Obama’s anti-Bush cabinet
How the incoming team of big personalities signals change
Barack Obama's cabinet: Healing old wounds?
(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Barack Obama unveiled the last of his major cabinet picks Monday, said Frank James in the Chicago Tribune online, and if we've learned anything from his selections, it’s that “his presidency will be far different than the past eight years.” By choosing pragmatists with strong personalities and opinions, Obama is saying that he “can handle disagreement and in fact welcomes it”—a departure from President Bush’s premium on aides who agreed with him.
Obama says that being surrounded by “strong personalities” will prevent “groupthink,” said The Washington Post in an editorial, but the opposite could also be true. His team is so “eager to correct the perceived errors of the Bush administration” that it could collectively place too much emphasis on “better diplomacy” over force. If they’re wrong, “someone in this group will need to speak up.”
The other threat from Obama’s “potentially unruly roster of all-stars,” said David Ignatius in The Washington Post online, is that “these big egos” on his team could either fall into dysfunctional infighting, as happened with Bush’s once-lauded “dream team,” or usurp some of his authority. But if the unveiling of his national security picks is any indication, “this is Obama’s team; he’s clearly in charge.”
Perhaps the biggest surprise from Obama’s cabinet picks, said Mark McKinnon in The Daily Beast, is that Republicans are praising them. Karl Rove approves of Obama’s economic team and "GOP war horses like Henry Kissinger are falling all over themselves to praise” the foreign policy team. Bush promised to “change the tone in Washington,” but Obama might succeed.
Show: Oldest | Newest
25 Comments
Posted by Jesica, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 11:47 am Wow, Bombay still smoking from 3 days of terrorist attacks and the US is still thinking Bush screwed up so badly? how safe and sound do you have to be before you open your eyes and realize that force was needed to stop terrorism? that rebuilding a country and educating it's people is the only way to slow/stop the spread of fanaticism? if BO wants to go 'talk' to the guys with the bombs strapped to their chest, he is in for an enlightenment.
Posted by Aaron, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 11:54 am History will be a lot kinder to G.W. Bush than the dems/libs in the media today. We have been safe from terrorism since 9-11 and that is the sole measure of success in my book. The rest is basically ebb and flow, no matter how dire the wonks make it seem.
Posted by Egor, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 12:43 pm Maybe GB did keep us safe. But for how much longer when our economy is in shambles and our military spread is so thin that we didn't even have enough national guardspeople in Nola? Instead of liberating the Iraquis I personally wish he had protected and saved the New Orleanians.
Posted by Naomi , Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:10 pm What makes one think that Bush and only Bush can keep the terrorists away? Is there anyone working for the good ole USA who wants us to be less safe from attacks? Let's use our brains, whoever is in the White House will do the best that they can to assure our safety and with the cabinet that is picked so far, we should be in good shape. I keep saying, let us give the President-elect a chance. BO said he would talk w/conditions and Gates advised the same. Bush messed up royally in many regards and the truth is the truth! If you call recession ebb and flow and jailing people because they disagreed w/your policy, then WELL!!! Good grief! Put some positive energy in to the Universe instead of negativity. I definitely agree w/Egor!
Posted by GJA, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:18 pm Winston Churchill, commenting upon Chamberlain's deal with the devil at Munich, said "The choice was between war and dishonour. He chose dishonour. We will get war." BO's belief that he can talk his way to peace and deal with the terrorists will end up the same way.
Posted by John, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:27 pm We used force and Mumbai (nee Bombay) still happened. I fail to see the point of that argument. Also, take notice that security failures in India resulted in dismissals and resignations in disgrace. Apparently, no officials here were responsible for security failures here on 9/11. As for keeping us "safe from terrorism", given Bush's overall track record it's likely less due to anything he's done. I would argue that by weakening our own Constitutional guarantees, our economy and our military, he's inadvertently done bin Laden's work for him.
Posted by Chuck, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:40 pm We know how Bush & team performed in governing this country for nearly 8 years and the results are awful. But all the praise of BO seems premature. No one seems to know him. He has no real track record or history or list of achievements thus how can so may people consider him the savior? Because he talks nice and wants to assemble a debate team? But then so many people did vote for Bush. Twice even!
Posted by gimpPAC, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, 1:45 pm Who made it set in stone that if you aren't going out with guns blazing you must only be flapping your lips? I'm confident that Obama and his team will be prudent in determining when to use diplomacy and when to use force. And they will definitely make sure we aren't the lone wolf in such dealings... Long-lasting solutions take time and multiple approaches and I believe we should give these folks a chance. If they mess up, we'll make sure they know.
Post a Comment