Whether from an exceptional eye for irony or a keen sense of justice, yesterday the New York Times' Jeff Zeleny perfectly captured, as he put it, "the stark image of the transfer of power that is under way in Washington."
Far away from the centers of official authority, "Mr. Obama and his new [economic] team arrived in a room of dozens of reporters." Earlier, "President Bush made brief remarks at the Treasury Department with Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.," standing "nearly alone on the steps of the Treasury Department."
I saw the video tape of his "brief remarks" and, after eight years, the man still looked uncomfortable in his own skin, still looked ineffably clueless and still utterly bereft of personal responsibility.
"This is a tough situation for America," said Bush, as though these gargantuan troubles descending on us somehow magically appeared, inexplicable in their origins and impersonal in their nature.
It was an extraordinarily bizarre scene, for he also looked withered and beaten, and I'd like to think that was because it has finally dawned on him that God never was at his back. But self-contempt is as foreign to Mr. Bush's mind as self-examination; he had probably only just come from a strenuous session at the White House gym.
A short time later Mr. Obama formally announced the appointments of those he has tasked with cleaning up Bush's domestic mess -- Geithner, Summers, Romer et al. -- adding that on Tuesday, today, he'll also spell out some of the "sacrifices" we as a nation will need to make.
His use of that word -- "sacrifice" -- put me in mind of an article I had read in the Politico a day or two before. Notionally it dealt with the cruelties and friendlessness of major-league politics, I suppose you could say, but specifically it itemized those among the sacrificially innocent -- those, that is, who labored most mightily on behalf of Obama's future, but now have either been shown the door or had their stature rudely demoted.
For example I (as well, apparently, as the Politico) can think of no one who is presently sacrificing more than John Kerry, the man who should have been king mid-decade, but was robbed of his throne just as surely as Al Gore. By Swiftboaters rather than Supremes, perhaps, but robbed just the same.
Nevertheless rather than licking his undeserved wounds, Kerry, as the Politico observed, became "a passionate, articulate and early supporter of Obama, a fixture on both conference calls and the Sunday talk show circuit."
OK, he's a pol, so his efforts weren't, I'm sure, entirely selfless: "Kerry’s people say he never had any expectations of being named secretary of state but other Democrats say he made no secret of his Foggy Bottom aspirations." Hence, as one aide framed the senator's dashed hopes: "He’s crushed."
I can well imagine. Foreign policy has always been his thing and was largely why he wished to deprive Bush of its control four years ago. And if he couldn't finish his political career as the undisputed monarch of all relations foreign, he could at least bathe himself as chief clerk in the swampy bureaucracy of Foggy Bottom.
Yet President-elect Obama, from either his readings of Abe Lincoln or viewings of Vito Corleone, played the hardest of hardball and instead opted to keep an enemy close. As we always say wistfully of any young, mismatched couple who say they're in love, Maybe it'll work out. I hope so. Nonetheless Kerry has every reason to be "crushed."
Another among the notably forsaken is Bill Richardson, who also desired State and would have been damn good at it, too, since he actually possesses proven experience. And, wrote the Politico, "Obama owed him big-time, both for his primary endorsement and for Richardson’s now-forgotten decision to swing his delegates to Obama during the Iowa caucuses."
The president-elect's debt, however, has, at best, been deferred. For now, anyway, Richardson must content himself with the rather undignified booby prize of Commerce.
But I'd suggest to the still-presidentially hopeful Mr. Richardson that he take heart. From a purely historical perspective he's better off there, since Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover struggled his way to the top, whereas the last secretary of state to do so was that antebellum imbecile, James Buchanan.
So who knows. In 2016, irony may again reign supreme.
Buzz this on Buzzflash.net
sympathy?
Hillary Clinton
Cabinet Selections Set the Administration's Policy Tone
Feeling sympathy for Kerry or Richardson is not the issue which concerns me; although I'm saddened by the non-selection of either person for a critical role in the Obama Administration.
However, history illustrates that Presidential cabinet appointments typically reflect the policy aims of the new President. We could argue all day about who is most qualified for a cabinet position but that would probably get us nowhere.
Obama's nomination of Wall Street economists (vice Main Street-oriented economists) to critical administration positions makes me very concerned about what his economic recovery plan will be like. The same concerns apply to his national security and diplomatic teams. Initial thought is that there is a disconnect between campaign rhetoric and planned actions - we'll have to wait and see.
Possibly, the most important nominations, ones that may reflect Mr. Obama's priorities, could be the people he nominate for Commerce, Labor, HHS, Interior, Homeland Security (Napolitano is an outstanding choice), Justice and so forth.
Lastly, his first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court (and he is likely to have an opportunity to nominate 2-4 Justices) will be most telling about Mr. Obama.
oraibi
"America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past."
Barack Obama, June 3, 2008,
It wasn't the swiftboating; Kerry lost due to ELECTION FRAUD!
This is all claptrap. Kerry lost because THE ELECTION WAS STOLEN THROUGH MASSIVE FRAUD.
It's about time the facts were common knowledge. It wasn't only stolen from Gore in 2000. It didn't end there. It started there.
HAVA look.
Election Fraud Analysis: Confirmation of a Kerry Landslide
http://www.geocities.com/electionmodel/FurtherConfirmationOfaKerryLandslide.htm
A Conversation about the 2004 Election
Introduction: To Believe Bush Won...
1. When Decided
2. Bush Approval Ratings
3. Pre-Election Polling I
4. Pre-Election Polling II
5. The Final 5 Million Recorded Votes
6. The Final Exit Poll: Forced to Match the Vote
7. Within Precinct Discrepancy
8. New Voters
9. Party ID
10. Gender
11. Implausible Gore Voter Defection
12. Voter Turnout
13. Urban Legend
14. Location Size
15. Sensitivity Analysis
16. Did Kerry Win 360 EV?
17. Election Simulation Analysis
18. Exit Poll Response Optimization
19. Uncounted and Switched Votes
20. Florida
21. Ohio
22. New York
A Conversation about the 2004 Election
How many votes were cast in 2004?
According to the U.S. Census, 125.7 million were cast.
But only 122.3 million were recorded, so 3.4m were uncounted.
Who voted in 2004?
Two groups:
1) Those who did not vote in 2000 (DNV)
2) Those who voted in 2000 for Gore, Bush, Nader/other.
Did all Election 2000 voters come to the polls in 2004?
No, some died and others did not vote.
Can we estimate how many Election 2000 voters died?
About 5.4 million died, assuming a 1.25% annual voter mortality rate.
So 105.4m were still living in 2004.
Can we estimate how many of them voted in 2004?
About 100 million (95%) returned to vote.
Doesn’t that mean that there were about 25.7 million new voters?
Your math is correct.
Do we know how they voted?
Based on the National Exit Poll (NEP):
New voters were for Kerry by almost 3-2.
Nader/others (3.5m) were for Kerry by better than 3-1.
What about Gore 2000 voters?
According to the NEP, 91% of Gore voters were for Kerry.
What about Bush 2000 voters?
They gave him a higher rating than his 48% national approval.
According to the NEP, 90% of returning Bush voters voted for Bush in 2004.
Then it’s obvious that Kerry must have won the election because
a) Returning Gore voters outnumbered returning Bush voters;
b) Nader/other voters were solid for Kerry;
c) New voters were solid for Kerry.
Not necessarily.
But Kerry won the NEP by 51-48%. Doesn’t that confirm all the above?
Not really. You are citing the preliminary NEP (13047 respondents). Bush won the Final NEP (13660 respondents) by 51-48%. The preliminary NEP was biased in favor of Kerry. Bush voters were less likely to be interviewed than Kerry voters.
But the Final NEP indicated that 43% (52.6m) of 2004 voters were Bush 2000 voters and only 37% (45.3m) were Gore voters. Doesn’t that refute the reluctant Bush responder theory?
Not necessarily. Gore voters misspoke when they said they voted for Bush. They forgot that they voted for Gore or more likely, they viscerally identified with Bush.
How could 43% (52.6m) of the 122.3m who voted in 2004 have been Bush 2000 voters? Bush only had 50.5m votes in 2000.And only 37% (45.3m) were Gore 2000 voters? Gore had 51.0m votes in 2000.
Doesn’t this prove that the Final NEP was mathematically impossible?
No, it doesn’t. The Final was just a poll. You are referring to actual 2000 votes.
Hold on a minute. Even if the NEP was “just” a poll, does that change the fact that only 50.5m voted for Bush? Or that 2.5m died and another 2.5m did not vote in 2004? The physical reality is that only about 45.5m Bush 2000 voters returned to vote in 2004.
You are absolutely correct.
And if 4.0m of the 5.4m uncounted votes were for Gore, doesn’t that mean returning Gore voters outnumbered returning Bush voters by 3.0m?
You would think so.
So the Final NEP overstated returning Bush voters by 7 million. How do you explain that?
Once again: former Gore voters misspoke. They forgot they voted for Gore or wanted to identify with Bush.
But wasn’t the Final NEP forced to match the recorded vote?
Yes, that is always the case.
Let’s see. The Final NEP was forced to match the recorded vote. But you just agreed that the Final was physically impossible on its face. So what does that say about the recorded vote, if the bogus Final was forced to match it? Doesn’t that prove the recorded vote was also impossible?
It doesn’t prove a thing. It wasn’t the fault of the exit pollsters that 4 million (7.5%) Gore voters would forget they voted for him, lied about it or unconsciously associated with Bush.
What about the Census finding that 125.7m votes were cast in 2004, as opposed to 122.3m recorded? Of the 3.4m uncounted votes, weren’t the vast majority from minority Democratic districts?
So what? Even if they were counted, Bush’s margin would only have been cut in half, from 3.0m to 1.5m. It wasn’t the fault of the exit pollsters that three million votes weren’t counted.
How do you explain Kerry winning the final 5 million (absentee, provisional) votes by 53-44%?
What does that prove? Bush won the first 117m by 51-48%. Besides, five million is not a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions.
What about the aggregate of 51 unadjusted state exit polls? Kerry was a 52-47% winner.
Exit polls are not accurate in the U.S. Besides, Bush was a war president even though 9/11 happened on his watch.
But didn’t Bush ignore the the Aug. 6 PDB from the CIA that Bin Laden would strike in the U.S.?
Maybe, but Democrats forgave Bush for stealing the 2000 election and letting 9/11 happen.
They believed that because of his experience and judgment, he would protect them from further attacks.
But isn’t it obvious that the recorded vote was fraudulent and the election was stolen?
The MSM has never described the 2004 election as fraudulent. In fact, they always quote the Final NEP. Since it was matched to the recorded vote, it has to be correct. If there was compelling evidence of Election Fraud, the MSM and the Democrats would have called for a full investigation. Where did you buy that tin-foil hat to suggest that Rove would architect a stolen election?
History is not a perfect guide
"Paying off on a campaign deal"?
Putting political ambition and gain ahead of what's best for the country?
Ouch.
Hillary most qualified
dispassionate analysis would put Hillary in top five at best
Apart from symbolism though, she is a relatively junior senator, which is not enough by itself to disqualify her, but she was either silent or supported the worst of Bush's foreign policies, including those that put corporate interests ahead of the interests of the American people or even people anywhere who aren't already wealthy.
In her campaign for president, she aped all the wrong things about how the right campaigned: she was heavy on empty symbolism, personal attacks, and cozying up to the ugliest power-brokers on the right, Rupert Murdoch and Rush Limbaugh.
I liked her most when most people liked her least: as the fiesty wife of the 1992 candidate who said she wasn't going to stay home and bake cookies.
That Hillary has largely become Joe Lieberman in a dress.
Obama is a smart guy and he probably has a good reason to put Hillary in that position, but her qualifications aren't it.
Professorsmartass.com
"Joe Liebermann in a dress"?
See, the problem is, some people are actually stupid enough to believe this stuff. Hillary never "cozied up" to Limbaugh. If you're refering to Bill's "appearance" on the Limbaugh show, it never happened. Bill Clinton sent a canned interview (pre-recorded statements from a campaign) to various media outlets. Mark Davis, a radio host in Texas, recorded "questions" and interspersed them with the recording from BC to make it sound like a real interview (common practice in radio). Then he played it his local radio show and later on the Limbaugh show when he was filling in for Limbaugh.
And Murdoch? Not sure what you're talking about there, unless you mean Richard Scaife. She was burned at the stake by Mark Karlin/BF for doing an interview with Scaife, who said "…(T)here's no better friend than Richard Mellon Scaife. It's the next best thing to shouting it out on the Bill O'Reilly show we guess."
"The next best thing" to going on O'Reilly. Funny thing is, when Obama met quietly with Murdoch and Roger Ailes of Fox News, that was okay. And he of course, did the next worst thing (based on Mark's words) by following up with an appearance on the O'Reilly show.
So when Hillary gives an interview to Scaife, she's "cozying up to the ugliest power-brokers on the right", and when Obama does it, he's just "reaching across the aisle" or (wisely) getting his message out to persuade the other side.
Got it.
Professor Smartass? Pleeeeeeease ........
You have to work your way up to Dumbass.
Back In the Senate
Sadden by President-elect Obama's Slight of Kerry and Richardson
I'm deeply saddened by the omission of John Kerry and Bill Richardson in the selection of people to fill critical roles in the Obama Administration.
Can you say Clinton III?
The Richardson omission could reverberate throughout the Hispanic community and it may have long-term consequences for the Democratic Party.
oraibi
"America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past."
Barack Obama, June 3, 2008,