Yes, I hear so many pundits already confusing the issue of a familiar face with the notion of true change, simplistically presuming that picking a familiar face is same as discounting the intention for genuine change.

Sure it's change - and a lot of change - from the LAST eight years. Was that not the sort of change we believe in and need?

but they're "insiders" who've worked for powerhouse Democrats like Clinton, Daschle, and Gephardt.

If I were a lobbyist, this would be my dream team - not because they can tell my clients how to run their businesses, or even because of their political beliefs. Rather these people know where all the tickles and sores are. I'm quite certain Obama will be relying on a wide variety of other people for actual policy expertise, but isn't it nice to know that once he finds a solution, he will be able to implement it as effectively as possible. Right now, I'm liking how I voted.

What a lot of the complainers seem to miss is that you need these people to push through the changes. The important point is, will the President keep his word? Until I see signs otherwise, I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt.

It's a weird disconnect. We elected this guy because we loved his message and appreciated his character, and the moment he starts doing things, we throw his character into doubt. Obama the campaigner: decisive, strong. Obama the president-elect: you're hiring the wrong people and that means you're going back on your word.

Well, my first polisci prof told me that the Democrats' strong point was shooting at their own.

Frankly I would have thought even an EEPROM manual would be a better choice than Rahm Emanuel, but maybe it will all work out. Ever hopeful,

Dog, etc.
searching for home

Real "change" means actually getting things accomplished. Obama can come into the Oval Office and start agitating for all sorts of lovely ideals, but if nothing comes of it then all you have is a change in tone, not in direction. To greybeards like me that sounds a lot like the Carter administration.

What attracted me to Obama from the beginning is his mixture of high ideals and cool, near ruthless, pragmatism. His choices thus far -- including genuflecting to HRC and promising to include Republicans in the cabinet -- hew to that pretty well. Color me optimistic.

Given the very difficult environment that Obama will face when he moves into the White House, it would make no sense for him to surround himself with neophytes who must learn on the fly. So I too am okay with these old hands and I'm not sure that it signals anything in terms of policy. I think we can wait for the policy details to be spelled out rather than reacting to reading tea leaves and reacting to the tiniest fluttering of the Oolong.

There's obviously not a total disconnect between the policy people in an Administration, and the people who are there to get it done, but obviously a lot of these people are there to take Obama's policy agenda and make it happen. The key thing about such people is that they know the players and have successful experience at moving legislation through Congress. From this perspective, it looks like a good team so far.

And from a policy perspective, it's wise to remember that (a) compared to the differences between Bush and a generic Democrat, the differences between Obama and either Clinton are relatively small, and (b) Obama's the guy calling the shots.

This isn't Ronald Reagan, who didn't know a lot about what was going on in parts of his own Administration, or George W. Bush, who effectively handed over decision-making power over large swathes of policy to Dick Cheney. Once again, we will have a President who knows WTF he's doing.

Jim Messina, a former aide to Sens. Max Baucus and Byron Dorgan, will also be a deputy chief of staff.

Wonder what position Kenny Loggins will wind up with.

So whatever happened to Dr. Susan Rice? I know she's on the transition team but wouldn't she be considered for something? She's one smart cookie.

I'm a bit concerned about whether a diversity of thinking styles and expertise will be achieved. Most of these people are skilled in politics, and bureaucracy, and legal matters. That is fine as far as it goes, but we also need people who understand things from a scientific or economic perspective. I'm not arguing that such people should be given the managerial positions (which are usually filled first), but that they be included in substantial numbers in supporting and consulting roles.

You have to study the current standards and methods, before you can decide what works and what doesn't. You have to know the language of a country before you can move in it. Just because Obama needs to learn the language, it doesn't mean he won't eventually be able to say what he wants.

the "change" is that positive things are actually going to start happening.

the "change" is that people competent to do their assigned jobs are being hired.

now THAT's "change" i can believe in.

Steve, I agree with your practical view of "Change." If you look into any organization, you'll find no shortage of folks who have good and noble ideas about why their particular dinosaur needs to turn in one direction or another. But for the most part these folks are isolated from the decision-making structure that is itself insulated from the "pressing need" for change. I'm encouraged by this election because it's result doesn't come from some executive luncheon back-of-the-napkin scribble but, rather, it's more of the kind outcome derived from a philosphical battle in the making since the parallel ascendances of management schooling and sophisticated (professional) issues advocacy.

WTF does that mean? Obama's most viceral appeals were to intrinsic goods, views of how we regard ourselves and our efforts. That went against the standard consultant approach of the shrum class who viewed politics as lists and retail exercises. And making lists and shuffling tangible bits around is the definition of management -- instrumental goods at work.

I'll wrap this up: The community organizing work of Marshall Ganz and Alinsky that Obama used recognizes that nobody throws themselves on a hand grenade for a spreadsheet, but that the idealism that evokes sacrifice also needs discipline in service of the passionate idea. The crew that Obama is assembling recognizes something important that Clinton and others didn't--without the "crass" politics, the ambrosia of policy doesn't get made. For what it's worth, I've shown clips of the film "Michael" to executives of failing companies we work with who resist the truth of instrumental skills serving intrinsic goods (knowledge of which being not on their resume) as the reason for their business and a better angel they need to hear. That Travolta's Archangel Michael gets to smoke and drink, fight and screw goes a long way for them to more palatably see that their problem is not of either or, but putting things in the wrong order. FWIW.

He also served as policy director to Tom Daschle, which only furthers the odd rebirth of the Daschle team within the Obama administration.

Great now Limbaugh can start spouting about El Diablo again.
Hope it gives him a stroke;>

I'm with karen marie @ 12:46. The biggest CHANGE I was looking for in this election was that people who (a) were competent, or even better, good at their jobs would be in charge; (b) that people who actually care about governing would be in charge; and (c) that people who had the desire and the tools to make government work would be in charge.

For me, that trumps any individual policy change. No policy will get made, and no policy change will stick, unless government itself is credible again as an operating entity. So far Obama's list looks like exactly the change we need in that regard. Whatever their policy positions may be, in terms of being a functioning government this is a list of grown-ups.

Does anyone seriously make that argument? that "change" requires an entirely new staff from top to bottom? Because Restaurants change their menus all the time--even change owners and top chefs without changing the line cooks, the waiters, the busboys. That's because you can change *what* you do, your goals and your dishes most successfully by keeping a professional staff on since they know *how* to do it.

aimai

Aimai, nice analogy, but maybe the difference is in skills. The mind runs to the diff between Fast Food (Clinton - filling but regrets downstream about the fiscal waistline), a wholesaler (Bush - easier to "lose" things off the loading dock to your friends), and a haute cuisine operation such as Obama's. Now, how he's going have staff make a souflees with Hillary and Rahm slamming doors every 10 minutes might be a topic for the epiucurious wonk.

Thank god for practical. Pure idealists don't get anything done, because they can't see reality (particularly the reality of human nature) through their exceedingly narrow blinders. Along the same lines, if Obama wants Larry Summers at Treasury, I hope he picks him and ignores the nonsense coming from some women's groups (speaking as a middle-aged professional woman with a faculty appointment, who thought the Harvard brouhaha was a disgrace.)

Steve,

I agree with you that I think that change is going to be the policies that Obama gets enacted rather than the faces in his administration. This is not going to be an administration in which personnel policy is overall policy. The economic environment won't permit that.

Obama continues to amaze me. I spent a number of years studying the management of Corporate Strategy, so keep in mind what the businesses call strategy the government calls policy. Same thing.

Strategy is the idea you want accomplished. Most strategies fail at the implementation level. No matter how good the idea you want accomplished is, if you can't implement it then it has failed.

The almost flawless campaign Obama has run to win the Presidency demonstrates that someone there knows how to implement strategy. Now, as we watch who is being chosen in the transition we again see the strong focus on implementation. This administration is beginning to shape up into the most competent group of implementers we have seen in my lifetime. Perhaps LBJ might have been similarly lined up to get stuff done, and with his Medicare, Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act he did. (The trade off of buying off the conservatives with the expansion of Vietnam was what tripped him up. It may have been necessary to get what he did through Congress.)

So we are watching a masterful implementation team be formed. What are they going to implement?

Very sensibly Obama has really not let us know. But formulating strategy/policy is a very different process from its implementation. Usually it involves very different people. Since the environment is changing so fast, who knows what the problems are going to be by January 20th? We aren't going to see very many policy-level appointments until at the earliest January.

Of course the policy-level appointments are what the media are waiting for breathlessly, since the reporters tend to be pretty good policy wonks but without implementation experience of any kind. Policy makes news, implementation does not (until if fails.)

Someone in the Obama camp knows what they are doing, either Barack or more likely him and a few key advisers. Right now they are building to face the next set of challenges, and we can't see what all they are doing. It will come out when they start acting to deal with the challenges.

As a student of management I find this fascinating. They don't have to make any promises right now, and shouldn't do so. They didn't make very many during the campaign because they didn't have to. Since the economy is changing so fast, that's all to the good.

Remember, they face a rump Republican party that is committed to obstructing anything they do.

Whoever is directing the program, Obama or him and a few advisers, we are watching masters at work. It's time to sit back and see what happens.

It's already been a fascinating ride.

In connection with my recent post, go read fouroboros above.

I'm afraid I'm unsympathetic to these concerns. "Change" will come in the form of policy, and Obama is in the process of assembling a team that will help him deliver on a "change" agenda.

Amen to that. We don't need to believe that Republican talking point. Obama used the BEST people available, regardless of their previous postition, to affect the change he talked about.

Unlike the current incumbent who used cronyism to further discredit government.

Adults in charge.

'nough said.

Having found the meme 'this is not change' ineffective, the wingnuts will start crying 'liberals, liberals everywhere!' in three, two, one...

I was not an early supporter of Obama because he was not progressive enough. I was an Edwards supporter. Then Obama adopted manyif not all of Edwards' progressive policy proposals.

If Obama passes legislation that (1) adds progressivity to the income tax, ( makes helathcare universally available and affordable, (2) creates a major green initiative and (4) gets us out of Iraq ASAP, that would have been considered ultra liberal in 2005. That doesn't even address de-politicization of departments such as DOJ, Homeland Security, EPA and so forth.

I'd take it in a minute and run. If he can accomplish that with Karl Rove on his staff, I will be happy.

What worries me is the David Axelrod position. He's a campaigner, not a policy guy. The biggest reason Bush was such a disaster was he ran a 10 year long campaign to become, then stay, the president; rather than actually governing.

Is Obama about to do the same?

No need to repeat the emphasis on good implementation. But others have danced around a point that I'll make explicit. Whether Obama is truly a very leftward leaning guy, and manages to have his implementers implement something very leftist, or whether he's truly a moderate Democrat, and implements something moderately Democratic, it will be a vast change from the policies we've seen for the last eight years. ANY normal Democratic agenda will be a huge change. And now we know: chances are it will be implemented fully.

As Lance said: the adults will be back in charge.

Well we'll see. Don't forget Mike Lux as official Netroots-Pacifier!

Just remember that presidential candidate and president are two jobs with very different job descriptions.

None of these new staff are lobbyists or corporate shills. I'd say that's good change from the Reagan/Bush era.

From everything I have read over the last few weeks I get the impression that everything got very organized four years ago, with Obama's speech at the convention. Once he won the outcast wing of the Democratic party, those who didn't try to agree with the Republicans and didn't believe what the Republicans said about the Democrats, organized behind Obama. He was given a great staff and an agenda. He was schooled by those who were not in the center of Democratic power but who wanted to take back the Democratic party from the Republican-Lite party it had become.

This was made easy by Obama because everyone seemed to have the exact same impression of him: is he going to be the first black president? When this is the normal impression, even men and women of great ambition can recognize that they should turn over the lead to someone who can realize the dream, and even help out.

This would help explain why the White House staff is coming together so quickly, the staff, or at least a tight pool of potential staff has existed for at least four years.

This makes me question if Hillary will get SOS; my guess is Richardson. The reason is that he actually has more experience as a diplomat than Hillary. He also doesn't have an agenda of his own, so foreign governments will not question the motives of the negotiator. During the Bush years we already had examples of several foreign policies. Finally it puts a Spanish speaking Latino in a powerful position. He is also easy going and has a great relationship with Obama. Unless there is another high profile job available to him, he should get SOS. One more fact: he is independently successful as a politician, much more so than Hillary, who at a maximum is one half of a political duo. Still one further thought: agencies are executive in nature. Richardson has exclusively executive experience on the national and state level, Hillary just has a poorly run presidential campaign to show for executive experience, plus she blew lots of cash on her Senate re-election bid.