POLITCS: People and Change

[ysabetwordsmith]

Here are a couple of articles about Obama's possible appointments:

Obama Says Change Is in His Vision - if Not Appointments
Steven Thomma, McClatchy Newspapers: "As a presidential candidate, Obama's central theme was that he'd change the way politics and the government work, and suggested that it'd take a fresh, outsider approach to do that. 'Change doesn't come from Washington,' he said. 'Change comes to Washington.'"

I'd like to point out that there is no possible way for Obama to make appointments that would please people. If he picks newcomers, he'll be hounded for inexperience; if he picks experienced people, he'll be hounded for continuing the same system. So he's doing the right thing: when you can't please people, don't waiste your time trying, just follow your own plan. I'm not thrilled with all his appointments -- I can see the potential for trouble -- but I'm hopeful.

Michael Winship | Michael Pollan's Food for Thought
Michael Winship, Truthout: "Writer and activist Michael Pollan has no interest in becoming Barack Obama's secretary of agriculture, thank you very much, even though there are a lot of people who think he'd be perfect for the job."

Dude, if you wanted to convince people that you're NOT the right guy for that job, you went about it all wrong.

I hope Obama talks him into it.

Comments

[estaratshirai.livejournal.com]

That's my main concern for Obama: that people's hopes and fears concerning him are all pitched so high that anything a real human being can actually do will pale in comparison. In a sense, if he's neither Jesus nor Hitler, a lot of people may dismiss him as a disappointment.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

What else can I say but "I agree?"

definition please

[ddjango (from livejournal.com)]

"If he picks newcomers, he'll be hounded for inexperience; if he picks experienced people, he'll be hounded for continuing the same system."

Define "experience" . . .

I would submit that there are many, many potential appointees who, although they haven't served in the Clinton administration, are more than qualified to help lead this country. He is appointing people he has been told to appoint, under threat of non-cooperation by the DP's rulers.

Anyway, what qualifications does Hillary have to serve as Secretary of State?

You have couched your argument in "either/or terms", which insufficient for needed insight into what's really happening.

Re: definition please

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>> Define "experience" . . .<<

*shrug* Whatever it is that people were expecting Obama to have that he didn't.

>>I would submit that there are many, many potential appointees who, although they haven't served in the Clinton administration, are more than qualified to help lead this country. <<

Oh, I agree with that part. I wouldn't be unhappy with Obama choosing such people. But there are plenty of others who would be unhappy, the way people complained that Obama didn't have enough experience to be president.

>> Anyway, what qualifications does Hillary have to serve as Secretary of State? <<

She's a ball-busting bitch and has served in other offices. SoS is a good place to put an attack-dog career politician.

What I'm getting at is that Obama doesn't really have "safe" people to nominate. No matter what he does, people are going to criticize the choices. That always annoys me.