December 1, 2008
Giving Credit Where It’s Due — So Far (A.B. Stoddard)
The national security and foreign policy team President-elect Barack Obama unveiled today is accomplished, capable, bipartisan, diverse, honored and aware of the dire circumstances and staggering challenges they inherit as they step into their new jobs.
Obama's choice of them was made in confidence — that he can lead a team of rivals to use dissent and debate to govern well. His choices were also made in humility, accepting that there are strengths he lacks that he must have to succeed. Obama chose experience because he doesn't have much, and the terrorist attacks on Mumbai, India, last week underscore why an untested leader needs seasoned minds around him when making critical decisions about security.
Politically, he has helped himself by bringing his enemy closer — Hillary Clinton and her husband Bill — and by hiring hawks respected on the right in Jim Jones and Robert Gates. Of course, if all goes well, team members remain invested, and when things go south they rush for the door. Failure to turn a recession around, improve the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts or neutralize the terrorist threat will lead rivals to freelance — exonerating themselves from blame and protecting their own political futures.
We will all hope for the best, and for this beginning give Obama credit for doing what he said he would do.
ARE YOU PLEASED WITH OBAMA'S PICKS SO FAR? Please join Ask A.B., my weekly video Q&A, by sending your questions and comments to askab@thehill.com. Thank you.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 5 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
When you get together a group of political sharks, you must wonder, where is the political feast? The answer lies where it has always lied, in the payoff. The government controls too much, and contrary to popular notion, these bailouts will hasten the end of the dollar, if nothing else. Here's an interesting point of view.
The link is at Yahoo finance. Sorry, you'll have to look it up.
The third problem is that in 1913, the Fed only protected the large commercial banks such as Bank of America. After 1944, the Fed, the World Bank, and the IMF began bailing out Third World nations such as Tanzania and Mexico. Then, in 2008, the Fed began bailing out investment banks such as Bear Sterns, and its role in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle is well known. By 2020, the biggest of bailout of all will probably occur: Social Security and Medicare, which will cost at least a $100 trillion.
Even if we find more oil and produce more food, prices will continue to rise because the value of the dollar will continue to decline. The dollar has lost over 90 percent of its value since the Fed was created. The U.S. dollar will continue to decline because of those seven men on Jekyll Island in 1910.
Granted, the funny-money system has done a lot of good — it has improved the world and made a lot of people rich. But it's also done a lot of bad. I believe somewhere between today and 2020, the system will break. We're on the eve of financial destruction, and that's why it's in gold I trust. I'd rather be a victor than a victim.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — December 1, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
The dollarm is up and will continue to gradually strenghten.
Meanwhile;
Obama picks clinton and the market tanks!!…Think he covered most of what was needed…
This is a shift in power…not concentrated in one appointment but spread across a broad spectrum of experienced people. The SoS appointment will be limited to sharing power with those who are truely respected and experienced! Biden, Jones, Samantha Power, Susan Rice—stoke of genius! Clinton as the token!!
Very shrewd of Obama….It took me a week of screaming to get to it!
Diffuse her and Bill in one stroke with knowledgable people covering your back!
She appeared reflective and pensive…It may have just dawned on her that she is part of a team….lead by Obama! Again she was WAY TOO WORDY!
Go Obama!!
Comment by bink — December 1, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
The selection of Hillary Clinton was the first stupid thing I've seen Obama do. Letting her ever speak in public on any issue concerning national security will be the second. Not immediately firing her after she's opened her pie-hole will be the third.
I'm a liberal democrat.
I will say removing this excresence from the Senate was a public service
Comment by pghremodeler — December 1, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
#3: My, you're a perceptive chap when you want to be.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — December 2, 2008 @ 6:45 am
Senator Clinton did not do her homework before voting on the AUMF for Iraq and thus is not qualified to be Sec. of State and Obama deserves no credit for selecting Clinton.
Clinton didn't bother to read the classified intelligence report before authorizing the President to send hundreds of thousands of troops and trillions of taxpayer dollars to a country that was not an imminent threat to America.
Obama did not even read the classified report and he knew invading Iraq was a mistake. How can Obama trust such a careless politician like Clinton?
Politically, I'd give Obama credit if he appointed a Republican Senator from a state with a Democratic Governor. That would guarantee a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and make a Clinton-2010 run less likely.
Comment by Greg W. — December 2, 2008 @ 12:23 pm