http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/President44/story?id=6256694&page=1

I am liking this selection.

Seems a good choice. his experiance as Deputy AG and a stint as interim AG would really ease the transition. also seems strong on the ethics front wich would be a breath of fresh air.

Seems a good choice. his experiance as Deputy AG and a stint as interim AG would really ease the transition. also seems strong on the ethics front wich would be a breath of fresh air.


Ummm, is he not the one who signed off on Bill Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich? That will be considered by many to be a mark of lacking integrity. I like the guy, and have no qualms about his serving as AG, but I am also not going to try to whitewash his history with the Clinton administration.

You mean there were things Bill Clinton did that didn't turn into gold? :rolleyes:

Is it me or is Obama resurrecting the Clinton cabinet? Not that it's a bad thing, but I thought this was all about Change <tm> not just more of the same?

You mean there were things Bill Clinton did that didn't turn into gold? :rolleyes:

Is it me or is Obama resurrecting the Clinton cabinet? Not that it's a bad thing, but I thought this was all about Change <tm> not just more of the same?

I didn't realize that Hillary Clinton was in the Clinton cabinet and I thought the AG was Janet Reno during Clintons years.

This will help you...

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101275.html

While I realize it's not exactly Bills cabinet, it just seems odd to me that the few Obama cabinet positions that have been announced, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton (Remember Bill trying to get her to head up the health care issues of the time?) are familiar faces, just in different positions.

That's all I was trying to say.

Ummm, is he not the one who signed off on Bill Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich? That will be considered by many to be a mark of lacking integrity. I like the guy, and have no qualms about his serving as AG, but I am also not going to try to whitewash his history with the Clinton administration.

Good question, if Obama is going to keep grabbing power players from Clinton's past who's really going to be running the country?

We need a clean break from the shady 90's and feckless 2000's not a return to bullshit...same ole same ole.

While I realize it's not exactly Bills cabinet, it just seems odd to me that the few Obama cabinet positions that have been announced, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton (Remember Bill trying to get her to head up the health care issues of the time?) are familiar faces, just in different positions.

That's all I was trying to say.

Of course if he went out and got people without some history, you'd be up in arms about that too (same to Fandros after his post while I was writing this).

I want him to get qualified people. Period. Regardless of their history or political alignment, we need people that are at least qualified for the job. We've seen these positions used as carrots for loyalty throughout the entire Bush administration (and other administrations). I just want the best person (that can at least work with the Obama Administration) to get the job to put us in the best position to move forward from the current quagmire we are involved in.

Well, I'd rather he bring in people from other walks of life with various experience than to risk a return to same ole same ole.

Of course if he went out and got people without some history, you'd be up in arms about that too

No, I wouldn't. I'd like a broad mix of old ideas and new ideas. So far, all I've seen is the same old fases, shuffled.

I just want the best person (that can at least work with the Obama Administration) to get the job to put us in the best position to move forward from the current quagmire we are involved in.

I agree, we need the best qualified people for those positions. All I'm saying is so far, I haven't seen any of the Change <tm> that was promised.....

Well, I just returned from the clinic where the vampires took four tubes of blood, and then subjected me to some Dr. Frankenstein-esque experiments of attaching wires to many parts of my body .....

Long story short, I am now prohibited from working overtime due to the added stress on the ticker, so I will have to opt out of serving in any capacity for the new administration.

Guess I will have to remain a sideline kibitzer. :rolleyes:

[/No, I wouldn't. I'd like a broad mix of old ideas and new ideas. So far, all I've seen is the same old fases, shuffled.

Oh please.

Most of your argument against Obama was that he was too inexperienced.

Let's be honest here. No matter who he chooses, you're going to critique them. If they've been around, they are not change. If they are new, they are not experienced.

Here's an exercise. Why don't you tell us who you would like instead to be nominated to these posts?


http://www.csmonitor.com/photosoftheday/index.php?image=5&date=specials/obama_cabinet/

Here. You can pretend you came up with these. =P

Most of your argument against Obama was that he was too inexperienced.
Actually, you are wrong. I said I'm willing to give him a chance, but I wouldn't give him a "free ride". This sort of falls into that line of thinking. Don't tell me there's gonna be Change <tm> and then appoint the same old fases.

Let's be honest here. No matter who he chooses, you're going to critique them. Yes, I will critique them. As I said before, Obama won't get a free ride from me. I'll be twice as critical of his choices if they aren't different from what we have seen before.

Here's an exercise. Why don't you tell us who you would like instead to be nominated to these posts?

How about someone not affiliated with the Clintons?

Name someone more qualified.

Thanks.

I can appreciate Sixee's dislike of having the Clinton's mixed up in the new age Camelot ya'll seem to think it is.

Thing is, and this is cold hard truth since public perception is a fickle beast at best, the more he wraps himself in the mantle of all things Clinton the murkier his potential legacy as he'll be seen as nothing more than an extension of the Clinton legacy. Not to mention all the dirty deeds ( done dirt cheap...sorry stupid song) and shady politics that the Clinton regime ruled by.

Someone more , let's say as qualified since I can't fault them for their experience, qualifed....okay

Ron Paul, Mit Romney, Bill Gates, Mr Powell errrrr okay that's just throwing names out that I think could help and might lend a lil bit of that Camelot feel ya'll think Obama is bringing about.

Funny, Ron Paul was the first name that came to my head too...

and has been mentioned here before by many, and also stated by paul supporters that he wouldn't work well with the incoming administration.

To have someone on your cabinet, they need to at least be able to work with you.

And Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap is a great song! I can't wait to see AC DC Friday night.

Ron Paul, Mit Romney, Bill Gates, Mr Powell errrrr okay that's just throwing names out that I think could help and might lend a lil bit of that Camelot feel ya'll think Obama is bringing about.like minded Republicans would be a wise addition to the cabinet, and would go a long ways towards mending the partisan BS currently wrecking our system.

None of those people has a legal degree.

Again. Please enlighten me to a better choice than Eric Holder for AG. Or at the very least explain to me how his qualifications are lacking.

This was what i was refering too on the ethics front.

He was assigned to the newly formed Public Integrity Section in 1976 and was tasked to investigate and prosecute official corruption on the local, state and federal levels. While at the Public Integrity Section, Mr. Holder participated in a number of prosecutions and appeals involving such defendants as the Treasurer of the state of Florida, the Ambassador to the Dominican Republic, a local judge in Philadelphia, an Assistant United States Attorney in New York City, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a "capo" in an organized crime family in Pennsylvania.


Unsure but I believe this was the work that led Reagan to appoint him to a federal judgeship.

As far as the Clinton pardon he was most likely tasked to look at the legality of it and found that there was no legal hinderance to Billy issuing the Pardon. seems from what i've seen he remained firmly professional as counsel on endorse or condem.

None of those people has a legal degree.

Again. Please enlighten me to a better choice than Eric Holder for AG. Or at the very least explain to me how his qualifications are lacking.

ahhh Sorry I was throwing out names for the cabinet, not specific positions.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/20/transition.wrap/

From the few articles I read this morning these seem like reasonable picks.

Will do a bit more reading at lunch.

This is the part that bugs me the most. And even some Liberals are beginning to question it.

More than half of the people named to Obama's transition or staff posts have ties to President Clinton's administration.

In addition to Sen. Clinton and incoming White Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who is a former top aide to President Clinton, Eric Holder and Peter Orszag also have Clinton ties.

Holder, who is expected to be named attorney general, served as Clinton's deputy attorney general. Orszag, who will reportedly head the Office of Budget and Management, was Clinton's special assistant at the National Economic Council and served on the Council of Economic Advisers.

The Clinton-heavy team has caused Republicans to question Obama's call for change.

"I think several individuals are very frustrated to think that President-elect Obama may just cut and paste from some of the Democratic operatives from the Clinton administration and put them into his White House," said Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist and CNN contributor.

Republicans aren't the only ones who want Obama to branch out. Robert Kuttner, a liberal and author of "Obama's Challenge," says the president-elect should broaden his recruiting efforts.

"It's not as if the only competent people who ever served in government or who are capable of serving in government are veterans of the Clinton administration, so he's got to be careful how many Clintonistas he appoints to top level government posts," Kuttner said.

Before Clinton, however, Democrats had not been in the White House since Jimmy Carter, and many of those in Carter's administration are too old to serve again under Obama.


The Obama transition team said in a statement that they are dedicated to building a well-rounded administration.

"President-elect Obama is committed to putting together a competent team that is diverse in many ways, including experience. Serving in high level positions whether in government, in the private sector or in public service is seen as a positive," spokesman Nick Shapiro said.

Well, I look forward to having Tom Daschle back in Washington, as I always like the guy; and, his approach seemed more about getting things done than obstructing, as Senate leaders have seemed since his days there.

As for Democratic Governor Napolitano, there seems to be an eerie resemblance to a certain judicial analyst with Fox news, also named Napolitano. Twins, perhaps.

I have just two criteria.

I want the most capable, smartest, most qualified person for the job and I want someone that will work with Obama and be an asset to him.

Thats it.

With the problems this country is facing, I don't care if the person is a Eskimo lesbian Zoroastrian who worked for Clinton, Bush, Ming the Merciless or my Grampy Ed down at the TV Repair shop.

Is that person the most capable, with the right kind of experience? If yes, then thats the pick I want.

Well, hopefully the choices he has made so far will pan out. I haven't seen any choices yet that show a reach across the aisle. But I'm guessing with a Super Majority, it really isn't necessary.....

My issue is people are expecting to almost go with untested unknowns (which critics accused him of being) to fill these jobs or they scream about Change (tm).

So basically he cannot win with any pick.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4859469

Okay I'll 100% buy into Obama reaching across the aisle in hopes of putting together something different for the future.

Gov Huntsmen is a very solid politician out here in Utah. He's pushing , across the board , to change the image of Utah. Even considering his LDS background he's put forth a modern agenda that has flown directly in the face with the Church on a few issues. One of which is getting rid of our mandatory Private member status for clubs serving hard alcohol ( thank you!!).

He was contacted by Obama's transition team and turned them down because he wants to finish up here in Utah.

I'm impressed they made the offer and happy he turned them down because well....I want us taken care of out here first ;P

Too bad, sounds like the nation could use him.

Good on Barak for at least trying.