Remind me again: Was Obama just elected or Hillary?

[EagleKeeper]

Experienced people from either the business or political world are needed for key positions.

As previous posters have stated, including you, he himself does not have a wealth of experience; so he must lean/depend on his/Biden's judgement on getting qualified people that he feels comfortable with.

Given the quality of Bush people, that eliminates most that have current experience within politics.

Economics is a different story, he can reach out into the industry - however, given they way the economy has gone, is there real quality left that will want to work within the government?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
That could mean populating the cabinet with what basically amounts to n00bs, from C&C down, excepting V.P. With the hole we are in, that is a very risky proposition. No, choosing qualified, experienced, personnel, is a wiser strategy, than n00bs or say, rewarding your loyal followers aka cronyism.

It's not too risky to have a complete noob as the actual president, but we're in too great of a hole for him to bring in any fresh meat to tell him what to do? What flavor was the Kool-Aid this year? WTF people? Do you even realize what you just said?

WTF indeed. A n00b pres with intellect, or a very aged one with a imbecile V.P. next in line. Yeah, the choice was very difficult for me.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: CPA
Is this what was meant by change?

The first two appointments go to Clinton-era staff and it looks like some more are going to get the nod. Maybe this is Obama's way of thanking Bill for campaigning. If so, I can't wait to see what he does to thank the unions, lawyers and envirowackos. At the end I guess the saying is true "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

He's going to start off with a lot of old faces to instill some confidence in the new government. If you saw a lot of 20 and 30 somethings you'd be complaining that no one in the administration had any experience. It's a tiring litany of complaints one hears, regardless of what is done.

Anyway, I would expect some under-secretaries will be new blood in major agencies, and some new faces will pop up at lesser posts.

Let's wait and see how all of this pans out, but I'm sure you won't care for any of them. 😉

-Robert

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Experienced people from either the business or political world are needed for key positions.

As previous posters have stated, including you, he himself does not have a wealth of experience; so he must lean/depend on his/Biden's judgement on getting qualified people that he feels comfortable with.

Given the quality of Bush people, that eliminates most that have current experience within politics.

Economics is a different story, he can reach out into the industry - however, given they way the economy has gone, is there real quality left that will want to work within the government?

Well stated. For the bolded, hasn't it always been a case of trying to find someone with the requisite level of talent, that would take the pay cut to do so?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
WTF indeed. A n00b pres with intellect, or a very aged one with a imbecile V.P. next in line. Yeah, the choice was very difficult for me.

You basically said, "We're in such bad shape that it would be absolutely foolish to have someone with no experience running the show." That's your DEFENSE of Obama? And you can keep your false dilemma.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Appears that it's going to be John Kerry for Secretary of State.

Shucks ...... well how about Secretary of Defense Hillary Clinton?
C'mon ..... she deserves a place in History too!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

The key word in the bolded section is left

Government service at the upper levels has been enough of an ego for those people to be willing to take a cut for a short time.

However, with the financial sector in such a disarray, quality at the helm in those places has shown to be lacking.

In the non-financial sector, there is a much broader choice of people that have the foresight and leadership.

the trick will be as always, to try to keep the cronyism out of the picture to actually build faith that change means change.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: net
obama was, and from what i hear he promised to lower the price on fried chicken? is that true?

i'm just wonder what his stand on cool-aid is.

From what I hear you were promised an even smaller white brain. Is that true?


--------------------
YHPM

Senior Anandtech moderator
Common Courtesy


That better? This time capsule ride back to the Deep South circa 1960 is getting real old, real fast.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: CPA
Is this what was meant by change?

The first two appointments go to Clinton-era staff and it looks like some more are going to get the nod. Maybe this is Obama's way of thanking Bill for campaigning. If so, I can't wait to see what he does to thank the unions, lawyers and envirowackos. At the end I guess the saying is true "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

He's going to start off with a lot of old faces to instill some confidence in the new government. If you saw a lot of 20 and 30 somethings you'd be complaining that no one in the administration had any experience. It's a tiring litany of complaints one hears, regardless of what is done.

Anyway, I would expect some under-secretaries will be new blood in major agencies, and some new faces will pop up at lesser posts.

Let's wait and see how all of this pans out, but I'm sure you won't care for any of them. 😉

-Robert

Volker has been hinted as the Treasury Secretary. I'd be good with that. Heck, even though he's an egotistical blowhard, I would even be comfortable with Corzine in that position.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
WTF indeed. A n00b pres with intellect, or a very aged one with a imbecile V.P. next in line. Yeah, the choice was very difficult for me.

You basically said, "We're in such bad shape that it would be absolutely foolish to have someone with no experience running the show." That's your DEFENSE of Obama? And you can keep your false dilemma.

I thought my first post, that you butchered quoting, explained it, but if I worded it poorly, my apologies. The intent was to express, that given his inexperience, he needs experienced personnel, surrounding him, instead of other neophytes or cronies.

As to my vote, I'll vote for whomever I wish, for whatever reason I wish. Welcome to America.

 

[fskimospy]

Why don't we wait to see all his cabinet appointments before we start wondering if this is a Clinton administration or not? I know its weird going from a continual news cycle to a slower one, but you really can't make many meaningful conclusions from what we know so far.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I thought my first post, that you butchered quoting, explained it, but if I worded it poorly, my apologies. The intent was to express, that given his inexperience, he needs experienced personnel, surrounding him, instead of other neophytes or cronies.

It did. You said that we need experienced people running the show because things are so bad. I just found that ironic beyond McCain's wildest dreams.

As to my vote, I'll vote for whomever I wish, for whatever reason I wish. Welcome to America.

Yes, you can vote for whomever you please. However, you can't have your own brand of logic that contradicts actual logic as an objective science, which is what your false dilemma did.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I thought my first post, that you butchered quoting, explained it, but if I worded it poorly, my apologies. The intent was to express, that given his inexperience, he needs experienced personnel, surrounding him, instead of other neophytes or cronies.

It did. You said that we need experienced people running the show because things are so bad. I just found that ironic beyond McCain's wildest dreams.

As to my vote, I'll vote for whomever I wish, for whatever reason I wish. Welcome to America.

Yes, you can vote for whomever you please. However, you can't have your own brand of logic that contradicts actual logic as an objective science, which is what your false dilemma did.

I wouldn't say my vote was based solely on logic, anymore than you would, that just makes the failed logic=false dilemma a strawman. My vote was emotionally influenced, and I didn't state otherwise.

And you continue to not acknowledge the context of my first statement. The topic is about his speculative cabinet picks, my comments were about his cabinet selection process. Your argument is that I should have voted for Mac since I want experience, as that would be logical. My contention is, while Mac does have superior experience, his age and his completely incapable running mate, factored into my vote.

The misgivings I felt over Palin having the potential to be our C&C, was enough to vote Obama. It was a case rationalization, one of- n00b pres+experienced V.P. v. Experienced but very old pres+ clueless N00b V.P.. Logical? perhaps not, but I never stated otherwise.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I thought my first post, that you butchered quoting, explained it, but if I worded it poorly, my apologies. The intent was to express, that given his inexperience, he needs experienced personnel, surrounding him, instead of other neophytes or cronies.

It did. You said that we need experienced people running the show because things are so bad. I just found that ironic beyond McCain's wildest dreams.

As to my vote, I'll vote for whomever I wish, for whatever reason I wish. Welcome to America.

Yes, you can vote for whomever you please. However, you can't have your own brand of logic that contradicts actual logic as an objective science, which is what your false dilemma did.

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic at all.

It was the judgment of the American people that Obama has the better judgment to be President compared to McCain. Now we see that part of that judgment is to pick outstanding people for his cabinet. Some outstanding people have served before and some have not. People can project onto that whatever crap they like but what we are seeing in my opinion are the actions of a man of judgment. What experience gave him that judgment, would you say? Was it years, was it temperament, time doing stuff, his grandmother's love? How does it happen that Obama beat the pants off everybody, coming from nowhere to become President. Do you think it was God? Or maybe new organs of perception arise out of need, and we are in deep doo doo need.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: boomerang
He needs people with experience. He has none himself. It's a smart move and I applaud him for understanding his shortcomings.

If you want to hit the ground running on Jan 21, you need to have people in place that understand the system and know how to get things done. I would assume that he feels that there is no time for a learning curve. That our problems are too great to implement an on the job training program.

Hopefully the Bush staff won't be childish like the Clinton staff and do things like remove keys from keyboards.

Uh, the Bush stff was the childish staff, who made up the *lies* about the Clinton staff removing W keys and many worse acts of vandalism.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: net
obama was, and from what i hear he promised to lower the price on fried chicken? is that true?

i'm just wonder what his stand on cool-aid is.

So, you are an idiot racist?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: evident
i hope he picks some R's so they can STFU

I hear he already tried to get Lugar, but he declined. 🙁

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Skitzer
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?

Appears that it's going to be John Kerry for Secretary of State.

Well, that may not be a bad pick. He was the a-hole saying France and most of the world leaders he had spoken to, wanted him to be pres last election. :😉

He was a hole for telling the truth? They did want him to be president in 2004. So did most of America in hindsight.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: chess9

He's going to start off with a lot of old faces to instill some confidence in the new government. If you saw a lot of 20 and 30 somethings you'd be complaining that no one in the administration had any experience. It's a tiring litany of complaints one hears, regardless of what is done.

It's funny, JFK did a lot that would cause outrage today, and did then.

He *did* appoint a lot of very young people - 30's - and they were called 'kids' by horrified observers.

Imagine if Obama appointed his brother Attorney General - JFK did, and announced it with a joke that he wanted his brother to get some experience before entering a law firm.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Craig234


He was a hole for telling the truth? They did want him to be president in 2004. So did most of America in hindsight.

You will have to elaborate on the most of America comment, W. won by a good margin? So I am not certain what you mean by that.

He is an A-hole IMO, for giving the republicans ammo all the time, and for not responding to the swiftboat shat promptly and aggressively. And the comment about appointing him, I meant, despite the sarcasm, as he might be a very good choice for that position.

 

[seemingly random]

...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/167617

Howard Fineman explains it:

Clintonistas For the Clintons, losing to Obama was bad enough. Now they have to endure the spectacle of Obama's surrounding himself with the best and the brightest of the Clinton administration. It's not surprising: these are the Democrats with the most experience and, if Obama chooses carefully, the best performance record. Through his son Jamie, former Treasury secretary (and current Citibank chairman) Bob Rubin is in this new circle. So is another former Clinton Treasury secretary, Larry Summers, who could be asked to go another round. John Podesta, a former Clinton chief of staff, runs a think tank that may supply a host of midlevel officials. Laura Tyson, who was Clinton's economic adviser, is now performing a similar function. Since he was running against Senator Clinton, Obama was reluctant to credit her husband's economic track record; now Obama is seeking the advice of the people responsible for it.

[/quote]
Hopefully, he doesn't pick any of the mental midgets from the heritage foundation.

 

[Farang]

From what I read about Emmanuel he seems like the perfect hatchet man. I don't think it has anything to do with Clinton.

I wonder if he had a shot at that Illinois Senate seat

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Craig234
He was a hole for telling the truth? They did want him to be president in 2004. So did most of America in hindsight.

You will have to elaborate on the most of America comment, W. won by a good margin? So I am not certain what you mean by that.

He is an A-hole IMO, for giving the republicans ammo all the time, and for not responding to the swiftboat shat promptly and aggressively. And the comment about appointing him, I meant, despite the sarcasm, as he might be a very good choice for that position.

The most of America comment relies on the phrase "in hindsight", referring to how Bush becamse *far* less popular by now than he was in 2004. I think Kerry would beat him now.

You bring up some other things, but it looked likeyou were criticizing him for claiming European leaders preferred him to Bush, but he was right.

 

[Eos]

Originally posted by: boomerang
He needs people with experience. He has none himself. It's a smart move and I applaud him for understanding his shortcomings.

If you want to hit the ground running on Jan 21, you need to have people in place that understand the system and know how to get things done. I would assume that he feels that there is no time for a learning curve. That our problems are too great to implement an on the job training program.

Hopefully the Bush staff won't be childish like the Clinton staff and do things like remove keys from keyboards.

Rewind to Jan 2001.

VP? - Cheney
SecDef? - Rumsfeld

Old guys with tons of experience. New pres with zero. Happens all the time.

Clinton had Warren Christopher and others probably.

I thought that removing the keyboard key thing was bogus.

 

[First]

Let's give him his first performance evaluation in May, we'll know a ton more about him by then.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Why don't we wait to see all his cabinet appointments before we start wondering if this is a Clinton administration or not? I know its weird going from a continual news cycle to a slower one, but you really can't make many meaningful conclusions from what we know so far.

You already know the answer to this question.

The sore loser sniping has begun, as expected. The only question now is how much of it to ignore.