Where Is the Change?


(Moraga, California)

Hillary Clinton. Eric Holder. Bill Richardson. Joe Biden. Who else? Four household names have emerged as the core of President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed Cabinet. So where’s the change? Maybe it will come in the form of policy; but when it comes to personnel, it’s a lot of “same old, same old.”

That can be good and bad. Clinton, Holder, Richardson and Biden all bring deep Washington experience - something that Obama does not have. The fact that he has included three campaign rivals in his court has neutralized them politically, at least for now. So on that score, including them can be a good thing.

On the other hand, you have to watch for mixed messages and dissension. With Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State and her husband running his global initiative, might there be conflicts? Will the Clintons sometimes be speaking to their own agenda which may conflict with Obama's. It’s a potential minefield. This will clearly come up in her confirmation hearings.

Another source of conflict will be having Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson in the same room. The wounds between the two are not healed. Richardson was a finalist for Secretary of State, but now may take Secretary of Commerce - a low-level Cabinet post - instead. Isn’t that kind of like being named "Miss Congeniality" in the Miss America Pageant? Maybe Richardson has been promised State if there is a second Obama term, since Clinton would likely drop out for another run at the White House in 2016.

Holder was also a “Clinton guy,” having served as Janet Reno’s Deputy Attorney General. It’s widely believed that Bill Clinton wanted to appoint Holder to the top job, but that the stubborn Reno would not bow out.

Biden also may cause potential potholes. What if his son Beau is appointed to take dad’s vacant seat in the U.S. Senate? Nepotism "did in" Gov. Frank Murkowski in Alaska, and it’s always a dicey path. What if Biden speaks out of turn on foreign policy, as he has a habit of doing?

The biggest question I have is why is Biden the Vice President and Hillary being considered for State? The other way around would have been a better move and more practical. Methinks they are in the wrong jobs.

Anyway, it’s like an adult game of “musical chairs.” We’re seeing a lot of familiar faces, and Obama is still toying with the idea of keeping the Republican-appointed Secretary of Defense and CIA Director. That’s not much change either. Experience, yes; change, no.

The one breath of fresh air is Timothy Geithner for Secretary of Treasury. He’s well respected on Wall Street, and the markets surged when his name was announced Friday. Now that’s “change I can believe in!”

Obama would be wise to fill out the rest of his Cabinet with fresh faces. Make it a good balance of experienced beltway veterans and enthusiastic newcomers with new ideas. That’s kind of why he got elected in the first place. As Ronald Reagan famously stated about loyalty and recognizing how he got where he did: “Don’t forget to dance with the one who brung you!”

Keep checking out my daily blog at www.MarkCurtisMedia.com, and if you know someone with public relations, advertising, media and communications needs, have them call or email me.

Back in 08' Obama was the change. Change is supposed to be good but as the https://marvelous-reviews.com/ and many others have reported, the same cannot be said true for Donald Trump. He's only inviting the world war 3.

I think Obama's all for change. I fully believe that he will change things in the White House and for our country for the better. However, I do believe it is required that he utilize the experience of those he chooses as cabinet members in order to do so. Without experience, Obama's administration could quite possibly fail like a restaurant being taken over by someone with money who hasn't worked a day in their life... do you get my drift? I think you do. :)

"O" never said what kind of change. Maybe he meant all along change back to the Clinton era. If things go wrong, he can just blame the Clintonistas!

The change is in the collaborating - he gets it.
Most people make change for change - that seems to be the No you are speaking to when you speak to no change. Change yes... now you are speaking to PROGRESS. This is for sure a President who will not make change for change. He understands all real changes are make for progress - Experienced, yes at collaborating. The vital question is what is problem with this thought process? None I say because it is a create one. The creator - in all venues, develops an economy of means.
And the USA could use a means to the end of ignorance!

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options