Comments on: Obama’s Familiar Orbit (Guest Voice)

By: Jcavhs

Jcavhs — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:08:48 +0000

So according to you, getting people who are experienced, actually know how to get things done and are chosen on merit is more of the same? I disagree. George W. Bush picked political cronies for his positions. Bill Clinton picked newbies who had no idea how to get things done. We saw how well some of that turned out. Instead, Obama has picked centrists who are experts in their field and operatives who can actually get done what needs to be done.

And I wonder what current President you think would have not only been an advocate for Lieberman, put Clinton at State and basically ignored what his 'base' wanted. But for me, the fact that he's given more press conferences since getting elected than President Bush has in a long time is change enough for me right now.

By: WilRobinson

WilRobinson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:15:09 +0000

Given Hillary's support for the Iraq war, her hatred of all things Iranian, and her complete lack of foreign policy experience (not that Obama has that much more), I would have much rather seen Richardson as Sect. of State. Hillary might have been a good attorney general or health and human services pick.

I think strictly from the standpoint of "bipartisanship," Obama has done a good job. But I'm more for "change" - and naming past Clintonites to your cabinet isn't change...it's just an attempt to return to the 90s (which, despite our failing memory, weren't that great - we ignored serious threats abroad, watched a genocide in Africa, and let the income gap in the U.S. grow tremendously).

www.internationalpoliticalwill.com