Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Change We Can Believe In #27

Obama gives the word and Joe Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship of Homeland Security.

Obama wants Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.

Obama wants Larry Summers, Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, to be his Treasury Secretary.

Obama wants Eric Holder, Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General, to be his Attorney General.

Obama hires about 40 other former Clinton staffers to be in his administration.

Obama meets with John McCain, reportedly offering him Secretary of Defense.

Wait, no, George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense is going to be Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Next up, Obama asks George W. to stay on as Secretary of Education. Karl Rove will run Health, Education and Welfare.

The United States will be one big happy family.

So, get used to it.

Or else.


Liam said...

You're getting disillusioned so soon?

John Schertzer said...

You know how William loves this sort of blend of drama and irony.

A few ways to look at all this:
- The Clintonians have the knowledge and experience (not to mention connections/power) needed to follow through with BO's agenda.
- BO actually does want to breed plurality in the While House, to some degree.
- You must be making the assumption that the president (and government) runs the country. It's not the government, and not even the corporations, but the Bavarian Illuminati.
- BO owes favors, and therefore, so do we.

Jeff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeff said...

The return of the Clintonistas?

You left out Rahm Emanuel, former senior Clinton aide and now Chief-of Staff... Although, he may be less "DLC" than the rest of that crew. He might be a true progressive.

cowboyangel said...

Dude, I was born disillusioned.

Let's say I'm skeptical rather than disillusioned. It's early in the process. We'll see what happens over time.

But, yes, I'm concerned about the pattern taking place. Lieberman gets to keep his chairmanship. Hillary as Sec of State. Then you throw in Bush's Secretary of Defense, who, granted has done a decent job (but who wouldn't look decent after Rumsfeld?!). THREE Bush-Iraq-War-supporting hawks in KEY foreign policy positions? That doesn't disturb you?

I'm sorry, but the scars of the Iraq invasion run deep. Having the two most public symbols of Democratic betrayal in key positions doesn't sit well, no.

I know Obama really wants to govern in a different way, and I get the whole "Team of Rivals" thing, enough to be sick already of hearing the term. But if you're going to pull your opponents into the process - perhaps a good idea, in theory - you need to offset those choices with people on the other side of the issue. Where are they?

I could live with any ONE of these choices, but taken as a whole, it's starting to smell. Especially when I'm not seeing the kind of people I thought we might see in an Obama administration to balance things out.

I didn't vote for Barack Obama because I wanted the Bush-lite version of foreign policy. Videos by Will.i.am are nice, but they don't make up for putting people into power who think invading Iran is a good idea.

Politically, one can argue that this would put Lieberman and Clinton under Obama's thumb in terms of foreign policy, but I don't believe it. Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton are power-hungry megalomaniacs - since when did they give a rat's ass about listening to Democratic leaders or care about party unity or do what was right on foreign policy instead of what they (wrongly) thought the public wanted?

And if Obama thinks he can maintain control over these people - I just think that's hubris.

Finally, I don't think I'm alone in wanting some healing after 8 years of Bush and the spiritual devastation of invading Iraq. Obama needs to realize that many people who helped elect him are starving for a sign that things WILL be different. It's no small matter. He may want to prove to his enemies that he will include them in the process, but he needs to include the rest of us as well. After all, we're the ones who've been cast out from our own government over the last 8 years, the ones abused regularly by an incoherent and mentally ill administration - screwed over by people in power - not Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman. They were the ones in power CAUSING much of our grief. So Obama needs to tend to the wounded on his own side as much or more than he needs to reach out to the other side.

cowboyangel said...

John, I saw your message after I posted my response to Liam, so some of what you mention is covered in that.

The Clintonians have the knowledge and experience (not to mention connections/power) needed to follow through with BO's agenda.

I agree - that's exactly what I've been telling Alexandra the last week, responding to her own concerns. And numerous people who served under Clinton have supported Obama from the beginning, or at least early on - I know that's the case with Eric Holder.

And I liked the Rahm Emmanuel choice.

But I'm not really talking about hiring former Clintonistas - though I mentioned that in my post. I do think Obama needs to be careful, because it doesn't look like change when so many come from inside the Beltway.

I'm talking about the twin effect of proposing Hillary Clinton as Sec of State and letting Lieberman keep a crucial chairmanship.

Sorry, but that's a pretty f*cking ugly slap in the face of people who were against the war.

And the Bavarian Illuminati is only a cover for the Templars.

Liam said...

I am not happy with the Lieberman thing, but I understand it in terms of holding power in the senate. The Gates thing from what I understand may not be for long term.

I don't understand the Hillary thing. She probably would do a good job -- she's smart and extremely capable, but I don't know how to reconcile her hawkishness with Obama's more conciliatory approach. I keep wondering if it's some weird drama thing in which for some reason she gets to decline gracefully and then take over the health care thing in the senate. But so much drama!

You are right that he needs to find a couple of people from way outside for important posts, to balance things out.

I feel much more comfortable knowing the Templars are in charge.

John Schertzer said...

Well, who's in favor of including someone like a Bernie Sanders, say 'I'.

Liam said...

John -- superb idea. And Tom Waits.

Liam said...

And Dennis Kucinich in the new cabinet position of elf king.

cowboyangel said...


Though it's the most frequent argument, I still don't get keeping Lieberman in a plum chairmanship simply "in terms of holding power in the senate."

Why do we think Joe is suddenly going to vote with the Dems on FISA (oh, wait Obama supported that, too), Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, or - heaven forbid - something like invading Iran? It sounds like the Dems are sacrificing important foreign policy and security issues in a gamble that Lieberman will help them - what? - pass Health Care?

Drama. It's the Clintons - of course, there's drama. Is it just me, or does it seem like there's been more leaks and drama surrounding Obama in the last two weeks than in the total of two years campaigning? Weird.

When people like Kissinger and Lawrence Eagleburger, not to mention other Republicans, say Hillary would be great as Sec of State, I get a little nervous. I didn't think much of it at first, but Alex has convinced me that Hillary isn't even the best person suited for the position. Her arrogance and stridency aren't really what's needed in the nation's top diplomat.


cowboyangel said...

Send Tom Waits to Iran, and I bet he'd confuse them to the point that they would do whatever we want.

Tom the Closer.

John Schertzer said...

Tom Waits, nice. Actually, I could see him taking on any third world diplomatic post in a style the likes of which we've never scene before, or probably ever again. It would be a great investment in future relations with an emerging nation of consequence. Bono might make a great head of state, come to think of it. After all, he's pretty much done a job like that, huh? I remember thinking Zappa would have been a great running mate for Jerry Brown way back when... All of these are obviously better use of celebrity power than the Ronald Reagan thing.

Liam said...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: What are you saying, man? That I'm a Taco Bell king of guy?

cowboyangel said...

Zappa and Jerry Brown!

I think Tom and Ahmadinejad would be able to find common ground with the International House of Pancakes.

"IHOP. Classy brew."

cowboyangel said...


I just re-read your comment on Rahm, which I thought I had touched on in another comment.

But this: "He might be a true progressive."

Yeah. (Cough.) I see a MoveOn/Rahm lovefest.