Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama: Hire These Heroes from the Bush Era (Update x 5) (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I suspect that's a typo. (0+ / 0-)

    Meant to read "Bush".  I've seen Obama appointments with which I disagree, but not one hack.

    When "stupidity" suffices, why search for any other reason?

    by wozzle on Wed Nov 26, 2008 at 10:30:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think it is. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  oh no (0+ / 0-)

      he meant Obama...

        •  Curious (0+ / 0-)

          What did you think of Obama's press conference this morning?  When asked about his Clinton Admin. appointments he answered that basically, in the middle of the biggest financial crisis of our lives, that if he appointed people with no administration experience the criticism would be even worse and would probably be irresponsible of him. (I'm paraphrasing of course, and like always, he said it much better)

          •  bunk (4+ / 0-)

            There are lots of competent and qualified people who were also right on the issues at the time, some with Clinton admin. experience and some without. Prior experience should not be the only qualifier. Lack of experience of being in an administration should not be a disqualifier.

            •  No one issue (0+ / 0-)

              should qualify or disqualify an applicant.  Including if they were right about the war beforehand or about deregulation in the 1990's.

              Again, it goes back to hiring the best person for the job now when all factors are considered.  Even political factors, as another Rec'd diary about Gates pointed out today.  (can't remember which one.  Hard to keep count...)

              As for this statement-

              Pathetic that Obama's entire original basis for running against front-runner Hillary Clinton was he was against the war. We'll see....

              I have to respectfully disagree on several levels.

              1. It was never the "entire original basis for running".  It was a key difference in their record that could be exploited in the campaign.  But Barack did not speak for an hour about Hillary when he announced his candidacy that cold day in Springfield 2 years ago.
              1. He has said in no uncertain terms several times since the election that he intends to end the war.
              1. "We'll see".  Precisely.
          •  Past performance is a measure of qualifications. (0+ / 0-)

            You make it sound as if we're demanding he completely shut out people who got it wrong on Iraq, the financial crisis, &c., when what we are seeing is the opposite of that: people who got it right are shut out. The problem is not that a few "retreads" are leaking into high positions, it's that they're practically all he's appointing.

            Aside from that, if somebody predicted some of the problems we're having now, doesn't that make them more qualified, relative to somebody who just went along and said nothing? It's definitely not the only thing that makes somebody qualified, but it seems like a pretty extreme position to say that past performance has nothing to do with qualifications!

            The obvious (and I do mean obvious) thing to do, if Obama's goal is to put together a team that will take us in a new direction, that will bring about change by any meaningful definition of the word "change", is to put together a team that includes both people who got it right, who predicted the problems we are facing now, and people who are connected and know how the system works. Obama is a brilliant guy, but he is not omniscient, I have no idea how he could direct these "experienced" people to implement different, effective, progressive policies, when nobody on the team has a track record of suggesting better policies. There are people out there who suggested better policies, but they're not on his team. What does that tell you? If we really want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, we could assume it's because of the political pressure he faces, and use our criticism to give him cover to make more sensible appointments. We should at least use our voices to do that.

            •  The most important person (0+ / 0-)

              on the team got it right.  Obama.  That's the guy I trust and the guy I voted for for a whole lot of reasons in addition to his initial position on Iraq.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site