What's A Six-Letter Word for "Not Bush"?
David Corn, in a piece in this morning's Washington Post, looks at the Obama cabinet appointments and laments what he says is not the change he was expecting or that he says "we" were promised.
Corn is defining the word "change" improperly and, while he uses the word "we," isn't talking for what I'd be willing to bet is a majority of Americans. His definition -- progressives and liberals rather than centrists and conservatives -- is not what I heard Barack Obama say during the campaign. To me, "change," meant only one thing: Not George Bush.
Obama repeatedly and continuously talked about how electing John McCain would be another four years of George Bush, but electing him would produce the departure from current policies, fears, and disappointments people wanted. He provided some specifics, but what he was really promising was just the general idea that he wouldn't continue what Bush had been doing.
International Man of Mystery
Obama, he's whatever you want him to be.
Read it and weep
More Republican corruption . . . thanks to them we get to bail out Freddie and Fannie
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-IMPACT-How-Freddie-Mac-apf-13766041.html
At least let him take office before you write him off...
Before I start let me acknowledge the Law of Diminishing Returns of Electoral Process Promises, that the closer one gets to taking the oath of office and the realities it imposes the less one is likely to follow through on campaign promise x.
Knowing that, the progressives and lefties who are moaning that Obama hasn't turned 1600 PA Ave into a hippie/socialism co-opt yet need a little patience and perhaps some understanding.
I am willing to take Obama at his word that change comes from the top down, at least as far as his administration is concerned. I see him as seeking balance, if he is going to be the progressive/liberal member of the admin, the one with a 51% ruling interest, it makes sense to balance that off with more centrist/conservative members. And if the dictum is 'change health care, and here are the goals...' who do you think is setting the goals? The liberal/progressive 51% ruling interest member. The rest are there to make that happen.
And let's face it. Washington, D.C. is a Byzantine, primordial swamp, to steal a quote from the Grinch it stinks, stanks, stunk...Obama needs seasoned players to push his initiatives through. I don't like the Clintons and Emmanual makes me uncomfortable in the 'all out partisan' war kind of way but they know Washington and how to push things through.
As I said, give the man a chance. If, on Jan. 21, the wars are not over, the economy is still in the tank and I still have a $100 ER room deductible, well then we can start talking about being suckered by another bait and switch candidate...
It seems clear from his
It seems clear from his appointments on economic policy that he's much more centrist than many expected or hoped for. He'll continue to give a few spots to progressives, like Jared Bernstein, but they are clearly not the top spots.
You can't argue
with change. period.