Pluses and minuses for the administration

A little over two months have passed since President Barack Obama was inaugurated. A great deal has taken place since that momentous day. Today is a good day to take stock of the pluses and minuses coming out of the Obama administration’s efforts, since taking over from the Republicans.
The President and his family have moved into the White House and established a daily and weekly routine. along with a vegetable garden. Michelle Obama has introduced herself to all her Washington neighbors and presided over formal occasions at the White House. All these accomplishments are pluses.
Most of the main presidential appointments have been made, with the appointees confirmed and sworn in. This project proved to be a combination of both pluses and minuses, when some lagged behind. Key players have already begun to establish new domestic and foreign policies in the name of the administration. The President announced our foreign policy for the Afghanistan-Pakistan region recently. President Obama and, by extension — Secretaries Clinton, Geithner and others, have established relationships with foreign leaders, both in person and diplomatically. In these cases most have been relatively successful to date.
The president has signed a number of executive orders as well as bills passed by Congress. A Congressional liaison operation has been put in place and debuted. A number of bills that had begun before the administration took office were passed and signed. A large economic stimulus package was put in place. Legislation to continue the operations of government until the next fiscal year was passed. And the President’s proposed budget that will start in 2010 has been introduced. The President has gotten much of what he proposed to Congress so far, despite routine Republican opposition. His efforts at bipartisanship were rebuffed by Republicans, a definite minus.
The administration has appeared in court in connection with ongoing cases requiring the government to weigh in. When it comes to rolling back excess executive power and upholding civil liberties the overall score remains in the minus column. Nor has the administration been willing up to this point to hold anyone accountable for breaking the laws of the land, another set of minuses, in my opinion.
President Obama has established regular and open communication with the American people and with the rest of the world. These attempts have been more and more successful as time passed. Though the establishment press might disagree, the President’s reputation as a master communicator has grown in diversity and over time. In addition he has kept in purposefully direct contact with people of all stations outside of the capitol. And the President changed the rhetoric used by the previous administration in some significant ways, a plus.
We are all learning the new politically correct language. We are learning how and when to interact with the administration and with our Congressional Representatives and Senators. And finally, we are learning a great deal more about what is going on. Due to the administration’s commitment to transparency, this is generally a plus, though there are exceptions. That is mostly only because all the technological apparatus for reporting is not yet in place and functioning smoothly.
Overall the Obama administration gets several check marks in the plus column. I remain a happy Democrat, amazed that the guy for whom I voted is turning out to be even more amazing than I had imagined possible.
See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee – Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama administration political analysis

Related articles by Zemanta

• The debate behind Obama’s Afghan plan (msnbc.msn.com)
• Politico: ‘Some Wonder’ If Obama Is Doing Too Much…Michelle Obama (huffingtonpost.com)
• War, Economy, Open House to Fill Obama’s First Day (abcnews.go.com)

Sphere: Related Content

What did we learn this week?

” What we don’t know about Obama“ has diminished just a bit since Jim VandeHei and John Harris’ piece in Politico last week (1/22). The authors posed some questions “still left hanging as the Obama administration begins:” Their answers of a week ago make for very good reading. To quote the queries:

1. Does he really think Afghanistan is winnable?
2. Do deficits matter?
3. How fast is too fast in Iraq?
4. What’s in the files?
5. Do unions wear white hats?
6. Can U.S. power save Darfur?
7. How much does he have to placate the Left?

Today’s post looks for clues in the news of the past few days that shed further light on the above questions. How is our new President leading, using his powers of persuasion and his deft touch? In a way, his task is as delicate as it would be if he were driving on the ice and snow of the states he declared weather disaster zones, Arkansas and Kentucky. How is he doing? What do we know?

1. Afghanistan? President Obama told the wider Muslim world, “The U.S. is not your enemy” in an Al-Arabiya TV interview. One of President Obama’s principles is that we must win the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, and of Afghans. This will certainly be a good first step.

2. Deficits? Yesterday’s Obama stern lecture to greedy Wall Street executives, calling their $18 B in bonuses “shameful#,” gives a strong clue about how President Obama feels about government waste. He has said repeatedly that the high deficits will be only temporary and that entitlement shortfalls must be addressed next. Time Magazine helpfully explains “how to understand a trillion-dollar deficit#.”

3. Iraq? President Obama has said he will take “conditions on the ground” into consideration when finalizing the plans for Iraq. Tomorrow is the day set for Iraq’s provincial elections. Juan Cole has some thoughts on the implications and possible outcomes of those elections. So we must wait and see what develops.

4. Accountability? There is rather stark contrast between how the new White House plans to deal with official records and how that was done in the Bush White House. ProPublica has published a comprehensive list of the “Missing Memos,” in case you are interested. We have yet to see any movement by the new President to hold wrong-doers accountable. But I have not given up hope.

5. Unions? Though President Obama is reportedly considering Republican Senator Judd Gregg for Secretary of Commerce, today he reversed several of the Bush executive orders that have been considered unfriendly to Labor.

6. Darfur? Presidential appointee, Susan Rice, U.S. Delegate to the United Nations, has had a powerful passion about the situation in Darfur for quite some time. See the Washington Times—”Susan Rice offers Obama promise of ‘cooperation’” regarding Darfur.

7. Left Dems? Women’s groups reportedly were somewhat upset by President Obama’s move to get family planning funds removed from the House stimulus package now in the Senate. CQ Politics is currently saying that a coalition of labor unions and liberal advocacy groups will soon start lobbying for a health care system overhaul that would make the government the “single payer.” Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore makes a good persuasive argument that Obama’s agenda is truly progressive.

Ending on an idealistic note, I want to quote from AlterNet’s — (1/28/09) story, “The Economic Crisis Isn’t All Bad; It’s a Chance for Us and Obama to Reimagine How We Live Our Lives#” It begins, “Capitalism is on its knees and now we have a chance to create higher ideals beyond career climbing and mindless consumerism.” To continue by quoting the opening:

As America, recession mired, enters the hope-inspired age of Barack Obama, a silent but fateful struggle for the soul of capitalism is being waged. Can the market system finally be made to serve us? Or will we continue to serve it? George W. Bush argued that the crisis is “not a failure of the free-market system, and the answer is not to try to reinvent that system.” But while it is going too far to declare that capitalism is dead, George Soros is right when he says that “there is something fundamentally wrong” with the market theory that stands behind the global economy, a “defect” that is “inherent in the system.”

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are “betmo*” and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics obama leadership

Sphere: Related Content

Reflecting On the War In Gaza

The war in Gaza has been a terrible event, terrible for the Palestinians and terrible for Israel. It has been terrible for Hamas and for Fatah, for Gaza and for the West Bank. It has been terrible for those trying to help, the NGO’s, the UN and Egypt.

The loss of life has been astonishingly asymmetrical. And the loss of innocent lives has been just heartbreaking. As a result protest has broken out all over the world, including in Israel. The nation of Israel cannot justify its actions as defensive. And Hamas has been shortsighted and stubborn in maintaining its rocket attacks on Israel. And the United Nations has, once again shown that it is ineffectual at its most basic work.

The timing of the war was chosen because of the transition of power in the United States, and because the Bush administration lost credibility as honest brokers for peace a long time ago. “United States interests” have not been in what is best for the Middle East, but myopic and misguided. The timing took terrible advantage of President-elect Obama’s lack of authority in the situation, knowing that he would respect the principle of one president for foreign policy at a time. Congress is out of touch with how widespread the dissatisfaction with what our friend Israel has done in Gaza. It is an unfortunate and unrealistic situation. The timing also has to do with Israel’s political calendar. With the current Prime Minister having lost credibility and standing in his country and with elections coming in February, the war inevitably looks like it was fought for political gain at home for the Israelis.

The news about the war has been bad. And it has been badly reported, biased against the Palestinian people who lost their lives as innocents. Opinion makers ignore the astounding loss of life in the Gaza strip, they ignore the politics of the situation in the U.S., Israel and the West Bank. And they ignore the failures of the Bush administration regarding a long-awaited peace agreement in lands that have tried to settle it with violence for many decades.

Terrorists get to their views because of grievances, either real or perceived. Their terrorized adversaries will never be able to kill them fast enough or in enough numbers to attain peace. Because others look on, see what is happening, and take up the cause as soon as they are old enough. Terrorism is a tactic that is not confined to merely those who fit the stereotypical model.

Nations can find themselves getting into vengance-driven responses or aggression that puts them at risk of losing their souls. If nations had such things as “souls.” Individuals have souls, nations have values and histories and constitutions and norms and good will to throw away. If they lose their way, as has the U.S., Israel, and Palestine (both parts). People in authority need to step back, take a breath and open their eyes to a larger reality.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Sphere: Related Content

Spotlight on National Security Team

Things will get less crazy — Monday was a big day for the cause of sanity in U.S. foreign policy. President-elect Barack Obama announced his choices for the new administration’s national security team. The news for this post is drawn from foreign newspapers in order to provide a flavor of what those outside our borders are thinking about the Obama team. The sources include The Financial Times, the BBC News, Aljazeera and the International Herald Tribune.

Three “heavyweights” lead the list. And they will need to be big and strong because they could be called upon to lead Obama’s promised foreign policy redirection. They could be asked to look at turning some of the U.S. Defense Department’s kinetic “swords” into State Department diplomatic “plowshares.” It is an amazing possibility, that three who were seen by many as “hawks,” would be willing to sign on to such a long overdue shift within the national security enterprise . David Sanger explains in an excellent analysis for the International Herald Tribune. He begins,

. . . all three of his choices — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the rival turned secretary of state; General James Jones, the former NATO commander, as national security adviser, and Robert Gates, the current and future defense secretary — were selected in large part because they have embraced a sweeping shift of resources in the national security arena.

With the economic crisis in the forefront as the highest priority, the themes running through the group’s qualification include bipartisanship, experience, self-confidence, intellect and willingness to speak the truth to power. That means that their strong leadership, informed by Barack Obama’s vision, will guide the nation along the right path from early on. Not named, but part of the solution, is former President Bill Clinton, who will be making significant sacrifices to clear the way for his wife’s appointment to her former rival’s administration.

Of the six choices that were announced Monday, three of them are women. Each appointee made a statement, Clinton speaking first and longest. In addition to Senator Clinton, President-elect Obama named Susan Rice as U.N. Ambassador (raised to a Cabinet level position) and Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security. Rounding out the team is Eric Holder as Attorney General. The group is diversity personified, as Holder and Rice are African-Americans. Vice-President-elect Joe Biden was present on stage and also made a good statement reinforcing the sophistication and depth of his knowledge of foreign affairs.

The “Wow factor” is quite astonishing as I think about it. For years I have admired Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Janet Napolitano and Jim Jones. I have been more recently impressed by Holder’s courage and evident constitutional bent, as well as Rice’s towering intellect.

The appointments will not be without criticism, as Aljazeera reports. To quote their good story’s conclusion,

‘Moving backwards’

Critics have told Al Jazeera that the appointments were a move backwards.

“What we’re seeing here is that Barack Obama is once again taking us back to the 1990s in terms of the people he’s assembling,” said Jeremy Scahill, the author of Blackwater.

“It’s the old guard people who have been so wrong about so much from the beginning.”

However, some say that the old guard blamed for past mistakes have gained valuable experience from those very errors said to have put the US in its current tenuous financial and military situation.

“There’s a hope that he is using very experienced people with centrist credentials to drive a very bold, progressive programme,” said Robert Borosage of Campaign for America’s Future.

Mondays at this blog have usually been set aside for Republican rants, stories of their latest failures, scandals, indictments or trials, and rounding out with a sigh of relief as we are more and more able to say, “Goodbye to all that!” Sanity will be coming back to Foggy Bottom; the adults are again going to be in charge.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics obama national security presidential transition foreign policy

Sphere: Related Content

going on record

i am going on record saying that 1) i don’t blog barechested 2) i don’t blog in my underpants and 3) i don’t eat cheetos on a regular basis (and when i do, i don’t make a mess)

scarborough defends mcsenile against the barechested, cheetos eating liberal bloggers who corrected his 1,000th mistake while speaking about foreign policy

Sphere: Related Content

What’s a rational Foreign Policy look like?

This is part one is a series running over at The Real News Network. You can view the entire series here. From the description of this series on RNN:

The United States economy is stagnant and faces the possibility of a real Depression. Its currency has lost a quarter of its value on global markets in three years. No country in the entire history of humankind has ever owed as much money to foreigners as the US does today, and this debt rises by about a billion dollars a day. Its military expenditures are higher than those of the next twenty countries combined. It’s time to question basic assumptions about US foreign policy.

When will we have a real foreign policy? Its a ticking timebomb m’dear reader.

Sphere: Related Content