Saturday, November 22, 2008

President-Elect Obama's Weekly Youtube Address


Brian said...

How does "Change" look to you all now?

Just a warning... i'm going to be on Obama's *ss for the next week or two. (if I have the time to blog).

Meanwhile... can you find a Progressive in Obama's Cabinet? That should be a new board game... "Find the Progressive", featuring Obama's Cabinet. I could get rich.
I should make it a computer game for it... hmmm.

But really, I should offer a cash reward to anyone who can find one.

All of the key positions (those that are important to me) have been filled with Center/Moderate "Democrats"... and in terms of foreign policy.. it may as well be a Republican administration.

Nancy Hanks said...

A.I. -- well you should be (on Obama's a__, as should we all...) HOWEVER, and with all due respect, you seem to be "stuck" on progressives.

If a coalition of liberals, progressives, conservatives, regressives, putonariarans, extremarians, and stupid people could move us ONE INCH towards having a better world where ordinary people are able to participate and give what they have to give, would that work for you?

You know we need your voice.

Your comrade,

Truthiz said...

"How does "Change" look to you all now?"

Welp, from a policy and governing perspective:

It really is too soon to tell_at least for me anyway.

However, from the moment Obama takes the Oath of Office, it'll be on_and I'll judge his decisions/actions accordingly.

Regarding his cabinet appointments thus far:

I'm a moderate/conservative Independent (with a dash of liberal thrown it_lol)_so I'm not disappointed with any of his picks thus far.

But frankly, with the monumental challenges facing this country today_I really don't care how someone is labeled_"progressive", "moderate", "conservative_whatever.

I want a government that works_an administration that gets the job done!

As for taking Obama to task when I feel it's warranted:

I've never had a problem doing that. And it certainly won't be a problem for me going forward

Anonymous said...

What I think is most intersting about Obama's transition is how significantly it varies from his campaign. With the two Davids, Obama ran a near flawless campaign in the general election; silencing critics like me who thought he needed to add Clinton to his ticket as a pacifier for her "18 million cracks." Yet, Clinton and her peeps are the very folks around whom he is now building his White House. It's almost as if he's saying "I didn't need you to get elected, but I need you so I can lead." This is a pretty unnerving reality.

I'm not quite ready to throw the good President-Elect from Illinois to the wolves just yet. Perhaps a Clinton, Episode 3 will turn out to pay huge dividends for this struggling nation. But you'd best believe that before I put all my trust in other "Change" candidate, I'll be reading the EXTRA fine print first.

Truthiz said...

"But you'd best believe that before I put all my trust in other "Change" candidate, I'll be reading the EXTRA fine print first."

LOL...I hear ya.

Brian said...

Sorry Nancy.

I believe the ideology of these people... (what they believe in... their political philosophy and vision, what they stand for...who they will be fighting for, etc.) is a valid and important issue.
It's important to have Progressive voices in the new government.

you mentioned:
a coalition for "a better world where ordinary people are able to participate and give what they have to give, would that work for you?"

And that's part of my point Nancy... this IS NOT the grand coalition that was promised (or that was strongly suggested that he would provide). The problem with these choices is that there will be no Progressive voices in any of the key positions (positions that Progressives are most concerned with). He has chosen to go strongly towards the Right and the Center. This is a monolith of Centrists....and not an ideologically diverse group of thinkers. So you really can't call this a coalition.

And you mentioned...ordinary people being able to participate... what ordinary people are you referring to, and what do you mean by participation? So far, Obama's choices portend more of the same on that front.

Nancy... all I wanted to see was a couple of Progressives in key slots... Perhaps Secretary of State... and Secretary of Labor... or Secretary of State...and Chief of Staff....or Secretary of State...and Atty General, or Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Commerce, or Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, Or some other combination. The rest of the Cabinet could have been made up of 3-eyed Green aliens as far as i'm concerned.

But Obama couldn't even provide one Progressive for a major post. NOT ONE. His entire Cabinet, National Security Council folks, his foreign policy advisers....almost all are "neocon-lite."

And this is supposed to represent some sort of fundamental change in Washington?


An echo-chamber of Centrism will be no better than the Republican, pro-war Conservative echo-chamber that has dominated Washington DC for the past 8 years.

Brian said...

And there's nothing inherently wrong with Centrists... In many ways... I fall into the Centrist category... although I identify as more of a Progressive.

My point is... there has to be some intellectual and ideological diversity... to really hear all sides. There has to be some sort of balance to be able to say you are bringing along the best and the brightest from all corners. I think this is the change that most Americans wanted.

I would even be o.k. with some moderate Republicans in the Government. But on issues that have impacted us most... one being foreign policy... the American people have made it clear that they want to go in a different direction, esp. in terms of the future U.S. relationship with the rest of the World. By going forward with 1990's centrists and "neocon-lite" thinkers like Hillary Clinton... the U.S. really won't being able to change course in any meaningful, fundamental way.

When it comes to foreign policy i'm more Progressive...and Progressives have been fundamentally right on the big foreign policy arguments of the last decade or so. But instead of choosing those who have been on the right side of history... he goes with folks who were on the wrong side...and who continue to be on the wrong side. It's baffling to me.