PDA

View Full Version : obama keeping robert gates in his cabinet



NorthMass
11-27-2008, 11:53 PM
so much for change :/

sugicalmike
11-27-2008, 11:57 PM
Can I say R..... because I already made this post?








Eh, I'm not too sure...... I think the question of a SecDef to appoint at this time has a lot more moving parts to it than what most people would hope for. Obviously PE Obama would have the US out and hom/redeployed to Afghanistan by tomorrow if possible, but with two fronts open right now it is a lot to ask an immediate change from the DoD on the same scale which is expected with the rest of his cabinet.

NJlifter88
11-27-2008, 11:58 PM
just have hope lol... the system ain't changin till the **** hits the fan.

sugicalmike
11-27-2008, 11:59 PM
just have hope lol... the system ain't changin till the **** hits the fan.




Hope is not a strategy.

Morbid_Mind
11-28-2008, 12:07 AM
Awesome. I hope he keeps more people from the Bush cabinet.....for the lulz

NJlifter88
11-28-2008, 12:08 AM
Hope is not a strategy.

thats my point... it was sarcasm. the global scene doesn't take a 180 based on one presidential election. change, whether good or bad, is going to be rather limited as long as republicans and democrats, as they are today, guide US policy.

edit: not to say conditions can't change drastically... but the rate of change in the mindset of the people will correlate to the change in conditions of society. as long as the **** doesn't hit the fan, policy will not change drastically based on public opinion.

sugicalmike
11-28-2008, 12:12 AM
thats my point... it was sarcasm. the global scene doesn't take a 180 based on one presidential election. change, whether good or bad, is going to be rather limited as long as republicans and democrats, as they are today, guide US policy.

Sarcasm is not a strategy!















:)






Yeah brah, I got ya!

Which is why I am astounded by how many Americans were won over by catch phrases (among other things) rather than actual laid out plans when it came to this election.

"OMG, it's going to change!!!!"

"Ummmm, okay, from what to what? You think by the start of February the Dow will hit 20,000, we'll all be millionaires, have colonized a third planet and world peace will have finally been achieved?"

NJlifter88
11-28-2008, 12:16 AM
Sarcasm is not a strategy!
:)


Yeah brah, I got ya!

Which is why I am astounded by how many Americans were won over by catch phrases (among other things) rather than actual laid out plans when it came to this election.

"OMG, it's going to change!!!!"

"Ummmm, okay, from what to what? You think by the start of February the Dow will hit 20,000, we'll all be millionaires, have colonized a third planet and world peace will have finally been achieved?"
i couldn't agree with you more. it really brings you back to reality not only to about the power of the media, but also about the level of education of the people. the politicians in power have it way too easy.

there needs to be a more critical voice in government.

jackamo2887
11-28-2008, 12:23 AM
Change you can believe in.

Vitalshok44
11-28-2008, 12:23 AM
It's the only responsible thing he's done with his Cabinet.

Gates is doing a good job, considering the mess he had to clean up from Rumsfeld.

sugicalmike
11-28-2008, 12:32 AM
i couldn't agree with you more. it really brings you back to reality not only to about the power of the media, but also about the level of education of the people. the politicians in power have it way too easy.

there needs to be a more critical voice in government.

I also agree,

and I wasn't necessarily for either candidate necessarily, but that is one of the reasons why I supported the idea to run on a set amount of provided funds. If both candidates are on the same timeline and budget, they're going to be forced to use creativity and results in order to gain votes and trust.

Any fool can dump money into an add agency and sell you a turd...... it takes a real master of craft to get you to do the wiping!

NJlifter88
11-28-2008, 12:50 AM
It's the only responsible thing he's done with his Cabinet.

Gates is doing a good job, considering the mess he had to clean up from Rumsfeld.
legitimate point.

I also agree,

and I wasn't necessarily for either candidate necessarily, but that is one of the reasons why I supported the idea to run on a set amount of provided funds. If both candidates are on the same timeline and budget, they're going to be forced to use creativity and results in order to gain votes and trust.

Any fool can dump money into an add agency and sell you a turd...... it takes a real master of craft to get you to do the wiping!
lol... 5 star analogy

George Carlinian
11-28-2008, 12:50 AM
He's keeping people who will give confidence to the nation- but remember:

OBAMA is the President, HE is the Change, HE is the one people have hope in.


BRB, checking my 'ask an obama supporter anything' thread.

NJlifter88
11-28-2008, 12:51 AM
He's keeping people who will give confidence to the nation- but remember:

OBAMA is the President, HE is the Change, HE is the one people have hope in.


BRB, checking my 'ask an obama supporter anything' thread.

not yet. just sayin

sugicalmike
11-28-2008, 12:56 AM
He's keeping people who will give confidence to the nation- but remember:

OBAMA is the President, HE is the Change, HE is the one people have hope in.


BRB, checking my 'ask an obama supporter anything' thread.

Policy may be implemented by the President, but it is the Legislature which is responsible for assembling and passing the laws set before the nation..... and in case you haven't noticed, they are parring the Detroit Lions in job approval ratings at the moment.

Change is a catch phrase, it was a catchphrase during the election, it is a catchphrase right now, it will be a catchphrase on inaugeration day..... hopefully for the sake of the nation, it will have ceased to be a catchphrase and actually be a reality in four years time.

Hope and change are all fine and good as long as people realize that those need to take second place to 'Results', which having been the pitch, hope and change better achieve for us.


edit: and yeah, he's the President-Elect, I have a job interview lined up..... I'm still holding out on printing business cards.

George Carlinian
11-28-2008, 01:05 AM
The President enforces laws.

For example:

Bush didn't enforce any business laws, not anti-trust, not environmental, nothing...if anything, reduced enforcement year by year and even made businessmen his main recipients of his presidential pardons.

Obama will focus on what matters to him, as Bush did, as Clinton did. When we elect an executive, that is what we elect- the direction we go to, the focus of the government/business.

NJlifter88
11-28-2008, 01:07 AM
The President enforces laws.

For example:

Bush didn't enforce any business laws, not anti-trust, not environmental, nothing...if anything, reduced enforcement year by year and even made businessmen his main recipients of his presidential pardons.

Obama will focus on what matters to him, as Bush did, as Clinton did. When we elect an executive, that is what we elect- the direction we go to, the focus of the government/business.

like i have said in another thread... business laws were enforced but only toward small companies. big companies were the ones who had control over the market. its because government attorneys don't prosecute who they hope will be their future boss.

George Carlinian
11-28-2008, 01:16 AM
like i have said in another thread... business laws were enforced but only toward small companies. big companies were the ones who had control over the market. its because government attorneys don't prosecute who they hope will be their future boss.

Agreed, but the big corporations/oligopolalies/monopolies are all that matter.

thats why we dont have windmills for electricity, or decent hybrid cars on the market, or organic foods at decent prices, or this or that or the other thing.

George Carlinian
11-28-2008, 01:18 AM
BTW, I think Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Dept of Energy...that's impossible considering that they control the nuclear (nucular) power plants and are tied to the military. We need a President who will make the DOE develop afternative fuels for household electricity, cars, and better batteries for cell phones/laptops.

NJlifter88
11-28-2008, 01:20 AM
Agreed, but the big corporations/oligopolalies/monopolies are all that matter.

thats why we dont have windmills for electricity, or decent hybrid cars on the market, or organic foods at decent prices, or this or that or the other thing.

its not that big companies are inherently all that matter... its that the lack of consistency in the execution of the rule of law, benefitting big companies over smaller, growing companies, has hindered competition. along with that, innovation, productivity, and efficiency go down as well.

George Carlinian
11-28-2008, 01:23 AM
its not that big companies are inherently all that matter... its that the lack of consistency in the execution of the rule of law, benefitting big companies over smaller, growing companies, has hindered competition. along with that, innovation, productivity, and efficiency go down as well.I didn't elaborate, but yes, that's exactly true.
its what significantly affects the overall economy when you consider that all teh big companies can buy legislations and executives in government.

superman11978
11-28-2008, 03:03 AM
Obama is essentially being the exact opposite of Bush. If that's not change I don't know what is. He's not even in office and yet it's clear that he is bringing intellectualism back into the White House. Change was a great slogan but maybe you need to look the word up in the dictionary if you think it's not happening. If Obama starts another war based on lies, then I'll take that back.

I would think people here would like that Obama is not filling the place up with Dems and is keeping some hawkish Republicans around who know their sh!t. Unless you're blaming Robert Gates for the war in Iraq, then I think you need to read up on your history.

nutsy54
11-28-2008, 04:40 AM
Obama is essentially being the exact opposite of Bush. If that's not change I don't know what is.Simply amazing. When Obama makes the exact same decision as Bush (in this case, selection of SecDef), you apologists can actually stand there with a straight face and still justify it as "Change!" :rolleyes:

Yet whenever someone criticizes the President Elect, we're told to shut the hell up, "because he hasn't done anything yet". Which is it? Is he doing stuff & making decisions which can be pointed to and analyzed, or has he not done anything yet, requiring us all to remain silent in our opinions?

But, I digress. . .

Simple question for the pure Bush haters: With the decision to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense, which one is it:
a. Bush made a good choice by initially appointing Gates
b. Obama made a bad choice by keeping him

bulletproofsoul
11-28-2008, 10:41 AM
But, I digress. . .Um, yeah...strident rant might be a better description...no offense. :eek:


Simple question for the pure Bush haters: With the decision to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense, which one is it:
a. Bush made a good choice by initially appointing Gates
b. Obama made a bad choice by keeping himI don't hate Bush. What a ridiculous comment. Can that equal "disagrees with some of his policies" also?

That's a rhetorical question...fyi. :)

The answer is c) Bush corrected a serious mistake by replacing his initial SecDef with one that is far more competent, long after he should have. His personal loyalties clouded his judgement. The fact is that Gates is no Pentagon bureaucrat and has the balls to fire incompetent, ineffective people, where as Rumsfeld DID NOT. He's not bound by ideology, unlike yourself, :D and it is a wise choice of President-Elect Obama to keep on a SecDef who has earned wide, bi-partisan respect and admiration.

Simply amazing...

PERIOD ;)

tts0lid
11-28-2008, 11:08 AM
The answer is c) Bush corrected a serious mistake by replacing his initial SecDef with one that is far more competent, long after he should have. His personal loyalties clouded his judgement. The fact is that Gates is no Pentagon bureaucrat and has the balls to fire incompetent, ineffective people, where as Rumsfeld DID NOT. He's not bound by ideology, unlike yourself, :D and it is a wise choice of President-Elect Obama to keep on a SecDef who has earned wide, bi-partisan respect and admiration.

Simply amazing...

PERIOD ;)

Beat me to it....

nutsy54
11-28-2008, 11:15 AM
I don't hate Bush.Then, clearly, the question wasn't addressed to you ;)

There are plenty of posters here who knee-jerk hate every decision made by George Bush. And many of them will simultaneously knee-jerk defend and praise every decision made by Barack Obama. My question was directed to those with that specific mindset.

U.K.A.
11-28-2008, 11:56 AM
Robert Gates violated the Logan Act:

The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. ? 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.

Congress established the Logan Act in 1799, less than one year after passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS, which authorized the arrest and deportation of ALIENS and prohibited written communication defamatory to the U.S. government. The 1799 act was named after Dr. George Logan. A prominent Republican and Quaker from Pennsylvania, Logan did not draft or introduce the legislation that bears his name, but was involved in the political climate that precipitated it.

He met in Chantilly, VA at the Bilderberg meeting (with Rothschild, Rockefeller, etc.) Barack Obama was also there, along with Hillary Clinton.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"List of Bilderberg attendees is a list of prominent persons who have attended one or more conferences organized by the Bilderberg Group. The list is currently organized by category. It is not a complete list and it includes both living and deceased people. Where known, the year(s) they attended are denoted in brackets.

The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg conference is an unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of business, media, and politics.

The elite group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world, normally in Europe, once every four years in the United States or Canada. It has an office in Leiden, South Holland, Netherlands.[1] They met at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Istanbul, Turkey for the June 2007 meeting.[2] The 56th Bilderberg meeting took place June 6-8, 2008 at the Westfields Marriott in Chantilly, Virginia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees

Attendee:

Robert Gates (2008), current United States Secretary of Defense

Bilderberg 2008 Report[1]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3809830/Bilderberg-2008-Report1

Confirmed: Obama & Clinton attended Bilderberg for meeting
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Confirmed_Obama_Clinton_attended_Bilderberg_for_me eting

"Sources from inside the 2008 Bilderberg meeting have leaked the details of what elitists were discussing in Chantilly Virginia last week and the talking points were ominous - a plan to microchip Americans under the pretext of fighting terrorist groups which will be identified as blonde haired, blue eyed westerners.

Veteran Bilderberg sleuth Jim Tucker relies on sources who regularly attend Bilderberg as aides and assistants but who are not Bilderberg members themselves. The information they provided this year is bone-chilling for those who have tracked the development of the plan to make the general public consider implanted microchips as a convenience as routine as credit cards

"Under the heading of resisting terrorism there were points made about how the terrorist organizations are recruiting people who do not look like terrorists - blonde, blue eyed boys - they're searching hard for those types to become the new mad bombers," said Tucker.

[INSERT: AND NOW THE LATEST FALSE FLAG IN INDIA LEGITIMIZES AND GREEN LIGHTS LOOKING FOR NON-EXISTENT CAUCASIAN AL-QAEDA IN THE U.S., ALL BY DESIGN, ALL TO EXPAND THE ENSLAVEMENT GRID MAKING EVERYONE A TERRORIST, AND THUS BEING ABLE TO KIDNAP AND EXECUTE ANYONE AT WILL WITH ZERO DUE PROCESS AND ZERO PROBABLE CAUSE, JUST LIKE THE ASSASSINATION LISTS HITLER HAD HIS OFFICERS COMPILE ON PEOPLE WHO HE FELT WERE EVEN REMOTELY A THREAT.]

As we have documented, the blue eyed blonde haired Al-Qaeda line is a
familiar talking point that has been pushed on Fox News and within other Neo-Con circles in an attempt to turn the anti-terror apparatus around to target dissidents, protesters and the American people in general.

Ominously, Tucker's source also told him that Bilderberg were discussing the microchipping of humans on a mass scale, which would be introduced under the pretext of fighting terrorism whereby the "good guys" would be allowed to travel freely from airports so long as their microchip could be scanned and the information stored in a database.

Tucker said the idea was also sold on the basis that it would help hospital staff treat a patient in an emergency situation because a scan of the chip would provide instantaneous access to health details.

Tucker underscored that Bilderberg were talking about subdermally implanted chips and not merely RFID chips contained in clothing. The discussion took place in a main conference hall and was part of the agenda, not an off-hand remark in the hotel bar

Such a bizarre concept may seem unbelievable to some, but over the last ten years there have been dozens of examples of people accepting
implanted chips for a variety of different reasons.

In 2004, Mexico's attorney general and 160 of his office staff were implanted with tracker chips to control access to to secure areas of their headquarters.

The Baja Beach Club in Barcelona and other nightclubs around the world are already offering implantable chips to customers who want to pay for drinks with the wave of a hand and also get access to VIP areas of the club lounge.

Bilderberg skeptical of attack on Iran

Tucker's source told him that
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates did attend Bilderberg despite him not appearing on the official list.

Tucker said that his sources told him Gates was in attendance to present his case for war with Iran,
but that the majority of Bilderberg members were against an attack at this time.

"The Europeans were generally opposed to an invasion of Iran - Gates made the regular war propaganda drill about how Iran is a nuclear threat to everybody," said Tucker, adding that European Bilderbergers made snide comments about where such nuclear weapons actually were being kept and at one point joking that they were possibly "in Saddam Hussein's tomb".

Despite Bilderberg opposition, Tucker said that the administration was still considering an attack before Bush leaves office in January.

"At least 90 per cent of the Europeans oppose a war, probably closer to 100 per cent," said Tucker, adding, "most of the Americans were passive and deferential to the Secretary of Defense and Condoleezza Rice's pitch in so far as Iran is concerned".

Tucker said that most Americans present at the meeting were opposed to attacking Iran but dare not be as visible and loud in their opposition as the Europeans.


Energy and oil prices

"One of the Bilderberg boys raised this question - should we put a lid on the rise in oil prices, are we reaching the point of diminishing returns," said Tucker, adding that Bilderberg noted how Americans were trading in their SUV's in record numbers for small and more fuel efficient cars and using more public transport to combat high gas prices.

Tucker's source said that Bilderberg were predicting $5 for a gallon of gas by the end of this summer and oil over $150 dollars a barrel, but that this was a ceiling and oil prices would probably begin to decline thereafter because they thought the acceleration had happened too quickly.

As we previously reported, Bilderberg called for oil prices to soar in 2005 when oil was a mere $40 a barrel.

During the conference in Germany, Henry Kissinger told his fellow attendees that the elite had resolved to ensure that oil prices would double over the course of the next 12-24 months, which is exactly what happened.

During their 2006 meeting in Ottawa Canada, Bilderberg agreed to push for $105 a barrel before the end of 2008. With that target having been smashed months ago, the acceleration towards $150 is outstripping even Bilderberg's goal, which is why the elitists expressed a desire to cool prices at least in the short term.

Just two days after he left Bilderberg, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, George W. Bush and others expressed support for a strong dollar and Bernanke hinted that interest rates could rise, which immediately caused oil prices to drop in line with Bilderberg's consensus."

Robert Gates is globalist elite trash, traitor, and enemy of the constitution and bill of rights.

GrokTheCube
11-28-2008, 12:34 PM
Gates did a good job, and in a time of war it's intelligent to keep him on for transition.

If BO picked an outsider, people would criticize him for picking someone with no experience. If he picked someone qualified, they would accuse him of picking an insider.

Gates is a good choice to keep on to smooth the transition, and maybe replace one or two years down the road, or in 2011 when they boot us out of Iraq.

nutsy54
11-28-2008, 12:59 PM
If BO picked an outsider, people would criticize him for picking someone with no experience. If he picked someone qualified, they would accuse him of picking an insider.And that's the Catch-22 he set himself up for. His entire campaign was about Change - not just from the Bush Administration but also "After decades of broken politics in Washington. . ."

And then when it came time to actually pick his Cabinet and close advisers. . . Uh Oh.

I'm obviously happy (and, yes, surprised) with his SecDef decision. And not so happy with some other Cabinet picks (which have already been covered in other threads). My question to the die-hard supporters is simple: Is this the guy you voted for? Is a Cabinet filled with the Clinton Administration, and even a key post held by a Bush appointee, the "Change" that you were expecting?

And, since we're on the topic of Defense. . . Will we actually see an immediate withdrawal order from Iraq on January 21st, with all of our combat forces gone by May 2011, as promised?

superman11978
11-29-2008, 12:45 AM
I'm obviously happy (and, yes, surprised) with his SecDef decision. And not so happy with some other Cabinet picks (which have already been covered in other threads). My question to the die-hard supporters is simple: Is this the guy you voted for? Is a Cabinet filled with the Clinton Administration, and even a key post held by a Bush appointee, the "Change" that you were expecting?


Yes, this was exactly what I was expecting. He is bringing himself (the most important part of the generational and intellectual "change") and his "change" team who conducted a brilliant campaign and is combining forces with people who know their sh!t and have decades of experience, including some Republicans. That is exactly what I was hoping for, and it was my counter when people said he wasn't experienced ("well, do you really think he's going to be running this country alone without the advisement of highly experienced people?"). You even admit that it was a smart decision to keep Gates, so you are arguing about nothing.

Inev
11-29-2008, 12:48 AM
And, since we're on the topic of Defense. . . Will we actually see an immediate withdrawal order from Iraq on January 21st, with all of our combat forces gone by May 2011, as promised?

i say highly unlikely, but possible.

if im not mistaken he consistently voted to fund the war(s). and has plans to increase our presence in Afganistan.

enkaroxch
11-29-2008, 12:50 AM
He should put Bush in his cabinet, for teh Luuuuuuullzzzzz.

nutsy54
11-29-2008, 04:40 AM
He should put Bush in his cabinet, for teh Luuuuuuullzzzzz.Next to Clinton, so they can elbow each other, or across, so they can kick throughout the cabinet meetings? :D

kvk1
11-29-2008, 05:44 AM
Not everybody in the Bush cabinet was a **** up.

Keeping Gates is a fantastic choice.

I highly recommend everybody skim trhough his background, accomplishments and views.

He's a great man that will be fully compatible with an Obama administration.

George Carlinian
11-29-2008, 12:05 PM
Not everybody in the Bush cabinet was a **** up.

Keeping Gates is a fantastic choice.

I highly recommend everybody skim trhough his background, accomplishments and views.

He's a great man that will be fully compatible with an Obama administration.
Why do that when we can just stick to generalizations and stereotypes yallah, you're a kemalist- what are you talking about?! by the way, how long should i leave that quote in my sig? your choice ;)

DCarruso
11-29-2008, 02:10 PM
Yes, this was exactly what I was expecting. He is bringing himself (the most important part of the generational and intellectual "change") and his "change" team who conducted a brilliant campaign and is combining forces with people who know their sh!t and have decades of experience, including some Republicans. That is exactly what I was hoping for, and it was my counter when people said he wasn't experienced ("well, do you really think he's going to be running this country alone without the advisement of highly experienced people?"). You even admit that it was a smart decision to keep Gates, so you are arguing about nothing.


Ooopsie......




By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann 11.23.2008 Published in the New York Post on November 23, 2008

It is still hard to believe but, if Hillary Clinton?s ?confidantes? are to be trusted, Barack Obama is about to appoint her secretary of state and she is about to accept. This appointment represents the capstone of betrayal of Obama?s promise to be the ?change we can believe in.?

Having upended the Democratic Party, largely over his different views on foreign policy and the war in Iraq, he now turns to the leader of the ancient regime he ousted, derided, mocked and criticized to take over the top international-affairs position in his administration.


No longer, apparently, does he distrust Hillary?s ?judgment,? as he did during the debates when he denounced her vote on the Iraq War resolution. Now, all is forgiven. After all, Obama?s election, the only change he apparently truly believed in, is a fait accompli.

Apart from the breathtaking cynicism of the appointment lies the total lack of foreign-policy experience in the new partnership. Neither Clinton nor Obama has spent five minutes conducting any aspect of foreign policy in the past. Neither has ever negotiated anything or dealt with diplomatic issues. It is the blonde leading the blind.

And then there is the question of whether we want a Secretary of State who is compromised, in advance, by her husband?s dealings with repressive regimes in Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Dubai, the UAE, Morocco, and governments about which we know nothing. These foreign leaders have paid the Clinton family millions of dollars E2 directly and through their library and/or foundation - funds they can and have used as personal income. How do we know that she can conduct foreign policy independently even if it means biting those who have fed her and her husband?

But the most galling aspect of the appointment is that it puts Obama in the midst of an Administration which, while he appointed it, is not his own. Rather he has now created a government staffed by Clinton people, headed by Clinton appointees, and dominated by Hillary herself. He has willingly created the same untenable situation as that into which Lyndon Johnson stepped when JFK was assassinated in 1963. Johnson inherited a cabinet wholly staffed by Kennedy intimates with Bobby himself as Attorney General. LBJ had no choice and had to spend two years making the government his own. But Obama had all the options in the world and chose to fence himself in by appointing Hillary as Secretary of States, Clinton cabinet member Bill Richardson for Commerce, Clinton staffer Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, Clinton buddy (and top lobbyist) Tom Daschle to HHS, and Bill?s Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder, to Justice.

Presidents Clinton and Lincoln similarly appointed what Doris Kearns Goodwin has famously called a ?team of rivals? to staff their cabinets and Administrations. Lincoln named all of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination to senior posts in his cabinet and Clinton staffed his White House and much of his cabinet with ambassadors to other wings of the Democratic Party. George Stephanopoulos was his ambassador to House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, Harold Ickes his emissary to organized labor, Al Gore his delegate to the environmentalists, Leon Panetta his liaison with Congressional committee chairmen, Ron Brown his man in the black community, and Henry Cisneros as his go-between with the Hispanics.

In each case, the president acted because to bolster his ties with the factions of his own party because he feared how he would fare with his party in total control of Congress. Neither the Republicans of 1861 nor the Democrats of 1992 saw the president from their own party as their natural leaders. Lincoln?s colleagues had chosen him only after a deadlock between the two front runners had paralyzed the convention. Clinton got the nomination only after Governor Mario Cuomo of New York, the party?s favorite, had pulled out. Each man was elected with barely 40% of the vote. So each felt constrained to share power with their rivals.

While Obama was not the early favorite of his party, he does not need to defer so ostentatiously to those who fought him for the nomination. His general election mandate clearly entitled him to name who he pleased. But he has chosen to nominate men and women with no loyalty to him and no real stake in his future.

And, standing above all his appointees, like a president-in-exile, is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If Obama needed any warning about how Hillary will play the game, he need only look at how she handled her appointment. She forced Obama to see her by publicly complaining that she had not heard from him. When he raised the possibility of her appointment to State, she then leaked word that it was in the works. Even the announcement of her appointment was not made by Obama but leaked by Hillary?s ?confidantes.?

Hillary will be a loose cannon as Secretary of State, vindicating her own agenda rather than that of the president and burnishing her own image at every turn. Not since Cordell Hull in the 30s have we had a Secretary so interested in running for president. Not since William Jennings Bryan in the 1910s have we had a defeated nominee named as Secretary. Obama will not be able to control Hillary nor will he be able to control his own administration with Emanuel as Chief of Staff. He will find that his appointees will march to the beat of their own drummer - if he is lucky - and Hillary?s if he is not.

Either Obama has chosen to put himself in this untenable situation because he is not wise in the ways of Washington or because he plans to be little more than a figurehead. Given his campaign, neither seems likely. But his promise of change has proven so bankrupt that maybe the rest of his candidacy is too.

Gabriel Anton
11-29-2008, 03:35 PM
Robert Gates is well respected, and what is more he is competent, and proven effective.

What reason to be rid of him? Good move by Obama IMHO