Skip to main content

An Obama Presidency may = a third Clinton term, at least it is shaping up to be pretty close to it. Is this the "change" Obama has in mind?

He has already chosen a Clintonite to lead his transition team...and another to run his Government (John Podesta and Raum Emanuel respectively). Then we find out that he may be considering yet another Clintonite, Lawrence Summers, for Secretary of the Treasury. Now Hillary Clintons name is floating around. (this is among other possible Clinton appointments.)

(A few of my Cabinet suggestions can be found at the end of my post)

This is looking more and more like a third Clinton term to me. This is probably not what Obama supporters were hoping for when they stood in line, sometimes for 2 or 3 hours,...sometimes in the rain, to cast their votes on November 4th.

All of this is on top of the fact that Obama appears to be embracing much of the Bush Administrations foreign policy. It's been a week and a half since the election and I am seriously questioning why I bothered to register and vote for the first time. I feel a little duped.

Even if he doesn't choose Hillary... some of his decisions so far call into question his ability or willingness to bring "change".

This is always the danger of stepping out on faith and supporting an empty suit (as stylish as those Obama suits may be). When someone like Obama mentions change, we want to grab it because it sounds so attractive at a time when things are so bad. But in our haste, we forget to demand or even ask that he explain exactly what he means by "change".

My idea of "change"...as it relates to the future, means taking the Country in a fundamentally new and different direction. Choosing Clintonites for key Cabinet positions doesn't represent the change that I had in mind.

Perhaps Obama's idea of "change" is simply thinking that he can accomplish it because he's replacing the Bush Administration. For some voters, that may be good enough.... but not for me. He's going to have to do better than that.

A Few Good Candidates for Cabinet Positions

As for the Secretary of State.... I don't want to see Clinton or Richard Holbrooke (another hardline Clinton expansionist... he helped to lay the groundwork for the attack on Yugoslavia...which almost sparked WWIII). Basically whoever will be chosen will be a Republicrat... Because he is choosing from a pool of hardline centrists. There are no real Progressives in the mix.

I'd rather have him pick someone with a background as a diplomat, like a Bill Richardson....(yes, someone from the Clinton Administration, but someone who has fallen out of favor with the Clinton's and who endorsed Obama early on) or someone who has at least a few Progressive credentials, like a John Kerry. A little known Progressive would also be great...someone fresh and new, but who has the background for the job.

Someone like an Adm. William Fallon would make a great Secretary of Defense...
Obama should consider the long list of Generals/Admirals who opposed the way the Iraq War was handled by the Bush administration... let these men run the Pentagon.

Patrick Fitzgerald for Attorney General. As much as I'd love to see the first Black AG, like an Eric Holder, he has too many skeletons in his closet...and he was also part of the Clinton Administration. I'd rather see a top Prosecutor run the Justice Department... a career person for a "change".

Director of National Intelligence....or Secretary of Homeland Security....my choice for either of those spots would be Ronald Noble - One of the best known Law Enforcement Officers in the World. Formerly one of the highest ranking Law Enforcement Officers in the U.S.- and he's a Black man. Not that I want to fill the job with a Black American.... It's just that Ron Noble happens to be one of the best people for the job...and it's just a coincidence that he happens to be Black.
And bring Clark Kent Erving back as Inspector General. Obama says he wants to reach out to Republicans... this would be a good opportunity to do it.

For CIA.... choose a qualified career man. There are several division chiefs who quit during the Bush years... frustrated about Bush policy and meddling in CIA business.

FEMA... 3 words... James Lee Witt.... and get him fast... This is one Clinton guy who the Country actually needs... This would be a good pick.

Agriculture .... Tom Vilsack.

Czar or Secretary of Science and Technology (if Obama could help create this new position)... Former Astronaut Eileen Collins. This could be someone who could chair a national Science Committee to help us clean up the environment, mitigate global warming, help establish energy independence within 15 years, treat energy independence like a new Manhattan project, and could help oversee the establishment of a green economy...with green collar jobs, etc.  They could help oversee Space Exploration and all the rest... Eileen Collins would be an awesome choice.

Tammy Duckworth for the open U.S. Senate seat (Illinois) or Secretary of Veterans Affairs. (but i'd really love for her to get that Senate seat...hopefully the Governor of Illinois will make it happen).

My list could go on and on... but unfortunately...none of the Obama people will ever read this blog.

And another problem seems to be that Obama is taking direction from the Clinton folks... instead of charting his own path. I understand reaching out.... but this is ridiculous.

And why would Hillary Clinton want to give up her Senate seat anyway? I doubt that she would want the position...one reason is because there is no glass left for her to break in that arena... that's already been done more than once. So it would seem less than attractive to her. The only position that she might have chosen...and that would have given her satisfaction, is the VP slot...and that has obviously already been decided. She will actually have more clout if she remains in the Senate.

But we won't know for sure until she accepts it or rejects it... if it's being offered at all.

What are your thoughts on the possibility of Hillary getting such a key position in an Obama Administration (an Administration that already seems on track to be filled with a ton of Clintonites). Secretary of State and Chief of Staff are probably the two highest positions in an Administration..., not including the President and VP obviously....and for them to be filled with Clinton folks...or even by a Clinton... just seems strange for a man who ran on a promise to fundamentally change Washington D.C.

This is going to drive me nuts until someone retracts the Clinton report...or offers some sort of clarification. I'd like to hear that this is a mistake.

If Obama does this... I will have to really break ranks. During the campaign, I held back.... because I wanted the lesser evil to win the election. I was hoping that Obama would stand for some sort of Progressive principles. But now that the election is over... I won't hold back my opinions nearly as much.

Obama's Cabinet choices will tell me one of two things: #1) Whether he will pursue a Progressive agenda...and whether he believes in Peace and Progressive Principles, or #2) If he will have too much of a Centrist, pro-war, corporate, interventionist (I can imitate a Republican better than you can) type of Presidency. So far it looks as if - as a way to compensate for something...as a way to gain as much acceptance as possible...and to prove he's "tough" - he may be going out of his way to choose folks who are tough on foreign policy and other issues. This kind of overcompensation is something that I was concerned about...hopefully it won't translate into the wrong decisions being made during some sort of crisis or international incident.

See Original Post w/ additional comments

Main Page

Originally posted to Mirror On America on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:51 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  No (10+ / 0-)

    Will An Obama Administration = A Third Clinton Term?

    I believed, but I'm damn glad it is now reality.

    by alasmoses on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:54:27 AM PST

  •  For Obama to systematically exclude (18+ / 0-)

    anyone who was considered excellent enough to serve in the only Democratic administration since 1980 would be madness.  I'm glad he is a broader thinker than the litmus-testers who still haven't got over the primaries.

    Seems like Obama's supporters were happy enough to have Clinton supporters' votes a couple weeks ago, so now all "Clintonites" should be purged?  Don't be ridiculous.

    •  But this seams like he is going to the Clinton 's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      houyhnhnm, WattleBreakfast

      well a lot.

      Obama and the Racists "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain

      by THE BIG FUNNY on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:00:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd personally much rather he nominate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        evenson, Mistral Wind

        all Clintonians than ANY Republicans, but I think he'll be smart and do things I don't necessarily like, for the sake of getting things done.

      •  The man is putting together (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BeaRational, Mistral Wind

        the best people for the job. The last time I checked the 90s were an era of prosperity. What the heck is wrong with having some people in place who were a part of that.You need people who know and have demonstrated how to get things done. The democratic party is a big tent party get us to it. Further 4 official appointments have been made so far:
        Rahm Emmanuel - was part of the Clinton admin but is also a close friend and ally of Obama and knows how to get things done.
        David Axelrod - original Obama advisor
        Valerie Jarett- original Obama Advisor
        Ronald A Klain - formar chief of staff to Al Gore now Chief of Staff to Joe Biden. Last I checked, Al Gorw was the model of how a great VP should be. The horror to have his formr chief of staff to help guide Joe Biden. - sarcasm
        Robert Gibbs - expected to be named Press Secretary

        I thnk Hillary would be great as SOS or Secretary of Defense. I think Richardson would be a good choice for SOS as well. If he isn't the SOS, I am positive he will be given some other big Cabinet post.

        Of the folks named so far - 3 are Obama people and 2 Clintonians. The abject horror.

        "We don't throw the first punch, but we'll throw the last." Barack Obama, October 6, 2008

        by jessica69 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:18:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well said (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BeaRational, Mistral Wind

      The small mindedness and absolute lithmus tests being applied by many is down right ridiculous. Obama is attempting to put the best team forward to hit the ground running to tackle the serious problems we face at home and abroad. I can't believe with how serious our problems are right now - an economy sinking deeper and deeper into recession, people are bitching about some people from the past Clinton Administration(a very successful adminstration by the way) being a prt of the team  not meeting their personal purity standards for "change".

      "We don't throw the first punch, but we'll throw the last." Barack Obama, October 6, 2008

      by jessica69 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:24:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with your main point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sean oliver

      but for some of us this has nothing to do with the primaries; it's got to do with the Clinton administration itself. Look, a lot of the problems we're facing today stem from Bill Clinton's administration. Yes, Dubya made them much, much, much worse. But Bill started a lot of this crap.

      Especially in the financials. I actually don't have a problem with Hillary as SOS. However, any Clinton advisers in any positions having to do with the Economy will send the wrong message. Clinton, when it comes to economics, is no Democrat, and continuing the Republican Lite message on economics is NOT what we need right now.

      But I got no problem with Hill as SOS. She can negotiate; and, since she'll be working for Obama, it'll be his policies she's negotiating.

      What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

      by ChurchofBruce on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:32:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was really pissed at Obama (0+ / 0-)

        over the makeup of his "economic transition team".
        No progressive/liberal/"socialists" in sight. Nada Zero Zilch Null.
        Where was Krugman Stiglitz Roubini?
        But we do get Rubin...

        Obama had better show his progressive side soon - we know he has one.
        He doesn't always have to take the liberal position, but so far he hasn't made a single progressive gesture.

        Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

        by sean oliver on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:35:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  No (1+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      PoliMorf
      Hidden by:
      Kevvboy

      Obama won't cheat on his wife for a fat intern. If that hadn't happened, Gore would have most likely won and everything would be peachy.

      Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have all the answers, but the Democrats have their heart in the right place.

      by thematt523 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:02:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What a horribly small-minded thing to say. (0+ / 0-)

        I'd be glad to hide-rate that comment if you want me to. Otherwise, people will see it and it may color their opinion of you. But if you want it to stand, so be it.

        •  I didn't write that (0+ / 0-)

          someone was using my computer. It was probably my cousin! He's here right now; He's a Democrat but he despises the Clintons.

          Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have all the answers, but the Democrats have their heart in the right place.

          by thematt523 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:30:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Did Clinton really have the best people in the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WattleBreakfast

    country on his team or is Obama being lazy?  There has to be some people some where that are not connected with the Clintons worthy of controlling federal budgets.

    Btw didn't Hillary have a bunch of donations from lobbyists?

    Obama and the Racists "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain

    by THE BIG FUNNY on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 07:58:54 AM PST

  •  You're right (6+ / 0-)

    I shouldn't have even voted. How could I have been so stupid?!?!?!?

    It's a big tent. Get used to it. You want him to build an entire cabinet from scratch and exclude anyone who was around during the Clinton years?

  •  Will Dennis Wolff be picked for USDA? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shirah, kurt, BoiseBlue, WattleBreakfast

    I hope not.

    I hope others will recommend sirah's important dairy.

    Got rBST? The Wolff in the Obama USDA Henhouse

    Please inform yourselves - rec the diary, and let the Obama transition team know that appointing Wolff to head USDA is not the kind of change we can believe in.



    ```
    peace

  •  I'm not suggesting (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    houyhnhnm, WattleBreakfast, soysauce

    that there should be no carryovers. There always are from previous administrations... But Obama seems to be reaching a little too far back... he's almost working too hard to do so.

    And something should be different THIS TIME. This is not the normal instance where you recycle old Cabinet figures and old staffers. Obama strongly criticized old Washington policies and practices ...over several Administrations... and criticized Washington insiders...saying specifically that you can "vote for the same cast of characters and expect a different result"....remember that mantra? "Change"...fundamental change and a new direction were centerpieces for his campaign. Therefore, THIS TIME, it is not unreasonable to expect something different.

    A few Clinton folks are fine... A few G.H.W. Bush folks are fine... Hell... a few G.W. Bush folks might be fine... even Reagan and Carter.... Let's get the best folks for the jobs.

    But Obama should also choose fresh faces from the outside who can also get the job done. Former White House folks are not the only capable people in the Country.

  •  Ooops ....correction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WattleBreakfast

    I meant to write for the Obama quote:

    "you can't vote for the same cast of characters and expect a different result"

  •  I'd much prefer to see someone who led the (0+ / 0-)

    country, through the Clinton administration, to the longest and strongest economic growth this country has had, serve in the Obama administration.

    Patrick Fitzgerald, as you will no doubt learn at some point or another, was a republican who helped to protect Cheney and Rove by keeping open the door to further investigation of the Plame leak after the Libby conviction.  None of the testimony given to the GJ in that investigation can be made public because of his stipulation. He may be a hero to you, but he's not to me.

    I trust that whomever Obama selects for his administration will be the best that he believes he can do for this country whether or not it pleases me.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:14:51 AM PST

  •  Obama = Bill Clinton v. 2.0 (5+ / 0-)

    a smoother, more biracial model of triangulating centrist, updated for the Internet generation.

    I've said this again and again and again. There was no real difference between Obama and Hillary, aside from Obama's far greater mediagenicity and his ability to be a blank slate (no history of controversial votes, etc.) On matters of substance and policy, they were virtually indistinguishable. The possibility that he may be stacking his cabinet with former Clintonites neither amazes nor disappoints me. There's only so many people one can reasonably appoint to those posts, in any case.

    What Obama is about: he hasn't had a chance to make all of the mistakes that all the rest of the politicians have, so the voters embraced him as something fresh and novel. But the establishment knows can be counted on to make every single one of those mistakes once he's in office.

    He said he was about "change you can believe in"--about belief in the possibility of change, which is quite distinct from actual change. He didn't say anything he didn't mean--it's not his fault if people read something into his words that wasn't there.

    He said he was about "hope" and "belief", and people hoped and believed. What more do people want from the guy?

  •  I'm shocked (6+ / 0-)

    Shocked!

    To find that Obama is planning on hiring Democrats in his administration.

    If I'd wanted Democrats in the Administration, I would have voted for the Democratic ticket!

    Where are all those people from the Special Obama Party that I was supposed to be voting for?

    •  If I wanted Hillary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      houyhnhnm, WattleBreakfast

      I (and millions of others) would have chosen her to be the Democratic nominee.

      You suggest that the Democrats represent a monolith.

      There is a wide range of philosophy and opinion within the Party... It's not quite as bad as the Republican Party...where everyone is programmed to think alike.... as if they are robots.

    •  they hoped Obama would destroy (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PoliMorf, The Angry Independent

      the old DLC-dominated Democratic party, and rebuild it in his image as a shining new popular movement of "hope" and "change."

      What they didn't realize is that Obama took a shortcut to the top. Since he hasn't paid his dues to the Democratic establishment through a long career of currying favor with official Washington, he's obligated to pay them back for their support by being even more accommodating for their interests, perhaps, than a Washington insider would have to be.

    •  I wanted Democrats (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      The Angry Independent

      that's why I didn't vote for a ressurection of the DINO Clinton administration.

      Yes, that was overly harsh :) but there is a point in there.

      What do you call a parent that believes in abstinence only sex ed? A Grandparent.

      by ChurchofBruce on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:36:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I also see (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    justmy2, BeaRational

    that you were all over Obama for not picking John Edwards for VP also.
    You were right , Edwards would have been the perfect VP candidate and Obama really screwed up by dissing him.
    He should put you in charge of selecting his whole team.
    Vilsack, DLCer and clinton backer as ag sec? great.

    I agree that Fitzgerald would be a nice selection for AG but Obama would get crucified in the Chicago press for that move since he promised that he would not take this Daley antagonist out of his role of cleaning up Chicago and illinois.

    Fallon has not been out of the military long enough to qualify for Sec. of Defense by law.

    Calling Obama an empty suit renders everything else you say meaningless. When you blow an assessment like that, why would anyone care about any of your other offerings?
    I have not heard one objective observer indicate that anything but that this transition process by Obama is light years ahead of prior admins. That is not achieved by being an empty suit.
    Did you see the agency transition teams announced yesterday? They were chock full of extremely talented academics from all over the country. They are tasked with total analysis of all agencies and will allow obama to have them all stripped down and rebuilt by jan 20. That is not the work of an empty suit.

    But hey, Edwards was a helluva pick for VP by you...clearly,you really know your stuff far more than the empty suit.

  •  If it were... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jessica69, chrome327, Mistral Wind

    I would have no problem with that... the first two clinton terms had spectacular peace and prosperity... I'd love another 10 clinton terms...

    But times are different, cleaning up the mess post-Dubya will be hard smelly nasty work. so let's let Team Obama get to it and quit nitpicking "He's got toooo many old Clinton faces on board!! Gosh Darn It!!!"

    Chenney is Leaving.
    Dubya will be out of power soon.
    one podesta and an emmanuel is heaven by comparison.
    just imagine president McCain bringing Gonzales and Scooter Libby into the cabinet...

    Get gratefull now.

  •  Obama is NOT WJC. Obama could take a Clinton team (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, WellstoneDem

    and play a different game.  Obama is a leader without Bill's ego and Obama has shown better impulse control than Clinton.  Personally, I like having a transition team that been on the field before.  CLinton wasted too much time first term by putting a team together. This administration in two years will be a stark contrast to Clinton, although it will be centrist.

  •  RANKSBREAKING: Obama "pals around" with Clintons! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BeaRational

    What part of We Are One People did you miss?

    Clinton as SecState is not the same as Candidate Clinton.

    As others have said, many qualified candidates have some tie to the Clinton WH.  That doesn't mean they are indelibly stamped with all ideologies Clintonian.  It DOESN'T.

    We should really watch ourselves for our own Guilt-By-Association problems.  

    Yes, we should push progressives for posts.  No, we're not going to get them all.  Remember, Obama is sincerely interested in a broad spectrum post-partisan climate.  Peaceful coexistence applies to EVERYONE in that broad spectrum, not just Them.

    Our Moment is... (ding!) Now.

    by Leftcandid on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:26:00 AM PST

  •  NO! (0+ / 0-)

    wake up will you?

  •  I don't see how (0+ / 0-)

    you think 1 ONE nominee COS Rahm is a 3rd Clinton term. Give me a flippin break. He hasn't even started naming names yet. All he has done is talk to people. You are going by what the MSM is reporting on. Rumors, Rumors and more rumors. You have no clue what is really going to happen. Valerie Jarrett his friend from Chicago has just been named as a WH insider and she sure as heck isn't from the Clinton years so where do you base that from. Just because Podesta is from the Clinton years and is on the transition team doesn't mean that is what he is going to have in his Admin. At least he is using his head and using people and hitting the ground running and at least is using someone that is smart enough to know where they screwed up with Clinton and maybe will do it right this time.

    So get off this crap, I am tired of hearing this 3rd term Clinton stuff.

    •  There have been many more (0+ / 0-)

      than ONE Clintonista lurking around...
      The problem with Obama's transition so far is the complete absence of any solid progressives, especially on his economic team.
      That is what disturbs us. He could've made ONE unambiguously progressive decision since Nov 4 but he hasn't.
      This is sadly similar to Clinton's presidency: Campaign on promising progressive goals, but end up governing like a center-right DINO.

      Of course it hurts - you're getting screwed by an elephant.

      by sean oliver on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Obama should do this, Obama should do that..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chrome327, BeaRational

    says the latest armchair transition team member.

    First of all, Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton.  There's a new sheriff in town.  The staff will implement Barack's policies not Bill Clinton's.  The fact that there will be some experienced staff from the Clinton administration does not surprise or alarm me at all. Where else would he seek experienced staff.  From the Reagan administration?

    Barack has a right to pick the staff that he feels he needs to govern and get the job done for the American people.  You can bet there will be a mixture of private industry, academics, Congress Democrats and Republicans and some number of staff from previous Democratic administrations.  

    I am just wondering what exactly is the right number of previous Clinton staffers that would satisfy the diarist?  

  •  Given the differences in temperment between (0+ / 0-)

    WJC and BHO, I doubt anyone will consider this a "third Clinton term."  

    Pres. Obama has more insight into Congress and has a better Strategic sense than Pres. Clinton had.  He has less management experience than WJC, so he is prudent to pick people who have engaged the Federal Bureaucracy before.

    To some extent he is locked into the Bush foreign policy in the short term.  However, long term, if John McCain had won or even if Pres. Bush had seized power as George W. I, we would still be getting out of Iraq.  The people there don't want us there.

    Keep the faith.      

  •  Remember, John Edwards was the choice.... (0+ / 0-)

    Of most people here.  I don't think many here will be surprised that Obama doesn't live up to expectations.

  •  If you thought Obama was going to be Kucinich... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, houyhnhnm, chrome327

    then you weren't paying attention.

    Obama's entire history has shown him to be a pragmatist--not a firebrand, not a leftist.

    The fact that he would move cautiously and thoroughly to set up his administration is totally in keeping with his character.

    Obama is not going to bring about a sweeping progressive revolution. If there is to be greatness in his administration, it is going to be realized gradually and in small increments. It's going to happen because of Obama's style, intelligence and leadership abilities will infiltrate into the mechanism and tone of government.

    Obama has been left with a mess of historic proportions. It is going to take all of his efforts just to stave off disaster.

    If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible...tonight is your answer.

    by Azdak on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 08:54:17 AM PST

  •  Where is he supposed to find qualified people? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, WellstoneDem, hyper, chrome327

    Since the Democrats have only held the presidency for just 12 of the past 40 years, where do you think Obama should go to to find people in his Administration? The choices are the Clinton  and Carter administrations, period.

  •  You make good points and I agree with many (0+ / 0-)

    of your picks. Alan Blinder, former FED vice chair and progressive economist, would be a great SOT pick.

    The fact is there are a lot of ex-Clinton folks with previous experience since his admin was in office for 8 years. Maybe we have to get used to the idea that some of them will return and do a good job.

    Let's not follow this like a roller-coaster just because you don't like the way a few things are going; like regretting your vote. That is an overreaction.

  •  Answer to your question...NO!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, BeaRational, HylasBrook

     title=

    Rosa sat...so Martin could march...so Jesse could run...so Barack could win...so our children can fly...Yes We Can!!!

    by justmy2 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:03:17 AM PST

  •  If you are a Dem with government experience (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, limpidglass

    you probably served in the Clinton Administration.

    The men and women of the civil service are excited that those being appointed to run the various executive branch agencies have government experience and are going to know what they are doing.

    If Obama wants to bring about serious changes in policy, bringing in people with no government experience would be the absolute worst thing he could do.

    "Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

    by WellstoneDem on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:13:38 AM PST

  •  Ridiculous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf

    I have no love for the Clintons after this years primary season, but the revisionist history that paints the Clinton years as The Reign of Voldemort in this country is insanity. Compared to where we are now, those years seem like utopia, and the idea that someone who worked for Bill Clinton is somehow so tainted that they can't work for Obama doesn't make sense to me.

    Not thrilled with the idea of Hillary for SOS, but as the media has been wrong like 80% of the time when it comes to politics this year (Obama is lagging in fundraising for the month of September! Sarah Palin is a great VP pick!) I'm going to actually wait and see what happens before passing judgement.

  •  Clinton era folks in the government is a good (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, WellstoneDem

    thing.  Bill's was the only good administration the country has had in the last 30 years.  There are a lot of capable people with experience who can help Obama.  It is very smart on Obama's part to draw from all of the party to govern a diverse nation.

    I'm sure Obama will also fill key slots with newer, non-Clinton folks as he is doing with his list of aides.  

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:26:27 AM PST

  •  DEAD WRONG!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PoliMorf, WellstoneDem

    The fact that Obama is hiring people who worked in the Clinton administration means that his administration will be DIFFERENT from the Clinton admin, which ROYALLY FUCKED UP its transition to power, squandered the first two years, and gave th Congress to Newt fucking Gingrich in 1994.

    What a stupid asstroll diary.

  •  Actually, I was worried that Obama would NOT (0+ / 0-)

    appoint any former Clinton staffers.   I would like to see him go off in a different direction, but I want him to be successful.

    I was worried about totally new people and whether they would make too many mistakes while getting 'up to speed'.

    Clinton's presidency for all its ups and downs was reasonably successful, so it makes sense to bring some of the people who made it work into Obama's administration.  Already, it appears that Obama has learned from the Clinton administration's early mistakes -- starting the transition too late, not successfully vetting candidates, etc.

    Also (this may be wishful thinking/gullibility on my part) some of the staff may not stay the entire first term -- get the Obama administration up and running, then return to private life (and NOT as lobbyists either.)

    Obama hasn't been inaugurated yet, so let's give him a honeymoon.  Also, he might have second ideas about some Clinton staff members or Cabinet picks once he gets his feet under him.  Then the person who isn't working out decides to "spend more time with his/her family" and out they go.

    As an earlier poster puts it "Chill out, he's got it."

    Republicans love America - they just hate half the people living in it. - Jon Stewart

    by HylasBrook on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM PST

  •  I like Clark Kent Erving at DHS (0+ / 0-)

    I read his book "Open Target" and he was right on the mark about many issues.

Click here for the mobile view of the site