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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

[
- Liberals -- 85% to 89%
- Moderates -- 54% to 60%
- Conservatives -- 15% to 20%

The goddamn Democrats are center-right. There is no viable leftist party in this country.

And if you don't think this country is "center-right," I really don't know what version of America you live in. The goddamn Democrats are center-right

so how should i divvy up, say, a $10 donation between al franken and the georgia democrat dude?

i would say the democrats are more center. but certainly the nation is center-right


anybody? kinda at a loss here. i need some sound logic

Martin is probably going to lose if polling is to be believed, but a special election like this will completely hinge on turnout. On the one hand, alot of Obama's field team is working this race. On the other, there is no compelling historical reason for people to come out in droves for Martin like there was for Obama. 60 seats is an obscure argument for the low-info voter who just wanted to make history with Obama.

Franken may win this recount, but the thing to note with him is that all the votes are already in the bag. You'll basically be donating to offset the cost of legal fees associated with the recount. This may be a worthy endeavor, but its unlikely to have a major impact on the final outcome.

so how should i divvy up, say, a $10 donation between al franken and the georgia democrat dude?

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.

i'm not sure why obama being a pragmatist or inclined toward bipartisanship would be a surprise, but yes, i would say both are true. as to moving the country toward the left, i think that's exactly what obama's trying to do. there was an article in The American Prospect a while back on that exact topic. it's sort of long, but if you're interested you can find it here. the bottom line though is that obama is working on building a working majority and on putting together the proper infrastructure that that entails. as a former community organizer, he understands how to get divergent groups to come together to work towards a common cause, and he did likewise as a legislator. so it shouldn't be suprising to now see him working with republicans and conservative democrats to get things accomplished. and not just anything, but important things, like health care and rebuilding our energy infrastructure. and that, is the change that obama has been talking about.

So what do you think Rahm Emanuel up to right now

rahm is like manute bol compared to robert reich, who is teensy.

This is a heated debate on the internet, I have learned.

4'11"?
5'7"?

Like Napoleon

I demand transparency

Obama was joined by Vice President-elect Joe Biden and Arne Duncan, the head of the Chicago school system and Obama's pick for education secretary. The three greeted the youngsters, who ranged from first-graders to fourth-graders, after a news conference at the Dodge Renaissance Academy in Chicago.

Obama met with them in a library at the academy. They sat on the carpet in front of him, each eagerly raising their hands to ask questions and discuss what they were learning in school.

"Decimals," Obama replied to one student. "Wow, Joe doesn't even know his decimals," he joked about Biden.

Terrible pick by Obama for Department of the Interior.

What, you wanted Grijalva? I wouldn't say Salazar's a "terrible pick" by any measure, not even a conservationist one. Sure, he's a little more Centrist than the NRDC or some of the kookier extreme conservationsit lobbyists wanted, but he has a solid anti-mining and public land exploitation pedigree, an outstanding grasp of water and hydrology issues, understands ranching and hunting well, is progressive on energy policy, and plays well with others.

In 2006, Salazar voted to end protections that limit off-shore drilling in Florida's Gulf Coast.[6]

In 2007, Salazar was one of only a handful of Democrats to vote against a bill that would require the US Army Corps of Engineers to consider global warming when planning water projects.[7]

According to Project Vote Smart, Ken Salazar received a 25% vote rating for 2007 by the Humane Society of the United States [8], a 0% vote rating for 2005-2006 by Fund for Animals [9], and a 60% vote rating for 2007 by Defenders of Wildlife [10]. He also supported the Bush Administration's release of lands in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for emergency haying in Colorado's Yuma and Phillips Counties.[11]

[edit]

What, you wanted Grijalva? I wouldn't say Salazar's a "terrible pick" by any measure, not even a conservationist one. Sure, he's a little more Centrist than the NRDC or some of the kookier extreme conservationsit lobbyists wanted, but he has a solid anti-mining and public land exploitation pedigree, an outstanding grasp of water and hydrology issues, understands ranching and hunting well, is progressive on energy policy, and plays well with others. Also from the West, a plus given that so much of the meat of these issues plays out on this side. I've been very impressed with Obama's transition team for the Department of the Interior and the Solicitor's General's calling in John Leshy and other standouts from the Clinton adminstration. I think he is solid and am fairly happy with the pick.