Comments on: President Obama Inauguration

This thread is to discuss the latest news surrounding the President Elect, Barack Obama (hereafter PE) and his future Administration. Users posting to this thread are asked to keep comments related to the following:


News on PE's potential new appointees
Issues regarding transition of power from Bush Administration to PE Administration
Discussion on the first 100 days of the PE Administration
What we can expect over the next four years
Hurdles facing the PE and his team.


News Reporting


News on PE's transitionary period to be sourced with appropriate links.
Allegations must be backed up with source material otherwise it's just your opinon.
Blogs are not reliable sources of information. Please try and source material from MSM.

Opened for discussion

Well done to the president elect, Obama. He gave a very good speech I thought, not too aggressive, but hitting on all of the important issues. I think it is important to remember that Rome wasn't built in a day - it will take time, but I feel very optimistic about the future. I am wondering if we will have any retirees on the Supreme Court (perhaps Suter, Ginsberg and Stevens). If so, it would be great if he were president at the time as they are all liberals per se and he'd likely keep the court at least as balanced as it is at present.

So... any thoughts on who will be in the future Obama administration?

While I'd let him enjoy his victory tonight, tomorrow the hard work starts and that includes, as Garrison Keillor says: "Everything he said about the national mess is utterly true and a lot more. And now it is Barack's mess."

And a further caveat for his followers, change won't come now, or from inauguration. What he has to do is "set about the business of disappointing your followers and astonishing your enemies and doing what is right for our country."

Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2008/11/05/happy_couple/)

I would also add that he should respect his bureaucracy and whenever possible resist the urge to slot a political appointee into a position better filled by a career civil servant. It might tick of lackeys and donors, but it is sounder.

He would also do well to give himself and his team a week off before doing anything too decisive. Take a break from the hurly burly because it will be the last chance for four years.

He needs Pelosi and Reid to fulfill his campaign promises. They are beholden to some very powerful constituencies and would make it hard not to get their pound of flesh and rewards for their support.

I would hope that he wouldn't delve too deep into the legislative branch for appointees, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a Levin as SECDEF.

I'm thinking there may be slots for the folks that supported him during the campaign.

Look for something for Bill Richardson (SECSTATE?)
Colin Powell? (SECVETAFF)

Other than that, I have no idea what he'll do.

I'd love to see Powell in the administration. In fact, I'd love to see a few Republicans in the administration. I've read a few analyses that probably are worth the weight of the paper they're printed on, but they have Obama moving fast on a few appointees and then taking his time on a few more. I do hope he goes for appointees that both sides can be relatively happy with, in that it will ease his transition.

Obama showed during the primary and election campaign that he knows how to run a tight ship and run it well, so I expect a smoother handover than Clinton experienced in 1992. McCain's very gracious speech and Obama's reaching out during his own speech last night may help a bit with this, too, in that they seem to have been working to build the foundation of a bridge on the two sides of the river, and we'll see if they actually do end up building the bridge.

I hope that there will be some Republicans and Independents in the administration. Obama is trying to promote unity and goes on about how everyone should be working together. It'd be nice if there was a nice even number of all the parties in congress, but I suppose most wouldn't like that.

See, this is why a person like me would make a lousy President. I know I would do something like that to make things balanced and fair.

I think there will be Republicans in his administration. The goal is a unified America and an end to "red" and "blue" competing Americas. We've all got a lot of work to do to right our ship of state.

He needs Pelosi and Reid to fulfill his campaign promises. They are beholden to some very powerful constituencies and would make it hard not to get their pound of flesh and rewards for their support.

I would hope that he wouldn't delve too deep into the legislative branch for appointees, although I wouldn't be surprised to see a Levin as SECDEF.

I'm thinking there may be slots for the folks that supported him during the campaign.

Look for something for Bill Richardson (SECSTATE?)
Colin Powell? (SECVETAFF)

Other than that, I have no idea what he'll do.

Powell's been there and done that. I don't necessarily see him doing it again. I'd envision him more as a senior advisor than staff.

Gator - you're right - Obama's made a lot of promises to a lot of people and he's going to have to deliver on them.

I expect Richardson will get something as will possibly Hagel as the token Republican. I'd bet that Jamie Gorelick will be back in some capacity. Rahm Emanuel's been talked about as COS but I'm not sure if he'd be better suited on the Hill helping Obama as a leader there. The Democrats don't want to risk tehir majorities in either the House or the Senate so I'd expect them to look to the Legislature only in states with a Democratic Governor and strong Democratic support.

I think there will be Republicans in his administration. The goal is a unified America and an end to "red" and "blue" competing Americas. We've all got a lot of work to do to right our ship of state.


Purple, every administration has a cabinet member of the opposite party. That's the tradition. While the election was a substantial victory, there were still 57 million people that voted for the other guy, just like there were large portions of the electorate that voted for John Kerry and Al Gore. That didn't make the opposite side any more conducive to unifying than this one will.

I doubt very seriously that President Obama will be able to unify the red staters, and I don't think it has anything to do with desire. I'm sure he wants to, but he has to work with Pelosi and Reid, and they are hardly the harbingers of bipartisanship.

Truth be told, I'd much rather Obama select the team he's comfortable with instead of playing the kumbaya song. He won, he deserves the team he wants to execute his agenda. To that end, we'll see a LOT of left of center folks in the cabinet.

I actually like Carl Levin. He reminds me of the late Les Aspin, and seems more inclined to do his duty as a SecDef then looking to push some sort of ideological agenda, but the introspection that Rahm Emmanuel has been asked to be COS is pretty much telling me that an Obama Administration will be as partisan as any that has come before.

There will definitely be Republicans in his administration because I'm almost certain Chuck Hagel will be in there! He's a friend to Joe Biden and he and Obama worked together on the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act (http://obama.senate.gov/press/070918-senate_passes_o_2/).

To that end, we'll see a LOT of left of center folks in the cabinet.

That's your opinion and I'm not even sure what you're basing that on. Not on Obama's positions. Obama is a centrist at best he's not nearly as liberal as the Republicans made him out to be. He's for free trade, he doesn't want to abolish the death penalty, he supported funding for the Iraq War even if he didn't vote for it, he isn't a pacifist, he wants to leave gun control up to the states. He's a centrist.

And you certainly didn't get that opinion from reading articles on who might be in an Obama administration - Colin Powell, Chuck Hagel, Tim Kaine, Sam Nunn, Kathleen Sebelius, Dick Lugar. These aren't left-of-center people. Unless we've totally changed the meaning of what the center is.

but the introspection that Rahm Emmanuel has been asked to be COS is pretty much telling me that an Obama Administration will be as partisan as any that has come before.

Why? Because he's a Democrat? That's a bit silly. Most Chief of Staff's tend to be of the same party as the president.

Choosing Emmanuel tells me the exact opposite. For starters, Emmanuel is disliked by those on the left for being too centrist. So Obama went with someone who won't please the Left or the Right or feel beholden to them. I like it already.

And as a recent HuffPo article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/why-rahm-is-right_b_141364.html) points out, he's thus unlikely to allow the same mistakes that happened in the Clinton administration - where the Left seemed to run riot at the get-go - happen in an Obama one. Yes, the Left will have a seat at the table but so will the Right and the Center and the Independents.

That's your opinion and I'm not even sure what you're basing that on. Not on Obama's positions. Obama is a centrist at best he's not nearly as liberal as the Republicans made him out to be. He's for free trade, he doesn't want to abolish the death penalty, he supported funding for the Iraq War even if he didn't vote for it, he isn't a pacifist, he wants to leave gun control up to the states. He's a centrist.

There's nothing centrist about Obama. Check out his actual voting record. He's considered one of the most liberal Senators out there.

Why? Because he's a Democrat? That's a bit silly. Most Chief of Staff's tend to be of the same party as the president.

Choosing Emmanuel tells me the exact opposite. For starters, Emmanuel is disliked by those on the left for being too centrist. So Obama went with someone who won't please the Left or the Right or feel beholden to them. I like it already.


Emanuel? Centrist? I'm not so sure about that. Here's a slightly different take on him from NRO.

He is smart and tough. But he has been, in both positions [as Clinton staffer and House member], a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient. Those who have worked for and with him come away impressed but not inspired, and generally not loyal.

The White House chief of staff is not a chief strategist or a chief advocate. He is a manager of people and of process. Above all else, he sets the tone internally, and shapes the president’s decision process and the feel of the upper tiers of the administration. Obama is especially in need of someone who will lead him to decisions, because he appears to be intensely averse to making difficult choices—which is the essence of what the president does. His inclination is to step back and conceptualize the choice out of existence, looking reasonable but doing nothing. To overcome this, he will need a chief of staff with a sense of the gravity of the choices the president faces, and one capable of moving the staff to decision, keeping big egos satisfied and calm, and resisting the pressure to be purely reactive to momentary distractions. None of this spells Rahm Emanuel.

Obama may have selected Emanuel for his fiery toughness to help him face the challenges he has ahead. But Rahm Emanuel does not evoke images of still waters and bi-partisan inclusion.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzliZTRkMGQ3MGYxZjM0ZTg2YjQyNjZjODZlNTY1YmE=

Well.... I am sure we'll hear announcements of the first appointments soon enough.... no need to get into a dispute over potential facts when we can get into a nice discussion of actual appointments soon enough....

How about that? :)



I don't know - but Barack Obama has surprised me a few times in the last months, and as an avid US watcher I wouldn't take any assumption for granted....

Truth be told, I'd much rather Obama select the team he's comfortable with instead of playing the kumbaya song.

I'm actually in total agreement with you on that point - I feel he needs to put together a team that he is comfortable with, a team that he can work with and isn't afraid to act the boss with - in the current economic climate all over the world he's going to need to stand up and say "this is what we're going to do" rather than asking whether that's okay with them.

I think Obama needs to surround himself with the best people he can find regardless of party. His own relative lack of experience makes his team even more critical in my opinion. I'd like to see him find a team of people who really know the posts they'll fill and actually listen to them.

Not that he needs to do everything they say, at the end of the day he's still going to be the President but I think a cabinet of yes men and women would be a critical misstep for him.

Apparently Rahm Emmanuel has agreed to be White House Chief of Staff.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20081105/rahm-emanuel-closer-look-obama-039-choice.htm

Obama has announced a transition team that will go through "a process". I see satire on that phrase coming.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gid4UbneIkhHjVlZnmZzGgmLLVAw

This takes him out of the running to replace Obama in the Senate.
I saw Jesse Jackson Jr on TV saying: yes he does want it.

Apparently Democratic Governor Bla------ has set up "a process" to decide who will get the nod.

Rep. Clyburn was talking about the absense of Asian Americans in the House & Senate. One theory is that if JJJ gets it, his Congressional seat might be filled with by the female Filipina Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran & amputee, who spoke at DNC, or she might get the Senate seat. She is currently Illinois Veterans Director. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-obama-senateseat,0,5281003.story

There are theories it should be an African American like Obama (or the US Senate will be AA free !). The Dem. Gov. says he wants someone who will fight for Illinois (does that mean 'not an Obama man?'). There is also a theory he might offer the appointment to a potential competitor to him in the next election ... getting him out of the way.

Emil Jones is State Senate Majority Leader (D), well respected & was Obama's mentor. He's also older generation, a generation that had to focus their attentions locally, not nationally. To me, it would be a tremendous nod to the accomplishments & skills of that generation.

Jesse Jackson Jr. is a Congressman for Illinois, and represents them (I think) well, and is also an Obama supporter. All I can think of for him is the albatross of Jesse Jackson Sr.. But he would be on the Senate side, not Obama side ...

Hard to know. The IL Dem Gov.'s "process" was announced this afternoon.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=248575

Apparently when Obama won Federal Senate, he stepped aside from his State Senate seat within 4 days, so it may be quick.

Well, I hope that Obama of all people is free to choose his people by suitability and not solely to produce the right colour spectrum.

Although it would of course be nice if he could throw his net wider than the usual suspects which, IMHO, would probably make for a more colourful group of people in any case.


but then - if we assume that he has to go for very experienced people we should probably expect a core team plus some advisers who are mainly White Anglo-Saxon males, simply because those are the people who have actually been around, and if he wants experience he'll have to fall back on them.

I am curious whether he proves me wrong - but I hope people don't have too many expectations that Obama will single-handedly turn the Administration into a body that's representative of the population as a whole (in terms of ethnic background).




Of course, the advantage is that an US president gets to replace such a large number of people (in the Uk most staff are civil servants who are politically neutral and stay in post)..... that means that he can change a lot in term of ethnic mix..... but right at the top that will be harder, IMHO.

There's nothing centrist about Obama. Check out his actual voting record. He's considered one of the most liberal Senators out there.

He isn't, but, even if he was, liberal is no longer a bad word with this year's electorate or with the coalition Obama has formed.

Emanuel? Centrist? I'm not so sure about that. Here's a slightly different take on him from NRO.

That's to be expected, I suppose. I heard a video of Karl Rove proclaiming Rahm as "too partisan" to be chief of staff. If that's true, Rove shouldn't have been allowed inside the White House during Bush's term in office. Yet there he was, wielding power in the West Wing for six years or so. That NRO diarist is pretty partisan himself.

Purple, every administration has a cabinet member of the opposite party. That's the tradition. While the election was a substantial victory, there were still 57 million people that voted for the other guy, just like there were large portions of the electorate that voted for John Kerry and Al Gore. That didn't make the opposite side any more conducive to unifying than this one will.

Did Bush appoint one?

hehehe...I live with a guy that thinks Obama is not far enough left. So, if people on the left think he's far to the right and people on the right think he's too left, he must be just right :D

I'm sure Barack will pick the right people for the job. The main thing is, they can do the job that they are chosen for and work in concert with all the political (and non-political) entities they need to.

I very much hope he does not listen to the National Review, but I'm not worried about that possibility.

I very much hope he does not listen to the National Review, but I'm not worried about that possibility.

Somehow, Red, I don't think that will be an issue. :lol:

I've seen a lot of speculation about possible appointees. A lot are people who were in Clinton's administration. Somehow I doubt that Obama will overstock himself from that pond. Rahm is not a leftover Clintonite, he started with Clinton and is now 4th most powerful person in DNC hierarchy. I wonder why he is hesitating.

The most hotly contested race seems to be for Secretary of State. I guess Treasury is another hot one, but I don't know those characters.

I would love to see Bill Richardson in the role, but Kerry wants it ??? Why would the Dems want to lose a Senator ? I guess his replacement would be appointed and a Democrat too, from Massachusetts, appointed by Gov. Deval Patrick, but still ...

Supreme Court appointees --> could Gov. Patterson of NY qualify ? None of that would happen until after Obama takes official control of the Government after inauguration.

According to reports Gates will be asked to stay on as Secretary of Defense.

As usually links to those reports would be appreciated. :)

As usually links to those reports would be appreciated. :)
BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7712270.stm)

What is Obama trying to prove with picking Rahm Emanuel? Pandering to the clearly worried Israeli lobby? This guy is has dual loyalties considering he fought for the Israelis during the gulf war. [1]

Denis Ross, and now Emanuel... The Change train is begining to derail already... people need to pressure Obama before he completely topples over the train and everyone in it.


[1] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1225910044095

No, I just think he's picking a fellow member of Congress that he already knows well because they are both from Illinois. He's also picking someone that already knows how the White House works from the inside. That way he can hit the ground running.

There are a lot of Jews in America (5-7 million to be exact). Dealing with them, taking advice from them, or even hiring them is not pandering to the Israeli lobby. The only thing Obama is interested in is excellence and the right knowledge for the right job.

Israel will remain a strong US ally, regardless of who Obama does or doesn't hire. They need us and we need them.

There are a lot of Jews in America (5-7 million to be exact). Dealing with them, taking advice from them, or even hiring them is not pandering to the Israeli lobby. The only thing Obama is interested in is excellence and the right knowledge for the right job.
First of all, I do not care if they are jews or not. We people of various faiths and non-faith who are Israeli firsters as well. However, picking someone with strong ties to Israel does send a strong signal to the lobby.

Having said that, I did not know that Emanuel was a close friend of Obama.



Israel will remain a strong US ally, regardless of who Obama does or doesn't hire. They need us and we need them.Oh no doubt about that. But believe me, the only reason the two are a strong ally (as in, having unquestionable support for them and all their policies) is because of the Israeli lobby.

Oh no doubt about that. But believe me, the only reason the two are a strong ally is because of the Israeli lobby.They're are the only stable democracy in the Middle East, especially with a western-type culture. And they are the only country in the Middle East that doesn't have a populace that seems to hate us. Now maybe Obama can help improve our image and relations with the countries in the Middle East and their peoples, but right now we need Israel strategically. And frankly, I don't think that will ever change. We'll always remain allies with any country that is friendly with us, especially if they also aid our strategic interests. I don't think the US supports every Israeli policy, since we can't control everything they do. That's true of any ally.

However, picking someone with strong ties to Israel IS imo does send a strong signal to the lobby.He doesn't need to send any signals to anyone. He isn't running for office anymore. ALL lobbyists will now spend their time trying to make him happy to try to get what they want, not the other way around.

right now we need Israel strategically

Not when they are undermining every effort to make peace with counties like Iran and to provide Palestinians with a state of their own. And I do not believe that Israel is the only country with populace who likes America. Iran is another, but sadly with a dictatorial regime that gets ever more influential and stronger due to the hawkish policies of America (which reflect that of Israel).

When you have Israeli officials worried about the Obama administration making peace with Iran, or worried about Obama dividing Jerusalem then you ought to stop and rethink your policies in the mid east. Perhaps the US should stop and see whether closer Iranian ties would actually be in their best interest.

Off the top of my head I could name a few: redirecting oil fields so they dont have to worry about Russia cutting off fuel to EU, ending Iraq fued, getting help from Iran (like they did back in 2003) to go after terrorists in Afghanistan, cutting off funds for Hezbollah, Hamas.

And on the other hand pressuring Iranian policy makers towards a more democratic regime with better human rights records. I think the first thing Obama needs to do is shut down Guantanamo bay, and speak against torture to send a strong signal to the rogue regimes that we mean serious business and hold the high moral ground.]


Anyway, until America distances itself from the destructive polices of Israeli firster hawks, there will never be a stable middle east.




He doesn't need to send any signals to anyone. He isn't running for office anymore. ALL lobbyists will now spend their time trying to make him happy to try to get what they want, not the other way around.The house and senate are as important when it comes to such policies. And if you go and follow the money being given to them you will see what I'm talking about.

And lets not forget the press. It is hardly free. It is owned by corporations with various agenda.

Apparently Rahm Emmanuel has agreed to be White House Chief of Staff.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20081105/rahm-emanuel-closer-look-obama-039-choice.htm

Obama has announced a transition team that will go through "a process". I see satire on that phrase coming.
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gid4UbneIkhHjVlZnmZzGgmLLVAw

This takes him out of the running to replace Obama in the Senate.
I saw Jesse Jackson Jr on TV saying: yes he does want it.

Apparently Democratic Governor Bla------ has set up "a process" to decide who will get the nod.

Rep. Clyburn was talking about the absense of Asian Americans in the House & Senate. One theory is that if JJJ gets it, his Congressional seat might be filled with by the female Filipina Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq veteran & amputee, who spoke at DNC, or she might get the Senate seat. She is currently Illinois Veterans Director. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-obama-senateseat,0,5281003.story

There are theories it should be an African American like Obama (or the US Senate will be AA free !). The Dem. Gov. says he wants someone who will fight for Illinois (does that mean 'not an Obama man?'). There is also a theory he might offer the appointment to a potential competitor to him in the next election ... getting him out of the way.

Emil Jones is State Senate Majority Leader (D), well respected & was Obama's mentor. He's also older generation, a generation that had to focus their attentions locally, not nationally. To me, it would be a tremendous nod to the accomplishments & skills of that generation.

Jesse Jackson Jr. is a Congressman for Illinois, and represents them (I think) well, and is also an Obama supporter. All I can think of for him is the albatross of Jesse Jackson Sr.. But he would be on the Senate side, not Obama side ...

Hard to know. The IL Dem Gov.'s "process" was announced this afternoon.
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=248575

Apparently when Obama won Federal Senate, he stepped aside from his State Senate seat within 4 days, so it may be quick.

The only thing that scares me about this is that Gov. Blagojevich all of a sudden has a ton of power to decide who'll be a Senator. I wouldn't mind JJJ, since he's not his father and is in general a competent congressman. But when I hear Emil Jones' name come up... A man who installed his own son into a state office, even though he has no qualifications or democratic mandate. It scares me that 1/100th of the Senate is now in the hands of the most corrupt governor in Illinois' history of corrupt governors.

Tread carefully on the Israel issue everyone! We've had multiple threads closed in the past because of fights over it.

Slightly off-topic, but in response to Purp's post on the last page, Bush has had at least one democrat, but it may be just the one:
Norman Mineta (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bushcabinet.html) (Transportation secretary)

And I do not believe that Israel is the only country with populace who likes America. Iran is another,
My daughter and I were discussing just the other day that the Iranian people do want better ties with the West but can't because of the dictatorial regime. And I do think that Bush made it worse. However, Obama got hammered repeatedly by McCain because he does think that we should have talks with Iran. And Obama never changed his stance, no matter how many times McCain tried to score points on that.

Supporting Israel doesn't mean that we agree with all their policies. We can't force them to do everything our way. IMO, they seem to have been brutal to the Palestinians. It embarrasses me to see them treat the Palestinians in ways that remind me of how the Poles were treated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Obama's perceived problem during the campaign with those who are strongly pro-Israel was that he didn't seem to support all of Israel's positions. He's his own man.

BTW, he does want to shut down Guantanamo. He said so in an interview just last week. He just can't open the doors without figuring out where to send the people. And a few (probably a very few) are actually dangerous, and they need to identify them and give them trials and imprison or execute them. He also wants us in Afghanistan and out of Iraq.

He's also the type to pursue all options. If there is a way to get the Iranians' assistance in pursuing Al Qaeda, he will. What I like about him is his open-minded approach to problem solving.

The house and senate are as important when it comes to such policies. And if you go and follow the money being given to them you will see what I'm talking about. And lets not forget the press. It is hardly free. It is owned by corporations with various agenda.We can remain friends with Israel and become allies with other Middle Eastern countries. I really can't continue this discussion, since it's getting too OT.

My daughter and I were discussing just the other day that the Iranian people do want better ties with the West but can't because of the dictatorial regime.

There is some loosening of Ahmadinejad's power. It seems his popularity is on the wane.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ietwTLT6mk8NtnOCGLmihRRkDN5w

However, Iran has also cracked down on a publication that's critical of Ahmadinejad.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5huvYz28axTnlkaOuVl_GabhxyNMQ

I don't want to get offtopic here but Hagrid, Ahmadinejad never had the power to begin with. This is just an illusion perpetuated by the regime. He just drinks up the poison chalice given to him from the Iranian leader whenever it is convenient for him. The core structure of the regime is built upon the very idea that the Iranian leader has all the power. The only way US can get anywhere with Iran is to go straight to the source and talk with Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei).

ComicBookWorm, I'm hopeful and based on Obama's background I do believe that he is his own man. However, he has a very steep mountain to climb with many hidden mines along the way...

ETA: This is funny: Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/obama_win_causes_obsessive

Considering Obama's temperament I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that McCain becomes a part of the new administration, contrary to what Obama said earlier this year. As divisive that things have become it would help heal whatever rifts have developed over the past 8 years.

As far as Israel is concerned, they are far more concerned over an Obama Admin than the rest of the Mideast.

And I believe their concerns are well-founded.

Ali, Obama carried 78% of the Jewish vote on Tuesday. The 21% that didn't vote for him almost certainly represent the more militant branch and they voted for McCain. That's something to take comfort in.

Considering Obama's temperament I wouldn't be too surprised to hear that McCain becomes a part of the new administration, contrary to what Obama said earlier this year.

I will bet you $10 that NEVER happens. McCain is too "mavericky" for the Obama Administration. I think competence & message discipline will be a #1 factor Obama considers in his appointments.

Robert Gibbs, who was the senior campaign spokesperson (I loved his style!) is now the White House Press Secretary, which I think is a very good move. He's on the left in this picture with Axelrod.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20081028/capt.cps.oan69.281008084612.photo04.photo.default-512x341.jpg?x=400&y=266&q=85&sig=wpcfZv4bCtDyqUMMpqSgPg--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081106/pl_politico/15364

Rahm Emmanuel is a DNC powerhouse. He is from the Illinois caucus but didn't endorse anyone (Hillary/Barack) in the primaries & remained a go-between. He was the architect of the 2006 Dem resurgence in the house.

I thought the right was concerned Obama was too pro-Arab ? Now Rahm's appointment shows Obama is too pro-Israel ? Again, politics of division with no clear message. Rahm is as American as Apple Pie. I think he is the right person for that job. He is known as a pitbull to Obama's alleged "O-Bambi".

--------> Breaking News

Rahm Emmanuel has accepted to be White House Chief of Staff. This ends both any ambitions to be Obama's Senate replacement & to be Pelosi's replacement as leader of the House, for next 8 years at least. The House GOP is responding negatively, which strikes me as a dumb move strategically. This election is lost now, it is time to position yourself for the 2010 election, not to be sour grapes.

I'm not saying I'm getting obsessed with this transition, but I am buying West Wing DVD's.

I'm not saying I'm getting obsessed with this transition, but I am buying West Wing DVD's.

If Emanuel is as awesome as Josh Lyman then I'm sold. ;)

Robert Gibbs, who was the senior campaign spokesperson (I loved his style!) is now the White House Press Secretary, which I think is a very good move. He's on the left in this picture with Axelrod.
:clap: :clap: :clap: I am a big fan of Gibbs since I saw him handle Hannity. I couldn't be happier with that choice!!!!!!

I thought the right was concerned Obama was too pro-Arab ? Now Rahm's appointment shows Obama is too pro-Israel ? Again, politics of division with no clear message. Rahm is as American as Apple Pie. I think he is the right person for that job. He is known as a pitbull to Obama's alleged "O-Bambi".
I think it's a grave mistake to confuse Barack's calm demeanor as "weakness". A good comparison (okay, this is corny--but since this is Mugglenet I think everyone will understand) would be the power of Dumbledore. It's a calm, inquisitive yet laid back power that knows it doesn't have to flaunt itself, but is laying just underneath and can be called upon at anytime.

As for the pro-Arab/pro-Israel calls from both sides, well--I've heard posters say Barack is a Marxists (far left) and then Fascists (far right) all in one post which sort of blows away logic :lol:

I think in matters of Arab & Israeli relations with America, he will strive to be "fair"--but his job is to be on the side of America first, then work with our allies (of which we have on both sides--Muslim & Israeli) for best outcomes. That is my hope.

This is something I am going to follow religiously. I think the advisors the president picks are almost more important than he is.
I agree with what was said earlier about Colin Powell. I would love to see him on Obama's administration. But what do you think the chances are he would be chosen? I'm just wondering what everyone thinks. Good possibility? Remote?

Ali, Obama carried 78% of the Jewish vote on Tuesday. Jews typically go about 80% for the Democrats. So that's right in line. The rest tend to be socially and religiously conservative and do vote Republican.

I really like the pick of Emanuel for Chief of Staff. Now Obama has someone with close ties to the House of Representatives--Emanuel and someone with close ties to the Senate--Biden. This is how to get legislation passed. Not only that but these guys know things work.

When you have Israeli officials worried about the Obama administration making peace with Iran, or worried about Obama dividing Jerusalem then you ought to stop and rethink your policies in the mid east.

At AIPAC Obama promised a united Jerusalem as capital of Israel which flew directly in the face of sixty years of US foreign poilicy, most of the rest of the world's policy and the road map.

As for the pro-Arab/pro-Israel calls from both sides, well--I've heard posters say Barack is a Marxists (far left) and then Fascists (far right) all in one post which sort of blows away logic

This (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/6/president_elect_obama_and_the_future) is a good piece which talks about the possible future mid east policy of US under an Obama Administration.

In particular this bit:

And I think that progressive people across this country, you know, instead of basking in the euphoria, need to pick themselves up today and start demanding that the Obama administration immediately end the siege of Gaza. It’s totally indefensible. It is a crime unprecedented in modern history that 1.5 million people are confined to a ghetto, starved, cut off from the world, threatened. This is indefensible, and there’s no excuse for it to continue even for a single day under a new administration. And we should be setting the standard very high, not accepting slight hints that in a few years’ time an Obama administration might accept a Palestinian state or might talk about one. The days for that are over. The situation is urgent, and we really need to see radical change. It’s not going to come from Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk; it’s only going to come from a groundswell demanding that the promises of change be kept.And I think he is right.

This is something I am going to follow religiously. I think the advisors the president picks are almost more important than he is.
I agree with what was said earlier about Colin Powell. I would love to see him on Obama's administration. But what do you think the chances are he would be chosen? I'm just wondering what everyone thinks. Good possibility? Remote?The chances of his being chosen is high, imo...now, the chances of his accepting is low. IIRC, when on Meet the Press, he pretty much said he was happy being retired.

I agree with what was said earlier about Colin Powell. I would love to see him on Obama's administration. But what do you think the chances are he would be chosen? I'm just wondering what everyone thinks. Good possibility? Remote?

No chance of a position where policy is involved. Despite his endorsement, Powell is still a member of the old guard and not in step for an administration modelled on change and a new generational view.

That said, he may be asked and possibly would accept a role as a ambassador at large given his high standing in many parts of the world. I suspect Bill Clinton will be offered a similar post.

As a question: When are new ambassadors picked? Obviously after major domestic positions.

David Axelrod has accepted White House Senior Advisor. I have no idea what that position does, but I assume it involved advising. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/david-axelrod-obamas-seni_n_141860.html

Obama's Inauguration theme will be " A New Birth of Freedom " after a line in Lincoln's Gettysburg address.
Lincoln was another President from Illinois, a young man, and a lawyer, and a good orater, Republican.
He ended slavery in the U.S. He is, I would say, almost as revered as George Washington.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/06/obama-inauguration-theme_n_141695.html

Senator Feinstein of California is organizing it. This is from her press release:

"A New Birth of Freedom" commemorates the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. The words come from the Gettysburg address, and express Lincoln's hope that the sacrifice of those who died to preserve the nation shall lead to "a new birth of freedom" for our nation.


The inaugural theme, which was selected by Senator Feinstein and the members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, will be woven through the inaugural ceremonies. The theme is traditionally linked to a major anniversary, and in her announcement Senator Feinstein spoke of the appropriateness of the chosen theme to our present day circumstances, particularly in light of the historic election of Senator Barack Obama.

In addition to Senator Feinstein, the members of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies include: Senator Bob Bennett, Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi; House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer; and House Republican Leader John Boehner.

"At a time when our country faces major challenges at home and abroad, it is appropriate to revisit the words of President Lincoln, who strived to bring the nation together by appealing to 'the better angels of our nature'," Senator Feinstein said. "It is especially fitting to celebrate the words of Lincoln as we prepare to inaugurate the first African-American president of the United States."

"On January 20, as President-elect Obama takes the oath of office, he will look across the National Mall toward the Lincoln Memorial, where the sixteenth president's immortal words are inscribed. Although some inaugural traditions have changed since Lincoln's time, the swearing-in ceremony continues to symbolize the ideals of renewal, continuity, and unity that he so often expressed."
-------> First Puppy Update

Howard Fineman indicated the first puppy would probably be a labra-doodle (cross of Labrador & Poodle). The AKC poll of their readers recommended a poodle (hypoallergenic) but a labra-doodle would be a calmer dog, a good choice.

Per Chicago Business, these Chicagoans are going to Washington DC
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=31690

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/images/random/group.jpg

I was going to post this earlier but have been unable to find the link and as I was driving didn't note whether it was BBC World, CNN or Deutsche Welle (I think Beeb) but it ties in with transition and change and is a nice story.

The story was about significant images of the campaign. He listed a few of the usual but added one I've only heard from him.

After a campaign stop he came upon the motorcade with Obama's family. From the back of an SUV he saw the girls looking out a window from among their guard.

He said it was the most important signifier of the change in his life time, that two little black kids were surrounded by a phalanx of burly white guys who would take a bullet before letting the girls come to harm.

Wow! That's a powerful story.

I was going to post this earlier but have been unable to find the link and as I was driving didn't note whether it was BBC World, CNN or Deutsche Welle (I think Beeb) but it ties in with transition and change and is a nice story.

The story was about significant images of the campaign. He listed a few of the usual but added one I've only heard from him.

After a campaign stop he came upon the motorcade with Obama's family. From the back of an SUV he saw the girls looking out a window from among their guard.

He said it was the most important signifier of the change in his life time, that two little black kids were surrounded by a phalanx of burly white guys who would take a bullet before letting the girls come to harm.



That was one of the BBC blogs - I think Gavin Hewitt's: he followed the Obama campaign. I can't find the link, though - looks like the older entries have been deleted?

Anyway - after this struck him he kept coming back to it in radio reports - he was really completely struck by the image. :)

Not sure if this is where this would go, but, here goes:

I voted for Senator John McCain, he lost, and President-Elect Obama will now be President of these United States. This may not be such a bad thing. He is shattering a barrier which has existed in this nation for far too long.

I don't like the fact that he has a Democrat controlled Congress to work with, just as I didn't like it when President Bush had a Republican controlled Congress, but it's the way it is. For those who can't accept that Barack Obama is now President-Elect, you need to get over it, accept it, and move on. It's time we got behind our new President to be, and help heal the divide that seems to have split this great nation.

Congratulations, President-Elect Obama, I can't wait until you take office. Good luck, and god speed, sir. :D

Regards,

-Tibbetts

Tibbetts, that was very magnanimous of you. I think that is all we can ask for to start the healing.

Wise words, beautifully expressed, Tibbetts. Thanks!

I promised myself that Tuesday was the last day I would consider conservatives to be my enemy. They are not. They are American citizens, just like I am, and we have one beloved country to rally around.

I've not been very present here lately, so let me say: WOOO HOOO!

As for the impending administration, we'll get lots of details over the next few weeks. The Rahm Emanuel pick is drawing some criticism, as he is a pretty traditional politician. However, part of the reason he is a "traditional" politician is that he's darn good at getting things done: and that is what you want in a Chief of Staff.

I would expect that Hillary will get some position of importance: there must have been some agreement between the two. (Emanuel was the one who brokered the peace: chances are that he knows!) I could see her as Secretary of Health and Human Services, given her passions about Health Care: but, then, her views are not quite the same as Obama's, so perhaps she'll get the Dept. of Justice.


Regarding the election, I must say, I did find myself wishing that I was still in Chicago two nights ago. Still, it's good to see another UCer making good! :p

I would expect that Hillary will get some position of importance: there must have been some agreement between the two. (Emanuel was the one who brokered the peace: chances are that he knows!) I could see her as Secretary of Health and Human Services, given her passions about Health Care: but, then, her views are not quite the same as Obama's, so perhaps she'll get the Dept. of Justice.

There is a real chance that Hillary will stay in the Senate as the Democrats will need a strong performer with her name recognition to fill the hole that will be left when Ted Kennedy leaves the Senate.

I've heard under the radar chatter that Hillary may run for governor of New York.

As far as the healthcare plan goes, though, the President-Elect incorporated her ideas into the new Democratic platform. So she has her desire stamped in place. They weren't all that far apart anyway.

I'm having a bit of trouble with not slipping up and calling our next president by the name I've always known him by. Weird!

Speaking of names, I've heard a few programs discussing if Obama would have been as successful if he had run as Barry Obama as he was known as a kid and in his student days by the diminutive.

I've not been very present here lately, so let me say: WOOO HOOO!

Nice to see you !

I've heard under the radar chatter that Hillary may run for governor of New York.

Well, I was thinking that Patterson (the blind black governor) who is an attorney, might be good for the supreme court. It may sound weird, but to me, I think he would be concientious and it would be a real breakthrough.

So maybe he goes to S.C. & Hillary runs for Governor, then 2016 ...
Because Biden will be too old to run for President in 2016 but Hillary won't be.

www.change.gov (http://www.change.gov) - heh... this is cool (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/nov/07/uselections2008-barackobama)!

Wow... I don't have time to explore that site properly at the moment, ut it's going to be very interesting how the 'community organiser' method will work from a place in the White House. :)



RE. name.... I had come across that he was caled Bar or Barry when he was younger....

I don't think Barry would have been a bad idea. It would somehow have looked like someone trying to turn an Arab name into something that sounds Anglo-Saxon. Just using Barack openly was much better. Also, there aren't that many politicians who have the advantage of having a first name that has name recognition on its own. If you are a former 'skinny kid with a funny name' you might as well turn that name into an advantage.....

I think he decided to use the name Barack (vs family nickname Barry) when he went to college.

This is an article, with pictures, of the potential Obama replacements in the Senate. I think Jesse Jackson Jr. (JJJ) as a 13 year representative is a good choice, but I also like Emil Jones. Then if JJJ is chosen, Duckworth could replace him as Representative. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/obamas-replacement-blagoj_n_141561.html

I think it's great that he didn't change his name for campaign reasons (not that I would have thought so).... but going from and Anglo-Saxon sounding name to an Arab-sounding name when you go to College shows something about his personality which I rather like. :)

Apart from the fact that Barack Obama definitely sounds better than Barry Obama. That just doesn't roll off the tongue as well....

You get used to whatever name you hear first. I have a transgender friend who I always refer to by her male name because that's how I first knew her.

Although changing to Barack does indicate that public office was always the aim and that he was wise enough to realise the tactic of asking that if he was "hiding" his real name what else was he hiding?

There's growing chatter that Schwarzenegger (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/07/barack-obama-arnold-schwarzenegger) might be asked to join the team (skinny legs notwithstanding). Given Arnold's stance on renewable energy sources and advocacy of high speed rail it's not as silly as it at first sounds.

Although changing to Barack does indicate that public office was always the aim and that he was wise enough to realise the tactic of asking that if he was "hiding" his real name what else was he hiding?



I think that this would be jumping to conclusions..... but then, he was studying law, so he would eventually have to work out his public image, whether he'd stand for office or not.

I guess what I find interesting is what it says about this young man and how he chose to deal with his identity at that stage. Also, he grew up in Hawaii which (by hearsay) I take to have been a somewhat more inclusive society than at least part of the mainland. OK, Havard isn't exactly redneck territory ;) - but still, he chose to do that step into the unknown which tends to bring about a re-assessment of one's own persona (that's, after all what every student going away to university faces) by using his African/Arab name. :) it speaks of a certain kind of courage, I think. But perhaps I am over-intellectualising ;)

Anyone know why the Obama transition site has a .gov address? .gov are supposed to be reserved for government agencies but there is no actual government backing for the transition. And why are they gathering addresses on an official government web site?

Strange......

*****
Well, if any of us thought Fannie and Freddie would play a smaller role in an Obama Administration, think again. Rahm Emanuel, Obama's new COS, served on Freddie's board for two years when Clinton's last term ended and took campaign contributions of about $50,000 from Freddie. Freddie was his third largest campaign contributor.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081106133228.aspx

Of course the transition is part of the government. They're given office space, and the current government works side by side with the transition team bringing them up to speed, helping to gauge personnel needs, and turning over the processes. Sometimes transitions are like hostile takeovers, but it looks like Bush wants to take the high road. Bush has already addressed his staff about that. Transitions don't set policy or run the government, but the orderly transfer of power is part of the government. The site also looks like it will serve to keep the people in touch with the administration.

BTW, government sites collect names all the time. They seek comments and personal stories, they answer questions, they provide services.

Oh my Emanuel worked for Freddie seven years ago! Do you really think that they will let that influence how they manage the new administration. I think we need to wait until they are in office and see how they govern before we claim influence peddling. When Emanuel took the money he wasn't Chief of Staff to the President.

www.change.gov (http://www.change.gov) - heh... this is cool (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/deadlineusa/2008/nov/07/uselections2008-barackobama)!

Isn't it? He means to keep the grassroots involved. I love it!

I promised myself that Tuesday was the last day I would consider conservatives to be my enemy. They are not. They are American citizens, just like I am, and we have one beloved country to rally around.

I think that your words are truly the wisest words on the site and I am not at all surprised to see that you author them.

Helllo again Purplehawk. It has been many months since I visited this site but I wanted to be one, if not the last, to congratulate you and America on it's incredibly wise and overdue selection of President Obama.

Although I stumped, marched, campaigned and voted for Ralph and will never be satisfied until we have a more progressive agenda in my country, President Obama was certainly an excellant choice by the american people in what can only be considered a landslide, mandate driven voice.

As many others did, I was emotional to see Obama's victory speech and was overcome with the knowledge that this country is on the road to becoming 'Free at Last'.

Congrats again, and I am sleeping much better in an America where at least the majority has finally begun to see the light.

Hi Dakine! Ohmigosh, it's so good to see you posting again!

I still haven't been able to wrap my mind around what has happened. I'm okay on the intellectual and policy arguments, and on the way forward, but on an emotional level I'm savoring the realization of the path we've traveled from "I Have a Dream" in 1963 to the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008. In my lifetime... I get so choked up to reflect on this moment. Words fail me.

ETA:

I'm not sure how much license we have to cruise topics on this transition thread, but there is good news out of Iraq today. As recently as last week, Iraqi officials were reluctant to sign a security agreement with the Bush administration, even with the inclusion of a troop withdrawal timeline, because they knew Bush would be gone soon and they weren't sure what kind of commitment they could count on from the next president.

Then Iraqi officials saw what happened on Tuesday. Now, they're feeling a lot better (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/middleeast/07iraq.html?ref=todayspaper).

Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

"Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011," said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. "If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama."

The agreement really does guarantee U.S. troop withdrawal by 2011 and U.S. withdrawal from Iraqi cities and towns by next spring. In other words, it ends the war and the end comes in stages.

President Obama won't be able to enter office with the Iraq problem solved. But it will be well on its way to being solved. The strategic framework for his desired withdrawal will be in place. And since he and the Iraqi government see eye to eye on the issue, he'll have the credibility in place to work toward a political compact among the different Iraqi factions - something the Bush administration never had.

Of course the transition is part of the government. They're given office space, and the current government works side by side with the transition team bringing them up to speed, helping to gauge personnel needs, and turning over the processes. Sometimes transitions are like hostile takeovers, but it looks like Bush wants to take the high road. Bush has already addressed his staff about that. Transitions don't set policy or run the government, but the orderly transfer of power is part of the government. The site also looks like it will serve to keep the people in touch with the administration........

I was moved to see President Bush become emotional not only when he announced that his team would work with Obama's team but that he, apparently, and genuinely, believed that this too was a landmark decision by the American people.

You know, eight years of feeling less than enthusiastic(to be as politically correct as possible) about the Bush administration is going solftly into the night with the knowledege that even Bush recognizes the significance of this event.

I had older friends who went to ride on the freedom buses and for those that lost their lives in that most noble of ventures, they are now truly honored.

I caught Olbermann the other night and his worse-worst persons of the night segment was interesting in that he said that those folks words just don't mean anything anymore. He was looking toward the future and I see that Obama is doing the same - and what a magnificent future is his for the taking.

Personally, I think he can just show up for work and the world will see, as Pravda did, that 'eight years of hell are over'. However, for a ex-Harvard Law Review president, I see much greater things ahead.

My only hope is that he not put too many Clintonites in his cabinet. Rahm, Reich and or a sprinkling of others is fine, but change is what the country voted for. Not just change from the last 8 years, but change from the Clinton era also.

Hi Dakine! Ohmigosh, it's so good to see you posting again!

I still haven't been able to wrap my mind around what has happened. I'm okay on the intellectual and policy arguments, and on the way forward, but on an emotional level I'm savoring the realization of the path we've traveled from "I Have a Dream" in 1963 to the election of Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008. In my lifetime... I get so choked up to reflect on this moment. Words fail me.

I am very proud to say that I get emotional looking at your words and I have savored so many of the events that have been on TV. Being in Hawaii, I was able to stay up much later, maybe not, than mainlanders, and caught each moment over and over again. This is truly going to be a great ride and I am so looking forward to this that I cannot even express it.

I had to congratulate folks that I knew that had done so much in the civil rights movement and I was so moved to see the activists and Dr. King supporters that were around then to have a say in this election. This election belongs especially to them.

You know what else. I think that this landslide victory is more than just a win for this country, it is a vindication of the fact that America is truly a great country and other nations will gather around our porches once again for another 'fire side chat' or two. Now, I'm not comparing Obama to FDR, certainly that can't happen.....yet.

I searched for YouTubes of as many of those moments as I could find and saved them. I got teary-eyed just now, reading your post, and I bawled like a baby watching video of the celebrations here and abroad. I wasn't far from Jesse Jackson on Tuesday at Grant Park, and could stand on tip-toe and see Oprah Winfrey. I think everyone in our section was in tears at some point that night.

I've never been prouder of my country than I've been these past few days.

President elect Obama is givng his first official press conference right now. I have to say that I'm impressed. He looks relaxed, is telling some jokes and getting giggles, and answering the questions the reporters ask to the extent he can. I'd like a few more details on what he hopes to accomplish now and shortly after the inauguration, but don't think the conference was the appropriate place to explore those deails so I'm glad he set out his high level objectives.

I liked the conversation about the first dog to be because my kids really want one and I'm allergic and we'd love to get a shelter dog as well.

Purp - if you have the chance tell him that you can adopt a dog that failed customs training. The dog will be about a year old and fully trained and will have been selected for it's ability to cope with large crowds and little kids. I can get the contact number for him but I'd guess he'd be able to get that himself and probably get more than just the number for the main office. Just a wild guess there but I feel pretty confident in that one :) ......

I liked the conversation about the first dog to be because my kids really want one and I'm allergic and we'd love to get a shelter dog as well.


*randomly hijacks thread to promote her favorite cause*

Rescue dogs! Yay for you. I'm so pleased when people come around on rescue dogs. I could kiss Barack for bringing this issue to the top of discussions all over the country right now. Nice to know we can all agree on one issue at least.

I didn't see the press conference, but read the transcript on CNN. I am very disappointed in this exchange...

Lynn Sweet?

Question: Mr. President-elect ...

Obama: What happened to your arm, Lynn?

Question: I cracked my shoulder running to your speech on election night.

Obama: Oh, no.

(Laughter)

Question: (inaudible)

Obama: I think that was the only major incident during the -- the entire Grant Park celebration.

Question: Thank you for asking. Here's my question. I'm wondering what you're doing to get ready. Have you spoke to any living ex-presidents, what books you might be reading?

Everyone wants to know, what kind of dog are you going to buy for your girls? Have you decided on a private or public school for your daughters?

Obama: Let -- let me list those off.

In terms of speaking to former presidents, I've spoken to all of them that are living. Obviously, President Clinton -- I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances.

Source: CNN Transcript (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/obama.conference.transcript/index.html)

Really, how is picking on a lady in her eighties who cared for her husband with Alzheimers for over 10 years even remotely funny? Even more, it makes me even more skeptical of President-elect Obama's "post-partisan" unity when he can so casually joke about Mrs. Reagan. Why was that even necessary?

Yay! "clap" Rescue dogs!

Obama-dog articles (and on rescue/shelter/purebred/hypoallergenic possibilities):
http://abcnews.go.com:80/US/Story?id=6192603&page=1

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/the-search-for-the-first-puppy/#comments

AKC offers help (http://snipurl.com/56ofp)

Also, first dogs of the Presidents past: http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1830236_1746240,00.html

You can express interest in a job in the Obama administration (not government career) on this website. http://change.gov/ They will send you an application.

Really, how is picking on a lady in her eighties who cared for her husband with Alzheimers for over 10 years even remotely funny?

I didn't like it either, but I thought it was a bit of a let off steam. I liked his dog position statement.

I didn't like it either, but I thought it was a bit of a let off steam. I liked his dog position statement.

I cringed a bit when he said that, too. I'm also certain he will apologize to Mrs. Reagan. My eyes sought out Ax's reaction, but he was out of camera range during that bit.

Other than that I thought he did really well. I liked the friendly tone a great deal. I realize this is the beginning of his honeymoon period, but he probably won another round of goodwill from the press today.

He should be original and rescue a sheltie (http://sheltierescueut.org/).

Just thinking - how much of such a press conference is prepared? How does he pick the people who ask questions? The version I saw didn't show the journalists and so it was difficult to tell. The BBC reporter said that he seemed to know exactly who to call, and at least at one point he actually called someone he had to look for in the crowd?

I am assuming that there is some standard practice - how does it work?


This made me realise how rarely I have actually heard Obama speaking in a normal manner (as opposed to giving speeches). He slounds very good, IMHO. Somehow down to earth, but also with concentration of what he is saying. You can sort of see how he thinks while he is formulating the answer. He comes across as professional, thoughtful and, above all, like a sensible human being - I liked the occasional smiles, and the evidenct ability to make fun of himself.... I like that. :)


The whole dog answer was hilarious, because he went into 'I am well briefed on this serious issue' mode. I know it's important to many - but it's obviously not an issue as serious as the economy - and he played that very well. :)

Personally, I could care less about the dog issue. In fact, that seems to be very much about style over substance. What did catch my eye was his reaction to the question on Iran, which actually was much better than simply saying he'd meet them with no preconditions. It was well constructed and well reasoned, leaving enough room to assess the conditions and make a response that meets the needs of the country.

(God help me.) I found that encouraging.

The best way to get a president's grasp of issues is in an unmoderated press conference. Failing the equivalent of parliamentary question time, it's really the only chance to see him thinking on his feet.

Personally, I could care less about the dog issue.
GASP! :wow: I'll pretend you didn't say that.

In fact, that seems to be very much about style over substance. What did catch my eye was his reaction to the question on Iran, which actually was much better than simply saying he'd meet them with no preconditions. It was well constructed and well reasoned, leaving enough room to assess the conditions and make a response that meets the needs of the country.

(God help me.) I found that encouraging.

btw, he did call Nancy Reagan and apologize.
Apparently, this is the congratulatory message sent from Iran for a new President since their revolution?

His answer was cautiously measured (as it should be at this point). Interesting turn, though.

I did, overall, find his first conference well done for only have been elected on Tuesday. I thought he looked a bit tired, but then, he's had a heck of a week. I hope he takes a day or two off soon. He's certainly earned it...and we need a well rested president-elect to put this team together.

I like that he reacted when everyone rose. A bit of a moment.

I also like his courtesy to the Bush's & his clarity that there is only one President at a time & he doesn't want to send the wrong signals to the world.

I also liked his statement that there is a lot one can do in 100 days. I think they will hit the ground running.

I cringed a bit when he said that, too. I'm also certain he will apologize to Mrs. Reagan. My eyes sought out Ax's reaction, but he was out of camera range during that bit.

I nailed this one: Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27600487/)

The Rahm Emanuel pick is drawing some criticism, as he is a pretty traditional politician. However, part of the reason he is a "traditional" politician is that he's darn good at getting things done: and that is what you want in a Chief of Staff.

Yeah, that's what you want your CoS to do. I don't doubt he's a competent organizer. However, he is part of the Chicago machine, and I still have a little mistrust of Obama because he is from Chicago. There is also some history of corruption with Emanuel.

And if Emil Jones gets to go to the Senate, I'll be very upset. He's the embodiment of cronyism. I hope Obama is wise enough not to tap too much from Chicago/Illinois politics. The joy I'll see from our state's top executive leaving office is only going to be topped by Bush 43 moving out.

You know, eight years of feeling less than enthusiastic(to be as politically correct as possible) about the Bush administration is going solftly into the night with the knowledege that even Bush recognizes the significance of this event.

Eh... I'll believe it when I see it. This seemingly magnaminous gesture by the lamest of lame ducks could only be a cover-up for executive fiats that make Clinton's look tame.

Here's an interesting piece on Rahm Emanuel by a Rabbi. Recommended read.

Election night tens of millions of us wept for joy. We sang the songs that we had sung as young men and women when we were fighting segregation in the south and then in the North, some of us being beaten, others jailed, some even killed. For the first time in three decades we could sing "Imagine" and "The Times They are a'Changing" without feeling that we were holding onto utopian fantasies that had been
buried by the cynical realists who have shaped public discourse.
How exciting to believe again in the possibility of America as the potential embodiment of our ideals for social justice, peace, and ecological sanity. We could hardly believe our own eyes-we were living through the rebirth of a nation and its attempt to heal its racist past.
So no wonder why many of us were shocked and deeply disappointed when we learned on Thursday that Congressman Rahm Emanuel was to be the Chief of Staff in the Obama White House.


Emanuel, for those who don't recall, was the Congressman who traveled the country in 2006 finding "suitable" candidates in "swing districts" to run against Republican incumbents, and in many instances he succeeded. But his theory of how to succeed was destructive: he sought the most conservative possible candidates in each district, insisting that local Democratic Party organizations reject more liberal candidates who, he feared, might not win.

There were many among the House Democrats who deplored this tactic. The main issue on the mind of the electorate was the war in Iraq, and public opinion had moved so far in opposition to that war that the Democratic leadership in the House was pushed to proclaim that it would cut off funding for the war if Democrats won control of Congress. Well, the outcome was that Democrats did win control, but since the candidates that Emanuel picked were more conservative and militarist than the mainstream of the Party, they were not reliable allies when it came to voting against war funding. Instead of cutting fund for the war, Nancy Pelosi's House increased the funding, explaining that they had to appear "responsible" in order to solidify their control of Congress in 2008..

Clever? Not for the people, Americans and Iraqis, killed or wounded in the meantime.



This was no mistake on Emanuel's part. Rahm Emanuel has a long history of militarist ideology behind him. His father was a member of the ultra-right-wing terrorist organization Etzel that killed British civilians as part of their anti-British struggle in Palestine in the 1940s. Emanuel, himself a citizen of Israel as well as the United States, has been one of several Congressional leaders enforcing the "Israel Lobby" concensus on the Democrats, in the process shutting out the peace voices that believe Israel's security would be better served by the U.S. putting pressure on Israel to end the Occupation, move the Wall to inside the pre-67 boundaries, and remove the settlers from the West Bank or tell them to live there as Palestinian citizens.


It's not just the pro-peace and reconciliation forces that are unlikely to be given a serious hearing in a White House in which Rahm Emanuel controls who gets to talk to the President. Emanuel will almost certainly be protecting Obama from all of us spiritual progressives and those of us who describe ourselves as the Religious Left-so that our commitment to single-payer universal health care, carbon taxes for environmental protection, a Homeland Security strategy based on generosity and implemented through a Global Marshall Plan, will be unlikely to get a serious hearing in the White House.


When these issues were avoided by Obama during the campaign, most of us spiritual progressives told ourselves, "He's just being political, but once elected he'll reveal himself committed to the values that he whispered into our ears privately over the course of the past many years." The Rahm Emanuel selection is an early warning that the peace and justice agenda dropped by Obama after he won the Democratic nomination may be permanently on hold, and the progressives themselves may have to settle for "access" and flowery words at an inauguration address rather than the substance of change. For many of us, just the fact of having a brilliant young black man in the White House will be such a healing experience that we won't care about this newly emerging reality: unless Obama creates some other path to access and to public input into his policies by those of us who helped build his electoral success, or unless we organize to do so outside the framework of his campaign organization, we may be in for lots of disappointments.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine www.tikkun.org (http://www.tikkun.org/), chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives www.spiritualprogressives.org (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/), author of 11 books (most recently the 2006 national best-seller The Left Hand of God) and as a member of Rabbis for Obama recently debated Bill Kristol about how Jews should vote in the election.




I hope Obama is wise enough not to tap too much from Chicago/Illinois politics.

Well you might be in for a big surprise as Chicago style politics is what made Obama the political rock star he is today. This piece (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?printable=true) is long, but well worth the read if you want to know more about what makes Obama tick.

While I agree with pretty much all of that article in its criticism, I figure that the rest of Obama's choices in Cabinet will denote his level of dedication to the Emanuel thesis and proposition.

I mostly support it because Emanuel gets things done- and perhaps is not afraid of getting his hands dirty in the process. As a traditional politician, he might keep some people who would not be Obamaniacs happier with the overall poll and its result- though that is definitely debatable.

As for Obama looking tired at the conference... While I agree that its because of a tough week, I hope he holds out for the remaining time before he sits down in the Oval Office. He needs to keep his enthusiasm up now, perhaps more than ever.

However I dothink that in all fairness to him, after 21 months of campaigning, on election night he looked absolutely perfect, not a blemish, no tiredness evident despite the hard work he had done for almost two years to get to that position. No one can deny that level of capability. I imagine it's just the sudden realisation that there's four years of that standard of work left.. ;)

I remember a scandal in Canada when the government took office and the previous government had been cooking the books, the deficit was much worse than announced. They were p-o'd. McCain is on Leno tonight.

President-Elect Obama (I'll never get tired to typing that, I think) gave his first radio address to the nation today. Text below the fold. You can listen here (http://otrans.3cdn.net/a935f21490985cc7e6_z3m6ztacs.mp3).

On Tuesday, Americans stood in lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen. It didn’t matter who they were or where they came from; what they looked like or what party they belonged to – they came out and cast their ballot because they believed that in this country, our destiny is not written for us, but by us. We should all take pride in the fact that we once again displayed for the world the power of our democracy, and reaffirmed the great American ideal that this is a nation where anything is possible.

This week, I spoke with President Bush, who graciously offered his full support and assistance in this period of transition. Michelle and I look forward to meeting with him and the First Lady on Monday to begin that process. This speaks to a fundamental recognition that here in America we can compete vigorously in elections and challenge each other’s ideas, yet come together in service of a common purpose once the voting is done. And that is particularly important at a moment when we face the most serious challenges of our lifetime.

Yesterday, we woke to more sobering news about the state of our economy. The 240,000 jobs lost in October marks the 10th consecutive month that our economy has shed jobs. In total, we’ve lost nearly 1.2 million jobs this year, and more than 10 million Americans are now unemployed. Tens of millions of families are struggling to figure out how to pay the bills and stay in their homes. Their stories are an urgent reminder that we are facing the greatest economic challenge of our lifetime, and we must act swiftly to resolve them.

In the wake of these disturbing reports, I met with members of my Transition Economic Advisory Board, who will help guide the work of my transition team in developing a strong set of policies to respond to this crisis. While we must recognize that we only have one President at a time and that President Bush is the leader of our government, I want to ensure that we hit the ground running on January 20th because we don’t have a moment to lose.

We discussed several of the most immediate challenges facing our economy and key priorities on which to focus in the days and weeks ahead to ease the credit crisis, help hardworking families, and restore growth and prosperity.

First, we need a rescue plan for the middle class that invests in immediate efforts to create jobs and provides relief to families that are watching their paychecks shrink and their life savings disappear.

Then, we’ll address the spreading impact of the financial crisis on other sectors of our economy, and ensure that the rescue plan that passed Congress is working to stabilize financial markets while protecting taxpayers, helping homeowners, and not unduly rewarding the management of financial firms that are receiving government assistance.

Finally, we will move forward with a set of policies that will grow our middle-class and strengthen our economy in the long-term. We can’t afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign, including clean energy, health care, education and tax relief for middle class families.

Let me close by saying I do not underestimate the enormity of the task that lies ahead. We’ve taken some major actions to date, and we will need further actions during this transition and subsequent months. Some of those choices will be difficult, but America is a strong and resilient country. I know that we will succeed if we put aside partisanship and work together as one nation. And that is what I intend to do.

President-Elect Obama (I'll never get tired to typing that, I think)

Plus you get to look forward to writing President Obama :)

Or "The President." Wow. :D

I've ordered the first three seasons of The West Wing, and I'm expecting to know a lot about transition politics soon. (The complete 7 seasons are $140.00 on ebay).

And if Emil Jones gets to go to the Senate, I'll be very upset. He's the embodiment of cronyism. I hope Obama is wise enough not to tap too much from Chicago/Illinois politics.

I found Obama's answer to this question to be a good one. He said, and I'm paraphrasing, that appointing his replacement was the Governor's job and he was going to leave the governor to do his job.

Eh... I'll believe it when I see it. This seemingly magnanimous gesture by the lamest of lame ducks could only be a cover-up for executive fiats that make Clinton's look tame.

The reason for the transition period is to allow for the smooth transfer of power and knowledge from one administration to the next. What happened between the Bush and Clinton Administrations was unheard of and frankly shameful. Bush is doing what is expected of him as the outgoing Commander in Chief - he's opening his administration and the executive branch bureaucracy to the Obama team so that they hit the ground running on day 1 instead of having to reinvent the wheel.

What happened between the Bush and Clinton Administrations was unheard of and frankly shameful. Bush is doing what is expected of him as the outgoing Commander in Chief - he's opening his administration and the executive branch bureaucracy to the Obama team so that they hit the ground running on day 1 instead of having to reinvent the wheel.

Care to enlighten me a bit on this one? Maybe by owl, since it's off-topic for this thread.

Bob Herbert has an outstanding column (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/opinion/08herbert.html?hp) in today's New York Times. (Registration required). Here's a snip:

The markets are battered and job losses are skyrocketing, but even in the midst of a national economic crisis, we should not lose sight of the profound significance of this week and what it tells us about the continuing promise of America.

Voters said no to incompetence and divisiveness and elbowed their way past the blight of racism that has been such a barrier to progress for so long. Barack Obama won the state of North Carolina, for crying out loud.

The nation deserves to take a bow. This is not the same place it used to be.

[...]

It can be easy in such a moment of triumph to lose sight of the agony wrought by the unrelieved evil of racism and to forget how crucial a role anti-black racism played in shaping American life since the first slaves were dumped ashore 400 years ago.

Blacks have been holding fast to the promise of America for all that time. Not without anger. Not without rage. But with a fidelity that in the darkest moments — those moments when the flow of blood seemed like it would never stop, when enslaved families were wrenched apart, when entire communities were put to the torch, when the breeze put the stiffened bodies of lynched victims in motion, when even small children were murdered and Dr. King was taken from us — even in those dire moments, African-Americans held fast to the promise of America with a fidelity that defied logic.

The multiracial crowds dancing with unrestrained joy from coast to coast on Tuesday night were proof that the promise of America lives — and that you can’t always hang your hat on logic.

[...]

This week marked a renewal of America’s promise. Voters went to the polls and placed a bet on a better future, handing the power to an unlikely candidate who promised to draw people together rather than exploit their differences.

The final tally wasn’t close.

Tibbetts, that was very magnanimous of you. I think that is all we can ask for to start the healing.

I agree. If I could give Presidents Clinton, and Bush 2, a chance, I can do the same for President-Elect Obama. I still don't agree with his plans for Iraq, or some of his social programs here at home, but I'm going to give hime the benefit of the doubt, and hope he does extremely well.

Wise words, beautifully expressed, Tibbetts. Thanks!

I promised myself that Tuesday was the last day I would consider conservatives to be my enemy. They are not. They are American citizens, just like I am, and we have one beloved country to rally around.

Thank you. :D

As for the second part of your comment, I have never once considered a Democrat/Liberal to be my enemy. I disagreed with them, but to me it was just an intellectual contest of ideas and ideals. So the idea that someone could consider another an enemy based souly on them being a Republican/Conservative is rather strange to me.

Personally, I'm socially-Liberal, and fiscally-Conservative, so I have the frustrating habit of making friends rather... "annoyed" at me for being able to see the other side of a situation. Hehehehe.... :D


-Tibbetts

As for the second part of your comment, I have never once considered a Democrat/Liberal to be my enemy. I disagreed with them, but to me it was just an intellectual contest of ideas and ideals. So the idea that someone could consider another an enemy based souly on them being a Republican/Conservative is rather strange to me.

Moderates and liberals have been treated quite badly by the right, especially once the right gained a stranglehold on all levers of power. There were 59M of us in 2004, and 50M in 2000, who were alternately vilified or ignored by right-wing partisans over the past eight years. So, yeah, it was pretty easy to dislike them.

Personally, I'm socially-Liberal, and fiscally-Conservative, so I have the frustrating habit of making friends rather... "annoyed" at me for being able to see the other side of a situation. Hehehehe.... :D

I think of myself as the same: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Thus I've been in a very bad mood for a very long time.

I'm smiling a lot these days, though! :D

You are not alone in smiling a lot lately....

I am still astonished just how many people this side of the pond find themselves smiling whenever they are in some way reminded of what happened on Tuesday. :) Such a huge number of people is actually actively interested. And most of these smile a lot these days :D

I expect more from him, obviously, but making so many people round the globe smile when they think of the US is, in itself, already quite a feat! :D No planned goodwill campaign could have done that quite as well. :tu: And US democracy also gets a very good press again (after 2000 reports were often sceptical).... and that's not because of the result, but because of the way in which voters were engaged, more people were enticed to get involved....

This general sense of hope and happiness is something I've seen only twice in my lifetime. The world smiled at John Kennedy's election in 1960 and again when Bill Clinton was elected. And I've lived to see it a third time, this year. Sure feels great! :tu:

I can only comment about reactions in Europe - I am sure in the US, ith everything close up, things are different.

I can't remember Kennedy, but my parents can and they say that it felt similar to Obama's victory - just inspiring. Clinton was a pretty nice moment (I was 20 and a political junkie already when that happened, and I remember it well), but no way as big as this - not even close!

The only thing I remember that felt a bit like this was May ist 1997 in the UK. I had just moved to the UK a few months earlier and it was pretty special to experience such a crucial change (that's when Blair was elected after 18 years of Tory government).


Our posts crossed, so I'll move my edit from the post above down here....





I am sure that in the US the first priority has to be to tackle all sorts of internal matters, especially the economy (and us overseas folks wouldn't mind it, either, if the US economy starts working properly again).... Nevertheless, I am curious how he'll enter the world stage. It's going to be a long romantic honeymoon, and that's nice - but I expect that he'll probably use some of his earned kudos to strike some hard bargains. Afghanistan, for example. I agree with him that this one should really be pursued properly until it is solved in a manner that satisfies the Afghans but also the world (i.e. a stable state which can defend itself and which can maintain a sensible pluralist government). In order to do this, Obama will probably want to convince a few more states (especially those in NATO) to contribute more troops - it'll be interesting to see how he'll go about this.

The other world stage issue I am curious about is the Climate change agenda. I am curious how his ideas about environmental policy will translate into action in the international negotiations.

Moderates and liberals have been treated quite badly by the right, especially once the right gained a stranglehold on all levers of power. There were 59M of us in 2004, and 50M in 2000, who were alternately vilified or ignored by right-wing partisans over the past eight years. So, yeah, it was pretty easy to dislike them.

Still, all of that doesn't make it right to hate someone because they believe differently than you. Dislike? Yes. But what I've been reading these past few weeks here has been closer to hate than dislike. :(

I think of myself as the same: socially liberal, fiscally conservative. Thus I've been in a very bad mood for a very long time.

I'm smiling a lot these days, though! :D

I'm not exactely smiling. I'm waiting to see what President-Elect Obama is going to actually do first. I'm hoping it's something good.

As for how the world feels about who we elect? I don't really care what the world thinks, at this time. We elect people for ourselves as a nation, not the world. President-Elect Obama hasn't even taken office yet, and folks around the world are all giddy. Wait until you see what he will do first, before going all gah-gah. lol... I intend to wait. :p


-Tibbetts

Two words explain what's going on abroad: Know Hope.

It's something we haven't exported for a dreadfully long time.

Two words explain what's going on abroad: Know Hope.

It's something we haven't exported for a dreadfully long time.

Hope is part of it, but it's a bit more qualified than that, IMHO. That first giddiness obviously has to do with that. But somehow, Obama comes a bit closer to the sort of characteristics that makes the world at large suspect that he might be a great leader.

I guess one would also expect him to have a better sense of the fact that other parts of the world have a somewhat different perspective.

He doesn't have to do anything about it, being American president and all - but being able to expect that he does at least think about it is rather satisfying.



As for how the world feels about who we elect? I don't really care what the world thinks, at this time. We elect people for ourselves as a nation, not the world. President-Elect Obama hasn't even taken office yet, and folks around the world are all giddy. Wait until you see what he will do first, before going all gah-gah. lol... I intend to wait. :p


Well - obviously, no-one expects you to vote according to what the world thinks. But in a world as connected as ours I would think that it isn't a bad thing if you have a leader who will - at least in the first few months of his administration - meet with a lot of goodwill aborad. And foreign policy is, after all, going to be a good part of his job.

If the world feels giddy now, it can only be an advantage for your nation, so I wouldn't scoff at it - even if it is probably wise not to be too starry-eyed.

Since the one thing that drew me to Obama was his Iraq stance I wonder what the first steps will be in that arena once he officially takes office. Yes, I know he will 'meet with his advisors'. But what is the first step into getting our troops out and Iraq taking over it's own protection? Also, to my knowledge, Iraq has several oil deals with us. Are those going to stand 'as is' or will they be reworked in light of the the current OPEC situation?

What did catch my eye was his reaction to the question on Iran, which actually was much better than simply saying he'd meet them with no preconditions. It was well constructed and well reasoned, leaving enough room to assess the conditions and make a response that meets the needs of the country.


More like meeting the needs of Israel.

I found that encouraging. How is that encouraging?

I could understand that he is echoing the Bush talking points as he doesnt want to send mix signals before the Bush term ends, however, if after inauguration day Obama is to repeat the same old useless talking points that Bush and co have been saying for the last couple of years then he will most likely alienate alot of his supporters. People that got him the nomination in the primaries for starters. US needs a change, a real change in their foreign policies.


And here is a good way to kick start the change:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1035415.html


The march of parochialism started right away. The tears of excitement invoked by U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's wonderful speech had not yet dried, and back here people were already delving into the only real question they could think to ask: Is this good or bad for Israel? One after another, the analysts and politicians got up - all of them representing one single school of thought, of course and began prophesizing.

They spoke with the caution that the situation required, gritting their teeth as though their mouths were full of pebbles, trying to soothe all the fears and concerns. They searched and found signs in Obama: The promising appointment of the Israeli ex-patriots' son, whose father belonged to the Irgun, and maybe also Dennis Ross and Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk, who may, God willing, be included in the new administration.

But in the background, a dark cloud hovered above. Careful, danger. The black man, who had associated with Palestinian expats, who speaks of human rights, who favors diplomacy over war, who even wants to engage Iran in dialogue, who will allocate more funding for America's social needs than to weapons exports. He may not be the sort of "friend of Israel" that we have come to love in Washington, the kind of friend we have grown accustomed to.

What's the panic all about? The truth needs to be said: At the base of all of these fears is the angst that this president will push Israel to end the occupation and move toward peace.

Well, maybe Obama will not be a "friend of Israel." May the great change he is promising not omit his country's Mideast policy. May Obama herald not only a new America, but also a new Middle East.

When we say that someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean a friend of the occupation, a believer in Israel's self-armament, a fan of its language of strength and a supporter of all its regional delusions. When we say someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean someone who will give Israel a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires, for rejecting peace and for building in the territories.

Israel's greatest friend in the White House, outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, was someone like that. There is no other country where this man, who brought a string of disasters down upon his own nation and the world, would receive any degree of prestige and respect. Only in Israel.

Only in Israel does the prime minister place George Bush's portrait in his den, in his private home. Only in Israel does the prime minister travel to visit him in the White House.

That's because Bush was a friend of Israel. Israel's greatest friend. Bush let it embark on an unnecessary war in Lebanon. He did not prevent the construction of a single outpost. He may have encouraged Israel, in secret, to bomb Iran. He did not pressure Israel to move ahead with peace talks, he even held up negotiations with Syria, and he did not reproach Israel for its policy of targeted killings.

Bush also supported the siege on Gaza and participated in the boycott of Hamas, which was elected in a democratic election initiated by his own administration.

That's just how we like U.S. presidents. They give us a green light to do as we please. They fund, equip and arm us, and sit tight. Such is the classic friend of Israel, a friend who is an enemy, and enemy of peace and an enemy to Israel.

Let us now hope that Obama will not be like them. That he will reveal himself to be a true friend of Israel. That he will put his whole weight behind a deep American involvement in the Middle East, that he will try to solve the Iranian issue through negotiation - the only effective means. That he will help end the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas, that he will push Israel and Syria to make peace, that he will spur Israel and the Palestinians to reach a settlement.

We should hope Obama will help Israel help itself, because that is how friendship is measured. That he will criticize its policy when he must, because that, too, is a test of true friendship.

Let him use his clout to end the occupation and dismantle the settlement project. Let him remember that human and civil rights also apply to the Palestinians, not only to black Americans. And apropos world peace, he needs to start with peace in the Middle East, home to the most dangerous of conflicts, which has been threatening the world for a century now, and is feeding international terrorism.

A true friend of Israel needs to remember that Israel may be "the only democracy in the Middle East," but not in its own backyard. That next to Sderot, which he visited, is Gaza. That "common values" must not include a cruel occupation. That friendship does not mean blind and automatic support.

Let him speak with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, as often as he can and with whomever is willing to talk. And let him do it before the next war, not after it. Let him remember that he has the power to do all that.

Changing the Middle East was in the power of each and every U.S. president, who could have pressured Israel and put an end to the occupation. Most of them kept their hands off as if it were a hot potato, all in the name of a wonderful friendship.

So bring us an American president who is not another dreadful "friend of Israel," an Obama who won't blindly follow the positions of the Jewish lobby and the Israeli government. You did promise change, did you not?

Nice article, Ali! :tu:!

Obama has said, hasn't he, that he's a follower of the "two state" approach?

But I wouldn't bet my bottom dollar on middle eastern relations changing strategy, even toward that two state end. It's a nightmare for any world leader- and ever since the Camp David Accords, the US has been bogged down in Israel when it can't truly offer any answers.

I always think, and I know this might be contentious, that a US administration needs to aim for basic neutrality in the area. As things stand, normal non extreme Palestinians on the street don't trust the US government because they're too pro-Israel. I'm not saying that they should support Hamas- but talking about the entire situation has to involve all parties in a neutral place.

I'm not sure that Obama will do this, or anything like it, to be honest. I'm not sure that McCain would have either though- I just don't think such a way of thinking is on the cards at present.

The UK Economist has a very useful (and, IMHO, not overly 'starry-eyed') summary of what Barack Obama will have to tackle in terms of foreign policy....

I think it's a reasonable analysis.

Economist article (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12551938&CFID=29902869&CFTOKEN=93909383)

I think he will tackle the economy as his first priority, but this president-elect is gifted at multi-tasking and not likely to take his eye off other pressing problems. I've been privileged to see that up-close and personal, so I make that statement with confidence.

ETA:

Someone asked, somewhere, why President-Elect Obama's Change.gov (http://change.gov/) website had the .gov extension. Quite apart from being the correct extension for a U.S. government website, another good reason: change.com takes you to a lingerie site. Honestly! I won't link it given the type of merchandise displayed there.

I don't think he has a choice- it will have to be tackling the economy as a priority becaue it's gone bust all across the world. It's not just America in trouble, we're all depending Obama to fix it so that any goodness coming from his decisions will spread out and help the rest of us too.

So in a sense, I'll be glad if he spends most time and effort with that for the time being. The other stuff will come- but if we're prioritizing, clearly the economy is on everyone's minds- and I do think that's a fair assessment and judgment of what he should do and what he should focus on.

I imagine it's already part of his plan though. :)

I agree - the economy has to come first - most importantly, because that's really what turned the election, and that's what concerns people in the US now.

But then - although I believe everything I hear about Obama's gifts in multitasking - he's going to be the president! He won't HAVE to do it all himself - in fact, he really has to delegate (obviously while directing the overal policy in different areas).

I am curious to see what his foreign policy team will look like - I bet they'll set to work on all sorts of things immediately as well. If he wants to get even close to pulling out from Iraq as soon as 2010 there'll have to be a flurry of diplomacy immediately, and not just to Iraq but to the whole region (including, I'd guess, Israel/Palestine, because the situation there has a bearing on everything else)! There are foreign policy issues that can probably wait. But the Iraq thing can't wait if he is serious about it - 2 years are a very short time in diplomacy of that kind in that region!

But that's the point. It isn't just Obama, it's the Obama *administration* - so there might be one issue that's the most important - but it doesn't mean (it MUST not mean) that any of the other stuff comes *later* - it'll just be less visible.

One thing I am certain of is that we've already identified hundreds of Bush actions and/or executive orders that will be undone in a couple of days after the inauguration. They involve stem cell research and reproductive rights among other things. We've been quietly working on this project for months. From the Washington Post:

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.

In some instances, Obama would be quickly delivering on promises he made during his two-year campaign, while in others he would be embracing Clinton-era policies upended by President Bush during his eight years in office.

"The kind of regulations they are looking at" are those imposed by Bush for "overtly political" reasons, in pursuit of what Democrats say was a partisan Republican agenda, said Dan Mendelson, a former associate administrator for health in the Clinton administration's Office of Management and Budget. The list of executive orders targeted by Obama's team could well get longer in the coming days, as Bush's appointees rush to enact a number of last-minute policies in an effort to extend his legacy.

A spokeswoman said yesterday that no plans for regulatory changes had been finalized. "Before he makes any decisions on potential executive or legislative actions, he will be conferring with congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, as well as interested groups," Obama transition spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "Any decisions would need to be discussed with his Cabinet nominees, none of whom have been selected yet."

Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions; Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect's Team (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html?hpid=topnews)

What is Plouffe going to do now? I would love to see him swing over to Gay Rights organizing.

What is Plouffe going to do now? I would love to see him swing over to Gay Rights organizing.

I don't know the answer, Linda, but it's a safe bet he can pretty much write his own ticket after his success with the Obama for America campaign. I've heard chatter about him as a senator.

Since this has already been published at Politico (http://www.politico.com/politico44/), I 'spose it's safe to post it here. These are the ethical rules for members of the president-elect's transition team:

As a condition of being permitted to serve as a member of the Obama Transition Project, I agree to abide by the following requirements:

1. I will disqualify myself from involvement in any particular Obama Transition Project matter which to my knowledge may directly conflict with a financial interest of an immediate family member, partner, client, or other individual or organization with which I have had a business relationship within the past 12 months. Should there be no such direct conflict, but the potential for the appearance of a conflict, I will address this issue for resolution to the Project Executive Director.

2. I will disqualify myself from involvement in any particular transition matter if I have engaged in regulated lobbying activities with respect to such matter, as defined by the Lobbying Disclosure Act, within the previous 12 months.

3. I will not solicit or accept any money or things of value in exchange for a promise to support or use influence on behalf of any person who is a candidate for any appointive office or place in the United States Government.

4. I understand that in my Obama Transition Project-related activities, unless given specific authorization, I am not permitted to make any representations on behalf of Senator Obama or the Democratic nominee for Vice President, their designees, or any official of the Obama Transition Project, and in all my service to the Transition, I will identify myself only as acting on behalf of the Transition Project on transition-related matters.

5. I understand that authorization is required from the Obama Transition Project's Executive Director or the Executive Director's designee before seeking, on behalf of the Obama Transition Project, access to any non-public information.

6. I will hold in confidence any non-public information provided to me in the course of my duties with the Obama Transition Project and ensure that such information is used exclusively for purposes of the Obama Transition Project.

I'm watching Obama at a Barnes & Noble book tour on C-Span of 11/23/04 and it was very interesting. He answered a lot of questions including about foreign policy & Kenya's reaction to his winning the Senate seat. Definitely a must watch. He's exactly the same but with less layers.

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/11/07/12/726-11072008Powell.slideshow_main.prod_affiliate.91.jp g

Hahaha! :lol:

I wouldn't want to be the one fielding all those inquiries.

About 20 minutes ago, I watched as Barack Obama and Michelle arrived at the white house. George & Laura Bush greeted them warmly. They all stood together on the steps and posed with a smiling, group photo, then disappeared inside.

I think I've heard many state they'd like to be a fly on the wall during this meeting.

The kids in my neighborhood have started a campaign to invite the Obama daughters to either a) attend our local school or since we're more than a hour away from DC, b) come over to play. I can remember sending a letter to President Carter inviting Amy to cover to play with me. I got a Christmas card in return and when I met him many years later I made a point of mentioning how offended I still am that Amy never came to play my house! I'm not sure he cared much at that point, but did seem interested in the pictures of the rosette spoonbill I'd taken.

Just a brief lurk to say this:

My husband's serving his second tour in Iraq right now. I asked him what the reaction was to Obama's election. Here's something for Obama and his team to think about:

(1) The Iraqi Army is fearful that America will leave before they are ready. Progress is good, but still not at the stage to say that they could completely field a problem if it pops up . . . and problems will pop up.

(2) The Iraqi Police are ecstatic for the Americans to leave . . . . so they can go back to being corrupt.

Leaving or staying in Iraq is NOT an easy answer. I would hope that Obama would listen to Generals on the ground and really take stock before just abandoning the enterprise all together.

We are nearer our goal for Iraqis to handle things themselves, but not completely and leaving at this point, IMHO, is still a recipe for disaster, despite many of the benchmarks being met and the fact that the violence is down.

So Obama will have to multi-task - the economy and Iraq (and with it, foreign policy in general).

I'd like to think that Obama got a real taste of what Bush had to deal with and what he'll have to deal with after his National Security briefing the other day. It's easy to judge when you are not in the hot seat and don't have ALL the information. But Obama WILL be in the hot seat come January 20th and I hope that that briefing and his meeting with President Bush gives him a better insight into what it takes to be President of this country and also gives him better insight into the threats that we face.

Sure, it would be great if the Air Force had to hold a bake sale, but the fact is that disarming ourselves or even cutting back, does not meant that peace will follow.

Peace happens when EVERYBODY wants it. And, right now, not everybody wants it, including Muslim terrorists, Iran, and possibly even Russia, and who knows about China and North Korea, never mind the despots still running free in many African nations and other places around the world.

I hope that Obama gains a little bit of that perspective. I don't expect him to go all "neocon", but I do hope that he goes a little bit more JFK, a Democrat that understood the threat of Communism.

Making nice does not save you, as Chamberlain and Europe quickly found out.

Peace through strength is the only way to go, IMHO.

Carry on.

Here's a pic of 43 and 44 with Laura and Michelle at the White House today:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/bush-obama.jpg

As you may know the transition team has now set up change.gov (http://change.gov/) as the new transition website. And there have already been changes to the way things have been run over the past eight years. Not only has the president been demoted to fall under the Constitution of the United States, the vice president has had his fourth branch revoked. He is now lined up beneath the president in the executive branch where the framers of our Constitution intended him to be. You can see the new charts here (http://directory.presidentialtransition.gov/).

As you may know the transition team has now set up change.gov (http://change.gov/) as the new transition website. And there have already been changes to the way things have been run over the past eight years. Not only has the president been demoted to fall under the Constitution of the United States, the vice president has had his fourth branch revoked. He is now lined up beneath the president in the executive branch where the framers of our Constitution intended him to be. You can see the new charts here (http://directory.presidentialtransition.gov/).

Sorry - what exactly are you saying here?
I am perhaps as familiar with the constitutional set-up, but the chart looks like the standard set-up I'd expect?

Isn't that how it's supposed to work according to the constitution? Are you suggesting that the outgoing administration actually *changed the rules* (are they allowed to tamper with that? I can't believe any stable democracy can allow this) - or are you saying that the outgoing administration didn't stick to the rules?

This is a genuine question, not polemic.
As someone interested in the theory of democracy I feel very unueasy with how some powers were used (as far as I can tell) and yes, Dick Cheney was a particular cause for concern when it comes to using power that's not very well defined.

But what you seem to be implying here sounds much more serious....

Our current president dismissed the Constitution as "just a piece of paper." He also gave himself sweeping powers, as a self-described "war-time president," to make mince of the individual rights and liberties granted to the American people under the Constitution. As for the vice president, Cheney stated publicly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/29/dickcheney.usa) that his office existed at once in the executive and the legistlative branches of our government, making it a force unto itself over which Congress had no authority. Seriously! In any case, all that nuttiness is going bye-bye.

Our current president dismissed the Constitution as "just a piece of paper." He also gave himself sweeping powers, as a self-described "war-time president," to make mince of the individual rights and liberties granted to the American people under the Constitution. As for the vice president, Cheney stated publicly (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/29/dickcheney.usa) that his office existed at once in the executive and the legistlative branches of our government, making it a force unto itself over which Congress had no authority. Seriously! In any case, all that nuttiness is going bye-bye.

I agree that it's time for that to end. Separation of Powers is there for a reason. The USA demonstrates a much clearer and better defined system of working through it, as my own government fails to do in similar circumstances. It will be good to see the legislative and executive seat once again as individual as they can be under the terms of the Constitution- and further to this, that the document itself will be recognised once more as the superseding law in the Unites States.

Sounds good to me, to be honest..

It sounds pretty darned good to me, too. Closing Guantanamo, repealing the Patriot Act, either deep-sixing or restructuring the warrantless eavesdropping with stringent oversight, repealing the Detainee Treatment Act and bringing the country into compliance with the Geneva Accords, abolishing torture, extraordinary rendition and the bit about snatching people out of their beds and "disappearing" them - all of that is one great start to reclaiming our national self-respect.

Something else I've gotten a bit excited about is that the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body within the Pentagon, has warned President-Elect Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/10/pentagon_board_says_cuts_essential/?page=full)," and he must scale back or outright eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.

The briefings were prepared by the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body. It contends that the nation's recent financial crisis makes it imperative that the Pentagon and Congress slash some of the nation's most costly and troubled weapons to ensure they can finance the military's most pressing priorities.

Those include rebuilding ground forces battered by multiple tours to Iraq and Afghanistan and expanding the ranks to wage the war on terrorism.

"Business as usual is no longer an option," according to one of the internal briefings prepared in late October for the presidential transition, copies of which were provided to the Globe. "The current and future fiscal environments facing the department demand bold action."

The briefings do not specify which programs should be cut, but defense analysts say that prime targets would probably include the new F-35 fight er jet, a series of Navy ship programs, and a massive Army project to build a new generation of ground combat vehicles, all of which have been skyrocketing in cost and suffering long development delays.

I've been saying this for years. There is no reason on earth for the Pentagon to be spending nearly 40% of the federal budget in addition to supplementals to fund the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is pure madness. It's hard for me to see the logic in talking incessantly about earmarks (or "pork-barrel spending") and ignoring the elephant in the living room.

Watch: if the President-Elect takes this sensible action, the right will again come back in an election year, shrieking about how he "cut defense" and did not "support the troops."

I can remember sending a letter to President Carter inviting Amy to cover to play with me. I got a Christmas card in return and when I met him many years later I made a point of mentioning how offended I still am that Amy never came to play my house! I'm not sure he cared much at that point, but did seem interested in the pictures of the rosette spoonbill I'd taken.

:) And so, a Republican was born ...

There is a rumor Obama wants Valerie Jarrett for his Senate seat. I can't see that she has the Illinois ties necessary (although she worked for Mayor Daley), more the intensely loyal Obama ties. I really would prefer an elected official from the State Legislature or the Congressional House. She's too much of a back room mama. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/obamas-replacement-blagoj_n_141561.html

It sounds pretty darned good to me, too. Closing Guantanamo, repealing the Patriot Act, either deep-sixing or restructuring the warrantless eavesdropping with stringent oversight, repealing the Detainee Treatment Act and bringing the country into compliance with the Geneva Accords, abolishing torture, extraordinary rendition and the bit about snatching people out of their beds and "disappearing" them - all of that is one great start to reclaiming our national self-respect.

Something else I've gotten a bit excited about is that the Defense Business Board, an internal management oversight body within the Pentagon, has warned President-Elect Obama that the Defense Department's current budget is "not sustainable (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/11/10/pentagon_board_says_cuts_essential/?page=full)," and he must scale back or outright eliminate some of the military's most prized weapons programs.



That must be part of the "radical left agenda" that he's going to introduce.

Yeah... "Radical Left" coming straight from the Pentagon.

Ease off the sarcasm a notch? Thanks!

Just a side note, historically, the Vice President is considered the President of the Senate. Therefore, he is a part of the Legislative Branch in that respect. There is a reason why there is a "President Pro-Tem" in the Senate to run the day-to-day affairs.

In the early years of the Republic, the Vice President spent much of his time in the Senate being the President of the Senate. As time went on, the Vice President became even more of a force in the Executive Branch.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. VP Cheney was correct in that the VP is indeed apart of the Legislative Branch. However, he was wrong to think that he was above the Law.

Regards,

-Tibbetts

Back to the good ol' days. Finally.

It sounds pretty darned good to me, too. Closing Guantanamo,

Have to say I'm pleased and a bit surprised. The gulag issue was one I though would be put in the too hard basket in the early days.

I'm going to ask for a link to back what you've just said, Tibbetts. In all my years, I've never seen a vice president make a claim like that. That job has traditionally been one given to the next guy in line for the presidency, and he showed up in the Senate only for tie-breakers and ceremonial duties.

The Constitution does call for him to be "president of the Senate," but it also says he shall have no role other than voting in the case of a tie. I don't think we should be imputing presidential power over the Senate to the vice president. It just doesn't exist.

ETA:

Have to say I'm pleased and a bit surprised. The gulag issue was one I though would be put in the too hard basket in the early days.

I'm not surprised. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

I'm not surprised. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

And overall he is very good in respecting the constitution. Except for the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not sure we can close Gitmo as quickly as the left, or other countries want. There's still the matter of determining who are truly dangerous, and who isn't, and all the logistics behind finding other places for these people. Obama can't wave his hand and wish Gitmo to go away.

I'm not surprised. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Still politically difficult though.

I'm not sure we can close Gitmo as quickly as the left, or other countries want. There's still the matter of determining who are truly dangerous, and who isn't, and all the logistics behind finding other places for these people. Obama can't wave his hand and wish Gitmo to go away.

Which isn't the plan anyway.

The present mob have gone out of their way to not mention that hundreds of detainees have been repatriated already because they had nothing to answer to (oops! Sorry about the torture).

Sifting the remained shouldn't take too long. The tricky bit will be finding room in a prison system overcrowded with people doing mandatory sentences for possession of a joint for those who will stand trial.

I'm going to ask for a link to back what you've just said, Tibbetts. In all my years, I've never seen a vice president make a claim like that. That job has traditionally been one given to the next guy in line for the presidency, and he showed up in the Senate only for tie-breakers and ceremonial duties.

Link #1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States), Link #2 (http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/vice_president.htm), Link #3 (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm).... I could keep going. A quick Google search for "Vice Presidents role in the United States Senate" brough up a bunch of info.

From Link #3:
Vice-Presidential Duties

The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.
The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents — John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush — had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.
Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."
Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.
The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.
During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.


I remember reading that Vicec President Adams presided over many sessions of the United States Senate in his role as President of the Senate. Just as an example.



The Constitution does call for him to be "president of the Senate," but it also says he shall have no role other than voting in the case of a tie. I don't think we should be imputing presidential power over the Senate to the vice president. It just doesn't exist.

Um... Never said that Presidents should have power of the Senate? Can you point to where I stated that please.


Regards,

-Tibbetts

No, you didn't say that outright. But this bit about the veep being "President of the U.S. Senate" seems to imply that the role is an executive or administrative one. It is neither. Breaking 10 ties over a veep's term of office and receiving the final vote tallies after an election once every four years is hardly much of a job.

The Senate elects its own officers. The Majority Leader runs the Senate, not the vice president.

I can feel the hope, and I'm so glad that I was one of the young people who helped make this change possible :D


WOOOOOHOOOO!

I'm looking forward to my future, making potential for change, like this. possible for years to come.

Good for you JustanIllusion.

I don't think we need to worry about Biden being either President of the Senate or a major executive force. I just hope he doesn't eat glue.

Oh come on - that's unkind, especially because you are saying this about a man who is clearly widely repsected and, it has to be said, by BOTH sides.

The man clearly has a lot of experience, and the only bad thing that I at least have heard anybody say about him is that he has occasionally managed to come out with a gaffe. Yes, some of these were pretty bad (stealing a passage of a speech from Neil Kinnock is the worst that comes to mind) - but what comes across to me when looking at these it's a slight lack of political polish (and I mean a SLIGHT lack), rather than a lack of competence or experience.

Interestingly, at least in the press reports I saw some months ago, McCain was also described as gaffe prone - probably due to his mavericky instincts (which come across as absolutely genuine). I at least saw that as part of his charm rather than a disadvantage, but I'd give Biden the same benefit of the doubt.

In any case, all the gaffes Biden managed to make in his whole political life of a few decades were easily topped by Sara Palin in a mere few weeks.

Oh come on - that's unkind, especially because you are saying this about a man who is clearly widely repsected and, it has to be said, by BOTH sides.

It was just a joke. I love Biden, but he's no Barack Obama. :no:

BTW on The Onion, does anyone know if the personals are real or also jokes?

Patti Solis Doyle (ousted Clinton Campaign manager who went to be Biden's aide with Obama camp) has been offered Cabinet Secretary post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/obama-transition-team-cou_n_142816.html (coordinates Cabinet meetings).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/muzikal203/Obama/White%20House/fff1b507.jpg

Joe is one of those salt-of-the-earth, undeniably nice guys. He's a little pompous, yes, but he's also one of the most likeable men I've ever met. From a strictly gut level, Joe feels comfortable and comforting - smart as hell, politically savvy, and yet his instincts fall on the side of everyday folks.

Have to say I'm pleased and a bit surprised. The gulag issue was one I though would be put in the too hard basket in the early days.

I'm not surprised. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

But, as I said, this is politics.

When you pick up people off the battlefield that have a terrorist background, it's not just so easy to let them go. It's not so easy just to say that you're going to close Guantanamo Bay.

SMH (http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/guantanamo-bay-not-easy-to-close/2008/11/11/1226318653105.html)

And they have 10 weeks to go.

No, you didn't say that outright. But this bit about the veep being "President of the U.S. Senate" seems to imply that the role is an executive or administrative one. It is neither. Breaking 10 ties over a veep's term of office and receiving the final vote tallies after an election once every four years is hardly much of a job.

The Senate elects its own officers. The Majority Leader runs the Senate, not the vice president.

Tibbetts' point, as I understand it, was that the role of the VP is broader than just one of breaking ties and receiving vote tallies. I know that Joe Biden and liberals have a problem with what the Constitution says.

I know that Joe Biden and liberals have a problem with what the Constitution says.

You have anything to back such inflammatory up?

Because we already know how the current admin feels about the Constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_article_7779.shtml). (And you've never posted anything to condemn that. I wonder why that is?)

Instead of throwing the word "liberal" around as if it were a bad word you might wish to attempt to be more positive and inclusive in your language usage.

:relax:

Hi guys, I've got a couple of staff requests here.

1. Let's keep this on the high road. All the petty gossip about Obama, pointless jabs at Palin, suppositions that McCain was going to die in his sleep are even more petty and pointless now. Let's see if we can focus on big issues. So McCain decision to keep Palin from the press is fine, implications that Palin thinks Africa is a country are not.

2. Bush and Cheney are unpopular, but they're still our President and Vice President. You do not have to agree with them or like them but try to phrase your opinions with some respect. There's no need to result to slurs.

I imagine he'll give the order to shut the place down soon after his inauguration, Wab, but the fine details of how that will be done may take a while. Many countries are leery of taking on a man who, while having done nothing that merited detention in the first place, has been tortured and otherwise badly treated. Some, maybe most, of those men have been maimed emotionally and are going to need intervention wherever they end up.

So far, with the outstanding exception of the Uighurs who ended up in Albania of all places, most repatriations to the west have gone pretty well.

Where he will hit the rocks is with the US prison system. It is already overcrowded and shoehorning a few hundred more prisoners, some of whom will undoubtedly need to be housed in Supermax facilities, won't be easy.

So far, with the outstanding exception of the Uighurs who ended up in Albania of all places, most repatriations to the west have gone pretty well.

That was despicable, wasn't it? How the Uighurs ended up caught in this web is beyond me to guess, and their treatment has been abysmal.

Where he will hit the rocks is with the US prison system. It is already overcrowded and shoehorning a few hundred more prisoners, some of whom will undoubtedly need to be housed in Supermax facilities, won't be easy.

I hear that. I've seen several political cartoons picturing our next president standing outside on the White House lawn, contemplating a huge pile of poo with a shovel in his hand. That sums it up pretty neatly.

I imagine he'll give the order to shut the place down soon after his inauguration, Wab, but the fine details of how that will be done may take a while. Many countries are leery of taking on a man who, while having done nothing that merited detention in the first place, has been tortured and otherwise badly treated. Some, maybe most, of those men have been maimed emotionally and are going to need intervention wherever they end up.


Purple, you are making assumptions that have no real basis in fact. While it may make the President-elect feel better to assert that these folks were innocently taken from their homes and sent to Cuba, the fact of the matter is that they were taken prisoner on the battlefield, under arms for an extra-national organization and many return to the fight once released.

37 Detainees return to global jihad upon release (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf)

While I'm sure, as this report discusses, there are people detained with dubious backgrounds. This report (http://law.shu.edu/aaafinal.pdf) by no means is laudatory of the internments.

2. Only 8% of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40% have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18% are have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The Obama administration will find itself in a quandry. What do you do with the 8% who were Al Qaeda fighters? If 40% have "no definitive connection to Al Qaeda" doesn't that mean that 60% do? What do you do with them? If 18% don't have a definitive affiliation with Al Qaeda or the Taliban, what do you do with the 82% that do?

It's not as easy a question as first thought, and I'm sure the Obama Administration will find pronouncements easily made on the campaign trail about the "plight" of the detainees are much harder to exercise when the reality of who they are and the complexities putting them in the US Court system will bring.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the cooler heads in the Obama Administration will make the right choice, because no one, even the Obama Administration wants to be known as the team that let terrorists go free. In fact, I'm convinced that the Obama Administration is as committed to protecting the homeland as anyone else, and will make those hard decisions, when all is said and done.

He isn't, but, even if he was, liberal is no longer a bad word with this year's electorate or with the coalition Obama has formed.

A proposed bailout of Detroit is VERY liberal, almost socialist IMO. This is the sort of stuff that Obama has decided to headline his agenda with, paybacks to ruinous Unions for their support of his candidacy. The auto companies have made bad products for years, using costly Union labor which is not-competitve, and now we the American people should bail them out of their failure as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid would suggest? NO!

Even if we do it, there's no guarantee they'll defeat the Japanese. They couldn't do it with fossil fuel cars, what makes us think they're capable of it with hybrids, et al? :no:

Again, I'm just waiting for Obama to go back on his campaign platform regarding taxes. We'll see how far down below $250k that he moves that threshold. My friends and I have started a betting pool...the person who guesses closest to the actual date of the announcement wins the pot.

the fact of the matter is that they were taken prisoner on the battlefield,

That is not a fact.

A great many were picked up in Pakistan or in parts of Afghanistan well removed from the fighting.

That is not a fact.

A great many were picked up in Pakistan or in parts of Afghanistan well removed from the fighting.

The coalition didn't round them up because they looked funny or were minding their own business. They were, for the most part, accomplices to those who mean us harm. That's why the military says they picked them up. I trust the military more than the ACLU.

I think the main thing is to give these people have some sort of process to truly identify who is the real danger, really committed crimes...and who did not.

Being veteran's day, here is what Obama did to honor veterans:

http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5jBmffFDBdmCqvtjr3Egmryts7QZA?size=m
Obama marks Veterans Day with wreath-laying
By LIZ SIDOTI – 47 minutes ago

CHICAGO (AP) — President-elect Obama honored fallen troops Tuesday by placing a wreath at a memorial and making a Veterans Day pledge to the many Americans who have served in the military.

"Let us rededicate ourselves to keep a sacred trust with all who have worn the uniform of the United States of America: that America will serve you as well as you have served your country," Obama said in a statement. "As your next commander in chief, I promise to work every single day to keep that sacred trust with all who have served."

One week after winning the presidential election, Obama took a brief break from his primary tasks of mapping out his administration and monitoring the economic crisis to mark Veterans Day at the bronze soldiers memorial between the Field Museum and Soldier Field in Chicago.

The Illinois senator, who will inherit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from President Bush, was accompanied by Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who lost her legs in combat. She later ran unsuccessfully for Congress and now is the Illinois governor's veterans affairs director.

On a brisk autumn day, Obama moved a pre-positioned wreath a few feet closer to the front of the memorial that bore the phrase "dedicated to the defenders of our liberty." He and Duckworth bowed their heads briefly and then each saluted.

In his statement Obama praised "the extraordinary service and selfless sacrifice of our nation's veterans" who have "defended the American people and stood up for American values."

"Since 9/11, a new generation of American heroes has borne a heavy load in facing down the threats of the 21st century, and their families have been asked to bear the painful absence of a loved one. These Americans are the best and bravest among us, and they are all in our thoughts and prayers," he added.

Aside from the short public appearance, Obama as huddling in private with top advisers planning for the transfer of presidential power in January. His aides say no Cabinet positions are to be announced this week, though White House staff positions may come later in the week.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD94CSNMG0

...And, from all of us at our household to all Veterans and families of Veterans, Happy Veteran's day. We lift our glasses to all.

No, you didn't say that outright. But this bit about the veep being "President of the U.S. Senate" seems to imply that the role is an executive or administrative one. It is neither. Breaking 10 ties over a veep's term of office and receiving the final vote tallies after an election once every four years is hardly much of a job.

The Senate elects its own officers. The Majority Leader runs the Senate, not the vice president.

According to the Constitutin of the United States, the Vice President is the President of the Senate. Therefore, the Vice President's role in Legislative Branch is clearly stated. If a sitting Vice President wanted to sit in as the President of the United States Senate, he/she could definitely do so, and be within his/her Constitutional rights.

Tibbetts' point, as I understand it, was that the role of the VP is broader than just one of breaking ties and receiving vote tallies. I know that Joe Biden and liberals have a problem with what the Constitution says.

Indeed, that was what I was trying to get across, Pensieve. Thank you.

As for VP-Elect Biden having a problem with the Consitution? I don't know about that. Do you have and proof of this? And certainly, most Liberals don't have problems with the Constitution. They take oaths to it like any other elected to Office. I can't believe that the majority of Liberals in the Congress would falsely give an Oath, and then potentially tear that very document to pieces, as implied(figuratively, or literally). I just can't.

Btw, that was serious. Just incase some here think it is sarcasm. I've seen it displayed here in US Elections to often, unfortunately. :(

You have anything to back such inflammatory up?

Because we already know how the current admin feels about the Constitution (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_article_7779.shtml). (And you've never posted anything to condemn that. I wonder why that is?)

Instead of throwing the word "liberal" around as if it were a bad word you might wish to attempt to be more positive and inclusive in your language usage.

:relax:

I agree. What Bush said during that is just... It ticks me off to think that a sitting President would say such a thing. I just hope that President-Elect Obama doesn't pick up where President Bush leaves off ripping the Constitution to shreds. :grumble:

I also agree with how the word "Liberal" is being chucked around as if all are the enemy. I also don't like that "Conservative, and Republican" are bounced around the same way.

I may not agree with many here on how to do things, but they aren't my enemy. Never have been. The idea that to be my enemy, all you have to do is disagree with me, is antithema to my way of thinking. Same goes for those here and elsewhere that hate me, and consider me "enemy" just because I have a different political viewpoint. Not saying there are those that consider me, personally, to be their enemy, it's just a trend I've been noticing towards Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, and Liberals online. It is truly sad, and makes me think that we as a nation may be in for a rougher 4 years than I want. :(

I've seen on other boards(not this one, of course ;) ) where the tone of hate, and that has to be the word for this, towards President-Elect Obama has been extreme. Words spoken many times, "scumbag, scumsucker, classless piece of sub-human filth"(that last one had me so ****** off I lashed out at the idiot that dared utter such stupidity).....Those, are just a few of what I've read/heard from the Republican, and Conservative side of things.

It's truly saddening to me, and makes me fear that this hate and bigotry will just build until it explodes. Some have even talked of "Civil War". That sent me through the bloody roof. And the hatred on the otherside is just adding to this fire.

I hope people are able to grow up, and move past this before we lose this nation to a second Civil War.



I think the main thing is to give these people have some sort of process to truly identify who is the real danger, really committed crimes...and who did not.

Being veteran's day, here is what Obama did to honor veterans:

http://ap.google.com/media/ALeqM5jBmffFDBdmCqvtjr3Egmryts7QZA?size=m
Obama marks Veterans Day with wreath-laying
By LIZ SIDOTI – 47 minutes ago

CHICAGO (AP) — President-elect Obama honored fallen troops Tuesday by placing a wreath at a memorial and making a Veterans Day pledge to the many Americans who have served in the military.

"Let us rededicate ourselves to keep a sacred trust with all who have worn the uniform of the United States of America: that America will serve you as well as you have served your country," Obama said in a statement. "As your next commander in chief, I promise to work every single day to keep that sacred trust with all who have served."

One week after winning the presidential election, Obama took a brief break from his primary tasks of mapping out his administration and monitoring the economic crisis to mark Veterans Day at the bronze soldiers memorial between the Field Museum and Soldier Field in Chicago.

The Illinois senator, who will inherit wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from President Bush, was accompanied by Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who lost her legs in combat. She later ran unsuccessfully for Congress and now is the Illinois governor's veterans affairs director.

On a brisk autumn day, Obama moved a pre-positioned wreath a few feet closer to the front of the memorial that bore the phrase "dedicated to the defenders of our liberty." He and Duckworth bowed their heads briefly and then each saluted.

In his statement Obama praised "the extraordinary service and selfless sacrifice of our nation's veterans" who have "defended the American people and stood up for American values."

"Since 9/11, a new generation of American heroes has borne a heavy load in facing down the threats of the 21st century, and their families have been asked to bear the painful absence of a loved one. These Americans are the best and bravest among us, and they are all in our thoughts and prayers," he added.

Aside from the short public appearance, Obama as huddling in private with top advisers planning for the transfer of presidential power in January. His aides say no Cabinet positions are to be announced this week, though White House staff positions may come later in the week.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5isOFwdbq0tsqatW6vJpkDRTI1gMgD94CSNMG0

...And, from all of us at our household to all Veterans and families of Veterans, Happy Veteran's day. We lift our glasses to all.

I hope all Veteran's(and their families) had a great day. I feel honored to know that you stand between us and those that would take our Liberties, Rights, and Freedoms away.


Regards,

-Tibbetts

Tibbets - great post - as so often. I really enjoy reading your stuff. Especially BECAUSE I, as a European leftish liberal academic (yes, it's that bad! ;) ) really need to read opinions like yours. And you articulate them well, and make me really understand where you are coming from :tu:


It's truly saddening to me, and makes me fear that this hate and bigotry will just build until it explodes. Some have even talked of "Civil War". That sent me through the bloody roof. And the hatred on the otherside is just adding to this fire.



This is shocking. I am sure it's mostly posturing. But still!


This is a harsh question to ask but..... somehow i feel like its' the elephant in the room.


there we have Obama being compared to Lincoln, JFK and MLK. What have these people got in common? :(

Is anyone else worried? Or can we assume that the US has moved on since the 1960's?

Of course we are all worried about it, but also know that everything that can be done is being done to prevent it.

U. S. Presidents all have the risk of harm to them...just for *being* President. There will always be someone who wishes to do harm to the man in this seat, no matter how good a man he may be.

I think we don't discuss it much because it's just too difficult to think about, and we all already know what the dangers of this office are.

The Democratic Caucus will vote on whether Lieberman retains his chairmanship as Head of Homeland Security. 10:1 he loses it. A democrat will want that plum for their resume. http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/11/its_official_full_dem_caucus_w.php

I'm not sure if this is the Senate or the combined Senate & House caucus (a caucus is elected representatives of the party).

Tibbets - great post - as so often. I really enjoy reading your stuff. Especially BECAUSE I, as a European leftish liberal Academic (yes, it's that bad! ;) ) really need to read opinions like yours. And you articulate them well, and make me really understand where you are coming from :tu:

Thank you. I try to make it a habit of actually thinking before I post. I feel it seperates me from those other Conservatives that seem consumed by hate for a man who has yet to take office. :grumble:


This is shocking. I am sure it's mostly posturing. But still!

I hope it is, as well. The thought of the United States having a Civil War in today's age.... It scares the Hell out of me. The weapons of the Civil War were extremely powerful in that time, and casualties were gastly. To use the weapons in our day and age? *shivers*

Thus is a harsh question to ask but..... somehow i feel like its' the elepahnt in the room.

there we have Obama being compared to Lincoln, JFK and MLK. What have these people got in common? :(

All of them were a fulcrum point for changes in Civil Rights. Which caused in Lincoln's case, the American Civil War, in JFK's, he furthered Civil Rights that were started under Eisenhower, and MLK, of course, kept the Civil Rights struggle peaceful, and continuously moving. And, there was also the ending of all three by assassination, sadly. :(

I believe that if all had lived to the fullness of their lives, things in this nation would've been better all around.

In regards to President Lincoln, I feel the Southern States', after the Civil War would have been treated far better. With Lincoln out of the way, the new President and those in the Congress at the time, wanted to exact vengence on the South for the war. The South became a conquered land, Martial Law was declared, it was formed into a Military Disctrict, and her people treated harshly. Blacks, it should be noted, even though they were now "free", didn't register to vote for the first few years. It took the 14th Amendment passing to finally start changing things around.

It should also be noted, that the Federal Government back to gather more power unto itself, taking what was intended as States' right, and making them a Federal one. I agree that certain steps were needed to insure that Blacks were able to vote, and be treated as equals, but part of America's problems today, financially, stem from the Federal Governments assumed duties to interfere in many States'. Forcing them to bend to what the Feds want, or lose funding, that should've already been in State coffers.

In regards to President Kennedy, it continued Eisenhower's Civil Rights policies, and augmented them. However, it was under President Johnson, that the Civil Rights movement truly began to unfold and become more than a "movement", but planted seeds of a "revolution". But, Johnson couldn't have done it without the foundation constructed by President's Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Kennedy.

In regards to Reverend King, a truly great man, indeed. He was able to inspire a peaceful movement/revolution in Civil Rights against extremely powerful odds, and generations of hatred in the South against Blacks. Mainly because Whites in the South believed from generation to generation that the treatment of the South by the North after the Civil War was because of the Blacks. It was pure B.S., but they believed it anyway, and the deep seated hatred for the Northern Government right after the Civil War, filtered from Father to Son, from Mother to Daughter, each generation moving the hatred of the Northern Governments treatment of their parents, and grandparents, to the Blacks that didn't deserve it. Most, not all, but mostly because of what was taught in schools. That the reason the North went to war with the South, was because of Slavery, and to free the Blacks from their oppression. It was actually more multifaceted than that, but they focused on the Slavery issue, and generations focused their hate on that.

All of which meant, that President's Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, and all those in the Civil Rights Movement under Reverend King, had a long up hill fight against generation of hate.

That hate still exists in some, learned from their parents, and/or grandparents, or, just because they want to find someone to place for their troubles.

The same can be said for more Blacks than I want to admit, unfortunately. Especially for those in down trodden parts of cities, and towns across the United States. Many think the the Government, and "whitie", owe them for something that has never happened to them, Slavery. That, too, has been passed down generation to generation. And, all this repetativness through generations is only adding to the "what will they do for me" generation that has arisen in America. Not only Blacks, but among Whites as well. It must stop on either side. We need to be able to be on a field where skill, and experience decide on whether we get a job, and we must continue to make sure that we watch any discrimination based on sex, color, and religion in those wanted to go to University to improve themselves, or to learn a trade.

Okay... That was probably more than many wanted to read, sorry about that. Some here will undoubtedly be angry with my for my view on things, but that's how the cookie crumbles. If we were all the same, it's be a Communist/Socialist/Marxist world out there. And hopefully, it will remain not being one. ;)

Is anyone else worried? Or can we assume that the US has moved on since the 1960's?

I'm a little worried, but I'm a glass half full, kinda guy. I prefer to view the future with optomism(sp?).

Regards,

-Tibbetts

All of them were a fulcrum point for changes in Civil Rights. Which caused in Lincoln's case, the American Civil War, in JFK's, he furthered Civil Rights that were started under Eisenhower, and MLK, of course, kept the Civil Rights struggle peaceful, and continuously moving. And, there was also the ending of all three by assassination, sadly.

Doesn't paint a pretty picture of this country, does it? :no:

The same can be said for more Blacks than I want to admit, unfortunately. Especially for those in down trodden parts of cities, and towns across the United States. Many think the the Government, and "whitie", owe them for something that has never happened to them, Slavery. That, too, has been passed down generation to generation. And, all this repetativness through generations is only adding to the "what will they do for me" generation that has arisen in America. Not only Blacks, but among Whites as well. It must stop on either side. We need to be able to be on a field where skill, and experience decide on whether we get a job, and we must continue to make sure that we watch any discrimination based on sex, color, and religion in those wanted to go to University to improve themselves, or to learn a trade.

The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow are bred into the DNA of every black man, woman and child in the United States. I don't want to get into a race debate here, but the idea that slavery doesn't still impact the lives of black Americans is pretty far off-base. Barack Obama will bring his family to live in the White House next January. The irony in that is unmistakable: the White House was built (and later rebuilt) by the labor of slaves.

Think for a moment of how you grew up regarding that dwelling. Then think what it symbolized for a black child.

Thanks so much... what a good read yet again, Tibbets.....


And Purplehawk.... it's always important to be reminded of that. Europe really isn't any better on racism (worse, if you look at the 20th century). But it's.... different, and it's very difficult for this white Austrian to understand how an African-American would see the world. It's been an education reading such opinions - especially in the last few weeks.

The legacy of slavery and Jim Crow are bred into the DNA of every black man, woman and child in the United States.

Actually, it's not. DNA is genetic, slavery is history / social. Nature vs Nurture.
The DNA argument is an anti-change, progress is impossible argument. Purple - you know better !

--------> Update

Rep. Wasserman Schultz says that Reid is going to decide Lieberman's fate within the Senate Caucus (not including the House caucus).

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcoltop11.45245.ImageFile.jpg

Actually, it's not. DNA is genetic, slavery is history / social. Nature vs Nurture.
The DNA argument is an anti-change, progress is impossible argument. Purple - you know better!

'Course I do. I should have said mind, heart, and soul.

'Course I do. I should have said mind, heart, and soul.

Then maybe it's time to change the mind, heart, and soul. If people keep passing it on from generation to generation, then all it does is purpetuate this problem, and makes it worse, over time. Obama says that "Change is coming". I hope so, but on a deeper level than maybe he meant it to be.

Now, folks of all colors, religions, and backgrounds can look upon a President Obama and say, "Look! If he can succeed here, then why can't we?"

Maybe a more fundamental "change" begins now.


Regards,

-Tibbetts

The coalition didn't round them up because they looked funny or were minding their own business. They were, for the most part, accomplices to those who mean us harm.


Something you cannot say because not one who was picked up in Pakistan has yet been convicted.

And they were just picked up, by an large, for being in the wrong place. That and the fat rewards that were offered on arrest, not conviction.

And I trust the military about as much as I trust any bureaucracy. Probably less because they have the ability to overthrow governments.

But this is OT. What is germane is that Obama has clearly made clearing up the gulags an early priority and it's going to be a lot harder than many people think.

I think it's more complex than simply pointing to President Elect Obama's success - although I realize that will help immensely.

Wab, you're right. Bush has made a terrible mess down there.

Rep. Wasserman Schultz says that Reid is going to decide Lieberman's fate within the Senate Caucus (not including the House caucus).

The caucus meeting is November 18th.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/nelson-lieberman-should-caucus-with-dems-2008-11-11.html

Listening to vox pops on US radio over the last week. And there have been a few people so disgusted by Obama winning that they've threatened to move to Australia. Clearly they need to do a little research, for if they think America under Obama will be bad, Australia would be a living Hell.

I wish they were put online, some of them were classic.

That is so funny! Reminds me of those who spoke of moving to Canada four years ago.

I have to post this. I know a lot of you are going to have a guffaw when you read it, but it was too ridiculous to pass up.

"Obama thinks he is a good talker, but he is often undisciplined when he speaks. He needs to understand that as President, his words will be scrutinized and will have impact whether he intends it or not. In this regard, President Bush is an excellent model; Obama should take a lesson from his example. Bush never gets sloppy when he is speaking publicly. He chooses his words with care and precision, which is why his style sometimes seems halting. In the eight years he has been President, it is remarkable how few gaffes or verbal blunders he has committed. If Obama doesn't raise his standards, he will exceed Bush's total before he is inaugurated."

The Importance of Being Careful (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/11/022038.php)

Now I own two volumes of Jake Weisberg's "Bushisms: The Accidental Wit and Wisdom of George W. Bush," so this just blew me away.

So he meant to say that America is a nation of 300 people and he deliberately addressed Silvio Berlusconi as 'Amigo'?

The coalition didn't round them up because they looked funny or were minding their own business. They were, for the most part, accomplices to those who mean us harm. That's why the military says they picked them up. I trust the military more than the ACLU.
The coalition didn't round up a lot of them at all. They offered bounties to the Afghans to round them up. We have no idea where Afghans who brought people in took them from, or if those people were guilty of anything. Other prisoners are people who were taken captive by the Taliban and forced to do basic menial labour. And yes, some of them are actual members of al Qaeda or the Taliban.

What's needed is to sort out which are which, convict those who are proven terrorists in a court of law, and let the innocent go. That can't happen unless the public have some view into what's going on.

I am going to be watching this very carefully. change.gov has very comprehensive descriptions of Obama's policies, but there is nothing - zero, zip, zilch - on civil liberties, torture, Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act and what should be done with it, or any related matter. This concerns me.

The same can be said for more Blacks than I want to admit, unfortunately. Especially for those in down trodden parts of cities, and towns across the United States. Many think the the Government, and "whitie", owe them for something that has never happened to them, Slavery. That, too, has been passed down generation to generation.
This seems to be a common Republican position. It's one of the reasons Republicans don't get many votes from black people. It's also incorrect.

From a recent PEW research poll:
On the popular culture front, large majorities of both blacks and whites say that rap and hip hop have a bad influence on society...

Three-quarters of blacks (76%) say that Obama is a good influence on the black community. Even greater numbers say this about Oprah Winfrey (87%) and Bill Cosby (85%), who are the most highly regarded by blacks from among 14 black newsmakers tested in this survey. By contrast, just 17% of blacks say that rap artist 50 Cent is a good influence...

A 53% majority of African Americans say that blacks who don't get ahead are mainly responsible for their situation, while just three-in-ten say discrimination is mainly to blame. As recently as the mid-1990s, black opinion on this question tilted in the opposite direction, with a majority of African Americans saying then that discrimination is the main reason for a lack of black progress...

On the issue of immigration, blacks and whites agree that most immigrants work harder than most blacks and most whites at low-wage jobs. Also, blacks are less inclined now than they were two decades ago to say that blacks would have more jobs if there were fewer immigrants...

From a TIME article a couple of years ago:
Blacks do see more racism in society than whites but, contrary to stereotype, seem disinclined to blame the system for their disadvantage. In fact, they are more likely to attribute it to individual causes like a lack of hard work--77% did so, compared with 62% of whites. "We think of U.S. minorities as less engaged in American individualism," Hartmann says, "but they are maybe more so."

And here's the post (http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/how_dare_black_people_ask_something_in_return_for_ their_vote.php#more) I got the articles from. I'd recommend the blog to anyone here.

One of the articles linked on the blog is also a good one, about why white people should stop confusing "what Rev. Al Sharpton thinks" with "what black people think".

That said - racism does still have an impact on people's opportunites. It does make it harder for a black person to get a job than a white person. It did get a lot of black people stuck in crummy neighbourhoods with crummy schools and lack of other services, because whenever black people moved into an area white people would move out and property values would drop. If part of the problem for some people is attitude, it's an attitude borne of years trying to make progress where it just feels like you're banging your head against a brick wall. The issue isn't slavery years ago, it's the effect race has had on the opportunities of people alive today.

I understand where you're coming from; until fairly recently I had the general impression that racism more or less evaporated with the civil rights movement, and frequently have moments where a read something, do a double take, and think, "Wait a sec, that still happens? I thought that kind of stuff ended years ago." An example is Obama mentioning offhandedly in The Audacity of Hope things like security making a point of tailing him in department stores, cop cars pulling him over at random, white people thinking he's the valet and tossing him their keys when he's standing outside a restaurant. That was something of a "WHAT?!" moment for me.

Well, that's something he won't be putting up with any more. :D

I am going to be watching this very carefully. change.gov has very comprehensive descriptions of Obama's policies, but there is nothing - zero, zip, zilch - on civil liberties, torture, Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act and what should be done with it, or any related matter. This concerns me.

Not surprising to me. It's an area where Obama is going to be ambiguous for a while.

I thought he was in support of closing Gitmo?

In fact, I thought both he and McCain were, judging by the TIME issue of last week with "The Choice" on the front of it. It ran through each of their policies in the major areas, and both seemed to support closing Guantanamo.

Regardless, I think torture might be a part of the future anyway, whether physical or sensory. I don't support it, but I think it might be mildly etched into the intelligence system. Getting rid of it might be too difficult with two wars gong on.

Something you cannot say because not one who was picked up in Pakistan has yet been convicted.

And they were just picked up, by an large, for being in the wrong place. That and the fat rewards that were offered on arrest, not conviction.

And I trust the military about as much as I trust any bureaucracy. Probably less because they have the ability to overthrow governments.

But this is OT. What is germane is that Obama has clearly made clearing up the gulags an early priority and it's going to be a lot harder than many people think.

So your assertion is that our troops blindly arrested and detained people. :err:

This is nothing but a conspiracy theory IMO, put out there by the ACLU and their like.

Amongst my biggest fears is that Obama will turn that lot loose on our streets in some sort of a bleeding heart gesture.

So your assertion is that our troops blindly arrested and detained people. :err:

This is nothing but a conspiracy theory IMO, put out there by the ACLU and their like.

Amongst my biggest fears is that Obama will turn that lot loose on our streets in some sort of a bleeding heart gesture.

Are you speaking of Gitmo detainees? If so aren't most of them from Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't think we would have to worry too much about them being set loose here in America.

So your assertion is that our troops blindly arrested and detained people. :err:

That's pretty much what happened. The troops didn't have much say in the matter as they were under orders to detain anyone handed over by co-operative warlords.

"Bounties ranged from $3,000 to $25,000, the detainees testified before military tribunals, according to transcripts the U.S. government gave The Associated Press to comply with a Freedom of Information lawsuit.

A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces. "

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8049868/

The governments deny it of course, but it rings true from what I've learned working with Afghan asylum seekers.

Amongst my biggest fears is that Obama will turn that lot loose on our streets in some sort of a bleeding heart gesture.

Why? His policy with detainees who are found to have no case to answer is pretty much the same as Bush's -- repatriation or, in the cases where that is impossible, resettlement in a third country.

The difference is that Obama's policy (which was essentially the same as McCain's on this point) will move the trials into the system under the rule of law.

This is nothing but a conspiracy theory IMO, put out there by the ACLU and their like.This kind of accusations need to be backed up by sources.

I thought he was in support of closing Gitmo?

He did. He will close it (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLy-7Qsm2KeE15rL6Is9p56BcWhwD94BVTE00).

Regardless, I think torture might be a part of the future anyway, whether physical or sensory. I don't support it, but I think it might be mildly etched into the intelligence system. Getting rid of it might be too difficult with two wars gong on.

I sure hope not. It's a cancer on the soul of this country.

This kind of accusations need to be backed up by sources.

It's strictly my opinion, as stated. That's the context as there's NO EVIDENCE that the US blindly detained people without cause.

pensieve, even within our own national system of justice there are people who end up behind bars erroneously for a variety of reasons. Luckily, we have a judicial system that can go in, review their cases and dismiss them if they are one of those, "relatively" quickly (albeit, sometimes months).

If that can happen in the more organized and controlled environment of the U.S., then odds are it is also happening on the international front with "war criminals" and prisoners.

I don't think anyone wants to release truly dangerous terrorists back into the wild to do more damage. That being said, there needs to be a way to figure out who is who...years behind bars in Gitmo is a high price to pay for simply being someone's relative, a good way for the neighbor to pick up a bounty or a confusion of identity if one is actually innocent.

To say that all who have not been heard in a court of some kind are criminals simply because they are there is as bad (maybe worse) that stating all are not criminals and releasing without a trial. As in most things, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle and a process must be created to sort it out.

I do not believe for a second that they will just open the gates and set them all loose in America. But to hold all without hearings and/or trials is equally unjust and inhumane to those who truly might not be guilty.

It sounds like it will be a difficult task, but certainly one worth undertaking with effort to right ourselves and see that real justice is served.

It's strictly my opinion, as stated. That's the context as there NO EVIDENCE that the US blindly detained people without cause.

AP: Gitmo Detainees Say They Were Sold (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm)

Panel Ignored Evidence on Detainee: U.S. Military Intelligence, German Authorities Found No Ties to Terrorists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3868-2005Mar26.html)

Khaled Al-Masri: The Unluckiest Innocent Man in Germany? (http://politicscentral.com/2006/10/04/almasri_the_innocent.php)

There are more than a hundred stories like those of these men, Pensieve.

Let's refocus a bit on what Obama plans to do - try to tie him back into the discussion :).

While his plan for Gitmo has yet to be revealed, I take a lot of comfort in his experience as a constitutional scholar and professor. I take at least as much comfort in the fact that he doesn't suffer "yes men" and syncophants gladly. This debate will be a vigorous one within his administration.

It's strictly my opinion, as stated. That's the context as there NO EVIDENCE that the US blindly detained people without cause.

So how did you arrive at your opinion then?

So how did you arrive at your opinion then?

AP: Gitmo Detainees Say They Were Sold (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm)

Panel Ignored Evidence on Detainee: U.S. Military Intelligence, German Authorities Found No Ties to Terrorists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3868-2005Mar26.html)

Khaled Al-Masri: The Unluckiest Innocent Man in Germany? (http://politicscentral.com/2006/10/04/almasri_the_innocent.php)

There are more than a hundred stories like those of these men, Pensieve.

I've been reading these stories over the years. It is terribly important that the reader maintain the proper context...they are merely accusations and not statements of fact or a blanket declaration that everyone at Gitmo is really innocent or that Gitmo is an illegal gulag as has been suggested by the ACLU (among others).



pensieve, even within our own national system of justice there are people who end up behind bars erroneously for a variety of reasons. Luckily, we have a judicial system that can go in, review their cases and dismiss them if they are one of those, "relatively" quickly (albeit, sometimes months).

Yes, and this is a good thing. But accused enemy combatants don't enjoy the same rights that citizens do. I'm quite happy to have the JAG deal with them.


I don't think anyone wants to release truly dangerous terrorists back into the wild to do more damage. That being said, there needs to be a way to figure out who is who...years behind bars in Gitmo is a high price to pay for simply being someone's relative, a good way for the neighbor to pick up a bounty or a confusion of identity if one is actually innocent.

I do not believe for a second that they will just open the gates and set them all loose in America.

I worry about the conseqences from the decision that this judge imposed upon us (abajournal.com/news/judge_orders_release_of_17_gitmo_prisoners_into_th e_us/). For the record, the judge (Ricardo Urbina) was nominated by Bill Clinton. I worry that more of the same is coming from Obama.

I've been reading these stories over the years. It is terribly important that the reader maintain the proper context...they are merely accusations and not statements of fact or a blanket declaration that everyone at Gitmo is really innocent or that Gitmo is an illegal gulag as has been suggested by the ACLU (among others).

I think the ACLU and other international groups have this one right, Pensieve. What we've done down there is illegal. Yes, I know, there are new CYA laws that have been passed during the Bush years. I also know that every time one of those laws hits the U.S. Supreme Court, it has been struck down as unconstitutional. Think about that for a moment: the Bush administration has lose every case that made it to the Supreme Court.

Yes, and this is a good thing. But accused enemy combatants don't enjoy the same rights that citizens do. I'm quite happy to have the JAG deal with them.

The JAG lawyers have been struggling against military tribunals and torture for as long as the gulag has existed at Gitmo.

Taking on Guantanamo (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/guantanamo200703)

Leaked Guantanamo Manual Shows Red Cross Denied Access to Groups of Detainees
(http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/leaked-guantanamo-manual-shows-red-cross-denied-access-groups-detainees)

Military Lawyers Honored by ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/About/About.cfm?ID=18807&c=296)

What all these stories have in common is the JAG's respect for the rule of law.

I think the ACLU and other international groups have this one right, Pensieve. What we've done down there is illegal.

Swift is entitled to his opinion, and the article itself is written by someone clearly lacking in objectivity.

I don't pretend to believe that everything at Gitmo is perfect. Nor do I pretend that the enemy combatants down there are innocent. The Pentagon even allowed ACLU lawyers down there to observe and they did irreparable damage to the war on terror (www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46208). It seems clear to me that the ACLU is no friend to America. I have no use for them or for bad judges like Urbina. I worry that more of the same is coming from Obama.

I have no use for them or for bad judges like Urbina. I worry that more of the same is coming from Obama.

That fear may well come to frution. Since the Democrats stonewalled on approving Bush's judicial appointments there are a huge number of openings in federal and district level courts which Obama will likely move to fill quickly with activist judges.

The "Barack Whisperer" (Robert Gibbs)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102866.html?g=1

That fear may well come to frution. Since the Democrats stonewalled on approving Bush's judicial appointments there are a huge number of openings in federal and district level courts which Obama will likely move to fill quickly with activist judges.

Oh.my.Gawd. :no:

I seem to remember Clinton's judicial appointments being stonewalled during his last years in office. Not a few, mind you, but hundreds of them were unfilled when he left the White House.

On the subject of activist judges... I long ago came to the conclusion that the definition of an activist judge is one who rules in ways the right does not approve. Scalia's decision on Bush v Gore was rather activist, yes?

In practice, a speaker may use the term "activist judge" to mean that a judge has simply made an important decision that the accusing speaker disagrees with. When used in this way, the term "activist judge" is little more than a term of political criticism. While there are many who are willing to use this hot button term as a simple protest of disagreement, this is not the most common usage, nor the most common understanding, of the term. As a general usage, "activist judge" is used to describe a judge who actively and knowingly subverts, misuses, grossly misinterprets, ignores, or otherwise flouts the law and/or legal precedence due to personal opinion, be that opinion ideological, religious, philosophical, or other. Emphasis mine.

Judicial activism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism)

It's strictly my opinion, as stated. That's the context as there's NO EVIDENCE that the US blindly detained people without cause.

What about the hundreds of detainees who have been repatriated after years of detention?

And BTW it's not just the ACLU governments such as Britain have determined that there was no just cause to lock these guys up (and that the tribunal system was unjust) which is why they demanded that the US release them into British custody.

On the subject of closing Guantanamo, here are a pair of stories we don't want to miss:

How to Close Guantánamo: A Legal Minefield (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858205,00.html)

and

Guantanamo Closure Called Obama Priority (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/11/AR2008111102865.html)

One thing that has gone underreported since last Tuesday is that Obama's big win also represented a resounding victory for his foreign policy vision over the militarism, jingoism, and faux-patriotism we've endured over the past few years. The campaign's relentless focus on the economy leading up to the election has kinda obscured this aspect of his win, but a new AP poll (http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_4_Topline_FINAL_11_11_08.pdf) shows that the public strongly supports Obama's foreign policy goals and expects action on them. I couldn't be happier!

Since the Democrats stonewalled on approving Bush's judicial appointments there are a huge number of openings in federal and district level courts which Obama will likely move to fill quickly with activist judges.

:clap: Activist Judges :clap:

Both Obama & Biden are lawyers & law professors. I trust their judgment on picking Judges way more than the last administration.

I'm seeing Robert Reich a lot on TV appearances. I would like him for Treasury Secretary.

I heard Evan Bayh making the case FOR Lieberman on the Rachel Maddow show. I thought it was an unimpressive argument.

It would make sense for Obama to appoint a few activist judges. If it weren't for them Brown v Board of Education wouldn't have passed, limiting Obama's opportunities.

And BTW it's not just the ACLU governments such as Britain have determined that there was no just cause to lock these guys up (and that the tribunal system was unjust) which is why they demanded that the US release them into British custody.

And Canada.

It's not that they were picked up "blindly" so much as perhaps they were mislead by local authorities who were settling scores etc. It is very hard to be a good "police" force if you don't speak the language, share the culture (or even respect the culture). That is why habeus corpus exists, to test the validity of the imprisonment EARLY.

It would make sense for Obama to appoint a few activist judges. If it weren't for them Brown v Board of Education wouldn't have passed, limiting Obama's opportunities.

Not to mention taking down Jim Crow and establishing civil and voting rights.

The campaign's relentless focus on the economy leading up to the election has kinda obscured this aspect of his win, but a new AP poll (http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_4_Topline_FINAL_11_11_08.pdf) shows that the public strongly supports Obama's foreign policy goals and expects action on them. I couldn't be happier!

Purp, I didn't see much on foreign policy in that poll. 51% think moving the troops out of Iraq should be a top priority, but that's all that was covered.

I think that ultimately most people don't have extremely fixed views on foreign policy. They want the President to make America look strong in the world, be a leader, and keep the country safe. They're okay with hawkishness and amoral policies as long as it doesn't lead to American deaths; they're fine with consensus-based policies as long as America doesn't come off looking weak. In terms of gaining public approval from Americans for his foreign policy, what a president does is a lot less significant than how much success he has.

For example, they don't dislike Bush because he invaded Iraq on false pretenses, they dislike him because it didn't work well. If things had gone smoothly, most people wouldn't have had a big problem with the lack of WMDs.

I don't think so either, Eowyn. Good to see you back and posting, though! :tu:

I was relating to the question: How confident are you that Barack Obama will be able to implement the policy agenda he promised in his campaign? I took that to include foreign and domestic policy since there weren't separate questions for the two. I also liked the finding that 68% were somewhat confident or very confident he can succeed with the policies he has laid out.

VP elect Joe Biden & wife Jill will meet VP Dick Cheney & wife Lynne at the VP residence tomorrow at 5:30 ET.

Sherri - this isn't you is it?

A candidate with a far better chance is Blagojevich's former communications director, Cheryle Jackson. Now president of the Chicago Urban League, the African-American woman is the "over-under bet," according to Washington.

Washington says the governor, who has not offered a timetable for the selection, told her he expects to make a decision by Christmas, or before "if 'unforseeeable circumstances' arise."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/obamas-replacement-blagoj_n_141561.html

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/643/slide_643_12967_large.jpg

Michelle's Mother with Michelle. Doesn't young Michelle look like Sasha ?

Speculation about first Grandmother moving to White House here (+slideshow):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/12/will-first-granny-marian_n_143359.html

Apparently David Axelrod is hugely successful, and moving to the White House would mean a lot of disclosure & a pay cut. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15564.html

I seem to remember Clinton's judicial appointments being stonewalled during his last years in office. Not a few, mind you, but hundreds of them were unfilled when he left the White House.

On the subject of activist judges... I long ago came to the conclusion that the definition of an activist judge is one who rules in ways the right does not approve. Scalia's decision on Bush v Gore was rather activist, yes?


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.

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:

Third, Bush vs. Gore was strict interpretation of the LAW. Al Gore was trying to steal an election by changing the rules as to how votes were to be counted. It was outrageous, shameful, and desperate.

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.

We wouldn't have desegregated schools without activists judges.

We wouldn't have desegregated schools without activists judges.

Who says?

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