TO all those Obama supporters

[Guest]

This thread is not a bash President elect Obama thread, and I still hope I was wrong in being so anti Obama during the campaign, HOWEVER..the question I have for Obama supporters is this...

All we heard was change during the campaign...all we heard was about NEW this or NEW that. It appears to me that we are now in the midst of reconstructing the Clinton administration. It is now reported that Sen Clinton will be the Secy of State.

This is something I stumbled on this evening....and I recall all the Sen Obama supporters on here raving about Bob Woodward and this is how he feels about President elect Obama naming Sen Clinton to that post....
______________________________________________
Woodward Knocks Clinton SoS Choice
Now that it's considered a foregone conclusion that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be the next secretary of State, the chattering class is weighing in, including legendary reporter Bob Woodward. FishbowlDC has obtained an advanced transcript of this weekend's "The Chris Matthews Show", in which the famed Washington Post reporter had this to say about Clinton's nomination as SoS:


Being president is about control, and tell me who ever controlled Bill or Hillary Clinton. They can't control each other. ... I think it's because Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and others have convinced Obama, 'You're going to have to focus like a laser on the economy. That's issue Number One. And give Hillary and Bill the world.' ... I think people are fantasizing or smoking something if they think Joe Biden's going to call Hillary Clinton up and say, 'This is what we want you to do.'

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/television/woodward_knocks_clinton_sos_choice_101501.asp
__________________________________________________ _______

Again I am not knocking anyone....just trying to grasp it all and asking those President elect Obama if A....This surprises you and B....how you feel about it

[Guest]

Personally I don't think Hillary should take the job...she should stay in the Senate.

There are some appointments that are from the Clinton years and some not. We have yet to see exactly what the makeup will be.

Hopefully there will be a change in the economy...cause it can't get much worse. The Bush years started with a small recession an it looks like they will end with a big one.

[Guest]

I am not a Woodward fan by any means ( in fact I can't stand him) but I have to admit that he is exactly right on this...Obama is going to get two for one whether he wants it or not....... As for Joe Biden , Well he may as well get a good book and a comfortable chair..........

fumar

[Guest]

...virtually all the pundits I've heard, with the exception of Bob Woodward, I guess, have weighed in with pretty much rave reviews of the combination of people chosen so far to be in the top ranks of the Obama administration. What's consistent they say, is that every single one is brilliant, experienced and prepared to hit the ground running after the inaguration. They do not represent the "baggage" that many former Presidents had when they appointed old associates from prior political campaigns in California, Arkansas, Texas, etc. regardless of their competence to fill jobs. This team is being selected for experience and ability, not to satisfy a political "base".

The opinions I've heard say that if Obama wanted ideas and alternatives to flow from his cabinet, he'll certainly get them from the group being assembled. Further, the pundits say, this group is so smart and competent that there is little chance that their ideas can be quashed by an overzealous control freak President, although that's certainly not what Obama's management style seems to be at all. The cheers heard on the floor of the NYSE this afternoon are but one indication of the quality of the man selected to head Treasury in these troubled times.

As far a Hillary being tapped for the SOS job, the opinions I've heard and read say that Obama needed a well-respected and recognized leader to begin the process of re-building American diplomacy. Hillary certainly meets that test--who else would be as good? My guess--just my guess--is that Bill Clinton will do as he's told. But even if he played a more active role, so what? He, like Hillary, is highly respected thruout the world and would be very helpful in achieving the reconstruction of American diplomacy.

If all you wanted is "new" or "change", then who might you appoint to these jobs who have the experience, smarts and reputation to deal with the myriad of problems facing the new President? A bunch of no-names who understood neither the departments they would head or the problems facing the country? That's what George Bush did.

In fact, that wouldn't be change at all. That's precisely how the current administration was formed. Contrast some of the people placed in important positions by the President Bush to the qualifications of those tapped so far by President-elect Obama. Alberto Gonzales (Justice), Carlos Gutierrez (Commerce), Alphonso Jackson (HUD), Arthur Flemming (HEW), even the contrast of Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice in State. Or some of the people Bush was planning to nominate to be on the Supreme Court? Harriett Meirs because she was his personal attorney? That was "change" all right. The difference in competence and experience is night an day. This President "gets it" and is clearly doing something more than simply awarding political flacks with important positions.

For me, I couldn't be more enthusiastic about the administration that President-elect Obama is putting together. He is assembling a team of pragmatists who are political centrists as opposed to the right-wing idealogues we've seen heading our government for eight years. I think had the electorate known of the quality and experience of that team and the smoothness and efficiency with which it is being assembled before election day, the margin might have been even wider.

[Guest]

First of all, contrary to what the chattering classes and the guy who makes Obama's fancy podia with his faux POTUS crests, Barrack Obama is not yet "president-elect" nor will he be until the meeting and vote of the Electoral Collerge in December. Technicality, but nonetheless, a fact.

Now, regarding State, this department can be a bugaboo regardless of the Secretary. However, if the designee is an individual with his/her own agenda, it can be absolute hell. The job of all Executive departments is to carry out the agenda of the President. If they do not agree wiith that agenda and have expressed their views unsuccessfully through channels, they have two choices --- shut up and do the job or resign. Unfortunately as Bush discovered all too frequently, many agencies especially State and the CIA, are filled with quasi-career people who follow their own agenda. These people often have their own press outlets and can severely harm an Administration programs. I think Obama must condsider this in his dealings with the Clintonistas.

Re the other potential appointments, I first of all salute Obama and his handlers for having them arranged so quickly. Looks great, and can only help them get off the ground well. Of those designees, I really have opinion on only two, Holder and Emanuel. Neither objection is ooverly substantive. I just did not care for Holder as US attorney for DC or as Dept AG. My feelngs about Rahm Emmanuel are even more visceral. Whenever I see hium, I think of his many appearances with the talking heads defending Clinton while he was denying the Lowenski affair. Emmanuel just came across to me as swarmy. I felt I needed to shower after I watched him on Meet The Press. Now I admit he did a great job in the House running Democrat Congressional Campaign thing, but he scares me in such an important position. And how did he get to be the 4th ranking Dem in the House in only 3 terms?

[Guest]

...virtually all the pundits I've heard, with the exception of Bob Woodward, I guess, have weighed in with pretty much rave reviews of the combination of people chosen so far to be in the top ranks of the Obama administration. What's consistent they say, is that every single one is brilliant, experienced and prepared to hit the ground running after the inaguration. They do not represent the "baggage" that many former Presidents had when they appointed old associates from prior political campaigns in California, Arkansas, Texas, etc. regardless of their competence to fill jobs. This team is being selected for experience and ability, not to satisfy a political "base".

The opinions I've heard say that if Obama wanted ideas and alternatives to flow from his cabinet, he'll certainly get them from the group being assembled. Further, the pundits say, this group is so smart and competent that there is little chance that their ideas can be quashed by an overzealous control freak President, although that's certainly not what Obama's management style seems to be at all. The cheers heard on the floor of the NYSE this afternoon are but one indication of the quality of the man selected to head Treasury in these troubled times.

As far a Hillary being tapped for the SOS job, the opinions I've heard and read say that Obama needed a well-respected and recognized leader to begin the process of re-building American diplomacy. Hillary certainly meets that test--who else would be as good? My guess--just my guess--is that Bill Clinton will do as he's told. But even if he played a more active role, so what? He, like Hillary, is highly respected thruout the world and would be very helpful in achieving the reconstruction of American diplomacy.

If all you wanted is "new" or "change", then who might you appoint to these jobs who have the experience, smarts and reputation to deal with the myriad of problems facing the new President? A bunch of no-names who understood neither the departments they would head or the problems facing the country? That's what George Bush did.

In fact, that wouldn't be change at all. That's precisely how the current administration was formed. Contrast some of the people placed in important positions by the President Bush to the qualifications of those tapped so far by President-elect Obama. Alberto Gonzales (Justice), Carlos Gutierrez (Commerce), Alphonso Jackson (HUD), Arthur Flemming (HEW), even the contrast of Hillary Clinton versus Condoleeza Rice in State. Or some of the people Bush was planning to nominate to be on the Supreme Court? Harriett Meirs because she was his personal attorney? That was "change" all right. The difference in competence and experience is night an day. This President "gets it" and is clearly doing something more than simply awarding political flacks with important positions.

For me, I couldn't be more enthusiastic about the administration that President-elect Obama is putting together. He is assembling a team of pragmatists who are political centrists as opposed to the right-wing idealogues we've seen heading our government for eight years. I think had the electorate known of the quality and experience of that team and the smoothness and efficiency with which it is being assembled before election day, the margin might have been even wider.


First of all, Kahuana.....my post was not a criticism thus it required NO defense. I simply wondered what folks who supported change thought about the old boys being put back in office.....I am not questioning them or their abilities in anyway...again..no defense needed.

President Elect Obama was very clear about the "old boy" network....one example...
__________________________________________________ ______
"The rest of the Democratic establishment has been panicking in recent days over the upward trajectory of the McCain-Palin ticket -- but Sen. Barack Obama appears to be barely letting his blood pressure rise.

He held two events today, one in Elko, Nev., another here. He chided Sen. John McCain some at both. "Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's president, he'll take on the, quote, old boys' network in Washington," Obama said in Elko.

"I am not making this up. This is someone who's been in Congress for 26 years - who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign - and now he's the one who will take on the old boy network?" Obama continued. "The old boy network? In the McCain campaign, that's called a staff meeting."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_zings_mccains_old_boy_ne.html
__________________________________________________ ________

Again,not being critical at all....I was more curious about how Obama supporters felt about the lack of change of faces than a defense of them !!!

Oh, and by the way, if you consider Rahm Emmanuel a "political centrist" then your idealogy is very very left !!!!

[Guest]

You're right, Bucco. Rahm Emmanuel has a history of being pretty liberal. But his role in the new administration, while powerful, limits what he can accomplish either legislatively or administratively. He will run the President's office for sure. Everything I've read about him says he will perform that role very well, particularly knowing the "mechanisms" inside the beltway.

Byt my comments on the other cabinet choices and how they appear to be defining Obama's political leanings still have me coming down with the conclusion that this administration seems to be drifting much more to the center than critics might have supposed during the campaign.

To a degree, that might be dictated by the limitations of the huge national debt and market limits on how much we can borrow. A better test of how liberal this president might be would occur if he had the same type of economic conditions and debt load that exisited when Bush took office. Those conditions would tell us a lot more.

I'm not the only one that thinks Obama is drifting to the center. Here's an article from today's New York Times...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22assess.html?_r=1&hp

[Guest]

You're right, Bucco. Rahm Emmanuel has a history of being pretty liberal. But his role in the new administration, while powerful, limits what he can accomplish either legislatively or administratively. He will run the President's office for sure. Everything I've read about him says he will perform that role very well, particularly knowing the "mechanisms" inside the beltway.

Byt my comments on the other cabinet choices and how they appear to be defining Obama's political leanings still have me coming down with the conclusion that this administration seems to be drifting much more to the center than critics might have supposed during the campaign.

To a degree, that might be dictated by the limitations of the huge national debt and market limits on how much we can borrow. A better test of how liberal this president might be would occur if he had the same type of economic conditions and debt load that exisited when Bush took office. Those conditions would tell us a lot more.

I'm not the only one that thinks Obama is drifting to the center. Here's an article from today's New York Times...http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22assess.html?_r=1&hp
Top tier appointees have a history of 2+ years and then gone. Rarely has anyone lasted an entire term.

The first appointees are indeed "payback" appointments. They are folks who made early commitments to support the candidate and did indeed campaign, are Party careerists who are currently unemployed, or are Party seniors who want limelight positions and are better off for the administration to be "in the fold" rather than in a sharpshooting position.

In a couple of years, if things in a particular department have become a problem in any manner, then the hatchet comes out and someone who actually has some competence is brought onboard. What the public usually misses is that the Deputy Secretary is the person who really is the knowledgeable appointee and really is involved as the day-to-day executive. I would be surprised if many people can name any of the Deputy Secretaries (who are also presidential appointments and Senate-confirmed).

As a side bar - this transition has actually been going very well. The "agency review teams" are in place and have been active, and the currrent administration has insured there will be no knowledge gaps or surprises to the new appointees. The system works!

[Guest]

If you're going to nominate experienced officials for these openings, where else would you find a large portion of them except from the Clinton administration? As Kahuna mentioned, most pundits are applauding Obama's choices so far. Hillary will certainly be met with respect throughout the world. Another take on the Hillary nomination, she brings a huge power base with her, that as a politician, Obama would be foolish to ignore.

[Guest]

...it's that the Obama administration continues to operate as it did for two years during the campaign and now, apparently, getting good players in place to hit the ground running after the inaguration. It has been and it appears to be a well-oiled machine and I think that's good for the country. We have a whole lot of problems that need to be addressed with the utmost efficiency.

From all that I've read, they have their priorities in place and realize what they can and cannot accomplish early in the administration. The one thing that is overhanging all these plans would be a GM bankruptcy. That would almost certainly result in the shutdown of the other two comnaies as well and could easily tip the U.S. economy in to a much deeper and protracted recession which would be difficult for any administration to minimize.

[Guest]

...it's that the Obama administration continues to operate as it did for two years during the campaign and now, apparently, getting good players in place to hit the ground running after the inaguration. It has been and it appears to be a well-oiled machine and I think that's good for the country. We have a whole lot of problems that need to be addressed with the utmost efficiency.

From all that I've read, they have their priorities in place and realize what they can and cannot accomplish early in the administration. The one thing that is overhanging all these plans would be a GM bankruptcy. That would almost certainly result in the shutdown of the other two comnaies as well and could easily tip the U.S. economy in to a much deeper and protracted recession which would be difficult for any administration to minimize.
Bankruptcy, a la Chapter 11, will not shut down any of the Big-3, any more than Chapter 11 shut down any of the major airlines, or any of their key suppliers.

Greed is the only thing that will kill any of these companies, and Chapter 11 will just impose some corporate humility into their business operations.

The economy will survive as long as greed is replaced with common sense and ethical practices. Chapter 11 gives a company the opportunity to find the "straight and narrow path" again while reckless subsidy simply allows it to continue its "wicked ways."

[Guest]

If Hillary is planning to run in 2012 she'd probably have to start campaigning in 2010 so she would be limited to 2 years as Secy of State.

[Guest]

A Chapter 11 proceeding would take a long, long time to come up with a plan of reorganization that could be approved by the court. (Think how long it took for United Airlines to get a plan of reorganization approved.) Agreements from the UAW and the suppliers would be almost impossible to get. The proceedings could take a couple of years.

If the pollsters are correct and 80% of buyers wouldn't consider buying a car from a bankrupt company, there wouldn't be much of an auto industry left to save after a year or two in bankruptcy.

I agree that bankruptcy proceedings would be the best way for the car companies to finally resolve their out-of-whack cost structures and business model. But given the parties that would be at the table, there's little chance that it could happen in time for them to avoid liquidation.

What might be worth a try on the part of the new administration is to call the parties together--the management, union, suppliers and anyone else with an interest. Tell them that the only way that the government would provide any funding would be that the parties agree to a plan of reorganization that could be approved in a "pre-packaged" bankruptcy filing. Everyone would have to decide how much of a "haircut" they would take in exchange for government funding and a chance at survival. With such agreement completed, the company could go in and come out of Chapter 11 in a matter of weeks, with the market knowing the bankruptcy would be only temporary.

If the parties at interest refused or failed to reach an acceptable agreement, then the auto companies should be permitted to attempt to survive without taxpayer money. The result will be the same as if we gave them financing, and if they tried to continue to operate without fixing the fundamental flaws in their business model. That would be expensive for everyone, but at least we wouldn't have thrown good money after bad.

[Guest]

The auto executives and the union leadership have an arrogance that makes me believe, based on the timing and the stubbornness, that electioneering trades were made - campaign contributions and votes for a downstream bailout. The attitudes are too smug for it to be anything else, and the reluctance to seek debt relief and restructuring is illogical. The Big 3 did not get into this mess overnight, and the last 3 quarters were flops financially, and the stock price has been going downhill even longer.

As far as buying a car from a company in Chapter 11, I don't think that will make a difference. Car manufacturers are probably getting parts from some suppliers in Chapter 11 right now, and Chapter 11 would mean the company has a better chance for survival than if things get worse and Chapter 11 loses its potential as an option. If things REALLY get worse, then Chapter 7 may become the only option, and all the government intervention via taxpayer charity won't help.

Here's hoping managerial common sense will finally rule, and they do the right thing instead of the quick thing that only puts short-term money into a select few pockets. Here's also hoping the back-side of the trades fall through...

[Guest]

will this ever end???????? I had given up posting in Political. I enjoy reading the post by you guys, but lets give up the bashing already. it is really old and hasnt even been that long since the election.

[Guest]

will this ever end???????? I ad given up posting in Political. I enjoy reading the post by you guys, but lets give up the bashing already. it is really old and hasnt even been that long since the election.


Sorry....I see no bashing on this thread at all. This is a political discusion board and there was discussion of the appointees by the incoming President...I saw nobody bashing anyone. Please spell out what you consider bashing, and I might add that there had not been a post in this thread for almost two days until yours !!!