He didn't have an overwhelming mandate for the kind of change that would make you happy :)
He's not an anarchist, nor are most of the people who voted for him. He's not astoundingly left-wing, not are most of the people who voted for him. Obama is a coalition-builder. He's not going to work by staking out a far-left position and trying to strong-arm everyone into it. He's going to work by getting people of all stripes working with him, and then getting THEM to sell his agenda to their various groups.
I am not concerned that his appointees are going to be running his ship. I think Obama is a much stronger person than Bill Clinton was, and Obama will be making the decisions himself.
I will probably not agree with Obama on everything, but I don't think his picks are bad. I think they are sensible. The one who will have the most influence on actual policy is the attorney general, and he wants to close Guantanamo and stop torture/wiretapping/the Patriot Act abuses, so that's good. Everyone else is supposed to be taking their cues from Obama.
I think Clinton wasn't the best pick for SOS. But I also think Obama figures he's not going to be concentrating on foreign policy much for a while here - other than getting out of Iraq. Putting her as SOS has made a political enemy into a political ally, which is what he needs to get his agenda passed. Anyway, that's what I figure he's thinking there.
It's quite possible that I will disagree with what Obama chooses to do when he is president. But he still isn't even acting president yet!
I mean, but he is still appointing people who will be in office when he IS President.
I think that's when the crux of the shitty stuff happens, when people aren't watching, don't notice, are soooo happy with the results. Don't get me wrong, I am happy with the results, but I didn't vote for Obama because he's the best, ever, and I do hold him accountable for what he said he would do. His staff should reflect that. Point blank.
Don't get me wrong, I am happy with the results, but I didn't vote for Obama because he's the best, ever, and I do hold him accountable for what he said he would do.
What is it that he said he would do that he's not doing? Frankly I think he was pretty vague in the campaign. Most politicians are.
I think a lot of people (both left and right) got the idea that Obama is really far left during the campaign, but I'm not sure where that came from. Obama never staked out a far-left position on anything, as far as I can tell. I watched all the debates and such, and it was all about compromise, etc.
Also, as far as his staff picks, his staff will have to do what he says, or get booted. So until we see his staff actually going against his campaign promises, I think it's jumping the gun to get angry. Executive staff is not the same thing as legislators, remember. Staff is just supposed to implement the president's policies, not make policies of their own. Of course, with a weak president the staff gets more power (see: Bush, except in foreign policy, where, e.g., Colin Powell was completely divested of power). But I don't think Obama will be weak -
I see the staff picks as part of a deliberate long-term strategy. If Obama wants to get left-wing policies in place - or better yet, to get left-wing policies considered as rational, centrist policies - he needs to not freak out uncertain centrist Americans. If he's perceived as having a "radical" agenda, it will empower opposition and make it difficult for Ds in swing districts to support his policies. Which makes it 100% harder to get things done.
Right now, by picking center-left, experienced veteran staff, he is reassuring the electorate, and giving no one in the opposition the opportunity to freak out and start smearing his agenda before he's even in office. He's building credit for himself as being reasonable, interested in opposing views/compromise, interested in experience and intelligence, etc. At the same time, he's helping to calm the market. And if he wants to sell a left-wing agenda, it's a heck of a lot easier to make it seem less radical if it's coming from staff with centrist credentials.
He's not an anarchist, nor are most of the people who voted for him. He's not astoundingly left-wing, not are most of the people who voted for him. Obama is a coalition-builder. He's not going to work by staking out a far-left position and trying to strong-arm everyone into it. He's going to work by getting people of all stripes working with him, and then getting THEM to sell his agenda to their various groups.
I am not concerned that his appointees are going to be running his ship. I think Obama is a much stronger person than Bill Clinton was, and Obama will be making the decisions himself.
I will probably not agree with Obama on everything, but I don't think his picks are bad. I think they are sensible. The one who will have the most influence on actual policy is the attorney general, and he wants to close Guantanamo and stop torture/wiretapping/the Patriot Act abuses, so that's good. Everyone else is supposed to be taking their cues from Obama.
I think Clinton wasn't the best pick for SOS. But I also think Obama figures he's not going to be concentrating on foreign policy much for a while here - other than getting out of Iraq. Putting her as SOS has made a political enemy into a political ally, which is what he needs to get his agenda passed. Anyway, that's what I figure he's thinking there.
It's quite possible that I will disagree with what Obama chooses to do when he is president. But he still isn't even acting president yet!
Reply
I think that's when the crux of the shitty stuff happens, when people aren't watching, don't notice, are soooo happy with the results. Don't get me wrong, I am happy with the results, but I didn't vote for Obama because he's the best, ever, and I do hold him accountable for what he said he would do. His staff should reflect that. Point blank.
Reply
What is it that he said he would do that he's not doing? Frankly I think he was pretty vague in the campaign. Most politicians are.
I think a lot of people (both left and right) got the idea that Obama is really far left during the campaign, but I'm not sure where that came from. Obama never staked out a far-left position on anything, as far as I can tell. I watched all the debates and such, and it was all about compromise, etc.
Also, as far as his staff picks, his staff will have to do what he says, or get booted. So until we see his staff actually going against his campaign promises, I think it's jumping the gun to get angry. Executive staff is not the same thing as legislators, remember. Staff is just supposed to implement the president's policies, not make policies of their own. Of course, with a weak president the staff gets more power (see: Bush, except in foreign policy, where, e.g., Colin Powell was completely divested of power). But I don't think Obama will be weak -
I see the staff picks as part of a deliberate long-term strategy. If Obama wants to get left-wing policies in place - or better yet, to get left-wing policies considered as rational, centrist policies - he needs to not freak out uncertain centrist Americans. If he's perceived as having a "radical" agenda, it will empower opposition and make it difficult for Ds in swing districts to support his policies. Which makes it 100% harder to get things done.
Right now, by picking center-left, experienced veteran staff, he is reassuring the electorate, and giving no one in the opposition the opportunity to freak out and start smearing his agenda before he's even in office. He's building credit for himself as being reasonable, interested in opposing views/compromise, interested in experience and intelligence, etc. At the same time, he's helping to calm the market. And if he wants to sell a left-wing agenda, it's a heck of a lot easier to make it seem less radical if it's coming from staff with centrist credentials.
Also, I think Rahm Emanuel is hot.
Reply
Leave a comment