I post in my own blog some of the posts coming from a long topic [lasted until old Hi5 closed weeks ago] regarding Obama administration.
In the perspective of political science I find it really interesting to underline the level and the kind of expectations connected with such an incoming administration.
I'm going to quote myself and other members of that forum [I will name them].
Democrats and caucus-goers chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton and then criticized Palin for being too inexperienced for the number two spot, yet felt Obama had experience enough for the number one spot. So I think the whole Obama fascination has more to do with intrigue than substance. He votes present (he has his reasons) more than anyone and he votes liberal more times than anyone when he does vote.
I’m not venting because my candidate lost. Obama won and he should have his day in the sun. I’m simply pointing out there is less to Obama than meets the eye, in my opinion. Regardless, conservatives must get behind him and support him to the best of their ability without entirely compromising their principles.
If Obama doesn’t bring in real professionals like Bill Clinton (for Secretary of State for example), a good Secretary of Defense (Collin Powel or Stormin’ Norman), some good Republicans (Ron Paul), and third party candidates (Ralph Nader or Bob Barr), I think History will look upon him as just another Democrat, who was also the first black President. Obama needs to bring in private sector people as well who understand the concept of fiscal responsibility, principles of lean management, and rule by consensus (Oprah for Secretary of Education and some genuinely good high level business executive like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet). We also need to get scientists involved in such social issues like abortion to determine when life begins as a basis for real legislation on the abortion issue. It’s time to get serious and run our government like a business. We need diverse opinions, not yes persons.
Nov 12, 2008
[Gomisaburo in Philosophy History and Curiosity]
Actually Gomisaburo, Obama risks not to meet the expectations of who voted him [and also of the rest of the Americans, since the entire country expect that the President will do something about the general crisis, regardless his political membership].
In my opinion there are even too many expectations about the incoming administration. So far, in his brief political activity [Obama became Senator only 3 years ago ... and now he's the elected President], he has showed to be pragmatic and to have a certain capability to fascinate. After the primary elections, the endorsement of Sen. Clinton helped him a lot [there are still many supporters of Mrs Clinton who are simply waiting to see what the President will do ...].
But to sit in the Oval Office is an other matter: not only for the responsability, but also for the daily pressures coming from all sides. Will Obama be able to act following his own program?
Nov 12, 2008
[posted by me]
I have to say this topic might be just a few years early. I may not be thrilled with Obama, but I'd like to see what he does in the first year or two before I decide how he'll be remembered by me.
In the meantime, I will sincerely hope for the best, because the whole world really needs it right now.
As a sideline, I would have hoped though didn't expect it, that a "honeymoon" period would have occured on Wall Street just after the election. If the current slump continues until his inauguration, Obama could face insurmountable obstacles to his Presidency before he ever takes office. Some of this slump, imo, could be directly related to his proposed tax plan. Of course I'm probably wrong.
Nov 13, 2008
[posted by Miss Me]
As for the point, I recall the lack of experience being very much a Democrat issue first during the primary debates. As for after the debates, Democrats tried avoiding the issue, though the issue did prevail in blogs. So I'll give you half credit. However, I also saw pundits bringing it up often. Anyway, that was kind of a side bar issue. It was just hard not too mention it since my view remains that interest in Obama has more to do with fascination than substance. After all he did vote present at a higher rate anyone, more liberal than any other democrat, and he does have a real, not perceived, lack of policy experience in the number of Bills he authored or “sponsored”. As Bill and Hillary seemed to believe from as far back as Ohio, the whole Obama-nation fascination was something of a “fairytale”.
But that’s the launch pad for my real question, how will Obama actually be remembered by future generations not overcome by intrigue. I kind of agree with Miss. The first couple of years will say a lot. After that we will probably have a good idea about it.
I deal in a business deeply affected by market conditions at the very basic level of our economy (construction) so I have strong hopes the markets will rebound. I’m going to be curious to see how Obama uses Executive Orders (EO’s) since I would like to see prices go back up (around February if possible – I hope). Market prices in areas of interest to me have fallen, pretty much across the board (Gomisaburo gulps), an average of 80%. That is intensely huge by anybody’s standard and enough to give Sanford a real heart attack. Whatever Obama does, he needs his plan to create incentives for businesses (large and small) to expand their operations. So I think the first few years’ successes will be largely affected by his ability to get things done despite the fact that “Washington” has not really changed. EO’s (as I’ve heard pundits talking about) could be a way for him to succeed. What he actually does with the EO’s may be another story. Regardless, he needs to be smart about who he appoints as chief advisor on the economy. We need some professional, industry leaders with real world experience (not politicians) to fill that role in my opinion. I was also encouraged by his starting the website change.gov, but we’ll have to wait a bit to see what he does on the “people” front as well.
Nov 13, 2008
[posted by Gomisaburo]
NBC: Hillary Clinton Could Be Secretary of State http://newsmax.com/insidecover/hilla...13/151102.html
If this is true, it starts to prove (in my mind at least) that Obama is committed more to politics than real progress. How on earth do you pick Hillary Clinton over Bill Clinton unless you are trying to pad her thin resume for a run at 2016?
"Several other names also have been mentioned for the top U.S. diplomatic post including Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee; Sam Nunn, a Democrat and former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman; Sen. Chuck Hagel, an outspoken Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was U.N. ambassador in former President Bill Clinton's administration and also sought the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination."
Any of these other persons are immediately more qualified than a former first lady who is five minutes senior to a junior senator, except John Kerry who should not, along with Clinton, be named among prospective persons. And Bill Clinton is not even mentioned?
I’ll be very disappointed if Obama chooses Hillary Clinton (a coat-tail candidate for President) for such an important position. I’ll accept the fact that Obama lacks experience if he surrounds himself with experienced people; but to start surrounding himself with inexperienced professional politicians who have a track record of partisanship is unfortunate. I hope Obama can be smarter than that. Nov 13, 2008
[posted by Gomisaburo]