This is the "change" he promised?

[bicker]

Putting aside that many of the appointments are not insiders, it is quite a significant change, from GWB, for the President to put adversaries in such positions of power. I think the vast majority of the criticisms we see these days about how these appointments "don't" represent change are really a reflection of the critic's dissatisfaction with the change that those appointments actually do represent. They wanted things to go their way, and they didn't, so they're grasping for whatever straws they can possible think of to try to cast aspersions on what's going on.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

Out of curiousity ...

Charade, Hakuna, etc., who would you suggest for the Obama cabinet (and the other supporting positions that have been 'announced', i.e., Chief of Staff, etc.)??

And I'm not being sarcastic in asking this question ... I truly want to know who you feel would be good choices!

Both Obama and McCain promised change in government during their campaigns. Regardless of who was elected, I expected to see some new faces in the top offices of our government. The retreads that we are seeing now have years of connections and obligations to the folks already in Washington. I would have prefered seeing some new faces. This country is filled with qualified and expert people from various backgrounds that could bring new and innovative solutions to many of the problems facing this country today. It would be nice to see some new faces that don't 'owe' the establishment. Sorry if I don't see 'change' in Obama's cabinet; looks more like a rerun to me.

 

[Quiksilvr]

Come on, his platform in the election process was "change" - even though he does not hold the office of POTUS, he is making staffing decisions as such - wait, his office holders do represent change - changing back to Clinton era appointments...

I think the change he will represent for me will be change - change in my pocket, where dollars used to be.

Even considering that I didn't vote for him, I just can't get mad at him for appointing former Clinton officials. What was he going to do, walk down Pennsylvania Avenue and ask the first person he meets to be Secretary of the Interior? Realistically, I think these are his various pools of candidates:

1. Former mid- to high-level Clinton-era officials.
2. Members of Congress
3. Lifetime civil servants who work in the various agencies.
4. Individuals in private industry who are competent to run large government agencies.
5. Successful leaders of similar agencies at the state level.
6. Academics.
7. Consultants (usually former government employees; that's why they consult)
8. Interest-group related individuals (e.g., lobbyists).
9. Former/current high-ranking members of the military.
10. Congressional and White House staffers.

Looking at this list, I see that most of them would have ties to Washington politics. The ones who don't have their own drawbacks. I wouldn't trust most academics I know to run a Cub Scout pack. "Captains of Industry" make too much money in the private sector to easily give it up for public service. Consultants and special interest types have their own drawbacks (and are usually connected to inside Washington). Lifetime civil servants carry their own risks. Most state government agencies aren't really comparable to DC agencies (some would be, but very few).

I don't know... I understand the frustration at hiring "retread Clinton officials", but if Obama can get a competent former Clinton official to run an executive branch agency, that person is likely the best person for the job based on the traditional candidate pools. Obama has to get the talent from somewhere, and most people who are good at (and enjoy) political jobs are already in political jobs (or have had them in the past). I'm taking the position of giving him the benefit of the doubt with respect to his first Cabinet. If they're awful in the first year or two, then I might start criticizing.

 

[Geoff_M]

Let them. We had 8 years of b'ing and m'ing, it's THEIR turn.

Who's B&M'ing?!?!?! I'm looking forward to partaking in all of the backseat driving and Monday morning QB'ing that the Left has been doing over the course of the Bush Administration!

And as for B&M'ing... Well, the Left is still at it. They're already starting with Obama.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

Our economy thrived under the Clinton administration. Lots of very bright people! I'm thrilled with the choices! It will be a HUGE change from the neo-cons who have destroyed our country!

Now we get the best of both worlds! Time to have another par-tay!!!!!

The economy did thrive under Clinton, but that's not attributable to Clinton's policies. I feel worldwide growth in technology and the brilliance of folks like Bill Gates and Michael Dell helped our economy to skyrocket in spite of Clinton.

 

[Quiksilvr]

Putting aside that many of the appointments are not insiders, it is quite a significant change, from GWB, for the President to put adversaries in such positions of power. I think the vast majority of the criticisms we see these days about how these appointments "don't" represent change are really a reflection of the critic's dissatisfaction with the change that those appointments actually do represent. They wanted things to go their way, and they didn't, so they're grasping for whatever straws they can possible think of to try to cast aspersions on what's going on.

So far, most of the appointments (and people being mentioned for them) are insiders with deep connections to the Washington establishment. Tom Daschle? Eric Holder? Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Bill Richardson?

I actually know a couple of the people who have been on the news as being appointees or potential appointees, and they're about as well-connected as you get. I'm hopeful they get picked. It's nice to have acquaintances in high places.

 

[designermv]

Come on, his platform in the election process was "change" - even though he does not hold the office of POTUS, he is making staffing decisions as such - wait, his office holders do represent change - changing back to Clinton era appointments...

I think the change he will represent for me will be change - change in my pocket, where dollars used to be.

He's going to take your money? How so?

 

[ols386]

OMG, will you people get over it!

He was elected, he is a very intelligent man and he hasn't even taken office yet. Let's do everything we can to set it up for failure. Your minds are all made up, don't confuse it with facts. If all you're going to do is sit and armchair quarterback, not get involved and just wait to say, "I told you so", then my friends if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Watch carefully, if you must, once he is in office. At least have the common sense to wait until he is in a position to affect change. Good grief!

Well, geez, people do have a right to post their opinions here. YOU need to get over it. When Obama campaigned with the "change" theme, I took that to mean a "change" from the Bush/Republican administration. I guess change is kind of a general term and could possibly be interpreted in different ways. I support Obama and I do hope he can "change" things for the better of our country. You act like anyone who didn't support Obama should just sit back and keep their mouth shut. We do have freedom of speech in this country and are allowed to voice our honest opinions openly.

 

[Quiksilvr]

Who's B&M'ing?!?!?! I'm looking forward to partaking in all of the backseat driving and Monday morning QB'ing that the Left has been doing over the course of the Bush Administration!

And as for B&M'ing... Well, the Left is still at it. They're already starting with Obama.

This article is hilarious.

They advocate appointing an academic as Secretary of the Treasury?

That's exactly what we need right now...

A lobbyist as director of OMB? Again, makes tons of sense.

EVP of a major union as Secretary of Labor? Hmmmmm....

and Dennis Kucinich as Secretary of State? that one just made me chuckle.

If the progressive wing of the Dems really wants Obama to only have one term, he should do exactly what they recommend. Most people in America are not progressives and I think there would be a backlash if he went too far in that direction.

Obama is way too smart to listen to these people.

 

[My2BabiesLexis&Dill]

Huh? Did Obama get sworn in and I missed it?

How about waiting until the man is actually in office before you start complaining?

Totally agree with that statement. AFTER he is sworn in, then start your complaining.

 

[ols386]

Let them. We had 8 years of b'ing and m'ing, it's THEIR turn.

I actually enjoy sour grapes! It SUX being a LOSER!

BTW, KUDOS to Bro Prez for hiring Hillary!!! I'm thrilled about that!!

So that's what it's about? Winners and losers? I thought we were all Americans and supposed to be on the same team. I DID vote for Obama and DO want him to succeed, but it's really annoying to me to read that 'some' Obama supporters enjoy "gloating" over their "win". That really isn't what it should be about. I went into the Obama thread a few times, and was really turned off by the general attitude there; certainly not by everyone there, but definately some. Unbelieveable.

 

[justhat]

Uh, unless he's picking all the Bush's current staff, seems like change to me!

 

[bicker]

Well, geez, people do have a right to post their opinions here.

And, to be fair, people do have a right to characterize those opinions as they see fit.

When Obama campaigned with the "change" theme, I took that to mean a "change" from the Bush/Republican administration.

Of course. There is no question about that. The Obama campaign never repudiated its party's association with the Bill Clinton Administration. If anything, they reveled in that association.

I guess change is kind of a general term and could possibly be interpreted in different ways.

More importantly: The critics are not those who would praise the kind of change they are implying should be forthcoming. Again, I see these criticisms as nothing more than a craven expression of disappointment that the critics don't have something more substantial to criticize, driven by their specific intention to criticize, without regard to the why's or wherefore's.

 

[jodifla]

Obama didn't campaign against the Clinton era. He said we'd change away from the Bush era.

So putting Clinton members into the administration makes perfect sense, and yes, it was EXACTLY the change many of us had hoped for.

 

[designermv]

I certainly can't speak for John Smith 1, but to me, his post seems like a moment of "well, I've offered reason and it's not working, let me try a different approach." For a while, the thread was so ridiculous that I felt like I was going to have to abandon reason or my head was going to explode.

I agree with you completely ols386, and I don't like gloating either. I just think there has been a lot of baiting. When Obama is repeatedly attacked and we defend him, we're met with "Gosh you guys are such HATERZ. You should be happy! Your guy won!!"

There is a difference between criticism and inane bashing. Offering up a specific policy or stance of Obama's, with legitimate FACT-based sources is welcome. I enjoy intelligent discourse. But when it's bashing, thinly veiled as criticism, and backed with nothing but the rantings of right-wing pundits and talk radio hosts, well, I just don't have any patience for it. You can't argue with opinion and win, there's no evidence to support you. So you give up, and are met with cries that you just don't like "The One" to be criticized in any way, shape or form. Which is patently false.

Bah. I can't even think straight anymore.

 

[ChrizJen]

I guess I look at things differently. I voted for Bush in 2000, against Bush in 2004. Did I want him to win in 2004? Heck no. Did I want his administration to do so poorly that we are in such a mess as we are now just so I could sit back and say "I told you so?" There is no way I wanted that to happen. Of course when Bush won, I wanted him to succeed. I was so bummed out when he won but I got over it in a few days. Just like the other administrations I didn't want to win. I really did hope that, despite not agreeing with much of his platform, that he could still get through it and make something good out of his administration. Did I criticize him? For sure. But I waited until I felt he had actually screwed up something. I did sit back, hopeful, for some time.

I did want Bush to succeed, just as I would have wanted McCain to succeed.

We've tried to make that point time and again.
I didn't vot for Bush either time. But there was a BIG difference between my disappointment over his first win and my dissappointment over the second. Although I didn't agree with most of his policies, I figured he deserved a chance to actually prove himself. The second time around, he'd had his chance.

Huh? Did Obama get sworn in and I missed it?

How about waiting until the man is actually in office before you start complaining?

Exactly. But there are some who refuse to give Barack Obama the same courtesy that most gave to Bush his first term. Some are never going to be happy with anything that man does. Plain and simple.

 

[HakunaMatata2]

Obama didn't campaign against the Clinton era. He said we'd change away from the Bush era.

So putting Clinton members into the administration makes perfect sense, and yes, it was EXACTLY the change many of us had hoped for.

Actually, Obama campaigned on the promise that he would change the way Washington works, which is also what McCain promised. Putting in the 'same olds' isn't changing anything regardless of what party won.

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

Everyone who bought into the "Change you can believe in", "we're going to get rid of the Washington insider" line of thinking had to be willfully naive. The Washington insiders aren't going anywhere. We're just changing from a Republican set of Washington insiders to a Democrat set of Washington insiders. That's your "change".

Honestly, this isn't a bad thing. You need people in key positions who, uh, actually have experience. Most of the Democrats with actual useful high-level government experience had something to do with the Clinton administration. Where else was he supposed to find these people? I don't really hold it again Pres.-Elect Obama because I knew that this was going to be his strategy; he doesn't exactly have another option.

For high-level government appointee positions, you need people who are (1) competent, (2) experienced, (3) politically reliable (i.e., will carry out the policy set by the White House), and (4) who actually want the job. Being in charge of these government agencies isn't exactly a cakewalk. Finding someone who has the requisite amounts of those qualities can be hard when there has been only a single Democrat administration in the past 28 years.

I only feel sorry for the college kids and the like who actually thought he was going to appoint people to high-level positions who aren't somehow connected to "inside Washington".

This is happening pretty much as I figured it would. Given his campaign rhetoric I am mildly surprised that there has not been at least some token conservative representation on Obama's team, but it's still a work in progress so we'll have to see how that works out between anow and 1/20/09.

 

[ols386]

I certainly can't speak for John Smith 1, but to me, his post seems like a moment of "well, I've offered reason and it's not working, let me try a different approach." For a while, the thread was so ridiculous that I felt like I was going to have to abandon reason or my head was going to explode.

I agree with you completely ols386, and I don't like gloating either. I just think there has been a lot of baiting. When Obama is repeatedly attacked and we defend him, we're met with "Gosh you guys are such HATERZ. You should be happy! Your guy won!!"

There is a difference between criticism and inane bashing. Offering up a specific policy or stance of Obama's, with legitimate FACT-based sources is welcome. I enjoy intelligent discourse. But when it's bashing, thinly veiled as criticism, and backed with nothing but the rantings of right-wing pundits and talk radio hosts, well, I just don't have any patience for it. You can't argue with opinion and win, there's no evidence to support you. So you give up, and are met with cries that you just don't like "The One" to be criticized in any way, shape or form. Which is patently false.

Bah. I can't even think straight anymore.

Yes, I am so pleased that Obama is President-Elect, and I want him to do great things, and I think he will do whatever he can to help ALL Americans, not just some.

 

[SundancePass]

I totally agree with the previous post AND the quote.

The "same olds" might be a different, and hopefully much more dynamic and intelligent team with a different leader. And remember, Obama has the last say, and from what I've read, he WILL make the decisions.