Share

Obama's Familiar Orbit

by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
President-elect Barack Obama's financial and national security appointments - "a team of rivals" or "the same old, same old"? (Photo: Charles Dharapak / AP)

    I keep thinking about that tool bag. You know - the one that the astronaut accidentally let loose while she was repairing the International Space Station last month. Now it's in orbit, more than 200 miles above the Earth. There's even a Web site where you can track its exact location, if that's your idea of a good time. NASA figures the 30-pound bag of equipment will burn up harmlessly as it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere sometime next June.

    For now, it's up there, floating silently and uselessly, which, if you think of government as a sort of national tool kit for protecting and improving the lives of its citizens, could be seen as a pretty good metaphor for the last eight years. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, nothing done - except with the kind of blunt hammers that see everything as a nail and cause more harm than good.

    It's probably not for nothing that both Newsweek and Time had the word "fix" on their covers this week. We're in need of major repairs in this country, at every level. That celestial tool bag orbiting above our heads might have come in handy. Its contents include two grease guns, a scraper and a trash bag - all things that could be useful for an incoming president seeking big changes in Washington.

    But, I hear you asking, where is the change? Despite all the campaign rhetoric, so far, President-elect Obama's announced appointments haven't exactly rattled the cages of the Beltway establishment; no one has emerged from the left, for example, who would give DC politicos a good, healthy case of the vapors.

    It's consensus building, say his supporters; he's putting together a team of people with experience and know-how who can ensure continuity and stability in a time of crisis. This is a process of synthesis - the new ideas will come from him. Obama's a smart guy, they say. Not to worry - he's got this covered.

    As he himself said at his December 1 press conference, "I will be setting policy as president. I will be responsible for the vision that this team carries out, and I expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made."

    Maybe that's so, and it would be unfair to judge a presidency that doesn't even officially begin for another seven weeks. We all wish Barack Obama godspeed and good luck. But you'll forgive me for being a little nervous. You can call his appointments a "team of rivals," if you like - that currently in vogue, nostalgic reference to Obama's hero Abraham Lincoln manning his cabinet with those who ran against him for the Republican nomination in 1860 - but in truth, it seems more like a team of the same old, same old.

    To work toward solving our economic crisis, Obama has brought in many of the same old Clinton hands who helped us into this mess via deregulation and the wink of a blind eye to the big financial institutions - the same ones that have either sunk beneath the waves or that we're bailing out now.

    The Bush administration made the economic disaster worse, but both Barack Obama's designated secretary of the Treasury - Tim Geithner - and his choice to direct the National Economic Council, Larry Summers (a former Treasury secretary), are pals of Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who left Treasury to join Citigroup, where he's now a director and senior adviser. Yes, folks, Citigroup - the bank the government now has agreed to insure against projected losses of $306 billion - on top of bailouts totaling $45 billion.

    Same old, same old in national security and foreign policy, too - Bob Gates, Donald Rumsfeld's replacement, stays on at the Defense Department for at least for a year; Gen. James Jones, seasoned military man and friend of John McCain, becomes national security adviser. And, of course, there's Sen. Hillary Clinton, the next secretary of state. At Monday's press conference, President-elect Obama was asked pointedly about their past differences:

    Peter Baker, The New York Times: ... Going back to the campaign, you were asked and talked about the qualifications of the - your now - your nominee for secretary of state, and you belittled her travels around the world, equating it to having teas with foreign leaders; and your new White House counsel said that her resume was grossly exaggerated when it came to foreign policy. I'm wondering whether you could talk about the evolution of your views of her credentials since the spring.

    President-elect Obama: Look, I'm in - I think this is fun for the press, to try to stir up whatever quotes were generated during the course of the campaign.

    Peter Baker: Your quotes, sir.

    President-Elect Obama: No, I understand. And I'm - and you're having fun. (Laughs.)

    Peter Baker: I'm asking a question.

    President-Elect Obama: But the - and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not - I'm not faulting it. But look, I think if you look at the statements that Hillary Clinton and I have made outside of the - the heat of a campaign, we share a view that America has to be safe and secure and in order to do that we have to combine military power with strengthened diplomacy.

    So let me get this straight - we weren't supposed to take seriously anything that was said during "the heat of a campaign?" Doesn't that invalidate the time and effort we spent evaluating the differences between the candidates before we cast our votes? I'm just asking.

    Equally disconcerting are the paeans of praise for the appointments coming from those who so bitterly opposed Obama's election just a month ago. "Reassuring," said Karl Rove. Karl Rove! "The new administration is off to a good start" - so sayeth Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. "This will be a valedictocracy," conservative David Brooks gushed in The New York Times. "Rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."

    O brave new world, that hath such people in it. Maybe it's true, as Republican campaign consultant Mark McKinnon wrote Monday, that, "The political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and - dare we say it - in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can't afford politics as usual."

    I truly hope so, but a healthy dose of skepticism dictates that I'll believe it when I see it. Look out for tool bags, falling from the sky. And possibly a flying pig or two.

  

»


Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday nights on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

What would you do Mr.

What would you do Mr. Winship? How would you answer that question Mr. Winship? Seriously, the media needs to back off of the attacks on people - I understand standing up for the truth but come on, the constant attacks on our leadership by people who voted for the loser in this election only shows that the media's firm grasp of public opinion is slowly but surely slipping away. Maybe media elite need to just talk to their colleagues rather than try to vent to the common man. . . The only person being invalidated here is you Mr. Winship. . .

sorry. . .i am angry with

sorry. . .i am angry with the criticism and punditry. . . and I may have taken it out on you, rather aimlessly but angered all the same. . .

Obama is following in the

Obama is following in the path of Franklyn D.Roosevelt, who appointed Joe Kennedy to head the SEC. Critics made the same observations. How could Kennedy run the SEC, considering his own dealings? Roosevelt's answer was that Kennedy knew where all the skeletons were hidden in the closet. He proved to be right. Kennedy did an outstanding job. It takes self-confidence for someone to make appointments like these, and Obama is not lacking for self-confidence. The rest of us have a job to do as well, which is to make our concerns known and to rally support for programs and actions that the opposition will invariable attack.

Politicians stretch the

Politicians stretch the truth every day, and most people get that. But here we have a different paradigm: not only are Democrats basically the same, so are Democrats and Republicans in Washington. The so-called left (in almost any other country these people would be moderates) routinely says that there is basically one party in DC: those that do the bidding of special interests instead of ordinary Americans. It's not that there aren't differences between them, but as far as Joe the Plumber is concerned, it's a difference that is mostly lost by the time it reaches the neighborhood. The difference is which corporate special interests get the lion's share of the attention. The token biscuits regular Americans are thrown periodically, like the so-called "economic stimulus payments" which amounted to $300 or $600 checks in the mail, amount to very little when compared to the billions of taxpayer dollars and tax breaks handed to multinational corporations, even when they are boasting record profits, and who claim that hiring American workers makes them uncompetitive. Barack Obama would not have been elected had he demonstrated anything but fealty to the system that currently exists. Young voters who were determined to put their mark on the 2008 election may have elected their candidate, but now let's wake up and realize he's telling us all that it amounted to a lot of talk intended to give Americans a choice which in reality doesn't truly exist. Yet I know there will be many who refuse to believe he is an example of same old, same old, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. It reminds one of the current administration's fans after 9/11, when Bush could do no wrong, although he had been from the start.

It is still of utmost

It is still of utmost importance that we hold the feet of our elected officials to the fire. We must demand the highest standards for them as well as ourselves..... we must be aware that we will get and deserve whatever government we are willing to tolerate.

Yes, what would you do Mr

Yes, what would you do Mr Winship? In these last weeks of his "presidency" GWBush & Co. are doing as much as possible to fully bankrupt the United States. They are garnering untold amounts of $$$ for themselves and their cronies. And Congress submits. I hear nothing from the Pelosi and the Reid, nor from my own Dem. representative and senators. Why is the impeachment option not produced? Where is Cheney hiding? We have only one president at a time, unfortunately in this case.

I'll believe it when I see

I'll believe it when I see it? This is a new day, if we make it one. This guy who everyone seems to have pinned their hopes (and doubts) on isn't going to do it without our help. I know it's hard, given the wall we've been up against these last 8 years, but that's the job and I'm going to take part of the blame if we fail. It's like there's this big crack in the wall that Obama and we made, and it's going to take all of us to push through. I guess what I'm trying to say is, we're going to have to shift our perspective ...change our ways too, if that's possible. Yes We Can was what we voted for, after all.

no matter who runs, the same

no matter who runs, the same side always wins

Don"t blame me, I voted for

Don"t blame me, I voted for Ralph.

Give the guy a chance.

Give the guy a chance. There isn't a hair's breath difference between Hilary Clinton's views and Barack Obama's. The only real difference was that he voted against sending troops into Iraq. That is a big difference, but it is the only difference. There were a lot of other people who I like and respect who also voted for the war. It irks me when people refer to the Clinton Administration as "the Clinton's." She did not have an office. She is much more liberal than he. After all, she did her best to get us a single payer healthcare system. If Obama were as far to the left as many of you would like, he could not have gotten elected. We'd be crying in our beer just as we did after McGovern lost to Nixon in a landslide.

Hopefulness for what Obama

Hopefulness for what Obama could bring to the heavy-duty issues facing us is way important, because it's through our hopefulness that we'll make good things happen. Being skeptical is part of what makes the democratic process work, but let's not get stuck in the anxiety created by that because that WILL keep us stuck! Trusting and being behind Obama and his teams right now will help get us off "square one" in dealing with our economic woes and facing down terrorism in Pakistan and elsewhere - BTW, this is where our sense of insecurity really reigns! At the same time, ask questions of our leaders, be skeptical, and make sure the answers you seek are forthcoming. Be part of making democracy work - we have a much bigger chance of that with Obama and his teams than we did for the last 8 years!

For God's SAKE!!! Give the

For God's SAKE!!! Give the man a chance to be inaugurated before you start second-guessing him! Apparently GWB has so inured us to inaction and inefficiency and a cabinet filled with "yes-men" that the concept of arriving at consensus through vigorous discussion no longer exists in the "minds" of our media pundits. A strong leader EXPECTS to be contradicted and to have to argue his point to win agreement. (And perhaps to be persuaded of a different viewpoint in the process.) All during the campaign, the media complained that Obama "lacked experience" in certain critical areas. Now he is attempting to provide a cabinet of advisers who fill those lacks, you criticize THAT! I've been around for a while, and during my life have voted both Republican and Democrat on occasion. I don't think I am alone in regarding Obama as the most promising phenomenon in American politics since one tragic Friday in November, 1963.

Politicians promise this and

Politicians promise this and give you that. ObamaI promises to bring the troops home from Iraq. Obama II -only talking about combat troops--not the 50,000 that will remain there. ObamaII--no torture, Obama II-we're flexible on torture. Obama I derugulating Wall Street casued this mess. Obama II I'm hiring the deregulators/hedge fund people to run the economy. Hello Rubin,Summers,Emanuel, goodbye Krugman,Galbraith, Baker. Watch these Dems and their game plan: before Obama takes office--everyonbe, please, don't say anything bad. After he gets in office--The Republicans, the media, Sarah Palin are blocking my programs.

Those of us who refused to

Those of us who refused to take part in the Obamadrama delusion understood all along that he was not a progressive or Left candidate. Truthout and other "progressive" media are partly to blame for the fallout from another campaign based on emotion without critical thought. Now they are all scrambling to express their surprise and concern at Obama's cabinet appointments, before it is too late to salvage the facade of truth-seeking journalism. Where was this criticism during the primary and presidential campaigns, when it could have made a difference? Drowned by propaganda, that's where. Again. Like always. Instead of feigning surprise, why not take responsibility for a CHANGE.

"I understand standing up

"I understand standing up for the truth but come on...". Come on, indeed. Michael has gotten it right. Another way of putting it is: How much will Obama (continue to) pragmatically devalue truth? I had this disussion with a fellow Obama-supporter LAST SPRING. It didn't stop me from working for Barack, but my conversation-partner noted that all of us have a limit to what compromises they will tolerate and make. Thing is, this is a social thing. "We" would have liked the O-campaign -- and now administration -- to be our home and base for action. Looks unlikely by now. We can just continue with local or whatever activism we were doing before, and hope to be a counter-influence to Clinton, Jones, Rubin et al. Other alternatives?

Wow, I just realized how

Wow, I just realized how tired I am of being skeptical and cynical. Have we all become so jaded and beaten down that we can't, at least for a moment, believe that the next administration will do better? If Obama had appointed untested newcomers to handle the problems of our country the media would tear him apart for that. Obama's promise of "change" wasn't a battle cry to turn our country into an ultra liberal state; it was a promise to get us back to the middle. We cannot be the "united states" when our leaders skew too far left or right. We've been so far to the right the past eight years, we're in a total mess as a result.

Mr. Winship, like many in

Mr. Winship, like many in the media, have forgotten that until a president-elect is actually sworn in, all he can do is make suggestions, plan his cabinet, and lay out his vision for how his administration will work. Nothing is confirmed, or for that matter permanent, until after he is sworn in and his nominees are confirmed. Mr. Winship is tilting at nightmarish windmills in the hopes of causing discussions that will derail his agenda, not Obama's. If he were truly concerned about what is going on in DC his comments should be taking aim at Pelosi and her cowardly lions - Reid, Hoyer, Franks, Dodd - for letting this current president continue to run this country into the ground for the last two years! It has been pointed out by several here that the change we all voted for must occur in our hometowns and states, so while Mr. Winship whines, maybe we should get to work changing our local governments and the way they do business so that when the big questions need to be addressed we are already on the road to solutions - things like localized food supplies, jobs, housing options, education - all of which can be done at the local level NOW instead of waiting for the likes of Pelosi and Reid to get off the dime and stop bailing out banks. Tell them that they control the last half of the bank bailout money, and they can deny it to Treasury and put it into the auto industry or localized jobs programs now, and then tell Mr. Bush to go to the Devil with is rules and regs, because they will all be repealed by the end of February 2009! so, Mr. Winship, get off your high horse, take a deep breath, look at the calendar and then when it is appropriate if you want to whine instead of doing something constructive (not destructive), you will have more credibility among those who understand you.

Mr. Windship is observing

Mr. Windship is observing and commenting on some simple facts. lets try to view them for just what they are, inconstancies and possible showmanship. Unless all of Obama's campaign speeches were read from TelePrompTers, they sure had the look and feel of being delivered spontaneously, even if well memorized. His news conferences now are read from paper on the podium., similar to Bush. For me I find that disappointing. When you have to look down on a piece of paper to get your nominees name, I don't think that bodes well for the future.

Count me in with Sherman

Count me in with Sherman LaFollette: "NO MATTER WHO RUNS - THE SAME SIDE ALWAYS WINS." That Mr. Obama collected a whole lot of campaign money from our fellow peasants seems encouraging, but there seems to be little doubt that he also collected a few hundred million from the usual suspects in the Corporatocracy. I wonder if he might actually have set a new record for bagging corporate cash (these can usually be thought of as bribes). If the bribe comes from someone like me (say $50), I like to think that this is a good thing. When it comes (predictably) bundled as a hundred checks for $2000 from a gang of wall street bankers....well, that doesn't look so pretty to me. Obama's welching on his stated inclination to go with the Public Campaign Fund limits really cooled any hots I had for his candidacy. His "mandate" would have looked a whole lot more credible if he'd beat McCain in a contest where one guy's warbag wasn't more than double the other guy's. Once again, MONEY WON THE PRESIDENCY. The other major point of (putting it mildly) 'disappointment' with Mr. O's candidacy was his apparent refusal to raise his voice or lift a finger to protest the exclusion of the Conscientious Minority candidates from the primary debates, and later the DNC's collusion with the RNC in excluding third party candidates from the forae. That put the lie to the Democratic Party's claim to their name (Democrats??). And now we watch the selection of the same old same old corporate whores. My optimism remains cool and thin. Alas, my grave remains half full! DBT

"So? I would think Mr. Obama

"So? I would think Mr. Obama is well aware of what happens to "saviours" who stray too far from what is expected of them. Remember Carroll Quigley, Clinton's mentor at Georgetown? "The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinare and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. New boss, same as the old boss.

I would honestly welcome

I would honestly welcome this type of criticism if I were in Barack Obama's position - if in any position of public office or any position that calls for criticism (employment, whatever). Criticism is healthy and necessary in a democracy/ republic. To criticize is not total disapproval of the policies nor person advocating/ enacting them. I think Barack Obama would express this view similarly. I not only considered Obama the better candidate over the other choices for the office of the president, but consider him great candidate. But, it's foolish to think any one person will completely agree with another on every detail on any issue. I think Mr. Winship raises important questions over the future of Obama's pending administration, and he is certainly being reasonable to be skeptical about the choices Obama made for his cabinet members, in my opinion. Personally, I'd rather being wrong in every word of criticism I speak about a politician's choices than find out I should have spoken but remained silent. Skepticism, disagreement, disapproval, etc. is essential for sake of due regard for the minority.

Now, let's see. I'm Karl

Now, let's see. I'm Karl Rove or any other conniving neo-con and I'm trying my best to screw up the new guy and lose him support among his faithful. I know, I'll claim I love his choice! I'll gush about what a middle of the roader he is! If you don't like what is going on contact change.org. Tell him your ideas. Then keep the pressure on. But don't fall for the right's undermining tactics.

Obama is shaping up more and

Obama is shaping up more and more to be a mere tool.

Obama Not Progressive. He's

Obama Not Progressive. He's smarter and better-looking than Bush. He has better morals, and a more pristine background and family. He isn't an oil man. Other than that, he is a tool of the corporate elite. He is not a pacifist. He is not a deep ecologist. He is not progressive. He has not even bothered to speak to Dennis Kucinich, Bobby Kennedy Jr., or any other REAL progressive. Obama supported the rip-off "bailout" and wants to continue the wars. He is not a savior at all. As the Who sang: Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Liberals, get a clue. Unless there's a street revolution in this country, we'll be a complete fascist state within a few years. Obama will help usher in the fascism, just like Clinton and Bush did. They are all tools of the oligarchy.

Thanks, Michael, for saying

Thanks, Michael, for saying what I and lots of others have been saying since O got elected. This ain't no progressive, tho he may, may, be a bit left of center on an issue or two. The Rethuglicans tried to beat him by calling him an extreme liberal (nice oxymoron), the most liberal Senator, a socialist and so on. While the right wing nuts frenzied over their red meat, I suspect some progressives hoped that maybe just maybe it was all true. Understandable, since it has been a long dry time since we’ve had even the merest glimmer of a world we would like to live in. I do think O will do some of some of what we want—decent medical care for all or most, some restraint of those sociopathic corporations, maybe a tilt to “only” 80 degrees against organized labor, a bit more green here or there, fewer bridges falling down, a bit less poison in the air, water, and food, something besides arrogant white men with their lickspittle tokens on the news, maybe some education instead of lots of testing. I think his reasons for wanting these things are mostly not ours, but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is a whole lot better than the last thirty years of the wrong things being done for the wrong reasons. We may also hold to the faint hope that circumstances such as Great Depression II may push him farther to the left than he’d go by himself, just as Great Depression I pushed FDR. (Tho’ O’s Cabinet and advisors are not promising in that regard: Presidents and computers are both garbage in garbage out.) As ol’ John Dewey admonished us: Don’t let the best be the enemy of the better. But I also think we need to keep making noise ‘cause if we don’t he’ll get sucked into Rethuglican Lite. At least it looks like he is a man who will listen to others, even if he only rarely does what they want. Take us a while to get used to that after eight years of being lorded over by an idiot whose gut line to God and whispers from Daddy Cheney were all he needed. Don’t think no pigs gonna fly ‘round here any time soon.