The country is a mess. Obama needs to appoint people who know what they are doing. No more "You're doing a great job Brownie" moments. We can't afford them.
Let's give Obama, who hasn't even been sworn in, a chance.
He was never a far left liberal. That was GOP spin.
When Obama talked about change I assumed he meant good-bye Bush/Cheney, the Neo Cons and the way they governed.
@nyc-caribbean-ragazza: Thanks for your common-sense comment, n-c-r. I think it's a little bit early to start analyzing the "failed Obama presidency". At least let him get inaugurated!
@yellow_dog: I was reading all this stuff on Media Matters the other day about how the press was pushing the "failed Clinton presidency" meme almost immediately after he took office. Pretty funny stuff.
Why do I feel like everyone has a short term memory? These advisors are not that big of a shock. All of them were advising Obama during the campaign. And despite what Republicans tried to sell the American people, Obama is not a socialist, and he is barely what many consider a liberal---he is a pragmatist.
Also, I don't get all the whining about him appointing people from the Clinton administration. Did I miss something here? Did everyone that worked for Bill Clinton take a secret blood oath promising to never use the skills that they learned in their respective positions to work for another Democratic president? Did all the people that worked for him pledge undying loyalty to him? Were that not allowed to form friendships/relationships with Obama and conclude that on their own that they would be happy working for the guy?
Blergh. Election night seems like a long time ago already. I'm going home to watch me some West Wing and try to forget that nobody's gonna be around to say "Let Obama be Obama" in this White House.
I knew that Obama was going to try to play conciliator, but honestly, his appointments have universally disappointed me. I know he had to have some Clinton acolytes appointed. He did not need to have this many in key economic positions, it seems to me.
And, hopefully someone won't kill me for saying this, but the circus that the Clinton appointment has been thus far is only destined to continue. Not necessarily because Hillary or Bill plans it that way, but because it's a narrative everybody can seize on.
But now it's going to be Clinton II and I feel like people forget that, though in comparison he seems great now, it was disenchantment with the Clinton years that inspired the West Wing and its unabashed liberalism.
So for those who think we're living in an Aaron Sorkin movie... eh. I'll be turning tail and heading for academia.
@PilgrimSoul: Well.....no administration is going to come out of 8 years in Washington without some level of disenchantment, right?
I don't know much about politics, but I would imagine neither unabashed liberalism OR conservatism would be ideal.
In the end, I think everyone is approaching this change-over and, to that end, Obama's election differently. I have no expectations, aside from the fact that I am fairly certain my uterus is safe from government hands for a bit.
Otherwise I have no idea what will happen. I just hope I don't lose my job to this economic clusterfuck.
@PilgrimSoul: Chance is important very important but given the times we are in you cant effect change without incredibly talented people with a lot of washington experience. Using people who have been around washington isnt the issue. Using people who have been around washington and arent intelligent, competent, and honest IS!
Obama is putting together a team of people who have the experience to get us thru this! Just give him a chance.
PS: No president has had to name a team this fast. So that kind of takes some of the romanticism out of it. He has act now and act fast. The only way to do that I think is with experienced appointments.
@HalfBloodPrince: Actually, I might argue that change is highly overrated in this regard. I like Obama, don't get me wrong, but the entire message of his campaign fell pretty flat with me. And the only reason it resonated with most is because Bush is so unpopular. I am, for one, glad that he is choosing experienced people, although if I am being honest, I am not familiar with a few of them.
I do get a little bit irritated that Clinton was slammed so hard in the primaries for being an Old School DC Insider, but I also realize that this is politics. I just hope that a lot of people finally see that Obama is not some wizard with a magic wand. He is a politician and I hope he will simply do the best he can do given the circumstances and parameters.
Also, the fact that he has a Democratic majority in both houses should be interesting. Clinton did not have that. And, I highly doubt Obama will receive the same level of outlandish witch-hunting that the Clintons had to deal with. Not at first, at least.
@Archetype: I should clarify that I DO realize many people were very inspired by Obama's message. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that. But I, personally, am a fan of idealism with a touch of reality.
@PilgrimSoul: It's not like Obama had crazy left wing socialist economic advisors. Obama's economic advisors and his economic policies have been moderate throughout the election.
I agree with everything you said, and everything you said well, I might add. I hated the way HRC was criticized in the primaries, especially in light of the fact that Obama is appointing people that her husband basically trained. I'm not hugely upset by it, in fact I think it's smart, but if people had known that Obama was simply filling a cabinet with Clintonistas, they may have just elected a Clinton to lead them. But no matter. This is probably my cynical side talking, but let's see how the MSM feels about Obama in 20 years.
@Archetype: @HalfBloodPrince: Thanks for taking me up here, you guys, here are a couple of responses:
1. Regarding "unabashed liberalism": well, liberal means lots of things to many people, so I'm going to set that word aside for a moment. I don't mean that in a stupid, centrist, Third Way kind of way, by the by. I just mean that to the extent "liberalism" means "partisanism" then yes, it's stupid, so let's ignore stupid for the purposes of this response.
2. Regarding "change": so here is what would be a change that I see people actually longing for - government that is both principled and grounded in reality. In Clinton we got a lot of reality without identifiable principles a lot of the time; in Bush we got a lot of principle (the wrong ones) with absolutely no reality allowed. As for other kinds of "change," I, like Archetype, found Obama to be a little vague. I mean, change can mean anything. And frankly, so far it seems to mean very little, not least because most of the faces and influential figures in the Administration are familiar insofar as they're mostly Clinton folk.
3. I'm not really saying this in an insider/outsider sense. I don't much care for that distinction either. What worries me more is that there are plenty of intellectually qualified people in this country as regards the economy - and we seem to be getting led by a bunch of people who have not only been around this block before, but were, and this is a sad truth, partially responsible for getting us here. I know people like to blame Bush, but this "free market revolution" stretches back far before him, and Clinton did not much help matters.
@Lymed: I don't want him to have crazy left wing socialist economic advisors. I want him to have smart innovative economic advisors. So far I see some smart, very little innovative, though.
@PilgrimSoul: But he didn't run a campaign with innovative economic advisors nor did he have innovative economic policies in his campaign. I used the phrase about the left wing socialist because I think the McCain attacks actually made us liberals think, or at least hope, that Obama was more liberal than he is.
@PilgrimSoul: I am waiting to see what he is going to do. I think your skepticism is a good thing. But it strikes me as premature to be disappointed when we still don't have a precise idea of what he plans to do and how he will perform.
@PilgrimSoul: Again, I ask, if not the Clinton-era, then where? Carter? Clinton was the last Dem Prez, so naturally, many of the today's leaders would be pulled from there.
@ceejeemcbeegee: Not to speak for PilgrimSoul, but if I'm understanding her disappointment, it's not that they're from the Clinton era, it's that they're somewhat moderate. However, most of these moderates do espouse fairly liberal positions in the area of office they're holding -- for instance, Tom Daschle was widely seen as a sign that Obama plans to aggressively pursue universal health care. Tim Geithner has emerged in this crisis as an interventionist. Janet Napolitano has great views on immigration reform. Eric Holder is very liberal on most issues. The only appointments that have really disappointed me so far are Hillary Clinton (though I'm still cautiously optimistic with her) and John Brennan (who, if he is nominated, seems fairly inexcusable). Otherwise, as a liberal, Obama's cabinet and staff have both been exactly what I have expected, and very promising. I don't know if that makes me cynical or optimistic at this point, but I've been very surprised at the backlash.
@eatsshootsleaves: Ah... well, I never got the impression that Obama was as liberal/far-left leaning as the GOP/McCain Camp made him out to be. It was clear (from reading his writings) that he was a more moderate guy who happened to be liberal. But everyone interprets things thru their own filter, I suppose.
But all this about who means what is just pure speculation. Sure, you can glean certain things about people from previous leadership styles. But we won't know if Obama, for example, means to pursue UHC until he announces it. This endless "presenting of theories as facts" is becoming infuriating. Even KO/RM has been guilty of it as of late.
Obama has demonstrated himself to be keen on surrounding himself with experts and doing what makes sense. And it seems that the tone is DC has been changed, that folks are getting the message that the partisan way of doing business will not continue for long.
What really pisses me off is Bush taking a back-seat and letting Obama lead the way. Bush seems to be relishing his "lamest or lame duck Presidents" role. My guess is he and Cheney are too busy shredding files to pay attention.
@PilgrimSoul: it was disenchantment with the Clinton years that inspired the West Wing and its unabashed liberalism
Well, I'd argue that the disenchantment was with Clinton's 'morality' (or lack thereof), and the rise of Bush: the sequel. If memory serves, Bush won the character debate and therefore the election. Bill Clinton was fresh off Lewinski and an impeachment trial. The main theme of the Bush campaign was "I've got morals because I got Jesus." Despite the fact that Clinton ushered in an era of properity, left the budget with a surplus, and had a high approval rating... Bush won the "morality" vote.
@ceejeemcbeegee: You're right that a "presenting of theories as facts" is obnoxious. I was just pointing out that you can Obama's appointments as signs that he's going towards the center, one can just as easily take Obama's appointments as signs he's going to act progressively. It all seems pretty silly until we know what's going to happen. If I had to guess... well, as I said, I am slightly to throughly disappointed in his foreign policy picks so far. I am very pleased with his domestic policy picks. We'll see what actually happens, and if it meets my expectations. As I recall, Bush had a cabinet that was supposed to signify his centrism. We all know how that ended.
That's a bailout I could get behind. And it's about 1/10000000th of the cost of these crazy bailouts. It makes me feel like I am in possession of Monopoly money.
I thought I knew a thing or two about our government, but ever since they started naming names this time around, I've realized just how vast the field of my ignorance is.
Which is a preamble to the following: Could someone tell me the difference between the White House Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers? Does the former not give advice? Are members of the latter forbidden from approaching Pennsylvania Avenue? Or something?
OH! NPR told me this afternoon that the Council of Economic Advisers is expert economy-types (who advise, shockingly enough.) The Economic Council is actually high ranking members of each branch of government who come together to synch econ. policy. (It's similar to the National Security Council.)
@AussieOsborn: Thank you so much!! I was literally just about to post a new comment reading "No, seriously, can someone explain this to me?" And lo! You arrived with an explanation. And now it makes sense! Coolio.
(Plus, you sound pretty psyched to know the answer, and I am now psyched for us both!)
11/25/08
Let's give Obama, who hasn't even been sworn in, a chance.
He was never a far left liberal. That was GOP spin.
When Obama talked about change I assumed he meant good-bye Bush/Cheney, the Neo Cons and the way they governed.
11/25/08
11/25/08
11/25/08
"And now that she might not be running against one of them anymore, Democrats all just love Hillary Clinton"
and it would also make sense.
11/24/08
11/24/08
Also, I don't get all the whining about him appointing people from the Clinton administration. Did I miss something here? Did everyone that worked for Bill Clinton take a secret blood oath promising to never use the skills that they learned in their respective positions to work for another Democratic president? Did all the people that worked for him pledge undying loyalty to him? Were that not allowed to form friendships/relationships with Obama and conclude that on their own that they would be happy working for the guy?
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
I knew that Obama was going to try to play conciliator, but honestly, his appointments have universally disappointed me. I know he had to have some Clinton acolytes appointed. He did not need to have this many in key economic positions, it seems to me.
And, hopefully someone won't kill me for saying this, but the circus that the Clinton appointment has been thus far is only destined to continue. Not necessarily because Hillary or Bill plans it that way, but because it's a narrative everybody can seize on.
But now it's going to be Clinton II and I feel like people forget that, though in comparison he seems great now, it was disenchantment with the Clinton years that inspired the West Wing and its unabashed liberalism.
So for those who think we're living in an Aaron Sorkin movie... eh. I'll be turning tail and heading for academia.
11/24/08
I don't know much about politics, but I would imagine neither unabashed liberalism OR conservatism would be ideal.
In the end, I think everyone is approaching this change-over and, to that end, Obama's election differently. I have no expectations, aside from the fact that I am fairly certain my uterus is safe from government hands for a bit.
Otherwise I have no idea what will happen. I just hope I don't lose my job to this economic clusterfuck.
11/24/08
Obama is putting together a team of people who have the experience to get us thru this! Just give him a chance.
PS: No president has had to name a team this fast. So that kind of takes some of the romanticism out of it. He has act now and act fast. The only way to do that I think is with experienced appointments.
11/24/08
I do get a little bit irritated that Clinton was slammed so hard in the primaries for being an Old School DC Insider, but I also realize that this is politics. I just hope that a lot of people finally see that Obama is not some wizard with a magic wand. He is a politician and I hope he will simply do the best he can do given the circumstances and parameters.
Also, the fact that he has a Democratic majority in both houses should be interesting. Clinton did not have that. And, I highly doubt Obama will receive the same level of outlandish witch-hunting that the Clintons had to deal with. Not at first, at least.
11/24/08
Or maybe I am just cynical.
11/24/08
11/24/08
I agree with everything you said, and everything you said well, I might add. I hated the way HRC was criticized in the primaries, especially in light of the fact that Obama is appointing people that her husband basically trained. I'm not hugely upset by it, in fact I think it's smart, but if people had known that Obama was simply filling a cabinet with Clintonistas, they may have just elected a Clinton to lead them. But no matter. This is probably my cynical side talking, but let's see how the MSM feels about Obama in 20 years.
11/24/08
1. Regarding "unabashed liberalism": well, liberal means lots of things to many people, so I'm going to set that word aside for a moment. I don't mean that in a stupid, centrist, Third Way kind of way, by the by. I just mean that to the extent "liberalism" means "partisanism" then yes, it's stupid, so let's ignore stupid for the purposes of this response.
2. Regarding "change": so here is what would be a change that I see people actually longing for - government that is both principled and grounded in reality. In Clinton we got a lot of reality without identifiable principles a lot of the time; in Bush we got a lot of principle (the wrong ones) with absolutely no reality allowed. As for other kinds of "change," I, like Archetype, found Obama to be a little vague. I mean, change can mean anything. And frankly, so far it seems to mean very little, not least because most of the faces and influential figures in the Administration are familiar insofar as they're mostly Clinton folk.
3. I'm not really saying this in an insider/outsider sense. I don't much care for that distinction either. What worries me more is that there are plenty of intellectually qualified people in this country as regards the economy - and we seem to be getting led by a bunch of people who have not only been around this block before, but were, and this is a sad truth, partially responsible for getting us here. I know people like to blame Bush, but this "free market revolution" stretches back far before him, and Clinton did not much help matters.
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
But all this about who means what is just pure speculation. Sure, you can glean certain things about people from previous leadership styles. But we won't know if Obama, for example, means to pursue UHC until he announces it. This endless "presenting of theories as facts" is becoming infuriating. Even KO/RM has been guilty of it as of late.
Obama has demonstrated himself to be keen on surrounding himself with experts and doing what makes sense. And it seems that the tone is DC has been changed, that folks are getting the message that the partisan way of doing business will not continue for long.
What really pisses me off is Bush taking a back-seat and letting Obama lead the way. Bush seems to be relishing his "lamest or lame duck Presidents" role. My guess is he and Cheney are too busy shredding files to pay attention.
11/24/08
Well, I'd argue that the disenchantment was with Clinton's 'morality' (or lack thereof), and the rise of Bush: the sequel. If memory serves, Bush won the character debate and therefore the election. Bill Clinton was fresh off Lewinski and an impeachment trial. The main theme of the Bush campaign was "I've got morals because I got Jesus." Despite the fact that Clinton ushered in an era of properity, left the budget with a surplus, and had a high approval rating... Bush won the "morality" vote.
11/25/08
11/24/08
11/25/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08
That's a bailout I could get behind. And it's about 1/10000000th of the cost of these crazy bailouts. It makes me feel like I am in possession of Monopoly money.
11/24/08
11/24/08
He'd be known as "The Pickle Man".
11/24/08
11/24/08
Which is a preamble to the following: Could someone tell me the difference between the White House Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers? Does the former not give advice? Are members of the latter forbidden from approaching Pennsylvania Avenue? Or something?
11/24/08
OH! NPR told me this afternoon that the Council of Economic Advisers is expert economy-types (who advise, shockingly enough.) The Economic Council is actually high ranking members of each branch of government who come together to synch econ. policy. (It's similar to the National Security Council.)
11/24/08
(Plus, you sound pretty psyched to know the answer, and I am now psyched for us both!)
11/24/08
Republicans are as fickle as 7 year old girls deciding which Disney character they most want to be.
11/24/08
11/24/08
Oh wait, you said 7, not 27.
11/24/08
11/24/08
11/24/08