I’ve noticed quite a bit of buzz about GenJones in the context of this election; I saw several discussions on national TV about Obama being a Joneser, as well as about GenJones voters being a key swing vote.

You may find this link interesting, my friends and I have been linking people to this page because we think it matters: it has a bunch of print excerpts and videos of big time publications (e.g. The New York Times, Newsweek, etc.) and pundits (e.g. David Brooks, Clarence Page, etc.) all talking about Obama’s identity as part of Generation Jones: http://www.generationjones.com/2008election.html

Second, I agree with janinedm, I think Obama will choose good ideas over idealogy. Which brings me back to my original comment that IMO Obama will use Rahm to keep Dems (who expect ideology) in line more than Republicans.

I agree with DLS, we do need to pay attention to Obama's cabinet picks. Though I'm not sure Obama will choose people who agree with him all the time. I think Obama wants people who are willing to push back, but ultimately understand that Obama will be making the decisions. So I think if Obama does choose someone that's unexpected we should be careful about reading too much into that selection (or any selection, for that matter). But having said that (and this may be a little contradictory) I do think it's fair to use his picks as a guideline. But the final verdict should be in a year or so to see how Obama actually uses his cabinet.

Last, I (like DLS) never thought Obama was “lamb-y”. What's the point of having a leader who will roll over and play dead in the face of the slightest opposition? Obama, we've seen, has gotten to where he as because he was willing to fight. And I think he grew as a person and as a leader as a result of the campaign. He knows he will need good people on his side to accomplish anything.

Not just that, but likely reminding them that Obama is not their rubber stamp. A lot of people in Congress (where's the age “concern” and jokes that we all heard time after time about McCain when it comes to the rest of Congress, with average age of returning members probably in the 70s?) are “lifers” or “fixtures” who outlast numerous successive people in the White House, and may view themselves as the keystone and most important people in Washington, and for the new, younger short-time-in-Washington President to be suitably deferential, malleable, even a rubber stamp for them (especially if they become extra conceited after this last election).

This guy may be for Obama's defense _against_ Democrats more than Republicans, at times. (Beginning with Cabinet appointments, one may already guess.)

What you may see more with Obama than in the 1990s is a true attempt to create a new, modern activist liberalism, addressing issues in better ways than before that matter most to liberals and even to others (such as health care). It's not a new-generation thing (Obama is a Baby Boomer, not a post-Boomer, as so many incorrectly state), but it is a possibly new (or more precisely, a more contemporary) kind of liberalism and role for Washington (greater interventionism, which is to be regretted or worse, but consistent with the “progress” of the modern welfare state and replacement of constitutional federalism with a unitary state and truly national government).

Related to Obama is a Wall Street Journal article about some whom he may rely on and even bring into his administration, other rising black stars in this nation. Note that there is resentment here among those of the old “Urban League” set, and even some intra-black class envy.

Here. (It's about time these people, in a world that has evolved from a truly separate world in the age of discrimination, become more visible, including as Cabinet officials.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593315880903...

More, related:

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/06/black-lawye...

* This included activists (and cronies) in Cabinet positions.

PAY ATTENTION to who gets into Obama's Cabinet!

What the selection of this guy, nastier than any caricature of Tom “The Hammer” Delay, does, among other things is to belie the sweet lamb-y image of Obama. Both this guy and Podesta put the lie to what some of us always knew was a lie, about “bipartisanship” (we've known it means Do It Our Democratic Way, Or Else).

As someone on a local Detroit program noted correctly, even before this election, Pelosi and Reid were well known for hubris and overreach, and just imagine what they'll try now. It also makes me more intrigued (more than concerned at this time) than ever who the Cabinet selections will be.

I'm also concerned that, especially following the increased handout seeking by Detroit and the release of the latest worse numbers by Ford and now by GM (worse than originally predicted), that, as was also discussed on the air this morning, there will be lunacy by liberals in Washington to all but nationalize (federalize) the Detroit automakers (which, despite the lies and utter conceit here in Michigan, does _not_ constitute “_the_ auto industry in this country” — and not only will management not be told to leave in exchange for handouts, but that the companies could become like British Leyland in the 1970s.

(Detroit has not been “the auto industry” in this country and has not been the center of auto culture in the USA for decades. Only hordes of clueless morons in a few places in this nation have failed to grasp this fact by now.)

And it's distressing (to the intelligent, at least) that Dick Gephardt may become the next Secretary of Labor. I hope the Obama Cabinet doesn't end up being filled by activists the way the first Clinton Cabinet was. It's the very last thing Americans need or want.

But will it be that surprising? No. After all, now that the media can stop campaigning for Obama because Obama has won, Tom Brokaw can admit we know little about Obama even now, and Evan Thomas can admit there's a creepy personality cult and image manipulation at work, in place of knowledge. But now that Obama's our next President, we'll see what he's really like, and what he really wants. This chief of staff is Exhibit A.

“letting down the opposition gently and possibly offering something else as an olive branch.”

When were Dems ever afforded that respect by a republican?

Personally, I'm with SBSF — I'm hoping it's both.