Obama -- change or retro?

Mr. Obama ran on a platform of change ( = no more Bush) But in his cabinet appointments so far he has reached back a decade to aging Clintonites.

He speaks of withdrawing troops from Iraq -- and sending them to Afghanistan.

I haven't heard much about national health care or a coherent enery policy policy so far. My expectation is that the budget crisis he is inheriting will foreclose any new initiatives along these lines.

Now that the euphoria is fading, it looks like the best we can hope for is to keep our heads above water for the next couple of years and try to ride out the storm.

Am I too pessimistic?

As a first black US president, he is an exciting figure in any sense, any where, any time. Americans should be really, really proud of it. I am proud for you actually. As a president, I think you shouldn't expect him too much. I think he is more realistic now. If he could lead US out of the economic trouble in two years, it will be his big accomplishment, and deserves the position in history as high as Bill Clinton's. I believe he will. If he achieves one more big thing in his first term as he promised in his campiagn, he will be a great president.JMO

God, the politics is just a lot more interesting than figure skating these days.

Mathman said:

Now that the euphoria is fading, it looks like the best we can hope for is to keep our heads above water for the next couple of years and try to ride out the storm.

Am I too pessimistic?

Click to expand...

No. President-elect Obama faces tough issues domestically and globally, and I doubt he can handle all of them as well as he, or the American public, would wish. He is human, after all, and his abilities and time are not unlimited (though I imagine some of his supporters feel otherwise re the former ).

Call me a cynic, but I've learned not to expect much from elected officials. I imagine most mean well, but their ability to follow through on their goals and promises usually disappoints.

he should have (and could have) run as "anything but Bush" and he'd have won.

he's promised stuff he knew darn well he wasn't going to get done. *shrugs*

Just because he's black, that doesn't mean people should have voted for him in drones - I'm so tired of that claim that we made the right choice because of his skin color. Skin color isn't enough to change this country for the better, and I think it does a disservice to Obama if that's the only reason people think he was the better choice.

jennylovskt said:

As a first black US president, he is an exciting figure in any sense, any where, any time. Americans should be really, really proud of it. I am proud for you actually. days.

Click to expand...

Why having a black president is so exciting for you? President election is not an American idol competition, unfortunately it seems that way.

Being black, brown, white does not make you more fit to be president. This is identity politics at its worse. Unfortunately people like you still believe it's somehow symbolism trumps qualification.

Actually I think it IS a big deal that a black man (well, sort of black) can become President of the U.S. It would have been a big deal if Hilary Clinton had become the first woman President, too.

All that propoganda that we continually put out about the American dream, liberty and justice for all, judge a person by the content of his character not by the color of his skin, anyone can make it in America by talent and hard work, etc., etc., etc. -- maybe we are making progress toward that goal after all.

That said, now comes the hard part. One thing I wish Obama could have done is run a campaign without making so many promises about all the tax relief he is going to give the middle class. (Not entirely Obama's fault, though. Every politician has to promise lower taxes -- read their lips.)

The reality is that the U.S is 10 trillion dollars in debt, not even counting the 8 trillion they have just earmarked for bailing out overextended banks, or the who knows how many tens of trillions in unfunded Social Security and medicare obligations.

If Obama can just hold the fort for four years and not make matters worse, that will be a major accomplishment.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I just wish that people wouldn't make that why he was the one that needed to be president. Yes, it's great for the getting out of the racism issue, but if he isn't fit to lead (and this goes for anyone white, brown, orange, or navy blue... man, woman, trans) then they shouldn't win because of the novelty vote. It does the country a disservice and further hurts the "cause."

I think Obama was taking a page or two out of Roosevelt's book... "I promise to fix things" but! "I have no clue how it's going to happen" so now he's grabbing all that he can to get it together... not really bad, but he's not the overnight savior his people were touting. He's just one man who was put in charge. I agree as long as he can stay afloat for the next 4 years he'll be in good shape. He's already marked himself a big place in the history books, so he doesn't need to do much else to be remembered as a monumental president.

I'm keeping my expectations low, just who I am, as long as it doesn't change for the worse we'll be fine.

^ The same reason I was supporting senator Clinton over Obama. I was so tired and over "change" by the time Obama took the lead over Clinton. I ended up voting for him just because I believe he is better qualifed than John McCain in terms of cleaning up the messes of George Bush. That does not change my opinion that there were other candidates in both parties with better qualifications and experiences.

Tonichelle said:

Just because he's black, that doesn't mean people should have voted for him in drones - I'm so tired of that claim that we made the right choice because of his skin color. Skin color isn't enough to change this country for the better, and I think it does a disservice to Obama if that's the only reason people think he was the better choice.

Click to expand...

fiercemao said:

Being black, brown, white does not make you more fit to be president. This is identity politics at its worse. Unfortunately people like you still believe it's somehow symbolism trumps qualification.

Click to expand...

It's symbolic but not a qualification. I don't think that skin color should be a factor for voting for anything including president. And I don't think the skin color made difference for this time's choice of president. Skin color wasn't a factor, that was excited me. It's not because he is black so I was excited. I don't know if I explained it well enough.

No one has mentioned who left Obama with the tough road ahead? Of course, it will not be easy for him. We have been left as the most unpopular country in the World because we only help others if there is a question of oil. Sorry, about bringing up Iraq, but we were laxed about chasing bin Laden and went after oil instead. What a mess and how to get out of it? It also brought out the decline of the financial institutions, but Haliburton soared upwards.

The USA is a democratic capitalist society. The Republicans protect the big business because the business of America is business. The democrats protect the consumer because that's what freedom is all about. Depending on your situation, you will be one or the other. You may switch if the one you choose is not working.

I am hoping Obama continues his fight for the consumer because no Republican will. They want the public to pay for these poor poor poor Corporations downfalls. Supposedly it will open new jobs for the lesser inhabitants of the USA. We'll see.

Obama's side wants me to pay for my poor poor cousin -and others like him- who would rather be a bum and not work (which he is physically capable of doing)... I say - get a job.

neither side actually wants the responsiblity to be put solely on the individual... they both think they know better.

Tonichelle said:

Obama's side wants me to pay for my poor poor cousin -and others like him- who would rather be a bum and not work (which he is physically capable of doing)... I say - get a job.

neither side actually wants the responsiblity to be put solely on the individual... they both think they know better.

Click to expand...

How did he get to tell you this? Democrats do not give out money easily. Oh well it's such an isolated case.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081202/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_cabinet;_ylt=AigDI7v1J4lUfU96pIVV5bqyFz4D

Hillary Clinton will be the Secretary of State. It's a good move. I especially like Obama's this idea:

"I assembled this team because I'm a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions," he said. "I think that's how the best decisions are made. ... So I'm going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House."

"But understand I will be setting policy as president," he added. He said he will be responsible for "the vision that this team carries out, and I expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made."

Click to expand...

:agree:

Something must be off with me, because I am about to argue with all of the major posters of the Politics forum.

MM, as someone from a country of the Revolution, I am very skeptical of "change". It is generally much easier to break things than to fix them; that's why much of the damage the Bush administration has done will take so long to fix. I am, therefore, quite happy to see most of Obama's appointments, especially on the economic team.

Toni, I don't really agree with your description of what Obama's ideal tax policy would be. I think it's more like - let's not take away the money from that poor cousin who is working his butt off to make ends meet; since we need the money to make this country run, let's instead take it from those who can better spare it. BTW, Obama is now talking about letting Bush tax cuts run out their course instead of doing away with them - good move, since the people who got those cuts are those that are likely to invest in the economy now. I'm not a proponent of the trickle down economics, but deficit spending at this particular point is better than what would be essentially a tax hike.

Joe, I unfortunately don't see the Dems as the "party of the consumers". For example, originally their support of the unions was certainly to protect the workers. At this point, though, I believe the unions do far more harm then good; this is especially true of the teachers unions, which stifle innovation and, shockingly, are quite undemocratic since in many school districts it is all but impossible for a teacher to decline unionization. Just as the support for the kind of malpractice suing that we have here is "for the consumer" only in theory; in reality, it's extremely unfair, as the juries will sympathize with sympathetic-looking victims and ignore the plight of the more evil-looking victims (I myself would favor a system along the lines of the one in New Zealand). So I would certainly not idealize the country.

i didn't vote for him because he's black. i voted for him because i think he's smart, steady, and intellectually curious. i think his race can inspire minorities to aspire for more, but i'd never vote for someone based on race, gender, or orientation.
re:change or retro? a bit of both. i find the cabinet so far to be made up of strong personalities. i'm hoping for the best.

Ptichka said:

..deficit spending at this particular point is better than what would be essentially a tax hike.

Click to expand...

I think that's the catch 22 of economic policy. At every particular point in time it seems better to buy everything we want and put off until a happier day the question of how we are going to pay for it.

Mathman said:

I think that's the catch 22 of economic policy. At every particular point in time it seems better to buy everything we want and put off until a happier day the question of how we are going to pay for it.

Click to expand...

Well, let's look back to New Deal. There was some major spending, and things seemed to be turning around. Then, in 1937 FDR decides things have really gotten better, and cuts spending. Result - country plunges back into depression.

I am generally against heavy deficit spending. I was against it for all other recessions I've experienced in this country. However, this one does really feel different. As someone has said - you don't want to have ammunition left when you lose a battle. I sincerely believe that the country, and perhaps even the world, is on the brink of an economic disaster the like of which hasn't been seen for decades. So yes, I believe that in this particular case deficit spending is indeed justifiable. The big question, of course, is how exactly to spend it. One solution is to go ahead with the universal healthcare plan to kill two birds with one stone, for example.

I voted for him because he wasn't a republican. In Kansas, it doesn't matter because our votes don't count anyway.

Grgranny is back! Yes! arty:

OK, I am officially changing my stand on this. With the treasury considering PRINTING MORE MONEY - I do want a complete change. I want people in there who have courage and who can take responsibility. Much as I respect the people Obama has chosen - I do want radically new faces in there.

Current mood: scared out of my mind.