The people who did the heavy lifting on foreign policy during his campaign were sent a form email and haven’t heard from anyone since. The two head of Obama’s foreign policy group (Rice and Lake) are not part of the group doing the hiring for Obama. Rice has a job (UN) but is not happy. Lake hasn’t been given a job. In contrast, Richard Holbrooke is in the administration as a special assistant for Clinton. (Holbrooke replaced Lake in the Clinton administration after Lake gave Bill what he considers to be the worst advice ever — not to act in Rwanda — and since then there has been tension between Lake and Holbrooke).

Personally, I am thrilled about this. I think Holbrooke is one of the greatest foreign policy experts alive today. But if I am Tony Lake, I am angry, especially since I did so much work for Obama at critical times.

But here is the big picture — Obama ran on a platform. For example, that he was going to talk without conditions to dictators. Some people voted for him because of this. I think this is crazy. Now, the foreign policy advisers who gave him this advice are no longer part of the top set of advisers. Instead, Obama puts in those advisers who will not talk to dictators without conditions.

So, what did we vote for? If talking with dictators without conditions is good, then why is Clinton Sec of State? If it is bad, why did Obama run on it?

This is one of my two fundamental problems with Obama — I never know what he stands for. This goes for the war in Iraq (7 different positions), healthcare (which he pitched as universal even though it is not), economics (dissed Clinton one minute and then adopted the next) and so on. All politicians do this, but never to this extent.

But hey, I am glad he isn’t doing what he said in Iraq and on foreign policy.

Now, the FP article makes clear a very real political danger for Obama. It is clear from the FP article that people who worked for him on foreign policy in the campaign are not happy campers. You don’t leak a story like this if you think you have a chance at a job because Obama’s staff will probably figure things out and that will be the end of their chances. These foreign policy folks tend to hang around DC in some capacity or another (like a job at GWU or in a think tank or something). They also probably know things that went on during the campaign that they can then leak to the press to damage Obama. If you are Obama, you don’t want this. It is a rookie mistake that he also made with Howard Dean. It will come back to haunt him.

And just so you know, the other major problem I have with Obama is he lacks experience; he just hasn’t accomplished anything other than being elected.

Give it a rest, beener, Francis, Debbie, Believe, or whatever the names are for your multiple personalities and two faces. We’ve seen this picture before–it was just painted by a bushbot last time.

Not a very persuasive or insightful piece.

LMAO–as if yours were.

No thanks.

And why is this different than any other presidential campaign and ascension to the presidency?

By the way, by picking Hillary, I think he will let her have more of a say, so not going with all his original people makes some sense.

I am not sure what the critisim is here or the transformation??

Once again, what exactly is he transforming from and to? Not clear on your point??

You seem to do less Obama bashing this time around, although it remains funny that you say that Obama is just following the Clintons or Clinton policy. Not quite sure I see that. I guess what you are inferring, given that you are a Hillary support, is that if he is just following Clinton policies and hiring Clinton people, then we should have Hillary Clinton as President instead. Not sure I agree, although I think Hillary would have made a great president.

“for this he is rightly turning to those who know Clinton economics” …what does this mean? What are Clinton economics? Working in partnership with the Gingrich congress and balancing the budget was a great Clinton move, but that was just normal smart economics, nothing that Clinton invented. Obama will have a tough time balancing the budget, given the deficits and economic downturn he faces. Not sure where exactly Obama is following anything that can specifically be called Clinton economics or that Clinton can specially take credit for inventing. Tax cuts are not specific to Clinton. I don’t think Clinton did a big government stimulus package. And if Obama invests in infrastructure, the environment, etc. ec. to help revive the economy that would be very new and not something Clinton ever did. That would be Obama economics.

I am not sure if is true to say that Obama did not spell out his policies or did not spell them out as much as Reagan supposively did. Obama had a whole website dedicated to pretty specifically spelling out policies and a new direction: a new direction on Iraq, a new direction on Afghanistan, a new direction on tax cuts for the rich, a new direction on energy policy, a new direction on the environment, etc. etc. I think Obama had a lot more detail in the direction he was going to take the country than Reagan ever had.

Obama has had plenty of vision on race (read his speech on race), on a new era of accountability, on bipartisanship, on Americas responsibility in the world (read the Berlin speech), he saw a much more activist role for government and a more responsible government, etc. etc. His speeches were full of vision. He probably got critized for having too much vision. His talk about hope for America and what America could be blew away anything Reagan ever said. Half the time Reagan just sounded like a buffoon. I think you are being a bit extreme with your rudderless ship comment and comparisons to Reagan. Obama has been anything but rudders, as he has taken the economy by the horns before he has even been sworn in. Nothing wrong with Obama’s comment about Reagan below. I think he has a good chance at doing what he says Reagan did below, although if he was not walking into such an economic mess he would have had a better chance at moving the country forward. You have to admire the guy for trying and even talking about this stuff. I never heard anything like this from McCain or Hillary. Do you even know what McCain’s and Hillary’s vision for American even was. At best both of Obama’s opponents were confused about their vision.

“I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what is different is the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. They felt like with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think he tapped into what people were already feeling. Which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

“I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it has to do with the times. I think we are in one of those fundamentally different times right now were people think that things, the way they are going, just aren’t working.”

By the way what again was Bill Clinton’s vision of America and why was it any more clear or better than anything Obama has ever said about his view of America and where he wants to take the country?

“His pay-to-play skills as a Chicago Pol will come in handy when he needs to purchase those one or two Congressional votes to secure a win.” What a strange comment? What exactly do you base this view that Obama has as you say “pay-to-play skills as a Chicago Pol”? And if you mean that in order to get votes Obama will have to try and bring others onside through compromise or bargaining that what is wrong with that? That is what you do in politics. That is what every president has always had to do to get legislation and votes past. Nothing wrong with that! That is how our system works?

“The fact that our mainstream media don’t even perceive him to be a politician just makes my point.” What kind of ridiculous statement is that? Who exactly in the media does not recognized Obama as a politician? And where and when exactly has Obama shown himself to be a ruthless politician? This is certainly a guy that has been attacked on just about everything more than just about any other presidential candidate. He certainly could have attacked his politician opponents, whether they be Palin, McCain or Clinton, a hell of a lot harder than he did. For the most part he kept himself out of the gutter. Also, where are the examples of him throwing anyone under the bus? He certainly did not initially throw Rev. Wright under the bus, which would have been easy, until Wright continued to go on and on….

Not a very deep or insightful or as you say “visionary” conclusion to your two big posts. A very generic conclusion. All you are effectively saying is that Obama has to be a good politician in order to be successful and he will determine how left the country moves. No kidding!!! Wow! Did you some say you worked in the Clinton campaign and are an expert in political persuasion. Not a very persuasive or insightful piece.

Once again people fire away.

I just have no sympathy for these “experts” who turned their back on Hillary and now are concerned about having a place at the table.

They are back stabbers — and if they end up in the unemployment lines — good riddance to bad trash.

What these “professionals” did is nothing short of being traitors to America.

Obama is a classic Narcissist personality. He wants ALL the attention so he will pander to whoever will give him attention.

He also has no core values — he is neither a liberal nor a conservative — but he wants and craves the support and attention of both groups.

He is also a passive aggressive — and he will punish in his passive aggressive way — anyone who gets in his way.

He has no real leadership skills — he can copy, rote like, leadership like behavior — but he has no real innate understanding of HOW to be a leader.

He is a shallow, vain person and won’t make the effort or take the time to understand the structure and character of the problems he will inherit. His idea of “leadership” is to appoint someone to fix the problem — if that person fails — then it is under the bus for that fool.

He is a twisted psychopath — and he is dangerous. Faced with a crisis — he won’t be able to make a reasoned decision based on experience — because he has NO real governing experience.

No one should have to work for a sexist pig like Obama.

It’s great that Obama can straddle both sides of the fence. Anyone with a decent intellect can do the same. So really, it is what you do with that ability.

Frankly, he has only used the technique to “bamboozle” people, to quote Obama. Telling one state one thing and then contradicting himself the next day in another state during the election.

Going back to an aspect of Mr Copeland’s article. Obama doesn’t seem to have a vision of HIS OWN without stealing other people’s. That leaves for the possibility of a ship that goes nowhere.

In my opinion, this gives the profiteer schemes, like the Rezko projects, a place to flourish. The familiar Chicago/Obama ruse to be covered by the infrastructure stimulus spending, is not what will give Obama or our country a successful presidency.

Most on this board want better for our citizens than the Chicago Way.

~~

Quote from Mr Copeland’s article.

“He refuses to make a contrast between liberal and neo-con political philosophies (as Reagan did) and instead worships at the altar of a vague notion of bi-partisanism.

Without the vision-thing, Obama’s Presidency runs the risk of a rudderless ship much like the Presidency of George H. W. Bush. A vision and clear direction will allow Obama to suffer successfully the slings and arrows of attacks of the right and the left. It will buy him goodwill and understanding from the American people. Bill Clinton spelled out his vision for America, and it was one reason he remains a popular President.”

Still do!

You can find it at:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/node/15095

Now, to be clear Foreign Policy was in the tank for Obama early on. So this report can’t be dismissed as just another Clintonista complaint.

The main point of the article: All those foreign policy experts who signed up with Obama to guide his campaign are now being left in the cold — that is, thrown under the bus.

FP is not liking what it is seeing. The Obama supporters not getting appointments are likely to be friends of FP. FP is waking up from the Kool-Aid and it will be interesting to see if they are able to maintain consciousness.

I’ll give you a few excerpts but you really should read it for yourself (the material from the Obama transition team at the end is pure spin).

Now, some Obama campaign foreign policy volunteer advisors — many of whom put in long hours for no pay, taking career risks no doubt in part with the hope that should the long-shot junior Senator win, their hard work might eventually be rewarded — are finding themselves on the outside looking in, and not sure where they should knock.

“It’s an unprecedented situation,” said one such frustrated former Obama foreign policy advisor who asked to remain anonymous. “I know what goes on in the transition process. But what is happening here is unprecedented in terms of secrecy and lack of information.”

“President-elect Obama came into the campaign with no foreign policy experience,” he continued. “He asked a few people to pull together a group of foreign policy experts to give him both credibility as well as advice. A lot of people put their personal and professional reputations on line and took significant risks in opposing Clinton.”

The article laments the takeover of the “leftists” and describes how “All American Centrist Liberals” (”AACL”) were the ideal. It also stated that the AACL’s were natural allies with moderate republicans.

Now someone in the comments posts about comments from republicans praising Obama for being able to see both sides of an issue and suddenly that’s a bad thing? Now he should be more partisan?

You can’t really have it both ways.

But no more loyal, blind votes. I’m done with that!

Party Unity My Ass

That’s what it means.

Sooner or later the guy has to do something. He can’t just talk indefinitely. The realty on the ground will catchup with the rhetoric on the stump. At that time we’ll have a clearer measure of the man’s abilities. If the worst comes to pass, an army of sympathetic press and a governmental noise machine won’t to able to patch the egg man’s fall from the wall.