Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby's 12th grade AP US Government class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on the 2008 presidential campaign. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Presidential Campaign Blog
Objectives:
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
32 comments:
Hey Kath
I agree that Obama has left clear policy goals for his ideas of what foreign policy needs to be I'm just unsure of whether Clinton will follow them as closely as she should or not with the state of the economy. I have to agree with your statement that Obama and GAtes have very similar policy goals but I do think despite his probably unintended approval from the move it still will help republicans view of him. (1)
I have to agree with you also on the opinion that Geithner wasn't the cause of the economic collapse, I don't reallt think one man could cause this though I do understand the viewpoint since people feel like he should have been like a watchdog with the economy but even watchdogs miss things sometimes. Geithner though will be good for this presidency he is effective and experienced and I don't feel he is one to collapse under the weight of this crisis.
Dan-
Obama has recently made his latest selections to the cabinet, and I think these people are in accordance with the diversified, yet qualified, cabinet you and I support.
One of his nominations was for labor secretary. He named Representative Hilda L. Solis (1). Solis is a Democrat from California (2). Another nomination was for transportation secretary, and he named U.S. trade representative Ray Lahood (1). Although these two selections are great in terms of their diversity and qualifications, they may tend to cause strife in the White House. Solis and another appointee, Kirk, don’t agree on the issue of free-trade. Solis has been known to be skeptical about free-trade agreements, and Kirk has spoken out in favor (2). Mr. Kirk was among a group of political leaders who called for permanently normalizing trade relations with China. He said “you’re either a part of the global economic community or you’re going to be left out of it.” (2). These two contrasting viewpoints can be viewed both positively and negatively. For one thing, they are going to cause strife in terms of cohesion within his cabinet members. But on the other hand, Obama is proving himself a worthy leader by surrounding himself with people who won’t necessarily always agree with his opinions. Obama did say in his earlier campaign that Nafta should be re-negotiated, but because he didn’t mention it in his later campaign statements, free-trade proponents hope that he will remain moderate in his stance (like his predecessors) (2).
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121902086.html?hpid=topnews
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/us/politics/19obama.html?em
Katie B:
I admit that my statement about Obama’s cabinet choices was mainly speculation. I think that you make a good point in saying that Obama’s job is not nearly as political as it was a couple months ago; he no longer has an election to win, and his job should be to carry the support given to him during the “honeymoon period” into his term(s?) as president. I think that your point in Obama’s cabinet really being centrist is anchored by the fact that Obama is keeping Bush’s defense man; I think this means that not only is he trying to garner support from all of America, but also that he is still valuing experience in order to do that (1.) And you’re right about Bush’s cabinet choices backfiring; I think Obama’s partisan cabinet choices will make him really popular with most of America at least at the beginning of his term because even disgruntled conservatives will be appeased by the advice from his cabinet. Also, Obama will not be sheltered by completely liberal views; he will get the standpoint from both sides of the political parties, and the best thing of all is that Obama will make this less about “us” and “them” arguments and more about including and pleasing America as a whole (2). It’s almost as if he is taking George Washington’s last words in office to heart. And I think that these appointments to the cabinet for a Democratic president is change in itself. I think it’s strong of Obama to take a risk like that. And should we really be appeasing the completely left-wing Democrats anyway? After all, most of America is made up of moderates. So I think it makes a lot of sense for Obama to have what accumulates to a moderate cabinet. It will give him a good point of view for what he needs to do in America, and hopefully he will interpret those views correctly.
1. http://www.galesburg.com/opinions/x1720681594/ROUNDTABLE-Obamas-cabinet-picks
2. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/?iref=mpstoryview
Savann:
I definitely agree with your statement about affirmative action. I also believe that when dealing with choosing government officials, it is not right to use affirmative action. We should be picking the most qualified, with the best experience, based on merit, not classifications like race or gender. The officials should get to be who they are and earn their top positions, not achieve them because of their race. Affirmative action may even make minorities seems stupid if people assume that they only got where they are by affirmative action (1). Take Colin Powell for example, he worked hard to achieve his position, and I’m sure he would not be pleased if someone assumed it was just because of affirmative action (1).
I also agree with you that the Obama Administration will be very diverse when looked at as a whole, but not on purpose. Mike Espy, a black congressman and agriculture secretary under Clinton, says, “It’s less of a demand because of the history that he’s making in that office personally. I believe that he should place a premium on qualification. Just bring in the best people.”(2) He is saying that Obama is making so much history in racial equality just by being elected president, that there isn’t as high of a demand to make a substantial effort to force a diverse administration (2). He agrees with us when he says he needs to bring in the best people possible. I also agree that, although the administration will be diverse, they will work well together.
As for the Latinos, I also know that Obama is considering quite a few of them for some positions, but the Latinos are still very upset that they were overlooked for what are considered the top four positions: Defense, State, Treasury, and Attorney General (3). They are especially upset because of Hilary Clinton getting Secretary of State over Bill Richardson (3). He has more experience than Clinton, and he is the highest ranking Latino official in the U.S. Plus, Latinos voted for Obama over McCain two to one and helped him win four difficult states (3). However, he did appoint his third Latino to his administration when he named Hilda Solis as labor secretary (4). After appointing the second and third Latino officials, they began to let up about being ignored (4).
(1) http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm
(2)http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/us_world/Will_Obama_have_a_diverse_Cabinet_.html
(3)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/navarrette.richardson/index.html?iref=newssearch
(4) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-cabinetdec19,0,5259354.story
Dear Kassandra,
I will stay that the arguments you made are quite true, and I also do agree with them. With the amount of time gone by since the first post, I’m able to think more thoroughly about Obama’s candidate picks. Obama’s cabinet is filled with very respected people, but it seems that his picks have some sort of partisanship. Three of Obama’s cabinet nominees ran against him for the Democratic nomination for President in this election, and others have been high-level players in the Democratic Party for years. (1) I like you am worried, that a cabinet full of Washington insiders and career politicians won’t deliver the kind of “change” he promised. Picking Hilary Clinton is sort of a risky judgment, because it is a very powerful position, a position that has a major impact in our foreign policies negotiations with other nations, and Hilary Clinton has her own set of ideas that I’m not sure she will work fully with Obama’s policies. Clinton’s superstar status makes her the most intriguing of Obama’s appointments, but also potentially the riskiest, because she was Obama’s rival that almost beat him in the election. I disagree on your argument that having picking Gates is a bad idea. At the news conference announcing the appointment, Gates said he was “honored to serve President-elect Obama.” He also made clear that his agreement with Mr. Obama is “open ended” and that he has “no intention of being a caretaker secretary.” (2) Obama also announced that he plans to give the military new orders in Iraq once he takes office. (2) So I don’t believe that his cabinet pick of Gates is going to water down Obama’s charisma and strong beliefs like you said. I’m not sure what to expect anymore, and we will just have to wait and see what happens with Obama as our president.
Sincerely,
Angela
(1)http://www.edwardsburgargus.com/articles/2008/12/31/columnists/vacolumn03.txt
(2)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/05/politics/main4650209.shtml
Kyle,
I still disagree that all the change promised by Obama’s campaign is actually taking place. In the campaign he hounded on John McCain for being a Washington insider with years of experience but not a lot of change to show for it. I think it is strange that the change he immediately brought was to revert back to some Clinton and Washington insiders. It’s not that I really have a problem with those politicians, but change often needs to come from the bottom up. I agree with you that he is doing a good job of diversifying the cabinet, but worry like RealClearPolitics.com does that “Presumably, Mr. Obama will bring people together, as long as they all end up agreeing with him.” (1) I hope that the cabinet officials take strong stances and that they don’t just roll over.
Now that the economy is getting worse and worse I agree that we probably don’t have to worry about it being Obama’s top priority. I really think that the ‘culture of responsibility” that Obama is promoting when it comes to the economy will work. He says, “I want to go through the federal budget line by line, programs that don’t work, we cut. Programs we need, we should make them work better” (2). This makes a lot of sense to me because it will help us stay on budget and weed out programs that are just money-suckers.
In my post I wasn’t trying to imply that Hillary doesn’t have a will of her own, because she clearly does, but that being tied to a former president’s administration could be problematic when dealing with other nations. Her husband has a conflict of interest in some cases - Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation (3). She needs to lay down the law with Bill and let him know that he cannot damage her Secretary of State reputation in the same way that some felt he damaged her nomination chances. With her nomination it means that three current senators taking the jobs of president, vice-president and Secretary of State - none of them with any executive experience (4). This said, I do actually believe that Obama is fully prepared to handle foreign policy issues, I just would have like a pick with either more foreign experience or executive experience.
Like you, I don’t doubt that America is towards change at a rapid pace. It is what we need right now and Obama is clearly taking steps to ensure America’s prosperity and safety. You are very right- we need change ASAP.
1. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_change_what_when_how.html
2. http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm
3. http://harpers.org/archive/2008/11/hbc-90003860
4.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/11/14/10_reasons_why_hillary_clinton_should_not_be_barack_obamas_secretary_of_state
Anthony:
I agree that just because Eric Holder has similar views as Obama doesn’t necessarily mean he will always follow what Obama believes to be the right direction. However, this is pretty much true for any politician, but one with similar views is a safer bet than one with different views. I read the Huffington Post article about the scandal Eric Holder was involved in with the pardon of Marc Rich (1). It must be noted that in this same article, it continued to say that while this incident does stain his record his confirmation will be “virtually assured” (1). He even has support from Senator Jeff Sessions, a conservative Republican from Alabama (1). Holder still remains respected in legal circles as well as in the Justice Department despite the controversial pardon (1).
As far as the important issues the Iraq war and the economy are very important. However, one must keep in mind that the other policies and needs can’t fall by the wayside in light of all these issues. They also are all connected and play into the major issues of the war and the economy. For example, policies on education and energy will play a major role in the American economy (2). Obama’s senior advisor, David Axelrod, said issues like health care and energy “are so fundamental to our ability to right the economy in the long term…” (2). Obama is actually going to focus more on the domestic front of the United States to work on problems internally which can help fix problems outside the U.S. (2).
As far as change is concerned, many progressives are disappointed in Obama’s choices (3). Many agree that it does bring change from the Bush-Cheney status quo, but question if they will bring the amount of change promised during the campaign (3). Progressives are especially disappointed since they were a big part of Obama’s base during the campaign (3). Many conservatives are please with Obama’s appointments because he is making such bipartisan picks (4). John McCain even stated, “I certainly applaud many of the appointments….” (4). This idea of less change from Obama’s cabinet can be either comforting or disappointing, depending on where you fall on the political spectrum. Either way though, it looks like the amount of change promised is impossible to accomplish with this choice of cabinet members. Max Boot, a neoconservative activist and former McCain staffer stated, “I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain… this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign… “ (4). So yes, I think some change will come from Obama, but I doubt it will be as big as he promised.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/30/eric-holder-obamas-attorn_n_137696.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/us/politics/20cabinet.html
3. http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/08/looking-for-change-in-barack-obamas-cabinet/
4. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/right-wingers_and_neocons_love_obama's_cabinet_appointments/
Ms. Wagner,
I also agree with your agreement with my first post. I do think that his nominations do create bipartisanship and are superior selections (2). As for your first question, on whether this will create gridlock (book term), I don’t think that it will cause problems. It may cause a little bit of a slowdown, but I think that it’s better that way when we are working for this “change” that Obama’s bringing. I think that it should be controlled a bit, and with a mix of Republicans and Democrats I think that we will go over new programs more thoroughly before enacting them. I think this will also keep the spending down a bit to keep us from getting into too much national debt with us already being at 11 trillion. But I really don’t think that gridlock will occur because of the large scale problems we are having right now. I think that the economic crisis specifically will need to be solved quickly and efficiently in order to keep our country together, and gridlock would be a huge problem for the country. But I do agree that the appointment of Richardson will help solve the problem (3). The administration knows this and won’t let that happen. Also with the war in Iraq, I think it’s the same situation, but not as dire. I think that our large national debt from government spending overseas is a large part of our economic problems, and will be something that we need to solve quickly, as in efficient allocation of our resources. So I don’t think that gridlock will occur because of the magnitude of the problems that our country is facing at this time.
As for his selection specifically, I agree with you and myself that leaving Gates in was a very good decision. I think it was the best idea because of the complex situation we have overseas. I think that experience is the best route for Obama to go with, and I think it will make it a lot easier for him down the road. As for Hilary Clinton, I think that it wasn’t as bad of a decision as you are making it out to be. I think that she does have enough experience with foreign policy, and especially enough experience in politics to handle Secretary of State well. I don’t think that Obama’s statement about his campaign rival during the campaign is really a relevant source (1). I don’t really trust half the stuff that they say while they’re running. But I do agree that most of her ideas and plans will come second to Obama’s, because he’s the President. Also, I agree that this will be very good for her to use for future campaigns, but I think that she will still do a very good job. So overall I agree with you, except I think that Hilary isn’t as bad of a selection as you think.
Sources:
1) http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=a4e3184a-0708-4dc0-9248-b6d87b3a4fc7
2) http://themoderatevoice.com/24805/obama-cabinet-meets-with-approval/
3) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/transition.wrap
4) http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Eric-
As for what you said about Hilary Clinton and Obama working well together, I do think you made a good point. While they may be part of the same party, they don’t share the same ideas of how they are going to get to the common destination, like ending the war in Iraq. However, in the end Hilary did campaign for Obama to help him get her part of the vote, and that kind of teamwork is what brought success to the Democratic party (1). I think Clinton will realize that she is inferior to Obama, and while she is Secretary of State, she does not hold power to make decisions like Obama does. She will be able to advise him about what she thinks will be the best thing to do for the country, but Obama can also discuss his views with her. I think that since they have similar goals they will be able to work together. Clinton has a lot of experience and knowledge with the Middle East region and the people there do look upon her favorably (2). She plans to use her prestige to promote Obama’s agenda of cooperation and aggressive diplomacy (3). So, while she and Obama may have clashing ideas sometimes, I do believe that she is a positive asset to the cabinet and that together they will make good choices for the country.
As for your second point, I think that even with the moderate cabinet selections we will see change. I just think that it will come about more slowly than people have anticipated. I still think it is good that Obama chose the people he did. He has a vision and an idea for the country and when it comes down to it, the key policymakers are the members of Congress and the President, who happen to be mostly Democratic. While Obama’s advisors may not always agree with him, he has more power than them. I think it was wise of him to choose these people, however. Having the interests of the nation as a whole in mind may mean making sacrifices, and I think the fact that Obama created a moderate cabinet with a lot of experience shows that he is looking out for the everyday person in America.
1.) http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11357116
2.) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/washington/02clinton.html?em
3.)http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/12/24/hillary-clintons-big-pilans-as-secretary-of-state.html
Andrew John, I am very disappointed that you agreed with me; it makes this post very difficult. Just kidding, kind of. Because we agreed on basically everything, I decided to elaborate on the cabinet picks you brought up. I looked up Bill Richardson and energy, and was brought to his presidential campaign website. Almost all of his plan revolved around energy, oil, etc. (1) He wants to reduce oil imports from about 65% to around 10% by getting a 100mph car in place and increase the use of alternative fuels. (1) His plans included using more electricity in our vehicles in hopes of saving $21 billion a year by 2020. He also wanted to focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions to help the environment and climate. He seems to have a lot of good ideas and experience that many Americans agree with. Hopefully all of his plans will carry out well and he can achieve his goals, because I think that they would help our country move forward. Like you said, his experience in energy is a great asset.
I agree that Hillary Clinton was a strong choice. She has a very long list of experience and seems to be on of the most qualified candidates for Secretary of State (2). As you noted, this will help heal some of the wounds of the people that supported Clinton for the presidency (2) Her new position, however, has caused some debate over who will take her place in the Senate. (3) Who knows, there might even be a new Kennedy in the Senate. Even with the drama surrounding her old Senate seat, I think Obama made a wise decision by adding his former opponent to the cabinet.
1. http://action.richardsonforpresident.com/page/s/energyplan
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97632302
3. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/01/2009-01-01_paterson_no_caretaker_for_hillary_clinto.html
-Alec (Ha its funny I can spell your name correctly)
All right well first off there was a little communication error that I realized when I went back on to do the second post; my last sentence didn’t make it. So I can see on how bad that looks. Sorry, it was really only meant to be there for a quick laugh.
Looking back at my first post I never actually said whether or not say that she is a bad choice; in fact I think that she is well equipped to do the job. What I question is how well they will work together because of their past views on the subject.
Dana:
Thank you for respond to my post and not tearing into me too badly. I thought you had a great point that everyone is so happy about Obama choosing a diverse cabinet; however, a diverse cabinet might not be a good thing, in regards to moving towards change. This is because with diversity comes different points of views and when new ideas are brought up; there will be resistance from different people on different on almost every issue because of the diversity. I do agree that he is taking a bit of a risk in choosing Hillary Clinton because they have had some rough times but as Obama said, ““Hillary’s appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances” (1). I think Obama used this pick to not only choose a experiences candidate for the job, but also to show his commitment to change and bringing back order in this country. But to clarify, he is asking her to be his Secretary of State not his Secretary of Defense like you said. I know what you meant though because you started talking about Robert Gates right after your point about Hillary.
I think that even though some liberals may be nervous about keeping Gates in the Pentagon, I think that with Obama as president, he will not allow the billions and billions of dollars to be spent as rapidly and as frequently overseas in the war as Bush did. Also Gates has worked for both republican and democratic presidents and so even though he may be a republican, he has seen both ends of the spectrum (2). He has worked in the government for 42 years so he knows what he is doing and can handle the situation at hand, especially since he was in the Bush administration because he knows exactly what we are dealing with so can come up with a way to solve the problem (2).
Thanks again for responding to my post and I thought you had some great points. I think that even though some of his appointments may slow down the process a little bit, it was important that he picked experienced candidates rather than newcomers because in this time of crisis, it is always good to have people around who have seen situations like this.
1. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/obama-gears-up-to-hit-ground-running-with-diverse-cabinet-pick_100137423.html
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/world/asia/15gates.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast
Gracie:
While I was arguing it is questionable if Obama will be able to hold authority over his cabinet members and get what many refer to as “recycled Clinton folks” to “change” our country (1), I find that I agree with many of Gracie’s points. I thought her point that Obama will get more done in the long term with moderates because they will be able to continue their work even if the Democrats lose influence made a lot of sense. I was only considering the liberals point of view, but it makes sense that the country as a whole will be much more responsive to Obama if he appoints more moderates. While there are a lot of moderates, I also return to the concern of the four former rivals, trumping Abraham Lincoln’s record of three (1). Although I believe there will be some intense arguing, the power and decision making ultimately lie in Obama’s hands (1). I agreed with Gracie when she said that they will be able to accomplish a lot of what Obama had promised because of his influence over them and the entire country’s hope for revitalization and action. It is important to compromise and include Republicans because of the nation’s need to organize and work as a whole instead of under partisanship. While I am liberal, I understand that they are not the only species that make up the United States. I also agree with Carrie Brown in her article on NBC where she states that despite what many people led themselves to believe, Obama is an overall moderate (1). In this case, his cabinet fits him perfectly and hopefully they will be able to work together effectively.
1. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/Obama_Cabinet__Middle-of-the-roaders__dream.html
My response to Jessie’s response:
I’m glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks Obama is reaching across party lines. After all, I am sure everyone would like to hope that Obama is going to fulfill campaign promises from the start and send our country back in the right direction.
Your question regarding the difficulties of a diverse cabinet working together brings up a good point. I do think that with this much diversity in Obama’s cabinet, there could be some issues getting work done. However, this has always been an issue in politics, even among members of the same party. Also, he chose policy experts for cabinet members. Another thing is that if everybody agreed then I doubt that the resulting policy would compromise the different interests in the nation. The policy probably wouldn’t be very thorough either. The quote you had by Dr. Sabato kind of proves my point. Although the members of the cabinet may have slightly different opinions from Obama, they will need to compromise to some extent if they want to stay there for long. However, I do agree with you that Obama’s lack of experience does make him vulnerable, and could potentially make him more of a follower of the more experienced cabinet members rather than the other way around.
Hi Jenniferrr
I totally understand where you are coming from about Obama needing to pick experienced cabinet members behind him. However, I just think that this Country is looking for and wants to see more change then we are going to receive with his cabinet. There is no doubt in my mind that these members are informed, experienced, and qualified; however, Osama’s presidency is monumental, but it takes more than Osama’s “personal brand” to make changes to turn this Country’s problems around. I also want to comment on what you said about Obama’s accusations of inexperience; despite the fact he might be speculated to be under qualified, the American people still voted for him and trust him without the huge portfolio of experience. What makes a politician? Someone the American people can trust and go to, to make decisions that will benefit the population as a whole, and sometimes you don’t need all the experience to do so.
You make a point about Susan E. Rice being associated with the Clinton presidency and changing, but she wasn’t known in the Bush administration . She has had time to be on the “back burner” and form new ideas. Some of Obama’s picks are from inside Washington who have been active during a time where people think our country has gone downhill. I also think there is more criticism of the Bush Administration rather than the Clinton one. And although she is questioned for her work with the Genocide, she is still active in taking dramatic action, and is ready to lead in the change America wants to see.
"Change was still the theme on election night, but President-elect Barack Obama’s early appointments have some of his liberal supporters wondering what exactly change means."-Randall Pinkston Are we going to get the change we need with Obama’s cabinet?
Abrupt change isn’t what I am asking for, but it is just surprising to me that Obama’s entire election platform was formed around the idea of change, change in the government, ideas, and system. After all the preaching of change, I think he failed to deliver more of a cabinet filled with members who have newer ideas and want to see change.
In a CBS Highlight they said many of Obama’s picks aren’t as diverse as people are claiming. They talked about how most of them are traditional, Clintonesque, moderate, and many are centrist Democrats; and most are Washington Veterans. A liberal stated in an interview: "I don't know what he's doing. This is not governing from the center. This is governing from the past." I think that the government needs to be taken in a new direction. With all the problems we are experiencing, the current administration clearly isn’t able to get the job done. I think that politicians have now proved that despite their experience, their ties, or expertise that they can’t always handle to government. Now you might argue that if they can’t do it, than a new guy in the cabinet can’t but I think that’s an invalid point. Sometimes the best thing for a situation is to take a step back and approach a problem with someone with a new opinion. I’m curious to see how the Obama administration and cabinet choices do. This is a critical time for Obama, and he and his cabinet are under immense pressure; I just hope that he is able to push for his new legislation with a cabinet we’ve seen before.
Jennifer you make valid points, I have to give you credit. We might have to agree to disagree. His cabinet choices might be the best thing, my problem with it, is that Obama promised change to America, and already has shown us typical insiders.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/11/25/cbs-highlights-criticism-obama-s-cabinet-liberals
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/11/obama_answers_l.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/us/politics/01rice.html?ref=us
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/20/obamas-cabinet-picks-heavy-washington-experience/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/politics
Che Greene (da PoliMachine)-
I’m glad you researched more about Gates. I found that quote from Time quite fascinating, especially because it focused on Obama’s ability to “demonstrate bipartisanship”. I think we can both agree that while speaking of bipartisanship is easy, actually doing it is much more difficult. After years of increasingly divided government, “working across the aisle” might actually become a reality. While McCain tried desperately to argue the dangers of undivided government, years of partisanship shows that we need cooperation to get things done (1).
I knew there was controversy over Hillary’s nomination, but I had never heard it called a “betrayel” before. Once again I think we can both agree that a vote for Obama is also a vote for the long-established politician Joe Biden, so the nomination of Hillary wouldn’t exactly be the only non-young blooded-person coming to the Whitehouse. Obama is using his best judgment to combine experience with change and a mix of opposing viewpoints.
1) http://www.slate.com/id/2203839/
In response to Melinda
I agreed with your thoughts regarding Obama’s energy secretary. I think that the nomination of Steven Chu a Nobel Prize winner represents one that is backed by knowledge in energy. This man seems very capable of combating energy problems. He has spent time at Berkeley researching alternative energy sources since 2004. (1) Also Obama choose two previous EPA workers to head the energy committee, which will further strengthen the department. I agree with you that it will be exciting to see what they achieve.
On the other hand I stand by my support of Hillary Clinton. The large support and attention she received from Americans shows that people are happy she has been named Secretary of State. As you mentioned, Clinton put a lot of effort into health reform and would be better suited there. I think the energy she devoted to national health care can translate into her being a strong diplomat for our country. Also, I have confidence in her because Obama does. Dealing with foreign policy is ultimately up to the Commander in Chief. A CNN article stated, “it will be Obama who sets U.S. foreign policy and will expect his team to implement his vision. As Obama said when he unveiled his national security team, "as Harry Truman said, the buck will stop with me. (2) Also where you quoted Secretary Rice saying Clinton has a love for America, Clinton’s inspirational, and would bring good energy and brains, I thought it was interesting. The support Rice gave to Clinton seemed very genuine, and as a soon to be former secretary she is well qualified to judge. Also this is exciting because it shows a change in party division and focus on policy. Policy was my main driving point for the support I showed for nominations or lack of support. I still believe that policy is more important than party division, and I think that we both agree that we need to see the progress made by the cabinet before we can draw conclusions.
(1)http://bulletin.aarp.org/yourworld/politics/articles/officials_obama_chooses_chu_for_energy_secretary.html?CMP=KNC-360I-GOOGLE-BULL&HBX_OU=50&HBX_PK=steven_chu_energy_secretary
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/clinton.analysis/
To Jaqi:
I feel like we are pretty much on the same page about Obama and his choices for cabinet secretaries. I found it interesting that you pulled the one statement from my original post that I did not fully agree with myself on to disagree with. You mentioned that you do not think that I was correct in saying that Obama’s inexperience “will hinder his ability to lead the group.” I think that you are accurate in this assumption and based on further research I am convinced that this cabinet will be loyal to Obama. His lack of Washington experience will not be a hindrance to his leadership of the cabinet. We are living in a fast paced, nuclear armed, hostile world and his appointees will be vital in ensuring the safety of America and global security. Now here is the point that I have to strongly disagree with you on…Hillary Clinton does indeed have “extensive experience” when it comes to foreign policy. However, in her 20 years of political workings she has made several contradictory statements in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict (1). It is unclear whether she is pro-Israel or pro-Palestine. She has, at one point in her career, supported both (1). With the current bombing and terror going on along the Gaza strip, it remains to be seen what path of action Clinton will endorse as the upcoming Secretary of State. Both Palestinians and Israelis alike were supportive of Bill Clinton during his presidency (1). And this situation could in fact help Clinton since both sides see her as a potential ally. However this outcome seems to me a bit unlikely. When Mr. Clinton was president, Yasser Arafat was a strong leader of the Palestinians (1). The Fattah party held predominant political power while today Hamas has substantial military capabilities in Gaza (1). Clinton has mostly favored Israel and so it is likely that her plans may include military support to the Israelis if this conflict escalates. The bombing that is going on right now, although beneficial in eliminating Hamas leaders, is also hurting the ordinary civilians of Gaza and Israel. As Secretary of State she has to push for peace and no more war. The best plan of action, in my eyes, would be to call for a UN resolution to get rid of Hamas and stop the terror diplomatically. Basically I agree with you that Clinton’s experience is necessary, but I am worried about her mix of a strong support for Israel and several contradictions as far as Arab-Israeli action goes. Hopefully, she will use the mix to her advantage and create a peaceful atmosphere without involving US military action. If the US does send troops or get it self involved, it will not turn out in our favor. Just like in Afghanistan, we would be putting our resources into a conflict that stems back over 3,000 years and will not be solved by military force (2).
1. http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=6552039&page=3
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7807124.stm
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/07/politics/main4583057.shtml
Angel,
First of all, you spelled my name wrong. That’s depressing. Yes, I agree that having a diverse cabinet is a good thing. It kind of sounded like you thought I was implying something different. The certain women’s rights activists and some liberals are the ones that were afraid about the Cabinet’s diversity, not myself. I’m glad that Obama isn’t placing race or gender above qualifications in his selection process. I’m sure that most, if not all of the people Obama carefully chosen for his Cabinet are very experienced. This does not mean, however that they may necessarily be the best ones for the job. On December 9, a CBS News poll showed that 72% of the American public agreed with Obama’s choices. That’s a very large amount considering 16% of the people surveyed didn’t give an opinion(1). CNN even found that 52% of Republicans polled (Dec. 3) agreed with the new Cabinet (2).
When I wrote my last blog, it was based on an article about certain groups of people (anti-war activists) that disliked the Sec. of Defense, Robert Gates. I didn’t do enough research on it, because in different survey I read about later, it stated that his approval rating was 83% (3). I had to change my mind about this decision. In the midst of war, it’s best to keep someone that knows the details of what’s going on, instead of having to spending a lot of time informing a new person about the situation.
I also agree with you about the promises Obama made and didn’t (yet) keep. He has to prioritize. Not everyone will get what they want immediately. He can’t do that much right now. He’s not even president yet! He will need a lot of experience and hard work to pull through all the problems we’re currently facing. I believe he and the people supporting will be able to accomplish that.
1) http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:nQMSEtz4mBcJ:www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Dec08a-obama.pdf+obama+cabinet+survey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us
2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/
3) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/?eref=rss_topstories
Seeing as nobody tried to take on my opinion in the first post, I simply reiterate that everything I say is absolute and I am all knowing. Bill Richardson dropped out of the nomination for Commerce Secretary (CNN). I wonder what Latinos will think of their representation in Obama'a cabinet now that he will not be in it. Richardson is a strong leader and its too unfortunate that he is not going to aid the administration.
Ms. Aby, if I need to do more to get the points, give me the word. I just don't know what to do.
In response to Tiffany:
It seems we will never have a chance to know about Bill Richardson. The governor of New Mexico withdrew his nomination after a federal investigation began probing into a company that has worked with his state (1). Richardson claimed the investigation would take too much time and delay the confirmation process (1). As for Hillary Clinton, confirmation hearings will begin this week; the Democratic Senate is certain to probe her policy goals at an in-depth level. A source said that one major goal of Obama’s is to end the Israeli/Palestinian and using Clinton’s standing as a ‘friend of Israel’ to do so (3).
Obama’s choice of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense was the first indicator that President-Elect Obama will be more willing to work with Republicans. Obama is to meet with Democratic and Republican party leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative John Boehner (2). Obama also picked Republican Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois as his transportation secretary (4).
After reading your post, I agree that Obama’s cabinet may not be successful. However, Hillary Clinton as secretary of state certainly doesn’t share Obama’s views on many issues (5). This could create a wealth of new ideas for Obama if they choose to work with one another. Also, Obama’s choices of his rivals could create an environment with different policy goals and different policy positions, which is essential to developing policy in the long run. Although Lincoln’s cabinet was unable to work together, President Obama has the ability to appoint cabinet positions at will and is able to change an unruly or uncooperative member.
1. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/04/richardson.withdrawal/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4695981.shtml
3. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090102.htm
4. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/08/obama.cabinet/?iref=hpmostpop
5. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/selecting-hilary-clinton_b_149303.html
Molly,
I was also surprised that many Americans preferred the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. I disagree with your assessment of the views of foreign nations, however. Despite the view that the war in Iraq has been futile, many see the war in Afghanistan as a much more direct approach at combatting terrorism as well as liberating an oppressed people. Through early 2007, the war in Afghanistan seemed much more successful than the war in Iraq. Since then, as we have begun to withdraw troops and reduce the amount of aid going into the country, the situation has deteriorated rapidly. For Obama to pull troops and aid out of Afghanistan rapidly would very likely create an overwhelming crisis for the young government. Rather than withdraw troops, why not turn back toward the system that was working to create a democracy in a region filled with turmoil? We should wait to withdraw troops responsibly when it is evident that the young Afghani government can support itself. As frustrating as this might be for Americans, at the point we are at, I think this is the only responsible choice we as a country can make.
EmBerg:
I definitely have to agree with you that we must wait and see how Obama is fulfilling his campaign promises. He has made many promises, such as bringing a new kind of administration to the White House and bringing change. His choices are partly engaging that because he has the ability to bring in real experts in fields and those who may differ in political ideology. The pick of Robert Gates was an example of somebody who disagrees politically. Just because he served under Bush does not mean he can’t work for Obama. And it may be tough to find someone else qualified who actually wants to take it over. That and Gates has all the experience and he can pick up right where he left off after inauguration. The pick of Hillary Clinton is proof that he will accept his “enemies” ideas in dealing with foreign policy and other issues, something that appeared to be lacking in the Bush administration. I think this is why the approval ratings for those cabinet picks, as you point out, are so high. Approval of his cabinet appointments in general is at 80% (1). I noticed in your response to Solly that you said we can definitely hold Obama responsible for bringing change and I would agree. I think it is hard to argue that someone who makes a promise to bring change, or whatever, should follow through, regardless of how often past presidents have done so. I also think it was wise to point out that Tracy Crews is a Conservative iReporter. She can insert bias whenever she wants and you can’t always judge 4 years by the 10 weeks before they even start.
(1) http://www.pollingreport.com/obama.htm
Tiffany, while I agree with you on most issues, I think that Obama might have trouble creating consensus among his advisers. This might be a more important issue than people realize because without consensus Obama might not be able to have a simple policy. If different officials believe different ideas or courses of action are correct, they may continue to argue for those positions even if Obama has moved forward and taken action (1). Even if this creates some confusion or more disagreement, I still agree with you that it was a good choice for him to make. It is a major difference from Bush’s cabinet (1). Rivals will also allow Obama to hear many different views on issues. This will create opportunity for compromise (2). Besides specific issues, Obama’s cabinet will allow Republicans and Democrats to meet together more often than might usually happen. This will allow Obama more access to influencing members of Congress. This will be important to achieving his policy goals. I don’t think that having Obama’s choices mainly graduate from elite colleges is a problem. This only indicates that they are well-educated. However, even if members of the Cabinet are from the elite, it does not mean they will be unable to create good policy. More educated advisers might be better at making policy than less-educated advisers. This would be beneficial for the entire country. With most of the posts filled, Obama’s cabinet seems very well-prepared to deal with the current issues.
(1) http://media.www.umdstatesman.com/media/storage/paper1351/news/2008/12/10/Opinion/Obamas.Cabinet.Picks.Choosing.Rivals.A.Good.Decision-3576943.shtml
(2) http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/12/09/Opinion/Obamas.Cabinet.Rivals.Make.Good.Study.Partners-3575124.shtml
Okay so no offense BJORN if you’re reading this, but I responded to Jill because I didn’t really know how to respond to your response to me. Great minds think alike, but that’s really all there is to say and I won’t get many points from Maby for that haha
Anyway, so Jill…
I completely agree with you that in order to know how to fix the mess in Iraq, it is important for Obama to listen to people who already know what is going on there. If Obama assumed office with the idea that he was going to make immediate changes with out learning what has been truly happening in Iraq for the past years, we’d be in an even bigger mess. Called one of America’s best leaders by US News & World Report, I completely agree with you that Robert Gates is definitely the man for the job. According to Gates, "Not every outrage, every act of aggression, every crisis can or should elicit an American military response," and that America should be conscious of the effects of using military force as an end to any means (1). A man with this attitude accurately reflects the views of most Americans, who are now realizing it was a mistake to push for the war in the first place.
You also mention that Eric Shinseki will make an excellent Secretary of Veterans Affairs, which I do not doubt. As a former Army General I’m sure he will always have the veterans’ best interests at heart. However, because of past relations in Washington (he was replaced as Army Chief of Staff after questioning plans in Iraq) I wonder if he will have trouble not being in charge (2).
In the past, presidents have ignored their cabinets just as much as other presidents have used theirs. I am curious, which kind of president do you think Obama will be? Do you think maybe this “diverse cabinet” is just for show? Or do you trust that Obama will really use his cabinet to its full potential?
(1) http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/best-leaders/2008/11/19/americas-best-leaders-robert-gates-us-secretary-of-defense.html
(2) http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eric_Shinseki
Will
I disagree that Geithner lacks the experience for the post of the Treasury Secretary. Geithner has worked under 5 different treasury secretaries (1). This means that he has a variety of different experiences of what happens when certain policies are enacted and the consequences of those actions. In that time he helped to solve the asian financial crisis (2). This give him some experience of a crisis situation similar to the US’s situation. Investors seem to approve of Geithner too. The stock market rose 6.5% when news of Geithners nomination as Treasury Secretary spread (2).
I agree that Hillary Clinton was a good choice for Obama. She has the recognition and experience from her years working in the senate and as the first lady. I didn’t expect Obama to hold a grudge against Clinton mainly because he won. I more expected Clinton to hold a grudge against Obama because he defeated her. We will have to wait and see how it turns out and if they manage to cooperate well together.
I thought Bill Richardson was a good choice for the post too because of his experience. Too bad though, since he withdrew his nomination because of a law suit problem with a company (3). Richardson stated that the investigation may drag on for months and that would delay the confirmation process. Given the current state of the economy he couldn’t in good conscience make the nation wait that long for him to clean up his business (3). It will be interesting to see who Obama picks now that Richardson withdrew.
I’m not entirely convinced that the cabinet members will work well together at first. The cabinet has democrats, republicans and an independent. There is racial and gender diversity too. It will take time for the members to get used to each other and “think” the same way. But I think that change will come, at least a little.
1) http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1861895,00.html
2) http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=6196682&page=1
3)http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/04/richardson.withdrawal/index.html?section=cnn_latest
In response to Anthony:
While Fox News (which I would argue is always a questionable source) notes that Obama's appointments have significant political experience, the Business Journal notes that they lack business experience (1). A large majority of Bush's first term appointees had formerly held positions as CEOs, while Obama went for people who have more government experience and prestige (1). This reflects Obama's choice to work with people who want to work with politicians, compared to the Bush administrations ties to corporate America. However, this also shows that while Obama's administration will contain people who are politically experienced, they will not necessary be experienced in all areas of concern. I agree that factors other than experience have been brought into consideration. People want diversity and a person who is fit for the position.
While the Latino community might have been disappointed that Richardson didn't get the position of Secretary of State, right now they are far more dissapointed about his withdrawal from the bid for position as Secretary of Commerce (3). There remain two Latinos up for appointment in Obama's Cabinet: Hilda Solis and Ken Salazar (3). Also, Obama now faces the problem of increasing Democratic influence in the Southwest with out Bill Richardson (2). Richardson, who is under investigation by the federal grand jury, withdrew from the running for a position in Obama's Cabinet saying his investigation would take too much time (2). Most underrepresented groups in America have continually tried to increase their representation in government. Latinos complained about Richardson only receiving the position of Secretary of Commerce, before he withdrew his appointment. No underrepresented group will stop vying for more positions in government. With that said, I don't think the fact that Obama chose Clinton over Richardson is as important to the Latino community is unique, because if Richardson had been appointed Secretary of State women would complain about Hillary not receiving the position.
I also agree that nominating Hillary Clinton was a smart choice, but for different reasons. I don't think Obama needs to worry about pleasing Clinton supporters, he has already won the presidency. Also, Clinton's supporters won't necessarily have their concerns addressed if Clinton is Secretary of State, their domestic concerns won't be dealt with by her. One of the significant factors in her appointment include her standing with the international community, who recognize and respect her. Also, once upon a time Hillary Clinton supported Palestine, and now she is an avid supporter of Israel. Mitchell of NBC says that, despite her shift in support the Arab world still likes her and respect Bill Clinton (4). Clinton can take advantage of her international popularity to resolve conflict with other nations, or between other nations (4).
My personal problem with Obama and Hillary Clinton is that they should try to establish a plan for the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Since the Israelis are uncertain about what Obama's foreign policy over their conflict will be, there have been outbreaks of violence for the last couple weeks (5). Israel is using this transition period to launch attacks and the violence is escalating (5). While on the campaign trail both Clinton and Obama voiced strong support for Israel, but the recent attacks have only spurred them to release general comments about Israel's right to self-defense (5). I think someone should take a stand and try to assert a solid position or propose a solution.
(1)http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/12/22/daily45.html
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/us/politics/06web-nagourney.html
(3)http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/richardson.withdrawal.latinos/
(4)http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2009/01/05/nbc-s-mitchell-recounts-hillary-clinton-kissing-arafat-s-wife
(5)http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/01/05/2009-01-05_barack_obamas_inauguration_on_jerusalems.html
Gracie –
I enjoyed your post very much, as it was informative and backed by many good sources that I found interesting. I agree with you that Obama’s administration will be much more open and will have the ability to cross over between the political parties [1]. However, I disagree that this administration will compromise more. I honestly believe that Obama has assembled a team of very intelligent and capable people – their biographies found across innumerable sources attest to this fact – but I think it will be very hard for them to be able to mesh different ideas into a working policy. In the past, there always have been some clashes in each cabinet, such as Rumsfeld and Powell [2]. They both left the Cabinet. While a conformist Cabinet would certainly be the most efficient kind of Cabinet, I think that Obama has brought together almost too eclectic of a group that, while equipped to make good decisions, may not be able to win the struggle against time. I also found an article on Ray LaHood, who will join Obama’s team as the transportation secretary. In it, the Republican was described as someone who can build a consensus without sacrificing principle [3]. If this indeed is true, and he is able to push some of this skill onto the rest of the Cabinet, then I will support you in saying that Obama’s Cabinet will operate effectively.
I still maintain my thought that Hillary Clinton was not the best candidate for Secretary of State. I am not contending your statement that she was a qualified presidential contender, but I really don’t think that diplomacy is a role that Obama should’ve put her in charge of. During the primary race, foreign policy was the factor that most clearly separated Clinton and Obama [1]. One of my sources also states that picking Clinton “sends a confusing message to many leaders of the world” [1]. I agree with this statement. The Clinton-Obama race was probably just as global as the McCain-Obama race, and people all around the world know of the differences in their policy. Obama ran his campaign based on a diplomacy-centered foreign policy plank, but Clinton holds a position that is more similar to the unilateral and interventionist conservative policy. Also, I think that if things end up sour with Hillary, it’s going to be difficult for Obama to fire her without taking a lot of heat from the country.
One thing I found really interesting was your mention at Obama’s plan to create a position of the chief technology officer. I hadn’t heard of this before – I’ve only read about Obama’s platform plan to create openness of the Internet and increase competitiveness through technology [4]. I think that it is so smart of him to do this, especially considering how well he used technology, especially the Internet, in his campaign. I also think that it is really cool how thhe CTO would be expected to create incentive programs to expand broadband’s reach and also oversee a $50 billion venture capital fund that would help develop more environmentally friendly technology [5]. This is such a good combination of different ideas of Obama’s and I think it has good potential.
[1] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omid-memarian/selecting-hilary-clinton_b_149303.html
[2] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122878176562589761.html
[3] - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?sid=a56YEkFkJyM0&pid=20601087
[4] –http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology
[5] - http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2008/db20081019_258155.htm
Melinda --
I agree with your response to Defense Secretary Robert Gates 100% - in the fact that Obama did pick someone based on experience and knowledge; not the sole fact of his party (1). Moving onto the Secretary of Energy; which is something I had not been paying much attention to, I was suprised to read that Arnold Schwarzenegger was a contender; along with former Secretary of State Colin Powell (2). I found Obama recently named Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and leading voice on alternative energy, over the more 'popular political figures' to the position (2). I think this is a better pick as well, because of Chu's experience. During Schwarzenegger's time as governer, he has been an advocate for global warming, sued the Bush administration's EPA after refusing to allow California to impose cuts in greenhouse emissions, and stared down the Big Three automakers after they refused to make their cars more fuel efficient (3). While he has experience with certian areas of politics & the environment, I think with Obama's major reform plans Chu was a much better choice. Chu is the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004, one of the nation's oldest engery departments (4). He has also been a professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley; and a former science department head (4). Chu is also a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources; which he has done research on, such as cooling and trapping atoms through laser lights - which he won a Nobel Prize from in 1997 (4). Due to Chu's exeperience and resume in his field, I feel he will serve as an excellent Secretary in Obama's attempt to make make changes in our nation's direction of engery policy.
As for the pick of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State -- I agree with you. I feel like she was to appease voters, because Obama and Clinton have different views. However, I feel we must wait it out and see how it goes - because only time will tell - and we never know what events could shape the administration and their policies.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/08/obama.cabinet/index.html
(2) http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1448555.php/ANALYSIS_Obama_signals_new_directions_on_climate_energy_
(3)http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/12/26/could-schwarzeneggers-next-move-be-to-capitol-hill.html
(4)http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_11238619
Post a Comment