For a Change candidate, there are alot of insiders being picked

By: relawson
Published On: 11/20/2008 9:46:29 AM

I think it is time to say something.  When I look at the new administration being formed, I don't think change.  I think 1993.

There were millions of people who rallied behind Obama on the message of change.  I believe that his picks should reflect that.  If I wanted former Clintonites to run the White House, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton.

Who in his administration that you see is a change agent?  I'm befuddled.

Comments



Pragmatism (tx2vadem - 11/20/2008 11:13:22 AM)
This is the reason I voted for Obama.  He is liberal, but ultimately his management style is pragmatic.  And that is what I like.

He needs people who know Washington, who know the federal government, who know how to get things done.  He would be highly ineffective if he brought in a bunch of neophytes (for lack of a better term).  Think of it like FDR appointing Joseph Kennedy to head the SEC.  It sometimes takes someone who knows where the bodies are buried to be most effective.  Not that any of the appointments thus far are like Joseph Kennedy.  But you get the idea.

Which specific appointments do you have problems with?



It's not that I dislike the picks on a political basis (relawson - 11/20/2008 2:22:13 PM)
It's that they don't in my view represent a more progressive viewpoint.  They represent the old guard, not new ideas and a new, more progressive, more populist party.

None of them remind me of Jim Webb, Jon Tester, or Sherrod Brown.  Those individuals more closely represent the brand of politics I want to see in the White House.



Ideas and policies are going to flow from the top (Roland the HTG - 11/20/2008 3:22:50 PM)
Unlike the last 8 years, we now have a more-than-competent executive with a progressive vision. Obama will make the decisions, and have these more "old guard" guys carry them out. He's avoiding the Carter problem: being so Washington outsider that he couldn't get anything done.


I at least want a good pick (relawson - 11/20/2008 2:32:02 PM)
for department of labor and I definately expect Obama to keep his word on renegotiating NAFTA and other unfair trade deals.

The Commerce Department needs to be cleaned out as well.  They were the defacto Department of Labor the last 8 years.  DOL was irrelevant.



I'd have liked to seen some off the wall picks, (stpickrell - 11/21/2008 1:01:08 PM)
like McCain for DHS (oh dear, does that mean Napolitano picks a new AZ-Sen?) or Kucinich for HHS.

But things worked under the Clinton years. Clinton corralled the Reagan Revolution and got it to work for the folks in the 20th and 30th percentile of ambition and talent who were left behind in the 1980s and have gotten dropped in the 2000s along with folks in the 40th and 50th percentile.

So you could do much worse than a number of Clinton retreads.