Soca Warriors Online Discussion Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bakes on November 18, 2008, 08:09:41 PM
-
Picking up on E-man's suggestion... I figure we'll move the post-Election discussions here.
We all know that Hillary is in the running for Secretary of State... pending a vetting of Bill's current business dealings.
Now word is out that Eric Holder is the leading candidate to be the next Attorney General... he'd be the first black man to hold that office, particularly nice since his folks are bajan.
I predict that the Senate confirmation will go smoothly, but there has been talk of some potential Republican opposition. He failed to block Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich... which he couldn't have really blocked even if he tried. The knock on him was that he didn't bring certain issues about Rich's past to Clinton's attention.
Other than that Holder is squeaky clean... former Justice Dep't prosecutor, Assoc. Judge for DC under Reagan, U.S. Attorney for DC under Clinton, Deputy AG, then Acting AG under Bush, Jr. (until Ashcroft's confirmation). Since then he's been in private practice.
-
what I would like to see is the War Crimes act investigated to figure out if any of the past administration could be charged under it.
maybe they should look to Denise Rich for that answer BnS. ;D
what....she gave over $1,000,000 to the Clintons and/or Democrats...not so
-
Hillary dahlin ... decisions, decisions, decisions ... yuh still hadda play chess even post-election. Iz now yuh could dodge bullets fuh real :rotfl: :rotfl:
-
Hillary dahlin ... decisions, decisions, decisions ... yuh still hadda play chess even post-election. Iz now yuh could dodge bullets fuh real :rotfl: :rotfl:
Ent! Making style as usual. Lipstick on a pig...
-
So Daschle is rumored to be the top choice for Health and Human Services
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/politics/20transition.html?_r=1&hp
Talks have progressed with Bill making certain concessions, ceding control of his foundation and alerting the State Department to his foreign travel and business relations... with an eye towards easing Hillary's ascension to Secretary of State.
-
The American people want.......
Billary!!!
-
barrack seem to be puttin in place ah high calibre staff.this could get him an additional 4 years.
-
barrack seem to be puttin in place ah high calibre staff.this could get him an additional 4 years.
Only real knock it that many of them are Democratic retreads... but that's how it goes, unless he want tuh get real 'Mavericky', and recruit outside de political box, lol.
----------------
Just heard tonight on CNN that he's considering Janet Napolitano to be his head of Homeland Security. Not as glamorous a position as Attorney General, considering that she was the rumored front-runner at first... but not a bad fall-back gig.
Supposedly Penny Pritzker, a multi-million Chicago businesswoman is said to be in the lead for Commerce Secretary.
-
Couldn't see Napolitano ahead of Eric Holder in the pecking order. Just couldn't.
Now, a governor coming into Homeland Security? We've been there before. :)
-
Couldn't see Napolitano ahead of Eric Holder in the pecking order. Just couldn't.
Now, a governor coming into Homeland Security? We've been there before. :)
Indeed on both points.
Ridge was it who initiated the position as Dep't head?
As for Napolitano, I was actually unaware of her law enforcement career prior to her political rise, so in retrospect I think she would have been a good fit. Holder however has much more experience in national office, and even his non 'national' posts have been pretty influential positions... he's definitely a much better choice.
I still like keeping Napolitano within the team though, I think she'll be a fine asset... even if the Mexicans may not be too enamored of her.
-
Couldn't see Napolitano ahead of Eric Holder in the pecking order. Just couldn't.
Now, a governor coming into Homeland Security? We've been there before. :)
Indeed on both points.
Ridge was it who initiated the position as Dep't head?
As for Napolitano, I was actually unaware of her law enforcement career prior to her political rise, so in retrospect I think she would have been a good fit. Holder however has much more experience in national office, and even his non 'national' posts have been pretty influential positions... he's definitely a much better choice.
I still like keeping Napolitano within the team though, I think she'll be a fine asset... even if the Mexicans may not be too enamored of her.
Plus, it gives Bajans something to write about ... aside from Trinis taking over dey island.
-
Obama Administration by word but Clinton Administration by action.
wasn't his slogon during the campaign 'time for change?'
my question is and i'm putting aside experience, why go backwards ???
he clearly is an inexperience fellow in government, why not give other inexperience people a chance to prove themselves too ?
these people are the ones that would be advising him on how to run the country. you think they have new ideas or the same ideas used during the clinton presidency days?
for some strange reason, i'm seeing bill clinton all over this damn thing.
-
Obama Administration by word but Clinton Administration by action.
wasn't his slogon during the campaign 'time for change?'
my question is and i'm putting aside experience, why go backwards ???
he clearly is an inexperience fellow in government, why not give other inexperience people a chance to prove themselves too ?
these people are the ones that would be advising him on how to run the country. you think they have new ideas or the same ideas used during the clinton presidency days?
for some strange reason, i'm seeing bill clinton all over this damn thing.
Not commenting on whether incorporating the Ciintons will be good or bad in the long run but...
The Clinton administration is generally accepted as being a successful one. Definitely better than the Bushes before and after it. Their ideas, for the most part, worked.
The problems with them have less to do with how Bill Clinton performed than the baggage that he brings and whether Obama thinks he can manage it. Obama seems confident that he can.
-
Obama Administration by word but Clinton Administration by action.
wasn't his slogon during the campaign 'time for change?'
my question is and i'm putting aside experience, why go backwards ???
he clearly is an inexperience fellow in government, why not give other inexperience people a chance to prove themselves too ?
these people are the ones that would be advising him on how to run the country. you think they have new ideas or the same ideas used during the clinton presidency days?
for some strange reason, i'm seeing bill clinton all over this damn thing.
Cana luv... with all due respect this makes no sense. If you don't know how to run a corporation (and are put in charge) you don't gamble by hire other people who aren't proven at running a corporation, in fact it would border on abdication of duty to be so reckless with running the entity... in this case an entire country. You need people with Washington experience to help you navigate the particular quagmire that is Captiol Hill and its bureaucracy.
None of the major players thus far named are reprising any role that they played under the Clinton administration...Holder comes closest. The bodies and resumes may be recycled but the ideas are still Obamas... in the final analysis does it really matter who's implementing the ideas... it's the ideas themselves that matter.
-
Morning allyuh
Bakes and JDB don't get me wrong eh. I have no problems with experience, in fact i gladly accept it. But come on, Obama's 'time for change', which I assumed was NEW things to come. New faces, new ideas on the table.
Thats basically what I was thinking during his campaign.
Oh and Bakes tanks for respecting meh thoughts even though it didn't make sense to ya....
lemme go to wuk
-
Obama's Use of Complete Sentences Stirs Controversy ;D
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/obamas-use-of-complete-se_b_144642.html
-
Morning allyuh
Bakes and JDB don't get me wrong eh. I have no problems with experience, in fact i gladly accept it. But come on, Obama's 'time for change', which I assumed was NEW things to come. New faces, new ideas on the table.
Thats basically what I was thinking during his campaign.
Oh and Bakes tanks for respecting meh thoughts even though it didn't make sense to ya....
lemme go to wuk
Yuh done know you's mih choonkoolunks from long time...lol
Nah, but you're not the only one with that criticism... it is fast becoming a Republican mantra, particularly seeing how splendid dem and the Clintonites got along during the first go-around.
-
So Pritzker fire de Commerce wuk (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/11/penny_pritzker_says_she_is_not.html) even before she get it...
"Speculation has grown that I am a candidate for Secretary of Commerce. I am not. I think I can best serve our nation in my current capacity: building businesses, creating jobs and working to strengthen our economy. It has been my great privilege to serve in the Obama campaign. I look forward to helping our new President in every way possible and am excited about the future under his leadership." Penny Pritzker, Chair, TransUnion"
Bill Richardson is rumored to be the leading candidate for that post. The roster so far is:
Chief of Staff- Rahm Emmanuel
Secretary of State- Hillary Clinton
Attorney General- Eric Holder
Secretary of Homeland Security- Janet Napolitano
Secretary of Health- Tom Daschle
Secretary of Defense- Robert Gates (Bush holdover)
National Security Advisor- Gen. James L. Jones
Secretary of Treasury- Timothy Geithner
Chairman of the Federal Reserve- Lawrence Summers
White House Counsel- Greg Craig
... all of these rumored of course.
-
So ... ah ... there's a crucial constituency that not listed among the rumoured ... ah doh care how much Bill Richardson name geh call ... his name is still 'Bill Richardson' .. comprendes?
-
So ... ah ... there's a crucial constituency that not listed among the rumoured ... ah doh care how much Bill Richardson name geh call ... his name is still 'Bill Richardson' .. comprendes?
De man father Nicaraguan and mother Spanish... I'm sure the anglicized name aside his ethnicity isn't lost on that 'constituency'. Same way Obama's 'exotic' muslim name didn't detract from the fact that he was a black man.
-
The Cabinet So Far
Encouraging signs, with education reform still in the balance
Saturday, November 22, 2008; A14
ASSESSING THE emerging Obama administration is a bit like judging the design of the elephant without the trunk or tail. The president-elect's choices for some key posts, notably at the Defense Department, have yet to be leaked; few of the others have been formally announced. Nonetheless, an outline is taking shape, and it is encouraging in a number of ways.
President-elect Barack Obama's picks thus far are experienced, capable, smart and pragmatic. Those adjectives apply to New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (State Department), Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (Homeland Security), former deputy attorney general Eric Holder (Justice), former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (Health and Human Services) and -- the most recent leakees -- Timothy F. Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Treasury), and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones (national security adviser).
The assemblage so far also is diverse, and in the most gratifying way, which is to say, in a way that seems naturally occurring: No one can look at any of these selections and think that gender or race was the driving factor in the selection. The reported selection of Congressional Budget Office Director Peter R. Orszag to what could be Washington's most thankless task, heading the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in an era of soaring deficits, is a good sign, as is the reappearance of Jacob Lew, OMB director in the Clinton administration, at the National Economic Council. A common thread among most of these selections is a deep understanding of the legislative process and congressional players.
A striking, and somewhat unexpected, element of Mr. Obama's choices is a degree of risk-taking and boldness. Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff is a smart but edgy pick. The will-she-won't-she Clinton soap opera suggests a tolerance for drama in the service of an all-star Cabinet. Likewise, the selection of Mr. Holder was bound to dredge up some unpleasant memories of the sordid flurry of pardons at the end of the Clinton administration; Mr. Obama's calculation that Mr. Holder's presence at Justice was worth the price of revisiting that scandal reflects a willingness to take some flak for the nominee he wants.
Some critics are unhappy about the number of Clinton administration veterans -- the derogatory word is retreads -- in the new administration. As we've said before, we have no sympathy for this complaint. The best thing the new administration has going for it in comparison to the last Democratic president is the amount of executive branch experience it has to call on. Mr. Obama's willingness to do that and to bring on board those who supported his chief rival -- indeed, to enlist his chief rival herself -- underscores his own confidence.
One missing piece is the promised bipartisanship, although retaining Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would address that concern. Another selection that will merit scrutiny is Mr. Obama's education secretary: Will the choice reflect his stated commitment to reform? Will it be someone with hands-on experience in education and a proven willingness to experiment? While the new president's attention is understandably focused on the economy, not to mention the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's critical to have someone who comes to the education post with those credentials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103127.html?nav=hcmodule
-
So ... ah ... there's a crucial constituency that not listed among the rumoured ... ah doh care how much Bill Richardson name geh call ... his name is still 'Bill Richardson' .. comprendes?
Adolfo Carrion's bio might be of interest at this point.
-
So ... ah ... there's a crucial constituency that not listed among the rumoured ... ah doh care how much Bill Richardson name geh call ... his name is still 'Bill Richardson' .. comprendes?
Adolfo Carrion's bio might be of interest at this point.
Good shot!
-
So ... ah ... there's a crucial constituency that not listed among the rumoured ... ah doh care how much Bill Richardson name geh call ... his name is still 'Bill Richardson' .. comprendes?
De man father Nicaraguan and mother Spanish... I'm sure the anglicized name aside his ethnicity isn't lost on that 'constituency'. Same way Obama's 'exotic' muslim name didn't detract from the fact that he was a black man.
Errr, well ... ah eh too sure how dat will sell on E. 116th between Third and Lexington. Also, not too sure how it will sell in Osceola County, FL or Orange County, FL ... well, yuh geh de point ... and dahis just me zeroing in on 'sub-constituents' ... there is a reason why his candidacy has had its limitations.
-
Errr, well ... ah eh too sure how dat will sell on E. 116th between Third and Lexington. Also, not too sure how it will sell in Osceola County, FL or Orange County, FL ... well, yuh geh de point ... and dahis just me zeroing in on 'sub-constituents' ... there is a reason why his candidacy has had its limitations.
Yeah... but there is also a reason why he garnered 67% of the Latino vote... and wasn't just Mexican-Americans voting for him neither ;)
daryn... can't say that I'm familiar with Carrion, I'm a significant number of years removed from the NY political scene, last I knew Ferrer was still Bronx BP, lol. Having now had chance to look him up though, I think he'll make a great addition to the Obama cabinet, and like Andrew Cuomo, the national office affords him an opportunity to return to NY with a much higher profile once his executive service ends. I particularly think he'll be a good fit for HUD as rumored.
-
Of course, no doubt ... not incidentally, if one applies a politics of proportionality, the Latino vote supportive of Obama also underscores why Bill standing alone should not suffice ...
and from a pragmatic political viewpoint, one wants one's to capture that ...
-
Of course, no doubt ... not incidentally, if one applies a politics of proportionality, the Latino vote supportive of Obama also underscores why Bill standing alone should not suffice ...
and from a pragmatic political viewpoint, one wants one's to capture that ...
I fully agree... it's a step in the right direction, but shouldn't be where the effort stops, this much we can agree upon.
-
Proud mum: He will be a great AG
The Nation (Barbados)
11/23/08
"VERY PROUD. As a mother you would know how proud I was."
Miriam Holder, a Bajan New Yorker in East Elmhurst, was reflecting in Queens on her feelings when she first received word her 57-year-old son Eric was poised to make history as the first black attorney-general of the United States."
"I am sure he is going to do a very good job, once he has been confirmed by the Senate," added the widow, whose Bajan husband Eric Holder Sr died almost a dozen years ago in New York but whose ashes were scattered in his birthplace just last year.
"Oh, his father, were he here would have been very proud of him," added the woman now in her 80s.
"His sons were the lights of his life. I am sure he would have been extremely happy to see him move into this position, knowing he would do a very good job at it. Our son Eric is a well grounded person, fair in all that he does, will sit and listen and he makes decisions based on fairness. He has always been a person mature beyond his years."
That's not simply the assessment of a proud mother. Such sentiments were echoed both by critics and supporters alike in the days immediately after it became known that President Elect Barack Obama intended to nominate the former Washington DC Superior Court judge; a man who was the top federal prosecutor in the nation's capital, who went to become the country's deputy attorney-general and acted for about two weeks in the top job at the turn of the 21st century.
For instance, the Washington Post, one of America's most influential papers, in an editorial painted a picture of him as one who would "bring years of experience and top-notch credentials" to the job.
"The predominant features of his record are independence, integrity and effectiveness."
His mother traces the origins of those characteristics to his upbringing, his life growing up in Queens.
"He grew up, I guess you could say, in a West Indian home, and education was quite important," she said. "They knew they had to perform the way we wanted them to. Perhaps, I was a bit harder than I should have been. Education is always important.
"As Barbadians, you know that education has always been at the top of the list of their priorities, and that was the same in our home."
Religion was another key factor in their sons' moulding, worshipping at the Episcopal Church, a few blocks from their home in Queens. The two sons served as acolytes, attended Sunday School and were active in the church's youth group.
"The church was always very important to us," Ms Holder recalled.
In the home, the emphasis too was on the family and when it came time to sit around the table for a meal, typical West Indian dishes were on the menu.
"I did peas and rice, the typical West Indian dishes," she recalled. "I didn't do too well with cou-cou. I like it very much and my mother used to make it on Fridays and my sister and I weren't too happy with it.
"But on my first trip to Barbados, I had cou-cou and I wrote to mother and said, 'Guess what I am having and enjoying it'? An aunt on one of her trips to Barbados brought back a cou-cou stick for me but somehow or the other I just couldn't get it together." Did she follow the Bajan tradition of yesteryear of using the cou-cou stick on children's rear-ends to discipline Eric or his brother, William?
"Oh, no I didn't," she said with a hearty laugh.
As for Eric's sibling, he is a retired New York Port Authority police lieutenant who is now a successful businessman operating six McDonald's restaurant franchises.
"He is very enterprising; plays a lot of golf," she explained. "He lives not far away from where I live and I often spend Fridays at his home."
Ms Holder, who with her husband once owned a condominium in St Michael, which they sold two years ago, speaks fondly about Barbados, much like her son, "who is proud of his Barbadian heritage", said his mother.
"He really enjoyed the island, especially the Hilton Hotel, whenever he visited the island" in recent years, she said. "In some of his speeches, whenever he talks about the island, he says 'the jewel of the Caribbean' Barbados."
As she looks forward to the day when her son is sworn in as the attorney-general, she is confident about two things.
"The first is that he will be confirmed" by the Senate and secondly, "he will do an outstanding job as the first black attorney-general."
-
As the heading states ............. the Obama Administration.
The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?
In another thread, the following statement was made ....
'It is incredibly short-sighted of you if you can't see the
positives that could come from Obama's election as it
pertains to black people.'
How is he going to positively affect the black person
in Alabama if the same black person doesn't have a job,
and industries around him/her aren't hiring?
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
-
Why was Geithner selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
2-3 months working with Bush and Paulson in the face of a crisis is grounds for rejection? What about the fact that the work he did/does with them is largely to reverse a course that has been taken over the long-term?
Doing things differently and having aides with experience aren't mutually exclusive.
Glenn Greenwald Salon.com
Sunday Nov. 23, 2008 08:04 EST
Progressive complaints about Obama's appointments
I've been genuinely mystified by the disappointment and surprise being expressed by many liberals over the fact that Obama's most significant appointments thus far are composed of pure Beltway establishment figures drawn from the center-right of the Democratic Party and, probably once he names his Defense Secretary and CIA Director, even from the Bush administration -- but not from the Left. In an email yesterday, Digby explained perfectly why this reaction is so mystifying (re-printed with her consent):
The villagers and the right made it very clear what they required of Obama --- bipartisanship, technocratic competence and center-right orthodoxy. Liberals took cultural signifiers as a sign of solidarity and didn't ask for anything. So, we have the great symbolic victory of the first black president (and that's not nothing, by the way) who is also a bipartisan, centrist technocrat. Surprise.
There are things to applaud about the cabinet picks -- Clinton is a global superstar who, along with Barack himself, signals to the world that the US is no longer being run by incompetent, extremist, political fringe dwellers. Holder seems to be genuinely against torture and hostile to the concept of the imperial presidency. Gaithner is a smart guy who has the trust of the Big Money Boyz, which may end up being useful considering the enormous and risky economic challenges ahead. Emmanuel is someone who is not afraid to wield a knife and if we're lucky he might just wield it from time to time against a Republican or a right wing Democrat. Napolitano seems to have a deft political touch with difficult issues like immigration which is going to be a battleground at DHS. And on and on.
None of them are liberals, but then Obama said repeatedly that he wasn't ideological, that he cared about "what works." I don't know why people didn't believe that.
entire article here (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/23/obama/)
-
As the heading states ............. the Obama Administration.
The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?
In another thread, the following statement was made ....
'It is incredibly short-sighted of you if you can't see the
positives that could come from Obama's election as it
pertains to black people.'
How is he going to positively affect the black person
in Alabama if the same black person doesn't have a job,
and industries around him/her aren't hiring?
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
You make less and less sense with each post.
The potential loss of jobs in Alabama (and Detroit and everywhere else) by blacks (and whites, Hispanics and everybody else) is an issue that Obama has committed to tackling. It is also a given result of the current condition, which is not of Obama’s making.
Pupporting that Obama will have no positive effect because people are losing jobs because of a situation that exists BEFORE he was even elected is just stupid.
Using that as a singular example of the positive effect that Obama could/will have is even more ridiculous. By setting such a narrow and false metric for Obama’s positive effect on black people shows that you are being deliberately close-minded to the fact that great achievements can inspire greatness in others (just one obvious example of the positive effect he can have on people). Either that or you are duncer than I thought.
I have a question for you though since you willing to judge before the man even start to work.
If Obama has a successful Presidential administrative term will that affect your life positively? Or will the bitterness and misery of seeing somebody in power that you don’t rate highly take precedence?
-
As the heading states ............. the Obama Administration.
The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?
As I said to you in Tallman's thread... "change" is conditioned on more than just the introduction of new faces. Prior service should not disqualify one from consideration or service, or else what is the purpose of the system of meritocracy that we all so cherish? For very credible reasons there is need to maintain a degree of continuity as NEW economic policies are being implemented. It's very difficult to reinvent the wheel, so even if some of these policies themselves aren't groundbreaking, as long as they represent a departure from the policies which got us into this mess then that is sufficient change. Many of Obama's critics are confusing "change" with "novelty"... the man didn't promise novel ideas, just different ones from what we currently have.
In another thread, the following statement was made ....
'It is incredibly short-sighted of you if you can't see the
positives that could come from Obama's election as it
pertains to black people.'
How is he going to positively affect the black person
in Alabama if the same black person doesn't have a job,
and industries around him/her aren't hiring?
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
Obama's impact shouldn't be gauged by the impact or lack thereof upon the life of any one individual, but rather should be measured by the influence he asserts on the lives of the collective. According to an article that I posted in the "Elections" thread earlier... blacks are 0.4% the population of Montana. Most of what white people in that state know about blacks (by their own admission) is based on what they see on TV... and much of it negative. If they can now see a black man in the highest office in the land, chances are that he can positively impact the way they look at black people much like you (presumably) and I. This is but one relatively minor way in which he can improve the lot for blacks in the US... how you CANNOT see this as a positive thing is beyond me.
-
As the heading states ............. the Obama Administration.
The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?
In another thread, the following statement was made ....
'It is incredibly short-sighted of you if you can't see the
positives that could come from Obama's election as it
pertains to black people.'
How is he going to positively affect the black person
in Alabama if the same black person doesn't have a job,
and industries around him/her aren't hiring?
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
You make less and less sense with each post.
The potential loss of jobs in Alabama (and Detroit and everywhere else) by blacks (and whites, Hispanics and everybody else) is an issue that Obama has committed to tackling. It is also a given result of the current condition, which is not of Obama’s making.
Pupporting that Obama will have no positive effect because people are losing jobs because of a situation that exists BEFORE he was even elected is just stupid.
Using that as a singular example of the positive effect that Obama could/will have is even more ridiculous. By setting such a narrow and false metric for Obama’s positive effect on black people shows that you are being deliberately close-minded to the fact that great achievements can inspire greatness in others (just one obvious example of the positive effect he can have on people). Either that or you are duncer than I thought.
I have a question for you though since you willing to judge before the man even start to work.
If Obama has a successful Presidential administrative term will that affect your life positively? Or will the bitterness and misery of seeing somebody in power that you don’t rate highly take precedence?
Answers to your questions.
But before the answers, yes, I am not the sharpest knife in the draw, you
are correct, I am duncier than you thought.
Yes, if he has a successful Presidential term, he will affect my life positively,
and all other Americans, and dear I say, all the peoples of this screwed up planet.
The President elect will be judged in time by whether or not he can turn this
economy around. In the last 2 months of the campaign, he made the economy
the focus, and now he has the monumental challenge of turning things around.
I will withold my thoughts on whether I think he can or not.
There is no bitternness and/or misery in me seeing Obama become President.
I think for black Americans it is something to behold, and it allows Americans
to dream, and to know dreams do STILL come to fruition.
Although, if you or I could raise $700 million, we could make a strong case
for the White House.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php?cycle=2008
Allow me to ask again, 'The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?'
-
Allow me to ask again, 'The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?'
You may have missed this response by Daryn, which I agree with
2-3 months working with Bush and Paulson in the face of a crisis is grounds for rejection? What about the fact that the work he did/does with them is largely to reverse a course that has been taken over the long-term?
Doing things differently and having aides with experience aren't mutually exclusive.
I want allya to wrap allya minds around this chart
(http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart_2006.gif)
Good one Bakes
Obama's impact shouldn't be gauged by the impact or lack thereof upon the life of any one individual, but rather should be measured by the influence he asserts on the lives of the collective. According to an article that I posted in the "Elections" thread earlier... blacks are 0.4% the population of Montana. Most of what white people in that state know about blacks (by their own admission) is based on what they see on TV... and much of it negative. If they can now see a black man in the highest office in the land, chances are that he can positively impact the way they look at black people much like you (presumably) and I. This is but one relatively minor way in which he can improve the lot for blacks in the US... how you CANNOT see this as a positive thing is beyond me.
I have family like that who could probably do with some of that education....I does HAVE to shake meh head...seriously
-
Yes, if he has a successful Presidential term, he will affect my life positively,
and all other Americans, and dear I say, all the peoples of this screwed up planet.
The President elect will be judged in time by whether or not he can turn this
economy around. In the last 2 months of the campaign, he made the economy
the focus, and now he has the monumental challenge of turning things around.
I will withold my thoughts on whether I think he can or not.
Very different to what you posted before where you already passed judgement on Obama's ability to positively affect you.
There is no bitternness and/or misery in me seeing Obama become President.
I think for black Americans it is something to behold, and it allows Americans
to dream, and to know dreams do STILL come to fruition.
Although, if you or I could raise $700 million, we could make a strong case
for the White House.
You say no bitterness and then you discredit his achievement. Suffice it to say that there are reasons why Obama could raise $700 M and we can't. It is not as if he didn't work for it. Also if having $700 M was all it took Obama would not be in the White House.
Allow me to ask again, 'The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?'
Two things I would say here. Firstly Obama's "Change" mantra was always nebulous. Easy to capture the imagination but difficult to define its execution. To could criticise it as a typical political doublespeak but "Country First" was just as nebulous as campaign promises go.
That being said you are making a needlessly narrow definition of what change should be to suit your purposes. By your reasoning any association with this (or maybe any) past administration is NOT change. On the other hand one of the Changes that Obama referenced continuously is a departure from partisan politics, the consolidation of power bases and putting party objectives before doing what is best for the country.
In that sense the inclusion of Geithner and the Sec. of Defense is putting the best, most appropriate people in the job, in spite of their affiliations. That is a much better example of the change that Obama was talking about than using a simplistic definition based on the names of the people who will be implementing his policies (which, if different from Bush's again would be a more significant measure of change)
Also I used Geithner because he was your example of a Bush ally when he really isn't. He was not instrumental in the Bush administration. Those who were are clearly not the people who can fix this mess. Geithner has been recognized as one of those who can and he was brought in to start the clean up process. For Obama to pass him over because of Bush and Paulson were smart enough to recognize his quality would be the definition of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
-
Allow me to ask again, 'The two key financial folks have been named, Geithner and
Summers.
Where is the change Obama was promising? Why was Geithner
selected when he has worked very closely with Bush and Paulson
over the last 2-3 months?
Where is the change?'
You've had three separate responses to your question... without addressing the responses you then pose yet again your question. One can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse rather than seeking dialogue or answers. Either counter the responses or silently adhere to your own thoughts, simply copying and pasting your position does little to further your position, or debate for that matter.
-
Here's what I think is a very fair article on Robert Rubin's role in helping precipitate this economic mess... more acutely his role in Citi's demise, and frighteningly his influence within Obama's economic advisory team.
A Bailout Steeped in Irony
Tuesday, November 25, 2008; D01
By Steven Pearlstein
Of all the rescues mounted by the government this year, none carries with it more symbolism, or more irony, than that of Citigroup.
Until recently, Citi was not only the largest U.S. financial institution, but the very embodiment of the new financial order. Under the relentless empire-building of Sandy Weill, it was Citi that brought down the old regulatory wall that had separated commercial banking from investment banking and insurance.
The combination of Citibank with Salomon Smith Barney under the bright red umbrella of Travelers Insurance was accepted with a regulatory wink and nod by the Federal Reserve until Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan could persuade Congress to make it legal. The hurdle was the Glass-Steagall Act, put in place during the Great Depression to prevent another market crash like that of 1929. Now that another market crash has required the government to rescue a commercial bank done in by its investment banking subsidiary, there will certainly be those who wonder whether the New Dealers didn't have it right all along.
The rationale for saving Citi is that with $3 trillion in assets, more than 300,000 employees and operations in more than 100 countries, this was a bank that was too big and too connected with the rest of the financial system to be allowed to fail. The question now is whether an institution of that size and scope is also too big to succeed.
Sandy Weill stitched together his Citi empire from more than a hundred acquisitions. No sooner was his work complete, however, than it began to unravel as the result of soured investments and embarrassing ethical scandals that cost shareholders tens of billions of dollars and eventually cost Weill his job. In the years since, it has become obvious that the promised economies of scale had been over-hyped, the synergies across business lines never developed. The whole thing was simply too big and too complex to be managed.
It has also proved too big to be regulated. Over the past 20 years, the Federal Reserve, Citi's chief regulator, has been unable to get a handle on the bank's excessive risk-taking and corner-cutting. Time after time, Citi rushed to jump aboard the latest gravy train -- loans to developing countries, commercial real estate, Internet stocks, subprime lending and securitization -- and time and again, the regulators failed to spot a problem until it was too late.
The Fed launched what amounted to a rescue of Citi back in the early '90s, opening its lending window and lowering interest rates to avoid a collapse. This time, the problem is even bigger and the rescue more explicit, with the Fed itself having to put its own balance sheet at risk to fix a problem that could have been contained if its regulators had been more vigilant.
While it was Weill who created the modern Citi, it was his handpicked and hapless successor, Chuck Prince, who steered the company into the ditch. It didn't have to be that way.
In John Reed, the former chief executive of Citibank, Weill had had a co-chief executive who was an MIT-trained engineer deeply skeptical of Wall Street financial engineering and committed to consumer banking and sound commercial underwriting. Weill ousted him in a boardroom coup. Later, in Jamie Dimon, Weill had a lieutenant who was both a brilliant strategist and disciplined banker who could have saved Citi from following the Wall Street herd over the cliff, if Weill had only been willing to name him heir apparent. Instead, Dimon went on to save Citi's rival, J.P. Morgan Chase.
Surely neither Reed nor Dimon would have been as clueless as Prince about the risks taken by his subordinates. Nor would either have been so determined to run with the Wall Street herd, as Prince clearly was when he told the Financial Times in the summer of 2007 that, though he recognized there was a huge credit bubble, Citi had no choice but to keep dancing as long as the music was playing.
There is one top executive, however, who served alongside Weill and Prince, as well as alongside the newest chief executive, Vikram Pandit, with surprisingly little damage to his own reputation. He is, of course, Robert Rubin.
As Treasury secretary, Rubin joined with Greenspan in supporting Citi's campaign to repeal Glass-Steagall. And when he resigned from the Treasury in 1999, Rubin accepted Weill's offer to become what amounted to vice chairman of Citi, where he has quietly worked the back channels to Washington and other international capitals while serving as strategic counselor to the chief executive and the board of directors.
Rubin has been cagey about defining his role at Citigroup -- and at one point he got caught making a phone call to the Bush Treasury in a bid to help out Enron, a Citi client, during its death throes. What is indisputable is that all of the decisions that have led to Citi's recent troubles were taken while Rubin was chairman of the executive committee, and made by executives with whom he worked closely. He defended them repeatedly and unequivocally, and as a director, he approved compensation packages that rewarded them (and himself) handsomely for judgments that proved disastrous.
Now, the government has been forced to save Citi by investing $45 billion in new capital and by putting a floor under its losses. By any measure, it is a sweetheart deal for shareholders, who will suffer minimal dilution of their shares. Most startling of all, however, is that Rubin and other directors and top executives have been allowed to remain at the helm. You have to wonder how much more money this crew would have to lose before the Treasury and the Fed would demand their resignations -- $100 billion? $200 billion? $1 trillion? Why weren't they dispatched as were the executives at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG?
The ultimate irony is that just as Rubin & Co. were being bailed out at Citi by the Bush administration, President-elect Obama was announcing a new economic team drawn almost entirely from Rubin's acolytes.
That's not to take anything away from the qualifications of Tim Geithner, the new nominee for Treasury secretary, who owes his appointment as president to the New York Fed to Rubin's aggressive lobbying; or Larry Summers, who was Rubin's deputy secretary at the Treasury and whose appointment as president of Harvard was championed by Rubin as a member of the university's government board; or Peter Orszag, the soon-to-be-named nominee for budget director, who was hired by Rubin to head a Democratic think tank on economic policy that he founded.
No doubt about it -- it's a fabulous team. But perhaps the next time Obama thinks about assembling his group of wise men to give advice on the economic crisis, he might at least have the good sense to leave Rubin out of the mix. At a minimum, it's a glaring conflict of interest. More significantly, it sends a terrible signal about accountability and corporate governance.
Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112400745.html?nav=hcmodule&sid=ST2008112403290&s_pos=
Dervaig, obviously I'm a big Obama supporter but I think it's only fair to help bring to light some of your concerns (since you seem uninterested in articulating them yourself). I'd have to say that I am similarly concerned that the foxes possibly are being put in charge of the hen house, but concerns aside, too early to definitively pass judgment.
Another article on Rubing, Geithner and Summers...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/11/24/ST2008112403290.html
-
The Obama Administration....................
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
And then the question I was asked ..................
If Obama has a successful Presidential administrative
term will that affect your life positively?
He will 'IF' he is successful. I will judge whether his Presidency is
successful by whether or not the US economy is doing better in
2/3/4 years, and SOLELY by how the economy is performing.
I DO NOT GIVE HIM A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HECK OF TURNING THIS
ECONOMY AROUND BY 'THE CHANGES' HE TALKED ABOUT IMPLEMENTING
DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.
Now, why was Geithner and Summers nominated?
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
As for Summers, another Clinton re-tread.
Now, that is change!
Obama promised tax breaks for the middle class, and an increase
in the cap Gains tax.
Help me understand how he plans to give anyone a tax break when
the tax base continues to decline as unemployment rises.
In 2009, unemployment will get to its highest since the Carter days
............... 8.5%/10%/11% +........................
Everyone should be prepared to pay more taxes!
This country desparately needs capital spending, DESPARATELY!
If that is the case, how is he going to raise Cap gains taxes?
Where is the change?
The best change I can see Obama making is moving from the far
Liberal left, and more to the middle. If he doesn't do this, he will
definitely be a one termer.
Google these names, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini.
Read what these guys are saying, and you will better understand
what is going on in this economy, and where it is headed.
-
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
not only that but Japanese too.
and if you think that is cause for pause, let's talk about another thing nobody wants to mention: the fact that he is a pianist. could any other instrument foretell old-school politics like the piano?
-
The Obama Administration....................
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
And then the question I was asked ..................
If Obama has a successful Presidential administrative
term will that affect your life positively?
He will 'IF' he is successful. I will judge whether his Presidency is
successful by whether or not the US economy is doing better in
2/3/4 years, and SOLELY by how the economy is performing.
I DO NOT GIVE HIM A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HECK OF TURNING THIS
ECONOMY AROUND BY 'THE CHANGES' HE TALKED ABOUT IMPLEMENTING
DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.
Now, why was Geithner and Summers nominated?
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
As for Summers, another Clinton re-tread.
Now, that is change!
Obama promised tax breaks for the middle class, and an increase
in the cap Gains tax.
Help me understand how he plans to give anyone a tax break when
the tax base continues to decline as unemployment rises.
In 2009, unemployment will get to its highest since the Carter days
............... 8.5%/10%/11% +........................
Everyone should be prepared to pay more taxes!
This country desparately needs capital spending, DESPARATELY!
If that is the case, how is he going to raise Cap gains taxes?
Where is the change?
The best change I can see Obama making is moving from the far
Liberal left, and more to the middle. If he doesn't do this, he will
definitely be a one termer.
Google these names, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini.
Read what these guys are saying, and you will better understand
what is going on in this economy, and where it is headed.
Good to see that you finally put forward a clear argument instead of just floating innuendo.
What I will say is this. Nothing that you have posted there is new to the informed public and certainly not to Obama and his advisors.
That he will have to readjust the plans (promises) in his campaign is painfully obvious. In fact if anybody has a reason to grouse with Obama at this early point it is his supporters because it is evident that the economy will take precedence over most other special interests. it is going to be th emother of all balancing acts.
There has already been talk about letting the Bush tax cuts run their natural course instead of repealing them immediately. The big unions that supported him will also not be happy. They are faced with making huge concessions or killing the golden goose, but they will not be given a welfare check despite their support of Obama. The growth of national debt was criticised, but more money will have to be borrowed, much of it from China.
The middle class tax breaks will probably still go through, despite the diminishing tax base, because that was a central tenent of his campaign and it is an accepted method of stimulating the economy. It is no different than Bush borrowing money last year to give stimulus checks to those making less than $150 - $200K.
As for taxes they will go up eventually. It has to happen but it is a question of when will be the right time. Putting people back into jobs helps, increasing productivity, corporation taxes, capital gains taxes and the expiring Bush tax cuts will help also. It is all a matter of when is the best time for it to happen. And it would have happened under a (responsible) McCain administration as well. It is a result of the position that the country is in right now.
What I would say though is that none of his economic moves could be construed as veering far left so I don't see why you think that Obama must move from the far left. Whatever you might think of his social positions his stance on the economy has always been to just get it fixed by doing the best job possible, using all resources available and by making sacrifices. By most accounts he is not an idealogue, despite attempts to characterize him as Marxist, Communist etc. He is a bright guy who weighs the pros and cons of each situation soliciting the input of subject experts without: letting his ego get in the way or passing on the decision making responsibility. He has also communicated that this issue transcends usual politics and idealogies.
You seem to be judging the outcome based on some campaign promises when when the overall promise of any candidate is to govern well and bring the country to prosperity. Until he actually gets the chance to do that it is hard to pass judgement unless you steadfastly believe that he does not have the quality, talent and/or ability to govern well. That is why this is the honeymoon period. There will be more than enough opportunity to knock him over the next 4 years no matter how things go.
-
The Obama Administration....................
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
And then the question I was asked ..................
If Obama has a successful Presidential administrative
term will that affect your life positively?
(1)He will 'IF' he is successful. I will judge whether his Presidency is
successful by whether or not the US economy is doing better in
2/3/4 years, and SOLELY by how the economy is performing.
I DO NOT GIVE HIM A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HECK OF TURNING THIS
ECONOMY AROUND BY 'THE CHANGES' HE TALKED ABOUT IMPLEMENTING
DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.
Now, why was Geithner and Summers nominated?
(2)Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
(3)As for Summers, another Clinton re-tread.
Now, that is change!
Obama promised tax breaks for the middle class, and an increase
in the cap Gains tax.
(4)Help me understand how he plans to give anyone a tax break when
the tax base continues to decline as unemployment rises.
In 2009, unemployment will get to its highest since the Carter days
............... 8.5%/10%/11% +........................
Everyone should be prepared to pay more taxes!
(5)This country desparately needs capital spending, DESPARATELY!
If that is the case, how is he going to raise Cap gains taxes?
Where is the change?
(6)The best change I can see Obama making is moving from the far
Liberal left, and more to the middle. If he doesn't do this, he will
definitely be a one termer.
Google these names, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini.
Read what these guys are saying, and you will better understand
what is going on in this economy, and where it is headed.
(1)As JDB pointed out earlier, you keep insisting on these foolishly narrow metrics upon which to gauge Obama's success. First was to be based on his impact on the lives of some hypothetical unemployed black man in Alabama. Now you're suggesting that unless he turns the economy around his first term will be a failure. This is nonsensical, pure and simple. The economy is the the most pressing challenge facing Obama right now, but it's not his only challenge. No need for me to reiterate the rest, they're well known. If that is how you subjectively choose to rate his performance then that is your prerogative.
(2)What de France does his linguistic abilities have to do with anything?
(3)You back with this "change" shit talk again? What was Geithner's role under Clinton or Bush? What was his economic policies then, and how do they square with Obama's economic policies?
(4)Simple... it's called borrowing from your left pocket to pay your right pocket. How is he to arrest the rising unemployment if not by creating jobs? How is he supposed to create jobs? How can he pay for that plan?
(5)You probably need to go look up the meaning of 'Capital Gains Tax'... because it has nothing to do with capital spending.
(6)Obama was never on the 'far left' to begin with... he's always been more of a centrist. He's just been painted as an extremist by some on the right, who are themselves extremists. They did this for the simple fact that he's been more focused on helping the poor than helping the rich, and much more interested in an equitable society than a polarized one. All you have to do is to look at his proposed cabinet appointees to see how they reflect his moderate policies... even his harshest critics are taking note. To not acknowledge this is to deliberately refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
-
Bake n Shark, have you ever managed a business?
Own a business?
Simple yes/no question.
-
Steups....Obama cyar do worse dan Bush...it eh even have no comparison....talk done... ;D
-
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
not only that but Japanese too.
and if you think that is cause for pause, let's talk about another thing nobody wants to mention: the fact that he is a pianist. could any other instrument foretell old-school politics like the piano?
Daryn, I feel all dem republicans are now grasping at straws
I ent know why "Joe the plumber" reach quite over here in this forum asking if people own their own business :devil:
really, what de armen that have to do wid the circumstances at hand?
-
I think people are missing that simple fact in how Obama is enacting change through his selection process. From day one he has shown change in his selection of VP. He stepped out the norm and choose someone who will most likely make up for his short coming. In the successive weeks since the election he continue to show that his belief in country first is a reality. Instead of choosing safe obvious choices, he choose the people who can assist him in attempting to turn the economy around. Yes, he may take some lashes for this in the early parts of his term but as he has continually shown, the race is to the end and not to halfway. It is very difficult for human being to identify their shortcomings, much less acknowledge those shortcomings and publicly work to build a society for the greater good with their lives exposed.
The doubters will always see the glass empty and where there is no justification for negativity, the world or politicians are all wicked and corrupt. Such simple thinking people are the ones Obama is working for. He is working to bring them to a better life, a better understanding of how all is not black or white. That within the realm of humanity the greater aspects of living is among the gray areas. The "real America" if you will, where people understand that in order to move on as a country, we must first move on as a people.
No one is denying that it is a difficult time to be president of the United States of America, more so a new one. Then, instead of pouring fuel on the fire by actively seeking and hoping that the President elect fail even before he takes office, why not truly accept the results of the democracy and assist in working alongside others to improve the life of one another. If we all live in the same community and my life improve, but my neighbors life do not improve, can I truly say that my life has improved?
-
Bake n Shark, have you ever managed a business?
Own a business?
Simple yes/no question.
No.
...but I'm curious to know how that relates to the discussion.
-
I think people are missing that simple fact in how Obama is enacting change through his selection process. From day one he has shown change in his selection of VP. He stepped out the norm and choose someone who will most likely make up for his short coming. In the successive weeks since the election he continue to show that his belief in country first is a reality. Instead of choosing safe obvious choices, he choose the people who can assist him in attempting to turn the economy around. Yes, he may take some lashes for this in the early parts of his term but as he has continually shown, the race is to the end and not to halfway. It is very difficult for human being to identify their shortcomings, much less acknowledge those shortcomings and publicly work to build a society for the greater good with their lives exposed.
The doubters will always see the glass empty and where there is no justification for negativity, the world or politicians are all wicked and corrupt. Such simple thinking people are the ones Obama is working for. He is working to bring them to a better life, a better understanding of how all is not black or white. That within the realm of humanity the greater aspects of living is among the gray areas. The "real America" if you will, where people understand that in order to move on as a country, we must first move on as a people.
No one is denying that it is a difficult time to be president of the United States of America, more so a new one. Then, instead of pouring fuel on the fire by actively seeking and hoping that the President elect fail even before he takes office, why not truly accept the results of the democracy and assist in working alongside others to improve the life of one another. If we all live in the same community and my life improve, but my neighbors life do not improve, can I truly say that my life has improved?
you know what I am slowly realising is that the republicans will do what ever it takes to make the democrats look bad even if that means wrecking the country in the process.
When they started all the garbage about Obama's middle name, and then saying he is palling around with terrorists
it is just bringing the worst of people to the surface.....just like what Baby Bush did when 911 hit.........be afraid of your neighbours and especially those who look or may be different. All the talk of the pro American areas of the country.....it is VERY divisive and may have irreversible negative effects on people Psyche........I know that the redneck people are close to being permanently LOST for ever as a result of this election......just look at the joe plumber crap.........character was created to destroy,
I am still undecided about this video from my cousin...............is there a message in it or not?
I just got this from my first cousin who is a Republican state representative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
what allya think?
-
I think people are missing that simple fact in how Obama is enacting change through his selection process. From day one he has shown change in his selection of VP. He stepped out the norm and choose someone who will most likely make up for his short coming. In the successive weeks since the election he continue to show that his belief in country first is a reality. Instead of choosing safe obvious choices, he choose the people who can assist him in attempting to turn the economy around. Yes, he may take some lashes for this in the early parts of his term but as he has continually shown, the race is to the end and not to halfway. It is very difficult for human being to identify their shortcomings, much less acknowledge those shortcomings and publicly work to build a society for the greater good with their lives exposed.
The doubters will always see the glass empty and where there is no justification for negativity, the world or politicians are all wicked and corrupt. Such simple thinking people are the ones Obama is working for. He is working to bring them to a better life, a better understanding of how all is not black or white. That within the realm of humanity the greater aspects of living is among the gray areas. The "real America" if you will, where people understand that in order to move on as a country, we must first move on as a people.
No one is denying that it is a difficult time to be president of the United States of America, more so a new one. Then, instead of pouring fuel on the fire by actively seeking and hoping that the President elect fail even before he takes office, why not truly accept the results of the democracy and assist in working alongside others to improve the life of one another. If we all live in the same community and my life improve, but my neighbors life do not improve, can I truly say that my life has improved?
you know what I am slowly realising is that the republicans will do what ever it takes to make the democrats look bad even if that means wrecking the country in the process.
When they started all the garbage about Obama's middle name, and then saying he is palling around with terrorists
it is just bringing the worst of people to the surface.....just like what Baby Bush did when 911 hit.........be afraid of your neighbours and especially those who look or may be different. All the talk of the pro American areas of the country.....it is VERY divisive and may have irreversible negative effects on people Psyche........I know that the redneck people are close to being permanently LOST for ever as a result of this election......just look at the joe plumber crap.........character was created to destroy,
I am still undecided about this video from my cousin...............is there a message in it or not?
I just got this from my first cousin who is a Republican state representative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk
what allya think?
He meandering to much. He started out with one message and bird walk after that. At first I thought he was talking about Americans - all Americans- to get more involved in the country and get the country back on track. Then he start the divisive talk and about purifying the USA. What people like him fail to realize is that immigrants and illegal immigrants are woven directly into the American culture. From the arrival of Columbus ships, to the Mayflower and the Amistad, America began it's evolution into the cosmopolitan country that it is now.
As far as I am concerned they could give all of them North Dakota and let them have they own country with whatever "type" of people they want to live there.
-
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
not only that but Japanese too.
and if you think that is cause for pause, let's talk about another thing nobody wants to mention: the fact that he is a pianist. could any other instrument foretell old-school politics like the piano?
Daryn, I feel all dem republicans are now grasping at straws
I ent know why "Joe the plumber" reach quite over here in this forum asking if people own their own business :devil:
really, what de armen that have to do wid the circumstances at hand?
rat-a-tat-tat ... disengage ... rat-a-tat-tat ... reload ... oh oh is automatic fire? sorry ... carry on ...rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat ... have mercy.
-
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
not only that but Japanese too.
and if you think that is cause for pause, let's talk about another thing nobody wants to mention: the fact that he is a pianist. could any other instrument foretell old-school politics like the piano?
Daryn, I feel all dem republicans are now grasping at straws
I ent know why "Joe the plumber" reach quite over here in this forum asking if people own their own business :devil:
really, what de armen that have to do wid the circumstances at hand?
rat-a-tat-tat ... disengage ... rat-a-tat-tat ... reload ... oh oh is automatic fire? sorry ... carry on ...rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat ... have mercy.
dais ah cryptic message Asylum ???
-
Obama change?
He wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan;
He make ah Iraq plan that could turn into ah downsized and rebranded occupation that go keep de U.S. forces in Iraq for de foreseeable future;
He done label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as ah "terrorist organization;"
He make ah pledge tuh use unilateral force inside ah Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;
Obama make he position clear and make ah presenttion before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" -- a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;
what about he plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;
And then he refused to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.
Obama looking like ah neoliberal?
-
Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
not only that but Japanese too.
and if you think that is cause for pause, let's talk about another thing nobody wants to mention: the fact that he is a pianist. could any other instrument foretell old-school politics like the piano?
Daryn, I feel all dem republicans are now grasping at straws
I ent know why "Joe the plumber" reach quite over here in this forum asking if people own their own business :devil:
really, what de armen that have to do wid the circumstances at hand?
rat-a-tat-tat ... disengage ... rat-a-tat-tat ... reload ... oh oh is automatic fire? sorry ... carry on ...rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat ... have mercy.
dais ah cryptic message Asylum ???
my bad, yuh was planning on taking prisoners? :)
-
Obama change?
He wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan;
He make ah Iraq plan that could turn into ah downsized and rebranded occupation that go keep de U.S. forces in Iraq for de foreseeable future;
He done label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as ah "terrorist organization;"
He make ah pledge tuh use unilateral force inside ah Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;
Obama make he position clear and make ah presenttion before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" -- a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;
what about he plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;
And then he refused to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.
Obama looking like ah neoliberal?
You doh fed up talk shit fuh one man dred? Hush yuh mouth and give yuh backside ah rest nuh Ass?
Obama is the one man who has demonstrated any sort of interest in developing a timeline for withdrawing US forces from Iraq... the only one with whom the Iraqi interim gov't sees eye to eye on that... where you getting this shit talk "downsized plan to keep US forces in Iraq for foreseeable future" from? You living some kinda alternate reality or what? Dat is all one can conclude looking at this next nonsense "He make ah pledge tuh use unilateral force inside ah Pakistan to defend U.S. interests" talk. What "pledge" did he make? All the man said is that he keeping all options on the table where that is concerned. There's a difference between keeping something as an option and making a "pledge" to do it.
Ah know Hillary was yuh gyul but some ah allyuh real getting ridiculous with allyuh criticism now.
-
Obama change?
He wants to ramp up the war in Afghanistan;
He make ah Iraq plan that could turn into ah downsized and rebranded occupation that go keep de U.S. forces in Iraq for de foreseeable future;
He done label Iran's Revolutionary Guard as ah "terrorist organization;"
He make ah pledge tuh use unilateral force inside ah Pakistan to defend U.S. interests;
Obama make he position clear and make ah presenttion before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), that Jerusalem "must remain undivided" -- a remark that infuriated Palestinian officials and which he later attempted to reframe;
what about he plan to continue the War on Drugs, a backdoor U.S. counterinsurgency campaign in Central and Latin America;
And then he refused to "rule out" using Blackwater and other armed private forces in U.S. war zones, despite previously introducing legislation to regulate these companies and bring them under U.S. law.
Obama looking like ah neoliberal?
You doh fed up talk shit fuh one man dred? Hush yuh mouth and give yuh backside ah rest nuh Ass?
Obama is the one man who has demonstrated any sort of interest in developing a timeline for withdrawing US forces from Iraq... the only one with whom the Iraqi interim gov't sees eye to eye on that... where you getting this shit talk "downsized plan to keep US forces in Iraq for foreseeable future" from? You living some kinda alternate reality or what? Dat is all one can conclude looking at this next nonsense "He make ah pledge tuh use unilateral force inside ah Pakistan to defend U.S. interests" talk. What "pledge" did he make? All the man said is that he keeping all options on the table where that is concerned. There's a difference between keeping something as an option and making a "pledge" to do it.
Ah know Hillary was yuh gyul but some ah allyuh real getting ridiculous with allyuh criticism now.
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
And another:
Tom Baldwin in Washington
Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.
Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
OK so it is not technically a pledge, more of a promise!
The fact is that the troop surge has succeeded in reversing the violence in Iraq, as much as that pains you (and me too), it is a fact, his plan to downsize at this time will do exactly what I said it will do, keep troops there, at a lower level and for the forseeable future. doh like dat? take it up with the president elect.
This has nothing to do with Hillary, and everything to do with more of the same. after running a magnificent campaign he has resorted to sale old washington politics.
look at the people he has assembled thus far1
They are hawkish, neo-cons among them, and old clintonites. after promising to CHANE..yes we Can! he has surrounded himself with people who are entrenched in the same washington tradition that he proclaimed destroyed the US.
As for Blackwater and those so-called security firms, he plans to keep them there in Iraq and Afghanistan!
How can you defend that?
Even veteran journalist Robert Parry, the former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter who broke many of the stories in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, has this to say: "Barack Obama seems headed toward some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding the advice of Washington's Democratic insider community, a collective group that represents little 'change you can believe in."
His choice of Chief of Satff had me reeling. I know you find it heart warming eh, but to me, that man is a hawkish type who actually volunteered to join Israel's army in 1991, and is a is a hard-line supporter of Israel's "targeted assassination."
that sure leaves a lot of room for dialogue and open discussion doesn't it?
Oh and dat man is the only memeber of the Illonois democratic conventoion to vote infavour of the Invasion of Iraq!
this is Obama's chief of staff's position on another major issue:
"As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we will have a position," he said in December 2005. As Philip Giraldi recently pointed out on Antiwar.com, Emanuel "advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25."
and lastly what of Mr. deniss ross?
he was protoge to Paul Wolfowitz, he is known as Israel's lawyer in washington politico circles.
them is excellent choices when yuh working toward midle east peace and keeping all your options open..oh yeah!
and I talking shit! LOUD STUPES!
-
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.
And another:
Tom Baldwin in Washington
Barack Obama, a leading Democrat candidate in the US presidential race, provoked anger yesterday by threatening to send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists — even without permission from that country’s Government.
Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
OK so it is not technically a pledge, more of a promise!
The fact is that the troop surge has succeeded in reversing the violence in Iraq, as much as that pains you (and me too), it is a fact, his plan to downsize at this time will do exactly what I said it will do, keep troops there, at a lower level and for the forseeable future. doh like dat? take it up with the president elect.
This has nothing to do with Hillary, and everything to do with more of the same. after running a magnificent campaign he has resorted to sale old washington politics.
look at the people he has assembled thus far1
They are hawkish, neo-cons among them, and old clintonites. after promising to CHANE..yes we Can! he has surrounded himself with people who are entrenched in the same washington tradition that he proclaimed destroyed the US.
As for Blackwater and those so-called security firms, he plans to keep them there in Iraq and Afghanistan!
How can you defend that?
Even veteran journalist Robert Parry, the former Associated Press and Newsweek reporter who broke many of the stories in the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980s, has this to say: "Barack Obama seems headed toward some fateful mistakes as he assembles his administration by heeding the advice of Washington's Democratic insider community, a collective group that represents little 'change you can believe in."
His choice of Chief of Satff had me reeling. I know you find it heart warming eh, but to me, that man is a hawkish type who actually volunteered to join Israel's army in 1991, and is a is a hard-line supporter of Israel's "targeted assassination."
that sure leaves a lot of room for dialogue and open discussion doesn't it?
Oh and dat man is the only memeber of the Illonois democratic conventoion to vote infavour of the Invasion of Iraq!
this is Obama's chief of staff's position on another major issue:
"As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we will have a position," he said in December 2005. As Philip Giraldi recently pointed out on Antiwar.com, Emanuel "advocates increasing the size of the U.S. Army by 100,000 soldiers and creating a domestic spying organization like Britain's MI5. More recently, he has supported mandatory paramilitary national service for all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25."
and lastly what of Mr. deniss ross?
he was protoge to Paul Wolfowitz, he is known as Israel's lawyer in washington politico circles.
them is excellent choices when yuh working toward midle east peace and keeping all your options open..oh yeah!
and I talking shit! LOUD STUPES!
The nonsense criticism of Obama recycling Clinton staffers has been addressed and dispatched with but I guess like Palin and McCain... if you repeat the same nonsense enough eventually it will begin to take root. As Obama himself said to Diane Sawyer, the ideas (policy guidance) comes from him. He needs qualified and experienced people (who know the ins and out of Washington/Capitol Hill) especially in times like we're experiencing now, to help him navigate and govern. Now is not the time to be playing maverick with the country facing so many financial, military and social challenges.
As for Emanuel, he voiced a willingness (allegedly) to volunteer for Israel's military and that makes him a warmongering hawk? Yuh doh find dat kinda simplistic... even by your standards?
With regards to Pakistan Obama has said that unsanctioned strikes inside of Pakistan will remain an option... I assume you recognize the sizeable gap between "option" and "pledge"... if if you try so desperately to bridge that gap by calling it a 'promise'... which he never voiced.
-
The Obama Administration....................
I have to ask myself this, how is Obama going to positively
affect my life?
He isn't.
And then the question I was asked ..................
If Obama has a successful Presidential administrative
term will that affect your life positively?
(1)He will 'IF' he is successful. I will judge whether his Presidency is
successful by whether or not the US economy is doing better in
2/3/4 years, and SOLELY by how the economy is performing.
I DO NOT GIVE HIM A SNOWBALLS CHANCE IN HECK OF TURNING THIS
ECONOMY AROUND BY 'THE CHANGES' HE TALKED ABOUT IMPLEMENTING
DURING HIS CAMPAIGN.
Now, why was Geithner and Summers nominated?
(2)Does anyone on this board know that Tim Geithner is fluent in
Mandarin Chinese? Why would Obama want his key financial guy
to be proficient in Chinese?
(3)As for Summers, another Clinton re-tread.
Now, that is change!
Obama promised tax breaks for the middle class, and an increase
in the cap Gains tax.
(4)Help me understand how he plans to give anyone a tax break when
the tax base continues to decline as unemployment rises.
In 2009, unemployment will get to its highest since the Carter days
............... 8.5%/10%/11% +........................
Everyone should be prepared to pay more taxes!
(5)This country desparately needs capital spending, DESPARATELY!
If that is the case, how is he going to raise Cap gains taxes?
Where is the change?
(6)The best change I can see Obama making is moving from the far
Liberal left, and more to the middle. If he doesn't do this, he will
definitely be a one termer.
Google these names, Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini.
Read what these guys are saying, and you will better understand
what is going on in this economy, and where it is headed.
(1)As JDB pointed out earlier, you keep insisting on these foolishly narrow metrics upon which to gauge Obama's success. First was to be based on his impact on the lives of some hypothetical unemployed black man in Alabama. Now you're suggesting that unless he turns the economy around his first term will be a failure. This is nonsensical, pure and simple. The economy is the the most pressing challenge facing Obama right now, but it's not his only challenge. No need for me to reiterate the rest, they're well known. If that is how you subjectively choose to rate his performance then that is your prerogative.
(2)What de France does his linguistic abilities have to do with anything?
(3)You back with this "change" shit talk again? What was Geithner's role under Clinton or Bush? What was his economic policies then, and how do they square with Obama's economic policies?
(4)Simple... it's called borrowing from your left pocket to pay your right pocket. How is he to arrest the rising unemployment if not by creating jobs? How is he supposed to create jobs? How can he pay for that plan?
(5)You probably need to go look up the meaning of 'Capital Gains Tax'... because it has nothing to do with capital spending.
(6)Obama was never on the 'far left' to begin with... he's always been more of a centrist. He's just been painted as an extremist by some on the right, who are themselves extremists. They did this for the simple fact that he's been more focused on helping the poor than helping the rich, and much more interested in an equitable society than a polarized one. All you have to do is to look at his proposed cabinet appointees to see how they reflect his moderate policies... even his harshest critics are taking note. To not acknowledge this is to deliberately refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Bake n Shark, have you ever managed a business?
Own a business?
Simple yes/no question.
No.
...but I'm curious to know how that relates to the discussion.
1 - As the months go along, the economy will become everyone's
focus. Obama will be judged by how he gets this country out of this
morass we are currently entrenched in.
Let me say unequivocally, unemployment will get above 10%, either
in '09 or '10, and inflation will be the worst we have seen since the
Carter days.
If he can turn it around, he gets 4 more years, if he can't............
2 - Geithener (beside his closeness to the Street, and big borkerage
houses) will be Obama's man to go to the Chinese and Japanese to
beg them to keep buying US Treasuries. His ability to speak their
language is going to be a big plus, but even that we will have to wait
and see.
3 - Geithner/Summers/Volker will be Obama's three headed economic
monster. These three guys will make or break Obama.
4 - It's because of this answer I asked the question on whether you
owned or ran a business.
I am not quite sure how taking from the left to pad the right is going
to turn this behemoth around and/or create jobs.
The only way this government is going to be able to create jobs is
by borrowing more money, and taxing more. Currently as a country
we are the largest debtor nation in the world. Currently we owe over
$12 trillion, and by this time next year that number is expected to be
about $14 trillion.
Truth be known, the US of A is technically BANKRUPT.
5 - Capital expenditure and capital gains tax go hand in hand. If you
raise the rate on Cap Gains, there is less money to go to cap ex in
the private sector, and for investing across the board.
The engine of this economy is small business. Small business hires
the most, and invests as much as corporate America.
6 - Obama has always been on the left, but I believe by
the time it's all said and done, he might be another Lieberman, very
centrist, or even right leaning.
I am presuming everyone on this board lives in the US. One of the
great things about a democracy is everyone can have their own
opinion.
What I want to see is Obama do the right thing.
The first right thing he needs to do is let Detroit fail. Put them into
bankruptcy, and let them renegotiate with the unions and lower
wages, thus becoming more competitive. And more importantly,
let them produce vehicles people want.
Will he do that? NO!
Why? he owes the unions for getting him where he is.
The next thing is to 'try and make an honest' effort about the
foreclosure situation. Don't be like Paulson and Bernanke and keep
pissing away money on the Street.
Do I think he is going to do that? NO!
Why? Geithner/Summers/Volker know that if an AIG or Citi fails,
it will bring down the World Financial markets, thus they will
keep asking for money, and keep getting it.
I could keep going on, but will stop.
It's all about the economy (and Mumbai, Kandahar, Baghdad,
Caracas, etc. etc.).
-
How long has Obama been President? I can't recall Obama being in charge of the State for the last 8 years. It just baffles me that people could be so against the country. It seems many of us don't take into consideration that if the people in charge fail then is we nen nen to ketch. The guy have not even been sworn into office and he is doomed to failure. This show that it matters not what he may do it will never be enough.
-
According to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/politics/01rice.html?hp)... Obama is set to name Susan E. Rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_E._Rice) as his choice for U.N. Ambassador.
-
Richardson Pick for Obama Cabinet Prompts Call for More Latinos
Dec. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Bill Richardson’s nomination as Commerce secretary won’t satisfy top Latino lawmakers, who sent President-elect Barack Obama’s transition office a letter yesterday afternoon recommending a slate of 14 Hispanics for the remaining eight Cabinet slots.
“We’d definitely be disappointed,” if Richardson, 61, a former energy secretary and United Nations ambassador, were the lone Latino in Obama’s Cabinet, said California Representative Joe Baca, the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He warned that Obama’s legislative agenda could be jeopardized if the president-elect doesn’t nominate additional Hispanics.
“If it’s just one, he’s going to have to answer to a lot of the issues that come before us,” Baca said in an interview.
There could be one more appointment soon. Two Democrats close to Obama’s transition office said that Representative Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat, has been offered the job of U.S. trade representative. The two Democrats didn’t say Becerra, 50, will accept the post.
Obama’s victories in New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada, all states carried by President George W. Bush in 2004, was “in large measure because of Hispanic support,” said Representative Charles Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat. Election-day exit polls of Latinos gave Obama a 2-to-1 advantage on Nov. 4.
Obama is expected to announce Richardson’s selection today in Chicago, a Democratic official said.
Becerra, who once declared U.S. trade policy was “broken completely,” would take part in global trade talks, negotiate with China on product-safety issues and possibly renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Caucus Recommendations
The Hispanic Caucus letter recommends Colorado Representative John Salazar for agriculture secretary, Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrion for Housing and Urban Development secretary and Texas Assemblyman Rick Noriega for veterans’ affairs secretary, among others.
Baca described the letter, sent to transition director John Podesta, as the “the beginning of demonstrating that we are ones to be reckoned with and not to be taken lightly.” Baca and Gonzalez signed the letter on behalf of the 21-member caucus.
Richardson is the highest-profile Latino elected official in the U.S. Before being elected as governor of New Mexico in 2002 and winning a second term in 2006, he served in two Cabinet positions in President Bill Clinton’s administration and eight terms in the U.S. House.
Endorsed Obama
Richardson ended his own bid for the Democratic presidential nomination in January and later endorsed Obama, calling him a “once-in-a-lifetime leader” who can unite the country. That move was a rebuke to Hillary Clinton, and her husband publicly lashed out at Richardson at the time.
For several weeks, Baca and Gonzalez led a group of 10 lawmakers to create a list for Obama’s transition team, which was approved by a required two-thirds of the caucus members.
“We understand that the incoming administration will have a vast pool of talent from which to choose,” wrote Baca and Gonzalez. “The individuals we have endorsed constitute the best talent, while reflecting the diversity that is so valued by President-elect Obama.”
Baca expects Obama to improve upon the two Hispanics that Presidents Clinton and Bush had in their Cabinets. “We’ll start with two and then work for three,” he said. “But it’s got to be more than what we’ve had.”
Bush, Clinton Picks
Bush began his first term with Mel Martinez serving as Housing and Urban Development secretary and Alberto Gonzales as his White House counsel. In his second term, Bush promoted Gonzales to attorney general and had Carlos Gutierrez as his commerce secretary.
Clinton started off with Henry Cisneros at HUD and Federico Pena as transportation secretary and then later as his energy secretary, until Pena was replaced by Richardson.
Gonzalez said he was “confident” that Obama will select additional Hispanics for his Cabinet, insisting that “the process is still in play.” He cheered the choices of Louis Caldera to head the White House Military Affairs Office and Cecilia Munoz as White House director of intergovernmental affairs.
Other Latino lawmakers, while insisting that Hispanics deserved credit for the Democrats’ victory, said they weren’t focused on Obama’s final Cabinet tally. Representative Linda Sanchez, who left the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in 2006 but was still recommended the group as a potential labor secretary, said “for me it’s not a numbers game.”
She criticized Baca for “speaking a little hastily,” in setting down firm demands that Obama appoint more than two Hispanics. Baca is “very strident and he’s very passionate,” about wanting to ensconce Hispanics in influential positions.
Clinton Alumni
Republicans, meanwhile, had their own criticism of the Richardson pick. “Nothing says change like picking the Clinton administration’s energy secretary and UN representative to be commerce secretary,” said Alex Conant, a spokesman at the Republican National Committee.
Obama already has tapped top officials from the Clinton administration, including former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers to be his White House economic director, former Treasury official Timothy Geithner as his Treasury secretary, and Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel, who was a special adviser to Bill Clinton, as his chief of staff. Obama also picked Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state.
“Obama’s Cabinet is starting to look like a Clinton administration reunion,” Conant said.
-
“Obama’s Cabinet is starting to look like a Clinton administration reunion,” Conant said.
-
“Obama’s Cabinet is starting to look like a Clinton administration reunion,” Conant said.
I knew you would latch onto that ... heheheh :). Let's not neglect the source of the comment. It's not like the Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford and Nixon White Houses didn't have overlapping personnel.
-
In a related development ...
Chinese-American activists oppose any Bill Richardson cabinet nomination
By Ken McLaughlin
Mercury News
12/02/2008 07:25:29 PM PST
In a move bound to create political tension between Latinos and Asian-Americans, a group of Chinese-American activists in Silicon Valley has launched a nationwide grass-roots movement to fight President-elect Barack Obama's nomination today of Bill Richardson as commerce secretary.
The group is upset at the New Mexico governor for his handling of the nearly decade-old case of Taiwanese-American Wen Ho Lee, a former nuclear scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. U.S. officials once suspected Lee of giving nuclear secrets to China when Richardson was President Clinton's energy secretary.
The Chinese-Americans say they realize that challenging the nomination of Richardson, 61, the nation's most high-profile Hispanic politician, will ruffle the Latino community, many of whose leaders felt he should have been named secretary of state instead of Sen. Hillary Clinton.
But the Chinese-American group insists that Richardson's refusal to acknowledge making serious errors in the case makes it a moral imperative to oppose his nomination to Obama's Cabinet. They say their criticism of Richardson has nothing to do with him being Latino but everything to do with his lack of judgment in the case.
"This was the major Chinese-American civil rights case ??? in the last 30 years,'' said Albert Wang, a Fremont physician. "And there was a feeling among many Chinese-Americans, particularly in Silicon Valley, that Bill Richardson did a lot to promote the notion that all Chinese-Americans are potential spies.''
The group has already gathered more than 4,000 electronic signatures protesting Richardson's nomination as head of the federal department dealing with business and industry.
A former congressman and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Richardson ran for president against Obama in the Democratic primary and later endorsed him over Sen. Clinton. He has acknowledged the government made "some mistakes'' in the Lee case, but he has denied that his public statements naming Lee as an espionage suspect represented racial scapegoating or exhibited a lack of judgment.
But Roger Hu, a 30-year-old Silicon Valley engineer who was raised in Los Altos and was an Obama delegate at the Democratic convention, has written an "open letter'' to Obama and the transition team stating that Richardson should not be nominated or confirmed for any Cabinet-level position.
In the letter, which appears on his blog at http:/ notorich.blogspot.com, Hu says he became aware of the Lee case when he was entering his senior year at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
"Richardson's actions were simply inexcusable,'' he writes.
Hu, Wang and well-known Chinese-American human rights activists such as Henry Der plan to say in a new letter to Obama today, posted at www.wenholee.org, that Richardson's actions violated Lee's due process rights by firing him without the required legal notice. It will also accuse Richardson of promoting Lee's indictment when there was no evidence that he had engaged in espionage.
Until Richardson apologizes for his actions, the group says, it will continue to oppose the nomination.
Der accused Richardson of fueling suspicions about the loyalties of dedicated, hardworking Chinese-Americans.
"Wen Ho Lee bore the brunt of Richardson's actions, but there were many Chinese-American scientists who felt great fear,'' said Der, who once headed Chinese for Affirmative Action in San Francisco. "Even I got a visit from the FBI, and I'm not a scientist.''
Caitlin Kelleher, press spokeswoman for Gov. Richardson, referred calls on Tuesday to Obama's transition office. A spokesman there would not comment on anyone not yet officially nominated.
Victor Garza, chairman of La Raza Roundtable, a San Jose-based civil rights group with about 800 members, said Richardson "is one of the most high-profile Hispanics in the United States who has done an excellent job in many high-profile jobs.''
Noting that his group has endorsed many Asian-Americans running for local offices, Garza said he hopes "my brothers and sisters who happen to be Chinese don't allow their resentment'' over Richardson's handling of the Lee case "to become a single issue'' that could threaten his nomination.
"And I hope this single issue won't create a major problem between the two groups,'' Garza said.
Lee, now 68, was indicted on Dec. 10, 1999, on 59 counts that accused him of mishandling nuclear weapons secrets. His arrest followed months of press reports and speculation that he had passed secrets to China — something with which he was never charged and always denied. He spent the next nine months in solitary confinement at the Santa Fe County Jail.
Supporters claimed Lee, who was born in Taiwan and is a naturalized U.S. citizen, was being targeted because of his race. The government denied that, although former Los Alamos counterintelligence chief Robert Vrooman says Lee was singled out because he is ethnic Chinese.
Initially, government attorneys said Lee had stolen the "crown jewels" of U.S. nuclear weaponry science and intended to turn them over to a foreign power. But the government was eventually forced to acknowledge that the material was classified "restricted" rather than secret and that "99 percent" of the material was already available to the public.
Lee eventually pleaded guilty to one felony count of downloading sensitive material and was sentenced to time served.
Some political analysts see the dust-up as one of the opening salvos in an evolving political mosaic created by the election of the nation's first black president.
Gregory Rodriguez, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, said the controversy shows that all the talk about a "post-racial America'' is overblown.
"We believed we were going to work our way to the point where race did not matter,'' said Rodriguez, author of "Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America.''
But the reality, Rodriguez said, is that "race is only going to affect our society in more complex ways.''
-
“Obama’s Cabinet is starting to look like a Clinton administration reunion,” Conant said.
I knew you would latch onto that ... heheheh :). Let's not neglect the source of the comment. It's not like the Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford and Nixon White Houses didn't have overlapping personnel.
I latched on to what was obvious to all but a select few.
And his cabinet is so damn hawkish, can harldy distinguish it from Bush's....well to an extent anyway!
-
It hadda be like that ... well not 'hadda' but it's the wisest path ... I would characterise it as slightly left of center to moderately right of center re: national security ... in other words, it's justly positioned (when viewed as a collective balance).
-
It hadda be like that ... well not 'hadda' but it's the wisest path ... I would characterise it as slightly left of center to moderately right of center re: national security ... in other words, it's justly positioned (when viewed as a collective balance).
so it has multiple personality disorder? left of center to right of center...hmmmm.
you do realize that the US under Clinton engaged in the longest bombing campaign?
These people are very hawkish...Hillary, Biden.....his chief of staff endorsed targeted assination...like that fella de preacher in Virginia....Pat Robertson, den mr ross and his pro Irael history....wow!
left of center you say>>>>>>...????
-
The decision-maker is pragmatic. He is not a right wing ideologue. Neither is he a left wing ideologue. Some of those he has assembled are left of center. Some of those he's assembled are right of center. He's perfectly positioned to pivot accordingly.
Incidentally, is hawkism per se a horrible thing? In the abstract, being a dove isn't a terrible thing either. In the real world, some days are dove days and some days are hawk days. Ent? Most days yuh could get by as a ... pigeon? :)
P.S. At least this President won't be a parrot without a carrot.
-
More Caribbean Americans for Obama Cabinet?
WASHINGTON DC, United States, November 26, 2008 - United States President-elect Barack Obama could be bringing even more Caribbean Americans into the fold of his Cabinet.
Hot on the heels of word that Barbadian American Eric Holder may be the next US attorney general, and amidst speculation that Anthony Brown, born to a Jamaican father could be the next head of the Department of Veteran Affairs, a Haitian American is set to be given a post in the Obama administration.
Patrick Gaspard, who serves as the associate director of personnel for the Presidential Transition Team and was also National Political Director for Obama's presidential campaign, has been named the next director of the White House's Office of Political Affairs.
The office he will oversee has been strongly denounced by some Republicans and Democrats. It was created by President Ronald Reagan, and while it has been criticized for as long, it has also been staffed by every president since.
Mr Gaspard worked for Governor Howard Dean's presidential campaign and numerous congressional candidates, and campaigns going back to the historic Mayoral election in New York in 1989.
He is a former community organiser around school reform issues.
-
Former Treasury Secretary (and Harvard President) Larry Summers to head National Economic Council
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07summers.html?hp
and Ret. Gen. Eric Shinseki, critic of the Iraq war set to be named head of the Veterans Administration
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/07/us/politics/07shinseki.html?ref=politics
Here's the vid of Obama on Meet The Press this morning, describing his rationale for the selection (still having issues embedding non-YouTube vids)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/28086865#28086865
Shinseki is the highest-ranking Asian-American ever in the armed forces; lost part of his right leg in Vietnam and notably said that the US would need several hundred thousand troops to settle the Iraq issue. At the time it was a very controversial statement which angered Rumsfeld (apparently) since that opinion ran counter to the Bush Administration's message that any war in Iraq would not require significant ground troops. After being villified by the Bushites Shinseki subsequently retired a few months later.
Of course now we all know that he was right in predicting the level of troop committment and in predicting the ethnic conflagrations that erupted following the fall of Saddam. I overlooked much of this when it was happening (the Shinseki controversy), but I distinctly remember his name and face. Looking back on it now, he seems almost preternaturally prescient in assessing the situation. While this may not be a strategic post for him, but I like the idea of both rewarding him for his service (if one considers this a reward), and for putting in charge of this troubled agency, someone who will be committed to veterans affairs, and seemingly committed to doing what is right, regardless the political/professional cost.
-
Sudan's leaders brace for shift in U.S. policy
Obama team seen as likely to adopt a harder line against violence in Darfur
NAIROBI, Kenya - If the election of Barack Obama has been greeted with glee across much of Africa, there is at least one spot where the mood is decidedly different.
In the Sudanese capital of Khartoum these days, political elites are bracing for what they expect will be a major shift in U.S. policy toward a government the United States has blamed for orchestrating a violent campaign against civilians in the western Darfur region.
"Compared to the Republicans, the Democrats, I think they are hawks," said Ghazi Suleiman, a human rights lawyer and member of the Southern People's Liberation Movement, which has a fragile power-sharing agreement with the ruling party. "I know Obama's appointees. And I know their policy towards Sudan. Everybody here knows it. The policy is very aggressive and very harsh. I think we really will miss the judgments of George W. Bush." {this is too funny}
While the Bush administration most recently advocated the idea of "normalizing" relations with Sudan as a carrot approach to ending a crisis it labeled a genocide, Obama's foreign policy appointees have pushed for sticks.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the nominee for secretary of state, has called for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to "blanket" Darfur in order to prevent Sudanese bombing of villages. The appointee for U.N. ambassador, Susan E. Rice -- a key Africa adviser to the Clinton administration during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, when President Bill Clinton was sharply criticized for failing to act -- has pushed for U.S. or NATO airstrikes and a naval blockade of Sudan's major port to prevent lucrative oil exports. Rice has vowed to "go down in flames" advocating tough measures.
Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was chosen for his foreign policy experience and pressed early for U.S. intervention to stop the fighting in the Balkans, was blunt during a hearing last year: "I would use American force now," he said.
But it remains unclear how those pre-election views will square with the president-elect, who has outlined a pragmatic, coalition-based approach to foreign policy, while also speaking of America's "moral obligation" in the face of humanitarian catastrophes of the sort that are plentiful in Africa.
More cautious than his appointees
Heading off potential genocide is the focus of a task force report to be released today in Washington. The group recommends, among other things, that the Obama administration create a high-level forum in the White House to direct the government's response to threats of mass violence.
So far, Obama has been more cautious on Darfur than some of his appointees, advocating tougher sanctions against Khartoum and a no-fly zone that might be enforced with U.S. "help." He has not called for direct U.S. intervention.
Obama intends to keep Bush's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, who has already suggested that the United States will not provide much-needed helicopters to a struggling peacekeeping mission in Darfur because U.S. forces are stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has also nominated as national security adviser retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, a former NATO supreme allied commander who has suggested that NATO's role in Darfur should be training and support to the current peacekeeping mission rather than direct intervention.
And specialists close to Obama's presidential campaign said that more generally, the new administration sees a need for diplomatic approaches to security crises across the continent.
"We don't have the capacity to pacify these places militarily," said John Prendergast, a Darfur activist and former White House aide during the Clinton administration, citing Sudan and the worsening conflicts in Congo and Somalia. "We need political solutions."
Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, dismissed the calls for military action as "only election slogans."
"You cannot claim to be disengaging from disasters like Iraq but creating a new disaster in one of Africa's biggest countries," he said.
The crisis is in many ways a far more complex conflict than the one the Bush administration confronted. The violence in Darfur began in February 2003 when two rebel groups attacked Sudan's Islamic government, claiming a pattern of bias against the region's black African tribes. Khartoum organized a local Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed, to wage a scorched-earth campaign against the three ethnic groups -- mostly farmers and traders -- thought to be the rebels' political base.
Some analysts estimate that as many as 450,000 people have died from disease and violence in the conflict. About half the population of the Darfur region -- about 2.5 million people -- are now displaced.
But most of that damage occurred during the first two years of the conflict.
Since then, the rebel factions have splintered into dozens of groups who have so far been unable to translate their anger at the government into a political platform for negotiations. And the sides are more fluid now, with fighting among various Arab tribes and rebel factions displacing more people this year than government bombings.
Some analysts and Sudanese observers with no love for the government of Omar Hassan al-Bashir worry that Obama's administration may try to impose a military solution that might have worked at the height of the killing in 2004 and 2005, but not anymore.
"Things have changed dramatically since 2004," said a senior U.N. political officer in Khartoum, who asked not to be identified so that he could speak more freely. "The kind of conflict we have now is really a low-intensity conflict with high-intensity political ramifications. So all of this posturing of a military solution, or a no-fly zone, it's not going to work."
"But," he said, "Obama is going to be pragmatic in Iraq and other places, and Sudan will be the place he shows his toughness. It's not necessarily good for the strategic outcome of the situation."
-
The U.N. official and others said that military intervention could have dangerous consequences for Sudan as a whole, as well as the nine countries bordering it.
As venal as many consider Bashir's government to be, it did sign a landmark peace deal that ended a long and bloody civil war between the north and south. If Bashir's government is destabilized, that deal could fall apart, plunging another huge swath of the country into war.
Military intervention could also run the risk of inflaming the Islamists who have been key supporters of Bashir's government, which once hosted Osama bin Laden. In 1998, the Clinton administration bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum in part because its owners were thought to have ties to bin Laden.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
"Any destabilization of this government and all these Islamist elements will certainly turn into a dangerous force," said Saswat Fanous, a political science professor in Khartoum and ruling party lawmaker. "They will be driven underground, and they will invite in a flood of radical Islamists coming from the region into Sudan."
The U.N. official shared that concern. The conflict in Darfur is just one of many over the past 20 years that essentially pit those in the center against those in the marginalized periphery, he said. The problem at hand is how to build a politically stable, democratic Sudan that shares power broadly among southerners, Darfurians and residents of other regions.
"As revolting as this government may be, they are indispensable to solving the problem of Sudan," the official said. "They are part of the problem and part of the solution. If the Obama administration is going to be driven by anger, then really, really it is going to be tragic, naive politics."
But an Obama campaign adviser who worked closely on the candidate's Africa positions said the naive move would be to think it is possible to trust Bashir's regime, which has a long history of broken promises and is highly unpopular across much of Sudan.
The adviser noted that the government only signed the deal with the south after the U.S. helped push it into a corner by indirectly arming the southern rebels. Eventually, the government realized it could not win.
Arrest warrant for Bashir?
Accountability should also be part of any long-term political settlement in Sudan, the adviser said; the leaders who orchestrated the campaign in Darfur must face their misdeeds, he said, even if that comes several years late.
"If we accept the notion that the brutality we've witnessed from this regime over the past two decades is acceptable to bring about temporary stability, then shouldn't we have done the same for the Nazis in Germany?" said the adviser, who was instructed not to speak to the news media.
Obama is likely to face choices on Sudan soon, as judges at the International Criminal Court are expected to decide whether to issue an arrest warrant for Bashir on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Obama has pledged to increase U.S. cooperation with the Hague-based court and is expected to honor an arrest warrant for Bashir.
But the adviser said that military options, including covert operations and regime change, are likely to remain under serious discussion in the new administration.
"These people have been in power for almost 20 years " the adviser said. "I doubt that the majority of Sudanese would cry if they were ousted."
Lynch reported from New York.
-
Rancid, yuh been doing yuh homework ... heheh :) ... at the risk of diverting the thread into a foreign policy thread ah go join yuh.
Sudan's leaders brace for shift in U.S. policy
Obama team seen as likely to adopt a harder line against violence in Darfur
NAIROBI, Kenya - If the election of Barack Obama has been greeted with glee across much of Africa, there is at least one spot where the mood is decidedly different.
In the Sudanese capital of Khartoum these days, political elites are bracing for what they expect will be a major shift in U.S. policy toward a government the United States has blamed for orchestrating a violent campaign against civilians in the western Darfur region.
"Compared to the Republicans, the Democrats, I think they are hawks," said Ghazi Suleiman, a human rights lawyer and member of the Southern People's Liberation Movement, which has a fragile power-sharing agreement with the ruling party. "I know Obama's appointees. And I know their policy towards Sudan. Everybody here knows it. The policy is very aggressive and very harsh. I think we really will miss the judgments of George W. Bush." {this is too funny}
While the Bush administration most recently advocated the idea of "normalizing" relations with Sudan as a carrot approach to ending a crisis it labeled a genocide, Obama's foreign policy appointees have pushed for sticks.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, the nominee for secretary of state, has called for a NATO-enforced no-fly zone to "blanket" Darfur in order to prevent Sudanese bombing of villages. The appointee for U.N. ambassador, Susan E. Rice -- a key Africa adviser to the Clinton administration during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, when President Bill Clinton was sharply criticized for failing to act -- has pushed for U.S. or NATO airstrikes and a naval blockade of Sudan's major port to prevent lucrative oil exports. Rice has vowed to "go down in flames" advocating tough measures.
Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., who was chosen for his foreign policy experience and pressed early for U.S. intervention to stop the fighting in the Balkans, was blunt during a hearing last year: "I would use American force now," he said.
But it remains unclear how those pre-election views will square with the president-elect, who has outlined a pragmatic, coalition-based approach to foreign policy, while also speaking of America's "moral obligation" in the face of humanitarian catastrophes of the sort that are plentiful in Africa.
More cautious than his appointees
Heading off potential genocide is the focus of a task force report to be released today in Washington. The group recommends, among other things, that the Obama administration create a high-level forum in the White House to direct the government's response to threats of mass violence.
So far, Obama has been more cautious on Darfur than some of his appointees, advocating tougher sanctions against Khartoum and a no-fly zone that might be enforced with U.S. "help." He has not called for direct U.S. intervention.
Obama intends to keep Bush's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, who has already suggested that the United States will not provide much-needed helicopters to a struggling peacekeeping mission in Darfur because U.S. forces are stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has also nominated as national security adviser retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, a former NATO supreme allied commander who has suggested that NATO's role in Darfur should be training and support to the current peacekeeping mission rather than direct intervention.
And specialists close to Obama's presidential campaign said that more generally, the new administration sees a need for diplomatic approaches to security crises across the continent.
"We don't have the capacity to pacify these places militarily," said John Prendergast, a Darfur activist and former White House aide during the Clinton administration, citing Sudan and the worsening conflicts in Congo and Somalia. "We need political solutions."
Sudan's U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmood Abdalhaleem Mohamad, dismissed the calls for military action as "only election slogans."
"You cannot claim to be disengaging from disasters like Iraq but creating a new disaster in one of Africa's biggest countries," he said.
The crisis is in many ways a far more complex conflict than the one the Bush administration confronted. The violence in Darfur began in February 2003 when two rebel groups attacked Sudan's Islamic government, claiming a pattern of bias against the region's black African tribes. Khartoum organized a local Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed, to wage a scorched-earth campaign against the three ethnic groups -- mostly farmers and traders -- thought to be the rebels' political base.
Some analysts estimate that as many as 450,000 people have died from disease and violence in the conflict. About half the population of the Darfur region -- about 2.5 million people -- are now displaced.
But most of that damage occurred during the first two years of the conflict.
Since then, the rebel factions have splintered into dozens of groups who have so far been unable to translate their anger at the government into a political platform for negotiations. And the sides are more fluid now, with fighting among various Arab tribes and rebel factions displacing more people this year than government bombings.
Some analysts and Sudanese observers with no love for the government of Omar Hassan al-Bashir worry that Obama's administration may try to impose a military solution that might have worked at the height of the killing in 2004 and 2005, but not anymore.
"Things have changed dramatically since 2004," said a senior U.N. political officer in Khartoum, who asked not to be identified so that he could speak more freely. "The kind of conflict we have now is really a low-intensity conflict with high-intensity political ramifications. So all of this posturing of a military solution, or a no-fly zone, it's not going to work."
"But," he said, "Obama is going to be pragmatic in Iraq and other places, and Sudan will be the place he shows his toughness. It's not necessarily good for the strategic outcome of the situation."
Regarding Ghazi Suleiman's comments: To extend my metaphor ... worse than a parrot with a stick? worse than applying policy baselessly? ... worse than applying force mindlessly? Worse than lacking a predator's instinct to deviate course when the sought after prey has deviated course or is in fact, an inappropriate target?
I believe John Garang would have tempered that sort of rhetoric were he still alive or if he had survived his crash, especially at this stage of the proceedings prior to the seating of the next President.
Nevertheless, Ghazi's comments are no doubt related to the last sentence highlighted in red ... I suggest they are very particularized comments and should not be manipulated to serve your agenda ;D ... especially when one considers that a) the foreign policy group are not proxies/substitutes etc for Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz or Cheney, and b) Bush has been all about the stick where it shouldn't have mattered or been applied and been all about the carrot where it could have been applied in a timely manner. (refer to the present North Korean discourse ... alumnus of the School of the Axis of Evil)
Wouldn't you prefer some hawks with carrots and doves with sticks?
When did you start digesting the commentary of human rights lawyers without the proportional grain of salt?
-
BTW Rancid, doh bother asking me what your agenda is ... I've saved you the trouble ... it dey in between the bolded parts that matter. :devil: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Liberals voice concerns about Obama
Carol E. Lee, Nia-Malika Henderson Carol E. Lee, Nia-malika Henderson – Mon Dec 8 (Yahoo News)
Liberals are growing increasingly nervous – and some just flat-out angry – that President-elect Barack Obama seems to be stiffing them on Cabinet jobs and policy choices.
Obama has reversed pledges to immediately repeal tax cuts for the wealthy and take on Big Oil. He’s hedged his call for a quick drawdown in Iraq. And he’s stocking his White House with anything but stalwarts of the left.
Now some are shedding a reluctance to puncture the liberal euphoria at being rid of President George W. Bush to say, in effect, that the new boss looks like the old boss.
“He has confirmed what our suspicions were by surrounding himself with a centrist to right cabinet. But we do hope that before it's all over we can get at least one authentic progressive appointment,” said Tim Carpenter, national director of the Progressive Democrats of America.
OpenLeft blogger Chris Bowers went so far as to issue this plaintive plea: “Isn't there ever a point when we can get an actual Democratic administration?”
Even supporters make clear they’re on the lookout for backsliding. “There’s a concern that he keep his basic promises and people are going to watch him,” said Roger Hickey, a co-founder of Campaign for America’s Future.
Obama insists he hasn’t abandoned the goals that made him feel to some like a liberal savior. But the left’s bill of particulars against Obama is long, and growing.
Obama drew rousing applause at campaign events when he vowed to tax the windfall profits of oil companies. As president-elect, Obama says he won’t enact the tax.
Obama’s pledge to repeal the Bush tax cuts and redistribute that money to the middle class made him a hero among Democrats who said the cuts favored the wealthy. But now he’s struck a more cautious stance on rolling back tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year, signaling he’ll merely let them expire as scheduled at the end of 2010.
Obama’s post-election rhetoric on Iraq and choices for national security team have some liberal Democrats even more perplexed. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office.
Now Obama’s says that on his first day in office he will begin to “design a plan for a responsible drawdown,” as he told NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. Obama has also filled his national security positions with supporters of the Iraq war: Sen. Hillary Clinton, who voted to authorize force in Iraq, as his secretary of state; and President George W. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert Gates, continuing in the same role.
The central premise of the left’s criticism is direct – don’t bite the hand that feeds, Mr. President-elect. The Internet that helped him so much during the election is lighting up with irritation and critiques.
“There don't seem to be any liberals in Obama's cabinet,” writes John Aravosis, the editor of Americablog.com. “What does all of this mean for Obama's policies, and just as important, Obama Supreme Court announcements?”
“Actually, it reminds me a bit of the campaign, at least the beginning and the middle, when the Obama campaign didn't seem particularly interested in reaching out to progressives,” Aravosis continues. “Once they realized that in order to win they needed to marshal everyone on their side, the reaching out began. I hope we're not seeing a similar ‘we can do it alone’ approach in the transition team.”
This isn’t the first liberal letdown over Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.
Now it’s Obama’s Cabinet moves that are drawing the most fire. It’s not just that he’s picked Clinton and Gates. It’s that liberal Democrats say they’re hard-pressed to find one of their own on Obama’s team so far – particularly on the economic side, where people like Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers are hardly viewed as pro-labor.
“At his announcement of an economic team there was no secretary of labor. If you don’t think the labor secretary is on the same level as treasury secretary, that gives me pause,” said Jonathan Tasini, who runs the website workinglife.org. “The president-elect wouldn't be president-elect without labor."
During the campaign Obama gained labor support by saying he favored legislation that would make it easier for unions to form inside companies. The “card check” bill would get rid of a secret-ballot method of voting to form a union and replace it with a system that would require companies to recognize unions simply if a majority of workers signed cards saying they want one. Obama still supports that legislation, aides say – but union leaders are worried that he no longer talks it up much as president-elect.
“It's complicated,” said Tasini, who challenged Clinton for Senate in 2006. “On the one hand, the guy hasn't even taken office yet so it's a little hasty to be criticizing him. On the other hand, there is legitimate cause for concern. I think people are still waiting but there is some edginess about this.”
That’s a view that seems to have kept some progressive leaders holding their fire. There are signs of a struggle within the left wing of the Democratic Party about whether it’s just too soon to criticize Obama -- and if there’s really anything to complain about just yet. :applause:
Case in point: One of the Campaign for America’s Future blogs commented on Obama’s decision not to tax oil companies’ windfall profits saying, “Between this move and the move to wait to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it seems like the Obama team is buying into the right-wing frame that raising any taxes - even those on the richest citizens and wealthiest corporations - is bad for the economy.”
Yet Campaign for America’s Future will be join (sic) about 150 progressive organizations, economists and labor groups to release a statement Tuesday in support of a large economic stimulus package like the one Obama has proposed, said Hickey, a co-founder of the group.
“I’ve heard the most grousing about the windfall profits tax, but on the other hand, Obama has committed himself to a stimulus package that makes a down payment on energy efficiency and green jobs,” Hickey said. “The old argument was, here’s how we afford to make these investments – we tax the oil companies’ windfall profits. … The new argument is, in a bad economy that could get worse, we don’t.”
Obama is asking for patience – saying he’s only shifting his stance on some issues because circumstances are shifting.
Aides say he backed off the windfall profits tax because oil prices have
dropped below $80 a barrel. Obama also defended hedging on the Bush tax cuts.
“My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans?” Obama said on “Meet the Press.” “We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be.”
On Iraq, he says he’s just trying to make sure any U.S. pullout doesn’t ignite “any resurgence of terrorism in Iraq that could threaten our interests.”
Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.
“I think that when you ultimately look at what this advisory board looks like, you'll say this is a cross-section of opinion that in some ways reinforces conventional wisdom, in some ways breaks with orthodoxy in all sorts of way,” Obama recently said in response to questions about his appointments during a news conference on the economy.
The leaders of some liberal groups are willing to wait and see.
“He hasn’t had a first day in office,” said John Isaacs, the executive director for Council for Livable World. “To me it’s not as important as who’s there, than what kind of policies they carry out.”
“These aren’t out-and-out liberals on the national security team, but they may be successful implementers of what the Obama national security policy is,” Isaacs added. “We want to see what policies are carried forward, as opposed to appointments.”
Juan Cole, who runs a prominent anti-war blog called Informed Comment, said he worries Obama will get bad advice from Clinton on the Middle East, calling her too pro-Israel and “belligerent” toward Iran. “But overall, my estimation is that he has chosen competence over ideology, and I'm willing to cut him some slack,” Cole said.
Other voices of the left don’t like what they’re seeing so far and aren’t waiting for more before they speak up.
New York Times columnist Frank Rich warned that Obama’s economic team of Summers and Geithner reminded him of John F. Kennedy’s “best and the brightest” team, who blundered in Vietnam despite their blue-chip pedigrees.
David Corn, Washington bureau chief of the liberal magazine Mother Jones, wrote in Sunday’s Washington Post that he is “not yet reaching for a pitchfork.”
But the headline of his op-ed sums up his point about Obama’s Cabinet appointments so far: “This Wasn’t Quite the Change We Envisioned.”
-
Obama has told his supporters to look beyond his appointments, that the change he promised will come from him and that when his administration comes together they will be happy.
That right there is my biggest worry.
So he surrounds himself with people he says are not going to just be ys men...and now the changs will come from him.
Maybe he needs to read a few pages of the books written about Lincoln's Presidency, you know the one called Abraham?
The one he so often tries to say he is patterning his presidency after!
Oh ah yeah, he has filled his cabinet with one setta hawks...all who ha openly an vociferously supported the ar in Iraq. Nice going, BIG changes are comingz!
As for the veiw that he has chosen competence over ideaology, we will see.
My complaints that he is not liberal enough is not wasted on you, I see. I am not into complaining for th sake of complaining, it is simply the premise that if you lie with dogs, you get fas..or the other one...how does it go?
"Show me your frinds and I will show you who you are!" or something so.
-
Court: No review of Obama's eligibility to serve
President-elect Barack Obama listens to a reporter's question during a news AP – President-elect Barack Obama listens to a reporter's question during a news conference in Chicago, Sunday, …
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has turned down an emergency appeal from a New Jersey man who says President-elect Barack Obama is ineligible to be president because he was a British subject at birth. The court did not comment on its order Monday rejecting the call by Leo Donofrio of East Brunswick, N.J., to intervene in the presidential election.
Donofrio says that since Obama had dual nationality at birth — his mother was American and his Kenyan father at the time was a British subject — he cannot possibly be a "natural born citizen," one of the requirements the Constitution lists for eligibility to be president.
Donofrio also contends that two other candidates, Republican John McCain and Socialist Workers candidate Roger Calero, also are not natural-born citizens and thus ineligible to be president.
At least one other appeal over Obama's citizenship remains at the court. Philip J. Berg of Lafayette Hill, Pa., argues that Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama says and Hawaii officials have confirmed.
Berg says Obama also may be a citizen of Indonesia, where he lived as a boy. Federal courts in Pennsylvania have dismissed Berg's lawsuit. Federal courts in Ohio and Washington state have rejected similar lawsuits.
Allegations raised on the Internet say the birth certificate, showing that Obama was born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, is a fake.
But Hawaii Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and the state's registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, say they checked health department records and have determined there's no doubt Obama was born in Hawaii.
The nonpartisan Web site Factcheck.org examined the original document and said it does have a raised seal and the usual evidence of a genuine document.
In addition, Factcheck.org reproduced an announcement of Obama's birth, including his parents' address in Honolulu, that was published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Aug. 13, 1961.
(This version CORRECTS that Hawaii officials, not secretary of state, confirmed Obama birth certificate.)
-
Environmental team apparently set. In order:
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/11/us/obamaites600.jpg)
Carol Browner for the top role on Climate and Energy Policy
Steven Chu for Energy Secretary
Lisa P. Jackson as EPA Secretary
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/us/politics/11appoint.html
... also, Daschle officially announced today for Secretary of Health position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/us/politics/w11health.html?hp?hp
The team thus far...
http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/new_team
-
Hmmmmm ... .Chu named ... *cough* *cough* ... connected to appeasing the Chinese activists?
Have a look at the personal life section of de man's wiki entry
-
Hmmmmm ... .Chu named ... *cough* *cough* ... connected to appeasing the Chinese activists?
Have a look at the personal life section of de man's wiki entry
Appeasement perhaps for Wen Ho Lee... and the resultant Bill Richardson controversy. He is eminently qualified though.
I personally would have liked to see Al Gore or Michael Kennedy get one of those positions...
-
Hmmmmm ... .Chu named ... *cough* *cough* ... connected to appeasing the Chinese activists?
Have a look at the personal life section of de man's wiki entry
Appeasement perhaps for Wen Ho Lee... and the resultant Bill Richardson controversy. He is eminently qualified though.
I personally would have liked to see Al Gore or Michael Kennedy get one of those positions...
you mean RFK Jr.?
he seem like a nice guy but I'll pass on the kennedys thank you. right now they saying that Caroline Kennedy getting Hillary job is 50/50 and that bad enough as far as I concerned.
-
Hmmmmm ... .Chu named ... *cough* *cough* ... connected to appeasing the Chinese activists?
Have a look at the personal life section of de man's wiki entry
Appeasement perhaps for Wen Ho Lee... and the resultant Bill Richardson controversy. He is eminently qualified though.
I personally would have liked to see Al Gore or Michael Kennedy get one of those positions...
you mean RFK Jr.?
he seem like a nice guy but I'll pass on the kennedys thank you. right now they saying that Caroline Kennedy getting Hillary job is 50/50 and that bad enough as far as I concerned.
Yeah RFK Jr.
You could pass all yuh want... the Kennedys are kingmakers, and played no small role in Obama's ascendancy. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has been very active in environmental issues the past 4-5 yrs and is widely regarded by many as a leading voice in both the global warming and alternate fuel debates.
Still think there's a role there for him in this administration.
Don't really have much of an opinion on Caroline Kennedy.
-
I have no problem with any of the Kennedys. I just don't like the idea of people coming to politics via the family business. it's a step in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned.
-
I have no problem with any of the Kennedys. I just don't like the idea of people coming to politics via the family business. it's a step in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned.
I'm as anti-nepotism, legacy baby, whatever you want to term it... but I don't think either applies in the realm of politics where you still have to get elected (sure the name helps). As long as they can prove themselves effective as representatives and vote the way I'd want them to (as a constituent) then that's all that matters for me. As for the political appointees... it's basically the same principle... effectiveness in office.
-
So much fuh Carrion...
New York Housing Chief Picked for Slot in Cabinet
December 13, 2008
By JACKIE CALMES
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama has picked the widely respected housing commissioner for New York City, Shaun Donovan, to be the secretary of housing in his cabinet.
Assuming that Mr. Donovan, 42, is confirmed by the Senate to head the Department of Housing and Urban Development, he would be returning to the agency where he worked in the Clinton administration as acting federal housing commissioner and, earlier, as deputy assistant secretary for multifamily housing, overseeing subsidies and properties for about two million families.
Mr. Donovan has experience in all facets of the affordable housing market, having worked in both the nonprofit and private sectors and in academia as a scholar of housing policy. He has even worked as an architect in New York and Italy.
With permission this year from Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who hired him in March 2004, Mr. Donovan took a leave of absence to campaign for and advise Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign. Mr. Obama named Mr. Donovan to the housing post on Saturday, in his weekly national radio address (see below).
“Shaun Donovan has been one of the most effective housing commissioners in New York City’s history,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who had championed Mr. Donovan. “At this time, with the housing crisis raging, he is exactly the kind of person we need as HUD secretary.”
As chief of New York’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development, Mr. Donovan is in charge of the Bloomberg administration’s $7.5 billion New Housing Marketplace Plan to build or preserve 165,000 units for to low- and moderate-income families, housing up to 500,000 residents, by 2013.
Prior to his hiring by Mr. Bloomberg, Mr. Donovan was a managing director at Prudential Mortgage Capital Co., in charge of its portfolio of investments in affordable housing loans, including Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Administration debt.
He came to Prudential from New York University, where Mr. Donovan had been a visiting scholar doing research on preservation of federally assisted housing. He also has been a researcher at Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, and was a consultant to the Millennial Housing Commission, set up by Congress to recommend new ways to encourage production of affordable housing nationwide.
Before his stint at HUD in the 1990s, and after graduation from Harvard with a degree in public administration and architecture, Mr. Donovan worked for a nonprofit lender and developer for affordable properties.
Given his various roles, Mr. Donovan is well known in housing policy circles, and was a leading contender for a senior post at HUD. Some housing experts suggested that he might not get the top job, in part because Hispanic groups were pressing for a Hispanic candidate.
“Shaun is brilliant, really thoughtful and creative, and knowledgeable about a broad range of housing policies in ways that unfortunately is very unusual,” said Barbara Sard, the director of housing policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a research and advocacy group.
The housing and credit crises that began in mid-2007 have hurt the affordable housing sector like much else. Before that, Mr. Donovan was considered a national innovator in capitalizing on the strong real estate market to find financing for low-cost housing. He held to a middle ground between free-market forces who opposed government controls and liberal groups that believed only government and nonprofit groups could be counted on to provide housing for the working class.
“I would never believe that the private sector, left to its own devices, is the best possible solution,” he said in 2006. “I’m in government because of the role of government in setting rules and working in partnership with the private sector. On the other hand, there’s no way you could ever get to a scale that can really affect the housing problems in this country without working with the market.”
Under Mr. Donovan, the Bloomberg administration has promoted “inclusionary zoning” that allows developers to build multifamily structures of more density — that is, more units for the space — in return for setting aside a portion of their projects for lower-income residents.
He helped to create a $200 million fund with contributions from the city, seven major foundations and financial institutions, to help nonprofit housing groups and small developers compete for private land sales. Working more closely with HUD than local officials have in the past, he has encouraged the department to help nonprofit groups or tenants take over HUD-assisted apartment buildings that are in foreclosure; typically, the federal government put such properties up for bids.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/us/politics/13appoint.html?hp
http://www.youtube.com/v/11gmqODMX44
-
¿Dónde está la raza?
-
Hilda Solis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Solis)
-
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his name Sunday from consideration to be commerce secretary, citing a federal investigation into a company that has donated to his political organizations -- the first serious snag in Barack Obama's transition efforts.
continued at the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123109313644851901.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)
-
What's up with the Leon Panetta pick for top spy guy?? ??? Even top Dems (Feinstein for example kick a fuss already) cyar understand it.... :-\
-
What's up with the Leon Panetta pick for top spy guy?? ??? Even top Dems (Feinstein for example kick a fuss already) cyar understand it.... :-\
Not sure either... many are questioning his qualifications.
Panetta Is Chosen as C.I.A. Chief, in a Surprise Step
January 6, 2009
By MARK MAZZETTI and CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON — Leon E. Panetta, a former congressman and White House chief of staff, has been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to head the Central Intelligence Agency. The choice, disclosed Monday by Democratic officials, immediately revealed divisions in the party as two senior lawmakers questioned why Mr. Obama would nominate a candidate with limited experience in intelligence matters.
The job was the last unfilled major post for Mr. Obama, who has criticized the agency for using interrogation methods he characterized as torture. Democratic officials said Mr. Obama had selected Mr. Panetta for his managerial skills, his bipartisan standing, and the foreign policy and budget experience he gained under President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Panetta has himself been a sharp critic of the agency’s interrogation practices. Some Democrats expressed strong support for the choice, with Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, describing him as “one of the finest public servants I have ever served with and dealt with since he left the White House.”
But Mr. Panetta, 70, was also widely described as a surprising and unusual choice to head the C.I.A., an agency that has been notoriously unwelcoming to previous directors perceived as outsiders.
News of the decision was disclosed by Democratic officials who insisted on anonymity, and neither Mr. Obama nor his transition office has commented publicly about it.
Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.
“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.
A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.
Ms. Feinstein’s Republican counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said he would be “looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”
It was not clear whether the skepticism would become an obstacle to the nomination of Mr. Panetta, who would succeed Michael V. Hayden, a retired Air Force general with decades of intelligence experience.
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, called Mr. Panetta a “strong choice” who “has the skills to usher in a new era of accountability at the nation’s premier intelligence agency.”
The choice of Mr. Panetta comes nearly two weeks after Mr. Obama had otherwise wrapped up his major personnel moves. It appears to reflect the difficulty Mr. Obama has encountered in finding a candidate who is capable of taking charge of the agency but is not tied to the interrogation and detention program run by the C.I.A. under President Bush.
Aides have said that Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. director with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
As President Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years, Mr. Panetta regularly attended daily intelligence briefings in the Oval Office, and he has a reputation in Washington as a skilled manager and power broker with a strong background in budget issues. But he has little direct intelligence experience, and did not serve on the House Intelligence Committee during his 16 years in Congress.
In disclosing the selection, Democratic officials said Mr. Panetta’s gravitas and ties to Mr. Obama would give the C.I.A. a powerful voice within the administration, particularly in bureaucratic jockeying with the Pentagon, which has a much bigger budget and more bureaucratic clout.
If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Panetta would take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior leaders of Al Qaeda around the world. He would also become the oldest director in the agency’s history, as well as the second politician and former lawmaker in recent years to take it over. Porter J. Goss, the former Republican congressman from Florida, ran the C.I.A from 2004 to 2006, though Mr. Goss was himself a former C.I.A. operative and the longtime chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Among the outsiders who ran into trouble in the past after being installed as C.I.A. director were Stansfield M. Turner, a retired Navy admiral selected by President Jimmy Carter, and John M. Deutch, a physicist and former deputy defense secretary who was chosen by Mr. Clinton.
Mr. Deutch, now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said there would have been good reasons for Mr. Obama to select a C.I.A. veteran to lead the agency. But Mr. Deutch also cited the examples of John McCone in the Kennedy administration and George Bush in the Nixon administration as cases in which outsiders became “two of the agency’s most successful directors.”
Mr. Deutch said that Mr. Panetta and Dennis Blair, a retired admiral who has been selected by Mr. Obama to become director of national intelligence, were an “absolutely brilliant team.” He called Mr. Panetta a “talented and experienced manager of government and a widely respected person with Congress.”
An early test in Mr. Panetta’s tenure at the C.I.A. would be to determine the future of the agency’s detention and interrogation program.
“Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly last year. “But that is a false compromise.” He also wrote: “We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”
Some human rights groups praised the choice. Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, said it was important that the new C.I.A. director be someone “who recognizes that torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive.”
But some intelligence experts called the selection underwhelming, given the important role the C.I.A. plays in disrupting terrorist attacks against the United States.
“It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written extensively on intelligence matters.
“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”
As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta would report to Mr. Blair. Neither choice has yet been announced.
The C.I.A. has settled down from years of turmoil after the Sept. 11 attacks and fallout from flawed intelligence assessments about Iraq’s unconventional weapons programs. But the agency’s role among the constellation of spy agencies operating under the director of national intelligence remains ill-defined.
Mr. Panetta, a native of Monterey, Calif., served eight terms in the House before becoming the chief budget adviser to Mr. Clinton in 1993 and taking over as Mr. Clinton’s chief of staff from July 1994 to January 1997.
Lee H. Hamilton, the former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, of which Mr. Panetta was a member, said Mr. Panetta’s good relationship with Mr. Obama could translate into influence within the broader intelligence community.
Mr. Hamilton said Mr. Panetta could make up for a lack of direct intelligence experience by picking a strong group of aides at the agency.
“You have to look at the team,” he said. “You clearly will want intelligence professionals at the highest levels of the C.I.A.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/us/politics/06cia.html?_r=1&hp
-
(CNN) -- The Obama administration has approached Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, about becoming U.S. surgeon general, according to sources inside the transition and at CNN.
story at cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/gupta.surgeon.general/index.html)
-
obuma promise the farm last night. in reference to wall street excess, obuma intoned, "Those days are over." how the markets doing again?
ah heard alot of promises and the word "force" alot, particularly when it came to pesky details like markets and business. no details on how he would enforce value for money when it comes to the huge amount of govt spending that is anticipated, not even "force-ripe" details.
we keep looking for the light at the end of the tunnel. the markets seem to be saying that light coming around 2013.
-
“Obama’s Cabinet is starting to look like a Clinton administration reunion,” Conant said.
clinton III indeed. like the markets back to clinton-era (1997) levels as well.
-
Obama outlines Iraq pullout plan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7915833.stm <---- video link
President Barack Obama has announced the withdrawal of most US troops in Iraq by the end of August 2010.
In a speech at a Marine Corps base, he said the US "combat mission" in Iraq would officially end by that time.
But 35,000 to 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq will stay on into 2011 to advise Iraqi forces, target terror and protect US interests.
Mr Obama praised the progress made but warned: "Iraq is not yet secure, and there will be difficult days ahead."
Some Democrats are concerned that the timetable falls short of his election pledges on troop withdrawal.
Mr Obama had said previously that he would completely pull out troops within 16 months of taking the top job.
Earlier this month, he ordered the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan, saying they had been due to go to Iraq but were being redirected to "meet urgent security needs".
'Hard-earned progress'
In his address at Camp Lejeune, a Marine Corps base in North Carolina, Mr Obama said his national security team had drawn up a "new strategy" for US involvement in Iraq.
The strategy recognised that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political and that the most important decisions about its future must now be made by Iraqis, he said.
"We have also taken into account the simple reality that America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities: we face the challenge of refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; of relieving the burden on our military; and of rebuilding our struggling economy - and these are challenges that we will meet."
Mr Obama said all US troops would have left Iraq by the end of 2011, in line with an agreement signed between the two countries last year.
The president recognised that the conflict had been "a long war" and paid tribute to US forces who have served in Iraq.
"Thanks to the sacrifices of those who have served, we have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its people, and we have begun the work of ending the war."
He also announced that his administration would increase the numbers of soldiers and Marines, in order to lessen the burden on those now serving, and was committed to expanding veterans' health care.
Addressing the Iraqi people directly, Mr Obama said theirs was "a great nation" that had persevered with resilience through tyranny, terror and sectarian violence.
He went on: "So to the Iraqi people: let me be clear about America's intentions. The United States pursues no claim on your territory or your resources.
"We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country. We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country."
The two nations would build a future relationship based on mutual interest and respect, he said.
Mr Obama said there were important lessons to be learned from the Iraq conflict - among them that the US must go to war with clearly defined goals, that it must weigh the costs of action and "communicate those costs candidly to the American people".
As a result of these lessons, he had ordered a review of US policy in Afghanistan, he said, and put the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan into the federal budget.
Stressing that Iraq's future was inseparable from that of the broader Middle East, Mr Obama said the US would now "pursue principled and sustained engagement with all of the nations in the region, and that will include Iran and Syria".
The new US ambassador to Iraq would be Christopher Hill, the former US chief negotiator with North Korea, the president added.
'Still dependent'
The withdrawal plan is a middle way between the speedy reduction Mr Obama envisaged during his election campaign and the slower one some military leaders may prefer, BBC North America editor Justin Webb says.
Mr Obama wants only two combat brigades to leave this year but after December elections in Iraq the pace should quicken, our correspondent says.
The BBC's Mike Sergeant in Baghdad says that security in Iraq is now better and people say they are ready for US forces to leave.
However, some people are deeply worried about what exactly will happen when US combat troops disappear, our correspondent says.
While Iraqi forces are much better trained and equipped than before, they are still dependent on US troops for support in many areas, our correspondent adds, and a great deal of American financial and political support may be needed for years to come.
'Too many'
Democrats have expressed concern that the troop withdrawal is being watered down.
Speaking before Mr Obama briefed Congressional leaders about the plan on Thursday, Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi said 50,000 troops seemed too many for a residual force and needed to be justified.
However, other sceptics have expressed concern that a fast withdrawal could reverse the dramatic but fragile gains in security in Iraq.
John McHugh, the top Republican on the House armed services committee, said after the briefing that Mr Obama had promised the pullout strategy would be revisited if violence in Iraq increased.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7914061.stm
-
(CNN) -- The Obama administration has approached Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, about becoming U.S. surgeon general, according to sources inside the transition and at CNN.
story at cnn (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/gupta.surgeon.general/index.html)
gupta decline the offer.
they still looking for deputy treasury secretary - two candidates down. check the quality they have at the treasury now:
neel kashkari teaching "how NOT to instill confidence in one's decision 101":
http://www.youtube.com/v/UP73cK3GXdo