and then he is going to fire them!

Agree on all points, and my comment was not directed at your writing. More a response to the seeming ubiquitous sentiment that it is simply too early, too potentially harmful and damaging, to be critical of the moves Obama is making now.

Sincerely,

Michael B. English

~

Liberals and right wing authoritarians are too fussy,

and if they stayed married forty days and flirty nights,

O, 4-Score, and # ten years later, that song was blues.

You behave. You spook cats, mutts, and middle classes.

Scream for some pistachio ice cream and blueberry wine.

D.C works when we have good leadership I certainly do not want Obama brining in inexperienced people who have had no experience in D.C. Change cannot happen without connections.

The biggest change will be getting rid of George Bush and Cheney.

You certainly need someone who has the judicial experience for AG. Rich was pushed through by Bill Clinton, not Holder. Rich has given much money to both Bill Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Holder was a minor player in the Rich case. He did not push for the pardon, but also did not object to it.

Obama knows Holder aside form his D.C. connections.

I'm sure ti will be an issue because the press finally found a 'story' in one of Obama's appointees.

then maybe I'll get worked up about the Rich pardon.

Until then, it's just more yammer designed to distract idiots from the important stuff.

I don't really think Holder is going to be a problem. I suspect that Obama probably asked his advisors to find him the best black AG candidate they could find. After reading his books (and I *highly* recommend them), I think he's looking at bringing some black people in there, no doubt at all. Now, could he have found another competent black lawyer who wasn't in the Clinton WH? Probably.

What annoys me most about the media coverage (and cheerleading coverage) of the Obama cabinet picks is that they all have the unbridled audacity to tell me what I think, what I want, who I am.

We are a center-right nation? No, we're not.

The nation wants unity? No, I don't. I don't want to unify with the kind of people who supported W. I don't want my Democratic majority to get along with the Rs. I want them to nail them all to a wall, prosecute the criminals and pass out blindfolds and cigarettes.

The nation wants continuity? No, I don't.

I want a revolution.

Glenn:

This is silly:

That [change] will be determined by him, not by them. ... By all means, wait to judge Obama based on his decisions and policies, not who he appoints to administer them.

This implies that these people are not part of the decision making process in the first place!

I think you need to review and catch-up with Arthur: http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/

Is it really such a big surprise that 'CHANGE' was a convenient slogan? Obama just pulled off on of the greatest hat tricks in the history of politics. He will want an eight year Presidency, so, of course he will try to govern from the middle where most Americans are comfortable.

I think he is a smart man and he recognizes that he has already made history as our first elected Black President. This is immense. This already is mind boggling change for all of us, especially African Americans.

He and Michelle can sieze this incredible moment, or they can screw it up with more partisan warfare,

The bailout fortune will soon be his to pad all the right pockets, if that's how he decides to operate. This could turn into a massive Chicago-style graft machine, or, if he is as careful as he says he wants to be, it could make everyone proud of our great nation. Better schools and better trains and purer water could make us all very proud.

The most important change he could do would be to liberate public education from the bureaucrats who have already turned out far too many generations of illiterates and drop outs in our cities. Michelle went to one of Chicago's very few great high schools, and she knows how horrible most of the rest of them are. Yesterday's WSJ had some suggestions for how to do this. If anybody has the nation's idealists on his side, it is Barack Obama. He could sieze this great opportunity, stand up to the teachers' unions, and inspire a new generation of our best and brightest to choose teaching as a career.

Glenn repeated the NYT story with a few twists of the facts to fit his agenda. This is the problem with blogs. Many people do not read newspaper today and only get their supposed "facts' from the blog authors views.

Bowers was great, regardless of the REM. His thoughts on media requests is also insightful. Evolution of the netroots, including Open Left, are every bit as interesting and important as what's happening in the transition beltway.

Glenn repeated the NYT story with a few twists of the facts to fit his agenda. This is the problem with blogs. Many people do not read newspaper today and only get their supposed "facts' from the blog authors views.

What do you mean, specifically?

Obama has already made a number of significant statements regarding his plans as President, but some people are more interested in debating whether or not they should defer on making comments regarding the potential significance of announced and pending appointments.

In just the last day alone Obama has said:

* He will maintain "the strongest military on the planet" (in part, "to ensure prosperity at home");

and that...

* He is committed to "eliminating the threat of terrorism" (and previously he has been even more specific in this regard, explicitly stating that "losing is not an option when it comes to Al Qaeda");

and previously...

* He has identified precisely where the military will be used to pursue the goal of eliminating terrorism, in that "central front" in the "battle against terrorism", Afghanistan.

These plans were made clear while Obama was campaigning and have been confirmed since becoming President-elect.

Is anybody listening? Does anybody care?

If you must speculate about why Obama is surrounding himself with hawks and interventionists, at least ground your speculations in the appropriate context, namely, in the context of his announced plans. Me? I'd say he's chosen the right people for continued war-making and for continuing intervention into the affairs of other countries.

I'd say you can look forward to more innocent people being killed for your own good (while being spun as for their own good, too).

That's what President Obama will do. Everything else is just idle speculation.