Friday, November 28, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Obama Appointments
Barack's image as a reformer is being called into question this week following a number of major administration appointments. Hillary Clinton will be our Secretary of State. Timothy Geithner (Treasury Secretary), Lawrence Summers (White House Economic Adviser), and Peter Orszag (Budget Director), who are the most prominent proteges of Robert Rubin, will lead us through the economic hardships that await Barack in January. Eric Holder Jr. will be charged with the task of restoring honor to the DOJ as our next Attorney General. And today the NYTimes reports that Defense Secretary Gates will retain his position for at least one year following inauguration.
The decision to keep Gates on-board shows Barack's commitment to bipartisanship but also his political bravery. Gates is regarded as a pragmatist who has cleaned up the Pentagon since Rumsfeld's resignation, and although he has overseen the last two years of the war in Iraq, he has also been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of military operations there. He is favor of drawing down troops when possible. He also does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
The obvious downside of retaining Gates is that it tarnishes Barack's image as a force for sweeping change to our foreign and military policies. But perhaps just as importantly it will give Barack's critics and skeptics reason to sound the "he's a great speaker but is he really a man of action" alarm. There are certainly other individuals that Barack could have appointed to that critical national security post who would represent the type of dramatic policy shift he advocated during the primary and general elections.
And what is to be said of the appointment of Hillary to be our nation's leading diplomat? Is Barack bringing her in to eliminate her as a political opponent in 2012? Or does he believe that she is the best negotiator that we have to offer? The cliche is true in this case that only time will tell, but it does bother me that while the two former rivals' domestic platforms were similar, Hillary scolded Barack whenever she could for his willingness to engage our supposed "enemies" in political dialogue. We should all hope that they settled those differences during their meeting last week and are ready to work as a unit, with Hillary's words carrying the authority of the Presidency in diplomatic settings.
Whether we are evaluating Hillary or Gates or some of the leaders of former President Clinton's administration that Barack is getting ready to appoint, the same question must be asked: Are they willing to carry out Barack's vision? If they are, we can rest assured that we will see the type of drastic change that we voted for. If they are not ready to be agents of reform, we may all have reason to worry.
Please let me know what you think. Post your comments below.
The decision to keep Gates on-board shows Barack's commitment to bipartisanship but also his political bravery. Gates is regarded as a pragmatist who has cleaned up the Pentagon since Rumsfeld's resignation, and although he has overseen the last two years of the war in Iraq, he has also been sharply critical of the Bush Administration's handling of military operations there. He is favor of drawing down troops when possible. He also does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate.
The obvious downside of retaining Gates is that it tarnishes Barack's image as a force for sweeping change to our foreign and military policies. But perhaps just as importantly it will give Barack's critics and skeptics reason to sound the "he's a great speaker but is he really a man of action" alarm. There are certainly other individuals that Barack could have appointed to that critical national security post who would represent the type of dramatic policy shift he advocated during the primary and general elections.
And what is to be said of the appointment of Hillary to be our nation's leading diplomat? Is Barack bringing her in to eliminate her as a political opponent in 2012? Or does he believe that she is the best negotiator that we have to offer? The cliche is true in this case that only time will tell, but it does bother me that while the two former rivals' domestic platforms were similar, Hillary scolded Barack whenever she could for his willingness to engage our supposed "enemies" in political dialogue. We should all hope that they settled those differences during their meeting last week and are ready to work as a unit, with Hillary's words carrying the authority of the Presidency in diplomatic settings.
Whether we are evaluating Hillary or Gates or some of the leaders of former President Clinton's administration that Barack is getting ready to appoint, the same question must be asked: Are they willing to carry out Barack's vision? If they are, we can rest assured that we will see the type of drastic change that we voted for. If they are not ready to be agents of reform, we may all have reason to worry.
Please let me know what you think. Post your comments below.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
King's Dream Fulfilled?
Was the election of Barack Obama the fulfillment of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Dream"? Let's recall his words and remind ourselves of how far we've come but also of how much work we have ahead of ourselves:
Congo: 2008's Rwanda
1.5 million have been displaced and countless thousands are dead. Are these just figures or are they a call to action? The Congo currently hosts the largest deployment of UN Peacekeeping forces in the world, 17,000 troops in all, but it needs more. The UN has been debating for over a month whether it should deploy an extra 3,000 desperately needed troops. Hopefully they will be moved in soon to relieve the 200,000 Congolese trapped behind enemy lines, unable to find adequate food and services.
Where is the outrage in America over our government's inaction? So much blame has been placed on Clinton and his administration for their lack of action in Rwanda in 1994. Now we have a situation that is arguably a worse humanitarian disaster in the same region and we are doing nothing! Regardless of who represents us in the Oval Office, it is up to us citizens to act and defend human rights and human dignity when it comes under attack.
Where is the outrage in America over our government's inaction? So much blame has been placed on Clinton and his administration for their lack of action in Rwanda in 1994. Now we have a situation that is arguably a worse humanitarian disaster in the same region and we are doing nothing! Regardless of who represents us in the Oval Office, it is up to us citizens to act and defend human rights and human dignity when it comes under attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
