A friend sent me an article (pasted in below) taking President-elect Barack Obama to task for some of his administration picks who have Clinton ties and for what the writer seems to think is counter to U.S.-International best interests.
The sense I get from this article is that people either (1) weren’t listening, (2) are expecting perfection vis a vis Obama meeting their own personal expectations and agendas or (3) need to find fault in order to fulfill their roles as professional critics.
In the three weeks — three weeks! — since the election, I see Obama doing exactly what he said he would do:
– He is indeed making sweeping changes. Traditionally newly elected presidents sack everyone in any position of significance with the outgoing administration and bring in replacements wholesale, at times, as we have seen, with little to no regard for their competence and with great regard for their partisanship, loyalty and cronyism. That’s the first major change I see Obama making. He is appointing people he has determined will be competent and effective.
– He repeatedly said during his campaign at in his victory speech that we are all Americans first, not Democrats and Republicans, not conservatives and liberals, etc., but Americans, and if elected he would be president of all of the people, not just those who elected him — which is opposite of one of the most infuriating aspects of Bush and his m.o., which was to politicize everything. Obama is demonstrating his intention to do just that, be a leader of all Americans to the extent possible. The William Pfaffs of the world point accusatory fingers at a Hillary Clinton appointment. Hillary Clinton missed being the Democratic nominee by a hair and, in the view of some, she rightfully won but was robbed. These folks further villified Obama for not picking her as his running mate. Well, how best to get her and her devotees inside his tent than to give her a significant post in his administration — one in which she has considerable expertise and clout? Mr. Pfaff and other critics seem to forget that she and his other selections, such as Bob Gates/Defense, are OBAMA’s appointees who will be part of HIS team and charged with carrying out HIS policies. They will have to work out/overcome whatever differences they might have had or touted in the run-up to his winning the nomination. If not, he can fire them. I personally admire the self-confidence his making such appointments demonstrates.
– He repeatedly said his administration would be transparent. He has already set that tone by holding more press conferences in just two days — going on three today — than Bush has had in six months. or longer.
– He said he would listen to the people. He has two websites devoted to just that and, from what I read/hear, is paying attention to them. Further, this allows all of us who want to make positive contributions and/or constructive comments to be an extension of the Smart Team his is assembling as his administration
– So he’s reaching back into past administrations and selecting people with experience and strong, effective track records. What if he weren’t doing that, but instead were chosing only unknowns, neophytes, Chicago cronies? What would the critics be saying then? “What’s that neophyte president-elect doing filling all of these important jobs with similarly inexperience people?!?” Obama is in a total no-win situation. He’s got to have people on his team who know their way through that uber minefield of Washington D.C. While all of the attention and accompanying criticism is on those with past administration connections, omitted from their punditry are those who are new to federal government service, such as Arizona Gov. Janet Nepolitano (Sec. of Homeland Security) and University of California, Berkeley, economic historian Christina Romer (Council of Economic Advisors Chair) or that those with ties to past administrations Obama has picked for top jobs who will be serving as mentors to up-and-comers or that some such as Larry Summers were passed over for top jobs but because of their expertise and experience are being put in positions where they can mentor new comers who have been picked for top spots.
I say, lay off and give the guy a chance. He isn’t going to meet your or my every expectation or hope, but he is doing what this country needs right now. He’s imparting a sense of stability and assurance and providing solid leadership that not only we, but the rest of the world needs, which is reflected in the international response to his election and his actions — and he isn’t even president yet.
The Americans who voted for Barack Obama as president were promised change they could count on, but it rather looks as if they may actually be asked to make do with a mildly refurbished Clinton administration, with many of the same officials and nearly all of the same policies. The policies are drawn from the same centrist Democratic Party sources as those of Bill Clinton, and Obama’s admirers might even find themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State — which makes no sense whatsoever.
Are there no significant differences of view on war and peace between the two of them? Why did the American (and international) public have to endure a year and a half of Democratic party primaries in addition to the national election contest if the Democratic race could have been settled by the flip of a coin between people who believed in the same policies and thought the same thoughts?
Where is the sweeping change Barack Obama was promising the electorate? Looking back, he was rarely specific about the changes he intended to make. He constantly invoked the principle of change, without going much into the messy details, for which — admittedly — he was criticized at the time.
Many who voted for him, as did this writer, relied upon his evident qualities, in comparison with his predecessor and most of his competitors, which were that he clearly was very intelligent, as well as balanced and mature: He was an adult, who spoke to his audiences as fellow-adults. This was his great difference from Hillary Clinton. Personally very intelligent, she has spent too long in the shady political precincts of ambition and calculation. She could never have made the speech Obama made on race. (Possibly he will never again be able to make such a speech. He has himself said that we must settle down now to being disappointed by Obama.)
The disappointment problem is international. Because of the enormous expectations Obama’s election has aroused abroad, above all among America’s European allies, any Obama-Clinton restoration of Clintonism would be met with incomprehension and disappointment. This is not because the Clinton administration was so awful, but because it was so confused in perception and lacking in foreign policy direction that it was easy for George W. Bush to merge it into the Great War on Terror. He had simply to add fear, security hysteria, lies about mass destruction weapons, and torture.
Europeans had never thought of Americans as torturers. When it turned out that the sponsors and defenders of torture occupied the highest offices of government in the United States, with the chief legal enablers of torture in the White House Counsel’s office itself, and heading no less than the Department of Justice, a chill passed through the Western alliance. It was noted that the chosen euphemism for torture by president, lawyers and the CIA was “enhanced measures,” a direct translation of the term employed by the Gestapo.
I was just in Brussels to speak to the European Ideas Network, sponsored by the Christian Democratic-Center Right-Conservative group, the largest in the European Parliament. The audience seemed taken aback when I answered their question about what will change in European-American relations under Barack Obama by replying, “Probably not much.”
The president-elect has said he will stop torture and extra-legal imprisonment, but on fundamental matters of transatlantic relations he clearly has indicated that he wants an alliance in which the Europeans contribute more. (This will undoubtedly be a welcome change from the Bush effort to split the European Union by encouraging hostility toward the West Europeans by the pro-American former Warsaw Pact governments.)
The U.S. contribution to the Georgia fiasco has undermined its reputation among the East Europeans. In the future, there probably will be more American consultation and good will in transatlantic relations, and perhaps even in dealing with Russia (there certainly is nothing to gain from hostility). However, Barack Obama himself said in his Berlin speech that he expects the Europeans to contribute a lot more to “winning” the war in Afghanistan.
This is not a popular idea; the European governments have been encouraging regional diplomatic solutions for Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Most Americans may be surprised to know that there is West European concern (as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told a Brookings audience in Washington last week) that the new American administration might try to take all this over for itself, and thereby wreck the progress already made. After all, it was Barack Obama who said that he would himself talk
