The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012
 

Just read that Obama is considering Hillary Clinton for Sec of State. Assuming there can be a good working relationship between the 2 and Hillary can wait her turn in 8 yrs, I think she would be great. This brought me to ask what has Condi Rice done lately and honestly, without doing some deep research, I don't think she has been in the news or produced much of anything.

This got me thinking about the Obama presidency as a whole. Going into the election and reading post-election comments, there are extremely high expecation of what Obama will accomplish ... from righting the economy, ending the war in Iraq, capturing OBL, having the world love us again etc.

Outside of the economy which seems to be on cruise control to somewhere, what are your hopes and predictions?

My hopes are

1. Some massive overhaul for healthcare to fix the problem. Not sure if socialized 100% coverage is the right solution but something beyond $5K tax credits needs to be done.
2. Serious Energy program. Encourage alternate fuels etc. Not sure what the solution is but with gas back down to < $2, I am concerned this will no longer be the focus.
3. Stabilize Iraq. Militarily for sure, not sure about politically. Refocus on Afghanistan and get that SOB (preferably dead).
4. Improve world opinion of the US. I think Hillary and Bill and accomplish this!

More of what we have now...For all the talk of change, I'm seeing mostly faces who were associated with the Clinton administration.

I think we stay in Iraq for at least another year, maybe two, although with Obama in command, the coverage isn't so negative. Still might rile up the anti-war ranks, though.

Since Obama is already talking about canceling Bush's drilling initiative executive order...so much for energy independence. Once OPEC gets its act together, we'll see $4-$5 per gallon gas prices again someday.

If Obama and Dems cut the military, like they're already talking about, I think Afghanistan falls back into Taliban hands as we simply decide the lumps just aren't worth taking if we don't plan on securing victory and pull out like the Russians did in the 80s. Osama Bin Ladin, if he is still alive and reemerges, becomes a messianic figure to Muslim radicals around the world for defeating the western Satan.

I think the Dems try to make a massive grab at nationalizing just about everything not already nationalized and it blows up in their face (like Healthcare in the 90s did) as the economy stays in a funk for the next two to three years. They'll lose their grip on at least one of the houses in Congress. If Obama governs as a centrist, he probably wins reelection. If he he goes hardcore left, he is essentially the black Jimmy Carter, and is a one-term president.

:banghead: DOMESTIC OIL DRILLING DOES NOT EQUAL ENERGY INDEPENDENCE!!! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!!!

EPIC MOTHERFUCING FAIL!!! :banghead:

Let me rephrase, Independence from foreign supply, or at least supply from sources not necessarily friendly to our interests.

OBAMA WANTS TO REDISTRIBUTE UR MONEYZ!

If the economy starts to snap out of the funk it has been in by 3 years from now, Obama wins in a landslide beyond this one in 2012.

you obviously missed my rants on this in the election threads during the debates.

offshore domestic oil drilling would not provide a drop of oil that would find its way into american gas tanks within something like 10 years. the problem is that we don't have the rigs and drilling supplies to exploit offshore oil fields at the moment, and producing and deploying them then doing the drilling and refining would take that long.

now it IS true, and i do admit, that there is oil in ANWR that we could access sooner than that. I will also admit that I am not up to speed on exactly how much oil is up there and what type of effect it would have on gas prices in the short/intermediate term, but my impression has been that it's not massively significant (although let me state again, i don't know, so feel free to post objective scientific research proving me wrong). I believe i've heard scientists say it would be a drop-in-the-bucket compared to what we currently use, and certainly not a long-term answer.

the solution to energy independence is not drilling (either offshore or ANWR). It lies principally in the domestic (and later military) use of alternative energy sources.

Iraq: Withdrawal within 2 years, with many of these troops shifting to Afghanistan. We declare complete and total victory and move on.

Defense: One long-term new weapons program gets scuttled along with Star Wars as the Administration is forced to reallocate resources towards more basic procurement and readiness issues. Otherwise we'll just have some neat gizmos in the pipeline with no actual capacity to fight a war. Anyone who thinks we will be cutting defense spending in the near future after a withdrawal from Iraq is letting Rush do their thinking for them.

Health Care: Within the first 100 days, Congress passes an expansion of SCHIP that will cover just about every child. Next year, Congress tries to fix the outstanding problems left with the half-assed prescription drug benefits the GOP approved a few years back. They declare complete and total victory and leave the rest of the health care problem until the second term, when they hope to have more money to effect greater change.

Education: Modest revision of No Child Left Behind Act takes 2 more years, but leaves the testing regime fundamentally intact with more carrots and less stick. They declare complete and total victory and move on.

Energy: In addition to what has already been done, next year additional tax breaks and other federal incentives will be passed to encourage the development of alternative energy sources. Contrary to popular belief, the ban on offshore drilling in extremely sensitve areas will not be restored because they do not have the votes in Congress to sustain an effort by the President to renew it.

Foreign Policy: Our relationship with Russia worsens, more their fault than ours. We continue to favor the Israelis in pretty much everything, but gain enough credibility with the Palestinians and other actors in the region that we can attempt to broker negotiations, but success is very unpredictable. Talks with Iran are sluggish and ultimately produce little because the Russians and the Chinese screw us, just like they have been for years. Chavez loses some regional traction, discovering that Obama doesn't generate the same bad feelings that Bush did.

If you could wave a magic wand and put an active platform over every spot where we believe there to be oil AND oil was actually in that spot, we would improve domestic supply from approximately 33% of our consumption to, optimistically, 36%.

If you wave your magic wand and put up working platforms on the spots where we believe to oil exists and oil companies already hold leases but haven't troubled themselves to start working on, you might reach 45%. Meaning that they have a lot more oil in hand already than they would get by digging up ANWR.

thank you sir. I do appreciate your insight. Do you have a source for this, because I am constantly having to have this conversation with people IRL as well as online and would love to have a source.

didn't i see some bumper-sticker that was like "drill baby drill - start in mccain's 7 backyards" ?

Online, no. I sat in on a briefing by the Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that the government and the oil companies use to figure out what resources we have where. You might be able to find the briefing materials or some such on their website at mms.gov.

that's hot. i'm just going to quote "a friend who sat in on a briefing by the minerals management service" then.

I lost two IQ points just reading this.

But this sounds more likely.

Oh, and I love the people slaming Obama for Clinton appointees. Who was going to get, Bush's people? Clinton was slammed (and rightly so after the first two years) for hiring people with no experience. It caused a good many problems early on. So Obama is picking some people who know the White House and what is needed (and had worked for a very successfull President). Of course this is politics. If he makes a dumb move, slam him. If he makes a smart move, slam him by making it look dumb.

I just read SFLCat's posts in order to find out what Rush and his ilk are spouting.

Well, I expect a good portion of Oprah's money to be given to me.

I want my President check.

Pay my mortgage and put gas in my tank.

Unclusterfuck. Please.

Oh uh. Going downhill fast.

*Stem cell research executive order reversed. I hope this is the first thing he does.

*Gitmo closed. End of human rights abuses.

*Lots of liberal justices on the federal courts.

*A more thoughtful foreign policy. Listening to a wide variety of opinions instead of just a select few.

*Strengthened middle class that powers us out of the recession.

*More qualified people in important posts like FEMA director.

I agree with both these.

Also, Wisconsin plays in a Rose Bowl or two.

On the serious note, I hope he'll be much more proactive than the Bush administration was on a lot of common sense issues. The Bush administration bungled way too much shit.

Destroy the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind.

I'd love to see affirmative action die off too, but I know that won't happen.

Make some inroads to lowering the high costs of health care and higher education.

Edit: National decriminalization of marijuana. Pipe dream, I know.

1. Probably not. Scaling back the Patriot Act and increasing funding of NCLB is much more likely.

2. Not gonna happen.

3. My guess they will take a swing at both of those. I don't know if they'll be successfull.

4. Definite pipe dream. Re-thinking the whole "War on drugs" would be a good thing, but it isn't likely to ever happen.

So just because its a dissenting opinion, it makes your intelligence drop? I'm thinking maybe those two points had already gone away when you decided not to even consider opposing viewpoints. This is why I hate even wading into these threads. Nobody on either side has respect for the others point of view, it just has to be stupid.

A pipedream for now as in being able to go to the local convenience store and buying a pack of Marlboro Joints, but decriminalization is occurring in plenty of places in America. As in, possessing small amounts of marijuana is not a criminal offense.

The District Attorney in Dane County, Wisconsin (which contains Madison, of course) decided last year that he will no longer actively prosecute possession of less than 25 grams. Municipalities inside of Dane County can and do implement their own ordinances against possession but these usually amount to petty fines.

I live in a neighboring county to Dane, and possession inside of my county is classified as a misdemeanor. But municipalities have their own ordinances which are the same small fines. So in essence, if you're going to get caught, it's better to get caught in a municipality with their own ordinance because they you don't have to go through the misdemeanor charges which you'll likely need to go through probation to get it expunged (ie: piss tests!).

Paying a small fine is no big deal if you ask me. If you happen to get caught I guess it's pretty much like paying a tax. But the government would do better in collecting that tax by legalizing, regulating, and taxing it. Right now the government is losing money (through imprisonment and enforcement) on something they could be making money on.

Use the tax revenue to stop the real problems out there like meth.

Ummm...no? Because the comments have no bearing realism and facts. I have a feeling if Arles or some other person with an opposing view point posted, I wouldn't have made that comment. I respect most people that have an opposing view point. It doesn't mean I can't call an idiot post an idiot post.

There are plenty of good posters on all sides of the issues. And then there are idiot Kool-aid drinkers on all sides as well.

Interesting news on one of my top issues - healthcare reform (hopefully 'real' and comprehensive as opposed to the $5K tax credit). Looks like Daschle is going to be the person driving it.

Obama aides say Clinton 'on track' for secretary of state job - CNN.com

Daschle as HHS secretary demonstrates that Obama is serious about the health care issue. Not because Daschle has any particular knowledge in the area. But because he can actually get things through Congress.

I imagine that Obama and a bunch of guys in green eyeshades will actually write the plan, and Daschle's one and only job will be to get the votes on the hill for it.

Oh, and as for hopes, I'll be happy with lots of non-neocon judicial appointments and a restoration of the Executive Branch as a co-equal branch of government subject to (and not above) Constitutional restrictions.

I predict many more opportunities for the people who enjoy the intensely political threads at FOFC to continue getting off.

I hope to personally be strong enough to steer clear of them, as my own involvement has rarely contributed anything positive for me, and likely for the "discussion," either.

Not true at all on at least the part you contribute role. You are always one of the better posters to read.

It appears Hillary has accepted Obama's (informal, right now) offer to be SecState:

Clinton to Accept Secretary of State Job - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com

If Obama makes the executive less powerful, I will be the first to stand up and applaud. I don't have high hopes on that... not many men refuse the power available to them.

I'd like to see you substantiate this claim.


Just out of curiosity, what kind of figure do you think OBL is now to muslim radicals?

John Podesta, who is overseeing the Obama transition team, is a former Clinton White House Chief of Staff.

Rahm Emmanuel, who will serve as Obama’s Chief of Staff, is a former Clinton aide.

The president-elect’s choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, served in the Clinton administration as deputy attorney general under Janet Reno.

Peter Orszag, who has been picked to head Obama’s Office of Management and Budget, worked at the Clinton White House as a special assistant to the president at the National Economic Council.

Robert Reich, Former Secretary, U.S. Dept of Labor under Clinton, is a high-level economic advisor to Obama

Bill Richardson, a former Clinton Secretary of Energy was considered for Secretary of State and seems to now be a leading candidate for Secretary of Labor

And then, of course, there’s Hillary. The former first lady and current junior senator from New York has been asked about the Secretary of State position. And if she gets the job, I guess we get Bill back by association.


Oh, he's something of a messianic figure now, no doubt. But imagine how much more he would be if he could claim, "Not only did I kick the a$$ of the Godless communists in Russia, I've also whupped the great Satan of the West, the USA, and driven them from Allah's land."

Heh. Bob Woodward doesn't like Hill as SoS

Woodward Knocks Clinton SoS Choice

Rahm Emanuel new Chief of Staff - Former Clinton Advisor

Eric Holder new Attorney General - Former Clinton Deputy Attorney General

Janet Napolitano top choice for Homeland Security Director - Former Arizona Attorney General appointed by Clinton

Tom Daschle tapped as Secretary of Health and Human Services - Former Senate Minority Leader and Clinton sock puppet.

Bill Richardson is top choice to be Secretary of Commerce - Former Clinton Ambassador to the United Nations and later Secretary of Energy as well.

Hillary Clinton new Secretary of State - Well

Again, you'd be hard pressed to find a qualified Democrat over the age of 35 that hadn't been appointed by Clinton to some position while he was president. Again, if he appointed people with no experienced, he would be killed (like Clinton was), but if he appoints people with experience, then he's just bringing in "Clinton people." Who'd you think he'd tap, Bush's people?

I'm not sure why this is a problem. It seems reasonable that a CoS from the most recent Democratic administration would have a big advisory role in this transition. There's a ton of nuts-and-bolts stuff to sort out.


Emmanuel is the pick because of his tactical legislative record in the House, not because of his ties to Clinton. You're seeing what you want to see here.


Heaven forbid we pick someone who is qualified for the job.


Again, a nuts-and-bolts job - it's a good idea to give it to someone who can hit the ground running and obviously you're not going to give it to someone from the Bush Administration. Plus, this is the guy who's run the CBO since 2007. Sounds like an ideal choice.


Virtually every high-level advisor to Obama on important issues has been in the Democratic forefront for some time, so it's ridiculous to expect they wouldn't have some ties to Clinton. Besides, Reich in particular is defined as considerably more than just Clinton's former Secretary of Labor.


The guy who stabbed Hillary in the back to endorse Obama? This is your example?


If you're going to disqualify every attorney general appointed by Clinton, you're going to disqualify a lot of really good candidates.


Now you're just making shit up.

Face it, you guys are seeing what you want to see.


Besides, the fact of the matter with most of these appointments is that for these, at the highest organizational level, you want people with name recognition and connections, so they can get to work in Washington (or wherever their remit is) as soon as possible.

If you really want to see change, look at the lower level, the people who are going to do the work behind the scenes and the meritocrats who are actually going to run these organizations. Austan Goolsbee, Arne Duncan, Joel Klein, Valerie Jarrett, Robert Gibbs, etc....

I notice you both fail to mention Tim Geithner. Is the president of the New York Fed unqualified because he worked as an aide to both Robert Rubin & Larry Summers?

Or is he perhaps missing from your lists because you've copied those lists from right-wing blogs in the hours before Geithner was announced as the new Treasury Secretary? ;)



Afghanistan is "Allah's land"?

Go team go!!!!

Well, if you want to get technical about things, the whole world belongs to Allah. It's just so happens most of it is currently in the hands of us infidels.

Naw...I see a lot of Democrat insiders who were there during the Clinton administration. So, instead of change you can believe in, the campaign slogan should have been -- more of the same...only with OUR guys.

I'm just hoping that Bill is appointed to, say, ambassador to the U.N.

The apoplexy would be fun to watch.

You asked him to substantiate his claim that the people Obama are putting in are Clinton people and he did so. No need to go moving goalposts just because you got shown up.

Now if you said it didn't care, that's one thing... but you told him "prove it" and he did.

It will never happen, but... white house press secretary would be most amusing.

How about intern coordinator? White House cigar room operator? Official White House food tester?

I'm surprised people are making such a big deal about Obama appointing people that worked for Clinton. He was in charge for 8 years and he was a Democrat. So alot of the people that have experience in different fields that will want to work for Obama had also worked in the Clinton administration. Now, I think it's pretty faulty to argue that everyone that worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person just because they worked in his administration. Especially since many of them (Richardson, Holder) actually endorsed Obama over Hilary.

And really, some of these examples are just lame. Napolitano? Just because she was a US Attorney under Clinton? That's quite a stretch.

And Daschle is a ridiculous link. I mean, we're not even trying to have an honest debate if we're going to try to connect the dots like that. Give me a break.

I don't think anyone expected Obama to appoint Ray from the Walgreen's pharmacy to HHS. He's going to appoint people that are capable for the job (i.e. no Brown/FEMA situation), and that likely means some of them got experience working at some level in the Clinton administration.

He's supposed to be the candidate for change, isn't he? This isn't change. This is just going down the same road we went down 16 years ago. If they were so great, Gore would have breezed to the Presidency in 2000, but they were not, just more of the same (and same BS we got from Bush II, BTW, who brought us rehashes of Bush I).

Heck, the policies of the Clinton administration had a big hand in the loosening of lending restrictions that are basically at the core of what we're going through today in the economy, and this is the same group of people who didn't talk Clinton into taking care of OBL while they had good chances in the late 90s. These are the people we want back?

I want to see new blood in there, outside the box thinkers who really can create change. Not the SOS.

Who says he still can't be the candidate for change? That doesn't mean he has to pick inexperienced people. He should still pick people that have experience at running departments or working in a field, so they can effectively implement the policies he wants. That list is mostly filled with people that worked in Clinton's administration at some point.

The point I was making was that not everyone who worked for Clinton is a "Clinton" person. They could have wildly differed with him on policy. The fact that many of them endorsed Obama suggests that may have been the case. For example, Reich was actually outspoken in his criticism of Clinton during the campaign, and favors much more central planning in the economy, which is probably why Obama listens to his advice.

I mean, the way people are complaining makes me think that Carville was appointed Chief of Staff and Begala was named Press Secretary, and Gates will be dropped in favor of Wesley Clark.

Oh, and I wanted to respond to this point, which I think is pretty inaccurate. Clinton left office with pretty high approval ratings. Gore noticeably distanced himself from Clinton during the campaign, and this is probably what cost him the election.

Well my #1 and #4 are coming along. Hillary seems to be the shoe-in for Sec of State. Although I do not know if she/Bill can pull it off, I do know if anyone can do it, its them. They can change world opinion of the US to nicely complement the Obama factor.

Don't really know how qualified/good the Geithner nomination is, but I think the market has spoken on Paulson/Bernanke's plans and the lack of confidence in them. As I said in other threads, sure they didn't start the slide, but they are responsible for managing and mitigating it ... it happened on their watch and they have so far been ineffective.

You shouldn't be. The knives are already out.

I heard he still wants to be the Ambassador to the Bahamas. "Party on!"

Actually, he didn't change the goal-post. He showed how loose the connections he was claiming were. Anyway, just the Right-wing talking point of the day. Two weeks after the inauguration we'll be on to something else.

Interesting to see the arguments against Obama shift from "he's an extremist" to "he's just more of the same." No matter who Obama named to his cabinet he would get criticized either way by the same people.

One thing you could argue is why is Obama giving powerful positions to people he thought had bad judgement? Wasn't that one of his biggest arguments against Clinton?

It goes both ways all over politics, on all sides.

No matter who Obama appointed would be defended by his supporters, and opposed by his detractors. That's it. I think Jas lov is absolutely right that he'd be criticized if he picked "out there" people that had somehow avoided big jobs in the party under Clinton. It's also true that Obama supporters would either be excited about "real change coming to Washington", or "change from the last 8 years", depending on what Obama chose. People (with rare exception) can't get past those initial allegiances and never have a contrary opinion to them.

I'm guilty of that too, in that I absolutely lean against Obama and look first at the critical angle whenever he does anything. But I feel like I can at least then reach a "second stage" where I can try to get past my bias and see things with a little clarity. I think Obama's picks are a home run thus far.

People like me, who didn't vote for him, who are stunned that someone with such minuscule credentials (outside of good speaking skills - the thing that got him the nomination) is actually president, should be THRILLED that he's going with experienced people. I want the country to succeed first, and while I don't feel Obama is guy for the job, I'd be even more freaked out if he had all these crazy appointments. At this point, a third term of Clinton would be fine by me.

With the appropriate left-wing talking point of the day counter. :)

flere, flasch, et al: you guys still don't see your selves as being no different (i.e., playing the partisan game), do you?

Exactly, Big Fo, I'm not sure why larry should be surprised. We just went through eight seemingly endless years of partisan Bush bashing and criticism and analysis at every turn. Why on Earth do Dems think Obama should get--or deserves--a free pass?

As someone looking for a labor law job, I'm hoping the Employee Free Choice Act gets passed into law.

Not that I favor union over management rights, but passing the EFCA will be the first major revision to the NLRA since its enactment and will likely result in a lot more work for all labor attorneys.

Sorry, can you sum it up for us? What does EFCA do?

To sum it up, the EFCA would make three specific changes to private sector labor relations.

#1 - Unions will be certified as a bargaining representative for employees if a majority (51%) signs "cards" which states their approval of the petitioning union. Current law has a lower standard for "card check" (30%) to show "presumption" of majority support, however, the employer can challenge the presumption by a secret ballot. Arguably, the secret election allows employers greater access to employees to persuade them to vote no on the secret election. The EFCA would essentially eliminate the secret ballot election.

#2 - Once union satisfies "card check", the employer and new bargaining representative have 90 days to work out an initial collective bargaining agreement or go to binding arbitration/mediation. If an agreement goes to mediation, employees will not have an attempt to approve the agreement before it goes into effect.

#3 - Larger penalties (including punitives) against employers if found to violate the act. Under the current NLRA, employees only recovery if employer violates the act is reinstatement and back pay.

In effect, these changes would likely:

-Provide for more unfair labor practice charges - In modern times, more employees are bringing employment discrimination claims or other private suits against employers for supposed wrongful behavior because recovery is larger. By allowing employees to seek larger remedies under the NLRA, it opens up potential charges.

-NLRA would need to expand to include arbitration/mediation under #2 above, thus opening up a new "section" of the NLRB and more job opportunities.

-Where it is easier for a union to become a certified bargaining representative, it will likely result in more unions meaning more charges, meaning more work for people in the neutral sector.

-Finally, as EFCA would arguably shift the balance of power closer to 50-50, lots of current case-law would need to be re-examined and re-decided.

Supposedly, the cloture count is now up to 58 for the Act, notwithstanding undecided election results. Obama was an original cosponsor of the bill.

I don't see where I suggested he should get a free pass. I said I was surprised he was being attacked on this specific issue, because many of the arguments were flawed. And it's not only Republicans doing it. Obama's being attacked from both sides on this one.

Heck, until I saw the last couple of pages of this thread, I didn't even realize anybody on the right was remotely critical of the appointments (from the standpoint of picking experience vs unknowns).

Because of the extreme differences in anticipated policy, programs, and point of view I doubt I'd approve of the selection of any of them for dogcatcher general BUT from the standpoint of "what makes sense given Obama's political position" I'd say he's probably done better than I would have expected with this phase so far. Going to some people who know which exit to take to get to their office just makes sense AFAIC.

Which was more than what Clinton did on many of his first appointments.

Or rather it would allow those employees who signed the cards under great pressure to vote against it in secret if they really don't want a union.

But you don't have to listen to me, listen to former Senator George McGovern (no conservative):

YouTube - George McGovern on the Employee Free Choice Act

Right, that's why I said "arguably". Could be argued both ways, really.

The Act is not without criticism by liberals and support by conservatives. It is posisble that amendments to the EFCA will need to be made to ensure it passes filibuster.

In fairness to Bill (can't believe I'm saying that), I don't believe he had as much first term access to people with experience as the ruling party as Obama has today. It's only been 8 years since the Clinton administration, whereas it was 12 since the last Dem for Clinton and even that one was the ineptitude of the Carter admin so there wasn't a lot of viability there anyway.

And prior to the Carter disaster, it had been 8 years since a Dem President (LBJ). So hard for Clinton to pick experience.

Obama is definately following in George W. Bush's footsteps as far as building an experienced team from previous administrations and snubbing change. So far, he's more like GWB than Clinton!

I was a big supporter of Obama and voted for him in the election. I'm a little upset with his selections too.

The whole idea behind Obama and "change" was that it would end the politics as usual crap in Washington. That these Washington insiders would be thrown to the curb in favor of fresh ideas. But all Obama has done is appointe Washington insiders to every job. The change is simply in the letter next to the person's name.

I have no doubt that the new people being appointed are more competent than what's there now. But it's still not going to change much in Washington. We're still seeing the old boys club mentality and "I scatch your back you scratch mine" setup. I think we'll still see the cronyism and corruption, just from the other side of the aisle. Obama had a great opportunity to end this crap, to truly move forward in another direction. Instead, he's simply knocking us back a little further in time to the Clinton years.

I'm also heavily against the appointment of Eric Holder. Being someone who works in the technology and internet field, Holder has heavily advocated restrictions on net content. He has advocated regulations for how we can interact online. I just think that's the wrong approach to the internet and puts the U.S. at a disadvantage.

Not to mention he's an old Clinton cronie.

Exactly. It's a fallacy to believe that Obama is really going to change Washington D.C. In order to get within sniffing distance of the presidency, you have to sell your soul 50 times over to lobbyists, and the good ol' boys club (choose your party here, it really doesn't matter). If he does create true change, I will personally be all over it, but I doubt it will really happen. In the meantime, I'll just be sickened by the partisan politics of the next four (probably eight) years played out on both sides and wonder why we thought it would be any different than the last eight.

Bill Richardson for Commerce. Not sure what Commerce does (who is the current Commerce Sec?) but IMO he scapegoated Wen Ho Lee during his Energy days. But I guess better Commerce as a consolation than Sec of State.

Change comes from the top. I hear the pundits here concern about Clinton retreads and how this may impact Obama ... but honestly, during this critical stage of our economy and 2 wars, I want the most experienced giving counsel and pushing through Obama's plan.

Other than for Hillary, I think the others are with the program.

However, why not doesn't Obama just say that in his campaign. It's not like that the economy and the wars just happen. They been going on for quite a while. I actually don't mind a few, experience veteran DCers, but at least bring in some new faces and ideas if your going to center your whole campaign on that.

"Change" in Washington DC had been a fallacy all along. The federal system has gotten so big and so entrenched that there is no way anyone can "throw out the insiders", esp. when two parties dominate the political process and we just switch from one to another. But the Dems can defend it all they want because the main goal was to get the opposition out of power.

Well I cant wait to see those on the right come in and give Kudos to the Obama Presidency for his willingness to NOT accelerate the expiration of the Bush tax cuts thus keeping the promised increase of taxes on the wealthy and cap gains from occurring during this difficult time. This stands in contrast to what McCain stated would happen if Obama won and I just want to see if those on the right admit their surprise and happiness. Im happy but the question is will those who stood one side be willing to admit when theyre wrong? It it looks like Obama is putting together an allstar cast of experts in perhaps just the right positions too. This has the potential to be a very good presidency when it is looked back upon. I hope that's true for all of our sake.

Just a question (and for all in general), do you think Obama is in a difficult position in this being his first term. If he really gets down to doing what he said he would do, could he have people say, "This isn't what we want, or it's too liberal (or whatever it could be)? If he is more moderate in what he does, and not delivering on some of his promises (or make scale them back), could he turn off those swing voters and even some of those on the left who are critizing him now (for his cabinet picks, and for moving to the center more) as he goes up for re-election in 2012?

That's interesting spin. I'm glad he's not going to end the Bush tax cuts immediately, but McCain was attacking Obama on his CAMPAIGN PROMISES. I'd think this would be more surprise and shock for those who backed Obama, who thought he'd reverse the Bush tax cuts immediately, like he implied he was. Instead Obama has basically accepted McCain's argument during the campaign, while fighting against what he's doing now.

Not to pick on you specifically, but I think a lot of Obama supporters didn't get very far past, "articulate" and "Not Bush" when they became supporters in the first place.

For anyone who was paying attention, and as mentioned by several people here, none of what Obama is doing is remotely surprising whatsoever.

I love the fact that he is pragmatic and realistic....and able to 'flip flop' when the environment changes. Goes against the GOP spin of how things would be under Obama (if he continues his tack to the center).

It also goes against Obama's spin during the campaign ;).

I'd rather he appoint smart people with experience than outsiders qua outsiders. So, I'm cool.

Vote Democrat. We're for war, torture & corruption too, and we're good at it.

Sounds like a winning slogan to me.

I like it!

Vote Republicrat.

I agree. Since we aren't given much in terms of choices, I think people just vote against the party/person that has fucked things up. I really don't think this election was as sophisticated as some make it out to be. It was Republicans fucking things up for 8 years and everyone saying lets see what the other guys can do. We'll be back in this spot again someday.

The "most experienced" guys got us into this mess.

That would be my dream job! Run a company into the ground, and then get a multi-million dollar severence package from the shareholders for my efforts! :)

Congrats, you just described about 50% of our country's CEOs.

I'm beginning to wonder how many of Obama's campaign promises will even come to pass at this point. His tax plan is reportedly going to be on hold indefinitely due to the downturn in the economy. Also, it appears that his advisors are considering holding off on many of the terrorism policy rollbacks after the massive attacks in India. Policy makers are concerned that a rollback of some pieces of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security changes may not be the correct move. They're worried that the terrorists are using these attacks to test how far they can go with Obama.

But...but... he's a radical Marxist.

Well, it's not really of his choice. He'd love to implement many of the policies that he promised during the campaign, but as I stated before the election, it wasn't likely at all that he'd be able to implement many of his policies as they simply don't make any sense related to real-world politics. As radical as many of Obama's suggested policies are, it appears that radicals from the other side of the world may hog-tie him for the most part. As a result, we're going to get a presidency for the next 4 years where not much 'change' actually occurs. I think the same would have been true of a McCain presidency.

Good. As long as he's still a secret radical I'm cool.

Huh? Other than for the infrastructure section, the rest sounds weak to me. If that's his energy plan, I'm very disappointed.

Most Emailed News Stories