Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/politics/22obama.html

I never knew change looked exactly like a third Clinton term! Emanuel, Hillary, Holder, Richardson, etc.

Sweet,
Chuck

Obama hasn't failed yet guys at least give him a single day in the white house.

It would have been far more awesome to have Bill Clinton get that offer...

Mattlov wrote:It would have been far more awesome to have Bill Clinton get that offer...

There are still more positions to fill.

dienekes96 wrote:I never knew change looked exactly like a third Clinton term! Emanuel, Hillary, Holder, Richardson, etc.

Sweet,
Chuck

And now that Geithner is going head the Treasury, Summers will be the almost certain head of the Fed. I suppose there are worse administrations to emulate.

If people wanted a third Clinton term, though, wouldn't Hillary have won the nom?

There are certainly worse administrations to emulate, but I thought the point was change. Being like an administration 8 years ago isn't change.

And furthermore, Clinton's term(s) as president was GREATLY helped by the internet boom and the peace dividend. President-Elect Obama will have none of that.

And I'm not judging President-Elect Obama yet. I am not putting him on the cover on Time (as FDR) or Newsweek (as Lincoln) weeks before he even STARTS. I am criticizing his choices.

I am criticizing a campaign that ran for 18 months on CHANGE, and *still* goes back to the well for almost every position of influence and power on the Cabinet.

Here is my point: people who the system has made successful are less likely to change the system. Why? Because the system "worked" for them...so it must be working!

That criticism will lie fallow and die if the new administration has good early success. If not, though, expect it to be repeated again and again.

One issue Obama has is finding qualified people he can trust. he's not been in the senate that long, obviously not been a VP or governor.

Bill Clinton had a similar problem when he was elected, after 12 years of Reagan-Bush and since no one was too enthused by the Carter administration he had real trouble setting up his cabinet.

For example he announced early on he wanted to appoint the first woman Attorney General (head of the Justice Dept, so heads up FBI and Federal prosecutors). The first mistake is making it sound like tokenism (we need a girl!). The second problem is his first two choices had hired illegal immigrants as nannies and were eliminated. So it was a bit embarassment for Clinton. So by going with proven choices Obama is being pretty smart.

That is a pretty good way of looking at it. He's a lot less likely to be bitten in the arse if he is careful.

I think it's pretty good that she gets a major role anyway, a lot of people supported her.

Exactly. I think he's aiming at covering as many aspects of the Democratic Base as possible.

Appointing Clinton here is a good move in terms of Party unity.

dienekes96 wrote:
There are certainly worse administrations to emulate, but I thought the point was change. Being like an administration 8 years ago isn't change.

Change back to what works! <New slogan>

I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, but of all the good things I have ever heard mentioned about her, her foreign affairs savvy has never been one of them. It is to important of a job just to put a "name" in there for Democratic base appeasement.

Speaking of foreign diplomacy experience, has anybody heard who Obama's choice is for ambassador to the U.N.? That could be very important, since he seriously needs to repair the damage to that relationship that Bush II did.

If following the current pattern I'd guess George Stephanopoulos.

Ahtman wrote:If following the current pattern I'd guess George Stephanopoulos.

You're probably right... I vote for Carlos Mencia.

dienekes96 wrote:If people wanted a third Clinton term, though, wouldn't Hillary have won the nom?

There are certainly worse administrations to emulate, but I thought the point was change. Being like an administration 8 years ago isn't change.

The point was selling youth voters who hate anything to do with the establishment. I call it the Hipster vote.

dienekes96 wrote:
And furthermore, Clinton's term(s) as president was GREATLY helped by the internet boom and the peace dividend. President-Elect Obama will have none of that.

True, though I think the real key is that the Clinton people are not intrinsically averse to government spending and taxation. Realistically no one knows what to do in our current situation, so all that is really needed is someone who won't close doors before they open.

dienekes96 wrote:
I am criticizing a campaign that ran for 18 months on CHANGE, and *still* goes back to the well for almost every position of influence and power on the Cabinet.

Here is my point: people who the system has made successful are less likely to change the system. Why? Because the system "worked" for them...so it must be working!

By that criterion any political appointee is going to be unlikely to change the system. Unless Obama started nominating poor students (I'm still waiting for my phone call Barack!) he was bound to pick up at least a few Clinton people. And God help change if he put legitimate leftists in the Cabinet. Can you imagine the GOP furor? The harrumphs would be heard in China.

warpcrafter wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If following the current pattern I'd guess George Stephanopoulos.

You're probably right... I vote for Carlos Mencia.

I hate that guy.

warpcrafter wrote:Speaking of foreign diplomacy experience, has anybody heard who Obama's choice is for ambassador to the U.N.? That could be very important, since he seriously needs to repair the damage to that relationship that Bush II did.

My guess (hope) is Holbrooke. Great diplomat, not so a great a man, but those two qualities go pretty much hand in hand.

warpcrafter wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If following the current pattern I'd guess George Stephanopoulos.

You're probably right... I vote for Carlos Mencia.

No I think Stephen Colbert would be much better

Mmm, the sound of those polyester pants swishing through the halls of State could make a vegan eat pork!Shame the years aren't being kind to her. She's kind of like a reverse Dorian Grey in a way.

I wonder if she will lie to the entire world like Colin Powell, or molly-coddle Little Kim like Straddlin' Madeline did? But seriously, what gives her any experience in the international arena? She lived in the White House. Wow. Zann and Jaina lived in the Hall of Justice, but I wouldn't ask them to stop Darkseid from blowing up reality.

The next four years are going to be hilarious.

youbedead wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If following the current pattern I'd guess George Stephanopoulos.

You're probably right... I vote for Carlos Mencia.

No I think Stephen Colbert would be much better

Stephen Colbert is an idiot. Worse, he confuses idiocy and the ability to talk really loud with authority. Mencia would piss off a lot of people, but at least he would tell it like it is, he would mean it and he would at least know what he's talking about. (If given a choice between evil and incompetence, always choose evil, because that way at least you get credit for your achievements.)

Funny how this could actually BE the END OF THE WORLD. It is almost biblical.

I'm sure everything will be fine.

We've lived through tougher times and really rally bad administrations.Oh and the end of the US doesn't=end of the world

Well... i think i'm just gonna go lay down and hope for the best.

Bill Clinton should be the ambassador to the UN. He's such a bad liar (And everybody knows it!) that they would actually be willing to listen to what he said, knowing whether or not another "War on Terror" is in the works.