Obama, The more things CHANGE the more they stay the SAME!

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I have to say our "Change" candidate turned President Elect Obama certainly is showing a strange way to go about things.

So far the cabinet hasn't been set in stone but the candidates look like a who's who of the 1990's. Is this really the change we need? Is this the change that Obama is going to deliver?

Officials site that the Obama Transition Team is looking to grab Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State:


President-elect Barack Obama offered Sen. Hillary Clinton the position of Secretary of State during their meeting Thursday in Chicago, according to two senior Democratic officials. She requested time to consider the offer, the officials said.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source:huffingtonpost.com

Taping Clinton as SecState in my opinion does not reflect change in Washington and how it is govern but keeping the status quo. I am not the only person to think this way. Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris agrees...


Dick Morris, the acerbic former Clinton adviser, wrote recently: “Obama based his innovative campaign on an emphatic and convincing commitment to change the culture of Washington and bring in new people, new ideas, and new ways of doing business. But now, Obama has definitely changed his tune.”

Morris concluded that “Obama appears to be practicing the politics of status quo, not the politics of change.”

Source:taipeitimes.com

Obama may indeed be bi partisan though in his selections, the Washington Rumor Mill (rumors are treason punishable by summary exicution) seems to think that Obama may keep current Secretary of Defence Robert Gates in the position.


WASHINGTON (AFP) — The Washington rumor mill has gone into overdrive this week with speculation that Defense Secretary Robert Gates could be asked to stay in his job by president-elect Barack Obama.

While some see Gates's experience in dealing with conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan as an advantage to a fledgling administration, others believe such a move would ultimately betray the incoming Democratic president's message of change and his promise to end the war in Iraq.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Source:Google Hosted News/AFP

Other candidates for Obama's Short list include: Mike Bloomberg for treasury secretary, Ken Thorpe (Veteran of the Clinton administration health care fight), and Howard Dean make the short list for Healthcare Secretary.

Speculation around Washington is lit up about other cabinet members to be appointed by Obama. While this is merely speculation at this point the contenders seem to be mostly members of the former Clinton administration.

This is not change President Elect Obama, this is a 1990's Remix.

The Huffington Post's Mark Nickolas seems to have a bead on the possible combinations of Obama Cabinet Members...

State: Bill Richardson, Richard Lugar, Greg Craig, John Kerry, Sam Nunn
Treasury: Sheila Bair, Timothy Geithner, Eugene Ludwig, Laura Tyson
Defense: Chuck Hagel, Robert Gates, Jack Reed, Richard Danzig
Attorney General: Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Artur Davis
Homeland Security: Lee Hamilton, Tony Lake, Richard Clarke, Tim Roemer
National Security: Anthony Zinni, Greg Craig, Samantha Power, Susan Rice
Agriculture: Tom Vilsack, Colin Peterson, Tom Daschle, Jim Leach
Commerce: Kathleen Sebelius, Ed Rendell, Penny Pritzker, Olympia Snowe
Education: George Miller, Tim Kaine, Linda Darling-Hammond, Joel Klein
Energy: Brian Schweitzer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jeff Bingaman
HHS: Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Julie Gerberding, John Kitzhaber
HUD: Shaun Donovan, Shirley Franklin, Jesse Jackson, Jr., David Gottfried
Interior: Lincoln Chafee, Christine Gregoire, Brian Schweitzer, RFK Jr.
Labor: David Bonior, Dick Gephardt, Dan Tarullo, Linda Chavez-Thompson
Transportation: James Oberstar, Ed Rendell, Earl Blumenauer, R.T. Rybak
VA: Chet Edwards, Max Cleland, Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth
UN Secretary: Susan Rice, Caroline Kennedy, Lee Hamilton
EPA: Kathleen McGinty, Ed Markey, Mary Nichols, Lincoln Chafee
Council of Economic Advisers: Austan Goolsbee, David Cutler
Chief of Staff: Tom Daschle, Greg Craig, David Plouffe
Supreme Court nominee (when available): Cass Sunstein, Hillary Clinton

Source:huffingtonpost.com(links added when available for convenience)

Of course the Presidential Cabinet Nomenee has to face Senate Confirmation, a process outlined in the US Constitution Article II Section 2...




posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
If you want an example of the kind of change Obama is looking for, consider the second stimulus package he has proposed, which will, among other things, help bail out the three ailing automobile manifacturers. This is definitely not a move that any Republicans or many Democrats would propose, especially this early in the game. I'm not going to argue the merits of the idea here, just pointing out that he has hit the ground running with some new ideas already.

As far as his political appointments go, he has about 2,000 spots to fill. Only a few of those spots have been discussed so far. He has never said he wants inexperienced people in these positions, or people with no knowledge of how Washington works. It's not surprising he would draw upon some people who have worked successfully for former administrations. I doubt if he will fill all appointments with Republicans or independents, as some people seem to think he should, although I'm sure he will include some before he is finished.

The man hasn't been in office for two weeks yet, and already the opposition wants to tear him apart. Give him a year, at least, before you pass judgment on the changes he will propose.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Sestias]

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Nov, 16 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The truth is a President needs some seasoned professionals in some of the higher posts. Secretary of State is too important to give to a relative unknown. The country has a lot of repair work to do as the last administration seemed to not want to work with the other countries of the world.

Not one person has been named to Sen Obama's cabinet, and time will tell who he offers the job to. Sen Clinton has a lot of power as a Senator, and may not want to give up the job. She is still viable for a 2016 run, and she may want the post to shore up her resume.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
Secretary of State is too important to give to a relative unknown.


But apparently President was not.



The fact remains that Obama promised change, and he isn't showing he'll change anything with these selections.

I realize he hasn't even officially started the job yet, but he isn't off to a good start.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by nyk537]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


So far he hasn't selected anyone yet. The President's Cabinet members are the ones who advise him on policy matters. Since Sen Obama does not have the experience in the matters of foreign affairs (Sen McCain didn't either), a seasoned person is good to have on the team. I would prefer Gov Richardson as he engaged in high level talks before.

I do see the point you make about having a completely new outlook on matters, but the main thing we need is people working together instead of the usual partisan (and personal) bickering that has been going on for decades since Ronald Reagan left office in 1989.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


I can agree with that, but how much "change" can an administration bring in when all they are doing is recycling people from previous administrations?

You have to admit that Obama ran on the mantras of "hope" and "change". "Change" is falling by the wayside now, especially seeing who he is appointing and talking about appointing.

Yes, Obama is inexperienced. Yes, he needs help. But, couldn't he "change" out the people that help him and get some new faces in there instead of faces from previous Democrat administrations?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Let's see, where do I start? From President George W. Bush to President Elect Obama. " Change "
First Black President. " Change "
That's it! Nothing else until he becomes President January 20th and from there we'll see what changes.
I didn't vote for Obama but that's who America wanted and that's who we'll have in the White House. I'm the kind of man that will wait and see what he does and give him that chance to prove himself worthy of the job. For one he's a Democrat so he's gonna put Democrats in his administration. This time next year we'll see what has changed.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   
It just seems kind of contrary to build yourself up as an agent of change, and then surround yourself with people who don't stand for that change. How can we expect him to truly change this country if his staff is made up of the old guard democrats?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the man when he hasn't even had a chance to prove himself yet.

But surely you can see the concern?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


The man has been elected by the majority of the people in this country. I didn't vote for him, but he is my President-elect and I will support him and respect him and his office.

That being said, however, I have maintained from the start that the only "change" he offers is the change from a Republican administration and Republican policy to a Democrat administration and Democrat policy. That's it.

I have to wonder what all the people who were so gung-ho in supporting Obama's "change" message really thought he would do and think of how he is starting things off with recycled Clinton era post and position appointments.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
sorry everyone, I haven't been around much lately. But ill continue.

I think it's very important to be really critical of who Obama selects for his cabinet. These are the people that are going to implement policy for this country and their personalities are going to be a major influence on what occurs these next four years.

I voted for Obama, I respect him and think that he may do some great things for this country, however I also think that we need to really take a hard look at who he is going to bring into his inner circle and what those people stand for.

Qualified candidates from both sides of the political isle are what this country really needs right now. What we are seeing with rumored (some are confirmed) choices is more of the same thing that has happened in the 1990s.

While times were in my opinion better in the 90s as they are currently I wonder if that is really what is needed to move this country forward or is it going to have an effect that might be more detrimental to our nation?



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
I have to wonder what all the people who were so gung-ho in supporting Obama's "change" message really thought he would do and think of how he is starting things off with recycled Clinton era post and position appointments.


You have wondered, you have asked and we have answered. You refuse to accept our answers and continue to ask the same questions again. I can't help but think it's not our answers that you're wondering about.

I was (and am) very "gung-ho" in supporting Obama. I am not at all surprised that he has chosen some people from the Clinton administration. In fact, I EXPECTED it and I am thankful for it. It is what I thought he would do. It is what I HOPED he would do.

It has become clear that to many people (most of them Obama critics), the word "change" means an all-new cabinet. ALL people from outside Washington, ALL people from outside politics, ALL people we've never heard of before. But that's certainly not what I (as a "gung-ho" Obama supporter) expected. That is totally unrealistic and dangerous and would be the move of a rookie with wild, far-out dreams of a turn-about change, which I believe would be dangerous for the country.

I said here what I expected the change to look like. As regards a COMPLETE change, I said, "I think that's kind of unrealistic and I'm not at all sure that I would want to have 100% change all at one time. It makes for unstable, unpredictable and unreliable results."

I HOPE he doesn't select Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. In my opinion, that would be the wrong choice for the job. But NOT because of any expectation of change. The change will come AFTER he is in office.

Obama is a great leader and these people will be executing HIS policy, not their own. I agree it's important to be critical of him, but it's also important to not judge prematurely. He has picked some people, but he hasn't DONE anything yet.

The OP is complete speculation and some "selections" have already been proven wrong. The media is going crazy with this. They just can't seem to wait to report all their suspicions and guesses as practical fact. That's ok, but I am finding it a bit annoying that people are so ready to jump all over Obama before he's even taken pen to paper. I wish I was as cool as he seems to be about it.

I guess it's a matter of trust for me. At this point, I trust his intelligence, his savvy, his judgment. I don't think I know better than he does who he should choose. I don't think he was born yesterday. He knows what he's doing. I don't agree with him on everything, certainly, but I refuse to judge his presidency before it's even begun. That is not fair. And that's why I get annoyed with others who do.


Is this the change I'm looking for? I'll let you know in a year or so.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Notice, the post you are referring to was made days ago....not yesterday in the thread where we were discussing this. It isn't like I am running around making the same posts on the different threads every 5 minutes.

You have your opinion about Obama and I have mine. You have your definition of "change" and I have mine. Obama has his definition of change.....and neither of us are sure exactly what his definition is.

Since he is my President-elect, I am giving him a chance to see what he is going to do. But, from what he has done so far, with his appointments, I don't see much change. That is my perogative and I am entitled to it.

And, no one knows if he is a great leader. He ran a great campaign, but that is not the same thing as "leading". He won't be running this country....this country is run and lead by committee: the Presidential administration and Congress. Congress is pretty much the same, and so far, Obama's administration is shaping up to be people who have been knee deep is creating some of the problems we are facing today.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I don't dislike him. There are things I disagree with him on, there are things I don't trust about him, but his picks and appointments ARE part of his presidency. So, is has begun. And, in the future, he might fill some of his low-level appointments with new faces....I just don't feel that is enough to implement real change.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The problems we face need to have a mix of experience and brand new faces. I think the Secretary of State position needs to go to someone who can help clean up the mess, and bring back respect to our country. I am not the biggest fan of Hillary, but she has a huge amount of support that Pres Elect Obama needs to have if he wants to get this country in a new direction. Hillary is also highly regarded overseas, and that is a real plus this time. Most of the people he picks will have had some dealings with the Clintons. They were in charge from 1993 to 2001, and most will have gotten their starts in that time.

The thing that matters is the changes that Pres Elect Obama does, and his ability to change the status quo.

I also like his reaching out to John McCain and Joe Lieberman. This shows he (hopefully) plans to put away partisan politics and get the job done.

The country needs long term fixes that are going to take a while for us to feel. Everyone wants a quick fix, and as we have seen, that does not work.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
I also like his reaching out to John McCain and Joe Lieberman. This shows he (hopefully) plans to put away partisan politics and get the job done.


Exactly. And no one who criticizes the "lack of change" ever bothers to mention (or notice?) these REAL signs of change. Putting partisanship aside. Many in the Democratic Caucus wanted to boot Lieberman clear out of the club house, but Obama's influence clearly had a strong, unifying effect, an indication of a good leader.

skeptic, (sorry, I didn't look at the date)
I'm pretty clear on what Obama's definition of change is. I've been reading everything I can get my eyes on about it. And I've been taking him at his word and not making up his intent to serve a dream of my own. Maybe it's because I'm usually very careful with my wording, to say exactly what I mean, that I listened so carefully to what he said and didn't have a lot of expectation that others seem to have.

I do understand why you might be disappointed in some of his picks, but to be fair, the thought that he would pick a certain number of new faces in his immediate cabinet is your expectation, and not based in fact on something he said.

It honestly seems to me that this latest rash of "This isn't change!" complaints and observations are but another way to keep the attacks going after the election. It's probably true (and to be expected) that every move he makes is going to be consistently criticized by people who don't particularly like him or even despise him. And honestly, he SHOULD be critically examined, IMO. But I get annoyed when there is no real result to criticize, so people go after the means or his choices of the tools he's planning to use to get his job done.

I expected people to wait till he actually got into office to criticize his actions. And that's an expectation of mine that I was clearly wrong about.



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I HOPE he doesn't select Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. In my opinion, that would be the wrong choice for the job.


Looks like Obama made the wrong choice BH.

I know you still won't admit this is not the "change" he promised though.

[edit on 21-11-2008 by nyk537]



posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Looks like Obama made the wrong choice BH.


On the contrary. He knows much better than I do who he can work with. I'm not even going to second guess him at this point. When I want to select a cabinet for myself, I will run for president.

There is no indication that this is the "wrong" choice at all. She wasn't my choice, but I have always said that I don't agree with Obama on everything. I'm ok with that.


I'm not going to throw a fit or cry or complain.




I know you still won't admit this is not the "change" he promised though.


He made no promises about his Secretary of State. So, I don't see this as having anything to do with the promises he made or the change to come.



posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


The United States has a lot of repair work to do in its foreign relations department. Hillary is well known by the world leaders, and this will go along way. We need both seasoned and new blood in this administration, and it looks like we will get both. I see change as getting things done instead of stagnation and blaming the other side.






top topics



 
0

log in

join