well people said he's a new Lincoln....

Small Change?

Obama's Cabinet Picks Heavy on Washington Experience
Thursday, November 20, 2008



WASHINGTON — For months on the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington. But now that he's president-elect, his first potential Cabinet picks indicate that he may bring more years of Washington experience to his administration than Bill Clinton or George W. Bush did.
Obama's first four likely Cabinet choices, including former first lady Hillary Clinton, have a combined total of more than 60 years of Washington experience.
By comparison, President Bush's first four Cabinet picks had a total of 30 years experience in Washington, and former President Clinton's had 58.
Obama has chosen former South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle, a 30-year Washington veteran, to be his secretary of health and human services, and former deputy attorney general Eric Holder, a 20-year Washington veteran, to be his attorney general. His transition team is also reviewing Hillary Clinton, who has 15 years of experience in Washington as first lady and as New York senator, for the position of secretary of state.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Obama's pick to lead the 7-year-old Department of Homeland Security, is a Washington outsider.
Obama signaled early on what kind of Cabinet he would recruit when he named Rahm Emanuel, a veteran of the Clinton administration and a fellow member of Congress, as his White House chief of staff.

Russell Riley, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs, said he wasn't surprised that Obama would be relying more on Clinton veterans "who participated in a presidency that is viewed to have its accomplishments and was viewed as well run."
He added that Obama is entering a political landscape that is far different from the one Clinton faced when he was elected.
"When President Clinton came in, Democrats had virtually no farm team of executive branch hands that they could rely on for White House and Cabinet positions," Riley said.
In 1992, Clinton became the first Democratic president in 12 years, compared to the eight year-interval between him and Obama. Clinton also faced difficulty in picking veterans from Jimmy Carter's administration because Carter's four-year presidency was widely viewed as a failure, Riley said.
But Obama faces pitfalls when relying on Clinton veterans because he ran on a mantra of change, Riley said.
"The argument that Obama people would make ... it's possible to rely on people who know how the levers are pulled, but move it in a different direction than the last eight years," he said.
President Bush brought many Texans with him to Washington, but the ones who had the most influence on his administration were the Washington insiders, Riley said.
Bush's first Cabinet choice was his secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had 14 years of Washington experience, including a four-year stint as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the first President Bush and President Clinton.
Bush's treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, had 16 years of Washington experience, including his work as the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, which creates the executive branch's fiscal blueprint.
Non-Washington insiders who were early choices in the Bush administration included Don Evans, a private businessman, as commerce secretary, and Mel Martinez, who had been a Florida utilities official, as secretary of housing and urban development.
Bill Clinton's first Cabinet pick was Lloyd Bentsen to be secretary of the treasury. Bentsen had 28 years of Washington experience, including 22 in the Senate. He also had been the Democratic candidate for vice president in 1988.
Clinton's other early choices included Ron Brown, a former head of the Democratic National Committee, as commerce secretary; Donna Shalala, head of the Washington-based Children's Defense Fund and a Carter administration official, as secretary of health and human services; and Robert Reich, a veteran of the Ford and Carter administrations, for labor secretary.
Riley said it's a good idea to appoint Washington veterans to positions that a president must rely on for so much.
Every president is "at the mercy of the people" he surrounds himself with, he said. "You have to have a good mix of eminence, people you can rely on and not mind being in a foxhole with."

what does "Change" mean...sometimes only pittance

Eric Holder, the long-time Washington lawyer chosen by President-elect Barack Obama to be the next attorney general, was a central figure in the controversy surrounding the clemency petitions of 16 convicted terrorists during the Clinton administration. Holder, who was deputy attorney general from 1997 until 2001, oversaw all of the requests for clemency filed during those years, including requests from former domestic terrorists, drug traffickers and a number of disgraced politicians.Most notable among the petitions for clemency granted during Holder’s tenure is the request from 16 members of a Puerto Rican Marxist terrorist group, the Armed Forces of National Liberation, known by its Spanish acronym FALN, which engaged in a robbery and terror campaign in both the U.S. and Puerto Rico during the 1970s and 1980s.
The clemency petition, which was supported by Reps. Luis Gutierrez (D-N.Y.), Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) and Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), became the subject of fiery controversy after it was revealed that none of the convicted terrorists had renounced violence and that their victims had not been consulted during the clemency process. The clemency petition was opposed by the FBI, the U.S. attorneys who had prosecuted the terrorists, and even the Justice Department’s own Office of Pardon Attorney – an office that was established to deal with the Clinton administration's overwhelming number of pardon requests.As deputy attorney general, Holder was responsible for overseeing the investigations of the individuals filing for clemency in order to determine whether or not their requests should be granted by then President Bill Clinton, who possesses the constitutional authority to grant pardons. A report issued by the House Committee on Government Reform on Dec. 12, 1999 states that senior Justice Department officials met with those who were asking for clemency for the terrorists, but the victims of the FALN were denied meetings. “Victims were unable to get meetings with the White House or Department of Justice,” the report said. “Some had tried to schedule meetings; they were simply rebuffed. Activists seeking clemency did get such meetings.”In fact, the report found that Holder met with the New York congressmen about the clemency petitions, once in November of 1997 and again in April of 1998. Holder also played a central role in drafting the clemency report that was delivered to President Clinton – one that gave no clear recommendation as to whether he should or should not grant clemency to the separatists; a position that ran against Justice’s earlier recommendations against clemency as late as March 1999.The congressional report criticized this ambiguous position, saying its reversal looked like the Justice Department was seeking to find a way to legitimize a legally suspect decision. “By refraining from giving a clear recommendation, it is almost as if the Justice Department is doing the best that it can to bolster a decision that had already been made,” the report said. The report went on to criticize Justice for apparently bending its own rules regarding clemency due to the politically charged nature of the requests.“It appears that the Justice Department has bent and even changed its rules to accommodate this politically charged clemency,” the report found.Holder, meanwhile, was also in charge when Clinton, on his last day in office, pardoned commodities trader Marc Rich who had left the United States in order to avoid prosecution for alleged tax evasion and violating the trade embargo with Iran. Rich's ex-wife Denise had visited the White House over a dozen times during Clinton's time in office, and contributed an estimated $450,000 to his library foundation, $1.1 million to the Democratic Party and more than $100,000 to Hillary Clinton's first bid for the Senate.

Letter to Luke

Luke,
From what I heard, read and understood is that Prop 8 passed b/c the gay community did not invest in & address the black and hispanic communities, which are traditionally very homophobic (usually more than whites). No matter how much money was thrown at it by the rich, directly addressing these two groups is what the gay groups have to do b/c it was where they failed this time around; and they would be the first to admit that. This is an example of the "fly over states" effecting CA policies, not the other way around as you first portended, but I think have since retracted.

As I said, progression happens, everywhere, at each regions own pace, but the question you have to ask is; weather or not human rights or civil rights are being suppressed or violated; and if you force that change what are the unforeseeable outcomes. Consider and nadir of race relations.

We might be emulating the UK economic systems (and even looking to their HC system). But people should really consider that they just might get what they wish for, and look real hard at what UHC means if we base it on any Euro country, Japan, Canada, etc. etc. There is a big price to pay for it, believe me. We are talking about a huge HUGE philosophical change in the US; gov rule over citizens rights; for better or worst, that is a huge change to this nation, in other words, kiss your 3K start-up tax break goodbye. We will have to become a nation of the babysat, not entrepreneur, free economy risk-takers. And there are pop. numbers to consider that no one is considering right now. If you worked for a Forbes Co. and proposed to your boss that, what worked for this small Co. should work out just the same for a Fortune 500 Co. you would probably be fired. You cannot just plug-in another nations' HC system and think that it would work here.

Look into to other nations HC system, honestly; look at the detractions and problems they are facing, and when and where there is a positive thing, ask yourself how is that situation is different here, apply pop numbers, immigration status, taxes, rights, demographics, national philosophy, national pride and communal centrality, etc. etc.

It's kind of like the Green thing; great! we're now on board as a nation to go green, I think that that is great; but now the realities set in (that liberals never, ever consider) that it is going to be a whole lot harder, extremely hard to implement a green energy plan than previously thought.

We have to think abstractly and be realistic if you want to really consider what would work here, and take the good with the bad. It's not easy, but I feel that it is needed now more than ever. The hard sell worked, we're on board as a nation on both UHC and green energy, now it's time to get down to work and lose the high hopes that was important to get us here, but have no place here now.

On a side note; I find it interesting that no one is talking about air travel and an alternative energy for that. Why? It is another ugly little secret that the greenies don't want you to consider; no air travel means global change to us all. What will the effects be? While the internet opens the world, the green revolution might be closing it. That means no quick trip home for the holidays for you all and the like, unless your boss will let you drive your hybrid car cross country and take another week or two off. Point being, there are a lot of interesting and major fallout’s for both the green thing and the HC thing.

By the way, you know I an a green conscience person so I don't think that some of these fallout's are a bad thing; hyper-speed bullet trains, clean energy nuclear trans-oceanic ships, are all good things, we just need to get there, and not be fooled by delusions of hope and empty promises.

I am working at a brick and mortal "start up," so I hope that you are right about that.

-Peace out,
-Chris

Hope for Change ?.....well........

President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for White House chief of staff is one of the biggest recipients of Wall Street money in Congress, according to a Washington, D.C.-based “money-in-politics” watchdog group. The Center for Responsive Politics has issued a report highlighting millions of dollars in campaign contributions that Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) has raised from individuals working in the hedge fund industry, private equity firms, and large investment firms. Emanuel has raised more money from individuals and political action committees in securities and investment businesses than from any other industry. This comes after a presidential campaign that saw Obama frequently criticize Wall Street and blamed lack of government regulations for the economic crisis that hit the country in mid-September. Emanuel, a former Clinton White House aide, is chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and received much of the credit for the Democrats winning a majority in the House of Representatives in 2006 – the first time in 12 years. For his own 2006 re-election campaign, where he faced no serious opposition, Emanuel raised $1.5 million from the investment industry. His other sources of contributions came from lawyers, who gave $682,900, while people working in the entertainment industries gave $376,100.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) (Though Obama did not accept contributions directly from lobbyists during his campaign, Washington lobbyists have given Emanuel $136,640 since he was elected. Emanuel is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which overseas tax legislation, making him “a popular industry target,” the report said. Employees from private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners contributed $93,600 to his various campaigns since he was first elected to Congress in 2002. Emanuel, who worked as an investment banker after President Bill Clinton left the White House, was elected to Congress in 2002. He has a net worth of between $5 million and $13.2 million, according to his 2007 financial disclosure form. Other top contributors to Emanuel’s campaigns have been employees of UBS, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley, also financial sources for Obama’s presidential campaign.