Obama and Change????

Obama ran a campaign all about "change". IMO, it looks like the "same old, same old". This sounds like "Clinton Administration Redux" to me.

So far he has named former Clintonians as head of his transition team, his chief of staff, his senior White House counsel, and his attorney general. He is considering another Clintonian as his Treasury secretary.

And, of course, the likelihood of Hillary herself to be named Secretary of State.

My question is for all those that voted for Obama based on his message of "Change". Are these the kind of changes you expected? Are you satisfied with the direction he is going?

Sheesh bobs he hasn't taken office yet

It's the policy and actions taken I will judge when he takes office and runs his cabinet on his agenda.

After eight years of bush/cheney and the repubs good ole boy rodeo I find this post is silly.

Absolutely...thank goodness that people who were more than capable in the Clinton era are being re-established in positions of leadership.  I couldn't be more thrilled with the choices he has made so far.  I am also ecstatic that he is considering Hillary for the sec. of state.  This is definitely the change we need!

Original Post by bagga:

Sheesh bobs he hasn't taken office yet

It's the policy and actions taken I will judge when he takes office and runs his cabinet on his agenda.

After eight years of bush/cheney and the repubs good ole boy rodeo I find this post is silly.

Sheesh bagga.  I think your response is quite silly.  Can you not answer a direct question?

My question has nothing to do with his policies and actions as President.  Nor did it have anything to do with Bush/Cheney.

I asked a direct question.  Try and stay on point, if you can.

The change Obama ran on was policy, not the heads of his cabinet posts, bobs, so I am on point with your question.

The change I am looking for can't be judged on a man that isn't in the position to make any changes, that your question comes when BUSH is still our president makes your question premature.

bobs, I think bagga stayed very much on topic, actually.  She may not have answered the question directly, but she did give you her thoughts regarding the subject.

If you want an exact answer, here goes:

Regarding his picks, I'm holding off judgement until they have some time to prove themselves.  And I'm neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the direction he is going.  I'm choosing to wait and give him some time in office before I decide whether he's made good picks or not.  I'd like to give him and his choices the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

Right now I'm more disappointed in how many of his picks have a background in lobbying...after all the comments of "Lobbyist are not going to run Washington when I'm in office".

But with that said...it's a wait and see....

I guess I'm just disappointed that we have more retreads.  Just like Bush brought into his cabinet.

When I think of change, I think of new blood.  Not more of the same.

Funny how change can mean different things to different people.  As far as I've heard, none of his appointees so far currently are in the position that he has appointed, or re-appointed as would be the case, them to so how is that not change? 

Additionally, the political gene pool is fairly shallow.  The change most us of are looking for is that the administration swims in the opposite direction.  We won't know if that is the case for probably severals years.  Then in four years we will judge whether or not it has been the right change.

I hear what you're saying.  But again, heck, Dem's might as well voted for Hillary! 

I thought Hillary represented experience, Obama new blood.  And that was his major attraction.

I understand that he wants to add some experience to his staff.  But, I would have thought, his first nominations and appointments would be his inner circle.  Not Clintonians.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Clinton appointment was all worked out before the election as part of a deal to get them to back off some and let Obama do what he needed to do to win.  Now we're just seeing the details getting worked out.

Original Post by meganr:

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the Clinton appointment was all worked out before the election as part of a deal to get them to back off some and let Obama do what he needed to do to win. Now we're just seeing the details getting worked out.

Yes, seems quite likely.

Original Post by bobs9895:

 Are these the kind of changes you expected? Are you satisfied with the direction he is going?

I agree with bagga - these strike me as rather premature questions.  The man hasn't even taken office yet, and people are already crowding him at the plate telling him he's doing it wrong. 

Geez - he can't win:   he chooses outsiders and his inner circle, he'll be criticized for not having the knowledge base and not reaching out to the rest of the party, he chooses established people, suddenly he's no longer about 'change". 

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by bobs9895:

Are these the kind of changes you expected? Are you satisfied with the direction he is going?

I agree with bagga - these strike me as rather premature questions. The man hasn't even taken office yet, and people are already crowding him at the plate telling him he's doing it wrong.

Geez - he can't win: he chooses outsiders and his inner circle, he'll be criticized for not having the knowledge base and not reaching out to the rest of the party, he chooses established people, suddenly he's no longer about 'change".

Who said he is doing it wrong?

Original Post by bobs9895:

Who said he is doing it wrong?

 I kind of got the impression that you were when you posted:

guess I'm just disappointed that we have more retreads.  Just like Bush brought into his cabinet.

When I think of change, I think of new blood.  Not more of the same.

Perhaps I misinterpreted.

You don't have to love the Clintons, to know that he made good choices when he was President on the whole.  Like her or not she has a lot of power and cares about issues.  She is also very smart.

So let's not second guess, although Bob after the last 8 scary years and everything going on and has gone on.  It is hard not to be wary.  There is hardly anyone that hasn't been affected adversely buy the current regime and the many errors that have been made. 

I am glad that people are interested instead of apathetic.

It would be both foolish and dangerous to appoint people without the knowledge and background to get the job done. I think Obama is neither of those. Reaching out to the people who could make this administration run smoothly and efficiently only speaks to Obama's enthusiasm for bringing people together and his hope for moving forward in a positive direction.

As has already been stated, there is little point in bemoaning what Obama has done; he is still not president. If you feel the need to get upset about politics, go ahead and take a look at all the garbage the current administration is trying to shove through Congress in their last few days, that should keep you busy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22899338/

God I am so sick of politician threads.

Yes, because he's working to change our current situation...which is a big mess. If he only accomplishes changing us back to where we were 9 years ago, I'm cool with that. 

well i didn't really vote for him just because of his 'message' for change. as trhawley said, its a very very subjective word as far as im concerned. we could all go round & round till we are dizzy about what that really means. what was your idea of change?

heck, the most noticeable change that i can most likely see is that we will have a president who can actually sound intelligent. so far i really can't say if im satisfied with his direction, even if he was inaugurated this second, still too early for me. i know that's not the answer you were looking for though, sorry.