A Decider we can believe in!

And President-Elect Obama, your vision on wiretapping Americans sucks.

last I checked the economy functioned fairly well from 1993-2000. There is nothing wrong with bringing to Washington people who had experience with a well-run economy.

I know Obama is trying to deal realistically with a tough economic crisis. Neverthlesless, we should at least entertain those who question whether his team is progressive enough. E.g.: http://www.alternet.org/election08/108507/.

Also, I'd like to see Paul Krugman on the team. His being OK (?) with Obama's picks does at least make me feel better about them, but even better with him there in person.

Doesn't the change come from us? Seems like it would be more appropriate if he said the change comes from the American people and he and his team are there to carry out that change.

Sorry for the quick double post but there is alot to the idea that Obama is the one we should look at and not Summers and the rest. A clear point has been made in regards to the differences between LBJ and JFK where almost all of the cabinet remained but policy shifted dramatically.

Did I miss something about this whole "change" thing? I mean, was Clinton our most recent president or was it Bush? When I, a Republican, voted for change, I was voting for a change from the latter, not necessarily the former. And competence will be a change.

During the Q&A, CNN's Ed Henry asked if there were enough new faces on his team to fulfill Obama's pledge to bring change to Washington.

Jesus Christ, what a moron. It was change from the Bush Administration, not the Clinton Administration!

Remind me again, how often have we been "concerned" and "worried" about Obama? And how often have those "concerns" and "worries" been justified?

How about we let the guy do his thing...he seems to know what's going on.

and let's not forget:

http://punditkitchen.com/2008/09/05/political-pictures-barack-obama-chill-out-got-this/

I liked how Obama swatted away that CNN reporter and his "change of faces" question -- though it wound up being a good opportunity to set our more shallow citizens straight, too. Perhaps these folks could start thinking in terms of "correction" rather than "change," to help them understand the concept of FIXING this rotten mess by CHANGING it. Whew, heady stuff.

Here is my take. We learned early that George W. Bush didn't have the intellectual curiosity to actually evaluate the choices presented. Like a good son of the rich, he relied on ideology and trusted advisers. The advisers, notably Dick Cheney, pushed him around. He simply refused to learn or grow.

Barack Obama is a different kind of animal. He has both the intellectual capacity and curiosity to evaluate policy and its implications. He appears to have a pretty clear vision. His advisers are there to give advice and to carry out his wishes. He seems capable of insuring that they do their job. His wasn't a social promotion. He is a first generation president.

Also, I'd like to see Paul Krugman on the team. -- Neil B, @12:36

Krugman taking marching orders from Obama? You must be hallucinating. The man may have a small body but his ego is Napoleonic. And he doesn't, really, like blacks, I think; it seemed to have been his blind spot throughout the primaries.

Did I miss something about this whole "change" thing? I mean, was Clinton our most recent president or was it Bush?

Heh. Love this.

What neilt said. Change means putting the grownups back in charge and that is precisely what Obama is doing.

Let's allow the man to at least unpack his suitcase at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue before we start jumping around like we've got hot coals in our knickers.

Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! :)

Did anyone else see the presser? I was taken by how strongly - almost rudely - Ed Henry spoke to BHO. Interesting how quickly the fawning tone accorded to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al seems to have dissipated.

The only one suggesting that no Washington experience was a good thing was McCain when trying to sell Palin.

Nobody bought that her lack of experience in Washington was "the change we need".

But what strikes me most about the media chatter is that it indicates that the media still thinks in terms of sound bites. Obama was pretty clear that he wanted a change "from the last eight years".

The last three days Obama demonstrated an interesting change in how he handles the press. He joked about one reporter's floppy hat without insulting the poor guy. Bush always seemed to manage to insult his reporters.

He showed displeasure with reporters who asked questions filled with assumptions, and focused on fixing the question first. Hopefully reporters will start asking better questions in hopes of avoiding getting corrected. Obama is a master at reframing the debate and now that he has the microphone and everyone's attention, that reframing should start to take effect.

He planned ahead of time who he was going to get ask questions, called their name and stated who they worked for. He even announced how many reporters would get to ask questions. And he has already dropped the seating chart idea, which seemed weird when someone was not in their seat.

He stayed on topic. This will keep the media from commenting about all the areas the president-elect talked about. Focus.

His timing is better for news coverage. Leak a little info in the early morning to drive the discussion, break in about mid-day, but late enough for the West Coast to see it, and then let everyone talk about it for the rest of the day.

It's looking more and more similar to what I recall of the Clinton Administration: a day of rejoicing at the end of 12 years of Republican rule, followed by

• Complaints that he isn't really liberal and never was.


• His appointments are totally unacceptable - not what we'd call "progressive."


• It's really no better than we had under the Republicans.


• We must protest the new Democratic president and oppose anything he dares to try to do.

One would think we'd be smarter by now, but this is what I've been hearing every day on Democracy Now. The Obama administration has been a vast disappointment, and has already failed.

For what it's worth, I hear the Republicans don't like him either... Speaking only for myself, I'm just vastly tired of the circular firing squad.

We're hired the man to do the job his way. I don't see any benefit in picking apart every choice the man is making before he gets into office.

I feel like we've elected the political equivalent of a Zen master. It just seems that he's got this wonderful capability of reaching down into himself and coming up with answers that are whole, sound, and unified, even as they take into account the complexities of a given situation.

That's not the sort of thing many people can do. We've elected a pretty special guy, really.

Don't forget, Obama taught law school for years. He's very used to standing in front of a roomful of people and controlling and channelling the flow of questions and answers.

Can't we just go ahead and call him President Obama? The current occupant of the WH has abdicated in spirit, if not in body.

The media harping over the change thing is really frustration that Obama hasn't named Bill Ayers to any post so the media can crucify him for it. The Washington Press Corps is bored with the long parade of competence they've witnessed as Obama rolls out his team.

Another facet of this debate is that those critical of Obama's choices as not progressive enough are assuming that Obama will be like Bush and install goofballs into federal fiefdoms and then let them have their way. Obama has given every indication that he will be the anti-Bush and that he actually intends to lead his administration. I don't see the man abdicating his oversight of the appointees working underneath him. His vision of change is for capable people to follow his direction.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The last "fresh face" selected for "change" on the national scene was one Sarah Palin. OK?

Be careful what you wish for.

Brooksley E. Born, the chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Association in the Clinton administration in 1997, attempted to impose greater regulation on derivatives. “She called for greater disclosure of trades and reserves to cushion against losses.� She was fiercely opposed in this by Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin. The N Y Times and others have covered this. Someone needs to ask Obama why he hasn't consulted with Born or tried to her her, if he needs an experienced hand. Benen should also look into this.

exlibra: "Krugman taking marching orders ... And he doesn't, really, like blacks, I think;"
Huh? WTF, do you really mean that? Why?

Funny how this post starts out talking about Paul Volcker's appointment to a new, independent financial advisory agency, & no one else even mentions it. I think this is good news for us as Volcker has shown he will do what is necessary to do what is needed, even though it wasn't popular at the time. I'd like to see Warren Buffet chosen for something also, but I don't think he would accept. But I am sure he is on Obama's speed dial.

Robert Rubin and Larry Summers are the Dynamic Duo
of deregulation, derivatives, debt, default and depression that are now biting us in the ass big time. Obama needs to get rid of these two. They are
the major architects of this financial crisis.