Jump to content


Photo

Obama: The Administration


  • Please log in to reply
390 replies to this topic

#201 ryan

ryan

    God of Goldens!

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4895 posts

Posted 21 November 2008 - 11:01 AM

Marine general may head National Security Council
By DAVID ROGERS | 11/21/08 9:36 AM EST

President-elect Barack Obama is close to landing James L. Jones, the well-known retired Marine Corps general, as his national security adviser, sources said.

Jones is a former Marine Corps commandant and was head of U.S. and NATO forces in Europe, with the title of Supreme Allied Commander, Europe.

The national security adviser heads the National Security Council, the part of the White House structure that deals with foreign policy. It varies in influence from presidency to presidency. Befitting his past, Jones would be given a commanding role, the sources said.

Jones also was considered for secretary of state and secretary of energy. He currently is president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. From his official biography: “At the request of the U.S. Congress, Jones recently chaired the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq.”

Others under consideration for the position include Jim Steinberg, the deputy national security adviser under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni.

Susan Rice, senior campaign national security adviser and State Department and National Security Council official under Clinton, is also mentioned but may be in line for another position.



#202 Bleep Blop

Bleep Blop

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3515 posts

Posted 21 November 2008 - 11:04 AM

Right. If he restores habeas corpus, stops torture/waterboarding and gets us a decent timetable for pulling out of Iraq, I'll be happy.


you can have all that. I'd rather he fix the economy.


Pretty sure habeas corpus completely came back via supreme court decision. I may be wrong.

#203 coldcomfort

coldcomfort

    Newbie

  • Sombie
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 08:22 AM

also, obama's always been about getting those who understand the system inside and out working for him. those who know how to get things done. and that's how he is going to bring in the change that he spent the entire campaign season talking about. as we learned with both carter and clinton, change doesn't come without understanding how legislation works. obama on the other hand, understands that you need someone like daschle to carry through reformed health care. daschle knows how capitol hill works. he has relationships with the right lawmakers and aides and he understands what can get passed and what can't. plus he knows how to find the votes. compare that to the clinton health care plan that was put together by a bunch of wonks who completely disregarded the legislative process and you'll see why obama's change isn't just another empty campaign promise.

since election day (and really well before then) obama has been putting together a legislative coalition (which works much like an electoral coalition) so that the great and progressive ideas that he wants to accomplish actually do come to fruition. and his staff reflects that. which is great news for those of us who would like to see his great message of change actually work.



Exactly right otm, as usual.

I'm pretty pleased at how these picks are going so far. However, I don't really understand the Bill Richardson choice for Commerce. He's qualifies for that, how?

#204 theminimumcircus

theminimumcircus

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2124 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 09:21 AM

also, obama's always been about getting those who understand the system inside and out working for him. those who know how to get things done. and that's how he is going to bring in the change that he spent the entire campaign season talking about. as we learned with both carter and clinton, change doesn't come without understanding how legislation works. obama on the other hand, understands that you need someone like daschle to carry through reformed health care. daschle knows how capitol hill works. he has relationships with the right lawmakers and aides and he understands what can get passed and what can't. plus he knows how to find the votes. compare that to the clinton health care plan that was put together by a bunch of wonks who completely disregarded the legislative process and you'll see why obama's change isn't just another empty campaign promise.

since election day (and really well before then) obama has been putting together a legislative coalition (which works much like an electoral coalition) so that the great and progressive ideas that he wants to accomplish actually do come to fruition. and his staff reflects that. which is great news for those of us who would like to see his great message of change actually work.


So Obama's a pragmatist? Sounds a whole lot like Bill Clinton. Bipartisanship = doing what the Republicans want.

I'm a pretty big believer that there's more land to be plowed in the left than in the center. I'm getting awfully tired of the pendulum of: rightwing wackjob president followed by concessionist pragmatic centrist Democratic president. This country needs to work its way left, not necessarily in the extreme ideological social issues way, but certainly economically.

That said, I'll wait and see what he pushes through first.
Wtf @ theminimuncircus retardly interjecting.

#205 cerebralcaustic

cerebralcaustic

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3279 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 09:25 AM

However, I don't really understand the Bill Richardson choice for Commerce. He's qualifies for that, how?

He has a beard. Done.

The bi-partisan talk has been nonsense, because the country has been "bi-partisan" for years, as Dems have gone along with everything Bush and the Republicans have wanted.

#206 Binko

Binko

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2272 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:10 AM

So Obama's a pragmatist? Sounds a whole lot like Bill Clinton.


Actually, minus the scandal, a Bill Clinton presidency is pretty much what I expect from Obama. I wish the pendulum would swing more to the left, but with a country this big and with arguably a majority of the people being middle-of-the-road or right-of-center, I doubt you'll see any massive leftward shift. I would like to be proven wrong, but a huge swath of the country doesn't want me to be wrong, and they're citizens with a right to a say in the matter as much as us.

#207 M_Rots

M_Rots

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:25 AM

and they're citizens with a right to a say in the matter as much as us.


Then let them say it at election time. Until then, they lost and they need to have a seat and shut their mouths. We're in this mess in large part b/c we give too much of a fuck about what they want in the first place. Sometimes, we need an elitist to tell us what we need and screw what we want. I submit this is one of those times.

#208 cerebralcaustic

cerebralcaustic

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3279 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:48 AM

So Obama's a pragmatist? Sounds a whole lot like Bill Clinton.


Actually, minus the scandal, a Bill Clinton presidency is pretty much what I expect from Obama. I wish the pendulum would swing more to the left, but with a country this big and with arguably a majority of the people being middle-of-the-road or right-of-center, I doubt you'll see any massive leftward shift. I would like to be proven wrong, but a huge swath of the country doesn't want me to be wrong, and they're citizens with a right to a say in the matter as much as us.

Bullshit. Liberals didn't have any say over the last 8 years, and they're a huge swath of the country. Why is this different for conservatives now? Why does "reaching across the aisle" have to happen now? Why does "reaching across the aisle" always mean reaching from left to right?

And fuck the media for propagating this "country is center-right" bullshit. I thought the landslide election made it abundantly clear that's a crock of shit.

#209 Tracy Jacks

Tracy Jacks

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1387 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 11:56 AM

and they're citizens with a right to a say in the matter as much as us.


Then let them say it at election time. Until then, they lost and they need to have a seat and shut their mouths. We're in this mess in large part b/c we give too much of a fuck about what they want in the first place. Sometimes, we need an elitist to tell us what we need and screw what we want. I submit this is one of those times.

Actually, they did say it at election time. Obama won because large numbers of independents and moderate Republicans voted Democratic this election. There was not a huge wave of new voters or increase from the far left. If Obama turns off these independents and moderate Republicans he will risk his 2nd term and a possibility of the Democrats holding power for a long time.

#210 M_Rots

M_Rots

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4277 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 12:00 PM

and they're citizens with a right to a say in the matter as much as us.


Then let them say it at election time. Until then, they lost and they need to have a seat and shut their mouths. We're in this mess in large part b/c we give too much of a fuck about what they want in the first place. Sometimes, we need an elitist to tell us what we need and screw what we want. I submit this is one of those times.

Actually, they did say it at election time. Obama won because large numbers of independents and moderate Republicans voted Democratic this election. There was not a huge wave of new voters or increase from the far left. If Obama turns off these independents and moderate Republicans he will risk his 2nd term and a possibility of the Democrats holding power for a long time.


Bullshit - he only risks turning them off if he doesn't get results. If things improve, he turns them on. If they get worse, he turns them off.

#211 feisty

feisty

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2627 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 12:18 PM

Hillary Hillary Hillary. No Wellesley College you will never produce a president but you will have 2 Secretaries of State in 10 years.


#212 dice

dice

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4074 posts

Posted 22 November 2008 - 04:27 PM

so how should i divvy up, say, a $10 donation between al franken and the georgia democrat dude?
http://www.kiva.org

make a difference
99% repayment!

#213 cerebralcaustic

cerebralcaustic

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3279 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:04 AM

If Obama turns off these independents and moderate Republicans he will risk his 2nd term and a possibility of the Democrats holding power for a long time.

What's the point of being in power if you're too afraid of pissing off the other side to get anything done? Aside from privatizing social security and immigration reform, Bush did whatever he wanted to the last 8 years. Why can't Obama have that opportunity?

#214 Holiday in Risk

Holiday in Risk

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1147 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:25 AM

Since we're talking about Nate Silver, check out this interview he just posted. I now have a greater respect for the guy. The interview is with John Ziegler (a documentary filmmaker, apparently) and the primary subject is a questionable poll that Ziegler commissioned from Zogby that's designed to question the intelligence of Obama voters. Silver does a good job of dismantling the guy and by the end Ziegler is being a petulant dick. Pretty hilarious, particularly the last several questions.


Not sure if this has been touched upon already, but I'm pretty sure that unless it's the John Ziegler that used to run the NHL, the John Ziegler in question was also the subject of DFW's essay "Host," a/k/a the one with the really hard-to-read layout in Consider the Lobster.
what a fine day for a parade

#215 ryan

ryan

    God of Goldens!

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4895 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 02:24 PM

Since we're talking about Nate Silver, check out this interview he just posted. I now have a greater respect for the guy. The interview is with John Ziegler (a documentary filmmaker, apparently) and the primary subject is a questionable poll that Ziegler commissioned from Zogby that's designed to question the intelligence of Obama voters. Silver does a good job of dismantling the guy and by the end Ziegler is being a petulant dick. Pretty hilarious, particularly the last several questions.


Not sure if this has been touched upon already, but I'm pretty sure that unless it's the John Ziegler that used to run the NHL, the John Ziegler in question was also the subject of DFW's essay "Host," a/k/a the one with the really hard-to-read layout in Consider the Lobster.

Yup, yup - same guy...

http://www.theatlant.../200504/wallace

#216 velocity

velocity

    Chanel No. ♪♫

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10088 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 03:37 PM

Geez, I wish he could get Peter Schiff for Treasury or the Fed.

#217 le chaton

le chaton

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3073 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 05:57 PM

Why does "reaching across the aisle" always mean reaching from left to right?

i would like to know the answer to this.

#218 MattW

MattW

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3564 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:14 PM

Obama won because large numbers of independents and moderate Republicans voted Democratic this election.


Until I see numbers on this, I'm tossing this premise out as false. Gallup polled that 10% of Republicans were crossing the line, and independents 46% to 42% went for Obama as of November 2. That's pretty insignificant and does not make pandering to this constituency mandatory at all.

I had a hard time finding returns by party affiliation, but the more likely scenario based on how the house and senate races concluded was not because of out-sized independents or party crossing Republicans voting blue, but the more obvious fact that Republicans weren't mobilized because McCain did a lousy job of running based on moral issues.

This furthers my theory after Iowa that the only Republican that had a shot of beating Obama was Huckabee.

#219 ryan

ryan

    God of Goldens!

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4895 posts

Posted 23 November 2008 - 10:39 PM

This furthers my theory after Iowa that the only Republican that had a shot of beating Obama was Huckabee.

Speaking of Iowa and Huckabee, the guy is already robocalling folks to beg for money. Of course, it's tied to his grand plan of taking the White House via vaginal coup.

http://iowaindepende...n-request-money

Oh, Huck.

#220 ☼♥!

☼♥!

    Newbie

  • Sombie
  • PipPip
  • 547 posts

Posted 24 November 2008 - 01:14 AM

[...] This furthers my theory after Iowa that the only Republican that had a shot of beating Obama was Huckabee.


I had the same thoughts. I remember liking the guy back when things were just getting started; he came across well in his late show stops and interviews. I don't want to speculate on how many people would have voted for him on that alone, but he definitely wouldn't have spent all his time securing the Bush vote. You throw in the executive experience and doubtful you see Barack get a bounce from the bad economy.
hi.