Routine Reorganizing
Politics — By Rachel Motte on November 21, 2008 at 5:37 pmBy Robin Dembroff
President-elect Barack Obama has announced his planned nominee for Secretary of State, and it’s ’surprisingly expected’: Senator Hillary Clinton.
The choice sparks both approval and doubt in my mind.
On the one hand, it is a smart move. Obama will gain political advantage by Clinton’s appointment. Not being highly experienced in DC, Obama does not have the same political ‘clout’ that the Clintons have through their connections and global name recognition. Having Sen. Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama will probably be in a position to pull strings on the Hill and gain financial supporters that he would not be able to otherwise.
However, in light of Obama’s basic platforms in the recent election, I have to express some trepidation about Clinton’s nomination. I believe Obama was elected because he presented a message of hope through drastic, necessary changes in DC…
But what is more “ho-hum” than another Clinton in the White House?
(Well, at least he’s not nominating Jeb Bush or something, eh?)
Obama was elected based on his ability to break out of the box, and now this nomination appears to be his jumping back into it. Clinton, even the name itself, represents the “business-as-usual” in DC. So he gains some connections…but what good are connections if you can only get them by minimizing what you needed them for in the first place?
Transformation, for good or bad, does not typically come through normalcy: Lenin didn’t overthrow the Tsar through the Duma, and Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t operate his social revolution through Congress.
Obama’s ’safe’ choice leads me to wonder if, less than a month after his election, he is already caving under the Hill’s pressure to conform. I hope I’m wrong. But, man…
I was really hoping for a Bush/Clinton-free White House for the first time in nearly thirty years.
Robin Dembroff is a Sophomore in the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University majoring in Humanities, with an emphasis in Philosophy. After college, she is interested in pursuing speechwriting within the political arena.
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
44 Comments
More change woo-hoo! …hey wait a minute. If it were not going to be so painful for the country, the coming “change” would be funny. -jw
More change woo-hoo! …hey wait a minute. If it were not going to be so painful for the country, the coming “change” would be funny. -jw
More change woo-hoo! …hey wait a minute. If it were not going to be so painful for the country, the coming “change” would be funny. -jw
Yep, I don’t think the folks who voted for him in hopes of seeing “change” quite had in mind the reinstallment of dozens of Clintonites into the Obama cabinet and administration. That’s the problem with “change.” It just means different from what the current situation is, but in what direction and how far? He’s taking the gov’t back to 1993-2001. A change, but not much of one. Well, we’ll see…
Also, I’ve heard the thought that it will be very difficult for Hillary to run for President in 2012 if she’s Sec’y of State. She’s taken herself out of the running by accepting this post.
Wall Street seemed to like his pick for Treasury Sec’y. His name came out and the Dow went up 400 points in one hour. Now THAT guy has his work cut out for him.
In fact, Martin Luther King Jr. did operate his social revolution through Congress. The demonstrations and arrests and sacrifices of the the civil rights activists were all aimed at getting Congress to enact legislation. The events in Montgomery led to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while the events in Selma led directly to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These two laws were the culminating successes of the movement. King himself said something to the effect of “A law may not change someone’s heart, but it can keep me from being lynched.” In pushing these measures through Congress, LBJ did more for blacks than any president since Lincoln. And he did it at great cost. As he prepared to sign the Civil Rights Act, he reportedly said that his signature would mean that ther South would be lost to the Democratic Party for a generation.
More to the point of your essay, the change I wanted when I voted for Obama was a change away from Republicans in general and Bush in particular. I think Hillary will do a fantastic job as SOS. You seem to think the only advantages she brings are in the realm of insider politics. I think her greatest strengths are in her ability to get things done, astounding intelligence, great integrity, commitment to human rights, and the fact that she has visited and dealt with the leaders of 80 countries. I think she knows that Africa is a continent. And, believe it or not, the Clinton name is held in high esteem throughout most of the world, particularly among the oppressed of the Third World.
This must have been a very tough decision for Hillary. You see, the Clintons make every calculating decision with this question in mind: What’s best for me?
As SOS she can either do a bang up job, make Obama look good, and dash her hopes for being president for 8 years, OR undermine his presidency in her best interest.
Given the bad blood between Hillary and Obama, it is hard to see her towing the Obama line and giving in to what he (or his handlers) think is right. There is going to be a bit of “Clash of the Titans” within the White House walls. Better hide the China and get out the Melamine.
As a matter of politics, it’s always better to hug your opponent than to keep him (or her in this case) out side. The style of appointments, their speed suggests that this is not simply a reconfiguration of the Clinton era. And as to change — one of the desired elements was a level of adult competence. This level of competence was captured in the David Brooks column of 11/21.
Well, I think we shouldn’t be too terribly surprised, for a few reasons:
1) Obama made other campaign promises that we know darn well he isn’t going to make good on (example: “reaching across the table” on abortion.)
2) He hobnobbed with the “ol gang” during his prior political career and during his campaign (example: connections while in Chicago, Joe Biden).
Robin, the Clinton years were eight years of peace and prosperity, and going back to peace and prosperity would represent a huge change from what’s going on now. The change that Obama’s supporters want isn’t a total repudiation of everything that’s ever been done. We just want changes that will improve our lives and improve America. During Clinton’s presidency, our lives were much better and America was much better.
Another change is that Hillary Clinton is smart and capable of doing a really good job. Your understanding of the importance of intelligence is somewhat impaired by the fact that you you attend a retard college surrounded by retarded students and taught by retarded professors, but take it from me, having an intelligent person in a position of responsibility makes a big difference.
Yes Mike, because only a person of true intelligence would resort to calling an entire school retarded. Such diction you demonstrate.
I am sure that Obama’s first order of business was to put on a standard issue “It’s my First Four!” tee-shirt given to him by the White House staff. He had to wear it, or else. “Even Washington wore it, man!” they insisted, and Obama conceded.
I am sure that Obama’s first order of business was to wear a standard issue “It’s My First Four!” tee-shirt, given to him by the White House staff, or else. “Even Washington wore one, man!” they insisted, and Obama conceded.
hm.
I appreciate ex-preachers grasp of history and the concrete, positive qualities of political figures. It seems altogether unbiased and un-exaggerated upon fact-checking.
My only question is: why aren’t arguing with a conservative that corresponds to your level? So I understand it’s just generally your prerogative/inclination to have your voice heard, but I hope you don’t fail to appreciate those who went gently with you when you were a baby liberal eh?
I view politics as merely the surrounding details of people who can choose– beyond their socio-economic and political climate– to make each others’ lives easier or harder. Is it ok if my little soapbox have a vote for charity and understanding without being sanctimonious? The blogosphere is stifling air for this canary…
JillD writes:
“Yep, I don’t think the folks who voted for him in hopes of seeing “change” quite had in mind the reinstallment of dozens of Clintonites into the Obama cabinet and administration. That’s the problem with “change.” It just means different from what the current situation is, but in what direction and how far? He’s taking the gov’t back to 1993-2001. A change, but not much of one. Well, we’ll see…”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jill, I can’t speak for everyone who voted for Obama, but his actions so far are in line with what I hoped for and expected.
This criticism seems nothing more than petty snarkiness. Clinton’s a strong personality who would make a good Sec. of State. Additionally, Bill Clinton was well respected by many international leaders so she should hopefully be able to exploit that good will for the US’s benefit. It’s a good choice as well as a smart political move on Obama’s part to have the Hillary faction ‘buying into’ his administration but keeping her out of domestic affairs.
“Obama was elected based on his ability to break out of the box, and now this nomination appears to be his jumping back into it.”
I think it’s probably more accurate to conclude that Obama was elected on his ability to be perceived as breaking out of the box. His policies and statements from his years in politics didn’t show anything new, despite his words. He had a great speechwriter.
The Clintons don’t give up power easily; I suspect the S. of S. thing may have been brokered months ago - about when Hillary grudgingly decided to endorse Obama. The liberal illuminati are not going to concede Washington to who they know full well is a newcomer. The Democrats are back in power; they are happy about it; but they will not allow the new kid to think he’s going to change them.
I believe Obama was elected because he presented a message of hope through drastic, necessary changes in DC…
OK, I’ll buy that. But there were other reasons, too. 57 percent of Obama voters thought that Republicans still controlled congress, so they’re incredibly ignorant. However, 87 percent knew that Sarah Palin was the candidate who said she could see Russia from her house (she didn’t actually say that, Tina Fey did), so we know they’re paying attention to most of the major news outlets.
Democrats: making the stupid feel good about themselves for over fourty years.
The whole thing about hope and change is ironic, however. Obama supporters have to believe that a guy who came out of the dirtiest, most corrupt and powerful political machine in the country, i.e., the Chicago Democrat party apparatus, is somehow a different kind of politician. He claimed to be above all the stuff we hate about politics and politicians. Though I’m sure the usual suspects here didn’t believe that. I’m sure they knew him for what he truly is: a master politician who will say anything to get power. I wonder where the number is now for the cutoff for the middle class “tax cut”. It started at an income of $250,000 and the last I heard it was at $150,000. Do I hear $100,000? $50,000? But I suppose it’s presumptuous to hold the messiah accountable for mere words. He will make money appear like manna from Peoria.
And, believe it or not, the Clinton name is held in high esteem throughout most of the world, particularly among the oppressed of the Third World.
The Clinton name is held in high esteem at the local Buffalo Traders cigar emporium and massage parlor, too.
However, 87 percent knew that Sarah Palin was the candidate who said she could see Russia from her house (she didn’t actually say that, Tina Fey did), so we know they’re paying attention to most of the major news outlets.
She did say she had foreign policy experience because Russia bordered her state. When asked what exactly that meant, like did she host trade missions from Russia or whatnot, she could only stammer. There wasn’t much difference between the real Palin and the Tina Fey one.
It started at an income of $250,000 and the last I heard it was at $150,000. Do I hear $100,000? $50,000?
we are still waiting to see how much of the economy is going to get destroyed under Bush’s last 40 days or so. We may end up where the guy with the full Pez dispensor is in the top 1% of income!
The folks in Mexico got change in the early part of the last century too: http://salesianity.blogspot.com/2008/11/cristo-rey-blessed-miguel-agustin-pro.html
Let’s pray our change isn’t so costly.
This post is just the beginning of people saying “Wait a gosh darn minute! You promised us hope, you said things in your speeches that sounded so good. What are you doing?”
I have a feeling a lot of well meaning Christians who voted for Obama hoping for hope are going to be disappointed. Hope only comes from Jesus Christ. Getting all excited about Obama’s promise of hope, while fun was pretty niave if you ask me.
It’s going to be very hard for me to not say “I told you so” for the next four years, but I’ll try my best. Wait, I just did it didn’t I.
Is there a person here who honestly can say they feel hurt and disappointed that Hillary Clinton was selected as Sec. of State? That your vote for Obama has been betrayed?
Somehow I suspect, like the mythical PUMA voters, this animal just doesn’t exist and the griping from the suspects on this list wouldn’t be happy if Obama had selected Jesus Christ to be Sec. of State.
we are still waiting to see how much of the economy is going to get destroyed under Bush’s last 40 days or so. We may end up where the guy with the full Pez dispensor is in the top 1% of income!
Three possible responses to this:
1. Obama will still tax the rich guy.
2. Now, Boonton, your Daddy told you not to try humor. Some kids can do it, some can’t.
3. Boonton, ur an idjit.
jd, Nate Silver took down the guy who commissioned that poll you refer to. What the poll mainly demonstrates is that Obama voters and other members of the reality-based community are not up to date on the latest Bizarro World wingnut talking points.
Nate Silver…Nate Silver…wasn’t he the guy who wrote that book, 88 Reasons Why the world Will End in 1988?. I knew that name sounded familiar. I’m sure he’s the guy who wrote that book. Everyone who’s “up-to-date” knows the name, Nate Silver, and all his great work.
Or wait…maybe he was the guy in Boogie Nights
That, my friends, is an example of jd’s comedy skills. Those who died laughing are exempt from any Obama tax increases.
My apologies, everyone. what can I say? I thought it was funny. It was a good faith effort to be funny. But Boonton, after googling it, correctly noted that it wasn’t funny and then made a superior joke about Obama and tax exemptions. Boonton knows humor. I think we can all agree on that.
“This post is just the beginning of people saying ‘Wait a gosh darn minute! You promised us hope, you said things in your speeches that sounded so good. What are you doing?’”
============================================
Actually, Chris, I’d say it’s the beginning of people who did not vote for him second-guessing his every move. That’s fine, of course, but let’s not put words in the moutns of his supporters.
I am all for change but the thread i keep bringing up is the promise that the liberal illuminati have made us, the bipartisan promise and to date it doesn’t really seem like Obama is keeping that promise.
Just a little addendum to the discussion about the ignorance of Obama voters. The same guy that did the poll did another one later, just to make the comparison. He asked the same questions of McCain voters. Overall, 36% of McCain voters got 10 out of 13 questions right. Obama voters? Only 18% got 10 of 13 questions. You can see the results of the polls here:
http://howobamagotelected.com/#wilson
I could write poll questions that Obama voters would get right more often than McCain voters. It’s not that hard. People tend to better absorb information that fits in with the way they already see things, and this gives plenty of opportunity for unscrupulous pollsters who are more concerned with ideology than with objectivity to paint an unflattering picture of their ideological opponents.
That’s nice, Rob.
That doesn’t change the “unflattering picture” that 57 percent of Obama voters are so ignorant they didn’t know who controlled Congress.
“That doesn’t change the “unflattering picture” that 57 percent of Obama voters are so ignorant they didn’t know who controlled Congress.”
No, but it puts it in perspective. I’d say Obama voters would outperform McCain voters on other questions, like “Is Barack Obama a U.S.citizen?”
Oh, yes, that would definitely help your argument. I’m sure 99.997% of Obama voters would get the question right while only 99.5% of McCain voters would. Wow. That would mean four times as many Obama voters got the question right. Come to think of it maybe MSNBC should run with that story. Nah. They wouldn’t run a story so misleading.
How about this, jd - just a few days before the election, a poll by the University of Texas found that 23% of Texans and a whopping 33% of Republicans thought Obama was a Muslim.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/html/poll/files/200810-summary.pdf
I looked at your survey, ex. I found where it says that 23% of those polled thought Obama was Muslim, but NOWHERE does it say that 33% of Repubs thought that. In fact, more people just “didn’t know” what religion Obama was. Are you dishonest, or just mistaken?
I hoped you would take the initiative to explore that site until you found the breakdown py party or at least google the information. Here, I’ll lead you there. First, go to:
http://texaspolitics.laits.utexas.edu/11_1_2.html
Now, click on “Texans on Obama’s Religion” in the features box. Now click on “Breakdown by Party.”
I am neither dishonest nor mistaken. I look forward to your apology. I also look forward to your admission that Republicans were ignorant (or dishonest) about Obama’s religion.
I wrote a response Saturday night showing where to find the 33% figures at that website, but I guess my post is hung up in the spam filter. If it doesn’t come through, I’ll re-write it tomorrow.
I won’t hold my breath on that, Ex. there’s only one question regarding Obama’s religion and there’s nothing there about Republicans. I’ll wait for your apology instead.
Yup. You were right. I’m kind of glad, because I was hoping you weren’t that dishonest. And I will concede that you weren’t mistaken. I apologize.
But this poll doesn’t help your case much at all.
It DOES show that 33% of Texas Repubs thought Barack was Muslim. However, it also shows that 20% of Texas independents thought he was Muslim and more than 11% of Texas Dems thought he was Muslim. A full 58% of independents knew that Barack was Protestant while only 48% of Dems knew. In addition, a “whopping” 37% of Dems “couldn’t say” what religion he was. Your polls might actually say more about Obama than his voters: no one knows where Obama stands on anything. This survey does not reflect well on Dems’ knowledge of their own candidate.
No matter. It still doesn’t come close to 57% of Democrat voters not knowing who controlled Congress. The notion that you and Rob would compare such statistics shows desperation. Face it. Barack was elected by the party of ignorance.
I appreciate the apology. If you know much about Texas Democrats, you might understand why 11% thought Obama was a Muslim. Many Texans (and other southern) Dems are extremely conservative. They often vote Democratic for state and local elections and Republican in presidential elections. I would guess that many of those Democrats who thought he was a Muslim actually voted for McCain.
It is difficult to know which party’s voters were more ignorant because McCain voters were not polled. For a pretty devastating smackdown of the Zogby poll you are citing, check this out from the Numbers Guy at the Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of liberalism).
http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/zogbys-misleading-poll-of-obama-voters-459/
Correction: I should have said that Zogby did not ask the questions of McCain voters. Apparently another polling group did. The main thing the poll seems to show is that Obama voters were aware of Democratic talking points and McCain voters were aware of Republican talking points. One of the Republican talking points was that Democrats controlled Congress.
Obama voters were more knowledgable on some questions. I’m sure they would have scored even better on questions that weren’t asked, such as: “Which candidate joked about bombing Iran?”, “Which candidate claimed to have said ‘no thanks’ to Congress on the bridge to nowhere?” and “Which candidate has been endorsed by the president with the lowest poll numbers in history?” It’s also interesting how little the answers varied based on the news sources that voters relied on.
“Face it. Barack was elected by the party of ignorance.”
Ironic when one looks at the Republican VP nominee.