A rational editorial from the Chronicle.
About the only criticism of Barack Obama's performance as president-elect has been that his "change you can believe in" team is shaping up to look a lot like a rerun of the Clinton administration.
His top Cabinet and White House appointees -- both named and leaked -- are loaded with old Clinton hands, including the grand dame herself, Hillary Clinton.
So people are asking, where's the change in that?
It's a fair question, but a bit premature.
First, it makes sense for Obama to surround himself with experienced people, particularly since he was so heavily criticized throughout the primary and general election campaigns as lacking government experience himself. Aren't old experienced Washington hands better suited than young inexperienced outsiders to help him bring about the changes he wants? And shouldn't Americans who aren't on the most far-out leftist fringe prefer to have a few familiar faces than to have the likes of Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers filling the posts?
That said, it's imperative that the soft-spoken Obama make it clear who will be the boss of his administration -- certainly not Bill or Hillary Clinton. And if his team is loyal to him and shares his vision, they'll do his bidding, not the Clintons'.
In short, just because the faces Obama has named are familiar doesn't mean they won't act different under him than they did under Clinton.
We've been reassured by some of his key appointments so far, particularly his economic team.
The markets also seem reassured. Timothy Geithner at Treasury and Lawrence Summers heading up the Council of Economic Advisers are probably the best choices a Democrat president could make to those vitally important posts at this critical juncture in the nation's economic life.
We hope the rest of his appointments to other top positions are as good.
Certainly Obama's constant mantra of change would look better with fresher faces.
But ultimately, it's the man at the top who must guide the change below.
Comments
A rational editorial from the Chronicle.
"Certainly Obama's constant mantra of change would look better with fresher faces." Do you prefer look or results?
exactly glc.the gop biased chronicle has bashed obama since day one.now that he beat their worn out old horse,they can't wait for him to slip up.who cares who he hires,atleast this trash in there now are gone.the sad aspect?this idiot,teflon saturated,former male cheerleader and his gang of criminals leave as if they did a good job.fdr wouldn't help hoover clean up his mess but obama will have to fix this disaster,but this group does win the prize of the worst presidency ever!
bb, a worn out old man with worn out old ideas and opinions. Did President Bush have short comings? You bet ya! However, with 2 wars and 9-11 we had 7 1/2 years of great economic times. We've been safe from another attack here from terrorists. Because of President Bush our troops will be coming home from Irag in victory. Because of President Bush women in Iraq are not worried daily about their daughters providing the entertainment for Saddam's evil sons in rape rooms. Bacause of President Bush Saddam Hussein is not in power and is not torturing and killing the innocent people of Iraq. I guess the worse president ever depends on how you grade the papers. I remember a former president who not only was impeached for lying under oath and obstruction of justice but whose actions changed the moral compass of many young Americans forever. Who left the White House in disarray & looking more like a frat house. Who stole from the American people many items from the White House. Who's unfamiliarity with the truth is legandary. I truly hope Obama will be a great leader. But his personal past & his past voting record offer little hope.
Obama made Hillary the Secretary of State instead of VP so she couldn't again say "I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. WE are the president."
I4PUTT- excellent comment. I have grown tired of listening to all the blame being cast on GWB. History will judge more fairly.
Yes, it makes sense for any President to surround himself with experienced people, but after the constant drumbeat of "change", it is valid to question many of these choices. Are the Clinton era folk really the only experienced people out there?
It's widely accepted among many intellectuals and regular folks (who live outside the CSRA) that George W Bush was one of the worst presidents ever. Based on election results, the Bush and the GOP were put out of business. That does NOT happpen unless a sitting president made a wide array of poor decisions.
It's widely accepted among many intellectuals and regular folks (who live outside the CSRA) that George W Bush was one of the worst presidents ever. Based on election results, the Bush and the GOP were put out of business. That does NOT happpen unless a sitting president made a wide array of poor decisions.
bcs2k-It is not unusual for the opposing party to win election after a two-term Presidency. The current economic situation and a mostly liberal leaning press took their tolls as well.
bcs2k, Well Bush really couldn't run again unless he violated the constitution. However, the GOP suffered from a media that clearly chose the Democrat candidate (as they always do) and actively worked to have him elected. Having only one conservative on the ticket was not enough to elect the moderate McCain. As for intellectuals: to rephrase Buckley, I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Augusta phonebook than by the faculties of Harvard and Yale.
Once a liberal Democrat is briefed and understands the threats this country faces, he usually does an about face. Kennedy gave us the Bay of Pigs and Cuban missle showdown in addtion to getting us in Vietnam. Johnson became the antithesis of the antiwar crowd as be pursued the Vietnam war. Carter took on the Soviets by providing aid to Afghan fighters and declared the Carter Doctrine to keep the Persian Gulf open. Clinton gave us Bosnia and bombed in Afghanistan. Wait and see, Obama will become a dove eating hawk.
Chronicle well written...As I once stated we have a repeat of the Clinton Administration with a little "twist" of something extra in the incoming regime of the Obama's...If the followers of this man are waiting for his "crowning" to sound the release of funds into their waiting arms then they(the loyal followers) will be waiting a long time...Pray that Obama has a heart for this nation and her people(all people) first and foremost or we all are in for the bumpiest most violent time this nation has not seen many-a-year or last hundred years or so....
What a refreshing, contrasting editorial in comparison to what Cynthia Tucker, opinion editor of the AJC, wrote screaming for radical measures from Obama. The radical left will be sorely disappointed if they expect Cynthia Tucker like radicalism. It is not unusual for many to grow out of liberalism. Obama will, too.
14putt I had forgotten about how evil Nixon was until I read your post. You are right he was impeached and he surely deserved it. I was thinking back to the days in the 70s when he was president and how his actions, especially lieing and having his people lie, have probably had an impact on today. I would really like to know what was discussed on his secret China trip, however, I believe we see today what that trip has resulted in, a complete sell out of our economy for the benefit of a few corporations. By the way riverman, you forgot Ronnie and his friends in the drug cartels funding the Sandanistas, Panama and Haiti.
Riverman, have you met Dooleydidlittle from the other editorial posts? You two need to form an Overly Optimistic Obama Fan Club. I wish you were right, but don't think you are. Much of his radicalism may take place under the radar so as to win him re-election, but chances are that Obama will continue to be who he has always been.
dissman - Nixon wasn't impeached. Haven't I seen you on a recent YouTube video?
Obama is surrounding himself with the most intelligent people in this country. Remember the Clinton administration, they had to rescue us from the first bush blunder. There will be change. He should be praised because he's not just appointing his best buddies to posts that they have no experience in, like gw.
Let me get this straight. 7 1/2 years of economic success? Since little gw has been in office, he has whittled away at the surplus that Clinton left, and managed to get us into the most desperate economic situation since the great depression. He will not bring our troops home having won the war, it cannot be won. He has spent trillions of dollars to remove one dictator. Why don't we just spend trillions more to remove Castro, and all of the other dictators in the world. Get a grip.
Good freaking lord justus4....Not every damn thing is a racial issue! He is being held to a higher standard because THAT is what he promised when he campaigned! You really need to get that chip off of your shoulder.
Putt , GWB went to Iraq to avenge the contract put out on his father. He don't care nothing about no women in Iraq. He lied, to take us into an expensive war, with no real plan to win it. Then after five years of failure and four thousand lives, he mount a surge. Now, people pretend the first five years didn't exist. Well they did.We had seven years of great economic times? With all due respect, what planet have you been living on? The end game of Bush economic policies, is the stock market losing nine trillion dollars ,and one million jobs lost this year alone, so far and millions losing their homes, while Bush set back and hope things would improve. Is there any wonder, we have a new democratic president?
"He don't care nothing about no women in Iraq." Read a book RCR. then when you are done, provide proof that the president lied. Are you familiar with the term libel? "He mount a surge." You have no idea how uneducated you are making yourself look with your horrible use of the English language. Are you familiar with the 6 years of great economic times we had with the current president? It wasn't until after the shift in power in congress that things turned down. "Bush set back and hope...." unless he's a hen, I doubt he did any "setting."
actually justus4 i don't remember anyone asking the president-elect to start working now? do u have sources? or is this a result of ur own self inflicted opinion? its my understanding that p-elect took it upon himself to get the ball rolling and that it was not necessary to start naming all appts and most do it much later, which would include clinton himself as one who waited much later to name everyone in his cabinent, etc. etc. and to have an economic plan ready on the day he takes oath. pre-elect is going to be held to a higher standard because that's what he campaigned on. he promoted change, change, change and well more change. (which is still don't know what this change is) so he set himself up for his own failure if he doesn't provide the necessary change. the race card is sooo old and overused. for goodness sake the US just elected the first black candidate (which i applaud the historical aspect of this though totally disagree with his politics) and i just don't think the race card is as effective as it used to be. so please lay the race card down cuz u just look ignorant and like ur making excuses when u play it. thank u.
oh 14putt you are such a good soldier.he started 2 wars fool! no one asked us to invade either country.he then adamantly opposed your so called 911 attack.opposed?why would he not want YOUR terrorrist attack investigated?probably the same reasons you won't see any of those photos confiscated by the fbi,make sense? it does to me,it's a good ole coverup from start to finish.good economic times?certainly the ceos are taking us from the cleaners to the car wash now.ask some ordinary folk how good times are.he cared about iraqi women?how many women,children,and the elderly died when those us bombs rained down on their country?how many women inmates did he oversee executed while governor?all those lies about taking the furniture have been investigated and cleared.now go kiss your cics picture,and tell hi bye
Time to get bearbryante a new tin foil hat.
Some of the people losing homes should never have had them in the first place. RCR, Bush may have gone to Iraq to avenge his family, but it was for his father. You might research a little before parroting what you have heard.
My comments regarding George W. Bush disastrous presidency was in response to I4PUTT post at 6:09am and ldsmith at 7:11 AM.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
