Obama campaigned on the slogan of "change we can believe in" but as he continues to form his cabinet, he is appointing many people in high positions who are definitely not new to Washington. Although it is favorable that the people appointed have experience, many are angered by the lack of "change" in Obama's cabinet. Many want to see new faces in Washington instead of the recycling the same leaders. However, if Obama were to have chosen completely new politicians to advise him during his presidency, I believe that American's would also be angered because some think that Obama himself isn't experienced and at times would need Washington insiders to lead the way. Also, it seems as though Obama has been using Clinton's cabinet as a model for his own. Many perceive Clinton's cabinet in a good light (despite his affair...) because of what they were able to accomplish as a team. It may be beneficial that Obama rely on Clinton's cabinet as an example so that completely new and inexperienced people are not appointed to the highest positions in the government. Although many would like to see new faces in government it is vital that these positions are filled by people who are accustomed to Washington and American government.
15 comments:
I think it is important to have a little of each. Obama should fill his cabinet with both new people and those with experience to create a good balance.
I see this kind of thing happening all the time. When a long awaited game or movie comes out that has been anticipated for so long and has had so much advertisement and hype that no matter how good it is, it will never be able to live up to everyone's astronomical expectations.
People are expecting Obama to bring about much more change than he actually has planned to, and he will not change absolutely everything. I don't think he is that extreme.
I think that it is good that Obama is appointing people who have more experience. I also think that we are too quick to decide whether or not Obama will create change. He hasn't even been inaugurated as President and we are already saying that he will not do what he promised. He still has four years to create the change that he promised.
I actually don't see a problem with Obama chosing experienced people for Cabinet positions because he himself is not that experienced. I think it is a smart move for Obama to surround himself with people who know more than him; it shows that he is not afraid to ask for help. This in itself is a CHANGE when compared to Bush's cabinet. When I go back and think about it, this was precisely why Obama chose Joe Biden to be his VP. Thanks to last night's hw, I found that Biden was Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I am really interested to see if Hillary Clinton decides to become Secretary of State. I hope that she does, but I don't know if it is likely, since she claims to love being a senator.
I think people are overreacting at this moment and being to critical of Obama. He hasn't even started his presidency and he has a long way to go. People also have to be realistic and remember that he is a human being and not a superhero who can make things happen right away.
Obama's potential appointments are somewhat exciting. It would be amazing to see Mary Nichols as head of the EPA, but Michael Pollan should have been a shoe-in for Secretary of Ag. Pollan's knowledge and insight to how the current agricultural system works would do the country so much good from economic, health, and environmental perspectives.
Nichols has done so much in leading California in its environmental progressiveness at the head of the California Air Resources Board (she was behind AB 32) that she would turn this country's environmental policies around. We certainly need that!
Another interesting thing about Nichols being appointed the head of the EPA, is that Nichol's was part of the lawsuit in which California sued the EPA because it would not allow the state to impose stricter auto emissions laws. I have no doubt that the environment would be better off with her at the helm of the EPA. Personally I think using people that worked with Clinton is a good idea, they lived through it once and know what mistakes to avoid.
I think that it's still quite a bit early to determine exactly what executive strategy Obama is trying to achieve just by the few appointments he's made so far. "Change" has many meanings, and with only a few major-position appointments completed, he's still got a long way to go. Including some of the (hopefully better) members of the Clinton administration is definitely a good idea because his cabinet does need some experienced people in the room, while at the same time, Obama should make sure that the experience in the room is balanced out with the fresh, new people in the room at the same time.
Oh, and he should appoint Stephen Colbert for something, too. ;)
I think the main reason why this seems to be as big of an issue as it is has to do with the continuous state of our news cycle having nothing else to spin their wheels over.
I think it's a smart choice to have both experienced people who have been there, as well have some new faces. Honestly, people are going to criticize Obama no matter what he does. There is no way for him to win, the media will attack him for ANYTHING. I think it's really dumb, quite frankly. He's not even President yet, he hasn't had the opportunity to make the changes he's promised, he's completely new to the position, yet people are expecting some kind of miracle from him. He's only been President-elect for what? 2 weeks? Give him a break. At least wait until January or February to criticize.
The "change" that Obama wants to create is change from the Bush administration. So, I think it is a good decision on Obama's part to be appointing people who have had experience with Clinton, who definitely had a different administration from Bush. Good change cannot be created if decisions are poor and I believe that a cabinet with all new people would probably not be that effective.
I wonder why the media decided to make this such a big deal and portray it somewhat negatively even though the people that Obama is choosing are essentially "change" from the Bush administration.
A completely new cabinet might either be a great success or a catastrophe. Obama's already been risking so much; I don't think it'd be smart for Obama to risk even more with his cabinet. He shouldn't risk catastrophe at a time like this, so I think he made the right decision to play it safe and keep some older members. Times like those include the Great Depression, but we aren't in one.
I do not believe that President Obama is recycling politicians for his cabinet. It has been said that he is trying to take the "Lincoln" approach, by sorrounding himself by people with great egos but that are the best at what they do.
I agree with a lot of people in that we need a little of both, and that Nelia is right in saying how different people will react in different ways depending how Obama tosses the coin.
We definitely won't "have more of the same." Obama will just filter the people probably. He will use the intelligent minds that are currently working in the government who know more about what is happening now in certain fields than others, and simply remove and replace the people who oppose his ideas of "change".
yeah i agreee with clayton,
i deffinately think that because obamas the first blck president and that he is so well spoken that people expect him to do miracles. everyone has to remeber that he still is a polotician, were not going to have amazing benfits without taxes and life isnt going to become insanely easier. things will change theres no doubt about it, but people need to realize that obama isnt going to change to usa to a heaven. but i think i even fall into the category of hoping that obama will change everything and make everyone happy, which is of course impossible.
Post a Comment