Fri, 10/10/2008 - 7:32am — vastleft
So, what kind of administration can we expect from Obama?
I'm not sure, but below are a few speculative elements to consider (I reserve the right to be very wrong on these guesses, 'cause they're guesses). Please add to and/or debate this list. And if you have a more-powerful crystal ball than mine handy, tell us where you think this all leads:
- Obama will be surrounded by "best and brightest" advisors, brimming with a sense of their own destiny.
- Sooner or later, people will start wondering if his affectless is a sign of Zen-like calm and vision or haplessness and not giving a shit.
- If the economy continues to implode or gets stuck at the bottom of a gulch, he'll have Shock Doctrine power but will likely equivocate. Possibly he'll push a mini-New Deal, not bold, but not nothing. If he announces something that sounds bold, it will stumble getting out of the gate, because the plans weren't properly thought through.
- He'll use the economic shortfalls as a rationale to "reform" entitlements.
- He may use the economic shortfalls as a rationale to make good on his promises to draw down troop strength in Iraq; he may also be rational enough not to send all those troops into Afghanistan (then again, he may not be). He will not, though, significantly reduce our reliance on contractors in Iraq, since they're good for business and not part of the symbolic troop-strength reduction. (OTOH, if he really feels the heat on deficits, maybe he could be motivated to do this.)
- He will likely try to make his bones on a Palestinian-state solution. A man of destiny will be inexorably attracted to the Holy Lands, no?
- If there is notable international instability, he'll send troops somewhere and try to impress with his Seriousness.
- It's the economy, stupid. If by good policy or good fortune (such as a "good war"), the economy recovers, he'll be popular. If not, not so much.
- The risks to his safety best not be underestimated. It's a high-risk job to begin with. Add in economic turmoil and racism, and the threat-level goes through the roof.
- The GOP will lay relatively low, letting the Dems own the big shitpile problems until the New World Order (whatever it is) begins to take shape. However, they may still be able to control some legislation as long as the Blue Dogs take the lead on it.
- Reaganism is over, if he wants it. The meltdown creates a new political reality if he decides to accept the opportunity. Will he accept it, and to what end?
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
there'll be a Whitewater-type investigation immediately--
just like with Clinton.
In-Between
This sounds about right to me - "Possibly he’ll push a mini-New Deal, not bold, but not nothing." My fear is that what he will do is the political equivalent of band-aids on gunshot wounds, which is better than rubbing salt into them, but not necessarily any more effective. His natural instincts seem to be to always find compromise and always seek the middle. In times of peace and prosperity, that's not necessarily a bad thing. In times of crisis, it often leads to ineffectiveness. And that's my greatest fear with him - not that he will deliberately do evil ala the GOP, but that he's going to be incredibly ineffective.
I hope he grows into the job because we can't have another failed presidency. His history, however, is not encouraging. At least to me.
Amberglow, a Whitewater-type investigation requires majority
in one of the houses of Congress, preferably both--unless the Dems can be shamed into doing one.
It also requires the cooperation, enabling, pushing of the MCM. Whitewater would never have become a big deal without the NYTimes, Gerth, WaPo, NeoCon Legal Elves with conduits to MCMers, etc.
But, still--the Repubs were able to push the Clinton's into "clearing" their names. Not sure it will work twice, but...we'll see.
Given how the MCM is talking about McCain-- erratic, impuslive (OMG! Will he just toss some nukes somewhere?}, bad decision maker (see Palin), anger problems, negative campaigner, bumbling speaker--it is clear they have turned on him but good. First, he didn't look at Obama enough. Then, the way he walked on the stage at the last debate proved how erratic he is! He actually moved around! Attention Deficit Disorder! And, was he rude to refer to Obama as "that one" during an answer?? Over and over they ask about that; it was so truly disturbing. "That one" is the '08 Gore "sighing."
Obama, on the other hand, was cool, calm, showed no anger, stood right in front of his quesitoner to show he was "connecting"--also showing how presidential he is. The MCM is working very hard to make sure Obama as Scary Black Man does not get into the public's mind, while McCain as Scary Old Geezer is not far from most analysis. Why, bad enough Old Geezer would have control of the nuke button--even worse that Scary Pentecostal/Evangelical Neophyte Palin could be!
Not having a candidate I feel fervently about has made watching the MCM during this campaign even worse, somehow. I just keep seeing how truly awful and irresponsible the MCMers are--we deserve so much better.
they'll have a majority in 1 house in '10
if Obama is elected--mark my words.
And this current administration has packed the Justice Dept (and the whole Executive Branch) with their loyal cronies in career positions--they're not going anywhere.
BD--Bobo declared Obama a "cautious" politician, as did someone
today on a program I was listening to. Obama will not do anything radical. From Bobo, was it supposed to reassuring to Repubs? From the person today, it was to tell the audience that Obama will not change much about the FISA law and the NSA law breaking. He voted for the bill, even for telco immunity (covering how many more?), and will not change very much that BushCo has established as executive power and right. Also heard someone say today that there will be less change from BushCo to Obama than there was from Clinton to BushCo.
That worries and scares me, but this may be even worse. And highly likely:
Will the Dems have the balls to resist him if he tries to do such things?
Will the Dems have the balls to resist him?
Not all Democrats have balls, y'know.
Amberglow, it's unlikely that we'll have another Whitewater-type investigation, because the Independent Counsel Act, which is what empowered Ken Starr and allowed him such latitude, has expired.
The Independent Counsel has been replaced by a Special Counsel (currently, Patrick Fitzgerald) who has a much more limited scope of investigation (and Fitzgerald, being a pro, pursued his authority zealously but only to the limits of his authority, whereas Starr, who had no prosecutorial experience and a political agenda, dragged his investgation out inefficiently, to say the least).
It's conceivable that if the Republicans take back Congress in 2010, they might be able to pass a new ICA, but for the next two years, it's unlikely.
you don't need an IC--
they will investigate using other counsels--the DOJ is packed with Repubs in career positions now.
trust me on this--all the past dirt of Obama's that's not being aired now will be aired once he's in office--and they won't be as unwilling as the media.
Obama will be surrounded by
Obama will be surrounded by “best and brightest” advisors, brimming with a sense of their own destiny.
True in many ways, but he seems to feel more secure with the more conservative best and brightest--or just the more conservative. Keeping Paulson? Keeping Gates? Why hasn't he tapped Krugman?