a DVD player with MP3. They have Ainsley the blond southern Republican, right wing radio. How old is this show ? My husband said "this show has a very contemporary feeling".

Ohhh, now they're talking about Putin. I don't know if it's because it's a Democratic White House in this series (ie Democratic priorities) or if it's because we haven't fixed anything. Or perhaps because Washington really is a cutting edge town.

I'm a little twisted, but I thought Al-Zawahiri's comments were perversely funny, in a rather dark, sad way. It was pathetically desperate. They fear that Obama might be able to make progress in that region.

There are a lot of Black Muslims in the U.S. Nothing like calling Obama a "house negro" to create a wedge there.

Penny Pritzker tapped for Commerce Secretary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/penny-pritzker-commerce-s_n_145097.html

Oh darn, already posted.

The Gates thing is good, because the GOP ramped up genuine fear on the right, and I think him continuing calms everyone down, and maintains military authority (no lame ducks there).

Similarly Al Qaeda need not worry, the face of US foreign policy might be Clinton not Obama (dumb joke).
Though the Cabinet is still an important organ of bureaucratic management, in recent years, the Cabinet has generally declined in relevance as a policy making body.

Starting with President Franklin Roosevelt, the trend has been for Presidents to act through the Executive Office of the President or the National Security Council rather than through the Cabinet. This has created a situation in which non-Cabinet officials such as the White House Chief of Staff, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Advisor are now as powerful as or more powerful than some Cabinet officials.

Traditionally, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General are the most important members of Cabinet, and form an inner circle. In recent years, the Secretary of Homeland Security has risen to a level of significance that is arguably closer to the "big four" than to the other cabinet offices.

During a meeting of the President's Cabinet, members are seated according to the order of precedence, with higher ranking officers sitting closer to the center of the table. Hence, the President and Vice President sit directly across from each other at the middle of the oval shaped table. Then, the Secretaries of State and Defense are seated directly to the right and left, respectively, of the President and the Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General sit to right and left, respectively, of the Vice President.

Transition Known

WH Chief of Staff --> Rahm Emmanuel
WH Senior Advisors --> Jarrett, Axelrod, the other guy from Senate office
Commerce --> Pritzker
Attorney General --> Holder
Health & Human Services --> Daschle
Homeland Security --> Napolitano
Defense --> Gates

Transition Speculation

Currently undeclared positions are:

National Security Advisor
Director of the Office of Management and Budget

Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education --> ?Colin Powell?
Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Director of the National Drug Control Policy
United States Trade Representative

Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System --> currently Ben Bernanke
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
Director of National Intelligence

You know, pensieve--your starting to sound a bit "witch-hunty". The fact is, this transition team has more stringent rules about lobbyist than any previous administration.

The fact is that Obama made a promise and he lied. I think chparadise's counsel above "Obama may have made a mistake by talking in absolutes" is right on. Too bad Obama and his supporters can't make the same admission.

I'm of the opinion that smart leaders know when to change their minds. It's only Bush who made a virtue out of being unreasonably inflexible.

It's not a lie to modify a position. A lie is a deliberate untruth. If what Obama stated was a sincerely held belief at the time it was not a lie. Chris said it was a mistake for Obama to speak in absolutes, and that's a far cry from claiming that Obama lied.

Frankly, I think it's our own naive mistake to take a simple political pronouncement and assume that there isn't a more complicated and nuanced implementation behind it. Real life isn't black and white. Nothing in government is. I'd much rather see my leaders trying to do the best based on current circumstances, regardless the issue, than tie themselves to an invalid position held in the past.

Now as for Lobbyists. Almost everyone in government ends up in some type of lobbying position at some point after they leave government. Obama has set up the most restrictive rules about those relationships. It's the best that can be hoped for. And for all we know that was what he meant when he made his flat statement about lobbyists. That's the nuance and reality behind a simple public pronouncement. No one running for office can get into that type of detailed wonky explanation without putting the audience to sleep.

They fear that Obama might be able to make progress in that region.

I think that nails it.

The fact is that Obama made a promise and he lied. I think chparadise's counsel above "Obama may have made a mistake by talking in absolutes" is right on. Too bad Obama and his supporters can't make the same admission.

You're talking some serious absolutes here, too, my friend. A few months ago, the absolutes were about the President Elect not admitting that the surge worked in Iraq. He did finally concede the point in an interview with Bill O'Reilly. And what difference did it make, really?

I like the rules he has set in place for lobbyists. At least those rules should eliminate the possibility of scenes like we saw during the campaign: McCain campaign manager Rick Davis receiving a $15,000 monthly retainer from Freddie and Fannie right up to the point of the government takeover; and Randy Scheueneman advising the president of Georgia for big bucks, advice that may have led to Georgia's rash aggression against Russia.

I'm comfortable that we won't see that kind of - stuff - in an Obama administration.

ETA:

Eric Holder is President Elect Obama's choice for Attorney General. The good news is that Holder is no Alberto Gonzales. The following videos are of his address on "The Rule of Law," given last June before the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Mk3tKaEvFZ4

nbAzDx_d0MI

6CKycFGJOUs

You're talking some serious absolutes here, too, my friend. A few months ago, the absolutes were about the President Elect not admitting that the surge worked in Iraq. He did finally concede the point in an interview with Bill O'Reilly. And what difference did it make, really?


What our leaders say matters. And we should hold them to it. There's usually nothing wrong with changing one's mind...but in this case he promised no lobbyists, lambasted McCain on this to score points, and is now doing what he said he wouldn't.

So Obama cashes in some credibility here, leaving voters to wonder what's next.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/pritzker_passes_on_commerce_po.html
Posted November 20, 2008 11:55 AM

by Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons

Chicago billionaire Penny Pritzker has told Barack Obama's team she does not want to serve as Commerce Secretary, said a senior Obama official.

"Penny Pritzker ultimately has decided she does not want to do the Commerce thing," the senior official said.

The official also said reports that Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will be Secretary of Homeland Security are premature.

"I expect Napolitano will end up in the cabinet. But whether she ends up where the speculation is (has her), I don't know," the official said.

Some of these names coming out seem to be premature. I think that maybe the MSMs are jumping on information too quickly and need to start presenting them as "possibilities" rather than absolute "picks".

What our leaders say matters.

What was the alternative ? McCain who was:

for then against immigration reform
for then against progressive taxes
for then against positive campaigning
for then against exceptions for the "health" of the mother
for then against leaving tax rates alone on upper echelons
for then against John Lewis
against then for then against George Bush
against then for the religious right (or "agents of intolerance")
against then for Chambliss
against then for SEC Chair Cox

the list goes on.

So Obama cashes in some credibility here, leaving voters to wonder what's next.

We're not on a one day news cycle here. I'm waiting for the bigger picture before I cast my next vote, and it's a 4 year game. Running around saying "the President is a liar" doesn't accomplish much. Democrats did it for the last 8 years.

Penny Pritzker NOT tapped for Commerce Secretary
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081120/pl_politico/15827

To be honest, her role in mortgage securitization was not a good omen.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/pritzker_passes_on_commerce_po.html
Posted November 20, 2008 11:55 AM

by Mike Dorning and Christi Parsons
The official also said reports that Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano will be Secretary of Homeland Security are premature.

"I expect Napolitano will end up in the cabinet. But whether she ends up where the speculation is (has her), I don't know," the official said.

Some of these names coming out seem to be premature. I think that maybe the MSMs are jumping on information too quickly and need to start presenting them as "possibilities" rather than absolute "picks".

I'm thinking this is good advice.

It seems they are getting down to the people they want in the cabinet, but not their assignment. I think the big one is Hillary. Once her role is decided, then Richardson will go somewhere, etc etc.

I'm a little twisted, but I thought Al-Zawahiri comments were perversely funny, in a rather dark, sad way. It was pathetically desperate. They fear that Obama might be able to make progress in that region.


Yes. Just my thought.





The Gates thing is good, because the GOP ramped up genuine fear on the right, and I think him continuing calms everyone down, and maintains military authority (no lame ducks there).

Transition Known

WH Chief of Staff --> Rahm Emmanuel
WH Senior Advisors --> Jarrett, Axelrod, the other guy from Senate office
[Commerce --> Pritzker --> no longer true]
Attorney General --> Holder
Health & Human Services --> Daschle
Homeland Security --> Napolitano
Defense --> Gates(my emphasis, Italics and correction)


Just wondering... can we be certain about Gates yet?

Nothing etched in stone yet about Gates - and, it seems, a few others being touted in the press lately. I'm beginning to look at some of these reporters as blindfolded kids at a party, all trying to whack the pińata. Everybody has a "source," but I have to wonder. The word from the top is: "Leak? You're Gone."

The National Security Network (http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1068) has a new story on how threatened al Qaida is by Obama as president.

Experts agree that the release of a new tape by Al Qaeda's second in command Ayman al-Zawahri indicates that Al Qaeda feels threatened and is on its heels after Obama's resounding victory. President-elect Obama's diverse background, along with his pledge to reverse many of the policies and approaches of the Bush administration on issues such as detentions at Guantanamo, torture and the war in Iraq has served to dramatically improve America's image, especially in the Muslim world.

Counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke explained, "Most of all, by returning to American values the world admires, Obama sets al Qaeda back enormously in the battle of ideas, the ideological struggle which determines whether al Qaeda will continue to have significant support in the Islamic world." Having thrived on the decline in America's world image, the impact of Obama's victory provides a direct challenge to Al Qaeda's negative depiction of the United States. Additionally, Obama's emphasis on shifting US attention from Iraq to Afghanistan represents a direct physical threat to Al Qaeda's leadership. America's improved global image and the new administration's focus on Afghanistan threatens Al Qaeda and has led to what experts see as a confused, racist, and off-kilter response reflective of an organization on the defensive.

The resurrection of the ideals that so many people across the globe admired makes me feel immensely proud. Americans living or traveling abroad will be able to hold their heads high, no longer apologizing for the United States the way they've had to do in recent years. For my globe-trotting brood, this is no small advantage. From a related CNN story (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/20/obama-poised-to-rebrand-america-experts-say/) I read today:

The United States' tarnished reputation has been fueled by a combination of factors, including opposition to U.S. policies like the invasion of Iraq and alleged torture and abuse of prisoners, the perception of hypocrisy, unilateralism, lack of contact with Americans and the perceived war on Islam, according to a congressional report released last summer.

I don't think any American could deny those charges are accurate.

Personally, I've never apologized for being American. [staff edit]


-Tibbetts

Tibbetts, aren't you just exaggerating a little? That's surely not simply about "apologizing for being American" - but don't you ever think that your country might be on the wrong track on anything at all? There's a difference between "apologizing for being American" (as you put it) and reconsidering a particular administration's actions carried out in the name of your country. It looks a little odd to me that anyone could think that any person or any country could never be wrong.

I am asking this in general, not with reference to anything particular.





I am assuming that this is safe news, since it's from Congress, not from behind the Obama transition team:

Congress chooses new head of energy committee (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7740340.stm)

I've always felt that Americans don't travel enough, or don't learn enough from travels abroad. Our reception abroad has gotten a lot worse than the "Yankee, Go HOME!" the hubby and I occasionally saw when we traveled abroad with our kids. Tibbetts, it's not apologizing for being an American, it's apologizing for the many spectacularly wrong things our government has done, particularly over the last eight years. That little CNN blurb I posted just above is accurate insofar as how our global neighbors see this country. It's not pretty.

There is undeniably a feeling, or a sense, of hope among our neighbors since the election.

To tie this back into the transition, is Obama advocating more foreign travel? :D

Well, I think we hope that we'll see him this side of the Pond now and then. ;)

To tie this back into the transition, is Obama advocating more foreign travel? :D

He has said he wants to make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba.

To tie this back into the transition, is Obama advocating more foreign travel? :D

He and I discussed this very subject at one point, but as that was a personal conversation, I'll keep it quiet.

One thing I know he's wanting is a rigorous and well-rounded education for American school kids. Most top-shelf private schools already have programs that allow students to travel - both during the school year with classmates, and during the summer through a variety of programs.

I'll just shut and let him work out the details. :relax:

He and I discussed this very subject at one point, but as that was a personal conversation, I'll keep it quiet.

One thing I know he's wanting is a rigorous and well-rounded education for American school kids. Most top-shelf private schools already have programs that allow students to travel - both during the school year with classmates, and during the summer through a variety of programs.

I'll just shut and let him work out the details. :relax:I think that's a wonderful idea, but, unfortunately, even with that, not too many people can afford for their kids to even take trips even through their schools. What we need is a more affordable way for students to be able to get some experience with other cultures. I never had the opportunities to do such stuff, and my parents surely couldn't afford to take out of country trips. At least with other places, like Europe, they have more of an opportunity to travel to other countries because of how close they are to them.

Some opportunities are already here, on our soil. America is growing ever more diverse. Perhaps we should celebrate diversity instead of condemning it.

Current A-G Mukasey collapsed during a speech today - on VIDEO !
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081121/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/mukasey_collapses;_ylt=Ai83Rctl72naaExcIfodhWJbbBA F

Wab Wrote
He has said he wants to make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba.
I have a tiny hope that this is one area where Obama can make a profound difference. If he acts quickly enough he can get the near fifty year embargo lifted. Without the excuse of foreign aggression the Cuban regime would change very quickly.

I'm just going to repeat this, so that when I'm right you can all send me $100 like you promised when you signed up for this thread.

They would never have taken it up the ark for Lieberman, it they didn't intend to do something Huge HUGE HUGE in the first 100 days.

The evidence:


Lieberman pander (wise men know you can only control a traitor temporarily)
Kennedy back in Senate working already
Daschle who has a book out with a plan, in HHS (an early supporter).
Hillary removed from a position to mess things up
$350 billion unspent of the bailout plan.
the Focus on 60

I just went to Rush Limbaugh's site. Here's his quote of the day: "The first one hundred days of Obama's presidency are going to be a doozy. I'm warning you now: You haven't seen anything like it." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

What was the alternative ? McCain...

Tell the truth...that's a good alternative.

Those of us who didn't vote for Obama are bracing for him to go back on all that stuff he was saying during the election, and unfortunately this has started happening.

That pretty unicorn he was riding in the Jibjab video is starting to look a lot like the same old jackass we've seen before...

:td:

He has said he wants to make it easier for Americans to travel to Cuba.

:td::td::td:

This helps the communists there by supplying them with much needed foreign cash. It won't rid the people there of the brutal Castro regime, as we learned during Clinton's tenure and the relaxed rules under his administration.

Some opportunities are already here, on our soil. America is growing ever more diverse. Perhaps we should celebrate diversity instead of condemning it.

Yes, on all levels. :tu:

All these leaks! Good Lord, folks in Washington can't keep their mouths shut for the life of them! The President Elect has yet to make a single announcement about his cabinet; yet the transition team has reluctantly had to confirm that Tom Daschle will be nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Sservices, that Janet Napolitano is the top choice for the Department of Homeland Security, and that Eric Holder is likely to be the Attorney General pick. Then there's Hillary Clinton going to State, which is a whole story in itself, and someone spoiled my evening last night by asking if General Jim Jones is going to be named National Security Advisor. Penny Pritzker had to take her name off the table after a story that never should have been a story.

Team O has always taken pride in our discipline. Leaks were never an issue. This bites.

All these leaks! Good Lord, folks in Washington can't keep their mouths shut for the life of them!

Welcome to Washington.

Penny Pritzker had to take her name off the table after a story that never should have been a story.

Which story that should never have been a story? That she was being considered - well, welcome to Washington. That she was involved as part owner of a bank that was forced into bankruptcy because of it's lending practices and was considered to be a predatory lender? Kind of hard to see how that wouldn't be relevant.

Same with Holder's past in the Clinton Justice Department.

I see the Clinton news is out.

The next rumor I hear is that Tim Geitner of NY Fed. Reserve will be Treasury Secretary & it will be announced on Monday. In some ways I'm relieved that it is a younger generation person although I'm having a midlife crisis watching all these 44-47 year olds ascend to power while I am 44 and underemployed (1 month from MS in HCA).

More about Tim F. Geitner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Geithner

Then there's Hillary Clinton going to State, which is a whole story in itself, and someone spoiled my evening last night by asking if General Jim Jones is going to be named National Security Advisor.

There are a lot of people involved in a transition, including analysts & fact checkers, then the people themselves finding & submitting documents & getting interviewed. Once the people are ensconced, it might tighten up again.

More about Gen. Jim Jones, Vietnam War Vet & former Chief of Nato.
http://www.nato.int/shape/bios/saceur/jones.htm

I think that's a wonderful idea, but, unfortunately, even with that, not too many people can afford for their kids to even take trips even through their schools. What we need is a more affordable way for students to be able to get some experience with other cultures. I never had the opportunities to do such stuff, and my parents surely couldn't afford to take out of country trips. At least with other places, like Europe, they have more of an opportunity to travel to other countries because of how close they are to them.

From where I grew up, four hours by car (in different directions) get you into seven different countries nowadays, with seven different languages. Many daytrips involved 'kids, we are taking the passports today'. - although, it has to be said, at that point the seve countries were merely five, three of which were behind the Iron Curtain (which I did manage to cross once or twice before 1989).


Some opportunities are already here, on our soil. America is growing ever more diverse. Perhaps we should celebrate diversity instead of condemning it.

I think that's an excellent idea. :)


This helps the communists there by supplying them with much needed foreign cash. It won't rid the people there of the brutal Castro regime, as we learned during Clinton's tenure and the relaxed rules under his administration.


Yes, because the almost 50 year embargo drove the Communists out really quickly. That embargo was really effective, as we can all see. :rolleyes:

How long does it take for something not to work for people to realise that it doesn't work? You'd think that five decades would suffice.....

Same with Holder's past in the Clinton Justice Department.

Holder's experience in the Clinton Justice Department.

I don't assume everyone who worked in the Bush Administration has a "past".

Welcome to Washington.

Somehow, I don't find that comforting! :lol:

I wouldn't want to be caught up in that crowd for anything, Mom. They're nice enough people, most of them, and talented, but they live in a world I'm quite comfortable walking away from. I'll pay a brief visit in January for the inauguration and then return to my quiet retirement in Ohio.

Holder's experience in the Clinton Justice Department.

I don't assume everyone who worked in the Bush Administration has a "past".

Should anyone currently working in the Bush Administration who signed and supported controversial programs and actions ever find themselves working in Washington in an official capacity again, I fully expect that they will have to answer questions about the decisions they made and why they made them. Just as I expect Holder will likely be asked to answer for his statements on Elian Gonzalez and all of those last minute pardons he supported under Clinton - especially Mark Rich.

Take John Brennen as an example? I can't say much about this, of course, other than to acknowledge there are stories out there. I have seen some screeching against this guy, though.

Yes, because the almost 50 year embargo drove the Communists out really quickly. That embargo was really effective, as we can all see. :rolleyes:

How long does it take for something not to work for people to realise that it doesn't work? You'd think that five decades would suffice.....

Klio, think of it as a bonsai tree. You clip the branches to keep it from growing large and unwieldy. If we had allowed unfettered trade with the communist tyrant, we would have a much more dangerous adversary to our south than what we have today. So, yes, it has worked very well. By opening up trade/travel, we would be giving the Castro regime fresh funds that they do not have access to today. Not in our best interests I feel!

I think it's pretty silly. If we could open trade and diplomacy with communist China, we certainly could do so with tiny little Cuba.

If the next president leaves office having given us more global friends than enemies, I'll be happy.

Gov. Bill Richardson for Commerce Secretary. Economic team to be announce Monday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/21/bill-richardson-obamas-co_n_145508.html

Aside from Treasury & Commerce, who else is on that team? New SEC chair ?

------------> Breaking News

Obama girls future Washington school about to be announced. On MSNBC after commercial break.
... holding ... holding ... Sidwell Friends school (Quaker school, Chelsea Clinton & Gore's son went there).

Tibbetts, aren't you just exaggerating a little? That's surely not simply about "apologizing for being American" - but don't you ever think that your country might be on the wrong track on anything at all?

Sometimes, but I just don't care what those outside of the United States think. I'm not going to apologize for being an American. I might apologize for my President sounding and acting like a bloody retard. I know I've criticized President Bush from time to time on his mannerisms, and speech screw ups to others. Does that count?

As for policies on Iraq, I supported it from the beginning. Same with Afganistan. Disagreed on his tax cuts. You don't give a tax cut in the middle of a war. It's not the brightest thing to do, and I disagreed with him on it. But, overall, I have supported President Bush against foreign criticism. Just as I will with a President Obama when he takes office.

There's a difference between "apologizing for being American" (as you put it) and reconsidering a particular administration's actions carried out in the name of your country. It looks a little odd to me that anyone could think that any person or any country could never be wrong.

Never said that. I just said I never apologize for my country, nor will I apologize for being an American.

Tibbetts, it's not apologizing for being an American, it's apologizing for the many spectacularly wrong things our government has done, particularly over the last eight years. That little CNN blurb I posted just above is accurate insofar as how our global neighbors see this country. It's not pretty.

I agree with most of what President Bush has done over the past 8 years.

There is undeniably a feeling, or a sense, of hope among our neighbors since the election.

And I "hope" that that hope is justified, I truly do.


:td::td::td:

This helps the communists there by supplying them with much needed foreign cash. It won't rid the people there of the brutal Castro regime, as we learned during Clinton's tenure and the relaxed rules under his administration.

I think it's time we dropped the embargo. It isn't working, and our goods flooding that country will do more to turn them away from Communism than the embargo that has deprived the Cuban people of so much over the past 50 yrs.

Yes, because the almost 50 year embargo drove the Communists out really quickly. That embargo was really effective, as we can all see. :rolleyes:

How long does it take for something not to work for people to realise that it doesn't work? You'd think that five decades would suffice.....

Exactely. :tu:

I think it's pretty silly. If we could open trade and diplomacy with communist China, we certainly could do so with tiny little Cuba.

If the next president leaves office having given us more global friends than enemies, I'll be happy.

I agree completely. :tu:


-Tibbetts

Team O has always taken pride in our discipline. Leaks were never an issue. This bites.

This is politics and I don't for a moment believe that none of these leaks aren't coming from the top.

Some, undoubtedly, are being done by various factions to push their guy. Some are being done by people for their own gain as information is a currency in the media/political world.

And some, I have no doubt, are coming from the transition team to test the waters of public opinion in regard to potentially controversial nominees.

The ship of state is the only ship which leaks from the top.

Yes, because the almost 50 year embargo drove the Communists out really quickly. That embargo was really effective, as we can all see. :rolleyes:

How long does it take for something not to work for people to realise that it doesn't work? You'd think that five decades would suffice.....

The US has no qualms about trading with brutal regimes. But IMO Cuba is an ego thing. Cuba bloodied the US's nose at Bay of Pigs (and refuses to go away) so must pay. Pretty much the same with Vietnam which was under a total embargo until 1992. The embargo was only lifted in 1994.

Klio, think of it as a bonsai tree. You clip the branches to keep it from growing large and unwieldy.

Which is not the philosophy of bonsai (http://www.fukubonsai.com/5a2.html). Bonsai is about caring and nurturing to create a thing of beauty.

What you describe is pruning.

This helps the communists there by supplying them with much needed foreign cash. It won't rid the people there of the brutal Castro regime, as we learned during Clinton's tenure and the relaxed rules under his administration.


The more isolated a regime, the more power its dictators hold over them. Look at N. Korea. Jong Il has complete power over his subjects. Take a look at Iran. Yes, the mullahs hold the reins, but they're ever afraid of the people rising up. Iranians, especially the young, are less isolated than most in oppressive regimes. The more that Cubans are exposed to Americans, the more that they can see the propaganda the Castro regime distributes as lies.

Anyway, back to topic.

Very disappointed in the "Presidency of Change". Daschle as HHS chair? Well over a majority of the staff old members of the Clinton administration? Might as well have voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries if this is the supposed change that Obama would bring. Which might just happen after all since the Justice David Souter has set a date for Obama to provide proof of his citizenship. There must be something to Berg's case if Souter is taking it seriously. Really, I don't want another questionable election. However, if one of the "liberal" USSC justices is saying there is something to this suit, Obama cannot ignore it.

Thing is, I believe this restriction is a relic of an older time. It made sense back then, since they wanted no foreign nobility taking root. However, with our world interconnected as it is now, this is obsolete.

Still, Obama needs to respond to this and give good evidence. I shudder to imagine what could possibly happen if his citizenship is considered null and void. If anything could divide this country and put it in any more turmoil than disqualifying Obama's presidency, I have no idea what it would be. But do we dare compromise the Constitution for the sake of stability? What a tangled web we have woven, Mr. Obama.

Which might just happen after all since the Justice David Souter has set a date for Obama to provide proof of his citizenship. There must be something to Berg's case if Souter is taking it seriously. Really, I don't want another questionable election. However, if one of the "liberal" USSC justices is saying there is something to this suit, Obama cannot ignore it.

You know, Adam, I can't find a single mainstream story on this. I did find a lot from bloggers. WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81484) has a story saying Soutar rejected the suit, which was then sent to Clarence Thomas, who WND says scheduled it for a "conference."

The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."

This "suit" also challenges John McCain's right to have been on the ballot for president as the claimants say that he is also not a native born American. I even saw a third person listed: Roger Calero?

They also threw in a plug for Jerome Corsi's smear book "The Obama Nation," which, they say, "started it all!"

I can't get too worked up about this. I'll get myself banned if I unload just what I'm thinking about these fringe types.

I'm not sure what to think. It would be helpful if Obama would come clean, however.

I'm not sure what to think. It would be helpful if Obama would come clean, however.

Already done that. His birth certificate was published on his website months ago. Hawaii became our 50th state in August 1959; President Elect Obama was born there two years later.

I can't believe that there should be any doubt.

Who would go through two years of campaigning without being certain that they fulfil the criteria. There is a lot at stake even by announcing a campaign (even if you don't win in the end). it would be insane of anyone to embark on something like this without being certain of their correct qualification. And the rule isn't exactly unknown.

Moreover, because of his childhood spent partly abroad Obama has been challenged on this repeatedly his opponents - and presumably by his supporters before he started out. You don't do something like this without making sure. The man is a lawyer, after all!!!!



In the age of the internet the *amount* of noise isn't necessarily an indicator of seriousness - it's the *quality* of noise that counts - and I for one (after some looking around) haven't found any kind of 'quality' source that takes this in any way seriously.