Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The More Things Change
The Nation's Christopher Hayes is none too happy with President-elect Barack Obama's cabinet picks:
Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in the new administration. Not one.
Does this mean the honeymoon is over already? Or maybe Obama just figured out what's wrong with calling yourself a progressive.
SIV|11.24.08 @ 10:15AM|#
"Actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive"'s would scare the public into opposing the progressive policies Obama plans to enact.They don't hide what they are trying to do and tend to overreach.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:18AM|#
"Not a single, solitary, actual dyed-in-the-wool progressive
has, as far as I can tell, even been mentioned for a position in
the new administration. Not one."
Hey, this guy managed to make me dislike Obama a little less. Who
knows, maybe by the time he leaves office, he'll have reached
Clinton levels (indifference).
|11.24.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Maybe Obama isn't a Progressive but a really sharp opportunist? Maybe he used the fact that he was half black (all right thinking black people are progressives aren't they?) and good at muttering meaningless bullshit to let the progressives think he was one of them and will now do whatever he thinks is going to keep him in office. There was a story running around the internet before the election about how he got elected to editor of the Harvard Law review. Apparently, the progressive thought he was one of them and the few conservatives figured he was the least crazy of the inevitable liberal options available. Sure enough, as editor, he wasn't a nut and the progressives all felt betrayed. Maybe one of the things Obama learned at Harvard was that progressives are a cheap date.
|11.24.08 @ 10:22AM|#
Maybe one of the things Obama learned at Harvard was that
progressives are a cheap date
They may be cheap dates, but they expect you to call them the next
day. So clingy.
|11.24.08 @ 10:22AM|#
progressives are a cheap date
Pretty soon progessives will have their own tiny barely read
magazine and irrellevant political party...
|11.24.08 @ 10:30AM|#
LOL, the more things change, the more they stay the same!
http://www.privacy.de.tc
|11.24.08 @ 10:30AM|#
I'm torn between believing that Obama duped all those lefties into voting for him, and SIV's deep cynicism.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:31AM|#
As High Priest of the Obama, I excommunicate Christopher Hayes! He shall forevermore be numbered among the conservatives and reactionaries, for questioning the Progressive Divinity of the Obama!
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:32AM|#
"Pretty soon progessives will have their own tiny barely read
magazine and irrellevant political party..."
And maybe they can be simultaneously considered irrelevant and the
cause of all the trouble in the world.
|11.24.08 @ 10:32AM|#
What do you expect from a mushy centrist?
So much for the "most liberal candidate ever to seek the
presidency," and "the most liberal person in the Senate."
Seriously, the rankings that listed Obama as "most liberal" listed
Joe Biden as #3, and still, people believed what they wanted to
believe.
Ohnoes, teh socialist!
|11.24.08 @ 10:34AM|#
"I'm torn between believing that Obama duped all those lefties
into voting for him, and SIV's deep cynicism."
That is a dangerous game RC. The Republicans did the same thing in
2000 and Bill Clinton did that after the 1994 mid terms. You can't
go ahead and do the real policies you want because the public will
reject everything. Better to be incrimental right? Well you do that
and before you know it you are a Demcorat who just ended welfare as
we know it or a Republican who just signed the proscription drug
benefit. I think Obama is an opportunist with dellusions of
grandeur. He thinks he is going to incrimental his way to
progressive utopia but his survival instincts and reality will keep
that from happening.
|11.24.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Uh, Bush didn't name any actual dyed-in-the-wool evangelical
fundies to his administration either (Ashcroft doesn't really
count), but it doesn't mean they didn't have his ear. I know it
seems like a radical idea, but before we do end-zone dances over a
lack of progressives and progressive policies, maybe we should wait
and see what happens when he's actually president.
Oh and John, are you going to take back your pre-election freak
outs about Obama being a radical too?
|11.24.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Well you do that and before you know it you are a Demcorat
who just ended welfare as we know it or a Republican who just
signed the proscription drug benefit.
Both candidates explicitly promised to do those things during theie
election campaigns.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:39AM|#
"but before we do end-zone dances over a lack of progressives
and progressive policies, maybe we should wait and see what happens
when he's actually president."
Mo's right. Obama could still suck ass.
|11.24.08 @ 10:39AM|#
I thought Obama was all about Change. W was the most Progressive
president we've had since FDR.
I for one could do with some fiscal responsibility from the oval
office, but we ainna gonna see any of that either.
|11.24.08 @ 10:40AM|#
maybe we should wait and see what happens when he's actually
president.
Or when he's actually named his cabinet?
Frog|11.24.08 @ 10:40AM|#
The water in this little pot is all warm and comfy.It isn't cold like in the big pond.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:40AM|#
"Both candidates explicitly promised to do those things during
theie election campaigns."
Clinton in '92? I'm honestly curious. I wasn't paying that much
attention at the time.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Having performed my penance, I can now resume my duties as High Priest of the Obama.
robc|11.24.08 @ 10:43AM|#
Mo,
Bush didn't name any actual dyed-in-the-wool evangelical
fundies to his administration either (Ashcroft doesn't really
count), but it doesn't mean they didn't have his ear.
You couldnt be more wrong. 1 - Ashcroft counts, but thats a minor
point. 2 - they didnt really have his ear, things would have been
much* better if they had instead of the neo-cons.
*okay, slightly
|11.24.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Clinton vetoed welfare reform two or three times before signing
it in 1996, the end of his first term. In Joe world he campaigned
on it and tried to get it done over the objections of Congress. In
reality, it was forced down his throat by reality and his desire to
stay in office.
Maybe Obama really is a nut. If he is, it will show it soon enough
and get his ass handed to him. If he is not, Progressives will
continue to whine about how betreyed they feel. The next two years
are their big chance. If Progressives can't get anything done
beyond "stimulus bills" and give aways to connected big business,
they need to stop laughing at Libertarians for being an irrelevent
fringe group.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:46AM|#
"things would have been much* better if they had instead of the
neo-cons."
At least forced re-education for teh gaiz would be less expensive
than the war in Iraq. But then again, how do we know the
evangelical fundies wouldn't want a crusade to bring the Good News
to the benighted heathens of the Middle East?
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:49AM|#
"If Progressives can't get anything done beyond 'stimulus bills'
and give aways to connected big business, they need to stop
laughing at Libertarians for being an irrelevent fringe
group."
Perhaps a libertarian could write a book explaining that while
Progressives might say they're against the government fleecing the
poor to support (some of) the rich, bailouts are really the central
part of Progressivism.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:50AM|#
"give aways to connected big business"
Actually, in the case of the auto industry it seems to be motivated
more by connections to unions than business.
Abdul|11.24.08 @ 10:53AM|#
I, for one, still believe that Obama will rename the Department of Defense the "Department of Peace & Rainbows" within a month of ascending to office.
|11.24.08 @ 10:54AM|#
2 - they didnt really have his ear, things would have been
much* better if they had instead of the neo-cons.
They did up until 9-11. Remember his awful faith based-initiatives?
Plus, the Shaivo bullshit. I'm guessing if 9-11 never happened, you
would have gotten your preference.
Remember, in 2000, McCain was the neo-con's guy; Bush wanted a
humble foreign policy.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 10:55AM|#
He can't be a lefty. He is black, so even centrist moves will
appear more radical.
I said before the election this would happen and it seems to be
panning out that way.
economist|11.24.08 @ 10:55AM|#
Abdul,
The High Priest of the Obama demands that you submit any prophecies
to The Committee for the Correctness of Holy Doctine and
Prophecies.
|11.24.08 @ 10:58AM|#
What Mo? Faith based initiatives? You mean the ones Obama plans
to expand?
"In a July 2008 speech, Obama announced a plan to establish a
Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. It would
expand upon President Bush's faith-based initiative, primarily by
allocating $500 million per year for summer learning camps that
would aim to narrow the achievement gap between poor and wealthy
students. Under Obama's plan, groups receiving federal funding
would not be allowed to take religion into account in
hiring."
http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Faith__Based_Initiatives
Maybe you missed it, but the guy attended church every Sunday for
20 years and says marriage is a God given bond between a man and
woman. But I guess you like religion and faith as long as one of
your guys is practicing it right?
robc|11.24.08 @ 11:02AM|#
Mo,
Bush had the cabinet of neo-cons from day 1. We were going to have
a war with Iraq during Bush's term. 9-11 may have even delayed it.
:)
robc|11.24.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Mo,
The faith based initiatives and Schiavo and etc were bones to the
fundamentalists. He had to keep them happy for reelection, but he
didnt listen to them. Notice that the few connected to the
administration left at the first chance they got.
economist|11.24.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Perhaps we could have neo-theo-cons. Who would say, rather than claiming we were attacked because the Middle East isn't democratic (bullshit reasoning), they would claim it was because the Middle East isn't Christian (also bullshit reasoning, but not quite as bullshit as the neo-con).
economist|11.24.08 @ 11:07AM|#
John,
Are we going to get started on the Red Team vs. Blue Team
interventionist wars again?
|11.24.08 @ 11:11AM|#
"John,
Are we going to get started on the Red Team vs. Blue Team
interventionist wars again?"
No it is just when people like Mo claim the Dems as the party of
peace with a straight face, someone has to call bullshit on it.
economist|11.24.08 @ 11:13AM|#
When did Mo claim (on this thread) that the Democrats are the party of peace?
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:19AM|#
You really think Obama is died-in-the-wool evangelical, John? I don't think so. I think he's like Reagan--he pays lip service to it for political reasons. It certainly looks that way from how quickly he dropped Wright and Trinity United. It was politically useful to him in southside Chicago, but not on the national stage. By 2016 he will be an Episcopalian attending some white-bread WASP Church at this rate.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:19AM|#
BTW, I don't know who looks more stupid. The right wingers who screamed Obama was a SecretRadicalMarxists, or the liberals who thought he was the next FDR.
|11.24.08 @ 11:21AM|#
I've got a theory on the heavy Isreal influence in the new cabinet. I think Obama didn't really like his Indonesian experience. He may have even developed a distate for the overbearing Moslim teachings. Then at Columbia and Harvard, all the Jews love him, civil rights advocates and all. Then they elect him to be editor of the Law Review, and he's set for life. Obama isn't a muslim, he's a muslim hater.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:23AM|#
"Obama isn't a muslim, he's a muslim hater."
You know what? I'm going to enjoy watching the Saudis have to kiss
the ass of someone they probably consider an apostate.
|11.24.08 @ 11:24AM|#
"You really think Obama is died-in-the-wool evangelical, John? I
don't think so. I think he's like Reagan--he pays lip service to it
for political reasons."
I don't know. Never met him. But he does attend church and has made
it clear that he intends to expand faith based inititives. If, as
Mo says, Bush was bowing to the fundie nuts for having faith based
initiatives, then why isn't Obama? This bullshit of "he is just
lying about that" whenever some otherwise objectionable position of
Obama's is pointed out is getting pretty old. Either judge him by
what he says or does, or admit he is a liar who can't be trusted on
anything good or bad. Don't just pick and chose what you think
(hope) he is lying about.
robc|11.24.08 @ 11:28AM|#
The right wingers who screamed Obama was a
SecretRadicalMarxists, or the liberals who thought he was the next
FDR.
So the right wingers and the liberals thought the same thing?
|11.24.08 @ 11:28AM|#
economist,
The phrase "end welfare as we know it" was coined by the Clinton
campaign in 1992. It was a big applause line he used in his stump
speeches.
Clinton vetoed welfare reform two or three times before signing
it in 1996, the end of his first term. The White House and
Congress went back and forth over details of the bills, many of
which were poison pills the Republicans put in so it would be
vetoed and they'd still have the issue, but they both agreed on the
general shape of things.
In Joe world he campaigned on it and tried to get it done over
the objections of Congress. In Joe World, you can type "end
welfare as we know it" into the Google, get several hundred
thousand hits demonstrating that I'm right, and make John look like
the same delusional ignoramus we've come to expect.
|11.24.08 @ 11:29AM|#
No it is just when people like Mo claim the Dems as the
party of peace with a straight face, someone has to call bullshit
on it.
Dude, WTF? I've never claimed that. Unless you interpret my "McCain
was the neocon's guy during the primary*" comment as saying that.
You're arguing with the Mo in your head.
robc,
I know that Schaivo was after 9-11. It was unfortunately placed in
the sentence by me. I will also note that the only time he ever
used his veto pen when Republicans ran Congress was for the stem
cell research bill.
My guess will be that Obama won't turn the country into a
progressive's paradise, but there's a good chance his policies will
tilt that way. Of course, we'll have to wait and see on that.
* Which is true
|11.24.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Maybe you missed it, but the guy attended church every
Sunday for 20 years
Well, that's what he said when it was in his interest to say so.
But, of course, we all know he was mysteriously absent on those
occasions (and apparently only those occasions) when Rev. Wright
went off his meds.
You really think Obama is died-in-the-wool evangelical, John? I
don't think so. I think he's like Reagan--he pays lip service to it
for political reasons.
Well, that's alright then. As long as he's only lying to us, and
doesn't really believe a word of what he says, that's Change I Can
Believe In!
|11.24.08 @ 11:30AM|#
I am optimistic. I am happy with these picks. I am sure that aside from relatively minor changes in taxation, my life will be wholly unchanged from 2000-2008. I am happy that the young liberals who populate my area will no longer have a Bush to beat on. I am still optimistic.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:32AM|#
"
Well, that's alright then. As long as he's only lying to us, and
doesn't really believe a word of what he says, that's Change I Can
Believe In!"
It's called "being a politician". I'd rather have a cynical
opportunist like Clinton than a true believer like George W. Bush.
At least then when the stupid shit they do becomes unpopular, they
cut it the fuck out.
|11.24.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Under Obama's plan, groups receiving federal funding would
not be allowed to take religion into account in hiring.
Elminating the anti-discriminations requirements groups need to
agree to in order to receive federal funds was the central plank of
Bush's faith-based initiatives platform. The government partners
with faith-based groups all the time, and has for decades - with
those anti-discrimination requirements in place. Saying that Obama
will adhere to them eviscerates the sole novel element of Bush's
initiative.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:33AM|#
From the NYT:
"All three advisers - whom Mr. Obama will officially name on Monday
and Tuesday - have been followers of the economic formula that came
to be called Rubinomics: balanced budgets, free trade and financial
deregulation, a combination that was credited with fueling the
prosperity of the 1990s."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24rubin.html?hp
NEW NEW DEAL! Not.
|11.24.08 @ 11:35AM|#
John,
There's a difference between creating a program whole cloth and
changing its funding level. That's why Reagan increasing Social
Security funding is completely different from FDR creating the SSA.
Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.
|11.24.08 @ 11:35AM|#
BDB | November 24, 2008, 11:19am | #
BTW, I don't know who looks more stupid. The right wingers who
screamed Obama was a SecretRadicalMarxists, or the liberals who
thought he was the next FDR.
Every one of the "centrist" cabinet picks to date supports the
Employee Free Choice Act, a government guarantee of health care
coverage, a massive, infrastructure-based stimulus package, an
increase in the minimum wage, and the repeal of Bush's tax
cuts.
|11.24.08 @ 11:36AM|#
James Ard | November 24, 2008, 11:21am | #
I've got a theory on the heavy Isreal influence in the new
cabinet.
Israel is Rahm Emmanuel's middle name.
No, literally. His name is Rahm I. Emmanuel.
|11.24.08 @ 11:38AM|#
R C Dean | November 24, 2008, 11:30am | #
Maybe you missed it, but the guy attended church every Sunday for
20 years
Well, that's what he said when it was in his interest to say
so.
Link?
I don't recall him saying that. I recall him saying he was a
Christian and belonged to a church.
|11.24.08 @ 11:40AM|#
BDB,
Even Bob Rubin himself has spent the last several years writing
about things like income inequality and the recanting some of the
more extreme versions of the free trade and deregulation gospels.
Chastened Rubinites sound just fine to me - and those are the only
kind of Rubinites out there these days.
Geitner, for one, was talking about the need to regulate mortgage
derivatives years ago.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:45AM|#
The NYT article says the Bush tax cuts aren't going to be repealed anytime soon. They won't raise taxes during a recession.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:46AM|#
How many protectionists are in his cabinet? Zero. Don't look for any NAFTA "re-negotiation", especially since his political survival no longer depends on Ohio and Michigan.
|11.24.08 @ 11:46AM|#
I, for one, welcome my new, er, old new Clinton Overlords. I much prefer greedy crooks to ideologues. They won't do near the damage a Daily KOS regular would.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:51AM|#
"Chastened Rubinites sound just fine to me"
May I ask why you didn't want to nominate Hillary, then? Seriously.
Foreign policy? Ok, she ended up in charge of foreign policy any
way. Was it all a Seinfeld Primary about nothing?
|11.24.08 @ 11:51AM|#
BDB,
"Anytime soon" means "before 2010," or in other words. In other
words, they're not going to be made permanent, they're going to be
allowed to expire.
Fine by my. The order of the day is a stimulus package. It was
FDR's efforts return to fiscal discipline - higher taxes, lower
spending, and attempts to balance the budget - in 1937/38 that
derailed the ongoing recovery.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 11:53AM|#
I'm trying to figure out how an Obama administration is going to be different from a third Clinton term, and aside from lack of tawdry sex scandals I'm honestly drawing a blank.
|11.24.08 @ 11:54AM|#
BDB,
The Hillary pick is the only one that gives me even the slightest
pause, and even that is going to come down to whether she's on
board with his foreign policy program or tries to push her
own.
At least in the short term, the two of them are pretty much in
synch anyway - leave Iraq, pay more attention to
Afghanistan/Pakistan, push the Israeli peace process.
But beyond foreign policy, the reason I supported Obama over her
was that I thought he had a better chance of winning.
|11.24.08 @ 11:58AM|#
"It was FDR's efforts return to fiscal discipline - higher
taxes, lower spending, and attempts to balance the budget - in
1937/38 that derailed the ongoing recovery."
In bizzaro world maybe. His lunatic economic policies that tried to
set minimum prices and control virtually evey aspect of economic
life down to what chicken you could buy but at the same time
changed out of desparation so much that they were utterly
unpredictable had a little bit to do with it as well. FDR was like
a medeval doctor working on the economy with leeches.
BTW Joe. Ilove card check to. Clearly greater union membership is
the ticket to prosperity. Unionized industries like the Big 3 are
so much more competetive than non-union ones.
|11.24.08 @ 12:00PM|#
BDB | November 24, 2008, 11:53am | #
I'm trying to figure out how an Obama administration is going to be
different from a third Clinton term
A third Clinton term, particularly one with a friendly Congress,
would have looked quite different from the last six years of his
presidency. He was already moving the left on trade, he'd been
forced to drop his entire environmental program, and he was only
pushing small-bore stuff.
Between the Iraq War and the financial sector going splat, and the
elimination of the economic gains for the bottom half of the
country over the past decade or so, a lot of the areas in which the
triangulating Clintonites were to the right of the party as a whole
have proven the Reichs right, and the Clintonites now sound a lot
more like them than the did is, say, 1998.
|11.24.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Here, John, a link from "bizarro world," also known as the
figures for Americand GDP growth during FDR's presidency.
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/depression_chart.php
You may mumble something about correlation and causation, and try
to change the subject again.
|11.24.08 @ 12:05PM|#
BDB | November 24, 2008, 11:59am | #
Card check will be Obama's "gays in the military"-type
debacle.
Card check has majority support in both houses of Congresses and
popular with the public - not quite the same thing as Gays in the
Military circa 1992.
|11.24.08 @ 12:05PM|#
BDB,
I would like to think people value secret ballots and most of the
91% of the people in this country who do not belong to unions have
much use for them. Especially, after watching their tax money go to
prop up the UAW, I can't believe many people will be too wild about
losing their ability to vote in secret over a union. Further, it is
so pathetic as to be almost sad that anyone could come to power
selling "hope and Change" and "Yes we can!!" and the first thing
they offer is unionism. Are kidding me? What is next, a campaign
based on free soil and ending the gold standard?
|11.24.08 @ 12:08PM|#
Joe,
You are without a doubt the most historically ignorant person I
have ever met. Agrueing wiht you about history is pointless. You
just drag me down to your level and beat me with experience. You
knowledge consists of once flipping through a Howard Zinn book. Go
read some scholarship on the Depression and come back and talk to
me. I read all of it in college and don't feel like explaining it
to you and you wouldn't understand it even if I did. I will argue
with you about politics, but not economics or history. You aren't
worth the effort.
|11.24.08 @ 12:11PM|#
John,
Am I more or lest historically ignorant than when you wrote that
the 1987 stock market crash caused a recession, and that the
American economy has gone through several recessions induced by
financial-sector collapses since the end of the depression?
It's cute how, even after the past eight years, you continue to
"know" all sorts of things you don't actually know?
|11.24.08 @ 12:16PM|#
That was an amusing little outburst after being proven
completely fucking wrong, though, John.
Joe, you idiot, the recovery didn't stall out when Roosevelt raised
taxes and cut back on spending in 1937! It...uh...hm...uh oh.
GOD DAMN IT JOE YOU ARE SO IGNORANT, I'D EXPLAIN HOW IGNORANT YOU
ARE BUY YOU AREN'T WORTH IT! YOU AREN'T WORTH IT!!!
Lawlz.
|11.24.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Well, that's what he said when it was in his interest to say
so.
Link?
This is rich, coming from "do-your-own-damn-research joe."
I don't recall him saying that. I recall him saying he was a
Christian and belonged to a church.
Try this:
The comments from Obama about his church attendance appeared in
the transcript of an interview posted Tuesday on the religious news
Web site Beliefnet.com. The interview was conducted on March 27,
2004 by Chicago Sun-Times religion writer Cathleen Falsani for a
story on Obama's faith, but the interview was not released in its
entirety until now.
"One of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United
Church of Christ," Obama said in the interview. "And the pastor
there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that
church and committed myself to Christ in that church."
Obama began attending the church in 1988 and formally joined
Trinity in 1992. Falsani asked, "Do you still attend
Trinity?"
Obama answered, "Yep. Every week. 11 o'clock service. Ever been
there? Good service.
Linky-loo.
Mad props to the Sun-Times for sitting on an interview until after
the election that directly contradicts what Barack Obama told us
about his attendance at Rev. Wright's controversial sermons.
|11.24.08 @ 12:27PM|#
This is rich, coming from "do-your-own-damn-research
joe."
I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Anyway, you found one line in one interview? Congratulations.
|11.24.08 @ 12:28PM|#
When we add together all the uhs of Obama's 4 years, I bet it lasts better than two weeks.
|11.24.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Oh, an interview that wasn't published.
Sort of an odd rebuttal to the statement I don't recall him
saying that. I recall him saying he was a Christian and belonged to
a church.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 12:33PM|#
"James Ard | November 24, 2008, 12:28pm | #
When we add together all the uhs of Obama's 4 years, I bet it lasts
better than two weeks."
How about all the times McCain would have said "my friends"? I'm
not sure which is more annoying.
|11.24.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Even with the "uhs," coherent sentences, correct diction, and the absence of made-up words will still be a pleasent change.
|11.24.08 @ 12:38PM|#
I think if McCain got elected, he'd drop the My Friends and revert to the mean old kurmudgen he really is.
|11.24.08 @ 12:40PM|#
"The Hillary pick is the only one that gives me even the
slightest pause, and even that is going to come down to whether
she's on board with his foreign policy program or tries to push her
own."
Elevating Bolton and Gonzales after they'd done so much harm seemed
pretty compelling evidence of President Bush's incompetence, way
back when.
I have to say that even apart from whether Senator Clinton's on
board with Obama's foreign policy, I'm not sure I understand why
you'd put such an opportunist in such a high profile position, just
from a political/strategic standpoint.
Can you imagine Ms. Clinton taking one for the team? Can you
imagine here doing the politically unpopular thing for the good of
the United States? How much upside is there having Clinton on your
team relative to the potential downside should she bail out on
you?
I'm not saying it's enough to make me think he's incompetent, but
it does make me wonder about his judgement.
robc|11.24.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Oh, an interview that wasn't published.
The interview was, in fact, published. I know this because it
exists in published form on my screen.
robc|11.24.08 @ 12:42PM|#
joe,
All words are made up. The more creative of us dont limit ourselves
to current vocabulary.
|11.24.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Ken Schultz,
I'm not sure I understand why you'd put such an opportunist in
such a high profile position, just from a political/strategic
standpoint.
Even assuming the worst about her, she can't very well lead an
effort to undermine Obama without sinking herself. That
"opportunit's" self-interest is now tied to the success of his
administration, in a way that it would not have been if she was in
the Senate.
Can you imagine Ms. Clinton taking one for the team? Can you
imagine here doing the politically unpopular thing for the good of
the United States? How much upside is there having Clinton on your
team relative to the potential downside should she bail out on
you?
Remember all the wailing - from the people who assured us that she
"owned the Democratic Party" and was certainly going to win the
nomination, now that I think about it - about how she wasn't going
to help him get elected, and would seek to undercut him during the
election? She really came through for him in Florida and other
states.
I've got problems with the Clinton pick, but a lot of the criticism
of her smacks of the zany Klinton Konspiracy stuff.
|11.24.08 @ 12:57PM|#
The more creative of us dont limit ourselves to current
vocabulary.
Your cromulent attitude towards grammer embiggens us all.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 1:03PM|#
Speaking of W. and made-up words, check this out. Don't think we'll be hearing much from that author in the future.
|11.24.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Actually, we get the best of both worlds. A president whose
level of verbal dexterity doesn't produce winces, combined with a
Vice-President whose verbosity guarantees a steady stream of
pratfalls.
"Pull the string, and he talks for 45 minutes."
|11.24.08 @ 1:06PM|#
This is a "transition team".
I suspect he's going for "safe" options - holdovers from the
Clinton administration, until he figures out what he really wants
to do.
Cabinet posts often shift a couple of years into an administration.
Or sooner.
At least it means that he's cautious and none too serious about his
campaign promises.
|11.24.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Don't think we'll be hearing much from that author in the
future.
Either that, or he'll be co-owner of a joint venture with James K.
"Dow 36,000" Glassman.
|11.24.08 @ 1:09PM|#
I agree with Hazel, btw.
The economic situation has made stablizing the economy, restoring
confidence in the markets, and keeping the country afloat a higher
priority than his affirmative agenda.
Bush thought his presidency was going to deal mainly with domestic
policy.
Paul|11.24.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I still stand by my prediction. That eventually the Democrats will be defending Obama on the fact that he's enacting so little change. They will point to just how mainstream a candidate he is, and that will be proof that he's not the radical some accused him of being.
|11.24.08 @ 1:16PM|#
"Remember all the wailing - from the people who assured us
that she "owned the Democratic Party" and was certainly going to
win the nomination, now that I think about it - about how she
wasn't going to help him get elected, and would seek to undercut
him during the election? She really came through for him in Florida
and other states."
I don't mean to sound like a Clinton conspiracy theorist, but I do
wonder if there might have been some horsetrading.
Give me your support, which I need for the win, and if I win, I'll
offer you...
That sort of thing isn't unheard of and it would explain a lot!
...and if something explains a lot, as every conspiracy theorist
knows, well then it must be true!
BDB|11.24.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Well, the primary was essentially a tie so I expected some Clinton people to be in the cabinet. But Hillary being in charge of the point where they disagreed much, and so MANY Clinton people I didn't expect. I expected more Chicago, less Little Rock.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 1:28PM|#
If Sarah Palin becomes Secretary of the Interior or Secretary of Energy, then we will know Obama has taken "Team of Rivals" a little TOO seriously.
robc|11.24.08 @ 1:34PM|#
Either that, or he'll be co-owner of a joint venture with
James K. "Dow 36,000" Glassman.
2024. Between now and the end of 2024 the Dow will hit 36k. That,
btw, is 8k with a 10% growth rate.
Not only that, but I predict a 100k Dow too.
|11.24.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Horsetrading?!? Why, no, of course not. That would
be...uh...that would be...well, yeah, that's probably it.
Sec. of State is THE plumb assignment in the cabinet. It is the
biggest prize a President can give. It's almost certainly that, and
not the belief that Hillary is uniquely qualified to run State
instead of some other department, that explains this pick.
|11.24.08 @ 2:02PM|#
That's pretty good horsetrading. The top cabinet position, COS, Transition boss, Sec of Commerce, Economic advisors galore, while Obama could have won without her.
economist|11.24.08 @ 2:16PM|#
I actually don't see it as impossible that a tax hike could cause a decrease in economic activity. Actually, it seems quite likely.
|11.24.08 @ 2:26PM|#
James Ard is now counting people who endorsed Obama over Clinton as Clintonites.
BDB|11.24.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Joe--
That's because he thinks Bill directed them to endorse Obama. He
said that already about Bill Richardson--that Bill instructed him
to endorse Obama when they watched the Superbowl together.
|11.24.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Endorsement aside, Richardson is about as much of a Clintonite as a Clintonite can get. When the Clintons hunkered down during the Lewinsky affair, Richardson hunkered down with them, obfuscating the whole way.
|11.24.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Apparently, Richardson wasn't much of a horsetrader. Getting neither VP nor Sec. of State for his endorsement. Let's see how that Commerce spot helps his presidential aspirations. Not that I'd be surprised if he became VP or SOS before its over.
|11.24.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Richardson is about as much of a Clintonite as a Clintonite
can get
Richardson was well to the left of even Obama on the Iraq War over
the past five years, never mind Clinton.
And yet, his appointment would represent a prostration to her?
Odd.
I supposed a Robert Reich appointment would also demonstrate a
double-cross by Obama, as he once served in the Clinton cabinet,
too.
Honestly, though, I can respect Ard's position on this. It's based
on a coherent, logical (albeit looney) theory, which could be
falsified. As opposed to most of the "Obama supporters should be
very disappointed" commentary lately, which has proven itself to be
completely unfalsifiable. Don't you know that appointing partisan
lefties is a betrayel of his promise to change the tone in
Washington? Don't you know that appointing centrists demonstrates a
betrayel of his promise to change Washington?
|11.24.08 @ 2:52PM|#
OK, four years. Since early-mid 2004. He initially supported the
invasion, but got off the wagon when the WMDs didn't turn up.
Which was part of Hillary's plan all along, that minx.
|11.24.08 @ 2:56PM|#
The appointment of Melody Barnes is yet another example of
Barack Obama betraying his supporters, those fools who thought he
represented change.
I will now go read National Review Online, as I have no plausible
explanation of why they should be disappointed by this, but rest
assured, disappointed they must be.
So very, very disappointed. Melody Barnes is certainly not "change
we can believe in," and I'll be right back to explain why, just as
soon as someone explains it to me.
/wingnut voice
BDB|11.24.08 @ 2:58PM|#
Joe, if you want to have fun reading about Klinton Konspiracies,
there is no "better" place to go than Dick Morris.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/11/23/hillary-nomination-would-be-an-obama-nation/
|11.24.08 @ 3:34PM|#
I should point out that as a "newbie", Obama pretty much HAS to enlist Clintonites. They're the people who have recently been in power and know what's going on. He wouldn't get very far without their cooperation.
|11.24.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Right, Hazel.
It's not as if there have been three or four recent Democratic
administrations, and he's choosing a lot of people from one of
them.
Any Democrat with enought executive branch experience to qualify
for a top job, who is still young enough to take it, will have
gotten it between 1993 and 2001.
|11.24.08 @ 4:59PM|#
"Sec. of State is THE plumb assignment in the cabinet. It is
the biggest prize a President can give. It's almost certainly that,
and not the belief that Hillary is uniquely qualified to run State
instead of some other department, that explains this
pick."
Like I said, it was just speculation. Sometimes candidates have
even been known to offer their former rivals the Vice
Presidency.
That having been said... No, I do not believe Hillary Clinton is
uniquely qualified to run the State Department.
|11.24.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Either that, or he'll be co-owner of a joint venture with
James K. "Dow 36,000" Glassman.
Hey, at least those guys were intellectually honest to keep their
book titles the same when it went to paperback.
This guy is super wrong and intellectually dishonest.
economist|11.24.08 @ 5:44PM|#
As High Priest of the Obama I declare all debate on his appointments a dangerous deviation from the purpose of The Faith. Hail Obama!
|11.24.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Are you enjoying yourself, "economist."
I'd hate to the think that all the effort you put in typing the
same joke over and over accomplished nothing.
M. Simon|11.24.08 @ 11:39PM|#
He promises 2.5 million new jobs. That will cost about half a
trillion.
He is promising about 3 trillion or more in stimulus.
And he will balance the budget? I don't see how he can do that.
Unless he is lying to us.
economist|11.25.08 @ 5:38PM|#
"I'd hate to the think that all the effort you put in typing the
same joke over and over accomplished nothing."
Copy/Paste works wonders.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245