Note to Mr Obama:
There are other schools of economic thought than the home of failed Friedmanomics- the University of Chicago. I would like to see someone not from your Chicago Mafia or the Clinton Administration in a position of power.

Obama is looking more and more like :
1- No Change Change
2- The Change We Don't Need

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"...[U]nderstand where the vision for change comes from first and foremost: it comes from me. That's my job, to provide a vision in terms of where we are going and to make sure that my team is implementing it."

"Yes we can."

So, the "vision for change comes from first and foremost" from Obama? What happened to "we", which amounted to, essentially, a promise to include the people's collective voice in the process of defining the direction of the Obama administration?

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that in a democracy "vision for change comes from first and foremost" from the people, not the president.

Am I the only one who recognizes this glaring contradiction?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is a discussion we don't want to miss. Read me.


what's the sentiment like in defense industry circles?

Posted by Greg Sargent in reply to a comment from ClosetLuddite
November 26, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink


They're depressed by the pick. Gates (and his undersecretary, John Young) have been fierce critics of the most bloated and expensive weapons programs. Politico quoted one anonymous defense analyst yesterday: "the defense industry would like to see the entire Bush team move on."

I'll have a full post on this up in the next hour or so. But the bottom line is that, ironically, keeping Gates is an enormous blow against the status quo.

Posted by FlyOnTneWall in reply to a comment from Greg Sargent
November 26, 2008 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink

Gates is a traitor and war criminal. He was a co-conspirator in the Iran-contra episode (he advocating bombing Nicaragua) and part of the original "October surprise," when he met with Iranians officials to arrange holding the hostages until after Reagan was elected.This from the American Conservative: http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/11/26/gatesgate/

As a former CIA director, he is in a class with Bush Sr. and Tenet, neither of whom should be wandering around as free men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oh great, now he's waxing messianic?

DEFCON falling fast!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He belatedly put Volker and Goolsbee in to filter comment from outside sources. But how much experience do these men have in actually listening, moderating and representing viewpoints different from their own?

It strikes me that when you put very powerful men with very strong opinions in such a position it makes a mockery of the whole process.

But the very notion that he felt the need to form a commission to take input from the progressive community pretty much confirms that those views are not represented in the first place.

Another thing is this intense chatter in the media regarding how essential it is that Obama "govern from the center where Americans actually live". That line was from a DC attorney talking on NPR who described himself as a "liberal" even as he mocked a caller who objected to his condemnation of true progressives as wacko, inflexible extremists equivalent to radical right wing extremists.

Of course, none of this type of chatter, zero, was heard when the Rethugs took power. Then it was "the nation has moved to the right" and the Rethugs were fulfilling their mandate, etc.

I find this sort of spin immensely insulting and offensive because it assumes that I am some sort of idiot who should be spoken down to like a child.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not saying we should not be skeptical--we should. Being skeptical means asking questions and examining evidence with an open mind.

Obama has just sent an encouraging signal but most of the posters at this point seem to be tone-deaf. Obama is saying that he's his own man. Short of him coming out and blasting the stranglehold that corporations have had over government, isn't that what we all want?

Lincoln said that when there is no vision the people perish. Eyes wide open, folks, and that includes open to the possibility of a positive outcome.

This is justified by looking at Obama's life decisions. Any corporation would have loved to have hired him but he became a community organizer in Chicago. The man has roots, not just rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just as the alchemists couldn't turn lead into gold, neither can Obama turn a "free-trade" fascist like Paul Volcker into a socialist -- or even a Keynesian. Volcker and the other vicious, greed-motivated swine who are his associates will successfully conspire against the transformations we need -- bet on it -- no matter how tight a rein Obama tries to keep on his appointees. Thus Obama is already laying the ground to shift to the appointees the blame for the very failures the appointments made inevitable. (Either that or, despite his education and obvious brilliance, Obama has somehow failed to learn the basic lesson of present-day U.S. politics: that, like the politics of any other banana republic, it is the politics of interacting plots and counter-plots -- as byzantine as anything in Tsarist Russia or the empire that was the source of the pejorative -- and that the success of a leader is therefore not in the power of ideas, or even in the potential power of popularity, but rather in the ability to ruthlessly master the conspiratorial process.) Meanwhile, as we in the working class are thrust ever deeper into the New Dark Age of inescapable serfdom, we are watching the birth of the new American Dream: "will work for food."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sure, "me" and his ever so prominent paymasters.

With Bush, it was very clear and obvious that he was not in charge of anything for the last eight years. Obama will give the impression that he's in charge, but is he really? When he readily and quickly agreed to the wall street bailout bill, my impression of him changed, for the worse.

Except for a few relatively important issues, I shouldn't expect anything different from this upcoming presidency, except that he's not Bush. Thank goodness. Nonetheless, I've set the bar low just to make me feel better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are not a democracy. That is not how it works here. Be very clear about this.The USA is an elite republic as it was designed to be by the framers of the Constitution. They were very successful. A democracy is a popular republic. Here the will of the citizens normally prevail because the citizens exercise the authority of the state.The good of the members of society comes first. In an elite republic, the will of an elite, e.g. aristocratic or corporate, prevails because the elite exercises the authority of the state. They serve their own interests first, the society thereafter. The USA was at first a land owners republic. It has become a corporate republic. I am sure Mr. Obama, a constitutional lawyer, knows this perfectly well. So should the rest of us. If we want a democracy, the corporate world must be throttled. FDR had the idea. Does Obama?- Joe

Franklin D. Roosevelt in an April 29, 1938 message to Congress warned that the growth of private power could lead to fascism:

" The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.[28][29][30] "

From the same message:

The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them."[28][30]

quotes from Wiki

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hey Friends, give him (Obama) a chance. We have already had the "just add oil" and wa-la "instant president"/dictator/f-up.
The only real way to rid a ship of rats is first to know how many there are and what sort of damage they cause, where they hide and how they multiply...Take some time, don't blow up the ship! In that scenario, one is likely to drown with them. I choose to follow the Captain on this and hopefully will stay afloat. He's a thinker. We haven't had one in a very long time! Let's just try and remember how that works. We will see heads roll but not until he takes office, still 2 months away...If any of you play cards, do you really expect to lay down your hand before getting to the table?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It is obvious from many of the snide, ignorant, impatient and hateful comments here that Alternet has become infested with neurotic wingnut trolls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Constitution of the United States was meant to limit the power of Federal Government,
and to clearly define that powers not specifically given to the Federal Government were reserved to the States and the People.
Most Presidents have not followed the Constitution very well...
But no President has deliberately sought to destroy it in the way that the Bush administration has done.
They said we were attacked for our freedoms, and Bush and his Neo-Con chicken-hawks seemed to think getting rid of those freedoms by gutting the Bill of Rights and and ignoring both the Constitutional and Internernational Law.
I can't think of a more cowardly or complete surrender to terrorism!
The Constitution was NEVER meant to be suspended, in part or whole, and it is in the most dire and exigent times when we should be looking to it for wisdom and guidance.
If our leaders had followed the Constitution, and heeded the many words of wise men like Thomas Jefferson,Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson (the only President to completely pay off the National Debt) our nation would never have sunk to its current position.
We were the wealthiest nation in the world, but our greed knew no end. We are only about 5% of the world's population, yet we use up 25% of the world's resources! By doing this, we cause inequality throughout the world, just as there is immense inequality within our own nation. Why should a CEO make 400 times what his employees make, and have a "golden parachute"? It's insanity.
There are many enemies among us, chief among them: The Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, a fiat, or unbacked, currency that has been devalued by aprox. 95% since the inception of the FED in 1913.
Then there is the Military Industrial Complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us in his departing speech. Finally, there are the multinational corporations, with the oil corporations at the top.
These are the forces which keep the rich
getting richer and the poor getting pooer.
The wealthiest nation, yet we have one of the highest illiteracy rates; our schools are more of a social indoctrination than an institute that teaches critical thinking, because the powers that be don't want the average American to be too smart.
And Cuba has a better health care system! We're rated number 57, but the evil socialized medicine in France puts them at #1.
Yet people continue to believe the propaganda about endless lines and inferior health care! Maybe because they don't possess thos critical thinking skills!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For crying out loud. Stop moaning about no change and start lobbying the president elect. He can't make changes that we don't insist, and I mean INSIST, on. If we want change we have to constantly let him and his cabinet know that we have reached our limit, we can't take it anymore, it's change or get out, . . . whatever. Remember, the part of Joe Hill ". . . they forgot to kill went on to organize." Stop wasting time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To state that the way to change is to have a clueless leader lead a crew of experts who have contributed to the problem we are now in... and to dismiss any experts who warned us of this "freefall" ecomomic mess as unqulified to take us out of this mess... is insane. To call for more patience, so that this reckless direction for change can do us more damage, by the remaining progressives who choose to ignore such folly, makes us all insane. and you still don't want a 3rd party to be a spoiler... well how does it go... "..watch out you are about to get exactly what you voted for".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that comes from one person sounds like a dictatorship. I thought a vision for change should arise out of the needs of the people, which have clearly been forgotten the last 8 years, we could even say the last 12 years... oh wait... how long has this been going on? Just what kind of "change" is our new president elect talking about? Only time will tell, but it's not looking all that promising. But given his business as usual during the campaign, I'm not surprised.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's there instead of McCain. But really, "change"? Can we hold him to that embedded as he is in this corrupt system?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where we are so used to an idiot head of state with the cabinet making most the policy dicisions, we have forgotten what real presidents are like. These retreads may be soiled by former associations but they are all basically non idealogical, professional functionaries who will work to bring about the visions of their boss' administration, be that boss Bill Clinton, George Bush or Barrack Obama. If we do end up with more of the same, we can rise up and elect someone else or really rise up and shut the country down like the good people of France do when their leaders get out of line with the will of the people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Enough is enough!!! Barack Obama hasn't been sown in yet, and yet you lefty purists are already raking him over the coals over his economic policy and cabinet picks. You really need to take a chill pill and face reality.

WE ARE FACING THE WORST ECONOMIC CRISIS SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. Money talks and B.S. walks -- and all I've been reading from you lefty purists so far is a whole lot of B.S.

So let me remind you of something that was said back in 1992: IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID! We're sinking down an economic black hole thanks in large measure to the most fiscally irresponsible administration in the history of this country -- which, thank God, is on its way out.

But not before Bush & Co. totally bankrupts the nation. They inherited a record $100 billion SURPLUS form Bill Clinton in 2001. Eight years later, Bush & Co. will leave Obama with a record $1 TRILLION deficit!

The Clintonites that Obama is surrounding himself with knew how to deal with an economic crisis (Remember that Clinton inherited a $180 billion deficit from George Bush, Senior -- who, like his son, spent billions on a war, although he was able to get it done and over with in six WEEKS, compared to his son taking six YEARS and it's STILL not finished!).

Obama knows that he's going to inherit a huge, huge mess from Bush and it's going to take him his entire first term -- and perhaps well into his second -- to clean it up.

So to you lefty purists, BACK THE (BLEEP) OFF! instead of ripping Obama, you should rip Bush for forcing Obama to deal with this mess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree for the most part with those who argue (albeit it rather pompously) that they will not silence their bitching about Obama even months before he sits in the Oval Office. Perhaps some of his choices are worrisome. But I can see the direction of this blog. We are finally free of Bush and Co, but before we even have a chance to see the light at the end of that horrid tunnel, the Obama bashing has begun. Some people aren't happy unless they're unhappy, and with much of the terrorist reign of Bush finally going down the drain, the battering must shift mindlessly to the man we elected before he even comes into power. Obama has a huge mess to clean up; those who are so ready to attack before he even starts will be no help. Give it a rest, folks. I know we are weary from 8 years of well-deserved criticism of an administration whose lawlessness and lying knew no end, but while it's true we need to be watchful of what's going to happen now, this constant negativity is getting old before we give Obama half a chance to effect the changes we so badly need. It's NOT going to happen overnight, and there are other people in this country who view his choices as strong, bipartisan, and well-thought-out. So hang it up for awhile, peoples. Give change a chance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

it is not sufficient to say.. "give him more time" he has had plenty to paint the trail he is imbarking upon...and many of us find it unacceptable when compared to the rhetoric of his initial stands.. so we are down the road by several years in terms of his platform and it is clear that it is centrist, conservative on many, too important issues, such as the economy (bail-outs), war (we are as a nation entitled to make war are any country that we perceive as a potential threat.. one day one way somehow), presidential powers (he voted to give the president carteblache on spying) so to say wait, give him a chance, is totally off if you are clear that the path he has chosen is parallel if not the same path as the last administration.. and does that mean there is not some value in some programs not yet defined to see exactly which way he will walk.. like universal health care... if he proceeds along on that in the same way as the above issues then you will see a quick turnaround as the insurance and AMA start to call the shots..... on the other hand one can live in "hope" and continue to listen to the words versus the action.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some of the comments here are so convoluted one doesn't even know where to start to agree or disagree. President-Elect Obama has monumental problems to deal with and they may get even worse by the time he is inaugurated.
I don't think he will or can fix all our problems but I know that whenever i can I'm going to support his efforts until it is proven to me that he is not capable. Why is everyone expecting more of Mr. Obama before he has any control than you have of Shrub the entire 8 HORRIBLE YEARS he has bent you over. GIVE OBAMA A BREAK AMERICANS, he's just a man not a magician.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]