Know why many Clintonites are being hired for PE Obama's cabinet???

[monmouth]

If you're going to be ready on Day One, you need people with resumes that indicate an innate knowledge of how things are done. This is much like assembling a "start-up" company. With the present agenda in PE Obama's hand, bright but not necessarily experienced is not going to be good enough.

Each of the appointments so far bring this knowledge. Granted, it looks, at this point, like a re-tread of the Clinton administration. Who would you have him choose from? None of these appointments are made in stone. There will be people serving for a time and then leaving for various reasons. Some will come on board with the understanding they will leave after the administration has a good foot on the ground. All he has had to choose from are those professionals in the Clinton administration. There will be much moving around and shuffling. Tweaking, as they say.

I know if I were involved in the hiring for a "start-up", I would most definitely look at the resumes of candidates with the knowledge (inside or not)to initially get the job up and running. Tweaking comes later. Now is the time for patience and confidence in the new boss. He hasn't made any mistakes thus far that I have noticed.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Clinton Stumbled Badly At First, And Never Really Recovered

I suspect that Obama does not want to do the same thing - he wants experience in there.

[Captain Hilts]

3. As a manager he sure did recover. nt

[Atman]

2. First of all, weren't things pretty good in the Clinton years?

I mean, really...he's bringing back members of a winning team. As much as it'd feel great (for us) to have an entire cabinet of unknown "progressives," having experience at this time isn't a bad thing, imho.

.

[Honeycombe8]

4. You mean that other team that had a different agenda and different loyalties in a different century?

Times have changed. The agenda has changed. The leadership has changed. The voters specifically voted for this "change."

The voters did not vote for the Clinton era to come back. They SPECIFICALLY voted AGAINST that.

I'm not saying he's brought it back totally. Yet. I'm waiting to see.

If there are too many more Clintonites in the cabinet and staff, I won't be voting for any more Democratic Party candidates for awhile. I specifically voted against having another Clinton administration, as did millions of others.

[Captain Hilts]

6. Bubba left office with a 70% approval rating. They voted to change from BUSH not from Bubba. nt

[Honeycombe8]

21. If voters had wanted another Clinton administration, they could've, and would've, voted for it.

After all, the Clintons were on the ticket.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

22. too reductive....

I'm aware there were many contributing factors, such as voter's desire for someone really new, not another dynasty, Obama himself and his compelling positivity, to name just a couple.

However, in my opinion, something very powerful worked against Hilary that disconnects this from the simple assertion that if voters had wanted another Clinton administration, they would have voted for it. And, my thoughts here are separate from whether she would or would not be the better candidate.

That (pink) elephant in the room that worked against her is entrenched sexism. I think she was ignored and belittled and attacked in ways that would have been noticed and decried if it had happened to any other 'minority'.

I think the media trampling and public ambivilance or outright hostility came from that deep prejudice against women who threaten cultural norms by stepping out of the limited mold that doesn't threaten their comfort.
I think the serious work she's done was trivialized or ignored.

(For comparison, some of my scrutiny and speculation: Palin fits certain cultural expectations, including "pretty", "youngish attractive mother", "not intellectually challenging", "power displays limited to offspring". Therefore, as repellant as she is for her ideology, she passes on certain non-negotiables deep within the public psyche.)

Here's something that exemplifies what I mean--I once happened to catch some NPR congressional hearings on torture.

This was several years ago, so I don't remember verbatim, but I WAS struck by something:
Hilary made the point that military administration should be investigated because that is where procedure and organizational culture originate. I remember thinking, "Yes!!, thank you for cutting through the crap!!!"

Then, a couple of speakers, who basically ignored what she said...

THEN, some congressMAN (sorry, don't remember who), says exactly the same thing, in nearly the same words--- and it just stops everyone in their tracks, they are struck by the logic, what a perfect point, yes that is what we've been missing, etc, etc... I remember the swell of impressed and approving voices, all male.

I thought my head would explode and I canNOT imagine how Hilary contained herself.

anyway, I just had to put down my thoughts, because the original supposition is much too reductive.

[RichGirl]

16. What you don't seem to understand....

These people were doing their job. When they worked for Clnton, they did what he wanted, when they work for Obama, they'll do what he wants. People change jobs all the time. When they have a new employer, they don't insist on continueing the work of the previous employer.

Obama never implied that he wanted to or needed to change the people within the government....particularily within the democratic party.

The change was being different than BUSH and republicans. He never implied that he wanted to change the democratic party.

[monmouth]

5. That's the way I see it too. Clinton had a great team. I just don't understand

all of this wringing of hands. Thanks.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Beats me either. Our team has a deep bench. Use it!!!

We have a wealth of riches to choose from and many did working with under Bubba. So what?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Clinton's first year or two was not very effective.

Yes, the overall body of work was good, but he tried to assemble a group of friends and neophytes, and his administration suffered while they got their bearings.

On edit: Just to clarify, I'm not attacking or criticizing you, I'm trying to add to your argument.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Carter admin people were too old and conservative, southern Dems - Sam Nunn - did not...

support him.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Agreed - he didn't really have the benefits that Obama does today.

Honestly, from the other side, this is all just the start of their backbiting and criticizing every little thing Obama does. From our side, however, I'm not really sure where this is coming from. It's as if DU wants Obama to hire Naderites, LaRouchies, and Kucinich-maniacs.

[Captain Hilts]

11. I agree. The appointments are ALL good. nt

[BlancheSplanchnik]

24. just to add some more to your comment

Good counterpoint to the concern that Obama is making bad appointments. Obama's appointing for experience and smarts: for example, Susan Crawford and Kevin Werbach to FCC team. Boy was I thrilled to see that! Wow, experts! Professors of law and ethics!! Geee!!!

He's imposing stricter conflict of interest rules than any other white house, too according to NYT. That will be tough, probably...seems there'd be so many tangled threads in the political world. So he won't be able to achieve perfection on that account; geee, again.

Also, I think all new businesses flounder in the beginning, that's pretty common.

Also also, I see Obama already committing to strong initial actions, long overdue.... banning lobbying, dumping bad bush actions. Good stuff imho

[RichGirl]

12. You are exactly right.

First...why do so many people here talk about the former Clinton people as if they were former Bush people???? Clinton was not perfect but he certainly did a good job. Why would anyone NOT want those people.

Second...Obama said he wanted change in how business was done in Washington, he didn't say he wanted all the people to change. His gift is in being able to inspire people. His job is now to inspire the people who are in our government, including republicans, to see things his way.

Third...For Obama to win this election is a miracle in itself and an indication of his strength. So why do so many of his supporters now think that he has to pick unknown, inexperienced people so that he can be in charge...as if experienced people will run right over him.

Fourth...there is no Clinton drama. Only media speculation and fabrication. Except for Hillary's campaign and campaigning for Obama the Clinton's are rarely in the public eye. To listen to the media you would think that they are out their holding press conferences everyday ranting about their opinions. It's not happening! I think everyone needs to take a breath and ask themselves how much of the so-called Clinton drama is actual fact and how much is just buying into a drama-hungry media. Notice how any mention of the Clinton's quickly disappears as soon as Palin rears her head! The Clinton's are actually quite boring. If you can think of something interesting about them, please share. One blow-job should not get decades of mileage!

P.S. Even Chelsea is boring...no public intoxication or speeding tickets in her prius, no pregancy out of wedlock. Where's the drama????? Let's see...she straightened her hair...yeah, that's it!

[Sensitivity]

13. Start-up is BAAAD analogy. Last thing you want in startup is Old-Style B.A.U.

You need to understand B.A.U. but it is not the top priority for a Start-up.

However, the Presidency is not a start-up operation.

[monmouth]

17. I agree, but it is "Obama's start-up" in a sense. A start-up of his cabinet

would probably been better phrasing.. Thanks.

[EstimatedProphet]

14. Exactly.

[drm604]

15. Exactly. Where else is he going to get experienced Democrats except from the Clinton administration?

People from the Carter admin are too old or aren't around anymore.

His only other choices are people without federal executive branch experience, or Republicans. People here would be whining about either of those choices, especially the second one.

Obama is in charge and sets the agenda. These people carry it out, if they refuse to then they can be replaced.

[olegramps]

18. Absolutely.

You choose people who are knowledgeable and experienced. The policies that they are DIRECTED to pursue is the job of the top executive. If they proceed to pursue their own policy then they are removed and replaced.

It appears to me that some of the comments on this forum concerning Obama's choices do not reflect the realities of the situation. They support some people who have their own agendas. That is exactly what took place in the dysfunctional Bush administration. The inmates were running the asylum. The fact of the matter is that we haven't had a President for eight long years and the results have been catastrophic.

[LostinVA]

19. Yup -- and, they'll either stay or cycle out and be replaced when things settle

[1corona4u]

20. Exactly.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

23. k and r. Thanks I agree with you!!!

Thanks for explaining; I feel the same way.