. . . and the base is noticing. This according to a well respected and longtime liberal publication. To show how annoying I am, I'll now provide a wikipedia snippet®:



Now, a snippet® from The Progressive:



And this backs up what those of us have been saying about Obama's reversing his promise of "change" in Washington:



The Kucinich appointment is a far stretch, but the article is dead on that Obama's choices have little to nothing to do with the "change" platform he campaigned on . . . and it's not going unnoticed.

to be fair, Obama campaigned as more of a centrist who is willing to work with the other side to get things accomplished. he also said he'd build a coalition of people he agreed with and people who would challenge him. John Edwards campaigned on poverty and all that jazz, but Obama didn't. Progressives will get some bones thrown their way in some of the policies that are enacted (e.g., speeding up the timetable to get out of Iraq, which should be their number 1 priority anyway).

Like the extreme right the extreme left lives in a world where they listen to only what they want to hear. The Kucinich appointment for Secretary of State is extreme but I am sure there are many at the Progressive who will feel betrayed when Kucinich is left out in the cold. I wish Kucinich did have a place at the table. He has been consistently right too many times. But I am also a realist to know that our citizens do not want to be always right.

Obama said he was going to make changes. The tearing down of the Bush Doctrine and shuffling it off into the "embarrassing moments in US history" is a big change. If Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State she will be espousing the views of her President, not her own. She is an accomplished politician. She can figure that one out if asked to serve.

I agree with Matt; Hillary is a bad choice. The Clintons are much closer to the Bush machine than most people would realize. If her politics get mixed into this -- and HIS -- then we've been deceived.


Shooshie

Nope, it would have been naive, to believe otherwise!

Internally, Obama needs to neutralize Clinton and that is best done by having her inside the cabinet. This is defensive power politics 101.

And as far as "her politics" are concerned, perhaps she's just been more honest. That reality would be miles from those "inspirational" speeches should have been apparent months ago.

How (why) could (would) Obama work against the real powers behind the Throne? Barely a week after the election, Robert Gates was effectively re-appointed. What does that indicate to you?

The electorate wants change, the system demands continuity.

Wait, naive to believe that Obama has read Sun Tzu or naive that her views get espoused? Give me an example of "her politics" that she could possibly push while being Sec of State that are different from Obama's politics. Clintons positions have been identical to Obama's except for timing. She voted for the Iraq War. Bad move on her part. Cost her the presidency in the long run. Do you possibly think that a POTUS who has read Sun Tzu would allow a SofState to deviate one iota from his wishes? I am a little confused that just a few short months ago that you thought Clinton would be a good President but now she would not be a good Sec. of State because of HIM?

And why would Robert Gates continuing at Defense be a betrayal of some kind? Obama has to get stuff done. Why not allow people already on the ground be given new marching orders. Robert Gates on Jan 21 will be different than the Gates of today. His boss will be Obama, not Bush. Gates has not deviated from his boss's wishes. If he deviates from his new boss's wishes then you have a point. I'll be screaming for his head right along with you at that time.

and you are already selecting drama queen reasons why Obama will be more of the same.

The only one I don't want any naivety from is Barack Obama and by considering Clinton and Gates I am optimistic he is not going to kowtow to the "change for change sake" naivete that was a hallmark of Carter who was an otherwise great President but eventually had to do everything himself because he would not allow his administration to be sullied with people with actual experience.

Obama has a lot to do. Let him hire experience.

...and you're suggesting...

They continue the (bad) Practice to
hand out (Good-Job) "BROWNIE" Badges
to UNQUALIFIED PEOPLE for "Helping Hands"?

Nope.
I was responding to shooshie's sense of betrayal at having "her politics" part of the new administration.
I basically don't believe the Prez makes all that much of a difference. (How many would seriously "credit" Dubya with any of the decisions he made?) That's why I always doubted that all that great stuff Obama promised would see the light of day.

By and by, many Obama followers have come to accept that he will be as tied down by systemic demands as any prez before him ... at least over the past 40 years or so.
He was saved by the financial crisis, to some extent. Not only, because it have him the election, but because now parameters have changed so much that he will never really have to meet his promises.

Again, I understand why Obama wuld hire experience, and where would Democrat experience come from, if NOT from the Clinton era. No problem with that.

I know this has been a very popular saying over the years but hasn't eight years of George Bush discredited this notion?

From the big (a war in Iraq) to the small (derailing stem cell research) to the mundane (making us look stupid) Bush has proven that what you are saying is totally insane in so many countless ways books will be written for decades about it.

Read my link to what Obama is going to do just in technology. Most of these things can be achieved the week of January 21. I had someone in my office last week from MIT who does research on nanospheres. She was positively giddy about the changes that will occur, that already are occurring because these people think ahead and see it coming.

You think we would be mired in Iraq if Al Gore had won? You think technology would have been derailed by the man who thought ahead and created the funding for the internet? You think Al Gore would have allowed stem cell research to be shipped overseas? You think Al Gore would have flipped the world the bird at Kyoto concerning global warming?

You gotta hold on a little tighter when you ride in the back of that turnip truck.

One will only be deceived if they fell hook line and sinker for Obama's pack of false hopes and promises he preached during his campaign.

I'm surprised you feel you might be deceived Shoosh, they're all straw men, you know that.

Jim