As for the pick of Biden. It's all to clear why he picked him. A father figure. Uncorrupt. The man isn't rich and really does work for the people. It's why Delaware loves him. His house is worth alot, but realize, he would need to sell the home he loves in order to make his riches. Only a million or 2 at that point.

I see alot of change coming. Alot of lobbyist will have oversight or just plain booted out of Washington. Lets remember Obama's message about his campaign. It centered around the corruption in lobbying.

If republicans continue to play hardball. I only see them hurting themselves in 2010.

If not for our Republican governor. Study up on my fine state, Jazz!

I never had an image of President Bush as some ordinary “civilian.” Never before in my life was a president referred to more as “commander in chief” than with the present occupant. Too many publicity opportunities generate memories of military-style victory complete with banners, academy-graduate chest-bumps, and aircraft carrier fly-ins to consider that anyone thought he was just some ordinary civilian type-of-guy, or that he wanted to portray himself that way, or that his administration wanted him to be thought of in that way. And now Biden suggests that we'll have a new “commander in chief!” Oh Boy, what fun and how shall we address him? Commander? After all, we do have continual War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Terror, War against Evil, and an endless number of choices for flavors of Cultural Wars. GOP prepares for the “battle” of self-definition, and I haven't checked the latest on Huffington Post or Daily Kos–I'm sure they are engaging their warriors. We're involved in a lot of wars. Yes, I'm un-apologetically ready for a civilian cabinet.

Rumsfeld is retired long-service military. His and VP Cheney's decades-long careers are intricately tied to the military and intelligence complex, surrounded by military officers, and experienced in greasing the machinery of the military organism. Their careers intertwined enough throughout the years to where the lines of responsibility were blurred to many of us. I don't think anyone believes that they were “civilian” in the sense of not being highly influential and instrumental in our being in two wars, the first of which I think most of us agreed needed to happen, the second not so certain. As Paul O'Neill described, Iraq was on the radar from day one of the administration, if not long before. Somehow Rumsfeld's name doesn't bring up images of corporate meeting rooms.

I know it wasn't addressed to me, but your condescending remarks about “Holy One,” excuses and predictions for why he wouldn't be criticized (do you live in the South?) and your perpetual insistence that the “liberal activists” want to give this country away to terrorism, weak-minded academics, and (I'm surprised you didn't say it) “elite,” are tiring, nonconstructive, and depressing. They were great for the campaign base, but won't get us too far in the future. President Bush with Karl Rove created a special kind of perpetual campaign, and I hope it dies a quick and painless death. Speculation about how the left will bankrupt processes and disrupt the best of democracy seems to be in your constant threads (with a huge amount of cognitive dissonance regarding the last 8 years) but I'll have to learn to ignore that. It is predictable, nonetheless I actually do learn things from you and in your more generous moments I enjoy reading you. I don't enjoy the personal nature of your attacks.

However, Thank the gods America voted to turn the channel on the last 8 years.

Gen Petraeus has shown himself to be politician, as former military I say this as a pejorative; he was and is willing to politicize his command in order to further his personal stature. While I know this comment will engender heated disagreement, please review his repeated Congressional testimony and compare it to the reports from soldiers within the command. Petraeus may have done a great job with the surge but he did a better job with PR.

My pick is for a Foreign Policy realist in the mode of Sen. Hagel.

No complaints about an “imperial Presidency,” and while we will stop hearing the usual whining about “divided government” given that the Dems will run Congress as well as the White House, we may encounter extra-ambitious types who say that we need a _positive_ movement toward “fusion of power” and to let the Holy One appoint members of Congress into Cabinet positions, while letting them retain their Senate or House seats. (There even might be associated muttering about the advantages of the parliamentary system of government, and even some arguing for “flexible elections” and the need to cancel 2012's Presidential election to save money and to “preserve continuity” … this can be fun when you think about it.)

1. He needs to be secluded before he says something goofy again.

2. It's what most people apparently want instead of a VP that actually does something (other than posture for environmentalist faddism and win the kind of prize that Helen Caldicott and Yassir Arafat could win) given that the best known VP who actually did something was the Evil Darth Cheney.

3. You will never, ever, hear about a Democratic “imperial Presidency” or extra-constitutional this, that, or whatever. Never, ever. Especially about the Divine One. (We all “know” what motive would underlie such a thing.)

???

Rumsfeld was a civilian.

Bush was obviously a civilian, effectively. His military “service” (aside from the hidden unpleasant details) meant nothing.

As for other Cabinet officials and executive members, remember the irony (which is how best to put it) about which I have warned liberal activists in the past — given different industries or parts of our economy, those best qualified to make decisions about them are those in the related industry of interest. They know best. (Meanwhile, something noted on a radio program here in Detroit, there's a concern that once again Washington may interfere with the ailing obsolete-model auto industry in Detroit and try to force it to do things out of political desire, likely in the case of people in Washington who know nothing about the industry or running a business.)

Imagine the adoring media if he blackmails or strong-arms banks into lending at deliberately reduced interest rates, to sub-prime borrowers.

“The Return, the Courage of Eliot Spitzer” …

It might also be a nice change to see cabinet members who are civilians, and not retired military or active military commanders, and for the government to be less led by the “commander in chief” than by the overwhelmingly civilian-elected president of America.

Additionally, even if it was tongue-in-cheek I hope we can get away from the characterization of thinking that some Americans “wish we would lose in Iraq” or that we are happy that the deaths of our soldiers prove some political point. It's less than amusing for those of us who have lost some family or friends there.

Petraeus is more interesting, though not for Secretary of State at this time. Obama needs someone capable of stepping into the role immediately and Petraeus still has duties to attend to. The other objection I would have to him is that his focus has been rather exclusive to the Middle East and the Secretary of State would need a far wider perspective, not that I can’t see him stepping up at a later date.

“I wonder what will happen when Obama inks his first five or so signing statements saying that he doesn't really need to pay attention to restrictions placed on him by the Congress?”

You raise an interesting point here. How will President Obama deal with this Congress?
Democrats aren't monolithic.

This morning I see Dingell screaming about Waxman's attempted “coup” against him. Most of the key fights will now be between Democrats.
Bush's precedent of “signing statements” will start to look very tempting, when Obama faces bills loaded with this or that rider that he does not care for.

LOL! I love it. But on the other side of the coin, I am equally anticipating the cries from the Republicans in their new minority status about how dangerous it is to have all that power they lovingly handed over to Bush being in Obama's hands. The old “careful what you wish for” scenario. I wonder what will happen when Obama inks his first five or so signing statements saying that he doesn't really need to pay attention to restrictions placed on him by the Congress?

Petraeus is interesting. It would be smart in many respects. However, “General Betray-US” is also despised by many activist Democrats . . . especially of the MoveOn and Code Pink strains . . . who hate him for saving the US from debacle in Iraq. He will never be forgiven for that . . . and so that will not happen either.

And what of the Incredible Shrinking Vice-Presidency?
Obama is clearly telegraphing that Crazy Uncle Biden will be stuck in the attic. This marks a major shift from the Bush, and even Clinton, view of the Vice-Presidency.

Power will be centralized in the West Wing.

I await with eagerness the forthcoming New York Times editorial on the valuable and innovative advantages of President Obama's increased and centralized executive authority in dealing with the many challenges facing the nation.