Can Obama Hold On To Change?

The Nation: In Light Of Cabinet Picks, President-Elect Must Be Wary Of Losing His Identity As An Agent Of Change

(The Nation)  This column was written by
Robert Scheer.

---

I do so want to believe that Barack Obama is on the right track. His brain is big, his style fresh, his pronouncements both logical and compelling, and it does feel good to have a president-elect elicit universal respect rather than make the world cringe. Indeed, he's downright inspiring when he defends constitutional restraint on the presidency and shuns torture. Bush is so yesterday, but imagine how panicked we would now be if John McCain and Sarah Palin were about to take a turn at the wheel.

Yet, it all does hang on him. Yes, Obama. The superstar, and not that supporting cast of retreads from a failed past that have popped up in his administration in the making. Now that we have the list of his top economic and foreign policy picks--mostly a collection of folks who wouldn't know change if it slapped them upside the head--we've got to hope that it's Obama who is using them, and not the other way around.

Maybe he picked a bunch of Wall Street insiders to send a comforting message to the financial community that Obama was turning to folks just like them to get us out of the mess that they created. So far, Wall Street hasn't done anything to pay back the taxpayers for the upward-of-a-trillion dollars wasted on that bailout. The credit markets remain frozen, and these banking grinches are stealing Christmas by further cutting individuals' credit lines.

If there is a grand arc to Obama's appointments strategy, it seems aimed at providing the appearance of continuity on the part of a leader who still promises to be very different. Clearly that was the case in retaining Robert Gates as secretary of defense and Marine Gen. Jim Jones as his White House national security adviser. Both choices could have been far worse. Jones has been involved in the exercise of "soft power" initiatives and seems like an otherwise sensible fellow. Gates has been a vast improvement over Donald Rumsfeld in grasping the limits of military power.

Gates also dared challenge the military-industrial complex over egregious military spending on projects such as the $65 billion F-22 stealth fighter plane that was designed to penetrate Soviet air defenses that were never built and has yet to fly a combat sortie in either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars. That's a start on cutting military spending, which under President Bush grew to be higher than at any time since World War II, exceeding the levels of both the Korean and Vietnam wars. Thanks to Bush, the United States now spends as much as all of the rest of the world's nations combined to defeat an enemy armed with a weapons arsenal that, in the case of the 9/11 attacks, could have been purchased for a couple hundred bucks at Home Depot.

Unfortunately, on Monday Obama stuck with the absurd "war on terror" language he inherited from Bush in describing the attacks in Mumbai conducted by ten lightly armed fanatics who should have been quickly dispatched by a well-functioning local paramilitary force. These terrorists did not, as available evidence would indicate, have anything to do with the Taliban or Al-Quaeda based in Afghanistan, where the United States continues to wage the good war, as opposed to the bad one in Iraq, that Obama invoked during the presidential campaign: "Afghanistan is where the war on terror began and where it must end."

Both wars are bad in representing exactly the wrong way to deal with "terror," which should properly be thought of as representing pathology to be excised with surgical precision rather than bludgeoned with conventional warfare, which only recruits new fanatics through the killing of innocent civilians.

Finally, the appointment of Hillary Rodham Clinton seems a good one. To paraphrase Obama's remark during the primary debates, Hillary is peaceable enough, and also has the smarts to make a fine secretary of state. Her more hawkish rhetorical side will be muted by the position's obligation to emphasize diplomacy. My prediction is that she will leave her mark by exploiting her pro-Israel creds to complete President Bill Clinton's once-promising Mideast peace initiatives to finally provide the Palestinians, and Israelis, with viable states.

The problem with Obama's national security team is not that he has picked hawks who he cannot control; they are all professionals, who took the job expecting to go along with his game plan. The danger here, as with his economic advisers, is only that Obama may stop being Obama, the agent of change who electrified a nation.

[cedward1320]

"Change"? The biggest thing that will change in this country is the income tax rates. Obama will no doubt ultimately backpedal on everything he has promised except not raising taxes on those making less than $250,000,...aaah I mean $200,000,...uh make that $100,000..................

[ktcchina]

boo hoo Rob. Now that change of power has started to set into the Obama camp it may be hard on the "Nation''s" followers to grasp the reality of the situation. Running from the middle ground is what the U.S. is all about. If you think the Revolution has finally arrived, you may be sadly mistaken.

[walt1944-2009]

Since being elected as Great Emperor, Progressives and Liberals are becoming increasingly nervous about Barack Obama and his appointments to his cabinet AND switches on position since getting "the brass ring"!

A) Obama promised to get rid of the Bush tax cuts on the rich and infamous as soon as he hit the door of the Oval Office.

Now, he is going to let them expire in 2010, MAYBE!

B) Obama promised a windfall profits tax on BIG OIL that would pay for technology into alternate fuels.

Yesterday, Obama''s transition team announced the windfall profits tax "on hold" which is about the same as calling it "DOA"!!

C) Obama promised tax relief for the almost-gone middle class, which helped elect him into office.

Now there is even some concern that may go "DOA" too!

The neocon Fascist Nazi Republicans and Corporate America are smiling because they see the "3rd term of the Great Emperor Bush" as a reality.

Ralph Nader was right! No matter who you put into office in Washington, it''s really Corporate and Financial America that run the country and use the political process to make it legal!

What chance does the average citizen have???

SIG HEIL, I TOLD YOU I WOULD GET A 3RD TERM!!!, BUSH!!!
SIG HEIL, THESE AREN''T BROKEN PROMISES; WE''RE JUST "RETHINKING" OUR POSITION!!!, OBAMA!!!

[jimmyc1955]

Or maybe Mr. Obama''s total lack of experience dictates that his cabinet be populated with people who have some experience.

Last time an "outsider" president came into office and brought a "change" team in was Jimmy Carter and the Georgia mafia. They were totally ineffective, in fact you could say inept for 2+ years till they got a hang of things.

Frankly - I wasn''t crazy about Obama as a candidate due to his total lack of any administrative experience but his choices so are seem centrist. We will see going forward.

A last note - consensus builders are not leaders usually. Obama%u2019s cabinet is chocked full of massive ego''s (can you say HRC in State?) and he will need to lead then - not persuade them. We shall see if he actually has that skill otherwise this will become a game of 20 scatter as they all go running off to make as many headlines for themselves as fast as they possibly can - and ignoring the administrations direction.

[jimmyc1955]

walt1944 - Is it just possible that Obama has gotten the information that the president gets when making decisions and now recognizes that those position''s your angry that he didn''t make are in fact the best positions for the Nation as a whole?

Of course that might mean you might have to acknowledge that Bush might have done a few things right and since you can''t get over the 2000 election yet - nearly a decade later - that would be far to much to ask.

[notblue]

Walt, the messiah made promises in order to get extremists like you to vote for him, now that the election is over reality is now in play again. People like you live in a fantasy world and the kool-aide worked as planned. LOL! "rethinking our position" LOL!

[jimmyc1955]

Reading this column again I have to laugh at the broad brush assertions that are presented as fact.

Lets look at this one:

"the wrong way to deal with "terror,which should properly be thought of as representing pathology to be excised with surgical precision rather than bludgeoned with conventional warfare"

But previously he blasted the Bush administration for spending too much money on defense. So we want surgical precision - with complete support and approval from allies that doesn''t cause civilian harm. that spells very expensive technology. Precision is expensive so if you want to cut the defense budget then expect your "surgical" precision to cost a lot more American lives. If you want to reduce damage then use technology.

The other assertion I like is this one:

"which only recruits new fanatics through the killing of innocent civilians."

Isn''t that a comfortble assertion. It would lead one to think that if we stopped all military action that there would be far fewer or no terrorists.

So - who commited the attacks on the Kobar towers? Or the Embassies in Africa, or the USS Cole, or the WTC? What about those who are attacking India? Or the terrorists in Indonesia or all the other places in the globe that aren''t the US? What is their call to arms?

I could well be that Obama is now seeing information that he has not seen before and may actually be coming to the same conclusions Bush did - wouldn''t that just tick you off?

[noloyalisti]

Only if millions of people get behind him by street protest, calling and writing representative and letters to newspapers. It will take a lot roll back the fascism that has taken hold.

Right now, if Obama doesn''t compromise with the right wing fascists, he will end up in a pine box like Kennedy did.

[jimmyc1955]

noloyalisti - certainly thats not inflammatory, angry, infantile rhetoric filled with hate and loathing.

Nope - Liberals like you are full of forgiveness, kindness and a willingness to be open minded.

Or your an ignorant mean spirited idiot who prefers to hate rather than think. I bet you thought that was only neocons who did that.

[sweetguy45-2009]

Obama claims to be the candidate for "change". This being said ,if he truly wants change than he should change the way we as a nation use the monetary system. The Federal Reserve has been used for about the past 90 years. in those past 90 years our government has been in the habit of borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and placing debt on the backs of the American taxpayer, over and over again especially recently in the case of all of the bailouts of the financial wall street bankers and in the housing markets. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results.This is true in financing and politics as well.A real Change that is needed in this country, is the Abolishment of the Federal Reserve System and the Treasury Department printing our money "Interest free" for our nation to use.