Sorry, but even Colin Powell lost his luster when he went along with what he must have known was a speech based on questionable evidence before the UN. How could he help Obama and us now?

now that would be change, wouldn't it?

“senator hagel, be my secretary of state.”
“no.”
“too bad! it's yours you can't say no, no tradebacks!”

what a great article.

“Change,” whatever that may mean, doesn't necessarily mean bi-partisanship. We've had plenty of bipartisanship with this Congress. Personally I wish we (as a voting nation) had the ability to throw ALL the bums out. I too supported Obama and don't have any qualms of his not choosing Republicans just for the sake of choosing Republicans. We've had Republican Rule for 8 long years, and whatever “bipartisan” efforts of Congress have been enabled, it seems to me to have been shallow consideration, with the threat of harsh criticisms regarding “patriotism” and “with-us-or-against-us” certainty. Maybe it is true that the whole point of politics is to keep getting elected.

Additionally, as important as rewarding campaign faithful and using the experience of the beltway “ways,” I personally yearn for those good ideas that can come from some fresh, intelligent people. Condi Rice? I still remember her on television discussing the fact that she loved “her Fox guys.” I still remember her talking about the “mushroom clouds” like she was a Newt Gingrich (or Pat Robertson) knock-off. She is as branded, and proud of it, as any Bush appointee. Wonderful expert on Russia. Why would I get excited about her? And Colin Powell? Does anyone not remember his parade before us and the rest of the world describing the details of weapons of mass destruction? Why would I want to have him leading in this phase of American government? Sure he's a great guy, brilliant man, but isn't he part of team-Bush? His endorsing Obama is fine but Change?

I wish we could end the empires of the Bush and Clinton families. They have served as our leaders for a collective20 years. Aren't there devoted, talented citizens worthy of consideration outside of these families?

He may not have picked any Republicans for his cabinet yet, but he did let Lieberman slide and he met with McCain– those are both steps in the right direction. I'm wondering which Republicans would want to serve in a Democratic administration. Sen Lugar has already said thanks but no thanks.

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-ca...

Isn't Gates rumored to be staying at Defense?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122694441542934...

To me something more interesting would be if Obama creates a new Department of the Environment and puts Gore in there as the new Secretary. It is silly to create such a department (sillier than that dumbly-named Department of Homeland Security), but it would make great sense to rename and reconstitute the long-obsolescent-named Department of the Interior to a new Department of Natural Resources and put Gore in charge of _this_ new (or renamed) department, which would include the EPA. To appeal to the goofy kids, he could also make Gore a new “global warming” or “climate change” “reform” czar. (Gotta love those czars and the mindset they imply!)

B.) Have you been paying attention to the news at all? You know, the ones reporting that the Obama staff really wants Gates to stay as Secretary of Defense if he wishes to chose so, or says Obama really wants to put Hagel somewhere, or note the possibility of Lugar being put somewhere as well?

FWIW, I agree that Hagel might be a better pick for various reasons, but I am not sold on either Powell or Rice as clearly better Secretaries of State. Rice hasn't accomplished much of anything in her tenure, has she? And I remember tons of complaints that Powell wasn't a terribly good executive for State.

The latest appointment is Tom “I'm Concerned” Daschle, to run Health and Human Services. He also is separately reported to be given the role of “health czar” or “health policy czar,” which indicates that Obama will run health policy, not Hillary Clinton, and Clinton at State will be removed from a domestic policy role on health care or anything else (if she accepts the State position).

Clintons have the world's respect. Who better to interface with the world?

Duh..

If Obama is going to try to be more of a Reagan or Nixon (who actually had enormous impact on foreign policy) or JFK — not even mentioning FDR — then it is hard to determine what “best” person there is for a job because it might be less about personal views and more about the way that someone works within the context of the administration.

I would hold off on assuming that appointments are going to be very reflective of policy, and a Chuck Hagel for instance is the type that doesn't seem like he'd be a good fit if he doesn't have full power…while Powell and Rice are (fairly or not) very tarnished. I also think there is about a 90% chance that he'll keep Gates on as SecDef, as from what I've read Gates is a very middle of the road guy when it comes to independence and also being a tema player.

Unifying and governing from a more bi-partisan position does not mean appointing the opposition to key posts. It means working with the opposition to craft legislation that furthers your goals, but does not run roughshod over their concerns.

Or are you advocating an Equal Opportunity Political Party Employment Act and associated quotas for Cabinet-level positions?